Monday, December 17, 2012

Gun Free Zones

The echoes from the gunshots had barely died out before the hysterical bleatings from the gun-haters for ever-tougher gun control laws reached a crescendo.  Lamentable, but predictable.  It happens every time somebody goes off the deep end and commits mass murder using a gun.  But while they're banging the "take the guns" drum, let's take a look at the real problem, and one proposed solution.

The Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut was a "gun free zone."  The Cinemark movie theater in Aurora, Colorado was a "gun free zone."  The Virginia Technical Institute was a "gun free zone."  And surprisingly, Fort Hood, Texas was a "gun free zone."  In fact, every single mass killing over the past decade where 3 or more people died occurred in a "gun free zone." 

Doesn't it seem that mass murderers tend to select "gun free zones" when they're in the mood  to kill a bunch of people?  Had there been an armed citizen, trained in the use of his or her weapon, at that school, or in that theater, or at that college, or even in the largest military installation in the United States (thanks to Billy Jeff Clinton, all military installations are now gun free zones!), doesn't it seem likely, as statistics indicate, that the number of people killed would have been severely minimized?  And, had that been a possibility, doesn't it seem likely that the killer might have thought twice before selecting those targets of opportunity?  Or any such targets before deciding to kill fellow citizens and then himself? 

Nobody knows what possessed the 20 year old in CT to go on a rampage and start killing little children.  Or to first take his mother's guns and shoot her in the face.  He couldn't pass a background check earlier in the week (that gun control law worked), so stealing his mother's guns was his only option (a felony).  Wouldn't it have been nice if she'd secured those guns under lock and key (her not doing so was a felony)?  He couldn't get into the school that day.  It was on lockdown, just like so many other schools are these days.  So he used Mom's .40 caliber Glock pistol to shoot his way in (a felony).  Should we encase every school in bullet-proof glass?  And then he loaded his weapons (a felony) and gunned down 20 kids and 6 teachers and administrators (26 felonies, plus sentencing enhancements, like that would have mattered).  Should we, like the NRA's CEO suggests, position an armed guard in every school in America (no, I say)?  Or do we being to repurpose our society away from trying desperately to pry guns out of the hands of lawful Americans who use them for self-defense, hunting and target shooting, and instead try to identify those mentally unbalanced citizens who are likely to become mass murderers before they can act?

By the way, England's Parliament is now debating whether to ban ki8tchen knives...thought you'd like to know how far liberal lunacy can go if left unchecked.

One hundred million Americans who own 270,000,000 guns didn't shoot anybody yesterday.  But have one insane kid shot a bunch of little children and the gun-hating loons are in a frenzy to once again try to deny citizens their Constitutional rights. 

According to a study performed by Florida State University, 2,500,000 times a year citizens using lawfully-owned weapons prevent a crime, or at least minimize the negative impact of crimes in progress.  Why isn't that reported in the alphabet media (that was a rhetorical question)?  

Points to ponder:  There are no "assault weapons."  There are only weapons which may be used in assaults, including your grandfather's shotgun.  The term "assault weapons" was coined by Sen Dianne Feinstein and fellow gun-hating liberals in the early '90s in an effort to color the publics' opinion against those scary-looking, "black" rifles that America loves and liberal politicians hate.  The AR-style rifle possibly used in the Connecticut shooting is the most popular hunting weapon in use in America today.  It is being used to hunt everything from squirrels to Kodiak Brown Bears.   

Second, there are no automatic weapons in use in America today; they have been outlawed since the 1930's.  There are semi-automatic weapons, which require the trigger to be pulled once for every shot fired.  There are dozens and dozens of semi-automatic hunting rifles and shotguns and pistols for sale in America today, and have been for more than 100 years, and none are "assault weapons." 

Third, has anyone looked at the extremely violent, desensitizing video games for sale today?  Maybe shooting up cops and soldiers on the TV with a joy stick has had a tendency to make such mass murders more likely.  And there's new evidence to indicate that the CT shooter was addicted to one such video game.  And who's looking to identify mentally unstable citizens?  It seems when you turn 18 you drop off the grid.  Getting a kid in this category institutionalized is nearly impossible.  That' got to change.

Fourth, deaths from illegal guns has gone down every single year for the past twenty years, most likely due to the increasing number of legally-owned weapons in the hands of law-abiding citizens.  As an example, concealed-carry gun permits just surpassed one million in Florida, and Florida gun crime is way, way down.  As they say, an armed society is a polite society. 

Chicago has had an outright ban on guns for more than 40 years.  Yet, Chicago is the murder capitol of America, with gun deaths totalling 535 for 2012, and 19,000 since 1990.  Perhaps that famous sometime-Chicago resident, B. Hussein Obama, would care to explain to us why outright gun bans do nothing to ban guns.

Perhaps instead of "gun free zones," we should have "guns welcome here" zones.  Then, prospective mass murderes would have to factor in the very real probability of being dropped like a bad habit by a good guy with a gun before getting off the first shot.

So what's my plan, you ask?  Simple.  Offer teachers and administrators free gun safety and proper handling courses for those who wish to participate, on a purely voluntary - and confidential - basis.  Then provide appropriate weapons for each, and all licensing, permits and certification necessary for legal concealed carry, on their persons only (no guns in desk drawers or in bookcases or in their cars).  We should offer monetary stipends to each participant as Adjunct Safety Officers as an inducement to participate.  Then, somewhere between none and maybe as many as a couple of dozen trained, armed volunteers, plus the occasional cop, would be active in each of our schools, at a negligible overall one-time cost, perhaps not more than $1,000 per participant, and the bad guys wouldn't know who or how many or where.

If we can trust them to teach our kids, can't we trust teachers to also protect our kids, especially volunteers with proper training? 

The result?  A less attractive target of opportunity.  Bad guys will pick "soft targets" if they can, like shopping malls and bowling alleys and grocery stores.  But like they're now doing in TX and OK and CO and NV and UT and WY (Ohio gun ranges just trained their four thousandth teacher, for free), and many others, let's make our schools "hard targets" as soon as possible and put an end to school shootings, once and for all.

Also ask yourself this:  if only 5% of the ducks were armed, do you think anybody would go duck hunting?

And, once again with apologies, for those who think that guns kill people, I guess they also believe that pencils cause misspelled words.

Too extreme, you say?  Don't think it would work?  President Obama sends his kids to Sidwell Friends School in Washington, D.C., along with many of the more-equal-than-you, Inside-the-Beltway "swells."  Sidwell Friends School employs 11 full-time armed guards and is currently planning to add a 12th.  It it's okay for him and his kids, why not you and yours?   

Friday, December 14, 2012

Update on Michigan

The almost unthinkable occurred this week.  Michigan elected to make the freedom to choose a new state law. 

Both houses of its legislature and its governor signed into law legislation enabling MI workers who choose not to join unions decide whether or not to pay union dues.  Heretofore, all workers had to cough up union dues even if they did not wish to become a union member.  And as we know, not everyone who belongs to a union agrees with the default position unions take: supporting the Democrat Party almost exclusively.  And so, Michigan has become the 24th "Right to Work" state in the Union.  And I would predict that many more will soon follow.

Right to work states have considerably lower unemployment rates than do those with forced unionization.  Yes, they often have slightly lower pay rates, for when forced unionization is kicked to the curb, also trashed is so-called "prevailing wages."  But most would agree a job at slightly lower wages is better than no job at all.  And no job at all is what's happening in states not choosing to see the light.  California is a prime example. 

So, even as Detroit is going bankrupt, almost certainly to be taken over by the state, the state itself has taken a step toward fiscal sanity.  Those doubting my assertion are invited to take a look at Indiana and Ohio and Wisconsin.  All have Republican governors.  All have adopted new legislation limiting restrictive organized labor policies, or eliminating them altogether.  And all have eliminated budget shortfalls, attracted new businesses and lowered unemployment rates.  Michigan will very likely now do the same.

I end this posting with one simple question:  Why, pray tell, are those who so loudly demand the right to choose whether or not to abort a fetus, also so strident in their demand that we relinquish all such choice in where to send our kids to school or whether to pay union dues? 

I guess the "right to choose" depends upon who's doing the choosing...

Monday, December 10, 2012

A Cautionary Tale

Detroit was one of my favorite destinations when I first began to travel on business. It was truly a bold, brash, bright, optimistic chrome and glass miracle of capitalism. And this essay is about how such success as Detroit once enjoyed can be wiped away in a flash of greed.

Detroit started to grow right after World War Two. Our economic engine of progress started to hum there when our focus as a country began to turn away from winning a war and toward winning the peace. Before long blue collar workers were earning enough in Detroit to buy the quintessential 3-bedroom, 2-bath home, have an average of 2.3 children and a boat at the lake house. GM, Ford and Chrysler enjoyed a virtual monopoly on auto production. GM had a more than 51% market share alone. Volkswagen and Datsun (Nissan) and M-B and Toyota weren't even on the radar. And through this growth the United Auto Workers began to clamor for ever-higher wages and benefits, which the car companies' management begrudgingly gave them. Over and over. Avoiding labor strife was management's primary objective. Just ahead of quality, as the future would unfortunately prove.

It wasn't long before the cost of producing autos grew ever more expensive in order to pay for rapidly-escalating wages and retiree benefits. Hourly wages for line production workers averaged more than $75.00 just a few years ago. GM reported that every new car it produced back then carried with it a burden of more than $1,500 to cover retiree health care costs alone. These increased costs resulted in higher sticker prices and decreased quality of manufacture. And this "perfect storm" left the door open for foreign manufacturers to gain an ever-expanding foothold. This, coupled with the fact that off-shore manufacturers had chosen to position their U.S. plants in right-to-work states, so they weren't burdened by having to pay union prevailing wages, gave them an almost insurmountable advantage.

The bloom was coming off Detroit's bush. What had been a modern, bustling city was dying. The Big Three were running out of money. And of time. Ford chose to hire a new CEO and to borrow everything it possibly could, $25 Billion as it turned out, to weather the impending nightmare. It even borrowed $100 Milliion on the value of its iconic "Blue Oval" symbol. GM and Chrysler took a different tack. They came to D.C. with their hats in their hands and begged the Government to bail them out. 
Mitt Romney, who had run for President in 2008, counseled against it, preferring rather to permit the companies to go through an orderly, managed bankruptcy. He believed that this process would enable the car companies to abrogate their overly generous labor contracts, thus leaving the taxpayers on the hook for less. President Obama chose a different tack. He appointed Steve Rattner as Car Czar. Interestingly, Rattner's previous job was as a sports reporter for the New York Times (!). Oh, and as a fund raiser for the Democrat National Committee. But I repeat myself. Obama started by firing GM's Chairman (can presidents do that?). He then seized the two companies from their bond and stockholders and redistributed their primary ownership to the UAW.

Let me say that again. Since stock trading first began under a spreading Oak tree in the front yard of Independence Hall back in the mid-1700's, corporate bondholders have been sacrosanct. They get paid first in the event of a bankruptcy. And then stockholders. And then unsecured lenders. And then vendors. And lastly, employees. Obama unconstitutionally turned all of that on its ear with the auto bailout. And we as taxpayers are still paying for that illegal folly today.

Despite our having been told by the newly-minted GM and Chrysler that they have paid back all of their obligations to American taxpayers, which forked over more than $85 Billion in bailouts, we are still owed more than $25 Billion we'll likely never see again. The U.S. of A. still owns more than 500 million GM shares, which are trading at 70% less than their original offering price. We're still owed billions by then-GMAC, now-Ally Bank, which we'll never see again. Chrysler is controlled not by Ford, or one of the many off-shore car companies that have invested years and billions in our American economy, but by Fiat! Fiat? Obama gave Chrysler to Fiat. What part of this makes any sense at all? And GM's profits are now down from a year ago. And they've been given a ten-year, no-taxes reprieve. President Obama has told us GM is "roaring back." I don't know about you, but I could a little less of that "roaring" thing.

And what has become of Detroit? From a high of 1.7 million residents in 1950, arguably the high point in Detroit's lustrous history, only 708,000 live there today. 85,000 are now employed there making cars. That's down from more than 380,000 at its peak a decade ago. Vast areas of Detroit look more like a war zone. Gangs roam free and unimpeded by their much diminished police force. Thousands of homes and buildings are empty and crumbling, windows broken and doors kicked in, infested by legions of druggies. Detroit tried to sell many of them for $1 apiece, but there were no takers. More than 5,500 acres inside the city limits, an area the size of Costa Mesa, CA has just been leased to a Michigan farming corporation. This area will be razed and replaced with crops of corn and beans and alfalfa. Imagine. From unimproved, to improved, to unimproved in just a single lifetime. What a sad commentary.

And to give you an idea of just how much the unions are to blame for this situation, allow me to report on a news release just provided by the Michigan Capitol Confidential. The Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (DWSD) employs a full-time farrier, or "horseshoer," at a salary of $29,245, plus more than $27,000 in annual benefits. There's only one problem. The DWSD has no horses, and hasn't since Lyndon Johnson was president. The position, you see, cannot be eliminated due to union rules.

Yes, the unions controlling Detroit are private. And their numbers are dwindling from a high just prior to WWII of 35% to fewer than 7% today. But while private unions have tanked, public-sector unions have flourished. Approximately one-third of public employees are unionized, and that includes not a single Federal worker (it's illegal for them to unionize!). But their impact on the health of the cities they work for is equally as corrosive as their private-sector brethren. Take a look at Stockton and Vallejo and San Bernardino and San Diego and San Jose if you need proof. And that's just in California.

This is a cautionary tale. When you put the inmates in charge of the asylum, things can get out of control, and fast. We owe it to ourselves and our heirs to take great care of our town and its finances. We need to elect the most competent leaders and hire only the very best managers. And we need to find a way to keep the unions in check. If we don't, we can wind up as a small Detroit. And nobody, including union members or their leadership, should want that to happen.

Friday, November 30, 2012

Democracy is Two Wolves and a Lamb

There may be some of you who receive this who voted on November 6th to give President Obama a "do over." If so, I'm sure you believe he just needs a little more time to fix the economic problems caused by everybody but him. And if so, I'm sure you must also believe that everything would be just ducky if the "rich" would just pay their "fair share." You know, the people earning over $200,000 as individuals and $250,000 as couples. The "millionaires and billionaires," as Barack Hussein Obama likes to call them. That would include the average Costa Mesa cop married to the average Costa Mesa high school teacher. Unless the cop's been a cop for more than 10 years, and then he would qualify as "rich" all by himself. Stop the next cop you see on the street and ask him if he feels "rich."

Let's take a look at exactly what the "rich" pay and then decide if they're paying their "fair share."

According to the IRS' own website, the top 1% of wage earners in America bring in 16.9% of all income and pay 36.7% of all income taxes.

The top 5% earn 31% of all income and pay 58.7% of all income taxes.

The top 10% earn 43.2% and pay 70.5%.
And 49.1% of all Americans pay no income taxes at all!

So, I ask, exactly what is that "fair share" that those vile, fat cat rich people owe and ought to be paying? 50%? 75%? 100%?

And what, I ask, are these "rich" people to do when they need to invest more of their earnings in their businesses when that extra discretionary cash they've been using has been extricated by the Feds? And why, I ask, do those Chicago writ-large politicians currently infesting D.C. continue with their putsch when they have to know it will kill jobs? Yes, why?

Our Campaigner-in-Chief is back at that campaigning game he loves so much. Today finds him in a suburb of Philly begging his hipmOtized minions to call their congress-types and demand they vote to screw the "rich." One of Benjamin Franklin's most famous observations was that "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch."

Except in this case, the lamb employs all the other animals in the barnyard.

Maybe a better question is, what, exactly, is the "fair share" for the one-half of America who are paying no income taxes at all?

So, for those who bought into this shell game, did you know before you read this that the "rich" are already paying way, way, way more than their fair share? No? Feel like you've been lied to? 

Ummm, yes, you have…

Thursday, November 15, 2012

New Game Plan for the GOP

As someone who makes it a point to know what's going on, I've been asked repeatedly of late by demoralized conservatives to tell them exactly what I think the Republican Party needs to do to minimize the chances of another painful loss such as the one experienced by them, and far worse, by America, on November 6th.

I've thought long and hard about this existential question, and I think I have some of the answers. Here goes…

The Democrat Party, and its candidate, Barack Hussein Obama, won decisively on November 6th. They won by a whopping 2% over Gov. Mitt Romney, the Republican candidate. Whoa!  What a mandate! They couldn't run on Obama's accomplishments. He didn't have any. His record was one of abject failure. Unemployment in the dumper. Nearly $6 Trillion in new debt. GDP growth at only a bit over 1%. Terrorism on the rise throughout the world. Gas prices doubling during his tenure. Treating Israel like red-headed stepchildren.  Ending oil and gas exploration on Federal lands whenever and wherever possible.  Supplying guns paid for by taxpayers' stimulus money to Mexican drug cartels to prove that Mexican drug cartels get their guns from America.  And doing his best to cover up the murder of 4 Americans in Benghazi.     

About the only thing that had improved in Obama's first term was his golf score. Tragic.

So, they chose the only course available to them; they had to make Romney unelectable. They used a Billion Dollars of negative TV ads to paint Romney as an elitist-vulture-vampire-capitalist-felon-tax cheat who delighted in killing his employees' wives. And the dimbulbs who get their news from the alphabet stations and the socialist newspapers believed them. These people actually have a vote. What a sad commentary.

And just for good measure, they managed to once again successfully pit various factions and sub-groups of Americans against each other. They pitted single women against married women. Latinos and Blacks against Whites. The poor and the middle class against the so-called "rich." Workers against business owners. The young against the old. Environmental activists against those who think they're completely stark raving nuts.  Atheists against the religious.  Urban dwellers against everybody else. And so on, and so on. Truly a remarkable and successful strategy to screw Americans, especially stupid Americans, to the max.

But what the Democrats did to secure a victory, more than anything else, was to promise to give lots and lots of "stuff" to their voters. They went to school on 19th Century French economist and political thinker Alexis de Tocqueville who famously said, "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the publics' money."  And Obama, with a complicit Congress during his first two years in office, discovered just that. And then decided to use it to gain votes from the ignorant, compliant masses in the most recent election.

In the run-up to the election, they gave free cell phones and lots of minutes to the so-called "poor." Poor, in this context, is defined as about half of America. They gave food stamps to 47 million people, an almost 80% increase since Obama was first inaugurated. They used stimulus money to grant unemployment payments for nearly two years to almost anyone who applied. They also used stimulus money to keep firemen and policemen and teachers employed, because they're union members. And unions LOVE Obama!  And Obama LOVES unions!  They gave rent subsidies and welfare payments without recipients having to actually look for work. That's in direct conflict with a law passed by both houses of Congress and signed by Billy Jeff Clinton.  Of course, who's going to stop him?  His buddy Eric Holder is Attorney General, and only the Attorney General can stop such deliberate and flagrant violations of the law.  Must be nice to break the law with complete immunity. 

And, via Obamacare, they ordered free birth control pills be given to everybody, including, importantly, by the Catholic Church. I'm guessing that priests will soon be required to hand them out during communion.

And Obama turned the Constitution on its ear by unilaterally granting effective amnesty to millions of children of illegal immigrants who were brought here by their criminal parents. That's a lot of stuff. And Republicans need to learn a lesson from all this largesse.

So, I say the Republicans need to recast themselves as the "Party of Even More Stuff!" If the Dems give their voters cell phones, the Repubs need to give out cell phones and haircuts. If the Dems respond by adding in the haircuts, then the Repubs need to add in free pet food and a tuna salad sandwich.  If the Dems double down by doing the same, and then offering up, say, a free education at some socialist college with commie teachers somewhere, I say let's go "all in." Let's give them all of that stuff, plus a couple of tattoos and a new Chevy Volt! Government Motors can't sell these overpriced, weenie little cars. Not even with tax rebates of $7,500 of your neighbors' money used as a bribe to get you to buy one, so why not just give them away?  We taxpayers are on the hook for more than $25 Billion GM still owes us, so maybe giving away the crap they can't sell remains our only option. 

In fact, how about this: Since the Border Patrol isn't allowed to actually patrol the border, let's turn these frustrated public servants into a sort of Welcome Wagon. Let's have them serve as hostesses to greet illegals as they show their still damp faces on our soil and give them a new Chevy Volt!  Plus, a map to downtown L.A.  Plus, a book of coupons for some free food, free rent, food stamps, welfare payments, a drivers' license, a cell phone, a voter's registration card, and, of course, birth control pills.  Oh, wait a minute.  Scratch the birth control.  We don't want them to use birth control.  We want them to reproduce like rabbits!  They're all future Republicans!  We're talking votes here, people!

And let's not get all squishy with the free stuff. Let's heap it on not only the Latinos, but let's also target the Blacks, the Asians, the Native Americans (that would be Indians for those of you in El Centro), the Appalachians, everybody in Las Vegas, the "poor" (annual income under $150,000), journalists, college professors, every living soul in Hollywood, especially the gay ones, college students, all the employees at ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC, and anyone else who gives an inkling they might be willing to sell their vote to the socialists for a Happy Meal.  We won't use no stinkin' Happy Meal!  We'll give them an In-n-Out Combo Meal, Animal Style!

Let's see how the Democrats respond when we take some more borrowed money from China and use it to buy votes just like they do in Chicago. And when we start to win some elections down the road, maybe then – and only then – we can start to rejigger our electorate back to the time when Americans were self-reliant, self-sufficient, broad-shouldered, God-fearing, hard-working, patriotic individuals who would rather stab themselves in the chest with an icepick than take handouts from the communists in D.C.

Assuming there's any of them left by then... 

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

The Morning After...

Four years ago, on the morning after the November 4th Presidential Election, I wrote in this blog that "...I went to bed in Northern Mexico last night and woke up in France."

This morning, on the day after the November 6th Presidential Election, I can say that I went to bed last night in France, much poorer than four years ago, a whole lot deeper in debt, with a higher unemployment rate, a depressed productive class, and a diminished, demoralized military, and woke up in a Banana Republic.

A Banana Republic dictated to by a two-bit, puffed up, self-aggrandizing, arrogant amateur, with a grating voice, in an emperor's uniform at least a size too big. 

Goodnight, America.  It was fun while it lasted...

Monday, November 5, 2012

Is There a God?

Your question for the day:

Is there a God?

Maybe a better question is, does proof exist one way or the other?

I'm here to offer up a possible answer to this age-old question just in time for your visit to the polls on Election Day.

Imagine there is a God.  Imagine also that God is not at all happy with the systematic dismantling of his favorite Country, America.  Imagine further that He'd really, really like to do something about it without a whole lot of obvious publicity which would remove the mystique of faith He's so assiduously demanded of us over the eons. 

So, He conjures up a humongous hurricane, merges it with a really big Nor'easter, drives the resultant SuperStorm smack into the middle of where about 60% of America's liberals call home.  Into Atlantic City, "Sin City East," no less. 

Big Blow Sandy wrecks havoc, beats the Hell (notice the Biblical reference?) out of 11 deep blue states, makes the water run deep in the streets, displaces more than 100,000, turns the lights out for millions, stacks garbage eye-high in nearly every neighborhood, micro-manages gas lines over one-quarter of the Country, and engineers angst and anger inside the electorate at their elected officials. 

And then He puts together another big storm, which is on its way right now, targeting that same piece of real estate, while pushing the coming temperatures for them below freezing.

So I ask you.  What would your garden-variety, homeless, hungry, thirsty and pissed-off liberal rather do:  Find some sprouts and whey and a little sushi to eat, some double-filtered designer water to drink, some L.L. Bean clothes to wear and some low-sulphur gas for the Prius, or go vote?  Especially if he or she has no way to get to the polls?

I guess we'll see tomorrow whether this whole thing is the result of a Deity-sized, once-in-a-lifetime Grand Plan, on the order of that Red Sea parting thing, or just another natural disaster that happened to befall those nice folks in the very heart of Redistributionville.  

Let's put it this way.  If Romney wins, against all the odds, over all the liberals and the Main Stream Media, which would be a monumental task indeed, I think I'll start attending church again...

Sunday, November 4, 2012

The Auto Bailout: The Facts for a Change

An issue has gained traction on the campaign trail over the past couple of days which I thought was dead and buried.  Because it should be.

President Obama has begun touting his bailout of the auto industry, especially in Ohio, in an effort to burnish his bona fides in a quest for another four years.  There's a lot of autos built in Northern Ohio and this subject is important.  He says he saved the auto industry, and moreover, that Governor Romney wanted to deep six Detroit and everything having to do with cars.  Obama says if it had been left to Romney, there would be no American auto industry.  He says if Romney had prevailed we'd be buying our cars from Europe and Asia.  Such a load of crap...

First, Romney wasn't in charge.  What he said he'd do had nothing to do with anything.  He had nothing to say about the issue.  But he did have an opinion and he expressed it.

Second, Romney early and often stated that the auto industry should be taken through a managed bankruptcy.  He's a business guru, as a matter of fact, and his opinion should carry some weight.

 He stated that Federal taxpayers' money then, and only then, should be made available to guarantee any loans the car companies would need to emerge from that bankruptcy.  And that would have been the logical, intelligent, efficient and cost-effective way to do it.  Via that plan the auto industry could have shed its obligations and trimmed down to fighting weight.  Chief among those obligations was their union contracts which put them in a box in the first place.   

Obama, on the other hand, had relied on union bucks to get elected, and would need them to get reelected.  That's why he defied 200+ years of American tradition...and stealing the car companies from their bond and stockholders and giving majority ownership to the UAW.  Think of that.  He took preferred, protected bond money and stock owner's positions and gave them the finger in return.  He screwed GM's and Chrysler's ownership in this manner and then gave majority control to the unions that had systematically hosed these companies over the decades to the point where they were no longer competitive.  Why, in fact, they were in such a bad shape to begin with.  But it gets worse.

Obama wound up GIVING Chrysler to Fiat!  Get that?  He gave an American car company to an Italian car company.  Why?  No one knows.  But conspiracy theorists like me believe that there's a pile of money somewhere for somebody that explains it all away.

Why didn't he give Federal money to Ford?  Ford didn't need it, or want it.  Ford hired Alan Mullaly, Boeing's vaunted CEO, and then borrowed more than $25 billion on everything it owned of value, to include more than $100 million on the value of the Blue Oval.  Because Ford was smart enough to have foreseen the doom, and worked around it, it didn't need Obama's help.  So why, I ask, did Obama not give Chrysler to Ford, another American company?  Or at least Nissan, or Toyota, or Mercedes-Benz, or Porsche, or Mazda, or Subaru, or any of the other off-shore manufacturers which have set up shop building their cars on our dirt?  Yes, why?

So, Obama sold out our car companies to give his union buddies a payoff.  Romney wanted to save us having to do that.  And the net result is that we are now more than $36 Billion Dollars in the hole because he did.  Have you heard of Ally Bank?  It used to be GMAC.  It (Ally) still owes the American taxpayer more than $8 Billion in loans it hasn't repaid.  And won't.  And GM?  More than $20 Billion.  And Chrysler?  More than $8 Billion.  Obama screwed each of us.  Romney would have saved the car companies and saved us billions of dollars. 

Have doubts?  Go to and research Romney's Op-Ed piece from late 2008.  His letter spells out exactly what he would do...exactly what I've specified above.  So Obama's lying?


So, who should get your vote on the 6th?  I'll leave that up to you. 

Monday, October 1, 2012

Measure V

To the hundreds of thousands of...

No wait.  For the tens of people around the world who follow my every word with baited breath (there are mints for that), this posting isn't for you.

Rather, it's for the nice folks who live in the fair city of Costa Mesa, California.

We have an election coming up on November 6th.  One of the issues to be decided by that election is whether or not Costa Mesa should turn its back on sixty years of following the Sacramento-preferred (yecch!) "general law" format, and decide to adopt a charter (constitution) to govern its future activities.

A "Yes" vote on "Measure V" will make the charter a go.  I'm for it.  I'm for it because, although not perfect, it's a definite improvement over the system that permitted previous councils to blow through $33 million of savings, run up more than $200 million in unfunded pension obligations, pay 75% of every dollar that came in to the city in salary and benefits to our employees (!), and kowtow to the unions and associations that seem to think they own this town.

They don't.

There are many very positive aspects of the proposed charter.  I'm not going to go into them in this posting.  You can check on line if you'd like more information about it by going to  Or, you can go to our local paper,, and look for my column on the subject.  I think I covered it pretty well.  If you remain objective, I'm guessing you'll agree it's worth a try, especially knowing that it can be unwound at anytime by a vote of the people.    

Of course, some oppose it.  They have honest differences with the way it was developed and what it covers, and doesn't cover.  I believe those concerns can be addressed and met at a later date, once we're well on our way to fixing the city's problems.  Waiting for the sake of waiting just doesn't feed the bulldog. 

Maybe one way you can decide whether or not to support it is to learn what constitutes the primary forces against it.  The three people running against the charter and the slate of candidates dedicated to implementing it are all supported big-time by the unions: national, state and local.  They're scared to death the trap door to their piggy bank will slam shut.  On their fingers.

What else do you need to know? 

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Let's Make Life a Little Easier for Them

You've probably noticed that those nice people in Middle Eastern countries are rioting over some obscure little video that somebody made here in America.  Or, maybe he didn't.  Or, maybe it doesn't even exist.  But, one thing we know for sure is that the rioting started in Benghazi, Lybia, and also simultaneously in Cairo, Egypt, on...of all days...September 11th!

Those folks we hired to run things in Washington, D.C., tell us the rioting was due to the video, the existence of which was made known this past May.  Hmmm.  It apparently takes several months for knowledge of an Internet video to make its way to that part of the world.  Maybe the Internet streaming occurs via camel.  Or maybe the Administration is lying through its collective teeth about the cause of this latest outbreak of Muslim rage.  Maybe, in fact, its because Obama and Company spiked the football early and often about the unceremonious dispatch of Osama bin Ladin.  Maybe its to celebrate the anniversary of 9/11.  You think?  Which do you believe is a more likely and plausible rationale? 

Well, I'm here to tell you that the unrest and rioting has now spread to Indonesia and India, and 25 other countries are now involved.  Apparently, Obama's incessant apologizing for America's past "mistakes" didn't really feed the bulldog.  Maybe the only thing the Islamic "religion of peace" types understand is strength.  Maybe instead of apologizing we should be kicking ass and taking names.

Are you familiar with that stanza in the Marine Corps (not "corpse," by the way, as Mr. Obama would prefer to say) Hymn that goes, "...From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli."  That "shores" thing refers to Tripoli, Lybia, where pirates by the thousands were interdicting shipping back in the 1700s.  One Mr. Thomas Jefferson was President, and he decided to do something about it.  He rallied our Marines and our sailors and our ships and sent them all to North Africa.  He instructed them to kill every living, breathing thing that looked like it might be a part of the problem.  They did.  And we didn't have another Muslim-related problem for two hundred and fifty years.  

So, fellow Americans, I suggest you contact your elected representative and let them know you'd like them to get tough on this situation.  Tell them to let the Golfer-in-Chief know that he'd better do something about this, and right now, or he'll need to call U-Haul come January.  

But, in the meantime, I'm starting a new business.  I'll be offering pre-burnt American flags for export to those parts of the world.  As Rahm Emanuel would say, "There's no sense letting a crisis go to waste!"    

Tuesday, September 4, 2012

The Democrat National Convention just opened in Charlotte, NC.  Charlotte is one of my favorite cities.  At least, it used to be. 

I've just kneeled (Tebow'd?) in prayer.  I've decided to pray for the health and welfare and continued (restored?) prosperity of our once-great Country.  I don't know if it will do any good, but, hey, who knows?  It might.  And if it does, we might just have a chance to get through this horrible mess that was visited upon us four years ago.  After all, it can't hurt.  And it might help...

But, regardless of what happens on November 6th, I prayed for one little thing that shouldn't be too much to ask for.  I prayed that, in the new administration, whether OWE BAMAs' or Romneys', we continue to have Debbie Blabbermouth-Schultz, San Fran Nan Pelosi, "Dirty" Harry Reid, Dickie "The Turbin" Durbin and Dennis "The Menace" Kucinich still in leadership positions in the Democrat Party. 

Since the people we elect to take care of things seem to busy themselves looting our Treasury 24/7, enriching themselves at our collective expense, we need a certain degree of entertainment from our elected representatives.  These commie clowns thankfully provide it.

In Jesus' name, we pray,


Sunday, August 12, 2012

I got your context right here...

There were many who went absolutely nuts over my most recent newspaper column.  All I did was to quote our Campaigner-in-Chief exactly as he had spoken at a rally in Roanoke, Virginia on July 13th, and then tell the story of how my wife and I created and managed our own small business over a 33-year period.  I offered up the Golfer-in-Chief's quote, then I added a paragraph of our story, then re-quoted the TelePrompTer-in-Chief's quote, and another piece of our story, etc. 

I did this over and over, just to let the reader understand that we did build our business, and we did it without the Government.  In fact, I think I made the case that the Government did everything in its power to keep us from succeeding.  And when we finally broke through and made a little money, the Government picked our pockets so it could build those infamous roads and bridges.

Well, Mr. and Mrs. You-know-who-you-are, the loonies came out of the woodwork!  I was told over and over, anonymously, of course, because they are spineless weenies, that I had taken "The One" out of context.  That he had been referring to "roads and bridges" when he said, "If you have a business, you didn't build that."  Obviously, if they are correct, the Smartest-Man-Who-Ever-Lived must have missed the class where he learned how to diagram a sentence, in favor of a doing a couple of doobies with his best buds on the beach.  Somehow or other, "build that" in my estimation, is singular.  "Build those" would have been better.  But, then again, what do I know?  

So, did I in fact take the Fundraiser-in-Chief out of context?  I'll let you decide.  Follows is a direct quotation of every silver-coated word that dripped off the Vacationer-in-Chief's lips that day as it relates to the subject at hand.  Did he tell me I didn't build my business, or did he tell me I couldn't have built my business without his roads and bridges?  And, in context, is his statement worse than the now-infamous two fateful sentences?  I'll let you decide.  

And so, without further ado, here it is... 

"There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me - because they want to give something back.  They know they didn't - look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own.  You didn't get there on your own.  I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.  There are a lot of smart people out there.  It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.  Let me tell you something - there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there (emphasis mine).

"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.  There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.  Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.  Somebody invested in roads and bridges.  If you've got a business - you didn't build that.  Somebody else made that happen (emphasis mine).  The Internet didn't get invented on its own.  Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.(*) 

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because  we do things together.  There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don't do on our own.  I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service.  That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires."

Well, what do you think?  I know what I think.  In fact, I was willing to write it in a Major Metropolitan Daily newspaper.  Now, you decide...

*  By the way, Mr. Know-it-All, the Internet was created as a result of high-level collaboration between several major universities around the country.  The original super-computer, ENIAC, occupied the entire second floor of a UCLA building.  It was used to prove that the concept of the to-be-called Internet worked.  When it did, the military began to recognize the potential for communications it represented.  Only later did business begin to try to exploit its potential.  It was not created by Government research, and it was not created to foster profit by private business.  (And Al Gore had nothing to do with it...except in his head.)  But everything else the Prevaricator-in-Chief said that day about it was correct.  Which is, nothing.

In summation, to all my should-be fans in the Newport-Mesa area, I'd like to thank you for your unkind comments.  I'd like to do that, but I can't.  

Wednesday, July 4, 2012

We Don't Need No Stinkin' Congress!

A couple of days back President B. Hussein Obama issued a memorandum to his pants-suited Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napalitano stating that we, the United States of America, will no longer arrest, incarcerate or deport young illegal immigrants who meet the so-called "Dream Act-Lite" demographics.  Those are, as loosely defined, little foreign people dragged kicking and screaming across our Swiss Cheese borders by their mommies and daddies prior to the age of 16, but who are now no older than 30, who have broken no laws, kept their noses relatively clean and are in school or the military, or have previously graduated/served in either or both.

Got it?  If you made it here after you were 16, or are older than 30, no luck for you, Jose.  Or if you pilfered some tortillas from the corner Rancheria, it's straight to the border for you, Javier.  No passing "Go," no collecting 200 pesos.  Boy, our TelePrompTer-in-Chief is one compassionate guy, right?  Well, maybe not.

What could cause the Campaigner-in-Chief to bypass Congress, where such a change in American law must first be debated and voted on, and where this very same proposed law was soundly defeated a couple of years back, when the Preezy of the United Steezy was in complete charge of all aspects of Government, to take such a breathtaking and audacious action?  And, by the way, why didn't the Toker-in-Chief issue an actual Executive Order proclaiming this new change of codified immigration policy, instead of a simple little memo to his simple little Secretary? 

I don't want to sound all conspiratorial, but I actually think it might have something to do with the presidential election coming up in the fall (Noooooo!).  Call me cynical but there's a seriously large bunch of Latinos here in the land of the not-quite-so-free anymore and the home of the still mostly brave.  And every Latino either came here illegally, or knows a few dozen or hundred who did.  I mean, there are MILLIONS of them!  And many of them want AMNESTY!  They're saying, "We know, we broke the law, but it's a dumb law, and others broke it too, so forgive us RIGHT NOW and give us real papers so we can stay and work and play and collect Social Security and food stamps.  So there's 800,000 or so, or maybe twice that many, who could be affected directly by this action, and another 20 or 30 MILLION more whose vote could be influenced by the Golfer-in-Chief's decision to take this blatant, naked, unprecedented power grab.  And a few million votes one way or the other would dramatically affect the outcome of the election on November 7th. 

That's why I believe there may be many, many, many other egregious actions yet to come this year from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  And I think I know which one's next.

Did you know that convicted felons lose their right to vote in this here constitutional republic?  Jack a car, burgle a 7-11 or embezzle a bunch of money from little blue-haired old ladies and you'll get convicted and sent to the Graybar Hotel.  And when you get kicked at the end of your sentence you can no longer vote.  Except, of course, if you live in Illinois or are dead.  So, I Googled the matter and came up with a number.  Somewhere between 10% and 20% of our entire population are convicted felons!  That's like 30 - 60 million people!  Talk about votes!  That's a Mother Lode of votes!  So, I'm making the prediction right now that sometime between now and November 7th, the Vacationer-in-Chief will issue a proclamation (that's what emperors do!), or maybe just a memo, unilaterally expunging the records of all of them, and thus excising their felonious actions.  Poof!  No more record, no more felons.  And then they'll be able to vote.  For Him (emperors get a capital "H," just like God).

Think He wouldn't dare?  Just look at what He's already done that is unconstitutional, immoral or unconscionable and then ask yourself, who's gonna' stop Him?  He's refused to drill on public lands or in the Arctic.  He's ordered the National Labor Relations Board to tilt the balance in favor of unionization of every business everywhere.  He's passed and signed unconstitutional legislation that subsumes one-sixth of our entire economy with Obamacare.  He's begun redistributing our wealth from those who create it to those who vote for Him.  He's nearly doubled the population of those collecting food stamps.  He dropped an already-won case against the Black Panthers who offered to beat the crap out of those redneck crackers who tried to actually vote in Pennsylvania during the 2008 election.  He sued (successfully) Arizona for trying to actually defend its own borders against an onslaught of illegals streaming across their border.  And He's just declared Executive Privilege at literally the 11th hour to seal tens of thousands of documents subpoenaed by the House Oversight and Reform Committee, managed by Rep. Chairman Darrell Issa, from the Justice Department just prior to Eric Holder's Contempt of Congress vote.  The fact that these documents pertain to the unlawful walking of guns by this Administration from border gun shops to Mexican drug gangs, and that they were subpoenaed more than 8 months ago, should tell the reader all he or she needs to know about the breathtaking corruption running rampant within this Administration. 

And there's more that the Fundraiser-in-Chief can do to further guarantee His reelection.  How about a memo to the Secretary of the Treasury ordering him to stop collecting FICA payroll contributions from the pay checks of those earning less than say, $60,000 a year?  How about a memo to the IRS telling them to increase the income, capital gains and death taxes of those making more than $250k a year?  How about a memo to the Secretary of Transportation instructing him to instruct the CEO of Government Motors to issue a brand new Chevy Volt to every Black and Jewish and Asian person in America? 

Those are just a few things He could do to further divide our divided populace that would increase His changes of reelection.  I'm betting you could come up with a few others on your own.  After all, who's gonna' stop Him?

The only one who could is the serial liar and Chicago crook who runs the Department of Justice.  I rest my case...

Thursday, June 21, 2012

What, oh what, will the media do?

I'm wondering just how the so-called "Mainstream Media" will choose to report on the tiny bit of news that the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee's decided to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in Contempt of Congress yesterday.  And more importantly, the fact that our President-in-Training chose to assert Executive Privilege over some 80,000 emails, wiretap authorizations and various other documents relating to the case that led to that vote.  Interesting, don't you think?

Turns out Mr. Holder trundled up to Capitol Hill a total of eight times to testify on the failed gun running exercise undertaken by the Department of Justice and the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Department (ATF) starting in 2009.  Mr. Chuckmeister, your true-blue reporter, has written extensively on this exercise, called "Fast and Furious."  Visit my Monday, March 28, 2011 blog post entitled "A Very Quiet Declaration of War, with Mexico?" for more information.  That, ahem, was more than a year ago, dear readers.  It involved the purchase of thousands and thousands of assault rifles using stimulus funds (our monies!), which southern border-area gun shops were then forced by ATF to sell to straw buyers, who were then observed selling these same guns to dealers, who then passed them off to Mexican drug cartel members.  Bad enough, on its face.  But it got much, much worse...

The Administration was hoping one or more of these weapons would be found at the scene of a crime, prompting calls for tougher gun laws at the expense of the 2nd Amendment (these weenies HATE the 2nd Amendment!).  But on December 14, 2010 Border Agent Brian Terry was murdered using one of these same guns.  Ooops!

Well, to put it mildly, the fit hit the shan.  When this story was leaked by a brave ATF whistle blower, who has subsequently been punished - shunned - by the DofJ, Congress started asking questions.  And kept asking them, even though they didn't get any answers.  Holder was a master of obfuscation during his multiple visits to The Hill.  The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, under the able direction of Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa, asked for information on this little scheme.  Holder provided a letter on February 4, 2011 stating that he didn't know what the heck Issa was talking about.  (Who, me?  We don't need no stinikin' weapons!).  The digging continued.  

Then, on December 2, 2011, Holder "retracted" that letter.  Apparently, he DID know something.  Maybe his memory "evolved," like what has happened to his boss on multiple occasions.  And Issa wanted to know what.  And when.

Well, dear reader, the whole thing came to a head yesterday when Issa's Committee voted to hold Holder in contempt, even though B. Hussein Obama, that would be POTUS, tried to intervene at the 11th hour and 59 minutes and wrap the cloak of privilege around all of the documents, even though Holder had stated he was prepared to deliver them to Holder as late as the day before yesterday (?).  Do you believe that?  Uhhhh, I don't.  Now we have a real cover up.  I have no doubt that this whole bunch of crap was conceived and directed from the Oval Office, and one or more of these documents would likely prove that.  Let me stress that this is just my opinion.  But I'd bet good money I'm right.     

So now we've got our Attorney General held in contempt of Congress.  How did the dinosaur media report it?  They have assiduously run from this story from the beginning.  Up until a couple of days ago, when it became obvious that this contempt thing was going to come to a vote, CBS has reported...nothing.  ABC?  Nothing.  NBC?  Until two days ago, on Brian Williams evening newscast, a total of 18 seconds were devoted to this story.  And nothing about Terry's murder was mentioned.  That's it.    

And the press?  With exception of the W.S. Journal, the Washington Times and the O.C. Register, nary a word appeared.  I guess the vaunted mantle of the "4th Estate," Constitutional perks accorded them so they can keep us, We the People, informed, meant nothing to them so far as this case is concerned.  If you hadn't watched Fox News or visited the DC Caller or Drudge and a few other websites online, you wouldn't know a thing about it.  And that's just the way the media wanted it.  Got to keep that guy who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, you know, the one with the amazing crease in his pants, safe and clear from all of this.

So now we see the media all twisted up in knots as they try to catch up their dwindling viewership on this almost two year old story in a matter of minutes.  But they'll likely do so by burying it in a spin-fest of disinformatia (that's Russian, my friends, for hide the pea) so as to cast blame for all of this not on the White House and the DofJ and the Democrats, where it belongs, but rather on those nasty, evil, knuckle-dragging Republicans who just won't leave well enough alone.  And too bad about Agent Terry, but that's just collateral damage in this Bigger War on Conservatism, right?  

I'm guessing if it really gets bad, they'll just simply revert to that age-old, catch-all accusation:  It's racism, don't you know... 

Thursday, May 24, 2012

A fly on the wall...

Wouldn't you like to be a fly on the wall when President Obama and his Jobs Council meet behind closed doors at the White House?  It must be a hoot to watch when a group of overeducated academics and economists and Wall Street bankers get together and try to figure out how to create some jobs when none of them have ever created a job.  Remember, the only jobs Government creates are Government jobs.  So, when a man who's never so much as rented shoes at a bowling alley or served as Night Manager at a 7-11, chooses to surround himself with people who are similarly unqualified to answer this existential question, we, the people who are paying for all this, are bound to get wholly unsatisfying results.

Think about this:  54% of George W. Bush's Cabinet could boast of private-sector experience.  Just 7% of Obama's Cabinet members can make the same claim.  So how could we expect them to create jobs when they've never done so?  Even Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of General Electric and Jobs Council Chairman, one of its few CEO's, just moved all of the thousands of GE's X-ray manufacturing jobs from Milwaukee to China.  Now that's the way to create some jobs!  Oh, and by the way, Immelt's GE paid zero income taxes last year on more than $15,000,000,000 (that's with a "B") of profit!  But during his ten-plus years of stewardship of this blue-chip corporation, he's managed (or mis-managed) to reduce its stock valuation by more than 50%.  Want to buy some GE stock?

As an inveterate entrepreneur with more than 40 years of experience creating companies and hundreds of jobs, let me tell you a fact you might not hear anywhere else.  Entrepreneurs don't start companies to create jobs.  They start companies to make money.  And hopefully to enjoy some job security.  And gain a little freedom.  And be happy.  If their venture is successful, they soon discover that they can't do everything by themselves.  So they have to hire people to keep the ball rolling.  People in manufacturing, and sales, and marketing, and finance, and delivery, and I.T., and human resources, and personnel.  This hiring is nothing but a by-product of their success.  The more successful they are in their enterprise, the more people they hire.  And frankly, employees can be more of a hassle then they are worth.  Most entrepreneurs I know would prefer to have no employees at all.  They hire them because they have to.  I can tell you in my next life I hope to be an author or an artist, living on top of a mountain somewhere in Colorado, travelling into town each Saturday in my Jeep to mail off my creations to my NYC-based agent ,and then buy some beans and flour and cheap wine before heading back up the hill to my glorious solitude.  That's how much of a hassle employees can be.

But no entrepreneur will take an unnecessary risk; if the odds for success are good, they'll pull the trigger and launch the venture.  And anything Government does to lessen those odds, through onerous, confiscatory taxation or stultifying rules and regulations, will reduce the chances that an entrepreneur will take the plunge. 

So when Obama and Company asks themselves how to create some jobs, here's the very simple answer from somebody who knows:  Get Government out of the way!

America presently has the world's highest corporate income tax rate.  That's why there's something approaching $3,000,000,000,000 (that's trillion, with a "T") in corporate profits languishing overseas where it was made.  Bringing it home, repatriating it so to speak, would cost those who made it...and own it...over a Trillion Dollars in taxes.  Would you pay that?  Imagine what this much money could do if sprinkled around our economy by those who might invest it in new plants and materials and ideas and use it to our mutual advantage.

Do these few things and watch our economy thrive:  Simplify the rules and regulations.  Choke off the EPA and the NLRB and the Justice Department and the IRS and their seemingly unending efforts to transform us into Europe-west.  Lower and flatten the income tax rates and don't permit them to increase on January 1, 2013.  Overturn the unconstitutional and terrifyingly expensive Obamacare legislation.  Sign the XL Pipeline in  effect.  Authorize oil drilling in ANWAR, and the Arctic, and the Gulf, and selectively off both coasts.  Allow oil shale and oil sands "fracking," which has created an economic boom in North Dakota and Montana (under 2% unemployment there low enough for you?).  And stop the class warfare pitting one group of Americans against another. 

Will this happen?  Not until we have a President that believes in economic freedom and individual responsibility and liberty.    

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

What are we Going to do About it?

Not everyone has the time or the inclination to pore over a mind-numbing bunch of D.C.-based blogs looking for the occasional nugget of information worth not only inculcating, but retelling to you, my faithful readers.   

But I do.

And so, the tens of you who care, I found one.  And here it is...

We all know where the President of the United States stands on the subject of energy:  oil, coal, gasoline, Diesel and natural gas are bad; wind, solar, algae, biodiesel, bicycles, Nikes and every single other form of so-called "green" energy is good!

The Redistributor-in-Chief has made it clear that he wants to shut down coal mines, keep new ones from opening, stop oil drilling everywhere, but especially on public lands, and minimize or eliminate altogether "fracking" of rock-incarcerated gasses.  He tried to pass "cap and trade" through Congress while he had complete control over both houses.  He was unsuccessful in doing so because this ridiculous way to buy and sell carbon credits is so ludicrous.  A similar little plan has more than doubled Spain's unemployment rate.  And California's AB 32, cap and trade for the once-golden state, kicks in next year and will force such a job-killing program here.  He is against drilling in ANWAR.  He is against drilling in the Gulf, having tried to end it there.  He is against drilling off either coast.  He is against drilling in the Arctic.  And he is against the XL Pipeline, which would bring almost 400,000 barrels of new oil daily from Canada all the way to Texas refineries.  This pipeline would employ more than 20,000 UNION workers almost immediately and mean more than $8 Billion a year in new revenue, all without a single dollar of taxpayer money being "invested" (Democrat-speak for stealing from the productive and spending it on favored projects).  He has shown us all his antipathy towards this plan by refusing to sign off on it, even though the unions love it and it had already gone through more than three years of exhaustive review and approval by the State Department.  Why?  Because donor-rich groups of eco-terrorists simply hate anything to do with fossil fuels.  And they give the Democrats even more than the unions do.  Shocking!

Through all this, the Campaigner-in-Chief has looked us straight in the face and told us repeatedly he's for an "all of the above" strategy regarding the search for, and the production of, energy.  Apparently he's a proponent of the "a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth" school of political leadership.  In fact, one of his most bold-faced and easily proven lies has to do with his claim that America possesses only 2% of the world's oil, yet we use 20% of all energy.  Plus, he says oil production under his administration is at a 9 year high.  The truth?  We have much more than 2% of reserves and under the TelePrompTer-in-Chief, drilling on public lands is down more than 17%!

I hear you saying, "We want some proof, Mr. Chuckmeister."  Okay, fair reader, here's some proof.

An editor from the Government Accounting Office testified on the subject of energy before the House Science Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment last week.  But instead of learning how horrible things are, she delivered something of a bombshell.  She said:  "The Green River Formation - an assemblage of over 1,000 feet of sedimentary rocks that lie beneath parts of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming - contains the world's largest deposits of oil shale."  This written testimony to the House committee came from Anu K. Mittal, the GAO's Director of Natural Resources and Environment.  

"USGS estimates that the Green River Formation contains about 3 trillion barrels of oil, and about half of this may be recoverable, depending on available technology and economic conditions," Mittal testified.  "The Rand Corporation, a non-profit research organization, estimates that 30 to 60 percent of the oil shale in the Green River Formation can be recovered," Mittal told the Subcommittee.  'At that midpoint of this estimate, almost half of the 3 trillion barrels of oil would be recoverable.  This is an amount about equal to the entire world's proven oil reserves (emphasis mine)!"

Read that last sentence again.  Two or three more times.  The largest remaining reserves of oil on the planet are not in Saudi Arabia or Iran or Dubai or the Emirates, places where they hate us and openly call for our demise.  It's here, in America.  Combine that with massive proven reserves in Canada and Mexico means that North America has more than twice as much oil as the rest of the world combined.  The question then is, what are we going to do about it?

Well, Mr. and Mrs. America, what indeed?  I guess we'll all find out on November 7th...

Friday, April 20, 2012

International Relations

I'm sure you were as moved as I was to watch the space shuttle Discovery do its piggy-back fly-by thingie over Washington, D.C. on April 19th. This episode brings to a close more than 50 years of exploration by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. And a sad close, at that.

From Gemini and Mercury and Atlas rockets and Apollo moon shots, our vaunted space program has been brought to an ignominious and jaw-dropping close, a victim of politics and money and differing goals and objectives. Now it seems we've left space to the Chinese and the Indians (not the "Whoo Whoo" Indians...the other kind), while repurposing NASA to the goal of making Muslims feel all warm and fuzzy about their past accomplishments in mathematics and music and literature, and maybe cooking for all I know. What I do know is that Discovery will be buried above ground in the Advar-Hazy Aeronautics and Space Center at Dulles Field in D.C. for all to see, forever. And each of those who walk by, slowly, in awe, should be quietly thinking to themselves that our political leaders have sacrificed our long-term position of leadership to others on the alter of shoveling more food stamps and welfare and freebies on those who don't pay income taxes, but do vote, and for the wrong party at that.

So, dear reader, we're buoyed by the fact that NASA is not the only Government program to tank before our very eyes. Just a few days ago we were unprivileged to witness from afar the implosion of the Secret Service. Some of you know (many don't know squat about anything, ever, so I say "some") that the Secret Service has heretofore had two jobs and two jobs only: Make sure our currency stays sound and free from those who would corrupt it by counterfeiting; and protecting the President from all threats foreign and domestic. For more than one hundred and fifty years the Secret Service has done just that. But lately, like NASA, it appears that the Secret Service has taken on a new role; improving "International Relations."

Yes, dear friends, our Secret Service members seem to have taken upon themselves, to work out via all ways unnecessary and imprudent, improving relations with Colombian ladies of the evening. An advance squad of Service members were discovered to be involving themselves "secretly" in relations with these nice women. They should have been prepping for the Redistributor-in-Chief's visit. But Nooooo, they involved themselves in activities much more clandestine. But, in doing so, they failed the First Law of Economics: If you dance, you've got to pay the fiddler. They did not, unfortunately. And the ladies spoke up. In Spanish, no doubt. And loudly!

So, several of these used-to-be-employeds find themselves with much more time on their hands to invest in more International Relations. They've been separated from their jobs, and maybe from their marriages for all we know. Time will tell.

And then there's the General Services Administration. The management we've received as a consequence of hiring Barry the Organizer and his Chicago cronies has resulted in the GSA blowing mind-blowing sums of money on conferences and meetings and vacations and who-knows-what. It looks to this observer like the GSA has been repurposed to single-handedly stimulate the economy by spreading stimulus money hither and thither and yon. Good luck to them. Why didn't I go to work for such a loyal and conscientious agency?

Maybe we could bundle some of these agencies and save some MAJOR money in the process. I'm thinking we could put NASA and GSA and the Secret Service together. We could then have GSA employees taking expensive vacations to Islamic countries, whose residents have been imbued by NASA with a new-found sense of cultural pride, and "stimulating" their citizens like they've been screwing ours...

Monday, April 9, 2012

DUI? Wondering when you can get your license back?

Question: How quickly should an illegal alien get his driver's license back after pleading guilty to a DUI?

Answer: One week, if you happen to be Barack Hussein Obama's uncle.

Yes, boys and girls, it's unfortunately true. Onyango Obama, 67, was busted for a DUI in that geographic center of the progressive universe, Massachusetts. He was sentenced last week to a loss of his driver's license for a total of just 45 days (!). But he appealed that sentence to a hearing officer at the Wilmington, MA Registry of Motor Vehicles. He claimed that such a tough sentence would pose a hardship because it would make it difficult for him to get back and forth to his job as a liquor store manager. Kind of like being a drug addict and working as a pharmacy technician, don't you think? Onyango (I'll use his first name here so there will be no confusion between him and his more famous nephew) bolstered his case with a letter from his employer as well as proof that he'd entered an alcohol treatment program. So Onyango can now legally drive on his hardship license. Interesting, don't you think?

One could reasonably ask why Onyango is here, given that he's an illegal alien and has been residing in Taxachusetts since 1963. And seemingly everybody knows it. They could also inquire as to why he has not been deported. Well, all you taxpayers and legal residents out there, Onyango has been under a deportation order since 1992. But, the INS seemingly can't find him, even though he works at Conti Liquors in Wilmington. We could also ask how he managed to obtain a driver's license, since illegals can't qualify for one. Or how he gets paid, since he can't have a valid Social Security number? I wonder also if he's registered to vote. And, if so, did he vote for his nephew in 2008?

Now, you should also know that Barack's auntie Zeituni Onyango, 58, is also an illegal immigrant and is also living in Massachusetts (this must make the liberal commie pinko weenies in Sacramento just green with envy, knowing that there's another state out there that pays even less attention to immigration laws than California does!). They've been trying to deport this lovely lady since 2002. But, something strange has happened of late. She's been given political asylum, a green card and the opportunity to apply for citizenship. This must be because times are soooooo tough in Kenya these days. I guess all the jobs writing bogus phishing emails over the Internet to unsuspecting suckers here in the U.S. have been taken. Or maybe her nephew had something to do with it...

At least we can feel better knowing that good old Zeituni has not been busted for a DUI. But, on the other hand, she's on welfare and food stamps and is living a nice, comfortable life in South Boston public housing. So there's that...

Sunday, April 1, 2012

Bad News

I have some bad news for you. Try as I might, I did not win the Mega Millions jackpot. And it's bad news because I intended to split the jackpot winnings with those faithful readers of this, my little bitty blog. And yes, I know who you are (I have my ways!). You came oh so close to becoming moderately rich. What a shame.

I figured I'd net about $354,000,000.00 after taxes on a single payout basis. Your share would have been substantial, dear reader, even when divided with the multitudes who dote on my every word. I fell immediately into a fit of depression upon learning of my (our) bad luck. I was able to assuage the depths of my despair with three or four bottles of a very good '09 Santa Ynez Valley Syrah, which, by the way, goes very well with a penne pasta and a nice bolognaise sauce.

But back to the point, now that you know you are on my short list for receiving a share of my lottery winnings, I'm pretty sure you'll wish to accord me the same consideration. So, I'll keep checking my email and my voicemail just in case you happen to win. Good luck.

Remember, 'tis better to give than to receive...

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Irony on High

Don't you find it interesting that the four liberal SCOTUS Justices (Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Steven Breyer, Sandra Sotomayor and Elena Kagen) are expected, even guaranteed, nay required to vote in favor of the Obamacare takeover of one-sixth of our nation's economy during the Supreme Court hearings now underway, while the four conservative Justices (Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and John Roberts) are expected to look to the Constitution to determine this much vilified law's Constitutionality? Huh?

How did we get to the place where liberal activism, even among Justices on the highest court in the land, is blessed, while those doing the blessing are demanding that conservative Justices be held to a higher standard? Are they not, by this admonition, shamefully and publicly admitting that the liberal Justices now sitting in review of this most important-of-all cases are devoid of that particular gene which qualifies one to actually sit on this highest-of-all judicial panels? Ironic, no?

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Today is a Day Which Will Live in Infamy

Today, March 20, 2012, is a really special day in American history. On this day President Barack Hussein Obama has racked up more debt in his 3+ years as POTUS than George W. Bush did in his full 8 year term. We're talking $ 4.9 Trillion for Bush vs. $4.94 Trillion for Obama.

Then-Senator Obama stated while running for President back in 2008 that Bush's continual borrowing from China to finance his soaring debt was "irresponsible." He went on to say it was "unpatriotic."

In Obama's 1156 days in office he's eclipsed Bush's total increase in debt in his 2922 days. That's more than any other President in U.S. history. Not only in the same amount of time. In ANY amount of time!

Obama's recently presented budget, if passed, would add another $9,000,000,000,000 to our indebtedness over the next ten years. That's a tidy $112,000 per second. That's $9 Billion a week in increased debt. And that would mean our total debt in 2022 would exceed $25 Trillion dollars, or almost TWICE our total Gross Domestic Output as a nation! You might like to know that Greece is in the fiscal dumper with indebtedness running at 125% of GDP. And Greece's financial condition is threatening to bring down the entire European Union.

Let me add in closing that our economy is growing, if you can call it that, at a laggard rate of only 2% per year. Historically, our growth has been 4% or more. And we are "enjoying" more than 8% unemployment. A rate of 5% is considered normal. It was under that number throughout Bush's 8 years in office.

Are you happy with the way America is being run? Then vote for Obama in November and get an even bigger dose of it…

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

An Essay on Convoluted Political Acronyms & Euphemisms

Have you grown tired of convoluted political euphemisms? You know, when politicians use some soothing, benign acronym or carefully-grouped, innocuous bunch of words or phrases to convince you that something they want to impose upon you is good, and good for you? Something that might literally mean that up is down and black is white?

Examples of such double-speak may not come readily to mind. That's because we're so inured to them that we tend not to notice. This reality was writ large by Harvard Business School a few years back. Their H. B. Review reported that we are each subjected to an average of more than 1,600 advertisements of one kind or another every single day! Billboards, TV and radio commercials, magazines, newspapers, leaflets, door hangers, Internet ads, skywriting, etc., all bombard us with an assault of impressions all designed to get us to buy something or do something, and NOW! Political euphemisms are no different. Except that they are attempting to make chicken s**t look like chicken salad. And, sad to say, they're usually successful. Want some examples? I thought you would…

Card Check (Paycheck Protection Act): Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and then-Speaker of the House Rep. Nancy Pelosi, each deep in the pockets of the unions that put them in power, and donate big to keep them there, tried valiantly to pass what they euphemistically called "Card Check" awhile back. That was during the period that they, along with B. Hussein Obama, were in complete control of the Presidency, the House and the Senate. We can all thank our lucky stars they were unsuccessful. For had they been, America would now be owned lock, stock and barrel by the unions. Often called the "Paycheck Protection Act," another euphemism, Card Check would have enabled beefy Chicago thugs with suspicious bulges under their ill-fitting, off-the-rack J. C. Penney suit jackets to knock on your middle-class door and demand that you sign a card right then and vote for the forced unionization of your workplace. No secret ballot. Nooooooo! Just out-in-the-open, full-blown threats and coercion, leveled against you during a period of as little as eleven days following the announcement that a union had put your employer in its gunsights. This would leave no time for the boss to mount a defense. Just unfettered union muscle forcing you to vote, while they watch and with the full knowledge and awareness of your co-workers as to just how you voted. And all of this was given full-throated support by the National Labor Relations Board, that fun-loving group of union-loving weenies appointed by the Community Organizer-in-chief.

So what paycheck protection did this piece of crap offer? Ummm, none. So what did card check mean? A goon stuffs a card under your nose and tells you to check the box. And you do.

When asked why it was okay for Americans to display their preferences for political candidates at polling places in secret, as has been the case since the beginning of our Republic, but not when deciding whether or not to unionize, the feckless leaders of the House and the Senate answered by stating that members of their august bodies voted in public, for all to see, so what's the problem? What, indeed?

Affirmative Action: "Affirmative" means to indicate a positive, or confirmatory, or favorable, answer to a question. Basically, it means "yes." And "action" means to act, to do something. So, affirmative action means to positively act. So how, I ask, did this term come to mean giving preference to minorities in college admissions? Or in securing mortgages? Or in being selected for a job? How, indeed?

There's no question that certain minorities have suffered discrimination down through the years. But LBJ and the Democrats decided back in the early 1960's to do something about it. With complete control of the Presidency and both house of Congress, they rewrote laws and regulations in a way that gave these "downtrodden" groups preferences over the majority whites in all manner of areas. And then put the full power of the public Treasury behind that quest, spending untold trillions over the intervening years to force such change. That's how Blacks with substandard SAT scores and poor high school GPA's were moved to the head of the line by colleges and universities when selecting new admissions. Their doing so resulted in many smart kids without their choice of schools, or the chance to go to college at all, simply because they were white. Sort of reverse racism, no?

Now, some 40 years later, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a suit by a white Texas kid who was denied admission because he was white and a Black kid with crappy scores and grades was accepted in his place. They will hopefully decide that selection criteria on the basis of race should never again be employed. Until then, I suggest we change this term to "Negative Action," as "no" is really the answer being given to people of the wrong skin tone.

Earned Income Tax Credit: This is a really convoluted little euphemism. If you don't earn enough money in America to pay income taxes, you'll get a rebate, and it's called an "Earned Income Tax Credit." So, you get a "rebate" for not having paid income taxes. Doesn't rebate mean you get some back from what you paid? Don't you have to pay something first? Apparently not if you do business with Democrats who just LOVE to buy votes anyway they can. And, with other peoples' money.

Prevailing Wage: "Prevailing" means usual, predominant, normal or prevalent. "Wage" means salary, income, earnings or take home pay. So, dear reader, prevailing wage means normal earnings. Got it?

Not to the unions, it doesn't. Prevailing wage is what unions call what they require their members to be paid to do a particular job. And, because unions collect massive amounts of dues, and because they then give those dues to politicians and sycophants to vote in a way they find favorable, they've decided that governments, whether Federal, state, county or city, should pay those they employ to perform public works projects then-current prevailing wages. And, of late, 95% of the time the donations go to Democrats. Plus, those governments wind up having to employ union labor to do the jobs they need done, ruling out private businesses whose employees aren't unionized from even bidding. And, since union labor costs at least 20% more than private labor, governments wind up paying a fat premium for every job performed. The term "prevailing wage" should therefore be changed to read, "Union-Dictated Wage." Maybe then we would know just how much it costs to allow union bosses to put their hands in taxpayers' pockets, and keep them there.

Don't agree? Take a long, hard look at Detroit. From the shining city on the hill back in the 'fifties to a failed, bankrupt, unmitigated disaster today. Oh, and by the way, Detroit has had nothing but Democrat mayors and city council members for the past sixty years.

Undocumented Worker: This is the politically correct term the NFM (non-Fox media) has given to people from another country that have broken into America without permission. These are the folks who sneaked in and began to enjoy the American dream without having first earned the privilege. They usually work for cash, or, if paid by check, they must first steal somebody else's Social Security number. They pay no income taxes, but participate in manifold county, state and Federal programs. These would include food stamps, rent payment assistance, AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children), another acronym, free education and two and sometimes three meals a day for their (probably) American citizen kids. The Lefties want to give them citizenship. Many of those on the Right want them deported and forced to apply for (re)entry just like everyone else. They should not be allowed to go to the head of the line, conservatives think. Funny. Isn't that kind of like Affirmative Action?

Here's what I think: If these people are Undocumented Workers, then drug dealers are Unlicensed Pharmacists

No Child Left Behind: Teddy "The Driver" Kennedy (now no doubt sending long distance emails to Mary Jo Kopeckne, begging her forgiveness), in cahoots with George W. Bush, came up with this little program more than a decade ago. Using their view from Foggy Bottom, they decided that one-size-fits-all as regards public education. They decided that instead of teaching the Three R's, students should be taught to pass tests. And if they didn't, the thinking went, then the school would fall out of compliance and potentially be taken over by the bureaucrats from D.C. They weren't smart enough to have learned about the Law of Unintended Consequences. Or, that No Good Deed Goes Unpunished. Apparently Teddy and George and the dummies that voted for this piece of social engineering were not aware that there are pockets of humanity in the U. S. of A. containing people who don't speak English. Imagine! One such pocket would be in Southern California, that little Workers' Paradise where a third of the population call Mexico home. And where more than 200 different and distinct languages from around the globe are spoken each and every day. They're just here to work hard and stay under the radar and get their kids educated for free and to send vast sums of money back home via remittances each month to Cuernavaca and Tijuana and other points south. The Net Result is that you can't teach kids in English who don't speak English. Duh! You have to first teach them to speak our language. So the whole deal falls apart. Testing scores lag, schools fail, Federal money is withheld. Chaos. It's just my opinion, but I think it's time to leave No Child Left Behind…Behind. And, oh by the way, shut down the U.S. Department of Education while we're at it. They chew up massive amounts of taxpayer dollars and return bupkus to those of us out here in the boonies that pay their salaries.

SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Talk about political correctness run amok! We used to call this the Food Stamp Program. But that was deemed to be demeaning to the recipients. We can't permit them to feel badly about themselves, can we? Just because they're supping at the public trough, we can't look down our liberal noses at this group of folks. So, some Libs came up with the cute little acronym, SNAP. Who could be against a program with a cute little name like that? Of course, in the process of legitimizing food stamps, the program has grown by more than 33% since the Mr. Hopeychangey was inaugurated, to now more than 49.7 million people! Did you hear about the New England woman who won $1,000,000 in a scratcher? She was still collecting $200 a month in food stamps a year after having won this stunning amount of money. Why don't we just give everybody SNAP so we no longer have to try and police recipients to make sure they really deserve to participate? Rep. Nancy Pelosi (aka San Fran Nan), who has already opined that unemployment payments create jobs (!), would no doubt consider such an expanded program another job creator. Ahhh. The salt air in the City by the Bay must kill brain cells all the time it's sharpening appetites. Of course, that would necessarily apply to Seattle, Portland, Santa Cruz, Santa Barbara, Los Angeles and San Diego…

And finally, let's take a look at Global Warming (Climate Change/Climate Disruption/Climate Chaos, etc., etc., blah, blah, blah…). Okay, kids, let's take a look at what we know. The Earth hasn't warmed appreciably in the last dozen years or so. But the Earth has warmed and cooled and warmed and cooled many, many times over the last three billion years or so. And it's done so without the contribution of mankind. The Little Ice Age, which occurred about 10,000 years ago, complete with Mastodons and Sabre Tooth Tigers, came and went without the help of SUVs. Yet, the squishy types want us to believe that carbon dioxide, that trace gas comprising less than one percent of our atmosphere, the same trace gas that we exhale and plants breathe, is responsible for the Earth getting all warmey and potentially uninhabitable. It's becoming so bad, they tell us, that we have to stop using light bulbs that we make and start using those that the Chinese manufacture. Bulbs that, if we drop them, we have to call the HazMat team to rescue us. And they tell us we have to drive little weenie electric cars that cost twice or three times as much as gas powered vehicles. Cars that derive their power from electricity we must produce from coal, arguably the dirtiest of all power sources. Absolute insanity.

This whole climate thing is a non-problem created by those educated beyond their intellect who want grants to study it, paid for by taxpayers whose lives are being turned upside down as a result. It is dangerous, ridiculous, foolish and wasteful, and those who choose to believe that we mere humans can change the seasons based on how we light our homes and what kind of vehicles we drive need to seek some professional help. Enough said.

Seek out and make note of the acronyms and euphemisms you see in your daily lives. And maybe make a note of whom to vote for or against as a result…