How Come They Are Doing This to Military Voters??????

The Democrats, alleged umbrella party of all that is warm, squooshy and nice, wants "everyone" to vote. Homeless people, people here illegally, people in prison---they should all vote.
But....
Not the military. This happened during the Gore campaign as well. In Florida, military votes were tossed as well. Could it be because of a technicality. Or is it because the military has voted for McCain in epic numbers according to polling? At any rate, this should be something that raises suspicions of even the most benevolent of apologists.

Economic Terrorism And this Election

(Cross posted at MyFoxDFW.com)
Imagine if instead of bombs and weapons, if terrorists used our own economy against us? What would be the outcome? Jimmy Carter lost an election because of overt terrorist actions. The Twin Towers were bombed out of existence as the result of overt terrorist actions. But what if terrorists, rather than loading planes with suicide bombers intent on a paradise complete with 72 virgins, instead focused on the grease that runs us, and by that I mean money.

There have been signs before, but we didn't grasp them. The precipitous rise in oil prices when the supplies were adequate. The strange altering of the international economic landscape as the EU tried to circle the wagons and much of Asia, especially China, used fire sale prices to entrench themselves in the American economy through purchasing corporations outright or making them partners with factories in less expensive Asian locations. Who benefits from this?

On one hand, you can say that stockholders benefit because they see return on their investments. But if you undercut the value of dollars, then you shortchange the value of the return. CEO's might get a golden parachute, but if their worth is based in corporate stocks, then their parachute could crash and burn just as easily as the average worker with a 401K.

The push of the federal government as far back as the Clinton years to make home loans to underserved communities is documented fact. There is no argument over that. The way they were implemented and the type of Congressional manipulation that put these funds into play in risky, often unqualified loans is part of the story. Franks, Dodds and other do not want that story out in the press. So what better way to distract the American public than to create a diversion. In this case, it's a pretty catastrophic diversion.

But who would have the economic leverage to pull of such a stunt? And why would they do it? My money is on George Soros and his like. They want to push America to a socialist reality at all costs. And they mean to force us if we won't go willingly. By pulling money for no particularly good reason from the stock market, they create the type of emotional response that makes other less financially solid stockholders leave as well. And if you force the market lower, you can come back in and buy the same doggone stocks at fire sale values. If in addition, you can to stage manage the economic views of the media to support your candidate, then you can shape the vote. If that's not warping the intent of the freedom of Americans to vote, then I don't know what is.

Mark my words-you heard it here first. If the day after an Obama election, the market soars to 14000, the you will know that we have been had, that our votes were bought and that our legislators have sold out to the highest bidder. Don't believe me? Then read on...
Story #1
Story #2
Story #3
Story #4

The VP Debates: The Media Chooses, You Lose

So once again our mainstream media has weighed in with what they think is best for all of us. See, we, the American public, are too stupid and ignorant and attached to our religion and guns to really know what's what. Frankly, it's a wonder we can feed ourselves. You may think I am over the top on this, but there are countless blogs, wikis and other media out there who not only think we are wrong to support conservative ideals, but that it is the result of a mental deficiency. So the Media, in their gracious benevolence, has once again chosen for us. They have decided that Joe "I'm An Average Guy" Biden won. Frankly, I don't think either candidate did a bang-up job, but the constant self-congratulatory tone of the Obama campaign has worn thin.

But more than that attitude thing, I am truly wondering if the mainstream media has given up all pretenses of impartiality. The choosing of Ifill for the moderator was questionable considering her worshipful attitude towards all things Obama. But the way the media has chosen to ignore some very worrisome and possibly disastrous economic attitudes on the part of Joe Biden, is frightening.
To quote "Average Guy at the Home Depot" Joe, "

"we should be allowing bankruptcy courts to be able to re-adjust not just the interest rate you're paying on your mortgage to be able to stay in your home, but be able to adjust the principal that you owe, the principal that you owe. That would keep people in their homes, actually help banks by keeping it from going under"

Excuse me? Banks are businesses. They run on the money they make from LENDING MONEY. That's known as INTEREST. The interest is set by the government not to exceed certain rates, but there is a great deal of leeway and consumers are more than welcome to shop around for better rates. Herein lies the problems. Congress literally forced lenders to make loans available to what is termed "underserved populations." The reason Congress did this was , according to them, to get rid of the vestiges of redlining and racism in the system. Instead, what really happened is that borrowers who could not prove income, had horrible credit history or who didn't have the financial stability to afford the lower interest rates of a conventional 30 year fixed loan, were leveraged into loans that had balloons that would rise after a certain amount of time or loans that were interest only. The stated reason for these types of loans to even exist was to help subprime borrowers improve their credit and possible refinance at better rates. Instead many of these borrowers went for the maximum amount they could acquire and when the balloons went up, they couldn't pay the mortgage. Now while this is sad, it's not like this was foisted on them by jackbooted thugs in dark alleys. These were free American adults signing contracts where all of the details are laid out in copious minutae. Every payment, every escalation, every interest rate is spelled out in writing. Why is it that only the people that PAY THEIR LOANS ARE GETTING SCREWED?

In the end, it's popular now to picture CEO's with golden parachutes getting the largest portion of the bailout. And maybe to a certain extent that's true. But what's really happening is that this is keeping the lights on at the bank on the corner and making payroll for the tellers and loan officers who don't have those cushy jobs. It's easy to blame some guy who gets away with a cushy retirement, but why is it that the media doesn't want to place the blame where it really belongs, on borrowers that didn't pay for their loans.

And this is why Joe Biden and Barak Obama should scare you silly. They have no intention of shoring up the banks for longevity. They simply want them shored up for now. They intend to allow judicial fiat to rip profits from banks. That means that people who actually put money into banks could see their interest and deposits dwindle as more people discover that paying out a loan is foolish when the government will bail you out. And what about retirees who have stock in bank corporations? They will also see their stocks value erode. This isn't the first time this has happened. My parents lost $200K when the savings and loans went belly up thirty years ago. There are still a few people around who should remember that. Unfortunately, none of them are running for president this year. Watch your pockets-these guys are NOT your friends.

I Said It Was Time For A Woman

I had said all along that time was way overdue for a woman to be in the upper levels of power in our nation. But I didn't want it to be the conventional liberal women such as Pelosi or Clinton. I wanted a strong woman with convictions and values. I think we have that in Sarah Palin. I am so excited by her nomination for VP.

What I have found appalling is how the usual suspects in the liberal media are already on the path of character assassination and slander regarding Palin's resume. They have claimed that her youngest child is actually her grandchild. This assertion not only wounds her, but both of her daughters. The "proof" was the oldest child holding the baby-something that happens in families-but I guess liberals wouldn't have a clue about that. Secondly, the liberals at The Daily Kos and Moveon.org and Arianna Hufflepuffle's site are putting down her college education because she's just from Idaho. Excuse me? Do they not get in the least how freaking SNOBBISH they sound? It's like a meeting of the Atlanta Junior League! Then there's the downgrading of her professional experience as a *gasp* reporter. I bet the Fourth Estate is not too happy to have someone who knows their tricks of the trade. And finally, the Neo-marxists are denigrating her political experience as a mayor, then governor in Alaska. Both of those roles involve balancing budgets, implementing reform and producing position outcomes-somthing that the Congress-approval level at 9%-hasn't been able to do.

So what is the problem with Palin and why are the liberals screaming? Maybe its because they know in their hearts that this could be what changes the political tide for the Right.

McCain, Not Obama, Right This Time

Courtesy of the Chicago Sun Times

August 12, 2008

STEVE HUNTLEY shuntley.cst@gmail.com

Mention Georgia a few days ago, and most of us would have thought of the state evoked so sweetly in "Georgia on My Mind," the classic tune sung by Ray Charles. Very few of us had heard of the South Ossetia province of Georgia, the nation with the misfortune to have Russia as its neighbor, until war broke out last week.

Like Kosovo, Bosnia, Kuwait and other unfamiliar places before, Ossetia reminds us that a small, remote corner of the globe can explode into an international crisis. One who was up to speed on Georgia and the menace it faced from Russia was veteran Sen. John McCain. He had visited the Caucasian nation three times in a dozen years. When fighting erupted, the presumptive Republican presidential candidate got on the phone to gather details and issued a statement Friday summarizing the situation, tagging Russia as the aggressor and demanding it withdraw its forces from the sovereign territory of Georgia.

It took first-term Sen. Barack Obama three tries to get it right. Headed for a vacation in Hawaii, the presumed Democratic candidate for commander in chief issued an even-handed statement, urging restraint by both sides. Later Friday, he again called for mutual restraint but blamed Russia for the fighting. The next day his language finally caught up with toughness of McCain's.

Making matters worse, Obama's staff focused on a McCain aide who had served as a lobbyist for Georgia, charging it showed McCain was "ensconced in a lobbyist culture." Obama's campaign came off as injecting petty partisan politics into an international crisis. This was not a serious response on behalf a man who aspires to be the leader of the Free World. After all, what's so bad about representing a small former Soviet republic struggling to remake itself as a Western-style democracy?

The comparison between the two candidates served to emphasize the strength McCain's experience would bring to the White House in a dangerous world.

Obama's favored approach to international issues, diplomatic talks, failed to stop Russia's invasion. Vladimir Putin, a KGB bull in the former Soviet Union, wants to restore Russia as the supreme power of Eurasia and, to that end, bully former vassal states like Georgia out of their democratic ways. The fear is that Ukraine will come in his cross hairs next.

However the world's newest war ends, America's leadership must recognize and respond to the underlying dynamic of Russia's resurgent aggressive instincts -- the power bestowed on Moscow by its oil and gas riches.

While we don't get fossil fuels from Russia, Western Europe does, and the Kremlin's energy might is fueled by the worldwide demand for oil. Developing U.S. domestic energy sources and alternatives to oil will only enhance our national security and, by reducing the world's petroleum demand, undermine the economic, political and military advantage vast oil and gas reserves give to unfriendly powers like Russia, Iran and Venezuela.

Obama calls for transforming America's economy in a decade. He's got the right idea -- long term. But short term, this nation must push for energy security on all fronts -- now. That includes new offshore drilling for oil, which Obama loathes, and new nuclear plants, which he views with aversion. We can't just wait for breakthrough technologies for wind, solar and biomass energy.

McCain has got it right in advocating new offshore drilling and a federal push to add 45 nuclear generators over the next two decades. Given the evidence of Russia's energy-fueled aggression, he should abandon his opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve and to extending subsidies he favors for nuclear energy to include renewables.

As Georgia burns, we need to light a fire under all the talk about energy security and start doing what it takes to make it happen.

Obama is Just Scary

And just what, pray tell Mr. Obama, is the mission of the "civilian force" you propose? Are you going to enforce your socialist liberal values upon those who chose to oppose you? Will knocks at the door in the night signal your opponents precipitous demise? Frankly, having read history, this sounds like a little group that terrorized German Jews in the 1930's. So is that the kind of starry future you propose? I used to think at least that you were reasonable, but it has become obvious that the hubris from public acclaim and the money of those who want to control the United States from behind the scenes has led to into a very dark place indeed. Be afraid, America, be VERY afraid.

The Danger of the "Over-Promise"

Most businesses, especially sales, will say that in order to keep customers happy, you don't over-promise. You don't promise things sooner than you reasonably think they can get there or you run the risk of making the customer mad. I am betting there's not a single person out there who went to a one hour photo booth and didn't expect their photos in sixty minutes. One of the biggest gripes people have regarding businesses these days is the lack of customer service, and disappointment over delivery, specs and such play into that.

So....
Witness the Democratic National party line where they are promising virtually everything to virtually everyone. Because of the image of the DNC as the Big Umbrella party, their party platform must address every single demographic minority's view in order to maintain the perilous status quo. Be they gay or straight, atheist or fundamentalist, regardless of religion, union, job or gender, every single person's needs MUST be addressed, even when they conflict (as in the current primary race between a woman and an ethnic minority) or when they fly in the face of common sense. Take just one example-energy. The environmentalists have been violently opposed to nuclear power for decades even when their European counterparts embraced this source.
So that leaves
solar-which doesn't have the battery or generating ability to date,
wind-which has the same problems,
hydraulic-which is also being fought by environmentalists who want to do things like get rid of Glen Lakes Dam,
coal-which they don't like even though it is our most abundant naturally occurring source of energy
natural gas-no ability exists for average folks to access this for cars at this time.
biodiesel-which is being scuttled by higher source material costs
or oil-which Cuba and China are taking from right under our noses off the coast of Florida because the Congress and DNC are so much in the back pockets of environmental groups.

And this is just one issue. Pick another-single payer healthcare, the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, taxation, states rights, eminent domain, drugs, illegal immigration, voter ID-pick any issue and they have promised to any and all that their dreams will be fulfilled. Just as if the Magic Fairy showed up or a Genie in a bottle granted three wishes. But when you read such stories as those, there's always a catch or a moral attached. The moral to this story is that if you promise everything to everyone, somebody is going to be disappointed. And with the fervor and anger that has driven the last four years of media hype, if all that is on the winner's plate cannot be delivered in record time, there is going to be serious implications for the mid-terms. Lincoln said it best,

"You can fool some of the people all of the time,
and all of the people some of the time,
but you can't fool all of the people, all of the time"

Let's me add to that: "And payback is a *****"

Al Sez: Skeptics Aren't "Real" Scientists-HA!

His HolierThanThouness the Enviropope AlGore I has said that global warming skeptics are intellectual lightweights unable to fathom the depth of the Global Warming scenario. Seems like most of the hot air is coming from him and his brain trust-such intellectuals as Leo DiCaprio. Wow. I am underwhelmed.
Global warming skeptics are not real scientists? April 3rd, 2008 · posted by Mark Landsbaum

Al Gore says global warming skeptics are not real scientists.

Zat so? How about these guys:

Dr. Edward Wegman–former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences–demolishes the famous “hockey stick” graph that launched the global warming panic.

Dr. David Bromwich–president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology–says “it’s hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now.”

Prof. Paul Reiter–Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute–says “no major scientist with any long record in this field” accepts Al Gore’s claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.

Prof. Hendrik Tennekes–director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute–states “there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies” used for global warming forecasts.

Dr. Christopher Landsea–past chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones–says “there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity.”

Dr. Antonino Zichichi–one of the world’s foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter–calls global warming models “incoherent and invalid.”

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski–world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research–says the U.N. “based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false.”

Prof. Tom V. Segalstad–head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo–says “most leading geologists” know the U.N.’s views “of Earth processes are implausible.”

Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu–founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the “1,000 Most Cited Scientists,” says much “Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change.”

Dr. Claude Allegre–member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: “The cause of this climate change is unknown.”

Dr. Richard Lindzen–Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists “are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn’t happen even if the models were right.”

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov–head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science’s Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station’s Astrometria project says “the common view that man’s industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations.”

Dr. Richard Tol–Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time “preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent.”

Dr. Sami Solanki–director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun’s state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: “The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.”

Prof. Freeman Dyson–one of the world’s most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are “full of fudge factors” and “do not begin to describe the real world.”

Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen–director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun’s behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2.

The aforementioned can be found at Amazon.com from whence this list was drawn. Gee, these fellas must be in Exxon’s pocket, eh?"

Another Global Warming "OOPSIE" Moment

So we have all these celebrity types who want to latch on and bask in the reflected glow of Al Gore under the dubious guise of "stopping Global Warming." Never mind that that particular moniker has recently been changed to "Global Change" which syncs nicely with someone's presidential campaign rhetoric, just pretend to go along. Well now it seems that some fairly heavy hitters who have spent more than a summer studying the weather, global currents and such are questioning the rush to judgment on the part of the Nobel committee and the Usual Suspects. Read the letter linked to the title above and the blog at Orange Punch and then ask yourself as the prices on gas rise and the demands of the liberal left further restrict domestic exploration and production if it's worth it to your family to keep throwing good money on bad science?
Bad Science

This is SO INCREDIBLY DEPRESSING.....

I am sick. I am so mad that people vote based on shallow assumption rather than substance. And the stupid way that the Republicans have allowed themselves to be manipulated by the media and by the broadbased bias that being a former minister makes you a paragon of management is simply naive. So here we are. Romney is the last bastion against an appeasement layer of pseudo-conservatism and he was brokered out of the West Virginia delegates by a slick move on the part of McCain operatives. This dog in the manger attitude that allowed the third place supporters to vote simply to keep Romney from winning is typical of this man's campaign. I think that the many many true conservatives who supported the likes of Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson will find a McCain candidacy a hard pill to swallow. As for Huckabee, and his supporters, you are political fools. You were never in the running and all Huckabee became was a shill for McCain preventing consolidation of the conservative base. While those who are evangelicals are dazzled by his former position as a Baptist minister, I have one question-

IF THE MINISTRY IS A POSITION TO WHICH YOU ARE CALLED BY GOD, THEN WHY DID MIKE HUCKABEE QUIT?

Face it evangelicals, you are doing the same thing that you did back when Perot was running. You are forcing a single issue platform that WILL NOT WIN. And you are, in addition, supporting a candidate whose views are not in line with most evangelical thinking. Do you really think it's okay to allow illegal immigrant in-state status for college tuition and scholarships? That is insulting to every single parent and student who works themselves to death to pay for a college education. And when these people are allowed that seemingly legal status, by their low income level, they will end up with scholarships. What about the rest of us who have paid into the government till for our whole lives? Your vote for this man was a slap in the face.

I am sorry, I simply cannot contain my frustration with the way this campaign has evolved. It seems like we were forced to accept a candidate not of our own choosing by forces that do not have our best interests at heart. I am beside myself. I don't know what I will do during the Texas primary on March 4th. The only good thing to come out of this mess is that now the Texas primary will garner us some political favors and I hope the state parties are smart enough to arm-twist a boat load of favored status programs in return for delivering the state's delegates. I may cross over to mess with the Democrats. I may vote for a Communist. I may pick Mickey Mouse, Mickey Rourke or Mickey the guy down the street. But I sure know that I won't be pulling the lever, marking the ballot or sending one red cent to the RNC if McCain-Huckabee is the ticket in November. And you can carve those words in stone.


PS. What really galls me is that for my two oldest kids, this is there first big election. I hate it that they are seeing the seamy underbelly of the system rather than the better lights. I can actually understand the support for Obama because although I don't like his political stands, I would much rather have him over for dinner than Hillary or McCain. What a stinking shame.

My New Personal Political Agenda

I am dismayed by the way the primary season has run out. We have Hillary Clinton, actively campaigning in Michigan and Florida-states whose delegates aren't supposed to be seated because they move up their primaries. We have main stream media that is shaping the battlefield for a race between John McCain and some democrat regardless of what the general population wants. We have small homogeneous states picking and choosing candidates for the rest of us based on their limited and largely rural backgrounds. We have this candidate casting stones at the others and in general, if you are like me, you are sick to death of it.

My candidate is out. I really think that Fred Thompson had the most concise and logical platform of ideas. But he didn't run the campaign to the media's liking and so dropped out. Giuliani too, not my favorite but an early frontrunner, was scuttled by a media which wants to heap laurels on two small states and begin the bickering and backstabbing on a national scale. And what of Texas and other states whose primaries are down the road past Super Tuesday? It would seem that our votes don't matter. It would also seem that the candidates simply do not care. Why should I waste time and effort voting for someone who doesn't even know I exist?

So here's my strategy (or stratergery if you prefer.) Since I consider Clinton a vindictive and dangerous nominee who has too much ambition and is too clever by half, in a McCain v. Clinton election, I hold my nose and voter for McCain. BUT.....In a McCain v. Obama race, I choose Obama. Why? you ask. Because:
1. This would lay to rest the use of the "race card" in all public and governmental events.
2. If you are going to elect someone with liberal causes anyway, you might as well go whole hog and pick one that has the liberal street cred. That way when the wheels fall off, it won't be the Republicans stuck holding the bag, again.
3. I think that Obama is calmer, younger and more detail oriented than McCain. His background as a professor would cause him to be more analytical, and although they may not like it, more conservative in the measures he chooses to take. Unlike Clinton, his background is constitutional law and he knows the structure of the government and the limitations of the office of President.
4. The election of Clinton would play into every negative female CEO stereotype and set women back fifty years.
5. McCain is simply not reasonable as has been demonstrated in a number of contradictory stances on many public issues.
6. Clinton has a great deal of political baggage and political payback. The POTUS and Congress are already at their lowest ebb-Congress being lower-than before in history. We really don't need a radical ideologue to cram a bunch of heavy handed programs down the throats of a weakly controlled and slavish Congress.

How To Tell Governments Apart

This has been posted in various forms elsewhere, but bear repeating. I had actually not seen the second half of this before. It's funny, but sadly true. Thanks to Spikymaxx at MyFoxDFW.com.

"DEMOCRAT You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. You feel guilty for being successful.

REPUBLICAN You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. So?

SOCIALIST You have two cows. The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor. You form a cooperative to tell him how to manage his cow.

COMMUNIST You have two cows. The government seizes both and provides you with milk. You wait in line for hours to get it. It is expensive and sour.

CAPITALISM, AMERICAN STYLE You have two cows. You sell one, buy a bull, and build a herd of cows.

BUREAUCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE You have two cows. Under the new farm program the government pays you to shoot one, milk the other, and then pours the milk down the drain.

AMERICAN CORPORATION You have two cows. You sell one, lease it back to yourself and do an IPO on the 2nd one. You force the two cows to produce the milk of four cows. You are surprised when one cow drops dead. You spin an announcement to the analysts stating you have down sized and are reducing expenses. Your stock goes up.

FRENCH CORPORATION You have two cows. You go on strike because you want three cows. You go to lunch and drink wine. Life is good.

JAPANESE CORPORATION You have two cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk. They learn to travel on unbelievably crowded trains. Most are at the top of their class at cow school.

GERMAN CORPORATION You have two cows. You engineer them so they are all blond, drink lots of beer, give excellent quality milk, and run a hundred miles an hour. Unfortunately they also demand 13 weeks of vacation per year.

ITALIAN CORPORATION You have two cows but you don't know where they are. While ambling around, you see a beautiful woman. You break for lunch. Life is good.

RUSSIAN CORPORATION You have two cows. You have some vodka. You count them and learn you have five cows. You have some more vodka. You count them again and learn you have 42 cows. The Mafia shows up and takes over however many cows you really have.

TALIBAN CORPORATION You have all the cows in Afghanistan , which are two. You don't milk them because you cannot touch any creature's private parts. You get a $40 million grant from the US government to find alternatives to milk production but use the money to buy weapons.

IRAQI CORPORATION You have two cows. They go into hiding. They send radio tapes of their mooing.

POLISH CORPORATION You have two bulls. Employees are regularly maimed and killed attempting to milk them.

BELGIAN CORPORATION You have one cow. The cow is schizophrenic. Sometimes the cow thinks he's French, other times he's Flemish. The Flemish cow won't share with the French cow. The French cow wants control of the Flemish cow's milk. The cow asks permission to be cut in half. The cow dies happy.

FLORIDA CORPORATION You have a black cow and a brown cow. Everyone votes for the best looking one. Some of the people who actually like the brown one best accidentally vote for the black one. Some people vote for both. Some people vote for neither. Some people can't figure out how to vote at all. Finally, a bunch of guys from out-of-state tell you which one you think is the best-looking cow.

CALIFORNIA CORPORATION You have millions of cows. They make real California cheese. Only five speak English. Most are illegal. Arnold likes the ones with the big udders"

Economic Fear And Loathing

There’s been a great deal of economic angst in the Asian markets today, which leads many investors to face tomorrow’s open of the market with fear and loathing. But rather than rail against what may happen, it would behoove us to consider WHY this has happened.

First, like it or not, the United States is largely the world’s greatest consumer. We have the extra cash lying around to purchase a multitude of products that used to be made domestically, but are now made much more cheaply overseas. This is problematic because while our desire for luxury items appears insatiable, there is a limit to all good things. Many corporations deliberately chose to move off-shore to take advantage of cheap labor. Levi’s clothing is just one example; there are more. Other nations actively seek via embargo, trade agreements and treaties to limit imports from the United States. The U.S. in turn does very little to limit the inflow of cheap merchandise. Manufacturers who are greedy or lackadaisical can and have ended up importing shoddy and even dangerous product to the American marketplace. There are those who say the implementation of embargoes would further isolate and limit the American economy. On the other hand, such measures would discourage off-shoring of manufacturing, keeping those jobs here and while growth would occur more slowly, it would become more stable.

Secondly, with the dollar being cheap, there are many many investors from Asia and Europe who have taken on the economic risk of buying American companies. I know this for a fact because I know someone in my family works for one of these companies. The parent corporation is in the U.K. And because the dollar is so cheap, they have also bought many of the competing companies in this same industry. If the domestic economy slows down, those loans to purchase these companies will come due in overseas banks causing a ripple effect to the recession. On a global scale, it is exactly what happened with sub-prime lending. You have borrowers who aren’t quite up to snuff in credit, so the lending institutions or banks charge a premium interest, but defer that for five to seven years based on the assumption or blind hope that the economy will boom and the borrower will make enough money to cover the interest and principle from profit. When the economy slows down, these borrowers are forced to either consolidate companies, take assets and sell them while shutting companies or borrow more money at higher interest,further limiting their capital to grow the company.

Finally, if you look back at the first examples, remember how many times the United Nations would slap the U.S. with one hand but hold out the other for payment of the majority of programs. How many times has the U.S. offered aid for hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, famines and such without any sort of expectation of repayment? Think how some of those nations misused donated goods by filtering them through the black markets. Or note how others asked that our military personnel enter to deliver aid under the cover of darkness so that nobody would know the source of needed assistance. Our money is so welcome, so long as we don't show our faces.

We in the United States are being blamed for a failing global economy, while the rest of the world stands around wringing their hands waiting for someone to do something.They continuously raise prices on goods that are imported to us, restrict exports from us then worry that maybe we won't buy another flat screen TV for junior. They hold this odd expectation that even under the burden of too much regulation and what amounts to a plundering of our assets as an economic anchor, that we can simply pick up the pace and keep going. Everything has a limit. And an economy can only run hot so long before correction must occur. In addition, an economy is not a thing of concrete, it is fluid and runs on money as well as emotions. The stampede to recession has been orchestrated by the media just as it has been feared by overseas investors.

The entire scene can be explained by the story of the goose who laid the golden egg. The short version is that there was a farmer who had a goose who once a day laid a perfect golden egg. The farmer used the eggs to barter for things to improve his life. But that wasn’t enough. So he demanded that the goose lay more eggs. The goose tried to comply, laying as many golden eggs as it could. But even those numbers didn’t satisfy the greedy farmer. The farmer in fact believed the goose was holding out. So the farmer killed the goose, hoping to find golden eggs inside, but all he had left was a dead goose, end of story.

The U.S. is the goose. We have produced in spite of artificial limitations placed upon us by well-meaning but misguided ideologues who would rather see this nation fall into ruin than admit that we could use our own resources rather than extending our wealth to nations that otherwise would destroy us. But when the goose is no more, what happens? Where will those tribal chieftains sell their oil if the United States simply stops buying? Who will buy those expensive electronics from Asia, if nobody can afford the power to run them? Who will buy the glitzy sports shoes, the pricey toys, the bells, buzzers and gizmos, if America’s economy crumbles? We are constantly told how we are in a “global economy” yet when we go to such silly summits as the one held for eco-celebrities in the such South Pacific, it isn’t the other nations that must limit growth, but the United States. It isn’t the other citizens of the world who have to pay the freight, it’s Americans. And let me remind you, that for all the griping about American workers, we are still the most productive in the world-bar none. So when I hear that investors around the world are concerned about our economy, I rejoice, because maybe, just maybe they will get a clue that by cutting us off, they are slitting their own throats.

It's Going To Be a Bumpy Year

I am a Fred Thompson supporter. I think he's the only candidate in the race who plans on using the Constitution as the basis for his presidency. I have been leery of most of the other Republicans. McCain is too old, Romney too wooden and stiff, Giuliani is too jokey and insincere, and Ron Paul is just weird. Thompson is all we have ....
But things are starting to get contentious as shown in this video

An Inconvenient Stock Portfolio

Just another example of "Do as I say, not do as I do" from the Democrat Darlings of the Infotainment Industry. I don't know about you, but I am tired of forking over money, time and effort to do my part, when it seems the Democrat political elite are far more concerned about making sure airspace is safe for their private jets and that their Cape Cod views are disrupted by energy generating wind turbines. They've taken away nuclear, they have hobbled the oil industry, it's as if they want us "little people" to return to tents and cave to that the most important people, the politically correct and important people, can live in comfort. I think it's time to remind them who is Boss. Vote them out, every single incumbent. I mentioned this at the midterm elections, but now more than ever, these people Pelosi, Kennedy, Reid, Hutchison, all of them, need to go home and GET REAL JOBS!!!!!!!!!!

SEC Filing Raises Questions About the "Sustainability" of Generation Investment Management's $438 Million Investment Fund, says JunkScience.com

What Democrats Believe.

The main problem that I have with the Democrat party is that they aren't so much a single view as a precarious coalition of different views. I do not see that as a political directive but more of a cynical compromise of values. I truly could not vote for Hillary Clinton, I think she is damaged goods. And I think the Democrats do themselves a great deal of harm by discounting Obama despite his negatives. Edwards is nothing but another "class president" clone trying to cut another notch in his resume. His presidency would be a failure comparable to that of Carter's. In short, while the pundits like to crown Hillary, and the Republicans aren't doing themselves many favors by using litmus tests to select candidates, the vast middle 80% of the electorate doesn't see much that addresses their needs. These include:

Illegal Immigration-it affects taxes, education, welfare, employement and resources. Dems are pussyfooting around the issue hoping it will go away. It won't. And if they don't address it there are many people in the Silent Middle who are very upset and will vote against whoever refuses to enforce our borders. This one issue alone has alienated staunch Republicans from the president. Be warned.

Health Care Reform-National health care will be an economic rathole. If you love the way the bureaucracy handles every day matters, imagine how much you will adore them when you have a medical emergency. The solution is SIMPLE. Make ALL insurance and medical payments tax deductible. This used to be the case, until in pushing HMO's the limits were set at only those amounts over 7.5% of income. Let it ALL be deductible and see what happens.

Education-We have to create a national test. We also need to get the public schools out of the business of providing free meals, remedial assistance and education for the severely handicapped. If the government wants to do these things, set up some other institution to provide such services. Public schools were meant to provide an educated and capable population. They were never meant to be used as facilities to provide rehab, training or other services.

Defense-We need a unifed world view on defense. France is willing to come back into the mix, we need their help. We also need to renew our NATO alliances because frankly the way Putin is acting, I would rather he know that the EU and the US are talking again so he wouldn't get any grand and glorious ideas about reuniting the USSR.

More to come....

And Now....A Candidate for All Seasons

Here's a candidate we can all support because like all good candidates, he stands for everything and says nothing of substance.