SPARE ME

Am I the only one who sees what's going on here? Insurance giant AIG takes tax payer money for the purpose of staying in business because the government deemed them "too big to fail". After being bailed out, they continue to grant multi-million dollar bonuses to their executives. Consequently, Congress and the new administration are "outraged" at the audacity of AIG to spend tax payer's money in such a way. According to the media, the people are even more outraged and are sharpening their pitch forks as we speak.

Now, let's look at the real story. Yes, AIG did take the money. Yes, they did pay their executives fat juicy bonuses. But unfortunately for the Obama camp, this happened because of provisions spelled out in Obama's own stimulus bill. Don't get me wrong, I always think it's a good idea to throw a piece of legislation together at the last minute, and pass it without sufficient study, especially when it will involve trillions of dollars and risk the future of our nation. But maybe someone should have read this particular legislation before they gave the green light to the public shaming of a private American corporation.

You see, the bonuses paid to AIG executives were the result of contracts signed before the bailout. That means that AIG was obligated under the law to pay them out. But it gets better. The provisions that allowed them to pay these bonuses which are spelled out in the stimulus package, were actually written by the same people who are faking "outrage" today. The usual suspects, Frank, Pelosi, Dodd, etc...love those Democrats.

If these people were only pretending to be mad at AIG, this really wouldn't be much of a story. Unfortunately, they aren't stopping there. Like lemmings, there are both Republicans and Democrats that have taken the bait of moral outrage and are offering ways to "get even". Some are suggesting that the bonus money be taxed at a rate as high as ninety percent. One New York Attorney General has demanded under deadline and subpoena the names of those who received the bonuses. A sitting President has publicly shamed and threatened private citizens with the full power of his office. Obama spoke of AIG not abiding by the principals of this nation (paraphrased). Really? I was not aware that breaking contracts was an American principal. I was also not aware that reaction on the basis of emotion by Congress and the office of the President was an American principal either.

We've gone beyond the subtle stoking of class warfare, and are now entering the world of George Orwell's "1984". The fact that the government is majority share holder of ANY private company is bad enough, not to mention unconstitutional, but when they threaten to use that power to make collective business decisions for that private company, then we're all in trouble.
Besides, wasn't the goal of the stimulus bill to stimulate the economy? Why should the government care which American citizen happens to spend the stimulus money, so long as it goes back into the economy somewhere? They're acting as if these bonus recipients are going to light the money on fire when they get it, as opposed to spending it on something like cars, boats or houses.

Years from now, after most (if not all) businesses are taken over by the government, we can all sit back and marvel at how we showed those evil rich people a thing or two...as we're standing in line hoping they don't run out of our government issued food rations. Hope you like potatoes.

LIFE IS CHEAP


Not satisfied with simply peeking into Pandora's box, this week President Obama decided to go ahead and rip the lid off of it in yet another decision designed to show how sophisticated and compassionate he is compared to the evil President Bush. Yes, I'm talking about stem cell research. Part of the problem with this particular issue is the mass-lack of education of the people on the topic. So here is a very basic tutorial to bring you up to speed.

Stem cells are like the building blocks that our bodies are made of. As technology advances, it is hoped that these cells can be programmed to regenerate faulty organs or even entire nervous systems. It is believed that the cures for cancer and even AIDs will be found via stem cell research. For the record, I believe this myself.

So, what's the problem? Well, there's a little problem with how you go about getting these stem cells. Stem cells can be found in more than one place. They can be found in living adult bodies by taking samples of skin tissue or even bone marrow, without harm to the donor of course. These are known as "adult stem cells". They can also be found in the blood found in the discarded umbilical cords of newborn babies, also without harm to the donor. These are known as "cord blood stem cells". Sounds pretty cool so far...right? Now for the controversial part.
Another place these cells can be found are in human embryos. These cells are called "embryonic stem cells". For those of you who slept through biology class, an embryo is a person in his/her earliest stages of life. Yes, I said "person". An embryo is not going to grow to become a tree, a toaster, or an I-pod. It's going to grow to become a person, assuming there are no complications in development.
At this point, the un-informed (liberals) might assume the stem cell controversy is just another case of "Bible thumpers" trying to define when life actually starts. Though that is an issue, it's not the issue...at least not for me. My issue is what I call "people farming".

A few years ago, there was a moderately successful movie that starred Ewen McGregor and Scarlett Johansson called "The Island". The premise was that there was a corporation who's clients would supply them with DNA in order for them to grow, stock and "maintain" identical twins for later use as organ donors, according to the need of that client. These "donors" are kept alive in a facility and completely unaware of their purpose thanks to an elaborate system of lies and facades controlled by the corporation. As you can imagine, the corporation falls apart when the truth is discovered after the escape of Ewen and Scarlett's characters.
It was early into this movie when I realized that Hollywood had inadvertently provided us with a brilliant case against the use of embryonic stem cells. Though the "big screen" version of the consequences of treating people as parts bins may be a tad exaggerated, it does vividly force you to consider the ethics of such a thing.

I would like to think that there are not people out there who would look at embryonic stem cell research as a way to make a fast buck...but I know better. I would like to think that there will be no pharmaceutical companies that will offer money for embryos, or women willing to accept such offers...but I know better.

Now that we have decided that embryos are little more than "raw material" to be used at our disposal, I have to wonder what the next step will be. Where will the line be moved to next? Fetuses? Infants? Toddlers? Teens? At what next point do we decide that a person is too old to be used as a guinea pig under the false premise of "the greater good" or "science"? Who will get the honor of making that decision?

Also, keep in mind that it is only the media and leftist politicians who imply that conservatives are against all forms of stem cell research. Truth be told, we are for stem cell research, just not the type that requires the death of another person.

I WANT HIM TO FAIL TOO!!!

In recent weeks, I have watched in awe as the bulk of the mainstream media has tried to destroy the credibility of conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh. For what? Daring to say that he hopes President Obama fails. From Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel lying about Limbaugh's comments on the media circuit, to Obama himself suggesting to Congress that they stop listening to him, this is my first recollection of a Presidential administration publicly trying to destroy the career of a private citizen. I guess that since President Obama has solved the economic crises, terrorist threat, Middle East crises, crime, illegal immigration, unemployment, AIDs, and other various problems facing us today, he finds himself with an abundance of time to devote to picking on those who see things differently than him.

So, what about Rush's comment? He said he wants Obama to fail. What's so controversial about that? I want him to fail too. Not only do I want him to fail, but I want him to fail so miserably and mired in such embarrassment that no other socialist will ever dare to try such an agenda for the rest of time. I want his name to be synonymous with failure and defeat. Nothing personal though.
To understand why anyone would want to see an American President fail, you need to understand what that particular President hopes to accomplish. It's not that I want him to fail as a person, husband or father. I want his agenda to fail. Most importantly, BEFORE it has a chance to have it's inevitable effect on our nation.
Think about it. Do you want socialized health care to be instituted here? Of course not. Do you want "cap and trade" to be instituted here? Of course not. Do you want the military's budget to be cut? Of course not. Do you want your second amendment rights taken away? Of coarse not? Do you want America to become part of some global union? Of course not? Do you want higher taxes or their resulting price increases? Of course not. Do you want terrorists to think their tactics will gain them legitimacy? Of course not. Do you want our economy to fail due to policies that make no fiscal sense? Of course not. Do you want to be unemployed? Of course not. Do you want to be left defenseless against enemy missile technology? Of course not. Do you want to see "card check" forced onto the business community? Of course not. Do you want to see unlimited abortions without parental consent? Of course not. Do you want to see amnesty for illegal aliens? Of course not. Do you want to see the incentive for people to pay their mortgage disappear? Of course not. Do you want to be forced to pay other people's mortgages? Of course not.

You know, come to think of it, I can't think of one thing that I want the Obama administration to succeed at.

WHAT THE MARKET IS TRYING TO TELL YOU

In the interest of full disclosure, I must tell you that I am no Wall Street genius. I'm still the lovable truck driver/hack writer that I've always been. That being said, the market is not nearly as complicated as people make it out to be. Playing the market can be very tricky, but watching and reading it is not that complex.
Think of the Dow, S&P, and NASDAQ as the voice of our economy in general. Other indicators such as gross domestic product (GDP) and the unemployment rate are also a good way to tell where the economy stands, but they lack the immediacy of the market. Unlike the market, the GDP and unemployment rates are not updated daily-let alone hourly, making them a "lagging indicator" and subject to many more factors over a longer period of time.
If you want to know how your economy is feeling that particular day and even that particular minute, the market is your best "bet" (no pun intended).

So, what is the market telling us today? Well, let's just say that if markets could talk, ours would be begging for mercy. The market is not happy...because it's terrified. The market is shaking in it's boots because it sees what's coming. It sees the seizure of capital by government. It sees the nationalization of industry. It sees the coming of universal (socialist) health care. It sees bailouts. It sees banks not being able to recoup their investments when they are no longer allowed to foreclose on defaulted loans. It sees people knowing they can get away with not paying their mortgages. It sees higher taxes for those who provide jobs, so consequently it sees that cost being passed onto the consumers...ALL the consumers. It sees that resulting in more layoffs, higher prices and business closings. It sees fewer "big ticket" items being purchased. It sees how the new leadership villainizes successful achievers, and profit in general. It sees expansion of welfare diminishing the incentive to loin the workforce. It sees trillions of dollars being thrown down a bottomless government pit with no "hope" of stimulating growth, or prosperity for anyone other than government entities. It sees the socialist agenda gushing from the White House. It sees the intervention of government into every facet of the private sector through excessive regulation and bailouts. But most of all, it sees no reason to be optimistic.

As the new administration goes out of it's way to make this the most business repellent country on the face of the earth, there are still those who are holding onto the whole "hope/change" mantra. Unfortunately for them, they too are going to enjoy the consequences of fiscal naivety. For now though, they are quite comfortable with the child-like notion that President Bush had single-handedly screwed up the economy so bad that the market is incapable of moving on, or that his predecessor is is incapable of fixing it without destroying it first. They're totally cool with Obama doing ten times as much of the same things that Bush did to create this "crises" in the first place, namely spending the tax payer's money. They have no problem dismissing the fact that Obama has ascended to the Presidency at almost the exact same rate as the fall of our economy.

You see, liberals somehow believe that the business community became successful by being stupid, or by not understanding how things work in the real world. They blindly follow a man who's never run a lemonade stand, and brush off the concerns of people who've built empires as "greed" or whining. Rooted in simple jealousy and bitterness, Obamoids scorn the businessman and support those who would make it harder - if not impossible for him to operate his business, then they turn around and complain when jobs become scarce. Insanity.

So for those of you who were shocked to see the DOW go into the six thousands yesterday, all I can say is "strap in...you ain't seen nothin' yet. My prediction is: 5000's by the end of March. Barring any major attitude adjustments at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue of course.

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.

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.

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.