This Post is About as Well Written as My Dog Could Make it

My fiancee is a communist.  Seriously, she believes in communism (which may say something about the Democratic party given her proclivity to defend them).  She's also an atheist.  She's one of the most generous hearts I have ever known.  In college she spent most of her time dealing with rape victims and she wants to have a charity to help battered women.  I suspect there is a libertarian Christian sneaking around in her.  We drive by a number of homeless beggars every day.  The corner of St. Charles and Louisiana, the overpass of I-90, the turnabout at the end of the Uptown side of St. Charles, etc.  The guy with one arm is a regular at the turnabout, the guy with the well fed dog is a regular at Louisiana.  I've never seen the guy with one arm not holding liquor when he's not begging.  There is a mission near by.  When they hand out meals the homeless leave the styrofoam cartons scattered about the underpass, generally not that far from the many trashcans that also litter the underpass.  They step into traffic to stop cars to get a dollar and generally make life inconvenient.  I would never give any of them a dime, including the new lady who showed up with a baby.

A man who had the good taste to marry a friend of mine recently told a story about his encounter with a homeless man in the wind-swept plains of Lubbock, Texas.  His generosity to this person was met with disdain and the inane ramblings of a man who must be unstable (of course, if you tricked me by telling me we were going to the liquor store and you took me home, I'm not sure I would have been as kind).  His reward for his kindness was to be told that hypocrites and whores would be the only people to attend his funeral (the crazy guy said preachers and painted ladies, but the translation is what I have said before).

So why do I write about this, you ask.  And by you, I mean my mother, the only person who will likely read this, mainly because I have to write these to pay my rent for her basement.  I don't want people to give to the beggars.  I do want them to give to the missions.

The one armed man uses the money of generous people to buy booze.  The man with the impeccably groomed dog is likely a professional.  The charity is a litterer.  I'll choose the litterer.  The truth of homelessness is that the permanent homeless are generally mentally ill.  There are also those that prey on the sympathies of others to make a living.  I used to work at a place called "The Strip".  Before liquor sales were legal in Lubbock, there was a group of stores just outside of the county that sold to all the college students and workers.  It was lit up in neon signs, hence the comparison to the Vegas Strip.  There were always beggars near the Strip.  I remember seeing a local TV news report that followed them home in their $60,000.00 cars.  They made a good living at it.  John Stossel has also exposed similar practices.

I want to give.  I just made a ton of money on a case and the first thing I was trying to figure out was how much I could afford to give to the disabled veterans charity that I try to always give to (I also try to give money to the Republican Party, but that's a pretty hopeless charity).

I say these things because I love the hearts of men that give, but encourage giving to be tempered by intelligence.  This is the same reason that we cannot have an effective federal charity (i.e. welfare and unemployment) system.  My friend and I can choose where and what is effective.  If we make a mistake, we can correct it in the future to make our efforts more effective.  My fiancee knows that she can't help the one armed man and she holds other suspect, but wants to help.  We all do.  We can't throw money at a problem and expect a faceless program to be more effective than we are.  What was it Reagan said? Trust but verify?

We are good.  As Americans we give more per capita than any other society.  But we have to acknowledge effectiveness over emotion.  Otherwise you have a one armed man petting a well groomed dog while sharing the bottle of gin you bought them.

Uphold the What Now?

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D. Cal.), the author of the proposed assault weapons ban, may have inadvertently admitted what she and many others in Congress believe about their responsibilities.  Pressed by Sen. Ted Cruz (R. Tex.) about the constitutionality of such a ban, Ms. Feinstein responded: "Congress is in the business of making the law.  The Supreme Court interprets the law.  If they strike down the law, they strike down the law."  So Sen. Feinstein apparently feels absolutely no compulsion to consider the constitutionality of a law when she's drafting or submitting or, for that matter, passing it.  She'll leave it to the lawsuits to clean up the mess.  So much for that whole oath of office thing.

Sen. Feinstein further gave the standard liberal response to being challenged about an idea.  After Sen. Cruz' questioning, she became offended, saying she wasn't a sixth grader, then, after sufficient speech about her outrage and her qualifications and education, never bothered to actually defend the idea.  Ah, the refreshing intellectual arguments of the left, which amount to "Look!  Behind you!"

Big Government Profiting Off the Backs of the Poor

Prices at the pump unquestionably create a greater hardship on poor people than wealthy people.  So who is really price gouging and placing a burden upon our nation's impoverished?  Well, the typical profit margin for "big oil" is 7-8%.  According to some sources, this ranked 90th among other industries.  So this hardly seems to be gouging.  I don't remember hearing anyone decrying "big periodicals" for their 53.1% profit margin.  So how about the local distributor?  Well, it appears that for the last ten years, the local gas station has made less than a 2% profit margin.  That's not exactly gouging, either.  It would seem the free market forces have dictated a high volume, low price commodity.

So, what about the non-market forces, i.e., taxes.  California has just decided to raise its excise tax on a gallon of gasoline to $0.39.  This is a tax that doesn't vary by price.  With an average per gallon price in California of $4.211, this means the state of California profits on each gallon at 9.26% per gallon.  Of course, that doesn't include the California sales tax on gasoline of 2.25%.  So, in the end, California has a profit margin of about 11.5%.  The federal tax on gasoline is 18.4%, an even higher margin than those crazy left coasters in Cali.  Now, California is one of, if not the, highest gas tax states, and their profits include additional fees which are not discussed here.  According to the tax foundation, even the lowest state burden on tax was $0.08 per gallon as of January 2012 in Alaska.  At their average price of $3.996 per gallon, this is a relatively reasonable burden of 2%.

So what we see here is that even in the lowest burden state, government taxes constitute about 20% of the price of a gallon of gas and go as high as the 30% range while to people who produce and sell the product constitute about 10% of the price.  From these numbers, it is obvious that if anyone is engaged in price gouging and placing a heavy burden on our nation's poor, it is the government at federal and state levels.  The single highest price gouger is the federal government and that burden has been the same since about 1993.

So the next time you hear a politician demonizing big oil and their windfall profits, maybe you should but a mirror in front of them and blame big government.  Or just vote them out of office for lying to you.

Only the Wicked Governors of Men Dread What is Said of Them 2

In November of 2009 I wrote a brief piece with the above title regarding a quote from Benjamin Franklin and comparing it to our current President.  Since that time it has only become more applicable.  Word came out today that the editor over Lanny Davis, former aide to President Clinton and supporter of President Obama, was threatened by the White House that if he continued to publish Davis' column, his reporters would lose their White House credentials.  This comes on the heels of Bob Woodward, famed reporter who exposed the Watergate scandal that brought down Republican President Richard Nixon, reporting that the White House threatened him saying he would regret what he is doing in reporting the truth that the sequester originated from the White House.  It is worth repeating the Franklin quote here:

"Without freedom of thought there can be no such thing as wisdom, and no such thing as public liberty without freedom of speech, which is the right of every man as far as by it he does not hurt or control the right of another; and this is the only check it ought to suffer, and the only bounds it ought to know.

This sacred privilege is so essential to free governments that the security of property and the freedom of speech always go together; and in those wretched countries where a man cannot call his tongue his own, he can scarce call anything else hi own. Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.

The administration of government is nothing else but the attendance of the trustees of the people upon the interest and affairs of the people; and as it is part and business of the people, for whose sake alone all public matters are, or ought to be, transacted, to see whether they be well or ill transacted, so it is the interest and ought to be the ambition of all honest magistrates to have their deeds openly examined and publicly scanned. Only the wicked governors of men dread what is said of them."

Clearly, this country has not seen a more wicked governor of men.

And the Best Picture Goes to..."Inception"!!!

The Academy Awards brought in the big gun to announce the big award, as First Lady Michelle Obama was piped in via satellite to announce "Argo" as 2013's best picture.

So let's get this straight.  A representative of an administration that blamed a movie for a terrorist embassy attack that had nothing to do with the movie, where they failed to protect the ambassador, who died, and the only person in jail for the killing is the filmmaker, announced the best picture was a movie about a CIA operation that actually rescued embassy personnel from terrorists by acting is if they were shooting a movie.

I think my head just exploded.

President Barack Oblackmail

Let's make one thing clear right off the bat, "sequestration", the vilified "cut" in spending across the board in discretionary and military spending, is not a cut in spending.  "Sequestration" is a decrease in the increase in spending.  If that seems odd to you, you don't work for government.  In fact, spending is set to increase about $110 billion over the ten years of the "cuts".  Let's also keep in mind that this increase is on top of the massive spending increase of 2009 which has led to annual deficits of approximately $1 trillion.  In other words, the "cuts" will add on top of those $1 trillion dollar yearly additions to the debt brought on by our benevolent leader.  So by no means is the hyperbole from both parties that this will somehow cripple the government correct.

Given this, enter President Obama yesterday, surrounded by firefighters warning that sequestration would have dire consequences.  Teachers would be laid off, first responders would lag behind as your house burned to the ground, thousands would lose jobs, investments in failing "green" energy companies would go away, medical research would screech to a halt, the moon would turn the color of blood, the seas would boil, the middle class would lose class, a third "Garfield" movie would be green-lighted and chimps, forced to eat grains instead of meat products would not have enough solid feces to fling.  And all because Republicans stubbornly refuse to hand him a second tax hike in a matter of months.  I mean, hey, it's not like you have any interest in the fruits of your own labor, right?

Well, who decides where those cuts in discretionary spending would go?  That would be the executive branch.  For those of us who are strict constructionists, we recognize that the executive is headed by a President.  I think his name is Barack Obama.

So, assuming that's correct, what President Obama just did was to give a speech in front of a bunch of people he is threatening to fire (as opposed to say having the USDA not pay for $200,000 of "sensitivity training") if he doesn't get his way.  Even though his budget is increasing.  That just seems like blackmail.

Goodbye, Christian Warrior

This morning I learned that my grandfather, Cecil Girard, passed in his sleep.  It's a little ironic because I happened to be on the phone last night with my fiancee, discussing what to name our new German Shephard, and his name came up as one of the possibilities, which we discussed for some time.  These are the things I know about my grandfather.

Granddad was a a veteran of WWII.  Though he never served in a theater of war overseas, he trained men to go into combat as a drill instructor.  Picturing my grandfather as R. Lee Ermy only with a prohibition against cursing always brought a bit of a smile to my face.  After the war, he flew cargo to China.  When my best friend Chris came to visit with me one year, the Navy veteran and sonarman discovered an instant connection with my grandfather.  Chris (i.e. Jonesy) had been listening to subs aboard essentially the same plane that Granddad had flown.  At times it seemed like I wasn't even in the room as they chatted about their experiences.  Granddad was always my picture of the perfect warrior.  The dignified man of God and country, never ashamed of being so.

Granddad was also a dedicated husband.  His wife, Everma Joe, gave him three children, which gave him seven grandchildren.  I'd be lying if I tried to tell you how long they were married, but when she passed away in 2002, I'd venture it had been 50 plus years, and closer to 60 than 50.  They fit so perfectly together that they always represented what a married couple should be.  These people were Norman Rockwell's goal every time he started a piece.  And he never got close to how good they were.  At that same visit when I was there with Jonesy, I got the first indication of how much her passing had on him.  He broke at one point, choking back tears while talking about her.  I had never seen this man, 6'3" and wide across the shoulders as a football player, always fit, show one second of weakness in his life before that time.  It made me understand just how special a relationship a husband and wife can have and how truly deeply she had been his heart.

He was a humorist.  This wasn't Bill Cosby, by any means.  His humor was so dry I once watched a glass of water evaporate as he told a joke.  He wasn't above cheesy humor either.  He'd often point out a sign on the road that said "STOP AHEAD" and gleefully tell my brother and I "Stop, a head!"  In large part, I think my sense of humor developed from his own.  At times my sarcasm is thick as molasses.  Other times I can resort to the cheesiest joke I can possibly think of laughing giddily.

In some ways, he inspired me by showing me respect.  A conservative man, politically, he recognized my own interest in politics as it developed at a young age.  As I studied political theory and economics, before I was in high school, he had gotten me a subscription to "The Limbaugh Letter" and later, another to a public policy quarterly magazine.  It was more impressive, to me, that when my grandmother faced a second hip replacement surgery, he asked my opinion.  Keep in mind, I wasn't out of high school.  I'm not 100% sure I was out of middle school.  The doctor had but Grandma on a new drug that was supposed to help with the degenerative nature of the joint disease, so Granddad sent me a study on the drug's effectiveness and asked what I thought.  I told him they would likely be recommending the replacement within three weeks.  Turned out I was right.  He and Grandma always expected the most of me, and I have to say, I didn't live up to those expectations.

Granddad was a patriarch in the truest sense of the word.  The unquestioned head of the family, his children and grandchildren were doctors, architects, artists and one unfortunately, became an attorney.  His children are good, moral people, his grandchildren have followed that example.  Okay, I'm not the best about it from the perspective of getting to church and I've had my crises of faith, but there are few situations in which I haven't done my best to be good to others.

Granddad was a Christian.  It defined him in a way that few of us who believe can claim.  His religion wasn't shoved in your face.  It was there, open and evident from the way he conducted himself and his beliefs.  He was a regular at his church and participated in the choir.  It was where he went to exercise when he got old, until they needed him to go someplace where he could be supervised.  

Towards the end of his life, his mind became distracted.  Little registered on him long enough that he wouldn't often repeat the same question he had asked five minutes previously.  I hate to admit that it effected my desire to be around him.  It was hard to see the giant man who was the stereotype of a WWII marine from the black and white movies suddenly transmogrify to mortal flesh.

I had the pleasure of introducing him to my fiancee only a few months ago.  One of the brightest moments he had in the last few years was when she was discussing how her father is older than her grandmother.  His eyes instantly lit and his laugh came to the front as he asked about this odd circumstance.  It was clear to me then, given the right prompt, his mind was still capable of catching fast to something of interest and being engaged, if only briefly.

In the end, he had recently moved into a retirement village of sorts.  Karen, the fiancee, had been asking last night after him, if she should go visit him, being six hours closer than I am.  It was his desire to pass peacefully in the night, and from all indications, he did.  He missed his wife terribly.  Today I know he is with her and he is happy in her arms again and in the arms of God.

I will miss him, and when I look at the world today, I know that much of what is wrong is that there are less men like him, and more men like me.  I know that I would be well served to spend the remainder of my life trying to get to a point where I'm like him.  A Christian, a warrior, a man of principle, a man of service.  Everything we think of when we think of the "greatest generation".

God bless you, Christian Warrior.  You will be missed.

Um....No, That's Not What A "Shotgun" Is

This particular comment is worth commenting on for two reasons.  First, I have my doubts that President Obama knows anything about a shotgun that doesn't involve a joint.  Second, it feeds into the mythos that somehow the Second Amendment is about hunting.  Again, the left is using distraction to change the discussion.  The old leftist mantra was that the Second Amendment was an antiquated provision of the Constitution dealing with the provision of militias and that the comma in the wording of the Amendment meant that it was not an individual right, but rather, the right of a group, the militias, which no longer exist.  Call me somewhat less than surprised that the left speaks in terms of group rights over those of individuals.  The Supreme Court, however, has shot that down recently, much to my delight.  So, now, they are changing the argument.  Now, it is the conciliatory idea that, of course we have rights to guns and arms, but it's just for hunting, and who needs an AR-15 (hint, the AR doesn't stand for assault rifle) or more than 7-10 bullets to kill a deer.  Personally, I'm a pretty shitty shot with a rifle and may need thirty bullets to even alert a deer that I'm in the same geographical area.  Don't let the argument shift rhetorically, or you lose.

It's Never Too Late to Say You're Sorry...Unless it's Too Late

I would like to thank House Speaker John Boehner for agreeing with my previous opinion on the "fiscal cliff" idiocy.  Mr. Boehner has admitted he regrets the course he took after President Obama's reelection in caving on tax increases.  Mr. Boehner would best be served to remember that principles cannot be compromised for political expediency.

Sanctuary Cities for Guns?

With the recent proposals regarding gun restrictions including the talk of an "assault weapons" ban that bans a bunch of guns that aren't assault weapons some police officials are saying that they will not enforce what they believe to be an unconstitutional restriction on gun rights.  Personally, I don't believe the gun ban is strictly constitutional.  However, I also don't think it is the purview of local officials to decide what is and is not constitutional.  If they feel they cannot enforce the laws, then resign.  This is the same view I hold with regard to "sanctuary cities" and I'm not much for hypocrisy.  What I will say, though, is that the case law of the United States Supreme Court clearly says that the States can afford protections above and beyond those contained within the Constitution, but not less.  As such, should the state, for example, Texas, pass a law that gives greater 2nd Amendment rights to its citizens, allowing for weapons covered by the "assault weapons" ban to be carried and owned by its citizenry, it is well within its rights to do so.  This would make what the sheriffs in the above story within their power to refuse to enforce the federal ban over state law.

It will be interesting to see, however, whether or not those on the left who support the "sanctuary cities" suddenly become enraged at the prospect of local sheriffs ignoring federal law. 

Today's Recommended Reading

Avert thine eyes, oh liberal brethren!  For Ann Coulter comes with the logic on gun control including scientific studies!  But she is Ann Coulter, so you will likely discount it as the ranting of a hysterical conservative that needs to have pies thrown at her and that should be banned from college campuses.  Never mind that what she says makes damn good sense and is supported by (GASP) evidence as opposed to hysterics.

Liberal Zombies Coming to Eat the Rich!!!

Here's the plot of every zombie movie.  Virus/apocalypse/rabid monkey results in hordes of mindless, shriveled corpses that cannot think and desire only to prey on the ones who survived.  Sound familiar?  Every zombie movie ever made should now be seen as an analogy for the tax and spend wing of the Democratic Party.  Irrational hordes of brainless people who seek only to feed on the rest of society.  And it's not just the wealthy.  If President Obama and his allies in the Democratic Party hadn't wanted to increase taxes on people below $450,000.00, the easily could have offset the 2% bump in the payroll tax with a corresponding 2% rate drop, but I don't hear anybody having argued for that.  Hell, they probably could have kept in the payroll tax "holiday" (I love how when you get to keep your own money it is somehow a holiday, keep in mind, these jackasses named that holiday Making Work Pay...seriously), it's not as if they've displayed any concern about the solvency of Social Security.  But it's not enough for Democrats that they got $41 in tax hikes for every $1 in spending cuts they won't ever put in place.  After all, if you ask the President, spending isn't even a problem, despite the explicit conclusion of his own debt commission.  So, it should be no surprise that earlier this week President Obama said that there would have to be additional taxes because we just can't cut our way to prosperity (after all, government is the primary source of prosperity, right?).

It didn't take long for the first shriveled corpse to chime in.  On CBS's "Face the Nation" House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D. CA) roundly rejected the notion that the debate on tax revenues (ugh, revenue is something you earn, not something you loot) was not over and that additional looting would be required in any further debt negotiations.  Hell, she couldn't even wait for the question to end before emphatically rejecting the notion she isn't going to feed on the rich.  The evil, evil rich.  What Pelosi is referring to is the elimination of deductions.  You remember those?  They're the little parts of the tax code where the government generously allows you to keep some of your money if you behave the way they want you to, like buy a house.  Personally, I would be all for that idea if it included a reduction in rates, but they already raised rates. She's on the lookout for those "unfair" deductions, i.e., the ones that don't go to her pet causes.  Like battery manufacturers that use recyclable casing materials that smell like peace and love.  Luckily, none of this matters, as we will all be dead soon, Democrats gnawing on what's left of our wallets.

Obamanomination

President Obama today announced he wants an apparent homophobic anti-Semite with a knack for appeasement to terrorism as his choice for Secretary of Defense.  RINO (Republican in name only) Chuck Hagel is a former Nebraska Senator.  He has served in the Obama administration as co-chair of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board, a position which did not require confirmation by the Senate.  Hagel has, in the past, opposed any sanctions against Iran for its continued pursuit of nuclear weapons.  Hagel is also in favor of entering talks with the terrorist organization Hamas which lobs rockets into Israel like they are cheap fireworks (thanks to funding from....you guessed it, Iran).  Not that laying down for Hitler isn't enough to disqualify someone for Secretary of Defense, Hagel also once criticized an ambassador for being openly, aggressively gay, whatever that means.  Luckily, 14 years later, he managed to eek out an apology.

So what does this say about our fearless leader?  Mr. Hagel is unlikely to survive the nomination process and President Obama knew this before the announcement.  It may signal that Mr. Obama intends to go down the path of alienating Israel, in as much as he hasn't already done so.  This might be further supported by the fact that his nominee for director of the CIA.  Mr. Brennen has referred to Jerusalem as "Al Quds" as well as avoiding language that might tend to offend terrorists, like "jihadists".  It may also be a political calculation aimed at marginalizing Republicans.  The idea would be that he puts forth this token Republican who happens to have some very unattractive "qualities" so that media can splash headlines like "Republican Hagel's Anti-Israel, Anti-Gay Past Haunt Him At Hearings".  Call me a conspiracy theorist, but given the President Obama was offered all of the revenue he asked for in the "Fiscal Cliff" deal through tax reform and yet he insisted that it had to come through raising tax rates tells me his political calculations come before anything else.  The Cynic in Chief reigns supreme. 

A Victory for Emotion Over Logic

With the aid of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R. KY) and House Speaker John Boehner (R. OH), the Republican Party helped pass a deal to avoid a fictional fiscal cliff.  Democrats succeeded in doing what they always do, changing the topic.  Originally, discussions about this whole matter were focused on our ballooning national debt, Democrats' failure to even allow a vote on a budget in the Senate, and President Obama's rampant spending.  To avoid allowing the repetitive $1 trillion plus annual budget deficits that have occurred under President Obama, the Democrats and Republicans came to an agreement called "sequestration", a set of automatic cuts in discretionary and military spending.  The situation on non-discretionary spending is so dire that the trustees in charge of Medicare say it will go broke in 2016 and Social Security is projected to have to begin cutting benefits by 25% in 2033 if no changes are made to benefits or taxes.  Even worse, in the midst of a recovery that can only be generously thought of as weak, taxes were set to go back to Clinton-era levels, almost ensuring the economy will head back into recession (especially when combined with Obamacare taxes coming out just in time that he didn't have to defend them during his re-election campaign).  And all of us where watching the outcome of these very policies in Europe and especially Greece.

But suddenly, spending wasn't an issue.  Democrats rolled the two items into one and started talking about how rich people somehow weren't paying their fair share.  Keep in mind, the only reason the tax cuts enacted under President Bush weren't permanent was that Democrats refused to pass them if they didn't automatically expire.  But somehow, the argument wasn't about economics, it was about fairness.  And not even a defined fairness, just some nebulous concept that no one had to defend.  Lest we forget the words of President Barack Obama that raising taxes in a recession (struggling economy) is "the last thing you want to do".  Mr. Obama even acknowledged that his original proposed tax raise on income over $250,000 would not have any significant effect on the deficit.  So while logic and evidence show that a tax increase (even at the current level of $450,000 and above) will restrict economic growth and cause job losses, while increased government spending will not stimulate economic recovery and development, those arguments didn't matter.  Because if you believe in economics and history and say we need to cut and tax less you will be called heartless and people will tell you how you aren't being "fair".  Meanwhile, they refuse to engage in an intellectual argument about their position, because it has no backing.

And with backbones made of pure silly string, Republicans folded as President Obama broke their leadership.  Instead, they passed a deal that the Congressional Budget Office, which has to consider promises as literal gold capable of supporting the government coffers, says the deal offers $1 in spending cuts for every $41 in tax increases.  I hesitate to remind readers that history has shown that Democrats will renege on spending cuts.  And President Obama has already said he will not negotiate on the raising of the debt ceiling in February (as if he ever really negotiated on anything).  Meanwhile, President Obama is doubling down, insisting that more taxes are coming, saying the we can't cut our way to prosperity, implying instead, that we can somehow tax our way to it, history be damned.

The only thing Republicans can do to return to credibility is to remove Boehner from the leadership and push Eric Cantor (R. VA) (who voted against the deal) into the prime position and maybe making a stand on the increase in the debt limit to force additional spending cuts.  Do I believe this will happen.  Let's just say I'm going to keep my voting registration as "unaffiliated".