Choices Sometimes Blow

I won't pretend to think either of the Democratic candidates particularly amuse me.  Hillary Clinton isn't eligible to practice law in Arkansas and somehow is the golden child of the Democratic Party because she stuck with her serial rapist husband whose greatest accomplishment as President was to cave in to the Republican Party.  Her opponent is an angry old white man whose life has consisted of being in government, telling others government should care for them, too, despite, you know, economics.
Then we get to the Republican candidates.  I was rooting for Marco Rubio, and I honestly don't think I know what happened to that campaign.  We have Ted Cruz, who, ideologically, I tend to identify with, but I just don't know if he believes what he says.  Then there is Donald Trump.  I really get the anti establishment vote, but Trump is about as anti establishment as Mel Gibson is spokesman for the Jewish anti defamation league.  Trump has used and bought his way through government his whole life.  Why is he getting a pass?  Just a thought.

I'm out of practice, so forgive me if this isn't my best post.  I'm working on it.

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".

What Sacrifice Do We Give

If you ask a thousand people you will get a varied response about what Christmas means.  Most of them will miss the most basic truth.  The life of Jesus Christ was about sacrifice.  Being born for the purpose of dying.  Not dying to get away, not to end pain, for other people who would lie, kill and steal in the name of that sacrifice.  A god became flesh to die for people who would spit on his image, place him in a jar of urine.  This is what he was born for.  And so I wonder if I ever have given anything to my fellow man.

In the non-biblical sense, I know others that have given of themselves.  My grandfather, a marine corp drill instructor, served in the late 1940's and ran cargo planes to Japan.  My brother's best friend joined the Corp and never left it.  My best friend joined the Navy and tracked the sounds made by waves slapping against the sides of abandoned rubber ducks.  (Sorry, Jones, I can't compliment you.)  My fiancee's mother met her husband in the Air Force working inside of mountains so that they could withstand nuclear blasts and the occasional Shwarzenegger film.  Jay Dudley lost his brother to the service.

I've never served.  When I was in high school I wanted to go to the Air Force Academy, but I was too lazy to try for a sponsorship.  I've had opportunities since then, and I've never jumped to do them.  I saw a poem lately about the Arlington cemetery and I was struck by the line:

"Sleep well my brothers, know the line has held"

Have I held the line?  No.  And I have not given myself to a cause.  Christopher Jones never stepped foot on a boat, and he faced death every time he went up in a plane.  Cecil Girard never had to fight in World War II but he knew any time he flew he could die and any man he trained would face the same fate.  Jean-Paul Courville has faced bullets and bombs.  Jay's brother died in service.  I face a pen and ink as my enemy.  I'm too old to give what they have.

At this time of year I try to remember how much those who serve have given us.  It's part of what God gave us.  A child who would die for our sins, give us the chance to be reborn.  A kid who died in a training accident.  A man who risked every day to be the best marine.  A tracker who hunted threats to our coasts. A father who raised a wonderful mother and trained men of honor.

If I believe in a thing, how can I be quiet when the only cost I face is words, not death?  I thank each man and woman for their service and even if they weren't thinking of the sacrifice, the essential fact that they made it.  I am humbled by them and hope that any part of my life or my actions might make them proud of what they have done.

Well, I Suppose I Could Try

I can't say I haven't been able to write since I last posted on this blog, because that's not entirely true.  When a person on a beach sees a 100 foot tsunami, they run.  Make it 1000 feet tall and many will just stare, not understanding how it is even possible.  That's how I have felt in the past months.  I had hoped for a conservative victory in the elections, despite the fact that even if the Republican candidate won, it wouldn't be a conservative.  The libertarian in me had pretty much given up hope the second Ron Paul essentially said Iran would play nice as long as we did.  But a wave of illogic swept across the voting populace in a manner I'm not sure I've ever seen before or even been aware of historically.  A society in which information is readily available, especially to the younger members, voted against information.  An ex-girlfriend of mine said, after the election, that she was proud to live in a country that considered women equal.  This woman had been convinced that somehow Mitt Romney was going to slap chains on chicks, which would have made for a hell of a bumper sticker.  What's the point of arguing if the reaction to 2+2=4 is you're a racist?  So I felt lost.  I knew Romney was going to lose months before the final bell tolled.  I'm not claiming prescience by any stretch, I just had a gut feeling, like that moment before the other car hits you.  And I couldn't stop it, so I stood on the shore, watching, dumbfounded, as the wave came in, towering over me while blotting out even sunlight.  The movie "Contagion" shows the breakdown of society.  They got it wrong, the people voted for looting.

But I found a little hope.  I looked back through some things, messages.  I found a message from a friend who mentioned that her husband had been talking about me with her.  How they thought it was great that I could make the argument and back it up.  I got a message from the only woman who could ever have a chance at tempting me away from my fiancee telling me I had no idea how amazing I am.  I remembered the fiancee who disagrees with me on everything political (but can hold a conversation requiring every sentence to include a pun based on a science fiction author's name) telling me that she loves me in part because I challenge her.  And I think that hope isn't dead yet.  Every tsunami washes back out to sea.

So, rather than giving up, I'm going to try to write more often.  I'm going to try and fight against the illogical push of the modern left in the only way I know how.  I may have a grand total of three consistent readers (which I may have lost during my layoff), but at least I'll be able to say I tried.

In the meantime, Merry Christmas to all.  May the sunshine of a new day bring the light of truth and information to the darkness of a democracy in decline.  And may I always be humble enough to know that I have room to learn. 

Say Anything

In the past month it has become apparent that many Democrats are willing to say anything to try and get President Barack Obama reelected, including comments that would border on being slander in most circumstances.

First, in a debunked effort to link Republican candidate Mitt Romney to investments in companies that outsourced some jobs, the Obama campaign's surrogates suggested that he may have committed a felony in signing some of the SEC filings for Bain Capital when he was running the Olympics.  The attack was revived by Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D. FL) as head of the Democratic National Committee (she is also rumored to have won Best In Show as a poodle during the Westminster dog show in 1988).

After this baseless attack went nowhere, they returned to saying that Mr. Romney should release more than the two years of tax returns (though it didn't seem to bother them when Sen. John McCain (R. AZ) or John Kerry (D. MA) released that same amount).

Now, Sen. Harry Reid (D. NV), has come out saying an unnamed former official with Bain Capital tells him that Mr. Romney had not paid any taxes in a period of 10 years.  In doing so, Mr. Reid himself admits that he doesn't even known if the unnamed source's information is accurate.  Thank God the brave Mr. Reid is willing to put himself out there in support of such a well founded accusation.  Luckily it appears serious journalists (you know, people who don't work at the Huffington Post) have so far treated the allegation with the proper amount of derision.

But then, what do you expect from a campaign strategy that was summed up simply as "Kill Romney" by Ann Romney.

Projecting Leftists Reveal Own Racism

Leftists (i.e. Statists and Progressives) consistently engage in two types of open bigotry towards minorities. The first of these might be termed the soft bigotry of lessened expectations. An example of this might be Attorney General Eric Holder addressing the NAACP in Houston this week saying the voter identification laws are racist poll taxes because minorities have a harder time than whites in obtaining identification. This while the NAACP requires two forms of ID for people to see AG Holder speak. Apparently Mr. Holder has stumbled across the secret policy that all white folks have greater access to transportation as a birthright. The true racism is that leftists believe that minorities are incapable of achieving on their own and that they need their leftist elite protectors in the ruling class to ensure they can manage to even get by.

The second prevalent form of open bigotry is projection. In truth, it is probably a subset of the first, because it is this inherent soft bigotry that causes them to project. Projection is the phenomenon where a person projects his own faults upon another. Or as Ann Coulter often says, if you want to know what liberals are doing, look to what they are accusing conservatives of doing. A great example of this revolves around Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney speaking to that same NAACP crowd in Houston. Mr. Romney was roundly booed when he reiterated his position on repealing Obamacare. Leftists have taken this to be a subtle plan by Mr. Romney to win over racist conservatives. Yes, you read that correctly. MSNBC anchor Lawrence O'Donnell, an avowed socialist, put forth the idea that Mr. Romney (who was invited to speak at the convention by the NAACP) cleverly planned to be booed at the convention in order to attract white racists voters. One could simply dismiss Mr. O'Donnell and his band of merry morons as outliers and not representative of the Democrats. Of course, that doesn't explain House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D. CA) saying essentially the same thing. Now she didn't go as far as O'Dumbass did, but her implication was clear.

It is too difficult for leftists to believe that Mr. Romney actually stayed on message, spoke as if he were in front of any other crowd, and refused to pander to the NAACP crowd just to get their adoration. After all, they respect the NAACP. That's why people like Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suddenly adopted a different accent in front of a black crowd.

Call me crazy, but I think it's more racist to think that a black person is somehow inherently less able to achieve than a white person, that one has to tailor a message specifically for each group, that groups matter more than individuals.

Just a Brief Discussion of the Economic Causes of Health Care Costs

The biggest generator of rising costs in health care is that, unlike other services, people do not pay for it directly, they use a third party that does not know the value of the service to the recipient or the provider, and must assume that all people are the same based on a some other criteria, the economic value to the payor of the service it did not receive nor did it request or experience delivery of. Thus the decision of price is made not based upon quality or the other myriad individual circumstances which might raise or lower the value of the services performed. Therefore, it is impossible for the market to properly set the price. The consumer is encouraged to over access the system do to hidden costs (a process known as moral hazard) and the provider is encouraged to do the most he can to justify the services rendered to ensure his costs are covered. This includes the costs of administrative staff who deal solely with the recovery of the cost of services from the third party payor, who pays others to determine what those services are worth, and to dispute the costs at times. The provider then has to wait several month to recoup his costs. All of these people have absolutely nothing to do with the delivery of health care, only with shifting money from one place to another. Like any bureaucracy, they siphon money from the system, removing it from the actual delivery of the service, driving up the price, despite not knowing the actual economic value.
And that, Constitutional arguments aside, emotional arguments disregarded as retarded (it was too tempting to rhyme that) is why centralized systems of health care drive up costs. The true solution is competition and realization that health insurance should be for emergencies, not oil changes.