Sunday, December 21, 2008

THE CASE FOR PARTISANSHIP


If we (at least some of us) have learned nothing in the past few years, it should be that reaching across the isle is an exercise in futility. Call it "bi-partisanship", the "new tone", or just plain old civility, when you set out to make a compromise for the sake of "getting something done" you will always come up on the short end of the stick.

First, let's look at the word compromise. From our first years on this planet, we are taught that compromising is a good way to settle a dispute and work out differences. I disagree.

I have found that in most instances life presents us, whenever their is a dispute, only one party is correct in their assertions or assessments. Occasionally, both parties might be wrong, but after careful examination of the facts and evidence available, rarely are both parties right.
That means in order to make a fair compromise, one party is required to be a little more right, but another party is required to be a little more wrong.

Imagine two firemen arguing about how best to put out a fire. One fireman suggests that they throw water on the fire. The other fireman disagrees and suggests that they throw gasoline on the fire. They "compromise" and decide to throw both water and gasoline on the fire, all in an effort to get "something" done. Though the guy who compromised toward water is now a little more correct, he still throws his share of gasoline on the fire along with his compromise share of water.

The guy who was actually right in the beginning has acquiesced, and is now obligated to throw his compromise share of gasoline on the now raging inferno. The end result is the death of both firemen and an out of control fire that is now left to others to put out.

Had the party who knew he was right stood his ground, both firefighters would still be alive today. Unfortunately, he decided to engage in a "new tone", and by default he compromised his principals and everything he ever leaned about fighting fires. And for what?

He lived in a world where being wrong was no longer something to be embarrassed about. Media outlets commonly gave as much air time to those who were clueless as they did with with those who used common sense. There was no longer shame attached to being wrong. In fact, people were taught at an early age that every one is an equal and criticism is actually "hate speech". So now, even though he was right, it was acceptable in some circles to throw gas on a fire. So the other guy was considered to be equally qualified to make decisions and never questioned, nuch less ridiculed for being an idiot. When he spoke out, he was pressured to give in for the sake of getting something done.

Too bad for us that this mentality has infected our allegedly representative democracy. Our elected officials are more worried about being called a "zealot" or a "partisan" than they are about what actually happens to our country. Standing up for the principals that have a time tested track record of success and prosperity is no longer an option. If it doesn't bring high numbers in a focus group or opinion pole, it doesn't see the light of day.

Why do we do this? Do we ever get anything for our attempts to "reach across the isle"? No. Unless you count a bloody stump. Democrats learned this lesson decades ago, but we continue to insist on taking a punch and asking for another. In an age where it is getting harder and harder to tell a Republican from a Democrat, I can't help but wonder why we even have a party anymore.

Until we are willing to stand up for what we know is right and start dropping some ideological nukes on the liberal establishment, we are going to continue to lose elections and probably the nation as a whole. I'm looking at you John McCain!

Thursday, December 11, 2008


WHAT TO DO WITH MY OLD CHEVY?


Earlier this year I purchased a 72' Chevy pickup that I was hoping to restore. Some of you may recall a previous article I had written about it (GEARHEAD ZEN May 30th). Since then, many things have changed in this country. Not the least of which is the role of our government.

If you take the time to look at our founding documents, you will find many things. You will find a guarantee of your right to live, defend yourself, speak, etc, etc. You will find the limitations of government spelled out in pretty plain terms. You will also find the role that government is supposed to have in our lives written in the plainest of English. What you won't find is document, amendment, or enumerated power that designates our government any right to own, or control a car company. In fact, you will find no shortage of documentation that specifically prevents such things from happening. Despite these facts, the United States government is getting ready to jump head first into the automobile manufacturing business...at our expense of course.

As I made my deliveries last week, I listened to the auto manufacturers make the convoluted cases to Congress for a massive bailout via tax payer dollars. As I listened, I couldn't get past the fact that neither side had one word to say about the actual responsibility of our government. A real Congressman would have stood up and reminded everyone that the government has no legitimate right to get involved in private business matters such as this. He should have suggested that the only thing the government can do to help the car industry is lower taxes and stop trying to tell them what kind of cars they should be making, especially for such a bogus reason as global warming. Any self respecting Congressman would have given the third degree to union reps that were present to give their two cents. After all, it is unions that have caused most of this mess in the first place by making it so expensive to produce an automobile. In fact, this hearing should have never happened in the first place. But it did.


So now I am left with the question of what to do with my old Chevy. My family has owned Chevy's for years and never had a reason to complain. Today, I am embarrassed to have a GM product on my property. The nerve of that company expecting me and my fellow citizens to bail them out because they don't have the cajones to stand up to the unions is just more than I am willing to swallow right now. Will they recognize my contribution to their plight via taxation and send me a crate full of parts for my truck in thanks? No. Will they even send me a Goodwrench gift certificate? No. I/we get to pay for the handiwork of a bunch of UAW babies without so much as a new hood ornament in return.

The long and short of it is, I now get to feel guilty for purchasing more of their parts and eventually driving around in one of their products, or I get to take a bath on what I paid for the truck in the first place in addition to the time I've already invested in it.

All I know is, my other daily drivers (a Hyundai and Toyota) give me successful trips, not guilt trips.



Tuesday, December 2, 2008


ROADHOUSE SOLVES THE PIRATE PROBLEM
Ok, really. Do I have to do everything around here? Is the new wave of modern piracy at sea such a brain teaser of an issue that we actually can't figure out how to stop it? How embarrassing.
This is not rocket science people! Equip ships with one of these, and train the crew to use it. After the first two or three shredded pirates are reported in the media, the concept will look much less appealing to up-and-coming "Jack Sparrows" out there. Problem solved. NEXT!!!
One note of caution. Make sure no one on your ship's crew is named Plaxico.

Monday, December 1, 2008

BROTHER CAN YOU SPARE A GLOCK?

From my "personal anecdote" file: A few weeks ago, I decided that it was time to update my supply of personal firearms. Not because I felt a sudden need to frivolously spend money in the midst of a struggling economy, but because I believe my time to do so is running short. Having seen President-elect Obama's voting record regarding gun ownership, I predict that our Second Amendment right to defend ourselves, our property, and our loved ones will soon be placed firmly on his chopping block, just prior to it's untimely death. If I'm wrong, then I've just spent a pile'O money that wasn't in the budget this month for no reason. If I'm right, then I can tell my grandchildren how I was one of the last people in America to exercise their right to defend themselves. Either way...THANKS A PANTLOAD BARRY!

In my impromptu search for the right guns, I had a few criteria in mind. I knew that I would need to buy a gun that my wife could operate under pressure in the event that we had an "uninvited guest". We both learned this the day that she tried to shoot my .45 semi-auto. You see, like many women, she lacks the upper body strength to rack back a larger caliber firearm, which is a major safety factor. Though she can easily shoot my .22, it lacks the power to knock down an intruder effectively, especially if he's high on meth or something.
I knew I would want something that would have sufficient "knockdown" ability, ease of operation, and yet look intimidating enough to hopefully scare away, or scare into compliance anyone who would break into our home when I'm not there. Of course the predominant factor is the family budget.
Considering these options, I went shopping. To my surprise, I ran into an obstacle immediately...parking. My first stop was a national chain sporting goods store that has served our area for nearly ten years. That day, I could barely find a place to park ye' old SUV. To my surprise, there was no clearance sale or special event planned there for that day. No. As I made my way back the gun department, I was met by a sea of men who apparently read the same tea leaves that I did. Ever the class clown, as I made my way through the crowd, I said loudly "Is this where the Barak Obama fan club meeting is being held?" After the sarcastic laughter died down, I went on looking for the perfect gun for my wife and a new shot gun for myself. This was an exercise in futility because the crowd was so big and the unprepared staff was so few that I knew I would be waiting for at least an hour to even talk to someone behind the counter. Actually buying a gun was that day would be out of the question.
Over the next few days, I searched other stores and scoured the Internet, looking for the models I wanted. Keep in mind, I was not looking for an exotic hard to find firearm. I was looking for two of the most common guns known to man, a shot gun and a small tactical semi-automatic rifle. Everywhere I looked the same three words kept slapping me in the face...out-of-stock.
Eventually, after nearly giving up, I tracked down the guns I was looking for and was even able to get them at a reasonable price. This was no small task either because the price of firearms is going up as the demand for them rises. Like a kid at a candy scramble, I feel I was lucky to get the "candy" I was looking for. If I had been a little slower, I'm sure I would probably have been stuck with the firearm equivalent of those peanuts that are always left on the ground after the children have finished the pillaging of candy thrown from their sadistic parents.
Will my family actually be safe from the criminal element, now that they have an edge against it? I hope we never have to find out.

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!

At this time in my life, I have much to be thankful for. A beautiful wife, a wonderful daughter, and a new baby boy tops the list. Rounding out the top ten are, a job, health, two cars that still run despite assorted rust holes and oil leaks, a house, great neighbors, supportive family and a handful of trusting friends.
Being the night before Thanksgiving reminds me that even though I have less than optimistic view of the future, I need to remember that there are a lot of people who have it a lot worse than I/we do. My cars may be old and rusty, and my house may be small and in constant need of maintenance, but I know that there are people who can only dream of having such luxuries.

So I would like to take this time to wish all my fellow Americans a great Thanksgiving...even you liberals out there. Though I'm sure you libs wouldn't celebrate a holiday that commemorates the corruption and exploitation of Native Americans, I still hope you're able to enjoy a heaping helping of "Tofurkey" and bean sprouts. I wish you nothing but good tidings for your equally represented according to diversity studies and demographic research friends, and good cheer to your "formerly known as family" parental entities who probably oppressed you with their neo-con dogma.

I'm not sure what a liberal would be thankful for, or who they'd be thankful to, but here are some ideas:
1. Bush did not get re-elected to a third term.
2. A man with dark skin is President...because that really matters.
3. Women can still kill their babies.
4. Terrorists will no longer have to endure getting wet.
5. "Earning" money is becoming passe'.
6. That pesky constitution won't get in your way much longer.
7. Meth addicts won't have to fear being shot when they rob and rape your family members much longer.
8. Getting up in the morning to go to work will not be an issue pretty soon.
9. Those evil rich people are finally going to be "getting their's".
10. You can catch up with old friends while standing in the unemployment line.

Thursday, November 20, 2008

UNHOLY UNIONS

Once upon a time, our nation was smack in the middle of an economic revolution. New inventions, and technologies were developing practically by the hour. Couple that with a mass influx of immigrant labor to meet the increasing demand and the end result was an industrial community that was virtually un-regulated and a labor force that was ripe for exploitation. With no labor laws or regulations to protect the worker, the American worker had little-to-no way to obtain justice in the event they were injured or taken advantage of by employers.

To remedy this, the labor force organized and formed unions to give them leverage and a political voice. Eventually, the work of unions lead to legislation that provided safety regulations and a whole host of laws and agencies that provided the worker with some recourse for justice and a generally better work environment. This of coarse is a very basic explanation of the original purpose of labor unions.

In the year 2008, now that the American worker has the luxury of a list of options to find justice in the workplace, unions have all but run out of legitimate things to complain about. In stead, today they spend much of their time bullying corporations into giving them yet another week of vacation per year or adding aroma therapy treatment to their health care plan. Essentially, unions have gone from providing workers with a sorely needed path to justice, to transforming the once proud American work force into a bunch of cry-babies that think bullying is a legitimate method of problem solving.


Personally, I think it boils down to differing philosophies. One philosophy tells us that when a man opens a business, it is his business. He is the one who makes the daily decisions of how the business is operated. Who to hire, and who to fire... How much to pay, and why... And what benefits (if any) are supposed to be the decision of the owner. An employee has the right to work for that individual and the right to quit as well. As far as "collective bargaining" is concerned, the employee has the right to accept the wage offered under the terms presented or go else wear to work. Considering that the employer has to abide by the labor laws of the land, and the employee has the right to quit, file charges or litigate in the event of a dispute, this philosophy puts the prerogatives in their proper place.

The free market likes this philosophy because it provides it's own natural boundaries. If an employer treats his workers too poorly, he will find it hard to keep his doors open due to being sued, prosecuted, or plagued by bad publicity.


The union philosophy is much different. After having NOT taken the financial, and personal risks and sacrifices involved in starting a company, unions seem to be under the impression that they are entitled to make the business decisions at that company. If the owner of that company disagrees, the unions simply strike until they get what they want. Much like a baby throwing a tantrum until they get a bowl of gummy bears for breakfast, unions see no problem with irrational behavior or even good old fashioned bullying to get their way.

If an employer has enough and hires outside of the union, he runs the risk of litigation and even violent confrontations on the picket line. On his own property no less!

Probably the most frustrating thing about unions is the irony of their existence. The present day purpose of unions is to gain higher wages and more benefits from the employer. The problem is that the end result of union intervention commonly leads to what we see today in the auto industry...failure.
You see, the point of owning a business is to make money. When that is no longer possible, there is no longer a reason to keep the doors open. Part of making money is finding the correct balance between your cost of operating and your profit. Here comes the irony.
Unions tend to drive up the cost of operating the business while simultaneously driving down quality and production.
Think about it. How long can any company expect to remain profitable when unions continually force them to pay out more in benefits and wages, while demanding that the employees do ONLY what their contracts call for? It is not unusual for a typical union worker to have a minimum of five weeks vacation per year and pension plan that allows them to retire five to ten years earlier than employees of non union companies. This is all hashed out in negotiations between labor and management, all at great legal expense to the company. Yet union workers are always the most surprised when the company they work for ends up shutting down or going out of business all together. Basically, they end up "demanding" themselves right out of a job.

Then there is the general mediocrity that union labor generates. When you know getting fired will require your boss to jump over a whole marathon of legal and procedural hurdles, you tend to not worry so much about the quality or quantity of your production responsibilities. Compound that attitude company wide and your product can only suffer. Plus, with more money going to union demanded benfits and wages, there is less money to be put into research and development of the company product. Pretty good deal for the competition huh?

Let's not forget the political angle. Unions can always be counted on to support Democrat candidates, regardless of how the union worker or employer happens to feel. Did I mention that unions support these candidates with the dues these workers pay and by propagandising them in the workplace? That's fine as long as you're a union worker that happens to be a liberal Democrat. That's also fine as long as these union supported candidates don't draft legislation that will harm your company's profitability. You know, like higher taxes or more regulations. There's nothing like having union dues taken out of your pocket, only to have them given to the guy who is going to take more money out of your pocket via taxation. That's kinda like paying someone to rob you every two weeks.

These are just some of the finer bullet points of why unions are ruining industry in this nation, but trust me, there are plenty more where they came from. For now, remember to look for the union label. That way you'll know what products not to buy.

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

WHERE'S MY BAIL OUT?

As the Democrat controlled Congress and rhino White House contemplate the best way to waste our hard earned dollars,we conservatives are again left with no other options but to watch and laugh, or cry, depending on your mood. If ever there were a better case against government intervention into financial matters, I have not been able to find it. On the up side, the current economic crises is a better real world example of the failure of liberalism than any hypothetical I could have created.
Follow along, because I am going to make this as simple and easy to understand as possible.

Years ago, the liberal policy of loaning money to those who were known credit risks under the red herring of "fairness" was legislatively forced onto the lending community. The inevitable result was the chaos we see today.
To "fix" this chaos, our government decides to impose the liberal policy of "bailing out" companies that they caused to fail in the first place. All at tax payer expense of coarse. Like all liberal solutions, this one came with unintended consequences.

Now that another liberal boondoggle known as "organized labor" has all but destroyed the American auto industry, the next logical progression is a long line of industries and institutions lining up to get a piece of the pie. Did I just take a verbal swipe at labor unions? You bet your over-extended hiney I did. In fact, my next article will explain in detail how unions are major players in the destruction of America.

As I watch the auto industry beg for money from our government, a wild thought occurred to me. Maybe I'm giving them too much credit, but I think it's entirely possible that there is a hidden agenda among the Big Three in their attempts to raid our wallets. This is only a theory so don't hold me to this.
What if Detroit isn't really trying to get our money? What if they are really trying to show the American people the devastating effects that unions have had on their industry? Could this actually be a ploy to recruit legislative help and public outcry in order to bust the union? Think about it. Legally, car makers are stuck with unions. This does not change the fact that unions are like cancer on their bottom line. So now that selling cars is no longer profitable due to the high cost of labor and excessive government regulation, this bail out could be a "hail Mary pass" to plead their case in front of the government without actually blaming them...as they should.

Though I wish this were the case, I know better. Besides, labor unions hold the pink slip on the Democrat party, so it would be a conflict of interest for a Democrat Congress to do anything that would harm the unions in any way. In fact, you wouldn't have to go to great lengths to say that Barak Obama & company are making yet another payment to the extortionist unions in exchange for their political support. I guess that's what counts for "change" in the minds of some people.

Saturday, November 15, 2008

PLEASE USE SPARINGLY

There will be many lessons learned over the next four years. How to prepare macaroni with government cheese. How to stop home intruders with course language and dirty looks. How to spend your free time without spending money after you get layed-off. And how to trade food stamps. But the most important lesson that we will need to learn starting right now is personal self discipline.
No, not spending discipline or child discipline, but something much more noble...learning not to over-use the phrase "I told you so".
I know, I know. Your thinking, "But Roadhouse, Obama is already stocking his administration with career politicians and Clinton people after months on end of reciting the "change" mantra". This is very true, and we all saw it coming (Obama voters not withstanding), but that's no reason to ruin one of the best comeback phrases ever spoken.
I told you so is one of those replies that people have a hard time responding to. That's because it's designed to both verify something that the user implies, while back-handedly demonstrating the short-sitedness and mis-guidedness of the one it's directed at.
My point is that it's going to be a long four years. I would hate to see the power of "I told you so" diminished due to being used too often. Like the phrases "I love you" or "Gee, you look pretty tonight", if you say it too much, "I told you so" starts to lose it's effectiveness and becomes just another common saying.
So this word of caution goes out to my fellow conservatives. Keep it in your pants. Fight the daily urge to give your Obama voting co-workers a big fat "Told Ya!" every time he does what we had predicted and tried to warn them about months ago. Save that particular phrase for the bigger and more important Obama predictions. Instead, switch it up a bit. Use phrases like, "What? You didn't see that coming?" or "What do ya think of him now?" Other good ones would be, "Well, you wanted change didn't you?" and my personal favorite, "Where's your messiah now?" (apologies to the late Edward G. Robinson).
Using these quality substitutes and even making up your own will help to get you through the next four years without diluting the meaning of a timeless classic.
Also consider timing. This is a very important factor in deciding when to use I told you so. If your neighbor happens to be an Obama supporter, don't say "I told you so" when you see him out front raking leaves. Wait till the next day when you see him on the un-employment line, or when he comes over to see if you have any canned goods you'd like to trade. Maybe wait till he's screaming out his window for your help in subdueing a meth addict that breaks into his house, after his second ammendment rights were struck down by Obama's Supreme court appointees. Definately an "I told ya so" moment.

Sunday, November 9, 2008

SO NOW WHAT?


Now that the election is over, and our collective asses are in a sling, (though fewer than half of the electorate realizes it) our side of the isle is currently contemplating what went wrong. Unfortunately for the powers that be, no one has bothered to ask me.
This is not rocket science. What went wrong was a short list of bad decisions and poor leadership. Too many people trying to please too many people. Our strategy was dead on arrival.


First, let me say that I do not blame the Obama camp for our loss. They did as anyone interested in victory would. They played to win, and they did. We can sit around and complain about media bias and dirty tricks till the cows come home, but in the end, we were more interested in getting votes that winning an election. Yes, there is a difference.

Rather than waste time dwelling on our mistakes, I would like to move forward with the "Roadhouse plan to whoop some liberal hineys in 2012". Those not interested in saving our country from socialism should just go ahead and click on outta here now.

THE PLAN


1. Stop taking the "black vote" for granted. We've been doing this for decades. It's no wonder blacks vote overwhelmingly Democrat. We can no longer write off an entire population of Americans and then cry when they vote for the other guy. The anti-gay marriage referendum in California should have been a clue to Republicans everywhere. The black community came out in force to elect Barak Obama, as is their right. When they did, they also took the opportunity to vote against gay marriage. I see that as evidence that there could be conservative gold in dem dar hills. Apparently, the Republican leadership has always assumed that blacks must be liberal because they always vote Democrat. That seems to be a tad short-sighted and seriously presumptuous if you ask me.

Be they liberal or conservative, they are Americans like you and me. They are entitled to the same opportunity to hear the other side of the story as anyone else. But rather than go to them, we brag about our "big tent" and wait for them to come to us. This is no longer an option.
If we are truly a "big tent" party, we need to go them and show their community what we have to offer. We have a superior product, but no one knows it because we're not there giving the demonstrations and making the pitch. Instead, the competition displays their wares in the black community everyday with no one else there to offer "the Pepsi challenge".
Will we be accused of pandering? Maybe, but we won't be accused of ignoring an entire community. Should we got to black communities because they are "black" communities? No. We should go there because they are American communities that are usually just written off for no real good reason. From now on, if our future campaigns do not include rallies, appearances and scheduled debates in the most urban of urban sections of major cities, then we deserve to lose.


2. Make education the catalyst for a real conservative agenda. This dovetails well with engaging the black community. For decades, Americans have been telling us that our education system is failing us, especially but not limited to the urban areas of the nation. This election was proof positive of exactly that. From prestigious colleges to inner city public schools, our education system is churning out ignorant, un-informed children by the thousands...maybe millions. These children then grow up to be citizens, and voters.
Think about it. If a diploma today was worth the paper it was printed on, then more than half of the voting electorate would NOT be so quick to accept socialism as a viable form of government. These people don't even recognize socialism, let alone fear it as they should. Lessons learned from history are virtually non-existant now. When half the electorate believes that raising taxes is good for the economy, you know you have a problem.
As a party, we should be calling out those guilty of destroying our schools. And we should be doing it in a very loud and public way. Which brings me to the next part of the plan to save the Republican party.


3. Be aggressive. Once, we were trusted with the keys to the castle, and we blew it. We squandered the public trust and fell for the stupid ideas of "compassionate conservatism" and bi-partisanship. First of all, conservatism is compassionate by definition. It needs no qualifier. And bi-partisanship is a myth that only Republicans fall for. Like Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown, our party never fails to reach a hand across the isle, only to pull back a bloody stump. Our unwillingness to see the opposition for what they are - the OPPOSITION, has done more to destroy our party than any scandal or attack add ever could.
We need to stop trying to work with the other party, and start putting them on the defensive for a change. Sure, we don't have the luxury of help from the media, but then again, what have we done lately that's news worthy? Did we demand investigations or hold hearings when Democrats are found to have done something shady? No. We don't even mention it in most cases. Democrats can leak intelligence secrets to the media, and denigrate our troops on the Senate floor, but what do we do? We sit on our hands and let it happen rather than give these "statesmen" a verbal beat-down.

4. Stop feeling guilty. The Republican party acts as if the first thing we do as part of our morning routine is to try to convince people that we're not some sort of monsters. By doing this, we just end up looking weak and spineless. What do we need to feel guilty about? Is it our doctrine that says it's OK to kill babies? Is it our doctrine that demands we give constitutional rights to terrorists from other countries? Is it our doctrine that says a law abiding citizen does not have the right to protect their family? Is it our doctrine that seeks to make doing business harder in America? Are we the ones who constantly want to raise taxes on everyone?

You see, that's the whole point. If Republicans would just stick with the conservative ideology that the party was founded on, we wouldn't be wandering around like a bunch of lost children right now. Would it be a cakewalk? No. But it would give us direction, unity and a definable identity. When it was decided that our principals were going to be defined by whatever is popular on any particular week according to any particular poll, we pretty much sealed the party's fate. That reminds me.

5. Enough with polls and focus groups! In times of crises, people do not need popularity contests sanctioned by people with hidden agendas and designed to have specific outcomes. They need people of character and principal. They need a rock, not a mound of clay. Our leadership should not need a poll or focus group to know right from wrong. Right and wrong are not opinion based paradigms. That brings us to...

6. Stop pandering. I don't care who you are or where you're from, you are never going to make everyone happy. So don't try. The right decision is not always popular and not always easy. But that doesn't mean it isn't the right decision. A legitimate candidate should be able to stand in front of the Congressional Black Caucus and explain why affirmative action is racist. A legitimate candidate should be able to stand in front of a women's group and explain why a woman does NOT have the right to kill her baby. Where is the candidate who can stand in front of a group of auto workers and tell them how unions have ruined the American auto business? Maybe there is no such person, but we should be actively trying to find or groom such a guy/gal.

Over the next four years, how Republicans react to the liberal agenda that's coming down the road will decide whether they are going to ever be relevant again. If we lose again in 2012, it will probably be because of our reluctance to stand up for our own principals. Will we nominate a conservative "rock" or another lump of clay?




Wednesday, November 5, 2008

THE DAY AFTER

I've had to do alot of soul searching in the past 24 hours. Granted, though I knew there could be no other outcome to this election, the one thing I had forgotten to factor-in was my own reaction to this tragedy. But as the reality of an Obama Presidency and it's consequences set in, I found myself getting more and more depressed. For those who don't follow politics or understand the dynamics of freedom and liberty, my reaction may seem irrational. In fact, South Park did a pretty funny episode about that tonight. But for the rest of you, I'm sure you can relate.
As I told an equally depressed co-worker today, if this had happened when I was younger I suspect that I would be far less fearfull today. I'm sure that after a few beers, I probably wouldn't have given a crap at all. But today, things are different. Now I'm a father and a husband. I have responsibilities. Now I have a family that depends on me to maintain a level head.
So as the daunting reality of our nation electing a socialist, anti-business, anti-defense President hits home, I realize that I have a decision to make. I can spiral into a depression that would render me useless as a father and a husband, or I can be a man about it. I've chosen the latter.

Though the incremental destruction of America will bring much "change" for the worse, I know that in my heart and mind, other things will be as true as ever...regardless of who resides in the White House.
I know that babies will still have the basic human right to live. I know that raising taxes will still not create prosperity. I know that terrorism is still not a legitimate method of resolving grievances. I know that people still have the right to defend themselves against the criminal element. The fact that Barak Obama disagrees with each of those truths, will not change the fact that they are truths.
If ever there was a time that I wish I were wrong about someone, it is now. But if history and Obama's own words and deeds are any indication, I fear that I'm not.

Being a Christian man demands that I take a long hard look at myself from time to time. Today, I see that I need to let go of my anger and disappointment in my fellow citizens. I also need to find forgiveness. For now, all I can do is pray that God will grant President-elect Obama wisdom, and humility before he implements his destructive policies. I pray that those who voted for him will have the good sense to carefully watch his actions and hold him accountable before he can harm the nation. I pray that people (ALL people) learn the lessons of history. But most of all, I pray that I am wrong about President Barak Obama.

Monday, November 3, 2008

THE RULES

To all my Obama supporting readers that occasionally check in with my blog. If Obama wins the election tomorrow (and he probably will), I plan to be as magnanimous as possible if you still continue to frequent my humble forum. That being said, there are going to be a few closely enforced ground rules regarding any future comments you might leave here. The rules are as follows, and apply to Obama supporters only:

1. When the stock market crashes due to anticipated taxation and inflation, you will not be allowed to complain.

2. When corporations leave in droves taking their jobs with them, in order to avoid Obama's tax policies, this will be a "no complaint zone" for you.

3. If you happen to get layed-off from your job when your boss has to make cuts to pay Obama's taxes, complaints will not be tolerated.

4. Don't even think about complaining when the Iraqi people are slaughtered in mass by Iran, Syria or any other terrorist organization after Obama pulls us out.

5. I know there better be no complaints when terrorist "feel their oats" and start bombing schools and malls here in America.

6. Complaints about terrorism being legitimized and emboldened by virtue of "talks without pre-conditions" will be met with deletion by me.

7. When our constitution is rendered obsolete by Obama's liberal Supreme Court Justices, there better not be any complaining.

8. When the price of everything you purchase goes up thanks to Obama's inflation growing policies, I better not hear one complaint.

9. When it takes your child three months to get an MRI and have it diagnosed due to Obama's nationalized health care, just take your complaints somewhere else.

10. When crime increases ten fold due to the repeal of the Second Amendment, complain you will not.

11. When we are left defenseless by Obama's cuts to military and intelligence spending, complain to the hand.

12. When "eminent domain" is used to take your property so that it may be given to someone else, I would highly suggest you not complain.

13. When your union votes are no longer private, complain to someone who gives a crap.

14. When your thirteen year old daughter is allowed by law to have an abortion without your notification, just complain about it...NOT!

15. When the natural ends of socialism finally arrive at your doorstep (poverty, bread lines, martial law, political persecution, etc. etc.), complaining would be ill advised.

16. When you eventually realize that Obama's "rob Peter to pay Paul when Peter is a hard worker and Paul is a total slacker" policies are actually hurting everyone, your complaints will fall on deaf ears.

17. When you figure out that "hope" and "change" are not accepted as legal tender at the grocery store, you can put your complaints where the sun don't shine.

18. When it finally dawns on you that Obama does not actually have a magic wand that he can use to create jobs, your complaints won't be worth a bucket of warm spit here.


Please be aware that any deviation from these guidelines will result in me shouting "I told you so you gullible, naive, mis-informed, Moveon.org reading, Micheal Moore movie watching, non-history reading, non-deductive reasoning using, easily seduced by catch phrases and marketing gimmicks, non-Roadhouse believing idiot!!!" at my computer screen. As well as a a hearty Nelson Muntz "HA HA" from yours truly.

Sunday, November 2, 2008

I DIDN'T WRITE THIS, BUT I WISH I HAD

“…generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you. But it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.” ~ Barack Hussein Obama

Here is a brief history of Communism, and it‘s negative effect on the citizenry who have had to live under it’s oppression. It is vital to understand how dangerous it would be to allow any form of Marxism to attain a foothold in The United States of America.Let us be clear here, lest some take exception to my characterization of the Soviet Union’s governmental system as Communism. Communism, Socialism, and Marxism are varying extremes of the same concept.A rose, by any other name…If you know of anyone who needs to be educated about this evil, please share this post with them. Edit it accordingly if you feel the need. In 1848, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels published “The Communist Manifesto”, a book which has since become more or less the Socialist’s Bible. In it, Marx and Engels envisioned a society which would be, for all intents and purposes, truly equal. This profoundly idealistic system of government is best encapsulated in the famous quotation by Marx, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. "The society which Marx and Engels advocated proposed to eliminate the “divide” between the bourgeois and the proletariat, that is, the ruling class and the labor class. According to the Manifesto, capitalism creates classes among the citizens, and leads to the oppression and exploitation of the lower classes.
Communism, and socialism in general, is designed to cultivate a classless society in which everyone is truly equal, and such social problems as racism, sexism and oppression are eliminated. The core belief of Socialism hinges upon the idea that no man should be independent, but instead part of a “cooperative” group that wholly depends upon each other to accomplish the goals of the “Collective“.
Let me add here, also, that God has no place in Marx’s concept of Communism. Communism is a necessarily atheistic system.It is a noble idea, and, were it possible, would be a Utopian form of Government. A Government in which all citizens would have equal opportunity to become self sufficient. However, as was soon discovered, the Utopia of Socialism proved to be, and always will be, virtually impossible. Indeed, it was self sufficiency itself that was most problematic to this Utopian ideology.
In 1917, Vladimir I. Lenin took the basic principles of the Communist Manifesto, and bastardized them, creating through force, a Socialist government in Russia. This emergence of Communism, as a “legitimate” government, was accomplished during what is known as the Bolshevik Revolution, in which Lenin led a revolution against the czar, Queen Alexandra, catching the monarchy off guard during World War One.
After three years of struggle, Lenin finally took control. The revolution itself costs thousands of lives, but the following years proved to be much more deadly to Russia’s citizens. During the ensuing years, an increasingly paranoid Lenin instigated what is known as “The Purge”, in which thousands of Russian citizens were rounded up and placed in gulags (also known as “re-education camps“) in Siberia, where they were tortured, sometimes for decades and often resulting in a painful and prolonged death. Others were lucky by comparison. They were simply executed, often times without the formality of a trial, or even any evidence of wrong doing. People were routinely executed and tortured for very minor offenses. Naturally, what misgivings the Russian people may have had about this new system of government were effectively squelched. It became life threatening to complain about the government’s policies.
In all, it has been estimated that Lenin and his successor, Josef Stalin, exterminated 20 million or more Russian citizens, often for the crime of merely thinking negative thoughts about the ruling Politburo, which was by that time, a devastatingly repressive dictatorship. The Communist government was characterized by repression, oppression, and depression, both economic and physical. In the schools, students were indoctrinated into the Socialist theory of Government, and were instructed not to doubt the party’s stated intentions.
Eventually, any student that departed from the party line could have been punished, often by torture or death, depending on the severity of the perceived offense. In an effort to eliminate any possible dissent, citizens were encouraged to report any suspicious talk or activity by their neighbors and friends to the police, and were rewarded if they did, and often punished if there were any suspicions by the Government police that they knew about said offense but failed to report them. Newspapers were expressly forbidden to write about anything without approval of the state, under penalty of law. Citizens were forbidden to listen to radio and television programs that originated outside the Soviet union, and if discovered, were subject to be sentenced to abnormally long prison sentences. National Elections did not offer a choice of candidates. The only choice citizens had was between yes, do you affirm this candidate or no, you don’t. Ballots were open so election officials knew how one voted. Voting was potentially dangerous.
Children were trained for whatever occupation the ruling party deemed appropriate, regardless of the child’s aptitude or desire. For instance, a child may be blessed with a talent for art, but if the party decided the child should be a bricklayer, the child’s aspiration to art would be squelched in favor of creating a career as a productive bricklayer. Citizens were told what to do, what not to do, how much they were allowed to earn, where they could or could not go, and in many cases, with whom they could associate. And they were threatened with punishment if they failed to comply.
Every aspect of life in Communist Russia was intensely monitored and scrutinized. One could not trust friends, neighbors, or even family to keep secret anything expressly forbidden by the Communist party. No one was allowed to own property. No one was allowed to have more money than his neighbors. Anyone who was found to be hoarding any money, food, or goods not approved by the state had their money or property confiscated, and were often imprisoned. The people of Russia soon became ensconced in poverty, mostly because the Government leaders took more money from them through excessive taxation than they could afford to part with, and used the ill gotten gains to lead exceedingly extravagant lifestyles. Each person, whether educated or not, skilled or not, lived on a limited income. All people earned the same amount of income regardless of their abilities. And this income was not adequate to live comfortably. Meanwhile, the Russian leaders lived sumptuously off the labor of the ordinary citizens.
Karl Marx's concept of equality was ignored by those in power. This resulted in a lack of incentive and an apathetic attitude towards industriousness.And a pervading feeling of hopelessness.
In short, freedoms were limited to the point of absurdity in the interest of maintaining order. Other repressive Socialist systems of government, some better, some worse, still exist in some countries in the world, such as China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, and Venezuela. Like the USSR, all have failed to create a successful working model of Marx’s idealistic vision of Utopia.
In China there is currently mandatory abortion. That's not choice. None can duplicate, or even come close to the freedoms we enjoy as free Americans. There are several schools of thought on the eventual cause of the failure of Socialism to live up to the ideals proposed by Karl Marx, but in the end, I would have to say that the root cause of Socialism’s failure is the fact that people are simply not wired to be equal. It is unfortunate, but true. While some people are ambitious, others are complacent. While some are hard working, others are lazy. Some people are content with things as they are, while others are continually striving for bigger and better opportunities.
All men are created equal, but no man can be coerced into equality. It is not the government’s right to dictate the dispersal of wealth to the people. Nor is it their right to deny basic human rights to any individual based on class distinctions and level of wealth.
Man has the inherent right to be what he can be, and no entity, regardless of intent, may usurp that right. And yet, this type of Government is exactly the type of government Barack Hussein Obama has in mind for the people of the United States of America. The words and phrases he himself has used in his speeches and interviews are damning evidence of his true vision for an American utopia. Words such as “redistribution” and “middle class” and phrases such as “Spreading the wealth” and “social and economic justice” are indicative of the kind of language employed by what I call “closeted Socialists“. Those are Obama’s words. He may win the election for President, and if he has the benefit of a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in Congress, many of the freedoms we now take for granted may be suppressed. He desires control, above everything else. He places utmost importance on personal power, rather than the power of a free society.
Indeed, a free society is in direct juxtaposition to Obama‘s aspirations. He wants you to be subservient to the state. The state, according to the typical Marxist, is to be your God. Mr. Obama may try to control our people, but he cannot control our minds. He may break our backs, but he will never break our spirit. Regardless, whatever transpires in the coming Presidential election, one positive remains: Americans will rise to the occasion. Despite being bruised, battered, and bloody, tyranny shall be defeated, and this nation, under God, will emerge victorious.

by Mark from "Casting Pearls Before Swine" blog

Friday, October 31, 2008

FUTURE HISTORY


I've never mentioned it before, but in addition to being a Dad, Husband, truck driver, and hack writer, I am also an inventor in my spare time. My most recent creation is a computer attachment that allows me to retrieve blogs from the future. I built it with parts borrowed from old washing machines and a generator from a 73' R-model Mack. The following is a Roadhouse blog article from the year 2012.





In a shocking, yet ironic turn of events today, Radio and TV personality Tavis Smiley was indicted today under recently legislated federal fairness doctrine statutes. Forgive me for not crying my eyes out. Don't get me wrong, I supported his valiant effort to protest the fairness doctrine through the use of civil disobedience. His on-air broadcast of solely his own opinion was to be a gateway to a Supreme Court case that would overturn the Obama administration's fairness doctrine legislation. Unfortunately, Mr. Smiley forgot about the two leftist Justices recently appointed by President Obama. After carefully researching case precedents from both Germany and France, the Supreme Court ruled against Smiley and placed him under the custody of the state.

It is ironic that Smiley had so heartily endorsed Obama's campaign despite repeated warnings from the "right wing" regarding Obama's long list of socialist statements and associates. Smiley stood by as one conservative talk show host after another fell prey to the fairness doctrine, either through license denial, format change or prosecution. It was only after Smiley was fined for not allowing the appropriate amount of "opposing response" during an on-air discussion about the first amendment that he saw a problem with the fairness doctrine. In protest, Tavis Smiley returned to the airwaves the next day and publicly criticized President Obama's understanding of the first amendment. He was immediately arrested.

Now Smiley can talk all day long, but the only one who will hear him is his cell mate.

On the bright side, now that my blog has gone "underground" I get a sensation of being rebellious that I haven't felt since I was a teenager. My only fear is that if I get caught blogging without "opposing response" I will be sent to jail and not see my children. But now that the fairness doctrine is being applied to the blogosphere, I feel compelled to fight against it even more than before.
Another silver lining to the Obama cloud is that now that I've been layed off from my job, I get to spend more time with my kids and more time blogging as well. And why not? Since Obama has decided to "spread the wealth around" for the past four years, I don't need to work anyway. I just sit back and let the government checks roll in.

In other blog news, unemployment has surpassed 23% this week with no signs of pulling back. The Obama administration is scrambling to find out why. Obama and the Democrat controlled Congress have raised taxes three times this year alone and tightened regulation across the board on all remaining industries. Yet they can't figure out why so many companies have either gone to other countries or simply closed their doors. Duh!

Better still, now that inflation has driven the price of even the most common products through the roof, some former Obama supporters are asking when his "change" and "hope" policies are going to result in prosperity or even basic sustenance. When Vice President Biden was asked why toilet paper is now two dollars a roll, he was quoted as saying "Gird your loins" and walked away.
Now that the price of gas is $7.00 a gallon, some of the more liberal blogs are starting to criticize Obama for taking so long to bring us the wind/solar powered cars that he said would bring us "hope" and "change". They just don't understand why people aren't clambering to invest in such technologies while "Captain Tax-meister" is in office.

I said it way back in 2008, and I said it when Iran nuked Israel..."Liberalism is a mental disorder".

Sunday, October 26, 2008

HOW TO DESTROY AMERICA

Tools you will need:
1. Candidate willing to destroy America
2. Accommodating media
3. Easily distracted population
4. Poor public education system
5. Radical socialist agenda

Step one:
Find perfect candidate. Preferably a tall, handsome, articulate black male. Tall and handsome to project strength while seeming too adorable to be evil. Black to take full advantage of white guilt. This will also inoculate the candidate from serious criticism by claiming racism whenever someone disagrees with his policy. Ideally, the candidate should be a radical leftist with a silver tongue. This will insure that he will institute the proper "America killing" policies before the people realize what hit them.

Step two:
Create a media so bent on the destruction of those who do not agree with their agenda, that they are willing to sacrifice the country to assure their enemy's political demise. This will be useful for propaganda purposes. In the event that a long list of communist, terrorist, or or generally America hating associates should happen to plague your candidate, your media will be able to down-play his association with them and imply that the opposition is racist or "out of touch" for even asking about it. This will give your candidate "gravitas" and legitimacy where normally there would be neither.

Step Three:
Be sure your candidate is skilled in making his policies sound like spun gold. This is accomplished by the constant use of vague catch phrases, mottoes, and slogans. Repeat, repeat, repeat. Remember, the fewer details the better. The last thing you want is to have to elaborate on the consequences of your candidate's real agenda. As often as possible, use phrases like; middle class, working family, single mom, greed, corporate fat cats, right to choose, special interests, de-regulation, and any other vagaries that your team can come up with.

Step four:
Be sure that your candidate is elected coinciding with a congress that will accept and promote his agenda.

Step five:
The best agenda for destroying America is socialism. Therefore, your candidate will need to institute policies such as income re-distribution and nationalized health care under the guise of "fairness".

Step six:
You will need to institute an "entitlement mentality" among the populous. This can be done by promoting labor unions, increasing/extending unemployment benefits and controlling the public schools.

Step seven:
You will need to squelch the people's ability to hear opposing opinions or educate themselves. This is accomplished via the "fairness doctrine" and Internet taxation.

Step eight:
Nominate Supreme Court Justices that will allow you to shape and mold the Constitution as you see fit. This you will allow you to disregard the right of the unborn to live. It will also allow you to disregard the right of people to protect themselves from the criminal element and your new oppressive government. It will also allow you to confiscate personal property for government profit.

Step nine:
Demoralize your military by cutting their budget and rendering their accomplishments and sacrifices in Iraq moot. This is best accomplished by pulling out of Iraq before the Iraqis are ready to defend and govern themselves. You can also hasten the process by giving constitutional rights to terrorists picked up on the battlefield in other countries.

Step ten:
Destroy the value of the US dollar. This is best accomplished by increasing taxes on the "wealthy". This will result in lay-offs, fewer factory orders, higher prices on goods and services, and higher poverty rates. Also, continue to promote the idea of giving loans to people who would not normally be able to afford them.


This ten step program (if properly implemented) is your best bet for the absolute destruction of the United States.

Monday, October 20, 2008

"TERRY THE TRUCKER" DEFENDS "JOE THE PLUMBER"

My blog is fast becoming exactly what I wanted to avoid. When I started, I knew I wanted to refrain from letting my blog turn into just another Obama bashing venue. Unfortunately, I can't justify letting Barak Obama get away with pulling the wool over the eyes of the American people without at least writing about it.
Last week, one man's life was turned upside down after a game of football with his son turned into an international incident. Plumber Sam Wurtzelbacher was in his front yard with his son when none other than the Messiah himself came walking down his street on a door to door stump campaign. What happened next could only be described as "my wildest dream".
"Joe the plumber" as he is now known, was hand-delivered televised face time with "Comrade Hopeski" and didn't miss a beat. As if coached by Carl Rove, Joe told Obama about his ambition to buy the company he's currently employed at, and how Obama's economic plan would make that dream much harder to realize. As if coached by Karl Marx, Obama replied with a flowery salesman-like explanation of how he wants to take from Joe's pocket and give it to the slackers of America. Obama actually used the term "spread the wealth around". The whole scene was caught on camera and later that day was seen by everyone.

Since then, Obama's droids have taken to publicly ridiculing "Joe the plumber" and have given him a full media rectal exam for all the world to see. And for what? Having the audacity to ask "His Hopeness" a question. Was it Joe's fault that Obama let the commie cat out of the bag with his less-than-stealthy answer? Was it Joe's fault that he just happens to understand basic economics?
You see, Joe understands what Obama supporters don't. Small businesses commonly far exceed the $250,000 mark that Obama is claiming to propose. Even a small plumbing company can pass that number with little trouble at all. By the time you add the expenses of a small fleet of stocked service trucks, employees to drive them, insurance, payroll, warehousing space, clerical space and assorted other incidentals, your assets and capital can go well beyond $250,000 in no time.
The other dirty little secret that Obama "hopes" you don't know is that companies do not pay taxes. That's because taxes are just another business expense and are passed onto the consumer as part of their product or service's price. Companies also cover tax burden by cutting back on perks and benefits to their employees. They also tend to purchase less equipment and innovative technology if they have to pay more taxes. That means less jobs for those who would have made those particular technologies. So when Obama tells you that he is only going raise taxes on the rich, remember that everything you buy is made by a "rich" guy somewhere, and part of the cost of that product is going to passed right onto you.
I guess as long as you're not a rich guy, work for a rich guy, or buy a product from a rich guy, you probably don't have to worry about Obama's economic policy.

Rather than expose these little facts to the public though, the media has decided that we need to know all about "Joe the plumber's" dirty laundry. In all actuality, it wouldn't have mattered if Charles Manson had asked Obama those questions, they were valid questions and were answered like a true socialist would.

Thursday, October 16, 2008


ROADHOUSE DOES THE MEDIA'S JOB


For the Obama supporters who occasionally check out my blog, I offer this video. I'm not even going to comment on it. Just watch and learn.




video

Saturday, October 11, 2008

SLACKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE

Since my "Little Red Hen" article on April 19, I have been wanting to write about socialism in the modern world and how it would apply to Americans if it were to ever become the norm here. Now that our economy has been "bent over the fuel tank" (an old truck driver saying) for the past few weeks, I've noticed a recurring theme in some of the blogs I frequent. That theme is the idea that maybe the free market isn't all it's cracked up to be and that maybe we should give this socialism thing a try for a while. If you are reading this and fall into that category, this blog's for you.

There are really only a few things you need to know about socialism in order to understand it's negative effect on the human condition. Socialism is based on a few concepts. One, everyone is equal. Two, everyone is equally entitled. Three, government knows best. Four, the government has the ultimate power over the individual.
The kingpin of socialism is the idea that everyone has the right to the things that others have, especially wealth, and to a lesser extent homes, and health care. This is not true. We have the right to pursue wealth, homes and health care. We have the right to work as hard as we want to achieve our goals.
In a free market system, the individual is empowered to achieve his goals on his own terms and the sky is the limit according to how hard that individual is willing to work for it and how savvy his decision making skills are. Under socialism, the individual is reduced to being a slave to the state. First by depending on the government to meet his needs, and then by squelching his ambition to improve his situation. After all, why go the extra mile to secure your stability in life if you know your government is going to wipe your butt for you if you exhaust your supply of government issued toilet paper?
One of the most popular justifications for socialism seems to be "fairness". Pro socialism people seem to be operating on the notion that it is not fair that some people are wealthy, while others are poor. This makes no sense to me. Unless we are talking about people who swindled or robbed their way into wealth, fairness does not apply.
Take Steven Spielberg for example. He is what any reasonable person would call "rich". According to socialism, his wealth should be taken by a third party (government) and re-distributed to the poor. Is this "fair"? No. Did the poor guy schlep his way through film school and bust his hump trying to get his first film produced? Did the poor guy take the risks and make the sacrifices, decisions and investments required to parley an education in cinema into a multi-million dollar enterprise? No. Or did the poor guy go through life playing X-box and smoking weed? Did the "poor" guy sit around and blame others for his lot in life, or did he make the changes necessary to get out of his situation? Why is the "poor" guy entitled to any of Spielberg's money?
This is the problem with socialism. It rewards the slacker and villainizes the ambitious. On a very much smaller scale, as a truck driver, I make a pretty good living. I make enough money to support my family and keep the lights on. Occasionally, I will hear a comment from someone about how unfair it is that I make the wage that I do, yet they make so much less. My reply is always the same. I tell them that there is nothing stopping them from getting their commercial driver's licence and working their way up the ranks as I did for so many years. It is usually at this point that the conversation comes to a halt.
It is the same in the blogs that I read today. People lamenting the fact that "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer". Is there something stopping you from developing the next computer operating system or inventing the next Pocket Fisherman? Or do you think you deserve a piece of someone else's pie just because you woke up this morning and said so. Would that be fair?

If you want a house, quality health care, or a gold plated hubcap for your Hyundai, it is your responsibility to work for it...earn it. Stop looking to others to pay your way through life. Stop looking at wealth as if it were a sin, while at the same time complaining about not being wealthy.

Monday, October 6, 2008

ROADHOUSE TO THE RESCUE

First, I would like to apologize to the nation for waiting so long to fix our current economic "crises". You see, I've been busy working for a living as well as caring for our new baby. So now I will take a few minutes out of my schedule to submit my plan for economic recovery. Not so much because I think I am so scary smart, but because no one else seems to be doing it, much less our government.
I'm only going to do this once, so pay attention.

My plan consists of two parts.

Part one: Creating Incentive

1. Return the 750 billion dollars to the people and rescind the "bailout plan".
2. Lower all tax rates at all levels 3-5% for the foreseeable future.
3. Temporarily lower interest rates 1/4 point across the board.
4. Suspend capital gains taxes for a period of time not exceed one year, re-instate them at 30% less than the current rate.
5. Offer and aggressively promote government bonds to the public.
6. Permanently suspend all non-essential government spending, including all loans, grants and subsidies that are not expected to result in a reasonable return.
7. Stop illegal immigration and prosecute those who hire illegals.
8. Rescind all previous legislation that requires lenders to loan money to those who have questionable credit.

Part two: Instilling Confidence in the Market

1. File charges on anyone who is guilty of illegal lending practices.
2. In a very loud, public way, name those who are responsible for strong-arming the lending community into giving money to deadbeats. You know, the Clinton era Democrats.
3. Censure all those in Congress who supported such legislation.
4. Allow all delinquent loans to be foreclosed on and require those who applied for those loans to take an economics coarse before they can ever borrow again.
5. Draft legislation that requires all members of Congress to pass a basic economics coarse before they can participate in any legislation that involves money.
6. Fire Henry Paulson and replace him with Thomas Sowell.

Was that so difficult? Now, if there are no other pressing matters, I have to change a diaper.

Monday, September 29, 2008


IT'S A BOY !

On Saturday morning at 10:04 AM, I had the honor of welcoming our second child into the world. Our 7 lb, 1 oz. bundle of joy came out screaming and ready to take on the challenge of his first breath of air. Ten fingers and as many toes were stretching and grasping for their first touch.
After the nurses cleaned him up and checked his vital statistics, we were able to spend our first moments of quality time with our new son. As we were sitting there taking this all in, an annoying thought kept creeping into my mind.
On one of the happiest days of my life, I couldn't help thinking about Barak Obama's voting record. I mean, here we were, actually experiencing the miracle of life first hand, yet somehow Obama's face kept popping into my head. Why?
Then it dawned on me. I'm watching my son take his first breaths and worrying about the next vital minutes of his life, when I realized that this is actually the same point in my son's life where Barak Obama would support my wife and I if we decided to kill our son.

Luckily, my new boy turned around and opened his eyes for the first time, at which point all thoughts of legislatively approved baby killing faded from my mind.

I'm hoping to be able to get back into the swing of things regarding my blog over the next few days and weeks, but for now I'm going to be concentrating on raising the next great conservative thinker.

Friday, September 19, 2008

OBAMA-NOMICS, PART TWO

The following article is for the lemmings who plan to follow Barak Obama over the cliff of economic depression while taking the rest of us with them. Regardless of how boring or difficult you might have found math or basic economics to be in high school, there are really only a few things you actually need to know in order to understand how the economy works. Consider this article to be your tutorial.

If you comprehend nothing else from this lesson, let it be this: stuff costs money! Once you grasp that concept, it's pretty much all gravy from there.
It's really a very simple formula: PEOPLE - MONEY = NO STUFF

Now that you understand that, we can move on to the rest of our class on economic dynamics 101. There are two main factors that control how the free market operates. One is arithmetic, the other is human nature. Arithmetic comes into play by virtue of the fact that numbers do not lie. They are constant and undeniable. 2+2 either equals four, or it doesn't.
Human nature comes into play by virtue of the way man has historically spent his/her money. This is based on two things; wants and needs. The human factor is not as etched in stone as the arithmetic factor, but it is still a pretty predictable set of circumstances.
We need food, clothing and shelter. We want food, clothing and shelter that we actually like. Liberals like Obama and Biden seem to think that it is this difference that dictates whether a person is morally fit or not. If you want only the amount of food, clothing or shelter that you need, then you are a Saint. But if you desire a higher quality, then you are a scoundrel worthy of scorn by the masses. The fact that you might work harder than the masses is of no consequence to a true liberal. But we're getting a bit off track.
According to the Obama economic doctrine, raising taxes on the rich is good for the economy. Really? First of all, the "rich" are the ones who hire the rest of us who are not rich. The "rich" are also the ones who by the most stuff, and when they do, it's usually the biggest and most expensive stuff. Be it a 150 foot yacht, or a fleet of new trucks for a budding freight company, it is the stuff the "rich" buy that puts food on the table of the American worker.
You see, what Obama's followers don't realize is, the stuff the rich buys does not grow on trees or appear out of the mist on a cool autumn morn. It needs to be manufactured. By people. So when you take the money from the "rich", they buy less stuff (see the previously mentioned formula).
If you are a highly taxed "rich" person, you will in all likelihood spend less money. That means that the small business man who builds yachts for living will have less orders to fill. That means that he may need to lay-off someone. That someone will now have to re-consider that new pick-up he was hoping to buy this fall. That means that the pick-up manufacturer will have one less order to fill. And so on, and so on.
Conversely, a lower taxed "rich" person is more likely to spend his extra dough. Mainly because he will actually have extra dough to spend. Be it a new Gulf Stream Five, or a new locomotive to move train cars at his mill yard, what the rich guy spends will mean jobs and financial security to everyone involved with the manufacture, transportation, warehousing, sales and distribution of of whatever the "rich" guy happens to buy.
The other dirty little secret that Obama doesn't want you to know about, is that taxes are nothing more than another cost of doing business. As such, it is simply passed right on down to the consumer...you know, you and me. Like the cost of cheese at a pizza shop, printer ink at an office, or fuel at a trucking company, when businesses are taxed more, it is simply added to the price of their product or service. Raise taxes high enough, then doing business is no longer profitable, resulting in bankruptcy, sell-out or relocation to countries that are less tax-oppressive.
So remember this little lesson in economics my little Kool-Aid swilling comrades. When you are shouting through that bull-horn about how evil the rich are, somewhere there's a "fat-cat" bull-horn manufacturer that appreciates your purchase.

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

OBAMA-NOMICS, PART ONE

If there is any silver lining to the mess that is this week's bail-a-thon, it is the fact that we are getting a little glimpse of what a liberal-led government will look like. Let me first remind the readers of this post that I generally try to keep my articles to a liberalism vs. conservatism paradigm (I would never use that word in real life). This is necessary because here in the real world, even Republicans have fell victim to the "government can cure what ails ya' " mantra lately.
First, there's the obvious questions. Who's next? Who is going to be the next to come knocking at the tax payer's door, expecting to be saved from the consequences that should rightfully happen to them? What will be the next industry the liberal government decides to meddle with? Now that the mortgage, automobile, health care, and energy industry have been royally screwed by government intervention, what's next?
Then, there are the secondary questions. What's happened to the educators in this country? Have they stopped teaching children to not borrow more money than they can afford to pay back? Did they forget to teach about responsible budgeting?

Keep in mind that this is the same entity (government bureaucracy) that Barak Obama wants you to put your family's health care in charge of. Since the people have voted against socialized heath care more than once already, I can consult my crystal ball and see the liberal majority regulating and taxing "big health" into un-profitability. Then declaring them "too big to fail", just prior to taking them over.
This could be followed by "big cheeseburger", "big shoe", and "big lawn mower". Before you know it, VIOLA! You have the People's Republic of the Former United States. I just can't wait to see how people react to standing in the bread lines for the first time.