With Choice Comes Responsibility

Being Liberal FaceBook page has the following post:

“The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a woman’s life, to her well-being and dignity. When the government controls that decision for her, she is being treated as less than a full adult human responsible for her own choices.”        Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

They are posting this as an argument in favor of pro-choice, which by the way, I’m in favor of. I fully believe that a woman should be able to choose who, what, when, where, why and how they engage in sex. I do not believe that the government should be involved in this decision in any way, shape or form.

Where I’m confused and where the feminists don’t seem to see the logical disconnect is when they say they don’t want the government to control decisions about their sex life while at the same time asking the government to pay for their choices.

Now I don’t know about you, but where I grew up, the person who paid the bills got the final say.

Liberals constantly like to whine and moan that conservatives are trying to remove a woman’s ability to choose. In fact, it couldn’t be further from the truth. Conservatives are not telling women how they must behave sexually. They are just saying that it is not the government’s job to pay for their personal choices.

I don’t know any conservatives who are trying to outlaw abortion, or birth control. They just don’t see it as their job to pay for somebody else’s personal choices.

I believe liberals can have sex with anyone they want, any way they want. However, it’s not my job to pay for the consequences of their choices and actions or to provide props for them, such as the pill or condoms. I believe that I have the 2nd amendment right to own and carry a firearm. That doesn’t mean I think I should use tax money, some of which a liberal may have paid (though the odds are slim), to pay for my gun and ammo, or even my holster.

But the liberal mind can’t seem to grasp the concept of “My choice, my cost”. If you want to give up your right to choose and turn it over to the government, than fine, the government can then pay. But don’t forget, they get to choose, and they might choose a cheaper option than birth control or abortion, they might choose to just sterilize you and avoid the whole issue. The government always knows what's best for you, ya know.

With choice comes responsibility. In this case, if you wish to have individual choice, you need to be responsible enough to pay for your choice. If you can’t afford the cost of a condom or the pill, maybe the sensible choice would be to not engage in sexual activity.

At least that’s the way an old farmboy sees it.

iPhone vs Chevy Volt

iPhone VS Chevy Volt

So why do you suppose the Chevy Volt is such an unmitigated disaster? The federal government has directly sunk millions upon millions of dollars into its development and millions more indirectly. So why is it that it is such an Edsel? (I haven’t looked up the numbers, but I would actually bet there were more Edsels sold to a much smaller population base than GM has sold Volts.)

Compare this to iPhone sales. The iPhone is projected to sell so many units that it will actually affect the nations GDP. And as near as I can tell, it didn’t take a single dollar of taxpayer money to develop or market.

So what’s going on? Why is it that a product that the current government says we need, supports its development and, participates in its production (gave partial ownership to unions and gave millions to keep the company afloat) is such a colossal failure? While at the same time a product that the government has virtually nothing to do with is a runaway success?

I would have to speculate that the reason is simple.

Apple developed a product that quenched a consumer felt need. An easily portable, intuitively user friendly device that meets three needs that the consumer wants filled: 1) a mobile phone, 2) a personal entertainment device, and 3) easily portable connection to the internet.

The government, through Chevy, on the other hand, has provided a solution to a problem the consumer has not perceived. The need for an electric car.  Not only have they solved a problem no one has perceived, they’ve made the solution so expensive, that virtually nobody is willing to even give it a try. And to add insult to injury, at the exorbitant cost they are asking for this solution to a non-problem, they are costing the American tax payer over $40,000 per vehicle. That’s right, Government Motors is losing over $40k for every Volt they sell.

Apple, on the other hand, turns a tidy profit on every single unit they sell.

It’s an old lesson being taught once again. Government should stay out of business. It should not try and direct market activities or pick business winners and losers. Just as every centrally planned government has proven to date, when the government gets involved with deciding the who, what, when and where of business, chaos and failure cannot be far behind. The Chevy Volt, Solyndra, the EPA trying to run the coal industry out of business, all examples of the government getting involved in business to the detriment of the American people. And what does our current political leadership want to do when faced with this record of appalling failure? They want to double down on it. They ask us to keep them in place for another 4 years. This is so counter intuitive it is unbelievable. Common sense tells you the first thing you need to do when you find yourself in a hole is to STOP DIGGING!

In about a month we will find out just how dumb the American electorate is. We have a chance to stop digging. As the saying goes, ”we will get the government we deserve”. God help us all if we continue to dig.

Update: Watch What You Wish For

I’ve recently been reading where Christians in Egypt have been having real problems with radical Muslims. Over 50 churches have been closed. Christian businesses have been targeted for attacks. Christian women and girls have been attacked and raped. Yesterday, a Christian protest was attacked by a Muslim mob.

This would appear to be another case of “Watch What You Wish For Because You Just Might Get It”. I remember during the uprising to overthrow Mubarak, that the Christians were out there side by side with the Muslims and I thought to myself that this could easily come back to bite them on the butt. Knowing that the Muslim Brotherhood was one of the driving forces behind the uprising and that Iran was helping fan the flames, it was clear that this could easily go sideways for the Christians. And sure enough it has.

This is yet another example of how the enemy of my enemy isn’t necessarily my friend. We have been taught this lesson many times. The Soviets in WWII and the mujahidin when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan are two examples that quickly pop to mind.

In Egypt the Christians were duped into believing that this was a general uprising without an islamic factor being involved. When in reality, it was a completely islamic uprising to remove a politically moderate leader. The Iranian backed Muslim Brotherhood wanted Mubarak gone for several reasons. First and foremost, he had suppressed them, knowing full well that they were. Next, he was somewhat friendly with the US, the “great satin”. And finally, he recognized Israel’s right to exist and had signed and kept a peace agreement with them. Each reason by itself sufficient to draw radical islam’s ire, but a trifecta of all three gave the islamists a massive case of reflux. So of course, when the opportunity to remove him presented itself, they were quick to take advantage.

Please don’t mistake my comments above as meaning I think Mubarak was a good guy. He wasn’t! He was a brutal dictator in many ways. But he kept a lid on Egypt. He kept the radical islamic faction in check and allowed his country to move forward in relative tranquility.

Now what do they have? They have a bunch of Iranian backed radical islamists running rampant in the country. They are targeting Christians for subjugation or termination, and if given a free hand, that’s exactly what they will do. And to think that our administration, a Democratic one, didn’t learn the lesson from Iran when we helped Khomeini over throw the Shah (Jimmie Carter, another Democratic administration). Good ol’ Barak Hussein Obama and his Keystone Kops administration helped replace an administration that was friendly towards the US with one that will soon be violently against anything western. (Am I seeing a pattern???)

Once again, if you don’t learn from history, it will be happy to teach you the lesson again!

Update: 8/3/12 http://www.theblaze.com/stories/if-you-dont-leave-you-will-all-die-christians-flee-egyptian-town-after-deadly-riot/

(The Blaze/AP) — When the angry mob was rampaging through town, storming her home and those of other Christians, the 70-year-old woman hid in her cow pen, pushing a rock against the door. There she cowered for hours, at one point passing out from tear gas being fired by police that seeped in.

When Sameeha Wehba emerged just before dawn, she found she was the only Christian left in this small Egyptian village just south of Cairo, the location of some of the country’s earliest pyramids.

Dahshour’s entire Christian community – as many as 100 families some estimate – fled to nearby towns in the violence earlier this week. The flock’s priest, cloaked in a white sheet to hide him, was taken out in a police van. At least 16 homes and properties of Christians were pillaged and some torched and a church damaged.

What Liberals Call Fairness

OK, I’m having a little trouble getting a handle on the definition of “fairness” according to LibPos (Liberal/Progressives). It seems to be a moving target, depending on what topic they are on and who they are talking about.

Now as I understand it, if you are talking about fairness as it relates to a productive citizens taxes, it is only “fair” that they pay a bigger percentage of their income because they make more, while a less productive person will pay a smaller percentage merely because they make less. Others may actually receive money “back” when they never paid any taxes in the first place, all in the name of fairness. Even though there would appear to be nothing fair about this at all.

Just where exactly is the “fairness” in this?

A productive citizen will put more into the system than the less productive citizen will even if they pay the same “rate” just by the simple math it. Twenty percent of 100 is more than twenty percent of 10. To make the productive citizen pay a penalty for being productive is negative reinforcement. Pavlov proved a long time ago that negative reinforcement extinguishes behavior. A “graduated” tax schedule is, simply put, a negative reinforcement of productive behavior. Fortunately for the takers, many productive citizens believe they can out produce the negatives effects of the current confiscatory tax policies and thus they continue to produce.

This phenomenon has led the takers to believe they can keep taking more and more from the productive citizen cash cow and it will just keep providing. This is an error. The non-productive takers, if left to their own devices, will eventually confiscate from the producers to a point of diminishing returns and the producers will stop producing.

If you doubt my words, take a look at what’s happening in high tax areas around the world. Now that the takers are in control in France and they are looking to implement a near 100% tax on income over certain levels, the producers in France are exiting the country at an alarming rate. In California, where the LibPos have been in charge for decades, they have created a system where they are giving more away than they are taking in. They have been doing this for many years while increasing the taxes on the productive class to pay for their largess. It has reached a point where the productive citizens are looking for the exits as fast as they can. Texas alone is seeing an influx of over 300 California citizens per day. New York is seeing the same phenomenon for the same reasons. And yet the takers can’t seem to see that it is their own policies leading to their downfall.

So, when it comes to taxes, for LibPos, unfair is fair. If on the other hand, we are talking about health care, LibPos seem to feel that everyone should receive exactly the same treatment. No one (other than the LibPos themselves, who are making the rules) should be able to have any better or worse care than anyone else. If someone is able to afford a “Cadillac” health care plan they will be fined, excuse me, taxed, to punish them. Because in this case, they really do want people treated exactly the same, with the noticeable acceptation of the rule makers themselves.

This is in contrast with most Conservatives.

To a Conservative, fairness is getting what you earn. If you earn more, you should have more. If you choose to put in the effort and the grit and take the risks to be a high achiever, you should not be punished for doing so.

Many years ago, I made the choice that I wanted time with my family and didn’t want to dedicate my life to work. I willingly made the choice to forgo the possibility of possibly achieving large amounts of money because personal time was valuable to me. Others chose differently and created large fortunes. I do not begrudge them what they have earned. They made different choices that led to different returns. I am happy with my choice and see no reason the system should take more from them just because they earned more.

And YES they earned it, as opposed to what the LibPo in Chief might think. If his position were true, that the roads and all the other infrastructure the government puts in place is what made a business successful, then every business would be a success. Every business has access to the same infrastructure so they should all be successful. Right? Every business operates under the same government regulations. Clearly, if the LibPo in Chief were correct, every new business would be a success no matter what effort the business owner put in, or failed to put in.

LibPos then seem to have developed a rather free form definition of “fairness” that allows them to call it up to justify whatever logically contradictory positions they might choose.

The word “fairness” is one that is impossible to argue against, because it would seem to be un-American. However, when we allow the LibPos to control the language and let them use good words in such a cavalier manner, it makes it near impossible to publicly argue against them. Those who do not think in a clear and concise manner will be easily swayed by such slight of hand use of the language.

Conservatives need to point out these inconsistencies and call bull shit on the LibPos at every turn.

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.

Government Regulating Personal Behavior

Where does it end?

First we let the government define places where someone could smoke and where they couldn’t. Originally, it was businesses themselves who chose whether to be smoking or non-smoking. Which is just the way it should be. If a business doesn’t want people smoking in its establishment, so be it. They get to set the rules. It’s theirs. But then the government got involved and said you can only smoke in part of an establishment, then it progressed to not in the business at all. Now they are saying you can’t smoke in parks or at the beach. (Understand that I am an ex-smoker. I don’t believe in smoking. I believe it’s harmful to you. I don’t want my kids smoking. But I don’t see that it’s the governments place to say where you can or can’t do something, or where it will allow you to do or not do something in your own place of business or home.)

Next came motorcycle helmets. In the majority of places, governments demand that you are to wear a helmet if you are going to ride a motor cycle.

Then came seatbelts. I believe in seat belts, my wife and I trained ourselves to wear our seatbelts before it was the law, because we believe it is the wise thing to do. I do not believe the government should be able to mandate that you wear them. I believe it is OK to make the car companies put them in the cars for you to use. No, I take that back. I believe it’s OK for the government to make them an option you can choose, I don’t believe the government should force the car companies to put them in. If they are a good idea, and I believe they are, consumers would ask for them to be included and competition would most likely force all car companies to include them in order to keep up.

Then came salt, cholesterol, transfats (what the hell ever those are), sugar, and the list goes on and on and on. Now NY has proposed limiting the size of a drink you can order. And the health board or whatever it is called, is considering including milk drinks and coffee drinks it thinks you shouldn’t have.

OMG! Is there no end to this madness?

Now that the snowball has been rolled over the crest of the hill, will it ever stop getting bigger and bigger? Will they ever stop intruding in our lives?

What’s next in the Libpo’s (Liberal/Progressive) fevered brain that they want to force us to do, or stop doing? What if they conduct a study and find that people who have sex once and only once a day live longer, healthier lives requiring less late life care. Because of government run health care they will then want to set up sex stations where you and your partner are to come and complete your daily sex act under government supervision. If you don’t have your own partner, you will be required to have sex with a government assigned partner that day. If you fail to have sex one day, you will be fined, but they will call it a tax. The Non-F#$king tax.

This would be done under the reasoning that if you weren’t having sex, it would cost the government more to provide your health care so of course they are just recouping the cost that they will have to pay out later when you get sick more often because you failed to f#$k. They will have actuarial tables and everything to justify and quantify these fines/taxes.

Of course this is an absurd proposition. But in the 1950’s can you imagine how absurd it would have sounded and how they would have looked at you if you told them about all of the government restrictions there would be on smoking. Or that the government would make you tie yourself into a car. They would have looked at you the same way you were just looking at the metaphorical me as you read my speculation on forcing people to have sex once a day.

But we’ve all seen what crazy things the government has forced folks to do or not do for our own good. Because they know better than we do. Because they think they are the smartest kids in the room and thus should be able to tell the rest of us how to live by their rules.

Well I’m sorry (no, really I’m not), but I think the government ought to stay the hell out’ta my life. The only time the government ought to tell someone what they can or can’t do is if the individual’s actions will impact another’s life, liberty or property in a negative way through force or fraud.

If a bar owner wants to allow smoking in his/her establishment, it’s nobody’s business but their own. If people don’t want to go there because of the smoke, the business will not survive. They made a poor choice. Too bad. So sad. It was their choice and they made it. They don’t deserve to be bailed out by the government because of a poor choice on their part. Nor should they be kept from making the choice by the government because the government knows best.

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.

Why Government Employment Doesn't Spur The Economy

Recently the PotUS put forth the proposal that the way to pull the economy out of recession is to employ more government employees. Federal employees, state employees and local government employees is the answer to our economic woes according to our New Party PotUS.

Well, I have to agree that if all the various levels of government were to hire more people, more people would be working. For a short period of time anyway.

The problem as I see it is, LibPos (Liberal/Progressives) don’t seem to understand the economics of government employees.

For there to be an employee in the private sector, a business must produce a product, good or service that someone else is willing to give the company money for. They must be willing to give them enough money for this product/good/service to cover the cost of production, distribution and sales plus enough left over for the owner to pay the employees to do these tasks. Additionally, there must be enough left after all of these costs for the owner to meet his own basic levels of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. If the business doesn’t produce enough for the owner to meet the first two levels of the hierarchy for the owner and their family, there is no point in the owner keeping the doors open. Thus negatively affecting all of his employees also.

If the business wishes to increase its number of employees, it must sell enough of its product/good/service to meet all of the afore mentioned costs, plus enough extra to be able to pay for the new employee. (Understand that a $10 an hour employee will cost the company between $12.50 and $15 per hour when you add in things like taxes paid by the company, insurance, holiday pay, vacation pay, etc. etc. This does not include the hidden costs like the extra time it will take to do the extra paperwork, etc. that is required for each employee.)

Again, the business owner must generate this money above and beyond the monies required to run the business at its current level.

Now consider a government. Any government; Local, State, Federal, it makes no difference. How does a government generate its money?

It gets its money by taking it from its constituents. It does it through taxes. Be they personal taxes, consumption taxes or taxes on businesses, they are taking taxes from those who are out there being productive. Where private businesses must produce something and sell it to someone who wants it. A government just takes it from its citizenry by force through a byzantine tax structure that is nearly impossible to understand by the average citizen. (This is proven by the fact that there is a whole area of accounting dedicated to assisting individuals and business stay out of trouble with the various governmental agencies as they deal with the tax system.)

So for the government to hire a $10 an hour employee they must take enough money from those being taxed to cover the same $12.50 to $15 per hour that a business would. That means for every $10 per hour employee the government has they, there must be 3 to 5 $10 per hour employees and their employers in the private sector to take the money from. For the LibPos to fund another employee without having to borrow the money from another country they must have another 3 to 5 privately employed individuals to take the money from.

Only a Democratic LibPo would think that more government employees will help stimulate the economy.

The ONLY thing more government employees will do is either: A) Increase the country’s debt to foreign creditors which will require increased future taxes to pay off, or B) Require higher taxes now on those employees who are currently working in the private sector, thus reducing their expendable cash and therefore depressing the economy even further. The higher taxes route will also reduce cash in a company’s coffers that might be used to employ more people.

This is such a straight line correlation that you would think anyone with two synapses firing would be able to see. Clearly the LibPos who are currently in charge of the Senate and the White House can’t see what’s so obvious to those of us who are realists and understand cause and effect.

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.

Eric Holder And The (In)Justice Department

Just finished reading this headline in The Miami Herald “Feds to Florida: halt non-citizen voter purge”.

My initial reaction is “WHAT??? That can’t be right. The purpose of the Justice Department is to protect America and Americans. How could they possibly take steps to insure that American elections of American legislatures by Americans would be tainted by Non-Americans voting?”

Then it hit me. This Justice Department is headed by a first and foremost politician, Eric Holder, rather than a law enforcement person. His, and therefore the Departments, decisions seem to be made first from a political position which always trumps any legal considerations.

I’m not saying this based on readings of this current situation. Mr. Holder has a long and distinguished record of making politically based decisions. My first knowledge of his efforts (though I’m sure there are many preceding my awareness) revolve around his part in the pardoning of the unrepentant Puerto Rican terrorists in New York, just in time to bolster support for Hilary Clinton’s run to become the US Senator from New York.

My next knowledge of our fearless hero’s exploits comes when, after being installed by our current White House resident, he and his Justice Department fail to prosecute the Black Panthers on voter intimidation charges. The Black Panthers had basically accepted their guilt and all the Justice Department had to do was show up and they would have been convicted. But Holder chose not to follow through. No US Attorney showed up to court on the date required and the judge was forced to throw the case out.

The next time I recall hearing about our sterling Justice Department headed by Eric Holder, operating under the direction of our Democratic POTUS, they are refusing to protect our border against illegal immigration. Not only do they refuse to enforce our laws, Holder actively attempts to keep Arizona from passing and enforcing laws which mirror current US statutes. And if memory serves me correctly, they even filed an amicus brief on behalf of Mexico as they sued Arizona over its attempts to protect our borders. They have since taken steps to try and prevent other states from trying to protect themselves from this foreign invasion. (I use the term invasion purposely as I believe it is an attempt, by some, to take over our country as one can clearly read in materials from organizations such as La Raza and others.)

In a related matter, we hear where the Justice Department has run an out of control gun tracking program called “Fast and Furious” or something of the sort. In this program they were to have tracked weapons sold to known miscreants who were then taking them to Mexico to be used in the illegal drug trade. Of course Holder’s Keystone Cops organization let things run amuck, and to date, at least 3 weapons from this program have been involved in murders. One being a US Border Patrol agent.

Next came Holder and his (in)Justice Department’s efforts to squelch any and all voter ID legislation. Claiming it would intimidate minorities and act as a restriction to keep them from voting. Really? The need to prove that you are who you say you are when presenting yourself to vote on who will make the laws of the land is too burdensome and would keep voters from the polls? And thus we can’t ask for photo ID’s? We all know why this is taking place. They are against these laws because it would reduce the chance of shenanigans taking place on voting day. And historically, what party has taken advantage of these opportunities to affect the outcomes? I believe a close inspection of the facts would indicate that it would be Eric Holder’s and his boss’s party.

So it should have come as no surprise when I read the article in The Miami Herald. It was merely a case of more of the same. Of course they wouldn’t want illegals removed from the voting rolls. Who would illegals be most inclined to vote for? I don’t think it takes a Mensa member to figure that one out, it would be for the folks who are doing the most to protect them from justice.

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.

It's World Wide Builderberger Weekend.......Everybody Celebrate!

Ignore Science....Tax The Rich

Tax the rich, seems to be the current theme of worldwide liberal/progressives (Libpos). I suppose if the truth be told it’s not exactly a new theme for them, but between the new French president and our own Incompetent in Chief, it seems to be gaining a lot of momentum. This seems to be gaining more and more favor as more and more of the populations become dependent on the government for their livelihood instead of their own productivity.

The indolent look at the productive and say “It’s not fair that they should have so much and I so little, let’s have the government take it from them and give it to me.” (Something that if they were to do it themselves it would be called robbery or theft but when they get the government to do it they call it a progressive tax rate. Progressive meaning different people pay different amounts, which to me would seem to be the epitome of unfair! By the nature of math, those who make more pay more by paying the same rate. Additionally, those who pay more, use fewer of the services they are paying for than those who pay less or even nothing. Where is the fairness in that?)

I’m sure to the Libpos this seems like a wonderful idea. Those nasty productive types getting lucky (if by lucky you mean work hard and make wise decisions) and having so much. They can be the ones to pay for all our giveaways that we buy votes with.

But there is a fly in the Libpo ointment.

What do people do when they feel they are being unfairly treated? The productive class figures out how to do something about it. And that is exactly what is happening, both here and abroad.

If you look at the States with the most long standing Libpo governments (read Democrat)you will find they tend to be the states with the highest progressive tax rates and the most generous state benefits. Unsurprisingly, these are the states with the largest percentage of people on the government dole. Equally unsurprising is the fact that these are the states that are in the most financial difficulty. California and New York top the list in this category.

So how then do the Libpos propose to deal with their financial issues brought on by punishing the productive and rewarding the unproductive? Will they see the error of their ways and do things to reward the productive and disincentivize (I think I just made up a word there) the indolent?

No, no, no, no, no, of course not. Why would they ever look to behavioral science where long ago Pavlov and Skinner proved that you will get what you reinforce and will extinguish what you don’t.

They of course choose to increase the taxes even further on the productive class so as to avoid reducing or possibly even increasing their rewards for the nonproductive.

Quite predictably, the productive class is finding a solution. They are leaving those states. Californians and New Yorkers are abandoning their draconian states for more favorable business climates. Ones where they are not excessively punished for being productive. I seem to remember reading somewhere that there are nearly 200 Californians a day moving to Texas alone. Similar moves are taking place from New York to Florida, and other more friendly climes.

On the national level, Libpos like Obama, Pelosi and Reid are looking to make similar tax hikes on the productive. The mere talk of it has caused many of the productive class to become expatriates. The most recent of which was one of the Facebook co-founders who gave up his US citizenship rather than submit to their oppressive taxes.

The newly elected French President Hollande ran on a platform, not of austerity but of taxing the rich at a rate of 100% over some set amount and increasing the size of the French government and what it would give away. To no ones’ surprise, other than the Libpos, as soon as Hollande won the presidency, the productive class in France started making their escape plans. Reports from around the globe are popping up of productive French citizens moving to less restraining environments.

When will these Libpos ever learn? I believe a quote from Ron White probably explains the attitude of the productive class as it relates to the Libpos, “I’m a pretty good dog, but if you expect me to stay on the porch, you got to pet me every once in a while.”

Evil Republicans For Gay Marriage

I was listening to Mark Bellingham (sp?) while out to lunch and he said something that got me to thinking. He said, and I paraphrase here, that to “legalize” a marriage between same sex couples is to say there is legally no difference between men and women. And I can see where he is coming from. To say that there is no difference between a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman than there is between a man and a woman marrying is to say that in the law’s eyes, there is no legal difference between men and women.
 
To remove that distinction in this instance removes it in all instances. You can’t say that a fish is a fish except when it’s a cow. A fish is a fish whether it’s in a lake or on your plate. In the legal sense to say that the fish is a fish in one instance but it’s a cow in another, that doesn’t work. Once you set the bar, the bar must remain the same in all instances. If not, the whole concept of impartiality of the law and the law being “blind” becomes null and void.
 
Let me say up front, I’ve done no research to back up what I’m going to say next, but I would bet that the majority of folks who favor gay marriage consider themselves to be liberal. (I myself neither favor nor oppose gay marriage. I believe that is up to the individuals involved and the state should not be involved in either the sanctioning or vilifying of any unions. As long as it doesn’t lead to someone losing life, liberty or property through force or fraud, it’s none of the government’s business. Oops, sorry for the mini libertarian rant.)
 
I doubt seriously that most of these supporters would like to see the logical extension of removing the legal differences between men and women. Wouldn’t this simple act, by definition, undo decades of laws the liberals have shepherded into being, either by legislation or through judicial fiat?
 
Think about it. If there are no legal differences between men and women, doesn’t that make Title IX superfluous? Schools could choose to have whatever sports they wished to support, regardless of the gender of folks participating. If a school chose to only have football, basketball and track, and only have the best participants on the field, there would be no legal ground for a liberal to stand on to complain that such a move discriminates against women. Since the law says men and women are equal in all ways.
 
If there is no legal difference between men and women, all talk of gender discrimination and the laws relating to it must go away. Since legally there are no differences.
 
Think of all the money businesses could save by only having to provide 1 restroom facility. No need to provide redundant facilities since there are no differences, right?
 
No need to have different sets of qualifying scores on physical fitness exams for such things as law enforcement, fire services, emergency services, the military. There are no legal differences. There is one and only one standard all must equally achieve.
 
The cosmic bunny hole that would be created by legalizing same sex marriages could be all consuming from a liberal perspective. A truly evil conservative might push for legalizing gay marriage merely for the havoc they could wreck upon the liberal agenda once the legal precedent was set that there was no difference between men and women.
 
Or so it would appear to an old farm boy.

?? Billionaires In Communist China ??

Wait! Wait! Say it ain't so Saul Alinsky!

Just read the headline "Russia and China Join the USA In Having More Than 100 Billionaires". http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/3/283f1608-7a5e-11e1-839f-00144feab49a.html#axzz1qnddQWuz

Now I understand how Russia can have 100 Billionaires. What with them turning their backs on communism and embracing capitalism and all. I mean it makes sense. Freeing individuals to accomplish all that they can and not have to give it all to the state for redistribution will inevitably lead to some individuals achieving higher levels of success.

But China, how can it be oh comrades Marx and Engels? You told us that in a workers paradise like China, where the rewards of labor will be shared willingly and equally amongst all, that individuals will cease to be personally competitive. They will labor happily for the benefit of all! None will need or want to "OWN" anything, as all will be shared. I believe you told us it will be "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" with the end goal that all will happily exist on an even plane.

Isn't that the general concept that our liberal/progressive/socialist/communists (LPSC) in this country are espousing as the talk about "leveling" the playing field? When they claim they only want the high end producers to pay their "fair" share as they reap the benefits of this country "letting" them make all this money?

There are two major flaws in the LPSCs premise. First, this country (and by the LPSCs' lights they mean the government) didn't "let" the productive people win any lottery of life, unless you mean it got the hell out of their way and left them alone, at which point it didn't do squat and there for has no claim on their income. Other than what would be necessary to protect every citizens right to live without fear of someone depriving them of life or property through force or fraud, a just government has NO claim on their income or property.

The second major flaw would be the concept of paying their "fair" share! One could easily posit that it is those who are paying NO taxes who are not paying their fair share! They are the ones who are siphoning off the public treasury while putting nothing in it! The high performers are already paying the lion's share of the taxes. In the US, the top 10% of earners pay 70% of the income taxes paid. (This is why the Fair Tax is such a just system. But that is a discussion for another day.)

Don't believe me? Look at this:

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/01/29/chart-of-the-week-top-1-percent-paid-38-percent-of-taxes/

So, back to our original question, how in a workers paradise like China could there possibly be over 100 Billionaires?

The answer is really quite simple. Human nature trumps academic theory.

While occasionally you will be able to find a small group of people willing to work for the collective good to their own detriment, those occasions are few and far between. People look to have a hierarchy. It tells them where they are. They like fair systems that let them move up through force of effort (and down through indolence or bad judgement).

Humans do seem to have a streak of benevolence and like to help others when possible, but not to the point of hurting themselves or their own. This is born out in the old phrase "charity begins at home".
Even in a LPSC system, human nature will find a way to prevail. Whether its legally within a system like here in the US, or most likely illegally or extra-legally as is taking place in China, people will strive to be successful and keep the bounty of their efforts. Thus producing millionaires and billionaires.

Or at least that's the way it looks to an old farm boy.

Tax The Rich At 100%, Or How To Prove You Don't Have A Clue

Well, now I’ve seen it all, when it comes to left wing financial lunacy. In France, a major candidate for President (Jean-Luc Melenchon) is calling for a 100% tax on earnings over £300,000.
Gee, I wonder what the Frenchies who are smart, productive soles earning a good wage are going to do? Ummmm, I’m betting they either pack their bags and go someplace else where they can continue to be productive and be compensated for it, ooorrrrr, they will simply stop earning more than £300,000. And what effect will that have on the French society? How many jobs will be created by having their productive folks leave the country? How many jobs will be generated by folks who intentionally earn less than £300,000 because there is no point, it will be taken from them euro by euro.
Let’s just think about this for a second. All the new expensive purchases that would have been made with the over £300,000 of income will evaporate. The jobs for those folks who make these items will evaporate with them. For the productive folks who leave the country, they will continue to make the purchases, but they will be made in other countries by other folks. This is a lose lose proposition.
This plan is monumentally STUPID! Only from the mind of a LPSC (liberal/progressive/socialist/communist) could an idea like this be put forth without realizing that it would be an unmitigated disaster. The real money makers in France would be leaving there so fast there would be a vapor trail behind them. When was the last time anyone got a job paying anything close to a decent wage from a poor person? I can answer that for you…….NEVER!!!!!
The French economy, like the majority of Europe, has been destroyed by the LPSCs over the past 50 years. As we are seeing in Greece, Spain and Italy, and to a lesser degree the rest of Europe, they are on the edge of collapse. Their heels are over the edge of the precipice and they are grasping at straws to save themselves. Then you get some legwarmer wearing LPSC like Melenchon come along and play to the indolent class with a concept like this and it’s like trying to put out a fire by throwing gas on it.
One of the major reasons these socialistic economies are headed down the porcelain appliance is because their governments have been either promising “freebies” to their citizens, or they’ve been forcing companies into giving their populace “freebies”, which of course are NOT free. NOTHING is free! Everything must be paid for.
The LPSCs have controlled the education system in most of Europe for a very long time. They have, in my opinion, intentionally not taught their citizenry how economics actually work (remind you of any other country?). This lack of education means that when LPSCs like Melenchon talk about people having too much money and they should confiscate through taxation everything over X amount, these ignorant folks don’t realize the rippling impact of such plans. They sell the idea that these punitive taxes will generate millions in revenue for the governments so they can give more and more to the indolent, when in fact these gains will be a onetime thing.

Pavlov proved there is learned stimulus response. You can believe me when I tell you that the folks these punitive taxes are aimed at are some of the best at learning their environments and responding in a way that will be best for them. If you think that they will work hard at being creative and productive so that someone else will receive the benefits, then clearly, you’ve never been the victim of any such scheme. The very first thing the creative and productive folks will do is put that creative and productive talent to work hiding or moving funds that would be put at risk or the processes whereby they generate those funds. And what does that mean for those who are looking to the largess of a LPSC government for their existence? It means there will be even less money available for the indolent class.

And what does recent history tell us those who have been trained to suckle at the central government teat for their existence do when they can no longer get what they want? Why I believe Greece has shown you exactly what will happen.

Abraham Lincoln said “You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.” It is as true today as the day he said it.

November is coming. Choose wisely, as we have our own LPSCs like France’s Melenchon.

War On Women - Or Great Misdirection

Well now, I’ve been listening to all the brouhaha about the Republican’s “War on Women” and Rush Limbaugh’s indelicate comments about Ms. Fluke. I’ve followed many liberal friends’ comments on Facebook about how awful this and that is, and while I agree that Limbaugh’s comments were insensitive and out of line, but I think most folks are missing the point.

This isn’t about a War on Women. Hell, it isn’t even about women! By allowing certain folks to frame the issue as if it were, is to allow them to draw the attention away from the real issue.
And that is, can the government, which so adamantly believes in the separation of church and state that it actively seeks to keep any semblance of religion out of government, force itself into the workings of a church? Can it force a church to act contrary to its moral beliefs?

I would personally say No!

The state has no right to force this upon a church. To force the church to use its resources to pay for something that is morally abhorrent to its beliefs is crossing the line of separation that has been so fervently drawn. Those who are advocating this seem to think that crossing it in the opposite direction is OK. Well I’m here to say it’s not! To cross it in one direction is as bad as it is to cross it the other. Just like these folks don’t want the church to be involved in government, the government should not be involved in church.

The case at hand is whether the government can force Catholic institutions to provide contraceptive services to individuals employed by them or in Ms. Fluke’s case, attending their school. The answer should be emphatically NO!

It is a well-known fact that that the Catholic Church is steadfastly against birth control. It has held this position for centuries. In Ms. Fluke’s case, she enrolled in Georgetown University knowingly or reasonably should have known that Georgetown University would not provide birth control services as part of its health plan. Georgetown University is not the only school in the country in which Ms. Fluke could have obtained a law degree. It isn’t even the cheapest school she could have gotten a law degree from. Yet she chose to attend this school knowing or should have known that these services are not provided.

I venture to say that this is not, as many would have you believe, a women specific issue either. The folks who are making a fuss about this are claiming this is a war against women, but I would bet you that the Catholic Church doesn’t pay for condoms and most likely doesn’t pay for vasectomies. So how is this discriminatory against women? The Catholic Church and its institutions are not going to assist anyone in the use of artificial means of birth control, be they male or female. But the folks trying to force government into more and more of our lives can’t gin up near as much moral outrage if they tell the truth, that this is even handed treatment.

In an effort to mollify the dumb Catholics, President Obama said the Church didn’t have to supply the birth control services, he would make the insurance companies supply the services for free. His problem here was the Catholics weren’t as dumb as he thought. Unlike the President’s followers, they realized that nothing is free. Everything has to be paid for one way or another. The insurance company will increase what it is charging the institution to cover the cost of the birth control, and we are right back where we started. The government forcing the church (through the fees it is paying for the service) to do something it is morally opposed to.

This isn’t a Republican War On Women! This is a war being waged by socialists to insinuate the government into areas of our society that the Constitution expressly prohibits it from.
Whether you agree with the Catholic Church’s position on birth control or not, you should be supporting them if you believe in a limited government. One that stays out of your personal life and lets you make the major life choices you are faced with.

Or at least that’s the way it seems to an old farm boy.

Chevy Volt: The American Volga

Reading the headlines this morning, I see where General (Government) Motors has decided to halt the production of the Chevy Volt. They say they were looking to sell 45,000 Volts this year and so far, through 2 months, they have sold 1626. By my calculations they are behind schedule by 5,874 units or 13% of projection. This after General Electric (I’m sure you remember GE, the company that is such a huge backer of our current White House occupant, the company that took tax dollars and sent production to China, the company that paid NO taxes last year, the company who’s president was on President Obama’s jobs council and sent jobs to China, that GE) told their employees who drove company cars or were given car allowances, they would only be able to drive Chevy Volts. Any thing else the company wouldn’t pay for.

Now the Chevy Volt was touted by GM and our current administration as this wondrous end all, be all car. One that would run on only electricity, save the environment, cure cancer and defeat islamo-fascism, Now I’m certain that the build quality of the car is acceptable. I haven’t heard of the bumpers falling off or there being unacceptable gaps where parts come together. The fact that the car will just catch on fire is probably due to inherent design flaws rather than shoddy construction. So don’t take this the wrong way, I’m not ragging on the folks who actually build the cars. But lets face facts. Who the hell wants to spend $45,000 on a car that can go about 35 miles on a single charge? I couldn’t make it to work and back on a single charge. While my employer is an OK outfit and is in fact a quasi governmental agency, I don’t believe they are going to install a charging station for me so I can charge the damn thing up and get back home, and even if they did, I’m willing to bet they are going to make it a pay station. They may be willing to pay for my coffee, I don’t think they are going to supplement my commuting expenses. Shoot, if they would do that, why not have them pay for my tires or 70% of my insurance since to and from work is probably about 70% of my mileage.

Let’s face it, once again, government central planning can’t dictate what the consumer is willing to pay for in a society where they still have free choice. Sure, in the old USSR everyone drove a piece of crap Moskvitch or Volga, but then they didn’t really have any other choice. Here in the US, we are not forced to drive what our “betters” might want us to.

When free choice is at play, the market will dictate what will be successful.

Now a conspiracy nut might think that the current administration was trying to rig the game by colluding to raise the price of gas in order to force the market to seek something like the Volt. They might look at the fact that our current President’s energy secretary is on the record for wanting American gas prices to be similar to those in Europe as being confirmation of same. They might take the Presidents own words of not wanting the price to rise so fast (not that he didn’t want it to rise, he just didn’t want them to rise so fast) as further verification. (Fast rises make people mad ya’ know, while slow gradual rises don’t engender hue and outcry.) This same nut might even look at the Administration’s active efforts to hold down domestic oil production so we would be more dependent on costly foreign oil as more evidence.

Once again, Big Government Radical Leftists in conjunction with the Radical Environmentalists (you know them, the folks who used to be the communist/socialists before the fall of the USSR) have tried to socially engineer our country in the direction they think we must go. And yet again their efforts have proven to be 180 degrees out of phase with America.

Now I wouldn’t mind these libtards building and marketing these vehicles, as long as they did it with their own money. If they think their idea’s time has come, they should put their own money at risk and produce it. If they are right, they will become bazillionaires. And I will be happy for them. Honest!

But why do they have to use your and my tax money? I don’t believe the technology is where it needs to be for America to embrace an electric car. I’m not opposed to an electric car on principle. I’m opposed to it because it doesn’t meet my needs as it exists today. When you build me a car that will run 300 miles on a charge and will recharge in 5 minutes. One that is fun to drive, well then sign me up.

Until then, just put your leg warmers back on and get the hell outta my face and quit wasting my tax dollars.

Volt workers, I’m sorry you are out of work, but don’t blame the American public, blame the dumb ass central planner mentality that thought they could force this on the public in the first place. They should have spent the money and brain power on developing more oil here in the US at a cheaper price so folks would buy more regular cars. Then you would still be working building them.

Or at least that’s the way an old farm boy sees it.

Religion O Peace Part Deux

Well I think it is time to revisit the "religion of peace" in light of the past week's happenings. Rioting, killing, looting and threats over the burning of some qurans at the Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan.

So first off, why were these books burned? They had been pulled from the shelves of a detention center (that would be a place where islamic extremists are held) library because they contained extremist messages or inscriptions.

It is a sin in this cult to deface this book. Who do you suppose put those extremist messages or inscriptions in them at the detention center? I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts it was some islamic dirt bag! I seriously doubt we went in and put extremist messages in these books inciting them to violence against ourselves.

So what then were we to do with these books that had been defaced by their own cultist believers? Well according to their own beliefs, the only thing that can be done with one of these books once it has been defiled (by their own people in this case) is to burn or bury them.

Now our esteemed President has been falling all over himself to apologize for what happened to these books that are the life guide for the most savage and backward cult to have come along in the last 2000 years. When in fact what we did with them is what they themselves call for once the damn things have been desecrated. In this case by their own people.

Now I grant you that burning and burying in the dump was a bit insensitive, but they were burned and buried. As called for by their cult. (Again, these were a few of the millions of copies of this book. They were not of any historical note or value. Other than they were copies of the daily life guide for these sickos, they were of no more significance than your average Gideon's Bible you might find in any hotel room across America.)

So how do these psycho lunatics respond? They do what they always do! They go bat $hit crazy. Whipped into a murderous rage by their so called "religious" leaders.

They have been rioting and pillaging and killing for nearly a week at this point over what? The destruction of $25 (my estimate on wholesale cost) worth of books. This from the "religion of peace"! Patooie! What a load of hog wash!

I've been told that in this cult, there is a passage similar to the golden rule. You know, do unto others as you would have done to you. And yet I guess it must be another case of whose ox is being gored. For when you look at what these radical bastards due to other religions, if the rest of us would follow their lead, we would be fully justified in wiping them from the face of the planet.

I remember the taliban destroying thousands of years old,I believe it was Hindu, statues because it didn't fit their beliefs! They were a LOT more valuable than those damn books.

They regularly burn Christian Bibles (http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/2010/09/muslims_burn_bibles_routinely_and_often.html), and kill their believers (http://www.compassdirect.org/english/country/somalia/16692). Not that they had done anything other than to not believe their cult.

And how do their "holy men" inspire them to act? As rational actors in the world? No! They incite their stone age developmental followers to acts of savagery! They want their followers to "wipe Israel off the map" (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4194444,00.html).

For the crime of destroying a couple of books they feel just retribution would be the burning of the White House (http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/iran-military-official-only-burning-white-house-can-make-up-for-burning-koran-1.414765).

In Libya they desecrated WWII British graves because of books that were burned by Americans. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2106230/Insult-WWII-heroes-Graves-British-soldiers-smashed-desecrated-Libyan-Islamists-protest-U-S-soldiers-Koran-burning.html) The Brits didn't have anything to do with the burning of the damned books. And oh by the way, if it weren't for the British and the Americans these a$$holes would still be living under Mo Kadaff's benevolent rule!

Religion of Peace, give me a break! These crazy bastards wouldn't know real peace or religion if it came up to them and kissed them!

At least that's the way this old farm boy sees it.

The Great DC Rat Diaspora

All right, I know it’s been a loooonnnnggg time since I’ve posted, for the few of you out there who actually care, I’ll try to improve.

Now, I was just looking over the headlines on Drudge when one in particular got my goat, so to speak. It reads “MD moves against DC to ban rat trafficking”. Now at first blush, I would have thought that might be a headline, not out of Maryland, but one from some SE Asian exotic food story. But sadly no. It is a story about another case of the environmental wacko left running amuck.

Ya see, in Washington DC they have passed a law that forces pest control personnel, when dealing with a rat problem, NOT to kill the rats, but rather to capture them. And not only are they to capture the rats ALIVE, they are to attempt to capture the rat family so as not to break up the nuclear family unit. (I don’t believe they specify if that is just the momma, poppa, kids family unit or if it’s the extended family unit. You know, grandpa, grandma and all 11,000 aunts, uncles and cousins.) Heaven forbid we should traumatize baby rat, because poppa rat didn’t make the move along with the rest of the family.

I mean not just the loss that Junior would feel when poppa didn’t come with, but just imagine poppa rat coming home after a hard day on the job, crawling through sewer pipes and dumpsters to find that his family has been ratnapped! I can see the movie now. Liam Nesson will play poppa rat as he rages through DC looking for his family, accosting cats at every turn. It’ll be great!

Now not only does the law require that the pest control folks live capture the rats, but they must then be transported to another location and released. And thus the headline.

Now Maryland and Virginia are both expecting problems with DC area pest control folks driving over the boarder and just releasing the damn things. So they are taking steps to close the boarder to rat trafficing. This will undoubtedly lead to the rise of rat coyotes. I can see a whole underground arising, much like on the Arizona/California border with Mexico. Now instead of illegal immigrants coming to the US it will be undocumented rats being spirited across the border from DC into Maryland and Virginia. Imagine the movies that Hollywood can make here with the heroic coyotes, fighting against the evil government trying to keep the poor displaced rat families from being able to reach their potential in the paradises of Maryland and Virginia. Who will they choose for the lead role Peter Coyote? Danny Trejo?

(Wow, I just realized, this may not be wacko environmentalists at work, it might be part of President Obama’s job creation program! Not only will it create a whole new class of jobs, but will give plenty of fodder for his pals in Hollywood to make more liberal clap trap movies.)

All seriousness aside. What in the world were these people thinking when they wrote this law? Haven’t they ever heard of the Black Plague? Over population of rats is a major problem for everyone involved. They are insidious in their ability to get any and everywhere.
To write a law that forbids their extermination is bad enough, but to then release the problem on some other community is criminal!

If I were a legislator in a state bordering in DC, I would introduce a law stating that anyone caught transporting rats across state lines for any purpose other than to use them in laboratory research would be prosecuted as a terrorist. Additionally, I would have the law consider anyone inciting another to do so would also be considered a terrorist and arrest them on site within my states borders. (That would be the folks who lobbied for this stupid ass law, those who wrote it and those who voted in favor of it.)