Life on the Rockpile

Life on the Rockpile
Bob D's effect on women

Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Cause and Effect

Let me begin this collection of odd thoughts with this statement: from my own considerably old-style point of view, the animated cartoon show South Park contains nothing that could be remotely considered of redeeming value.

That being said, last years decision by the Cartoon Network to censor a segment of the show because that segment would have contained a cartoon portrayal of the founder of Islam, Muhammad, was wrong both on its face and in its intent. We may not have our country much longer if the liberals in the media and the White House have their way, but as long as we do, we still have a constitution that spells out certain rights along with certain restrictions. Based on that Constitution, the writers and producers of South Park have a valid suit against the network.

Some may say Bill O’Reilly is one of them, that the network acted properly in preventing yet another act of Islamic violence because that is what Muslims do when they are offended. Christians get huffy, Muslims kill. That is the way of the world we live in. I find myself thinking this in answer to O’Reilly’s opinion, Bill, you’ve become a coward. Back in the day when I was doing editorial cartoons for the humor magazine, Comic Relief, I drew a cartoon that had Muhammad clutching a copy of the Koran and cowering before a figure that was obviously Jesus Christ. The setting was clearly the gates of heaven and Muhammad was thinking, “Oops.” The entire idea of the cartoon was that Islam is no pathway to glory. That was drawn and published over 20 years ago and I’m still alive.

The use of censorship to ensure safety is not only pure fallacy but it is also a clear violation of the very heart of the US Constitution. There is a reason why the founders wanted a free discourse of ideas; many had lived under a government that prohibited the sort of free-wheeling debate they enjoyed and they wanted to ensure that their descendants had the same freedom. If you read carefully the opinions of the currents party in power you will see that they have a different idea of what freedom means and in this case a unique association with Bill O’Reilly’s idea of security. Ben Franklin had some thoughts on this. It seems he and O'Reilly would disagree on many things, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Just like the King George of Franklin's time, the Obama Administration continues to show its utter disdain for the American citizenry in both its legislation and in its opinions.
This Memorial Day, President Obama showed his respect for the men and women who gave up their lives for his security by playing golf. He attended no service, nor did he express any believable concern for those men and women. Barrack Hussein Obama as both a community organizer and as a US Senator was instrumental in building the mechanisms that created and are still maintaining the economic collapse we now have to endure. His associations with ACORN, both in the past and in the present are paving the way for millions of illegal aliens to cast illegal votes in the 2012 election, and those votes won't be for conservative candidates. Bertha Lewis and others have not only alluded to that but in some cases have said so openly and on record. Where is the media on this? Busily censoring a moronic cartoon. And believe me, I do know something about cartooning.

Meanwhile, back in DC, Obama’s new financial reform bill has got to be the greatest piece of political hypocrisy ever. He actually claims that putting the US into additional trillions in debt is not only wise, but patriotic. No administration, not even that of King David or any of the Caesars even comes close. Think back to the economic stimulus package and the “Too Big to Fail” handouts to both the auto and banking institutions. Remember Obama’s assertions that these actions, even though they added literal trillions to our debt and our deficit, were necessary for the common good. Now come forward today. Obama is pushing a Financial Reform package that will make illegal the very actions he said were necessary less than a year ago. Where is the media on this? Nowhere. They are busy writing about all of the hate and violence inappropriate speech causes when it is uttered by the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage and Beck.

The really sad part of all of this is this; we don’t need a single one of Obama’s ideas to prosper. We actually need him to go away to prosper, him along with every single entrenched incumbent and bureaucrat currently occupying a public office, whether they be a liberal or a neocon. They are too in love with and too attached to the status quo to be of any use to this nation. What is remarkable is that real recovery is only one simple step away, a step that Washington and its Oil PAC/NeoCon cronies will never allow.

Imagine how your life would change if the price of gas suddenly dropped to 50 cents a gallon. I am not talking about many more miles you could drive on the dollar but every other aspect of your life that is touched by the economy. What would happen to the price of food? What would happen to the airlines and the cost of travel? How about the cost of anything else that is shipped? What would happen to housing, farming, industry and all the myriad other factors inherent in an economy, all because gasoline was dropped back to where it should be with all else being equal including the taxes applied to that fuel?

Now imagine the free market being given free rein to work its magic within the world of transportation including fuel and power generation. Imagine all the monopolies currently holding research and development back through government intervention being given real competition and the consumer, not the government becoming the final arbiter of who succeeded and who did not. Now imagine an Obama Administration allowing such a scenario. Of course that is pure fantasy. It will never happen and it is because of one thing;

The current flap and lawsuite over Arizona telling the Federal Government that if the feds won’t enforce the law, the state will is being used by the media as a smoke screen. They know very well that illegal means illegal and that more than just Mexicans cross our borders illegally. Asking for ID is a matter of course in any traffic stop, unless you happen to be a Democrat politician. All of this is nicely distracting the voter from the larger picture, Obama grabbing another huge chunk of power for himself on his pathway to royalty.

Just like the Cartoon Network’s censorship and the resulting erosion of freedom, Obama’s financial reform bill will result in a further erosion of the path to economic security for multiple millions of Americans. It will be harder for the free market to play a part. It will be harder to pass your successes along to your children and grandchildren. It will be harder to be self-sufficient without government “assistance” and, quite frankly, it will be harder to be a real American.

Can a liberal elitist also be an intellectual?

One of the typical fall back positions of the liberal left is to denigrate the intellectual capacity of those who disagree with their positions on issues. If you are pro-life you have obviously never studied REAL science. If you do not believe that Al Gore is a true prophet, you must forecast the weather by using tea leaves while living in a cave furnished with animal skins. If you don't believe that taxing the middle class and small business is the only way to achieve prosperity, you must be a real fan of Dickens' Scrooge and completely out of touch where true economics are concerned. If your business grosses over $250,000 a year you must be rich, even if your costs add up to $225,000 a year. As Van Jones called out to a questioner, "How's that capitalism working for ya?"

To the liberal elite, an intellectual answer is achieved by the tactics of name calling and a reliance on circular reasoning, not critical thinking. If a chink in that reasoning is revealed...then, if you are the liberal, you up the volume and drown out the argument. Socrates would be appalled, but how many liberals even know who Socrates was? I have found that two sides is the barest minimum of views on any given issue. Given the complexity of this world, two dozen to two billion would be a closer approximation, and yet I have found very few on the left-hand side of the aisle comfortable in examining those alternatives.

The so-called intellectuals put forth by the liberal elite have no more capacity to follow a trail of logic than can a bloodhound follow a trail with a sinus infection. In fact, most of those chosen by the liberal media as spokespeople seem to exhibit effective IQs of roughly room temperature. The problem I have with these microcephalic wonders is that they refuse to even consider thinking outside of the box. Liberalism has become their religion. Hatred of America and all it stands for...including the freedom they are given to oppose a sacrament, right behind that of abortion. Consider the current embarrassment of commentator Ed Shultz.

As an example, I asked a liberal commentator why no elitist intellectuals complained about the abuses of the Taliban against women. The answer was typical, "I guess you don't know how to Google."  The proper language is, “to use Google”, but that is nitpicking. A check using Google's search engine brings up nothing other than vague responses by the liberals when confronted with the Taliban's treatment of women. These "humanitarians" are far more incensed by Sarah Palin's motherhood than they are about an Afghan teenager being stoned to death for refusing to be raped. You can find nothing about their concern over the African tribal ritual of genital mutilation of young girls. No, of far greater import is whether or not an American school girl violated the first amendment in a commencement speech. Yes, I can see where using a religious phrase in a school speech is a real danger to our country. Extreme sarcasm intended.

If one is going to claim greater concern for humanity over another than that concern has to be exhibited in more than casual lip service.

Columbia University, an icon of intellectual thought, invited Iranian President Ackminawhackjob (misspelling intentional) to speak. This same bastion of fairness has refused the ROTC to have a presence as well as other potential conservative dangers. How many Iranian dissidents has Columbia invited to speak? None.  Can a liberal elitist also be an intellectual? Based on current evidence, I don't think so. To be truly intellectual means one has the capacity to think outside of the box, to use your imagination and learning capabilities effectively and to be able to grow in that capacity. Liberals, at least those they choose to be their public voice are not showing that capacity. Critical thinking, the ability to see the chain of cause and effect and follow it to its logical end result has to be exercised. Using the latest politically correct response is doing nothing but show ignorance.  

Hope and change? That was the Obama mantra. To paraphrase an earlier-mentioned gadfly, “How’s that change working for ya?” I don’t think sliding back to the wonderful days of the early 1930’s is change that brings any hope. I don’t think filling our schools with a forced emphasis on diversity over core educational skills is a change for the better. Is it intellectual superiority to champion a philosophy that has created more illiterates since that of Pol Pot? And yet liberals such as David Broder, Joe Klein, Maureen Dowd, Michael Kinsley and far too many others all claim intellectual superiority in spite of the evidence to the contrary. How many of you knew that the revolutionary’s icon Che Guevara was a medical doctor? Did you also know that he is also a mass murderer who used an old Spanish fort’s moat for his favorite pastime, public executions?

Liberals continuously talk about civil rights, but they have always been the first to refuse the exercise of those rights to those who disagree with their stance on any given issue. To the liberal intellectual elite, you have only one constitutional right, the right to remain silent. In our present day United States more than one citizen wishing to express an opinion has been silenced, tossed out of a public meeting or in a few cases, jailed; all for simply desiring to exercise their constitutional rights. If recent memory serves, did not Nancy Pelosi bemoan that blogs such as this were allowed to be published? Did she not suggest a Homeland Security investigation into those who dared to question Obama’s semi-deity?

The bill of rights exists for a reason. The men who crafted that document and all of the other documents that stand as the foundation of our freedoms knew firsthand what life was like under an oppressive regime. I would hate to see this country bow to another aristocracy.

Unions are no longer needed

My wife is a teacher and because she is a teacher she felt forced to join the teachers union. The reason was the litigious character of today’s society. Based on what she was told, the union is the only body capable of defending her is a student or a student’s parents sued her over an imagined slight. It was until much later on that we discovered that there is an association of American teachers, offering every benefit of the unions and more at a considerably reduced cost. In addition to that, the association doesn’t use its member’s money to support issues and candidates the teacher doesn’t agree with. In essence, the union, as far as most teachers are concerned is not only useless but harmful. Now for a history lesson;

The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in New York City on March 25, 1911, was the deadliest industrial disaster in the history of the city of New York and resulted in the fourth highest loss of life from an industrial accident in U.S. history. The previous sentence is taken verbatim from a Wikipedia article, but even at that, its information is historically accurate. Max Blanck and Isaac Harris, the owners of the business did everything they could to create the worst possible working environment in a highly competitive industry, and as a consequence put in place the factors necessary for disaster.

Following the disaster lawmakers began to correct the oversights allowing misers such as Blanck and Harris the freedom to abuser their employees. Unfortunately, those oversights also paved the way to give eastern European style socialists a foothold into the American economy in the form of trade unions.

Right now the United States of America is faced with an implacable enemy bent on nothing less than the total destruction of the US economy and the pursuit of individual prosperity. No, I’m not writing about Islamic Fundamentalism. Our enemy is the vast interlocking group of trade unionists. If you don’t believe me, check out the posted death threat sent to the courageous Wisconsin legislators who, in spite of the illegal tactics of the Democrats managed to pass a bill that forces the unions to work on the same playing field as everyone else. If those threats had come from a conservative source they would have been the week’s headline news in every media outlet possible. As it is, you have to dig to find a single article.

Back in the early 1900’s a case for unions could be made since far too many business owners function from a primary motive of utter greed. These men had little or no regard for the men, women and yes, even children whose sweat made them millions. But those days have long passed and entire libraries of legislation have been created mandating a safe workplace. The chief obstacle against employment and prosperity these days is the interagency of the unions against what matters to nothing more than common sense.

Consider the American automotive industry. There was a time when America was the primary industrial power of the world and the partnership between the steel mills and the auto manufacturers rolled out the best most-affordable mode of tr4ansportation money could buy…and then the unions got greedy. Class warfare showed its ugly face and instead of being the reason they had good jobs, people like Henry Ford became the enemy. Where is Detroit now? It is nothing more than an ever-expanding ghetto that produces far more crime than anything else.

Education is another industry the unions have ruined. Teachers are under the illusion that the NEA is there to help them that their local union branch is there to protect their jobs, even though every ancillary position, included janitorial, has better wages, benefits and working conditions than the classroom teacher. A teacher is the only governmental job requiring a 4-year degree that pays less than that of a Las Vegas parking valet. Here is a bit of news that would never make the news; if the public employee unions did not exist every decent teacher would get a raise because the government would be allowed to pay the workers based on their merit. They would also be allowed to get rid of the lousy ones, and kick the brats out of the school to make room for kids who want to learn.

So, do we need unions? No, not with the current laws covering the workplace; a job should be something you earn, not something you inherit.

What is a Dollar?

According to a monograph written by Edwin Vieira, Jr., even those who purport to print our money don’t really know what a dollar is.

"No statute defines - or ever has defined - the "one dollar" Federal Reserve Note “FRN” as the "dollar,” or even as a species of "dollar.” Moreover, the United States Code provides that FRNs "shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States…or at any Federal Reserve bank.” Thus, FRNs are not themselves "lawful money" - otherwise, they would not be "redeemable in lawful money.” And if FRNs are not even "lawful money,” it is inconceivable that they are somehow "dollars,” the very units in which all "United States money is expressed.”

People are confused on this point because of the insidious manner in which FRNs "evolved" - actually, degenerated is a more appropriate verb - from the late 1920s until today. FRNs of Series 1928 through Series 1950E carried the obligation "The United States of America will pay to the bearer on demand [some number of] dollars.” Prior to 1934, the notes carried the inscription "Redeemable in gold on demand at the United States Treasury, or in gold or lawful money at any Federal Reserve Bank.” After 1934, the notes carried the inscription "this note…is redeemable in lawful money at the United States Treasury, or at any Federal Reserve Bank" (post-1934). Starting with Series 1963, the words "will pay to the bearer on demand" no longer appear; and each FRN simply states a particular denomination in "dollars”."

People have written to both their representatives and the Treasury Department asking for a definition of what a “dollar” is. The replies reveal just how confused this situation has become. Being a man who considers his word his bond, I would have to say that the FRN is and remains a contract; whether or not the government chooses to admit this…they printed the things. At the top of the contract they proudly proclaim it to be a Federal Reserve Note. At the bottom they declare the value, as in the dollar bill as One Dollar. The value of goods or services the note may purchase has changed, albeit not for the better. However, if you hold a 1900 $20 gold piece, you can still purchase what that coin could buy when it was minted. For example, back in 1920, a $20 gold coin would pay for a good suit. You can still do that today…if you have a $20 gold coin. A 1920 silver dime would pay for a decent breakfast…you can see my point.

The situation with coinage is more complex, but equally (if not more) confusing. The United States Code provides for three different types of coinage denominated in "dollars": namely, base- metallic coinage, gold coinage, and silver coinage.

The base-metallic coinage consists of "a dollar coin,” weighing "8.1 grams,” "a half dollar coin,” weighing "11.34 grams"; "a quarter coin,” weighing "5.67 grams": and "a dime coin,” weighing "2.268 grams.” All of these coins are composed of copper and nickel. The weights of the dime, the quarter, and the half dollar are in the correct arithmetical proportions, the one to each of the others. But the "dollar" is disproportionately light (or the other coins disproportionately heavy). In this series of base metallic coins, then, the questions naturally arise: Is the "dollar" a cupro-nickel coin weighing "8.1 grams"? Or is it two cupro- nickel coins (or four or ten coins) collectively weighing 22.68 grams? Or is it both? Or is it neither, but something else altogether, to which the weights of these coins are irrelevant?

In regards to the silver dollar...back when we actually minted silver coins for everyday use, the dollar coin weighed .999 troy ounces of silver. I would say that particular coin is the closest to anything as far as actually being a dollar. The value was there, the trust was there and the value of that coin has not varied through the years. If you currently have a silver dollar of nominal numismatic value (not one of the rarities) you can still purchase roughly the same value of goods or services you could back when the coin was minted, as stated in the examples above. Now we do still mint “Liberty Dollars”, but they are minted as collectibles more so than money.

Similarly, the gold coinage consists of "a fifty dollar gold coin" that "weighs 33.931 grams, and contains one troy ounce of fine gold"; "a twenty-five dollar gold coin" that "contains one-half ounce of fine gold"; "a ten dollar gold coin" that "contains one fourth ounce of fine gold"; and "a five dollar gold coin" that "contains one tenth ounce of fine gold.” The "fifty dollar,” "twenty-five dollar,” and "five dollar" coins are in the correct arithmetical proportions each to the others. But the "ten dollar" coin is not. Therefore, is a "dollar" one-fiftieth or one-fortieth of an ounce of gold? It appears to be undecided.

Right now businesses are advertising to convince an unsophisticated public to trade in their gold jewelry for banknotes. The price of both gold and silver is skyrocketing. If the policies of the Obama administration continue unabated you will see the value of notes plummet and the value of silver and gold climb even higher.

The US Government has not upheld its part on a contract begun back when it first began printing monetary notes. We still trade the notes for goods and services, but the trust is no longer there, in fact, based on the current crisis, the lack of trust is completely justified. If we had an administration with the courage to place the U.S. back onto the gold standard, we would see the value of the dollar skyrocket, whether or not enough gold exists to do so is beside the point. Experts disagree on both sides of that issue. What would be important would be the willingness to actually declare a foundation and to keep a promise...something our government hasn’t been willing to do for nearly three quarters of a century.

This brings me to a loosely connected point. Hollywood has expressed in film the idea that Uncle Sam trusts its citizenry about as much as they trust him. The background stories in the movies The Rock and Men in Black are an example. There is no love lost in either direction, but the greatest violator is the government. The current and ongoing mess was caused primarily by the government fouling up yet again…and apparently those in power are satisfied with the status quo. If you will think back to the last Presidential campaign, the reaction of the GOP leadership over the possibility of Sarah Palin being a heartbeat from the Presidency is a very telling bit of evidence. In that they resembled the Democrat leadership. The idea of having someone in power willing to tell the truth and act on it was horrifying to the entrenched bureaucracy. If we are to ever regain our prosperity with some stability we need to begin being an honest, ethical nation. Being honest in our money would be a good start.

A Conservative Manifesto

Since the shellacking the liberals received at the hands of both the GOP and the Tea Party last November, the media has been bulging with stories, articles and columns regarding the potential electoral disaster facing the Democrats in the upcoming 2012 election cycle. Even the Las Vegas Sun, a liberal rag in my home town,  has carried a column by the New York Times offering a serious warning to the Democrat establishment that they ignore the Tea Party at their own peril. The one overriding point missing from all of these and practically every other piece written by the Mainstream Media since the days of George Bush Senior is, just what a conservative is.

From MSNBC on, every liberal elite outlet sniffs with distain at the very mention of the word “conservative”. They sip their overpriced chardonnay as they nibble truffle-enhanced Pâté de foie gras while declaring in their upper class accents that conservatism is out of step with everyday America. It is not surprising that even now these pseudo intellectuals consider the elections in the Democrat strongholds of Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts to be aberrations. The likes of Wolf Blitzer, Chris Matthews, Andrea Mitchell, Lawrence O’Donnel and Norah O’Donnell will never get it. Miss O’Donnell even went so far as to verbally attack a young girl for being in line at a Sarah Palin book signing. You can check this link if it is still active:  

The left is falling apart. Their anger and hatred, and frankly, their fear of a conservative ascendancy have boiled over. Many consider the Tea Party Movement to be the chief villain in this drama.

One sad part of all this is that far too many in the GOP leadership also don’t get it. All too often I hear the same dismissive tones coming from Republican leadership with regard to the Tea Party movement as I do from the Democrats, and not only that, just like the Democrats many so-called leaders within the GOP actively work to remove their own colleagues from office if that colleague will not work with them in corruption. How do I know this? I was one of those targeted for being “too honest”; check out my profile. During the past election cycle we had the Republicans for Reid, a group formed simply because Sharon Angle did the unforgivable by trouncing their anointed candidate, past state party chair Sue Lowden. Now the good Assemblywoman is a household name and not necessarily in a good way. That is how sad things have gotten.

What today’s conservatives need is a manifesto, a list of those characteristics and policies that define what a conservative is. Simply being against taxes is not enough. I know of too many in my own party who use that simplistic measurement and then blithely vote to continue stealing from the taxpayer by raising fees for no other cause than their own enrichment.

The first item in this new Conservative Manifesto should be Constitutional Honesty. Right now the liberal elite are outraged over a correct decision by the Supreme Court to remove the McCain-Feingold stricture on corporations being able to donate to political races and an even more recent decision to give corporations the same free speech rights as individuals. Unfortunately, enough Republicans are also outraged to be worrisome. Whether you chose to accept it or not, corporations are made up of people. Simply because they band together they should not have to give up their civil rights.

The Constitution was written by men (advised by a number of very strong women) who knew first hand what it felt like to live under the very type of system the liberal elite would love to see enacted in this country. Again, whether or not they like it, the constitution gives us the right to own any type of firearm we choose. Nowhere does it limit that choice. If you don’t like it, use the established route to change the Constitution. If that is thought to be too much trouble, too bad.

That document gives us the right to voice nonviolent opinion, worship wherever we choose, even if it is in a school or city hall, disagree with the President, even if he is a mulatto, and to prosper in our business, even if we become wealthy doing so. What it does not do is allow us to lie, cheat and steal our way to wealth or power, and that is where the real conservatives are separated from the phonies. NeoCon is another term for phony. Bush Jr was a neocon just like Daddy Bush. Reagan was a true conservative. A NeoCon believes corruption is good as long as their frat brothers are involved. A true conservative will blow the whistle because it is the right thing to do.

The second item is US Sovereignty. If you want to send a liberal right off the deep end, suggest that the United States of America adopt the same type of rules considered a matter of course by most countries (several of which the liberal considers far more enlightened than the US); a national language and mandatory expulsion of illegal aliens. Sweden does this and because they are socialist they are completely accepted by the mushy-brained set. (Mushy-Brained means liberal. The terms are interchangeable)

Let US sovereignty even be mentioned by a US representative and that poor sap is being hung in media effigy that day. By the way, were you aware that Mexico is currently constructing a wall on its southern border? Where is the liberal outrage?

We have a right to secure borders just as our southern neighbor does, and we have a right to our own language, US English. Legal citizens of the US have the right to expect to be treated better than lawbreakers. Citizens of this country are the ones paying the bills and as the bill-payer they deserve to have the first place in the line. Of course, this attitude is considered to be hateful and racist by the liberal elite. The attitude of the true conservative toward them should be this, if you don’t like it; leave. If you want to stay, obey the law. By the way, the US has never shot someone attempting to leave our country legally.

Third is the sanctity of innocent life. Science today has reached the point where any honest biologist would have to admit that an unborn child in the womb of a human mother is an identifiably separate human life. Sure, it may be entirely dependant upon the mother for continued existence and growth, but that in no way invalidates the growing life’s individuality. This is simple, proven science and yet it is another unbending hot button for the liberal. The news is replete with stories of protesters crowding together outside the gate of a prison holding candlelight vigils on the eve of the execution of a convicted murderer. There is no consideration with these people as to how vile the committed crime may have been. These 10 watt intellects are filled with compassion for the perceived victim of the state over and above any innocent life. However, this group has nothing to say about the thousands executed by Islamic states. They could not care any less about the millions executed by every communist dictator since Lenin, nor do they breathe a single syllable of regret for any of the children murdered by the assorted Middle Eastern suicide-killers. What is the greatest hypocrisy of all, you ask? They celebrate every time an unborn child is murdered by a physician while that physician is busy violating his or her Hippocratic Oath. To quote Wilkow, “Hypocrisy is like flatulence, you never notice your own.”

An important note on this; abortion is currently legal. It may be horribly, morally wrong, but it is still legal. That being said, the entire pro-abortion stance is hypocritical on its face and the hypocrisy continues to its core. An innocent human life is taken in every case and that has to be admitted. A true conservative would agree. A true conservative defends innocent life, whether it be in the womb or not. Politics is not given a single place in this decision. If that defense costs a position of power, so be it. If it costs you money, too bad, what is right is right and any argument to the contrary is wrong on its face. Some prices are simply too high to pay.

Fourth is the economy. That’s right; a real conservative does not place money at the pinnacle, which is the NeoCon stance. A real conservative understands that certain principles are more important than the accumulation of wealth. With that being said, the economy holds a solid place within the top 5 because a real conservative also understands that in order to be a productive citizen, people need real jobs, not welfare. The liberal elite consider most employers to be the enemy, unless that employer happens to employ them or gives huge campaign contributions to avowed socialists like Obama, Pelosi or Reid. Common sense dictates that in order to stimulate an economy, the best thing a government can do is get out of the way and allow business to grow. The second best thing is to allow competition to be the rule within the marketplace. Of course there is a problem here; not one honest thinker can ever ascribe common sense to the liberal mind. History has more examples of the liberal experiment destroying an economy than it has of wars causing death. All right, some hyperbole there, but the point stands. Liberalism has never grown an economy…ever, and yet the mushy-brained continue to insist that their way will work…this time. I do hope you all know the definition of insanity.

Fifth on this list, is personal freedom. The liberal believes that such a right only applies to them and those groups they champion: terrorists, communists, Marxists, baby killers, mass murderers, traitors and so on. No, personal freedom belongs to every legal citizen within this country. It is not and should not be a right extended to anyone who belongs to or supports a group whose aim is to harm those citizens, nor should it be extended to those who have broken our immigration laws. For far too long our freedoms have been chipped away by Washington elites who believe they know better how to lead our lives than we do. Because of this belief we have become smothered by a blanket of laws that have no reason for existing other than to give careers to people incapable of competing in the free market. Every single one of the laws governing what kind of car you can drive, laws telling you to dress like a Star Wars Storm Trooper before you can ride a bike, laws telling you what kind of food you can eat, and so on into infinity, should be abolished in favor of one simple statute; if you do something stupid to yourself, you are responsible for any costs you incur. If your stupidity causes harm to someone else, you pay through the nose, regardless your position or power; if this causes some lawyers to get an honest job…again, too bad.

Sixth is intellectual honesty. The discussion of global warming has its place in the conservative doctrine just as do many other scientific and educational issues. A real conservative agrees with real science. We know that Darwinism, Creationism and Intelligent Design, as far as science is concerned, are all theories. If you call evolution a scientific fact, you are wrong. Evolution, the way it is taught, can no more be proven by science than the existence of God. If you disagree, show me the missing link. Science is not faith and faith is not science. A real conservative is able to live with both. Global warming has not only not been proven, but it has been revealed as false far too many times for the honest to ignore. Global temperatures have actually gone down since the high point in the early 1990’s and several highly reputable climatologists believe that the earth may be entering another cooling period similar to that which caused the mini ice age back in Napoleon’s day. But the validation of this theory could cost Al Gore money, and the liberal elite cannot let that happen. They even have the gall to call those who disabuse the global warming nonsense as “unpatriotic”. What they cannot do is dispute the educational and research records of the men and women brave enough to publish scientific truth.

Seventh is extremism. As currently defined, most Americans are not extremists; the liberal elite are excluded from that list, “most Americans” because by constitutional definition a liberal elitist cannot be a real American. Their own extremism makes true active citizenship impossible. The ongoing knock against the Tea Party Movement is that of extremism, and to continue the honesty, the movement has welcomed some extremists with open arms. The only extreme the true conservative should embrace is an extreme love and respect for the founding documents of this country, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United State of America, and for the ideals that brought those documents into being. That is what defines a real American.

Albert Gore and the Global Warming Ponzi Scheme

Most people of my generation (born in the 50’s) are well aware that ex-vice president Al Gore is a walking joke with the functional intelligence of G W Bush’s idiot cousin. What is surprising is that in spite of this obvious handicap, Mr. Gore has managed to manipulate a significant portion of the world’s population into making him wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice. I’m talking billions, with a “B”. Check out this site, for pages of very damaging evidence. You will notice that an interesting point on how the media consider the deaths of completely worthless individuals such as Anna Nicole Smith far more important than the corruption of the scientific process for profit is made.

Papers such as the Washington Post, not a tabloid known for evenhandedness in its reporting, reported in Gore’s scholarship abilities with a distinct tone of abashment in their prose. Here is what was said about the young Gore’s attempt at handling higher education’s strictures, “In his sophomore year at Harvard, Gore's grades were lower than any semester recorded on Bush's transcript from Yale. That was the year Gore's classmates remember him spending a notable amount of time in the Dunster House basement lounge shooting pool, watching television, eating hamburgers and occasionally smoking marijuana. His grades temporarily reflected his mildly experimental mood, and alarmed his parents. He received one D, one C-minus, two C's, two C-pluses and one B-minus, an effort that placed him in the lower fifth of the class for the second year in a row.”

The article goes on to point an accusatory finger at Gore’s ability to even understand the basics of how the ecosphere works, “For all of Gore's later fascination with science and technology, he often struggled academically in those subjects. The political champion of the natural world received that sophomore D in Natural Sciences 6 (Man's Place in Nature) and then got a C-plus in Natural Sciences 118 his senior year. The self-proclaimed inventor of the Internet avoided all courses in mathematics and logic throughout college.”

Jay Leno had an interesting punch line with regard to politicians, “…is a highly trained liar. If you try it, you’ll die!” He was talking about infidelity and hookers, but when you’re dealing with most politicians, the two aren’t all that far apart. In the case of Al Gore and global warming, you have to wonder why so many people who are normally skeptical would swallow hook, line and sinker a story that has as much veracity as the “I invented the internet” fiction.

Al Gore is by far the most visible beneficiary of the global warming ponzi scheme. As a climate-change fear-monger, Gore has banked millions in book sales, speaking fees and DVD royalties. His pseudoscience flick, “An Inconvenient Truth,” won an Academy Award for best documentary, not to mention 21 other film awards. He was also the co-recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his “efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.” Note that word, “efforts”. It seems that liberals can get awards for simply trying, not achieving.

As unstudious as he has proven to be, Al Gore is no dummy where cunning is concerned. While the greenies were helping him create panic over nonexistent global warming, he built investments into a host of new so-call “green” businesses. Now remember, because of his past office, Gore has connections that most people simply are not allowed to access. These connections enabled him to tie into using all the new environmental regulations for his own profit. This is essentially legalized insider trading on steroids. In addition to this, because the vast majority of reporters make Fidel Castro look conservative, our nation’s wealthiest climate fraud was given a free pass by the mainstream media. They absolutely refused to ask Gore a single pointed question in regard to the piles of cash he was raking in while pushing the global warming hysteria.

Well, even the best laid plans can unravel, and due to a few brave men and women who consider honesty in science more important than being invited to the “right kind of parties”, Gore’s ponzi scheme has been dealt several deadly blows. This link, points out a number of the lies Al Gore has attempted to put out as scientific truth. But, as with every liberal, neither Gore, nor his supporters are concerned with the truth.

The New York Times, no slouch where carbon footprints are concerned, furnished Gore last Saturday with what amounted to an unpaid advertisement. Published February 27th, 2010, We Can’t Wish Away Climate Change amounts to nothing more than an attempt by Gore to keep the global warming money coming in, and the New York Times is more than willing to join in on the scam. In the piece, Gore, owner of the largest carbon footprint going, states that “unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it.” Any guess on how many of these “large-scale, preventive measures” would add to his ever growing Swiss bank account?

Gore also claims that the world is facing an “ever dwindling oil supply”. This is understandable because like all liberals, Gore does not and cannot consider anything done by or within the United States worthy of consideration, unless it promotes the socialist agenda. It is also an interesting claim because an oil field containing over 200 billion barrels of obtainable crude has been discovered beneath North Dakota. This link, gives the particulars. With the continual advances in hybrid automobile technology, that 200 billion could reasonably equal a trillion barrels in effective fuel energy. On this, Gore is silent. He is also silent on the record-breaking snowfall in both the Rockies and the Sierras, not to mention the ongoing reports since 2003 that, rather than warming, the earth appears to be entering a cooling phase.

The US Constitution gives us the right to voice an opinion. Nowhere in that document is the slightest hint that anyone is allowed to publish a lie for profit. Yes, I know, the ghastly specter of censorship is inherent in that phrase, but we already have laws against fraud, libel and slander. Sorry to burst your bubble (no, I’m not), but there is no Constitutional right to lie. Al Gore should know that.

How to reduce Healthcare Costs

Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of Rahm Emanuel and Obama’s own choice to head Medicare and Medicade, Dr. Donald Berwick, believe that the way to reduce healthcare costs is to simply kill off those who cost the most to care for. An extreme statement? An extreme view? Perhaps, unless one happens to look into the backgrounds of these two men and the Sitting US President who considers their viewpoints worthy of consideration.

Barrack Obama spent his entire adult life sitting at the feet of an avowed enemy of the American way of life, Jeremiah “God Damn America” Wright. Both Ezekiel and Rahm Emanuel are on the record praising one of the founders and leaders of the Weather Underground Organization, Bill Ayers. The following statement comes from the radical group’s founding document;

“The most important task for us toward making the revolution, and the work our collectives should engage in, is the creation of a mass revolutionary movement, without which a clandestine revolutionary party will be impossible. A revolutionary mass movement is different from the traditional revisionist mass base of "sympathizers.” Rather it is akin to the Red Guard in China, based on the full participation and involvement of masses of people in the practice of making revolution; a movement with a full willingness to participate in the violent and illegal struggle.”

Neither Obama, neither Emanuel brother nor Ayers himself have ever repudiated their roots, nor have they ever denounced the revolutionary ideals that drove them then and apparently drive their agenda now.  It is also germane to mention Thomas Malthus, a British clergyman and economist who published An Essay on the Principle of Population during the 18th century. Leftists somehow seem incapable of believing that the human species is anything but a drain on the resources of the earth. This brings us to the continual and ongoing healthcare debate.

Back in 2009, when Obamacare was being shoved down the throats of the American public, the Democrat leadership not only ridiculed those who objected to the bill but laughed at those who wished to know what was in the bill before it was voted upon. What is the saddest part of all of this is that the sycophantic American Media thought the Democrat attitude was perfectly reasonable. Would those same people have thought it reasonable when a real estate agent said they could only inspect their new house after they bought it? The parallel is not arguable.

Obama continues to push affordability and cost control in his ongoing support of his horrible idea. He, like every other liberal leader out there knows full well that the opposite will occur. Costs will rise exponentially, which is exactly what is desired. If the Washington power elite truly wanted to make being patched up less expensive all they need to do is lower the cost of providing healthcare to the providers. This is basic economic fact, not theory. Look at it this way; if the cost of oil drops how does that affect the cost of gasoline at the pump? It certainly does not go up. It is the same with a visit to the doctor’s office. Lower the cost of doing business and what business provides costs less at the point of purchase.

Right now the major cost of running a medical office is not salaries, nor is it equipment. It is the price of being allowed to do business set by the government. Your average doctor pays through the nose for liability insurance. So many avenues and barriers have been erected by government and their attack dogs, civil suits in suits (read: lawyers), that if true tort reform were ever enacted the price of medical liability insurance would drop to about 1% of what it is today. If all of the fees and regulations that are nothing more than bureaucratic redundancies were removed from running a medical practice or facility and the practice allowed to pass the savings along to the patient, the cost of healthcare would also drop exponentially. Will the liberal establishment ever allow this to happen? Not on your life.

Will the liberal establishment ever allow an honest debate on these principles? What do you think?