Thursday, April 25, 2013

Demand "Vehicle Control" Legislation

It's time for Americans to demand that the government immediately pass vehicle control, or..., umm..., "vehicle safety". Every year, tens of thousands of people are killed by vehicles, and we would all feel better if the government just "did something", especially for "THE CHILDREN".

Here's what the "vehicle safety" legislation should include:

1) Vehicles that look fast, (whether or not they actually are), need to be banned, because they're scary looking. If a vehicle has a spoiler, or hood vents, or racing stripes, or stickers of flames down the side, we can't allow people to own it. If you already have a vehicle that meets the "fast vehicle" definition, you will have 30 days to turn it in to the local government. I mean, really, why do you need a "fast vehicle" (also known as a "racing style" vehicle) just to get back and forth to work?

2) Gas tanks larger than 5 gallons should be banned. The more gasoline you can carry, the more likely it is that you will be involved in an accident. No one really needs more than 5 gallons of gasoline at a time, anyway, and people who say they do are obviously up to no good.

3) In order to sell your car, give it to a relative, or even loan it to someone else, the person receiving the vehicle needs to go to the county court house (or a new car dealership), complete a background check form, and wait for a result. This applies even if the county courthouse or the nearest car dealership is hours away and (for example) you want to loan your car to your neighbor briefly. There will be a fee required for this background check, the amount of which is left up in the air. If the background check comes back clean, only then can you sell, give, or loan the vehicle. Failure to follow the background check procedure will result in fines and/or jail time.

90% of Americans agree that "vehicle safety" legislation should be passed (or at least answered in the affirmative when asked if something should be done about vehicle deaths). If this legislation were passed, the number of vehicle deaths per year would probably not change, but we could all feel better, because the government "did something" for "THE CHILDREN".

Wednesday, August 05, 2009

How "Healthcare Reform" Would Play Out

If the "Healthcare Reform" bill put forward by the Democrats were to ever become law, here's how it would play out. (A hint: you won't like the ending.)

1) A bill including a government health insurance option and an appointed, unaccountable board of "experts" who will determine what care must be offered and to whom is passed.

2) The 48 million "uninsured" pile into the government plan, along with a significant percentage of those currently insured (as a result of their places of employment eliminating the hassle of providing insurance and electing to pay the tax "penalty").

3) Quickly, the government plan is out of money to pay for the massive increase in healthcare utilization that results.

4) With not enough resources, the government is faced with three choices: a) repeal the law; b) massive tax hikes across the board on individuals; c) reduce the cost of the healthcare being paid for by the government. Here's where the Socialist magic happens. Option 'a' is a total non-starter, as it would be an admission of failure (something not allowed by the personalities involved), as well as mightily opposed by the leftist elements of the Democrats base. Option 'b' is politically VERY difficult, since this whole plan was sold as a way to control healthcare costs and "reduce the deficit" (try not to snicker). Option 'c', on the other hand, is politically easy because its not too difficult to demonize the healthcare industry for "overcharging". It also has the added benefit of not requiring an admission that they were horribly wrong.

5) Having selected the option of reducing costs, the government unilaterally informs healthcare providers that they will now only be paid 60 cents on the dollar for the same services they have been performing for participants in the government option. Because there are so many people covered by the government plan, healthcare providers have no choice but to accept it. In a desperate attempt to make up for the losses, healthcare providers crank up their rates charged to individuals utilizing private plans, causing more and more people to dump their private plan for the "cheaper" government plan.

6) When reducing costs by underpaying healthcare providers doesn't stop the massive losses the program is running, the unaccountable board of appointed "experts" steps in with new rules to maximize the "return on investment" for the government's money. These rules include denial of coverage for many procedures and medications for people who the bureaucrats determine aren't a good investment, including the elderly, those with chronic or terminal diseases, etc. If you're over 65, no hip replacement for you, because you'll probably die soon, anyway (harsh, but this is the way Socialized medicine works).

7) With the healthcare industry financially decimated, hospitals and doctor's offices closing around the country, and the rate of participation in the government "option" accelerating, the only remaining option is rationing of care. Need an MRI? get in line. We'll try to get to you within the next year. Need a joint replacement? If we calculate that you're worth it, we can arrange for that within the next several years. Development of new medications, therapies, and medical devices comes to a stand still, as no private company is willing to risk the billions it takes to develop new medical products when there's no money to pay for them. The state of the art in medicine ceases to advance.

At that point, we will have reached the point that Great Britain and Canada are at now, except there won't be a United States to run to to get that MRI, new medication, or surgical procedure. We will have thrown it all away in the name "Hope and Change".

Friday, March 20, 2009

Why Can't They All Be Boy Scouts?

A Scout is: Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, and Reverent.

That's the Boy Scout law. All Boy Scouts and Scout leaders recite it over and over during the course of their activities in the program. Its really the distillation of the purpose of Scouting for me: to build the kind of men and boys that contribute in so many positive ways to our society. I've seen it work during my own Cub Scout participation lo' those many years ago, and again for my son after his five years in Cub Scouts, and now going into his second year of Boy Scouts.

I've watched boys (and others) who obey the Scout law return money they find to its rightful owner, step forward to admit blame for a mistake, pray openly and unashamedly with the group to open and close meetings, and pledge their allegiance and duty to their country and to their God. These are the people our country needs in government (on both sides of the aisle).

If you have the opportunity, remind your elected leaders of the Boy Scout Law. Some of them participated in Scouting as youth, and certainly already know the Law. Others may not have heard it before. Regardless, what a better world it would be if our elected leaders (and all of us) ascribed to those twelve tenets of the Scout Law.

I'm so very proud of my son and of all the Scouts I know for their work to do just that. If we can remind Washington D.C. of the value of those characteristics, we would all be better off.

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Collected Perls of Wisdom

Following are some collected pearls of wisdom regarding government and politics:

  • Spending like a drunken sailor is NOT an economic recovery plan.

  • Free markets solve problems. Government creates problems.

  • "Universal" healthcare = government bureaucrats telling YOU what healthcare you can receive.

  • The "rich" create jobs and wealth for all. The government does not.

  • Socialism = slavery.

  • You DON'T need government help to be successful.

  • Shifting money from one person to another (ie. "redistributing wealth") does not create prosperity or help the economy.

  • Sending a government check to people is not a "tax cut", particularly when the people receiving the check aren't paying income taxes in the first place.

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

The Obama Governance Plan

Through keen observation, and especially by just listening to Obama speak, here is my understanding of the Obama Governance Plan:

Phase 1: "Chicken Little"
Begin by convincing Americans that they are in imminent economic danger, by throwing out words like "catastrophe", "insecurity", and especially "recession". In spite of the fact that 90% of Americans aren't really feeling any economic insecurity, if the President and prominent Congress people repeat those phrases often enough, the mood in the country will turn sour and the people will be primed for government "help".

Phase 2: "Everything But the Kitchen Sink"
Once a significant portion of the American people have been whipped into a frenzy of concern over the "recession", present a massive "stimulus" bill as the solution that needs to be passed RIGHT NOW. Don't try to understand it, don't debate it, don't even bother reading it. PASS IT RIGHT NOW. Don't worry about the fact that the bill actually contains little or no actual stimulus; its only important that it contains every Liberal wish list item that couldn't possibly pass on its own, or even together in a more rational environment.

Phase 3: "Smash and Grab"
Having created a skyrocketing deficit, printing money like there's no tomorrow, and generally decimating the stock market in only slightly more than 30 days, explain to the American people that the deficits are so high that the government is forced to take more of their money by raising taxes. Don't bother pointing out that the reason the deficits are so high and the stock market is so low is the shockingly high spending from Phase 2, just decry the massive 10% of GDP deficit, the highest since World War II as a percentage of GDP, and explain that "we'll all have to make sacrifices..." ( order to afford the items on the Liberal wish list. Make sure NOT to say this last part out loud.) This should be sufficient for multiple tax increases on the "rich", with ever expanding definitions of "rich", and in spite of the fact that those people being penalized are the ones CREATING THE JOBS in America.

Phase 4: "Coup de Grace"
Finally, having decimated the economy by cranking up inflation to levels not seen since the Carter Administration, and destroying the American job base by damaging the ability of the private sector to create jobs and be productive, use the real recession that has been created to ram through additional "government help", like socialized medicine, vastly expanded welfare (otherwise known as paying people not to work), and the nationalization of entire industries.

Viola! In less than a year, you've utterly decimated the most vibrant, highest productivity economy in the world, and created the largest dependent class in the history of our nation.

I don't know if we will ever recover from four years of this man...

Monday, February 23, 2009

Obama's Planned Tax Hikes

On February 4th of this year, the Congressional Budget Office submitted an analysis of the Democrats "stimulus" plan, and its expected effects on the economy. As you can read for yourself in the original document, they predicted the Obama Administration's stimulus plan would only deepen the recession: the long run it will lower aggregate output (GDP) by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent.

The report overall is a very interesting read. How anyone could defend this "stimulus" boondoggle at all is completely baffling to me.

And now it seems, Obama is planning a big tax hike to pay for it. Here's the relevant clip from another Washington Post article:

Obama also seeks to increase tax collections, mainly by making good on his promise to eliminate some of the temporary tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003. While the budget would keep the breaks that benefit middle-income families, it would eliminate them for wealthy taxpayers, defined as families earning more than $250,000 a year. Those tax breaks would be permitted to expire on schedule in 2011. That means the top tax rate would rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, the tax on capital gains would jump to 20 percent from 15 percent for wealthy filers and the tax on estates worth more than $3.5 million would be maintained at the current rate of 45 percent.

In the teeth of a recession. With unemployment rising. Have these people even opened an economics text book?

Obama and the Democrats Have Mortgaged Our Children's Future

From a Washington Post article dated Saturday, February 21, 2009:

First as a senator and then as president, Obama has presided over the fastest, largest outlay of federal money since World War II. Over the past 12 months, the government has pumped more than $2 trillion into initiatives to ease the nation's financial and economic crisis, driving the federal deficit to historic proportions.

Coupled with slowing tax collections because of the recession, the spending spree is pushing the budget deficit toward $1.4 trillion this year, or nearly 10 percent of the nation's overall economy. Absent dramatic action or an economic miracle, trillion-dollar deficits are projected to persist throughout the coming decade, by some estimates, and the bills are forecast to run headlong into the skyrocketing costs of caring for the retiring baby boom generation.

Need anything more be said about this "stimulus" boondoggle?

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Even the Communists Get It

From a Washington Post story dated November 21, 2008:

This week, China announced that it would shelve a plan to raise the minimum wage. A lower minimum wage would at least theoretically relieve stress on struggling companies, allowing them to keep more people employed overall.

"We have to first worry about whether workers have a job -- then worry about how much they're getting paid later," Hu said.

Check out the full story here.

Friday, October 31, 2008

Absolutely Couldn't Put it Better Myself

Wow. This is amazing. I've never seen it put this succinctly and clearly...

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Timeline of a Housing Disaster

With thanks to whomever assembled all this information, and to Dave Peterson for passing it along to me:

  • Congress and President Clinton loosen Home Loan Requirements.[ed.]

  • Fannie Mae is a GSE (Govt. Sponsored Entity) regulated by CONGRESS.

  • Fannie Mae buys mortgages from other companies.

  • It is backed by the TAXPAYERS for all losses, but keeps all profits.

  • Banks begin making thousands of bad loans, zero down, no documentation, for 120% (1998-2008).

  • Executives at Fannie Mae receive huge bonuses if loan targets are met.

  • Franklin Raines & Jamie Garelick from the Clinton Administration are appointed to run Fannie Mae.

  • President Bush proposes a new oversight committee to clean-up Fannie Mae, Congress derails the effort.

    (Rep. Melvyn Watt {D-NC} Committee on Financial Institutions & Consumer Credit, stated, "I don't see much other than weakening the bargaining power poorer families to get affordable housing.")

  • Raines receives $100 million in bonuses.

  • Garelick receives $75 million in bonuses.

  • In 2004, ENRON collapses, Congress investigates, Executives Skilling & Lay go to jail, for fraudulent bookkeeping. Congress responds with the Sorbanes-Oxley Act, more heavy regulation of Corporations.

  • An OMB investigation finds massive fraudulent bookkeeping at Fannie Mae.

  • False numbers triggered executive bonuses every year.

  • Congress held NO hearings, NO ONE goes to jail, or is punished.

  • WHY NOT?

1999 - 2005
  • Fannie Mae gives millions to Democratic causes, examples: Jessie Jackson & ACORN!

  • Fannie Mae pays millions to 354 Congressmen and Senators from both Parties. Who got the most money?
    1. Sen. Christopher Dodd, {D-CT} Chairman Banking, Housing, & Urban Affairs Committee.

    2. Sen. Barack Obama {D-IL} Federal Financial Management Committee.

    3. Sen. Chuck Schumer {D-NY} Chairman Finance Committee.

    4. Rep. Barney Frank {D-MA} Chairman House Financial Services Committee.

  • Franklin Raines & Top Execs are forced to resign from Fannie Mae.

  • They do not go to Jail.

  • There is NO Media "perp. walk."

  • They keep their bonuses.

  • They finally pay $31.4 million in Civil Fines.

  • The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act is sponsored by: Sen. John McCain {R-AZ} Armed Services, Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
    1. Senator McCain is 325th on the Fannie Mae Pay List.

    2. He stated, "If Congress does not act, American Taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole."

  • None of the top Four on the Fannie Mae Pay List supported the legislation.

  • The Reform Act is blocked by Democrats, never even making it out of the committee.

  • None of the Politicians on the Fannie Mae Pay List return any of the money, tainted by Fraud.

  • Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac go bankrupt and the Govt. Takes them over COMPLETELY.

  • Lehman Brothers, goes bankrupt from investing in bad mortgages.

  • AIG gets 85 million in Loan Guarantees, after insuring bad Loans and Projects.

  • Taxpayers will ultimately pay BILLIONS.

  • Franklin Raines is now an advisor to the "OBAMA CAMPAIGN" which wants the govt. to take over more of the economy.

  • Did Government involvement in the mortgage market work out?

  • How will even MORE government involvement make things better? Do you want to be Sweden?

  • McCain favors revising regulations and loan standards and selling off Fannie and Freddie.

  • New York Times, 9/13/2003.

  • Congressional Record, 5/25/2006.

  • Herald Tribune, 4/18/2008.

  • Hannity & Colmes, Fox News, 9/16-9/17/2008.

  • 9/17/2008. Prof. Dennis Jantz, 2008

Thursday, October 02, 2008

Want To Know What Caused the Financial Crisis?

The answer to what and who caused the current financial crisis is clear to see, and well recorded on CSPAN and news video over the past 15 years: Democrats. Christopher Dodd, Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, and, yes, Barack Obama. Don't believe me? See for yourself:

Time and time again, Republicans, including George W. Bush and John McCain attempted to gain some sort of control over the reckless behavior at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and they were blocked every time by the Democrats.

Thursday, May 22, 2008


Just an agreement to drill there would immediately lower oil prices, because a large new supply would be on its way. There is NO reasonable objection to opening ANWR and the continental shelf to drilling.

Those who oppose more domestic drilling are putting their idiosyncrasies above the interests of the American people, and they need to wake up.

Thursday, April 03, 2008

Ethanol is Destroying Our Economy

What have we done?

Ethanol as a fuel source is less efficient, more expensive, worse for the environment, and completely incapable of resolving our energy needs. Why are we subsidizing its production and mandating its use? The price of corn has doubled over the last several years, and the cost of wheat has tripled. This is directly related to the diversion of American grain yields to the production of Ethanol, rather than contributing to our food supply. The price increases have spread into most of our foodstuffs, yielding significant inflation increases that are exacerbating the already inflationary pressures of high oil prices. What's worse, the Ethanol being produced isn't even close to enough to have any effect whatsoever on the demand for petroleum-based fuels. Its a double whammy: instead of only having to suffer through high oil prices, the U.S. economy is struggling to deal with high oil prices AND ever increasing food prices with no end in sight.

Don't just take my word for it. Check out the facts here, here, and here.

Please contact your representatives in Congress and demand that all subsidies and mandates for Ethanol be eliminated immediately, for the good of the nation. If you want to make a statement while driving, check out this bumper sticker I've put together.

Monday, December 03, 2007

How To Catch Wild Pigs, And Why It Matters

Here's a snippet from an email that's making the rounds. This is not my creation; if its yours, please let me know so I can properly attribute it:

'You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in The last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat, you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd.

Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how To forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.

The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening to America. The government keeps pushing us toward Communism/Socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc. while we continually lose our freedoms- just a little at a time.

Remember this when you consider whether or not the government really should provide 'free' prescription drugs, or 'free' health insurance.

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Which Candidate Do You Support?

I had forwarded to me recently a link to a web site that allows you to specify your positions on a range of issues, and how important those issues are to you, and then uses that information to match you up with the candidate for President who most closely reflects your opinions. I can't vouch for the accuracy of the calculations, but it seemed pretty accurate in my recent test run.

To check it out yourself, visit

Here's what it had to say for me:

My top choice candidate (based on matching my positions on issues) should be Tom Tancredo, with a 90% match.

Here are my next three:

Kansas Senator Sam Brownback (R) - 88.10%
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R) - 87.30%
Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson (R) - 86.51%

Interestingly, Rudy Guliani is all the way down at number 10 for me, with only a 62.7% match. I've always felt that I would only be willing to support Rudy if he was the nominee and we had to beat the democrat.

Go check out the calculator, and let us know what it says. You may find a few surprises.

Thursday, July 12, 2007

National Healthcare Insurance = Socialized Medicine

Following is a letter to the editor I submitted to my local newspaper in response to a letter advocating for John Conyers' HR 676, "The United States National Healthcare Insurance Act":

In a letter to the editor published recently, Mr. James Montgomery expressed a desire to hear from someone who does not support Socialist Healthcare in America. I'm pleased to grant his wish.

Let's be clear about terminology, here. Mr. Montgomery has written to support HR 676, a bill titled "The United States National Healthcare Insurance Act". This bill isn't just about insurance, however. The minute the government becomes the only payer of healthcare bills in America, the healthcare system has been nationalized. The U.S. government would set the prices, decide what procedures and treatments can and can't be performed, and control access to all healthcare. Enacting a single payer system is exactly equivalent to enacting Socialized Medicine in America.

Mr. Montgomery's letter purported to impart some "frightening facts" in support of his contention that government bureaucracy should control and ration the delivery of healthcare services in the United States. Let's address them each in turn:

1) "At least 18,000 Americans die each year from lack of healthcare coverage." - I challenge the supporters of Socialized Medicine to name just one person who has died because they were unable to receive medical treatment as a result of not having healthcare coverage. Just ONE. As we are all well aware, it is illegal for any hospital emergency room to refuse treatment to a patient because they are unable to pay. This is a bogus, unsupported statistic that is patently false.

2) "80 percent of Americans who lack healthcare coverage are families with one or more jobs." - Leaving aside the confusion in this statement regarding whether we're discussing individual Americans or American families, one has to ask: 'What point are you trying to make?'. I would expect its reasonable to assume that at least 80% of any randomly selected sample of American families has "one or more jobs".

3) "More than 50% of bankruptcies occur due to medical bills..." - Again, I ask, 'What point are you trying to make?'. Perhaps Mr. Montgomery would prefer that half of all bankruptcies occur due to identify theft? Maybe bankruptcies due to expenses from frivolous lawsuits are better, in Mr. Montgomery's eyes? The best healthcare in the world can sometimes be expensive, particularly in cases of catastrophic illness or injury. If anything, Socialized Medicine will lead to many, many more bankruptcies, as our taxes go through the roof to pay for the inevitable bureaucratic inefficiency and steep decline in availability and quality of healthcare services.

4) "Of all the nations, the U.S. spends the most on healthcare..." - This is an easy one. You get what you pay for. The United States has the best healthcare system in the world. People from around the world come here to receive top-notch care. Nationalized healthcare insurance would LOWER the quality of healthcare in America substantially, and INCREASE the costs. Ask yourself when you ever observed a government program and said to yourself: 'What a well-run, efficient, cost-effective program!'. I suspect you never have, nor have I.

5) "...the U.S. has the highest rate of people who believe their healthcare system should be reformed." - There's nothing about this statistic (assuming for the sake of argument that its true) that supports Mr. Mongomery's position. This only shows that people want a change; not what type of change they want. Count me as as one of those who strongly believe that the healthcare system should be reformed. We need to de-couple health insurance from employment, and re-introduce market efficiencies into the system by giving the individual to ability to shop for their healthcare services. Healthcare Savings Accounts are a fantastic example of how Americans can re-take control of their medical services.

6) "The spiraling costs of healthcare are negatively impacting American businesses..." - Yet another argument in favor of de-coupling healthcare coverage from employment, and putting the control back in the hands of individual Americans. This isn't in any way an argument for Socialized Healthcare. In fact, its an argument against, as the inevitable spike in taxes will have a much more negative effect on businesses than the healthcare expenses they're currently experiencing.

So there you go, Mr. Montgomery. I DON'T support HR 676 because I don't trust politicians to make my medical decisions. I DON'T support HR 676 because I've never met a government program that was efficient and well-run. I DON'T support HR 676 because I've never seen the government reduce costs for anything. I DON'T support HR 676 because it would destroy patient incentives to find the best possible prices and treatments. I DON'T support HR 676 because it would destroy physician incentives to provide competitive services and prices, and would destroy pharmaceutical companies' incentive to develop new drugs and treatments. I DON'T support HR 676 because it would result in stealing from your wallet to pay MY healthcare costs. I DON'T support HR 676 because it would inevitably lead to the deterioration of healthcare services in the United States.

Friday, May 25, 2007

Border Security First

Following is the text of a letter I just sent to my senators, Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson. I encourage you to contact your senators as well regarding the inadvisability of the amnesty bill currently being considered.

Senator Chambliss,

As a strong supporter of yours, I just wanted to contribute my voice to the overwhelming majority of Georgians who oppose the amnesty bill (and it IS an amnesty bill, call it whatever you wish) currently under consideration, and that you have indicated support for.

You were quoted in the Marietta Daily Journal as saying that you believed that Georgians supported the bill. We absolutely do not support that bill.

As you know, amnesty failed when it was tried last in 1986. The solution to the problem of illegal immigration is securing the border and making it difficult or impossible for illegal immigrants to find work. Nothing more, nothing less. If the border were adequately protected, and it was very difficult for illegals to find paying jobs, they would leave of their own accord. The objection that we don't have the resources for a "mass deportation" of 12 million people is a complete straw man. Its not necessary. Close the borders and make it difficult to find work, and they will deport themselves.

As a part of such a bill, legal immigration limits could be raised, and additional resources dedicated to processing those who are entering the country lawfully, to speed their progress.

Until the borders are demonstrably secure (not just the money having been spent), and the illegal immigrant population begins to fall, would it be responsible to consider any type of temporary worker program.

As I said, I am a supporter of yours, and I want to commend you on the strong stand you've taken in support of winning the War in Iraq, and on keeping taxes low.

Feel free to use this as a template for your own letter to your senators and representatives.

Thursday, May 24, 2007

Monday, May 07, 2007

The Ant and the Grasshopper

This is one of those emails that periodically go around, but the story and moral here are so perfect, I just had to post it.


The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold. MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!


The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving. CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp contrast in life styles. How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so? Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper, and everybody cries when they sing, "It's Not Easy Being Green." Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, "We shall overcome." Jesse then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake. Nancy Pelosi & John Kerry exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share. Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity and Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer. The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government. Hillary gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit against the ant and the case is tried before a panel of federal judges that in l992,Bill Clinton appointed from a list of single-parent welfare recipients. The ant loses the case. The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he's in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he doesn't maintain it. The ant has disappeared in the snow. The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood. MORAL OF THE STORY: Be careful how you vote.

Thursday, May 03, 2007

No Surrender in Iraq

Here's a petition from Please consider signing it and telling your friends about it:

Thursday, January 25, 2007

Voting For Defeat

Its important for everyone to understand that a vote in Congress for the resolution currently being considered that would express disapproval for the sending of reinforcements to Iraq is a vote FOR DEFEAT for America in Iraq. Such a vote will encourage our enemies, and give our friends pause about the reliability of America.

Its been said over and over. Defeat in Iraq would be a calamity, not only for us, but for the world. I can't possibly understand why it is that the Liberals in Congress want the U.S. to fail. Biden, Kennedy, why? Why are you aiding our enemies?

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

Economic Freedom Strongly Related to Good Economic Performance

This one comes from the "Duh" file, but it bears repeating often that the most free nations are the best economic performers. A free nation is defined as one in which its citizens have business (regulatory) freedom, fiscal freedom, trade freedom, and freedom from government interference, among other freedoms. The beneficiaries of the stellar economic performance are all citizens of those nations, across income levels.

To put it another way: capitalistic societies perform better economically, and result in a better life for the poorest living in them, than socialistic societies. The more government interferes in the economy and lives of its citizens, even when its intentions are good, the worse off people living under that government become.

Here's the most recent Index of Economic Freedom report. There's plenty of detailed data to back up the findings of the report, which, as I said, should be self-evident to any critical thinker.

Following is a snippet from the Executive Summary of the report:

Economic freedom is strongly related to good economic performance. The world's freest countries have twice the average per capita income of the second quintile of countries and over five times the average income of the fifth quintile of countries. The freest economies also have lower rates of unemployment and lower inflation. These relationships hold across each quintile, meaning that every quintile of less free econo-mies has worse average rates of inflation and unemployment than the preceding quintile has.

Friday, November 10, 2006

Reading Assignment

The following two articles, written prior to the election, should be required reading for every American. Its too bad that more voters didn't read them before November 7th, but all is not lost: the War on Terror must continue, and the first step must be a stable, democratic Iraq.

I will warn you, though, that the first one is a difficult read, because it describes a very terrible, (thankfully only) possible, future world.

There WILL be a quiz, and it will take place in 2008.

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

Turnout Looks Good in Conservative Cobb

I voted this morning, and I noted that the lines were very long. Longer than I remember for any other midterm election. Hopefully that bodes well that very-conservative Cobb County is turning out strongly.

Securing the Peace is a Lot Harder than Wishing for It

Keep that in mind when you vote today. Enough said.

Monday, November 06, 2006

More Resentment Than Gratitude

Below is an axiom I stumbled on, as quoted by George Will:

"Any new entitlement generates less gratitude for what is given than it does resentment for what is withheld."

How perfectly does that capture our experience?

Tuesday, August 08, 2006

Where is the American Resolve?

Wars can't be won halfway. Either a nation throws itself fully into the task of defeating its enemies, or it is defeated.

In the War on Terror, currently raging in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon, I'm afraid that some Americans are losing their resolve. They've become bored with the struggle, and just want their quiet, easy lives back. How shallow. This is a war for our very way of life. On one side, we are fighting for freedom, modernity, and civilization. On the other side, the Islamists are fighting for power and barbarity, the subjection of those who are not elites, and the destruction of Christianity and Judiasm.

What's more, the Western world is becoming its own worst enemy in this conflict. Its Western media that beams the images of destruction around the world, and hangs the responsibility on the American and Israeli military by way of falsified photos and flippant, misleading captions.

As Cal Thomas notes in his recent column on Townhall (referring to recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee):

Rumsfeld elaborated on the difference between the two sides: "One side does all it can to avoid civilian casualties, while the other side uses civilians as shields, and then skillfully orchestrates a public outcry when the other side accidentally kills civilians in their midst. One side is held to exacting standards of near perfection; the other side is held to no standards and no accountability at all."

More from Cal Thomas:

During World War II, U.S. and German forces fought the battle of Hurtgen Forest. It began Sept. 19, 1944 and ended Feb. 10, 1945. That was one battle in a strategically insignificant corridor of barely 50 square miles east of the Belgium-Germany border. The Germans inflicted more than 24,000 casualties on American forces, while another 9,000 Americans were sidelined due to illness, fatigue and friendly fire. Had live TV beamed this battle to America, there might have been an outcry that the policy was failing and somehow a cease-fire and an accommodation with Hitler should be achieved. America won that war because the objective wasn't to understand the Nazis, or to reach an accommodation with them; the objective was to win the war. Anything less in this war - against an equally evil and unrelenting enemy - will mean defeat for the United States and for freedom everywhere. That's what Rumsfeld was getting at when he said, "We can persevere in Iraq or we can withdraw prematurely, until they force us to make a stand nearer home. But make no mistake: They are not going to give up, whether we acquiesce in their immediate demands or not."

Make no mistake. This is a war that must be won. What's more, its unfortunate but true that civilians will be killed. The terrorist's tactics make it certain. Just as tragically, American soldiers will be killed and injured. But in the face of that, the United States of America must maintain its resolve to win the fight and preserve freedom and our way of life.

Friday, July 21, 2006

Steve and Cokie Get It Wrong, Again

Steve and Cokie's latest column, titled "Bush's Stubbornness", was startling in the number of inaccuracies, misleading statements, and apparent willful misinterpretation of reality. The gist if their argument is that President Bush's veto of the embryonic stem cell funding legislation somehow represents the triumph of hard-headedness over "science". Unfortunately, their argument is full of holes.

First of all, through most of the column, the Roberts' refer to the research covered by the legislation that President Bush vetoed as "stem cell" research. This, I believe, is an intentional attempt to make people believe that the president, and those who agree with him are opposed to stem cell research in general. In fact, both the objection and the vetoed legislation apply specifically to embryonic stem cell research, and not to that research that is based on adult stem cells, or those derived from placental or umbilical cord blood.

Steve and Cokie make the argument that embryonic stem cell (ESC) research raises "...the possibility of new treatments for a range of debilitating conditions, from cancer and Parkinson's to spinal cord injuries". What they don't bother to mention, however, is that those same conditions are being treated NOW using adult stem cells (ASC). Adult stem cells (as the name implies) come from adults, or from umbilical cord or placental blood, and retrieving them doesn't result in the destruction of any life. At least 72 different diseases and conditions are currently treatable using therapies derived from adult stem cell research. How many conditions are currently treated using therapies derived from ESC research? NOT ONE. That's right. Not a single person has ever been treated as a result of embryonic stem cell research. Progress and scientific advancements are much more pronounced with ASC research, yet some are clamoring for federal dollars to go to embryonic stem cell research. Why?

There are two groups of people who really stand to gain from ESC: the pro-abortion crowd and a minority of pharmaceutical/bio-technology companies. The pro-abortion crowd wants to continue to chip away at society's respect for the sanctity of life. If they can get the public to agree that its OK to destroy a fetus for research, why not then for convenience? The pharma/bio-tech companies have a financial motive. If they can arrange for the taxpayer to foot some of their costs, all the better for their bottom lines'.

Its clear that President Bush's veto certainly wasn't an example of hard-headedness winning out over "science". Science and practical application is solidly on the side of adult stem cell-derived therapies. Why should the taxpayers pay to destroy human life in the off-chance that it could lead to alternative treatments that, in many cases, are already treatable using adult stem Cells? Just as importantly, denying federal funding to ESC research does not in any way restrict or limit the private funding of that research, or the chances that a cure or treatment will be found, through that or any other form of research. Its ridiculous to imply, or outright state, (as the Roberts' do in their column), that people are suffering because the government won't pay for ESC research.

The icing on the cake in Steve and Cokie's column was this little gem: "...[President Bush] refuses to recognize that most moral choices are not between good and evil, but between competing virtues." According to the Oxford dictionary, the word "moral" is defined as: "concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character". No "competing virtues" there. The Roberts' statement is exactly what's wrong with so much of society today: there is such a thing as objective right and wrong. Morality is not in the eye of the beholder. Destroying human embryos, whether for research or convenience (as is done in an abortion), is wrong. Period.

Thursday, July 20, 2006

Embryonic Stem Cells Haven't Cured a Single Person

Yesterday, President Bush vetoed legislation that would have allowed money from the federal budget to be spent on Embryonic Stem Cell (ESC) research. This was his first veto, and it couldn't have been more important than on this legislation. Congratulations on the veto, Mr. President.

To hear the ESC advocates tell it, the only way science can cure lots of diseases and conditions, from Parkinsons, to Alzheimers, to spinal cord damage, is to have the federal government pay to destroy human embryos while harvesting their stem cells for research. This is utter hogwash.

Here are the facts: Adult Stem Cell (ASC) research, which draws on stem cells taken from adults, or from the umbilical cord and placenta, has already resulted in treatments for dozens of diseases and conditions, including Sickle Cell Anemia, several forms of Leukemia, Systemic Lupus, Chron's Disease, Multiple Sclerosis, Chronic Coronary Artery Disease, Parkinson's Disease, Spinal Cord Injury, and brain, skin, breast, and ovarian cancer. In fact, here's a list of 72 diseases and conditions treated using adult stem cells. All this without destroying a single human embryo.

On the other hand, what treatments has ESC research lead to? NONE. Not a single person has been treated for any disease or condition as a result of Embryonic Stem Cell research. What's more, if ESC research is so promising, why does the federal government need to be involved financially at all? If this was a real opportunity to advance science, healthcare companies and venture capitalists would be knocking each other down to fund it.

Adult Stem Cell research is where the cures are, now and in the future. This was an excellent example of the use of the President's veto power.

Wednesday, July 19, 2006

Conservative Principles Victorious in Cobb County, Georgia

The primaries passed yesterday, with most of the races being decided as expected. In addition to the regular races, however, the Republican primary ballot also contained four "survey" questions at the end to assess the popularity of several important issues. I was struck with how popular conservative principles really are in my ever-so-red county in suburban Atlanta.
The first question read: "Do you support Guest Worker programs for illegal aliens?". The results were 59% no, and 41% yes. This should be considered, (locally anyway), as a solid rebuke of the compassionate conservative position that posits an amnesty program for illegals, under a nicer sounding name. 

More surprising, however, was the margin of victory for the second question: "Do you support the 'Fair Tax' plan which is a federal national sales tax to replace the income tax?". Here, the results were 85% yes, and only 15% no. This is astounding, and very welcome, news. The time for comprehensive tax reform has come.

The last two questions were local issues, but their results do shed some light on the guiding principles of Cobb Republicans. Solid majorites of 73% and 84% agreed that school board terms should be shorter, and that SPLOST (Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax) votes should only occur during general elections to maximize voter turnout, respectively.

In the first case, shorter terms for government officials, even local government, is in keeping with the traditional conservative principle of limited, responsible government.

In the second case, limiting SPLOSTs to the general election will increase the number of voters weighing in, making them less susceptible to special interest rallying. Its reasonable to assume that more participation should result in fewer, and smaller, SPLOSTs being passed.

Yesterday was a good day for conservative principles in Cobb County, Georgia.

Monday, July 10, 2006

5.4 Million New Jobs from the Tax Cuts

The federal government is reporting that 121,000 jobs were created in June, the latest in a string of job creation that's been responsible for 1.85 million new jobs over the last 12 months.

Since August of 2003, 5.4 million jobs have been created. What's more, the employment rate is currently in the basement at 4.6 percent. That's lower than the average unemployment rate for the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and the 1990s.

Federal tax revenue is up, unemployment is down, and the economy has grown by more than 20% since the 2003 tax cuts were enacted, just three short years ago.

The argument about the benefit of tax cuts is over. The supply-siders win. Again.

Monday, June 19, 2006

Record Charitable Giving by Americans in 2005

According to a report released by the "Giving USA" foundation, Americans gave more than $260.28 billion to charitable causes in 2005. This is the highest total since the economic bubble based on the internet burst in 2000.

According to Richard Jolly, the chairman of Giving USA: "When there is a very significant need, when people are clearly aware of that need, they will respond"

The benficiaries of the year's charitable generosity included the victims of Hurrican Katrina, Hurricane Rita, the tsunami in Asia, and the earthquake in Pakistan, among scores of other worthy causes.

Its important to note that no government coercion was involved. The American people did this, because it was the right thing to do.

Line Item Veto Vote

According to the Club For Growth:

The House is scheduled to vote next week on the Legislative Line-Item Veto Act of 2006. Sponsored by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the Line-Item Veto Act is a necessary weapon in the fight against runaway spending and earmark abuse.

Under Ryan's proposal, when Congress passes a bill, the president would suggest rescissions of selected projects in the bill to Congress. There would then be a timely up-or-down vote on each of his suggestions.

This act should also quell fears that the line-item veto excessively empowers the executive branch and remains unconstitutional. Because Congress would retain the final say, both concerns are alleviated.

Please call your representative and urge them to vote for the line item veto. Enacting this legislation would prvide powerful tools for reducing wasteful federal spending.

It would also be helpful to call your Senator, as well, as this legislation will also need to be approved in the Senate.