MORE FUTURE HISTORY
Back in October, I told you about the time machine I built from parts borrowed from washing machines and an old Mack truck. I only fire it up once in a while because time travel can be risky, and sometimes your experience can be traumatizing. Since I have been a bit overwhelmed by the amount of things to write about, what with the "new guy" taking his Presidential sledge hammer to our founding father's great works, I thought I'd take another trip into the future. You know, just to take a peek at what lies ahead. Big mistake!
This time I decided to set my destination for ten years into the future. My time machine only allows me to travel through time, it does not allow me to travel to different locations. So my report is limited to what I saw in my own home town and what I could learn from the media of the year 2019.
As I walked around my hometown, the first thing I noticed was the poverty. I double checked my instruments to make sure I hadn't entered some sort of parallel universe...I hadn't. I could tell it was my town, but it looked dirty, and run down. There were few people walking around, and the few that there were had sullen looks on their faces and shabby clothes. There were very few cars and the ones that were actually moving were rusty and beat up.
The other thing that struck me were the posters and billboards that seemed to be placed in such a manner as to make it impossible for you to look in any direction without missing one. Each had a different depiction of a greying Barack Obama. All flattering, and most on a field of red. I hadn't seen anything like this since the old pictures I used to see of Saddam Hussein, or the ones of Mao and Stalin from High School history class.
I decided to find out what happened. I went to what used to be a family restaurant, but now resembled some sort of soup kitchen you would see in the inner city. I sat down next to someone and told them I was recently released from the hospital after suffering an extended coma. Yeah, it was not the best cover story, but he bought it.
I asked what the deal was with all the Obama signs. He said, "Didn't you hear? He is our 'Dear Leader', he is our President." I asked how he was still President after his two terms. "Two terms?" he said. He then told me how in Obama's first term, he had amended the constitution to allow unlimited terms for President of the United States. After his Supreme Court nominations were approved, and with the support of a liberal Congress, there was no one to stop him.
I then asked what happened to all the people that used to live here. He said, "Many died in the war of 2012. Others died of what they called the 'new plague'. You see, when we tried to merge with the European Union via the United Nations, there was a revolt. The people formed militias and splinter groups of armed citizens trying to save the nation. Having mixed allegiances, many in the military opted to either stay neutral and not fight. Many joined the revolt in hopes of defending the Republic. This forced Obama to utilize the remainder of his military to put down the revolt with heavy armour, air strikes and martial law. They had nearly succeeded in stopping the 'American insurgency' until they showed up. The world had been watching our upheaval and decided to take full advantage. The Russian and Chinese coalition trained and armed Muslim factions from around the globe to infiltrate and then sabotage key infrastructure in America. Since our industrial abilities had already been depleted to non-existence by years of naive fiscal policies, it was impossible for us to rebuild or maintain military superiority."
"Wait a minute" I said. "If a Chinese/Russian coalition has taken over America, then how is Obama still President?" He looked at me as if I should have already guessed. He then explained; "Are you kidding? Obama did everything but personally open the door for the commies to walk right in and take over. They left him in charge because they knew he sympathized with them and he could convince the masses to comply with the new 'leadership'. Now we live to support the state".
Though I was stunned to hear of this horrifying turn of events, I asked him about the "new plague" he mentioned earlier. He told me how the new plague was really not that bad of a virus compared to many mankind had dealt with in the past. Apparently the real problem was a shortage of Doctors and medicine. You see, after our health care system had been taken over by the government, fewer and fewer people wanted to become Doctors. Going to school for eight to ten years to become a government employee, as opposed to having a private practice of their own was just not that appealing. The double whammy came when the pharmaceutical companies were taxed into un-profitability and consequently forced to close their doors.
Obama had made good on pretty much every one of his original campaign promises, but the people were too short-sighted to see the consequences of his agenda. They were so enamored by his style, that they didn't bother to consider his substance.
Anyway, this virus which during any other time could have been treated with anti-biotics spread like wildfire through the urban areas first, then on to the rest of the population. Over three million people in the US alone died within the first month of the outbreak. A year later, two thirds of the world population had perished.
I then asked what had happened to the restaurant that used to be here. He told me that after the first round of tax increases, the family that owned the place could no longer afford to stay in business, especially since most of the customer base had lost their jobs. He told me to take notice how there was no cash register here now. That's because the government had nationalized the food industry and now "distribute" food without charging the people. At first, I wondered how bad that could possibly be. Then I saw what was being served...potatoes and onion soup, with stale bread and water. Proving once again that there is no such thing as a free lunch.
At that point, I had seen and heard enough. I said "Good bye" to my futuristic friend and ran as fast as I could back to my time machine.
I'm not really sure if this destiny can be changed, now that I have witnessed it, but I do know that being right about someone or something is not always everything it's cracked up to be.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Thursday, February 19, 2009
WHEN WORLDS COLLIDE
No, this is not a "photo-shopped" picture designed to shamelessly plug my book. It actually is me with the Juan Williams of FOX News and NPR. Mr. Williams was lecturing at Shippensburg State College, which is mear minutes from the Roadhouse homestead. As a long time fan of Williams, I couldn't justify missing an opportunity to meet him. As a conservative, I often disagree with Juan's assessment of issues facing our nation, but what sets Williams apart from the liberal herd is not his opinions, it's his personality.
Since I first took the red pill and was drawn into the "Matrix" that is the world of politics, I've seen many political pundits hock their wares across my television screen. Among the liberal media are platoons of snarky, elitist "intellectuals" who never miss a chance to bash conservatives with little more than school yard shin-kickery. Through it all, one guy has stood out to a point where I frequently ask my wife, "Why can't the rest of those jerks be more like him?" That guy is Juan Williams.
The topic of his speech was "Eyes on the Prize: The Truths of American Race Relations". Admittedly, I was expecting Mr. Williams to be a bit more partisan, given the college setting and no cameras rolling. I actually told my traveling companion (AKA, my father-in-law) that we would probably be doing a lot of eye rolling during his lecture. I was wrong.
Like true statesmen of a time pre-dating focus groups and Neilson ratings, Williams spoke of racism in terms that were both fair and accurate. He spoke of personal responsibility or lack there of in the black community. He spoke of Dr. King's message and how he might relate to society today if he were still alive to witness things like gangsta' rap or modern day poverty. He reminded us that even though there is more work to be done, people in general have come much further in their attitudes towards racism than they are usually given credit for. He advocated more communication between ethnicities, and how important it is to keep the conversation going.
Amazingly, he did this without blaming George Bush for all the ills facing the black community, and without throwing verbal pitchforks at those of us on the "right". Unlike just about every liberal talking head I have ever heard, Williams managed to speak for an hour, and take questions from a predominantly "left" audience without making me want to throw produce at him. In fact, I really can't think of one thing he said that I disagreed with. Spooky huh?
After his speech, he did a book signing. He was every bit the respectable American in person that he is on the TV. I told him that I don't always agree with him, but I consider him to be a true statesman. I gave him a copy of my book and he was even gracious enough to let me get a picture of him holding it...his idea.
Juan Williams...a class act, and proof that being a liberal doesn't mean you have to be a nut-job.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
BIG BROTHER AWAKENS
If there is one underlying theme to the modern Democrat party, it has to be irony. In yet another scheme designed to spin our founding fathers to maximum RPM in their centuries old graves, some members of our allegedly representative Congress have stepped out onto the limb of totalitarianism and advocated for the "fairness doctrine". For those of you who don't know, the mis-named "fairness doctrine" is anything but. Rather, it is a way for the government to destroy one of our founding principals...freedom of speech.
In a nut shell, the fairness doctrine is legislation designed to force the press to give equal time to both sides of an issue in their coverage. Sounds good, huh? Not so fast there Hot Rod. Time to apply some brain juice to the subject. First, who ever said that there are only two sides to a story or only two opinions on any given topic? Second, there is a little thing called the Constitution of the United States. You see, there's this little thing in there called the First Amendment. It states as follows:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
You would think that those who are sworn to defend the Constitution would actually understand it as well...but apparently not. Don't get me wrong, as a conservative, no one is more disproportionally represented in the media than those who advocate my philosophy, but as an American citizen who knows how to read, I understand the implications of forcing another person to voice my opinions under penalty of the law. Do I consider it a kick in the crotch that Keith Olberman and Chris Mathews rarely give a fair shake to the right? Yes. But for me to propose government intervention that would control the content of their shows would make me an accessory to the destruction of their right to free speech.
That's what makes so little sense to me though. Why do Democrat talking heads want to institute something that would be as much of an abomination to the left as it would be to the right? After all, if producers of shows like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are forced to air liberal view points equally, then host like Ed Schultz and Allan Combs would be forced to air the view points of the right under the same legal precedent. Do they consider that when they promote democrats on their shows?
Sure, I would love to debate Ed and/or Allan on the national stage, but not at the expense of their right to produce their own show as they see fit.
Some believe that the fairness doctrine would be limited to AM talk radio, but not so. Once that precedent is set, it will be used for cases in all corners of the media. That means that CNN, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and even lesser known publications like the Mother Earth News or High Times will be required to present points from the right side of the issues.
Since it seems to be mainly the "fringe left" who are in favor of this unconstitutional garbage, I have no choice but to question their sanity. Between conservative talk radio hosts being obligated to debate and consequently destroy their liberal counterparts on a daily basis, and liberal hosts being forced to air conservatism for a change, it turns out that the "fringe left" are the ones who would suffer most in the long run under the fairness doctrine. Political suicide, or simple masochism? You decide.
Imagine the government forcing McDonald's to start selling Whoppers, or Ford to start selling Chevy's on their lots. Actually, that last one might be a bad example, now that the government is going to be the controlling interest in the "Big Three", they might be doing that soon.
If there is one underlying theme to the modern Democrat party, it has to be irony. In yet another scheme designed to spin our founding fathers to maximum RPM in their centuries old graves, some members of our allegedly representative Congress have stepped out onto the limb of totalitarianism and advocated for the "fairness doctrine". For those of you who don't know, the mis-named "fairness doctrine" is anything but. Rather, it is a way for the government to destroy one of our founding principals...freedom of speech.
In a nut shell, the fairness doctrine is legislation designed to force the press to give equal time to both sides of an issue in their coverage. Sounds good, huh? Not so fast there Hot Rod. Time to apply some brain juice to the subject. First, who ever said that there are only two sides to a story or only two opinions on any given topic? Second, there is a little thing called the Constitution of the United States. You see, there's this little thing in there called the First Amendment. It states as follows:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
You would think that those who are sworn to defend the Constitution would actually understand it as well...but apparently not. Don't get me wrong, as a conservative, no one is more disproportionally represented in the media than those who advocate my philosophy, but as an American citizen who knows how to read, I understand the implications of forcing another person to voice my opinions under penalty of the law. Do I consider it a kick in the crotch that Keith Olberman and Chris Mathews rarely give a fair shake to the right? Yes. But for me to propose government intervention that would control the content of their shows would make me an accessory to the destruction of their right to free speech.
That's what makes so little sense to me though. Why do Democrat talking heads want to institute something that would be as much of an abomination to the left as it would be to the right? After all, if producers of shows like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are forced to air liberal view points equally, then host like Ed Schultz and Allan Combs would be forced to air the view points of the right under the same legal precedent. Do they consider that when they promote democrats on their shows?
Sure, I would love to debate Ed and/or Allan on the national stage, but not at the expense of their right to produce their own show as they see fit.
Some believe that the fairness doctrine would be limited to AM talk radio, but not so. Once that precedent is set, it will be used for cases in all corners of the media. That means that CNN, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and even lesser known publications like the Mother Earth News or High Times will be required to present points from the right side of the issues.
Since it seems to be mainly the "fringe left" who are in favor of this unconstitutional garbage, I have no choice but to question their sanity. Between conservative talk radio hosts being obligated to debate and consequently destroy their liberal counterparts on a daily basis, and liberal hosts being forced to air conservatism for a change, it turns out that the "fringe left" are the ones who would suffer most in the long run under the fairness doctrine. Political suicide, or simple masochism? You decide.
Imagine the government forcing McDonald's to start selling Whoppers, or Ford to start selling Chevy's on their lots. Actually, that last one might be a bad example, now that the government is going to be the controlling interest in the "Big Three", they might be doing that soon.
Monday, February 9, 2009
HEY BIG SPENDER
It'll never work. That's really all you need to know, but for the sake of credibility, I will explain in more detail. First, I think it should be considered a "clue" when even President Obama himself tells us that this "stimulus bill" is not going to work right away and will be a hard pill to swallow. Hey, here's a wacky thought, if you know your own plan sucks, why not try one that doesn't.
Second, if the plan for creating wealth and prosperity in a lagging economy were as easy as spending massive amounts of money, then I think it's safe to assume that we would all be filthy rich.
Third, the business community did not get to where they are by being retarded. They know how to create wealth and prosperity, and they know that this is not the way to do it. Why do you think the DOW has remained in a low level holding pattern since Obama's election? It's because they know better than to invest or spend significant amounts on new development when Obama has more or less declared war on the free market. They are in panic mode waiting to see how Obama is going to stick it to them next. Not only are they not going to invest, but they are going to tighten their belts in hope of weathering the coming Obama storm. We see this already by virtue of layoffs and other cutbacks.
Fourth, so much of this bill is nothing more than pork and earmarks...you know, what Obama promised he would not have in his administration? Of coarse, there is always the chance that Frisbee parks and ATV trails create more jobs than what I realize.
Fifth, I remember how not too long ago, Democrats howled about the massive deficit spending that was happening during the Bush administration. They whined obsessively about how it will destroy the economy. Now that they are in charge, deficit spending is brilliant. As if all laws of economics have somehow changed, simply because of who resides in the White House. Basically, they want to "double down" on the same thing they used to make fun of Bush for doing.
Sixth, by the time most of the proposed public works projects proposed in the bill actually see broken ground, we will be driving flying cars, and roads will be obsolete anyway. People forget about appropriations, union negotiations, arbitration, the bidding process, land acquisition issues, material procurement, planning, societal impact studies, environmental impact studies, inevitable litigation etc, etc. The bureaucracy alone will take ten years to sort out.
Seventh, the first stimulus package didn't work, so why would a bigger one do the trick?
If one trillion dollars will fix the economy, then why don't we spend two trillion? Better yet, let's spend ten trillion and dominate forever. It defies logic to think we can spend our way out of this.
The day after this bill passes, if the DOW goes up 1000 points or more, I'll eat my Bush/Cheney hat.
It'll never work. That's really all you need to know, but for the sake of credibility, I will explain in more detail. First, I think it should be considered a "clue" when even President Obama himself tells us that this "stimulus bill" is not going to work right away and will be a hard pill to swallow. Hey, here's a wacky thought, if you know your own plan sucks, why not try one that doesn't.
Second, if the plan for creating wealth and prosperity in a lagging economy were as easy as spending massive amounts of money, then I think it's safe to assume that we would all be filthy rich.
Third, the business community did not get to where they are by being retarded. They know how to create wealth and prosperity, and they know that this is not the way to do it. Why do you think the DOW has remained in a low level holding pattern since Obama's election? It's because they know better than to invest or spend significant amounts on new development when Obama has more or less declared war on the free market. They are in panic mode waiting to see how Obama is going to stick it to them next. Not only are they not going to invest, but they are going to tighten their belts in hope of weathering the coming Obama storm. We see this already by virtue of layoffs and other cutbacks.
Fourth, so much of this bill is nothing more than pork and earmarks...you know, what Obama promised he would not have in his administration? Of coarse, there is always the chance that Frisbee parks and ATV trails create more jobs than what I realize.
Fifth, I remember how not too long ago, Democrats howled about the massive deficit spending that was happening during the Bush administration. They whined obsessively about how it will destroy the economy. Now that they are in charge, deficit spending is brilliant. As if all laws of economics have somehow changed, simply because of who resides in the White House. Basically, they want to "double down" on the same thing they used to make fun of Bush for doing.
Sixth, by the time most of the proposed public works projects proposed in the bill actually see broken ground, we will be driving flying cars, and roads will be obsolete anyway. People forget about appropriations, union negotiations, arbitration, the bidding process, land acquisition issues, material procurement, planning, societal impact studies, environmental impact studies, inevitable litigation etc, etc. The bureaucracy alone will take ten years to sort out.
Seventh, the first stimulus package didn't work, so why would a bigger one do the trick?
If one trillion dollars will fix the economy, then why don't we spend two trillion? Better yet, let's spend ten trillion and dominate forever. It defies logic to think we can spend our way out of this.
The day after this bill passes, if the DOW goes up 1000 points or more, I'll eat my Bush/Cheney hat.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
"I SCREWED UP"
Yes, nothing instills confidence in your country's leadership than hearing your President say to the entire world "I screwed up"...in their SECOND WEEK. The real shame of it is not so much that a sitting President would say such a thing on camera...purposely, but the real kick in the head is why he did it.
Not to buck a trend, Barack Obama decided to appoint yet another Clinton left-over that would eventually be discovered as a tax cheat. Even after Tom Daschel was publicly outed as being hypocrite/tax dodger Obama continued to stand by him. Only after Daschel took himself out of the picture, did Obama admit his poor choice of appointment. The obvious question then becomes; If Daschel had not taken himself out of the picture, would Obama have kept him on despite his aversion to paying the same taxes that he so vigorously forces us to pay? Well, if Timothy Geithner and Hillary Clinton are any indication, I must assume that he would have. Now that Daschel has pulled the ripcord, will Obama tell Geithner to hit the road? No.
In his zeal to destroy America in record time, Obama has already confirmed my worst fears in only two weeks. He has demonstrated a complete lack of ethics by appointing and nominating one crook after another to the most important positions in government. This could also be an indicator of his intellect, and maybe even a total contempt for this country.
Then there is his "green lighting" of nationalized health care for children, which confirms my suspicion that he's a communist in moderate sheep's clothing, or just an idiot that doesn't understand the free market.
In any case, it's good to know that when I "forget" to pay my taxes this year, I won't have to worry about the media villainizing me. Apparently, I can count on them to cover for me and not ask too many questions that might make me look bad in public.
Yes, nothing instills confidence in your country's leadership than hearing your President say to the entire world "I screwed up"...in their SECOND WEEK. The real shame of it is not so much that a sitting President would say such a thing on camera...purposely, but the real kick in the head is why he did it.
Not to buck a trend, Barack Obama decided to appoint yet another Clinton left-over that would eventually be discovered as a tax cheat. Even after Tom Daschel was publicly outed as being hypocrite/tax dodger Obama continued to stand by him. Only after Daschel took himself out of the picture, did Obama admit his poor choice of appointment. The obvious question then becomes; If Daschel had not taken himself out of the picture, would Obama have kept him on despite his aversion to paying the same taxes that he so vigorously forces us to pay? Well, if Timothy Geithner and Hillary Clinton are any indication, I must assume that he would have. Now that Daschel has pulled the ripcord, will Obama tell Geithner to hit the road? No.
In his zeal to destroy America in record time, Obama has already confirmed my worst fears in only two weeks. He has demonstrated a complete lack of ethics by appointing and nominating one crook after another to the most important positions in government. This could also be an indicator of his intellect, and maybe even a total contempt for this country.
Then there is his "green lighting" of nationalized health care for children, which confirms my suspicion that he's a communist in moderate sheep's clothing, or just an idiot that doesn't understand the free market.
In any case, it's good to know that when I "forget" to pay my taxes this year, I won't have to worry about the media villainizing me. Apparently, I can count on them to cover for me and not ask too many questions that might make me look bad in public.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
