Take Down The Bird Feeder

This came to me via an email. Not sure who originally wrote it, but there ya go:

I bought a bird feeder. I hung it on my back porch and filled it with seed. What a beauty of a bird feeder it was, as I filled it lovingly with seed. Within a week we had hundreds of birds taking advantage of the continuous flow of free and easily accessible food.

But then the birds started building nests in the boards of the patio, above the table,
and next to the barbecue.

Then came the poop. It was everywhere: on the patio tile, the chairs, the table... everywhere!

Then some of the birds turned mean. They would dive bomb me and try to peck me even though I had fed them out of my own pocket.

And others birds were boisterous and loud. They sat on the feeder and squawked and screamed at all hours of the day and night and demanded that I fill it when it got low on food.

After a while, I couldn't even sit on my own back porch anymore. So I took down the bird feeder and in three days the birds were gone. I cleaned up their mess and took down the many nests they had built all over the patio.

Soon, the back yard was like it used to be... quiet... serene... and no one demanding their rights to a free meal.

Now let's see.

Our government gives out free food, subsidized housing, free medical care and free
education, and allows anyone born here to be an automatic citizen.

Then the illegals came by the tens of thousands. Suddenly, our taxes went up to pay for free services; small apartments are housing 5 families; you have to wait 6 hours to be seen by an emergency room doctor; your child's second grade class is behind other schools because over half the class doesn't speak English.

Corn Flakes now come in a bilingual box; I have to 'press one ' to hear my bank talk to me in English, and people waving flags other than 'Old Glory' are squawking and screaming in the streets, demanding more rights and free liberties.

Just my opinion, but maybe it's time for the government to take down the bird feeder. If you agree, pass it on; if not, continue cleaning up the poop.

A Sad, Sad Day

Well, Thursday evening was, at the “Cap-And-Trade” bill was passed in the House.  What is saddest is that there were 8 so-called Conservatives (at least they get a little “R” next to their name) who voted FOR this bill.

Those Republican Representatives are:

• Bono Mack (CA) (202) 225-5330
• Castle (DE) (202) 225-4165
• Kirk (IL) (202) 225-4385
• Lance (NJ) (202) 225-5361
• LoBiondo (NJ) (202) 225-6572
• McHugh (NY) (202) 225-4611
• Reichert (WA) (202) 225-7761
• Smith (NJ) (202) 225-3765

Now, one may wonder why it is that I despise this particularly bill. After all, the Democrats promise us that it’s ever-so-important in regards to the environment.

What the Dims don’t want you to know, is that this bill will be responsible for raising that cost of energy by thousands of dollars.  And that price tag is even before you factor in the jobs that will be lost, and the 1.6 Trillion dollar price tag attached.

In effect this is a massive tax on every person in this country.

But of course the Liberals don’t want THAT to be the sound bite. They tell everyone that the Businesses pick up the bill. That the “Cap and Trade” in question here are just fines and fees levied against businesses.

But that belays the most obvious thing that any business owner will tell you:

 Businesses do not pay taxes.

It’s simple. They don’t. They never have, and they never will. Anything that comes their way that is labeled as a tax or a fee or a fine, is merely passed onto the consumer. It’s part of the price that you pay for any good or service.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying or ignorant. Or both.

But it gets better, those folks who know these things—and I’m including the greenies here –state that this bill will influence the environment by less than 1/10th of a degree in 50 years.

Yes, our “fair” leaders have seen fit to saddle us with massive debt, a program which encourages the wasteful spending of states such as California, and passes that burden onto more fiscally conservative states (such as Indiana) and one which seems to be designed to drive businesses overseas.

They will be driven to counties which produce more “greenhouse” gases than we do, and by driving our businesses to them, they will see no real reason to stop producing the gasses which get an environmentalist’s panties into such a bunch.

In fact, this is what the Heritage Foundation has defined as the end result of this bill if it manages to pass the Senate:

• Compared to no cap and trade, real GDP losses increase an additional $2 trillion, from $7.4 trillion under the original draft to $9.6 trillion under the new draft;
• Compared to no cap and trade, average unemployment increases an additional 261,000 jobs, from 844,000 lost jobs under the original draft to 1,105,000 lost jobs under the new draft; and
• Peak-year unemployment losses rise by 500,000 jobs, from 2 million under the original draft to 2.5 million under the new draft.

By 2035 the bill will:

• Reduce aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) by $9.4 trillion;
• Destroy 1,145,000 jobs on average, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by over 2,479,000 jobs;
• Raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation;
• Raise inflation-adjusted gasoline prices by 58 percent;
• Raise residential natural gas prices by 55 percent;
• Raise an average family's annual energy bill by $1,241; and
• Result in an increase of $28,728 in additional federal debt per person, again after adjusting for inflation

Why anyone thought this was a good idea is beyond me, but I guess that’s why I’m a Conservative.

Barbour: It's Tax & Spend Time

Ah, the idiocy of politicians. A few months ago, I was proud of Governor Barbour for standing up against the idiocy of the "Bailout" where the Federal Government sends itself further into debt with nations that are actively hostile to our way of life.

Yet, here he is, just a few scant months later pushing to ensure that I think he's fairly worthless as a politician.

Mississippi, like most states, is facing a shortfall in its general fund. People are spending less which means all those taxes on sales, and Corporate fees, and the various other things where the government takes money away from those who actually produce wealth, are down. It's estimated that the state is ~$300 million down from expectations, and there's only a month left in the fiscal year.

That's a lot of money to have not been collected. So of course, the politicians are in something of a frenzy. After all, they need that money to further their own little power schemes, and to hand out money to their constituents. Oh, excuse, we're supposed to call them, "the worthy poor" or some tripe like that.

So, after taking in 300 million dollars less than expected, you'd think that someone in Jackson would realize that now would be a good time to cut spending. After all, if I bring home $300 less than I expected I would certainly do so. After all, contrary to the Government's belief, one really can't continuously spend money which one does not have.

But alas, that's where one gets into the issue of politicians and their idiocy.

My guess is that they don't really understand where that money comes from. They don't understand that for every penny they bring in, that's taking a penny away from one of their constituents. Those thousands of dollars that I spend on sales taxes, state income taxes, property taxes, sin taxes, and my share of fees levied against the companies I frequent could have been spent on my family.

That's money that they're taking from me under duress, all because they feel the need to push their social agenda and hand out money. In 2008, this is how the state split up the money they took in from its people (the General Fund):

• Social Welfare - 2%
• Agriculture & Economic Development - 2%
• Corrections - 5%
• Debt Service - 6%
• Hospitals & Hospital Schools - 5%
• Medicaid - 8%
• Other - 9%
• Colleges & University - 17%
• K-12 Education - 45%

It's easy. Take a category, and cut. Look at K-12 Education, nearly half of the funds taken in go towards that. On average, 20% of their budget goes to indirect costs--which are those things not directly related to teaching our kids. How much of that is needed? Would it not be better to do things like cut back on the cleaning staff, and instead make the kids clean up the school? Would it not be better to strip away the administrative overhead, and give more power directly to the school's principles? I think so.

It's easy to find things to cut--it's just sad that so many people come to expect the government to hand things to them, or to take care of things that a generation ago, our parents/grandparents would have done.

It's even sadder that the politicians are so determined to keep their jobs and their power, that they'd willing drive us all further into debt, rather than do the right thing and work towards shrinking our government.

Obama: Ignore The Man Behind The Curtain....

Sometimes, I really do have to wonder what the Democrats/Lefties are smoking up there in their little world-outside of Reality.

The White House has published a new report that claims that to "fix" the economy requires a revamping of our health care system. Their justification? The fact that Health Care, which currently accounts for ~18% of our GDP is estimated to grow to be around 30-34% of our GDP in THIRTY years. Yes, thirty, 3-0.

What, the report is not telling you is that the taxes to pay for the another expansion of Government abilities and capabilities, would crush our economy with 5.

Let's look at the two biggest tax items which are in the works to "pay" for health care by Government Mandate. The first is the "beverage" tax. What this is, is a tax on any drink you drink. Everything from sweet tea, to coke to beer to wine falls under the purview of this tax, dedicated to drive a majority of the food/dining industry out of business.

After all, if you want less of something, add a tax to it.

The next tax is the VAT, or the Value Added Tax. This works similar to a National Sales Tax, except it is on EVERY transaction (while sales taxes are typically applied only to transactions where no resale is involved). And while this does have potential, they're talking about adding it to the top of our already complex Income Tax system. This will ensure that our already weakened retail industry falters further.

After all, if you want less of something, add a tax to it.

And that's just the issues involved on the TAX side of things that health care reform will cause. Then there's also the simple fact that health care as we know it will cease to exist. After all, once Bureaucrats get in charge of making health decisions for you what you want, or think you need, will be irrelevant.

We'll see more cases, like the recent one where someone is being forced to undergo chemotherapy at a Judge's orders, despite the fact that he does not want to.

In every area of our lives that bureaucrats exist, we see petty tyrants doing things to harm the very people who they are supposed to be helping.

• In California, the "Land Use" bureaucrats tried to force a couple who were holding a Bible study with a few friends (~15) in their home to get an major use permit
• Some Veterans are turned away from VA hospitals because clerks are unable to fill out the DD214 forms correctly
• The Dutch have a plan to force "Unfit Mothers" to take contraception, and if you get pregnant while on the contraceptives, they will take your child\

Here in the U.S., Liberals love looking at our neighbors to the East and seeing all these grand, and wonderful plans they have in action. They see the social systems in place in France, Britain, Germany and Sweden, and they salivate and say "This is good."

But they never stop and actually LOOK at these things. They don't pay attention to the fact that Britain, France and Germany are all limiting access to health care. They're rationing doctors and medicines and diagnostic treatments.

In 1996, Michael D. Tanner wrote an article entitled "A Hard Lesson About Socialized Medicine" for the CATO Institute. In it he explains how Medicare fails. How the properties of a very elementary rule forces programs like this to fail.

That rule: If something is perceived as free, people will consume more of it than they would if they had to pay for it.

This is a simple truism. I have free cell phone minutes to my wife, therefore I call her routinely just to chat and hear her voice. Before "family plans" and free mobile-to-mobile minutes, I would only call to provide relevant information--things I needed for her to know.

These problems, the access issues, the poor service, the general... crappiness of medicare, are proof that the government should not be involved in health care for the people. The fact that they can't even get Veteran health care right--and there's a lot less of them, than on either Medicare or private insurance--is proof that they should not be doing this.

But above and beyond that, this is something outside of the bounds of what our Founding Fathers expected us to do with this country. They would be appalled at the thought that we have invested so much power into the hands of so few.

Need proof, then we but have to look to the words of one of our Founding Fathers, James Madison, who in the Federalist No. 45 wrote:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.

and during a speech at the Virginia constitutional convention in December of 1829 said:

The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.

Our Government was not designed to hold this power, and it should not, for it puts too much power over ourselves, our bodies and our health, into the hands of just a few bureaucrats.

Bureaucrats whose sole purpose will be the gaining of more power and prestige for themselves.

A scary thought, where the health of my family is concerned.

I Wish Today's News Was All Just an April Fool's Day Joke...

I like GM cars. And in fact a majority of the vehicles that I have owned over the years are GM vehicles. So, it saddens me to see them in such dire straights, but such is life in a free-market economy like ours.

At least it was until the Government got into the business of handing out billions of dollars in an effort to shore up bad business decisions.

And much to my dismay, my beloved GM was one of the companies who went begging. Of course they are paying for it now. There are reports that the White House is planning on "reorganizing" the GM board of directors in an effort to make GM continue dancing to the tune it sets.

Not that surprising of a move after the shenanigans that the Treasury Secretary pulled while trying to get the power to seize random businesses and place them into the public domain.

But IT GETS BETTER!

After all the hoopla and the insane tax plans to tax bonuses at nearly 90%, it comes to light that members of Congress handed out 9.1 Million dollars in bonuses.

I wonder if those bonuses are going to be taxed at 90%, after all, that's TAXPAYER MONEY that those dirty Congressional aides cum thieves are receiving. How dare they take that taxpayer money?

Of course, not all the news out there is bad. Walter Williams has a great article up, describing the fallacy of Liberal policy, and points clearly to what is wrong with our society today.

Fundamentally, he proposes two questions which should be answered with a "yes" or a "no" and then defines why he answers the way he does, and also why Liberals (especially Liberal professors and politicians) would try to expound, and explain away their "maybe" answer. Those questions are:

Do you believe that it is moral and just for one person to be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another? And, if that person does not peaceably submit to being so used, do you believe that there should be the initiation of some kind of force against him?

Good questions. I have to say "no" to both. Now, if only more folks saw it that way, maybe my tax money wouldn't be used for Corporate and Personal bailouts.

Oh Noes! It's a Bonus!

The American Tax-paying public, and the bottom-feeders that force said public to fund their exorbitant lifestyle, are in a bit of a furor. Mainly, AIG, one of those recipients of the bad-idea called kickbacksa bailout, is paying its top executives, and other important employees millions of dollars in bonuses.

These are bonuses that AIG has had in place for months; long before that last $30 million.

My surprise is that anyone is surprised at this?

These bonuses are paid to those employees who figure out ways to bring money into the company. And someone had the brilliant idea that the government would float them. Regardless of whether or not they SHOULD be floated.

Because let's be serious, they shouldn't have been.

They should have been forced to go through the bankruptcy system, and have their top management stripped and their organization and debt reorganized.

Instead, top management is more entrenched than ever, and they now have proof that the government will cover any bad, or risky, behavior they take on behalf of the company.

When will those... morons? idiots? No, those aren't the right words; the comparison is insulting to morons and idiots. Ah, when will those politicians realize that the best government is the one which governs least.

Let businesses that need to fail, fail. It's the entire point of the bankruptcy court system.

And above that, remove government influences from market places as much as possible. The less there, the better.

Need another example (besides the perfectly justified AIG bonuses of taxpayer money)?

Then, let's look at the small-car industry. These are those "fuel-efficient" ugly atrocities which no one really wants to own. At least not while gas is reasonably priced. Yet government is forcing the auto manufacturers to create these cars, and what's happening is that they're sitting on car lots and just not selling.

So what is the "recommendation" by the car dealers and manufacturers? Raise taxes on gas pushing the price to a minimum of $4 per gallon. Despite the fact that such a price hike would finish destroying the economy, doesn't anyone see the idiocy of forcing taxes to move products?

Why not build cars that people want to drive and sell those? Oh yes, I forget, the government imposes regulations on the manufacturers.

See the vicious cycle?

Too bad there's not more Ron Paul's up there in Washington to break it...

Barbour Managed to Find Himself a Voter

Now, all he has to do is continue (or better yet, define better) his fiscal-conservative principles and he'll be able to keep me as a voter.

But, onto the point, what has Governor Barbour managed to do which has impressed me? I mean, I am somewhat out spoken when a politico irks me, but it's rare for me to wax-eloquent about the virtues of one.

Mainly because it's so rare for a politico to have virtues, but I digress.

What Gov. Barbour has done, is this quote:

If we were to take the unemployment insurance reform package that they have, it would cause us to raise taxes on employment when the money runs out, and the money will run out in a couple of years, and then we'll have to raise the unemployment insurance tax, which is literally a tax on employment. I mean, we want more jobs. You don't get more jobs by putting an extra tax on creating jobs.

I must admit I was flabbergasted when I heard that on the television last night. Here is a politician, telling it out it really is out there.

Sure, Louisiana's and Florida's governors are also harping on some of the pork and inanity found within the Congressional Relief Action Program, as Mike Huckabee has named the spending stimulus bill.

Of course, such statements have the usual detractors and what not. A quick perusal of the Politico website reveals such gems as this:

It is incredibly self-serving for ANY governor to put party ideology ahead of pragmatism by refusing to accept federal stimulus funds that would help many thousands of unemployed and economically distressed people make ends meet until the economy begins its rebound.

Frankly, I'm still amazed at people who really do believe that it's the government's responsibility to take my money (under duress mind you) and give it to other people. Oh wait, that's not the politically correct way of describing "government aid" and "welfare checks" is it?

All that said, there is a dark tinge to this discussion, and that is that Barbour really is perfectly fine accepting this money. He has no compunctions against it, doesn't really feel a moral obligation to not accept it--outside of the riders, and requirements attached to it.

Now, if Barbour has come out and said, "Hey, this pork-laden travesty of a legislation should not be seen."

I'd be all sorts of happy. Well, happier.

But instead he's saying, "I like this money, a lot, but because there's those pesky little rules attached, I don't think I'll be taking it."

The important thing is that he's out there fighting against it though. Additionally, he's smart enough to realize that you don't create jobs by leveraging more taxes on job creation.

So, hey, it's one of those glass-half-empty kind of things I guess.

The New Legal

What is the definition of a criminal? When does someone become a part of a criminal conspiracy? These are important questions, and we need the answers today--because some of our lawmakers are flouting the edges.

For the record, a criminal is someone who commits a crime, or has been legally convicted of committing a crime.

The second part of the question, is even easier to understand. According to law, a criminal conspiracy exists when two or more people agree to engage in a course of conduct which is itself a criminal offense.

Now, let's play a role-playing game. Say, you own two houses, and being the good steward of your property, you put up one of those houses as a rental unit. After all, you can't live in two houses, and by making the second a rental unit, you gain income, provide housing for someone, and ensure that the house does not become run down and/or decrepit.

Now, imagine said renter decides that they don't want to pay. They just want to live in your house, free of charge, while you pay the mortgage. What does one do?

Well, you evict the renter of course. Toss them out, and get a new renter. It's a standard procedure, and one should not feel bad about it. I mean, you had a contract that clearly stated that you allowed them to stay within your property for a certain sum of cash on a monthly basis. And that contract clearly had provisions for what happens when one does not pay.

Now, what would you do, if a City Commissioner told every person who decides to not pay their rent, that they should, "stay in their homes. That if anyone is being evicted, then don't leave."

And what if a "community service" organization then made plans to ignore eviction notices, and to forcefully keep an individual within the property.

At what point, do you worry that maybe, just maybe, this dead-beat renter who refuses to pay his agreed upon rental amount, intends to just keep your second house.

Would you care at all? Or would you use the Sheriff's office to enforce the law, and remain in control of the property you own?

I know what I would do.

Now, I used houses there, but in truth, the concept can be applied to any property. You have a car that you rent out, or maybe a TV or a computer. The thing is that one person is in blatant violation of the agreement, and intends to take your property for their own.

It is theft. Pure and simple, and without any other possible interpretation.

If you agree, keep reading. If you don't, I feel sorry for you that you believe it is okay that someone can take what does not belong to them by force.

Now, what would you say, if I told you that that little role-playing, was 100% real?

What would you say, if I told you that a Congressman is encouraging the American population to break the law, and in effect attempt to steal homes?

Because, guess what, it's real.

Representative Marcy Kaptur, on the floor of the House, said this:

What I am telling people right now is, stay in your homes. If the American people, anybody out there is being foreclosed, don't leave, because I will tell you what. If you had a smart lawyer like those banks up there on Wall Street can get, they would take you into court and they couldn't find the mortgage. They couldn't find the mortgage.
So why should any American citizen be kicked out of their homes in this cold weather? In Ohio it is going to be 10 or 20 below zero. Don't leave your home.

Because you know what? When those companies say they have your mortgage, unless you have a lawyer that can put his or her finger on that mortgage, you don't have that mortgage, and you are going to find they can't find the paper up there on Wall Street.

So I say to the American people, you be squatters in your own homes. Don't you leave. In Ohio and Michigan and Indiana and Illinois and all these other places our people are being treated like chattel, and this Congress is stymied. We have the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and our committees are muzzled. Power is given to one chairman or one person.

...

So I say to the American people, stay in your homes. You have earned them. And don't you get out until you get a really good lawyer who can find your mortgage up there on Wall Street. Because, you know what? They won't be able to find it, and therefore they can't prove you should be evicted.

Think about it. Sure, it's a sad thing that all these folks are facing foreclosure, but whose fault is it? Who signed the loan--which is a legally binding contract? And it's not like they couldn't declare bankruptcy.

But instead, we have this Congressman who is encouraging the populace to break the law, and ignore the legal rights of the mortgage holder. Because let's not forget the simple fact that a person does NOT own their house until all the liens are satisfied--the lien holders do.

No amount of claiming that American's have a "right" to home ownership, or a "right" to not face foreclosure, does not mean that those rights actually exist.

That said, Home Ownership is a right, and along side that right is a responsibility to actually pay for the home.

Otherwise, you're just stealing.

A Lesson On Human Nature

More fun from my coworkers!

I was talking to a friend of mine's little girl the other day. I asked her what she wanted to be when she grew up and she replied,"I want to be President!" Both of her parents are liberal Democrats and were standing there. So then I asked her, "If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?"

She replied, "I'd give houses to all the homeless people."

"Wow - what a worthy goal." I told her, "You don't have to wait until you're President to do that. You can come over to my house and mow, pull weeds, and sweep my yard, and I'll pay you $50 Then I'll take you over to the grocery store where this homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward a new house."

Since she is only 6, she thought that over for a few seconds. While her Mom glared at me, she looked me straight in the eye and asked,"Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?"

And I said, "Welcome to the Republican Party."

Her folks still aren't talking to me.

Though humorous, I could easily see this story taking place. After all, when socialist concepts are explained succinctly enough that a six-year old can understand them, they are often revealed for the utter stupidity and tripe which are at their heart. Liberalism and Socialism are only acceptable when they're crouched in fancy terms, big words, which always equate to someone getting someone else's money.

But you can't call that robbery--after all, it's "Legal."

Foreclosing Foreclosures

There must be something wrong with me.

I just don't understand something that is apparently a vital aspect of my country.

It boggles my mind; confounds and confuses me.

I don't know why my country men would be willing to do this, yet more and more it seems like I'm in a minority of those people who don't.

What am I talking about? What has me so confused?

Why people take handouts from the government.

What's worse, is why do our elected representatives continue to provide handouts to the people? Though, ultimately I know the reason for that: they want to buy themselves a vote.

What brought this on today was an AP story that I found on MSNBC talking about the Senate's upcoming vote on an anti-foreclosure plan.

Disgusting if you ask me.

No one forced these people to take these exotic mortgages, and as such they should now suffer the consequences of their bad decisions.

I'm not getting bailed out of my mortgage--nor do I want to.

Especially not by the government. I don't want my tax dollars spent bailing people out of their own bad decisions. That's not the purpose of the Federal government. Heck, it's not even the purpose of state or local governments.

That's the purpose of charitable organizations.

Which, despite the Democrat's intentions, is NOT the point of the Federal Government.

At least not the federal government whose Constitution I had studied.

The Housing Balloon

The Senate OK'd a bill that would 'help' thousands of home-owners who made the brilliant decision to use Adjustable-Rate and other exotic mortgages. Why do they need this so-called help? Because these exotic mortgages have a bomb built into them. They start their life out as low-interest loans, and after a few years of getting payments applied to them, their interest rate explodes, leading to higher payments. Additionally, the House has already passed a version of the bill, which means that now both sides of Congress will need to hash out the differences and re-vote before sending it onto the President.

Let me be up front with everyone: I do not like this bill.

I firmly believe it is both unconstitutional and goes against the fundamental concepts of the free-market upon which our society is built.

How can I say this? Is this some evil grinch in me that wants to see people lose their homes? Of course not. I feel bad for them. A little at least.

Yet, these people willingly chose to enter into those loans. They KNEW that the interest rate was going to blow up on them, yet they went into the loan anyways. On the other side of things, the various financial organizations which made those loans also knew that once those rates increased, then the borrowers would be unable to make the loan payments.

How exactly am I supposed to feel bad about people who make informed decisions, even if those informed decisions are not in their long-term best behavior?

Why exactly should our government be trying to help out either people or business who made decisions on their own, about their own finances, and are now effectively in that proverbial lake?

Democratic Senator Charles Schumer opined this about this particular bill:

be a source of salvation for those families who were tricked into unaffordable loans

Do what? How exactly were these people tricked? I don't know what type of loan they signed, but my mortgage has the interest rate, including the fact that it does not change, clearly written on the contract I signed. There is no way that these families were tricked into purchasing such a loan--to imply that is at best to be trying to hoodwink the public into accepting another government handout to cover people's own stupidity. And if they WERE tricked into an ARM, by the mortgage lender not disclosing the fact that it was an ARM, then there are already statutes on the books to deal with fraudulent lending practices.

No. This is merely a bailout of people too stupid for their own good, companies too greedy for their own good, and the Federal Reserver which is responsible for it all, by forcing us to go to a wishes-backed currency rather than the gold standard.

America Needs a Farm Bill

America needs a farm bill, our constituents need a farm bill.

--Norm Coleman Senator Minnesota (R)

... That's odd. I didn't realize that our country needed the government to subsidize various and sundry industries.

What's odder, is that I still can't find the place in the U.S. Constitution which allows Congress to use my tax dollars to subsidize industries.

What this is, is just another attempt for pork. For Congress to vote their pet ideologies, people and other odds an ends money. One of the many reasons we have such high taxes (unless you're one of the 'poor' making less than $30K annually) and a massive national debt.

It is just another symptom of the 'vote us money' form of government, where the unwashed masses who live at the government's whims (i.e. those on welfare and government employees) are used and abused by the powered elite, tossed tidbits of the state treasury in an effort to keep them ground and voting for the powerful.

How much longer can this idiocy last?

Sometimes, I wonder if even a President such as Ron Paul could stem the tidal flow of destruction which has been building in our Federal government since it forced the States to give up their rights back in 1866.

There is something to always remember:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage.

-- Alexander Tyler

Selfishness. Complacency. Apathy. Dependency. I see all those things in our society today. So when comes the bondage?

Need Help? Ask Big Brother!

Anyone that has talked to me about government welfare programs know my opinion about them. They're evil, and should be banned. Immediately. They have no place in our society, nor should they be allowed under the Constitution of our increasingly socialist country.

Or to put it into internet lingo: welfare = teh 3vil!!1!

Now, that that's firmly out of the way, imagine my surprise when I was coming back from lunch, and heard an advertisement on the radio. It talked about how when you need money, you know what the sound of help is - followed by the sounds of someone swiping a credit card through one of those scanners. They then go on about how welfare now has these handy-dandy debit-cards as opposed to the old fashioned stamps, and that you should call their 1-800 number because, hey, you to might qualify to live off of my taxes.

So, we have this evilness of welfare, and not only are they stealing my tax dollars to give to other people, but they're also using those tax dollars to advertise the program, so that they can justify giving more money away to people who did not earn it.

When did our government become this huge entity that felt it was okay to play Robin Hood? And then to waste money by advertising the programs?

Edwards: Taxing you just because he wants to

Presidential hopeful, John "Little John" Edwards - you know, the joke that was on the other John's ballot a few years back - has stated that he wants to raise the taxes on the wealthy (this is according to an AP story).

Now, I don't consider myself wealthy. I make a decent (okay, I make a great) wage, but that's offset by the outflow of money I have going on. A car note, my own stupidity in regards to credit as a youngster, and that massive blob of student loans I still have hanging over my head. Well, just because I don't consider myself wealthy doesn't mean that I'm not considered that for the purposes of tax hikes.

What these morons who always want to raise taxes never seem to want to tell you is that these tax hikes against the wealthy begin somewhere in the area of $35K per year. Basically, if you're not living off the government coffers, you're considered wealthy.

Which I guess I can see since they've taken such great pains to ensure that people no longer own land and must give the first three or four months worth of their salary to the government.

It's this concept that they need to tax us all into bankruptcy-in order to pay for more entitlement programs (yeah, I want MY money going to the lazy whelp who refuses to get a job and just keeps cranking out more an more kids)-that keeps me from ever voting Democrat. I can honestly admit that a lot of what Mr. Bush is doing/has done in office scares and sickens me. After all, I'm a firm believer in small government.

But back to Little John, let's look at what he has to say in this quote:

"It's just the truth," Edwards said during a news conference following his speech to the California Democratic Party convention. "It's the only way to fund the things that need to be done."

That makes my blood boil.

Rather than raise taxes, let's kill some of the pointless government programs out there. We don't need a Federal level Department of Education. We don't need government grants to those too lazy to work. In my household we have a simple rule, if we can't afford it, we don't need it. For the first few years of my marriage, we were very, very tight on funds. Yes, me and the Mrs. both worked full-time jobs, but we still had a lot of bills (again, that stupidity thing with the credit cards) - and those jobs weren't the best thing in the world.

Now, I would have loved to have been able to eat steak or lobsters every night. Or have gone out to dinner three, four times a week. But we didn't. We couldn't afford such things. So what did we do? We ate a lot of Gwatney brand hot-dogs and macaroni and cheese and Ramen noodles. Then after I got my next raise and the wifey got a better paying job, what did we do? We moved up to Hamburger Helper. Or more accurately, the generic Wal-Mart brand of Hamburger Helper. Even today, I know that we can't afford to have steak every night, so we still cook a lot with ground beef. Yes, the other stuff going into the meat is a lot more and better, but I'm able to feed my family of four for less than $100 a week. Heck, for less than $80 a week.

I mean, one week we had five nights where we ate a dish based on ground meat. I spent $8 on those 5 pounds of meat - the minimum that I would have spent on a roast or a cut of steak. And that's the point - rather than whining about how I can't fund things at the amount of money I'm making now, I modify my buying habits so that what I buy matches how much I make. Amazing how that works, eh?

Sure, I guess I could whine and complain to the government about how I'm not able to provide steak to my kids every night, and the Leftists out there would say, "Well you know, the government owes you that. Why don't you sit back and let Uncle Sam take care of you."

But you know what, I don't think I could live with myself if I did that.

I know I couldn't look my son in the eye and tell him that he needs to work hard at everything he does. I know I couldn't look my son in the eye and tell him that he needs to be a man and support himself and his family, that HE is responsible for such things.

No new taxes (or better yet, the dismantling of the Income Tax and replacement of it by a National Sales Tax). Smaller government. These are the things that I want to see happen in the government. Unfortunately, neither of the two "big" parties seem to want either of those things. It makes me very interested in the Constitution Party: