Conservatism Today

New York Times Sinking to Irrelevancy

While my advertising revenue is up over 300% from last month, the Old Grey Lady has seen its ad revenue drop by 11% and its profits drop by an astounding 82 percent in the second quarter.

Chief Executive Janet Robinson says business was hurt by the "U.S. economic slowdown and secular forces playing out across the media industry."

This is quite shocking indeed that in a presidential election cycle the NYT would be down 82% from the same quarter a year ago. Sadly, the Times still earned $21.1 million more than I did.

Perhaps if the Times weren't so consistently biased in its coverage, it would regain the relevancy it once had. Frankly, I'd rather see it die the slow death of liberalism.

My Favorite Comment About the Latest John Edwards News

Who knows if this story is true, it is in the National Enquirer after all. Nevertheless, the leader in the clubhouse for best comment has to be Frank J. of IMAO.

Pretty shocking, huh. Who'd have thought he was actually heterosexual?

Feel free to try and top that one in the comments.

If the War Can't be Lost, Why Didn't the Media Report that We had Won?

I have not for one minute second-guessed my decision not to enter into the mainstream media following  my graduation from journalism school in May. Right now, my opinion of most journalists is slightly below my opinion of the average attorney, although still significantly higher than my opinion of John Edwards.

From Ace of Spades:
Without Even Noting Our Victory, Media Has Gone From Claim "War Cannot Be Won" to  "War Cannot Be Lost"

Obama's surrender and defeat strategy was previously sound because the war couldn't be won. So "defeat" was already guaranteed; what's the downside of withdrawal?

Without a single front-page piece announcing to the world the War in Iraq has been all but won, the media shifts its claim -- repealing their coverage sub silencio, as lawyers say when judges overturn a previous decision while pretending they didn't.

  Now the war cannot be lost, so Obama's policies are borderline irrelevant, and there's no risk at all electing him. If he withdraws precipitously, not taking into account changing facts on the ground (such as the long-time-coming Al Qaeda mini-Tet), well, there's still no downside. Nothing The Chosen One can do can possibly result in harm.

The MSM have been busily ignoring any good news for America, because that clearly runs counter to their goal: President Barack Obama.

I'm sorry, MSM, but this will simply will not do.   You cannot assume a victory in a major war as background information without even actually reporting on that.

Think of how bizarre this is. Imagine if the media never actually bothered who'd won a presidential campaign, but instead simply changed one day from reporting on President Clinton to reporting on President Bush, without once providing an article explaining the reasons for the editorial decision to begin calling the president "George Bush" rather than "Bill Clinton." *

That's actually a pretty good analogy. We've simply stopped hearing about the war at all, as it went from un-winnable to damn near won.

For Example: Chris Matthews has gone from war-cannot-be-won to war-cannot-be-lost overnight, apparently, assuming this as background information which shapes his opinion that... the victory in Iraq benefits Barack Obama.

I don't mind that analysis per se. But just last week Chris Matthews was claiming the surge had not worked at all. Repeatedly. Now it's worked so well we've won the war, and thus the world is made safe for President Barack Hussein Obama.

As usual, we see that facts are irrelevant to the liberal media. It simply uses 'facts' (whether true or not) to support its wishes. When those perceived facts change, it simply uses the new assumption to support its same old wishes. It has become abundantly clear that the mainstream media is no longer, if indeed it ever had, performing its role as watchdog of the people of this country. Nearly all serious analysis and reporting is coming from internet bloggers, of whom I am pleased to be just one.

The NY Times Can't Even Buy What Obama Is Selling

We have an excellent post by Bill Dupray at Patriot Room today, entitled "New York Times Trashes Obama's Health Care Plan." And trash it they do.

Sounds like the Messiah is going to need all the Hope he can get. They even question whether it can be done with Democrats controlling both Congress and the White House and using every socialist trick in the book. That, my friends, means it can’t be done.

Of course this depends on understanding exactly what the plan is, and the brilliant minds at the New York Times, who would surely love to embrace such a health care utopia, can’t figure out what the hell Obama is talking about.

But as Mr. Obama confronts an electorate that is deeply unsettled by escalating health costs, he is offering a precise “chicken-in-every-pot guarantee” based on numbers that are largely unknowable. Furthermore, it is not completely clear what he is promising.  [snip]

“What we’re trying to do,” said one of the advisers, David Cutler, in explaining the gap between Mr. Obama’s words and his intent, “is find a way to talk to people in a way they understand.”

Try English, moron. See, socialists have a hard time explaining these “complicated” policies to the little people because the have to dodge, hedge, and deflect, lest someone figure out that the policy is an utter boondoggle designed to take away our money and freedom.

The Times says that a lot of folks crunched the numbers and Obama’s plan doesn’t add up. So what does Obama do? Tell everyone to ignore the math and look at the plan’s good intentions.

Dupray is dead-on in his comments. He astutely notices that, as I pointed out yesterday, Obama is quite fluent in gobbledygook.

There's plenty more to see, so use the link at the top of this post to read more.

If You Tell a Lie Often Enough...

Fascinating pair of interviews by Katie Couric with Barack Obama and John McCain. Obama, all evidence to the contrary, is still insisting that the surge was a mistake.

Judgment.

Hat tip to Gateway Pundit.

Why Obama's Lust for Power is a Danger to America

Barack Obama recently had the audacity to demand that American parents make sure their children learn to speak Spanish, despite the fact that Obama, in fact, does not speak Spanish himself. Judging by recent comments, while my classmates and I were learning to speak Spanish in high school and college, Obama was studiously learning how to speak gobbledygook.

Q: If you had to do it over again, knowing what you know now, would you support the surge?

Obama: No, because, keep in mind that…

Q: You wouldn’t?

Obama: Keep in mind… These kinds of hypotheticals are very difficult. Hindsight is 20/20. But I think that, what I’m absolutely convinced of, is that at that time we had to change the political debate because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one that I just disagreed with.

As someone untrained in the language of gobbledygook, my translation skills may be slightly off. But I believe his answer means something along the lines of, "Even though the surge worked, it was more important at the time that I oppose anything President Bush advised, because I had to maintain my appeal to the moonbats that are supporting my campaign, and the leftist nuts that demand America lose this war. That course of action won the Democrat nomination for me, so of course, i would not support the surge in hindsight."

Of course, foresight about the surge was 20/20 to anyone who doesn't (as a knee-jerk reaction) expect the American military to fail, and who possesses an ounce of common sense. Obama appears to be oh-for-two there. How Obama is going to get his anti-war followers to accept his new plan to evacuate Iraq in order to increase the war effort in Afghanistan is beyond me, but I have no doubt that he will. His lust for power is simply too great for him to let himself be denied this opportunity, and he will adopt any opinion necessary (for the next three months) to win election in November.

As Allahpundit of Hot Air notes:

That exchange comes at the end of the segment. The beginning is devoted to his meeting of the minds with (U.S. General) Petraeus, in which he spins their disagreement about a timetable very cleverly by insisting that the brass in Baghdad is focused laser-like on Iraq whereas he, the would-be C-in-C, has to consider both theaters of the war on terror. Or rather, it would be very clever if not for the fact that Petraeus happens to be the newly appointed commander of Centcom and thus is thinking about the same regional strategic picture Obama is.  He knows the stakes in Afghanistan, Barry.

In Obama's thirst for power, he continually sees a higher calling in himself than any other person has. Even though General Petraeus is responsible for the efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, while Obama is responsible for absolutely nothing, Obama's ego invents a scenario in which he must have a higher consciousness than the man in charge of winning the war does. It is this ego, this Nixonian lust for power that allows him to promise that his presidency will be remembered as the "moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."

Has Obama actually deluded himself into thinking he is God on Earth, or is he, like Nixon, simply so insecure in his own abilities that he uses rhetoric to appear to be the man he would prefer to be? It is difficult to say, but the danger to our country is palpable either way.

Today, in statements that will no doubt be criticized as unfair by the partisan-hack media, McCain finally called Obama on the carpet.

“This is a clear choice that the American people have. I had the courage and the judgment to say I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.”

Whether or not it was 'nice' of McCain to speak the truth, there can be no doubt that to a reasonable person that this is, in fact, 100 percent true. McCain was deemed irrelevant in the primary precisely because he refused to budge from his belief that the surge was the best course of action. As we know, he has been proven wise on that point.

Meanwhile, Obama deemed it more important for him politically to oppose a good strategy than to support the strategy and lose his chance at the presidency.

“You might recall that Senator Obama, my opponent said the surge would not succeed. That he wanted us out. If he had his way we would have been out last March. We would have never done the surge. We would never have succeeded and we would have had defeat and my friends that would have been catastrophe for he United States of America,” McCain then went after Obama’s comments yesterday that he would still be against the troop surge, “He was wrong then. He was wrong now and he still fails to acknowledge–he still fails to acknowledge that the surge succeeded.”

Obama will never acknowledge anything that would hurt his candidacy. To hear him tell it, Obama has never been wrong about anything. He wasn't wrong about his Reverend, his Reverend had simply changed from the man he knew. He was not wrong about the surge, it was simply more important to oppose President Bush. The list goes on.

It was Lord Acton who said that power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It becomes clearer with each passing day that giving an already corrupted Barack Obama anything approaching absolute power would result in Acton's principle being proven like never before.

The people of the United States cannot allow Barack Obama to realize the power he so lusts after. There is simply too much at stake.

UPDATE: Bill Dupray at the Patriot Room has a video that adds to this discussion, along with a good discussion in the comments about the clear danger Obama represents.

 

Dick Morris' (and Democrat Leadership's) Economic Illiteracy

Why do people with no apparent knowledge of economics so consistently feel the need to remind everyone of that fact? If I knew nothing about something, I would have the good sense not to discuss it in public, but that's just me I guess.

Today's offender, joining a stellar list that includes the Democrat Party leaders of both houses of Congress, is Dick Morris.

    For once, it is the Democrats who have the right idea…we can only hope that the Republicans come along.

Senators Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid are pushing legislation to restore the controls over the oil future's market speculation

This is as backwards as one could get. Showing a shocking lack of knowledge of the benefits and purpose of the futures markets, Morris' "logic" here is astounding:

If there is any doubt that it is speculation, not the supply and demand for oil, that is driving up the price, look at this week's history of oil prices. After Bush announced that he was rescinding his father's executive order and permitting off shore drilling and after OPEC announced a weakening of oil demand, the futures market price dropped $15 per barrel. No new oil gushed through the system. The speculators just switched their bets from up to down. With the Democratic bill, they will just have to double their bets on horse racing and leave oil futures alone!

The futures market, Dick, exists to allow buyers and sellers to know with a reasonable degree of accuracy what prices they can expect to pay for future commodities and how much the sellers can reasonably expect to receive from their commodities.

The market price of a commodity must bear some relation to the expected future value of that commodity. When President Bush makes it known that America will no longer stick its head in the sand ignoring its abundance of available oil, of course the future price of oil will drop. People will judge that oil will be more plenteous in the future. It's all supply and demand, apparently a more complex concept than Morris' mind can fully, or even partially, understand.

Oil speculation worked exactly as it is supposed to in a free market. As world demand increased, U.S. production decreased, entirely due to America's past energy policies. This caused speculators to envision future scarcity, causing prices to go up. With high gas prices, consumers demanded that their government do something about the problem. At the first sign of doing so, speculators correctly assumed that the future supply would now increase, causing prices to drop. Simple. Effective. It's how the market corrects stupid political decisions.

Meanwhile, as usual, liberals like Charles Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and yes, Dick Morris draw the exact wrong conclusion from it.

You have to try real hard to spend as much time in politics as these people have and still be so entirely daft. Either that or you have to be intellectually dishonest. With Morris, my guess is that it's the former. With the other three it is surely the latter.

What Obama Can Teach Jesus

A little satire on the Obamessiah from Red Eye's Greg Gutfeld:

While Senator and Presidential hopeful Barack Obama has been touring the Middle East, he brought to mind another inspirational leader who made waves in that neck of the woods not too long ago.

That's right, Jesus Christ. While many people see Obama as someone who draws inspiration from Christ, I view it the other way around. I mean, what could Jesus learn from Obama?

I remember a time when Jesus was plagued with doubt, and wondered if he was up to the task his Father had given him. This is something, I sense, that just doesn't happen with Obama. Some call it arrogance, but I call it "spiritual confidence." Seriously, would Obama have told God, "Sorry Dad, I can't die for every one's sins. Why can't I build canoes and coffee tables for the rest of my life?" Not on your life, people. Obama takes on such challenges with a hearty laugh, and a "bring it on" attitude. Jesus could learn from this, if he wasn't busy whining.

Jesus also took a lot of grief for hanging with the wrong crowd – paupers, thieves – even a "scorned" woman who went by the name "Mary Magdalene." Well, all one needs to do is look at Obama, and marvel at the way he stuck by a life partner with controversial beliefs - as well as his unusual friend in the Weather Underground. I think Jesus could learn a thing or two about loyalty, here. And yet, Obama also knew exactly when it was time to move on from a destructive relationship, as he did with Reverend Wright. If only Jesus had seen that coming with Judas.

When Jesus died for our sins, he was in his early thirties – far too inexperienced for such an undertaking. Aside from carpentry, what experience did he really have in making the world a better place? Did he ever run a corporation, hold public office for many years, or enlist in the military? No, no, and no. A holy Trinity of no's...like Obama. But Obama has roughly 15 years on Jesus, so you could argue he is more qualified to save the world. Plus, he traveled more extensively, can probably speak more languages and experimented with narcotics. He's truly a man of all people.

Many critics say Jesus flip flopped on issues – on the one hand he preaches forgiveness, on the other he mentions an eternity of Hell for those who do wrong against God. But just by looking at Obama, and observing the way he shifts beliefs based on how it will help him politically, you see that all great leaders become great through a willingness to change when they see fit. I mean, if you keep falling down – maybe it's time to find a better cross.

And sure, Jesus Christ had a funny name. Well, friend, here are a few other "funny" names: Ghandhi, Confucius, Zoroaster, Obama, Pitt. Meanwhile, here are some names that are very common: Koresh, Manson, Bush. You get the picture.

And if you disagree with me, then you sir are worse than Hitler.

I haven't talked much about Fox News' Red Eye and Mr. Gutfeld, but I highly recommend that anyone who is absolutely incapable of being offended  by anything whatsoever, check it out. Red Eye is what Politically Correct should have been, and would have been if its host and guests weren't all politically correct libs.

Would Someone Tell Bob Barr What Libertarianism is, Please?

OK, I've lost all respect for Bob Barr. And Barr has most likely lost any conservatives who were going to vote for him in protest over the nomination of John McCain, thanks to his comments today in praise of Al Gore's
moonbat global warming speech Thursday.

Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr praised Al Gore, who challenged the United States Thursday to run on 100 percent zero-carbon electricity within 10 years.

“America responds well to challenges, if it is laid out, if it’s in terms that people can understand and relate to, if it makes sense – and what he’s laid out makes sense,” Barr said in an interview with Cybercast News Service after Gore spoke.

Let's look at some of the "sense" gore made:

Gore said the United States should move towards producing all of its electricity from renewable energy and clean carbon-free sources, a strategy Gore said would “re-power America."

“When President John F. Kennedy challenged our nation to land a man on the moon and bring him back safely in 10 years, many people doubted we could accomplish that goal,” Gore said to a standing-room only audience. “But eight years and two months later, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the surface of the moon...”

“Our entire civilization depends upon us now embarking on a new journey of exploration and discovery,” he said.

JFK laid out an achievable challenge to the American people, and it worked. Al Gore Thursday laid out a ridiculously, absurdly unreachable challenge, and unlike Kennedy he played to people's worst fears to do so. It is not heroic, or sensible, to use pseudo-science to scare people into believing that "our entire civilization depends" on us not using gasoline. More importantly for a Libertarian, Gore's solution is big government socialism.

Gore urged the creation of a unified national electric grid and the manufacturing of plug-in electric cars.

Gore also said the “single most important policy change we can make” would be to “tax what we burn, not what we earn” – meaning reducing payroll taxes and enacting carbon dioxide taxes.

Sure, party names do not always accurately describe their adherents personal beliefs. For example, the Democrat Party works tirelessly to obstruct the will of the people through the Supreme Court. But the Libertarian Party has, for all its problems, always done a pretty good job of sticking to its guns.

I had always thought that the easiest job in the world would be running for office as a Libertarian. I have some major Libertarian leanings myself, and they are all summed up by the following statement: "Stay out of my way, government."

So how Barr could find anything worth praising in Gore's "Government Take Over Every Aspect of our Lives to Save Mother Earth" speech is beyond comprehensible.

Barr finished up with one final dagger to his supporters' hearts:

Barr, meanwhile, said neither of his opponents have, as yet, “sufficiently addressed” the issues of climate change and alternative energy sources.

“I hope that it does get on their agenda in a much more substantive way than it has so far,” he said.

What a buffoon. Way to kill a pretty decent history of political service. Way to throw your party's most important beliefs under the bus.

McCain Insider: Romney "Tanks the Ticket"

It's not looking good for Mitt Romney's efforts at securing the VP spot:

While Mitt Romney's set of paid PR minions are busy pushing out Mitt for Vice President spin, McCain campaign insiders say that while it's true they have polled Romney on the bottom of the ticket, the data confirms that such a move would be a political disaster for the party.

"Mitt tanks the ticket," says a McCain insider. "We lose fiscal conservatives. We lose social conservatives. We lose Catholics. We lose evangelicals. All the groups we're spending time and money on bringing into the camp would be lost. He just doesn't help us enough to do something like this, as much as Mitt might think we should. He doesn't even win us Massachusetts."

Not much use for a veep who can't deliver his own state and hurts in others. I had always thought Romney's grasp of economic issues would be very valuable in a mediocre economy and his youthful looks valuable to an elderly presidential candidate, but apparently not.

Is McCain Even Trying to Win?

It sure doesn't seem like it, based on the way he's campaigned so far. A new National Review article lays out a potentially winning game plan that McCain seems unlikely to follow.

The good news for Republicans is that Obama can be beaten. The bad news is that the McCain campaign has embarked on a course that — although it has some of the right elements — seems likely to fail.

The main problem is that McCain has, from the very beginning, been way too kind to and respectful of the Junior Senator from Illinois.

McCain would be most comfortable running in accord with his particular notions of political virtue while emphasizing character, national security, and a few pet causes such as earmarks. If he wants to win, he has to leave his comfort zone. He should take a page from Hillary Clinton...

Once Clinton went after Obama in earnest, she came back. She surged on the strength of her “3 a.m. phone call” ad, which ran prior to the Ohio and Texas primaries and argued that she was better suited than the neophyte Obama to handle a crisis. And she rolled up her post-February wins on the basis of lunch-bucket appeals to working-class white and Hispanic voters... (S)he talked of blowing Iran to smithereens, downed shots of Crown Royal, and appealed frankly to blue-collar whites. Many of these tactics had little substance, but they conveyed a sense of toughness that endeared Hillary to her voters and highlighted a vulnerability of the polished but aloof and fragile-seeming Obama.

McCain is in a better position to use this strategy against Obama than Clinton was. She was never wholly convincing in her adopted role as a working-class warrior. McCain, on the other hand, has the warrior part of the persona in his genes. Nor does McCain face the constraints Clinton did... Obama has more evident weaknesses than he did when the Democratic primaries started and he was freshly on the scene. His core audience, finally, is a smaller proportion of the general than of the Democratic-primary electorate.

McCain is going to need to improve his numbers with working-class whites if he wants to have any chance at victory. This should be a fairly easy group for McCain to appeal to, but it isn't happening of yet. McCain's experience, his war service, his strange, but ultimately un-threatening mix of conservatism and liberalism depending on the issue.. All of these should place him right in the center of middle-class white America.

The first step toward getting them is to make the anti-Obama case... (S)ince the public would rather have a Democratic president, the race will turn largely on whether Obama is an acceptable one. It follows that McCain’s main task is to make him unacceptable to voters — and particularly to non-black working-class voters. He has to first raise concerns about Obama and then show how his candidacy addresses those concerns.

The case against Obama need not (and probably should not) be subtle. In a nutshell: He’s too inexperienced, too liberal, and as a result too risky. McCain has to argue that a man who has been in the Senate a mere four years, and whose most significant résumé items prior to that are a stint in the Illinois legislature and time as a community organizer, is not ready to be commander-in-chief in dangerous times. The flip-flop charges against Obama will achieve nothing for McCain unless they are deployed to make him look risky: immature (he doesn’t know what he thinks), weak (he caves to pressure), and dishonest (he tries to fool people).

On top of this, McCain has to go after Obama’s liberalism, which verges on radicalism. The congealing conventional wisdom is that attacks on liberalism are “tired.” But there is no evidence that the “change” the public wants is left-wing. McCain is deeply averse (for no good reason) to hitting Obama over the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. But Obama’s record, from Illinois to the Senate to the campaign trail, provides many other openings. The bottom line is that Obama is a liberal you can’t trust and can’t, in every sense, afford.

Making Obama's liberalism seem scary to middle-America should be a fairly simple task. Yet McCain shows very few signs of being willing to do so. The article continues about McCain's ability to sell himself. This I believe he can do, but by itself that will not be enough to win.

McCain’s selling points are exactly the reverse of Obama’s: He is experienced, in the political mainstream, and a steady hand.

Foreign policy-wise, Obama should be embarrassed to appear in the same sentence with McCain. It is the biggest mismatch I've seen in my lifetime in any campaign, President or not. The authors make a case that McCain can match Obama on domestic issues as well.

Several of the most salient issues in this election hold promise for Republicans: Tax increases are still unpopular; support for domestic oil drilling and nuclear power has shot up (for nuclear it is as high as 67 percent); the Iraq War, while remaining a negative, has steadily become less of one; and Republicans lead on fighting terrorism. McCain can, and must, win these debates...

Health care is supposed to be one of the Democrats’ best issues this year. But they are overreaching, and Republicans have as strong a platform as they ever have had. McCain can plausibly say that his plan will make insurance more affordable. He will thus get more people insurance without forcing them to buy it or subsidize it. His plan involves no backdoor government rationing or penalties for small business, as Obama’s plan does. What voters want most when it comes to health insurance are portability, affordability, and control. McCain should make the case for his plan with confidence and frequency...

Most important, McCain’s campaign needs a unifying theme. It so far has lacked one, which has made it seem carping and defensive, and has diminished McCain. Here again, he can emulate Hillary, offering a conservative version of her occasional theme of a “fighter for you.” In particular, he should be fighting for middle-class Americans against the lobbyists, institutions, and liberals who in various ways block their aspirations...

The fighter theme would work on multiple levels. It would tap into the public mood of disenchantment with Washington and politics. It would suit McCain, who is at his best when expressing an outraged irascibility (getting angry is not something he usually has trouble doing) and whose sense of honor is genuinely offended by many Washington practices. It would communicate a certain vigor, perhaps mitigating concerns about his age. It would be in keeping with an aggressive anti-Obama campaign. It would excite conservatives because — much of the time — McCain would be fighting against a confirmed liberal with an adoring media, while the populism and the anti-Washington cast of the message would appeal to independents as well.

Taking up the fighter theme would seem to be an easy act on McCain's part, but thus far we've seen none of it. McCain's campaign is going nowhere, despite numerous gaffes by Obama and a growing awareness that Obama is not the outsider or change agent he pretends to be. There are so many issues right now that begged to be taken right at the Democrats, but it seems as if McCain is content to the high road, and losing with dignity and grace.

News Quiz

Check out your knowledge of current events: Pew News Quiz

My results: Here's Your Score: You correctly answered 12 of the 12 possible questions along with approximately 3% of the public. You did better than 97% of the general public.

Let me know in the comments how you did and whether or not you think it matters.

The Bill of Non-Rights

A friend passed this on to me and I thought I'd pass it on to you. Sorry for the big, bright print. I can't figure out how to change it, so it stays.

NEW Preamble to the U.S. Constitution

'We the sensible people of the United   States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of   justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior,   and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-grandchildren,   hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines   for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden or delusional. We hold these   truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill   of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights.'

 
 

 

ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen   TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire   them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.
 
 

 

ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended.   This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not   just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different   opinion, etc.; but the world is peppered with idiots, and probably   always will be.
 
 

 

ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not   expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently   wealthy.
 
 

 

ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and   housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will   gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing   generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve   nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch   potatoes. (This one is my pet peeve...get an education and go to   work....don't expect everyone else to take care of you!)
 
 

 

ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That   would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not   interested in public health care.
 
 

 

ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other   people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be   surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.
 
 

 

ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of   others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other   citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away   in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a   life of leisure.
 
 

 

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us   sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times,   but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and   vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful. (AMEN!)
 
 

 

ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an   American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way,   is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws   created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.
 
 

 

ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don't   care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to   wherever you came from! (Lastly....)
 
 

 

ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's   history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God.   And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or   no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST   is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it,   TOUGH!

Poor Ohio Family "Scrimps" on Food

Angelica Hernandez (left) and her mother, Gloria Nunez, struggle to make ends meet on a very limited budget.

This is just too precious after my post on the poor yesterday where I said, "Our poor are fat, they are coddled and they have too much free time. No more. I will make being poor in America so miserable that no sane person would long accept living here anymore."

From Gateway Pundit:

NPR aired a sad piece on the Nunez family in Ohio who can no longer afford meat.
It's a good thing they're a radio channel.

Gloria Nunez has never worked.  She says that since her car broke down (imagine that?) her daughter can't look for a job either.
And, they're scrimping on food:

The rising cost of food means their money gets them about a third fewer bags of groceries — $100 used to buy about 12 bags of groceries, but now it's more like seven or eight.

  They could probably do just fine with a few bags less of groceries, but that's just me.
A little walking probably wouldn't hurt either.

Looks like they've been "scrimping" 24/7 for their entire lives, to me. These are the people that Scott Martin will be soaking when he's President. The woman on the right has never worked. Think about that. Just sick.

Scott Martin for President in 2012 Taking Off Faster Than Expected

Since this post yesterday where I threw my hat into the ring for the presidency in 2012, things have gotten out of control in a hurry. I need to break this off in a hurry and reiterate that I'm not eligible yet. Damn.

Hat tip to John Steinmetz.

It's Time to Soak the Poor

Yesterday, I wrote about my plan to even the playing field by way of the flat tax, in my piece entitled,"It's Time for the Poor to Pay Their Fair Share." Friends have told me that my plan, while full of common sense solutions, is much too radical for today's America. They have a point. That's why it's time to change the way conservatives play politics.

Liberals have known for ages that the best way to achieve the sort of "compromise" they want (read: conservatives giving up their core beliefs for liberals) is to offer up completely off-the-wall, moonbat proposals that all rational people find completely unacceptable. Then they compromise back to the seemingly sane (by comparison) solution that they wanted in the first place. This is how we end up with President Bush working with Democrats in Congress to add a new entitlement program. This is how we end up with, well, John McCain. That's what we need to start doing again. We've done it before. Remember Newt Gingrich?

Newt single-handedly built the most effective legislating majority in American history with his Contract With America. He did this despite Democrats attacking him as the "Gingrich who stole Christmas" and claiming that a Republican-controlled Congress would result in your grandmother being forced to eat dog food for survival and poor children walking the streets begging for spare change. How did he do this?

He laughed at them. He said, "No, your grandmother won't be eating dog food for survival, because I won't let her. Republicans love puppies, puppies are so cute and they taste delicious. No, your grandmother will just have to starve. And your kids won't be on the streets either; I'm gonna put them to work in the Kiddie Corps, whose job will be to prevent grandmothers from eating all the dog food." And then he would giggle. After that he would bite the head off of a live chicken, right there on the floor of the House of Representatives. I swear, I saw him do it many times. There were some noisy House meetings in those days. Man, that guy was a badass!

And you know what happened? Democrats caved. We got a balanced budget, we got welfare reform, we got tax incentives for families, we got tougher crime sentencing, we got capital gains tax cuts, etc. All this stuff was signed by Bill Clinton, kicking and screaming all the way, because Newt was holding him upside down off the White House balcony. (And they say that torture doesn't work?) And now Bill regularly takes credit for everything Gingrich and the Republicans accomplished against his will. Fine, so be it. It worked.

My point is, we need a new conservative leader who will implement the tough solutions to our nation's problems. A leader with such radical views that if the people pass on his, they will then be prepared to accept more mainstream conservative solutions.

Our leader needs a name. Let's call him Scott Martin. A good, all-American sounding sort of name, don't you agree? You can picture him as a handsome, rugged young man with a winning smile and a gleam in his eyes. Wonderful. Now let's start his campaign. Page up to the top of this website, look to the upper right hand corner of the screen and you will see an orange button where you can donate to the Committee to Elect Scott Martin President in 2012. Why 2012, you ask? Because 2008 is already a lost cause; there will be no conservative President elected this year. Also, our Scott Martin will not be old enough to be President until the next election.

Next, we give him the breakout speech. It must be better than "ask not what your country can do for you." Better than "was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor." Better than "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky."

"But those are the three greatest Presidential speeches of all time," you say. Admittedly so. But I have written a better one. Really, I have. I have written the speech that will galvanize Americans like no other speech before ever has.

"Who the hell are you," you ask. Why, I'm Scott Martin, the guy who you are supporting for President in 2012. What a coincidence, and how fortunate for you that your candidate has organized all that you need to know in order to support him right here in one spot!

Now back to the speech. The effective campaign-starting speech should focus strongly on one issue. That issue must be very important to the American people. It must give the people a common goal, and it must immediately galvanize 75% of the American people against a common enemy. I have found the issue; it is the economy. I have found the enemy; it is the American poor. I, Scott Martin, will deliver the following speech to kick off my campaign, some time in 2011.

"It's Time to Soak the Poor"

My fellow Americans, I stand before you today because I can no longer sit idly by and watch as the American economy continues its agonizing descent. Americans have always prospered, relative to other nations. Greatness is our birthright as Americans, but with rights come responsibilities. Today, more and more people are refusing to accept responsibility for the greatness that lies inside themselves,
begging to be awakened. We will awaken that greatness within each and every American whether he likes it our not! (Hearty applause)

"Who the hell am I?" you ask? What difference does it make? You knew absolutely nothing about the guy you elected four years ago. You elected Change McHopeyUnity, and look what it's gotten you. We sit in long lines for $8-a-gallon gas, the economy is in the tank, unemployment sits at ten percent, you're being taxed up the wazzoo...  I could go on, by why beat a dead political party while it's down. (Laughter)

America today is diseased. You all know the problem. You work hard to survive and provide for your family, you do your part as an American. But some people don't. Some people take, take, take from their fellow Americans and give very little in return. You know these people. They are the poor. (Boos)

What have the poor ever added to this country? Poor people suck. I was poor for a few years as a young adult, so I know from experience. I sucked when I was poor. I had self-destructive habits and I added nothing of value to society. Only when I woke up and realized that my life was going to suck forever if I didn't make some changes did I start to prosper and become a productive member of society.

Not only do poor people suck, poor people smell. I'm my hometown of Phoenix, you can tell what kind of neighborhood you're in by how the Circle K convenience store smells. In the poor neighborhoods, the stores smell like a combination of wet dog and ass. Don't ask me why, but they do. The poor are like hippies without a cause.

So poor people take, they suck and they smell. Are we all agreed? (Yes!) What are we to do about it?

We've tried it the liberals' way. We've tried their "progressive" tax schemes, and we've learned that, like all things that are today called progressive, they are actually regressive. They cause society to regress towards the failed socialism of the past, where everyone shares scarcity. You've seen the effects.

We tried soaking the rich. What we found was what was to be expected. You can't soak the rich, because the rich are already rich. They will just stop being productive, they will stop investing in the economy, and there won't be any good jobs for those of us who aren't rich. That's what we see today. We need a common sense solution for today's times. My fellow Americans, it is time to soak the poor. (Heads nodding in agreement)

We went to war on terrorism, and we did it by defeating terrorists. We went to war on drugs, and we did it by arresting drug dealers and destroying drugs. When I am elected President, I will immediately begin a real war on poverty, where we will go after the root of the problem: poor people.

No longer will we accept a nation where 10% of the people add no value to society. We have the world's wealthiest poor here in America. Our poor are fat, they are coddled and they have too much free time. No more. I will make being poor in America so miserable that no sane person would long accept living here anymore. (Wild applause)

Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

Not anymore! If a family receives any aid whatsoever from the American taxpayer, in the form of welfare or unemployment or food stamps, etc, I will take away its televisions. What the hell are they doing watching television? They ought to be working, or learning a skill that will make them a contributing member of society. I will take away all electronic equipment, except for a personal computer that will be reprogrammed so that they will only be able to access websites that help educate or teach a productive skill. America's poor will be busy at work getting out of their poverty, or they'll be heading to Mexico where life will be easier for them! (Raucous applause)

I will immediately order the first "regressive" federal income tax in the history of the world. Every American family will be taxed at 35 percent on its first $20,000 of income. It will decrease from there.

$0-$20,000 = 35%
$20,001-$50,000 = 20%
$50,001-$1 million = 5%
No income after the first million will be taxed.

That's right. The money you earn is a payment based on the added value (in dollars) that you have contributed to society. Bill Gates has billions of dollars because his products have made life billions of dollars better for the people of this country and of the world. When I am President, anyone who earns over $1 million will be judged to have exceeded his obligation to society, and there will be no taxes levied on extra earnings.

We will unleash prosperity on this country like the world has never seen before. Investment will boom, well-paying jobs will be plenteous.

I notice a few of you in the audience who still look a little bit unsure. You are compassionate people, as I promise you I am too. Let me assure you that if you don't believe that the poor deserve some tough love, you will be allowed to give to charity all you please. But the government of the United States will no longer be in that business.

Most likely, you're a Christian. The Bible is pretty generous to poor people. Let me remind you that when the Bible was written, there had never been a nation like the United States of America. We have so lifted oppression from society that there is no excuse for any able-bodied person who is following the Lord's exhortation to work "heartily as unto the Lord" being poor. If you are working heartily, you won't need government to take care of you. If Jesus Christ were here on Earth today, I believe he would be talking less about giving to the poor and more about the poor getting to work! (Applause)

And once you see what begins to happen when a country demands that its people excel, you will know that it would be destructive to give to that person who could do so much better for himself if only he were allowed to fail and encouraged to prosper. When my plan is in full effect, charity will once again be reserved for people who, through no fault of their own, need help.

My challengers say I can't be elected. The poor will never vote for him, they say. Why not? The poor have been voting against their best interests for decades. Hell, they are mostly Democrats, right? But even that misses the point. 90% of Americans are not poor, and certainly never will be again after
my policies are enacted. All we need is for the American people to unite. Can we do it? (Yes we can!Yes we can!)

With your help, I will fight and defeat our common enemy (poor people). We will prosper like nothing the world has ever seen. We will reclaim our birthright as Americans! May God bless you and continue to bless the United States of America.

This message was paid for by the Committee to Elect Scott Martin President in 2012.

My name is Scott Martin, and I approve this message.

Can I count on your vote in four years?

A Victory Over Whiny Americans?

From Frank J. of IMAO:

Is it to the point where, empty campaign promises aside, even Obama can't screw it up?

If that's true, that's not only a victory over terrorists -- who it was never any doubt our military could defeat -- but over whiny Americans who don't have any respect for war or patriotism. It's pretty odd that our military has gotten so good that no one out there can even stand up against them so instead American(s) take it upon themselves to be the foils, attacking our forces from a more psychological angle. It seemed so effective after Vietnam, but it looks like the whining may not be enough this time.

Good point. When this war is over, one thing needs to be remembered. It was the left in this country that tried to lose this war. Repeatedly, for years. It is the left that needed this war to be a failure to regain power. It is the left-wing media that still (mostly) refuses to report that we are winning, and indeed in many ways, have already won.

If (liberals') war against our military is truly lost in Iraq, do you think they'll turn on Afghanistan? If you remember, liberals starting calling "quagmire" about a week or so into it before getting distracted by other things. It will probably make a difference whether it's a Democrat or Republican president when the focus changes, but violent pacifists gotta mindlessly oppose something.

We've already seen this. Dems are starting to realize that they failed at trying to surrender this war and are already harping on the problems we face in Afghanistan. Quick, retreat before it's too late and we start kicking ass there too!

I think the way to defend against this in the future is to simply not tell liberals about a war. We would never (expect) any contributions from them, so there's no reason why we tell them. And they probably don't know anyone in the military to find out there's a war on. We can then tell them after the job is done, because post-war whining is inconsequential. The enemy is already dead and can't get encouragement from it.

The Differences Between Conservatives and Liberals

John Hawkins of Right Wing News has a good interview with Peter Schweizer, author of Makers and Takers: Why Conservatives Work Harder, Feel Happier, Have Closer Families, Take Fewer Drugs, Give More Generously, Value Honesty More, Are Less Materialistic and Envious, Whine Less...and Even Hug Their Children More Than Liberals. Damn, that's quite a title.

Here are some of the key points:

(M)odern liberalism tends to emphasize certain qualities that have a negative effect on happiness. The emphasis on envy, on victimhood, I think creates this sense of dissatisfaction that people ordinarily wouldn't have. So, I think that is a factor.

I also think, on the other side, that conservatives tend to emphasize commitment to family, commitment to God, faith, and something bigger than yourself. Those sorts of ideas and beliefs tend to often encourage good thoughts and good attitudes among people...

(S)tudies consistently show that if you are politically conservative, you are more likely to give money to a charity and more likely to volunteer time to a charity, regardless of income...

(C)onservatives tend to give to charities out of a desire to help people, while liberals are more likely to cite that the reason they give to charities is to make a statement. In other words, they view it, in effect, as a political act.

The reason I think is, again, that ideas drive behavior... I think that modern liberalism, since the 1960s in particular, has been all about outsourcing your responsibilities -- meaning that the government is supposed to take care of you and other people -- so I think this encourages that sort of mindset. They (feel) that they gave at the office, they voted for the right political candidate, they believe in the right political causes -- so they've done their bit for poverty and they'll leave it to government to spend money on people that have needs...

(W)hen they're asked about how important money is and the type of job that they desire, in terms of their values, liberals actually rank it higher than conservatives. They're more likely to say, for example, that high pay is the main reason for taking a job. They're also more likely to say that after good health, money is the most important thing to them...

Modern liberalism really teaches that the financial yardstick is the yardstick that matters in determining whether society encourages equality or not. Conservatives are interested in equality of opportunity and equality before the law, while liberals tend to be interested in income equality. I think this leads to a preoccupation with a material focus rather than focusing on larger and more important issues.

I also think that there is a satisfaction that often comes to people on the left from believing that they are selfless because of their political belief system. I would argue that in some individuals, that leads them to believe that they in effect have a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card -- that they are now able to pursue money and do so aggressively because they have done their bit for income equality because of the ideas that they embrace.

Modern liberalism has tended to focus almost exclusively on "rights" and very little on "responsibility." So what you find, for example, is that conservatives are more likely to express a desire to get married and more likely to have children. I think that's because modern liberalism has this self-orientation that focuses on self-actualization, self-worth, and self-focus while conservatism tends to emphasize the importance not just of rights, but of responsibilities -- responsibilities to family, responsibilities to community, and responsibilities to country. So, I think what you find is that the sort of hyper-individualism that you find in so much modern liberalism really has an effect on attitudes towards others and whether liberals feel an obligation to help other individuals, friends, or family members.

There have been numerous studies done by academics which show that conservative families tend to be closer than liberal families. Obviously, there are many exceptions -- we're talking about tendencies again -- but I think the reason is that liberalism promotes this hyper individualism which says it's about me, it's about my self-worth, it's about my value, about my rights, and that leaves very little room for paying attention to the needs or desires of others.

So basically liberals believe that because they care about the right things, are compassionate and vote "right" they have done their part. Conservatives accept much of what people like Hillary Clinton have said about how "it takes a village" to raise a child - we just believe in letting the village do it, not the village government.

How Obama Spends his Time

Thankfully, it isn't spent legislating.

From Jeff Dobbs of American Thinker:

If you begin counting from September 1999, there are 112 months between then and November 2008, and Obama has been campaigning for higher office in 52.6 percent of those months...

Obama apparently published no articles or notes while a member of the Harvard Law Review.

Obama voted "present" nearly 130 times as an Illinois state legislator.

Obama has chickened out on town hall debates with John McCain.

Obama has not held a single hearing pertaining to the war in Afghanistan in the Senate subcommittee he chairs which has oversight responsibilities that include NATO.

Obama has never been to Afghanistan, though he did consider himself informed enough to claim that the US is "just air-raiding villages and killing civilians" there.

Obama has not been to Iraq in over 920 days, and only arranged a visit after being taunted by McCain.

Obama has never sought a meeting with General Petraeus, and only arranged one after being taunted by McCain.

Obama ducks difficult questions from the press by deploying the chagrin defense with phrases like, "Come on guys.  I answered like eight questions?" and "Why can't I just eat my waffle?" 

Obama's entire life is centered around successfully running for office *and* running from anything and everything else that might compromise his efforts to get in or stay there.

I don't know if this is a good thing or a bad thing. At least he isn't ruining things if he's spending all his time campaigning.

It's Not a Spelling Mistake

Chaige We Can Believe In

Dems to Gore: Shaddup

The global warming farce is a good issue for Democrats only when there aren't any real issues facing the American people.

Al Gore hopes to put global warming back at the top of Washington’s agenda Thursday, but some Democrats in Congress are questioning his timing when they are getting pummeled by Republicans over record gas prices.

“I think the American public will be much more receptive to arguments about climate change when gas prices aren’t so critical,” said Rep. Zack Space, a freshman Democrat who represents a mostly rural district in Ohio.

In other words, once real issues are dealt with, we can go back to hoodwinking Americans with alarmist propaganda. But not now. First we need to do something to lower gas prices and get re-elected.

Space and other Democrats say that gas prices have begun to overwhelm other issues.

It's 100 degrees here in Phoenix at 1:30 in the morning. Of course, it's been 100 degrees at 1:30 in the morning in Phoenix for thousands of years. Not to legitimize their bogus science, but I'd take another 5 degrees for $2-a-gallon gas. I bet you would too. Just think of how nice you'll feel in the winter.

Democratic lawmakers have backed away from the global warming debate in the past few weeks, concentrating instead on attempts to lower gas prices.

What? Democrat lawmakers have done everything in their power to defeat Republican attempts to lower gas prices.

Senate Democrats considered global-warming legislation after the Memorial Day recess but quickly dropped the issue after a Republican filibuster. Since then they have focused on proposals closely related to gas prices: taxing the windfall profits of oil companies, curbing oil speculation in the futures markets and pressing oil companies to develop millions of acres in untapped federal land under lease.

None of which would lower gas prices.

“People’s anger about a lot of things is crystallized as a result of the gas prices,” said Lautenberg. “The anger is focused by the visibility [of inflated prices] at the pump.”

  Lautenberg warned that Americans aren’t eager to hear about the need for more financial sacrifices if there’s not a possible reward in the not-too-distant future. 

“If it looks like it’s just a continuation of an attack of our economy and family budgets, then its starts getting dispiriting,” he said of innovative yet expensive energy proposals.

He needn't worry. If Americans grew dispirited over attacks on our own economy and family budgets, we would have dumped liberalism as a serious ideology 78 years ago. Because that's precisely what liberalism is.

It's Time For the Poor to Pay Their Fair Share

We often hear from the left that the rich in America don't pay their fair share in taxes. We hear how President Bush's tax cuts have unfairly benefited the rich at the expense of the poor. Poppycock! The top earners in America are, and have always been, inordinately responsible for American prosperity. They are the people who drive the economy, who provide jobs for the rest of us, who provide the investment capital that keeps America growing. And they almost single-handedly fund our federal government, according to Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal.

My contacts at the Treasury Department tell me that for the first time in decades, and perhaps ever, the richest 1% of tax filers will have paid more than 40% of the income tax burden. The top 50% will account for 97% of all federal income taxes, while the bottom 50% will have paid just 3%.

Scott Johnson of Power Line notes that back in 1991 the top 1% of filers paid just under 25% of all income taxes. So under Bush's tax cuts, the wealthy are actually getting soaked, as Moore notes:

Economist Glenn Hubbard of Columbia University has shown that in 1970, when the highest tax rate was 70%, the top 1% shouldered 16.7% of the income tax burden. Today the top tax rate is 35% and the same class of taxpayers pays a whopping 39% of the burden. The worst way to "soak the rich," Mr. Hubbard finds, is to raise tax rates.

But, of course, that is exactly what Barack Obama wants to do. Moore points out that Obama's plan is economic suicide, because the people who pay the tax are not the only ones who suffer the consequences of the tax.

History has demonstrated time and again that raising tax rates on the wealthy in the name of "redistribution" leads to so much income shifting, reduced work and investment, and redeployment of money into tax shelters, that the rich usually pay less, not more taxes, at higher rates. The burden of paying for government shifts to others, including some who may not file an income tax return at all – because they no longer have jobs or no longer earn enough to pay income tax.

No. It isn't the rich who don't pay their fair share of the federal income tax. Rather it is the poor. And it is time for that to change. It is time for a flat tax. A flat tax is a fair tax. To a nation of people who believe that all men are created equal and believe in equal treatment under the law, any other form of taxation ought to be seen as perverse. Too many people have been brainwashed by their government to accept the lie that it is morally acceptable to discriminate against fellow citizens on the basis of income. What is fair about a tax system where some people have to pay a higher percentage than others just because government says they are "rich"?

Every flat tax proposal I've ever seen has included a minimum income level which would be exempted from taxation, usually around $30,000 for a family of four, and most of the proposals suggest a flat tax rate of 20% or less. I vehemently disagree with these numbers. I believe a flat tax should be set at 10% of income, the same percent as the biblical tithe. If God can survive on 10 percent, so can the federal government. As Ann Coulter points out, big government is a religion. And not a particularly productive religion at that. 

As for the amount of income that should be exempted, I have long believed that there should be no exemption. All income should be taxed if any is to be taxed. As long as we are to have a federal income tax, all income should be treated equally.

I was disturbed by the earlier note that said that the bottom 50% of wage earners paid only 3% of income taxes. The last numbers I saw showed that 33% of all income earners pay no income tax!   That was back in 2004. The number has certainly grown since then, because of the President's across-the-board tax cuts, and most estimates put it near 40% now. This is frightening. Once this number gets anywhere near 50%, this country is finished. As Aristotle said, "If the majority distributes among itself the things of a minority, it is evident that it will destroy the city."

We must fix this now. No exemption whatsoever. If you earn money, you pay income tax. 10 percent. Period. No matter who you are. That's fair. That's equal treatment under the law.

I can't imagine what it must feel like to have your country treat you like that, like someone who isn't citizen enough to help provide for the "necessities" of his government. What a slap in the face!

Taxing all income for all people would nearly eliminate the group of people that live off the efforts of others. It would make for more responsible voters, who would realize that they are in some way paying for every government program their representatives enact. Many of the lowest income earners are high school and college students. It is wrong that people who have reached voting age and are facing college generally don't have to pay taxes. A new voter should know what it means to pay for government programs. It would result in a more limited federal government. 

My flat tax would result in a more prosperous nation. How many people make $100,000 a year? Millions. They would keep $20,000 or so a year more, to spend and invest for themselves, to give to charity and family. How many people make $1 million a year?  Quite a few. A person making $1 million a year would save $250,000 in taxes. That money would necessarily be spent or invested or donated. How many jobs would be created with $250,000? 5 decent ones? 250 people could earn $1000 more that year because of that one person. The split could go any number of ways. Multiply that nationwide. America's economy would explode like nothing the world has ever seen.

Sure, some poor people who would now be getting taxed where they weren't before would have to work longer, or more efficiently, to earn the same amount as they did before. It will be good for them, they will become more productive citizens. But more importantly, with all the extra money going around, the opportunities would be endless for an enterprising mind to take off. The number of people jumping from poor to the middle and upper classes would also be record-breaking.

Welfare and unemployment compensation could be slashed at least in half, and would need to be, in order to prevent people from simply not working because of the tax increase. With all the investment and spending going on, there would be no excuse for any able-bodied person who wanted a job not having one.

It has been awhile since anyone has tried to get a flat tax passed. This election is going to be all about drilling and victory in Iraq, The next one should be about fixing the tax code. Progressive taxation is a disgrace to the American ideal. It is a disgrace to the concept of equality. It is a disgrace to common sense. It penalizes the people who make our economy run, and hurts the poor through unemployment or underemployment.

Comments welcome.

Say Good-Bye To Global Warming And Hello To Global Cooling!

From John Hawkins of Right Wing News and his interview with Dennis Avery, co-author of Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years:

...The very mild warming that the earth experienced over the last century: does that have more to do with mankind's activities or the sun?

It seems like it must be the sun. The reason we say that is because 70% of the warming we've had since 1850, when the Little Ice Age ended -- 70% of that warming came before 1940. 85% of the human emitted greenhouse gasses came after 1940. In fact, the net warming of the earth since 1940 is a miniscule 2/10 of 1 degree celsius....

One of the things that really annoys me about global warming alarmists is how they invariably select some point in time, before today but not so long ago that nobody remembers it, and compare us today to that time. As if they know exactly what is the absolute perfect weather condition for the planet, forever. "It seems warmer than it was when I was a kid," they think. So what? Why not be happy that you're freezing your ass off a little less than you used to?

Another question related to your last book: if you listen to global warming alarmists, they'll tell you that the earth is warmer than it ever has been during mankind's history. Is that true?

No. Absolutely untrue. The...warming before our last ice age was much warmer than anything we've had since. We had a warming that peaked 9000 years ago, another warming that peaked 5000 years ago. Both were warmer than today. Probably the Roman warming and the medieval warming were both warmer than today -- and we've had 8 warmings of the earth since the last Ice Age.

Of course. Things have been warmer before, they've been colder before.

You've recently said you believe we're about to experience mild global cooling. Can you tell us about that?

We are experiencing now, mild global cooling. We had a peak temperature in 1998, at the end of a hot El Nino and the climate model said this is just the beginning, it's going to get much hotter. But, it didn't. For 10 years, the temperature held stable.

During this time, from 2000 onward, the sunspots were predicting cooling. Let me point out to your readers that sunspots have had a strong history of predicting our temperature changes 10 years from now. A 10 year lag in predicting how solar activity will warm or cool the ocean. But, from 2000 on, they were predicting cooling.

2007, we got it. 2007 was significantly cooler and that was the first major downturn in the temperature in 30 years. That cooling has persisted -- at this point, in temperature, about back where we were in the year 1900.

Yesterday, I debated a guy on the Irish radio network and he said, "Oh that's not true, the UN has not told me that the temperatures went down." I said, "If the UN can't read their own thermometers they're in even bigger trouble than I thought."

But, the Hadley Centre in Britain, the Goddard Space Institute here in the US, and the University of Alabama in Huntsville, which gathers data from the temperature satellites, all told us the temperatures have gone down. They also just announced weeks ago that their...satellite shows the Pacific has shifted into a cooling phase. This is important because for the last 400 years, the earth's temperatures have mirrored the temperatures in the Northern Pacific.

...The end of the warming phase was 1998 then the Pacific fluttered around for 10 years...and now the cooling phase has begun, is likely to last for another 25-30 years....moderate cooling, not another ice age -- the same sort of cooling we had from 1940-1976.

Many global warming alarmists say there is a scientific consensus on global warming, that almost everyone agrees with them, almost unanimously among scientists. Is that true?

...With the temperatures scheduled for a 25 year cooling, I think the consensus just went out the window. I think the consensus people have just run off a cliff like Wile E. Coyote in the Roadrunner cartoons and they're in mid-air with their feet spinning madly while they wait for the earth to smash them to the ground far below.

Obviously. And when the same people are ginning up fear about global cooling in another decade, asking for the same socialist and anti-capitalist solutions they asked for with global warming, will most first-world people be duped again? Of course they will. Hopefully you won't be, and hopefully you weren't fooled by it this time around.

Obama: Enforcing Immigration Laws = Terrorism

Here's a new one:

When communities are terrorized by ICE immigration raids, when nursing mothers are torn from their babies, when children come home from school to find their parents missing, when people are detained without access to legal counsel, when all that is happening, the system just isn’t working, and we need to change it.

ICE performs raids when they have reason to suspect illegal activity, and (occasionally) detains those who are found to be breaking the law. Terrorists strap bombs onto their bodies and detonate them in crowded areas, or they fly airplanes into buildings. Perhaps I'm not as nuanced as Senator Obama is, but I see a big difference there. This guy is supposed to be Commander in Chief material? He's promised to continue the War on Terror, so I have to assume that when we leave Iraq he will redeploy our troops  to battle ICE. It only makes sense.

Law enforcement as terror. I haven't heard him make the same argument about enforcing other laws. I almost expect him to say that enforcement of drug laws has 'terrorized' the black community as well, except that would be placing him on the same side as race hucksters Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, and really, who wants to be on the same side as a guy who might cut your nuts off at any moment? 

As Ed Morrissey points out, if Obama really believes this hooey, why didn't he do anything about it when he was in the Senate? 

And if that’s what Obama thinks of ICE, why has he done nothing about them during the three years he’s been in the Senate?

Illegal workers wouldn’t get rounded up and arrested by ICE if they hadn’t entered the country illegally. When people break the law, they’d better be prepared to get arrested. If Obama wants to change that, then let him propose the bill that does it, which thus far in his career he has declined to do. Until then, Obama had better do some studying to learn the difference between American law enforcement and terrorists.

This was one of the big issues that had many conservatives cold on McCain. Obama has helped Senator McCain by moving so far to the left on this issue that McCain looks like a border-warrior in contrast. It was also delivered to La Raza (The Race), so Obama faces Hispandering charges as well.

If talk radio does its job and Fox News follows up, I expect to be hearing about this one for a long time.

President Bush to Lift Offshore Drilling Ban

From Fox News:

President Bush will lift an executive ban on offshore oil drilling, although new oil exploration on the Outer Continental Shelf will remain off limits until Congress also takes action.

Bush will be rescinding  his father's order, leaving only the Congressional ban in the way. It's a good idea, but you wonder why he waited so long to do this. Congressional democrats will now be in the position of being the only thing standing in the way of more oil production, and will have a hard time standing up to the public pressure. 

You've got to think the Dems will be interested in taking this issue away from any possible John McCain flip on the issue as well. I hope to see some movement on it soon, and if not, it's a big winner for McCain should he re-evaluate his position.