PEACE FOR OUR TIME?

So that august body of socialists over in Norway has awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Hussein Obama. How nice! In presenting the award, the committee cited Obama’s “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples “ and “attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.”

Let’s see. Iran and North Korea are launching test missiles every other day and Iran continues unabated with their nuclear weapons program. The Dear Leader has ditched the Bush-era proposal for an anti-missile shield in Europe because it upset the Russians and he needs their help with Iran. He left our allies twisting in the wind and in return got some oblique statement from the Russkies about possible sanctions against Iran. Then, just last month, the Russian Foreign Minister stated “Threats, sanctions and threats of pressure in the current situation, we are convinced, would be counterproductive.” Wow. What a shocker! China seems unimpressed with our Nobel Laureate and continues to do nothing while North Korea runs amok and they remain opposed to sanctions against Iran. Yes, everybody seems to be getting along splendidly!

This latest joke is nothing new for the Nobel Committee. With their ideological litmus test and penchant for wishful thinking, they have been on a steady path to clownish irrelevance. Consider this collection of charlatans, commies and miscreants, Nobel Laureates all:

2007 – AL GORE

The “Goracle” shared the prize with something called the “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” (our tax dollars at work). The Committee awarded them the Peace Prize “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.” What any of this nonsense has to do with peace is beyond a logical person’s understanding. I think they just felt a need to award him for not being George Bush.



2002 – JIMMY CARTER

Jimmy won “for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development.” This sounds like more Norwegian speak for “he’s not George Bush.” Economic development? When Jimmy left office in 1980, after four disastrous years, the unemployment rate was seven percent, the inflation rate was 13.5 percent and interest rates were at 21 percent. Oh, those were heady times!

Maybe it was the way he handled the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. Jimmy’s bold response to this “international conflict” was to send Moscow a sternly worded letter and then he manned up by boycotting the 1980 summer Olympics. Wow! After spending ten years getting their asses kicked by the U.S. backed mujahideen, the Soviet’s pulled out of Afghanistan in 1989.

Then there was his “peaceful solution” to the Iranian hostage crises. Actually, the American people solved this one for Jimmy. Americans had the good sense to elect Ronald Reagan in 1980. After 444 days of whining and pleading by Carter, the hostages were released on the day Reagan took office.



1994 – YASSER ARAFAT, et al

The committee gave Arafat, the head of the Palistine Liberation Organization, and leaders from Israel the peace prize “For their efforts to create peace in the Middle East.”

Some of you younger readers might not know this but the Middle East was not always the land of peace and harmony that it is today. Israel was constantly being attacked by suicide bombers, mortars, rockets and bombs. The preferred targets were usually innocent women and children. The man that funded and planned many of these attacks was Yasser Arafat, a lifelong terrorist. He signed a worthless agreement with Israel and never stopped murdering innocent civilians but he did get his “peace prize.”

1990 – MIKHAIL GORBACHEV

Those nutty Norwegians gave Gorbachev the award “for his leading role in the peace process which today characterizes important parts of the international community.” So it was the commies that ended the cold war and brought peace to the “international community”? I don’t think so. Let’s review some facts.

In a 1983 speech to the National Association of Evangelicals, President Ronald Reagan said:

“In your discussion of the nuclear freeze proposals, I urge you to beware the temptation of pride, the temptation of blithely declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil.”

Reagan rejected the liberal concept of moral equivalency and believed America had not only the responsibility and moral authority to confront and defeat Soviet tyranny, but also the singular ability to do so. The only thing lefty politicians and the Main Stream Media took from his speech was that he called the Soviet Union an “Evil Empire.” They were quite distraught and there was much hand wringing and whining. They thought Reagan was unstable and dangerous and now he was calling commies evil! Well, from the time of the Russian revolution to 1987, 70 years, it is estimated that 50 to 60 million people were killed in the Soviet Union through starvation, forced labor camps and outright murder of political dissidents. I think evil empire is an accurate description. Reagan decided that the United States, with the wealth generated by a capitalistic economy and the superior technology facilitated by free markets and private property rights could bury the Soviet Union. And he was right. Even the Soviet Union understood what American liberals would not or could not contemplate. Speaking to the Politburo in October 1986, just days before he was to meet with Reagan in Reykjavik, Iceland, Gorbachev told his fellow commies:

“We will be pulled into an arms race that is beyond our capabilities, and we will lose it because we are at the limits of our capabilities. …If the new round [of an arms race] begins, the pressures on our economy will be unbelievable.”

So Reagan’s doctrine of “peace thru strength” worked. The leader of an oppressive, tyrannical regime realized he could not beat us so he quit. And the idiot Norwegians made a defeated bully a Nobel Laureate.

1973 – LE DUC THO

In a mild upset, Le Duc Tho, chief negotiator for North Vietnam, shared the award with Secretary of State Henry Kissinger for reaching a cease fire agreement in the Vietnam War. Hollywood lefties and media elites were hopeful that Jane Fonda would win the award for her “heroic” trip to North Vietnam in 1972. “Hanoi” Jane spent two weeks cavorting with the enemy, posing for pictures and accusing our armed forces of being baby killers. Jane was ultimately vindicated in 1995 when Bui Tin, a member of the North Vietnamese Army General Staff said that Ms. Fonda and the American antiwar movement “was essential to our strategy.” Traitorous Bitch.

So, U.S. forces left Vietnam and the commie Le Duc Tho got his Nobel Prize. Of course, this paved the way for Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge to turn Cambodia into the killing fields where they slaughtered nearly two million people in four years. No matter. The imperialistic, war-mongering Americans were out of Southeast Asia.

Barack Hussein Obama received his prize not for anything he has done, obviously, but because of who he is. The Nobel Committee was so giddy that America finally had a president that subscribes to their guiding principle – NOTHING IS WORTH FIGHTING FOR – that they couldn’t wait to give him a prize. This principle is antithetical to the belief of American Patriots. As Patrick Henry said:

“Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

That a bunch of Norwegian socialists would find the views of an American Patriot to be extreme and misguided means nothing to me. But an American President? God help us!

DECLARATION OF DEPENDENCE

“Society’s demands for moral authority and character increase as the importance of the position increases.” John Adams

Think of the founding fathers. Men such as Adams, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine, Alexander Hamilton and so many others. Common men and intellectual giants they all possessed great courage and character. They proved themselves eminently worthy in the leadership of a new nation.

Now consider our “leaders” of today. Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Barney Frank, Harry Reid and the rest of the wannabes in congress. Man, are we in trouble!

The founders gave us one of the most profound documents in the history of man, the Declaration of Independence. What if the “leaders” of today possessed the courage to honestly put forth their concept of the proper relationship between citizen and government? Below is the text of the original Declaration of Independence. It is lengthy but it will do you good to read it again. Following that is my version of what I think today’s “leaders” would come up with.

Declaration of Independence-July 4, 1776

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident:
That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and, when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them, and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing, with manly firmness, his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining, in the mean time, exposed to all the dangers of invasions from without and convulsions within.
He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.
He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.
He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies, without the consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the military independent of, and superior to, the civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our laws, giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us;
For protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states;
For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world;
For imposing taxes on us without our consent;
For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury;
For transporting us beyond seas, to be tried for pretended offenses;
For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries, so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these colonies;
For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments;
For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow-citizens, taken captive on the high seas, to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.
He has excited domestic insurrection among us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions.
In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms; our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have we been wanting in our attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them, from time to time, of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity; and we have conjured them, by the ties of our common kindred, to disavow these usurpations which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too, have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our separation, and hold them as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.
We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

And now a new version as I see our contemporary "Floundering Fathers" would have it.

Declaration of Dependence-September, 2009

When in the course of elitist frustration it becomes necessary for the ruling class to dissolve the constitutional constraints which have rendered them subservient to the common people and to assume among the tyrants of the earth, the separate and equal suppression of our people to which the will of the State and of the State’s legislature entitle them, a decent attempt at rationalization requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to this power grab.
We hold these truths to be self evident to us, that all survivors of Roe vs. Wade are created equal but some are more equal than others, that they are endowed by the State with sundry rights, subject to the caprice of the legislature. That among these are free education, free housing, free health care, a clean environment, a living wage, eight weeks paid vacation and card check. That to secure these rights, the State will confiscate the guns of the American citizen and the wealth of those that produce, deriving their just powers from the consent of a plurality of qualified voters as determined by ACORN. Convenience, indeed, will dictate that this State, newly established, shall not be challenged for light and transient causes such as liberty and self determination; and accordingly all experience hath shown that freedom is insufferable to the ruling elite. So when a long train of advancements, pursuing invariably the same object of individual freedom and happiness evinces a design to reduce the State to a condition of mere servitude to the people, it is the ruling elites duty to throw off such pursuits of the individual, and to provide new guards for their future subjugation. Such has been the patient sufferance of these elitists; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present American Republic is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations of State power, all having in direct object the establishment of absolute freedom from tyranny. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a sleeping world.

The American Patriot:
Has continued to read the Bible and make assertions that there is a power higher than the State.

Continues to believe that individual autonomy supersedes the collective good, as determined by the State.

Has insisted on his right to own guns thereby scaring the crap out of liberal wienies everywhere.

Continues to insist he is entitled to the fruits of his labor.

Has objected to our establishment of a multitude of new offices and has resisted the swarms of bureaucrats we have sent hither to harass him and eat out his substance.

Desires to destroy evil rather than compromise with it.

Believes people in this country illegally should be treated as if they have broken the law.

Believes it is right and proper to execute murderers but would deny a mother the “right” to kill her unborn child.

Objects when the judiciary creates new law, out of whole cloth, merely because such law would never be codified by the legislature with the consent of the people.

Would rather kill our enemies than try to understand them.

Believes it takes a mom and dad, not a village, to raise a child.

Continues to question the credibility of Al Gore just because he has a carbon footprint the size of Texas.

Prefers freedom to the illusion of security we so graciously provide.

In every stage of these annoyances we have petitioned the common people to just shut up and behave. Our repeated petitions have been answered only by the obstinate behavior of free men. A people, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define an American Patriot, needs to be taught a lesson. We must, therefore, hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in freedom, in chains servants. We, therefore, the self anointed elite of the Ruling Class, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Main Stream Media for the distortion of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of our own hubris, solemnly publish and declare, that these United States are, and if they swallow this, ought to be, subservient to the Central Government, that they are absolved from all allegiance to any concept of States Rights, and that all divine connections between U.S. Citizens and freedom is, and ought to be, totally dissolved. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the timid acquiescence of the masses, we mutually pledge the vacuum of our honor and conscience.

SOCIALISM SUCKS

Over 30 years ago a satellite photo of an area in Northern Africa showed a peculiar condition. In the middle of a wide expanse of barren land was a dark patch approximately 400 square miles in area. When investigators made a visit to the area they discovered that the dark patch was a fenced in area of lush grass. The area outside the fence was virtually devoid of vegetation. Turns out the fenced in area was private property surrounded by public land. The private property was subdivided into five areas which the owners used to rotate their animal grazing. This rotation allowed the fallow areas to recover between grazing cycles. The public land was owned by everyone or no one, depending how you look at it. It was available to all herdsmen for animal grazing. This is a textbook example of what has been called the “Tragedy of the Commons” and it demonstrates a fundamental flaw of socialism; the severing of the relationship between costs and benefits. The owners of the private property had a vested interest in the stewardship of the land. While they received the benefits of grazing the land, they also bore the costs. Any temptation of the owners to over graze the land, thereby increasing their immediate benefit, was tempered by their knowledge of the unacceptable future costs of having no land suitable for grazing. Acting in their own self interest, the owners were able to sustain a viable and beneficial operation. The herdsmen who used the public land for grazing received the benefits but bore none of the costs. These guys had every incentive to increase the size of their herds to maximize their benefits and they did. I guess things would have been ok if the public land available for grazing was limitless. But it wasn’t. All resources, public and private, are limited. Eventually the pasture land could not sustain the continued grazing from an ever increasing number of cattle. Many cattle starved and then many people died. Acting in their own self interest, the herdsmen using public resources eventually hurt everyone, including themselves.

This fatal flaw of socialism should be obvious to even the most casual student of history or human behavior. Yet the elite liberals in this country keep insisting they can make this discredited theory work. It is inherent in human nature that a free individual will engage in pursuits according to his own self interests. Who among us does not want to improve their own lot in life? Normal people want to secure the best for themselves and their families. Many liberals believe that the “greedy” pursuit of individual wealth diminishes society as a whole. In his 1776 book “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations”, Adam Smith refutes this notion with his concept of an Invisible Hand:

“…every individual necessarily labors to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.”

The “Flower Power” wing of the liberal movement believes it is possible to change human nature. They seem to think that if we would just join hands and sing “Kumbaya” we would all be motivated to go out and bust our asses for the benefit of people we don’t even know thereby enabling us to achieve some sort of ridiculous egalitarian nirvana. The ruling elites of liberalism know this is a bunch of crap. They understand the folly of trying to change human nature. They know that only through coercion or force can they direct the actions of each individual. This is why they lust for power and will do just about anything to get it and keep it. They know that only the government can provide them with the illusion of legitimacy to wield the power necessary to usurp individual rights. They understand what George Washington was talking about when he said: “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

President Washington knew there would be days like these and he was trying to warn us.

BOMBS AWAY

I have always tried to avoid the gratuitous use of profanity here but I guess I’m not eloquent enough to express how I feel about the Lockerbie bomber’s release other than to say FUCK Scotland and FUCK Libya! Scotland just released Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, the only man convicted of the 1988 bombing of PanAm flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. This murderous bastard served a total of eight years in prison after he blew up a commercial airliner killing 270 people, including 189 Americans. Al Megrahi was given a life sentence but the Scots’ decided to set him free because he has cancer and they thought it was compassionate to let him die at home in Libya. Excuse my naïveté but I thought a life sentence kinda means you will die in prison! Nice message you sent to terrorists there Scotland. Evil men do not respond in kind to acts of compassion. They view it as weakness and they exploit it. The only thing evil men understand is force and they fear those willing to use it.

Al Megrahi arrived in Libya to a hero’s welcome. Big shocker! After a luxurious flight on good old Colonel Gadhafi’s private jet, he was greeted by thousands of cheering Libyans. These multitudes were obviously part of that infinitesimally small faction of Islamic extremists we are always told not to worry about. You know the ones. Like the hoards we see celebrating in the streets all across the Middle East every time an atrocity is committed against innocent U.S. citizens. They are all part of that teeny-tiny little group that has grossly miss-represented Islam, the religion of peace. Sure, whatever.

The government of the United States has few legitimate functions. One of them is ensuring the security of U.S. citizens. With that in mind, here is the recommended response from Society’s Ditch Peace Czar. We tell old Colonel Gadhafi the he has 24 hours to hand over Al Megrahi to the United States for immediate execution or the bombing begins. We will systematically bomb his country to hell until he produces this bastard. If we don’t get a body, he better pray to allah that Scotland has a DNA sample to verify the terrorists remains. That’s it! No more fucking around! The world needs to be put on notice that you don’t kill Americans with impunity. Screw the lefties and their constant whining about a disproportionate response. The hell with that nonsense! Just because the muslim culture and way of life has produced nothing more than expert rock throwers doesn’t mean we can only respond with sticks. Now that they have managed to buy or steal advanced technologies that give them the ability to do major damage, we cannot limit ourselves in the extent of our response.

So where is the “chosen one” in all of this? The American people were told if Obama was elected, friend and foe alike would embrace us. There would be a new beginning. Lions would lay down with lambs, the seas would recede and all that happy horseshit. So what has happened? Obama went to Europe and begged for more help in Afghanistan. Our “allies” responded with something like five troops. All of Europe! Gee, thanks! Apparently Obama sent word to Scotland that he “strongly” opposed the release of Al Megrahi. Nice job there Barack. The Scots’ told us to fuck off too! Thanks for the leadership you arrogant, narcissistic little Marxist!

The situation we find ourselves in is tenuous. Our domestic problems are obvious but we Americans must never lose sight of our singular ability to lead the world and defend freedom. Our first order of business must always be our national defense. As far as the rest of the world is concerned, without the United States all is lost.

HEALTHCARE FOR IDIOTS

Liberals love a good crisis. They are skilled at inciting panic and fabricating a need for government intervention. They do this because their very existence is predicated on the helplessness of their constituents. As Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel has said, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” Because real crises are rare, liberals need to invent them. As an example, if John Edwards wasn’t a total asshole, he might be president and we would all be talking about the homeless crisis. If you’ve forgotten, Edwards was the little twit running around telling people that every culvert in America had 20 homeless guys living in it. It was a crisis! Well, he wasn’t elected so Katie Couric won’t be interviewing homeless guys for awhile. No, instead we got Obama (BHO) and the crisis du jour is health care.

BHO says we have a crisis because costs are out of control and 46 million people in this country don’t have health insurance. While both these things may be true, I think we should consider how we got to this point before we implement some massive and outrageously expensive government program to remedy these conditions.

OUT OF CONTROL COSTS

You’ve got to hand it to liberals. What they lack in integrity, they make up for in audacity. Cost are out of control so let the government take charge! What? So they can bring to health care the high quality and affordability they brought to the postal service and public schools? Gee, thanks.

BHO has said that the government needs to get involved to provide more competition in the market place. More competition? By my count there is something like 10 thousand insurance companies in this country. Not enough competition, my ass! How about the government doing away with all their stupid mandates that have created “one size fits all” insurance plans. Give insurance companies the freedom to structure plans that are actually tailored to the needs and wants of their customers. Competition will explode and costs will be driven down.

Just recently I heard BHO railing on the insurance industry and their huge profits. He seeks to blame their greed for our high costs. I’m no apologist for insurance companies. I know they are making money but those of us in the private sector are not offended by profits. We actually spend a lot of time trying to increase our own! It would be hypocritical of me to criticize the profits of another. BHO, having never made a profit in his life, has no such concern. But are insurance company profits the biggest problem? BHO has never discussed how medicare and medicaid factor into the cost equation. When a doctor charges $500 for some procedure but the government plan only allows for a $400 payment, who pays the difference? We do, of course. And what affect does that have on our insurance premiums?

BHO has also never mentioned tort reform and how it might affect costs. Doctors pay huge premiums for liability insurance. In some areas, family practitioners are paying over $200,000 a year and as the amount in jury awards rises, doctor’s premiums rise. And this does not even factor in the cost of all the additional tests that doctors now require in an effort to cover their asses in the event of a lawsuit. With lawyers collecting 1/3 of the award, they are doing quite nicely. There is a reason that “ambulance chaser” is part of the American lexicon but I’ve never heard BHO bitching about lawyer profits.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX DITCH CHECK XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

BHO talking about the free market is like me talking about soccer. He knows nothing about how it works but he instinctively dislikes it. He keeps insisting that “if you like your current plan or doctor, you can keep them.” He has no idea how the free market will adapt to his plan. The fact is, his rules will force private businesses to dump their health insurance plans to remain competitive. Private insurance companies will eventually be wiped out forcing everyone into the government system.
When BHO and his lefty comrades want to target a certain industry, they always rip on their “outrageous profits.” This is right out of Karl Marx’s playbook. Marx theorized that surplus value (profit) was accumulated by bourgeoisie pigs (capitalists) by ripping off the proletariat (employee). It is this theory that was applied to give the world those “workers paradises” in Eastern Europe, China and North Korea among others. Left unchecked, these people are going to destroy our country!

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

46 MILLION UNINSURED

BHO has been pretty careful when he throws this number out there. You’ll notice he generally refers to just the “46 million uninsured” or the “46 million uninsured in America.” He never says there are 46 million uninsured AMERICANS. There is a good reason for this. Of the 46 million, 9.7 million-more than 20 percent, are not U.S. citizens! Why should hard working Americans be on the hook for them? I’m sure there are a couple billion uninsured Chinese, too. So, what!

Also included in the 46 million are five million people who qualify for medicare but don’t use it. There are also 17 million Americans living in households with annual incomes in excess of $50,000 that CHOOSE not to have health insurance. Forty percent of the uninsured are between the ages of 18 and 34. Being young and healthy, they have CHOSEN to spend their money on things other than health insurance.

Add it all up and you get about eight million people that want health insurance and can’t get it. Because America is the most benevolent country in the world, these people will be taken care of. Only liberals would think that blowing up the best health care system in the world to help three percent of the population is a good idea. But the liberal elite aren’t that stupid. Freedom loving Americans should consider what their real motivation might be.

FREE MARKET SOLUTIONS

According to some recent articles in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Democratic legislators are “stunned at the choices they face to rebalance a budget with a deficit now as high as 6.5 billion…” Stunned, they say! What, they never saw this coming? Apparently there is no minimum IQ level required to serve in the state legislature. Last year there were over 70,000 private sector jobs lost in Wisconsin. Businesses are fleeing Wisconsin and relocating to states that won’t tax them into oblivion. And legislators can’t figure out why tax collections are down nearly 800 million over the last ten months! Gov. Jim Doyle has proposed 1.7 billion in tax and fee increases with the new biannual budget. This is on top of the 1.2 billion in tax and fee increases he signed into law in February as part of his super duper budget repair package. Nearly 3 billion in NEW taxes and yet it’s still not enough! Now Democratic legislators are, gasp!, looking at the possibility of cutting spending. Not without some trepidation though. These liberal dopes are all in a tizzy over Doyle’s pathetic little plan to require state employees to take 16 days of unpaid leave over the next two years and to forgo a planned 2% pay increase. Oh, the humanity! Senate president Fred Risser of Madison (shocker) said it’s unfair to require “dedicated and loyal” state workers to take unpaid furloughs. He added that he would rather raise taxes because state workers aren’t responsible for the budget mess. Another breathtakingly stupid remark by a liberal that goes unchallenged. Who’s fault is it Fred? Private businesses and those 70,000+ people that lost their jobs last year? I don’t think so. In 2007, Wisconsin taxpayers paid 12.3% of their income in sales, property and state income taxes. This puts us at 7th on the list of highest taxing states. No Fred, I think it’s your fault. And Doyle’s. And all your liberal colleagues in the state legislature. I think government employees bear some responsibility too. How much, I don’t know but with the liberals theory of joint and several liability, it doesn’t matter.

So what should Wisconsin do? When looking at the state budget, it is necessary to also include local government functions as well. There are myriad government programs ostensibly under local jurisdiction that are funded in large part by the state. For instance, 67% of public school costs are funded by the state. There are so many different programs, incentives and subsidies that it’s like trying to decipher a mobster’s money laundering scheme. Ultimately, everything government does is funded by the taxpayers so I include local government in this analysis.

According to the Census of Government Employment, there were 282,000 people working for state and local government in Wisconsin in 2009. If we exclude those that provide essential or legitimate government services, police and firefighters, that leaves us with 261,000 employees. The average wage of these employees is $46,200. According to U.S. Census Bureau data, the government spends 35 cents on benefits for every dollar in wages. So the actual cost to employ each of these people averages $62,370. per year. Liberal politicians are always telling us that we need to make sacrifices in tough economic times. They also prattle on incessantly about “fairness.” Then lets be fair with the sacrifice. The unemployment rate for Wisconsin in March was 9.4%. In the interest of fairness, state and local governments should immediately lay off 9.4% of the non-essential workforce. That’s 24,534 employees. This would save taxpayers 1.5 billion a year. That’s 3 billion over the course of the biannual budget. Liberals won’t like this but they won’t be able to argue the fairness aspect of it.

Now comes the really hard part. We apply free market principles to the government workforce. The lefties won’t understand this at all. The free market to a liberal is as a rubics cube in the hands of a 4 year old. They have no idea how it works or what it does. They will want to cast it aside and go back to their milk and cookies. We conservatives need to educate them. Conservatives know that the free market is really good at maximizing productivity and minimizing costs. In a word, it promotes efficiency. So, after the layoffs, government is left with 236,500 employees. I’m guessing that many of these people are going to start to realize that they are damn lucky to have a job. Here is where we inject a little free market reality. We cut all wages and benefits by 10%. This saves taxpayers another 3 billion over the two years. Budget crisis averted! But why stop? Oh sure, the government workers will scream and whine and wallow in self pity. But will they quit? I don’t know but in two years the free market will tell us if we can cut another 10%. We can continue to cut until there is no longer a surplus of applicants for these jobs. The government workers will call these actions “draconian.” Any cut in government spending is always called a draconian cut. What a bunch of crap. It’s called competition and those of us in the real world deal with it every day. I think it’s time that government workers experience the existential pleasures of market forces in the real world. They will be better people for it.

Liberals will accuse the taxpayers of greed and selfishness. I don’t think so. What is selfish (and immoral) is politicians currying favor with one segment of society by overpaying them with other peoples money.

100 FREAK'N DAYS

President Obama held a press conference last Wednesday in celebration of his first 100 days in office. The teleprompter was in good working order and he delivered his opening remarks with a style and grace befitting the smoothest of the smooth. I’m sure liberals around the country “felt a thrill going up their leg” during his presentation. Being a conservative, I was able to maintain my composure and actually listened to what he said. Of particular interest to me were his comments on enhanced interrogation or what the lefties call torture. Of course, subjecting a murderous jihadist to anything beyond polite conversation is considered torture by Obama.

The president stated: "We have rejected the false choice between our security and our ideals, by closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay and banning torture without exception."

One of the pre-approved reporters asked Obama if he thought that the previous administration sanctioned torture. His response in part:

"…waterboarding violates our ideals and values. I do believe that it is torture. And that’s why I put an end to these practices.

I am absolutely convinced that it was the right thing to do – not because there might not have been information that was yielded by these various detainees who were subjected to this treatment, but because we could have gotten this information in other ways – in ways that were consistent with our values, in ways that were consistent with who we are.

It corrodes the character of a country."

It’s easy to make ridiculous and unsupportable statements when you are never called to explain or defend them. Obama knows that we obtained a great deal of valuable information as a result of these interrogations. Yet he flippantly states that we could have gotten this information in other ways.
Really? What ways would those be? And how much time would these unmentioned techniques take? Intelligence gathering is, by its very nature, time sensitive. Intelligence gathered after the fact isn’t intelligence. It’s history. If a bad guy says they are going to blow up some buildings in two weeks and Obama’s PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE TELLS US WHERE technique takes two weeks and a day to work, well, what’s the point?

From 2001 to 2008, the time frame we were “torturing” terrorists, there were more than 10 million abortions in this country. That’s fine and dandy with Obama. No moral implications there. No “corrosive” affect on the character of the country. But when we dump a bucket of water on three, that’s right three, murderous psychopaths and obtain information that saved countless lives, Obama gets all indignant and proclaims: "It corrodes the character of a country." Come on now. Really?

Recognizing that he has no credibility on this issue, Obama invoked the name of a true leader, Winston Churchill: "And Churchill said, 'we don’t torture,' when the entire British – all of the British people were being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat."

Leaving aside the obvious facts that Churchill and Obama would have far different definitions of torture and that if Churchill did authorize torture he wouldn’t tell the whole world, let’s assume Obama is correct. If Churchill did not authorize torture, he had at least two good reasons:

1. Both Great Britain and Germany were signatories to the
Geneva conventions. Churchill might have refrained from
torture with the idea that Germany would reciprocate. We
are not bound by an agreement that our enemy has not
signed!
2. There was probably not much that the typical German POW
could tell Churchill that he didn’t already know. In 1941,
Great Britain, with a big assist from some Polish
mathematicians, had broken the enigma code used by the
German armed forces for all sensitive communications.
This was no small thing. Many historians credit the Allies
intelligence gathering capabilities with shortening the war
by at least two years.

Obama finished up his answer with this liberal tripe: "At the same time, it takes away a critical recruitment tool that Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations have used to try to demonize the United States and justify the killing of civilians." Here is a list to consider:

September 11, 2001 - Terrorists hijack four U.S. commercial airliners taking off from various locations in the United States in a coordinated suicide attack. In separate attacks, two of the airliners crash into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, which catch fire and eventually collapse. A third airliner crashes into the Pentagon in Washington, DC, causing extensive damage. The fourth airliner, also believed to be heading towards Washington, DC, crashes outside Shanksville, PA., killing all 45 people on board. Casualty estimates from New York put the possible death toll close to 5,000, while as many as 200 people may have been lost at the Pentagon crash site.

Oct. 12, 2000 - A terrorist bomb damages the destroyer USS Cole in the port of Aden, Yemen, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39.

Aug. 7, 1998 - Terrorist bombs destroy the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. In Nairobi, 12 Americans are among the 291 killed, and over 5,000 are wounded, including 6 Americans. In Dar es Salaam, one U.S. citizen is wounded among the 10 killed and 77 injured.

June 21, 1998 - Rocket-propelled grenades explode near the U.S. embassy in Beirut.

June 25, 1996 - A bomb aboard a fuel truck explodes outside a U.S. air force installation in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. 19 U.S. military personnel are killed in the Khubar Towers housing facility, and 515 are wounded, including 240 Americans.

Nov. 13, 1995 - A car-bomb in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia kills seven people, five of them American military and civilian advisers for National Guard training. The "Tigers of the Gulf," "Islamist Movement for Change," and "Fighting Advocates of God" claim responsibility.

February 1993 - A bomb in a van explodes in the underground parking garage in New York's World Trade Center, killing six people and wounding 1,042.

Dec. 21, 1988 - A bomb destroys Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. All 259 people aboard the Boeing 747 are killed including 189 Americans, as are 11 people on the ground.

April 1986 - An explosion damages a TWA flight as it prepares to land in Athens, Greece. Four people are killed when they are sucked out of the aircraft.

April 5, 1986 - A bomb destroys the LaBelle discotheque in West Berlin. The disco was known to be frequented by U.S. servicemen. The attack kills one American and one German woman and wounds 150, including 44 Americans.

December 1985 - Simultaneous suicide attacks are carried out against U.S. and Israeli check-in desks at Rome and Vienna international airports. 20 people are killed in the two attacks, including four terrorists.

November 1985 - Hijackers aboard an Egyptair flight kill one American. Egyptian commandos later storm the aircraft on the isle of Malta, and 60 people are killed.

October 1985 - Palestinian terrorists hijack the cruise liner Achille Lauro (in response to the Israeli attack on PLO headquarters in Tunisia) Leon Klinghoffer, an elderly, wheelchair-bound American, is killed and thrown overboard.

August 1985 - A car bomb at a U.S. military base in Frankfurt, Germany kills two and injures 20. A U.S. soldier murdered for his identity papers is found a day after the explosion.

June 1985 - A TWA airliner is hijacked over the Mediterranean, the start of a two-week hostage ordeal. The last 39 passengers are eventually released in Damascus after being held in various locations in Beirut.

April 1985 - A bomb explodes in a restaurant near a U.S. air base in Madrid, Spain, killing 18, all Spaniards, and wounding 82, including 15 Americans.

October 1983 - A suicide car bomb attack against the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut kills 241 servicemen. A simultaneous attack on a French base kills 58 paratroopers.

April 1983 - A suicide car bombing against the U.S. embassy in Beirut kills 63, including 17 Americans.

November 4, 1979 – A group of Islamist students in Iran take over the American embassy in support of the Iranian revolution. 52 U.S. diplomats are held hostage for 444 days.

Two things all these attacks have in common:

1. They were all perpetrated by Muslims.

2. Not one of the terrorists ever said they did it
because the U.S. engaged in waterboarding.

The terrorists hate us because we support Israel and, despite what Obama says, we are a Christian nation. The terrorists hated us before it became official U.S. policy to reveal state secrets to the world and they hate us now. I’m sure now that we are fighting back this upsets them even more. So what? Obama and the left’s unwillingness to accept this reality puts us all in serious danger.