The Republitarian

Sunder Ramani

2010-02-01T16:38:00.000-08:00

Finally a candidate in my district I can feel good about. Ramani really has a shot here. Let's get some Republicans in office in Glendale/Burbank.

Please visit his site. Volunteer, contribute. Whatever. His opponent, Mike Gatto, is more of the same. He's arrogant and seems to be in it just for the title. People have given up on Glendale/Burbank as a lost cause to the Dems, but here's our chance!

Ramani's Facebook page

Ramani's Twitter

Steve Cooley for Attorney General!

2010-01-11T12:05:00.000-08:00

Steve Cooley has opened an exploratory committee for the California AG race! Finally, a candidate worth backing. I highly recommend getting involved. He is full of integrity and has been doing an amazing job in the LA District Attorney's office since 2000.

Sign up to help on his site or become a fan on his Facebook page.

Kamala Harris is scary and Rocky Delgadillo is ridiculous, so it is important that Cooley wins this race.

Sticking it to Greenpeace

2009-08-19T09:12:00.000-07:00

Ah, this is refreshing:

Thank you, Stephen Sackur for having some balls and looking at this issue from a rational, rather than an emotional standpoint. You've got to hand it to him for pointing out that temperatures have been warmer in the past, and somehow the polar bears have managed to survive.

The full interview is: here. And as noted in the Big Hollywood blog, Leipold later asserts that there is an urgent need for the suppression of economic growth in the United States and around the world. “We will definitely have to move to a different concept of growth. … The lifestyle of the rich in the world is not a sustainable model,” Leipold said. “If you take the lifestyle, its cost on the environment, and you multiply it with the billions of people and an increasing world population, you come up with numbers which are truly scary.”

Wow. What an idiot.

So, basically, he's saying, "We (Greenpeace) may or may not have been wrong (even though SCIENCE shows that we were wrong), but let's drastically (and detrimentally) change the structure of our societies to save Arctic ice (that isn't going anywhere), anyway."

Good plan.

Why do these people resent progress and success? Why is the pursuit of wealth viewed as evil? And why aren't they at least held accountable for doing thorough research before creating media hype and scares that Armageddon is near? How are these people taken seriously when we've been bombarded by Global Warming when the Earth is actually in a cooling phase (unrelated to human activity)? Or the polar bear scare, based on a picture that showed a few cuddly creatures floating on a melting chunk of ice, which claimed they were trapped and dying (when polar bears swim just fine and the ice chunk was floating very near the icy shore).

When will people stop being duped by these claims, stop "feeling" and start thinking?

The recession and capitalism

2009-03-22T23:40:00.000-07:00

A fabulous article about the recession, why it happened and what we are now doing to make it worse. It's a crucial read.

California: Flushed down the pooper

2009-02-26T08:43:00.000-08:00

Larry is right on the mark

2009-02-26T08:38:00.000-08:00

I love this man:

Obama Shoots for Mars

By Larry Elder

President Barack Obama, on Tuesday night, gave his first presidential address before Congress. He looked good, sounded great, and delivered his address with poise and confidence. He entered the Capitol and made his way through the applauding throng like a modern-day Moses slowly parting the Red Sea.
The moment was certainly historic, and all Americans -- or at least nearly all Americans -- took pride in living in a country that went from a Constitution that defined a black as three-fifths of a person to one where a black person could be elected President of the United States. Some journey!
But when the applause died down, the President took out a scattergun and attempted to hit everything in sight. He confidently asserted his and our intention to overcome the current economic downturn and march toward an even brighter future.
How? Government/taxpayers will spend our way to the summit.
He/Congress/we will "invest" in health care and education; "save or create" 3.5 million jobs; "cure cancer within our lifetime"; provide assistance to the states; "save our planet from the ravages of climate change"; save banks and other financial institutions while holding "accountable those responsible" for their problems; increase the size of the military; end torture (presumably he meant of our enemies); and cut the size of the deficit.
What?! Nothing about crafting a college football playoff?
After the President's speech, the political commentators fell over themselves in complimenting the President. Many said things like "he aimed high," "he set out an ambitious agenda," and "he outlined a vigorous list of expected accomplishments."
Economist Thomas Sowell uses a three-pronged test to examine government's "new ideas." 1) How much will it cost? 2) Who pays? 3) Will it work? Few of the post-speech analysts seemed to care.
One waited in vain for the political experts to point out that the President's spending spree must come from somewhere -- taxes or borrowing or printing.
And, as an aside, how would the press have reacted had former President George W. Bush claimed -- as did Obama -- that America "invented the automobile"?
Suppose Bush steered a shopping cart down the aisle, packed it with everything in sight that he could grab, pushed it to the cashier, and then said, "You mean I gotta pay?"
The President, on Tuesday night, promised to both lower taxes and raise taxes. He promised to both reduce spending and increase it. He promised to expand education while simultaneously claiming that education begins in the home. He promised to bail out homeowners -- "responsible" ones -- while insisting that Americans take responsibility for living beyond our means and making bad choices.
He promised to provide financial assistance to states while never mentioning the states' fiscal irresponsibility. He said, "There are 57 police officers who are still on the streets of Minneapolis tonight because this plan prevented the layoffs their department was about to make," yet said nothing about whether that state budgeted or spent responsibly.
He unilaterally abolished the notion that "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch." Under his administration, the free lunch not only exists, but government bureaucrats provide takeout or delivery.
The President, last night, mentioned no total price tag for all this largesse. He did say, however, that he intends to raise taxes on the 2 percent of Americans making more than $250,000. Somehow he expects to burden "the rich" still more and not affect their behavior. Already, the top 1 percent pays nearly 40 percent of all federal income taxes.
The President, as he said during the campaign, promised to lower taxes on 95 percent of Americans. Of course, nearly 30 percent of working Americans pay zero in federal income taxes. But they, too, will get checks. And, Obama said to applause, the "checks are on the way."
The President sketched out a federal government grab larger than any in the history of our nation. His administration intends to bail out and oversee everything from banks to car manufacturers to lemonade stands.
Be not afraid about waste, mismanagement or politically directed spending. To ensure that our money is spent properly, the Obama administration intends to post the allocations on the Internet, ensuring wise and appropriate fund distribution.
Do those who voted against the President "want him to fail"? No, those who opposed the President want America to succeed. The formula for that success has a long and impressive track record: lower taxes, rein in government spending, and promote free trade. Let's put it another way: Remove government's boot from the neck of the American worker, businessperson and entrepreneur.
Set them free. Watch what happens.

Frances Rice: Voice of Reason

2009-02-25T08:13:00.000-08:00

Please watch this interview of Frances Rice, Chairwoman of the National Black Republican Association that I saw on the Real Libertarian blog.

It's about time

2009-02-21T08:09:00.000-08:00

Laugh it up...

2009-02-21T07:53:00.000-08:00

The stuff nightmares are made of:

Stimulus = Poop Sandwich

2009-02-21T07:49:00.001-08:00

So sad, but true. Cartoon from Investor's Business Daily.

Trutanich for LA City Attorney!

2009-02-16T09:28:00.000-08:00

First of all, K-Fed would be better than the slimy, self-interested, corrupt Jack Weiss for this position. He is the most hated member of the LA City Council and has no business running for any office. While Trutanich has a clean record and the true interest of the city, at heart. He's strongly endorsed by revered LA District Attorney, Steve Cooley and LASD Sheriff, Lee Baca. He also recently won the LA Times endorsement.

Vote Trutanich!

2009-02-16T07:46:00.000-08:00

As usual, Larry hits the nail squarely on the head:

Obama in Prime Time: 7 Questions Left on Cutting Room Floor
by Larry Elder

President Barack Obama this week conducted his first prime-time press conference. After blaming the "failed theories of the last eight years" for today's economic crisis, he pushed for massive, unprecedented government spending.
Lefty radio talk show host Ed Schultz -- who once called Republican presidential candidate John McCain a "warmonger" -- sat in the front row, appropriately next to "reporter" Helen Thomas. Thomas used to attack then-President Bush with her statements masquerading as questions. In her question to Obama, she referred to our Islamofascist enemies as "so-called terrorists" -- which failed to elicit even a raised eyebrow from the President.
What, no Rush Limbaugh?
Obama even took a question from a "reporter" for the hyper-liberal Web site The Huffington Post. And, unlike Bush, the Obama administration preselected the reporters to be called upon and notified them in advance. Why did the others even bother showing up? If Bush pulled something like this, they'd call it "the discredited doctrine of pre-emption."
We offer seven questions left on the cutting room floor:
1) Mr. President, tonight you criticized those who argue that FDR's policies failed. I'd like to read a passage from the diary of Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Treasury secretary: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started and an enormous debt to boot!" Please comment.
2) Mr. President, this is a two-part question. In your opening statement, you called today's economic situation "the most profound economic emergency since the Great Depression" and later "the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression." But in the 1981-82 recession, unemployment reached 10.8 percent in 1982 versus 7.6 today. Reagan inherited an annual inflation rate of 13.5 percent, while you, sir, came in with a 0.1 percent inflation rate. Prime interest rates reached 21.5 percent at the end of 1980, compared with 3.25 percent at the end of 2008. Reagan did not ask for a "rescue" or "bailout" package. He cut taxes and slowed the rate of domestic spending. Unemployment, inflation and interest rates went down. The Treasury collected more revenue than ever. First, how then -- at least so far -- is this the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression? And second, given Reagan's success, why not cut taxes, reduce domestic spending, and leave taxpayers and consumers with more money to save, spend and invest?
3) Mr. President, you say your administration will not torture. You've directed our military to apply the Army Field Manual, which relies on 19 psychological methods of interrogation and excludes waterboarding. Yet you are setting up an interagency panel to decide whether to use interrogation methods not included in the Army Field Manual. Aren't you having it both ways -- saying you won't torture or use enhanced interrogation techniques, while retaining the option to do so?
4) As a candidate, you called raising taxes a matter of "neighborliness." Your Vice President called paying taxes a matter of "patriotism." Yet your secretary of Treasury, Timothy Geithner, who oversees the IRS, failed to pay some taxes. The International Monetary Fund, where he worked, informed him in writing of his obligation to pay payroll taxes and increased his compensation to offset the payment. He accepted the compensation but failed to pay taxes. Can the head of the department that runs the IRS credibly expect others to pay their taxes, when he failed to pay his own?
5) In one of your first acts as President, you signed an executive order that many call the toughest-ever ethical guidelines. It bans former lobbyists joining your administration from being involved with any matters or agencies that might be related to their former lobbying efforts. It also prohibits anyone from working in an agency he or she lobbied during the past two years. Given that, please comment on why you have granted a dozen personnel waivers to your own ethical guidelines.
6) The respected nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office studies the effects of the various proposed stimulus plans. The Washington Times said, "CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing." Your comment?
7) Tonight you blamed the economic crisis on the "failed theories of the last eight years," yet tonight you also criticized homeowners who put little or nothing down and purchase homes without the ability to pay their mortgages if "something goes wrong." Sir, which is it?
No charge to use these.

Do as Barack says, not as he does?

2009-02-16T07:41:00.000-08:00

The Origins of Global Warming

2009-01-29T10:40:00.000-08:00

An interesting article on where the hype originated.

Blago's Slime

2009-01-29T10:15:00.000-08:00

Seriously, this guy brings the concept of sleazy politicians to new levels. Plus, does he look like a cartoon character to anyone else?

Warning: shower may be necessary after viewing this video:

Part 1

Part 2

Gross. Gross. Gross.

You've just been slimed.

Another article against nationalized health care

2009-01-27T18:01:00.000-08:00

A Health Care Model For Failure

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, January 27, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Socialized Medicine: Anyone who thinks a national single-payer system would be an improvement isn't paying attention. Medicare, which provides coverage for less than 15% of the population, can't get it right.

The federal government seems to always be in a hurry to dole out pork, but it has problems reimbursing doctors who see Medicare patients.

Payments have been so late in some cases that doctors from New York to California have had little choice but to take out loans — some as large as $3 million — to bridge the gap.

The late payments, which can be over $100,000, are only part of the problem for doctors.

In too many instances, the compensation that is eventually provided by Medicare — an amount determined by bureaucrats, not the market, and is therefore subject to error — is simply not enough to cover the physicians' costs.

"When I saw a Medicare patient with pneumonia and they needed a shot that cost $30, and Medicare would reimburse only $21, I gave him the shot," Eugene Wood, a recently retired Jackson physician, told the Mississippi Business Journal last fall.

"I went ahead and practiced good medicine. But I just kept going in the hole."

The trend toward late and below-cost reimbursements creates trouble at two levels.

First, some doctors are cutting back on the number of Medicare patients they see — limiting medical care access for the elderly who rely on Medicare and have paid into it for 40 years or more.

Still others found that they have had to lay off staff and trim their own salaries to continue their practices.

Second, the arrangement kills incentives for medical school students to practice family medicine, which already seems to be a dying art, as only 8% of 2006 U.S. medical school graduates opted for family practices. That's about half the number of graduates who were choosing to go into family practice in the early 1990s.

Making $150,000 a year right out of school might sound like a dream to many, but when doctors owe a year's salary and often more in medical school student loans, their handsome incomes don't look as attractive. A family physician has to be as good a businessman as a doctor if he is to keep his practice above water.

If this is the mess that Medicare is producing, imagine the intractable complications that a universal government system would bring.

Who would want to practice medicine under those conditions? Where will sick Americans go when doctors are fleeing practices and the demand for care under a "free" system outstrips supply?

Medicare and Medicaid, the program for low-income Americans, cover a quarter of the U.S. population and will account for a fourth of federal outlays this year.

No matter how much a Washington player promises that he or she can bring health care costs down through a national system, the numbers say that under a universal program, the entire federal budget will be dedicated to providing health care.

Like it or not — and we don't — Medicare and Medicaid, both established in 1965, have become deeply embedded in the American fabric. They will not go away. The best we can hope for is some sort of reform that lessens the taxpayers' liabilities and increases the responsibility of individuals.

What the country doesn't need is universal care. If universal care is the only alternative, we'd prefer the status quo.

But even that's trouble. Already Medicare's Hospital Insurance is paying out more in benefits than it takes in from tax revenues. By next year, outlays for the entire program will exceed income. The Hospital Insurance Trust Fund will be exhausted by 2019.

System trustees estimate that over the long term, Medicare will have $36 trillion in obligations that aren't funded under the current setup. That, according to analysts at the Heritage Foundation, means "every American household's share of Medicare's unfunded obligation is like a $320,000 IOU."

If Washington can't run a program for 44.1 million people without bankrupting the nation, how can it possibly operate a national health care system for more than 300 million?

But unless Republicans resolve to stop the movement for good, Washington will surely try — and fail.

Lack of grace and dignity from a wildly popular man

2009-01-27T17:33:00.000-08:00

Obama hasn barely been in office a week and he has already shown a lack of humility and graciousness in the way he is handling the Rush Limbaugh situation. I, personally, cannot stand Limbaugh and will tell anyone who asks that I think his tactics are divisive and ridiculous. I, however, am not the President of the United States of America.

After one little attack from a right-wing pundit, Obama has already lowered himself to Rush's level, by responding and taking a jab at the conservative talk show host. Really? You've got to be kidding me.

President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill today that they need to quit listening to radio king Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration.
"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.

Now, it would have probably been better if someone from the Bush administration had responded to at least some of the constant barage of attacks, to try to elucidate Bush's reasons for certain decisions and actions, rather than just letting the press and the public have a field day with Bush jokes. But, Bush, himself, was right as to never lower himself to respond to silly personal attacks as Obama has just done.

Not to mention, this hints at our anointed President's true feelings about free speech. Can anyone say: Fairness Doctrine?

Yeah, about that change...

2009-01-13T14:52:00.000-08:00

maybe not so much.

Why not ban ALL distractions?

2009-01-13T14:18:00.001-08:00

Radios, CD players and mp3 players are distracting. They should be banned while driving. Having a passenger in your car is distracting. Cars should be constructed with only one seat. Windows are distracting, lets eliminate those.

Where does it end?

A national safety group is advocating a total ban on cell phone use while driving, saying the practice is clearly dangerous and leads to fatalities.

Grace and dignity from unpopular man

2009-01-13T13:45:00.000-08:00

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'm not a big fan of Bush (mostly because of his fiscal policies and religious roots), but the hatred he incurs is outrageous and undeserved. He's kept us safe, which is the MOST important of a presidential task. So, it's nice to see articles, such as this one, recognizing the grace with which he has endured the taunting, personal attacks and general hatred constantly spewed against him. It takes a special person to rise above these things. And while I think he should not be so apologetic now, especially about his foreign policy decisions, this is another reason why he is a good, if not great man. Can you see Clinton being sincerely apologetic about anything? He's about as humble and sincere as O.J.

Velcro Presidency

Leadership: George W. Bush was pegged as a hate figure even before being sworn in. Yet he resisted bitterness, stuck to principle and became what history will judge to be one of our better presidents.

We may have witnessed in the last eight the Anti-Watergate. Richard Milhous Nixon never forgot a slight, used federal law enforcement powers against his political enemies and infuriated the Republican Party's conservative base with policies ranging from wage and price controls to detente with communists to Supreme Court appointments.

President George W. Bush

Soon-to-be-ex-President Bush, on the other hand, has taken at least as much personal abuse, yet his graciousness seldom fails. While the 37th president acidly told the press, "You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore," the 43rd told the reporters at his final presidential press conference Monday that they were "just people trying to do the best they possibly can."

That's charitable in the extreme: Every step of the way, the establishment press has been eager to see this president fail.

And unlike Nixon, who so disappointed his supporters on the right that he was challenged for the GOP nomination in 1972, Bush stuck to the conservative principles on many if not most issues, including income and investment tax cuts, the invasion of two terror states and the appointment of Supreme Court justices.

Bush came to the plate with two strikes against him. He was falsely accused of stealing the 2000 election and hit the ground in the middle of a recession. Then came the first attack on the homeland since Pearl Harbor. In the face of the threat to both the U.S. and the free world, the commander in chief made war against governments that sponsored terrorism and cut taxes to revitalize the post-9/11 economy.

As he noted Monday, when the establishments of both parties in Washington insisted on throwing in the towel in Iraq, rather than accepting the status quo because the party might end up not doing well in the elections, Bush "decided to do something about it — and sent 30,000 troops in as opposed to withdrawing."

Asked about alleged damage to America's international image, the president offered a challenge: "Ask Africans about America's generosity and compassion; go to India . . . go to China and ask . . .. No question parts of Europe have said that we shouldn't have gone to war in Iraq without a mandate, but those are a few countries."

On Hurricane Katrina, he asked: "When I hear people say, 'The federal response was slow,' then what are they going to say to those chopper drivers, or the 30,000 that got pulled off the roofs?"

The one foreign-policy area where Bush may legitimately be faulted in the history books is in dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions. As the New York Times reported Saturday, a major covert program that would "subtly sabotage Iran's nuclear infrastructure" was begun by the administration early last year. It would "undermine electrical systems, computer systems and other networks on which Iran relies" and "is aimed at delaying the day that Iran can produce the weapons-grade fuel and designs it needs to produce a workable nuclear weapon."

If Barack Obama lets that program succeed, it'll be yet another reason history may place "the Velcro president" somewhere near the top tier occupied by the "the Teflon president," Ronald Reagan.

Really, Barack? Ya don't say.

2009-01-13T13:10:00.000-08:00

This shock of all shocks (sarcasm) comes in the form of another Obama promise to his vocal and radical lefties, falling by the wayside as he opens his eyes and sees that the world isn't powered by rainbows and butterflies.

In an interview with George "Clintonopolis" as Larry Elder calls him, Obama admits that this whole Gitmo thing, is a lot more complicated than he thought. Fortunately for our country (and probably the world), Obama does not have to follow through with his campaign promises. And of course, there are some who are rightfully upset by Obama's switcheroo, but I'm willing to wager that when all is said and done, everyone will forget about him going back on his word. And will he be accused of abusing power or called a warmonger? Of course not.

After so much of a fuss being made of George W. and Gitmo, let's all watch as the world quietly gives Obama a pass on this one, just as they will for many things to come.

President-elect Barack Obama said this weekend that he does not expect to close Guantanamo Bay in his first 100 days in office.

“I think it’s going to take some time and our legal teams are working in consultation with our national security apparatus as we speak to help design exactly what we need to do,” Obama said in an exclusive “This Week” interview with George Stephanopoulos, his first since arriving in Washington.

“It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize,” the president-elect explained. “Part of the challenge that you have is that you have a bunch of folks that have been detained, many of whom may be very dangerous who have not been put on trial or have not gone through some adjudication. And some of the evidence against them may be tainted even though it’s true. And so how to balance creating a process that adheres to rule of law, habeas corpus, basic principles of Anglo-American legal system, by doing it in a way that doesn’t result in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up.”

At least he has the sense to realize when he's wrong. But, I just want to throw out a little, "see, I told you so," action to all the Obama supporters out there, who fell right into line with his ridiculous campaign promises.

And one further question: why is it that an action taken by a Republican is viewed with hatred and scorn as cowboy diplomacy, but when the same action is taken by a Democrat it is overlooked or even thought of as sensible?

I give up.

The Slippery Slope of Government Programs

2009-01-12T18:34:00.000-08:00

Mark Perry, of the "Carpe Diem" blog, highlights a disturbing aspect of this article:

Universal Healthcare And The Waistline Police

Imagine a country where the government regularly checks the waistlines of citizens over age 40. Anyone deemed too fat would be required to undergo diet counseling. Those who fail to lose sufficient weight could face further "reeducation" and their communities subject to stiff fines.

Is this some nightmarish dystopia? No, this is contemporary Japan. The Japanese government argues that it must regulate citizens' lifestyles because it is paying their health costs.

This highlights one of the greatly underappreciated of "universal healthcare." Any government that attempts to guarantee healthcare also control its costs. The inevitable next step will be to seek to control citizens' health and their behavior. Hence, Americans should beware that if we adopt universal healthcare, we also risk creating a "nanny state on steroids" antithetical to core American principles.

~Dr. Paul Hsieh in the Christian Science Monitor

Thanks to Ben Cunningham.

This is a dangerous slippery slope. Aside from all of the other reasons that government health care is inefficient and wrong-headed, these examples are easily identifiable and scary. Why don't the people who have problems with wire-tapping and video surveillance camera have a problem with this kind of taking of a person's basic rights? Just as something so commonplace and ridiculous as the seat belt law, people should have the right to make their own stupid choices. It should not be up to government as to what they eat, how they dress, etc. Where is it in the Constitution that government's job is to protect us from ourselves? Should they protect us from foolish investments? Where does it say that government should provide us with anything other than protection from force and fraud? Why is the government able to take such liberties today? And where has it gotten us? Deep into a deficit. Especially in California. This particular nanny state, once a golden land of entrepreneurial opportunity, is now driving business people away in droves, depriving us of jobs and cash flow, that we desperately need. And in the meantime, our Governor tries to invent new ways to tax us for his programs that have done nothing anyway. Oh excuse me, we don't call them "taxes" anymore, we call them "fees."

Below is another excerpt from the Paul Hsieh article about the nanny state trend:

Although American healthcare is only under partial government control in the form of programs such as Medicaid and Medicare, American nanny state regulations have exploded in recent years.

Many American cities ban restaurants from selling foods with trans fats. Los Angeles has imposed a moratorium on new fast food restaurants in South L.A. Other California cities ban smoking in some private residences. California has outlawed after-school bake sales as part of a "zero tolerance" ban on selling sugar products on campus. New York Gov. David Paterson has proposed an 18 percent tax on sugary sodas and juice drinks, and state officials have not ruled out additional taxes on cheeseburgers and other foods deemed unhealthy.

These ominous trends will only accelerate if the US adopts universal healthcare.

Just as universal healthcare will further fuel the nanny state, the nanny state mind-set helps fuel the drive toward universal healthcare. Individuals aren't regarded as competent to decide how to manage their lives and their health. So the government provides "cradle to grave" coverage of their healthcare.

It is a serious problem for California, when the best and the brightest are heading for the hills.
"In 2000, according to the state's Department of Finance, about 150,000 people moved into California. But in the years that followed the in-migration slowed, and in 2005 it reversed, when a net 52,000 people moved out. In 2008, the outflow topped 135,000 people." This is bad. Very bad.

My question is, where is all this increased spending going? Is your life better because of it? I can't see it, I can't feel it. Instead of improvements, I see failed programs, a failing school system, government agencies that everyone dreads (the DMV for example). Show me something that all this government money has improved. In fact, I'm pretty sure things are worse, even though we are throwing money around like madmen.

While it has the sixth highest tax burden in the nation, according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, California is facing a breathtaking $40 billion budget deficit this year. This comes on the heels of a decade-long spending spree. Last year the state budget was $131 billion, up from $56 billion in 1998.

What I see is more and more excuses every day for spending and taxing because everyone's terrified to just do nothing.

Just do nothing.

Let people and companies fail. Let's learn from our mistakes. Let's become leaner and meaner and more efficient. These bailouts of big, bulky and inefficient industries teaches us all to function like the big, bulky and inefficient government, while removing consequences. When did we become a country of handouts?

It's not always a bad thing to fail.

Sea Kittens: Kid tested. Mother approved.

2009-01-09T10:32:00.000-08:00

Do the people over at PETA ever just sit back and take a look at some of the things they're saying?

Their latest nonsensical campaign is to rename the species formerly known as "Fish" to "Sea Kittens."

"Why?" You might ask.

People don't seem to like fish. They're slithery and slimy, and they have eyes on either side of their pointy little heads—which is weird, to say the least. Plus, the small ones nibble at your feet when you're swimming, and the big ones—well, the big ones will bite your face off if Jaws is anything to go by.

Of course, if you look at it another way, what all this really means is that fish need to fire their PR guy—stat. Whoever was in charge of creating a positive image for fish needs to go right back to working on the Britney Spears account and leave our scaly little friends alone. You've done enough damage, buddy. We've got it from here. And we're going to start by retiring the old name for good. When your name can also be used as a verb that means driving a hook through your head, it's time for a serious image makeover. And who could possibly want to put a hook through a sea kitten?

PETA's trying to be cute in their approach to this. But the mentality behind this movement is absolutely ridiculous and offensive. And it's as if we don't have bigger "fish" to fry at the moment with our Global Economy imploding and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yes, let's focus our efforts on important matters like changing public opinion of fish, banning text messaging while driving (rather than spending more resources targeting drunk or illegal drivers), banning trans-fats, and placing further burdens on restaurant owners by requiring they post nutritional information. At least we have our priorities in the right order.

Serious *groan*

"Something for Nothing"

2009-01-07T21:36:00.000-08:00

How many times over do we have to prove that the private-sector does thing better than the government before people will start to believe it? And why do people feel that health care is a service that should be provided for free?

Why can't health care be budgeted for, just like food and housing? For those of you who are uninsured, I guarantee that there are financial sacrifices you could make that would free up enough cash to become insured. Yeah, it's not always easy. Life's not easy. It's not supposed to be. Why should it be the government/taxpayers job's to make life easier on those who choose to buy other commodities and services, rather than have foresight and protect their health? What are some things that we could relinquish to help afford health care? Cigarettes? I hear that's a pricey habit. Not to mention, terrible for your health and will probably make your rates go up. Restaurants? Those get expensive and are generally unhealthy anyway. That nasty shopping habit? Time to tear up the Bloomingdales cards, girl. Is it more important to look like Malibu Barbie or be able to fulfill a prescription or see your doctor regularly?

Point being, there are lots of places to cut the fat in pretty much anyone's budget. And what is more important than your health? There should be no excuses on this one. Have some personal responsibility, take care of yourself, don't wait for the government to bail your ass out. It may be too late, anyway.

Not to mention the numerous reasons why government-run health care has been proven not to work.

Here's a great post from the blog, Carpe Diem:

Entrepreneurs Can Solve Health Care Problems

From Devon Herrick's (National Center for Policy Analysis) study "Health Care Entrepreneurs: The Changing Nature of Providers:"

The market for medical care does not work like other markets. Providers typically do not disclose prices prior to treatment because they do not compete for patients based on price. Payments are usually not made by patients themselves but by third parties — employers, insurance companies or government (only 12% of medical costs are paid directly by patients, see chart above). And the amounts paid are not really market-clearing prices; they are "reimbursement" rates negotiated with bureaucratic institutions and networks. Furthermore, when providers do not compete on price, they usually do not compete on quality either. In fact, in a very real sense, doctors and hospitals are not competing for patients at all — at least not in the way normal businesses compete in markets.

The lack of competition results in a highly artificial market plagued by problems of high costs, inconsistent quality and poor access, according to Devon Herrick at the National Center for Policy Analysis in his study "Health Care Entrepreneurs: The Changing Nature of Providers."

But in health care markets where patients pay directly for all or most of their care, providers almost always compete on the basis of price and quality. Examples include:

Cosmetic surgery: Since it is rarely covered by insurance, patients pay out of pocket and are thus sensitive to prices; they can typically compare prices prior to surgery and pay a price that has been falling over time in real terms (see chart below).

Laser eye surgery: Competition is holding prices in check and improving quality in vision correction surgery, including accurate correction, faster healing, fewer side effects and an
expanded range of conditions that can be treated.

Price competition for drugs: Wal-Mart became the first national retailer to aggressively compete for buyers of generic drugs by charging a low, uniform price ($10 for a 90-day supply). Other chain stores have responded with their own pricing strategies.

Walk-in clinics in shopping malls and drug stores compete by offering low money costs and low time costs, and electronic prescribing improves quality using error-reducing software.

Telephone-based practices: TelaDoc, provides telephone consultations to 2 million customers. It allows patients access to a doctor any time of day from any location and also
uses electronic prescribing to reduce errors.

Medical tourism provides cash-paying patients health care outside of the United States in high-quality facilities that rival domestic facilities. Patients can save 30 to 50 percent by going abroad.

Bottom Line: In health care markets where third-party payers do not pay the bills, the behavior of providers and patients is radically different. In these markets, entrepreneurs compete for patients’ business by offering greater convenience, lower prices and innovative services unavailable in traditional clinical settings. What lesson can we learn from these examples of entrepreneurship in health care? The most important is that entrepreneurs can solve many of the health care problems that critics condemn. Public policy should encourage, not discourage, these efforts.

This promise of "universal health care" is similar to Obama's "Hope" and "Change." As economist, Thomas Sowell wonders, have we not yet figured out that the "promise of something for nothing" is like a pyramid scheme or any number of cons? All of the other countries that currently have universal health care have a number of problems with their systems.

For example:

...new life-saving medications that go immediately into the market in the United States take a much longer time to become available to Canadian patients-- if they ever get approved by the bureaucrats.
No doubt that lowers the cost of medications-- if you count costs solely in money terms, rather than in terms of how many people literally pay with their lives when the bureaucrats are reluctant to buy new pharmaceutical drugs, while they can continue to approve obsolete and cheaper drugs for the same illnesses.
Cancer survival rates are higher in the United States than in Europe. A recent report by the Fraser Institute in Vancouver estimates that annually tens of thousands of Canadians seek medical treatment outside of Canada, even though treatment is free inside Canada and they have to pay themselves for treatment elsewhere.
Other studies show that waiting times for surgery are months longer in Canada, Britain and Australia-- all countries with government-controlled medical care-- than in the United States.

First of all, the average uninsured American has above-average income-- and people living in poverty are already eligible for Medicaid.
There are of course some serious problems with Medicaid, as there is with government medical treatment at Veterans Administration hospitals and with Medicare. But such things only highlight the dangers of having the government take over the rest of the medical sector, given its dangerous failures where it is already involved in medical matters.
The lure of something for nothing may be seductive when you are in good health. But it can become a bitter irony when you are waiting for months for surgery to relieve your pain or when your life hangs in the balance while some bureaucrat decides whether you can get the best medication or something older and cheaper.

Why is Cheney so hated?

2009-01-07T21:22:00.000-08:00

I really can't understand it. True, he doesn't come across as the most dynamic of personalities. He's no Obama, that's for sure. But, he is sincere, pensive, intelligent, deeply knowledgeable and straightforward. He doesn't feel like a greasy politician. He doesn't engage in doublespeak. He tells it how it is and doesn't beat around the bush (no pun intended). This is rare in politics.

It's a shame Cheney wasn't President in lieu of Bush.

I can't take it anymore...

2009-01-07T21:13:00.000-08:00

Sometimes it feels like there is so much to be angry about, I don't even know where to start.

This indoctrination of our children/propaganda/brainwashing is just another example of PC lefties in the media, completely out of control.

Transcending Race

2009-01-07T20:51:00.000-08:00

One more thought on Obama's mythic transcendence of race: if the Obama win is so transcendent, how is it that Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) is blaming the Senate appointment blocking of Burris (the "Magic Man") on race? I thought we were past that, now?

Just wondering.

And, by the way, I had to scour the Internet for this quote. The only mainstream media outlet that posted this part of his quote was Fox. CNN, ABC, NBC, the NYT and the Washington Post all seemed to miss this little tidbit:

While they might not be termed racist, their action is racist. I think that if Roland Burris hadn't been an African American, then he would have been allowed to accept the appointment and become a senator.

This is outrageous and vile, especially coming from a man in the United States Congress. This is not some random guy. He is an elected official. Ann Coulter's inflammatory statements are plastered all over the blogospehere and the mainstream media. She is accused of virtolic hatred, but Bobby Rush is given a complete pass?

Wow.

Do as Barack Says, Not As He Does

2009-01-07T19:11:00.000-08:00

I can barely leave my house without running into Obama's face. The man is not even in office and yet, he is EVERYWHERE. He is inescapable. I made the mistake of going into Barnes and Nobles the other day and was greeted by a barrage of Barack. Kiosk after kiosk showcased books plastered with his face.

Just out of curiosity, I did a search for Obama on Amazon. The search yielded 2,217 Obama books (73 of which are children's books), 1,897 Obama apparel & accessories, 12 Obama music CDs, 3 magazines with Obama on the cover, 77 Obama related DVDs, 102 Obama related office supplies, 157 Obama car accessories, etc. Slightly excessive for someone who is not even president, yet and did little in the Senate beside vote "present."

I guess it makes sense in our society which seems to prize image over substance more and more every day. A few flashy words, a snappy dresser and a big smile is enough to make the man a God.

The only thing emptier than his words is the world's obsession over him. Obama iconography has infected every aspect of our culture. How much worse is this going to get?

Why does man, who arose from the dirtiest of the dirty political cities, Chicago, seem to skate above any scrutiny? Why is it assumed he's squeaky clean and can do no wrong? People are so quick to make him a role model for their children, but the man's a smoker. What kind of role model is that? Not that being a smoker makes him a bad person, but it certainly isn't commendable or presidential behavior.

Parents use the President-elect as a parenting aid.

You could call it Obama discipline or Obama etiquette, and it goes something like this:

Get up! Do you think Obama would have slept late and not made it to school on time?

Why don't you guys share? Don't you think Obama would want you to share?

How much did you read? Obama would have finished the book by now.

Do you think Obama would sneak cigarettes? (Oops.)

Does anyone know where I can get a WWOD bracelet?

I don't care if we're talking about Obama, Palin or Paris Hilton, there is no excuse for this kind of idolatry. It is dangerous. He is just a person, a flawed person, just like the rest of us. Not to mention, HE HASN'T DONE ANYTHING YET.

Do people really have so little strength and confidence in themselves that they must project their hopes and dreams on this man? If so, that's a sad commentary on our society.

Does it even get any creepier than this?

I think it's great that people look up to and are inspired by our President, rather than a celebrity, reality star, musician, vapid athlete, etc. But this is excessive and scary. With people so enamored by a leader, it is easy to allow ourselves to be blinded by this adoration. And again, what does this say about people's inherent self worth? Why must we seek out someone on which to lavish such hero/messiah worship?

And can we tone down the hypocrisy just a tad? Shall we compare two articles: one on the fitness regimen of Obama and one on the regimen of B ush.

Can you guess which is which?

[Blank] has gone to the gym, for about 90 minutes a day, for at least 48 days in a row. He always has treated exercise less as recreation than requirement, but his devotion has intensified during the past few months. Between workouts during his Hawaii vacation this week, he was photographed looking like the paradigm of a new kind of presidential fitness, one geared less toward preventing heart attacks than winning swimsuit competitions. The sun glinted off chiseled pectorals sculpted during four weightlifting sessions each week, and a body toned by regular treadmill runs and basketball games.
The more [Blank]'s life intensifies, friends said, the more he relies on the gym -- which is why he might be taking office in the best shape of his life. The gym is where he releases stress, maintains a routine and thinks without interruption. He sometimes wears headphones and barricades the outside world.

Versus:

[Blank] spends an enormous amount of time working out.
There’s no denying that the results are impressive. [Blank] can bench press 185 pounds five times, and, before a recent knee injury, he ran three miles at a 6-minute, 45-second pace. That’s better than I could manage when I played two sports in high school. And I wasn’t holding the most powerful office on Earth. Which is sort of my point: Does the leader of the free world need to attain that level of physical achievement?

I know it's tough, but can you figure it out?

As Michelle Malkin points out:

Fit Republican president = Selfish, indulgent, creepy fascist.

Fit Democratic president = Disciplined, health-conscious Adonis role model.

The good news: In just a few short weeks, W. will be able to exercise in peace, free from the disapproving glares of journalists now rushing to mop the sweat — er, the glisten — from Barack Obama’s hallowed brow.

Apparently even his fashion choices speak volumes about his ability to govern us effectively. My personal favorite is what the editor at GQ, Jim Moore said about Obama:

There's a very modern thinker there. He's not the pattern-mixing guy, not even the khaki guy. You'll very rarely even see him in jeans. He has an urbane, citified kind of palate. He has a vitality to him, and his image transcends race.

Transcends race? Really? Wow. That's pretty impressive, although I'm still not entirely sure what this phrase means. And what is it about his style allows him to achieve this inhuman feat?

I think what we can take take away from the past few months is that we should all just try to be a little more like our homeboy, Barack.

I demand more Italian/Scottish-American representation!

2009-01-06T11:19:00.000-08:00

Whatever happened to appointing someone on their merit rather than their race or gender? Please.

Latinos push Obama on vacant post

By Guillermo X. Garcia

After the withdrawal of Bill Richardson's name as an Obama administration Cabinet nominee, Hispanic leaders say they expect the president-elect to name another Latino to head the Commerce Department.

An Obama transition team source said a veteran California congressman, Xavier Becerra, has emerged as the leading congressional candidate to replace Richardson, the Hispanic governor of New Mexico, as President-elect Barack Obama's choice for a job that will include overseeing the 2010 U.S. Census.

“Even though he turned down the trade representative slot, Becerra is not only Hispanic, but he has the skill, talent and experience to do the Commerce job,” said the source, who was not authorized to speak for the president-elect.

“Xavier's name has gone to the top of the list of potential replacements in part because he is a member of the House leadership, he is well liked, he has very good credentials, and, of course, he was an early Obama backer,” the source said.

Becerra, a member of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee and the House Committee of the Budget, turned down Obama's offer to be U.S. Trade Representative because he did not want to give up his House seniority.

But several sources, including two who know him, say Becerra might be tempted to leave Congress, where he has been for 16 years, for the Commerce slot.

Richardson, who has also held a variety of high-profile posts including Energy Secretary and U.N. ambassador in the Clinton Administration, became an early Obama supporter after his own bid for the Democratic presidential nomination fizzled.

After Richardson removed himself from consideration Sunday, Hispanic interest groups around the country began pushing to have the position go to another Hispanic.

San Antonio Congressman Charlie Gonzalez said the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, which is meeting in Washington this week, “will be coalescing with other groups on a specific person to recommend” as Richardson's replacement. He declined to name any candidate.

He said Hispanic groups would strongly push to have a qualified Hispanic named as Richardson's replacement because of the need to have minorities, especially Hispanics, properly accounted for in the Census.

The Census Bureau, which conducts a national count once every 10 years, is part of the Department of Commerce. Many federal entitlement program allocations to the states are based on Census data.

While Gonzalez said he could not release the name, the Obama insider who is familiar with the situation, said the person under consideration is Becerra, 50, an eight-term congressman from Los Angeles.

The Obama official said Becerra's name “has risen to the top of the list” of potential Hispanics to replace Richardson, who removed himself because of a pending criminal investigation in his home state.

“I am crushed that Richardson is out,” said Linda Chavez Thompson of San Antonio, a member of the Democratic National Committee.

“I can't think of a single high-profile Latino at the level of Bill Richardson. He would have been ideally situated to positively impact the everyday life of Latinos, especially during these economic times we are living through,” Chavez, who until her retirement last year was the third-highest-ranking officer in the national AFL-CIO labor organization.

“We are going from three Latinos to two on the Obama Cabinet,” said Juan Sepulveda, a San Antonioan who served as the Obama campaign's Texas coordinator. “While we still have Sen. (Ken) Salazar and Rep. (Hilda) Solis at Interior and Labor, respectively, Richardson would have been the highest-ranking Hispanic in the cabinet.”

It would have been the first time that three Hispanics would serve as Cabinet secretaries at the same time, he said.

Three Latinos — current Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez and former Housing and Urban Development head Mel Martinez — served in the Cabinet of President George W. Bush, though not at the same time.

Three Latinos also served in Clinton's Cabinet, but not at once: former San Antonio Mayor Henry Cisneros as HUD secretary, Richardson as Energy secretary and former Denver mayor Federico Peña, a Laredo native, served as head of the Transportation and Energy departments.

Signs of hope outside the U.S.

2009-01-06T11:00:00.000-08:00

Could it be? A European leader who departs from all the climate change BS?

New EU President Klaus Is a 'Figurehead'; Appellation Rarely Used on Predecessor Sarkozy

By Tom Blumer

To say that President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic is not liked by Euro-elitists is a grand understatement.
European media has generally bent over backwards to give European Union politicians and bureaucrats in Brussels respect and the benefit of the doubt. If there is a voter referendum that enhances EU power, the press is for it, and those in countries like Ireland who reject its advances towards smiley-faced socialism are unenlightened.

Even France's widely disliked Nicolas Sarkozy received favorable treatment from the Europhile press during his 2008 stint as EU President.

That has changed now that Klaus, a fervent advocate of democracy and ardent opponent of statism, whatever its disguises -- including "climate change" -- has taken over that office.

David Charter, Europe correspondent for the UK Times Online, led the charge last Friday (the picture and caption above is from the Times's story page), and reported that things are getting quite testy between Klaus and the Europe uber alles crowd:

EU's new figurehead believes climate change is a myth

The European Union's new figurehead believes that climate change is a dangerous myth and has compared the union to a Communist state.

The views of President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic, 67, have left the government of Mirek Topolanek, his bitter opponent, determined to keep him as far away as possible from the EU presidency, which it took over from France yesterday.

The Czech president, who caused a diplomatic incident by dining with opponents of the EU’s Lisbon treaty on a recent visit to Ireland, has a largely ceremonial role.

But there are already fears that, after the dynamic EU presidency of Nicolas Sarkozy - including his hyper-active attempts at international diplomacy over the credit crisis and Georgia as well as an historic agreement to cut greenhouse gases - the Czech effort will be mired in infighting and overshadowed by the platform it will give to Mr Klaus and his controversial views.

Czech diplomats in Brussels insist that Mr Klaus is not a big part of their plans and are trying to limit him to one speech to the European Parliament in February and chairing one international summit, either the EU-Canada or EU-Russia meeting.

..... Tensions recently erupted between Mr Klaus and Brussels when a private meeting with senior MEPs descended into a slanging match after they presented him with an EU flag and said that they were not interested in his Eurosceptic views.

Mr Klaus responded: “No one has spoken to me in this style and tone in my six years here. I thought these methods ended for us 18 years ago. I see I was wrong.”

This led to a counter-attack from Mr Sarkozy in the European Parliament. He told MEPs: “The president of the European Parliament should not be treated like this and Europe’s symbols should not be treated like this, whatever people’s political engagement.”

What should not be lost in all of this is that Klaus is likely in better touch with the mood and outlook of average Europeans than the insulated bureaucrats and elitist politicians in Brussels. It's no secret that the blowback against radical steps to fight the non-problem of "climate change" is continent-wide, and growing ever more fierce.

In fact, as CCNet's Benny Peiser noted in the Wall Street Journal in mid-December, Europe has gone wobbly while the administration of the new president-elect of the US may be poised dive headfirst into the globaloney pool:

Participants at last week's United Nations climate conference in Poznan, Poland, were taken aback by a world seemingly turned upside-down. The traditional villains and heroes of the international climate narrative, the wicked U.S. and the noble European Union, had unexpectedly swapped roles. For once, it was the EU that was criticized for backpedalling on its CO2 targets while Europe's climate nemesis, the U.S., found itself commended for electing an environmental champion as president.

Thus, Klaus arrives at his supposed "figurehead" position at the EU just as European public opinion has swung dramatically his way. No wonder Europe's media is going out of its way to aspersions on him. Expect US media either to follow suit or to somehow forget one of its favorite mantras -- "we should be just like Europe" -- for at least a while.

Goodbye Larry

2008-12-12T14:40:00.000-08:00

Larry Elder, my all-time hero, (and the creator of the term, "Republitarian") announced his departure from his fifteen year run on KABC on Thursday at 5:00pm.

I began broadcasting on KABC 15 years ago. I'm proud of my record-setting stay at KABC. It feels like a lifetime during which this station has become a home, and you listeners have become my extended family. Like all families, we've had our ups and downs. We've been together in joy and sorrow. Good economies and bad. So it's with sadness I must tell you that KABC management and I have decided that tomorrow will be my last broadcast on KABC. I am looking forward to the other opportunities ahead of me, and I will post them on my web site, larryelder.com, when I'm ready to announce them. In the meantime, rest assured I'll still be fighting the good fight, and I won't back down. But I will miss talking to you every day here on KABC. Stay strong.

I can't say enough wonderful things about this man. I have learned an incredible amount from listening to his shows and reading his books and articles. Larry is a man of integrity, principles and honor. He is one of the few people who lives by their words. I'm so saddened by the lost of his show, but also excited to see what he will do next.

I LOVE YOU, LARRY!

Remembering an Inspirational Family

2008-12-10T12:59:00.000-08:00

I had a good friend, JP Blecksmith. We went to high school together. He was a top student, quarterback of the football team, captain of the track team, hilarious, generous and all around nice guy. After high school, he attended Annapolis and then was deployed to Fallujah, where he acted as a 2nd Lieutenant in the Marines. In November of '04, he was shot and instantly killed while clearing a rooftop for his platoon. Fox was kind enough to do a several day mini-documentary on JP and his platoon, which really showed the kind of guy he was. I wish I could find a clip. More information on JP can be found at http://www.jpblecksmith.org/.

Shortly after his death, his mother, Pam, was diagnosed with stage three colon cancer, which she battled for three years before finally succumbing in January of 2008. Pam was an extremely accomplished woman, with Stanford and MBA degrees, an extensive White House career, constant community volunteer work and a loving wife and mother of three. But, most impressive, she was the strongest and sweetest woman I've ever met. She never complained about being sick or losing her son, who was her best friend and pride and joy. I visited her in City of Hope, shortly after an extensive procedure to remove the cancer, which had, by that time, spread throughout her body. Despite her weakened condition, she was as perky and sweet as ever, while gently refusing to talk about herself, asking, instead, about my life and everyone else's.

Whenever I'm faced with adversity or sorrow, I try to remember the Blecksmiths and all of their selfless sacrifices. JP's memory receives most of the glory, because of his untimely and heroic death, but Pam was the true hero of the family. She was the silent and courageous backbone for all of them.

Pam and Ed Blecksmith at JP's funeral.

A Quality Rant

2008-11-25T10:07:00.000-08:00

A nice little article by Victor Davis Hanson.

I'm not really with him on the American male accent thing, though.

So Disappointed...

2008-11-11T11:48:00.000-08:00

This is no longer new news, but I'm still so disappointed. LA could really use a man like Caruso in office. And now is the perfect time for him, politically. I'm not even really a fan of his developments, but this man knows how to get things done quickly, efficiently and with integrity. I know he is facing a lot of pressure to run, so the fact that he decided not to, makes him even more admirable, especially since he sites his family as the reason. Oh well, hopefully, next time.

Caruso says thanks, but no thanks

Kevin Roderick

Developer Rick Caruso has been saying for a while that his running for mayor is only a question of when, not if. Well, it won't be this time, he announced today in a statement.

For the last few months I have been considering a potential run for Mayor because I care a great deal about Los Angeles. I grew up in Los Angeles, attended school here, started my business here and have invested a great deal in this community, both in time and resources. I have raised my family here. I love Los Angeles.
As I considered a run for mayor, given my experience both in the civic arena and in private business, I am confident that I have much to offer this city, both in terms of leadership and a passion for improving our community. For me personally however, my first consideration had to be whether, for my family, this was the right time for me to run.
And, while I am genuinely grateful for all the encouragement I have received from people all over this city to run for mayor and the confidence they put in me, I have decided that the obligation of serving as mayor would put a burden on my family that is too much at this point in their lives and, as a result, I will not be a candidate in the upcoming campaign for mayor. Having worked closely with Mayors in the past, I understand the commitment necessary to properly fill that role, and it is not the right time for me to commit myself wholly to the City at the expense of my family, particularly my young children.
My most enthusiastic cheerleaders encouraging me to jump into this race have been my four children. However, my wife Tina and I have always put our children first and I think that it would be better if the two youngest children were a little older before they make the sacrifices that are required of the families of elected officials. I hope there will be other opportunities for me to run for mayor, but my children will only be kids once.

Having an interest in serving my city is not new to me. I was proud to serve as President of the LA Department of Water and Power Commission for nearly 10 years, and to serve as President of the Police Commission during a very important time for the Department. Serving Mayors Bradley, Riordan, and Hahn was a great honor for me. Having served in those roles, I saw firsthand how important City Hall is to the everyday lives of Los Angeles residents. I have seen how much can be accomplished when the tools available to our leaders are used in a manner focused on solving problems and making our city more livable.

I have also built a business in Los Angeles, and understand from the private sector side, how government can help and also fail those trying to start a business, build a career, and raise their family here in our city. Right now Los Angeles is struggling. The LAPD, despite promises and increased taxes, remains understaffed. Instead of improved transit systems, we see more and more red tail lights. And economic redevelopment and improvements to our most underserved communities continues to lag.
These are very, very tough economic times. This City needs leaders that have a singular focus on improving the quality of life for all Los Angeles residents. There are good people in City Hall, and it is my hope that collectively, they can refocus their efforts on our City's problems in the months ahead so we realize Los Angeles' full potential. This was a very difficult decision for me to reach because of my devotion to this city, but today my role will remain as an interested and active private citizen and I will focus for now on my family, my business, and my community-based charitable activities.

Too Funny...

2008-11-06T08:42:00.001-08:00

Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are

Couldn't have said it better myself...

2008-11-05T08:43:00.000-08:00

Check out this blog post from The Mud Pit.

Let's Peer into the Future...

2008-11-04T14:33:00.000-08:00

A Perfect Storm
By Thomas Sowell

Some elections are routine, some are important and some are historic. If Senator John McCain wins this election, it will probably go down in history as routine. But if Senator Barack Obama wins, it is more likely to be historic-- and catastrophic.
Once the election is over, the glittering generalities of rhetoric and style will mean nothing. Everything will depend on performance in facing huge challenges, domestic and foreign.
Performance is where Barack Obama has nothing to show for his political career, either in Illinois or in Washington.
Policies that he proposes under the banner of "change" are almost all policies that have been tried repeatedly in other countries-- and failed repeatedly in other countries.
Politicians telling businesses how to operate? That's been tried in countries around the world, especially during the second half of the 20th century. It has failed so often and so badly that even socialist and communist governments were freeing up their markets by the end of the century.
The economies of China and India began their take-off into high rates of growth when they got rid of precisely the kinds of policies that Obama is advocating for the United States under the magic mantra of "change."
Putting restrictions on international trade in order to save jobs at home? That was tried here with the Hawley-Smoot tariff during the Great Depression.
Unemployment was 9 percent when that tariff was passed to save jobs, but unemployment went up instead of down, and reached 25 percent before the decade was over.
Higher taxes to "spread the well around," as Obama puts it? The idea of redistributing wealth has turned into the reality of redistributing poverty, in countries where wealth has fled and the production of new wealth has been stifled by a lack of incentives.
Economic disasters, however, may pale by comparison with the catastrophe of Iran with nuclear weapons. Glib rhetoric about Iran being "a small country," as Obama called it, will be a bitter irony for Americans who will have to live in the shadow of a nuclear threat that cannot be deterred, as that of the Soviet Union could be, by the threat of a nuclear counter-attack.
Suicidal fanatics cannot be deterred. If they are willing to die and we are not, then we are at their mercy-- and they have no mercy. Moreover, once they get nuclear weapons, that is a situation which cannot be reversed, either in this generation or in generations to come.
Is this the legacy we wish to leave our children and grandchildren, by voting on the basis of style and symbolism, rather than substance?
If Barack Obama thinks that such a catastrophe can be avoided by sitting down and talking with the leaders of Iran, then he is repeating a fallacy that helped bring on World War II.
In a nuclear age, one country does not have to send troops to occupy another country in order to conquer it. A country is conquered if another country can dictate who rules it, as the Mongols once did with Russia, and as Osama bin Laden tried to do when he threatened retaliation against places in the United States that voted for George W. Bush. But he didn't have nuclear weapons to back up that threat-- yet.
America has never been a conquered country, so it may be very hard for most Americans even to conceive what that can mean. After France was conquered in 1940, it was reduced to turning over some of its own innocent citizens to the Nazis to kill, just because those citizens were Jewish.
Do you think our leaders wouldn't do that? Not even if the alternative was to see New York and Los Angeles go up in mushroom clouds? If I were Jewish, I wouldn't bet my life on that.
What the Middle East fanatics want is not just our resources or even our lives, but our humiliation first, in whatever sadistic ways they can think of. Their lust for humiliation has already been repeatedly demonstrated in their videotaped beheadings that find such an eager market in the Middle East.
None of this can be prevented by glib talk, but only by character, courage and decisive actions-- none of which Barack Obama has ever demonstrated.

This makes me want to move back to the safe haven of Maine.

Another rant against uninformed voters

2008-11-04T10:23:00.000-08:00

Why do we, as a country, condone and promote ignorant voting? Nothing annoys me more than the "Get Out the Vote" movements. Why do we want uninformed voters helping to make important decisions about our country? Why don't we have an "Educate the Vote" campaign? Instead of being so concerned with people voting, we should be promoting knowledge and understanding of the issues that face us. And if people were educated about the issues, they would have more of an incentive to vote. This uninformed voting only leads to these knee-jerk, empty decisions.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard someone who knows nothing about any of the issues, and who couldn't tell an Obama policy from a McCain policy, waxing on about how they plan to vote for one candidate or the other. Although, in California and in my peer group, it definitely is largely Obamaniacs. I have no doubt that the rest of the country has plenty of uninformed McCain supporters.

I just have trouble wrapping my head around the idea that we give free Starbucks to people as an incentive to vote. The people that should be voting are the people who would vote without free coffee, not the people who have to be reminded and prodded.

I'm tired of people expecting a pat on the back for voting when they know NOTHING about the issues. You should get a pat on the back when you LEARN about the issues.

And I am so sick of hearing about how much of a historic election this is. Get over it people. I guarantee that it would not be considered to be such a historic election if the black candidate were on the Republican ticket. And the fact that we are making such a big deal over the color of Obama's skin, just goes to show how far we still have to go, rather than how far we've come. As I see it, this is a step backward, judging a candidate by the color of his skin, rather than on the merits of his record. Heralding a guy, who's party promoted him prematurely because he's a slick speaker and an uber politically correct choice. Never mind that he practically has no experience, poor judgment and is the most leftist candidate of all time. But, I digress.

The point is, people need to start doing their homework. Especially, smart, educated people, who have the time and resources to do such. Put down the People magazine. Turn off American Idol. Educate yourselves! Don't vote based on what someone at the office water cooler says. Learn about the issues. Figure out where you stand and then the choice becomes clear. These candidates stand for such radically different ideals, that it is utterly incomprehensible to me that anyone could have trouble deciding between the two.

And for those of you who don't like either choice, join the club. But you have to work with what you're given and vote for the America that you would rather see. Get involved. Education is the key. Sitting back and B-M-W-ing does nothing. Do something! Make an effort. Educate yourselves and then educate others. Learn about local candidates. And stop voting based on who looks more presidential.

As a side and final note, a very wise friend recently said:

You just described 90% of Obama's voting base. They know absolutely nothing about the issues, and they don't care. It "feels good" to vote for him. Kelly, you could tell them that Obama is going to execute their families and they'd still vote for him. They don't care about facts. Period.

I have a theory---it's a product of our TV/Internet generations, with short-attention spans and a taste only for dessert---nobody eats vegetables anymore (i.e. reading, researching, discussion, analysis, etc.). They only want easy answers (like their favorite TV shows) and simple solutions (like their e-mail splurges and text messaging).
Our society is deteriorating from the inside out...in an similar way that the Roman Empire destroyed itself from inside. As the Romans took over more & more people, tribes, villages, towns, they gradually lost their sense of Nationalism and cohesion. It became more about "me" than "us." The sense for a cause greater than oneself was lost. That is exactly what's happening to us, and Obama is the messiah for those who want handouts, for those with no appreciation for hard-earned success, and for those who want to alleviate their white guilt.

Welcome to the new U.S.A. You can scream, or you can dig into your little corner of the universe and enjoy it as best you can. That's what I'm doing.

It is so true. People vote based on what benefits them, personally, rather than what is best for the country. This short-sighted, me-centric society is the heart of so many of our problems. Look beyond yourselves, people. Try extrapolating a bit. It won't hurt, I promise.

Spooky

2008-10-31T10:49:00.000-07:00

A great little clip...

2008-10-30T14:05:00.000-07:00

Wow, this is the most poignant I've ever seen Megyn Kelly.

Good for her.

The Silent Tax

2008-10-29T15:29:00.000-07:00

What's the most annoying and sneaky tax of them all?

Inflation

Why isn't this discussed more? Every time the government spends money that it mints (on failing programs that shouldn't exist anyway) the value of all money goes down. This, in turn, hurts the middle and lower class the most. It's a silent killer and one of the things that drives people to foolishly hunt the highest returns they can, in order to just make up for inflation. The value of our money is partially transferred to the government as they print and spend it. Another infuriating tax that we never even see until it's too late. $1,000,000 sounds like a lot, right? Well, give it 30 or 40 years. It will only be worth a piddling $250,000 or so.

So, if government cut spending, inflation rates would not increase as rapidly, making our money worth more, longer. I have much of my money patiently waiting in CDs in this bad economy, yet, I am losing to inflation, even with a 4% return. It's frustrating that you get taxed to the hilt no matter what you do. And inflation is a nasty tax that you can't hide from. It will get you even if you don't declare the money and keep it under the mattress.

So, why is it that Barack Obama, Defender of the Little Guy, wants to spend more? Shouldn't he cut spending to best help those struggling? Especially in a down economy, wouldn't you want to do anything in your power as President to reduce the financial burden on Americans?

Guess not...

STOP STEALING MY MONEY!

Beating a dead horse...More on Media Bias

2008-10-29T10:02:00.000-07:00

For those who still do not believe it exists...

From the article, written about the first objective and successful study on media-bias, found in UCLA's Quarterly Journal of Economics:

Media Bias is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.

The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third.

That seems just a touch slanted.

The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.

I found this to be interesting, as well:

An additional feature of the study shows how each outlet compares in political orientation with actual lawmakers. The news pages of The Wall Street Journal scored a little to the left of the average American Democrat, as determined by the average ADA score of all Democrats in Congress (85 versus 84). With scores in the mid-70s, CBS' "Evening News" and The New York Times looked similar to Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who has an ADA score of 74.

Most of the outlets were less liberal than Lieberman but more liberal than former Sen. John Breaux, D-La. Those media outlets included the Drudge Report, ABC's "World News Tonight," NBC's "Nightly News," USA Today, NBC's "Today Show," Time magazine, U.S. News & World Report, Newsweek, NPR's "Morning Edition," CBS' "Early Show" and The Washington Post.

Since Groseclose and Milyo were more concerned with bias in news reporting than opinion pieces, which are designed to stake a political position, they omitted editorials and Op‑Eds from their tallies. This is one reason their study finds The Wall Street Journal more liberal than conventional wisdom asserts.

Another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom was that the Drudge Report was slightly left of center.

Now, because this is only taking into consideration straight news while omitting op-ed pieces and pundit shows, the networks and papers cited in this article could slant an entirely different way when looked at in whole. For example, as stated, The Wall Street Journal's opinion pieces are largely conservative, especially when taken in context of other media. However, what should really matter to the American public are the NEWS pieces...the ones that purport themselves to be unbiased, not the pundits who claim to be anything but.

Furthermore, another study examined the viewership of the different news networks and came to some obvious conclusions. Of CNN's viewers, a whopping 51% are democrat, while on 13% are republicans. MSNBC showed similar numbers with 45% being dems and 18% being republicans. Where is gets a little more interesting, is Fox's viewership, who claim 33% democrats and 39% republicans. That seems to be a whole lot more balanced than the aforementioned networks.

Now, I do not believe that Fox is always "Fair and Balanced." Not only do they tend to have more conservative pundit shows, but in the shows that claim balance, they generally to have a stronger and more credible personalities on the conservative side. for example, on Hannity and Colmes, Hannity is much more the celebrity and more committed debater. Colmes tends to let a lot slide and often defers to Hannity.

On the flip side, however, O'Reilly (whom I cannot stand and is believed to be a wingnut conservative) really is moderate and at times even populist. He just is very vocal about certain conservative beliefs that drive liberals crazy.

Just a few of O'Reilly's leftist views:

• Opposes the war
• Supports nationalized health care
• Supports minimum wage
• Opposes the death penalty
• Supports race-based preferences
• Supports government control of education

Given these positions alone, can you really call the guy conservative? Even Republican is a stretch.

Overall, I do believe that Fox strives more for balance than the other networks, which just drives liberals crazy. While attending the Communication School at BU, we were shown the "Outfoxed" documentary, lamenting the horrific slanted atrocities presented by the Fox network. Were we presented an opposing viewpoint? Of course not. All of my peers walked away from that class, even further convinced that Fox is the enemy. I even recived some gasps of disapproval and shock from friends when I told then that I do tune into Fox regularly.

And of course, one guy's opinion means nothing as far as the facts go, but it's always interesting when a lib journalist breaks from the fold and notes the injustice.

I have zero issues with any network/paper having as many partisan (on either side) pundit shows/op-ed pieces as they wish. But, can we please at least try for unbiased newscasts? And if that's too much to ask, can we at least call a spade a spade?

Sometimes, I am dumbfounded that there are even any conservatives left.

The reality of health care

2008-10-25T10:23:00.000-07:00

Liberals love to complain about the high price of private health care, while demanding that the government provide it for the people. Well, when are people going to realize that programs such as Medicare and Medicaid eliminate the incentive for competitive pricing?

50% of Americans receive some sort of government health care. So, why would patients, doctors or hospitals practice restraint in medical billing? If you're not paying out of your own pocket, why care how high your bills are? And if the bill will be paid by Big Daddy Government, why should doctors or hospitals care how much they charge?

If the free market were allowed to work, health care would become affordable, just like all other private products and services. Of course there would be different levels; more money would buy higher quality insurance. But government run health care isn't exactly top notch anyway. Why would the better doctors choose to work for the government when they can make more money running a private practice? And of course, there would still be those who choose to spend their money on other things rather than health care, but in general the price would come down. Why should it be different than anything else?

Gaffe-ing all the way to the bank.

2008-10-24T09:39:00.000-07:00

I'm already a little sick of hearing about this story, but it does still make me chuckle when I think about it.

Joe, just keep at it. We need to see more of you, man! Get out there!

I'm not really sure why SNL hasn't picked up on the comedic value of Biden yet, but he sure is gold....sweet, Botox'd, liquid gold.

I'm sure his gaffe's will have little to no impact on the election, but I do appreciate that special way he has of bringing a smile to my face.

Let's please move on.

2008-10-22T11:29:00.000-07:00

A Gallup poll shows:

While 6% of voters say they are less likely to vote for Barack Obama because of his race, 9% say they are more likely to vote for him, making the impact of his race a neutral to slightly positive factor when all voters' self-reported attitudes are taken into account.

So, can we please, please, please, please stop saying that the evil white racist is going to cost Obama the election?

Thanks.

Oh, and p.s., I'm not going to point out the percentage of people who will vote Obama because of his race.

Palin vs. Obama

2008-10-19T14:40:00.000-07:00

Record Vs. Rhetoric
by Thomas Sowell

Apparently there is something about Sarah Palin that causes some people to think of her as either the best of candidates or the worst of candidates. She draws enthusiastic crowds and provokes visceral hostility in the media.
The issue that is raised most often is her relative lack of experience and the fact that she would be "a heartbeat away from the presidency" if Senator John McCain were elected. But Barack Obama has even less experience-- none in an executive capacity-- and his would itself be the heartbeat of the presidency if he were elected.
Sarah Palin's record is on the record, while whole years of Barack Obama's life are engulfed in fog, and he has had to explain away one after another of the astounding and vile people he has not merely "associated" with but has had political alliances with, and to whom he has directed the taxpayers' money and other money.
Sarah Palin has had executive experience-- and the White House is the executive branch of government. We don't have to judge her by her rhetoric because she has a record.
We don't know what Barack Obama will actually do because he has actually done very little for which he was personally accountable. Even as a state legislator, he voted "present" innumerable times instead of taking a stand one way or the other on tough issues.
"Clean up the mess in Washington"? He was part of the mess in Chicago and lined up with the Daley machine against reformers.
He is also part of the mess in Washington, not only with numerous earmarks, but also as the Senate's second largest recipient of money from Fannie Mae, and someone whose campaign has this year sought the advice of disgraced former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines, who was at the heart of the subprime crisis.
Why then the enthusiasm for Obama and the hostility to Sarah Palin in the media?
One reason of course is that Senator Obama is ideologically much closer to the views of the media than is Governor Palin. But there is more than that. There are other conservative politicians who do not evoke such anger, spite and hate.
Sarah Palin is the one real outsider among the four candidates for the presidency and vice-presidency on the Republican and Democratic tickets. Her whole career has been spent outside the Washington Beltway.
More than that, her whole life has been outside the realm familiar to the intelligentsia of the media. She didn't go to the big-name colleges and imbibe the heady atmosphere that leaves so many feeling that they are special folks. She doesn't talk the way they talk or think the way they think.
Worse yet, from the media's perspective, Sarah Palin does not seek their Good Housekeeping seal of approval.
Much is made of Senator Joe Biden's "experience." But Frederick the Great said that experience matters only when valid conclusions are drawn from it.
Senator Biden's "experience" has been a long history of being on the wrong side of issue after issue in foreign policy. He was one of those Senators who voted to pull the plug on financial aid to South Vietnam, which was still defending itself from Communist invaders after the pullout of American troops.
Biden opposed Ronald Reagan's military buildup that helped win the Cold War. He opposed the surge in Iraq last year.
Sarah Palin will not be ready to become President of the United States on the first day that she and John McCain take office. Nobody is.
But being Vice President is a job that can allow a lot of time for studying, and everything about Governor Palin's career says that she is a bright gal with her head on straight. The country needs that far more than it needs people with glib answers to media "gotcha" questions.
Whatever the shortcomings of John McCain and Sarah Palin, they are people whose values are the values of this nation, whose loyalty and dedication to this country's fundamental institutions are beyond question because they have not spent decades working with people who hate America. Nor are they people whose judgments have been proved wrong consistently during decades of Beltway "experience."

Finally, McCain brings it.

2008-10-17T12:58:00.000-07:00

Good job, McCain!

He finally pulled through, doing a great job at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Dinner, getting loud belly laughs from all.

Obama was pretty entertaining, as well:

McCain then followed up the dinner with a great showing on Letterma, where Dave managed to keep his bitterness to a minimum. McCain finally elucidated some of the concepts that he's been struggling for the last few months to communicate.

I just hope that people were watching, because they certainly weren't watching the third debate.

I'm throwing in the towel

2008-10-16T08:37:00.000-07:00

Why is it so hard for McCain to get his ideas across? Granted, his speaking skills are light years beyond Bush's. But, Obama just runs circles around the guy. It's really not that hard, McCain.

Numerous times in the last debate, McCain started a sentence and either decided it wasn't what he wanted to say or maybe forgot where he was going. Either way, it made for a disjointed presentation. Furthermore, McCain's points weren't effective. It's not difficult to explain so many different reasons why Obama's tax plan is atrocious. It's not hard to diffuse many of his fallacious accusations. It's not hard to explain why Socialism is a terrible way to run a country.

Obama accused McCain's ads of being 100% negative. That's not even close to being true. There was even proof of that during the DNC when McCain ran and paid for an ad congratulating Obama for a job well done, commending his character. A stunt...probably. But still, can't blame him for being negative in that case. And Obama crossed a line when accusing Palin of not correcting the man who supposedly shouted out, "Kill him!" at her campaign rally. C'mon McCain, you're just going to let Obama get away with that? First of all, there is NO evidence of this event happening, aside from the small town journalist from the Scranton paper who initially reported it. There has been an investigation conducted by the Secret Service and not a single person who was at the rally has come forward and said they heard anything like that. Secondly, if some dumbass in the back of a cheering crowd shouts something that nobody else hears, how the Hell is Palin supposed to notice this incident and correct it? A job well done, Obama. How many people who were listening to the debate last night will actually fact check anything either candidate said? Very few. So, in terms of who sounded like they knew what they were talking about the most, it's Obama by a landslide. It doesn't matter if what either candidate says is true or not. It matters who looks the most "presidential." Give me a break.

McCain needs my man, Larry, hooked up in an earpiece, feeding him what to say. He' the best at distilling information into bite-sized bits, clearly explaining Obama's hypocrisies. Stop bumbling around with Joe, the Plumber. It's not resonating and you're not even using the situation correctly, McCain. This is the kind of story McCain needs to be telling from a Larry Elder a rticle (where else?).

Republican candidate John McCain should tell people in real, human terms how hiking taxes on the so-called rich affects us all. My friend Nina is a self-employed interior decorator. She just met a prospective married client, whose husband works in the entertainment industry. The client may pull the job because of Obama's impending tax cuts. Nina makes well under $250,000, lives in an apartment, has no maid, and drives a midsize non-luxury car.
But the couple she hopes to get the job from face a tax rate of 39.5 percent plus increased Social Security taxes, on top of higher taxes for capital gains and dividends.

I'm so frustrated with McCain's inability to communicate effectively. The campaign was being run so incredibly until this bailout fiasco when McCain foolishly suspended his campaign. While I do believe he honestly was trying to do what he felt was best for the Country, it came across as a shallow, ineffective ploy. McCain severely misjudged the division in the Republican camp, therefore, his racing back to Washington looked as though it accomplished very little. Since then, it's been mistake after mistake.

I just don't understand how it is that McCain can come across brilliantly in some interviews and then in the debates, he crumbles.

And regarding all the talk about the Bradley Effect is driving me nuts. If Americans are so racist, how did Obama get the Democratic nomination? How does he win primaries in Maine, Ohio, Wyoming? Some might say those were Democrats voting for him in the primaries, not the racist Right. Well, Republicans aren't going to vote for him anyway! So, no loss of votes there. Furthermore, there are idiots everywhere. 11% of Americans think Elvis might still be alive. So, it should neither be surprising nor that dismaying that there is a small percentage of Americans who are racist. Also, Zogby, among others, have done extensive research into the Bradley Effect and are confident that with today's polling procedures, the results are much more accurate, making the Bradley Effect much less relevant in this election.

Freedom of Choice?

2008-10-15T12:24:00.000-07:00

I don't feel very free when my choice is: Obama, a big smelly socialist or McCain, a big smelly socialist.

Why prioritize when you can get it all for free?

2008-10-15T09:14:00.000-07:00

Nick Gillespie's take on health insurance.

Well Put.

2008-10-15T09:06:00.000-07:00

A nice little article on why wealth redistribution is ridiculous.

We're in big trouble

2008-10-15T08:37:00.000-07:00

Case in point:

She's got some serious balls.

2008-10-14T23:54:00.000-07:00

I can't think of anyone else who would have the balls to get on TV and speak their mind about such a controversial issue.

The world needs more Ayn Rands.

I love you, Larry!

2008-10-14T23:00:00.000-07:00

Why aren't there more men like Larry?

Is Capitalism on the Ropes?

by Larry Elder

An indictment of greed! A case for more government intervention! Worst financial crisis since the Great Depression! Failure of capitalism! This list includes the "lessons" of the recent turmoil in the financial markets. Nonsense.
Down with greed!
Someone please produce the gun held to the temples of borrowers who put little or no money down, took out "teaser" rates, and then pleaded ignorance or victimhood when the lender -- as stipulated in the contract -- jacked up the rate. Lenders and borrowers expected government/taxpayers to somehow, someway, step in and shield them from the consequences of their decisions. This creates "moral hazard" -- behavior based upon the knowledge of protection from the bad consequences of reckless or irresponsible behavior. Decisions entail risk, whether personal or financial ones.
We need more regulation!
We have it -- lots of it. Ever hear of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO)? This agency, which employs 200 people, exists for one thing and one thing only -- to "oversee" Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the "government-sponsored entities" that own or guarantee 40 percent of the nation's residential mortgages. Mere months before Freddie and Fannie's collapse and subsequent government takeover, OFHEO issued a report that saw only clean sailing. The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, mandated that lenders lend to high-risk borrowers -- or else. The government actually held up prudent bank mergers if one or both sides did not sufficiently "lend" to borrowers who, under normal circumstances, failed to qualify. Why is the federal government in the housing business in the first place? We need less government, not more regulation.
We are experiencing "the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression"!
Even if this were true, we aren't even close to that catastrophic event. At the Great Depression's nadir, 25 percent of adults were unemployed, including nearly 50 percent of urban black adults. Economist David Wheelock, of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, says that by the dawn of 1934, nearly half the urban homes with mortgages were in default, and 7.3 percent of housing structures had been foreclosed. Today 6.4 percent of mortgages are delinquent, 2.75 percent are in the foreclosure process, and 0.6 percent of all housing units are bank-owned.
But what about since the Great Depression? Take the recession of 1980-81. In 1980, inflation averaged 13.58 percent, unemployment increased from 6.3 to 8.5 percent, and the prime loan rate reached an astonishing 21.5 percent. According to the Mortgage Bankers Association, today's delinquency rate is only a little higher than in 1985. And in 1999, the foreclosure rate set records.
According to the FDIC, in the almost two-year period of 2007 and 2008, 15 banks failed. Similarly, during Clinton's last two years in office, 1999 and 2000, 15 banks also failed. In the recession-free years of 1988 and 1989, there were 1,004 bank failures. And since the Great Depression, the average number of yearly bank failures has been 94.
This exposes the failure of capitalism!
What do you say we actually try capitalism, where private actors reap rewards and assume the risk? "Capitalism," says Kenneth Minogue, professor emeritus at the London School of Economics, "is what people do if you leave them alone." People want "hands off" until, that is, they want "hands on." People want homes, many preferring that option even when renting may be more prudent. Many want rent control to shield them from leasing at fair market rates. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama promises "world-class" education -- with taxpayers paying for it. And the federal government, in dramatic contradiction with the limited-government intention of the Constitution, involves itself in health care, guaranteeing private-sector retirement accounts, disaster relief, welfare, unemployment compensation benefits, retirement benefits, etc.
The Federal Reserve Bank, in effect, prints money to pay for things that voters demand -- but their taxes cannot cover. The proposed bailout of financial institutions enables the Fed to create hundreds of billions of dollars out of thin air. The cost is greater inflation -- a stealth tax on us all.
Government, meanwhile, grows and grows.
In 1930, before Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal, taxpayers paid about 12 percent of their income to all three levels of government -- state, local and federal. Today we pay approximately 40 percent -- even more if you attach a value to unfunded mandates, such as those issued by agencies such as OSHA.
So, yes, our recent financial turmoil does suggest failure -- a failure to truly practice capitalism and a failure to accept and believe in the value, appropriateness and morality of a limited government and maximum personal responsibility.

Post-Racial? Umm, maybe not.

2008-10-14T22:05:00.000-07:00

Ah, yes, The Great Unifier...The Post-Racial Candidate...The Magnificent Barack Obama. Why does he hate whitey so?

I believe Obama's been the one bringing up race in this campaign. McCain is so terrified to be called a racist that he would never go near the subject except to deny it. Yet, Obama loves talking about how McCain is going to say he doesn't look like the other presidents on the dollar bill. Funny, I haven't heard McCain say anything like that. Yet, every day, I hear the Dems screaming about racism. My favorite is how "community organizer" has now become a evil Republican code word for "Black," according to the media. My name must have somehow been removed from the white conspirators' list, because I haven't received this month's Racist Code Words newsletter, yet. Can't we just move on?

McCain's been fighting dirtier than I'd like, although most of his attacks on Obama are far more legitimate than Obama's cries of racism. Of course, there are some idiots in the GOP who have been claiming Obama's a Muslim, claiming he's evil, and even a few calling for his death. This is all terrible and should never be a part of the political discourse or any discourse, for that matter. However, should we take a look at the similar things that are being said about McCain and Palin? Let's see how long one would last walking through Third St Promenade in Santa Monica with a McCain/Palin sign before receiving death threats. And what about the innumerable threats and horrendous accusations and comparisons that have been made against Bush for the last eight years? Do his accusers have any concept of the atrocities committed by Hitler and Saddam Hussein, men Bush is likened to regularly? Cries for Bush's death can be heard at many protests around the country. Yet, I don't see those incidences getting much media attention.

And why can liberals get away with being racist, but conservatives are condemned for saying "community organizer?" Does anyone recall Michael Steele's gubernatorial debate when the democrats handed out Oreo cookies to the audience and called him an Uncle Tom? I guess it's just fine for a liberal to use race against a conservative, but not vice versa. At least Americans aren't hypocrites. All this being said, the vast majority of Americans are not racist, certainly not enough for this to be viewed as a major problem in today's society.

How racist can this country possible be, when there is a group called "Rednecks for Obama?"

While there will be a few grandmothers in Knoxville, Tennessee who won't vote for Obama because he's Black, there will probably be more college students at Berkley who will vote Obama because he's Black.

So, can we please just all move on, already?

And most importantly...

Larry Elder for President in 2012!

Sick and Tired of Being Sick and Tired of the Media

2008-10-10T12:38:00.000-07:00

It's getting to the point that I can't watch the news, TV, movies or listen to music without being utterly disgusted.

A few nights ago, I made the mistake of trying to watch late night TV.

Now, Letterman has always gotten off on lampooning Bush. Ok, understandable. Bush says some stupid things. He's an easy target. It's funny...I get it. But, the last several times I've tried to tune in, it's been a full scale attack on either Palin or McCain. Pretty much the whole time, Letterman is not just cracking jokes, but being viciously aggressive in his disdain for conservatives. He tears the two GOP candidates apart like a whiny child who is lashing out at Mom for making him eat his peas. Sometimes it's even obvious he takes it too far for his in-studio audience as you only hear mild nervous laughter. This particular night, Debra Messing was the guest, and even she made some obnoxious cracks about Palin. I'm so sick of it.

Click.

So, I turn the channel to Jay, who I know is a Lib, but he usually tries harder than Letterman to keep it to himself. Who is his guest? Bill Maher. Ugh. I'll give you one guess as to the topic of the evening.

Click.

Ok, so on to Jimmy Kimmel. No sooner does the channel land on Kimmel when I see some skit demeaning the McCain/Palin team.

Click.

Not that they'd care, but do liberals have any idea what's its like to have your beliefs harshly mocked and criticized at every turn? Especially here in California, where we conservatives are a scant minority. I wouldn't even dare bring up politics with many friends since they feel conservatives either are backwoods rednecks, worship Hitler or both. Many are so entrenched in their beliefs and surrounded by those who feel the same that they look at you as if you have three heads when you tell them you think Obama would be bad for the country. Is it even possible that anyone with half a brain could be doing anything but a victory dance at the mere thought of "The One?"

Supposedly, Craig Ferguson (who is unfortunately lacking in the humor department) has been recently catching some flakk for not allowing a band to wear an Obama shirt on his show. Good for him. I guess it takes a foreigner to stand up to the Hollywood elite. Although, I'm sure you'll never hear him touting his conservative views on his show, at least he prevents himself from being an liberal conduit.

I know Oprah lost some subscriptions and viewership when she refused to have Palin on, and Clooney seems to have lost some of his conservative housewife fans, but other than that, there sems to be no real consequence for these far left liberals and their constant hateful accusations. Where are the boycotts? Where is the outrage? Is it that conservatives are so numb to this sort of thing that it just washes over them and they continue to patronize these media outlets regardless? Or are we too dense to see it? I've heard John and Ken rally against conesrvatives who call out the liberal media bias. But, I'm sorry John and Ken, it is very real and very exhausting.

It all seems to have exploded in the last few weeks. I feel like every channel I turn to is unwatchable. Every actor/actress I see interviewed manages to work in a dig against McCain and Palin or praise for Obama.

Obviously, anyone can say what they want and I have no problem with that. And I would vastly prefer what is happening in the media now, to some crap like the Fairness Doctrine being implemented and allowing the Government one more avenue to control our lives. But, that doesn't mean this isn't getting old. It would be wrong if everything had conservative undertones or overtones, as well. I want to be able to turn on the TV and be entertained, not constantly preached to.

If I want to hear conservative ideas, I listen to talk radio, read political blogs or watch Fox. You know what you're getting into when you seek out partisan media. But, I don't want to be lectured about the environment when I watch WALL•E or Happy Feet. You shouldn't enter a situation expecting to be mindlessly entertained and get a liberal slap in the face, instead.

Nevermind all the bias in journalism that has been clearly documented in the LA and New York Times, CNN and NBC. How about when The New York Times refused to publish an article written by McCain, which he wrote as a response to an article Obama had published in the Times earlier? Where was the outrage, there? When has any newspaper has the audacity to outright refuse an article from a presidential candidate? Nevermind the fact that there are, on average of all networks and newspapers, far more positive reference to Obama than to McCain. Once again, if it's a pundit show, that's another subject. But don't you dare try to sell me a one-sided article or news tidbit and claim that it's unbiased.

I do not condone mud slinging, dirty politics or general "victicrating," but I just can't take this anymore. It's out of control and I want to be able to watch TV, dammit!

The media has had Bush to ridicule for the last eight years, I would just like to see some decency, some maturity and some restraint from some of those in Hollywood and those controlling our news.

It's amazing to me that there are as many conservatives as there are. When so many people get their news from shows like Letterman or the liberal Daily Show, it's no wonder that there is such a deficit of conservative young people.

Also, as a tangent, I'm sick of the ridiculous censorship imposed by many of those in positions of power at schools, such as professors, teachers and administrators. Years back, my brother started a Republican club at our highschool, which met resistence and changed his relationship with many teachers in the school. I will never forget how excited he was when he scored Dennis Prager as a speaker for the school and how devastated he became when the administration not-so-subtly made it clear that Prager would not be welcome on campus. They even went so far as to label Prager as an anti-semite, citing that as a reason he would not be allowed to speak. That's odd. Isn't he Jewish? Yet, we had liberal speakers, galore.

I will also never forget how Dinesh D'Souza came to speak at my VERY liberal college and was practically booed off the stage. Some people even threw things at him. Were there any consequences for my peers who rudely hurled objects at the stage? Of course not. They were never even asked to stop. D'Souza was the only conservative speaker we had during the four years I attended.

Nor will I forget the semester I spent in London as a scared and homesick Freshman in college, during the election of 2000. Even though I learned quickly to keep my mouth shut about my political leanings, it was too late after some of the staff from my college learned of my leanings and decided to use me as an example in and out of class, sometimes reducing me to tears.

Here's a video of Larry Elder moderating a conversation about liberal bias in commencement speakers. Aside from this girl's inability to defend her point, the best part is Larry's commentary at the end.

Why is it that the party of open-minded, caring Democrats are the most cruel and censoring?

Palin: Kicking Ass and Taking Names

2008-10-02T20:14:00.000-07:00

"Say it ain't so, Joe!"

Many of us can finally breathe a sigh of relief as Palin proved herself to be the skilled debater we originally believed her to be. I've been nervously anticipating this night after watching the painful Gibson and Couric interviews, worried that the worst was yet to come.

But, she came out in full force, winning by a landslide on personality and she more than held her own on policy, foreign and domestic.

Biden did well, too, I must admit. I guess he powered his gaffe machine down for the evening, unless you count his numerous misstatements of facts. By the way, there's something funny with Biden's face. Has he had a face lift?

Overall, this debate was far more interesting than the first Presidential Debate. Both were on point and Palin has mastered talking to the people through the camera, and tearing her opponent apart with a sweet smile, all the while.

Where has this Sarah been? Were the aforementioned interviews just an example of a nervous newcomer, someone who hadn't yet hit the books or someone who hadn't yet had the campaign lines drilled into her head. Maybe she just ate her spinach this morning. Whatever the ultimate cause of this stellar performance from Palin, I will not look to closely, for I am just so thankful that we, not just made it through, but kicked some ass and took some names!

Milton Friedman making Donahue look like an idiot.

2008-10-01T10:25:00.000-07:00

What a brilliant man. He had such a way of simplifying complex issues.

This is so scary

2008-10-01T09:53:00.000-07:00

Are you kidding?

Washington Post admits things are going well in Iraq

2008-10-01T09:50:00.000-07:00

Washington Post article:
Please especially note the last paragraph and my added emphasis.

Another Iraq Benchmark
Legislators approve a crucial deal on provincial elections.

Friday, September 26, 2008; Page A22

WHILE WASHINGTON was seized with congressional negotiations over the Wall Street bailout, Iraq's parliament on Wednesday took another major step toward political stabilization. By a unanimous vote, the national legislature approved a plan for local elections in 14 of 18 provinces by early next year -- clearing the way for a new, more representative and more secular wave of politicians to take office. The legislation eliminates the party slate system that allowed religious authorities to dominate Iraq's previous elections, and it provides for women to hold 25 percent of seats. Most important, it will allow Sunni leaders who boycotted the 2005 provincial elections -- and who have since allied themselves with U.S. forces against al-Qaeda in Iraq -- to compete for political power in the provinces that were once the heartland of the insurgency.

As always in Iraq's halting journey toward a new order, the reform was not complete. Elections were put off in the province surrounding the volatile city of Kirkuk, where Kurds, Sunni Arabs and other groups compete for power, and in three Kurd-run provinces. Staging fair and peaceful elections will be another major challenge: In the south of Iraq, competition among Shiite parties, including those of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Mahdi Army leader Moqtada al-Sadr, could easily spill over into violence. The importance of securing the elections is one good reason for President Bush's decision to withdraw only 8,000 of the 146,000 remaining U.S. troops in Iraq between now and February. Still, the precipitous drop in violence in Iraq during the past year offers strong reason for hope that a good election can be held -- and that the new Sunni and Shiite leaders who emerge will be well positioned to jump-start reconstruction in the provinces and negotiate with each other.
ad_icon

For some time, U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker has been citing provincial elections as the most important of Iraq's "political benchmarks." This week's breakthrough follows others in recent months, including the reform of a law that purged former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath party from government posts. More steps are needed -- most important, agreement on a law distributing Iraqi oil revenue among provinces and allowing for new investment. But it's now clear that the political progress that the Bush administration hoped would follow the surge of U.S. forces in Iraq has finally begun. How can the next president preserve that momentum? Democrat Barack Obama continues to argue that only the systematic withdrawal of U.S. combat units will force Iraqi leaders to compromise. Yet the empirical evidence of the past year suggests the opposite: that only the greater security produced and guaranteed by American troops allows a political environment in which legislative deals and free elections are feasible.

What a Jerk!

2008-09-30T11:01:00.000-07:00

This is just disgusting and is another example of the media not doing their job.

The gift that keeps on giving

2008-09-26T13:20:00.000-07:00

Oh, Joe. You just can't seem keep that foot out of your mouth. And we all thought Bush was bad.

There have been some real choice moments as of late, like when Biden proclaimed that Hillary would be a better VP:

Or, my personal favorite, asking the audience at a rally to "Stand up for Chuck!" when referring to wheelchair bound Senator Chuck Graham:

Or the latest, Biden bungling an interview with Katie Couric, showing his lack of knowledge of US history:

Or when Biden was recently condemning China's use of coal power, when Obama supports the use of clean coal in the US:

However, this Obama/Biden Gaffe Machine video is pretty funny. It does contain some painfully awkward moments, though. So watcher, beware:

The best part is that there are several other gaffes that I haven't posted. How about when Biden castigated the Obama/Biden campaign for an ad deriding McCain for not using a computer because of injuries?

Asked about the negative tone of the campaign, and this ad in particular, during an interview broadcast Monday by the “CBS Evening News,” Obama’s running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, said he disapproved of it.

“I thought that was terrible, by the way,” Biden said.

Asked why it was done, he said: “I didn’t know we did it and if I had anything to do with it, we’d have never done it.”

Or when he declared, on ABC's Good Morning America, that paying taxes is the patriotic thing to do:

"It's time to be patriotic . . . time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut..."

Or what about when Biden claimed his helicopter was "forced down" in mountains crawling with al-Qaeda? Even though his helicopter landed because of weather. That’s not what he told a National Guard audience in Maryland. From Jake Tapper:

Biden said he would ask Palin about “The superhighway of terror between Pakistan and Afghanistan where my helicopter was forced down…John McCain wants to know where Bin Laden and the gates of Hell are? I can tell him where. That’s where Al Qaeda is. That’s where Bin Laden is. It’s not in the country of Iraq.”

Never stop, Joe. Just keep doin' what you do and we'll keep laughing.

Lions and Tigers and Polar Bears. Oh my!

2008-09-26T12:15:00.000-07:00

Ok, maybe no lions and tigers, but definitely polar bears.

An article on CNN laments how the shrinking of Arctic ice is starving polar bears and causing them to turn to cannibalism. Oh, woe is me! Damn that global warming! It's Bush's fault! It's Palin's fault! It's time to panic!

Oh...wait.

Polar bears are a naturally aggressive species. Oftentimes, the adult males will eat their young and the smaller females for survival and to eliminate competition. They exhibit these same behaviors when there is an abundance of ice. Nature is not always pretty, my green friends. Deal with it.

An article called "Observations of Intraspecific Aggression and Cannibalism in Polar Bears (Ursus maritimus)" notes the natural behaviors of polar bears:

Cannibalism in polar bears appears to occur as carrion feeding and as attacks by males on small cubs or incapacitated individuals. Direct observations indicate that intraspecific killing and cannibalism occur among polar bears throughout the Arctic. The high incidence of Trichinella infection and circumpolar observations of cannibalism suggest that polar bears will readily eat other polar bears when they can do so without excessive risk of injury. Speculations that intraspecific aggression and cannibalism may be an important social and ecological force are consistent with existing information on polar bear biology.

Wouldn't it be nice if the media would do a little more research and at least mention that this does occur normally.

Not to mention, the earth has been warmer in the past than it current is, and somehow our polar bear buddies managed to survive.

So, phew! We can all calm down. The world is not ending tomorrow.

C'mon, really PETA?

2008-09-25T19:31:00.000-07:00

PETA is constantly one-upping themselves with new levels of crazy. But they've really been on a roll lately.

According to an NBC article they plan to purchase the San Diego Sea World. Why, you might ask?

To free all the animals, or course, replacing them with virtual reality and animatronic displays. Fabulous idea. I'm sure that will work out brilliantly. I'm not sure what a Sea World ticket costs these days, but I am sure that people are not going to pay that price to see holograms and Chuck E Cheese style animals.

And for the record, it would only cost about $110 million to buy the park.

However, their newest, shiniest idea has to be their latest demands on Ben & Jerry's, urging them to replace the cow's milk in their ice cream with human breast milk. Really? I mean....REALLY!?

I have three things to say about this:

1. Gross

2. Gross

3. Since pumping human breast milk is a labor-intensive, long and slow process, how does this make ANY economic sense. How could Ben & Jerry's afford to pay all those milk-pumping women?

Their letter to Ben & Jerry's discusses their "innovative" idea.

Ben & Jerry's response to this plea was, "We applaud PETA's novel approach to bringing attention to an issue, but we believe a mother's milk is best used for her child." In other words, "You've got to be kidding me, you tree-hungging, dolphin-saving, tofu-eating phychos".

In conclusion, I know I can rest easy knowing that PETA is there to save the animals and...the world.

The Tax Discrepancy

2008-09-25T14:33:00.000-07:00

In a recent poll conducted by IBD/TIPP, some disturbing evidence was uncovered about how much people think the "rich" are paying in taxes.

As it turns out, the top 1% (people making over $364,657) pay 40% of taxes, while only earning 15% of the nation's income. Now, that doesn't seem very fair. However, 60% of people believe that income bracket pays 1% or less in the nation's taxes. Also, people feel that the "rich" should pay up to 26% in taxes, while Obama want to raise this to 39%. It seems there is a discrepancy in the common knowledge.

The poll continues with top 5% (earning $145,000) pay 60% of taxes, the top 10% pay 70% of taxes and the top 25% ($60,000 and up) pay 85% of taxes. More than a third of people believe that the rich pay less that 20%. Why don't people know this? Why isn't this all over the news? Instead, that misleading racial poll is being blasted into every home in America.

As a nation, we are focusing on the wrong things, as usual. Both sides are guilty of this. Let's stick the issues and get the facts out there. For example, so many Obama supporters believe that his proposed tax hikes will not affect them. But with everyone fretting over the state of the economy, now is THE WORST possible time to raise taxes...on anyone.

But, maybe an Obama presidency will be a good thing. Maybe he'll run the country into the ground so badly that people will be clamoring for Palin for President in 2012.

Another interesting article on Investor's Business Daily.

New Race Poll

2008-09-25T09:59:00.000-07:00

These new poll results that are getting so much press attention asks whites about their views of black people.

I'm sure by now, most have heard that 52% of whites feel that blacks are aggressive. 49% feel that they are boastful, 41% think blacks are complaining, 34% feel they are lazy and 21% believe they're irresponsible. This has lead many to believe that if Obama loses, it will be because of this seemingly overwhelming white racism.

However, what you don't hear on the mainstream media outlets is that blacks were polled as well. How did they react to the same questions?

59% of blacks feel that blacks can be classified as aggressive, 57% feel they are boastful, 51% feel they are complaining, 39% feel they are lazy and a whopping 40% feel they are irresponsible. Blacks feel much more negatively about their race than do whites.

And although blacks feel all these things about their race, does that mean they think Obama reflects any of these qualities? No, of course not. Neither do the vast majority of whites. Even though blacks feel these negative stereotypes apply to their own race, 96% of blacks intend to vote for Obama. What does this say about the poll?

That it means nothing.

While I'm sure there will be those whites who do not vote for Obama because he is black, there will probably be more whites who will vote for him because he is black. If Obama loses, it will not be because of racism, it will be because of his lack of experience and far leftist views.

Isn't is about time that we move past these pathetic allegations of racism?

Bush's Resignation Speech

2008-09-25T09:57:00.000-07:00

The following 'speech' was written recently by an ordinary Maine-iac [a resident of the People's Republic of Maine]. While satirical in nature, all satire must have a basis in fact to be effective.

This is an excellent piece by a person who does not write for a living.

The speech George W. Bush might give:

Normally, I start these things out by saying 'My Fellow Americans.' Not doing it this time.

If the polls are any indication, I don't know who more than half of you are anymore.

I do know something terrible has happened, and that you're really not fellow Americans any longer.

I'll cut right to the chase here: I quit. Now before anyone gets all in a lather about me quitting to avoid impeachment, or to avoid prosecution or something, let me assure you:

There's been no breaking of laws or impeachable offenses in this office.

The reason I'm quitting is simple. I'm fed up with you people.

I'm fed up because you have no understanding of what's really going on in the world.

Or of what's going on in this once-great nation of ours.

And the majority of you are too damned lazy to do your homework and figure it out.

Let's start local. You've been sold a bill of goods by politicians and the news media.

Meanwhile, all you can do is whine about gas prices, and most of you are too damn stupid to realize that gas prices are high because there's increased demand in other parts of the world, and because a small handful of noisy idiots are more worried about polar bears and beachfront property than your economic security.

We face real threats in the world. Don't give me this 'blood for oil' thing. If I were trading blood for oil I would've already seized Iraq 's oil fields and let the rest of the country go to hell. And don't give me this 'Bush Lied...People Died' crap either. If I were the liar you morons take me for, I could've easily had chemical weapons planted in Iraq so they could be 'discovered.' Instead, I owned up to the fact that the intelligence was faulty.

Let me remind you that the rest of the world thought Saddam had the goods, same as me. Let me also remind you that regime change in Iraq was official US policy before I came into office.

Some guy named ' Clinton ' established that policy. Bet you didn't know that, did you?

Now some of you morons want to be led by a junior senator with no understanding of foreign policy or economics, and this nitwit says we should attack Pakistan , a nuclear ally. And then he wants to go to Iran and make peace with a terrorist who says he's going to destroy us. While he's doing that, he wants to give Iraq to al Qaeda, Afghanistan to the Taliban, Israel to the Palestinians, and your money to the IRS so the government can give welfare to illegal aliens, who he will make into citizens, so they can vote to re-elect him. He also thinks it's okay for Iran to have nuclear weapons, and we should stop our foreign aid to Israel. Did you sleep through high school?

You idiots need to understand that we face a unique enemy. Back during the cold war, there were two major competing political and economic models squaring off. We won that war, but we did so because fundamentally, the Communists wanted to survive, just as we do. We were simply able to out spend and out-tech them.

That's not the case this time. The soldiers of our new enemy don't care if they survive. In fact, they want to die.

That'd be fine, as long as they weren't also committed to taking as many of you with them as they can.

But they are.. They want to kill you, and the bastards are all over the globe.

You should be grateful that they haven't gotten any more of us here in the United States since September 11. But you're not. That's because you've got no idea how hard a small number of intelligence, military, law enforcement, and homeland security people have worked to make sure of that. When this whole mess started, I warned you that this would be a long and difficult fight. I'm disappointed how many of you people think a long and difficult fight amounts to a single season of 'Survivor.'

Instead, you've grown impatient. You're incapable of seeing things through the long lens of history, the way our enemies do. You think that wars should last a few months, a few years, tops.

Making matters worse, you actively support those who help the enemy.

Every time you buy the New York Times, every time you send a donation to a cut-and-run Democrat's political campaign, well, dang it, you might just as well Fed Ex a grenade launcher to a Jihadist. It amounts to the same thing.

In this day and age, it's easy enough to find the truth. It's all over the Internet. It just isn't on the pages of the New York Times, USA Today, or on NBC News. But even if it were, I doubt you'd be any smarter.

Most of you would rather watch American Idol or Dancing with Stars.

I could say more about your expectations that the government will always be there to bail you out,

even if you're too stupid to leave a city that's below ow sea level and has a hurricane approaching.

I could say more about your insane belief that government, not your own wallet, is where the money comes from.

But I've come to the conclusion that were I to do so, it would sail right over your heads.

So I quit. I'm going back to Crawford. I've got an energy-efficient house down there (Al Gore could only dream) and the capability to be fully self-sufficient for years. No one ever heard of Crawford before I got elected, and as soon as I'm done here pretty much no one will ever hear of it again.

Maybe I'll be lucky enough to die of old age before the last pillars of America fall.

Oh, and by the way, Cheney's quitting too. That means Pelosi is your new President. You asked for it. Watch what she does carefully, because I still have a glimmer of hope that there are just enough of you remaining who are smart enough to turn this thing around in 2008.

So that's it. God bless what's left of America.

Some of you know what I mean. The rest of you, kiss off.

PS - You might want to start learning Farsi, and buy a Koran.

Why don't people see how radical this would be?

2008-09-19T10:57:00.000-07:00

Obama/Biden-#1/#3 most liberal voting record in the senate + Democrat controlled house and senate = Scary

So much for checks and balances.

Word Salad

2008-09-12T16:16:00.000-07:00

This post won't really have anything to do with Obama's constant word salad-ing. I just really like that phrase.

Actually, I wanted to discuss the idea of race-based preferences and how they hurt the very people they're supposed to help. There has been a lot of research lately on what actually happens to the students who are admitted with lower credentials. A minority student is much more likely to graduate on time and with better grades, if they attend less competitive school. Many who attend more competitive schools because colleges or high schools want to appear more diverse, are setting themselves up for failure. Now, OBVIOUSLY, there are many minority students who are very deserving of a spot in the most competitive of colleges, etc, just like there are many non-minority students who could never cut it in a competitive school. So, why force it? Isn't it better for any student to graduate, rather than drop out. With a high school or college diploma from any school, a person is much more likely to find a job and being a to support a family than if they fail or drop out.

Check out Professor Richard Sander's research regarding the perfermance of students in law school:

Not surprisingly, such a gap leads to problems. Students who attend schools where their academic credentials are substantially below those of their fellow students tend to perform poorly.
The reason is simple: While some students will outperform their entering academic credentials, just as some students will underperform theirs, most students will perform in the range that their academic credentials predict. As a result, in elite law schools, 51.6% of black students had first-year grade point averages in the bottom 10% of their class as opposed to only 5.6% of white students. Nearly identical performance gaps existed at law schools at all levels. This much is uncontroversial.
Supporters of race-based admissions argue that, despite the likelihood of poor grades, minority students are still better off accepting the benefit of a preference and graduating from a more prestigious school. But Mr. Sander's research suggests that just the opposite may be true--that law students, no matter what their race, may learn less, not more, when they enroll in schools for which they are not academically prepared. Students who could have performed well at less competitive schools may end up lost and demoralized. As a result, they may fail the bar.
Specifically, Mr. Sander found that when black and white students with similar academic credentials compete against each other at the same school, they earn about the same grades. Similarly, when black and white students with similar grades from the same tier law school take the bar examination, they pass at about the same rate.
This is a quote from Gail Heriot, The Wall Street Journal

I just don't understand how this helps.

Lipstick on a Pig Policies

2008-09-12T12:14:00.000-07:00

Interesting, Barack (The One) Obama using the lipstick on a pig rhetoric, supposedly to refer to failed policies that McCain is trying to pass off as something different. Well, Mr. Obama, do you really want to go there? Let's think about some Obama policies that have failed in the past, shall we?

How about health care?
Obama wants nationalized health care. Liberal Americans love to use Canada's nationalized health care system as a model for what they think we should have in the US. Well, if Canada's system is so wonderful, why are they shifting to a privatized system? Their system has failed. Time and time again, we have seen that government programs do not work. For example, has there been any correlation between the exorbitant amount of money thrown at the public school system and the education level of its students? No.

How about raising taxes?
It has been proven, over and over again that raising taxes on businesses causes businesses to raise prices, costing the consumer more. Who gets hurt the most with raised prices? The lower-income consumer. So much for protecting the little guy. Plus, it causes people to spend less, hurting the economy. It's not complicated, people.

How about "understanding" and "talking with" our enemies?
Sounds a lot like Jimmy Carter, who also ran on the mantra of "hope" and "change". Carter's belief that every crisis can be resolved with diplomacy had many catastrophic results. What we encounter today as Islamic Terrorism, mostly backed by the current Iranian regime is largely a result a the failed Cater foreign policy. had he been tougher in the 1979 revolution and hte US embassy hostage crisis, things would be different today.

Obama loves to use Kennedy as his model for foreign policy. Kennedy, in 1961, sat down with the soviet leader, Nikita Krushchev, without any preconditions. After the meeting, Krushchev sized him up as naive, inexperienced, and a lightweight. He then built the Berlin wall, put missiles in Cuba and put the country at the brink of thermo-nuclear war. Kennedy, afterward, said it was a mistake, he shouldn't have done it and that Krushchev ran all over him. Why would Obama use Kennedy's meeting with Krushchev as a model is confounding. Why is no one talking about this?

How about opposing the surge?
Pretty sure that it worked amazingly. Pretty sure Obama voted against it. Pretty sure that he is FINALLY coming out and sort of admitting that it worked brilliantly.

And on a final note, I would love to know what foreign policy experience Obama has that would make him more qualified than Palin. Nevermind the fact that one is running for President and one is running for VP. Oh, I forgot about his stirring speach in Germany. Doesn't that count? They sure do love him over there. And I'm sure that the Germans really have the American's best interest at heart.

Why I am Pro-Palin.

2008-09-09T15:35:00.000-07:00

1. She has strong conservative ideals and fights for less government control. It seems to me that Republicans are becoming more and more moderate (aka McCain and a spend-happy Bush), so I am thrilled that someone who is articulate and popular might be able to reinvigorate the stagnant conservative ideals (LESS GOVERNMENT CONTROL).

2. She energized the hell out of the conservative base, which was desperately needed.

3. I couldn't care less that I share a gender with her, but am thankful that she is a woman to take some ammo from the Dems when they say the Republicans don't have diversity in their party (which is a fallacy).

4. I definitely hope to hear more from her and find out what she's truly about. But, I am excited that at first blush, she seems intelligent, tough (but likeable) and conservative. I also like that while she seems to stand by her ideals, she is willing to listen to others and modify herself accordingly. For a small example, when she said "nucular" in her speech on the day she was announced, I almost died. But, she corrected that by the time her acceptance speech at the RNC rolled around, unlike Bush, who, stubbornly, to this day, says "nucular."

5. I disagree with some of her principles. I'm an atheist and lean toward pro-choice. I want religion out of schools and politics, for example. But, I still feel that she is SO much more in the right direction than the majority of other republican politicians. Even if McCain is not elected, I hope that this campaign allows her to be a real contender in politics in the future.

I'm sure plenty of dirt will continue to come out about her in the future, but I am confident the pros will vastly outweigh the cons after the dust settles.

It is so important Obama does not get elected, that McCain could have picked a toad to be his running mate, and I'd begrudgingly support the ticket. But, I'm glad he didn't. I'm glad he picked someone who's stealing the spotlight from Obama, creating buzz about the McCain ticket, is quick, packs a punch and finally seems to be on the right side of most issues that should be important to this country (whether they know it or not).

I can't understand how people do not see this and why they are fooled by Obama's "Change" BS. On the topic of change, how is it that Obama can claim his platform as change when everything he wants to do has been tried already and failed. For example, Obama's health care plan, which is packaged as "new" is completely modeled on the system implemented in Canada, which is failing. Why is it that Canada is returning to a privatized system? Because government-run health care DOES NOT WORK. Just like most other government-run programs DO NOT WORK.