I was getting onto the expressway this morning on the way to work. The car on the ramp in front of me had one of those "Coexist" bumper stickers on it. Who started those bumper stickers? Where do you get them? I don't want one. In fact, it would be better if I never saw another one.
Why do they make me mad? Yes, they do tick me off every time I see one. I guess there are multiple reasons why that silly bumper sticker affects me negatively. For starters, it is my impression that anyone that owns a car that says "Coexist" on the back is a "mamby pamby" liberal. "Can't we just all get along?" Don't these people consider the United States the bad guys of the world? "If we would just disband our military and dismantle all of the nuclear warheads, the world would be a better and safer place." It's the Obama doctrine of foreign policy. "Just be nice to everybody, and they will be nice to us." Hey Barack, how's that working out for you? You were nice to Putin, but now he's taking advantage of your weakness to start reassembling the old Soviet Union.
I wonder how many "Coexist" stickers are on cars in the middle east. I know there are Islamic and Jewish symbols used to form the word on the sticker, but how many of them are actually displayed by the Islamic people. Would they be seen with a Star of David on the back of their automobile? Would they be willing to "Coexist" with their neighbors in Israel? Does the MessAPolitico realize that some of our "neighbors" in the world don't really want to "Coexist" with us or anyone else?
Some of you might read this and think that I don't want to coexist with other countries in the world. You would be wrong. I want to coexist peacefully and even in a friendly manner with my neighbors on the street where I live. I would also prefer for the USA and its leaders to get along with all of the countries in the world. I don't want war. I wish we could quit wasting money on national defense. It would be great if imperialistic leaders stopped invading their neighbors and oppressing the people.
Wouldn't it be great if we didn't need police? Do you think that crime would end in Detroit if the police department was shut down there? No crimes would be reported if the police had no telephone number because they didn't exist. I guess no one would get arrested either. The MessAPolitico could then go on television and tell everyone that eliminating the police had reduced the crime rate in Detroit to zero. It would suddenly become America's safest city. Then, the police departments could be shut down everywhere. Do you think that would make America the safest country in the world? Shutting down the military and our defense technologies work just as well as shutting down the police departments.
The next time I see a "Coexist" sticker, I won't use any obscene gestures. I will go about my business and allow that other person to do the same. I will also think about how it is a waste to display this "advertisement" in the USA where we already try our best to coexist peacefully. I will also remember that the places where people really do need to be reminded to coexist would ignore that sticker at best or get a bad case of road rage at worst.
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
Monday, April 28, 2014
Polar Bears Suffering -- Too Much Ice
Have we officially gone full circle? Back in the 1970's, we were told that the Earth was in a dangerous period of global cooling. Then we went through various dangerous, man-made phenomena from thinning of the ozone due to fluorocarbons in aerosol cans to acid rain from the coal-fired power plants to global warming/greenhouse effect. Now we have climate change as the latest dangerous phenomenon. The environmentalists were getting dizzy going around on the merry-go-round, but now they can go about there business without nausea or discomfort. With climate change being the new environmental buzz word, any change in the weather or deviations from average in either direction are an indication of planetary doom. Unless the temperature is exactly at the average for today, then we are experiencing climate change. If we have too little or too much rain, that is climate change. We never had floods or tornadoes or hurricanes or extreme heat or cold before climate change came along. Yea right.
Don't we have climate change almost every day? We certainly do from month to month. July is usually a lot warmer than January. Some environmental alarmists would say that July is HOT and January is COLD. This year, it's a good thing the catch phrase had been changed from global warming to climate change, because it was a pretty cold winter.
A while ago, in spring of 2008, polar bears were placed on the endangered species list by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. This was done after a couple of years with conditions similar to 2014. Reportedly, there were many thin polar bears those spring seasons, and the numbers counted were down in the area of Alaska's Beaufort Sea. The environmentalists attributed this to the melting summer ice due to global warming. However, now there is evidence that the conclusions were errant. In fact, spring ice that is too thick causes more problems for the polar bears.
In spring, the polar bears are ending hibernation. They haven't eaten in many months, and there are new cubs to feed. A major source of their food supply is seals. The male seals make holes in the ice for breathing, as they set up dens for mating. The seals can successfully make the holes in ice up to 7 feet thick. When the ice gets thicker than this, the seals must move out further to find thinner ice. This year and in 2004 and in 2006 when the environmentalists were lobbying to get the polar bears placed on the endangered species list, the ice was very thick in the spring. This year it has been measured at about 16 feet thick.
Apparently, the polar bears have more sense than the MessAPolitico and their PhD scientists with the pointy heads that are studying them. When the bears couldn't find enough food because the seals weren't there, they didn't call Obama and cry and beg for government assistance. The seals moved out farther so they could still mate. (I guess those natural urges will make a seal do anything to get laid!) Did the bears just lay down and die? No. They moved on over to the place where the seals went.
I sure wish the poor welfare and food stamp and unemployment recipients had as much sense as these dumb animals. Maybe they would if the government didn't feed them, clothe them, and put a roof over their heads. I wonder what would happen to the polar bears over ten or twenty years if the government brought them bags of Purina polar bear chow every day. Would they still be able to adapt and survive on their own? I'll bet they really would be endangered if we helped them out like we do the humans.
Don't we have climate change almost every day? We certainly do from month to month. July is usually a lot warmer than January. Some environmental alarmists would say that July is HOT and January is COLD. This year, it's a good thing the catch phrase had been changed from global warming to climate change, because it was a pretty cold winter.
A while ago, in spring of 2008, polar bears were placed on the endangered species list by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. This was done after a couple of years with conditions similar to 2014. Reportedly, there were many thin polar bears those spring seasons, and the numbers counted were down in the area of Alaska's Beaufort Sea. The environmentalists attributed this to the melting summer ice due to global warming. However, now there is evidence that the conclusions were errant. In fact, spring ice that is too thick causes more problems for the polar bears.
In spring, the polar bears are ending hibernation. They haven't eaten in many months, and there are new cubs to feed. A major source of their food supply is seals. The male seals make holes in the ice for breathing, as they set up dens for mating. The seals can successfully make the holes in ice up to 7 feet thick. When the ice gets thicker than this, the seals must move out further to find thinner ice. This year and in 2004 and in 2006 when the environmentalists were lobbying to get the polar bears placed on the endangered species list, the ice was very thick in the spring. This year it has been measured at about 16 feet thick.
Apparently, the polar bears have more sense than the MessAPolitico and their PhD scientists with the pointy heads that are studying them. When the bears couldn't find enough food because the seals weren't there, they didn't call Obama and cry and beg for government assistance. The seals moved out farther so they could still mate. (I guess those natural urges will make a seal do anything to get laid!) Did the bears just lay down and die? No. They moved on over to the place where the seals went.
I sure wish the poor welfare and food stamp and unemployment recipients had as much sense as these dumb animals. Maybe they would if the government didn't feed them, clothe them, and put a roof over their heads. I wonder what would happen to the polar bears over ten or twenty years if the government brought them bags of Purina polar bear chow every day. Would they still be able to adapt and survive on their own? I'll bet they really would be endangered if we helped them out like we do the humans.
Friday, April 25, 2014
Mitch McConnell a Workhorse?
Mitch McConnell has a new radio advertisement that has been running for the last several days. In it, the announcer says that Mitch is "not a show horse -- Mitch is a genuine Kentucky workhorse." The ad also says that "Last year, [Mitch] saved 99% of Kentuckians from an income tax increase." Please let me translate that Washington speak for you: Mitch was unable to stop a tax increase on the richest 1% of tax payers in Kentucky.
Then, the announcer says Mitch "forced President Obama to cut spending." Ha. Ha. Ha. I just can't stop laughing now. Remember the sequester "cuts" the Republicans demanded before giving in to President Obama's tax increase on the rich. Those were the cuts that the Democrats used to blame everything bad that happened last year on the Republicans. We have to shut down the White House tours because of those devastating budget cuts. Those were the cuts that weren't actually cuts. This is more Washington speak, because the cuts were really just a slow down in the rate of growth of the federal budget. The budget just didn't go up as much as they had originally planned. You know, it's like when you expected the price of a loaf of bread to jump 40 cents from $1.99 to $2.39, but instead it only went up 30 cents to $2.29. In Cincinnati, the price of bread went up by 30 cents, but in Washington, the price was cut by 10 cents.
Next this campaign ad goes on to say:
Then, the announcer says Mitch "forced President Obama to cut spending." Ha. Ha. Ha. I just can't stop laughing now. Remember the sequester "cuts" the Republicans demanded before giving in to President Obama's tax increase on the rich. Those were the cuts that the Democrats used to blame everything bad that happened last year on the Republicans. We have to shut down the White House tours because of those devastating budget cuts. Those were the cuts that weren't actually cuts. This is more Washington speak, because the cuts were really just a slow down in the rate of growth of the federal budget. The budget just didn't go up as much as they had originally planned. You know, it's like when you expected the price of a loaf of bread to jump 40 cents from $1.99 to $2.39, but instead it only went up 30 cents to $2.29. In Cincinnati, the price of bread went up by 30 cents, but in Washington, the price was cut by 10 cents.
Next this campaign ad goes on to say:
- "Mitch fights on the front lines for Kentucky miners against Obama's war on coal. And he's leading the fight against Obamacare. Mitch McConnell fights for our values, our future…and our jobs. But he doesn't spend a lot of time bragging about it. Mitch just gets it done."
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
Charity the Liberal Way
Liberals purportedly are filled with compassion for the poor and downtrodden in our society. In fact, they are so compassionate about their plight that they are willing to take money from the rest of us and distribute it to the poor. There are several inconsistencies between liberal words and actions. Firstly, there are a lot of big time liberals that are wealthy. Are they not part of the evil top 1% that Occupy Wall Street was railing against last year? Secondly, liberals are often not particularly charitable with their own money.
Tax records show that Vice President Joe Biden and his wife, Jill, had $407,009 in Adjusted Gross Income in 2013. They show $20,523 in charitable contributions for the year for 5.0% of their income. That's a substantial sum, and a lot more than a middle class guy like me could afford. Of course, this is up quite a bit over the previous five years:
In 2013, Barack and Michelle Obama reported an Adjusted Gross Income of $481,098. Schedule A Itemized Deductions shows that they made $59,251 in charitable contributions, or 12.3% of the AGI. That is certainly a very respectable amount. Reportedly, the President and Mrs. Obama have significantly increased their charitable contributions since their income has increased with book royalties. Here is their charitable history:
When you figure the percentage of the federal budget that goes to the poor in the form of Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Earned Income Credits, SNAP/Food Stamps, Section 8 Housing, Welfare, etc. etc. How much do the rich and middle classes really pay in charitable contributions? I know that I'm not supposed to consider taxes as charitable giving since I was forced to donate by law. This makes me feel like the government has taken away my ability to give money joyfully to the poor and needy. Isn't that ironic. The MessAPolitico has taken away my right to the satisfaction of charitable giving.
Tax records show that Vice President Joe Biden and his wife, Jill, had $407,009 in Adjusted Gross Income in 2013. They show $20,523 in charitable contributions for the year for 5.0% of their income. That's a substantial sum, and a lot more than a middle class guy like me could afford. Of course, this is up quite a bit over the previous five years:
- 2013 AGI = $407,009 Charity = $20,523 5.0%
- 2012 AGI = $385,072 Charity = $7,190 1.9%
- 2011 AGI = $379,035 Charity = $5,540 1.5%
- 2010 AGI = $379,178 Charity = $5,350 1.4%
- 2009 AGI = $333,182 Charity = $4,820 1.4%
- 2008 AGI = $269,256 Charity = $1,885 0.7%
In 2013, Barack and Michelle Obama reported an Adjusted Gross Income of $481,098. Schedule A Itemized Deductions shows that they made $59,251 in charitable contributions, or 12.3% of the AGI. That is certainly a very respectable amount. Reportedly, the President and Mrs. Obama have significantly increased their charitable contributions since their income has increased with book royalties. Here is their charitable history:
- 2013 AGI = $481,098 Charity = $59,251 12.3%
- 2012 AGI = $608,611 Charity = $150,034 24.7%
- 2011 AGI = $789,674 Charity = $172,130 21.8%
- 2010 AGI = $1,728,096 Charity = $245,075 14.2%
- 2009 AGI = $5,505,409 Charity = $329,100 6.0%
- 2008 AGI = $2,656,902 Charity = $172,050 6.5%
When you figure the percentage of the federal budget that goes to the poor in the form of Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Earned Income Credits, SNAP/Food Stamps, Section 8 Housing, Welfare, etc. etc. How much do the rich and middle classes really pay in charitable contributions? I know that I'm not supposed to consider taxes as charitable giving since I was forced to donate by law. This makes me feel like the government has taken away my ability to give money joyfully to the poor and needy. Isn't that ironic. The MessAPolitico has taken away my right to the satisfaction of charitable giving.
Monday, April 21, 2014
Will We Have the Electricity to Heat Our Homes Next Winter?
I heard a report last week that this cold winter took our electric generation to nearly 100% of the capacity at several points. You might figure that it's okay since demand didn't exceed 100%. Well that's not quite right. You see, the EPA regulations have forced a number of power plants to shut down recently. In the coming months, there are another 5.4 gigawatts that will be shut down due to the EPA's new Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS). Without this generating capacity available, there wouldn't have been enough power to keep the lights on everywhere.
I've been writing about this subject and talking to anyone that would listen. The Obama EPA is doing idiotic things to appease their "tree-hugging" supporters. Obviously re-election by environmentally conscious voters is more important to the Democrats than doing what is right for our people.
So what happens next winter if the global cooling continues? If climate change, man-made or otherwise, gives us another winter as cold as this one, there won't be enough electricity. Did you hear that? Without that 5.4 gigawatts of generating capacity, we would NOT have had enough electricity this year.
What would have happened this year without the 5.4 gigawatts online in the winter of 2013-2014? For a start, the price of electricity would have been much higher. If the power companies were able to predict reaching the peak capacity, they could do the rolling blackouts like the folks in California experienced a while back. That means your electric heat pump might be running to heat your home, and the electricity gets turned off by the power company for some period of time. Maybe it is off for an hour or two leaving you with no heat. Of course, if the power demand rises too rapidly, and the rolling blackouts aren't done as a preemptive measure, a widespread blackout could occur. That one could take hours or even days to bring the system back online.
Power that is shut off either in a rolling blackout or an unplanned one would leave manufacturing companies shut down. Do the workers lose work hours due to layoff? Even if your home is heated with a gas furnace, chances are it will be useless without electricity to run the fan.
This is all brought about by the MessAPolitico. My liberal friends laughed back before Obama was elected. There's no way that we will lose our health insurance. Obamacare would never use "death panels" to deny old people or very sick people health care. We will always have enough electricity. The power companies would never let this happen.
Next winter, we will see what happens. Maybe it won't be so cold next year. Maybe there will be enough windmills generating an extra 5.4 gigawatts by next winter. Maybe those windmills will work fine day and night, every day. Maybe the flying cows will generate enough wind to run the windmills.
I've been writing about this subject and talking to anyone that would listen. The Obama EPA is doing idiotic things to appease their "tree-hugging" supporters. Obviously re-election by environmentally conscious voters is more important to the Democrats than doing what is right for our people.
So what happens next winter if the global cooling continues? If climate change, man-made or otherwise, gives us another winter as cold as this one, there won't be enough electricity. Did you hear that? Without that 5.4 gigawatts of generating capacity, we would NOT have had enough electricity this year.
What would have happened this year without the 5.4 gigawatts online in the winter of 2013-2014? For a start, the price of electricity would have been much higher. If the power companies were able to predict reaching the peak capacity, they could do the rolling blackouts like the folks in California experienced a while back. That means your electric heat pump might be running to heat your home, and the electricity gets turned off by the power company for some period of time. Maybe it is off for an hour or two leaving you with no heat. Of course, if the power demand rises too rapidly, and the rolling blackouts aren't done as a preemptive measure, a widespread blackout could occur. That one could take hours or even days to bring the system back online.
Power that is shut off either in a rolling blackout or an unplanned one would leave manufacturing companies shut down. Do the workers lose work hours due to layoff? Even if your home is heated with a gas furnace, chances are it will be useless without electricity to run the fan.
This is all brought about by the MessAPolitico. My liberal friends laughed back before Obama was elected. There's no way that we will lose our health insurance. Obamacare would never use "death panels" to deny old people or very sick people health care. We will always have enough electricity. The power companies would never let this happen.
Next winter, we will see what happens. Maybe it won't be so cold next year. Maybe there will be enough windmills generating an extra 5.4 gigawatts by next winter. Maybe those windmills will work fine day and night, every day. Maybe the flying cows will generate enough wind to run the windmills.
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
Obama Won the Election - You Guys Lost
After the past two presidential elections, Obama and the Democrats have been saying this to the Republicans: you guys lost and we won so you have to pass our agenda. I guess they've really been saying this to the conservatives and libertarians out there as well. Is this the way our government is supposed to work? And, did they win everything? No. They lost control of the House of Representatives.
This was what the founding fathers had planned for America when they wrote the Constitution. The House has a view that is in opposition to the Senate and the White House. In that case, the Republicans won and the Democrats lost. That means that nothing gets done without real compromise that allows both sides to accomplish part of their agenda. The House says we will put these items in the budget that the President and the Senate want, but there are a few things the House needs to get in return.
Let's face it; the Democrats are more skilled politicians than the Republicans. When the Republicans had control of the House, the Senate, and the White House, the Democrats were crying foul unless real compromise was reached. George W. Bush reached across the aisle on a number of occasions and supported some more liberal policies. The first one that comes to mind is the Medicare prescription drug plan.
By contrast, when Obama came into power he didn't see the need to compromise at all. He believes that an election is a referendum or maybe even a mandate issued by the American people that says everything he wants must be passed. Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi are more than willing to use their liberal media to run rough shod over the Republicans every time an issue is contentious. They don't try to compromise, but in fact, they are continually resorting to name calling or giving speeches where they accuse Republicans of being racist, greedy, self-serving S.O.B.'s.
This has created a MessAPolitico in America. Of course, the Republicans didn't do much to help themselves as they have run home with their tails between their legs. It seems that the Republicans in the House should stand up and remind the President that he will be needing funding for his pet programs or he will be up against the debt ceiling again at some point. The Speaker of the House needs to fight back against the Democratic dirty pool using the power that resides in the House of Representatives. It might go something like this: President Obama, we don't appreciate your insults, false accusations, and lies about us. If you want to get anything you want out of the House of Representatives, maybe you need to take a more conciliatory tone. Majority Leader Reid, if you want us to send over a bill raising the debt ceiling, then you're going to have to bring up those jobs bills we sent to you for a vote. Maybe the Senators need to be put on record voting for or against the repeal of Obamacare too.
The Republicans are just confused about the difference between the media and their constituents. They are so worried that the media will show them in a bad light. The thing the MessAPolitico just doesn't get is that the conservative base cheers when the liberal media says the Republicans did something bad. Until the Republicans and the Democrats both learn who they work for, America will continue to give them lower and lower ratings in opinion polls. There seems to be a smoldering anger in most of the country these days, and I hope that the primaries will bring this to a raging firestorm. Please go out and take back America at the polls.
This was what the founding fathers had planned for America when they wrote the Constitution. The House has a view that is in opposition to the Senate and the White House. In that case, the Republicans won and the Democrats lost. That means that nothing gets done without real compromise that allows both sides to accomplish part of their agenda. The House says we will put these items in the budget that the President and the Senate want, but there are a few things the House needs to get in return.
Let's face it; the Democrats are more skilled politicians than the Republicans. When the Republicans had control of the House, the Senate, and the White House, the Democrats were crying foul unless real compromise was reached. George W. Bush reached across the aisle on a number of occasions and supported some more liberal policies. The first one that comes to mind is the Medicare prescription drug plan.
By contrast, when Obama came into power he didn't see the need to compromise at all. He believes that an election is a referendum or maybe even a mandate issued by the American people that says everything he wants must be passed. Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi are more than willing to use their liberal media to run rough shod over the Republicans every time an issue is contentious. They don't try to compromise, but in fact, they are continually resorting to name calling or giving speeches where they accuse Republicans of being racist, greedy, self-serving S.O.B.'s.
This has created a MessAPolitico in America. Of course, the Republicans didn't do much to help themselves as they have run home with their tails between their legs. It seems that the Republicans in the House should stand up and remind the President that he will be needing funding for his pet programs or he will be up against the debt ceiling again at some point. The Speaker of the House needs to fight back against the Democratic dirty pool using the power that resides in the House of Representatives. It might go something like this: President Obama, we don't appreciate your insults, false accusations, and lies about us. If you want to get anything you want out of the House of Representatives, maybe you need to take a more conciliatory tone. Majority Leader Reid, if you want us to send over a bill raising the debt ceiling, then you're going to have to bring up those jobs bills we sent to you for a vote. Maybe the Senators need to be put on record voting for or against the repeal of Obamacare too.
The Republicans are just confused about the difference between the media and their constituents. They are so worried that the media will show them in a bad light. The thing the MessAPolitico just doesn't get is that the conservative base cheers when the liberal media says the Republicans did something bad. Until the Republicans and the Democrats both learn who they work for, America will continue to give them lower and lower ratings in opinion polls. There seems to be a smoldering anger in most of the country these days, and I hope that the primaries will bring this to a raging firestorm. Please go out and take back America at the polls.
Monday, April 14, 2014
Do Our Elected Officials Give You Electile Dysfunction?
The Speaker of the House, John Boehner, is a Congressman whose district is here in southwest Ohio. He is being challenged in the primary by a tea party candidate, J. D. Winteregg. I heard a parody campaign advertisement done by the Winteregg campaign that says "sometimes when a politician has been in D.C. too long, it goes to his head, and he just can't seem to get the job done." The ad also says "if you have a Boehner lasting longer than 23 years, seek immediate medical attention." If you're wondering how to tell if someone is suffering from electile dysfunction, here are some signs noted in this little parody:
- Can't get the job done
- Constituents' voices "can't be heard on the federal level"
- U.S. border can't be secured
- Second Amendment rights in jeopardy
- Obamacare gets funded
- Planned Parenthood gets funded using our tax dollars
- Common sense can't be used anymore to solve problems
- "Inability to punch oneself out of a wet paper bag"
- "Inability to . . . maintain a spine in the face of liberal opposition"
- Playing a lot of golf
The finale of this advertisement is the suggestion that J.D. Winteregg is the cure for electile dysfunction in Washington. I guess that's true if you live in Ohio's 8th Congressional district.
This little advertisement is pretty cute. If you want to view it on YouTube, here's a link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9A8kq85Umco
It probably isn't fair to blame everything bad happening in America on John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, or the other Republicans. In fact, when a bill gets written and passed by the Democrats, how can it be blamed on the Republicans? As an example, Obamacare was passed without a single Republican vote. At that point, I blamed the Democrats fully for bringing us Obamacare. Either the Democrats or the American people are at fault. After all, too many of my fellow Americans either voted for the Democrats in Congress and the White House or they stayed home and let them win.
On the other hand, the Republicans have had multiple opportunities to bring us a balanced budget and stop Obamacare. The House has control of the budget process. All budget and taxation bills MUST ORIGINATE IN THE HOUSE. As I have written before, the Supreme Court allowed the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act to stand based on the mandate being a tax rather than a punitive fine, so how did the PPACA originate in the Senate? The President can blame the Republicans for shutting down the federal government. He can call them ugly names like "obstructionist." He and the Senate can ask the press to blame everything on the Republicans. However, the President can never get the debt ceiling raised without the consent of the Republican controlled House of Representatives.
This is supposed to be the "give and take" built into our federal government system of checks and balances. Without the politicians "giving and taking" we end up with one of two things: a MessAPolitical stalemate where no one gets anything they want or an unchecked runaway train that gives one side victory on every single issue. There are three equal branches of government that must work together to accomplish anything. If Speaker Boehner and the House of Representatives had any spine, they would refuse to take all of the crap being dealt by Harry Reid and Barack Obama. John Boehner is probably a good guy. That being said, he's the Speaker of the House. He needs to learn how to negotiate so that we make progress on our conservative agenda. If John Boehner doesn't know how to negotiate, and there is no evidence showing that he does, then he should be replaced as Speaker of the House with someone a lot tougher. I don't know that John Boehner should be replaced in Congress, but he should NOT be Speaker of the House anymore.
Saturday, April 12, 2014
We Need Knife Control Legislation
Congress needs to pass a law requiring us to register all of our knives. There was a mass stabbing at a school, and the Legislature needs to do something that guarantees that it will never happen again. With this initiative to protect us from knives, there won't be any complaints about violating the constitution either. The second amendment only covers guns. There are no amendments or clauses in the constitution guaranteeing us the right to bear knives.
If we can't get a law completely banning knives, we should at least ban assault knives. You might ask what that is, and the answer is very simply whatever Congress wants it to be. Maybe it should be a knife that is "really scary looking." An assault knife might be longer than 3" long. No hunter needs a knife longer than 3" to gut a deer.
It would also be a good idea to have doctors ask people how many knives they own before providing medical care. The information they gain should be provided to the federal Department of Health and Human Services so they can figure who the most dangerous Americans are. We also wouldn't want anyone that is the least bit mentally unstable owning dangerous weapons like a paring knife or a steak knife. If only we can save the life of just one unaborted child.
Do you have one of those butcher's blocks with multiple different knives in slots? Do you keep your stash of these dangerous weapons in a kitchen drawer or your fishing tackle box? Those are particularly dangerous semi-automatic knives. We need to at least limit those to only 3 knives per household.
It's time for house to house searches to confiscate all of the knives that are threatening the lives of people everywhere. You might even cut yourself if you've never received training in the proper use of a knife. The knives certainly need to be locked away in a knife safe to prevent others from getting their hands on them. Of course those would become concealed weapons then, so you'll need a license to own them.
I hope no one uses a car to run over someone. I really like my car, and I need it to drive to work. I have a long drive to work, and it would take me half the day to get there on a bicycle. I'm begging the MessAPolitico to let us keep our cars. I know they're really dangerous, but what would I do without it. I guess I could move closer to work, but how will I get my furniture moved without a car or truck?
If we can't get a law completely banning knives, we should at least ban assault knives. You might ask what that is, and the answer is very simply whatever Congress wants it to be. Maybe it should be a knife that is "really scary looking." An assault knife might be longer than 3" long. No hunter needs a knife longer than 3" to gut a deer.
It would also be a good idea to have doctors ask people how many knives they own before providing medical care. The information they gain should be provided to the federal Department of Health and Human Services so they can figure who the most dangerous Americans are. We also wouldn't want anyone that is the least bit mentally unstable owning dangerous weapons like a paring knife or a steak knife. If only we can save the life of just one unaborted child.
Do you have one of those butcher's blocks with multiple different knives in slots? Do you keep your stash of these dangerous weapons in a kitchen drawer or your fishing tackle box? Those are particularly dangerous semi-automatic knives. We need to at least limit those to only 3 knives per household.
It's time for house to house searches to confiscate all of the knives that are threatening the lives of people everywhere. You might even cut yourself if you've never received training in the proper use of a knife. The knives certainly need to be locked away in a knife safe to prevent others from getting their hands on them. Of course those would become concealed weapons then, so you'll need a license to own them.
I hope no one uses a car to run over someone. I really like my car, and I need it to drive to work. I have a long drive to work, and it would take me half the day to get there on a bicycle. I'm begging the MessAPolitico to let us keep our cars. I know they're really dangerous, but what would I do without it. I guess I could move closer to work, but how will I get my furniture moved without a car or truck?
Thursday, April 10, 2014
Barack Obama's Biggest Opponent
This morning I heard a campaign advertisement for Mitch McConnell's re-election campaign. I was told that Barack Obama was secretly hoping that McConnell's Republican challenger, Matt Bevin, would win the primary. I heard the President saying something about how the Senate Majority Leader's biggest goal was to stop him. I'll bet Mr. Obama is shaking in his boots at the thought of Mitch McConnell being re-elected. Those pesky Republicans are always there trying to stop the liberal agenda from being implemented.
So far, what have the Republicans done that has slowed down the progress of the Democratic party? Not much. The Republican controlled House has control of the budget process, so they could refuse to fund anything and everything. They could have stopped the implementation of Obamacare by not funding it. The House could refuse to raise the debt ceiling. That would bring about a defacto balanced budget amendment. Of course, the liberals wouldn't want the government shutdown to last very long, because the people would soon figure out that they could survive without the MessAPolitico. But, I love to dream about how the government would operate under a balanced budget constraint.
If the government couldn't borrow any money, then it would be forced to spend no more than the incoming revenues. The media and the Democrats bloviate that the government would have to be shut down "by the Republicans" in this situation, but that's simply not true. The legislators and the President would be forced to make hard choices with the money they have coming in, but the entire government wouldn't need to be shut down completely. I will add that these legislators need to make these hard choices, and they need to do it sooner rather than later. Those are the same kind of choices all the average Americans have been making over the past five or six years when one of the bread winners got laid off.
A huge percentage of the federal budget is made up of non-discretionary spending. That means that laws passed sometime in the past have mandated that a certain amount must be spent on this or that program. These laws have formulas that automatically raise the amounts paid out each year based on things like the inflation rate. None of today's lawmakers want to repeal or modify these laws because they're afraid the political opposition will run them out of Washington. It also makes it very easy for today's politicians to blame the overblown budget on a past Congress. Regardless, so many Americans today receive some form of tax break or government subsidy, cutting those benefits is likely to change a fiscally responsible politician into an unemployed one.
This leaves the politicians saying that they will just cut the waste and fraud from the government. In theory, the spending could be cut without cutting benefits from anyone. The problem is that a MessAPolitico is highly resistant to changes of any kind, especially those that would cause a government worker to lose his or her job. The political opponents will run campaign ads that simply say that the budget of a pet government program was cut by their opponent. The politicians from both sides of the aisle could get together and figure out where things could be cut with minimal impact on the country. They could jointly work together and do what's best for America. They could even take joint credit for the accomplishment. This could happen in theory, but it will not in reality. It is much easier for one party to turn fiscal responsibility into a political liability hung around the necks of the other party.
So, how can we stop this MessAPolitical circle of frustration? It's simple. Go out and vote in the primary. Send a clear message to the party leadership that their re-election is in jeopardy. Being an incumbent shouldn't be a guarantee of re-election. Tell the MessAPolitico that you are fed up with career politicians who legislate their personal re-election without regard for the country. Elect politicians that will do what is right and who don't care if they get re-elected. They will gladly go back home to their real career in the private sector after a lost election. I'm hoping that this new breed of politician will start taking over control of the House and the Senate next November.
So far, what have the Republicans done that has slowed down the progress of the Democratic party? Not much. The Republican controlled House has control of the budget process, so they could refuse to fund anything and everything. They could have stopped the implementation of Obamacare by not funding it. The House could refuse to raise the debt ceiling. That would bring about a defacto balanced budget amendment. Of course, the liberals wouldn't want the government shutdown to last very long, because the people would soon figure out that they could survive without the MessAPolitico. But, I love to dream about how the government would operate under a balanced budget constraint.
If the government couldn't borrow any money, then it would be forced to spend no more than the incoming revenues. The media and the Democrats bloviate that the government would have to be shut down "by the Republicans" in this situation, but that's simply not true. The legislators and the President would be forced to make hard choices with the money they have coming in, but the entire government wouldn't need to be shut down completely. I will add that these legislators need to make these hard choices, and they need to do it sooner rather than later. Those are the same kind of choices all the average Americans have been making over the past five or six years when one of the bread winners got laid off.
A huge percentage of the federal budget is made up of non-discretionary spending. That means that laws passed sometime in the past have mandated that a certain amount must be spent on this or that program. These laws have formulas that automatically raise the amounts paid out each year based on things like the inflation rate. None of today's lawmakers want to repeal or modify these laws because they're afraid the political opposition will run them out of Washington. It also makes it very easy for today's politicians to blame the overblown budget on a past Congress. Regardless, so many Americans today receive some form of tax break or government subsidy, cutting those benefits is likely to change a fiscally responsible politician into an unemployed one.
This leaves the politicians saying that they will just cut the waste and fraud from the government. In theory, the spending could be cut without cutting benefits from anyone. The problem is that a MessAPolitico is highly resistant to changes of any kind, especially those that would cause a government worker to lose his or her job. The political opponents will run campaign ads that simply say that the budget of a pet government program was cut by their opponent. The politicians from both sides of the aisle could get together and figure out where things could be cut with minimal impact on the country. They could jointly work together and do what's best for America. They could even take joint credit for the accomplishment. This could happen in theory, but it will not in reality. It is much easier for one party to turn fiscal responsibility into a political liability hung around the necks of the other party.
So, how can we stop this MessAPolitical circle of frustration? It's simple. Go out and vote in the primary. Send a clear message to the party leadership that their re-election is in jeopardy. Being an incumbent shouldn't be a guarantee of re-election. Tell the MessAPolitico that you are fed up with career politicians who legislate their personal re-election without regard for the country. Elect politicians that will do what is right and who don't care if they get re-elected. They will gladly go back home to their real career in the private sector after a lost election. I'm hoping that this new breed of politician will start taking over control of the House and the Senate next November.
Tuesday, April 8, 2014
Obama's Latest Diversion: Income Inequality
I'm certainly glad that we have income inequality in the United States. You might say that I like it because income inequality works in my favor. That's a true statement. Those people that make below average wages are all for the concept of everyone making the same wage. Would these people be better off if the income inequality was eliminated though? How would things work if all jobs paid the same?
What would be the incentive to work in particularly difficult, dirty, or dangerous jobs? Would everyone just pick a fun, easy job? I don't believe everyone would take the easiest road, because some folks just enjoy a challenge, but a lot of people would take their "dream" job. If you make the same money in all jobs, who would start all the businesses? Today, entrepreneurs take a lot of risk and work very hard in hopes of getting the "pot of gold" at the end of the proverbial rainbow. Why would they take any risk or do any extra work to get the same pay as everyone else?
What happens to the existing businesses out there? Should stock holders make no profit? Obama and the progressive liberal socialist Democrats vilify anyone or any business that makes what they deem as "excessive" profits. When the price of gasoline was rising rapidly early in the Obama reign, politicians were reporting everyday about how Exxon-Mobil was making record profits. Obama has also made statements indicating that our health care costs are too high because the CEO's of insurance companies are paid too much money and because of the corporate profits. You know, I think our taxes are too high because the President and Congress make too much money. (My statement is just as ridiculous as the liberal statements above.) Should I assume that all companies would be not-for-profit in Obama's Marxist utopian economic view? If that were the case, then stockholders shouldn't expect any dividends because there would be no earnings. Without earnings, why would anyone buy a stock? For that matter, why would a company want to invest capital in new equipment or expansion? If no one wants to buy the stock you own, then it is worth $0. Why should the company continue to operate? Maybe the stockholders would just turn the company over to the government bureaucrats. I'm sure everything would be wonderful with the MessAPolitico in charge. It would be just like our government in every aspect of the economy.
If all of the corporations just closed their doors and entrepreneurs quit opening new businesses, where would we all work? Will the government just find jobs in the bowels of the bureaucracy for everyone? Who will pay the salaries? Maybe we should be taxed at 100% of our salaries, and the government could take out the costs of running the government and just pay us back what's left over as a salary. Maybe you noticed that the math doesn't work out there. The MessAPolitico does the math using this exact logic. The dirty little secret is that the bureaucrats love the rich people that they "beat up" on a regular basis. They need rich people around so they can rob them to pay the "benefits" that are doled out to buy votes.
The Senate has passed an extension of long-term unemployment benefits. Harry Reid has been saying that the House should take a vote on this extension. He says it is inexcusable that the House Republicans don't care about the unemployed that need this lifeline. It sure is funny how the Senate has refused to vote on dozens of job creation proposals sent over from the House. Why isn't that inexcusable? Is it more compassionate to help improve the economic environment to facilitate job creation or to provide a handout? Oh, I guess we wouldn't need to pay unemployment benefits if it wasn't for George W. Bush. Please help me elect challengers in the upcoming primaries. We don't need new leaders in Washington; we just need leaders, period.
What would be the incentive to work in particularly difficult, dirty, or dangerous jobs? Would everyone just pick a fun, easy job? I don't believe everyone would take the easiest road, because some folks just enjoy a challenge, but a lot of people would take their "dream" job. If you make the same money in all jobs, who would start all the businesses? Today, entrepreneurs take a lot of risk and work very hard in hopes of getting the "pot of gold" at the end of the proverbial rainbow. Why would they take any risk or do any extra work to get the same pay as everyone else?
What happens to the existing businesses out there? Should stock holders make no profit? Obama and the progressive liberal socialist Democrats vilify anyone or any business that makes what they deem as "excessive" profits. When the price of gasoline was rising rapidly early in the Obama reign, politicians were reporting everyday about how Exxon-Mobil was making record profits. Obama has also made statements indicating that our health care costs are too high because the CEO's of insurance companies are paid too much money and because of the corporate profits. You know, I think our taxes are too high because the President and Congress make too much money. (My statement is just as ridiculous as the liberal statements above.) Should I assume that all companies would be not-for-profit in Obama's Marxist utopian economic view? If that were the case, then stockholders shouldn't expect any dividends because there would be no earnings. Without earnings, why would anyone buy a stock? For that matter, why would a company want to invest capital in new equipment or expansion? If no one wants to buy the stock you own, then it is worth $0. Why should the company continue to operate? Maybe the stockholders would just turn the company over to the government bureaucrats. I'm sure everything would be wonderful with the MessAPolitico in charge. It would be just like our government in every aspect of the economy.
If all of the corporations just closed their doors and entrepreneurs quit opening new businesses, where would we all work? Will the government just find jobs in the bowels of the bureaucracy for everyone? Who will pay the salaries? Maybe we should be taxed at 100% of our salaries, and the government could take out the costs of running the government and just pay us back what's left over as a salary. Maybe you noticed that the math doesn't work out there. The MessAPolitico does the math using this exact logic. The dirty little secret is that the bureaucrats love the rich people that they "beat up" on a regular basis. They need rich people around so they can rob them to pay the "benefits" that are doled out to buy votes.
The Senate has passed an extension of long-term unemployment benefits. Harry Reid has been saying that the House should take a vote on this extension. He says it is inexcusable that the House Republicans don't care about the unemployed that need this lifeline. It sure is funny how the Senate has refused to vote on dozens of job creation proposals sent over from the House. Why isn't that inexcusable? Is it more compassionate to help improve the economic environment to facilitate job creation or to provide a handout? Oh, I guess we wouldn't need to pay unemployment benefits if it wasn't for George W. Bush. Please help me elect challengers in the upcoming primaries. We don't need new leaders in Washington; we just need leaders, period.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)