The myth of the high capacity gun magazine

NBC News personality, David Gregory got into a little hot water Sunday, when he displayed a 30 round capacity magazine while interviewing NRA President , Wayne LaPierre. Oooh. That's a big no-no as Washington D.C. outlawed gun magazines that are capable of holding more than 10 rounds. Mr. Gregory could be in some trouble as NBC claims the magazine wasn't purchased on their behalf for the news show. Is it his own magazine? David is not very pro-gun. So where did he get the magazine? Is it his own? Did he buy it "hot" from the streets. He got some splain'in to do. But I doubt a good liberal like David Gregory will get into much trouble. Somehow he'll walk away from this without even a slap on the wrists. But the bigger question here is about the high capacity magazine itself.

30 rounds. Who needs 30 rounds readily available, right? Well, in places like D.C., N.Y. and California, magazine capacities are regulated and may not exceed 10 rounds. That should be much safer. The logic being employed here is that some nut job couldn't be able to reek as much havoc with magazines that held less ammunition. As a semi-automatic gun owner whose gun magazines hold 15 rounds, I can assure you that I and most people could fire the 15 rounds, eject the empty magazine, reload another magazine and fire an additional 15 rounds in under 20 seconds. 25 seconds on a bad day. The difference is that I as a responsible gun owner am no threat to anyone not threatening me. A misguided nut job can inflict mayhem with one 30 round mag or two 15 round clips. If you think even a 15 round mag is unwarranted, then how about a 10 round one? The time it takes to empty three 10 round mags is longer - but not by much. Perhaps we should max out magazine capacity at 6, like the ol' six shooters of old West. Then again, maybe single shot muskets would be safer yet. Of course we won our Independence from a major world power using muskets, so perhaps they're too lethal as well.

The amount of rounds readily available in any firearm is inconsequential. Its the person using the firearm that matters most. Robert Kennedy was slain with a eight shot capacity .22 caliber gun. His brother, Jack with a 5 round bolt action (non semi-automatic) rifle (Only 3 shots were actually fired). Abraham Lincoln with a single shot Derringer. Martin Luther King died at the hands of a relatively small caliber "pump action" rifle. While large capacity magazines get a lot of attention, they are seldom used in robberies, home invasions or most criminal activities. The tragedy in Connecticut was an exception. Tragic, yes. But still the exception. over 400 people have been murdered in Chicago this year. None by high capacity magazine guns. The criminal element prefers smaller capacity handguns. So-called assault weapon inflicted deaths account for less than 2% of the total gun related deaths. So why is such attention given to what is obviously a minor role player in gun related deaths?

Well, large capacity magazines are scary. And an argument as to who may actually need one is an easy to make - just like a scary looking rifle some insist calling a scary name like "assault" rifle. If you're looking to make inroads into eventually disarming America, you start with the easy low hanging fruit. Once you can ban one type of gun or one kind of magazine, the ball is easier to keep rolling. Next will be certain types of handguns. Certain kinds of rifles, so on and so on. Then one day you wake up and the Feds tell you how long your butter knives are allowed to be. Yeah, it may sound ridiculous. But so is the myth that says we'll all be safer with guns that carry less than 10 rounds.

Amid tragedy, the anti-gun lobby promotes a misguided agenda.

 

 

A madman. Mentally sick perhaps. But definitely a madman. One can only imagine the mind that would plan an attack upon the most innocent of us. 28 people murdered. 20 of them children, their lives snuffed out far too soon. What could motivate someone to such a heinous act? We may never know. In the days and weeks that follow, more information will become available. Though nothing that is learned will change the events and loss of today. And nothing learned will make a bit of sense - because nothing learned could ever validate the act. His motivation known only to him.

It didn't take long for the anti-gun lobby to use this tragedy to advance their agenda. Already they call for more gun control. More limits on weapon purchases. More limits on how much ammunition can be bought. More limits on concealed-carry permits. More this, more that. But nothing they propose would make any difference because nothing they propose will limit evil acts by evil persons - motivated by thoughts so unfathomable, good people could not imagine them. While true, a gun can inflict more damage than most other weapons, more children die each year in the United States by drowning in backyard pools. Yet I hear no outrage that suggests banning pools or at the very least, limiting how much water can be introduced into a pool, or how many pools an individual can purchase in a given month. More children will die in car accidents this year than by guns - far more. And sadly, more children will die this year at the hands of their parents. And in the overwhelming majority of those cases, death wont be administered by a gun. Then why the preoccupation with firearms?

The right to bear arms is sacred. The founding fathers thought so highly of it, they place it only second behind the right to free speech in our constitution. They understood the necessity of a free people to be able to defend themselves against a criminal element and a tyrannical government. In fact, Thomas Jefferson said should he have only one option - he'd choose the right to bear arms over the right to free speech - knowing that the second amendment could secure the first, but not the other way around.

Disturbed individuals will perform disturbing acts. These acts will occur with or without the aid of a firearm. The Oklahoma City bombing of 1995 took 168 lives. Yet no gun was employed in the tragedy. A rental truck and fertilizer did the deed. Evil, deranged individuals will find inventive ways to reek pain and destruction. In 1978, Reverend Jim Jones was the author of 914 deaths by suicide, 200 were children. They willingly followed a madman into death. In 2001, Andrea Yates drowned her 5 children in the family bathtub. In 1994, Susan Smith drowned her own kids by driving her car into a lake, falsely claiming she was carjacked. And these are the high profile cases we've heard about. Many more never get national or international acclaim but their acts are just as shocking and gruesome.

 Professor Emeritus James Q. Wilson, the UCLA public policy expert, says: "We know from Census Bureau surveys that something beyond 100,000 uses of guns for self-defense occur every year. We know from smaller surveys of a commercial nature that the number may be as high as 2 1/2 or 3 million. We don't know what the right number is, but whatever the right number is, it's not a trivial number. Former Manhattan Assistant District Attorney David P. Koppel studied gun control for the Cato Institute. Citing a 1979-1985 study by the National Crime Victimization Survey, Koppel found: "When a robbery victim does not defend himself, the robber succeeds 88 percent of the time, and the victim is injured 25 percent of the time. When a victim resists with a gun, the robbery success rate falls to 30 percent, and the victim injury rate falls to 17 percent. No other response to a robbery – from drawing a knife to shouting for help to fleeing – produces such low rates of victim injury and robbery success." Lesson learned? Bad guys don't like an armed populous.

In Pearl, Miss., a gunman who killed two students and wounded seven at a high school was stopped by an assistant principal, who rushed to his car and got his gun. The assistant principal, running back with his .45, spotted the rifle-carrying shooter in the parking lot. Ordering the teen to stop, the vice principal held his gun to the shooter's neck until police arrived.
 In Salt Lake City, a man purchased a knife in a grocery store, walked outside and stabbed and critically injured two men. He was threatening others, when a store patron with a concealed weapons permit drew his gun, forced the attacker to the ground and held him until police arrived.
 In Grundy, Va., a disgruntled student on the verge of his second suspension at Appalachian School of Law shot and killed the dean, a professor and a fellow student. Two students, both off-duty peace officers, ran to their cars, retrieved their guns and used them to halt the attack.
 No one knows whether Aurora would have turned out differently had there been an armed patron or two inside the theater. But at the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting, where 32 people died, there was a no-guns policy – just as, apparently, at the movie theater in Aurora.

Most schools have a "no gun zone" policy and post signs that say so.  While that may seem to make sense, it doesn't. Crazy people bent on destruction don't give a damn about signs. Those signs just limit sane people from defending themselves and others. Over the next few weeks and months, we'll see proposed legislation at the state and federal level meant to keep us safe from gun related deaths. But what they will produce are new laws that law abiding citizens will be forced to follow and reject nut jobs will ignore. The new laws may make you feel safer but will have little positive effect except to disarm those who should remain armed and vigilant. As for me, I choose to remain armed. I use my firearm as I use my car insurance. I hope never to use or need it. But would not think of moving through life without it.

Obama holds us all hostage. And the ransom is $80 billion

Unless you're living on the dark side of Saturn's moon, Titan - you must know that unless the President and congress agree to a new tax and revenue plan before the end of the year, all of our taxes will go up on January 1st. The President has laid out his plan. It calls for $1.6 trillion in tax increases, $80 billion in new stimulus spending in 2013, $600 billion in new spending programs and a clever budget gimmick that allows the administration to claim money NOT budgeted and NOT spent on the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan to be counted as "savings". In addition, the Emperor er, uh President wants congress to give up their constitutional power to authorize a debt ceiling limit, so he may spend monies above what congress authorizes. Constitution? He don't need no stinking Constitution. I'll say this for the guy - he's got balls.

The big sticking point for Obama appears to be on the tax hike for the top 2%. He wants to take their top tax rate up from 35% to 39%. Since nobody feels sorry for rich people who pay the majority of federal taxes, it hard to garner any sympathy for them. The top 1% pay 37% of the fed's tax bill. The top 5% pay 51%. Still, it's not enough for Barack. If their rates are returned to 39%, it would generate an extra $80 billion a year in federal taxes - roughly enough money to fund the federal government for a week. Hardly seems worth sending us over the cliff for a lousy $80 billion. But Barry says he'll do it. So we're all in jeopardy of having our taxes go up over a stinkin' $80 billion. So what's that all about anyway?

Well, Mr. Obama knows that increasing taxes on the rich wont have any beneficial effect on the country's balance sheet. In fact, it will probably hurt employment opportunities, costing companies revenue. But he's all about "fairness". If I had a dollar for every time I heard him say the word fairness when describing taxes, I could afford to pay the budget deficit myself. He was re-elected on the "fairness platform" and now he's got to reward his legions by following through on that class warfare promise. In exchange for increasing taxes on he job creators, Obama has promised Republicans that he will maybe, probably, perhaps and most possibly make $400 billion in unspecified cuts somewhere down the road...perhaps. All while not addressing entitlement programs that currently have $60 trillion in unfunded liabilities - in other words, money that is promised to people alive today for Social Security and Medicare and other entitlement benefits. News flash: We don't have $60 trillion and neither do the top 2%. It's so bad that if the government confiscated ALL the wealth of people making over $250,000 a year, it would only fund government expenditures for 4 months. Perhaps now you can see how raising taxes on the top 1% or even the top 52% wont solve our financial problems.

The GOP wants to keep the middle class tax rates intact as well as the top 2%. They also want to eliminate numerous tax exemptions and loop holes in exchange for keeping the top rates where their at. In addition, they want to address the entitlement mess by raising Social Security & Medicare eligibility ages for future retirees - just like the President's bipartisan Bowles-Simpson plan suggested. The Republicans also want to lower benefits for the wealthy and possibly employ means testing for the rich in an effort to extend the viability of those programs. You'd think Obama would embrace an offer like that, seeing how he hates the well-to-do so much. But no. He's got his sights on that not-so-massive $80 billion in extra revenue.

This tax situation has exposed Barack Obama to all those who are willing to open their eyes. He has no plan to preserve Social Security and Medicare for future retirees. No new ideas on how to resurrect a stagnant economy unless you like wasting more borrowed money for stimulus. Demonize the rich and play to the poor. Tax more. Spend even more. If this is what you voted for last month - you're an idiot. Sorry. Your class warfare plans won an election but cannot salvage a national fiscal nightmare. Maybe electing a guy who actually had a successful history in business would have been a better choice after all. Even though he was rich.

Gun sales soar post-election. But why?

 

Two weeks ago, I went to the Lehigh County Courthouse to apply for my concealed weapon permit. Yep, it's come to that. Apparently, I'm not the only one who feels threatened. The clerk at the Sheriff's office told me that the day following the November 6th elections, a record for conceal and carry permits set an all time Lehigh County record. Then on Thursday, the record was broken again. On Friday, Thursday's record was broken. I asked the clerk why she thought that was? She said since the explosion of requests directly followed the election - there may be a correlation. But being a government employee, didn't want to elaborate or offer personal opinions. Uh huh.

Two months earlier I bought a new 9mm semi-automatic pistol. I noticed that the gun sales at Cabella's that day appeared to be quite brisk. When I brought that to the gun dealer's attention, he peered over his reading glasses and said; "Yes.Yes, it has". Then added that the majority of the sales were to new gun owners - people who say they have never owned a gun before nor thought they ever would. Sturm-Ruger Firearms, the company that made my 9mm, saw their stock soar. Orders became so fierce that the company announced it will halt taking orders until they catch up on production. And Sturm-Ruger is not alone. Somethings obviously going on here. But what? I've I have owned numerous handguns since 1982. Everything from 22's to a 357 magnum. I enjoyed shooting them and I used them as home protection but sold all of them by the mid-nineties.  But about a year ago, I began seeing things I didn't like. And I bought my first handgun since 1992.

I see the tumult in places like Greece and elsewhere, where a government on the brink of bankruptcy sends people out in the streets. I see a $1 trillion annual deficit here in the United States, up from $480 billion just 4 short years ago. I see an America which refuses to take this economic ticking time bomb seriously. Witness the 2012 Presidential election where a candidate with a horrible economy gets re-elected anyway, by promising even more social spending and wealth redistribution - all paid for with money we don't have. I see violent crime up. And much of that crime by people with no apparent fear or care to their victims. It is quite possible I believe, that we as a nation and then the World, may experience a global financial meltdown. Should that happen, the have-nots will not be content to continue to do without. And they will come looking for those who have. And when they do, they may not ask politely. A family member of mine had an attempted break-in at their home. The attempt came while they were asleep in their beds. Only a late night bathroom visit interrupted the potential intruder. And they don't live in an inner city environment but rather an upscale rural development. My neighbor's home just two doors away had an attempted break-in last year. And this is before any financial crisis. My home is alarmed and now it's armed. The recent power-outages saw people do without the basics for weeks in some cases. Hurricane Sandy victims are still without power and basic services. If the government can't deal with the events of a natural disaster, what will they be able to provide in the event of a much larger catastrophe? I also recently bought an AM-FM-SW radio that operates on solar and crank power in the event of another natural or not so natural disaster. Am I overreacting? Perhaps. But I was a Boy Scout once and I do believe in being prepared. But if I'm overreacting then so are millions of other people.

In the event of a disaster, you need to be able to rely upon yourself. Calling 911 may do you no good. And what seems improbable now may become reality tomorrow. On September 10, 2001, no one imagined that commercial aircraft would be used as missiles. What else may be improbable? And when the improbable happens - will you be able to provide your own security and safety? I'd rather not have to answer that question after an event. And neither should you.

Who is the Latino voter? And what does he want?

In the post-election scramble to find out why a sitting President with Barack Obama's dismal record can re-elected, many are pointing fingers at the emerging latino voter. To be sure, latinos are increasing in numbers and therefore, impact upon local and national elections. But who exactly are these latino voters? First of all, "latino" can mean people with ancestry from countries as far and diverse as Mexico, Guatemala, Puerto Rico and Honduras. Certainly, they can't all have the same agenda. And what is the makeup of the latino vote? In the United States it's mostly Mexican at 65%. Puerto Ricans are 2nd at 10%. The remainder follow in single digits. Most of the Mexican voters are congregated in the Southwest United States. There weren't enough Mexican-American voters in the states Romney lost that could have turned the election.Yesterday, someone suggested to me that Mitt Romney would have won the election had he chosen American born latino Florida Senator, Marco Rubio as his running mate. On the surface, that sounds plausible. But the reality tells a different story.

First, few elections are turned on the Vice-Presidential pick. This one would have be no different. I mean, honestly if that were the case, who would elect anybody with Joe "gaffe-a-minute" Biden on the ticket? Yet, America did. Twice. Secondly, Marco Rubio is of Cuban decent. That doesn't translate well to American-Mexican voters, even though most whites think any Latino in a storm will do. He probably would have secured Florida but that wasn't nearly enough to change the election results.

Many think immigration reform or lack of, is what dooms Republicans. Wrong again. Remember, Barack Obama's crackdown on illegals had sent more illegal aliens back home than Bush ever did. But that didn't seem to hurt him. Besides, Obama promised immigration reform since before he was elected in 2008 and produced nothing. No reforms at all. In fact, after the election it wasn't even on the administration's radar. Clearly, the latino voters weren't upset enough about that.

Regardless of what Republicans do, they seem to lose the latino vote. In 2004, the GOP garnered 44% of the latino vote. In 2004, it dropped to 31%. This year, it fell to 27%. Do they hold the GOP responsible for Obama returning their brethren back home in Border Patrol vans? Perhaps. But granting some sort of amnesty to the illegals doesn't seem to serve the GOP either. In 1986, then President Ronald Reagan essentially granted amnesty to 2 million illegals. Did that action make latinos friendly to the GOP? Nope. The percentage of latinos voting Republican has dropped every year since then. So how does an immigration reform program that asserts any form of amnesty help the GOP? Answer: "It doesn't". But the bigger question remains - what do most latinos want and is the Republican/Conservative ideology the place they can get it?

I hate to lump so many diverse people into any category. Its not fair. However, I believe that latinos are the "new blacks" of the Democratic party - voting almost exclusively Democratic. The numbers show I'm right - though I wish I weren't. Generally speaking, latinos like a significant portion of blacks, are currently on the low end of the spectrum when it comes to earning power. And like a lot of people who have limited income - they tend to vote where they're going to get the most financial assistance. The Democratic party has done quite well in creating and enrolling this segment of the population, then seeing to it that they become dependent registered voters. This isn't racist. These are the numbers. Blacks vote overwhelmingly Democratic. About 95% nationally. In Philadelphia, Obama got 99%. In 59 of Philadelphia's precincts, Romney got 0%. That's almost statistically impossible. Yet it happened.

I hear a lot about the GOP having to "reach out" to latino voters, though I have no idea what that means. If that means that Republicans have to offer more social programs in order to get their vote, then why have a GOP at all? Either the party stands for something or it doesn't. We can't and shouldn't try to out-Democrat the Democrats. They're the pros at the give away system anyway. Latinos have to see the GOP as a party that offers a way to individual excellence and advancement. Again, I'm not lumping all latinos together anymore than I'm lumping all black voters. But the numbers are the numbers. And until we find a way to get the generic latino voter to see that his future is best served by a Republican agenda - we'll continue to see the percentages drop even more. And lose national elections.

Election 2012. How Obama won. And what it means.

                                                                         
The 2012 Presidential election is in the books. Although many of my conservative friend's emotions are running from disbelief to anger. I'll try to make sense of what occurred on November 6th.

First of all,  we can now conclude that a President's on the job record means virtually nothing.  There is no other conclusion to be drawn. Record deficits, mounting debt, 25 million unemployed, 47 million on food stamps, have become acceptable to the majority of Americans. Could you have imagined a President of either party ever getting re-elected with a record of failure like this? Yet he did. Even a still unexplained non-responsive to an embassy attack is fine. Such is the world for the Obamabots. But it goes much deeper than just the idolization of a political figure.

Barack Obama and the Democrats successfully navigated the rocky waters around our economic woes, by changing the terms and subject of the election. Instead of focusing on a failing economy, unkept promises and crushing debt - the story line was changed to bogus arguments concerning class warfare and a brilliantly fabricated 'war on women'. If they could divert enough voters attention away from the obvious concerns of the day, they might win. Sadly, most voters are not that sophisticated and therefore easy to manipulate with 30 second sound bites and a media acting as cheerleaders for the President.  So what's in story for us now?

The makeup of the American electorate is changing. The percentage of married, middle class white voters are being reduced. That drop is being filled with mostly, the emerging Latino population - much of which is being courted by the Democratic Party which promises yet more and more entitlement programs paid with borrowed money. But that only explains part of the problem.
Regardless of race and ethnicity, far too many people are looking to government to solve their problems. Simply put, people like 'stuff '. And they don't seem to care where the money comes from to pay for it, as long as it comes from somebody else higher up in the food chain. That explained why the class warfare tactic worked so well. Forget the fact that returning tax rates back to pre-Bush era for those making over $200,000 will only yield an additional $80 billion a year, when our annual deficit is now $1.1 trillion.

Social Security will go broke by 2032. Medicare's life span is much shorter - 8 - 12 years. No one seems to care. Apparently, rationed government health care is better than paying for it. ObamaCare is now unstoppable. It cannot be dismantled. The next 4 years will see it implemented.  The CBO estimates it will add $1 trillion to the national debt in the next decade. I'm betting that number (as with most government estimates) is off by double that amount. Romney offered solutions. Obama offered fear. Fear won.
With America's changing demographics and dependency attitude, we may never see another Republican President. The electoral map is too difficult to navigate. While Republicans can still hold and grow in congressional and state offices, the Presidency will elude them. Leadership is everything and the agenda will be set by liberal Democrats. America's path is now set. By the end of Obama's 2nd term, the national debt will be at or near $20 trillion. More Americans will be willing to bow at the alter of the federal government for nearly everything. Taxes will be raised on everyone - killing job growth. Annual budget deficits of a trillion dollars will be the new norm. To this scenario on November 6th, a majority of Americans said - "Ok" whether they understood it or not.

This election was the deathblow I fear America cannot recover from. We're blindly headed towards a Western European Socialist-style state. As with most dire changes, it happens slowly, almost undetectable at first. Then before people notice, it becomes entrenched. We are now on our way to Greece, Italy and Spain. Sadly, it didn't have to be this way. But truth became too bitter a pill to swallow for most. Better to enjoy candy on the way to the gallows, I suppose. When the wheels do start coming off just remember, those evil conservatives tried to warn you. But you were sucked in by promises of  everything paid for by the top 1%. But hey, no matter how bad things may get - at least you got your free birth control.

An open letter to the undecided voter

The 2012 Presidential election is drawing near. And although there have been a total of 4 debates, numerous interviews and a plethora of information available on the candidates, some out there have yet to make up their minds. I'm just a guy with a blog. But that makes me no greater nor lesser an "expert" on politics than  the numerous professional talking heads who differ with each other on nearly every subject. The time draws near. Your vote will matter. Let's review.

First, lets have a brief history lesson. With Barack Obama's 2008 election, the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives became in control of the Democratic Party. For the first two years of the Obama administration, the President had his way with every piece of legislation. ObamaCare. DONE! Stimulus package. DONE! Omnibus spending package. DONE! For the first two years of his Presidency it was complete one party rule. And Obama had one hell of a party. Yep, he got everything he wanted. But a funny thing happened on the way to "Recovery summer, 2010". The economy stalled and became stagnant. Unemployment rose. Food stamp usage rose along with it. The GDP plummeted. And who did Barack blame? George W. Bush. Personally, I'd be embarrassed to blame all of my problems on someone else. It makes me look weak and small - an affliction the current President doesn't suffer from. In the 2010 mid-term elections, the country rebelled and gave one of the largest thrashings ever to a party in control. The GOP gained 65 seats, close to a record. Regardless, the blame game continued into 2011. Unemployment rose yet again, Food stamp usage climbed . Poverty approached levels not seen in years. And household income dropped  $2200.00 a year.

In 2012, we saw productivity fall yet again to 1.3% down from the 3.3% it had been two years prior. In fact, it has fallen every year since 2009. 2012 was also the year the administration achieved the dubious honor of 40 straight months of unemployment over 8%. In August, 365,000 simply quit looking for work and food stamp usage rose from 32 million Americans in 2009, to a now staggering 47 million Americans. Real household income dropped $4400.00. The Democratic held Senate has not passed a budget in over 3 years.  The budget deficit was $480 billion when he arrived on the job. Under President Obama it has more than doubled to $1.1 trillion. Also in August, the National debt hit $16 trillion up form the $9 trillion when Mr. Obama took office. All of this, he would have you believe, is either not his fault or is a rousing success story.

In order to gain ground with the women vote, President Obama dictated that health insurance companies provide free contraceptives. To continue to have the Gay vote in his pocket, he announces that he is now for Gay marriage after declaring the exact opposite every year since his arrival on the scene in 2007. At the beginning of his administration, Obama claimed he would close the Guantanamo Bay detention center. Its still open - and with an expensive soccer field manicured for the detainees.

Perhaps you voted for Mr. Obama in 2008 because you thought he was a trans formative figure. Perhaps you didn't like George W. and thought the junior senator from Illinois was a breath of fresh air. Maybe you thought it was a good time for the first black President. Or maybe you had you own good reasons. But 4 years later, can you really make the argument that the country is in better shape than it was? Has the agenda Mr. Obama put in place made the country a better place for businesses to grow, achieve and hire? Do you honestly think that asking the top 10% of wage earners to pay some more, will balance an annual  $1.1 trillion short fall? Social Security & Medicare are in serious difficulty. The President offers no plan on what he would do to solves these massive problems. None. Entitlements are not something he wishes to address or trim. He'd rather play the class warfare card and hope no one notices that he has had an epic fail at an epic cost. We deserve better than pretty speeches, old rhetoric and failed policies revisited. We deserve someone who has actually created jobs in the private sector and understands that those jobs are created by risk taking individuals, not government. We deserve someone who will address the hard issues and take a stand to preserve the institutions we rely on. We deserve a leader, not a theoretical tactician whose political agenda is to divide in order to pursue his goals. We deserve Mitt Romney. To choose otherwise at this point, is to deny reality in favor for bland, outmoded slogans. Barack Obama has had his chance. It is time to move forward... without him.

How to be a millionaire in one easy step.

Okay. This may be a tad personal, but I'm going to ask anyway. 'Are you a millionaire?' No? Well, don't be too upset - the overwhelming majority of people aren't millionaires either. But that doesn't mean you can't make yourself a millionaire. 'What do you mean make your self a millionaire?' It happens more than you think and it is sooo easy. In fact, you can perform this tasks in easy step with one simple equation. Allow me to elaborate.

We all know that the federal government likes to play fast and loose with numbers. For instance, unemployment goes down - but mostly because people quit looking for jobs. (365,000 in August, for instance.) That explains the U6 numbers for unemployed/underemployed remain the same at 14.5%. Then there's the counting of $500 billion dollars removed from Medicare and given to Obamacare, counting it twice then claiming a "savings" of $1 trillion. Pretty nifty, huh. However, that wont make you a millionaire, just a felon should you try that sort of math on your next 1040 form. No, I'm talking about making a million by not spending a million. Now follow closely, here goes.

President Obama claims that at least $800 billion will be saved (and therefore available to spend elsewhere) by not spending that money on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sounds pretty good, right? Here's the problem. That money was never allocated. It was never funded. It was never going to be spent anyway. So how can you save that money? Answer? You can't. That's like saying you saved $90.00  by not buying those cute shoes you saw at Bon-Ton. You now fooled yourself into believing you have magically found $90.00! If you can perform that kind of fiscal magic with footwear, just imagine what you can do with a budget? In Washington, money not spent becomes money saved. And here's where the part about you being a millionaire comes in. I have recently decided not to buy a $1 million home. Therefore, I have actually saved $1 million. Or to put it another way, if I have curtailed my spending by $1 million, I must have saved myself $1 million. And to think, I didn't like math when I was in school.

These are the mathematical tactics used in Washington by people who are supposed to be so much smarter than you and I. They're not. They're just more imaginative - with our money. When you step in dog poop and somebody tells you its ice-cream - don't reach for a spoon. Just scape your shoe against the curb - because you should know crap when you hear it, smell it or step in it. There's a lot of foul smells coming out of D.C. these days. And its important that you know that even dog crap sprayed with Chanel #5,  is just dog crap covered up with expensive perfume, designed to make you see one thing but smell another.

Obama says high gas prices are a good sign. Huh?

During this weeks Presidential debate, President Obama made a comment that nearly made my skin shed. Regarding high gas prices, he said that the reason gas prices were so low ($1.90 a gallon) in 2009 when he took office, was because the economy was so bad. His logic, I assume, is that at $3.75 a gallon today, the economy is humming along. If pressed, I could probably think of something stupider to say, but for now focus on the comment made by the President.

The price of eggs are up 73%. Apple juice increased  43% and coffee 90%.  Corn based products are up 40%. Health care insurance up 35%. Apparently all of these increases are due to an economy that is just super! At least that's the story he's peddling. Only in an Obama World could that line of logic make sense. Silly me, I thought stable prices with modest increases were good. But not everything has gone up. Take a look at your home value. And even with historically low interest rates, homes just aren't selling and foreclosures reached record levels. Lets not even discuss your 401-k. Yep, if high gas prices are a sign of a booming economy, then the other things I mentioned must mean we're on our way to economic Nirvana!

I don't mind a politician lying to me. Hell, they do it all the time. I just don't want them to think I'm stupid. And judging by that ass-backwards logic Barry tried to lay on me - he must think I'm as daft as a retarded Spyder monkey on crack. I'm not. And don't let him think you are either.

Obama's recovery... isn't

The updated GDP (Gross Domestic Product) numbers are in and they ain't good. The government says the GDP is now revised down from 2.2% to 1.3%. To put that in comparison, the GDP was 3.3 in Bush's last year. That 3.3% was then called a recession. But the anemic 1.3% under Obama is considered a recovery. Go figure. Then again, unemployment under Bush's 8 year tenure averaged 5.25%. Just above the hallowed 5.2% under Clinton. It hasn't been that low since Bush left office but the President says the "private sector is doing just fine."  Apparently, the smartest man who's ever been President isn't real good at math.
The President labeled the summer of 2010 as "Recovery Summer."  That didn't work out too well, so they didn't name the summer of 2011 or 2012 anything. Good move. On "Late night with David Letterman", the President didn't even know how much the national debt was. ($16 trillion). Imagine a Republican getting away with that. They wouldn't. But Barack does.

After getting his $800 billion stimulus package, the $400 billion Omnibus spending bill and Obamacare passed through his, then veto-proof Democratic House and Senate, Obama claims he now needs 4 more years of the same to bring America roaring back. Are any of you liberals out there really buying into this? Honestly? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Liberal, white guilt put Obama in power 4 years ago and it may keep him there till 2017. But failure is not a basis for re-election. If nothing is done, the National Debt will be $20 trillion by the end of Obama's second term. Medicare will have only 6 or 7 more years of solvency and Social Security will be marching toward its own insolvency by 2032. This President doesn't even talk about those problems unless its to lambast the Republican's ideas. The absence of your own proposals is not a substitute for an agenda.

There's an old saying; "when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging." The President is not only continuing to dig, but he's now using a steam shovel. He now says more borrowing is the answer, along with making the rich pay even higher taxes - not in an effort to reduce the debt, but to make things "fair".  Making people feel as though they are part of those being treated unfairly, is the apparent re-election philosophy of the Obama campaign. It may work. We'll find out shortly enough. Regardless, the GDP is still at 1.3% despite the massive spending and broken promises of four years ago. And should Mr. Obama win election - just look at the mess he's going to inherit.

The intolerance of liberalism.

My neighbor told me the story of how another motorist passed her, then shot her the finger for no apparent reason. Deciding she needed an explanation - she drove after the guy and caught up at him at the next stoplight. She rolled down her window and asked what was the problem. Embarrassed, he admitted he didn't like her "Romney" bumper sticker. In a similar story passed on to me, a woman was confronted by an Obama supporter who ranted and raved at her while she parked her car. She also had problems with a Romney bumper sticker. I've personally encountered people yelling things at me back in 2004 when I sported a Bush decal. If people had a problem with my Romney sticker, they've kept quite. Apparently they are much more respectful when they see the NRA sticker on my car as well.

Liberals love tolerance. They preach tolerance for virtually everything - as long as it's in their belief system. If it runs counter to their beliefs, they'll label you a racist, woman hater, homophobe or any number of other convenient  insults. Apparently tolerance is a one way street to them. For instance, they will tolerate a flag burning as free speech. But if you decide to show support of the Chik-fil-A CEO to voice his traditional view of marriage - you're a homophobic troglodyte.

Bill Mahr along with other high profile liberals can call Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter and any number of Conservative women, b**ches, c**nts, mindless tw*ts, sluts and meat bag whores. Conservative commentator, Michelle Malkin has been called the "Subic Bay bar girl", and "Manilla whore". She takes it in stride saying: "I've been called a whore so many times (Huffington Post), I'm beginning to think its my middle name." Matt Taibbi, now of Rolling Stone magazine, who mocked her early championing of the tea party movement by jibing: “Now when I read her stuff, I imagine her narrating her text, book-on-tape style, with a big, hairy set of (redacted) in her mouth. It vastly improves her prose.” Nice, huh.  Incredible tolerance for those who hold a differing viewpoint. Rush Limbaugh makes one errant remark about Sandra Fluke being slutty (in reference to her need for free birth control) and the whole world stops - demanding he be taken off the air. Bill Mahr donates $1 million to the Obama campaign and liberals applaud his vulgar attacks as free speech.

Liberals have ton of tolerance for a woman who decides to abort her baby, but none at all for the dead baby. Should you speak up for the baby's right to life, you are a woman hating hate mongerer for denying a woman's right to choose  - to murder a baby. Conversation over.

Tea Party members have been called the worst of the worst. I refuse to reprint here the slings and arrows they've been called. But remember this; when the Occupy Wall Street crowd were, well occupying - there were reported rapes, drug use, public defecation and outright violence upon persons and property in almost every city they occupied. When the Tea Party holds rallys, they leave the property cleaner than when they arrived. (See the Washington Mall rally photos before & after) And there has never been an arrest at any Tea Party rally anywhere - even when confronted by opposition persons who try and get a response so they can post it online as proof of Tea Party intolerance. Nice try, losers.

Liberals aren't interested in true tolerance or exchange of ideas. Witness what happens when a conservative tries to address a gathering at a college campus. They are shouted down. Sometimes so much that the guest speaker has to leave without speaking - often in fear for their safety. (Ann Coulter at the University of Connecticut. Daniel Pipes, University of California-Irvine. Bill Krystol, University of  Texas. Star Parker, Penn State. David Horowitz, University of Emery. ) When challenged, liberals act like Muslims upset over a cartoon of Mohammed. Makes you wonder what they're so afraid of? I'm guessing "facts & logic".

Liberals believe we must have tolerance for an "artist" whose works include a painting of the Virgin Mary covered in elephant dung and a crucifix in a bottle of urine. The New York Times stated; “A museum is obliged to challenge the public as well as to placate it, or else the museum becomes a chamber of attractive ghosts, an institution completely disconnected from art in our time.”
 However, the Times has now decided that being disrespectful of Islam is apparently different than those exhibits stating about the recent movie about Islam; "Whoever made the film did true damage to the interests of the United States and its core principle of respecting all faiths."  Perhaps if the film were shown at the New York Metropolitan Museum, it would be "art". Then again, probably not.

Its easy to be a liberal. All you have to do is first, see everyone (except those you disagree with) as victims. Secondly, show tolerance for everything. (Again, except those you disagree with) Third, be open to every lifestyle, every act, every manner of living - hold no standards. Hey! It's a free-for-all! No standards, no judgement. Be exclusive. Don't tolerate disagreement. Allow emotion to dictate policy. Believe in the collective.

Conservatism is harder. There are rules. There are ideals. There are standards. There are constants. Logic outweighs infantile emotion.  Belief in the individual. Responsibility, personal and otherwise. While liberals describe compassion as how many people are on government assistance, conservatives describe compassion as to how many people don't need it. Conservatism is inclusive. We take all like minded members. We don't care, even former liberals. We don't shout down our opponents. We don't have to. Conservatism is...tolerant.

This post is not intended to annoy any of my liberal friends. I see you as an individual before I see you as an ideology. Perhaps that shows my tolerance. And in return, I ask only for the same.

Minority report. Obama has failed you, and played you.

Are you a woman? Black? Hispanic? Young? Gay?  In 2008 when you pulled that magic lever for Barack Obama, did you think he was the panacea for all your woes? Did he speak to you - almost on a personal level? Did you feel as though he was such a trans formative figure that by shear force of being, all of your woes and the rest of the downtrodden would disappear? How's that working out for you? It's been almost four years since the confetti was swept from the floor at the DNC convention in Denver. Those Styrofoam Greek columns are now (slowly) decaying in some land fill but we're left with the real cleanup. Let's check some of your "expectations" against the reality we've been handed.

Are you black?

Well, I guess having a brother in the White house isn't all you thought it would be, is it. Then again, he's only half black. The level of black Americans in poverty has risen. Waaaaay up. Of course, that also comes with increases in food stamp usage so its not all bad. Black unemployment is now 13.6%. When you factor in those who have given up looking for work, its closer to 20%. Those numbers have barely budged under this administration. In fact, it was a tad lower under George W. Bush and he hated blacks, didn't he? Wow. I wonder how much Barack hates you? The High School dropout rate for blacks is 53%. So much for Barack inspiring a new generation. Face it - government can't raise our kids regardless of color. That's done by parents. When we finally get over this government should save us attitude, we'll all be better off. As a Conservative, I want everyone of every color to have the same opportunity.  And I want all Americans to excel to the best of their abilities. Your lot has not improved.

Are you Gay.

As a Conservative, I don't give a damn as to your sexual preference and identity. If your a consenting adult, its none of my business what you do, whom you do it with or who you love. I'm happy to have you as a friend, neighbor or co-worker. I've broken bread with you in your home as well as mine. I don't see you as Gay. I see you as "you". If you think that means I don't feel your pain, your right. I can never know the prejudices you've encounter. But it doesn't mean I condone it or accept it. I don't. But I wont pander to you either. If you believe in Gay marriage, I respect that. But I respectfully disagree. President Obama had a change of heart about Gay marriage this Spring - right in time for his re-election bid. In 2008, he stated that "Marriage is and always must remain, between one woman and one man. This is my belief". A few months ago he had an epiphany regarding Gay marriage. Convenient, wasn't it. You're being used by his election machine. He cares about your vote. That's all. And he doesn't have the power to legalize Gay marriage anyway. Only the states can do that. You are hitching your wagon to a horse that can't and wont run. After election night, he wont even remember your name.

Are you a woman?

You've come a long way, baby! How are you enjoying those free birth control pills? That's all you ever really wanted. right? Oh sure, a job would be nice too. But come on, be realistic. Things are bad, baby. You know you earn less than a man and Barack meant to help you but...things just didn't work out. If you're a married woman you know how hard it is to feed your family nowadays. Food prices up. Even getting to the store costs more now as gas is up from $1.90 a gallon in 2009 to $3.78 today. Barack meant to do more for you but he was so busy in 2009 and 2010 pushing his health care reform, that he just didn't have time for you. Kinda' like your husband. Barack talks the talk, then he walks...away. Dump this loser, ladies.

Are you Hispanic?

You thought those horrible Republicans want deport all of your illegal brethren. But wait, do you know Barack has deported more illegal immigrants than Bush did? In fact, deportations are way up. I thought he liked you guys? Its so confusing. Latino unemployment is 11.0%. Again, when you count those who have stopped looking for work, its closer to 19%. The fastest and clearest path to success is an education, training and a job - regardless of race. You're being "race baited". Don't let anybody do that to you.

Are you young?

Whether you belong to any of the above categories or not - this one is the absolute worst to belong to. Why? Well lets look at the math. Unemployment among American youth is an abysmal 38% in the 20 to 24 age group. Ages 16 to 19 is 71.1%. New College graduate rate of unemployment is 50%. Hope you like Mom & Dad, cause' you may be spending your entire 20's with them. Maybe more. You may have loved "Occupy Wall Street". But you're more likely to "Occupy Mom & Dad's Basement". Even if you're lucky enough to get a job, your wages will be depressed. But that's not the worse of it. You will be inheriting the largest amount of debt ever saddled upon a generation. Our current $16 trillion debt will have to be paid off by someone. That someone is you, Princess. And its quite possible that in order to satisfy that debt as quickly as possible, some bright politician will suggest hyper-inflation as a way to do it. Try not to think about it. It's too depressing even for me. While people in their 40's and older will demand that their Social Security and Medicare benefits remain unchanged, you'll be the ones who will continue to foot the bill. And without reforms, there will be a bare bones (if any) Social Security and Medicare entitlement for you. But Obama refuses to even discuss entitlement reforms or reduce spending. Simply put - you're screwed.

Your future isn't tied to a party that offers sympathy for you because your simply too downtrodden to excel on your own. You are much more than black, white, latino, Gay or any other category. Don't be "played". Don't be bought. Hope & Change was a great slogan. It could mean virtually anything to anybody. But the reality is that results have been ineffective and costly. The ideology is flawed.When November 6th comes around, take inventory of the promises, the results and the burdens of the last four years. Vote as if you are in control of your future. Because you are.

Writer's note: Last month saw the largest surge in my blogs readership, doubling the previous high water mark. Thanks.

Our National debt and the Chinese military.

There's a biblical proverb that says; "The borrower is the servant to the lender." True words, no doubt. It can be argued that certain types of debt are better than others. A mortgage for instance, can be a good debt as the value of the home (usually) increases as the debt decreases. Credit card purchases? Uh, forget it. Chances are whatever you bought on them has depreciated drastically. If those are personal debts, what about National debts.

Currently, our national debt stands just over $16 trillion. Four short years ago, it was $9 trillion. See how fast it can grow? Annually, our budget deficit is $1.1 trillion. Meaning we borrow 40 cents of every dollar we spend. And interest? We spend about $500 billion in interest payments alone. If you think your personal debt is important, and it is, debt by countries has even more devastating and farther reaching effects. Consider this. Half of our national debt is held by foreigners. The majority of that is held by the Chinese. If the People’s Republic carries on buying American debt at the rate it has in recent times, then within a few years U.S. interest payment on that debt will be covering the entire cost of the Chinese armed forces.  In 2010, the Pentagon issued an alarming report to Congress on Beijing’s massive military buildup, upgrading bombers, and an aircraft carrier research and development program intended to challenge U.S. dominance in the Pacific.  What the report didn’t mention is who’s paying for it. America. If that doesn't alarm you, go back and read that last paragraph again. Go ahead. I'll wait here.

Every time some politician in Washington promises to extend unemployment benefits, we borrow money from Beijing so they can build a new jet aircraft. Every time Washington spends stimulus money that we don't have, the Chinese use that money to build another naval ship. Get the picture? I hate to say this, but only America would be stupid enough to fund its largest military and economic adversary. Even the Romans didn't buy the spears and fund the Barbarians and Vandals.  But Americans want their stuff (entitlements) and apparently don't care from whom we get the money to fund it with. While our current administration wants deeper U.S. military cuts -  it funds Bejing's through debt. Brilliant.

For most people, the idea of a $16 trillion debt is something they just don't care to wrap their head around. Its a big number. And the average person just can't relate to that size figure. After all, if you're doing fine economically why do you care about all that outstanding debt to the Chinese Army? And make no mistake - that's mostly where our interest payments along with the principle are going. Eventually we're going to run out of money to pay the interest on our debt because Washington and the average American, show no interest in changing their ways. But don't worry. Because by the time that happens, the U.S. military will be a shell of its former self and overshadowed by the new and more lethal Chinese military that we funded.
America could never fall at the hands of an invading Army. Instead we will fund it. And in doing so, seal our fate as a "former Superpower".

Rome had the circuses to distract the people's minds from impeding doom. Today in America, we have our iPads, smartphones and satelite TV. But no matter how we try to distract ourselves from our impending doom, the result will be the same. Most Republics are destroyed in this matter - from within. I am often reminded of the words of the great 19th Century French admirer of America, Alex Tocqueville. “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”  If any of those words ring familiar - good, you're paying attention.

An invitation to those considering voting for Obama. Consider this...

Imagine you sit on the board of a business. You and the other board members hire an a new CEO who by way of his words and demeanor inspires you to hire him. His lofty words actually make you feel good about his abilities, even though he's never run a business of any kind before. In fact, he's never held a leadership position in his life. But you feel this guy just might have that something special, so you hire him.

 Since the company wasn't doing well in the last quarter before he took the reins, you give him a little leeway.  Perhaps a lot of leeway. But hey, you're willing to try just about anything to right the ship - even if it means spending a lot a money that your company doesn't have. The debt you're incurring is quite high - more than the company has ever seen. But your new CEO tells you that its quite necessary. In fact, if you don't institute his company saving programs, the company may sink completely and every employee could lose their job. The company credit cards are maxing out but the new CEO insist that this is a tact that must be implemented to secure the future of the company. You wonder how you're ever going to pay off those cards. And you know that the next generation of owners will be responsible for it, long after you're gone. It will be quite a burden for them but hey - that's their problem, I suppose. Besides, if we can get this company back on solid footing - things may be better for them. You hope against hope.

After a few years, things get progressively worse. The new CEO blames the previous CEO. And while the new guy did walk into a bad situation - his way of dealing with the problem, has made it worse. Your employees are being let go. The company debt mounts. And the only response the CEO offers is to divert blame elsewhere. Instead of accepting responsibility, he employs tactics such as demonising any other employee who dares to question his authority and plans. He knows the board isn't happy with his performance and his contract is about to expire. In fact, the board has been interviewing prospective replacements. After a lengthy search, they settle on a guy who has an extensive background in business. His track record is actually quite good and he appears to be an outstanding citizen. Once, he even saved a winter business in Utah and didn't take any money for the job he did. He didn't really need the money though. He's done quite well for himself. Yep, the board members are taking a closer look at the new guy. Looks like he just might be what the company needs. He wants the company to stop spending money the company doesn't have. He wants to implement programs that will save money while saving popular employee benefits for current employees as well as future employees. And this guy has actually been in leadership positions before. Quite a pedigree to be sure.
But the current CEO isn't going away quietly. He knows he hasn't done very well the last few years and there's no way he can make the board members forget about that. Instead he decides to ruin the reputation of his prospective replacement - though that's proving harder than he thought. But he wont stop trying. After all, what choice does he have? He can't hope to keep his job based upon his past performance. Especially since he's already told the board that if he's re-hired, he'd like to continue employing the same business model he's already used.

Okay. You got me. I'm talking about the choice this November between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. But you already knew that. (I can't pull the wool over your eyes, can I?) But President Obama is hoping he can. Listen, I know some of you out there are so melded to your affection for this guy, that you can't imagine voting for anyone else. But this isn't a high school class President election we're talking about here. This is about the future and direction of the country. Clearly, the path of more debt and an ever growing federal government isn't working. Neither is ignoring the bubble that's going to burst when Medicare becomes insolvent in 8 to 10 years. Mr. Obama has no plans whatsoever to deal with this and similarly important problems. Expanding an entitlement state has never worked anywhere else in the world, unless your end goal is to bankrupt a nation. We have very serious problems to be addressed. And Mr. Obama has had his chance to deal with them. He has failed in every measurable way. You know it. I know it and I imagine the majority of voters will show their displeasure as well this November. The CEO needs to be replaced. Not because we hate him. Not because we don't like his wardrobe. But because he has failed to right a ship in turbulent waters. It's time for a new approach. It's time to admit an error in our judgement was made 4 years ago. It's time to consider if ideology is all that matters to you. Or are results important too. It's time to consider Mitt Romney.

Separation of church & state. Think you know what that means? Guess again.

If you ask most people where the phrase; separation of church and state comes from, they'll most likely tell you that its in the constitution. Wrong. Okay, it must be in the Declaration of Independence then, right? Wrong. Want another crack at it ? Magna Charta maybe. Uh, nope. And neither is it in your Avis rental car agreement. Liberals just love to quote that phrase - as though its some kind of mantra that brings you internal wisdom and peace. But like so many other things we weren't taught correctly - if at all, the origin of that phrase is not quite what we thought it was and not quite what we thought it meant.

Back when the constitution was crafted, the individual state constitutions laid down the law regarding church and state. Hard to believe but as late as 1833 ( almost 50 years after the drafting of the Constitution) certain states actually had religious requirements as to who could hold elected and public offices. North Carolina's constitution said that a person who denied the being of God or belief in the old and new testament, could not hold public office. Several states required an officeholder to be Protestant. The founding fathers were careful not to step on this right of states to choose their own religion. They even spelled it out in the federal agreement between the states, promising that Congress would never try to usurp their power by establishing it's own national religion. They also promised that the federal government would never pass a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. So, instead of separation of church and state, there is a clear protection of religious expression outlined in the U.S. Constitution. The separation is clearly between the states and the federal government. Don't get me wrong. I think having a state religion in any of our states is a bad idea, but the Constitution clearly leaves that up to the states, not the federal government.

The phrase separation of church and state is in fact, as liberals like to point out, from the pen of Thomas Jefferson. However, they conveniently leave out the all important context. In 1802, the Connecticut state religion was Congregationalism, and they petitioned the president for aid in religious disestablishment, which Jefferson himself had advocated as Governor of Virginia. The Danbury Baptists were disappointed when the president failed to intervene on the grounds that the federal government was strictly forbidden from interfering in state matters. Although Jefferson used the phrase "a wall of separation between church and state" in that letter to the Danbury Baptists, one must read the full text to grasp it meaning. The statement reads, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state". The "state" to which he referred is clearly Congress, which he called the 'legislature'. The First Amendment clearly prohibits Congress from getting involved in the establishment of a national religion for obvious reasons - Congress is prohibited from doing so because that right was reserved for the states alone.

It should be noted that the president did nothing to help the Baptists in their effort, because he did not believe the federal government had a role in this state right. If the federal government did have a role to play, then why was no action taken against the states which had a religious litmus tests even 50 years after the Constitution was established? Also wrongly reported is that Jefferson was an atheist. Not true. In fact he attended a religious service the very day he wrote the Danbury letter. Though he did not belong to a specific church, he was devoted to the idea that our rights come to us from God, not government or man. If that sounds familiar, its because he wrote something quite similar and placed it in the Declaration of Independence. Check it out - its pretty easy to spot. The separationists have so bastardized the the religious establishment clause that they now consider any hint of religion in any government sector to be a violation of the Constitution. As someone whose actually read the Constitution, it frustrates me when I hear that phrase attached to the Constitution because its just not there. However, it is in the old Soviet Union's constitution. How's that for irony?

How rich is rich? And can one of "them" really be a good President?

Have you noticed? Its open season on rich people. You know, those horrible filthy rich people who light their cancerous cigars with $100 bills and wipe themselves with the same - all while laughing at the homeless. And when they're not shopping on Rodeo Drive - they just love kicking puppies. Hardly the type of people you'd want to hold elected office, right? Well, before we start building the gallows from which to execute the wealthy, maybe we should find out exactly who these wealthy are.

First, let's define - "rich". How much money must someone make in a year before they qualify as rich. The average yearly salary in the U.S. is $43,460.00. Meaning half the people earn over that amount and half under that amount. If you earn $26,000. a year, the guy making that $43,460.00 might be rich to you - though I seriously doubt he thinks so. Is $90,000 a year rich? Hmmm. Probably not. Especially if you live in a place like New York City or almost anywhere in California. $90,000.00 a year in those places is like earning half that almost anywhere else in the U.S.  Surely $250,000.00 a year is rich. That must be the magic number because that's the number the President wants to raise taxes on - which will produce an extra $83 billion a year. Even $83 billion sounds like a lot until you realize that's about the amount of money the federal government spends in 9 days. Yes - NINE DAYS. Forget balancing the budget on the backs of the so-called rich.

A lot has be written about the wealth of Republican Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney. Yep, he's rich alright. To the tune of about $200 million or so. He's also quite philanthropic. Though the Mormon Church asks their members to tithe 10%, Romney gives far more, roughly 18% of his income to charity according to Forbes. And his beneficiaries are quite diverse - from "AIDS Action" to the Wright Brothers Museum. In 1995, he inherited millions from his father, former CEO of American Motors. Do you know what he did with all that dough? He gave it away. Every...last...dime.  If Mitt Romney is greedy, he's sure bad at it.The political left often decries that a rich man just can't identify with the average American and therefore shouldn't be President. Well, before you go logging on to that misguided logic - check out the all time richest U.S. Presidents.

Adjusted to 2012 dollars.  John Tyler was the 10th wealthiest with $51 million. FDR, the "New Deal" patriarch of the poor was worth $60 million. Not too shabby for a big government semi-Socialist.  The rest follow;
No. 8 - Herbert Hoover, $75 million.
No. 7 - LBJ, $98 million.
No. 6 - John Madison, $101 million.
No. 5 - Andrew Jackson, $119 million.
No. 4 - Teddy Roosevelt, $125 million
No. 3 - JFK, $125 million. (Though he lived off his Trust Fund his entire life.)
No. 2 - Thomas Jefferson, $212 million
No. 1 - George Washington, $525 million. He is the only president who is sometimes included in rankings of the 100 wealthiest Americans. Washington also achieved something Mr. Romney never will: In 1789, his salary was 2 percent of the total US budget.

Some pretty note worthy Presidents up there - no matter what party you support or ideology you embrace. Had John Kerry been elected in 2004, he would have popped in right after Washington. Had John Edwards been President, he'd be right after Teddy Roosevelt. Notice Ronald Reagan nor either Bush made the top ten list. They weren't even close.Washington was quite wealthy, yes. But while he could have enjoyed his wealth and lived quite profitably no matter what government was in place - he left his home and battled the British for 8 long years, only going home to Virginia a few times during the Revolution. He lived among the men he led. He was loved, respected and adored by those he asked much of. And yes,he was rich. It didn't seem to matter. At one point in the battle of Germantown, his uniform jacket endured 4 bullet holes, none touched him. He had 4 horses shot out from under him. Rather than stay warm and cozy on his Virginia plantation, he led the surprise attack on the Hessian's at Trenton in 1776 and in doing so - saved the Continental Army and the cause. And when his country needed him again, he reluctantly became the United States first President. That's right. He didn't really want the job. But his country needed him and he responded. After two terms, he left the Presidency for his Virginia farm. Napoleon said that Washington must be a great man to leave the Presidency and such power voluntarily. And as mentioned,Washington was rich. Perhaps it not the accumulated wealth that really matters. Perhaps its what one does in such a position of wealth. Perhaps wealth is a sign of personal success that might translate to Presidential success - or perhaps not. Either way, its the person that really matters. His, or her ability to lead, to promote the American message and ideal. To preserve and execute  the documents that must remain the foundation of our country. To uphold the truths that are eternal and to pass on those cherished truths to generations yet unborn. That is what ultimately matters. We used to call it "character". We used to require it of our leaders. Perhaps we need to again.

Sub note: Thanks to all of you who take the time to read my blog, whether you agree with my posts or not. According to Google, my blog posts have been downloaded and   read in Canada, Germany, The Netherlands, Belarus, Russia, United Kingdom, Ukraine, China, Brazil, Australia and of course the U.S. I think one of the guys in Russia might be Putin but ...probably not.

If only the rich paid more in taxes, all our problems would be solved. Right?

Damn rich people. If they only paid more in taxes, we wouldn't be in this financial mess we have. Right? Well, before we have the debate about who should pay more in taxes, lets define "rich".

President Obama's plan to save the country from financial ruin, calls for people earning over $250,000 to pay more in taxes. Great, right? Well, exactly who are these people? A great number of them are small businesses who pay tax at the individual rate. They may have gross revenues of $250,000 or even $800,000 but they have to pay their employees salary, benefits, insurance, utilities, rental space and every else thing involved with running their business out of that amount. Usually, the boss is the last person to get a check. It would not be unusual to have a business with say, $300,000 in annual revenue not turn a profit - it happens all the time, especially now a days. These are a large part of the newly discovered rich people the President wants to raise taxes on. You know, the actual job creators. And how do you think an increased tax burden will affect their decision making regarding expanding and/or hiring new employees?

Then there are the disgusting rich. These people usually earn  $1 million a year. Impressive, huh. Unfortunately for us there are only 235,413 people who fall into that category according to the IRS. The number of people earning over $10 million annually is 8274. For comparison, 97% of wage earners reported less than $200,000 a year. The average income is $54,283 - a drop of over 6% since 2008. There just doesn't seem to be enough "rich people" out there to bail us out of this mess.

However, the top 1% pay 28% of the tax burden. The top 20% pay 69%. A Tax Foundation survey found 56% of Americans think the amount of federal income tax they pay is too high. Those most likely to feel that way, according to the survey, include those making between $35,000 and $50,000. But here's the kicker - nearly 48% of Americans pay NO federal income taxes at all. We're at a tipping point where soon more people in America will not pay federal taxes, than those who do. And as you saw above, the rich can't bail us out.

Here's another bit of abstract thinking. If ALL the income from people earning over $250,000 a year were confiscated by the government - and I mean ALL of it, the money generated would only fund the federal government for 5 months. And it would still not reduce our $16 trillion national debt a penny. Plus we'd still run an annual deficit of $800 billion, which is twice what it was when Obama took office. And remember, thats if we took it all. Still think the rich are our problem?

Today 100 million Americans receives some sort of entitlement from the government - that's a third of us. And that does not include Social Security and Medicare payments. That is unbelievable. But the really scary part is, its unsustainable. No matter who tells you the problem is those rich people and their tax loopholes, they're dead wrong. The problem is a government who can't control it's purse strings and a population who has grown up with an entitlement mentality. If you want a sneak peak at our future, take a look at Europe. Like what you see?

No one would deny that a financial safety net needs to be in place for those less fortunate. But the idea that all our wants, needs and desires can be paid for by a bankrupt government who promised far too much than it could ever deliver - needs to end. We are out of money and even scarier, we're running out of time. The class warfare mentality may be great for liberal Democrats looking for re-election, but it will deny the reality of the situation and have future generations incur massive debt. (And your grand children thought you loved them) We are currently borrowing 40 cents of every dollar the feds spend. Most of that goes to China who buys our debt via treasury notes that we have to pay interest on. Hey liberals, what part of this are you not understanding? I know you hate the rich but come on. You can't raise the status and standard of living of the poor by dividing an ever dwindling money pie. Opportunity, upward mobility, hard work, drive, risk taking and most importantly - capitalism, have enabled all of us the ability (not the guarantee) of success. Redistribution of wealth has never brought the standard of living up for the lower classes. Never. Want proof? Since LBJ's Great Society program of the 1960's, trillions have been spent on social engineering the poor out of poor. Yet the poverty rate has risen from 14% in 1965 to now 17% under Barack Obama's tenure. 40 million more Americans receive welfare than before Mr. Obama took office. Ever notice how he never talks about spending less, always more - on nearly ... everything!
I am left to conclude that either he actually wanted more Americans to take advantage of entitlement programs or he is simply an incompetent fool in a job that is way over his head. Either way, the methods and philosophy has failed miserably and your kids are stuck with the tab. This brand of Hope & Change has failed. And unless we change the course, I'd stock up on canned goods and ammunition.

The War on Religion. And how the haters have it so wrong.

Have you ever heard how religion has been the cause of most of the World's problems, deaths and general mayhem? Yeah, me too. It makes for cute little bumper sticker-ish quotes, but whoever authors those witty and yes, hateful remarks - they must be real bad at math. So I will hold a little arithmetic course along with a basic World History class right here.
It is true that there are those who have used violence in the name of their religion. Witness the Crusades.  But if you have to go back 1000 years to make your point about hateful Christians, you may want to buy a new calendar. There of course was 911. This time hateful Muslims. And at various times extremists of nearly every religion have exploited faith for their own designs and purposes. Religion was not the problem. The exploitation by those masquerading as the devout faithful was. But I stray too far from my point. I promised you a math class, didn't I. Sharpen your number 2 pencils and get ready. Here we go.

Religion has been the cause of most of the world's violent deaths. WRONG. Oppressive regimes have been the cause of most of the World's violent deaths. WW I was not fought defending or promoting religious ideals. (40 million dead) Neither was WW II (another 40 million dead) which was brought about by a madman who professed no religious piety or beliefs. Hitler was raised by a skeptical father & a devout Catholic Mother but ceased to participate in the sacraments after childhood. He used religious rhetoric when it suited him, but was neither a man of faith nor were his conquests committed in pursuit of some religious ideals. The Japanese were told that the Emperor was God on Earth. But they fought for the most basic of reasons - Earthly raw materials to promote and advance their empire.  Both of these regimes believed in the power and complete obedience to the government. (The Fuhrer and the Imperial Emperor) They would have viewed God as competitor for people's allegiance.

The Khmer Rouge of Cambodia slaughtered millions for political ideology not religion. (Rent "The Killing Fields") African tribes wage war upon each other to this day for numerous reasons such as ethnicity not related to any religion. The Korean War in the 1950's, the Vietnam War in the 1960's were once again, wars brought on by brutal  powers, not religious warriors. The Nazi concentration camps, Soviet gulags and the Chinese Traitors prisons doled out pain in order to keep people loyal and fearful to the state - not any church. Even those who practice ethnic cleansing or genocide, do so almost entirely because of age old rifts between tribes, not religion.

Soviet missles were not placed in Cuba back in 1962 to ensure that the U.S. would convert - one way or another - to a specific worship. Nor was the Berlin Wall built to keep Eastern Europeans faithful to the Bible. Nazi Germany. Fascist Italy. Imperial Japan. Communist North Korea. Communist North Vietnam Communist Soviet Union. Communist China, dictators in Iraq, Cuba, Africa, Central America and Venezuela,  - none of these regimes used their military power for anything other than to promote a Godless ideology that dehumanizes the individual in deferrence to the state. The total human casualties both military and civilian for all the wars of the 20th century number near 240 million. I dare say the smallest fraction of that figure is due to religious intolerence and hatred.

If you hate war, then hate the regimes that oppose God and faith in nearly every form - or manipulate it for their own purposes. They are the enemy of peace. They are the intolerent ones who doom the innocent. I don't ask you to believe as I do. I don't require it. It offends me not if you worship differently - or not at all. But please get your facts straight. Millions have died to preserve your right to so. The least you could do in their honor is not re-write their sacrifices ...and their history.

Stop the War on men!

You've probably heard about the War on Women. Those dastardly Republicans want to deprive women of birth control pills. Well, maybe not deprive them of it, but they want them to pay for it themselves. Dear God! What's next? Next week they'll want women to pay for their own tampons. Then designer shoes! Where does it end? I ask you? Of course, its all phony baloney politics. If I were a woman, I'd be upset that some elected official thinks I'm too stupid or poor to afford my own birth control. But that's just me. But enough, lets get to the real war. The War on men.

The majority of college student are now women. That seems a tad unfair, doncha' think? Perhaps the government needs to step in here and level the playing field. Yes, I'm sure that's what's needed. (They do such a great job with everything else). Maybe we need quotas. And if that means we have to allow more less deserving men into institutions of higher learning and less women - so be it. After all, we need to be fair. Right? College football programs raise the highest sports revenue for the school - allowing less attended and less popular sports (girls field hockey) to exist at all. Hardly fair. Those poor men are out there sweating just so Jennifer can swing that stick thingy at that ball thingy. So unfair. If they can't carry their own weight... ditch the program. It's only fair.

But nowhere is the inequity between the sexes more prominent than when it comes to the issue of sex. While liberal doo-gooders believe a woman should enjoy free birth control, (ever notice how liberals always want someone else to pay for things) there is no outcry for the right of men to enjoy the same liberty. You could agrue that the man's right not to procreate is being served by the woman taking the free birth control. But suppose she's a skank who is lying - trying to trap that poor man into a relationship (or worse) marriage by getting pregnant? Seems to me that the man should have his own free birth control in the form of condoms. Yep, that sounds more fair. Actually, condoms help prevent against STD's where birth control pills do not. The necessity for condoms is even more dire than the woman's birth control pills. Yet, men have to pay out-of-pocket for condoms. Depending how popular the guy is with women, that could easily add up to more than a woman's monthly payout for birth control pills. Under Obama's new health care mandate, women are suppose to get free mammograms. Yet men still have to pay for prostate examinations.  I suppose Democratic politicians just don't care about men's health issues as much as women's. That seems unfair.

The number one killer of women is heart disease. Women needed to be made aware of this. So, February became "Fight heart disease in women" month. Heart disease is also the number one killer of men. We didn't get a month. We didn't even get a day. October is "Breast cancer awareness month". A good thing to be sure. But men also get breast cancer. I didn't hear word one about that during the entire month. Finally, they threw us a bone and made June Prostate Cancer Awareness Month. What's that you say? You never heard that June was Prostate Cancer Awareness month? Well, nobody else knows it either. We don't have a colored ribbon for that yet. I hear Congress may be working on choosing a color for us. Unfortunately, all the really good colors are taken.

Maybe if you have to be told you're in a war of some sort - you're not really in one. Maybe some wars are just fabrications intended to political sleight-of-hand. And maybe, just maybe you're being used as cannon fodder for someone elses plans.
Actually, there is a war. But it's a war on common sense. And from what I've seen - the enemy is winning.

Chik-fil-A. Is it "free speech" if it costs you?

First of all, let me preface this post by saying a few things up front. I don't care if you're gay, straight or bi-sexual. Your sexual orientation is none of my business. I believe individuals must be true to themselves and I respect that. But that applies to me and every other individual as well - or it should. The CEO of Chik-fil-A, Dan Cathy, made a comment the other day that angered some people. He stated that he believed no one should be discriminated because of their sexual preference - but he did not believe in Gay marriage. He holds a view that the majority of state legislatures and American citizens hold - yet he was held up to public ridicule for it. It wasn't long before the protest groups gathered themselves up, painted hip protest signs and marched in front of Chik-fil-A restaurants calling for a boycott. But my question is - exactly what results is it that you want your boycott to produce? Perhaps you'd like Chik-fil-A to go out of business - although that would cost thousands of jobs directly and indirectly. Surely you don't want that. Maybe an apology would suffice. But what is it you'd like Mr. Cathy to apologize for? His personal views? Isn't he entitled to them even if they are opposite of your own? Your views may differ from Mr. Cathy's. Perhaps you owe HIM an apology. See where I'm going with this?

Amazon's CEO donated $2.5 million to the cause of Gay marriage. I don't plan on boycotting Amazon. Starbucks is a left leaning company yet I still purchase my Pikes Peak brew there every Saturday morning. Ben & Jerry of the famous ice cream Ben & Jerry are extremely left leaning and ardent supporters of President Obama. Yet I will still purchase their product when the urge hits me. I know the politics of each of these organizations, yet I do not demand an apology for their views that are opposite of both mine and the majority of the American people.

We are constantly remind by liberals that we need to be tolerant. But apparently, tolerance means something different to them. Apparently, it means to be tolerant of them while they are under no obligation to be tolerant of your views and opinions. Mr. Cathy made it clear that he does not discriminate against Gays who work for him or who patronize his business. He just doesn't believe that marriage extends beyond one man and one woman - a view I hold as well. You may think that makes me "intolerant". You have the right to believe so and I have the right to my convictions.

There is a campaign to support Mr. Cathy's 1st amendment right as well as Chik-fil-A  by patronizing their restaurants this August 1st. Currently 2 million people nationally has subscribed to do so. I will be among them. This stand is not being taken because we are "anti-gay". It is being taken because were are "pro- 1st amendment." Free speech comes at a price. You may have to listen to those who don't always agree with you. But their freedom is no greater or lesserr than yours. Simply accusing the opposing views as being hateful is not conducive to good dialog. Sometimes we must simply agree to disagree. Mr.Cathy had this view. But that wasn't good enough and now his "free" speech may cost him and his business millions. I for one, will not allow the intolerant to define what tolerance means. So on August 1st I will make my own protest statement along with millions of others, by patronizing Chik-fil-A. If you really believe in true tolerance - you may want to get in line behind me. My protest vote supports your right to your opinions as well - even if I disagree with them.