Not that I have a problem with this policy. I just think it's funny how the mass of Obama supporters assumed that this was what "Change" meant. In reality, the only Change in store is more government control over you.
Not that I have a problem with this policy. I just think it's funny how the mass of Obama supporters assumed that this was what "Change" meant. In reality, the only Change in store is more government control over you.
Now, I'm no fan of the American auto industry either, but for much different reasons than Obama. Obama sees the auto industry as a whole as evil greedy capitalist pollution profiteers, and clearly takes joy in overseeing their demise. He sees the collapse of the American auto industry as a success of his ideals.
I, on the other hand, dislike what the American automobile makers have allowed to have happen to their once prosperous industry. One has to ask the question: Why are the foreign owned, yet locally manufactured, automobiles doing just fine in today's economy, yet the American manufacturers are struggling? The answer: Unions. The successful auto makers never bowed to union pressure. Foreign companies realized the hazard of giving up control of their own companies to socialist union thugs, pushing unsustainable pension plans and benefits. If the American auto industry had the spine to kick them out years ago, they'd be much better off now.
I've been thinking about what I'm going to do this coming election. The presidential election is lost for conservatives. Now the question is: What is our best course of action when dealing with two poor choices for President? The way I see it, McCain is just as bad if not worse for this nation in the long run as Obama is. Why is that? One word: Carter.
Jimmy Carter is probably one of the worst Presidents this country has ever seen. His policies dragged this country closer to economic collapse, and his doom-and-gloom speculation regarding the environment and oil have been roundly disproved. According to Carter, we'd be living in the age of Mad Max right about now, and if we'd actually done what he had prescribed, we'd be experiencing mass poverty in our nation, and probably be either speaking Russian or pushing up daisies. Carter was a horrible president, as history has shown, and he persists in trying to destroy our nation even to this day.
But, there was a bright silver lining on that cloud. His name was Ronnie. Ronald Reagan was the result of that terrible presidency. He renewed the conservative movement in such as way that the positive effects of his policies have lasted to this day. He brought down our nation's greatest enemy without firing a shot. He showed us the real meaning of "Peace though superior firepower". The victory of the cold war should be a lesson to all gun control supporters: Freedom has been for some time, and probably will be for the foreseeable future, won and lost at the end of a gun. The question is: Which end would you rather be on?
But back to the point of this rant: The 2008 Presidency.
There's a parallel here, and admittedly it's an unoriginal one at that. However it's still worth repeating. Obama is the Carter of our time. The candidates we have are the result of the steady decline of conservatism since Reagan left office. There have been some revivals, however the momentum has waned to the point of total dissapointment with our chosen nominee. And Obama, much like Carter, is seeing a rock-star like rise in popularity, without any real qualification or experience. Top that off with a repeat of history (attempts at price controls, calls to conserve our way out of an oil shortage, artificial pushes for alternative enery sources, and straight from the words of Carter himself "windfall profits taxes"), and we're headed for the early 80's all over again. It's as if someone dug up Carter's old speeches and handed them to Barack without even changing a single word.
McCain, on the other hand, may actually do a few things right during his presidency: stay the course in Iraq, continue to pursue Al Queda, open up (some) oil drilling, and push for a resurgence of nuclear power. However, beyond these few things, he's either iffy or downright wrong on the issues. Is he pro-life or isn't he. Will he appoint conservative judges, or will he fold just like he has in the past? Will he stop furthering environmentalist rhetoric or well he continue to capitulate? His record isn't very good. The question then becomes: Can we really risk four more years of slipping standards in the conservative movement in the name of the party?
Back to the silver lining. As you can tell by now I'm hoping McCain loses. I'm not saying I'm voting for Obama, that would also be immoral as a Catholic voter. I'd considered it, but after some careful thought about it, and discussion with my wife, I'd decided that it's best I withhold my vote from both Obama, and McCain. However, I'm still going to vote. You see, I think that the goal of this election needs to be re-focused for conservatives like myself. The message needs to be sent out, loud and clear, that the people of the Republican party should not be seen as servants to the party, as the Democrats see their people. We expect and demand that the liberals in the Republican party move on to their rightful home: the Democrat party. They need to take back thier party from the Socialists that control it. We are not your subjects. We will not follow the party blindly. We, unlike you, have principles. Our motive is not to keep our party in office, in power. Our motive is to bring about the return of Freedom. Freedom from the Federal government. Economic freedom. Religious freedom. True freedom. We will not follow you, because our leader is not the Republican party, it is God himself, the one who gives us true freedom.
Thanks to the hubris of the establishment Republicans, we have no candidate to vote for. To make it clear to the Republican party just who is in control here, we need to send a message that their chosen candidate is not acceptable to us, and that we know who embodies the qualities of a great President, not them. We must vote for the man who was the only true conservative in this race. With enough votes, the message will be clear. I don't expect him to win. I only hope that he will do for this party what Goldwater did for us back in the 60's
If you can't tell by now, "I'm With Fred". Or rather, I'm back with Fred. Fred Thompson has always been the only true conservative in this election. I'll be writing his name in on my ballot. I know he doesn't have a chance, but as I stated, that's not really the point. The point is: I want my party back. I want my country back.
Granted, funny, however...
I'll probably be sticking with my SUV for some time, and in fact, we'll probably buy another after we outgrow this one. Honestly, I can't physically fit in one of those compact economy/hybrid cars. Even if I could fit, the comfort of a SUV makes it's increased sticker price worth it.
The funny thing about it is, these hybrids are only fractionally more efficient than regular cars or SUVs, so it's like being all high-and-mighty and saying "I only pollute the earth 9/10ths as much as you do, so there!". Give me a break. Besides the fact, we'll see how much you're not polluting the earth when those LiIon batteries need replacing.
John McCain's campaign wants us to blog for him to help spread his message. Here's my attempt:
Vote for John McCain, the spineless global warming movement pacifist.
Vote for John McCain, the pseudo-Republican who's all talk and no substance when it comes to conservative ideals.
Vote for John McCain, the candidate of the new Liberal Republican movement.
Vote for John McCain, he supports the war. Kinda. Except when it's not politically expedient.
Vote for John McCain, he's Pro-Life. Wait, what's that? He's not really? Oh. Forget that then.
Vote for John McCain, he'll stand for nothing of importance, and destroy the Republican party in the process.
Vote for John McCain, if you are one of those mythical post-Hillary swing voters that will supposedly save his campaign. But as for all of you conservative Republicans, screw you. He doesn't want or need your vote.
Vote for John McCain, because hey, what other choice do you have.
There you have it John. There's my blog to counter all of your marketing fluff. Good luck to you, because you'll need it without the votes of your base. Personally, I think I may be voting Obama to save the Republican party from the anti-Reagan interests that have control of it. Perhaps they'll finally abandon my party if they realize that no true Republican will vote for Democrat lite.
It's sad really. Fred Thompson, the only true Conservative in the race for the Republican nomination, dropped out of the race earlier this week. After hearing the news, my thoughts shifted to "Who would I vote for now?". My first priority when wielding my vote is protecting the unborn. Guess what: none of the other candidates are truely pro-life. I'm sick with disgust over the condition of the Republican party. They've abandoned their base to woo Liberals who will never vote for Democrat Lite when they have two fine, full-on Democrats of thier own: Obama and Hillary.
So I've come to a conclusion: I have no party. I belong to the nonexistent, yet to be established, Conservative party. I'm done with the Republican party as a whole. If they have any good non-Presidential candidates running, I'll vote for them, but I'm not voting Republican. Not until they get their act together.
I may not vote for President in the 2008 election. I'm that disgusted. In fact, I'm considering voting for Obama just to let him get in office and complete another Carter-esqe presidency. After he's screwed the country up, hopefuly the American people will wake up, the Republican party will wake up, and we'll finally get another Reagan back in office to fix this whole Federalism problem.
And yes: That means you can just forget about calling me asking for donations too.
Everyone needs to understand Federalism for the sake of this country, and Fred Thompson's got a great handle on that concept:
Between SSI, Federal Tax and State Tax, I'm in the 40% tax bracket. For the purposes of this discussion, I'll use a nice round 100k to do my calculations. I won't say what I earn, but It's not $100k/yr. I also didn't say it's not 120K or 80k, so don't try to guess :-)
100,000 x .40 = 40,000
So, on the face of it, a person earning 100k pays 40k in taxes. However, there's also money you never see, not even on your W2. As I understand it, for every dollar that you pay in W2 taxes and SSI, your employer is required to match it. So for every dollar that you pay in taxes, that's 2 dollars you technically should be earning. So...
100,000 + 40,000 = 140,000 Actual Potential Pay
40,000 + 40,000 = 80,000 Actual Income Taxes
So, to calculate how much you'd actually pay in taxes:
80,000 / 140,000 = 57%
So, stripping away one of the hidden tricks that the government uses to hide your actual annual worth, the income tax you actually pay is 57%.
Add into that all the taxes you pay when spending your income: sales taxes, property taxes, gas taxes, automobile taxes, utility taxes, sin taxes, and user "fees". You now easily exceed 60% of your actual income going to the government.
365 x .60 = 219
So, give a day, I work under duress for the government 220 days out of the year. Now, I understand that there are things we need to government to pay for like roads, law enforcement, fire fighters, judges, and politicians. But with the exception of these, everyone should be paying their own way through life. Hell, even roads could be privatized more than they are. And all those social programs can be filled by private entities and actual charity, instead of the forced "charity" and bureaucratic systems we have in place now.
When I mentioned this situation to my fiance, she told me that when people ask me what I do, I should respond "I work for the government 220 days out of the year."
All I keep thinking throughout the day is: Damn it! Give me my life back!
Finally, someone posts on SlashDot something that I, and many other less than liberal people have been saying for a some time now: The sun "may" be warming the Earth and Mars simultaneously.
No s**t Sherlock. F'ing martian's and their SUVs.
Update 3/12/07: Here's further proof that these people are more dangerous than global warming itself.
I just wanted to take a second to say thank you to an old high-school schoolmate. Thanks for doing something great for this country, even at the cost of your own life. Thanks for standing up for what's right in the face of great danger. I may never have been able to say thanks in person, but I hope to say thanks with my words and actions.
Trevor Diesing, may you rest in peace.
A while or so ago I was back in my hometown of Plum City, WI (population ~600) for a family event. It's usually kind of neat to see some of the changes that happened in town since I'd least been there, so I'll take the long way around to get home, and drive past the high school occasionally. My high school never really seemed all that messed up when I went there, but I knew that the teachers there all belonged to the teachers union. What surprised me this last time passing by was the statement posted on the school events board out front: "It takes a village to raise a child". Really?! Because I never recall being raised by a village. I do, however, recall being rasied by a family with a loving, devoted Mother and Father at it's head. Children I know that are raised by a village ignore their parent(s), show blatant disregard for civil rule and authority, and end up following a gang instead.
So I guess they might have made a mistake and were thinking of another "C"-word: It takes a village to raise a criminal.
Ann Coulter rocks.
Sorry, I just had to get that out of the way. Check out her recent article on Yahoo News: Losing Their Heads Over Gitmo. I'm telling you, I'm thinking I'd like to be a Gitmo prisoner. They get fed better than I. That place has become a resort after all the liberal nonsense rhetoric.
UPDATED: I want one: Club G'itmo Gear at the EIB Store
I've got the cure for AIDs. It's so powerful it even cures Herpes. In fact, it'll cure most every STD. It's more effective than any other drug or device made. The cure is free, and is immediately available worldwide. What's the name of this super-cure?
Now, given it's not 100 percent effective. There are rare cases of disease transmission due to things such as accidental blood transfusion. And in cases of illicit drug use, transmission is possible via dirty needles (of course a different sort of abstinence cures this as well). But over time, these diseases could be effectively eradicated amongst populations that practice abstinence and chastity.
We've got all sorts of foundations, drug companies, and government programs that claim to be looking for a cure when the best cure has been around for millenia. It's up to you to use it.
I've been in Madison for the past 3 weeks and will probably be here for several more weeks. I'm thankful to God for the chance to work, but I feel like I'm in the lions den here. It's easy to see how people get brainwashed just by living here. I'm having a hard time down here and I swear I've been fighting off a headache all week long. I think I just now figured out that this was why. I can't wait to come home. I just pray that I find work in the MN area soon. I need to find a safehouse. It's really really tough listening to all the libs around here feed each other what amounts to fodder for the next Michael Moore film. I was going to take off my bumper stickers the day after the election winner was announced, but after I saw how sore the nuts around here have been, I figured I should leave them on until I finish up here.
On an unrelated note, I'm a bit down about one other thing. I should preface this by saying that this feels a bit odd, being that it's probably the most personal entry in my blog so far... I just found out today that another of my nieces just got engaged. My next older brother already has his wedding date set, and it seems that everyone I know is getting married. And to make matters worse, I swear that every attactive girl I even bump into already has a ring on her finger. I guess I shouldn't feel so bad about 50% of them: they probably would never even pass my first test of them being conservative. eHarmony has given me 1 match since I signed up, and she was something like 2 hours away in MN. Don't know what the deal is there. I know I have alot to offer, and I know pretty well what kind of woman I want to be with. Now, I can only pray they're still single.
So, now that the election is over, and the concession speeches have been made, I'm imagining how things are going to be during and shortly after the next 4 years. Bush got the majority vote, something that hasn't been done since his father's election. This should quell the whole "mandate" B.S. that liberals use when their guy loses. So now that Bush has the road wide open for him, and 4 more years to get done what he needs to get done, here are a few of my predictions:
So that's it for now. I'm sure more things will come to mind, which I'll post in part 2.
So it's looking pretty likely that Bush will get 286 electoral votes (269 plus IA, NV, and NM). I'm a bit disappointed that WI appears to be won by Kerry. It is really close: 1,482,583 to 1,468,937, a difference of 13,646 votes. That's a little over twice as wide a spread as 2000. But with 100% of the precincts in, it's pretty unlikely that any significant changes in the numbers will come. Perhaps I'm missing the factor of absentee votes or something, but I don't know why they just don't call these remaining states.
I had another encounter with an illogical leftie last night at the hotel I'm staying at. Oh well. I've been told that you can't change people's minds. They may be right if they mean significant change in just one night, but every little nudge helps as far as I'm concerned. That's the nature of politics. Baby steps. Lots of little movements and achievements until you finally achieve your goal. Both sides operate this way, it would be irresponsible for me to refrain.
And now for some late-breaking news: Ive just been informed by VonCetric that Kerry has officially conceded. Hallelujah! It was a tough fight, but God's will prevailed.
I'm excited, and uneasy at the same time. This election is said to be the closest ever, and it's unsure to anyone what will happen, or for that matter, how long it will take before we know for sure just what did happen.
All this talk about voter fraud has me worried. I just hope any fraud does not push the gap between the candidates beyond the point of legal contention. It's amazing to me that anyone would think that cheating to achieve their goal is acceptable. But I guess that's what happens when you brainwash people into thinking that they have to cheat to overcome some unfounded fear of election fixing.
I am pretty hopeful though. Just this last weekend, I had participated in a flyer drop at a local Catholic Church. We placed several flyers, the most prominent of which was a color flyer with a listing of the candidates' stands on abortion and the protection of marriage. It asked "Who Shares Your Values? You Decide.". Also, backing up this flyer, was a flyer that explained in a conscise manner, the stance of the Church on abortion and the relative importance to "social welfare" concerns. This drop took place in every swing state in the US. Pretty exciting to be a part of something so big. I just pray that it not only changed some minds, but more importantly that it changed some hearts.
All this poll nonsense is really bothering me. The poll data varies sooo much. And you can never tell just what type of data (likely voter, registered voter, or whatever) they are using or under what circumstances it was obtained. It's inherently unreliable, and people believe it as gospel truth. The polls themselves sway votes. Ignorant votes.
Lastly, I'm amazed at the number of people I run into that just have a blind hatred for Bush. The Socialists achieved thier goal: Influence American politics by infusing the American people with hate toward anyone who supports anything other than Socialist ideals. I've talked to 3-4 self-professed sure Democrats in the past couple weeks while doing volunteer work for the local GOP office, and I've found 1 common thread between them all: They can't explain why they are voting for Kerry, nor can they back up their cliche accustations of Bush. They say "He's a liar. A cheat. He's not really pro-life. Whatever he does he does just to gain power. He's a pawn of corporate interests. He's paid off by big business. He's the antichrist. He lost our jobs. He's sending jobs overseas. And of course, one word: Halluburton." But every time I challenge one of these accusations, I get answers like "I don't have to answer that" or "But what about" and then I demolish the next accusation. Half of them aren't even willing to have a civil discussion. All of them just can't or refuse to debate using logic. The root word of ignorant is "ignore", so it only makes sense that it's best application is in reference to people who choose to ignore fact. It's sad to see that the party that claims to be so open-minded and intellectual really couldn't be more stubborn and blind in their decision to ignore logic and reason.
I just can't express how frustrating it is to have people like John Kerry, the liberal elite, and their mindless drones (the "Bush Sucks" crowd) claim to be on the side of the unemployed. Here I am, jobless, and Kerry is threatening to squelch any chance of jobs recovery with his socialist plan for further growth of government programs. John Kerry has been quite critical of the President when it comes to job loss. He likes to place the blame on Bush for the shallow jobs growth. Of course, the reality is that the recession trend started well before Bush was in office and had a chance to push an economic policy. It was a miracle we had him in office during 9/11. It was his backbone and strength of character that brought us the tax cuts that cut the recession off and brought us back on track in upward trend. But of course, the media pushes a well crafted, hand picked set of facts so as to change public perception (a nice way of saying brainwashing) that the jobs loss was Bush's fault. The clock on my computer says it's 2004, but I'm pretty sure it's two decades fast.
But anyhow, since Kerry likes placing blame where it isn't due, I have a question for him and the other Kerry supporters out there: What does Kerry plan to do to create more jobs? Best I can tell, this is what he/they have planned:
In other words: Take money from those who create jobs (the "richest 1%"), run it through some government bureacracy (more government jobs), and then take what's left and return it to the public through "tax credits" which is code for wealth redistribution. And of course, like most government programs, there's the wonderful lack of accountability that's evident to anyone who's been on unemployment or welfare. Basically, anyone with a shaky business plan can get "free money" (codename for socialist wealth redistribution).
Increased Unemployment Benefits
Here's a really simple one. Basically you'll get paid by the taxpayer (the job creators) to do nothing, encouraging you to not work, thus further running the economy into the ground. And as stated before, more government jobs and bureacracy to run the taxpayers money through, with that always present lack of spending accountability.
Need I say more really. Furthermore, this category doesn't fix my situation. I refused to subject myself to the 4-years-hate of the required State College education, put myself into debt, and get a piece of paper that has B.S. on it. This category includes the members of the NEA teachers unions at our Public (codename for Government) Schools. This also explains their position: Teachers, vote Democrat so that we get paid more to do less, and block accountability and competition in education. Screw the students. One size fits all, cookie cutter, run 'em through the system when it comes to education because it's easiest for us.
On a related note:
It's funny how label averse Kerry is, and then wears the Catholic label as if it describes him. Liberals hate labels because, in Orwellian style, they hate being defined. Unless of course, wearing a label helps them achieve their goal: more absolute power through socialism. I, on the other hand, wear my labels like a badge. I am Catholic/Christian, Capitalist, Conservative, Republican. Who is being honest with the public? Who's telling the truth here? Who is really looking for more government power over your life?
Ok, I feel a little better now. Now go do the right thing. Vote Bush.
I just got back an hour ago from Wausau where President Bush spoke to a crowd of at least 7000 (could have been 10k. As you can see from the picture below, the attendance was so large, they had people sitting up on the grassy hill on eiter side of the stadium seating. It was huge). Wow. Amazing. I just don't know how else to describe it. I was probably 30 feet from the podium, and 10 feet out of reach of W when he shook hands with the crowd. I may have an opportunity to see him speak again this weekend. We'll see.
So on a related note: I confronted a protester today. It was quite fun. There were a group of protesters. Probably no more than 50, cordoned off in an area near the entrance to the park. Just outside of the protest area there was a guy standing on a picnic table holding up a poster that said something to the effect of "Pro Life means No War". At first, I walked near him and yelled to him to get this attention "Hey Pearl Jam!" (because of the Pearl Jam shirt he was wearing), and once I had his attention, I yelled to him "40 Million!, 40 Million!" in reference to the 40 million murdered in the US since1973 due to abortion. After walking away for a bit and rejoining my group, I decided to come back and do the level-headed thing: engage in debate. NeedIess to say, I pummelled him intellectually. The guy couldn't stay on point and I repeatedly backed him into corners on his logic. For instance, when I asked him if not going to war would result in no loss of life, he'd say "of course not" and then proceeded to drift away from the point of his placard. I repeatedly pointed out that less life is lost if we go to war than if we stay seemingly uninvolved. The guy brought his mini-handheld video camera (which mommy and daddy probably bought for him), but for whatever reason, seemed to think that our conversation was not worthy of documentation. Of course, that footage could have been pretty embarrassing for him, so I guess I can't blame this genious. But anyhow, the debate was cut short when I was approached by Scott Suder and I respectfully honored his wishes that I just walk away. I'm sure he said the same to the rest of the group gathered around the young brainwashed college student. Well, It was fun while it lasted. Next time, I think I'm gonna do it Protest Warrior style!
And now for a little "Where's Waldo: W in Wausau Wisconsin" starring me...
Click read more below to see where I am.