Reasonable Profits Board

Source:
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/205085-dems-propose-reasonable-profits-board-to-regulate-oil-company-profits

My first question, why should any one person or group get to decide what a 'reasonable profit' for any other person or group is?  The only times that applies would be...tax payers deciding what politicians should make, or church members deciding what their pastor(s) should make. 
This is a very frightening scenario:

The Democrats, worried about higher gas prices, want to set up a board that would apply a "windfall profit tax" as high as 100 percent on the sale of oil and gas, according to their legislation. The bill provides no specific guidance for how the board would determine what a reasonable profit is. 

They want to be able to tax 100% of the profit above a certain amount.  Arbitrarily determining what is appropriate for a company to make.

Imagine you're in a business yourself for a moment.
If you are going to be taxed 100% of your profit above a certain point, would you be likely to lower your prices, or change your reporting and how you determine what profit is?
Another stance to take with this:  If profit is limited, won't that lead to less R & D, and therefore fewer advancements in the industry, leading to stagnation, and job loss, as well as higher prices over all?

As Quinn likes to say, "Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of it's stated intent."

I would not be surprised in the least to see the result of something like this leading to higher prices at the pump.  This should be discouraged in the strongest language possible.  Contact your reps today!

Highway Shakedowns in TN - 4th Amendment is History

Sources:

News Channel 5

http://www.newschannel5.com/story/14673883/policing-for-profit-summary-of-dice-activities-2010

I'm not the first to write about this, nor will I be the last.  In fact, this isn't even my first post on the topic.  Cemetery had his car searched for no reason, and is left with little recourse.  The governments are finding more and more ways to get around the protections we have of our rights, and it is costing us dearly.  

And clearly, if you watch the video, you can see that they do not care one iota about actually stopping the drugs.  They are focused on the cash.  If this really was about the drugs, there would be many more instances on the East bound side, and the officers would be facing that direction, looking for the contraband.  

The war on drugs has done more to damage this country than most people realize.  Daily it's costing us more and more, not just financially, but in far more important ways.  

But some people have hired lawyers after their cash was taken and, sometimes after months and months of litigation, judges have ruled that the money that was taken from them really had nothing to do with drug dealing at all.

Moral of that story is that if you want your money, you need to hire a lawyer to get it back.  They will keep it until you take legal action.  That is outright THEFT from civilians, especially when those civilians are charged with no crime, and have done nothing to justify that seizure of their property.

When do we draw a line in the sand which shall not be crossed?  To allow them to continue to trample our rights is to invite tyranny into our nation, not just turn a blind eye to it, and pour it a nightcap before we go to bed, ignorant of the schemes of tyrants.

Hermain Cain - Presidential Material?

Source:
Undisclosed

I know my readers are intelligent enough to find this video if they are motivated to do so, I do not want a direct link from my blog to her. 

I'm listening to a broadcast by Rachel Maddow on MSNBC in which she is viciously attacking Herman Cain.  Her problems with him include being associated with Americans for Prosperity, seeing a disproportionate number of times he encounters the number 45 in his day to day life, and some other random things.  

In short, he notices a number appearing more often than others, so she calls him a numerologist, and compares him to Nancy Regan controlling President Regan's schedule based on astrological readings, saying that he is associated with the Koch brothers, and that he thinks David Koch is a patriot makes him crazy. 

But the most delicious bit of irony is when she said:

"Herman Cain was one of the public faces of Prosperity 101.  It is a workplace seminar program that business use to educate their employees about the dangers of things like health reform, and taxes on millionaires, and regulations on businesses.  So your boss tells you to sit through this lecture, you sit through the lecture, message received, your boss essentially just told you how to vote.  In other words this Prosperity 101 thing is another the Koch brothers are funding a means by which businesses can get their way politically.  Intimidate your employees into voting for your bosses interests too."

Emphasis mine above.  The irony is that this is exactly what the unions do.  They force their employees to attend 'educational' events which attempt to brainwash them to voting for the left.  They go so far as to make threats, and want to have a voter card for union members.  The unions take this concept to extremes which are inhumane and anti-liberty.  Yet an independent organization  which attempts to educate people about reality is touted as intimidation?  

Rachel, you really are living in your own fantasy world.  You need to either wake up and join the rest of society, or get off your soap box: You make yourself sound more and more unintelligent and uneducated every time your trap opens.

Learn from History

Source:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/24/white-house-to-announce-major-home-lending-revamp/

Clearly, either our president doesn't learn from history, or he does and he hates America and wants us to fail.  I'll let you decide that on your own.  Take a look at the article.  Here are some of the winning parts of it:

The revamped Home Affordable Refinance Program, which aims to avert foreclosures, is expected "to encourage new, lower-cost loans" to more homeowners who are paying more than the value of their properties, a senior administration official said ahead of Obama's Monday announcement. 

So we learned from history that you can't force banks to give loans to people who can't pay them, it will backfire.  Today, he wants to force banks to give out loans to people who are having trouble paying for them...

The three-year-old Home Affordable Refinance Program was supposed to allow refinancing for up to 125 percent of a home's value on mortgages owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, but has been stuck on tight eligibility rules, including excluding people with high credit scores or other attractive risk offers. 

Here we go again. Same plan, different names, different wording, different packaging, but same failed ideas that sunk us already.

The changes to the loan programs are specifically intended to bypass Congress, which is stalled on agreeing to new plans to increase jobs and jump-start the economy. But it won early support from Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer of California and Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia. 

So, dodging congress.  That is the act of a dictator.  He might as well say, "What I want is what matters, forget checks and balances."  Also, Republicans, take note of the name of a traitor to the cause.  Sen. Johnny Isakson, from Georgia, way to go failing the people who voted you into office.

If people aren't outraged by the ego, the arrogance, the Marxist ways of this man, then we have fallen very far indeed from the America which once was so great.

Halal Meat (Islamic Version of Kosher, if you will)

My mother sends many emails my way which she thinks will interest me, or things that might cause me to be concerned, or any of a various number of reasons.  I really enjoy this aspect of our relationship, as it allows me to see some of her thoughts.  I don't often get to hear her thoughts, as my schedule is incredibly hectic, so this is an opportunity for me to 'see' what's on her mind.  Recently she sent me a forward which went on about how Halal meat is taking over at the grocer, and how we need to avoid it.  Initially, the writing felt like it was very fear-inspired, not logic-inspired. And I think most of you know me well enough to know that I'll dig into any topic.  If you want a copy of the email, mention so in the comments, along with your address, and I will send it your way.  For the sake of conserving space here, I will not include the text.

On the surface, I see what they are saying, and what the issue is.  I'm going to put my thoughts below in list form.

1 - We should in no wise support Islam.
2 - This is meat essentially offered to idols.
3 - There is nothing wrong with eating meat offered to idols.  (There is no such thing as an idol, only God is real.  1 Cor 8.)
4 - Politically I have issues with this happening.
5 - As a Christian I couldn't care less where my meat originates, as long as it is handled in a way which poses no threat to my safety.
6 - For the sake of my brother or sister who has a weaker conviction, I won't eat this halal meat if it would cause them to stumble. 


Conclusion:
I will try to avoid it if I can, not out of religious obligation, but out of a two fold reason: to attempt to send the message to the grocers that they don't need to carry that product, and to not support financially the making of the meat.  That is where my conviction originates.  If a brother or sister would be uncomfortable knowing the meat was prepared by those actively worshiping a false god at the time of it's preparation, I will abstain from it as well.

A friend of mine who lived in Israel for a number of years had this to say when I chatted with him about this:

Besides, I had ground lamb and pork-free hard salami, both halal, that were INCREDIBLE

What are your thoughts about eating this meat?


1 Corinthians 8:4-7
1Co 8:4  Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one.
1Co 8:5  For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords,
1Co 8:6  yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.
1Co 8:7  However not all men have this knowledge; but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.

Petitions Galore

Sources:
http://www.weerdworld.com/2011/lets-play-a-game/
http://ncguns.blogspot.com/2011/09/lets-have-some-fun-with-our-president.html

The anti-rights lobby has established a 'ban private sale' petition with the White House.  They need to get 5000 votes for it to do any good.  They aren't close.

However, there are some petitions well worth signing, such as support of HR822, and some others.  Take a look, and if you feel so inclined, add your name to the petition.  I won't say you must, but I would recommend it.  Let's send a clear message to the executive branch that this is what we want!

200 Murders - 1 Scandal or Is it the Fault of the Guns?

Source:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2011/09/20/attorney_general_in_mexico_200_murders_result_of_operation_fast_and_furious

So, the AG in Mexico has basically said that 200 (at least) murders are the result (so far) of the Fast and Furious scandal.  Now, you and I both know that murderers will murder, with whatever weapon(s) is(are) available.  Weer'd has a great pile of examples.  It's an insignificant percentage of how many actual events like it happen, but it's the exact image of what we know to be true.  Murder isn't cause by guns.

So, my question is simple.  If we hold them to the same standard they claim when arguing with us, that being 'Guns cause death!' then what is the logical conclusion?

Step 1 - They allowed guns to be illegally trafficked across the border.

Step 2 - Those guns killed people.

Step 3 - Because it was the guns which committed the crime, the supplier(s) of the guns should be held accountable.  (After all, when someone robs a bank with a gun, it's the fault of the gun store who sold him the gun, or the firearms manufacturer, or ANYONE but the actual criminal.  He's the victim of the terrible evil of being a gun owner.  Even if he illegally owns that gun.)

Step 4 - The fault lies squarely with the DOJ and ATF.  No one else to blame, they forced the dealers to sell the guns in circumstances where they would otherwise not have made the sale, they forced the situation to fall into such a place that the weapons made it to their destination.  They hold all blame.  Not even the criminals who pulled the triggers share in that blame.

At least, that's what I'd be forced to think if I bought into the lies of the antis.  Instead, I see this scandal in a different light.

Step 1 - Normally law-abiding gun dealers were forced to break the law, their own policies, and have unethical business transactions with people with whom they would prefer not to do business.  They were forced into committing commerce against their will, as it were.

 Step 2 - Firearms purchased in these circumstances were allowed to cross an international border, violating a large pile of other laws, again at the behest of those who were pushing this agenda.

 Step 3 - The firearms were sold illegally in Mexico, to the cartels, violating yet more laws.

 Step 4 - The guns were then used in the commission of various crimes, by criminals, including murder.

So this is where my logic takes a turn from what they would espouse:

Prosecute the criminals.  Charge them with what they did, and move on.  In Mexico, that means prosecuting the murderers for murder.  Oh wait, those are the cartels that their own government has allowed to get to where they are.  The police there won't cross their paths.  So, looks like the murderers are walking.

But, where does that leave the DOJ and ATF here who facilitated, and even forced, this to be an issue?

Accessory to murder, for one.  Countless other laws, and international laws, were broken in this scandal.  Those responsible need to be held 100% accountable.  To do less is to tell the rest of the world that we don't care about justice, only agenda.  There are those who say we should send those responsible to Mexico to stand trial.  

I have two problems with that:

1 - The crimes they committed happened here in the States, not in Mexico.  We should not extradite people to other countries for crimes committed here.  They should be charged and prosecuted HERE for those crimes.

2 - We need to lead on the issue of holding those in power accountable.  Sending them off to be prosecuted elsewhere in no way demonstrates to a watching world that we are serious about being an ethical, upright, just nation.

Your Papers Please...or Voter Fraud Counter-Measures

Sources:
http://www.texastribune.org/texas-politics/voter-id/groups-urge-feds-stop-voter-id-bill/

http://www.imao.us/index.php/2011/09/nuke-the-news-taxes-create-jobs-day-of-yawn-and-yay-fraud/

 American's enjoy several unique options in life, which leads America to be a very unique place to live.  One of the options which has defined America throughout her history has been the right of the citizenry to vote.  This right has given the people a clear voice int he organization and execution of the government.  Well, it used to be clear.

It's no secret that over the last several decades accusations of fraud at the polling places, and in the counting afterward, have been rampant.  Chicago is notorious for having the dead turn out in droves to vote.  And this before we even really started considering the coming zombie apocalypse.  Maybe this is the origin?

What do we do with rampant accusations of voter fraud?  How do we protect the voice of the people?  How do we prevent a phony lip-service-only voting system like exists in much of the world from taking over here?

UPDATE:
The below paragraph is how I initially worded it.  Bob S. from 3 boxes of BS has helped me to understand how I was wrong in my original statements.  After this paragraph is the updated version of it, corrected for accuracy and clarification.

Governor Perry in Texas instituted a voter ID check.  The concept is simple, and it seems to be effective.  "Prove you are a citizen, and you get to vote."
Now reads:
Governor Perry in Texas signed into law a voter ID check.  The concept is simple, and it seems to be effective.  "Prove you are who you say you are, and you get to vote."
I now return you to your regularly scheduled blogpost

However, there is some controversy.  There are two sides to every argument; this one, I think, has three.

1. It's only fair to everyone else participating in the system that all people prove their eligibility to participate in the system.  It has to happen if the system is going to work the way it was intended to work.
2. There's no need for it.  
3. This bears too much of a concept of 'Your Papers Please' and is fundamentally opposed to what we as Americans hold to be dear.

Personally, I'm torn between options 1 and 3.  Option 2 I completely disregard, as I firmly believe SOMETHING needs to be done.  However, what that something is, I'm not entirely certain.  I lean toward option 1, as the concept of 'your papers please' is more along the lines of when people are traveling around and are being accosted by law enforcement without provocation or just cause.  Really, since when is 'subversive material' illegal in the US?  Last time I checked, reading material wasn't illegal.

This is different from those evils, and I think a necessary step to take to protect this nation.  There may be a better way to do it, and if there is, I'll be happy to entertain it.  While this is a right of the citizens of this nation to vote, the difference in this case is the citizens voting.  There must be a vested interest in the future success of this great land.  Illegals, the dead, and others have no vested interest in that success.

As Frank said regarding those who oppose this concept:  

"...make them carry the pro-voter fraud label as there is no — NO — logical reason to be against having to prove you can vote before voting other than that you are for voter fraud and think it will help your side."

Please, share your thoughts on this issue!

Debt Reduction or Holding People Hostage?

Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/us/politics/obama-plan-to-cut-deficit-will-trim-spending.html

After reading this, it's pretty obvious that the administration's plan is a combination of two things.

1 - Raising taxes by $1.5 TRILLION when the economy is already suffering tremendously (because that's always such a great idea).

2 - Holdng our troops hostage.  These men and women deserve so much, and O-nutjob would use them for political leverage? 

That doesn't even mention that the plan would cut medicare and medicade, the very thing he accused Republicans of wanting to do.  While I would be fine with eliminating social programs (HOW to eliminate, I'm willing to discuss, as we probably can't easily go cold-turkey), to make even hinting at touching these programs out to be an evil, then to proceed and actually do it yourself is as hypocritical as it gets. 

As a wise man once said, "If you want to know what the left is doing, look at what they are accusing the right of doing."

Ataaaack Waaatch Part Deux - Joking Around

Source:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/attack-watch-new-obama-campaign-site-to-fight-smears-becomes-laughing-stock-of-the-internet/2011/09/14/gIQAspHDSK_blog.html?tid=sm_facebook

It's good to see that there is a post at the Washington Post ridiculing it as well.  Sure, they attempt to point out the 'motivation' and the 'good things' that will come of such a site.  But let's face it.  They know as well as we do that it's an attempt at censorship.  One which will ultimately fail.
Instead, it's like being on a battlefield, and our enemies have air-dropped a large supply of weapons and ammunition behind our lines.
As I said to a co-worker, the people know what he's trying to do, and won't stand for it.  Her response was that not everyone hates it, the people living on "government money" (our money) love it.  I then said 'Stop trying to depress me. I said people, not sheeple.'
Let's keep the joke going.  Toss comments and funny links here, share the best stuff you can find!
This video (sent to me by a friend) is priceless!

You Don't Deserve to Keep Your Money

Source:
http://www.wlsam.com/Article.asp?id=2285496

The important quote is as follows:

“I’ll put it this way. You don’t deserve to keep all of it and it’s not a question of deserving because what government is, is those things that we decide to do together."

Just let that marinate in your brain for a while. 
You (the free US citizen) do not deserve (are not entitled to, have no right to, and have no obligation in your favor of having) to keep (possess, to do with what you will) all of it (the money you have earned by your hard work and effort)....
What else do we need to hear from the left before we understand that they HATE freedom, they HATE capitalism, and they HATE liberty?

Attack Watch

Source:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XYKRokgX00

This is a scary video.  Before I go any further, please take a moment to view it in it's entirety. 

So, I suspect this blog, among many many other blogs, will appear on this website.  Looks like it's time for us to lay low, and cling bitterly to our guns and Bibles.

The Evils of Fire(arms)

Source:
Wizard's First Rule by Terry Goodkind (Amazon)

This is well worth the read.

   "And now, to the other part," Michael continued, "to the real suffering around us.  While we have worried about the boundaries that have not harmed a single one of us, many of our families, friends, and neighbors have suffered, and died.  Tragic and needless deaths, in accidents with fire.  Yes, that is what I said.  Fire."

    People mumbled in confusion.  Michael was starting to lose his bond with the crowd.  He seemed to expect it; he looked from face to face, letting the confusion build, and then dramatically he thrust his hand out, his finger pointing.

   At Richard.

   "There!" he screamed.  Everyone turned as one.  Hundred of eyes looked at Richard.  "There stands my beloved brother!"  Richard tried to shrink.  "My beloved brother who shares with me" - he pounded a fist into his chest - "the tragedy of losing our own mother to fire!  Fire took our mother from us when we were young, and left us to grow up alone, without her love and care, without her guidance.  It was not some imagined enemy from across a boundary that took her, but an enemy of fire!  She couldn't be there to comfort us when we hurt, when we cried in the night.  And the thing that wounds the most is that it didn't have to be."

   Tears, glistening in the sunlight, ran down Michael's cheeks.  "I am sorry, friends, please forgive me."  He wiped the tears with a handkerchief he had handy.  "It's just that only this morning I heard of another fire that took a fine young mother and father, and left their daughter an orphan.  It brought my own pain back to me and I couldn't remain silent."  Everyone was now solidly back with him.  Their tears flowed freely.  A woman put her arm around Richard's shoulder as he stood numb.  She whispered how sorry she was. 

   "I wonder how many of you have shared the pain my brother and I live with every day.  Please, those of you who have a loved one, or a friend, who has been hurt, or even killed, by fire, please, hold up your hands."  Quite a few hands went up, and there was a wailing from some in the crowd.

   "There, my friends," he said hoarsely, spreading his arms wide, "there is the suffering suffering among us.  We need look no further than this room."

   Richard tried to swallow the lump in his throat as the memory of that horror came back to him.  A man who had imagined their father had cheated him lost his temper and knocked a lamp off the table as Richard and his brother slept in the back bedroom.  While the man dragged his father outside, beating him, his mother pulled Richard and his brother from the burning house, then ran back inside to save something, they never knew what, and was burned alive.  Her screams brought the man to his senses, and he and their father tried to save her, but couldn't.  Filled with guilt and the revulsion at what he had caused, the man ran off crying and yelling that he was sorry.

   That, his father had told them fa thousand times, was the result of a man losing his temper.  Michael shrugged it off; Richard took it to heart.  It had instilled in him a dread of his own anger, and whenever it threatened to come out, he choked it off.

   Michael was wrong.  Fire had not killed their mother; anger had.

   Arms hanging limply at his side, head bowed, Michael spoke softly again.  "What can we do about the danger to our families from fire?"  He shook his head sadly.  "I do not know, my friends.

   "But, I am forming a commission on the problem, and I urge any concerned citizen to come forward with suggestions.  My door always stands open.  Together we can do something.  Together we will do something.
   "And now my friends, please excuse me, and allow me to go comfort my brother, as I am afraid bringing out our personal tragedy was a surprise to him, and I must ask his forgiveness."

Used with permission under the "fair use" tribute.
Now, re-read the entire story above, and add the word 'arms' after every instance of the word 'fire.'  Spooky, right?  Now, while doing that, focus on this line:

Michael was wrong.  Fire had not killed their mother; anger had.

Terry Goodkind is an excellent author, and I highly recommend the 'Sword of Truth' series.  Wizard's First Rule is the first book of the series.  The entire series has quite a few analogies such as this.  He brings up some fantastic questions, and uses basic, yet perfect, logic to resolve them.  Later in the series he discusses the fairness of taking what people have earned from the earners, and distributing it to those who do not earn. 
And yes, he was heavily influenced by Rand.

Chime in on your thoughts!  (Pun intended, for those who have already read the series.)

Jobs - Now in Brighter Packaging

Source:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904836104576560593248402036.html

I didn't bother listening to the speech last night.  I don't think I was anywhere that I could have even if I wanted to watch my blood pressure climb, and feel my pulse race.  That said, it seems to be the buzz today, getting the most attention from outmoded news media (newspaper, tv, radio, etc), as well as current, relevant news publications (such as blogs, online reporting, etc).  

While I am not an expert in things of economics, I do have a fair amount of common sense.  So I'm going to comment on some of the things I've read.

Under Mr. Obama's plan, the unemployed would see several additional programs to help get them back to work.

 When I  hear/read that, I can't help but think 'More spending, more government agencies, more cost to the people who do have jobs, more cost to the people who can create jobs.'  Government programs have a tendency of backfiring, or resulting in the opposite of their intent.

Meanwhile, employers would get a tax credit of up to $4,000 to hire people who have been out of work for more than six months, a move that would help level the playing field for the long-term jobless, said Rutgers economist Bill Rodgers.

The level playing field should not be forced based on an outside force.  It should be level to the people in the playing field.  Each person should succeed or fail by their own efforts.  If this goes into effect, it will have the result of people who see companies hiring those who are unemployed for a longer period of time choosing to spend  that time living off the government teet, and not being a productive member of society, opting rather to wait until they are part of the 'group' which gets special treatment.

As with the 2009 stimulus package, much of the proposed policy is directed toward the construction industry and the more than 1 million unemployed construction workers in America.

Again, special treatment for one group of people.  Rather than focusing on the root problems, and how they impact the entire economy and nation, this package seems to be carefully directed at specific people.  That sounds a LOT more like a campaign strategy, or a vote-winning strategy, than a 'fix the problem' strategy to me.

The plan would put $30 billion into renovations at schools and community colleges, $50 billion into the modernization of roads, airports, waterways and railroads, $15 billion into "Project Rebuild," a program that refurbishes vacant and foreclosed homes and $10 billion into financing for a national infrastructure bank that would use both public and private investment to finance infrastructure projects. Mr. Obama said these initiatives would create "hundreds of thousands" of jobs.

So, rather than taking steps to increase the availability of jobs overall, this will focus on specific, short-term jobs which may or may not last once the indicated projects are done.  

Mr. Obama's plan would cut payroll taxes in half for up to the first $5 million in wages businesses pay and offer a $4,000 tax credit to companies that hire long-term unemployed. It would also extend the so-called "100% expensing," which allows firms to take an immediate 100% tax deduction on capital investments, an incentive that would otherwise expire at the end of the year.

Two out of three ain't bad, right?  Anytime taxes are cut, especially taxes which can be seen directly relating to the number of employees, will always benefit job growth.  So he's got that part right.  But why stop at $5 million?  Why not make it across the board?  Additionally, the ability to write-off capital investments is extremely beneficial to the economy, as it removes some of the burden of that type of expenditure.  The removal of that burden gives more willingness to  the companies to spend the money, which provides work for other companies, and more jobs overall.  But, again, see above regarding the tax credit for hiring long-term unemployed.  

Still, because the proposed tax breaks are temporary, their effectiveness in creating hiring will be blunted, said Bill Rys, tax counsel at the National Federation of Independent Business, a small-business association.

So make those tax incentives permanent.  

As of right now, I see nothing in what I've been able to find which gives me any confidence that this plan will have a positive, lasting impact.  There are steps here which will help, but only if taken to their logical conclusion.  The rest is just another stimulus package, and more 'spreading of the wealth.'  

If the purpose of the money being given for these projects is job creation, how about a tax refund to everyone equally based on what they paid?  Match that with permanent tax cuts, and you'll see job growth.  Anything less than that is merely lip service for the purpose of garnering votes.

Setback for Freedom in VA Court

Source:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/08/us-usa-healthcare-ruling-idUSTRE7874S720110908

The court ruled that the federal government has the power to FORCE the citizenry to purchase health insurance. 
This is just one more loss we face as we attempt to fight to keep the American way of life intact.  The very concept of a government forcing it's citizens to participate in any activity is as tyrannical as it gets.
It also appears the VA court thinks the federal government can undermine the state's own laws.

Sadly, no Debate Update

Due to my schedule conflicting with the schedule of the Debate (really, why didn't someone tell them I was busy, and would be unable to watch?) I was unable to watch the debate this time.  As such, no update on the debate.  If I'm able to find the entire video, audio, or transcript, I will toss some commentary out there.  If you happen to know where I can get any of the above, please drop me a link.
Thanks folks!

The TSA is Evil

Source:
http://www.popehat.com/2011/09/06/complain-about-being-sexually-assaulted-by-a-tsa-thug-theyll-sue/

DISCLOSURE:  This post and the link contain graphic descriptions of non-consensual  sexual encounters.  Not appropriate for all ages.

I highly recommend reading this entire article.  I also highly recommend offering any support you are able to Amy.  She did what every one of us who has flown under the TSA should do.  This gradual taking of more power by them, and more denial of our rights needs to stop, and be reversed.  The TSA needs to be disbanded.  They are an evil organization, which takes pleasure in using what little authority it has to sexually assault US citizens, and pays it's employees to do that. 
Not only is that rape, but it's inverted prostitutional rape.  Yes, I made up a word and phrase.  But think about it.  When someone pays for sex, it is prostitution.  When someone is sexually assaulted, it's rape.  When someone is paid to rape someone else, it becomes a new issue all together. 
Don't believe me?  Just ask any of the women who have had fingers and hands pushed "...between their labia."  Ask any of the men or boys who have had their penises grabbed.  This is legalized rape.  This is the dehumanization of the citizens of the USA.
The TSA is a criminal, evil organization and must be stopped.

Privatize the PA LCB?

I'd love to see the LCB privatized for more reasons than I can count.  The biggest are as follows:

1 - Why does our government think it's a good idea to sell it's citizens something?
2 - Broader selection and variety.
3 - Lower prices.
4 - The ability to order wines from around the world, and have them shipped to your home.  (Other drinks as well, not just wines.)
5 - Opens the door to transporting across state lines and not violating any laws in the process.

The list can go on, but these are the most important aspects of this effort.  So please, if you live in PA, and care about freedom, contact the president of the state senate here, and ask that he move the liquor privatization bill forward:
http://www.senatorscarnati.com/connect.htm

Update:
Turns out Sebastian talks about it as well.

Ugliness Gets a Handout

Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/28/opinion/sunday/ugly-you-may-have-a-case.html?_r=2&hp
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/08/29/hey-shouldnt-we-have-some-extra-legal-protections-for-ugly-people/

Before I go any further, I accept without any hesitation that I am ugly.  Those of you who know me understand this to be true.  

The first thing I wish to mention is a fairly simple, yet profound, question that begs answering:  What makes ugly people more deserving of special treatment than attractive people?  The entire point of the American system is that we are all created equally, and as such no one deserves any special treatment over any others.  To say someone deserves special treatment for any reason is to say that they are a lesser person.  That's one of the largest issues I have with the concept of affirmative action.  By it's very nature, it's encouraging the thought that those benefiting from the program are lesser humans, and as such deserve more than the rest of the human race.

There are several excellent questions surrounding this issue which would need to be addressed as well.  Who determines ugliness?  Would there need to be yet another bureaucracy established for the purpose of determining that?  What will it do to the psyche of the people who are deemed ugly?  What method of qualification will there be?  Where will that line be?  What about the people who fall just on the fair side (pun intended) of the line? 

Once we get past those questions, we get into the social ramifications, the bitterness created between yet another two classes of people, more division between Americans, and the like.  If I'm offered a job because I'm ugly, how unfair is it to someone who is far more qualified, but is just too pretty?  Or too white?  Or too young? Or too healthy?  This is just more classism being created to drive wedges between the people of this land, and destroy any semblance of unity.  Quinn speaks of classism frequently, and has some excellent thoughts.  

How do you feel about the ugly class?  Do you hate us?  Do you want to see us be given a chance to get ahead?  Please share your thoughts.

Personal Experience: Kayak Trip Gone Wrong (And how the Anti's are Wrong Again!)

On 8/20 I took a group of 14 of my friends on a kayak trip in Western PA, a place called 'The River's Edge'.  I've not worked with them in the past, but had read some good things about them.  To get the full story, we need to go back about a week prior to the trip.

I had sent an email to a different outfitter (further upstream, along the same river) that I have used in the past with a great experience, and left a voicemail to make a reservation.  Several days after both of those were sent, I received an email from them that they were booked for that day, and would be unable to meet my needs.  So, I found another outfitter (River's Edge) and made a reservation there.   I did this after reading several comments online stating that people had great experiences with them.

We arrived in time to get setup, sign the waivers, load the shuttle, etc and have plenty of time left to get to the put-in.  When my kayak ('my' meaning 'owned by me, brought from home to the outfitter) it was loaded on the bottom of the trailer.  I normally would have no issue with this, however there was a missing fender on that side.  One of my friends also pointed out the obvious issue, and I went over to inspect it.  When I asked the gentleman loading the boats onto the trailer, he said 'The straps will hold it, and it will be fine.'  I pushed my boat toward the center of the trailer, and it seemed as though he was right, I was able to push it several inches away from the exposed wheel.

Upon arriving at the put-in, we hopped out of the van, I walked around behind to the trailer, and my heart dropped.  I saw this:

I saw this hole, and realized that not only had the straps NOT held my kayak in place, but it had shifted, and laid on top of the tire.  The friction generated by the tire rubbing against the boat was sufficient to burn a hole clean through the boat.  Obviously this kayak is completely ruined.  The bodies do not lend themselves to repair of this sort of damage, and it is clearly not water-worthy as is.

I was upset.  One friend took my fiance aside immediately as she exited the second shuttle which arrived behind ours, and told her she needed to speak to me right away, and it was urgent.  She looked at me across the parking area, and realized something was wrong.  Her calming influence was sufficient to prevent me saying anything terrible, or making a total fool of myself.

One of the co-owners of the outfitter was in that second shuttle, and the fellow who had loaded my kayak so terribly pulled her aside before I was able to talk to her.  He explained what happened, and took her around to show her the damage.  Not only did the tire destroy the side of my boat, it also destroyed my bilge pump.

They returned to their store-front in order to get a boat for me to use for the day, and brought it back.  We waited about an hour for that to happen.  I had told my friends to get started, as they should not lose time on the water, and enjoying the beautiful day because of my problem.  Without exception, they all said they'd wait for me.  They are awesome people.

When the outfitter returned they had a boat for me to use, and a bilge pump as well.  I helped everyone else get into the water, loaded my loaner, and off we went for a day of floating down the river.

Everyone seemed to enjoy themselves well, and I tried to as much as I could under the circumstances.  The highlight of the day was finding a rope swing, and having a blast swimming and falling into the water.  Ironically the youngest people on the trip, and one of the oldest were the ones to enjoy it most.  I did not trust the rope, the platform, or anything else there with my weight.  The others seemed to have no problems with it.

When we returned to the shop, I went to see the owners.  They were both surprised that such a thing had happened, they'd never had a problem in their 5 years of providing livery service.  They did, however, make it right.  They offered to pay me what it would cost to replace the boat.  Without going into the details on that end, they did send me a check for the cost of the boat I had, plus shipping and tax, so I am now able to replace the kayak I had with an identical boat.

They made it right.  I received the check 1 week to the day after the incident, and while the time without a boat is going to be frustrating and aggravating, I do understand that things in life DO happen, and we have to deal with issues as they come up.  They handled themselves professionally, and provided me with fair remission for the incident.  They made it right, and I look forward to doing business with them again, probably next season at this point, as it will be some time until I'm able to receive my new kayak (3-4 weeks minimum delivery time, according to the website).

On a side note, and because I have to get politics involved, I have to point out one thing in this:  The antis are wrong.  According to those who would restrict our freedoms, and take our guns, as soon as someone becomes even slightly upset about something, and they are armed, there will be bloodshed on the streets.  People will shoot each other over parking spaces, traffic jams, and the like was something we heard often recently.  Here in PA we heard it recently because of the Castle Doctrine passing.  We heard people saying such things as a method of using fear to attempt to get their way.

When I saw what happened to my boat, that someone else destroyed it through their own ineptitude, I was angry.  The fact that my property was damaged beyond use, and that my investment of money, time, effort and everything I put into that boat was gone, because of one person's mistake, I felt angry.  I wasn't just angry, I was downright livid.  I also had one of my firearms on me.

Not once did the thought of drawing my weapon ever enter my mind.  Not once did the thought of causing injury to anyone else enter my mind.  Not once did any of the things which the left and the antis claim will happen in that scenario even enter into the mind of the person in that situation.

Not once.

Sounds to me like I had more reason to be upset than over a parking space, and it also sounds to me like they are so far off base with their ideas that gun owners are violent people looking for a reason to start killing that they can not relate with ordinary people.

The important lesson to take from all this?  Be involved when someone else is handling your property, and point out issues, and don't be afraid of expressing your concerns.  At best you avoid the headache I have had, at worst you have a falling out with whomever is handling your property, and have to find a resolution.