Monday, October 29, 2007

Where the Libertarians Lost Me...

A number of years back, I was very much supportive of the "Paleo-Libertarian" portion of the LP. Smaller government, lower taxes, more freedom, it was all good.

Then in the wake of the First Gulf war, many Libertarians began railing against "the welfare/warfare state," which admittedly troubled me a great deal because security is one of the few Constitutionally mandated federal functions (the "to insure domestic tranquility" clause supporting police powers and the "to provide for the national defense" clause make that very clear. Both those Constitutional clauses legitimized both police powers and the military responsibilities of the federal government - the, if you will, "warfare state" that even many "Paleo-Libertarians" have taken to railing against.

Initially, I wrote it off as a cheap, even misguided attempt to appeal to Leftists by throwing them a bit of a bone, but after 9/11, when some of the Rockwell/Raimondo crowd began assailing the WoT as a "U.S.-initiated" conflict, those guys (and Ron Paul was one of them) pretty much lost me right there.

One of the bizarre ironies of all this is that one of the groups that has most staunchly opposed these wars in the Mideast from back in 1991 and before, has been the Neo-nazis (the Aryan Nation types, etc.) because the Arab States from Turkey to Morocco had been aligned with Hitler in WW II.

So, from a historical perspective, I can see the objection modern day nazis would have with this (or any) war with the Arab world, what I find much harder to understand is how a formerly rabid Libertarian, like Ron Paul, could find himself in sympatico with such people (National SOCIALISTS).

The "esteemed Dr. Paul" has come to embrace the inane "Truther" ideology, or at least large swatches of it, and has recently accepted donations from Stormfront, a neo-nazi organization.


What in the hell happened to the Libertarians?!

The MYTH of an Earlier More Liberal America

There's this inane idea, mainly popular among the delusional Left that "Many good Americans have been conned, by the likes of Limbaugh, Grant and Savage, into embracing Right-wing extremism."

NOTHING could be further from the truth.

The MSM has always been predominantly Center-Left in an a country that is overwhelmingly Center-Right.

My father was about as Conservative as Zell Miller is. Even though he was a Democrat, he reviled the Kennedy's (and that's JFK & RFK, not poor, pathetic Teddy), saw Walter Cronkite as a "hopelessly naive Liberal," and twenty years later became a Reagan-Democrat.

The MYTH that America was once more Liberal than it is today is just that, a MYTH.
The likes of Limbaugh and Grant didn't convert millions of would-be Liberals to Conservatism, that could more readily be argued about those who've embraced the predominant Liberal positions of the MSM! They've been at it for nearly a century with rather poor results. Hmmmm, and that begs the question, are they arguing that they're that bad at converting others, or the likes of Limbaugh are that good?

In fact, Talk Radio (the Limbaugh's, Grant's, etc) merely "touched a nerve" that resonated with this overwhelmingly Center-Right country. FoxNews tapped into the very same nerve.

This is a country in which 2/3s of the people support Capital Punishment, oppose gay marriage, oppose Third Trimester abortions, in which over 70% support an "Enforcement First" approach to the CRIME of illegal immigration, nearly 80% oppose Kelo's expansion of Eminent Domain and in which only about one third support race/gender-based preferences - THAT'S the definition of a Center-Right nation!

And those folks weren't convinced or converted to those positions, they were the positions that the majority of Americans (like my Dad) held back a half century ago, when the MSM was monolithically Liberal.
Look at it this way, if Liberals aren't just "dupes" who've been conned into their beliefs by a very Liberal MSM and a rabidly Left-wing academia, then Conservatives are not, by and large, people who've been conned or converted to those positions by "Johnny-come-lately's" like Limbaugh, Grant, etc.

Hmmmm, I guess there's some "good news/bad news" in that for Libs.

Friday, October 26, 2007

Pretty Much Par for the Kos...

Guess what!

Give up?

Well, one of the Kos-kids has come up with a sure-fire way to end this silly old “war on terrorism!”

I’m kinda disappointed that Condi didn’t think of this first, although maybe she has something against walking around in a burqua.

Ya think?!

At any rate, I’m sure the D-Kos version of the Nobel Peace prize awaits this guy;

A Simple Way to End the War on Terror

By Yacka Jah Yacka
Tue Oct 23, 2007

While it appears from more than one point of view that the War in Iraq and the War on Terror are situations from which we may never be able to extricate ourselves, from the mountains of Pakistan comes a very simple solution: convert to Islam.

Before we reject this out of hand, lets seriously consider it for a moment: Osama Bin Laden promised the wars would be over if Americans convert to Islam.

This may sound like a lot to ask from the most religious country in the industrialized world. But of all the Christians in America today who profess to be religious, how many of us are seriously devout?

How many of us are really just religious lightweights, happy to simply go to church every Sunday, attend church socials, knock back a drink or two every Christmas and not worry ourselves about the deeper implications of our faith?

Given the way most of us pay any real attention to the tenets of our faith, life really wouldn’t be that different if we were to exchange one faith for another.

The prayers would be different, but we would recite them just as mindlessly as we do today. The sermons would in all likelihood be exactly the same, and we’d continue to snore through them.

Sure, there are a few people here and there who take religion seriously, but they are in such a small minority that their protests can be easily ignored.

All in all, converting to Islam would be a small price to pay for an end to the killing and maiming of our sons and daughters, not to mention the billions of dollars we could put to better use than fighting this perpetual war.

So let’s do away with our religious pretences, adopt Islam as our new faith, add a few extra holidays to our calendar, and get down to the real business at hand: pumping oil.

Cramer On Being Interviewed By Governor Romney

Jim Cramer talks about Mitt Romney....

Rangel’s Tax Plan Reveals Democrats’ Real Intentions

In response to the Republican’s Taxpayer Choice Act offered earlier this month by reform-minded conservative Republicans, the most sweeping tax plan since Jack Kemp's three decades ago, the Democrats have countered with the Rangel-plan, a $3.5 TRILLION barrage of new taxes mostly on working to “pay for reducing the corporate income tax rate from 35% down to 30% and eliminating the AMT. Prompting the esteemed Wall Street Journal to call him “an honorary supply-sider,” at least regarding corporate taxes.

While the GOP plan would establish a radically simplified, flatter tax for an estimated 90 percent to 95 percent of all income-tax filers, the Democrats plan would mean higher taxes across the board for all working Americans, except those who incorporate.

Under the Taxpayer Choice Act taxpayers presumably would accept this offer: Give up all your current deductions, and your annual earnings up to $100,000 would be taxed at 10 percent, with a 25 percent rate on everything above that. But that's not all. The bill would repeal the hated Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), giving up $840 billion in revenue over the next 10 years. Government would have to get leaner.

The "Taxpayer Choice Act," introduced on Thursday October 11, 2007, is sponsored by three influential junior members. They are headed by Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, ranking Republican on the Budget Committee, in his fifth term in Congress. But Kemp was also a lone wolf when he introduced his across-the-board tax cut, which became the heart of President Ronald Reagan's economic program.

As his response, House Ways & Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel yesterday dropped a 500-page-plus bomb on New York, as well as the rest of the nation - a $3.5 trillion tax bill.

The Harlem Democrat calls it "the mother of all tax reform," and it has its merits. But, on balance, it's bad news for the Big Apple.

According to J.D. Foster (the Norman B. Ture senior fellow in fiscal policy at the Heritage Foundation) “Of the bill's many bad provisions, the worst is a new 4 percent surtax on married filers with adjusted gross incomes (AGI) above $200,000 (4.6 percent for even higher income filers). What's with that? Obviously, Chairman Rangel sees the importance of lowering marginal tax rates - hence his cut on the corporate side. So why raise tax rates for married couples, individuals and small businesses? This is serious economic policy schizophrenia.

“Note also that the surtax applies to adjusted gross income (AGI), not taxable income - a backdoor way of phasing down the amount of itemized deductions taxpayers can take. Perhaps Rep. Rangel can explain what he has against charitable contributions, or the deduction for state and local taxes or the home-mortgage deduction.”

The Wall Street Journal is even less impressed with the Rangel plan, “All of this is done in the name of tax "fairness," but it's hard to see how this would make the U.S. code more equitable. Millions of those who'd receive the tax credits already pay no income tax, so they would merely be getting another government subsidy. The group that gets slammed hardest is the entrepreneurial class. Tax Foundation data show that three of four taxpayers in the highest income tax bracket are small business owners or farmers. If Mr. Rangel's plan ever becomes law, look for millions of Americans and small-businesses to "incorporate" themselves so they can pay the lower corporate rate. Previous tax reforms have tried to keep the corporate and top income tax rates equal precisely to avoid this kind of tax gaming.

“We sympathize a little with Mr. Rangel, whose bad luck has been to take over his tax chair just when the AMT is becoming the tax that ate the middle-class in the high-tax "blue" states of New York, California and New Jersey. Democrats are desperate to avoid blame for this, even as they've boxed themselves in with their "paygo" promises of the past few years."

As detractors note, “Its beauty is as a signal of Democratic intentions for 2009. Mr. Rangel is showing the world what he wants the tax code to look like if Democrats run the entire government. None of the Presidential candidates will admit this before November 2008, but give Mr. Rangel credit for having the courage of Hillary Clinton's convictions.”

Yes indeed, Charles Rangel has the courage of Hillary Clinton’s and John Edwards’ convictions alright, but that’s easier for him...he isn’t running in 2008.


Oil Hits $92/Barrel...Are The Democrats to Blame?!

Remember when all the “Truthers,” D-Kos-kid’s and MoveOn kooks were blaming G W Bush for the rise in the price of oil when gasoline topped $3/gallon in the wake of Katrina???
“Things would be different if the Democrats controlled things,” they said.

Well, they were right. Oil prices have gone UP since the Democrats took back Congress!

So, is it the Democrats’ fault?

Actually NO, no more than any previous price rises were G W Bush’s fault. Oil, like any other commodity rises and falls along with the prevailing MARKET FORCES.
Over the last half decade the global demand for oil, led by the massive industrialization of both India and China (together accounting for a full third of the world’s population) has skyrocketed and outpaced production. As a result the trend for oil prices has been sharply upward. That, along with fears of supply disruptions in the Mideast, have kept oil prices rising and oil speculators very happy.

The good news, on the near horizon (literally) is that with the global price for oil so high, oil from oil sands and shale, which were previously cost-prohibitive, have become practical.

Interestingly enough, America has some very large shale oil and oil sands deposits of its own, and our neighbors to the north (that’s Canada, for the geographically challenged) has more oil reserves in oil sands, than does ALL of Saudi Arabia.

That’s potentially good news, as it means that we may not have to rely on Third World tyrants from Bashar al-Asad to Hugo Chavez for our imported oil!
It could also mean an eventual stabilizing in the world price of oil.

As we speak, Alberta is booming!!!


Thursday, October 25, 2007

Perhaps the FUNNIEST Post of the Month....

...Comes from Ace at Ace of Spades HQ ( where he waxes poetic about the hypocritical outrage over at the NY Times over the nepotism at Commentary Magazine. Great stuff, as usual he nails it;

NYT Criticizes Nepotism At Commentary Magazine

John Podheretz will take over from his dad at Commentary, a hiring decision that will surprise no one at all.
Nepotism? Sure, but it's not as if J-Pod spends his days sailing in regattas or something. He is, I'm sure most know, sorta in the business.
But what is just precious is that that the NYT, now run by the drooling incompetent "Pinch" Sulzberger, the retarded offspring of "Punch" Sulzberger, actually dares to weigh in on this terrible neocon nepotism.

NYT, can I ask you a question?

You promise you won't be offended?


Are you fucking kidding me.....Are you serious.....Did you just get your head smashed in with the Moron-Bat?.....Or did somebody just skull-fuck you with the Crazy-Stick?
Just one more reason why Ace is always a great read!

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

And Yet Another Case Of Racial Discrimination From the Deep South


Just when you’d thought America may have learned its lesson, that hiring/firing people based on ethnicity and skin-color is wrong, comes this story out of Orleans Parish, in Louisiana.

Turns out that the D.A. there fired the staff that was on when he was elected and replaced them with those of another race...predicatbly, the same race as the D.A.

Yes, Eddie Jordan, the Orleans Parish D.A. (pictured above) fired nearly three dozen white office workers and replaced them with blacks. The fired workers successfully sued Jordan and Orleans parish and won a judgment of $3.65 Million.

Jordan has argued that his office can’t pay that amount and that if forced to pay, it could bankrupt the beleaguered District Attorney’s office. A federal appeals judge ruled Monday (October 22, 2007) that the D.A.’s office $3.5 million in assets could be seized to meet the debt.

"The decision that's going to have to be made by responsible people in the city is whether they want a D.A.'s office," said Clement P. Donelon, who represents the 35 former workers.

Donelon said he didn’t fear a “community backlash” if he took money from the coffers of the office, which already suffers from a low prosecution rate and bungled homicide cases. New Orleans has the highest murder rate in the country.

"It's not us shutting it down. It's the city shutting it down," Donelon said, urging the mayor and city council to take action to compensate his clients.

The decision that allows assets of the office to be seized was made by U.S. District Judge Stanwood Duval Jr., who was also part of a three-judge panel that rejected a Jordan appeal in the case in August. Early this month, the court also denied a request by Jordan for more time to pay the debt.

Citizens from orleans Parish have circulated a petition to force Eddie Jordan to resign from office in the wake of this scandal.
When are we going to learn that bigotry is wrong matter who indulges in it?

I Guess SOMEONE Had to Dispel the Myth...

...The MYTH of middle-class job loss that is.

And I’m glad it was economist Stephen J. Rose of the Progressive Policy Institute and an adviser to former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich.

After noting that economic change is always “a messy process,” and we are in the midst of changing from a manufacturing-based economy to an information-based one, he gives some historical context, “In 1900, for example, 40% of the U.S. work force was involved in agriculture. Today, that figure is less than 2%, and no serious observer would argue that we are worse off as a result of this transformation.”

Indeed, no serious observer would.

In light of that context he goes on to assail today’s gloom and doomers and other chronic complainers. He derides those who claim that the recent decline in the number of manufacturing jobs has led to the replacement of good middle-class jobs by low-skill, low-pay "hamburger-flipping" service jobs and says that this kind of populist dogma is “bad politics and even worse economics.”

As Rose notes, “The assertion that the American middle-class is disappearing along with manufacturing jobs is, put simply, based on an outdated view of how the economy operates, and is empirically wrong.”

So how does he make such an empirical calculation? Well, Rose explains, “To prove that there has been substantial growth of middle-class jobs, I compare the situation that existed in 1979 with that of 2005. The base year is 1979 because it represents the last business-cycle peak before income inequality and the U.S. trade deficit began to grow quickly in the 1980s. To make the comparison fair, earnings in 1979 are increased by almost 150% to adjust for inflation.”

And the results are nothing short of a staggering blow to the chronic complainers and the nattering negativists. “There has clearly been a sharp increase in female middle-class employment. As recently as 1979, 61% of female workers were in jobs that paid less than $25,000, and only 3% earned more than $50,000 a year. By contrast, more than 36% of new jobs that opened since 1979 for women pay more than $50,000 and only 17% pay less than $25,000.”

And although the results for men, as he notes, has not been as clear-cut or positive, they have been equally profound; To the good, there’s been huge growth in the number of men in high-paying jobs: while in 1979, ONLY 10% of male workers earned above $75,000, fully 34% of new jobs since 1979 have paid this amount or more.

On the flip side, there has also growth in the share of male workers earning less than $25,000 a year, up from 23% in 1979 to 36% by 2005. This rise of low-paying jobs hit less-educated men particularly hard. For those with just a high school diploma, 87% of the new jobs paid $25,000 or less.

Here's Rose’s bottom line: “For three-quarters of the workforce (women and the top half of male earners), economic growth has translated into significantly higher earnings gains, but for male workers in the bottom half of the earnings distribution, the decline of unionized manufacturing employment has led to the drying up of some middle-class jobs for those with no post-secondary education.”

As he notes, “For the clear majority of the workforce, then, the job market has become more welcoming, not less so. But where are these jobs?

“Using a framework that I developed in the 1990s, I find that most of the employment gains over the last 30 years have been in business-management activities (administration, sales, finance and business services) as well as in professional services such as health care and education. While the percentage of U.S. jobs derived from manual work in agriculture, mining, timber and manufacturing has declined, the share of jobs related to low-skilled retail and personal/food services has remained steady.”

The current economic reality is that America post-Jimmy Carter has done a tremendous job of moving from a manufacturing economy to an information one. A more educated population has made a relatively seamless transition to the new economy and its higher paying jobs and as a result over 75% of the population has gained.

For those with a high school education or less, the times have stayed lean or gotten leaner, but the good news there is that education is an almost certain path to a better job in the new economy and a better life!

As Rose notes, “Undeniably, some people have been left out of this middle-class workforce expansion and need help in making the transition to the new economy. In particular, the last six years have seen very little wage growth for the bottom 80% of the workforce. But we should bear in mind that real gross domestic product per person is up over 60% since 1979, and our goal for the job market should not be simply to keep pace with where things stood nearly three decades ago.”

Thanks Stephen J. Rose for noting the improvements brought about since the Carter debacle, by both Supply-Side and Free trade policies.

Imagine that, a Clinton cabinet economist proving that Free trade and Supply Side policies actually WORK, while Carter’s Keynesianism doesn’t!

It just doesn’t get any better than that.

SEE: The Myth of Middle-Class Job Loss in today’s (Wed, October 24, 2007) Wall Street Journal online at

A GREAT Piece - The All So Ugly Truth

The following piece was written by Snooper over at the Hot Rodham Blog and it really puts Hillary Clinton's background and her vaunted "brilliance" into perspective.

The All So Ugly Truth

Media Matters will make the false assumption that folks cannot hear for themselves and that they are the only ones suitable to explain that which we do hear.

Facts are facts and
the video
is plain to see and hear.

What has the Hillary Apologist’s panties all in a wad is
this article.

So be it.

Bill says: Hillary never wanted to run for public office, but she did want to work at public service.

The true facts are: When Clinton was considering not running for another term as Governor of Arkansas in 1990, Hillary said she would run if he didn’t. She and Bill even had me take two surveys to assess her chances of winning. The conclusion was that she couldn’t win because people would just see her as a seat warmer for when Bill came back licking his wounds after losing for president. So she didn’t run. Bill did and won. But there is no question she had her eye on public office, as opposed to service, long ago.

Bill says: In law school Hillary worked on legal services for the poor.

The true facts are: Hillary’s main extra-curricular activity in law school was helping the Black Panthers, on trial in Connecticut for torturing and killing a federal agent. She went to court every day as part of a law student monitoring committee trying to spot civil rights violations and develop grounds for appeal.

Bill says: Hillary spent a year after graduation working on a children’s rights project for poor kids.

The true facts are: Hillary interned with Bob Truehaft, the head of the California Communist Party. She met Bob when he represented the Panthers and traveled all the way to San Francisco to take an internship with him.

Bill says: Hillary could have written her own job ticket, but she turned down all the lucrative job offers.

The true facts are: She flunked the DC bar exam and only passed the Arkansas bar. She had no job offers in Arkansas and only got hired by the University of Arkansas Law School at Fayetteville because Bill was already teaching there. She only joined the prestigious Rose Law Firm after Bill became Attorney General and made partner only after he was elected Governor.

Bill says: President Carter appointed Hillary to the Legal Services Board of Directors and she became its Chairman.

The true facts are: The appointment was in exchange for Bill’s support for Carter in his 1980 primary against Ted Kennedy. Hillary became chairman in a coup in which she won a majority away from Carter’s choice to be chairman.

Bill says: She served on the board of the Arkansas Children’s Hospital.

The true facts are: Yes she did. But her main board activity, not mentioned by Bill, was to sit on the Wal-Mart board of directors, for a substantial fee. She was silent about their labor and health care practices.

Bill says: Hillary didn’t succeed at getting health care for all Americans in 1994 but she kept working at it and helped to create the Children’s Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) that provides five million children with health insurance.

The true facts are: Hillary had nothing to do with creating S-CHIP. It was included in the budget deal between Bill Clinton and Republican Majority Leader Senator Trent Lott. I helped to negotiate the deal. The money came half from the budget deal and half from the Attorney Generals’ tobacco settlement. Hillary had nothing to do with either source of funds.

Bill says: Hillary was the face of America all over the world.

The true facts are: Her visits were part of a program to get her out of town so that Bill would not appear weak by feeding stories that Hillary was running the White House. Her visits abroad were entirely touristic and symbolic, and there was no substantive diplomacy on any of them.

(Note from Norm: I am well aware of Hillary’s visits to the Middle East during this era. Her main goal at that time was to take up sides with Yassar Arafat. Bet ya’all don’t remember that! Norm will never forget that fiasco!)

Bill says: Hillary was an excellent Senator who kept fighting for children’s and women’s issues.

The true facts are: Other than totally meaningless legislation like changing the names on courthouses and post offices, she has passed only four substantive pieces of legislation. One set up a national park in Puerto Rico. A second provided respite care for family members helping their relatives through Alzheimer’s or other conditions. And two were routine bills to aid 9-11 victims and responders which were sponsored by the entire NY delegation.

Here is what bothers me more than anything else about Hillary Clinton. She has done everything possible to weaken the President and our country when it comes to the war on terror:

1. She wants to close GITMO & move the combatants to the USA where they would have access to our legal system.

2. She wants to eliminate the monitoring of suspected Al Qaeda phone calls to/from the USA.

3. She wants to grants constitutional rights to enemy combatants captured on the battlefield.

4. She wants to eliminate the monitoring of money transfers between suspected Al Qaeda cells & supporters in the USA.

5. She wants to eliminate the type of interrogation tactics used by the military & CIA where coercion might be used when questioning known terrorists even though such tactics might save American lives.

I can’t think of a single bill Hillary has introduced or a single comment she has made that would tend to strengthen our country in the War on Terror. But, I can think of a lot of comments she has made that weakens our country and makes it a more dangerous situation for all of us……..She goes hand in hand with the ACLU on far too many issues where common sense is abandoned. She is a disaster for all Americans.

Editors note: How could regular mid-west Democrats who work for a living and have children who wish to grow up in a free America, like their parents did, vote for this woman? The “AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE IS AT STAKE”.

As damning as any of her past may be, including her affection for radical Leftists like Saul Alinsky and radical CPUSA member Robert Treuhaft, it's those last five positions that comprise her stance on the current "war on terrorism," America and the West's war against Sharia-based Islamists and the Islamo-fascists pushing that agenda.

Indeed Hillary, like both John Edwards and Barack Obama would look to close GITMO & move the combatants to the USA where they'd have access to our legal system, eliminate the monitoring of suspected Al Qaeda phone calls to/from the USA as well as the monitoring of money transfers between suspected Al Qaeda cells & supporters in the USA., grant constitutional rights to enemy combatants captured on the battlefield and eliminate the type of interrogation tactics (coerced interrogations) used by the military & CIA in questioning known terrorists even though such tactics might save American lives and THAT, more than anything else, is what Americans have to know and fear about Hillary Clinton.
Hat Tip to Snooper at the Hot Rodham Blog;
AND to John over at A Thousand Points of Right;

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Marital Economics in ONE Lesson

In a recent article, Chuck Colson wrote, “You have to give the girl credit for honesty — if nothing else. On a website called Craig’s List, a young woman wrote: “I’m a spectacularly beautiful 25-year-old girl. I’m articulate and classy. I’m looking to [marry] a guy who makes at least half a million a year. Where do you single rich men hang out?”

“She also wanted to know how men decided between “marriage versus just a girlfriend. I am looking for MARRIAGE ONLY,” she said.

“In response, a man who claimed to meet her financial requirements said that from his perspective, her offer was a lousy business deal. “What you suggest is a simple trade: you bring your looks to the party, and I bring my money,” he wrote. “But here’s the rub: Your looks will fade and my money will continue to grow. So in economic terms you are a depreciating asset and I am an earning asset.” (Ouch!)

“This is why," the man explained, “It doesn’t make good business sense to ‘buy you’ (which is what you’re asking), so I’d rather lease. So a deal that makes sense [to me] is dating, not marriage. If you want to enter into some sort of lease [agreement],” he finished up, “let me know.”

“Well, that was pretty harsh! But plenty of readers thought she deserved it. She was turning marriage into an economic transaction — reducing what should be a sacred relationship into nothing more than a contract — and that’s a dangerous mistake.”

In the article Colson goes on to lament that the “contractual language” in Marriage can undermine the sense of open sacrifice and the freely giving of one’s self.

That’s fine, but its also true that a Marriage is indeed a contractual agreement. One in which the terms, what each member is expected to bring to the table is changing along with the social roles of men and women. What this woman offered was, as the responding man noted, a rather poor deal for the current era. It amounted to pretty much a lose-lose for any would-be suitor for this woman.

In any kind of arrangement today, it’s best for both parties to bring something substantial to the table.

Now GPS Erodes Cell Phone Privacy Even Further

New cell phones equipped with GPS technology make it harder for us to get lost, but also harder for us to hide, from friends, from employers and the authorities.

Two new questions arise, courtesy of the latest advancement in cell phone technology: Do you want your friends, family, or colleagues to always know where you are at any given time? And do you want to know where they are?

Obvious benefits come to mind. Parents can take advantage of the Global Positioning System chips embedded in many cell phones to track the whereabouts of their phone-toting children.

Cell phones, already open to monitoring by entities both private and public via simple scanners (Newt Gingrich learned that the hard way), now offer GPS chips that could conceivably help employers track employees and police track targets holding cell phones.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is challenging the use of cell phone GPS in federal court.

Yeah, good luck stuffing that genie back in the bottle too!

Another Reason to Revile New York’s Justices

Earlier yesterday (Monday October 22, 2007), a divided NY Court of Appeals rescinded the death penalty for John B. Taylor, the man who’d murdered five Wendy’s employees in a fast food eateries basement seven years ago.

The NY Times hailed the 4-3 decision claiming it, “reaffirmed a landmark high court decision in 2004 that effectively invalidated the state’s death penalty law.”

What was at issue is the fact that under current NY state law, if a jury can’t reach a unanimous verdict on the question of death, the trial judge is required to inform the panelists that a sentence, to include parole, will be automatically imposed. The high court ruled in a split decision in 2004 that such jury instructions were unconstitutional, because they could coerce deadlocked jurors to vote for death out of a fear that a violent defendant might one day walk free.

It was out of deference to that case, People v. LaValle, that the high court tossed out Mr. Taylor’s death sentence today, basing its decision largely on the principle of “stare decisis,” a Latin term meaning “let the decision stand.”

For years some apparently illiterate folks have opposed the death penalty based on the grounds that it “violated the cruel and unusual” clause of the Constitution.

That clause means precisely the same thing today that it did back in 1781, it was an admonition against excessive punishments for petty crimes, such as cutting off one’s hands for stealing a loaf of bread, as our modern day Sharia-based Muslim friends are still wont to do.

As a matter of historical record, the death penalty was meted out for a wide variety of crimes in the early days of this country, so, “cruel and unusual” does NOT apply to the death penalty in total.

Current NY State law could easily be rectified by making the penalty phase of such hearings a simple choice between death and life in solitary confinement without possibility of parole.

Eradicate the possibility of parole for such creatures and the entire concern over those directions goes away.

Why can’t New York’s legislature get this right?!

Monday, October 22, 2007

More Liberal Intolerance?!

Have you heard that Conservative Republican Bobby Jindal has won the Governorship in Louisiana?

If you haven’t, it’s probably because the MSM hasn’t really harped on the story very much.

Bobby Jindal, an immigrant of Indian extraction has represented a very Conservative district in the deep South, which Democrats like to pretend is largely peopled by “bigoted rednecks.” Tough to explain how a bunch of bigoted rednecks would elect a son of Indian immigrants to lead their the MSM simply doesn’t.

Another disturbing aspect of the Jindal story is that it runs counter to the Liberal mantra, “A Democratic sweep in 2008 is inevitable.”

If that’s so, how could a very Conservative, Republican upstart beat a Democratic incumbent like Kathleen Blanco?
In the election of 2006, Americans opposed racial preferences by better than 2 to 1 in very Blue Michigan, voted to restrict Eminent Domain in 11 of the 12 states it was on the ballot, opposed gay marrigae by better than 2 t0 1, voting it down in 8 of 9 states. Ballot measures also reduced local tax rates, expanded Megan's Law (mandatory sentences for child-sex offenders, now passed in 47 states) and passed measures like making English the "official language of AZ, barring illegal immigrants from getting any state subsidized programs, etc.
In short, the Republicans have run into trouble in abandoning their Conservative principles, while the Dems made gains in 2006 by running many Conservative "Blue Dogs" in the South and out West.
Again, the MSM doesn't find such things interesting.....they find them "disturbing."
For a great video blog on Bobby Jindal's election SEE Conservative Brother at;

Sunday, October 21, 2007

How Can Social Security be Going Bankrupt???

“There were originally 16 workers paying into social security to every one retiree.”

Well, yeah, that was true when privatizing 1% of the fund (which most economists argue WOULD’VE improved social security’s solvency) was floated a few years ago.

In short, nothing has changed.

“By 2030 there will be more retirees than workers paying into the program.”

That was true back in 2005 as well, so again, NOTHING has changed.

The Democrats back then, argued that “Social Security didn’t need fixing.”

They DID NOT argue, “Social security needs fixing, but privatization isn’t the right fix.”

So why, a scant thirty months after AARP led the Democrats led the Democrats in the chant of “Social security doesn’t need fixing,” is the same chorus now chanting, “Social security needs fixing NOW!”

Well, because the first Baby-boomer (Kathleen Casey-Kirschling) is ready to sign up for her social security benefits – the first of what is anticipated to be the largest wave of beneficiaries in history. According to the MSM, she’s the “raindrop that’s going to become a tsunami,” one, that many warn, could swamp the program.

Let me agree, first off, that it’s now too late for privatization to save social security. While there’s also no doubt that it WOULD HAVE, that’s water under the bridge. It would still HELP improve the system, but it's doubtful that it would SAVE social security from the coming armegeddon that will be brought on by a far too low retirement age and benefits that are too high to sustain.

The primary problem with today’s social security is that it hasn’t remained true to its original blueprint, that of, as FDR called it, “one leg of a three—legged tool for retirement.”

So if privatization isn’t the answer now, we are left with three choices;

1) DECREASE, or at least FREEZE benefits

2) RAISE the retirement/benefits age

3) Raise Taxes

The first two are very viable options, even basic requirements, the third must be seen as out of the question.

When social security began, life expectancy for American males was about 63 years and social security benefits kicked in at 62 for reduced benefits and 65 for full benefits. Today Americans are living longer and healthier and there’s no question that both the retirement age and the age levels for receiving social security benefits should be raised.

Today’s life expectancy in the U.S. is 77.6 years, by the original blueprint for social security, reduced benefits should kick in at around age 76.5 and full benefits at almost 80 years of age.

In a world where people are living longer and healthier it makes perfect sense to raise the retirement age and keep those folks working and living longer, more productive lives. THAT would be good for ALL of us!

We should also very seriously consider reducing, or at least FREEZING benefits. Those over 65 in America are one of the wealthiest generations ever to live on the face of the earth. Consider that the generation prior to the baby-boomers saved only $30,000 toward retirement, while the boomers have put away, on average, some $140,000! They’ve also benefitted from a stock market that improved from appx. DOW 3,000 in the 1980s to near 14,000 today and they’ve benefitted from a real estate surge that has seen the price of the average boomer’s home now going for $600,000!

So, why not at least FREEZE benefits, as we raise the retirement age?

The one thing we shouldn’t do, MUSTN’T do is raise taxes!

It would be obscene for struggling young people, most of them just starting out in life to be burdened with higher taxes to, in effect, subsidize the already well-heeled lifestyles of a generation that is already far wealthier than they.

We should raise the retirement age, raise the age limits for receiving social security benefits and reduce those benefits to make that program once again solvent.

Saturday, October 13, 2007

Mike Bloomberg’s Chagrin

Right after assailing Republicans for their over-spending, the newly minted “Independent” Bloomy gets socked from TWO directions.
The NY Post recently outlined how “Mayor Mike” has presided over the biggest jumps in city outlays in decades!

Bloomberg’s been quoted as saying, too many “American politicians who call themselves “conservative” want to run up enormous deficits and hope someone else will pay for it. That’s not conservatism – that’s alchemy, or if you like, lunacy.”

Ironically enough New York City spending has grown 23% since 2002, and that’s adjusting for inflation. It’s now running at over $60 BILLION/year!
By contrast, NYC’s previous Mayor (Rudy Giuliani) boosted city spending just 8% adjusted for inflation.
Worse still, since 9/11 he’s resorted to paying the city’s bills with deficit financing (refinancing the 70’s debt that nearly bankrupted the city and using the monies that would’ve been used to pay off that debt to increase city spending.
As the Post noted, “First, Mike used some $2 BILLION in transitional finance Authority bonding. Then in an astonishingly reckless piece of fiscal legerdemain, he pushed more than $2 BILLION of the city’s leftover 1970s-era debt, slated to be paid off in five years, onto state taxpayers, getting Albany to agree to picking up the tab.”
Albany got the funds to do that by stretching out its own debt some 30 years!

Then, in the wake of MSG losing its own sexual harassment case, Bloomberg LP has been charged with both age discrimination and discriminating against pregnant women. At first Mike Bloomberg denied knowing about any of the allegations, but has since acceded that he was told about the accusations.

Ah, good old Mayor Mike, he keeps reminding us that while Giuliani was far from perfect, Bloomberg isn’t close to being as good. In fact, it makes it more clear every day that Giuliani was New York’s best Mayor in over a century!
Hell, the only 20th century Mayor even close is Ed Koch!

I'm Back...

Had my hard drive go down on Saturday, September 29th. I had it up and running again a day later but it crashed again Wednesday (October 3rd)....since the computer's was over five years old and I figured, like an old car, once you start replacing parts, it's one after another, I ordered another PC. It didn't arrive until the 11th and I've spent the last couple days reloading all the stuff I'd backed up, along with the initial software set-up.

I'm back, but now I won't be online (after today, Sat, Oct 13th) until next Saturday night (the 20th) because I'm heading out to Colorado for training tomorrow morning, so I guess I'll REALLY be back next Saturday.
American Ideas Click Here!