I am completely disgusted about the sorry state of affairs of our Country. I know I am not the only one. Look at all the complaining going on with all the blogs and in the press. Yet, most of us will go to the polls and vote with a “Ugh, my party good, their party bad” mentality, regardless what can be traced to whom and how much we have been lied to over the years. In a recent Rasmussen poll, nearly 60% of the people polled say they would vote everyone out of congress and replace them. But what will really happen? We will re-elect 95% of all these Bozo’s (not to degrade Bozo). Then these people will tell us that we don’t really understand the complex issues and they can’t listen to us when we voice our opinion in regards to a bill.

The only way we can get these peoples’ attention is to rise up and vote against the incumbent and replace them with new people. It will take a couple of election cycles to get the job done, but it is worth doing. You are worried about having inexperienced people running things? Well, just ask yourself. There are hundreds if not thousands of years of combined experience in Washington today. If experienced was the only thing that mattered, we should be living in a paradise. Instead, look what we have. Yes, I know if we voted the incumbents out in all cases, some good ones would go also. Oh well, sometimes sacrifices need to be made for the greater good.  It certainly would get someone’s attention.

So when you go in that voting booth, leave your party affiliation outside and ask yourself “Is it time to clean out the sewer in Washington?” I have already made my decision. I will vote against the incumbent.    If a ballot proposition is going to cost more money (and California has a few of them) then it’s a “no”. Extreme, shortsighted view? I think not considering the how American public has been hosed lately.   I am mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore!

I words would just flow on this post, but I am still so stunned by the actions today of Speaker Pelosi, I , much to the surprise of those who know me, am at a loss for words.  All she had to do is show some humility, thank all the  members of the house for their hard work, state her belief on how important action on the financial crisis is and allow the vote. A little humility can go a long way.  Instead, she felt it was more important to try to exert her power, bash the Republicans when in fact, all she had to do was get her side in order and pass the bill. She did not need the Republicans to pass it.  Right now, Speaker Pelosi is the power in the House. I would caution her to remember the following:

"For over a thousand years Roman conquerors returning from the wars enjoyed the honor of triumph, a tumultuous parade. In the procession came trumpeteers, musicians and strange animals from conquered territories, together with carts laden with treasure and captured armaments. The conquerors rode in a triumphal chariot, the dazed prisoners walking in chains before him. Sometimes his children robed in white stood with him in the chariot or rode the trace horses. A slave stood behind the conqueror holding a golden crown and whispering in his ear a warning: that all glory is fleeting." - Gen. George S. Patton, Jr.

--> While trying to understand the rants of the left against Sarah Palin’s mothering abilities, it occurred to me that many of these people criticizing her are treating her like a single parent, because they have absolutely no idea what a fully functional family is like. I am willing to bet that a majority of functional families are conservative. I believe it takes conservative values to create and maintain a fully functional family. These values are beyond the comprehension of those attacking Sarah Palin’s personal life and beliefs. To the left, Sarah Palin threatens the existence of liberal values and as such, she must be destroyed.

The left is looking at her special needs child, her pregnant daughter, and her five children in general as problems that would detract from her ability to govern. In reality, they are opportunities for the family and Todd Palin to step up and take care of the family business to allow Sarah Palin to serve her country. Does this mean that she won’t participate in the family? Of course not. If anyone can do both, she can. But she will do it in partnership with Todd Palin. The extreme liberal left feminists are completely ignoring Todd Palin in the discussion, probably because they have been such a failure in their personal lives that they can’t relate to a fully functional family because they have never participated in one. 

Everyone has heard the saying “Behind every successful man there is a woman.” In this case, “Behind every successful woman, there is a  man.” That man is Todd Palin. Don't ignore him.

I was excited when I first heard Sarah Palin was chosen to be John McCain’s running mate. I first heard of her when I was vacationing in Alaska about the time she was running for governor. I was impressed with her views; however, I was more impressed that the Alaska press could cover a conservative without trying to trash her. But, if my life on this planet has taught me anything, it has taught me that one must wait to see how things fall into place.

After 10 days of observation, the brilliance of McCain’s pick is becoming obvious. With one decision, McCain has energized the conservative base, probably will defeat Obama, dispatched the Clintons for good regardless of the outcome of the election, shown just how in the tank the mainstream media is for Obama, and has exposed the left wing as the hate filled, closed minded, morally bankrupt people that they are. Sarah Palin is also a person who the majority of working mothers (and “Mr. Mom’s) have identified with. Proof of this is how often she is referred to as simply “Sarah”.   Not a bad day’s work.

I have often complained over the past 8 years, that we have no elected conservative leadership in Washington. I have written how we need an elected man to speak openly about conservative values, both social and fiscal. President Bush has failed miserably in that area. He is not a fiscal conservative, and thus the financial problems we have today.

During my 40-year career in retail and retail management, I have often said that the best boss I ever had was a woman, much to the chagrin of some of my knuckle-dragging colleagues. Now, it appears, that the best man to renew conservative values and speak for them in the future is a woman. Take that, Oprah.

This won't be a big deal to most people  I suspect. It does mean a lot to those who have served and lost family and friends in the service of theIr country  It is a symptom of people who have no respect for country or flag.  Someone at the convention should have said "Hey, maybe we should take care of these rather than discard them like ordinary trash." The Democrats promised  a green convention with as many items recycled as possible. Nice, but I guess it did not include the American Flag.

It will be interesting to see how the Republicans cleaned up after their convention. 

http://blogs.denverpost.com/opinion/2008/09/06/republican-recycling/

The United States should confiscate the assets of the wealthiest 1% for the good of the Country.   Got your attention, didn’t I?

The liberals of this country (Who will henceforth be known as “Mr. Liberal”) seem to have an axe to grind against the top 1%. He and others of his ilk would have us believe that we need to institute confiscatory tax rates on the top 1% in order to be fair. The government could do so much with that money to alleviate suffering. The rich need to pay their fair share.  

Looking through his works on this and other blogs, Mr. Liberal seems to use the terms “Wealthiest 1%” and “The top 1% of income earners” interchangeably. This would be like Car and Driver magazine comparing the top 100 fastest cars with the top 100 largest cars of all time. A few may occupy both groups but they are definitely different groups. The wealthiest 1% are usually older, built their wealth over the years, but may not be in the top 1% income earners because their investments may not doing all that well, especially lately. The top 1% wage earners tend to be younger, have worked hard, risen to the top fast, but have not yet built the wealth to be included in the wealthiest 1%. About 36% of the two groups began with inherited wealth. However due to the so-called Death Tax the inherited money is nowhere near the original amount. Those of you that have inherited money or have tried to keep the family business in the family when it is passed down know what I am talking about.

I am going to use Mr. Liberal’s own numbers gathered from their writings. I have been able to find various numbers that seem to vary according to who is doing the research, but for the purpose of this exercise, it really doesn’t matter.

We could confiscate the entire wealth of the wealthiest 1%, put it in the general fund and run the country for a few weeks short of two years. You could confiscate the annual income of the top 1% of all wage earners for one year and run the country for 10 months.

I do have to admit that there are plenty of studies that appear to show that initiating confiscatory tax rates on the top 1% have little to no effect on the growth of the economy. Some of the studies show growth, some show a little decline, but also state that there could have been other factors at work as well. These studies are used as the basis for making the rich pay their fair share. These studies begin with a conclusion that they wanted to get to and then retrieved the data to support the conclusion. They missed the real conclusion that the studies point to. While the wealth of both of these groups is extreme by our individual standards, when compared to the size of the US GDP it doesn’t matter. Confiscating   all their wealth and putting into the economy and trying to measure it is like putting a million gallons of water into Lake Mead and then trying to measure how high the water rose with a yardstick on a windy day.

The real truth of the matter is if the government wants new taxes to fund new and larger social programs, they have to come to the top 50%, because that is where all the tax collection is. And that is you and me, folks. Once the top 1% are disposed with, then I would expect the liberals to break this 50% into sub groups to create a new class of earners that need to pay their fair share. It’s all about creating class envy, eventually breaking us down until we are all wearing the same suit of clothes and occupy the same space of misery.

I

FISA and Liberal Hypocrisy

Today, the House Democrats are holding up FISA. They are afraid that it will trample the right of privacy for American Citizens. Never mind the fact that it only applies to suspected terrorists and foreign overseas phone calls. Liberals have mislabeled this bill as a “Domestic Spying” bill. Domestic phone calls are not monitored unless they are to overseas locations to suspected terrorists. But still, in a blatant display of partisan politics are holding up a bill that expires on midnight tonight (February 14,2008).   Regardless of how you feel about this act, you must read on.

Enter Hillary Clinton. When asked about universal health care, she stated that all must have health care. Those who can afford it must buy it and those who can’t it will be provided. Many people, who can afford it, choose not to buy it. Some are young and feel they don’t need it. Some are rich and just pay their medical costs at the time of services rendered. Free choice. Hillary says that those who don’t want to buy it must or there will be some mechanism to “fine” those who don’t. “ Everybody must pay something,” she told George Stepanopolis in an interview (as if we already don’t pay enough in taxes).

Now, how is the government going to know who has health insurance and who can afford to pay, but choose not to have coverage. Well, by surveillance, of course. So it seems that the same Liberals who don’t want to watch the bad guys (probably not American citizens) who want to blow us up are the same Liberals who don’t mind watching and monitoring American citizens for the purpose of separating us from our money.