Where's My Money? ('cause it's not in my wallet)

Perhaps in better times, the Obama administration's decision to resume funding abortions in other countries might be the issue.

However, when the United States is faced with an almost unfathomable budget deficit and economic depression, the issue is really nothing more than this:

Why in the hell is the Obama administration funding ANYTHING in other countries?

Seriously, if my best friends knew that I owed more money than I made, then they would be real d-bags to come to me for a handout.

If I faced having to default on my mortgage to fund some stranger's medical procedure (how's that for a nice euphemism for killing babies?), would you accuse me of anything wrong for choosing to pay my own damn mortgage?

Bless You, Ron Paul

Listen to Ron Paul and know who you passed over in favor of Barabas (who didn't even win!).

Note that Bernanke states that he will concede the point to free market thinkers if the result is inflated prices.

Note also that Barney Frank cuts Rep. Paul off just before the good doctor goes for the jugular.

Note: I discovered this clip on Robert Murphy's blog, Free Advice.

My Optimistic Wife and My Pessimistic Self

I upset my wife today, when I noted that one of my retirement investments lost over 10% of its value in only the last two weeks and that we have put a few thousand more into it than we currently have on the ledger.

She replied with a charming, "Well, on the bright side, our current contributions are getting more for their money, so when things get better we'll see a rapid increase!"

Sometimes she's such the Pollyanna, and while that's one of the reasons that I love her so much, this time it annoyed me.

I responded to her "silver lining" approach with a scathing analysis of how much worse things could and probably will get--that even if we break even or beyond, the devaluation of the dollar will mean that we end up behind nonetheless.

She asked me why I'm always so down on things.

I asked her what about trends and the history of the matter suggests that I should be optimistic.

She had no answer, so her mood turned sour.

It'll be sleep on the couch for me, tonight.




Business hours are over, baby!

Jaywalker Hero II

Yesterday, I posted about the bus driver who saved three lives by pushing them away from a speeding vehicle only to be hit himself and to suffer severe internal injuries.

The Colorado State Patrol rewarded his heroics by citing him for jaywalking (he was, of course, helping the old ladies across a busy road, during a snowstorm, and he apparently wasn't at a crosswalk--so I guess he should have let them cross alone and die?).

New developments:

The State Patrol said in a statement that it withdrew the citation "after examining the ... circumstances" and consulting with prosecutors. A patrol spokesman didn't immediately return a call seeking comment.

The patrol initially said that despite Moffett's intentions, jaywalking contributed to the accident.

Give me a break! The State Patrol withdrew the citation because of the public backlash. It took all of two nanoseconds for them to realize that they'd pulled a real dick-ish move.

However, look at the last sentence. They still try to save face by noting that the hero had indeed jaywalked and that if he hadn't jaywalked, then he wouldn't have been in an accident.

True, very true. Had he sat in his bus and watched the old ladies cross, then he would not have been injured at all.

The old ladies would have been killed, of course, but, hell, they were frickin' jaywalking!

The most recent adjective attached to Obama's plans are "ambitious."

Be forewarned that in history and literature, "ambitious" is attached to many things unsavory: MacBeth, Lebensraum, Communism, NBC's "Joey," etc.

What the liberal press defines as "ambitious," a more prudent definition should be "foolish."

I would say "unprecedented," but, unfortunately, it's not unprecedented.

History proves, however, that similar "ambitions" have led to disasters...

So newspapers across the country are closing shop. According to John Morton of Morton Research Inc.. "This is not a good time to try to sell a newspaper. This deep recession for newspapers doesn’t make these particularly compelling properties to buyers.”

Newsflash for newspapers:

It's not a recession for newspapers. It is the end.

Like the telegraph, you have been replaced by something faster and, ultimately, less expensive.

So help me God, if you ask for a "bailout," then my reader (yes, that's singular--alas) on the west coast will scream as loud as I, in which case the vibrations will carry from Renton, WA, to Issaquah, WA , and Metro Detroit, MI, to Hillsdale, MI.

Sure, there's quite some space in between, but I doubt that the corn and the cattle (or the Bears's fans) are cognizant enough to notice.

How's that for magnitude?




Oh, just shut up, BAR. We know that your voice might carry farther than Warren, but be serious. In the absence of JD's 9:08 A.M. brew, what are the chances of you making a difference?

Seriously, why bailout an industry that is no longer useful enough to remain solvent?

It doesn't matter how many jobs are lost in the wake. What matters is if someone resolves to move on to something that is actually solvent.

Nothing comes from nothing.

Insolvency comes from insolvency.

Seriously, the talk nowadays is about growing cotton in the Arctic.

"Damn, this business sucks. We've lost our socks in it!"

"Better invest more, then!"


If I'm not mistaken, this is the kind of logic that defines a compulsive gambler...

My greatest fear is that Obama and the other socialists in congress will stay in office long enough for things to turn around (as they tend to do so, historically, following economic panics).

This is my fear because people are stupid enough to think that Obama and socialists will be responsible for the turn around.

Why do I fear this?

Obama practically plagiarizes F.D.R., and F.D.R. is the second worst-president (if you use the oath of office specifically and the constitution generally as a standard) next to Lincoln.

What's so bad about Lincoln?

If you didn't support his line, and you opposed it vocally, you were dead (e.g. Confederates) or in jail (e.g. those imprisoned by Lincoln's unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus).

I decline to submit to the demagoguery that suggests that Obama can spin gold from lead or any other element.

Nothing comes from nothing.

Crappy ideas lead to crappy results.

So you thought that the last 8 years were bad?

Fasten your seatbelts.

It didn't work in the Weimar Republic after World War I, and it won't work in the United States now.

Be prepared to wallpaper your home with dollars because it will be cheaper than buying wallpaper.

That's what happened in Germany when the government decided to print money for its way out of economic turmoil, and that's exactly where we're headed.

You people turned away Ron Paul because

1) He wasn't "flashy"

2) He didn't comfort you with B.S.

3) He dared to suggest that YOU should be responsible for YOURSELF.



Now we're in quite a mess.

We have "flashy" president.

He comforts us with B.S.

And he dares to suggest that you are not responsible for yourself, but the federal government is--and the feds will come to your rescue (since they've done so well in Iraq).

Thank God that Ron Paul didn't win.

Obama has declared "A New Era of Responsibility: Renewing America's Promise."

How so?

By proposing the largest budget in the United States history at the same time that you admit that the United States is in its greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression?

Mr. Obama, you are not change. You are more of the same, but perhaps worse because the proles believe that you have answers.

(Another) Cure for AIDS

I couldn't help but notice that Obama recently appointed a new head for the White House AIDS Policy Office.

I assume that this is a paid position, so I'm left wondering why, in these hard times (in any times, really), we should pay for such a thing.

Seriously, AIDS policy shouldn't cost a dime and shouldn't require an office or officers.

I would be glad to donate the following policy to the president, to be used in lieu of having to waste resources.

First, here's the position: AIDS is bad, as is the HIV that causes AIDS.

Now here's the policy: Every so often, mention in speeches that people should avoid unprotected sex with strangers and/or sharing hypodermic needles.

Here's what's awesome: if the people listen, then the number of new AIDS cases will decrease dramatically!

But what if people don't listen?

Then it's their own freaking fault!

Law and Order in Colorado

So let me get this straight. A 58 year-old bus driver stops, and two elderly ladies step off.

The driver decides not to let them cross the street alone during a snowstorm, so he and another passenger jump out to assist them.

As they approach the other side of the street, the driver notices a pickup truck speeding recklessly toward them.

He pushes the two ladies and the other man to safety but is himself struck by the careening pickup.

He wakes up in intensive care, having suffered head trauma, multiple fractures, a dislocated shoulder, and a damaged spleen. [1]

Shortly after learning of his injuries and being told that he had probably saved the lives of the two elderly women, he also learns that the Colorado State Patrol had issued him a ticket for jaywalking.



Let me be the first--or at least the first of whom I am aware--to issue the following statement to the Colorado State Patrol.

F*** YOU! WYOMING IS SO MUCH THE COOLER RECTANGLE.

Al Sharpton Is a Loser Who Makes His Living By Complaining About Everything

The Rev. Al Sharpton refuses to accept the apologies of the New York Post for its portrayal of Obama as a Chimp.

Of course he doesn't accept the apologies. Sharpton's entire career is based upon being grossly offended by virtually everything.

I wonder how pissed-off he'd be if he knew that, just yesterday, I ordered steak fajitas with no BLACK beans.

Seriously, this guy is such a whining A-hole that he probably blames white people every time that he gets diarrhea.

Quite the Ramble Based on My Previous Post

In my previous post, I advocated secession and even suggested the possibility of violence being necessary to establish a just government.

My purpose was to get someone up in arms against me, but since no one took me to task, I will attack my own argument.

First off, I do not disavow the possible necessity of secession, but I have much more hope (i.e. the opiate of the desperate) than I let on that secession may be unnecessary. I don't rule it out, it's just that secession will mean violence, and lots of it.

Now on to violence. Bob has pointed out--and I think that it's a great point--that a violent revolution will only spawn a violent resolution. One we take up arms, then we begin to do things contrary to our principles, and once we assume power we use the very violence that got us there to keep us there. This is blatantly true in a seemingly endless supply of examples, including

1) Cromwell's overthrow of Charles I. He had the king beheaded, declared England a free republic, and appointed himself "Lord Protector of England" (a euphemism for military dictator). His disdain for hereditary monarchy was so great that, as he grew ill and approached death, he arranged for his nearly limitless powers--he ruled via his control of the army--to be transferred to his son).

2.) Napoleon Bonaparte gained fame fighting for the "Liberty, equality, and fraternity" promised by the French revolutionaries. As his powers grew, he eventually crowned himself emperor (at his coronation, he took the crown from the Pope and placed it upon his own head!).

3.) Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin proved that no matter how terrible were the Tsar's powers, a violent revolution could (and did) result in something much worse.


The bottom line is that every time that men have organized and taken up arms to fight for freedom and won, they end up using their new powers to destroy the very freedoms for which they fought.

This is true even in the case of the United States.

At first things were good. The British signed the Treaty of Paris (1783) and recognized the United States as sovereign.

The thirteen states were themselves largely sovereign, held together by "a firm league of friendship with each other" (quoted from The Articles of Confederation--the first Constitution for the United States. According to the Articles, the national government had very few powers--none of the powers that had so tyrannized the colonies in decades past (how's that for learning from history?).

However, there were forces at work, well organized forces, led by Alexander Hamilton, who sought to establish an American Empire in the likeness of the British Empire (which we had so recently fought).

Hamilton and his allies exploited the economic turmoil of the time, which could only be expected given the costs of the war and whatnot, in order to convene a convention supposedly to "revise" the Articles.

Instead, the Articles were thrown out and a new Constitution was born.

Unfortunately, while the vast bulk of this Constitution was good and within the guidelines of the Revolution, the Constitution included a few relatively ambiguous clauses.

These clauses, when interpreted "loosely," greatly expanded the national government's powers--to the extent that the Federal government today is exponentially more tyrannical than the Parliament was in the 1770s.

Among the Constitution's drawbacks is in Article I, Section 8 (the part that grants powers to Congress).

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 says that Congress has the right to regulate trade between the states, with foreign countries and the various Indian nations.

Under a loose construction, this clause is the reason why the government is involved in every aspect of economic activity.

California's legislature now has before it a bill that would legalize marijuana production, distribution, and consumption--to be taxed, of course. However, since Congress has assumed the power to regulate trade (under I.8.3), it will be a meaningless gesture to pass the bill.

This is accepted as fact even though the Constitution states that Congress has the power to regulate trade between the states. Nowhere in California's bill does it mention exporting marijuana to other states or importing it from other states, foreign countries, or the various Indian Nations.

This should mean that the Federal government cannot stop California.

But it doesn't because a leviathan was created in Philadelphia, and the patriot Patrick Henry knew it from the start when he refused to be a delegate for Virginia, stating "I smell a rat in Philadelphia that reeks of monarchy."

The men who fought the Revolution learned that, if you want to accomplish something, then you needed violence for it.

Therefore, they turned to a Constitution that established a strong federal government capable of exerting vast quantities of violence.

In the early 1830s, South Carolina nullified a ridiculously high protective tariff designed to benefit Northern manufacturers at the expense of everyone else. The President responded by threatening to invade South Carolina in order to collect the tax by force.

So much for the Boston Tea Party.


And this is why we cannot shoot our way into freedom. I said earlier that secession means violence, but it must not be from us. We must be willing to suffer the violence, like Gandhi, like Martin Luther King, Jr. in order to show the justness of our cause.

This is, of course, why I would rather not secede. I have no desire to stick my hand into the fire.

However, what if we all did so? Or what if enough of us did so?

Henry David Thoreau may have been right when he wrote, in "Civil Disobedience," that the only thing necessary to accomplish the revolution is for every man to withhold his loyalty to the state. Once the soldier refuses to fire and the taxman declines to collect, the tyrant will be on his knees.

We need no fire any shots.

We must not fire any shots, even in self-defense.

We must suffer, and we must be strong.

This is not my nature--my typical reaction to insult and injury is to insult and injure my assailant--but it is the best way.

It is the only way.

Pax tecum.

FYI: I.8.18 is also particularly odious, especially under a loose construction. "Necessary and proper"--could you be more ambiguous? Then again, it was Napoleon who said "A Constitution should be short and obscure."

Ours is both.

Secede!

Q: Why don't we secede?

A: 1) Lincoln made it cool and "patriotic" to kill secessionists by the hundreds of thousands.

A: 2) The mass of people are too ignorant/stupid to realize what they are supporting.



Give me a viable secessionist movement, and I will don the stars and bars, for this is no longer the country established by the founding fathers. It reeks of Marx, and I fear it will soon be polluted with Stalin and Mao.

Simon and Garfunkel should have written and sang, "Where have you gone, Thomas Jefferson / Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you..."



This is not treason. It is patriotism of the utmost. Our founding fathers were proud Englishmen of the British Empire--until the government in London turned into a leviathan.

Ask yourself, what would Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, James Madison, et al. say?

Look only to what they did and supported.



My friend, Bob, says that we can accomplish this without arms, but even God Himself has seen the right time to use force against evil.

Hell, even Alexander Hamilton would be horrified by the current trends.


My greatest wish is for a peaceful return to constitutional/limited government. This is an absolutely necessary change.

What must happen if an absolutely necessary change becomes impossible to accomplish by peaceful means?

I tremble at the thought, but I know the meaning of necessary.

Screw the Weak 2

I will never again purchase a car manufactured by GM or Chrysler. They've already stuck their hands in my pockets without my permission (and given me nothing for it), and now they want to do it again.

No business has a natural right to exist. Businesses exist because they are solvent, because they supply what is in demand at a reasonable price and with reasonable quality. If GM and/or Chrysler cannot do so, then they should go out of business.

Thus far, Ford has not asked for any of my money (i.e. federal "bailout" money). This makes me a Ford man.

In the mid 1800s, the demand for beaver pelts decreased, leaving mountain men (e.g. trappers) without a source of income.

There was no bailout.

What did they do? They changed businesses. They took their skills, their knowledge of the terrain and indigenous peoples, to change industries. They became guides to the wagon trains that followed the various trails across the prairies and over the Rocky Mountains.

When an industry dies, it is not necessarily a bad thing. People will have to make important decisions and change their lifestyles/ways of making a living. However, history shows that people will do this when they have to do so.

Let them do so.

Always the Naysayer?

I recently chatted with my next-door neighbor and a friend of his. Naturally, the conversation shifted to politics, and my neighbor gently warned his friend, "Don't get this guy started!"

Of course, this led to his friend asking me, sarcastically, if I was one of those guys who rips on Obama's ideas before we even have time to see if the ideas work or not.

I thought that my counter was rather good, so I now present it to you.

Let's say that the case isn't politics or economics, but medicine; and the person in question is not Obama, but a doctor.

So you go to the doctor because you've been feeling quite ill. After a battery of tests and a thorough survey, it becomes clear that your problems stem from consuming far too much alcohol on a regular basis.

Now suppose the doctor suggested, for treatment, that I try increasing my consumption of alcohol.

Better yet, let's say that the doctor pulled out a scalpel and a large bowl because he planned on bleeding me.

Honestly, I know that neither of these treatments will cure me of my ills. Should I just go along and either a.) drink more or b.) have the "bad blood" drained from my system? Should I wait to see if his destined-for-failure plans will fail before I criticize both the treatments and the doctor?

Of course I shouldn't, and that's why I rant against Obama's economic stimulus package.


My neighbor's friend just kind of chuckled and said, "Well, can't you at least hope that you're wrong?"


I let it drop.

Education Stimulus Package

By all accounts of those with a vested interest in there being a "crisis" in American education, there is, indeed, a "crisis" (surprise!).

However, I have a better solution than the traditional "pump money through bureaucratic channels," and that is to enact an education stimulus package.

Billy's grades suck because he doesn't turn in his homework?

Under the stipulation of my stimulus package, Billy will receive credit for the work that he didn't do.

Jessica's grades suck because she doesn't study for tests?

No problem. My stimulus package will award her a passing grade.

Unlike Obama's economic stimulus package--which he very publicly has stated will not be a "quick fix" for the economy, if it even helps the economy at all (which Obama does imply between the lines; he just says that doing nothing is a worse alternative than trying anything)--my education stimulus package promises real results, really fast.

As soon as next week, students who were previously failing will either be passing or on the road to passing.

Critics say that my plan is ridiculous, that I'm merely increasing grades without actual learning. What they don't understand is that these increased grades are backed by increased learning.

You see, some students have really high grades, like 98% or even better. I don't think that it's too much to ask for them to give, say 5-10% to a more deserving, underprivileged student.

And if that's not enough, my plan allows us to borrow grades from future students. Among the current kindergartners, there are many who will eventually earn 98% and such on grades. If we can use their future points toward scores today, we can boost today's scores even higher. This will result in more students having good grades, which means more students in college, which means better jobs for everyone.

Effectively, my education stimulus package will accomplish all of its goals AND save the economy.

So, how about it, Obama? Make me the offer, and I promise not to decline an appointment to your cabinet.

The Onion News Network

Warning: the following video clip contains gratuitous--however hilariously--profanity.

The Onion News Network: FDA Approves Depressant Drug for the Annoyingly Cheerful