Flag flap...

Apparently some 12,000 US flags were recovered by a worker of Invesco Field in Denver right after the Democrat National Convention. I'm hearing that the McCain campaign plans to hand them out today at their event in Colorado Springs.

Of course, the Obama campaign is distancing themselves from this, saying that they didn't discard them or that Senator Obama himself didn't order them discarded, even after they sat for over week in bags on a dock.

I really don't think that they cared until they heard that the flags had been rescued. After all, the US flag is a symbol of things that most Democrats stand against. Why would they care about some US flags unless their use promotes their purpose? See my previous post about a similar disgrace at a liberal University. How liberal? How about the University of Maine is the only known university to offer programs in Socialist and Marxist studies, including a minor?

Increase in minimum wage = increase in jobless claims

From the SayAnything Blog. You can't teach liberals how to run a proper economy when all they care about it using it to feed their political careers.

We're in a world of hurt, courtesy of the Democrat Hate Machine

Yep... the Democrat Hate Machine (DHM). You know... the folks that hate achievement, logic, reason, and everything they produce?

It's pretty easy to see that we're pretty much teetering on the edge of Real Trouble with all of this oil stuff. Since Pelosi's Politburo took office, national average gas prices are up from $2.10/gal to over $4.00 a gallon. In spite of the IMMEDIATE drop in oil prices upon the mere mentioning by the President that he was killing restrictions on drilling from his office, the Politburo still claims (without ANY justification) that it would take 10 years for any drilling to lower gas prices.

Today, the Say Anything Blog pointed out that it would take much to militarily cripple the US by restricting oil imports. I mean really... how hard could it be when just a little blip in demand and a socialist majority in Congress cause the gas prices to shoot through the roof? And in the face of this glaring vulnerability, the Politburo still won't allow drilling in ANWR or off-shore in massive deposits.

Kudos to the Congressional Republicans drawing attention to this yesterday. The so-called "People's Party"... the tolerant party that SO concerned about everyone's rights turned the lights and microphones off on the people that are trying the hardest to do the "People's Work" and address this crisis... so they could go on vacation.

Something tells me that it just got a whole lot easier for Congressional Republicans to take back the majority in 2008. It won't stop our inexorable slide to the left, but hopefully it'll slow things down.

BTW... how does Senator Obama address the issues of high energy prices? By planning to tax "windfall profits" of oil companies and redistributing this money to his proletariate in the form of $500 and $1,000 checks. I thought that the minimum wage increase would have taken care of this. Wait... the reality of that is that jobs will be lost, prices will go up, and the people that this was supposed to be for will be hardest hit.

It's truly sad that this nation has allowed itself to become one populated by foolish, ignorant voters. It is they who have allowed the DHM to gain such a foothold in our leadership. And it is they who will eventually cost us our freedom.

Once again disgusted...

So one of those Bush-haters out there apparently decided to take their hatred out on a wheelchair-bound girl yesterday as he heckled First Lady Laura Bush and her daughter Jenna Bush.

Just how utterly symbolic is this? An out-of-control Democrat preying on the weak and defenseless to further their cause? Just about spot-on.

I guess this idiot got his ass beat by the father of the girl and then was arrested. Good.

Socialist pipe dream: so-called "universal" health care...

All you fans of universal health care, have a look:



Sounds great, doesn't it? Do you think that the patient received "compassionate" health care from its brokers in Canada (aka, the government)? Just how compassionate do you think it is to make someone with a life-threatening brain tumor wait months for basic diagnostic examinations when time is critical to save his life?

Anyone with a piece of brain in their skulls should realize that so-called "universal" health care is neither universal nor compassionate. More than anything else, it is rationed. Much like food has been in times of famine. That means that everyone gets some, but generally not enough. That means everyone suffers, just like when Sir Winston Churchill said,

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.

You want affordable health care? Improve yourself and spend less frivolously and/or vote for politicians that refuse to allow government to meddle in health care.

The United States has perhaps the greatest health-care system in the world, because it is driven mostly by individual responsibility (= freedom). This means that those who refuse to take responsibility for themselves will not receive proper health care. A single-payer system removes that individual responsibility component. Is that the kind of environment we want to foster? One where government-provided security supplants freedom?

Some people like to crow that, "every other industrialized nation has universal health care." Even if this is truly so, just because an idea wins a popularity contest doesn't mean that it's the best idea out there. This is exactly why our nation is a republic and not a democracy. Besides, there have got to be reasons why our health care system is the best as is.

BTW, who do you expect might be proponents of rationed health care systems? How about Democrat presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton?

Lots to speak of today...

Today's tidbits come from my reading of the articles at Fox News:

1. Apparently the major oil companies are taking heat from Democrat congressmen because they had $100B in profits last year. What they're not telling you is that Government made $440B in (plundered) profits from Big Oil last year. ExxonMobil alone is reported to have paid more in taxes than the lower half of all individual income earners last year. Who's the bad guy here? Remember that Thomas Sowell quote I included yesterday?
   
   
2. A Madison, WI high school student is suing the Tomah School District because he refused to remove religious references from a project he turned in and earned a zero. I hope he wins big on this one. If the government schools want to separate church and state, then they have to keep antitheism out too.
   
   
3. A related story alludes to a less than 50% graduation rate in a large number of the largest US cities. The problem here is two-fold: lack of teaching of personal responsibility AND failure of our school systems to be much more than indoctrination centers.
   
   
4. Yeah, gas prices are up and the economy's cooling down right now, but are we really in a recession or depression as the lamestream media want everyone to believe? Economic conditions were actually worse in 2000 near the end of the Clinton Administration, but you never heard a blurb about the economy being so bad. Couldn't possibly be that we had a Democrat president at the time and have a GOP president now, could it? Couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that the US sheeple believe everything they hear in the press and the media are leveraging that in an election year, could it? The single-largest factor in the cause of any possible recession or depression right now is the media reporting.
   

Wow... I really thought I had more than that. Sorry.

Quotes for today...

Folks... I found a great political cartoon site today called Red Planet Cartoons. Do yourself a favor and visit.

While I was there, I picked up a couple quotes of value. First by Thomas Sowell:

Nothing is easier, or more emotionally satisfying, than blaming high prices on those who charge them, rather than on those who cause them.

This was said, of course, in reference to everyone's blaming of high gas prices on the greed of the oil companies rather than government interference and taxes. Nevermind that the oil companies make about 9 cents per gallon and government takes around 42.

And this one from our greatest President, Ronald Reagan:

Republicans believe every day is July 4th. Democrats believe every day is April 15th.

The reference here should be obvious.

Government needs to battle childhood obesity?

While I'm ranting... why is it exactly that the State has to address childhood obesity?

Oh, that's right... because parents refuse to take care of it themselves, the gubment has to come swooping in with another ill-formed solution designed only to buy votes.

Thank you Governor Henry. Just what we needed: another reason to push responsibility (and therefore freedom) out the door. Maybe we should just push our kids out the door to get some exercise rather than spin up another big spending program.

Still wondering...

I don't think I'll ever get an answer to this question, but I'll ask it again anyway:

If Democrats are so concerned about all the money being distributed equally, why don't they just band together in their own little group, throw all their money in a pot, and divide the pot up into equal portions for every one in their little group, so they could build their little socialist utopia?

My answer is this: In order for a Democrat society to subsist, you need to feed it the fruits of labor of lots of high achievers. After all, all that cradle-to-grave service costs money. High achievers usually aren't Democrats, and Democrats aren't generally motivated to earn that money on their own. Therefore, it's important to force their system on others to form a financial basis for their utopia. Sounds good, don't it?

Democrats at their best...

So I guess the Hillary and Obama campaigns can't figure out how to get a leg up on the other, since they've resorted to that Democrat stalwart of name-calling. Hillary's campaign likened Obama to their favorite Independent Counsel Ken Starr, and one of Obama's key advisors called Hillary a "monster".

This name calling happens regularly when a Democrat can't win an argument. How many times have you heard a Democrat call an opponent "Hitler"? Apparently, it's better to misdirect by criminalizing their opponent rather than exercising some ability to debate.

An older (but still applicable) definition of "Democrat" is "one who panders to the ignorant masses". What better way to do this than to sink to the lowest common denominator like this?

And the dust settles...

So it's apparent that the voters in Texas and Ohio are no smarter than the voters in Oklahoma, what with giving victory in the Democrat primary to an avowed socialist and all.

Anyway...

Hillary Hypocrisy... again!?

This was pointed out to me this morning by a good friend: remember when Hillary accused Obama of plagiarizing someone's speech? Just how is this any different than Hillary's copying of the 3AM commercial from the 1984 Mondale campaign?





I can't wait to hear this one... but I know I never will. Hillary's a member of the "protected" class.

FWIW, Mondale went on to get beaten like a narc at a biker rally against Reagan. Too bad today's voters aren't as smart.

I have to ask... just what is it that Hillary experienced at besides stealing from the achievers and giving to the lazy? And would I want her manning that phone at 3AM, or wouldn't I want someone that has actually dealt with crisis greater than a philandering husband?

weak

Putzing around the house today doing chores, and had to pause again at Cavuto. They had the chair of the Dallas County, Texas Democrats on, who was proclaiming that it was sexist for people to vote for a "new" candidate rather than for Hillary. She went on to say that this is largely driven by unflattering pictures of Hillary that have made their rounds in the media.

When advised that there has been much to do about McCain's age (and wrinkles), the chair stated, "well, agism is different than sexism."

That's it. The rest of her platform sort of disintegrated right there.

And let's not forget, now we have the "Obama darkening-scandal" before us, much like we had it during OJ-Mania.

Have we covered all the bases of class warfare in the Democrat campaign yet? We've had race, gender, religion, name-calling, income dragged in... all of this from the "tolerant" party.

Right.

Once again the Democrats are forcing the costs of their political aspirations upon us

The Democrats are at it again, trying to buy votes on the wave of financial ignorance fostered by the US sheeple. The Democrat Party has its panties in a bunch that oil companies "raked in record profits" last year. Well, we all know what that means, don't we? It's time to plunder! After all, the only way Democrats can make a career out of their political aspirations is to buy votes from those too stupid or apathetic to be responsible for themselves. So, the Democrat-controlled House passes some $18B in taxes on those profits.

Profits alone don't show the entire financial picture. Of more importance to the big picture are the profit margins. But it's difficult to make myrmidons that vote Democrat understand that. So let me explain:

Profit = gross revenue - business costs

Profit margin = profit/gross revenue * 100%

So, let's have a short exercise, shall we?

Let's say Poxblog Oil Co had gross revenues of $1M in 2007. Poxblog Oil's business costs (what they spent to bring in that megabuck) was $900,000.

2007 profit = $1,000,000 - $900,000 = $100,000

2007 profit margin = $100,000 / $1,000,000 * 100% = 10%

Now, let's say that Poxblog Oil sold twice as much in 2008. That means that their total gross revenue was $2M. Let's also say that it also cost them twice as much to make that revenue, or $1,800,000. That leaves them with $200,000 profit.

Holy shit! Profits have doubled. Time to plunder/levy taxes/buy votes!

But wait. Poxblog's 2008 profit margin is $200,000 / $2,000,000 * 100%, or... wait for it... 10%. Somehow, profits have doubled, but profit margins haven't changed.

2008 profit = $2,000,000 - $1,800,000 = $200,000

2008 profit margin = $200,000 / $2,000,000 * 100% = 10%

From Neal Boortz in 2005:

When they read that oil company profits have gone up they have no educational basis upon which to balance the fact that oil company revenues have also gone up... thanks to the increase in the price of crude oil. Revenues go up. Profits go up. It's not really that hard to understand.

Someone will now come along and point out that the oil company profit margins have been rising along with the profits themselves. They're right. You see, costs don't necessarily double when revenues do. There are some costs that remain fixed even when the prices for raw materials (crude oil) increase. This will mean that profit margins will also increase, though not anywhere near as much as profits themselves. Is this necessarily a bad thing? Hardly. Just where do you think the energy companies, including the oil companies, get the money they need to explore for new sources of oil, to build new refineries, and to conduct research on additional or alternate energy sources? That money comes from profits. If profits increase due to high demand met by a scarcity of product the oil companies will be in a position to use increased profits to expand production and to search for new sources of oil. If the government seizes these profits, as suggested by Hillary Clinton, then those dollars would not be available for energy company investments into expanding our energy resources.

Another source of funds for oil companies to use for exploration and the development of additional energy resources would be the money that comes from investors. These investors purchase shares of stock in oil companies because they believe that their investments will appreciate in value and, in some cases, will pay dividends. If the government bows to the paranoia and anti-capitalist ignorance of the state-educated masses and seizes those profits, what then will be the reason to invest in these oil companies?

Hitting the high achievers the hardest slows down the momentum of our economy right at it's very foundation.

These taxes will be passed on the customer, just like they are every time. And it will hurt the low-income people the most... you know... the very people that Democrats purport to protect?

These are SIMPLE, straightforward concepts. Regardless, I'm sure that your average Democrat couldn't explain them. Nor would they care too, because it's they who are screaming the loudest that profits are up. It's these people legislating to make a moneygrab. It's these people forcing YOU to pay for their political careers! And yet somehow this is less evil than groups of people working hard and having it pay off.

Quote for the day...

From historian Joseph Ellis's "Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation", here's what the founding fathers thought of democracy and democrats:

"... the term "democrat" originated as an epithet and referred to 'one who panders to the crude and mindless whims of the masses.'"

So, doesn't seem interesting that today's Democrat Party consists largely of people like this? Many thanks to Boortz for this one.

Hilarious... but not really

Sitting here on my day off getting some chores done, I had to stop and watch a bit on Cavuto where a Democrat strategist was on with two economists (sorry, I don't remember any of their names) and Neil discussing Obama's and Hillary's budget plans. It wasn't pretty... kind of like a lamb going to the slaughter; the economists had a field day.

Folks, I'm not kidding when I say this: The Democrats want nothing more than to expand the entitlement state in order to buy more votes for themselves. Remember what I quoted a couple months ago about the the stability of great nations and the people voting themselves money out of the public largess? We're seeing that played out now.

I have a great plan with which we can put a real quick stop to this bullshit. Since the existence of government is borne by those who fund it, is it not fair that the weight of the vote of each constituent is proportional to how much each taxpayer pays in? What a way to keep checks on government thuggery! If someone wants to tax high-achievers disproportionately, then the high-achievers have a strong defense against it. After all, they're paying more for it.

Hell, this plan may even bring more money into the government in the form of donations from people wanting more say. It might even motivate lower achievers into achieving more. My goodness, coupled with the FairTax, this plan could super-energize the economy.

With the entitlement-based attitude most people have now, this will never happen.

'Splain somethin' to me...

So the Democrat Party is usually the one that champions the idea of scrapping the electoral college system for electing our president and electing our president through a national popular vote.

Why, then, aren't Democrat supporters smart enough to elect their presidential candidates directly by national popular vote? Moreover, why aren't Democrat supporters smart enough to elect their candidate through just a regular delegate system without fear that so-called super-delegates can just wipe out whatever choice they make?

Hmmm. Seems to me like the Democrat Party has once again confounded their constituency with smoke and mirrors. I reckon whatever they bought their voters' votes for was worth it to them.

Republican presidential campaign...

So, even as a libertarian, I was disappointed that Mitt Romney dropped out of the race yesterday. Why? Because I believe that he was truly the best candidate for president at this time. I'm not thrilled with his position on the FairTax and his history of instituting socialist health care schemes, but he is a businessman, and that's what we need right now.

That said, I think that this dropping out was very smart for at least two reasons. First, he is right that it is time to solidify a national campaign for president now, before the competition splinters the potential vote in manner that causes the Democrat Party's candidate to win. Second, he displayed to us that he is more interested in what the people need rather than what he wants. Do I believe all this politics? Not necessarily, but it's still better than what the Democrats have put up. I'll be looking for Mitt Romney again in 4-8 years.

In stark contrast to Mitt Romney's position of making moves to serve the people rather than his own interests are those firmly rooted in the right wing of the GOP. We're all well aware that John McCain isn't the conservative's conservative. But those that would rather have the Democrat than John McCain are STUPID ASSES. Look, we're on the cusp of having one of the most dangerous people in American politics elected president. It is now the time to unify behind McCain and push him forth. It's apparently what the people want right now, what with is large lead in the Republican primary and all. So, GOP, come down out of your ivory tower and start thinking about what your constituency wants.

There is plenty that doesn't thrill me about McCain's platform, such as his big-government solutions. But as a moderate Republican, he does have broad appeal spanning conservative Democrats and 2/3 of the Republican party. And he will not scuttle this country like another Clinton regime would.

People have asked me why, as a libertarian, I don't vote for the Libertarian Party candidate or even libertarian Republican candidate Ron Paul. I have a lot of admiration for much of the LP candidates' and Representative Paul's platforms. But their positions on the Iraq war turn me away. If we pull out of there now, those religious zealot nutcases WILL bring the war over here, much as they did on 9/11. Better to fight that war over there than on our own soil. Another reason is that I am terrified of the possibility of a Hillary Clinton presidency. Finally, this country has been sliding steadily to the left for the past 80 or so years. To move this country back to the center requires input from the right. Thus, I am voting for the Republican candidate this election.

The morning's anti-Hillary rant

I thought that conservative Oklahoma would have been smart enough to not vote for a socialist for the Democrat nod. I was wrong.

Anyhow, this morning I'm hearing that Hillary's campaign is tapped out. So tapped out that she had loan her campaign $5M from her personal funds. This leads me to two questions:

1. If she can't even run her primary campaign without having to make a moneygrab from somewhere else, how can we possibly expect her to not have to make moneygrabs if she's elected president?

2. If she's so worried about her vision of "equality" and making sure everyone has health care, why isn't she spending her millions buying health care for those that don't have it?

I'm also hearing that many of her campaign's top managers are working without pay, and have been for the last month. So, she's got millions, and people working for her aren't being paid? Don't Democrats usually complain about such income gaps? Hell, people that work for Hillary make less than the Walmart workers that Democrats seem to enjoying championing.

Think about it, people. It's not about what's right and what's wrong here... it's all about the big power grab. This women will stop at nothing to be elected president.

Obama's college tuition support plan

A classic Democrat lack of economic understand here: Barack Obama's plan would give each of our 16M college students $4K per year. That's $64B per year. For those of you with government educations, on average that equates to $300 additional annual burden per taxpayer. That's not even including some ridiculous health care scheme. Hillary was right... those Democrats are going to take things from us: our money. And they wonder why the middle class is struggling (we're going to revisit this one shortly).

The catch? Those receiving the stipend would have to join AmeriCorps. You remember AmeriCorps, don't you? That wonderful invention by Bill Clinton that ended up a corrupt, bloated, wasteful failure. In 2003, it was reported that AmeriCorps violated federal law by hiring more people than they were authorized to, and they spent more money than they were allowed by law. Once again, government can't do things right. And Obama wants to make it bigger. Brilliant.