January 21, 2013


HISTORY LESSON regarding the 2nd Amendment

Gun Control? Do we seriously believe, as a country, that gun control will solve the problems we have been recently having with "mass shootings"?  Do we really acknowledge, as a whole, that - if these people did not have guns of a certain type- they would not have done harm?  Moreover, do we concede that, by alleviating all uncontrolled access to guns, the nation (as a whole) would be better off?  If the answer to that question or the previous one is "yes" then maybe we need to do something about it.  But first, let's discuss some of the facts so that we all are working from the same sheet of music.  As previously acknowledged, I am about as progressive as a water-driven milling stone; I concede that.  However, having said that, I am a big fan of change for the better.  And, if the solution to the gun violence problem is gun related - maybe we should limit access to them; though outright elimination is unthinkable.

Let's do some history first, so that we understand why the 2nd amendment is in the constitution, why it means that ALL citizens have the right to bear arms and why eliminating guns is not now, nor will ever be a possibility.  Here it is, in it's entirety:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

It is so simple a concept to grasp that the writers kept it short.  No glowering verbiage, no symbolism no allusion - it means exactly what it says.  And yet, for the past 50 years, opponents of the idea it represents have taken to picking it's simplicity apart - attempting to dismantle it.  Keep in mind that this was all written in 1787 and ratified in 1791, within the bounds of the Bill of Rights; attached to the Constitution.  There are two statements being made in the amendment: 1) a well regulated militia is necessary for states and, 2) the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  Why?  Why would these two statements have been made?  The answers are breathtakingly simple:  The war was over, the country was broke, the national government was being created, individual states were creating their constitutions and everyone was worried that the federal government was going to set itself up as a monarchy.  So, everything was being written to assuage the fears of citizens and states that they were trading one monarchy for another.  Some states, like South Carolina, gave every indication that they were - in fact - doing just that and states like Massachusetts and Pennsylvania moved in a knee-jerk reaction to offset the fear.  Go research "State Constitutions 1780s" and see for yourself.  The fear that the federal government might then or at a later date set up a national military force to rule the country was very real and moreover, the fear that the National Government - in concert with the states, might disarm the republic then or in the future was of major concern to the citizens.  Read the literature, read the meeting minutes, read the original constitutions - it's all there.

So, when it is RESEARCHED, not just read, the debate about the 2nd amendment's application as a "state's rights" or an "Individual's right" is a complete moot point, as is seen in the high court's decisions (District of Columbia et al. vs. Heller).  This is just the most recent, but it is not at all inconsistent with what the Supreme Court has found since the 1950's.  They acknowledge that the States have the right and the responsibility to maintain a militia for their defense AND that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms.  Further legislation, in concert with the 10th and 14th amendments have dictated that the right of "control" falls to the states, such that it does not infringe upon the stated Individual right (i.e. removing weapons from homes, insisting that the weapons be rendered useless, limiting the weapons to archaic types).  So this is why Banning all handguns will never occur, nor should it, for we have seen only strife in the wake of national weapons bans (do some research).

Now, here's a little anecdotal evidence to support the belief that a well armed (regulated) militia is necessary to the security of a free state.  Ever wonder why the U.S. has never been a ground offensive by a foreign government on our own soil? Ok, for you history buffs out there - I concede Japan's incursion into the Aleutians, but does that really count - there was a population of less than 10?   Anyway, Germany and Japan both held the same fantasy of attacking Washington D.C., however each acknowledged the reality.  Interrogations of the Japanese leadership, included in the Prange Files (MacAurthur Historian) indicated that the Japanese belief was that the American citizens were as well armed as their army and 100 times larger.  The Japanese didn't mind attacking us from the sea or air if they could, but they did not want to engage the "MILITIA".  The same sentiment was shared by the remaining German leadership that was interrogated at the conclusion of the war.  It's funny actually, an unnamed German Intelligence Officer (believed to be Wilfried Karl Strik-Strikfeldt) who infiltrated and operated within a variety of Soviet groups  told his Western interrogators that, (and I paraphrase), the very thing that protected the American mainland is what made their (USSR) and my (Germany) homelands so vulnerable to attack - armed citizens."

For those "scholars" and "historians" that claim the United States was well-insulated against ground offensives via the Axis powers due to it's great distance from their bases of power, I suggest:  The Axis power's bases of operations were no further from us than we were from them and yet - we managed to attack them regularly.  No, methinks the answer is obvious and that is after only citing one example; imagine how compelling the "armed militia" argument could be if there were many examples...  Remind me, how many times have we landed troops in other countries?  And how many times have other countries landed troops here?  Compare and contrast - discuss amongst yourselves; thus ends part one:  History Lesson.



March 1, 2012

Media Matters cares not for the truth - only "The Message"-  You know, I about as liberal as a cat loves water; that cannot be disputed.  However, those of you who have taken the time to read and comprehend what I editorialize about know that I am not one of the dreaded "NEO-CONS" that the left-wing media uses synonymously with the term "Boogeyman".  No - I'm neither.  I could just as easily be called a Reagan conservative as I could a JFK liberal.  I lean a little to the left, sway a tad to the right and mostly roll my way right down the middle.  I hate political labels.  No matter how many caveats you try to throw in after saying, "I'm a ...." people invariably form an opinion the moment you say the word that comes after, "I'm a _____".   Sometimes I like to confuse people by saying, "Scientist", "Physicist", "Engineer", "Constitutionalist", "Anti-anarchist" or my favorite - "Logical Thinker."  That one more often than not, leads the liberals in the crowd to say, "Oh - you're a Republican."  That is something that I have always wondered about, why do the liberals believe that logic is only in the camp of the Republicans?  Is it they who then, in turn, hold sway over the application of emotion?  Can it be so black & white that neither camp can apply both?  Is this a case of quantum uncertainty where Republicans and Democrats alike can neither see logic and employ emotion at the same time without the fabric of the universe unzipping itself into a new Big Bang?  So, being the ever-faithful researcher I am, I made a foray into the heart of the liberal left and visited Media Matters for America (MMFA). 

I went to MMFA and began reading their home page.  Ok, at first glance, it appears to simply be an anti-FOX News outlet, I must be missing something.  So I create an account, like I have done at almost every media outlet I have ever been to so that I can read their Terms of Use Agreement (TOU).  I was heartened when I read the words:

"We are committed to providing a forum where anyone, from anywhere on the political spectrum, can address and respond to the work we do. We request that your posts be relevant to the topic at hand and respectful of others. Media Matters reserves the right to remove comments, topics and threads that are hateful, derogatory, trolling, irrelevant to the conversation, or in violation of copyrights."  

So far so good - it looks like they actually are inviting people to have a little repartee on the issues and that's just what I want to do.  I want to engage some of these folks so I can see if they employ logic or emotion from the start.  Moreover, I want to see if they ever make the transition to logic (or emotion) depending upon the direction they aim to in the beginning.  But then there is the next paragraph...  The wording seems vaguely sinister:

"Users who disrupt the forums or violate the terms of use will be banned from participating in our forums. Users agree that they will not create alternative identities or other means to rejoin the forums if they are banned."

"Administrative decisions to remove posts or ban users are final."

So there appears to be a very subjective level of scrutiny that is going to be applied; I guess.  I snipped out the section regarding other user's rights to "flag" comments that need to be brought to the moderator's attention - it was irrelevant to the discussion.  After than ominous line about the finality of the administrative decisions comes a whole "Dos and Don'ts" section:

"DO express your opinion as it relates to the item under discussion.

DO respect others' opinions. We expect posters from all parts of the political spectrum here. Please express your opinion without insulting other posters.

DO ask questions of one another.

DO flag posts that you think violate the terms of use outlined here. Media Matters reviews all flagged posts.

DON'T post the complete text of an article. Rather, post one or two paragraphs and a link to the complete story. It is helpful to other posters if you explain why this article is relevant to the topic at hand. Posts containing complete articles will be removed.

DON'T write an otherwise thoughtful post and then close it with insults or profanity. Your post will be removed. Repeat violators will be banned.

DON'T post here if your sole purpose is to start a flame war. Arguments and debates are fine; obscenity, name-calling, and trolling are not. Violators will be banned.

DON'T take another person's comments personally. Have a thick skin and ignore posters who insist on trolling, obscenities, and name-calling."

These will become important in a bit, so I expect you to memorize them now...  Just kidding.  I believed that, given all of the terms & conditions, I would be able to post there (successfully) without fear of banning.  So I found a non-anti-Fox News article (or so I thought) and read it.  The Roots of Economic Denialism was the article.  After reading it I was struck by a few facts in error, but overall I was concerned with the tone of the article.  The first line sort of set that tone when it said, "As evidence mounts that the U.S. economy is improving, President Obama's detractors in the conservative media have been reduced to fits of denial."  "Fits?" - really?  The next sentence clearly communicated the fact that this article was going to be an editorial and not actual journalistic new reporting: "That the economy is improving is not in question."  And, as evidence, it linked itself to another MMFA article.  The reference (evidence) article was actually a video of Economist Dean Baker telling (FOX News') Sean Hannity that his concern about a non-recovering economy was "silly nonsense."  Somehow, MMFA seems to always find a way to beat on FOX News.  It's a little paranoid from my perspective.

Just the fact that a MMFA writer linked something to other MMFA supplied "evidence" is "bad form" enough, but I happen to know a thing or two about their Expert Economist and his connection to the Social Democratic Society, the Open Society, MMFA and the "Progressive cause".  Dean Baker is a macroeconomist and co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.  Prior to that he was a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute.   Liberal "this" and progressive "that" are stamped all over his policy, background and character.  He espouses socialist ideals, supports their cause and associates with socialists on a daily basis.  He also works for (consults for) the NY Times (NYT), the Washington Post (WP) and the American Prospect (a purely liberal publication).  For those of you who have paid attention the NYT and WP are both embroiled in the MMFA conspiracy disclosure.  So why in the world would the author of the article use the economist's video as proof of the veracity of his claims?  We'll see a little later.  But - you see, this is exactly why the conservatives discount everything that comes out of MMFA, the Open Society and the Progressive Movement in general - they absolutely stink at research and making their point utilizing unbiased sources.  I decided to post the following:

Mr. Holden - As a "JFK Democrat" I would like to point out that your article is pure editorial and lacks the required journalistic effort required to make it "news". The only case that you made was that you disagree with Rush Limbaugh and Dick Morris.  To say that those two guys speak for Republicans is to say that Rachel Maddow and Whoopi Goldberg speak for the Democrats!  The roots of economic denialism are the very things that your "expert" economist was involved in throughout 1996-1998.  He tried to disprove the Boskin Commission report, a nearly universally accepted by economists report that showed how our economy was being measured improperly.  His clearly socialist ideals were as evident then as they are now.  There is your problem: Democrats do not want to be socialists - so stop using socialists to (not) make your point.

The Moderators did not post that one - so I tried again:

I suspect that Media Matters won't post this reply either, so I'm just going to say what's in my heart and my mind. The "economy" is not improving by any measurement of the common man - such as me. It is absolute nonsense to say that the economic conditions are improving when Medicare/Medicaid rolls are at their all time highest, meaning more people have fallen off the end of unemployment than are actually on it and unemployment itself is at 9%. Milk, bread, rice and grains are all twice as expensive as they were in 2008, yet they are not included in the "inflation calculation" and neither is fuel or energy. The price of everything has continued to climb, except for housing and wages. That is not, in any form, a definition of "recovery". JFK & FDR are rolling over in their graves watching us lemmings running off the cliff trying to justify what our leaders have done to us. We are pathetic.

That one got me banned...  So I got Mrs. Merl to sign up for an account and she went back and posted the following in response to another blogger making fun of Mitt Romney's prediction that the huge Government bailout of the automotive industry would irreparably change the auto industry.  The blogger claimed that, not only did Mitt get it wrong - economic "recovery" is HERE!  Here's what she said:

Do you seriously believe what you are saying? GM was forced to sell off Suzuki and is now partially owned by the US and Canadian Governments and a small interest is also held by the AFL/CIO.  Chrysler is now owned by Fiat and Cerberus Capital Management and the governments of the US and Canada. Both companies have paid back only 25% of the money they borrowed and they did it with other money they borrowed at a low interest rate, FROM US TAXPAYERS!  Does that not meet the criteria for "irreparably changed" to you? The unions got a sweetheart deal and the issue of entitlement spending was just kicked down the road to a later date. Their creditors got 10 cents on the dollar and the American public is only going to get back ( at most) 30% of what they gave them. Dealerships (Small Businesses) were forcibly shut down and many Tier II & III suppliers went bankrupt; all to save GM & Chrysler.  I would say that Mitt was more right than he was wrong and given the facts of the case, you can only disagree by burying your head in the sand.

The Moderators did not post that one - so she tried again:

I consider myself a conservative democrat and I find the rhetoric here appalling. I am embarrassed to admit that the saying, "want to know how to confuse a liberal? Give them the facts" makes sense to me now. None of you support your position at all. Nothing of a factual basis is ever said in any of these rebuttals and I'm stunned by your steadfast adherence to one another's position... Completely unsupported. It's like faith - the very thing you are railing against.

The Moderators did not post that one - so she tried again:

I do not know how you define the word "recovery" but I do not define it as: the price of everything going up, the price of housing going down, wages going down, milk/bread & eggs prices skyrocketing. Add to it the fact that inflation is only being held down because commodity, staple goods, fuel and energy cost are removed from the formula. Furthermore, reported unemployment numbers are only NEW CLAIMS - not actual unemployed numbers. Medicare/Medicaid rolls are at an all time high because people keep falling off the end of unemployment and onto welfare. The unemployment numbers were remaining relatively fixed because employers were running out of people to get rid of and those new claims were coming due to those businesses finally closing shop! Does this sound like a recovery to any of you? Seriously?

That one got her banned...  So we penned a letter, so to speak and sent an email to the folks at MMFA:
My posting at the blogs was suspended before I ever had anything posted. I'm a little concerned that there may have been a technical glitch as I never violated the terms of service. I have copies of every post you did not post and would be happy to provide them for your review. The first line in your TOS indicates that all views are welcomed here, but that personal attacks and swearing are not. I did neither, but it appears that many of your posters are allowed to do both (prolifically) if it is aimed at FOX News, Anne Coulter or Rush Limbaugh.

One would certainly think that a progressive group such as yourself would not be a party to censoring the opinions of others, particularly when they speak the truth and offer facts as evidence (as I did in all cases).

There is only deafening silence ringing in my ears in reply.   So - we are back to the earlier question, "Why in the world would the author of the article use the economist's video as proof of the veracity of his claims?"  It's simple when you look at all of the other reporting on the website.  From the titles to the dialog, the soundbites to the little bits of phrase splattered through out.  The Truth is unimportant when it comes from a conservative agenda.  The message from the liberal agenda is all they care about.  Don't believe me?  Check it out for yourself!  Below, find the words of their mission statement:


Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time.

I suppose that we'll have to figure out how they define "Misinformation"...  From where I sit, it must mean, "counter to our message."  This editorial, my friends, should explain why I seem so conservative in their eyes; I gave only the facts and left the emotion at the door.  I guess I may have answered the very question I started with...  I fear the saying Mrs. Merl quoted might be true after all. 

Feb 29, 2012

Here is a quote that is unattributed to any author, but it is one that is widely used by the Dali Lama and anti-war protestors:  "War never solves anything."  -  Well, without going on at length, it did solve: Communism, Fascism and Nazism...  It also appears to have solved Genocide in the Balkans; at least for the past 15 years.  Do not misunderstand me, like Herodotus I believe that, "No one is so foolish as to prefer war to peace: in peace children bury their fathers, while in war fathers bury their children." But, the fact remains - war is a necessary evil when all else fails.  But therein lies the problem, for in the wisdom of Edmund Burke, "All that is needed for the forces of evil to triumph is for enough good men to do nothing."  We are, in fact, watching the forces of "Evil" running rampant in the world right now and there are a lot of good people doing absolutely nothing. 

I recently was sent the following quote by a reader:  "A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have...."
- Thomas Jefferson    It is actually a quote that should be attributed to President Ford, in an address to a joint session of Congress on August 12, 1974.  However, having said that - does it really matter who said it?  Though it is not a cautionary tale from one of our founding fathers, it is still very much true. 


CBS News is not very good at concealing their allegiances or their BIAS- Feb 28, 2012

I spent a good deal of time there today, reading through their website, and it is more than apparent that they are big fans of the Progressive agenda, Barack Obama, George Soros and anyone else that furthers the liberal philosophy.  I know - this is not shocking news to any of you, but in a continuing effort to expose the truth to the masses, I think it is imperative that everyone be exposed to the tactics of the progressive movement - laid naked for all to see.  How can we expect the public to recognize the subterfuge and shenanigans if they don't know what they are looking for!  Right?

So here is the link to where I started:  Bill Maher  It is a short article which, on it's face, appears to be rather uninteresting...  Until the end.  And I quote: "Still, Maher's donation is big news for Priorities USA Action -- the group raised only about $59,000 in January. Meanwhile, the pro-Mitt Romney super PAC Restore Our Future and the pro-Newt Gingrich group Winning Our Future raised a combined $17 million last month."  Holy smoke!  That really sounds like the Republican Super Pacs are absolutely giving the pro-Obama Super Pacs a pasting!  It almost sounds like someone is trying to "buy" the race. 

Problem #1 - The President wasn't going to take any Super Pac money.  That didn't change until February, so it's no surprise that there was little (if any) money raised in this year.

Problem #2 - The President is not running in a race yet and Romney & Gingrich are; they are competitors.  They need money to run the race.

Problem #3 - {This is the sneaky one} The article combined the two OPPOSING Super Pac's money, making it sound like that $17M was going to compete with the $59K.  In reality, we all know that the balance of the $17M is going to dissolve in the race between Mitt & Newt, having no role whatsoever in the battle against their boy, Barack.

Ok - so there is tactic number one:  Adjust the details so that everything appears to be factual and leave out any details that actually create facts!

So, we follow the link at the bottom of the page - the one that reads: "Meet the biggest donors of the 2012 campaign"  When you click the link on the page you wind up on page 6 for some reason instead of page 1.  I corrected on my link.  I do not know why they would want you to miss the whole group of super donors! 

Ok, we see that the first four donors (that CBS was shuttling you past) are all conservative.  When reading the first four bios, you are sort of struck by just how arrogant these guys are and how they seem to be on a "mission" to do this or that.  One is staunchly Christian, one is staunchly small government, one is anti-Obama and the other is just pro-himself - rich and {purportedly} affecting change because he can and, oh yeah - pro-israel.  CBS really paints these guys on an ugly textured canvas.  Then we get to Jeffrey Katzenberg, left-wing supporter and all-around great guy.  Here is a direct quote that explains why his bio was the first one CBS wanted you to see:

 "Film producer Jeffrey Katzenberg, the CEO of DreamWorks Animation, last year gave $2 million to Priorities USA Action - the super PAC that President Obama recently (and reluctantly) embraced. Mr. Obama's decision to give his blessing to the super PAC, after previously opposing such outside spending groups, is attributable in part to the fact that it was having trouble continuing to attract deep-pocketed donors like Katzenberg; in January, the organization raised just $59,000."

Do you see it?  Not only did they throw in the "reluctantly" exclusion - they went on to explain why he was forced to start accepting the money!  The rest of the bio hardly even mentions poor Jeff.  It mentions him, but then goes on to name drop (Spielberg) and hint at a {{possible}} donation by Haim Saban - another pro-Israel, Israeli.  The Katenberg bio was simply a vehicle for the Obama support piece highlighted above.  Next, head spooky guy George Soros.

The whole story here is just...  Off.  First, the idea that Soros was allowed to describe himself for the article is weird.  He claims that he is, "a prominent international supporter of democratic ideals and causes for more than 30 years."  Yet in every venue he's meddled in the world, he demonstrates that he pursues purely socialist progressive ideals.  "Democracy" is a truth stretched to unrecoverable proportions. 

Moving along, he spent $23M in 2004 to keep Bush out of a second term - FAILED  Apparently he had trouble making the case that Bush was a threat to world peace.  In 2008 he contributed $5M to Obama to get him elected - SUCCESS  Apparently he did that to Obama PACs, since giving it directly to his campaign would have been illegal.  But now, Mr. Spooky is sitting on the sidelines - seeing the 2012 elections as "less dire" according to inside sources.  The New Yorker piece that this article was written from can be found here:  Where's George?  The CBS piece claims that George is staying out of it because, "... he is concerned about the influence of shadowy money in politics that super PACs represent" and in part, "because he doesn't see much difference between Obama and {snip} Mitt Romney, the likely opponent."  They also say that he (Soros) has been "slightly disappointed" with Barack, but they failed to say why.  The New Yorker wasn't shy about saying why - and I quote, "...he has been stung by the way the White House has kept him at arm’s length. Despite the financial support he gave Obama in 2008, Soros has not had the opportunity to meet personally with the President in the White House since Obama was elected. Obama met with Soros privately once in New York, when they were both in town for an international summit, but the rendezvous had a back-door aura."  Why do you think CBS would have left that out?

The New Yorker piece goes on, at length, to portray Soros as a philanthropist - working diligently to stabilize the Euro and usher in democracy in Burma.  Neither article mention the man's history since 1979 of messing around in world politics, assisting socialism to proliferate, reducing the economies of countries (Thailand, Malaysia & the U.K.), rampant profiteering and his conviction of insider-trading.  No - they missed those parts.  Let's ignore all that for a second and look at just how the guy has made his money: short-selling currencies throughout the world.  In essence, he bets that the value of a country's currency is going to decrease - then he makes money when it does.  In no less than 11 cases, countries have accused him of being the reason the currency began to devalue!  I realize that an accusation is not a conviction - but some of the world's smartest economists (Paul Krugman for one) have wondered aloud if Soros has not triggered events in world currency by moving money around so obviously that it could only be considered intentional.  His "Reflexivity" theory in and of itself is an experiment into the goings on of perturbation in financial and speculation markets.  Basically, bet that the static water in the pool is going to ripple - then throw a rock into it!  Collect your money and run before anyone realizes who threw the rock.  But I digress - this is not meant to be a George Soros piece.

So, George is sitting it out on the sidelines and poor old Barack is hurting without his money - That's the message we're getting.  If only there was a way to influence the election without actually having to pay money to the campaign...  Well- how about if we influence the press?!!  Doesn't he run/own/operate the Open Society?  Yea - there's how he's funneling money to the election without the "stink" of influence on it...  CBS was also named in the Media Matters scandal, along with many of the other broadcast news agencies and the largest print media outlets.  Kind of like this article - they all do the bidding of the Progressive movement, of which he is a major player.

The rest of the "Notables" in CBS's apologetics article were all republican and they said very little about them.  Clearly that last page was "phoned in" as the function of their article was complete at the end of the Soros plug - I mean page.

So there was tactic two:  Create an illusion of disinterest to get people watching what you are doing in public, that way they miss what you do secretively.

And tactic three:  Create a myth (lack of funding to the candidate Obama) that rouses the emotions of your base - watch them come running. 




02/24/2012 - OIL PRICES SKYROCKETING and the powers that be are using it as a tool - It concerns me that Nancy Pelosi & Barack Obama are consistently blaming Wall Street for the rise in oil prices and I'd like to take a few moments to clarify what is actually going on. We have discussed this before; allow me to direct you to the article where it was explained prior. GO HERE I would add to it now, if I were the president. I would say to the Insurers, the bonding agents, the traders and the speculators that, "I - the President of the United States, personally guarantee the safety of all oil coming through the Straights of Hormuz, out through the Gulf and back to the United States. I rely on the U.S. 5th fleet to protect it." Now, having said that - I would insist that the aforementioned groups currently driving the price of oil up - bring it down.  I realize that this is a capitalist society which allows those groups to make as much as the market will bear - using any tactic they can get away with...  But I also understand that, as the President, it is in my power to address an issue that is crushing my country's economy.  That economic suffocation that is occurring would inspire me to do something to take the excuses away from the perceived profiteers so that the American public can see if there is a real concern or if this is a purely profit-taking maneuver on the part of those who stand to make the most.  Mahmoud Ineedajihad is clearly making money with this current strategy and it appears that, as long as there is no outbreak of Iran into the Straights, so is everyone else - aside from the American citizens.  To be completely honest with you, I would probably have this conversation with the "powers that be" behind the scenes and do this all very quietly.  That way the price would begin to fall and Mahmoud's threats would appear as impotent as they actually are.  Of course, the Grand-stander-in-Chief is incapable of doing it that way; out of the public spotlight. 

Of course, all of this is predicated upon the notion that El presidentè actually thinks high gas prices are a bad thing...  I would suggest that Obama's lack of effort to lower them now or his previous refusals to move to decrease them may, in fact, be evidence in and of itself.  Evidence that he really doesn't care if they are high or not.  Not only will high gas prices play into his overall energy strategy (make fossil fuel prohibitively expensive), it also keeps societal pressure ever-increasing, which ensures a place for social engineering at the table.  Past practice in Germany, Italy, France (much of Europe in fact), China, Venezuela, Argentina, fmr. USSR and even Cuba shows us that socialism is never borne out of "The Good Times."  The Progressive movement needs the American public to remain under pressure...  You guys do the rest of the thinking on this and get back to me.



First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

German Pastor Martin Niemöller - November, 1945 after being released from the Dachau concentration camp after being a "guest" for 4 years.

I use this quote a lot in my daily life and those who know me often roll their eyes when I quote the good pastor.  The actual groups the Nazi came for and the order with which they came is really unimportant - it is the overall message that I hope people take to heart. 

In my mind, Martin was discussing the apathy and "mind your own business" mentality that the masses manifest during hard times.  I'm not talking about generic apathy here - the stuff that most of us can either take or leave.  Items like, Same-sex Marriage.  Most folks do not care if gay people get married - the polls support that, but put it on a ballot and it's like rolling the dice in Vegas; its any body's guess as to the result.  Just look at the spread across the U.S. in regard to same-sex marriage laws!  Why?  Because it comes down to getting out to vote.  Apathy sets in and only the truly motivated show up to vote, leaving them to fight it out alone.  Abortion - same thing.  Polls support a woman's right to choose, the supreme court has upheld it, but the laws on the books control that right so closely that it hardly seems legal to get an abortion.  Gun ownership:  The vast majority (according to polls) believes they should have the right to own them, but very few want others to own them.  If only we could pass a law so that the "bad guys" can't own them...  Oh yeah - we have volumes of laws that say that.  Another intermittently inflamed example is, Imminent Domain.  Watch the news sometime and see just how much people hate the idea of the government (federal, state or local) being able to take personal property for the benefit of the "greater good".  But, for the record, the voters gave the government(s) the power to do so.  People getting a new 4-lane highway through downtown, airport, power plant or (fill in the blank) love it.  Of course, as long as it was not they who had to move out of their house, move to a new hair salon or lose a convenient gas station on the way to work.   These are all things that simply "buzz" around us on a daily basis.  Items that we are essentially numb to and hardly involve enough of us or, better said, threaten us enough, to make it worthwhile to engage.  Below, I have laid out a framework for how the poem by Niemöller applies in my mind:

We gave up a fantastic amount of "liberty" with the Patriot Act, which was instituted due to the 9/11 massacre.  Most people did this willingly.  In it's application we gave up a fair amount of "personal space" through the institution of very private searches at airports as a result.  Passport procedures strengthened and, oh yeah, there was that thing about "warrantless wire-tapping" too.  Did anyone really care?***  In hindsight, maybe we should have.  Let's re-write the Pastor's first line:  "First they came for the terrorists, but I did not speak out - because I had nothing to hide." More to that later.

We went to war in Afghanistan and everyone agreed that it was justified.  But didn't we forget to do something?  What did we do to get the American public engaged in the war?  Did we forget to sell war bonds, raise taxes or increase production across the land in support of our efforts?  It appears as though we forgot to make money in the process!  We kicked the Taliban out of power and then we lost interest...  No one had to sacrifice - no one was reminded of the cost (or value) of liberty.  We took prisoners, called them illegal combatants and threw them into a hole in Cuba where they were to never return from...  Whoa...  What happened there?  "Military Rendition" and "enhanced interrogation techniques" came to light...  Who authorized the release of that knowledge?  It seems like there was a pattern starting to develop here.

We went to war in Iraq.  Not sure of the reasoning, it sounded logical at the time.  We ultimately set out to do there, exactly what Barack sought out to do in Libya.  Again, we were successful.  Of course we were - we ARE the most powerful nation in the world; militarily.  No apologies needed and the Aussies and Brits have no need to feel guilty - it was a good idea.  But, just like in Afghanistan, we failed to make the war pay for itself.  Again, we got caught doing all of the things that need to be done in war and we began to apologize to the Arab world for doing 10% of the things that they did to everyone else; us included.  My memory on this is a little fuzzy -  How many of the suspected terrorists did we cut the throat of on You-Tube? While they were raping women, we were making murders feel like they were drowning..  In the end, we kicked Saddam out of power and then we lost interest...  No one had to sacrifice - no one was reminded of the cost (or value) of liberty. 

In the beginning we had a president (Bush) spending money like a steel worker at a strip club and the country was doing it right along with him!  He was nearing the end of his rule and it appeared as though a ham sammich could have gotten into power; hence why the republicans sacrificed McCain (he never stood a chance).

Next we have a case where we are suffering through an absolutely massive collapse of a system that our government was tasked with overseeing - financial risk and investment markets.  How many people out there truly understand the size and scope of the mortgage-backed securities debacle that was created and then collapsed?  CONSERVATIVE numbers placed the trading value of the securities, world-wide, at nearly 40 TRILLION dollars.  That is roughly the equivalent of the U.S., U.K. and E.U. economies combined!  Note that I said "trading value" and not "actual value" because, if I said "actual" the number would have been around 7 trillion; at most.  That is according to actual numbers agreed upon and reported by the E.U., U.K. and U.S. in 2009.  So - in 2008 & 2009, 33 TRILLION dollars was magically evacuated from the world's economy..  POOF!  That was hit #1; next would be "credit bubble".  As it would turn out, the very same institutions that were leveraging themselves ad infinitum were insisting that their bankers and borrowers do the same thing!  Through a very well orchestrated scheme of "loosening up cash" so that it could be shaken from the clients, financial institutions across the globe aided the general public, the businesses, local/state & federal governments in growing their debt.  The federal government helped out by tightening bankruptcy laws so that banks could cheat on their balance sheets by writing down "bad debt" while at the same time, allowing "bad debt" to be written off!  Who was complaining when all of this was going down?  After it happened, it seemed like everyone was equally embarrassed and disgusted and for a short time everyone was willing to do anything to stop the bleeding.  Conservatives and liberals alike were rushing to throw cash on the fire, hoping to suffocate it..  We all know how well that worked.  The 2008 election sweeps the liberal-left into power and no sooner does it happen that the next wave of the debt-tsunami washes ashore:  Hit #2, the credit bubble and the ensuing stimulus spending, TRILLIONS more disappeared.  EVERYBODY, and I mean EVERBODY lost money.  Decreasing wages - the government's fault, increasing fuel costs - the government's fault, increasing grocery costs, massive unemployment - the government's fault, fantastic insurance cost increases - the government's fault..  Why?  Because the value of the dollar fell and it fell because of the nightmare that follows below.

The Left-wing ushered in a time of "Hope & Change" which translated to the following:

Cash for Clunkers!!  Student Loan take-over!!  Obama Care!!  Government take-over of Banks!!  Government Motors!!  Wall Street Bail-outs!!  Fannie-Mae & Freddie-Mack Bail-outs!! GREEN everything!!

Then we have a veritable cornucopia of Czars being initiated, the size of government begins to grow uncontrollably, the price of gas increases by dramatic proportions because the value of the dollar drops like a rock in the wake of the orgy of spending!  This time there was outrage!  But who was listening?  The most vocal opponents were being shouted down, branded as "the rich" and sidelined by the massive left-wing controlled media.  Dissent was limited by the administration through bullying tactics in the Whitehouse pressroom and overall avoidance (for a time) of any interviews; instead talking directly to the people through the co-opting of the airwaves. A massive push to brand all dissent as "Neo-con" propaganda ensued and the media ate it up...  This infighting sold advertising space like a real tragedy - only without actually having one.  It was a purely manufactured  hullabaloo! "Next they came for the Neo-Conservative, but I did not speak out - because I considered myself an independent."

The new team takes the reigns in Afghanistan and Iraq and begins the world-wide apology tour.  "Can't we all just get along?" was the message being delivered by the administration as they tried to hold the hands of every nation around the world, singing, Kumbayah.  American "Stock" around the world falls to an all-time low as nations alternatively made fun of us or were embarrassed by our leader's actions.  Long time friends became enraged by our illustrious leader's ignorance of past-practice, history and tradition.  Previous allies took a long hard look at our "new direction" and began working on plans for a time post-Obama.  Israel, the U.K., Australia and Japan have "shelved" our relationship, instead, hedging for a time down-the-road when our relationship is "normal" again.  

Here's the big concern:  The American public did not have a chance to vote on any of the above examples...  Not one.  The administration, being led by a self-professed "Constitutional Expert" claimed that the public had voted when they put him in office and went on to lecture about how our government worked.  When Ted Kennedy died and the super-majority required to ram Obama-Care through dissolved, he actually became incensed with the American public's overwhelming concern with his plans.  He chastised the "Neo-Con" media for portraying the plan in a negative light and claimed that, ".. if only they knew the FACTS of the case, they would approve..."  Here's the irony:  Neither he, nor any of his tribe, would release the details of the plan.  We all remember Nancy Pelosi claiming that the only way to get the details of the plan was to pass it!!  3 years later, we are still being spoon-fed little bits and pieces of the plan.  The "Affordable Healthcare plan" is being taken to the Supreme Court by no less than 19 states at last count, with at least two of them being able to argue prior to the 2012 general election.  The GAO has scored it as a budget buster and the House Appropriations Committee warns that it is the definition of the term: Un-Funded Mandate.  Pure gamesmanship and political maneuvering got it into the books as law, employing a budgetary sleight-of-hand to actually get it through without a vote.  One would certainly think that THAT should have been a sign of things to come. 

The 2010 elections arrive and the vast majority of the left-wing that could be gotten rid of - were.  All those that sold  their constituency into servitude and debt were sent packing and a new breed of conservative was ushered in:  Enter the Tea Party.  This is a group that branded themselves as "Constitutionalists".  I believe they did so, in large part, because it's a poke in the eye of the guy who tells everyone he's the real constitutional expert.  Conservative news outlets laud their arrival in Washington, claiming a great revolution in politics and predicting that the end of imminent socialism is at hand.  The left-wing media closes ranks and begins to nullify the victory in their base's mind by portraying the Tea Party as a bunch of backward, racist hate-mongers hell-bent on returning the country to the days of slavery and women's indentured servitude in the household.  It did not matter that the new breed of conservatives were voted in with record majorities - the Hollywood-to-NY City liberal wing had money to burn and burn they did.  Even before there was no budget passed for the third straight year, the media hyped an inevitable impasse in congress that would see to it that nothing of value would get passed.  The Centers for Change announced 3 days after the elections that a "leak" in the House Leadership told them that, "..the Republican-controlled House had vowed to pass nothing of the president's until after the 2012 election."  3 days had passed...  None of the new Representatives had even made it to Washington yet...  The Huffington Post, USA Today, The San Francisco Chronicle, the Chicago Tribune and - of course - the New York Times all regurgitated the nonsensical assertion.  When the source of the purported "leak" turned out to be a disgruntled aide in a departing "un-named senator's" staff, none of the papers printed a retraction or correction; they simply stopped reporting the lie. ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC all picked up the story as well, reporting it as an "un-confirmed source."  Still, even though they knew it wasn't true - they couldn't resist getting the story a little more traction.  The administration put the whole thing to rest by saying, "I have heard the reports and I for one would be saddened if it were true..."  President Barack Obama, Whitehouse Press Briefing post 2010 landslide victory for the Republicans 

The battles over spending, deficits and debt for the remaining months of 2010 and the entire year of 2011 were a self-fulfilling prophecy created by the likes of George Soros, Warren Buffet, the big money unions (AFL & CIO, SEIU) and the endless piles of cash being exported from the elitists in Hollywood.  The Dems (Reid, Pelosi, Boxer, Waters & Obama) would offer plans that they knew ran counter to anything the voters wanted and just waited for the new House personnel to shoot it down.  As soon as they did - BAM - there was all the proof they needed that the "lie" was actually TRUE!  All of a sudden EVERYONE who wasn't a part of the solution (in Barack's method of solving problems) was a part of the opposition.  A new enemy had been created and the socialist-leaning left-wing had something to rally around.  "Then they came for the Opposition, but I said, 'Opposition...  Who's that?'  So they left me alone as I appeared harmless." 

As time passed, rumors of voter fraud in the 2008 elections began to surface and states started to move to close the loop-holes that allowed for it.  When data from 2008 was compared to the more recent 2010 elections, a serious pattern of fraud was revealed and the attorneys general of 6 states moved to put laws on the books to stop it; some preventatively - some in direct response to deficiencies.  Suddenly states like Indiana and Ohio were no better at holding free and fair elections than, say, Egypt or Somalia.  Some states got away with it because their changes were minor and they did not have to run their changes past the federal government - other states did the unthinkable.  As we have discussed prior, South Carolina dared to require state-issued ID cards, free of charge to the citizens who wanted to vote but did not have ID.  They even agreed to pick the people up at their home (or place of business, gathering or worship) and take them to a registered center - and return them to a location of their choosing (within the state of course).  The Administration moved quickly on that as we all know.  How dare they disenfranchise the minorities, students and elderly that way!??!  Where is the Department of Homeland Security on this issue?  How can we have a less stringent set of rules to pick the leadership of this country than we do for taking a plane from Boston to the World Trade Centers?  Since when can't states protect themselves?

Immigration is my next example.  What a panacea this issue is.  There was a time when, arriving at Ellis Island was a triumph for the human spirit, a time to be celebrated.  Those who qualified and actually arrived were revered by those that could not make the journey and to those, their efforts were doubled for the next round of selections.  The mere process of arriving was the beginning of the American Dream made manifest.  Now, the whole issue is tainted by the smear of illegal immigration.  Essentially "line jumpers", chock-full of the unqualified, unwanted and ineligible arriving in droves to usurp the dream from those who follow the rules.  Legislation is so screwed up now that the roles are practically reversed on the issue and qualified candidates can't even get visitors visas.  The polls show that the overwhelming majority of American citizens hate illegal immigration and feel that the federal government is doing next to nothing to protect the citizens from threats crossing the border.  Every time there is a local or state referendum on the subject - the citizens vote to enforce the federal regulations the government is ignoring, stiffen the local laws and protect themselves!  That has occurred EVERY TIME it has wound up on a ballot.  Yet - the federal government overturns the decision (in every case), stays the results or punishes the state to the point that they finally acquiesce.  Again - states cannot protect themselves?

Next up, drilling, mining and pipelines.  Nope can't do that either.  You can spend all the money you want looking for it, planning for it and asking for approval - but you can't actually do it.  The moment it requires federal approval - it's done.  I see a pattern again...  But so does the government so they quickly moved to assign the "State's Rights Concern" to the Tea Party.  Because, of course, State's Rights are a Rebel Philosophy held over from the Confederacy movement during the Civil War.  And who better to solve this little problem than the reincarnated Abraham Lincoln - Barack Obama.  Remember when he voted himself as the 4th best president in history, just behind Lincoln?  Yep - he did it in December 2011 in a 60 minutes interview.  Any wonder that they edited that out in the aired episode?  Luckily the transcript of what he ACTUALLY said is available.   He ranked himself behind FDR and LBJ; at least he shows some signs of being humble...   That's kind of funny considering most other polls rank him as #4 too - of the worst presidents in history with Taft, Coolidge and Carter edging him out of the top 3.  So, what we have here is a case of redefining the problem.  The problem is not the violation of state's rights, it's a problem of state's trying to usurp federal powers.  That's the case the Eric Holder (Attorney General) keeps making in the courts.  "Then they came for the States trying to take over the U.S. Government and I said, 'Huh - who did what?'  They snickered and walked away. " 

And finally we have the recent revelations that the Affordable Healthcare Plan (Obama Care) will violate religious freedom and the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Kathleen Sebelius)  thinks Woman's rights are more important.  In fact, if you listen to the news reports coming out of the oval office, everyone there believes that the religious institutions and their coverage programs should have to provide coverage that flies in the face of their beliefs.  Women's rights are important, but, there is no one group in the country more important than a right granted to all!  You want compromise Mr. President? Ask the insurance companies to compromise - not the constitution!  I do not care one iota about religion - not an ounce, but I have willingly offered my life in the protection of that right and every other one afforded in our constitution.  I am a veteran and so is my father and his father and so on & so forth.  I did so because I love the fact that that right in particular is there and that the government may take no part in it.  The government may not infringe on that right, nor shall they involve themselves in it.

Add to that, the interview with the President that has him commenting upon just how difficult it is to do his job when the very document he claims to be an expert on (The Constitution) keeps slowing him down.  It makes things difficult for him and he sees that as a problem.  In his own words, the president says, “What’s frustrated people is that I have not been able to force Congress to implement every aspect of what I said in 2008. Well, it turns out our Founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change than I would like sometimes.” Interview with Matt Lauer, NBC 2/6/2012.  What's really ironic is that he HAS forced them to implement so much of his vision already that the American public voted out his majority.  Hell, he's already violated Article I, Section Five of the Constitution by making recess appointments when the senate wasn't in recess - why not just pass laws without actually voting on them or make laws by executive order or create cabinet-level posts without congressional approval while he's at it?  Oh wait - he's done all of that too.

"And finally they've come for the rest and I shouted, "Wake up America!  They're here for you.  They are here for what makes us great' and I refused to go with them and now they are scared." 

So scared are they, that they set up Truth Commissions to sanitize the word that gets out.  They now choose to employ all of their tactics in one giant push to take all that is left.  I am sickened - but I choose now to rise up from my seat and take steps to make sure that the "Truth Teams" are seen for what they truly are - Purveyors of Propaganda - the likes of which should send a chill down the spine of every American; they have now gone too far.  This decision makes me think of the Cultural Revolution, Venezuela, Castro....  I hear jack-boots marching in the background while I read the words of DFL Chairman Ken Martin and Mayor R.T. Rybak

*** As a matter of full-disclosure here, I want it on the record that I supported the Patriot Act, warrantless wire-tapping, removal of shoes / valid ID presentation and "no-fly lists" at airports.  I support Gitmo and the application of the term illegal combatants - though I would have rather them be executed for their crimes upon being found guilty by military tribunal.  I also support Military and covert "Rendition" as well as any interrogation technique that does not violate the Geneva Convention and works.  "Enhanced" interrogation works - the REAL experts all agreed, though the application of it should have been closely guarded, controlled and kept secret.  In other words, "Don't get caught doing it."


02/09/2012                                          PART I                       

I can see a pattern developing recently that worries me and I would like to start laying it out for all to see, comment and ultimately develop.  I have tentatively dubbed it "Obama's path to re-election".  A picture is going to be painted here - so hang in there and don't glaze over the details.

I made mention of it a while back, but at the time, I didn't have the time to really do much other than acknowledge it.  Let's face it, the first 20 months of his administration was chaotic, to say the least.  It was chock-full of "change" - much of which was painful and ill-conceived, but even more, ill-applied.  I do not offer that as an opinion, according to the polls (Gallup & Pew Research), most American agree with that statement and therefore it must be accurate; right?  Let's keep in mind that a consensus of opinion is all that is needed anymore to make something factual; leaving the burden of proof on the nay-sayers.   The 2010 mid-term elections occurred and the balance of power (in congress) swung to the right and the senate lost it's democratic super majority.  The voters sent a message to Hollywood...  I mean Washington, that they had overreached, moved too fast and slid way too far to the left.  So here we are, 20 months in - and then everything changed.  The administration and his minions (Reid, Boxer, Pelosi, etc.) got the message and changed their ways. 

For the next 300+ days, the administration accomplished next to nothing without using an executive order, congressional gymnastics or senatorial dirty tricks to do it.  Upon reflection, one would be forced to ponder, "what was the message that the far left got during the 2010 cycle?"  Well, as I said in previous editorials, "The message was change your tactics."  Never, in any fraction of the reality most of us live in, was the message, "Change your plans."   The losses they took in 2010 were not a crying shame for them, they were collateral damage where, the fallen were sacrificed - not slain.  The American public, which was once outraged with the administration, is now starting to become numb to the constant stream of negativity coming from the media and dumb to the details hidden within. 

Unemployment is now down to 8.6% (adjusted), which - according to the Whitehouse, is synonymous with job creation...  MSNBC, the NY Times and USA Today are all reporting that the president has actually CREATED jobs and the Huffington Post goes so far as to say that the President has single-handedly drug the American economy "around the corner."  Has anyone noticed that absolutely no one (of consequence) is reporting that the existing claims numbers are only increasing?  How about the numbers of those "dropping off the end" and moving to welfare?  They are increasing as well.  Come on now - this is a parlor trick!  A sustained rate of unemployment above the rate of new employees hitting the market is A LOSS - the math is simple and if anyone tries to complicate it by "adjusting the numbers for (fill in the blank) they are trying to pull your shirt over your head.  In hockey, you know what comes next; right?  The whole thing makes me wonder if the unemployment situation has actually changed at all?  As for the economy itself, well, who can tell?  The messages are so mixed that even the experts {tongue-in-cheek} disagree.  Is/was it a depression, a recession - are we still in it - when will it end - where are we if it ain't over; the end?  It's in such a frail state that the daily economic news out of Greece causes our markets to swing...  Seriously - Greece is affecting our market.  The economy of the EU is in such bad shape that we had to help bail them out (they are bigger by 7%)!!!  Who is bailing us out?  I digress.  Some of the things that all of the experts agree on are that the legacy and entitlement programs are what's crippling our economy.  Government pensions, Welfare, un-ending federal unemployment, Medicare/Medicaid and  Social Security.  Obama has vowed to decrease none of the benefits - moreover, he has demonstrated it.  His one shot at "entitlement reform" was to decrease payments to physicians who treat Medicare/Medicaid patients.  The "business-friendly" approach.  He supports (and is supported by) the unions and has railed against every state that has attempted to fix their economic short-falls through entitlement reform.  Just look at how he responded to the actions of the Indiana & Ohio governors who moved against the union's massive sweetheart deals.  Actions speak louder than words - as always.  Moving along, he continues to direct the fed to keep money "cheap" and he has instituted every program possible to make it easy for the undeserving to get credit and not be punished for over-extending themselves on it.  He wants banks to forgive home loans, decrease principal balances, re-finance existing debt and stop foreclosing on derelict balances.  Does any of that HELP the economy?  I'm not saying that it doesn't help the people - but does it help the economy?  Of course not - so stop telling the public that it does.

So that moves us to regulation, the second largest issue on the minds of America.  This one comes almost exclusively from the business sector, but considering that they are the largest taxpayer in the country - that means their opinion counts.  He began his administration by lambasting the business sector with enough regulation to choke a horse.  The crashing markets gave him all of the cover he needed to do it openly and without subterfuge.  20 months later, the businesses cried foul and he stopped; right?  You be the judge: 

  • Zero reduced burden on employers - existing programs only renewed for 2-18 months with all indications being that the administration wants to eliminate all of them
  • Zero employer incentive to remain in the U.S.
  • Non "Green" business grants decreased to unprecedented levels
  • New, more aggressive EPA regulations flying out at an unprecedented rate
  • No budget passed, no debt reduction plan - 2 deficit increases
  • Administration "interpretation" of Obama Care being s-l-o-w-l-y disseminated to the public, revealing just how anti-business it really is
  • NLRB staffed with radical left-wingers through senate gymnastics move

Those items alone don't even touch on the actual verbiage used by the administration in speeches.  Things like, "If I could, I would limit the salaries of the top earners in this country.  Beyond a certain limit, I would increase the income tax to 100%.  I mean - let's get serious - does anyone really deserve to make a billion dollars a year?" - Barack Obama - August 2011 interview with NBC  And that's not the only time he has intimated that there should be a limit to how much money "the American Dream" can bring an individual.  When searching for it, I ran across over 100 such intimations and insinuations so it won't be hard to find on your own.  So, needless to say, he hasn't helped businesses out much - unless they are a fledgling "green" company.  As in previous articles I have posted, the administration's actions have also painted a picture of where they position business in their "model".  Closing down mines across the country, eliminating government contracts with companies who have business models and ideals that run counter to their plan, strong-arming states to ignore the will of their citizens and appointing czars every time the wind blows and never choosing "business-friendly" individuals.  

The environmental "disaster" that the Deepwater Horizons never became enabled him to move quickly, much more quickly than he ever could have hoped, to ram "green" in our collective lives.  He immediately shut down (new) oil drilling permitting off shore in addition to drilling.  Only by court order was drilling & pumping turned back on.  Strangely though, he authorized plenty of money to be sent to Venezuela and Argentina for exploration into the very thing he shut off at home...  Two very close allies of ours who embrace democracy.  When the administration was called on that, they rectified the situation quickly by issuing a statement saying, "This administration has approved the issuance of exploration for oil permits at a rate that exceeds that of the former administration and we stand by our record."  What they don't tell you is that they haven't issued a single DRILLING permit; not one.  Also, the word "rate" is very important.  Approving 7 in one day is a better rate - but if they only approve 7 in total...  And, for the record, did I miss the explanation for the government funds sent to socialist nations for doing what we are disallowing at home? 

How does any of this help, from a business standpoint, get America back to work or decrease our dependence on foreign energy products?  It doesn't - so stop saying it.

So far, by my count, he's done nothing to help create or maintain employment, create or maintain new business, steer the ship to economic "friendly" waters or help in any way other than to increase our financial debt.  Is it possible that the administration is actually lost without a map?  I doubt it... 

Stay tuned for Part II where we see how, "Re-framing the question" is often easier than answering it.




THE US DOJ and South Carolina aren't making love

but someone's getting the shaft


I realize that this is going to sound a little dumb to most of you, but I have to say it out loud so that I don't go crazy by keeping it bottled-up.  The notion that requiring photo ID in order to vote is somehow "disadvantaging minorities" is such utter nonsense that I can hardly contain my laughter as I type this. 

The Rainbow/Push coalition and the ACLU are behind this and the U.S. Department of Justice (LOL), who shot S.C.'s law down, is purely a rubber stamp brigade for the Obama Administration; that is connected to Rainbow/Push.  The good reverend JJ claims that the unemployed and welfare recipients, elderly and college students would have a more difficult time voting because of this requirement , BUT, that it was really aimed at keeping minorities from voting.

So let me get this straight - the elderly don't have photo ID?  Really?  And college students too?  It seems strange that the two extremes of our population are mysteriously deficient in the identification department when both of them have so many demands for it.  Ever cash a check without photo ID?  How are college kids enrolling in school without ID?  I know my daughter had to provide ID, and a SSC and a birth certificate!  For the elderly, if they cash a SS check - they need ID and if they have Direct Deposit, they need ID to withdraw the money from their account.  Me thinks JJ is fibbing!

Minorities don't have ID either?  What the heck's going on here?  Why not?  Since when are black people allowed to drive cars without a driver's license?  When did they get [blanket] permission to open checking accounts, fly in planes, take trains, borrow library books, rent houses, check into hotels/motels, buy cars, rent-to-own TVs/couches/computers without a picture ID?  Did I miss the memo?  Try as I might to live a completely anonymous life, I have yet to figure out how I can survive outside of the forest without picture ID.  Is there some sort of jungle in S.C. that enables all these minorities to trade amongst each other in nuts and berries, swing from trees in-lieu-of public transportation/trains/planes and only barter for necessities & room and board, making the need for ID meaningless?  If so - I'm moving there!

IT'S FREE - and - they'll give you a ride to go get your free ID! 

What this really is, is a case of the socialist moving to make sure that voter fraud is still possible in every state (get ready Texas).  The DOJ said that S.C.'s move to limit fraud was unwarranted given that they had, "no documented cases of voter fraud to base the change on."  Given the current cases in Missouri, Indiana, Ohio and Michigan of petitioner's and voter's names showing up on lists that the namesake says they never endorsed, I'd say South Carolina was well within their rights to move preemptively.  The DOJ is on some weak ground here, given that the constitution assigns voter's rights as State's rights...  The administration has some worrying to do if many more states follow suit.  How on earth will Acorn and Push turn out the vote if they can't do it illegally?  If they let that loophole close, they'll be no crackheads, illegal aliens, convicts, pimps, prostitutes or DEAD PEOPLE voting seven to ten times.  Perish the thought that only real (living), legal, registered voters pick the next president and lawmakers.  Who knows what we might get this time?

For crying out loud - write your congressman, senator, attorney general and president and tell them to stop trying to leave the back door open - who knows what kind of critter might scamper in and eat your cat or chicken!!!



Where'd the Christmas Tree Go?


Alright, I'll keep this short- Who stole the evergreen donned with lights, beads and bobbles with packages neatly wrapped underneath?  Apparently it has been substituted with another, similar conifer, but it's name is so generic that I don't know if it's what I'm looking for - or not...  "Holiday Tree?"  What's that?  I, the most un-religious person many of you know, am confused now. 

I realize that the Christmas tree is about as religious as the Easter bunny, but still..  No, wait - if we follow the logic, does that mean the Big Bunny is doomed??  Has he been warned?!!  Focus Merl -  Focus...  Back to the shrub.  Who the heck is benefitting from the obvious drive to de-Christianify Christmas?  I know lot's of Muslim folks and they don't care about a tree of Christmas.  They respect Christian's rights to give gifts and eat like sugar-addicted crackheads for 12 days, with a grand-finale feast culminating on 12/25 each year.  They themselves do something similar during the month of Ramadan, ending in the id-al-Fitr (Fesivity feast).  Then, we need to give a shout out to all my Hebrew homies...  8 days of spinning the dreidel, eating fried foods and lighting the hanukkiyah - who's having a wicked good Hanukkah?!!  Yep - you guessed it, the Jews don't care about the tree either.  You see, the Jews are smart - if they complained, they'd wind up lighting the "Holiday Candelabra".  At any rate, we're right back to the question of who is complaining...  Could it be the folks celebrating the made up holiday of Kwanzaa?  Probably not - they conveniently positioned their holiday after the rest are done (12/26-1/1).  But still, if they were the loud mouths - they could wind up losing their celebratory kinara (candleholder) and mishumaa saba (seven candles)!

Does that mean that the (professed) good Christian president and governor are really kowtowing to the most politically insignificant crowd ever to sway nothing in the polls (the atheist/agnostic contingent)? Hell - I'm a part of that group and I'm certain I never got a memo about messing with Christmas Trees.  I think the answer must be elsewhere...

That really only means there are but a handful of  (obvious) alternatives left.

  1. The president (ours) and the governor (R.I.) are stupid.  (that's a maybe)

  2. They are atheists that hate everything that even smells like religion.  (maybe)

  3. Both are creating a diversion to give the "affected" something to "look the other way" at.  (Sounds likely)

  4. This is entirely manufactured by the media and isn't actually happening...  (probably not - though you might think so by watching Fox News; the only channel reporting it)


!! Goodness gracious !!

November 29, 2011

I have been reading things and stuff at a website that I think everyone should have the pleasure to read:

Monthly Review

Ok - before you folks begin to think that I'm exploring the effects of mind-altering drugs, I have to admit, it's a bit of tongue-in-cheek humor.  In particular, a very loyal reader and contributor sent me a link to an article called, Approaching Capitalism, and I was riveted.  Riveted in the very same sense that I could not look away from the video footage of the former Libyan leader being beaten mercilessly.  I'm almost ashamed to admit to "sticking with it"...  On both subjects.

But seriously now, I know that the writer, Harry Magdoff, died in 2006 and this article (manifesto) was penned in the year prior to that death.  Somehow, after reading all of the other pro-Marxist meanderings that slipped from his mind to paper, I do not believe that the article can be written off as the final mutterings of a man sliding into home plate.

Click on his name and review the work for yourself.  You should be able to tickle your fancy with memorable articles such as, Farewell Comrade Paul, Encounters with Che (Guevara), No Nukes! and a personal favorite, A Note on the Communist Manifesto.  To understand this man is to study travail versus verisimilitude.  He is proof positive that, when posed with the same facts, figures and statistics - there is one-in-a-million who will interpret them completely different from EVERYONE else.

As a point of fact, though I cannot discount his statistics as being spurious, I can say that every application of this data is equivocal - bordering on fictitious.  He deals entirely in assertion, offering no evidence and assigns cause to effect where there is a complete absence of substantiation.  His methodology is actually somewhat charming; bordering on enchanting.

Go here to read his Bio by the NYTimes and here to read the preposterously gushing Bio that has been wrought out of pure "positivism" on Wikipedia.

If you are asking yourself, "Why the hell is he bringing this up?" --  you haven't read enough.




November 27, 2011

The latest polls have it so that the vast majority of the public is not paying any attention to the protests.  Rasmussen and Gallup numbers on the subject are rather underwhelming.  A plurality doesn't care, a minority cares a little and the numbers are getting worse by the week.

This should be a wake up call for the protestors:  This ain't no Arab Spring.

From my perspective, they have no organization whatsoever and therefore, have no cohesive message.  The whole thing began in Canada, by a socialist group (Ad Busters) and caught fire due to the crappy economic conditions in this country.  Clearly the President and his cronies don't want to overtly support them, however, they do so tacitly.  Read my previous thoughts  on the subject and you'll understand why. 

Seriously people!!  How can you bitch that the government isn't giving you what you need and at the same time complain that the government is taxing too much or not enough (of some).  You whine that you don't have opportunity, but you don't do anything to create the opportunity. 

You want change?  Vote out the bums in office.  You want opportunity?  Make it for yourself - the Constitutions grants you the right to it.  You want more money?  Earn it.  I'll bet you can't find a job while you are protesting/sleeping and eating in a park - in a major city that you do not normally reside in.

I was in heated agreement with the guy petitioning Target to let their employees enjoy Thanksgiving without having to go to bed before the pie was cut..  Until the Occupy movement took up the topic.  Then I was left feeling robbed.  They stole my desire by taking something good and tarnishing it by adopting it. 

I was going to protest Target by spending no money with them this holiday season - the real way to vote against a company in a capitalist society.  Then I heard about Best Buy and Wal Mart...  Oy vay, there's two more that won't get my money.  K-mart was actually open ON Thanksgiving - add another to the list!  That's the way you teach companies a lesson, if only the American public actually cared.  Black Friday sales were up 6.6%, so my vote was not heard...  C'est la vie.




November 25, 2011

I've been following the news outlets of the world alot lately and I'm troubled.  I have practically given up hope that any of them are ever going to give us the undiluted truth, not sanitized for our "protection" and packaged for easy digestion, but seriously - some of these popular outlets are just absurd.  CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS and FOX do nothing but editorialize anymore.  The first four use token conservatives from time to time to hedge against "liberal-bias" claims and the last one employs a cadre of dyed-in-the-wool-liberals to abuse.  Oh, and then there's Juan Williams; who manages to remain above the fray for the most part by being a very rational man.   

Then there are the truly subversive media outlets that employ old-school psychological warfare tactics to effect an outcome.  Either by dispensing pure nonsense or disinformation, they alternately seek support their cause or destroy their enemy through discreditation.  The Huffington Post, Politico and POTUS are all examples.  These three might as well be operated by the CIA in that, their tactics are so subversive and clandestine that the average sheeple do not realize they are being spoon-fed tainted meat.  It is one thing to tell your followers that the punch has been spiked and wait to see who lines up to drink the Koolaid - it's an entirely different story when you fail to tell them the drink has been tampered with...


The Consensus Conspiracy

October 15, 2011


I love using the word conspiracy in the title, it raises the attention of all the weirdos and those people are just plain fun to debate.  Anyway, the great Conspiracy of Consensus that has plagued Earthlings for the past 10-15 years is simply this:  An agreement among a few to report something that isn't true, offer it in a way that anything (positive or negative) would serve as proof of the theory's veracity and work to ensure that no one can ever evaluate the accuracy of the original assertion.  What began as "Global Warming" (previously known as "Global Cooling") and became "Man-made Global Warming" and then "Global Climate Change" and finally "Anthropogengic Climate Change" has a murky history.  The story of Global Warming (GW) and Global Climate Change (GCC) dates back to the 1970's, but we're not going to tell that story (yet).  Instead, I am going to describe how something so complicated, unproven and supported by anecdotal evidence only, managed to infiltrate the international lexicon and bankrupt economies.


That's right - it's that simple.

As a point of fact, there is not now, nor has there ever been, one single shred of indisputable evidence offered by the proponents of Anthropogengic Global Climate Change (AGCC) to support their theory that GCC is caused by human activity.  There it is - in black and orange - I have thrown the gauntlet down.  GCC is happening, have no doubt, and, the Global Warming skeptics know it.  The issue for people such as myself has never been the desire to deny GCC - only that AGCC is accurate; my record is crystal clear on that point.

Think about the damage that this myth has caused:  The economies of nations (Portugal, Spain and France) have been decimated.  The EU as a whole has spent nearly 60% of their economic stimulus during these tough times on "Green measures".  How has that worked for them?  The U.S. has spent 12% and South Korea a whopping 81%!  Are any of the economies catching up because of it?  Countries like India and China have been given a "pass" on cleaning up their emissions since they are considered "developing" - yet the two of them are filthier polluters than any of the "developed" nations.  The IPCC threw language in the agreement to measure every emission based on a "per-capita" calculation, giving the two countries a huge advantage (since they have billions of citizens). 

We ban incandescent lighting in the U.S. and the E.U. so that we can strip all of the world's mercury out of the planet and transport it to the "green nations" in the form of compact fluorescent bulbs (CFL)...  Where we then landfill an estimated 90% of them when they go bad.  China and India manufacture a full 92% of all CFLs. 

The U.S. and the E.U. adopt such tight environmental regulation that neither of us can hardly manufacture a darn thing.  At a time when we should be capitalizing on the cleanliness of nuclear and hydro-electric power generation, our own legislation makes either economically and logistically impossible.  Only wind and solar power is embraced, but the only way to make it financially plausible is to overload it with government (taxpayer supplied) grants, loans and give-a-ways.  As soon as the federal money stops flowing...  Well, look at Solyndra - and they are not an isolated case.  Solar is inefficient and predominately manufactured in China, thereby sending our money out of the country again, exacerbating the issues with the already defective energy economy. Oil and gas exploration in the continental U.S.??  Hell no!  Let's send that money to the Middle East, Venezuela and Africa - as fast as we can.  None of those three countries have any "green concerns" because they are all "developing". 

Let's all drive electric cars- that should fix it...  Right?  Where was the study that said, "If America bought only electric cars for the next 10 years, they would still fall short of their energy needs, because the excess demand on the power generation infrastructure would offset any perceived decreases in oil and gas consumption." Energy is a "closed-loop" just as thermodynamics predicts.  You need to generate energy in order to use it.  Maybe, just maybe, if we would invest in nuclear and hydro power plants that would not happen - but people forget - our power plants run on oil, coal and natural gas!!!! 

The Consensus Conspiracy has been the biggest lie perpetrated upon the public in my lifetime.  Scientists covering up the facts, governmental organizations cancelling funding for skeptics, national organizations running rampant with smear campaigns and businesses in concert taking advantage of "free money" have all contributed. 





JUNE 13, 2010

Not all that long ago, our illustrious Commander-in-Cheat rammed a healthcare bill in our [ears], promising much.  One of the promises was, of course, that it would be "budget neutral"; ultimately saving our country billions of dollars.  Now, to evidence that belief, the Senate utilized a tricky budgetary process we all know as "Reconciliation" to push it through (because they couldn't pass it any other way).  The primary tenant of that provision is that it could only be applied if, in fact, the bill was either neutral or positively affecting the budget.  A $500 billion dollar (ponzi scheme)  reduction in the Medicaid / Medicare program was required to make the numbers work, thereby reducing payments to physicians 20% for the same services they are already being underpaid for...  The CBO scored it and approved it - the measure passed and the bill became law.  Skip forward a few months:

"What we shouldn't do is have this guillotine hanging over (physicians') heads every year where they're having to figure out, 'Am I going to get reimbursed or is, suddenly, my income going to drop 20 percent?'  It is imperative to make sure that your doctor is getting reimbursed so that they can stay in business and keep their doors open.  My administration has worked very closely with doctors to try to see if we can get this fixed short term, but ultimately, we're going to have to get it fixed long term." -- President Barack Obama, June 9, 2010

No - you did not just fall down the rabbit hole, he really said that during a town hall meeting for senior citizens in Maryland last week.  My advice to the president:


The reality is somewhat less interesting though. Anyone with half a brain knew that the original cut was a trick to get the healthcare bill passed.  The original ponzi scheme was obvious enough to detect, shifting the money from one pocket to the next and counting the savings twice where there really was none.  But, when the CBO came out last month and said, "Whoa - we screwed up, the healthcare bill is really a budget buster," people should have been in the streets.





May 15, 2010


House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), posing with a poster featuring quotes from prominent Democrats regarding the importance of passing a budget, believes Democrats are, “telling the American people that they have no credible plan to control out-of-control spending and to put our fiscal house in order.”   Boehner even resurrected an old quote from House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) who previously said, [the] “most basic responsibility of governing is to pass a budget.” Boehner also referenced Budget committee Chairman John Spratt (D-S.C.), saying that, “if you can’t budget, you can’t govern.”   So you can imagine how surprising it is, then, when the man utters the following, "It's difficult to pass budgets in election years because they reflect what the [fiscal] status is." Well - he said it yesterday and what he was trying to tell us is:  This Congress will not be doing a 2011 budget.  "Why," you ask? 

We'll get to that in a minute.  I know what you must be thinking... "ballooning federal spending, which soared to an $82.69 billion deficit in April, a projected $1.5 trillion deficit in 2010, and even more deficits as far as the eye can see. How can they possibly be thinking of not reigning this in?"  Instead, Congressional Democrats and His Lord & Savior are abdicating their authority and placing America's financial position in the hands of an unelected deficit commission tasked with making decisions on taxing and spending. 

Here's why:  The failure to pass a budget resolution prevents Congress from capping discretionary spending for FY2011, even if the incumbents are swept out of office in November.  It is also obvious that Congress isn't even looking to find a way to limit runaway entitlement spending. Other priorities, such as extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts will fall by the wayside, leading to demoralizing tax hikes; all while America is in the midst of a recession.  Better yet - they won't have to put FY2011 take hikes, courtesy of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, on paper.  No inconvenient truths, as they say, to be used as evidence against candidates! 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), in her own news conference last Thursday, did not rule out passing a budget and vowed that any decision made, "would be responsible."  Thanks Nan, with all you've done in recent months, you've sure earned my trust that you'll make the 'responsible' decision...

Our president is truly amazing and the hits just keep on coming.  In the middle of this leadership vacuum, He is touring the country telling  the American people that his sound economic policies have steered the economy in the right direction. Just yesterday, in Buffalo he said, "I knew that if we didn't act boldly and quickly, if we didn't defy the politics of the moment and do what was necessary, we would have risked an even greater disaster."


Yes, he's just that good...




Laughing and Crying

May 7, 2010

Unemployment went up again?  How?  How is it possible that unemployment continues to grow?  It hit 10+%, held, slid down a little (very little), then began inching upward again.  Wasn't all of this "reform" supposed to fix that?  Well, according to Mr. Fantastic's own words, "We're going to get right on the jobs problem after we make a last run at healthcare."  That's what he said at the State of the Union speech and he's a man of his words...  Right?

Since Obamacare was crammed in our cheeks, he's gone after student loans, financial reform, cap & trade, off-shore drilling, and environmental regulations.  Next, according to his administration is further environmental regulation and then immigration reform, though, it won't make it on the floor of Congress till after the elections.

I can understand being sidetracked by pressing issues, truly, I can.  So, in the environment we've been in since his speech, he could surely be forgiven for focusing on the rise of extremism and terrorist activities in the country.   Whoops - hasn't done that.

He isn't doing it because he doesn't want to do it.  He can't do it either - he's ill-equipped.  He doesn't want unemployment to correct itself because he needs the American market to remain precarious and the workers to be stressed. Think back to the lesson s learned about Alinski and his traveling troop If things begin to improve, no one will listen to him.  Keep in mind that he's already fighting a very tough battle with his constituency.  The Dems are notoriously emotional, reactive and unstable on the fringes.  And, his voting base has the shortest of short attention spans.  Without Motor Voter, most of his people wouldn't have had the desire or wherewithal to register.  Nope - he needs to keep 'em coming back for more. 

We know also that he actually can't fix the unemployment issues either; he is ill-equipped for sure.  Lowering taxes on businesses and putting more money in the hands of the wealthy is the only tried and true method of creating jobs.  Both of which he'll never do.  Aside from the WPA style of socialism in the past, the closest OBAMA can come is to continue growing the government to offset job losses in the private sector.  As a Socialist, he is simply not capable of creating jobs - capitalists do it very well however.  That, in my opinion, is the surest litmus test of his political chemistry. 



Emergency Whitehouse Meeting with Wavering Democrats

March 4, 2010

"The president very pointedly talked about how important this is historically," said Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva (D - AZ), "how he needs our help."

Obama told them that, "this is an opportunity, it'll give us momentum on other issues," the congressman said.  Furthermore, the lawmaker said Obama assured him that the legislation was merely, "the first step, and he promised to work with [legislators] in the future to improve its provisions."  "It's the opportunity of a generation," Obama said, "and a chance to revive the party's agenda after [his] rough first year in office."

Allow me to translate:

"The fact that it stinks, the public doesn't like it and it's probably unconstitutional is unimportant - get the camel's nose under the tent, we'll shove the rest of it in later."

"... and then we'll fix the damage...  I promise."

"We're hurting in every poll and we need one in the 'W' column; no matter the cost."



More Puzzle Pieces Assembled For You

Somehow SEIU President Andy Stern passed muster to be nominated for the National Commission on Fiscal Responsiblity and Reform, so-named so that it can be declared a success without actually reducing any deficits I would guess.  If memory serves me correctly - he opposed the creation of this commission in the senate...  Probably because it would have actually had some teeth and would have been required to perform.  As an executive appointment he can continue visiting his new best friend at his favorite house!  Don't fret though, he’s not the only SEIU official (or Marxist) on a high level panel; SEIU’s Anna Burger sits on the Middle Class Task Force and the President’s Economic Recovery Board.  Additionally, Richard L. Trumka, Secretary & Treasurer of the AFL-CIO and Laura D'Andrea Tyson from the Haas School of Business at UC Berkeley are also members of the Recovery Board.  Leftist much? 

You really have to hear what Andy says in order to appreciate my point:  Justice for all  -  Change for change's sake Balance of power SEIU style Stop doing your jobs and confirm the leftist!

At any rate, for those of you who believe his "biography" that he offers as the beginning of his career - think again.  "Free Pizza" to attend a union meeting?  I think not - here's his real background:

Born in 1950 to radically left parents, he quickly followed in their footsteps by joining leftist movements in the 60's.  Do the math...  That means he was radicalizing prior to his 20th birthday.  So he graduates UPenn in 1971 and heads to Europe to travel...  He returns and enters the Midwest Academy to learn how to organize.  The records I found weren't clear, but I believe he was around 24 years old when he attended; that's one year after he joined the SEIU in 1974.  Some records indicate he entered the same year the academy opened (1973) which is the same year  he joined the union.  Kind of makes the, "Aww shucks, let's go eat some free pizza and listen to a speech about unions" biography ring hollow.

So - let's look back to the Letter to a Friend and review all of the players in it.  Then, go back and re-read the Midwest Academy link and see if you see some connections.  Once complete, go check out the Students for a Democratic Society.  That's the organization that seems to have influenced the bulk of the players...  You'll see names like:  Michael Harrington, Paul & Heather Booth, Bernadine Dohm, Mike Klonsky and Tom Hayden.  You'll notice the move to Chicago, you see references to The Progressive Labor Party, Black Power Movement, Young Socialist Alliance, The Black Panthers, The New Left, The Revolutionary Youth Movement, The Weathermen and ...  You guessed it - The Weather Underground. 

I cannot imagine how these two (Barak Obama & Andy Stern) seemingly anonymous, yet like-minded individuals, managed to find one another in this great big world... 

I think we're all watching a very elaborate, well planned, shenanigan in play.  Let's expose it.




What exactly is he?

FEBRUARY 27, 2010

For those of you who haven't figured it out - he is a socialist.  The same holds true for so many in the democrat party, the administrative staff and selectees of his lord and savior, Barack.  There is no debate, there can be no argument, their actions clearly demonstrate it.  The senators and representatives were typically held in check by the moderate majority, but the landslide in 2008 tipped the balance. 

The media, who we've come to rely on to vet a candidate in public prior to their ascension to the throne let us all down.  Instead of investigating his past actions, they wasted all of their energy on hoisting him to their shoulders.  This, in and of itself, should be a warning to those of us who have grown lazy in the past decades.  We can no longer afford to allow the press to tell us who is an acceptable candidate. 


The perfect political storm of socialism formed over Washington and if it wouldn't have been for the timely death of Ted Bundy, I mean Kennedy, the working Americans would be run over by OBAMACARE by now and TARP 2.0 would be being tunneled through our rear crevices.




FEBRUARY 21, 2010

Why am I stunned, you ask?  You tell me - is it because the administration is incompetent or is it because they are actually making a conservative effort to look that way in order to cover their true actions?  Let's look at the clues together:

Ok, so maybe they did fail to inform the Republicans that they were going to mirandize Dirty Skivvy (That's what I have dubbed the underwear bomber).  We'll chalk that up as an Oops.  As it turns out, they did question him for about 9 hours prior to giving him all of the legal rights of an American citizen instead of the 90 minutes they originally claimed.  We'll have to forgive them their foibles and miscommunications; it was a hectic time.  Luckily, due to Dirty's family arriving in the country, they did manage to coerce him to give some fruitful intel - ends justify the means - right?  Well, I contend that they don't - particularly in the case of this administration.  As a general rule I like to give a pass to people who succeed at getting the right thing done, because it's the right thing, no matter the means by which they do it.  I'm kind of a jerk that way I suppose.  I admit to being an "ends justifies the means" kind of guy, but only to folks who earn the right through actions - not people who fall luckily into it.  This event is just another malfunction in an already dilapidated machine.

So, moving right along to the next issue:  Iran.  The IAEA has finally come to grips with what the rest of the intelligence community has been aware of for a decade.  Hell, even France and Germany gave up the plight of the "poor Iranians being picked on by the Americans" a year ago.  The Russians are fed up with Iran, the Arab Nations have turned their backs and even the Chinese are wavering.  For those of you who aren't up to speed, the U.N. Security council is simply waiting on China to accept the terms of the sanctions in order to get them passed.  So what do we do?  We release a shipment of military technology to Taiwan, threaten trade sanctions on China and meet with the Dalai Lama. Any one of those actions would anger the Chinese - but all three in rapid succession?  It's almost as if we don't actually want to do anything about Iran's Military nuclear program... or our administration incompetent; you decide.  This, even in the wake of all of the reports coming out of the region that the Iranian military is slowly taking over control of the country.  I think we can all see where this is heading. 

As an aside, you have to wonder how much more Israel can take before they get tired of waiting for the rest of the U.N. to do their job. 

Just for the fun of it, let's all think back to all of the good work the U.N. has done - even when they had plenty of advanced notice.  How many times have they stopped an invasion, civil war, genocide or mass casualty event that they had plenty of notice about?  Scary isn't it?  You haven't managed to think of a single event have you?  So why, for the sake of humanity, would anyone think that the U.N. will intercede in time in Iran?  Doesn't matter - the administration is over there lobbying for it anyway.  You have to wonder if the U.N. isn't getting sick of the American's schizophrenic actions also...

2,000,000 jobs have been created or saved according to the administration.  In contrast with the reality that 14.8 (est.) million Americans are currently unemployed, that number seems insignificant.  Furthermore, that number does not include the number of people who have exhausted all of their unemployment benefits and have "fallen off the end" of the government's survey.  The actual percentage of able body Americans who are unemployed is rumored to be upwards of 20% and the numbers are ever-increasing.  Just as the latest round of reports indicated new claims decreased and unemployment decreased, the number of people "falling off" increased in exact proportion...  You don't have to be a scientist to understand what happened.  The government is spinning the data in ways seen never before and the friendly media is eating it up.  In other words - they are wrapping turd in sugary-goodness and telling you it's candy. 

I said it almost a year ago, "Now we've pissed away trillions of dollars to support the same bad actors, the same bad actions and spent absolutely nothing to correct the actual problem.  We were at the precipice, Obama and da boys knew it and they blinked.  Instead of taking a new approach, forging new paths and creating something new - they've chosen the status quo.  Tax & Spend, make promises to the workers they cannot support, tax the rich, and give to the poor...  This is the same lame set of tactics that have never worked before."  What has changed?  Anything? 

Did the process behind which the Administration's credit card reform pass into law inspire transparency or bi-partisanship yearnings within any of you?  Was it just the legislation you had hoped and longed for?  Did it help you in ways never seen before?  How about his Executive Order closing Gitmo?  On Jan 23, 2009 he ordered that Gitmo be closed within one year.  A year later - it's still open.  Why?  Because he didn't think before he spoke, and, worse yet - he didn't do his due diligence before he acted.  He has authored about 40 EOs in his one year term: a handful of new commissions, several revocations of previous presidential orders, a few refinements to previous orders and a number of refinements to his own previous orders.  Sadly, all of which indicate a staggeringly sickening pattern of failure.  Failure to think, failure to prepare, and failure to act appropriately.  I am nauseous after having read through each of them in the order they were issued. 

After reading the EO list, go check out the Czar list and watch the money.  Only a small portion (6 or 7 I think) are approved by congress, the rest are all cabinet level staff and/or appointees.  I agree - hiring the right people to do the job is critical, that's just good management.  But, giving them the power to represent you in decision making makes you irrelevant in business.  In politics and in government, it's illegal.  "Czars" conveying the power of the administration to enact punitively but also to subvert the constraints of the legislative branch's control of the purse is unconstitutional.   One is forced to consider how the Judicial branch views these postings... At best, it's another example of His stunning incompetence to hold the position.  At worst, it's yet another example of his stunning arrogance to flout the constitution and ramrod his agenda through in broad daylight.

Recently I wrote a series of commentaries to newspapers and websites, all of which were inspired by communications with other folks regarding the pattern of actions in the administration.  Some of you may recognize sections of the editorial, as it may have been you who helped me refine my point.  Some may also notice a similarity with Glen Beck's discussions as well.  Though Glen and I have similar opinions on socialism and constitutionalism, I trust that he managed to form his opinion based upon his own intellectual property.  Here is the final version in which I have titled it, LETTER TO A FRIEND, and it encompasses the thrust of my belief.

Bring on the discussion.  I invite everyone to take time to envision the lack of random actions and see the pattern for themselves before responding.  Support your view with proof and logic.  Keep your partisan drivel to yourself - as usual, I erase liberal and conservative meanderings.




** REALITY CHECK 2/21/10 **

I just spoke with someone last week about "knee-jerk reactions" and the reality that they always manage to deliver the wrong result.  In particular, we were speaking about the wave of conservatism sweeping across the country.  Just like the last election, where overwhelming dissatisfaction with Bush brought us Obama, I suggested that the same thing is going to happen in the mid-terms.  Even worse, I theorize that 2012 will, in fact, bring us a disaster...  Of a political kind of course, but a disaster nonetheless.  If the CPAC conference results are any indicator, I do not stand corrected.   Really people?  Ron Paul?  And, if that's not bad enough - Mitt Romney 2nd and Palin 3rd?  Well, I suppose that the conservatives can't really be considered much of a threat.  They seem to be stuck in the belief that there's nothing new to pick from so they're just going to pick from the herd. 

For the record:  Ron Paul ran in 2008 and couldn't cobble together a statistically significant percentage, Palin lost the ticket for the conservatives in 2008 (by most accounts) and Mitt dropped out because he got beat by the guy who lost.

I had high hopes for the Tea Party when it began.  I wanted to believe that a return to constitutionalism was going to spread like a virus and overwhelm both parties.  I wished for a return to the days where we didn't print more debt if we needed more money and to a time where we stopped giving money away that was needed here at home.  

I have been steadfast in preaching that "mob-rules" and hysterical majorities always deliver junk science, crap politics and absurd legislation...  I'm getting sick and tired of being right.  My one wish is that people would wake up.



What's the Media Done To Us?

August 31, 2009

Yes - Barack Obama is a socialist.  The same holds true for so many in the democrat party, the administrative staff and selectees of his lord and savior, Barack.  There is no debate, there can be no argument, their actions clearly demonstrate it.  The senators and representatives were typically held in check by the moderate majority, but the landslide in 2008 tipped the balance. 

The media, who we've come to rely on to vet a candidate in public prior to their ascension to the throne let us all down.  Instead of investigating his past actions, they wasted all of their energy on hoisting him to their shoulders.  This, in and of itself, should be a warning to those of us who have grown lazy in the past decades.  We can no longer afford to allow the press to tell us who is an acceptable candidate. 


The perfect political storm of socialism formed over Washington and if it wouldn't have been for the timely death of Ted Bundy, I mean Kennedy, the working Americans would be run over by OBAMACARE by now and TARP 2.0 would be being tunneled through our rear crevices.


800# Gorilla & the ELEPHANT in the room

MARCH 3, 2009

I know no one wants to say it, but the really big pachyderm hiding behind the curtains in the living room has to go tinkle...  You're going to have to acknowledge him (or her) sooner than you wish.  The 800# gorilla is going to make you look whether or not you want to - that's the beauty of being an 800# gorilla, you get what you want.

The Gorilla, in this episode, will be played by the fact that, EVERYTHING, continues to erode.  The stock markets continue to fall, gas prices do not follow the law of supply and demand, commodity markets are completely random players and the economy refuses to react to the actions of the administration and the legislature.

The Elephant is represented by the failure of any of the Administration's actions to have any positive effect.  Plenty of negative ones - but nothing beneficial.  As we have all discussed, since day one, the vast majority of the side effects in this catastrophe are purely perception-related.  Consumer confidence at the individual, commercial, industrial and financial levels are complete contrivities of the mind and the media.  Given that, the actions of the administration to improve confidence and increase stability should have had immediate results - but they haven't.  The market in general, Wall St. in particular and the consumers have all weighed in on the multiple stimulus packages.  If anyone was feeling confidence, it ain't showing.  I'd say the perception has not been altered one iota.

The shadow being cast here is actually quite ominous.  I predicted that the markets would slingshot below a simple reset (correction) if, in fact, the administration failed to fix the problem at the root of this financial Armageddon.  Now we have the S&P and the DOW at pre-1996 levels.  Oil prices and the commodities indices are all chaotically split and nothing appears to be tracking logically.  I'd say that RECESSION has been passed and what we are now dealing with is a textbook DEPRESSION.  

Now we've pissed away trillions of dollars to support the same bad actors, the same bad actions and spent absolutely nothing to correct the actual problem.  We were at the precipice, Obama and da boys knew it and they blinked.  Instead of taking a new approach, forging new paths and creating something new - they've chosen the status quo.  Tax & Spend, make promises to the workers they cannot support, tax the rich, and give to the poor...  This is the same lame set of tactics that have never worked before.

LET THE HATE MAIL FLOW!  I can take it - hit me with your best shot.  I'll continue this segment when it doesn't hurt to type.  I invite everyone to take time to envision the lack of random actions and see the pattern for themselves before responding.  Support your view with proof and logic.  Keep your partisan drivel to yourself - as usual, I erase liberal and conservative meanderings.



News Flash 3/20/2009

Well folks, while the nation was busy watching the news, getting all the nasty details of Senator Dodd's dirty dealing and AIG's bonuses, the Federal Reserve did something diabolical.  They printed $1,000,000,000,000.00 and dropped it via helicopter into the American economy.

I understand why they did it, Ben and Tim both are trying like hell to avoid a depression - but I have some bad news:


What it effectively will do:  raise the cost of everything in the U.S., devalue the worth of everything, downgrade the value of the dollar vs. every other currency, and cause other countries to make haste in avoiding the greenback.  This, in turn, will cause the value to fall even more. 

{With all due sarcasm} There's the big tax break we were all being promised...  Right?




A Call to Action

January 25, 2009 – Updated – January 26, 2009

One is forced to consider the potential that the GOP is trying to make sure that they have no chance for a victory in the near future; given their actions of late.  Certainly, in two years time there will be no hope, at the rate they are going.  The solid (deserved) beating they took in the last round of elections appears to have done little to promote thought amongst the Republican ranks and I'm a little surprised.  Independents are rushing away from them like the building is on fire, the moderates are hunkering down and staying out of sight, whilst the Democrats have suddenly become unified.  Even the fringe elements are being welcomed into the fold (I predict this will cause problems later).  Is this really going to be a congress that does everything through partisan tactics - unless there's a filibuster? 

That's what the Stimulus Package Debate appears to be headed for...  Well - I'm, once again, calling for you folks to react.  Here's how it's shaping up so far - we can discuss the actions required at the end.  Not a lot of time for debate on this one though, Congress appears to be poised to do their bidding based solely on "oneupsmanship."  The issue:

A)  GOP wants nothing but traditional tax cuts to stimulate the economy.  They feel that a "green" push is too expensive, too slow, indeterminable in outcome and ultimately - ineffective.  We all know that that is just wrong and we need to quickly school our legislators.  Tax breaks & incentives are not the best or only answer.  There has to be construction, spending and value added to the country.  The GOP is barking and we need to swat ‘em on the nose with a newspaper.  Then, leave the paper with them so they can read it!

B)  The Dems. aren't debating/discussing at all.  They aren't offering details or specifics - only painting with broad brushes.  "Infrastructure" & "3,00 miles of new power lines,"  are not details Barack.  Tax cuts and incentives are also important.  Businesses must have a financial incentive to act.  Fiduciary responsibility to lenders & investors far outweighs the urge to be environmentally responsible.  A good leader would know this – so, give ‘em some incentives darn it.

Not withstanding, both are right and each is wrong - all independently of their points.  As we've all discussed, this issues will require the best mix of both.  Short term fixes to keep things moving (tax breaks - tax cuts) and infrastructure improvements and additions to employ folks in addition to increasing the value of our country. 

This ain't rocket science.  Call, write and e-mail your legislators and administrators.   Tell them to stop the kindergarten playground antics and compromise for cripe's sake.  It is absurd that this is becoming so contentious.  We can discuss the details of a real plan, beginning....   Now - let the thoughts (and emails) begin!!!

Here is the Obama speech on Monday.  It is purported to be the details of his plan, so, let’s cross our fingers and look for the “meat” he’s been teasing us with. 

Follow the link: Presidential Address

Darn – he forgot the substance.  Well, I’ll give him this much – If those are really his words, then I’d say he, “He get’s it.”  At the very least, from the tone, content and demeanor of his oration, he does understand the duality of the precipice we’re at.  He respects the danger and appreciates the beauty, but he appears poised to act nonetheless.  I certainly hope so.  Courage, as most of us know and have discussed, is being fearful of the task – be it daunting or just dangerous – and still willing to perform.  

I support him 100%, if he follows through on his beautiful monologue.  


Who's Zooming Who

January 17, 2009


Protests across the Middle East - I can understand (sort of).  But does anyone have a clue what's going on with the rest of the world?  Has everyone lost their marbles?  I mean - SERIOUSLY people, what's the thinking?  The Palestinians, no matter what their motivation is, invited this retaliation upon themselves and to assert otherwise is purely ridiculous.  The outrage voiced by governments across Europe is preposterous and I'm embarrassed to say that I am descended from that region of the world.

I can only imagine what France or Spain would do if the Algerians continuously fired unguided munitions, indiscriminately and relentlessly at populous areas within their countries.  Mortars, rockets and missiles - OH MY!  Ceaselessly, un-aimed weapons of terror being hurtled at their civilian population centers to do nothing other than keep the people scared...  That's what the Palestinian Hamas "soldiers" have been doing.  The are differentiated from the "Martyrs" in that they are strapping bombs to themselves, their children and their women before sneaking into populated areas to detonate.  At least they are (usually) trying to target Military/Police.  Unconventional warfare is nothing new to that region and is an oft-employed tactic when there is a rag-tag bunch vs. a professional standing military.

If you do not have the stomach for the Israeli defense of their country, their citizenry and their sovereignty - don't watch the news.  But, until you have considered the facts of the situation, keep your criticism to yourself.  I can only imagine America's response if the Canadians or the Mexicans did the same thing to us...  There would be no delay and we'd have 51 states by Friday.  Here's a wake-up call for the Palestinian sympathizers:  "You want a diplomatic solution to your belief that you got screwed in years gone by?  Use diplomacy, not terrorism!"


Start spending money.  We are now, and that includes most of us, in what can only be termed, "A Self-fulfilling Prophecy."   In this case, it is the media that has been pushing it, although its beginning rests with the government.  Yes - the economy is in trouble.  Yes - the financial sectors of the world screwed up and deserve a solid beating.  Yes - the governments of the world who allowed the absolutely fantastic amount of disproportionate leverage should be beaten by a sock full of quarters while they have bags over their head.  All are very valid points, however; the citizens of the world contributed as well. 

From the privileged (but undeserving) who purchased 1000% more than they could afford in a single lifetime to the unsuspecting that should have known better; you are no different than the bad people on Wall Street.  To those who have more credit card debt than you'll make in 10 years, I say, "How dare you point the finger at hedge fund managers when you have done the exact same things you accuse them of."  If you and your spouse make $75,000 (combined), and you have a new house and 2 new cars, you have no right to wag your finger at Lehman Bros., Citibank  or any other institution who over-leveraged themselves. 

The time for finger-pointing is not, by any stretch of the imagination, over, but - it is time to move forward and kick-start the economy.  It must run, else we run the risk of stalling.  We can capture and punish the perpetrators after we save the victims, but we need money to do both.  A necessary and inevitable contraction of the business sector is taking place now.  Rebound must follow it and the time to re-start has come.  If we wait too long, "contraction" will turn into "depression" and the only road out of a depression is long and painful.  World-wide, in all but one case, a complete and utter collapse occurred prior to a recovery from a depression.  That does not need to happen here; we can rescue ourselves.  In fact, we must rescue ourselves, the government cannot do it.  We no longer have an economy based upon actual value - it is based solely on perceived worth.  That means that we control our own destiny.  Take the power away from the media to control our economy.  With your dollars & sense - spend (wisely) but spend.  Buy a car if you need one, even if you have to choose a higher interest rate than 0%.  Re-mortgage your house if you can find a better rate or adopt a pet to dress up the old home.  Repaint the old home or throw some monster tires on the family grocery-getter, just don't use credit.  Buy clothing or buy food, re-model the house or take a vacation.  All will provide much needed cash in the hands of American business. 


Obama's stimulus package isn't going to work.  Spending money, unfettered, will simply send cash overseas again.  Once it's there, the rest of the world will - once again - start manufacturing for us, reaping monetary benefits large enough to re-lend us the money we just gave them.  It's a vicious circle that needs to be allowed to wither and die.  We must get to our Congressional Reps and Senators before it's too late.  The last Administration, the Fed and the Treasury managed to slow the bleeding, but the real damage control came by way of the world-wide nature of the crisis.  Yes, the crisis itself managed to narrow the financial vacuum leak on its own.  The trade deficit shrank significantly since the beginning of this mess, and that's a good thing.  By ordering less from the rest of the world nations we use as our manufacturing sector, we have kept our wealth here.  In turn, they have lost money and have begun to divest in us, further returning cash to our shores.  Obviously, if they are divesting, they are also not investing, making our economy shrink even more.  This is a double-kiss for us that, though it is painful, has allowed us to contract in a controlled fashion.  The economic retreat also forces the other nations to invest in themselves - raising their value and self-sufficiency.  Countries like China will not do it on their own (during good times) so it's a great thing that they are being forced to now.  Add to it that the global nature of the crisis has driven oil demand to all-time-lows, inflation is non-existent due to the offsetting gains in pricing.  Yeah for us!  This is almost a perpetual motion machine.

Here's exactly why we need to start putting the brakes on now though.  If we are not proactive, an avalanche of financial despair will take over and we'll go back to hiding cash in mattresses; keeping even more cash out of the pipeline.    Obama's plan for stimulation calls for increased spending on infrastructure.  That's not a bad thing, but it needs to be more precise.  Insist on purchasing the steel and aggregate from American producers only.  Do not import anything for the projects and keep the cash here.  He calls for increased spending on alternative energy projects, most of which will go to Europe.  Hold that thought Barack; let's blow the stimulus money on increasing our own output of standard energy products to keep the cash here in the country.  We'll export the money later when things improve.  Tax breaks for the businesses, the middle class and the poor.  I have a better idea:  tax breaks for the businesses who need them, cash for the middle class and jobs for the poor.  Do not give them (the businesses or the poor) cash, they'll just blow it and be right back where they started.  "A new generation of research," is what he calls for.  "Research into medicines, sciences and social programs to better mankind," are further refinements of his notion.  Again, I'm for it - but - with limits.  Hold the social engineering for the socialists, we aren't there yet.  Give money to the colleges to research medicines, biology, chemistry, etc., etc. and require them to sign the patents of their work over to the U.S. Government.  The govt., once the research is complete, can license the intellectual property rights to the highest/lowest bidder for implementation at a later date.  All proceeds would be reinvested into the same system that bore fruit.

Overall, the plan as being negotiated now, is going to mortgage our debt to our children at which point the exact same meltdown will occur to them.  Just like Wall Street, the government can not manage being over-leveraged by a thousand percent.  I'm still in favor of multiple "Manhattan Project-styled programs" to turn America into the world leader in environmental stewardship and space exploration.  If we threw all of our weight into the subjects, I'm certain that we could recreate our economy in a way that would inspire the rest of the world.  While at the same time, increase our knowledge of the subjects by several orders of magnitude, we could rescue ourselves from financial disaster and save the world.  Not a bad concept in my opinion.


I assume that most everyone has forgotten about Zimbabwe; again.  It's sad really.  What about Somalia, Mali, Indonesia, Bangladesh and the rest of the developing world?  Yes - you've probably forgotten about them too.  Does anyone really care, or are they more concerned with "Pop-Tart parts" that just happen to get photographed whenever they are uncovered?  I understand the power that bare, twenty-something crotches on display must hold over the population, but one would think that we could somehow manage to persevere...  I'm not a Utopian, you know that, but the fact that we so quickly abandon our morality is a little disheartening.  I oft-wonder what it will take for our population to truly rise to the challenge and concern ourselves with something much greater than just getting by.  No longer do I waste time wondering what "the answer" is, now I find myself mired in thought about "why no one seems to care about the question" anymore.  In times like this it is not all that surprising that many of us hunker down and just try to survive intact, but it is exactly times like these that could best be used to redefine ourselves.  We could do it in such a way as to, not only survive, but help others and move progress forward in a very positive way.

I suppose that I should go back a few steps first.  "The question" that I referred to earlier...  It's not just a question, but a questioning that I contemplate.  Einstein, Feynman, Bohm and Heisenberg in their waning years, questioned why so many are in such a hurry to accept answers instead of fight to gain understanding.  I have been lucky enough to experience this crisis of thought in [what I believe] is my prime - plenty of time to struggle, suffer and ultimately do something with it.  In subjects such as Religion, the Standard Models of Physics and Astrophysics, Science in general, education and Politics, I seek to gain an understanding that will ultimately lead to a revolution in thought.  I'm bothered by the fact that everything appears to be running counter to nature (or a natural process), from soup to nuts, and I'd like very much to decipher the underlying reason why.

I have to admit that there is sense of satisfaction for me whenever I manage to interpret the patterns of society correctly enough to make a successful prediction; this I admit.  The discontent emerges when it dawns on me that a full 50% of my predictions are skewed toward the opposite of what should occur.  Given that all things should follow a natural path, in a sense "organic," the results are unreasonably troubling.  The sad fact that is, I have routinely predicted the exact opposite of what I calculate should happen and I'm right a full 90% of the time.

Those of you who have hung around since the beginning know that I predicted Obama's victory in the 2008 presidential race the day he won his senatorial bid.  I did  it, not for ironic insult, but because I just knew that things were going badly and headed for worse.  Too often, as evidenced by the voter reaction to the Madrid train bombings, people's thoughts and actions rotate from logic 180º in times of unrest.  Given the crisis, it's worth considering a law that postpones mass public political outings during distressing times...  Our past indicates a clear trend of poor [democratic] decision making under pressure.  How else can you explain Hamas in control in Palestine, Hilary as the Secretary of State or the potential that Caroline Kennedy may be the next Senator from New York?    Face it - we can hardly be trusted to make educated decisions in the first place, but under pressure, we make the worst ones imaginable.  The question is "why" - why do we appear to be hell-bent on ...  Well, that's where my head's at these days.



The “NEW New Deal”

December 17, 2008

Good day to you.  My apologies for the delay, but times have been busy of late.  With all of the interesting things going on in the world; the media blitzes, the economy and the lame-duck session in progress, I have had entirely too much to pay attention to.

I’m going to start out by giving credit where credit is due – never let it be said that I do not acknowledge positive actions, even when they are executed by someone I do not care for.

#1 - Obama has done the un-thinkable…  He’s put a scientist in charge of science.  For the Christians of the world, I’d say that “Ole Red” is finally on the ice; and the end is near. 

#2 - Though putting new technology for the environment on the forefront was a no brainer and an emphasis on science was assured in Dub-yuh’s wake, we’ll have to give him credit for that too; for now.  He’s making all the noise – let’s see if he executes. 

#3 - It is good to see that his late-election rightward shift to the middle has continued as well, adopting a more moderate stance on the issues will serve us all well.

#4 - It looks like he's stood straight on his word; he has reached across the aisle and picked a Republican for his staff.  Well, sort of ...  Robert Gates as the (continuing) Secretary of Defense is somewhat of another "no-brainer" since you never rotate the Defense Secretary when an administration changes hands while on a war footing.  Gates is also a registered Independent.  Well, let's give Obama credit for him nonetheless.

#5 - His stimulus idea hinges on development, infrastructure and capitalizing on what America does better than the rest of the world - INNOVATION.  Good idea, wish I'd though of it. ;)

Having said the above, it wouldn’t be “me” if I didn’t call out your attention to a handful of  concerns as well.

#1 - Hillary as our Foreign Affairs leader (Sec. ‘o State)??  OH GOD, Why??  Yes, I know, she was popular with 25% of the voting public - I get it, but still, McCain was twice as popular and he didn't get picked for a post!?!  Just kidding.  Keep your friends close and your enemies closer...  I get it.  Moving along.

#2 - He whole-heartedly supports the auto industry bailout and has made it clear that it will happen…  I disagree with his idea in its entirety.  This industry must be allowed to fail so that it can break the extreme union expenses and reshuffle the deck.  I am appalled to hear the details of the sweetheart deal the Auto Workers have.  Jesus, and they criticize the CEO’s golden parachutes.  Maybe I should join the UAW.  Boo…   Boo…

#3 – Investing in science & technology but divesting in oil exploration is offsetting – muting the potential benefits.  Clearly we want the former, but the latter must occur in the short term to pay for the long term.  Keep in mind, you have to break ribs, cut muscle and spill a lot of blood to perform LIFE SAVING open-heart surgery.  Sometimes, you have to get a little dirty to get the job done right.  Open the oil reserves, explore for more, use what we have until we get to the point we do not need it any more.

#4 - Richardson is a turd, flush him before he stinks up the whole room.  His lying and self-important activities will catch up with him sooner now that he's a considered appointee - mark my words.

#5 - The economy cannot be stimulated by giving poor people money.  Noble as his intentions may be, giving money to the poor will not create jobs, build houses, sell (or buy in this economy) houses or create wealth.   In the same light, tax credits are not the same for the middle-class as they are for businesses.  Give the middle-class cash, they'll do the right thing with it.  Give the businesses tax breaks, they'll capitalize on them and do the right thing.


The price of oil is falling (it won't last) as is our concern for alternatives.  Obama had better act quickly before the desire disappears again.  Our fickle environmentalism is well documented.  I doubt we'll see oil at $25 a barrel, but it'll get close and our planetary stewardship will hit an equally obvious all-time low. 

Stay tuned, I'll be back shortly.



October 17, 2008

I'm going to do something here that I abhor.  It is something I never do (publicly) and I really resent being asked to do it...  I'm going to give advice to those who have inundated me with emotion-filled requests to help them recover what they lost due to the conclusion of the economic rave party Wall Street was throwing.  Here's why I hate it:  In my humble opinion, the same folks who are asking for advice are the ones who were criticizing my predictions and willfully taking the "X" that the brokers were dispensing, beginning last year.  I'm a firm believer in "survival of the fittest" and what I'm about to do is akin to dragging the weaker species along with the stronger through the transition...  I hate to sound like your mother, but, the chipped teeth, sore muscles, empty pockets and sweaty clothes sound like a personal problem.  I'm not happy anyone has lost money, but I hardly feel sorry for those that knowingly "got high" and now they're feeling guilty the morning after.

Let's refer to my November 2, 2007 post for a moment.  That's the one that begins, "We are in a recession."  Well, not here to brag, I'm just trying to go over a detail or two.  I took my own advice (the last paragraph) and am weathering the storm nicely...  I'm up 3% from the year before.  I truly hope that some of you who are coming here have made similar progress.  For those of you who have not (you know who you are) - hang in there.  It is too late to divest from items you've seen decrease beyond 40%.  The warehouse you've been partying in is on fire.  Let me be clear on this point:  Patterns are great, and recognizing them IN TIME is a beautiful thing, but realizing them late makes them hindsight.  People do not make (or keep) money by trading in hindsight.  My own father failed to catch this, and I give him (lots of) credit for being a pretty astute thinker, and is now working with 60% of what he had 10 months ago.  STAY THE COURSE.  To bail out now will be solidifying your losses and will preclude you from netting any gains once the markets rebound.  I say that while making one assumption (that they will rebound) and while interjecting one caveat (watch carefully for the opportune moment to divest). 

Now, you must be asking, "Why make the assumption?  Is it because it always rebounds?"  HELL No - this would be a logical fallacy, given that rebounds have always occurred in areas of opposition to the original failure.  That would be, if this were a standard economic down turn, suicide.  In other words, if your losses were in telecom-based Mutual Funds, history tells us that the recovery for the indices would come in energy or technology.  Those funds would wind up dissolving (along with their value) and reemerging as a tech/energy fund.  This is called "cut & run" & hopefully that makes sense.  Anyway, this hangover is not like that .  What makes it different is that so many financial institutions & businesses have investments in the same troubled areas that most areas are affected and are tugging on one another.  Imagine that all of the partiers are equally coming down off of the same tainted ecstasy "X" at the same time and are relying on one another to get out of the burning building.  It's a conga line of sore, sweaty, broke and barely conscious addicts carrying one another to the door they can't find. 

SIDE NOTE:  If only the Fire Marshall (Government) would have enforced existing codes, there might have been emergency exit signs, sprinklers and an alarm so that so many aren't wandering around lost and getting trampled in the crush to leave.  It would also help if the police (Treasury & Fed) would figure out how to get the folks out of the building. 

No, in this case, Wall Street needs to get value back in the exact same places it lost it.  In this instance, the value of the ultimate "durable good" (housing) is at the root of the problem, therefore - value has to come back to it (even brokers own homes).  If value returns to housing our entire problem improves (operating sprinklers turn on in the building).  The damage will still be there - bodies will still be on the floor and the hangover will remain, but we'll survive to party another day.  "Cut & Run" will not work for the players (Pimps & Dealers) - they have too much to lose.

Alright, let's quickly investigate the caveat I interjected; knowing when you have to bail out of the problem stocks/securities and munis.  First, believe me when I tell you that the brokers/banks & businesses who got us into this mess DO NOT CARE IF YOU GET OUT.  They only care to see themselves emerge - hence why they lobbied for a bailout package that gave them cash, resolved debt, loosened (their) credit and stabilized (their) volatility.  For those who think it will be best to wait until 100% of value returns to their portfolio, I wish you well.  "It ain't gonna happen," in the terms of today's common vernacular.  By that time, 100% of the aforementioned pimps & dealers would have recovered 100+% of their losses (adjusted for the bailout package contributions) and would have begun to sell off.   What you need to watch is the PE ratio adjusted for trade volume of the firms involved in your particular hangover.  Compare the May 2007 ratio to October 2008 and when you see it return to the former - jump out of the plane (start making plans to move the money)...  When you see the ratio (profitability) jump sharply (due to sell-off), pull the cord and sell with them.  Of course, this will require that you have a place to move your investments to ahead of time.  Paddle, watch the swells and compare your distance to the shore; you'll make it if you grab the good wave in front of the monster.  Grab the big wave because you're greedy to make it all back quickly (like everyone else will try) and you'll get pushed off the board in the jumble - hit the water and drown when a bigger surfer rides over you.

We could use a President who isn't afraid to come right out and say, "Times are tough, but we're going to make it.  Value is going to return to the mortgages because of the aforementioned program, so start lending again or die.  Suffering is a part of survival - so get used to it.  Hysteria is making the problem worse, so we're going to remove all possible ways that people & businesses can affect the markets through hysterical actions.  All of us were living the high-life for awhile there, so we can now all enjoy the hangover together."  Obama isn't going to say that - he still thinks the bailout package has hope.  McCain might say it, but I'm not clear on what he's thinking in general.  I do give him credit for trying to highlight the fact that the mortgages are the root of the problem - not the credit markets and Wall Street's fear.

So, here's my opinion on what we should do:

First, let's recognize that it is a fast moving situation that is now changing daily due to the complexity of the problem.  Second, there is no way around it - we must suspend the "Capitalism at all costs" mentality which pervades our business/financial sector.  What began as a meltdown in the housing market due to rising energy costs and the pressure those costs caused across the entire spectrum, has turned into a "depression-like" hysteria.  Just like the Great Depression (GD), we are dealing with side-effects that are not related to the actual problem.  Sadly, our government is following the same failed premise that they did in 1929-1930; they are chasing side-effects.  What makes it almost comical is that they are doing it and proclaiming the value of the lessons they learned from the GD and others in foreign nations since.  That's just funny - I don't care how much money you've lost.  Anyway, by injecting cash, cash, cash into the markets - they are trying to chase away fear.  By guaranteeing loans and insuring deposits they are chasing away fear.  By bailing out firms, taking control of others and buying up bad debt - they are...  Yep, same thing; chasing fear again.  It is important to point out that all of this transpired after-the-fact.  That makes it a reaction to a reaction.  For the scientists here, we all know that there is no way to get to first properties through an S3 when P1 is larger.  LOL.  For the Laymen (& Women), we aren't dealing with getting virginity back - she's pregnant and no amount of birth control will fix it!

In my opinion, the bailout package is akin to getting the pimps and dealers high so that they'll share their stash with the lesser pimps, dealers and middlemen.  Eventually, they'll be so stoned that they will begin to give away more "X" to the rest of the folks, again.  Viola - crises averted.  No one is supposed to notice, I suppose, that everyone is stoned...  I would offer that this needs to be treated just like an addiction.  We need to leave the addicts to recover, painfully, and the Bad Actors need to be cut off.  Here's how I would do it:


Put a 1 year moratorium on all account closings, return to a 1 hour trade delay in the markets, permanently ban the short sell and require the government to approve all credit & value devaluations prior to their release to the public.  Stop all foreclosures & bankruptcy, business and residential.  We are going to force everyone to stick with the mess they got themselves into.  Calculate the standard rate of rise for housing value over the past 25 years, excluding 2003-2006.  Extrapolate that number across all realty sales for the period 2003 to current, readjust the values and apply it.  Force everyone in the country to remortgage at that adjusted number with a fixed rate, not to exceed 7% for residential 7.5% for business.   Any individual with $10K or family with $15K in credit debt will automatically be issued a "bankruptcy lite" if they apply for it.  All credit debt will be absolved, but luxury items may be seized (4 HD TVs, 2 new vehicles and the Comcast Triple-Play Gold per house could be considered excessive).  There will be a 5 year penalty instated - no new credit may be issued; excluding medical and/or funeral related charges.  A special exception may be sought for education loans that will be managed by the government for the affected individuals.  Businesses will be offered a similar "Modified Ch.-13" that would only affect creditors - not vendors even if they were treated as creditors.  Creditors would be given a temporary stake in the company, including but not limited to, controlling interest in order to regain their investment.  Regulation to insure that growth occurred and not divestiture (rip up & sell off or relocation to a foreign location) would be installed to control the methods available.

Remove all subsidies for fossil-fuel producers, refiners and re-sellers.  Put a one year moratorium on all capital gains taxes, extend the inheritance tax deferment another 2 years, and double the 1st time home buyer's rebate.  Subsidize new home manufacture in areas of previous use and tax the hell out of new developments in previously undeveloped areas.  In other words, penalize expansion and reward land re-use.  This tends to build housing and business close to the people instead of increasing sprawl - thereby requiring lower resource expenditure.  Wall Street would be given exactly ZERO dollars to purchase bad debt.  This is the group that created all of the methods and means to value, re-value, package, sell, re-sell, re-value and re-sell (over and over again) the same thing until it's sale price was so overly inflated.  All the while making huge profits,  they get to "give a little back" now.  If they are broke and have nothing left to give - see the above paragraph, it applies to them too.  If they have money because they were smart enough to not invest in the risky business - good for them, now they can help the less fortunate! 

Halt all utility increases for 1 year with an automatic rollover for following years unless voted & acted upon by the government to remove the blockade.  This would make it in complete opposition to the way government typically works.  Yes - watch inflation increase, I know that - but bear with me.  I have a plan to drive the price of fuel (utility company's largest expense) into the toilet to offset any required prices increases. 

  • Provide vouchers for fuel based upon mileage driven to work, adjusted for family number.  This would force metropolitan citizens to mass transit.

  • Decrease automobile safety standards to 1970s regulations and decrease the speed limits on all roads (except highways) to numbers commensurate with adjusted safety standards.  Ban lower standard cars from highways.  Increase fuel efficiency standards to 65 mpg for all "reduced safety standard" vehicles.

  • Mandate & fund "green-energy" requirements for all new developments.  Green roofing, solar, wind, geo-thermal and hydro-electric power requirements for all new community planning.  Do not recommend it, do not promote it - require it.

  • Recall all troops from overseas, recall the Navy to within 26 miles of our shores and keep the Airforce within the same national borders.  Return all reservists and Air National Guard to inactive reserve.  This alone will return enough fuel to our domestic supplies to keep 10 power plants operating. 

  • Switch 50% of resulting massive Military budget surplus to clean/green energy research, the other 50% to clean/green energy implementation work projects.  We'll have a well disciplined former National Guard workforce available to employ for this process...

That should be plenty to keep fuel prices down and make sure that utility price stagnation doesn't cause inflation.  Hell, that should have an overall ripple effect through the economy as well, and a beneficial one at that.  Good for us - now, let's see what we can do about putting a little "brick & mortar" under our house of cards so we don't get tricked into thinking a financially based economy will work again.  Subsidize all new "domestic business" through tax credits at the state and federal level.  Make it 4 years on income and investment - 5 years on profits and gains.  This would not pertain, in any way, shape or form to foreign investment in brick & mortar domestically.  We do not need to entice more foreign investment that ultimately leads to cash running out the door.  Inspire domestic spending for domestic spenders.  Limit the purchase of all new environmental technology to domestic producers at first, then allow for international partnerships after 3 years.  That will help both the U.S. and Europe through this process.  Yes, I am a touch "isolationist" - but someone's got to be if we want to have value underlying our cash.  If the EU would adopt a similar plan, they too would benefit.

To be continued...  I just ran out of time - Bubba is demanding my undivided attention.



The Perfect Storm

June 26, 2008

Anyone else out there stunned that Congress has just realized that the price of oil is being artificially inflated by the speculative rhetoric espoused on the commodities market?  Seriously now, is there anyone out there that is as confused as I am that they just realized this?  I keep waiting for the press to announce that the American public is being "Punk'd" with these hearings...

Of course the speculators have been driving the price of oil up!!  Jesus H. Christ, how is it that they just had this epiphany?  I'm of the opinion that this is just proof positive that they have been asleep at the frickin wheel for the past 15-20 years.  Either that, or they can no longer hide behind hypocrisy and are forced to admit that even greed cannot continue to drive this failing market.  Democracy is lost and Capitalism has taken over, this we know - but the artificially inflated prices for the largest (consumed) commodity in the U.S. is killing the middle class.  The poor and the rich alike are screwed without the middle class to lift them up, hold them down, feed them and do their bidding.  Retail, Industrial and commercial sectors are falling like rocks, employment statistics are tanking, all prices are increasing and even the recovering housing market is starting to slide. 

"Stagflation" is the new buzzword being over used by the media, but I'm here to tell you that it doesn't matter what you call it; the position we're in sucks.  The fact that the economy is stalling means that wage increases won't happen on anything likened to a large scale.  Without wage increases, potential incremental increases in consumption and spending disappears.  In fact, most sectors will predominately see a decrease in sales and only the lucky ones will remain flat.  Wall Street is where the beating will occur by the publicly traded institutions; the unemployment offices country-wide where the private groups will show us how bad it is.  Crime will rise as unemployment,  foreclosures and bankruptcy increases, erasing all gains made in most of the country.  This will make the bulk of the federal and state dollars spent on crime prevention over the past 15 years wasted money. 

Thank God (which ever one you choose to acknowledge) the next President will be there to rescue us from this impending disaster...  Sure would have been nice to select an individual from either party that had a clue as to how to fix this goddamn catastrophe - but instead, we chose:

A well-spoken (albeit incompetent) dud who hasn't the experience to repair a torn sheet of paper and,

A waffler who, admittedly, has little domestic experience and has little to offer on the subject of the economy.

Good work America!

This week I wrote & sent letters to every congressman, senator and department head in the executive branch (including George and Dick) in a continuing effort to compel them to DO SOMETHING.  I have now sent 1,214 letters in the past 26 days.

Let me reiterate:  I implore those of you who have an opinion to share it with your (s)elected monarchy in Washington and get involved.  99% of the population is on the sideline
or out of gas on the side of the road so nothing is being done.  Don't let them wait until the next administration to do something...  We all know that's the kiss of death.


Just marking time until the big 4th O' July Bash - Wish you all could attend.



A Strategy for Defeating the Democrats in November

February 4, 2008

While communing with the universe this weekend I had a rogue thought that seemed a somewhat entertaining diversion - so I followed it to its logical conclusion.  I think most folks have written off the Republicans (no matter how liberal they may be) in 2008; intimating that they are powerless in the wake of Dubyuh.  Having said that, I started wondering...  Has Bush really neutered the party as CNN & NPR have proclaimed?  Does he hold any power to change the Republican situation, or is he really a lame duck?  Well, I think there are a whole lot of people out there who may have underestimated the two powers he does maintain at full strength:  1)  The Executive Order, 2) The power of being Commander-in-Chief.

Not that I truly care one way or another who wins, though I do have a preference, I can think of a very simple way to make certain that the Democrats are no longer a foregone conclusion in November.  Follow the recipe below:

As Commander-in-Chief

  1. Wait until after the Democrat candidate has been chosen, then choose yours.

  2. Proclaim that the battle in Iraq is complete and we've won - then secretly convince the Iraqi government to publically announce that they are comfortable with taking over security.

  3. Announce that you are drawing the troops back by 25% per month, replacing them with Iraqi forces.

  4. Divert 20% of the troops and money to Afghanistan to bring it to a quick conclusion.

  5. Choose a young(er) female running mate if you are male and over 65.

The Executive Order

  1. In September, increase national oil reserves to full capacity and decree that they will remain that way for the next 2 years.  Make it clear to OPEC that they need us as much as we need them.

  2. Divert 50% of the approved military (wartime) budget for 2008-2009 to a Manhattan Project for alternate energy sources.

  3. October 1st, reduce the military troop strength to 2002 totals.

  4. October 15th, sign an executive order providing immunity from prosecution, all intelligence agencies for past practices in war, interrogation and imprisonment.  Then, ban all forms of torture while adopting the U.N.'s anti-torture dogma.

  5. November 1st, join the Kyoto Protocol.

I predict that the Democrats would deliver the lowest turnout in history and the republican base would be confused to the point of nausea...  Now we have a level playing field.

Invariably people will flood my email with questions so, here is my opinion of the upcoming election:

Obama, though very passionate and motivating, has less than ZERO experience; he'll need an old-time (white) man as a running mate to get elected.  Sad but true, racism exists in this country.  Hillary was a First Lady to a President who suffers the worst reputation for morality in history...  This qualifies her for what?  I doubt she'll make it to the convention, but if she does pull off a miracle, she'll need to choose an experienced male to get elected.  Again, sad but true - this country isn't ready for a woman president.  Maybe a V.P., but let's leave that up to McCain.  Both Hillary and Barack are junior Senators (Having spent 1/2 of their time stumping) and haven't the experience to formulate foreign policy without the aid of their (more experienced) staffers.  George suffered from this as well and we're looking to repeat that?  Democrat or Republican - No Experience cuts both ways.  Prior to their "Senatorial escapades" neither of them had any experience that would qualify them to do much more than make inspirational speeches.  McCain, at least, knows the name of the dignitaries who come to dinner and has practiced diplomacy for more than a month or two.  He has also served in the military, therefore we can be somewhat certain that he won't salute with his left hand.  He's a flip-flopper though and his latest change of heart on a few "suddenly-conservative" issues is an issue for me.  He'll need a younger partner - possibly a soccer mom with lots of domestic experience to pull independents and conservative liberals away from Obama and/or Hillary.

The smart money is on ...


I guess the Global Economy ain't as "Global" as we thought...

January 18, 2008

Well folks, I predicted the situation we're in on November 2 of last year.  Sadly, Greenspan screwed us all and Ben didn't react quickly enough to stop it.  George couldn't get out of the way of this train and the Congress wasn't smart enough to realize there was a train behind the light at the end of the tunnel.  That darn whistle didn't give it away...  They must have thought it was the factory next door...  Oh, wait a second - couldn't have been a factory - they've sent all of them to China.  Moving right along...

"Stimulus"  -  That will be the word of the day in the very near future.  Ben and the boys will be looking for a way to jump-start the economy.  Lucky for us, this is election season, so I would expect no less than a cool dozen different theories from the political talking heads and administration.  Of course Congress won't come up with anything on their own - aside from promises to "work with the Administration to achieve a non-partisan solution."  As if that will be possible in a short time frame.  Speed will be key - do we think the government will be able to pull it together quickly? 

 The Stock markets of the world are going to suffer, but I suggest that, the U.S. markets won't necessarily follow suit.  Macroscopically speaking, we'll lose money, but I doubt that it'll happen overnight like it will in many other markets.  This will be a wonderful example of how much the "Global Economy" relies on America for their health, wealth and prosperity.  Keep an eye on the developing nations like Thailand, India, China and Africa to see the really big losses, though Europe will be in pain as well.  France, Germany and Belgium will take hits for sure; England should fare far better.

Ben, his folks in the treasury, the Administration and the heads of the big exchanges all have it within their power to pull us through rather quickly.  All they have to do is work together.  The Fed is going to have to cut rates a few more times - including the prime lending rate - and it needs to happen in coordination with some serious stimulus plans; that's the only hope.  The markets need to slow their pace and counsel their customers to be patient.  I would use trade limits to force patience on the impetuous and impertinent...

The "Old Money" will do fine, the "Nouveau Riche" will take a pounding, the Middle class will hold the line and the poor will maintain the status quo.


No Iranian Nuclear Weapons Program?

December 22, ,2007

Yeah right...  See my previous thoughts on Iran.  My prediction is that the N.I.E. report is designed to illicit a specific response from Iran.  We'll have to wait and see.

I'll be back with more on this in the very near future.

Happy Holidays to all!



The American Economy

November 2, ,2007

We are in a recession.  The Fed won't say it, the stock market doesn't care and the government hopes that it will go away if it isn't acknowledged.  The Fed cut the rates again as most of you know by now, oil has passed $96.00 a barrel and the dollar continues to fall against every currency in the world.  The housing market hasn't recovered, despite reports to the contrary, and only old home sales appear to be continuing; but the sellers are taking a beating.  The cost of consumables like bread, milk, meat (all of them), rice and sugar are at all-time highs while durable goods are only showing moderate (inflation) improvements.  The biggest banks, traders and brokers are reporting disappointing figures while the utilities, the oil companies and the insurance brokers are gorging themselves on the flesh of the dying.  The reality is, only those folks who have netted a wage increase of 10% or more are better off today than they were this time two years ago; everyone else is breaking even at best, but probably losing.  All of the signs are there in plain sight, but no one will call this spade by her true name.  We're spending billions in a war economy but we aren't on a war footing - the economy isn't nearly as 'global' as the world thinks it is, money is too cheap and only the rich are making money.  These are all going to bite us in the butt sooner rather than later and the truly rich are going to lose a bundle.  I predict that the 'global economy' is going to lose Trillions of dollars within the next few months as this debacle finally develops fully. 

Invest in precious metals, convert your mutual funds to Treasury Bonds and start acting 'bearish' - the bulls have run and there's nothing but patties in the roadway.  I'd expect that the Fed and the government will be admitting to this in the coming days; maybe weeks.

What is Iran up to?

September 30,2007

Is it possible that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an evil genius or a genuine strategist of historical proportions?  Hardly.  Could it be that he is really a philanthropist with only benevolent aspirations?  Yeah - about as likely as his chances for winning a Nobel Peace prize.  I've even heard tell of folks who think he's just a misunderstood "average Joe" who serves as the whipping boy at the pleasure of the Grand Wizard (Grand Ayatollah) Ali Khamenei.  That seems hardly possible either, given that the Grand Wizard has the Council of Puppets (Guardians) to manipulate. 

No, I tend to think that Mahmoud is playing the dumb hick routine a wee bit for the Western press.  The evidence, to those of us who understand high energy physics, is pretty compelling to support the concern that they are developing highly enriched Uranium and Plutonium; neither of which are a part of a "peaceful civilian nuclear energy program."  If, in fact, they are trying to perform such a lofty endeavor, then Mahmoud and the Ayatollah are at odds.  Ali Khamenei's 2005 fatwa saying, "...the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons was forbidden under Islam," is kind of moot if our evidence is correct.

I have another opinion on the subject, and it comes from analyzing the patterns coming from that region of the world for the past 15 years.  In the past 5, it has been almost impossible to ignore the fact that Libya, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Jordan and Iran have been communicating and collaborating.  That reality cannot be ignored and Israel must be sweating bullets.  Even Pakistan has made an appearance behind closed doors with the aforementioned, but it appears as though they have genuinely cast their lot with the Western powers.

Almost laughingly, the Iranians are using our very own cold war era tactics in an effort to demoralize us and hardly anyone notices it. They sow the seeds of doubt, cast dispersions, use disinformation and intrigue to fool the media and distract the attention of the world from their plans by acting outlandishly. "Watch my left hand while my right hand steals your wallet"

At some point, one would think that folks would at least question why Iran is acting so erratically.  I'm mean, seriously, this is a sovereign nation that has a well educated leadership and still waxes and wanes between [the appearance of] being run by a bi-polar president. On the one hand they "appear" to be avoiding an Islamist revolution, but on the other they advertise how "progressive" they are. They can hardly fund the petrol subsidies for themselves, yet they can afford to spend a trillion (or more) on developing nuclear power? Their infrastructure has aged to the point that the term "dilapidated" is kind, but they are in the process of developing some of the region's most advanced weaponry - most of which is 1980's era Soviet technology. They are courting the North Koreans, the Libyans and the Jordanians while shunning the Saudi and Egyptian ruling parties. Most of their secondary education is entirely secular and their universities have progressed to a state where they could easily rival the quality of 50% of the western world; all devoid of Islamist rhetoric. They are truly a "sleeping midget" in the world; but a giant in the region. Then there are all of the lies...

We know now, through intelligence reports from the region, that the Iranians have been secretly installing themselves in the country of Iraq ever since the pasting the coalition gave them in 1990-91. Under the cover of subterfuge, they have situated themselves so that they could "wait it out" with Saddam. Then 9/11 occurred, Afghanistan happened, and the world-wide hunt for Bid Laden began. Iran looks around and sees the "chilly" reception by so many of their neighbors, and at the same time - the "warm" reception that Saudi and Pakistan offered. Infiltrating the ranks of Pakistan was easy, seeing as how they had already paid the Paki's for all of the atomic information they needed for a "civilian nuke program".  For the record, Pakistan's father of  the A-Bomb was not selling "civilian nuclear information" to Libya or North Korea so why should we assume that he was with Iran?  With that level of lying - Stimulating the Iraq concern becomes child's play.

We have all heard the reports of "manufactured intelligence" leading the U.S. & Britain to attack Iraq, but what 17 different world-wide investigations were unable to turn up was - WHO manufactured the evidence? All of the investigations determined that the individual agencies (in both countries) missed clues, but overall, determined that neither government "manufactured" anything. They also estimated that the entities were "duped". The question is, "by who?" Who would have had the most to gain by Saddam being deposed, the U.S. being mired in battles that would demoralize the Muslim/Middle Eastern public, and by Pakistan/ Egypt/ Saudi Arabia being neutered in the public eye? Who would further benefit by the U.S. having to wage two wars in, house by house fighting where the amount of civilian casualties is considerably increased? Which country would benefit by creating chaos on the Turkish border with the Kurds? What country is perfectly situated to supply a constant flow of "Arab Fighters" into both theatres of combat? Which country had the most to gain by Iraq disintegrating into a civil war? Who would most benefit from the Israeli/Palestinian conflict never being concluded? Who is supporting that conflict? Who is the would-be suitor to the throne of Saud that is perfectly situated in the region to take over everything? Who, in that region, could hold enough sway with the neighbors of Iraq to provide easy access and open borders when called upon? Who could convince Jordan, Syria and Iran to flood the country with anything and everything or spirit away any and all evidence of impropriety? What happened to the weapons of mass destruction and the rumors that they wound up in Iran, Jordan and Syria? The answer is so obvious that it is silly. I've only used a few of the clues, but if people were really interested in getting to the truth - they could easily see the pattern for themselves. Iran has been playing our hand against us for so many years that we don't even see it and our press has been duped.

I suspect that our intelligence agencies know it, but for reasons that I won't even bother with here have chosen to keep it to themselves.  I predict that, if we position ourselves properly to minimize Iran's influence (which we are certainly attempting now), we will begin to make rapid improvement in both battle zones.  At which point Iran's influence will start showing signs of marginalization.  As this happens their rhetoric will exponentially increase.  If we do nothing with Iran, the problem in the Middle East will grow out of control and the Israeli/Palestinian issue will be minor.  A new Persian empire could be forged and the region will be lost to extremism.  WWIII will certainly ensue as the new power seeks to establish itself.

We (The West) do not intend to do anything militarily with Iran.  That much is certain, but Iran will try to convince the rest of the world otherwise.  Ultimately, we will wind up - not in a battle to keep Iran from creating a new "Empire", but instead, in one to enable them to save face once their plans are doused; but only if we handle the next year properly.

Food for thought...



Iran's President, Mahmoud Ineedajihad's, visit to the

United States

September 23rd, 2007

There is a current event that, for the moment, is really entertaining me.  Mahmoud Ineedajihad's (Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) visit to the U.S. and the ensuing controversy about his public appearances.   On the one hand I am a proponent of free speech, but on the other - as our fore-fathers indicated - that speech is only protected if it is not designed to incite or cause harm.  So, having said that, I am left to laugh a little at those who would welcome him to a forum where they can "hear his side of the story" regarding commentary on topics such as the holocaust and human rights.  People actually think they're going to have an opportunity to "take him to task" and be victorious.   Silly people - that can only happen when the other side is really there to learn.  I am forced to wonder if the University would be as accommodating to the Grand Wizard of the KKK if he asked for an audience to discuss his desire to remove slavery history from text books, while at the same time calling for the destruction of all Africans; and funding efforts to do so...

I listened to the President of Columbia University (Lee Bollinger), where he is invited to speak, vow to use a planned question and answer session to challenge Ineedajihad's denial of the Holocaust, call to destroy Israel and Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons.   For some reason he believes that his school is "rising above the fray" in an effort to genuinely educate Iran's President in the error of his ways.  Bollinger almost sounds convincing when he says that this, "...will not be a forum for the President to gain an audience for his message [of hate and intolerance].  We are simply continuing Columbia's long-standing tradition of serving as a major forum of robust debate."  Much of his faculty has rallied in support of his decision, as have many of the students; all of which are rumored to be educated adults who are competent to make such a decision.  Sadly, for so many of us in the country, Lee and his supporters have violated  Merl's rule #2:  "Believing something is true does not make it so."

Of course the University is going to give Iran's raving madman a forum to spread his vitriolic criticism of democracy, the western world in general, and again - suffer through his revision of Jewish Holocaust history.  We know that he's getting that opportunity because, HE'S GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO SPEAK!  Any assertion to the contrary is folly from the mouths of the insane.  He will have gained an audience, media coverage and credibility and will manage to deliver his message to those whom he is targeting; paid for by the American tax payer and consumer!  The really funny thing about this is, not only has he denied the Holocaust and called repeatedly for Israel's destruction, he has gone beyond words and worked hard to put his plan into action!  His support for Hezbollah, who's sole purpose IS THE DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL AND THE WESTERN INFLUENCE in the Middle-East, is well documented and even advertised by his government.  The nuclear weapons claim isn't even worth litigating when the other issues are so clear-cut.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not an unintelligent man and he will have bested Lee Bollinger and the supporting faculty & students of Columbia University; just by speaking.   The American government and the media outlets who cover the event will be greatly embarrassed by the event no matter how much evidence is brought to bear to counter his commentary.  Finally,  the unwitting public who will be exposed to his circus will have been dealt a blow to their (already diminishing) intellect having heard his rhetoric.  All it will take is one person to say, "Wow -- he might have a point..." and Mahmoud will have succeeded. 

I love this country - where else in the world could a rouge state leader come to ridicule the host, in public on their own soil, with the host's money and walk away with a smile?  Certainly not in Iran!  Come and get us Mahmoud; we deserve what you're about to do.  Lay a reef on ground zero for the "fallen victims" (as he puts it), while you're at it.  I know that you're referring to the hijackers and support crew of terrorists that managed to flee or dissolve into the background, but so many others don't.  Hell - that hardly matters in a country that insists on being the beacon of democracy, even when it's being infiltrated & infected intellectually, morally, financially and physically. 

Hopefully we're going to wake up sooner than we did the last time...  Whatever Hitler said, nobody took him seriously. They treated his raving lunacy as simply tasteless benign entertainment; mutterings of a madman. They found him darkly amusing. It took the incineration of six million Jews and the destruction of much of Europe to discover that, ultimately, the joke was on us.  In light of Columbia's invitation, it is fair to ask what, level of evil must the president of Iran perpetrate in order to incur a much-deserved boycott?

I'd hate to witness another repeat performance from our history that we could've, should've, would've - but didn't catch.



North Korea detonated a bomb?  - I doubt it.

March 11th, 2007


The IAEA is 100% certain that North Korea detonated a nuclear bomb in October 2006, and that this weapon was in the .5-2K Ton range. Many stories from N. Korea and China have emerged, indicating that the bomb yielded less than anticipated results but that it was otherwise successful. Well, what if I told you that there is a 99% certainty that someone's full of crap. What if I told you that, not only were the N. Koreans lying - but so is Washington, China and the UN's IAEA? Would you be surprised?

Now, I realize that you won't want to believe it because it comes at the perfect time to continue the demoralization of George Bush, but you should at least consider the possibility that I'm making a cogent point. Here goes:

1.      The U.S. knows N. Korea bought completed weapons manufacturing and assembly plans from Pakistan's A. Q. Khan - he admitted it.

2.      We know N. Korea is enriching uranium and plutonium; we've seen it and they admit it.

3.      The 6-party talks are going nowhere - America and N. Korea refuse to back down; ego issues.

4.      Korea is freezing to death because of a lack of resources, and their citizens are starving; they want to concede, but Kim Jong il won't.

5.      The U.S. is tired of looking like the bad guy (maybe it is - maybe it isn't), and wants to put the issue to bed. Dubyah needs a victory; any victory will do..

6.      A plan is hatched.  The U.S., via China signals N. Korea to do the unthinkable - detonate a "device", call it a "gadget" if you will.

7.      It becomes apparent that they don't have enough HEU or HEP to achieve critical mass, "a little birdie" tells them how to ostensibly avoid that problem. Use a matrix implosion and high speed neutron trigger.

8.      So, they build a device that has a plastic explosive trigger, sequentially detonated, measuring 2 K tons (force) and surround it by a heavy lead & concrete reinforced box. They then apply neutron detonation techniques ensuring that the loosed energy is recycled momentarily in the absence of a chain reaction (This gives the appearance of a neutron flux matching a detonation).

9.      Overall, they build a "dirty bomb" that is 90% conventional explosion, 5% atomic and 5% wasted neutron emission.

10.  This accounts for the complete lack of a blast wave, a very insignificant EMP, barely readable Hi-E and no spectrum at all. It would also account for the seismological readings pegging the max force at about 1 K tons.

11.  Most of (1.5 K) initial tonnage in the form of conventional explosive was converted into kinetic energy, usurped by the gadget and redeveloped in the miniscule blast that did trigger momentarily. Think of it as a stifled sneeze that sort of "whimpers", although you expended an enormous amount of energy trying to keep it from coming to fruition... Conservation of energy at its best!

Now that the "test" has occurred, everyone gets to save face and return to the bargaining table. Viola! A conspiracy for the greater good, and no one got hurt. All the while, the IAEA maintains its legitimacy (it did not lie), China looks neutral, N. Korea looks like it knows what it's doing, and the U.S. looks no worse than it did before. Now, the impetus in ON to keep it from happening again. Everyone looks like a bunch of winners at the bargaining table, and now all eyes are turned to Iran.  Wait for the data, you'll see that I'm right.

The end will justify the means and we'll wind up giving Korea back all of the money we froze (plus more), we'll commit to more fuel oil supports, and I'm sure that we will also increase food going to the country.  All of this mess was for one simple reason and it's unfortunate that the press was duped into thinking it was a political issue:  It was about the languishing collapse of communism in the region.  Russia stopped supporting them and China no longer wanted to. Capitalism has taken hold in China and there are darn few souls who can justify "money for nothing" for their neighbor any longer.  The only bargaining chip available was Nuclear weapons and the only time they could do it was while our attention was otherwise diverted.  Remember back, wasn't it funny that the little man in N. Korea would ratchet up the tension at the most "inopportune" times!  Pattern recognition should be a class in school that everyone needs to take.