The Infectious Sarah Palin

I may be alone on this, but ever since McCain named Sarah Palin as his V.P. choice, John McCain seems to have more pep in his step. His campaign speeches seem more vigorous, and I even get a sense of optimism that is real and not plastic.

If anybody had the idea that Sarah Palin would roll over and wimp out in the face of a hostile press, she put that idea to bed. She has proven to be a gutsy, feisty, warm, and infectious person. She communicates well and exudes a down-home persona that resonates with her audience.

Should McCain/Palin win the election, that Vice Presidents job will certainly launch her into the catbird seat for 2012. (None of my associates thinks that McCain will seek a second term, but we'll see.) Sarah Palin came along at just the right time for the Republicans. The Republican Party had run out of steam, and it looked like they had degenerated into a bunch of stodgy old men afraid of their own shadow.

At a time when things looked bad for the Republicans, along comes this confident, proud conservative mother of five who could look the opposition in the eye and take them on. The fact that she is every inch a female who isn't afraid to dress like one doesn't hurt either. No pantsuits for Sarah, there is no need to try and be manly like other female politicians. She makes her presence felt without needing the appearance of manliness.

The women, who are not jealous of Sarah, are thrilled to have their gender elevated. Women instinctively realize that Sarah Palin makes it all right to be a woman in a supposedly male dominated world; she makes them proud of their gender. Sarah respects motherhood and makes it clear that every life deserves a chance. Others disdain calling a fetus an unborn child; to them, the unborn child is just a tissue mass to flush away like some piece of garbage.

John, you have 'chosen wisely' your partner for this campaign. Sarah is like the proverbial tide that raises all boats. Her ebullience is infectious and I for one now unabashedly support the Republican ticket. Sarah has singlehandedly changed the dynamics of this race, and added fire to your campaign. I salute you John McCain for your wisdom in choosing Sarah Palin.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Bottom Up Economics

When the economy is set up to operate from the 'bottom up', marginal and middle-class start the money flow with their purchases, and the profits from what they spend works its way up the line. Sounds good so far, just spread the wealth around where the economy can begin at the bottom instead of the top. It certainly sounds better than the trickle-down scenario where the money trickles down to the bottom from the marketplace.
What happened to our sanity? Why haven't we thought of this 'bottom up' idea before now? Well the truth is, we have. The model failed every time a society tried it.

Imagine if you will, a society that lives nearly tax-free until a person reaches a predetermined income. That predetermined level, decided by the bureaucrats, triggers the taxes you will now start paying. From that point on, the Government harvests some to most of your profits. In effect, the Government takes only the good out of your business and leaves you with the headaches, the need to upgrade, making the payroll, and paying the health care of your employees. When the Government becomes an unequal partner in the business that you have nourished from nothing, it destroys the incentive to grow the business any further, what's the use.

A burgeoning population will require more and more jobs. The bottom up model discourages industrial commerce because of the onerous tax structure necessary to maintain the economy. Eventually the Government will have to decide to take over those remaining businesses or face revolt. The model cannot support itself. Anytime we cap freedom, progress goes backwards. A truism that everybody needs to remember is that, "Without the possibility of a top, we lose the inspiration to achieve, so we remain a perpetual underclass." Progress demands a mechanism that encourages people to climb that 'hill'.

A free market economy is the only model that allows people to elevate to their comfort zone. Notice I carefully chose the words 'elevate to their comfort zone' on purpose. Not all people have the same comfort zone. And thank goodness, it is that way. A given for everybody is that everybody has the 'wants'. We are born hard-wired to want things. The big question that each individual will have to ask of himself is just how much of life's energies should be expended for the things wanted.

I believe it is safe to assume that everybody would like to have a yacht, but only a few acquire one. The easy answer is that the persons who acquire a yacht were not satisfied with a rowboat or ski boat. In other words, the smaller boats did not fit that person's comfort zone. Now take the next step and think of the cost of that yacht. The person could not possibly own that yacht working for wages. That meant that he had to have an income stream that only a professional career or business owner could provide. In either case, they create jobs for others. This is an example of the free market at work.

People who put it all on the line and work to improve his situation to the point they can afford that yacht are special. We all depend on those people who set the bar a little higher. Without this group, there would be no jobs.

Next, we have the person who is satisfied with 'beer-thirty', goes to sporting events, and enjoys backyard Bar-B-Ques. An individual that reaches his comfort zone sees no need to invest more of life's energies to acquire more baubles. All of us also depend on that person. They build our bridges, work in our factories, and make life possible for all of us.

The individuals without the ambition to acquire the things that they want are the dreamers. They want, but are not willing to invest the energy necessary to make those acquisitions. Instead, they feed on the bottom of society wallowing in the welfare system. They resent those who have the things that they want, but cannot muster up the courage to step out of their circumstances and rely upon themselves. Dreamers are resentful of the rest of society. The sub-cultures that permeate the bottom dwelling group resort to shortcuts to acquire the things they want.

Short cut takers make up our prison populations. They are the thieves, robbers, dope peddlers, and others who seek their fortune by way of the shortcut. Joining society and acquiring baubles in an acceptable manner is not part of their persona. So society has to isolate these individuals to protect the rest of us.

The bottom up strategy destroys the mechanism of progress. Capping the limits of ambition with taxes also kills the need to create a better mousetrap. Bottom up will succeed until the money runs out, then things start going backwards. Removing ones ambition to get rich kills incentive to take risks and create a business. Observe any economy where the Government controls people's livelihood and ask yourself if you would want to live there. North Korea comes to mind, Russia, those African states with Autocratic Governments, and Middle-Eastern Nations under Theocratic Rule.

It is your choice, you can either vote for the repressive idea of a 'bottom up' economical model, or vote for a model that encourages individualism.

Cheers,

-Robert-

We Need Term Limits

The opposite of 'term limits' is 'careerism'. A person's political career depends on the person's ability to get re-elected. A politician's ability to maintain or advance his/her career depends on keeping the constituents at home happy. The politician who 'brings home the bacon' enhances his/her chances to win re-election, or to run for a higher office.

You ask, "What does it hurt to have professional politicians?"

Prolonged stays in power is corruptive. Being in power is addictive. The incumbent's re-election becomes the focus of their term. Raising money for re-election, arranging for the distribution of tax money to projects that are dubious but necessary for re-election make up just a fragment of the efforts our elected representative use to further their self-interest.

The number of politicians interested in only one or two terms in office is rare. I realize that there is some altruism out there, but this piece is going to assume that our politicians all have a career in mind when they decide to be a politician.

A novice politician to Washington first has to learn the pecking order. Largely, the pecking order begins with seniority. As a matter of logic, the more senior members know more about getting re-elected than the novices, so they have control. Novices quickly learn that it takes 'cooperation' to advance any ideas that they might have. It is reminiscent of curious children daring each other with, "I'll show you mine if you show me yours." It is a tit for tat atmosphere in the halls of the Congress.

Careerism is responsible for the politician's blind eye to pork laden Bills that wend their way through the Congress. Pork laden bills are successful because every one of the politicians rides in the same boat. They must keep the home-folks happy or some smooth talker will replace him/her in the next election cycle. Last year's pork was around $18- billion dollars. Politicians see the pork as political mother's milk. But for most of us, it just means more taxes.

Some projects are not pork, but necessary governmental obligations. The career politicians have learned to use legitimate obligations as a lever to insert pork. The 'good ole boy' network recues both the legitimate obligation and the pork. Politicians insert earmarks. Remember, getting re-elected is the driving force here. That is where term limits would help. Term limits would stop the continual need for politicians to pander to their constituency.

The large omnibus bills that make their way to the President's desk are a disgrace. These large pork laden bills say a lot about congressional members. The earmarks within those bills attest to the ambition of the politicians as well as their contempt for the nation. They will do whatever it takes to further their 'careers' in complete deference to the needs of the nation.

There is another way to handle the needs of the congressional districts and individual states. When necessary, a congressional member can make any proposal to help his/her district or state. Give the proposal a fair committee hearing and if it gets out of committee, allow a vote on the proposal. Along the way, others might even help improve on the proposal. What a concept! The politician will still have something to show the folks. If the proposal passes, then he can brag. But if it fails, he/she can still refer to the effort on behalf of the constituents.

We need term limits now. I would propose no more than one term for a senator (6 years) and three terms for House members (again 6 years). Rotate the committee leadership positions every year and choose the new chairperson by a system of chance and not because of political need or favor. (Drawing straws perhaps?)

Another benefit of term limits would be to lessen the influence of lobbyists. Since the politician would have no need for campaign donations, he would be able to make uninfluenced choices with his votes. Just think about it. A lobbyist would have to sell his ideas on merit rather than a bribe of campaign cash.

The Congress must be good stewards of the nation. We can no longer afford ambitious, self-serving, callous power seekers. Serving in congress should be an obligation and not a career. The political parties should nominate people with integrity. Anybody nominated by a political party should have to undergo a vetting process that is vigorous enough to weed out candidates found lacking in character.

Term limits may be just wishful thinking, but if the American people demand it, maybe, just maybe it will happen. According to a Harris poll, Americans polled about their respect for the people in charge of their major institutions, Congress consistently comes out next to the bottom. Law firms are the only group that the poll identifies as more unpopular than Congress. Imagine that!

Stand up for Term Limits!
Thanks Bud,

Cheers,

-Robert-

Campaign Donations

A few years back, they stuffed my mailbox with circulars requesting donations. They even sent little plastic RNC membership cards as if those little cards had some significant meaning. In today's quest for the dollars, email reigns supreme. The emails look much as the snail-mail circulars, only the return envelope for your donation is missing. As you might suspect, I have problems with these 'duns for dollars'.

For starters, almost all of the requests for money are just open ended. The requesters assume that I have no interest as to what these people who want my money are doing with it. For instance, I would like to know some of what happens to that money. Are they targeting certain races? The goals stated on the email request are very vague. You generally just get a slogan like, "Help win for McCain / Palin." The only things that are not vague are the places to click to donate. You have no trouble finding the donate buttons scattered everywhere on the page.

How much of the money is going to the undercard races? Is it all going to McCain?

They could at least tell me about some results or achievements already accomplished. Or where have they already spent some of the money? I do not want to tell them how to do what they do, but when they are using my money to do it, I would like to know what I am buying. Those empty rhetorical slogans do not encourage me to donate, just the opposite.

I write this because I never see an ad sponsored by the RNC anywhere on television. That is understandable, because I do not live in a battleground state. But Fox News never mentions the RNC, or it is very rare if they do. So what is the RNC doing? If the RNC was more visible, they might just take in more donations. They are as vaporous as Barack Obama's live birth certificate.

Why doesn't the RNC have an email address for donators to make comments? They should immediately set up an email comment section manned with volunteers to screen the moods and feelings of those Republicans that they want donating to their cause. The RNC would stand a much better chance of getting money if they made an effort to understand the people that are receiving those duns.

The whole fundraising operation smacks of elitism. "Just send money, we know best."
If the 'nowhere to be seen' RNC wasn't bad enough, I get duns from PACs. I have no idea who these PACs are so I never donate to them. How am I to know that the operation isn't some scam? Why can't these Political Action Committees spend a little of their money on recognition? At the least, have a well-known person that speaks for them. Also, a PAC needs to be traceable to an address for verification.

It is no mystery as to why the Republican fund raising is so sluggish. They assume that the donators are idiots.

This is just a vent, to be sure I want you to support the Republican ticket, but we also need to hold the RNC accountable for the miserly help that they are giving to our candidates. If they are short on money, it may just be because of their inept attempt at fund raising.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Open Letter to Obama

I received the following open letter to Obama from a friend. In the letter, the author tells his story both eloquently and powerfully. Fortunately for us, his example of sacrifice and endurance to establish a business is repeated thousands of times across this great land. The Cory Millers of this great land are not far from us no matter where in America we live. They form the backbone of our economy, and yet, it is the small businessman that is the target of the ambitious Barack Obama. Obama wants to decide the winners and losers by taxing the modestly successful small business. $250,000 dollars income from a business is not much, especially if the business employs anybody. A business with only two employees has to exceed an income of more than $250,000 just to survive and even then, there isn't any profit left for the owner. Running a business is more involved than the simplistic model put forward by Barack Obama. Please read Mr. Cory Miller's story for a fascinating look into the world of creating a small business.

From Cory Miller:

Given the furor about "Joe the plumber", I've written an open letter to Mr. Obama myself. I think it is worth the read. Maybe if Americans could take a closer look at what a small businessman is, they wouldn't want politicians penalizing their success. Feel free to forward it if you want.
Cory

Mr. Obama,
Given the uproar about the simple question asked you by Joe the plumber, and the persecution that has been heaped on him because he dared to question you, I find myself motivated to say a few things to you myself. While Joe aspires to start a business someday, I already have started not one, but four businesses. But first, let me introduce myself. You can call me "Cory the well driller". I am a 54-year-old high school graduate. I didn't go to college like you, I was too ready to go "conquer the world" when I finished high school. 25 years ago at age 29, I started my own water well drilling business at a time when the economy here in East Texas was in a tailspin from the crash of the early 80's oil boom. I didn't get any help from the government, nor did I look for any. I borrowed what I could from my sister, my uncle, and even the pawn shop and managed to scrape together a homemade drill rig and a few tools to do my first job. My businesses did not start as a result of privilege. They are the result of my personal drive, personal ambition, self discipline, self reliance, and a determination to treat my customers fairly.

From the very start my business provided one other (than myself) East Texan a full time job. I couldn't afford a backhoe the first few years (something every well drilling business had), so I and my helper had to dig the mud pits that are necessary for each and every job with hand shovels. I had to use my 10-year-old, 1/2 ton pickup truck for my water tank truck (normally a job for at least a 2-ton truck).

A year and a half after I started the business, I scraped together a 20% down payment to get a modest bank loan and bought a (28 year) old, worn out, slightly bigger drilling rig to allow me to drill the deeper water wells in my area. I spent the next few years drilling wells with the rig while simultaneously rebuilding it between jobs. Through these years, I never knew from one month to the next if I would have any work or be able to pay the bills. I got behind on my income taxes one year, and spent the next two years paying that back (with penalty and interest) while keeping up with ongoing taxes. I got behind on my water well supply bill 2 different years (way behind the second time... $80,000.00), and spent over a year paying it back (each time) while continuing to pay for ongoing supplies C.O.D. Of course, the personal stress endured through these experiences and years is hard to measure. I do have a stent in my heart now to memorialize it all.

I spent the next 10 years developing the reputation for being the most competent and most honest water well driller in East Texas. 2 years along the way, I hired another full time employee for the drilling business so that we could provide full time water well pump service as well as the well drilling. Also, 3 years along the path, I bought a water well screen service machine from a friend, starting business # 2. 5 years later I made a business loan for $100,000.00 to build a new, higher production, computer controlled screen service machine. I had designed the machine myself, and it didn't work out for 3 years so I had to make the loan payments without the benefit of any added income from the new machine. No government program was there to help me with the payments, or to help me sleep at night as I lay awake wondering how I would solve my machine problems or pay my bills. Finally, after 3 years, I got the screen machine working properly, and that provided another full time job for an East Texan in the screen service business.

2 years after that, I made another business loan, this time for $250,000.00, to buy another used drilling rig and all the support equipment needed to run another, larger, drill rig. This provided another two full time jobs for East Texans. Again, I spent a couple of years not knowing if I had made a smart move, or a move that would bankrupt me. For the third time in 13 years, I had placed everything I owned on the line, risking everything, in order to build a business.

A couple of years into this, I came up with a bright idea for a new kind of mud pump, a fundamentally necessary pump used on water well drill rigs. I spent my entire life savings to date (just $30,000.00), building a prototype of the pump and took it to the national water well convention to show it off. Customers immediately started coming out of the woodworks to buy the pumps, but there was a problem. I had depleted my assets making the prototype, and nobody would make me a business loan to start production of the new pumps. With several deposits for pump orders in hand, and nowhere to go, I finally started applying for as many credit card as I could find and took cash withdrawals on these cards to the tune of over $150,000.00 (including modest loans from my dear sister and brother), to get this 3rd business going.

Yes, once again, I had everything hanging over the line in an effort to start another business. I had never manufactured anything, and I had to design and bring into production a complex hydraulic machine from an untested prototype to a reliable production model (in six months). How many nights did I lay awake wondering if I had just made the paramount mistake of my life? I cannot tell you, but there were plenty. I managed to get the pumps into production, which immediately created another 2 full time jobs in East Texas. Some of the models in the first year suffered from quality issues due to the poor workmanship of one of my key suppliers, so I and an employee (another East Texan employed) had to drive across the country to repair customers' pumps, practically from coast to coast. I stood behind the product, and made payments to all the credit cards that had financed me (and my brother and sister). I spent the next 5 years improving and refining the product, building a reputation for the pump and the company, working to get the pump into drill rig manufacturers' product lines, and paying back credit cards.

During all this time, I continued to manage a growing water well business that was now operating 3 drill rig crews, and 2 well service crews. Also, the screen service business continued to grow. No government programs were there to help me, Mr. Obama, but that's ok, I didn't expect any, nor did I want any. I was too busy fighting to make success happen to sit around waiting for the government to help me.

Now, we have been manufacturing the mud pumps for 7 years, my combined businesses employ 32 full time employees, and distribute $5,000,000.00 annually through the local economy. Now, just 4 months ago I borrowed $1,254,000.00, purchasing computer controlled machining equipment to start my 4th business, a production machine shop. The machine shop will serve the mud pump company so that we can better manufacture our pumps that are being shipped worldwide. Of course, the machine shop will also do work for outside companies as well.

This has already produced 2 more full time jobs, and 2 more should develop out of it in the next few months. This should work out, but if it doesn't it will be because you, and the other professional politicians like yourself, will have destroyed our country's' (and the world) economy with your meddling with mortgage loan programs through your liberal manipulation and intimidation of loaning institutions to make sure that unqualified borrowers could get mortgages.

You see, at the very time when I couldn't get a business loan to get my mud pumps into production, you were working with Acorn and the Community Reinvestment Act programs to make sure that unqualified borrowers could buy homes with no down payment, and even no credit or worse yet, bad credit. Even the infamous, liberal, Ninja loans (No Income, No Job or Assets). While these unqualified borrowers were enjoying unrealistically low interest rates, I was paying 22% to 24% interest on the credit cards that I had used to provide me the funds for the mud pump business that has created jobs for more East Texans. It's funny, because after 25 years of turning almost every dime of extra money back into my businesses to grow them, it has been only in the last two years that I have finally made enough money to be able to put a little away for retirement, and now the value of that has dropped 40% because of the policies you and your ilk have perpetrated on our country.

You see, Mr. Obama, I'm the guy you intend to raise taxes on. I'm the guy who has spent 25 years toiling and sweating, fretting and fighting, stressing and risking, to build a business and get ahead. I'm the guy who has been on the very edge of bankruptcy more than a dozen times over the last 25 years, and all the while creating more and more jobs for East Texans who didn't want to take a risk, and would not demand from themselves what I have demanded from myself. I'm the guy you characterize as "the Americans who can afford it the most" that you believe should be taxed more to provide income redistribution "to spread the wealth" to those who have never toiled, sweated, fretted, fought, stressed, or risked anything. You want to characterize me as someone who has enjoyed a life of privilege and who needs to pay a higher percentage of my income than those who have bought into your entitlement culture. I resent you, Mr. Obama, as I resent all who want to use class warfare as a tool to advance their political career. What's worse, each year more Americans buy into your liberal entitlement culture, and turn to the government for their hope of a better life instead of themselves. Liberals are succeeding through more than 40 years of collaborative effort between the predominant liberal media, and liberal indoctrination programs in the public school systems across our land.

What is so terribly sad about this is this. America was made great by people who embraced the one-time American culture of self-reliance, self-motivation, self-determination, self-discipline, personal-betterment, hard work, and risk-taking. A culture built around the concept that success was in reach of every able bodied American who would strive for it. Each year that less Americans embrace that culture, we all descend together. We descend down the socialist path that has brought country after country ultimately to bitter and unremarkable states. If you and your liberal comrades in the media and school systems would spend half as much effort cultivating a culture of can-do across America as you do cultivating your entitlement culture, we could see Americans at large embracing the conviction that they can elevate themselves through personal betterment, personal achievement, and self reliance. You see, when people embrace such ideals, they act on them. When people act on such ideals, they succeed. All of America could find herself elevating instead of deteriorating. But that would eliminate the need for liberal politicians, wouldn't it, Mr. Obama? The country would not need you if the country was convinced that problem solving was best left with individuals instead of the government. You and all your liberal comrades have got a vested interested in creating a dependent class in our country. It is the very business of liberals to create an ever-expanding dependence on government. What's remarkable is that you, who have never produced a job in your life, are going to tax me to take more of my money and give it to people who wouldn't need my money if they would get off their entitlement mentality asses and apply themselves at work, demand more from themselves, and quit looking to liberal politicians to raise their station in life.

You see, I know because I've had them work for me before, hundreds of them over these 25 years. People who simply will not show up to work on time, people who just will not work 5 days in a week, much less, 6 days. People always looking for a way to put less effort out, people who actually tell me that they would do more if I just would first pay them more. People who take off work to sit in government offices to apply to get free government handouts (gee, I wonder how things would have turned out for them if they had spent that time earning money and pleasing their employer?). You see, all of this comes from your entitlement mentality culture.
Oh, I know you will say I am uncompassionate. Sorry, Mr. Obama, wrong again. You see, I've seen what the average percentage of your income has been given to charities over the years of 2000 to 2004 (ignoring the years you started running for office - can you pronounce "politically motivated"), you averaged less than 1% annually. And your running mate, Joe Biden, averaged less than ¼% of his annual income in charitable contributions over the last 10 years. Like so many liberals, the two of you want to give to the needy; just as long as it is someone else's money, you are giving to them. I won't say what I have given to charities over the last 25 years, but the percentage is several times more than you and Joe Biden, combined (don't you just hate Google?). Tell me again how you feel my pain.

In short, Mr. Obama, your political philosophies represent everything that is wrong with our country. You represent the culture of government dependence instead of self reliance; Entitlement mentality instead of personal achievement; Penalization of the successful to reward the unmotivated; Political correctness instead of open mindedness and open debate. If you are successful, you may preside over the final transformation of America from being the greatest and most self-reliant culture on earth, to just another country of whiners and wimps, who sit around looking to the government to solve their problems. Like all of Western Europe and all countries on the decline. All countries that, because of liberal socialistic mentalities, have a little less to offer mankind every year.

God help us...

Cory Miller

Just a ordinary, extraordinary American, the way a lot of Americans used to be.
P.S. Yes, Mr. Obama, I am a real American...
www.cmillerdrilling.com


Well said,

Cheers,

-Robert-

Political Musings

Berg v. Obama

Those of you who want to keep up with the latest on the Berg v. Obama lawsuit and you want the latest news; Jeff Schreiber's blog at http://www.americasright.com/ is a good place to look. He stays in touch with Phillip Berg and has contacts close to the courthouse.
Yesterday Rush (Rush Limbaugh) touched on the possibility that Obama's trip to Hawaii may be related to the case. I did not want to mention it in this blog because of its speculative nature. But because of Rush, it is out there. The reason behind the speculation is that Obama waited several days before departing to visit his 'gravely' ill Grandmother.

It is a stretch to read too much into that because he has probably been in touch with people close to the Grandmother and knew he had time to tidy up his campaign before making the trip. What I think is more telling is the timing of the trip. The judge in the lawsuit is close to rendering a decision on the dismissal motions and Obama may be trying to scare up a live birth certificate that will pass muster. That is if the Grandmother isn't gravely ill. But any of this is just speculation. Speculations may be interesting, but it does no good to speculate on Obama's trip because there are no facts to back up any of these suspicions.

Sarah Palin

Sarah continues to be an interesting personality. It is too bad the mainstream press can't get past her wardrobe. I have never seen any candidate so mercilessly denigrated. But buck up about it because if she weren't effective, it would not be happening.

Groups like ACORN have been caught committing voter fraud in several states but Obama still will not disassociate from them. Sarah Palin called for Obama to denounce ACORN's activities in an interview with Sean Hannity. Sarah wants Obama to denounce ACORN and take a stand for fair elections. But that is hard for Obama to do because he has donated so much money to them. Remember, his ties with ACORN are long and deep. Not only is he a financial supporter but at one time he actually helped train ACORN's organizers.

Obama v. NRA

The surrogates for Obama are out on the media circuit denouncing a new television ad by the NRA that demonstrates his anti-gun positions. Of course, the surrogates point to recent statements by Obama supporting the 2nd Amendment. The problem with that defense is Obama's terrible voting record against owning firearms. Has he really had a change of heart? If we elect Obama with a veto-proof Congress, the NRA thinks that his original anti-gun stance will resurface and he will initiate and pass more anti-gun legislation. Politicians have to kiss a lot of ugly babies while campaigning, and this is probably just another such choice he has made for votes. Do not trust Obama when it comes to firearms. His history does not support any change of heart that he is currently trying to project.

The Economy

It is early Friday morning and the futures market is plummeting. The DOW has reached its block point at minus 550 points, ditto for the S&P index of minus 60 points. World markets have all fell by 10% or greater. Thanks again to the Liberal Democrats for creating this mess.
Unintended consequences always prevail when governments institute policies without thinking through their actions. We now have found out that the guarantees put in place to prop up the faith in Australia's banks have been too successful. The folks down under are selling off equities and putting the cash in the banks. The result is a plunging stock market.--Oh Well!
Banks are loaning to each other but still holding tight on loans to everybody else. That is also defeating the reason for the bailout.

The Democrats are planning another cash give-away of tax dollars to 'stimulate the economy'. It just seems like the politicians never learn. Trying to legislate a good economy will fail every time it is tried. Reducing the capital gains tax would stimulate interest in equities again, but they won't do that. The Congress will not do anything that lessens their control over us a little bit. What a shame, we really need the government to take a step back, but Liberal Democrats want to do the opposite, they want more control!

Cheers,

-Robert-

The Housing Bubble

How appropriate to call the housing boom a 'bubble'. The housing bubble affected everybody. The tentacles of the housing boom are long and dug into just about every sector of our economy. First, let's look at some of obvious benefactors of the 'bubble'.

Construction workers by the thousands were able to have gainful employment. The carpenters, plumbers, electricians, drywall hangers, roofers, painters, bricklayers, tile setters, and concrete workers all enjoyed the fruits of the housing boom. These are the obvious winners in such a market, but consequentially, the first to bear the consequences when the bubble bursts.

Second tier benefactors include the lumber companies, appliance dealers, paint suppliers, landscapers, tool vendors, carpet vendors, pipe vendors, street pavers, plant nurseries, swimming pool contractors, and new tax revenues for the city, county, and state.

The third tier benefactors are the manufacturers of the building products and their employees that turned raw material into building materials. That would include the timber industry, sawmills, plywood factories, drywall manufacturers, pipe manufacturers, steel industries, tool manufacturers, truckers, cement plants, paint manufacturers, railroads, petroleum industries, plastics industry, and the farmers.

All of the millions of workers of the various entities used their wages to purchase products for necessity and frills. Some of which include the theme parks, groceries, pleasure boats, electronic gadgets, the phone bill, television service bill, fuel, lawnmowers, and so on. Their spending supported a variety of other products and those employees of the vendors of those products.

Yep, it was a wild ride but the piper was out there and he was about to send us his bill.

The money to finance the boom from housing had to come from someplace and I call that someplace the finance and mortgage industry. Normally the moneylenders are a bunch of stuffed shirts that scrutinize every dollar that they loan. So what happened? How did we get on such a wild ride? The simple answer is an unprecedented demand for housing. That surge in demand came from people who normally would not qualify to borrow from the moneylenders.

Democrats leaned on the moneylenders to loan to the poor and minorities. The implication from the Democrats to the moneylenders was that the U.S. Government, via Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, would stand behind such loans. And when the bill came in, that is exactly what happened. The Government saddled the taxpayers with various bailout plans to pay for the massive housing boom. A boom brought about by Liberal Democratic policy.

The Democrats knew that the Government would have no choice but to wade in and rescue the economy. And it is not a given that those bailouts will even work. The tentacles were into the economy so deep that the Government had to either act, or send the economy down in flames. (Which still may happen) The nation's savings in 401K's were tanking, businesses bankrupting at an unprecedented rate, and the jobless count skyrocketing, the Government had to take action to prevent further chaos. The pressure put upon the financial markets threatened to bring not only our economy but also the world's economy to its knees; we are still reeling from the folly of the Democrats.

By now, everybody knows that Bush and the Republicans tried to reign in the out of control lending that threatened us all in 2005 and earlier, but the Democrats would have none of it. The Democrats blocked every initiative to regulate the mortgage industry. After all, their constituents were benefitting from the extravagance. Now, the Democrats are pulling the slickest move of all, and that is to make sure those poor-risk homebuyers get to keep their homes at the taxpayer's expense. This monumental transfer of wealth is happening right under every body's nose. The folly of what the Democrats did and are doing to this economy is hurting everybody.

To add insult to injury, this nation is about to reward Democrats with a Democratic President and a filibuster proof majority in the Congress. The Democrats will be able to pass their far leftist agenda without any opposition if they win by the margins forecast by the polls. Should the Congress reach the point that renders the filibuster moot, then we are in real trouble.

I encourage the readers of this post to think hard about for whom they want to vote. Our work force is shrinking because of the Democrat's failed socialist policies.

Support the McCain-Palin ticket with both your personal effort and your money. (Provided you still have some)

Cheers,

-Robert-

Berg v Obama Update

When I first started following this case, my initial thoughts were, "Yeah, yeah, yeah, just another nut trying to stir up trouble." But my mind is changing on the subject. I am beginning to believe that Berg (the plaintiff) is onto something.

If Barack Obama is who he says he is, with regard to his birth, this whole matter would clear up instantly. All Obama has to do is produce his live birth certificate and detail his foreign citizenship.

This case is a real hot potato and I do not envy the judge. However, no matter what his ruling on the matter, the truth will eventually work its way out. This case is stirring up a lot of attention only because Obama has chosen to fight it vigorously. If Obama has nothing to hide, why is he objecting to furnishing the documents that would end the affair?

If the plaintiff is correct and Obama has no legal right to run for president, then a lot of people are going to have egg on their face, not to mention a disappointed Black race that have pinned their hopes on getting a Black man elected president.

I have included a portion of the docket report below of the most recent activity. All entrees filed in the Pennsylvania Eastern District Court, Presided by the Honorable R. Barclay Surrick.

The following site is the source for the docket report:

http://news.justia.com/

Cheers,

-Robert-

October 7, 2008 T.B. BRADLEY'S MOTION FOR APPLICATION TO INTERVENE WITH COMPLAINT AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTED TO THE AGENCIES OF THE UNITED STATES AND MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (jpd) (Entered: October 7, 2008)

October 7, 2008 MOVANT T.B. BRADLEY'S MOTION TO APPEAR AS JANE DOE. (jpd) (Entered: October 7, 2008)

October 9, 2008 RESPONSE in Opposition re 15 MOTION for Protective Order Staying Discovery Pending Decision on Dispositive Motion Brief in Support thereof and Certificate of Service filed by PHILIP J. BERG. (BERG, PHILIP) (Entered: October 9, 2008)

October 15, 2008 U.S. CITIZEN JUDSON WITHAM'S APPLICATION AND NOTICE OF MOTION TO INTERVENE AS A MATTER OF RIGHT FRCP 24, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (jpd) (Entered: October 15, 2008)

October 20, 2008 MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint filed by BARACK OBAMA, THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE. Memorandum of Law, Certificate of Service.(LAVELLE, JOHN) (Entered: October 20, 2008)

October 20, 2008 T.B. BRADLEY'S REQUEST FOR THE COURT TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF FILING COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR INVESTIGATION WITH THE UNITED STATES DEPT. OF JUSTICE-PUBLIC CORRUPTION DIVISION AND OTHER U.S. AGENCIES, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.(jpd) (Entered: October 21, 2008)

October 21, 2008 MOTION for Order Deeming Requests for Admissions - Admitted filed by PHILIP J. BERG .Deeming Requests for Admissions - Admitted.(BERG, PHILIP) (Entered: October 21, 2008)

October 21, 2008 MOTION for Order Expediting Ruling on Plaintiffs Motion Deeming Plaintiffs Request for Admissions Admitted filed by PHILIP J. BERG. Certificate of Service.(BERG, PHILIP) (Entered: 10/21/2008)

October 21, 2008 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION. Memorandum. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law)(STREETER, BENJAMIN) (Entered: October 21, 2008)

Democrats 2

In this sequel to the first Democrats, it is necessary to point out the extremes of both the Conservative and the Liberal positions. As a nation, we already know how bad it gets with extreme Conservatism. Yes, during the last half of the 19th century, conditions for working men and women were appalling. Greedy industrialists created repugnant working conditions for the wage earner. Labor Unions sprang up in defense of the worker, and Congress passed labor laws to curb some of the wanton greed by the industrialists of those times. The labor laws instituted by the Federal Government were necessary to rescue workers from abuse.

The late 1800's and early 1900's marked the beginning of the swing to the left. No one can doubt the necessity for that drift during those periods.
There is an old saying that comes to mind about things that do well, "If a little medicine does a little good, then a lot of medicine will do a lot of good." Not exactly a true statement, but it sums up the way we feel about almost everything. Eating is enjoyable, so we eat more. And we all know that eating more just makes us fat and susceptible to debilitating consequences. So by extrapolation, if a little bit of Liberalism is good, a lot more will harm you. We have never been to the extreme left before, so the point at which it has its comeuppance is yet to be determined. But mark it well, if the Liberals don't kill the country first, a reckoning for their extreme philosophy will come.

Over the years, the Democratic politicians have taken the country further and further to the left. Some of the Democratic politicians are true believers in Liberalism, while others just use the Liberal platform to further their ambition. For whatever reasons given, we as a nation now find ourselves under the control of the extreme left. And, just as being in the control of the extreme right a hundred years ago, the extreme left is just as bad.

Moving further to the left will have profound effects on our nation. Individualism is a casualty. Instead of working for our own personal interest, we find more of our earnings going to the State. The politicians relish in the ways they can spend your money. The greed of the state in today's times is comparable to the greed of the industrialists of the late 1800's. Literally, there is no difference between the two. Abuse is abuse whether from an industrialist or a politician.

The Democrats are in the process of ransacking the very core of our economy. Because of over taxation, and the Democrats support for greedy labor unions, we can no longer produce commodities at a competitive price. Our businesses have had to make very stark choices, either move to a country that doesn't tax them to death or close down. Either choice leaves the American worker out in the cold. What is remarkable about the situation is that America is actually considering rewarding those Democrats who put us in this situation in complete control of the Government.

I neglected the third choice facing American business; they can hire lobbyists to influence Congress to get favorable legislation. That practice is very common at the present. The problem with businesses getting special favors from the Congress is that not every business can participate. The Washington greed machine will not kill all of their revenue streams, so only the squeakiest wheels get the legislative grease. It puts Congress in the business of choosing which business succeeds and which business fails. What a deal!

No, I am not thinking that we are going to be a destitute nation in the near term, but we are digging deep into our bag of resources and the bag is not bottomless. The tyranny of big government is real and the American voter should take it seriously. We need to take this country back to the right to save it from itself. And when it oversteps itself to the right, it will be necessary to once again, turn left.

It was after World War-2 that the middle-class flourished. The new and larger middle-class represented a new challenge to the Democrats. Workers made enough money to have homes and cars and an upscale type of existence. They also wanted less interference from the government and started voting Republican. The idea that a group of people was no longer dependent on their social programs scared the crap out of the Democrats. Eisenhower's victory in 1952 and 1956 only served to fire up the left. The Democrats had no love for the Blacks but needed their votes to make up for their losses of the middle class. The idea that Democrats had great sympathy for the Black cause is not true. The Boll Weevil Southern Democrats fought integration with every ounce of their being. Integration only came about because of the Republicans. The Republican vote passed the Civil Rights legislation, over the Democratic opposition.

To solidify the Blacks as a unified voting bloc, the Democrats spawned the welfare state. Democrats never meant to empower Blacks, just keep them in the fold so they would vote Democratic. The total effort was to make up the votes they were losing because of a successful middle class. They were successful. Today Blacks vote 85% - 95% Democratic.

Since the end of WW-2, we have been a party to the decay of public morality. In 1957 a very liberal Supreme Court refused to define pornography, instead of issuing an unambiguous definition of pornography, they deferred to 'community standards'. Another Supreme Court decision in 1968 held that individuals could enjoy porn in privacy. Today, porn is not isolated to the confines of a person's home; it is now flourishing in the open. Democratic policy allows sex of all stripes because they believe that while pursuing pleasures, you won't notice or care that they are looting your country. The thought here is that you would rather sin than succeed. The Democrats of today will do anything to gain political power, and that includes allowing divisive lifestyles to flourish. Such naked political greed has its own set of consequences though. The process has weakened the moral fiber that once bound us together, and the chapter of that consequence has not been written yet..

Democrats cannot allow their constituents to succeed. Democrats understand that when Americans succeed that they don't need Democrats or their handouts. By making Blacks wards of the state, Democrats have assured themselves of majority status for years to come. The damage done to the Black community and its social structure is of no importance to the Democrats. Only the Black vote means anything.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Democrats

Full disclosure demands that I admit to being a Democrat in my younger days. My first vote went to Lyndon Johnson. I thought Nixon was despicable and was glad he had to resign. Clearly, I could see the tax deduction on my paycheck, but I never made the connection with those deductions to the welfare state that was blossoming under my nose. The war in Viet Nam was happening and to me the taxes were needed for our defense, road construction, and because I was employed by a major shipbuilder, building new ships for the U.S. Navy. Nixon did not help himself with me with his wage and price freeze just before I was to get a promotion. I was a supporter of George McGovern in 1972. But as they say, things change.

It was after I found out why Nixon had the offices of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist and the DNC Headquarters at the Watergate burglarized, that my opinion began to change. I definitely did not approve of the illegal actions of burglary, but there was scant attention paid as to the motives for the break-ins. Not to rehash the ordeal of the Nixon era, but I was surprised to learn that Nixon was interested in the capture and conviction of Ellsberg. Daniel Ellsberg gave most of the Pentagon Papers to New York Times reporter Neil Sheehan, with Ellsberg's friend Anthony Russo assisting in their copying. Divulging the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times harmed our efforts in Viet Nam. Whether or not you believe that the Viet Nam war was justified, making public, top-secret documents is a treasonable act. The Pentagon Papers were an assessment without political frills about our involvement in Viet Nam. Robert McNamara commissioned the study to find where we needed to make changes with our strategy. By leaking the Pentagon Papers to the press, Ellsberg not only embarrassed the United States, but also gave a propaganda victory to our enemies.

The Democrats used the debacle as a hammer to force Nixon to resign. Ellsberg and Russo turned themselves in. But the Judge dismissed the charges for technical reasons and not for any question of guilt or innocence. The prosecution bungled, violating wiretapping rules, and failed to provide evidence to the defense. Because of the gross misconduct by the prosecution, the judge dismissed the charges. The negative press turned the public against Nixon who resigned in disgrace.

For those interested in the Nixon resignation affair, there are many good sources on the internet. Daniel Ellsberg is a good place to start, and more information can be found at Pentagon Papers. If Wikipedia is not your cup of tea, there are many other sources listed by Google.

I was disappointed that the Democrats would not pursue those who hurt this country. The Liberal Supreme Court paved the way for the Times and other papers to print the top-secret material. The Supreme Court fully understood the implication of making those documents public, but they chose to give the press a pass citing 1st amendment issues. For the first time, the Supreme Court allowed someone to yell fire in a crowded venue and not be held accountable. Instead, they busied themselves reveling in the misery of the Republicans. The Democrats castigated the Republicans in such a way that even now, the two parties cannot find mutual grounds on such basic issues as National Defense. Nixon became the whipping boy of the press and created the atmosphere for Jimmy Carter's election. The two-party system has always been contentious, but never like the era that began with the resignation of Richard Nixon.

The conclusions I have drawn about the Democratic Party are scary. No matter the stakes, Democrats only embrace an issue if it helps them to become politically more powerful. Cases in point:

• In the Viet Nam War era, the Democrats decided to enhance their fortunes by embracing the cause of the anti-war crowd. Of course, that occurred when a Republican president was in office. It was not an issue under John Kennedy and Johnson, even though Johnson was the president who greatly expanded the war. Democrats gave full support to Johnson.

• The Democrats defended Bill Clinton vigorously about his indiscretions. What you heard from them was, "It is only about sex." But they had an attack of piousness when Mark Foley of Florida sent improper emails to some office pages.

• The Democrats have also lost their ability to clamor for decency over the multiple affairs of Democrat Tim Mahoney who replaced Mark Foley for the Florida seat. While running for the office, Mahoney focused his campaign on family values.

• When the idea was popular, the Democrats demanded and rushed to sponsor and pass the War Resolution over Iraq. But true to form, when the going got tough, the Democrats retreated from their votes and advocated surrender. A victorious Republican president was not in their interest. What the Democrats wanted was to force the U.S. to surrender while George W. Bush was in the Whitehouse. The fact that the Democrats publically criticized the war, gave hope and inspiration to our enemies in Iraq. The consequences of retreat did not bother Democrats in the least.

• Barney Frank gave Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac a vigorous defense when the Republicans tried to reign in those two goliaths. What he wasn't sharing was that he was having a gay relationship with Mr. Herb Moses of Fannie Mae. The Democrats just turn a blind eye to the very offensive actions of other Democrats with the appearance of a conflict of interest.

The large over-arching lesson about Democrats is one that should be taken to heart; they have only one motive for any action that they take, self-interest. They will take no position and find reasons to publically excuse wrongdoing by a fellow Democrat. Their defensive trigger kicks in no matter how egregious the offense.

This quoted from Democrats explaining their new and modern philosophy.

The economic policy adopted by the modern Democratic Party, including the former Clinton administration, may also be referred to as the "Third Way" The party believes that government should play a role in alleviating poverty and Social injustice even if such requires a larger role for government and progressive taxation.

Democrats believe in a government that punishes achievers by taking their earnings and distributing it to the non-achievers. That position is not tenable. Their taxation policies destroy the engine of real progress that creates the jobs and opportunities for everybody. The people in Detroit can attest to this failed notion. General Motors and the rest of the American owned auto manufacturers are victims of both liberal policies and labor unions. There is only so much pie to go around. A global economy requires meeting and beating your competition if you are to stay in business.

Speaking of General Motors, are you aware that General Motors sells more cars in China than the U.S.? There is nothing to prevent General Motors from moving their manufacturing facilities to China. If that happens, "What do you think will happen to your good paying union jobs then, Mr. Democrat?"

Before you launch the nation in a great leap to the left, you need to think your position over. Our good jobs and manufacturing base has been drifting away like a slow bleed due to the Democratic policies of 'sharing the wealth'. The only shared wealth is the transfer of our wealth to other countries. Our only response is to frantically buy the cheaper goods that they produce and send more of our wealth overseas.

The Democrats desire for those poor and indigents to own a home almost brought us to our knees. We can't afford Liberalism anymore. My question for you is, "What will it take for you to realize that the Democrats are ruining this country." There is no free lunch! We can help those in need through private institutions like churches and charitable organizations. Democratic policies have made our poor wards of the state. For shame! If you are not too afraid, visit the public housing that you are paying for. Take a good look at what the Democrats have created! Then ask yourself, "Is this the way we really want to treat people?"

Most Americans want to help others. We are hard-wired for it. But letting the Federal Government take over our responsibilities in that endeavor has created a monster. Our society has become like the classic churchgoers who just want to throw a dollar in the plate and hope for the best. The best way to help others is with your participation. The lazy way out for most is to throw money at the problems. And by the way, Democrats are always handy-dandy there to take your money and allow themselves the luxury of who to help (including themselves) and how much. The largest recipients of the taxpayer's money go to whoever is the biggest help with power acquisition and maintenance of power. That money that you send to Washington to divest yourself of any personal responsibility, gets distributed according to rankings of who helps the Democrats stay in power.

All you have to do is say no to every Democrat on your ballot (and Liberal Republicans). They will get the message.

To be continued --
Cheers,

-Robert-

Yin and Yang

Logically speaking, without a top, there can be no bottom. Without Yin, there can be no Yang. Without the rich, there can be no poor. Without bad, there can be no good. Every concept must have a definition of relation. Relationships are how we define things.

Back in my younger days, my friends and I would often drink too much and wake up with a hangover. Often we would remark that feeling bad from the excesses of the night before gave us an appreciation for the days we woke up without the awful feeling of a hangover. Think about it. If a person never has a hangover, how can he appreciate the value of his good fortune without a pounding hangover headache to compare with? Our contention was that you have to have the hangover experience (at least once) to really appreciate those days without one. Relationships put everything into perspective.

Can we as a culture survive peace? The quick answer is that there is no peace. Peace is an illusion. When we are not on the battlefield over some political issue, we fight among ourselves figuratively, for political power. Our political wars are just as intense as our hot wars. Political wars capture power without firing a shot. Democracy create this condition. Democracies thrive because the governed give their consent to those who govern. Our political wars are all about winning that consent to govern.

There are two opposing forces, or philosophies. On one side of the spectrum are the Liberals, and on the other side we find the Conservatives, Yin and Yang if you will. Those close to the middle make up the moderates. The moderates are special as they appreciate some of each philosophy, so they hang out on the fence in the middle unable to decide where to give their support. The targets for each side's campaign are the moderates. The political commercials that flood our airways aim their message at the fence straddlers. Those who have already made up their minds have to endure these nauseating commercials.

It is with respect for the position of the moderates that I make these observations. Moderates claim fealty to both sides but the question is, why? The forces of Yin and Yang are always opposing forces, and when the opposing forces are relatively equal, the center always rules. If Yin represents the Liberal Democrats and Yang represents Conservatives, then at the present, Yin has the upper hand. With Yin in charge, Yang has to move a little towards Yin to attract the new middle ground which has shifted left. Political power runs like a meandering river flowing to Yin and then back to Yang. Neither Yin nor Yang has the ability to maintain the river in a straight course. Once either philosophy gains power, they always overstep their mandate. The power vested in them by the people will wane because the extreme ends of either philosophy wrecks the culture.

The United States has not had a course correction since the 1930's when we elected Franklin D. Roosevelt. FDR left an amazing legacy. Most of the social frameworks he instituted are still with us, especially the concepts of a strong federal government. The programs that he instituted such as social security was not bad, it is just that successive Democratic politicians abused the idea for political power and the results are what you see today.

The Democrats broadened social programs to include Medicare, Medicaid, and numerous programs for minorities. The idea that the taxpayers can take care of the poor from cradle to grave on the backs of the taxpayer has cost this country dearly. The results of their social tinkering have been disastrous. The pittances doled out to any individual by the various programs is small but enough to become dependent on. Those who are willing to live on the bottom strata of society subsist there by taking advantage of the various handouts from government-sponsored programs. Those who accept that way of life become dependent on the taxpayers. It is a hard life in the government created Ghettos, and escaping its grip is a daunting task. The cycle is self-propagating as the Ghetto young yield to the temptation of irresponsible sex and have children. Young mothers raise their children without a partner's help and support. Only with the taxpayers support can she manage within that system. Population multiplication within those government created enclaves make it even harder to escape into the greater world where they could realize their potential. Those in the Ghetto world see none of the rewards for their effort in this created trap that shouldn't exist.

The youths within the Ghettos form their own subcultures. Resident gangs vie for territory for their activities, drug selling, prostitution, and just hanging out. Their experience leaves them with a skewed opinion of the rest of the world. Trapped in a culture they didn't create, with no way to control the events that shape their world, they become resentful of what they perceive as White tyranny. The modern Ghetto culture is the result of liberal politicians pandering for political power. Our drift to the left, or Yin, is in need of a correction. We cannot continue to sustain this creature that the Liberals have created.

Only the voting public can change our drift to the left. We need to stop the loss of our eroding freedom. Some of what the Liberals offer definitely has merit, but the extreme left of the Liberal movement is in control of the Democrats. When the extreme end of any philosophy gains control, it means we will experience an abuse of trust and an overstepping of the authority given by the people. The deeper we descend into Liberalism, the harder it will be to make the necessary corrections to our system of individual freedoms.

As Yin gathers strength, we willingly yield our responsibilities to the government. In the future, only the government will be able to make the decisions for how we live; we will have lost any claim to being responsible for our actions. Being independent means accepting responsibility for what you do. Don't look to blame others for your misfortune and bad decisions. Always keep in mind that having bad things happen to us gives us the appreciation of the good that befalls us.

To those in the welfare traps, you do not have to accept those conditions. There is a whole world outside of that domain that is willing to give you a chance at being a part of society. But you have to go after it; the only thing that will come to you is that pittance from the government that keeps you trapped. Say no to Yin.

Those at the bottom need the top to look up to for the incentive to climb out of the bottom. Do not resent those who have succeeded, because they offer you the chance for you to ascend to the top. The successful start businesses and hire others. The successful make it possible to live and dream of making it to the top. When you look up and don't see success, you are living in the world of the Liberal. The Liberal has chased away most good jobs by over-taxing the businesses from where those good jobs came. The wealthy move their money to countries that want the opportunities that money brings. Does it disturb you to look at the things you buy and see 'Made in China' on it? Why do you suppose that so many of our manufacturers moved to other countries like China and Mexico? They tell you it is because of the cheap labor, but that is only part of the story because production can overcome labor costs provided Labor Unions keep their grubby paws out of the pot. The real reason is the onerous tax structures and demands imposed by the Liberals. Liberals do not trust the free market to make good decisions. Only the Liberal elites know what is best for us. After enough of their social tinkering, they will have bankrupted the nation.

John McCain represents Yang. McCain needs to gain the trust of the moderates. Winning an election is always a matter of winning over those in the middle. We must change course and not yield to the temptation of Yin.

Yin may have the upper hand for now, and I think Yang is running out of breath, but I still have hope.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Before and After Debate Three

Anticipation
Did I say anticipation? The debate is tonight and as I ponder what the outcome may be, I suddenly realize that deep down; I don't want either one of these characters to be the President. I will vote for McCain only because he represents less socialism than Obama. Not that I think he will be a great leader.

George W. Bush burned me by making the case that he would lead. The clues were all around about the type of government he would form, but at the time, those clues didn't register with me. Now along comes John McCain with the same approach as Bush. Bush ran on the slogan of 'compassionate conservatism' and here is McCain doing the same thing with his 'reach across the aisle' crap. Neither one has a clue about leadership. Both McCain and Bush lead in the same way. Make proposals and throw them out like food for dogs to chew on. What is left of the proposal is a plate of mush with a generous serving of fat added.

When I support a candidate, I expect better. Candidates running for office know exactly what to say, and then when elected, allow themselves to be wooed into doing the Washington shuffle. The perks offered for their cooperation seems to overcome their desire to do right by their constituents. Nothing disgusts me more than to see a politician crumple up his principles like a wet paper bag purely for self-interest. Where are the leaders with principles?

For eight long years, McCain has been courting the tepid undecided fence straddlers. The idea of championing an issue by leading the charge for his ideas doesn't occur to him. Instead, he patronizes the moderates by trying to give them the impression that he thinks as they do. By their very nature, moderates do not take a stand, instead they think of themselves as having the ability to see all sides of an issue. That all-seeing ability keeps moderates on the fence. Leadership, not patronage will win their votes. Those people have no point of view; they are just hanging on the fence waiting for candidate to convince them that he has the answers. Again, patronage with moderates does not work!

Instead of backing McCain with their dollars, the RNC needs to promote the ballot undercard. That area will bring the most bangs for the buck. Instead, McCain is sucking all of the money and effort in a losing cause. We can live with Obama if we elect a Republican Congress. And unless McCain strikes a knockout blow tonight, it will be difficult for him to win.

After the Debate
Well for starters, McCain did better in this one. However, he didn't close the deal for most listeners. A tie goes to Obama and the debate was a virtual tie. Obama did a creditable job of defending his positions and McCain did not take advantage of his opportunities to gain headway. Most Americans are angry at the status quo. That anger should be an advantage to Obama but Obama hasn't been able to eliminate McCain.

For his part, McCain has allowed the premise that the Federal Government has the ability to fix the economy as the defacto truth. I expect that position from Obama but not from someone who purports to be a free market advocate. It is hard for me to grasp a situation where the supposedly free market advocates want the taxpayer to prop up failed enterprises. I expect the Democrats to promote Socialism, but not the Republicans. To quote Maureen Dowd, "Who would have dreamed that when socialism finally came to the U.S.A., it would be brought not by the Bolsheviks in blue jeans, but by Wall Street brokers in Gucci loafers?" The bailout, aided and abetted by the Congress, puts American business on notice that if you get yourself into trouble, then Uncle Sam will use taxpayer dollars to help you recover from your greed and stupidity. The market economy has been dealt a blow from which will be hard to recover.

The throttling tentacles of big government are slowly choking the life out of individualism. When people can no longer fail, then they never learn. Failure is one of life's most endearing teachers. It is how we perfect the craft of progress.

It was impossible for McCain to out-promise Obama, but I find his capitulation to the use of big government repugnant. Because McCain would not hit a homerun off of the hanging curve balls from Obama, he only managed a tie. McCain failed to make the case for lower taxes, restoring education to local control, against Obama's plan to roll back the bush tax-cuts, and his own health plan. He dribbled out small incomplete answers to all, but did not manage to drive home the salient points for the main issues.

I only wish I could report that McCain was able to corner Obama on several of today's key issues but I can't. Even though he did remarkably better in this debate than the last two, the effort still fell short.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Getting Old and Death

As strange as this topic seems, our mortality is something that everybody must face. First, let's talk about getting old.

Since my own age is 66, I know that I am in the last 25% of my life. I don't feel old but there are definite signs that the wheels are coming off of the wagon. My mind tells me to do things, but my ass, feet, and legs sing a different tune. More often than not, my will power to get off my duff is not strong enough to overcome my body's objections. This article may not represent what other males my age are going through, but most can probably relate to my experiences.

Some of the aggravations that you do not have to face in your youth are things like an enlarged prostrate. An enlarged prostrate makes going pee a real challenge. My doctor's remedy of course, is a pill. Taking a pill is head and shoulders above taking 5 minutes to do what used to take 30 seconds. Even at the end of 5 minutes there is a good chance that you haven't completely emptied your bladder, so you know that in a couple of hours you will be right back in the same boat. This adventure is especially aggravating at night when you want to sleep.

Sex or the lack thereof is another matter that is distressing in advanced age. Oh sure, you still get naughty thoughts while admiring a pretty young lady. But deep in your heart, you know that your debonair days are behind you. Even with one of the miracle pills to ward off an erection failure, stamina and health are real concerns. But you still have your memories. Some you share, while others remain deep within.

More than ever, the benefits of exercise become apparent. Staying healthy becomes more important than in the past as we strive to avoid the unavoidable.

Retirement is a wonderful part of your life. I don't think anybody is enjoying retirement more than I do. Having free time gives you the chance to tackle the things that you wanted to do but never had time to do while making a living. Being wistful and looking back is certainly a part of getting older. I now have all of those old songs by the original artists that were important to me as a youth. Some are timeless while others seem silly now, but I still listen to them and mentally relive some of the good times that I associate with those songs. Advice on retirement, save and retire as early as possible. Do not use up all of your good years in the pursuit of other peoples goals.

Of course, the elephant in the room is the real prospect of dying. All of us know that our days are numbered, but when we are young, we don't take it too serious. But as the years go by, and death gets closer, we have to face the inevitable. For those who have taken a pass on religion, you might begin to think that religion is worth a second look.

Death is that black abyss that we can't define. Have you ever been to a funeral and touched the deceased? That cold lifeless form in the coffin is nothing like the person who once was. What happens when we die? For those of us who are Christian, we believe that God has a place for us. But what happens to everybody else?

The inspiration for writing this piece came from watching the History Channel. The program was about solving the location of Sodom and Gomorrah. The first half hour, they quoted scripture and showed different places around the cities location such as Lott's Cave. They showed the cities, destroyed and burned by a calamitous event that parallels the biblical description. The second half of the show was completely different. For half an hour, they tried to explain away the biblical version and inserted their own educated version of the events that transpired. The whole show was nothing but a pretext to plant doubt in the minds of their viewers about the veracity of the bible.

To what end I asked myself. Why is it important to destroy people's faith? The answer is that it is a cultural thing. Liberalism cannot tolerate any authoritative competition, especially from God. The Holy Bible teaches that there is right and a wrong. It teaches that there is a way to live your life and have joy by following a few simple rules. There is also a warning that disobedience to these rules brings death. Think about it. Because of a willingness of followers of Christ to live their lives in harmony and in obedience to Christ's teachings, our whole society is the benefactor. Because Christianity teaches that there is right and wrong, our transgressions haunt us. Our conscience will not give us a break when we do the wrong thing.

What do you think would happen in this society if there were only secular laws to maintain order? The police force would have to be enormous and too much of societies energies would be wasted just preventing chaos.

Some of the questions about dying that have occurred to me may be the sort of questions that you have. Will I die whimpering and sniveling or as someone with dignity and courage? Will death be a blessed release from some awful disease or some freak accident? Will those around me mourn my passing or think, "Good riddance". Is there really a next world? Will I see loved ones who have passed before me? Should I dread dying? There are too many questions to ask.

But there is only one answer. Accepting Christ without reservation will bring you peace and the courage to accept your fate. None of the nagging questions about death can steal your joy and cause you consternation if you only accept Christ as your Savior.

Cheers,

-Robert-

Democrats Own the Financial Crisis

Democrats, however well intentioned, have led this country into the chaos we see in the Global Financial crisis. The case is overwhelming that for the purposes of both good intentions and maintaining political power, the Democrats have used the resources of the Federal Government to put credit unworthy people into houses that they couldn't and wouldn't pay for.

The economy blossoms with new home building. The construction trades are rewarded with good jobs, the Realty business is rewarded with increased sales, the local lending institutions prosper, demand for housing increases housing values, increased property values put more money into state and local coffers, the furniture and appliance people benefit from increased sales, and the home buyer gets to be the proud owner of a new home. Then there are the manufacturers who supply all of the goods that go into a new house - tools, lumber, appliances, furniture, brick, electrical wiring, and different cements and mortars. I might have left somebody out, but I hope you get the idea.

The demand for new housing helps just about everybody. The wheel of progress continues only if the people who buy the houses pay for them. Like all commodities, housing values depend on demand. When foreclosures become excessive, we get empty houses. Empty houses decrease in value as their numbers increase. The mortgage holders have invested in a house at market value, but now, that value has dropped so the mortgage holder is holding the bag for a home that is not worth the loan value originally made for the home.

Another reason for the decline in home values was people known as 'house flippers'. House flippers took advantage of the relaxed credit lending rules and bought with no down payment on the expectation of reselling the house at a profit because of the upward trend in house values. When home values went stagnate, they simply allowed those houses to revert to the lender and quit buying. The 'flippers' had very little money involved in the transaction so it was easy to just wash their hands of the purchased property and let it go into foreclosure. The result of their actions was two-fold. By shutting down their purchasing operations, the 'flippers' helped weaken demand and by their allowing foreclosure on their purchases, the result was more empty houses on the market to drive down home values.

The Democrats defeated efforts to clamp down on the chaotic housing markets. Democrats would have none of it. They favored continuation of making loans to people without the usual safeguards of good lending practices. As long as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (the largest but not the only underwriters) kept underwriting those loans, the primary lenders kept loaning. Some of their loaning techniques and instruments used to make a loan were odious at best. Teaser rates, 2-28, 5-25, interest only, no down payment, and adjustable rate loans were just a few of the means that the lenders used to attract borrowers. And, with the sales of CMO created bonds booming, it looked like the pathway to financial nirvana. But there was a fly in the soup.

The nexus root of the present mess was the Democrats and their desire to have poor and minorities have homes. Institutions such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac persuaded the politicians in Washington with financial favors and sweetheart loans to maintain the status quo. The Democrats stayed in lockstep preventing any meaningful regulation that would have prevented or at least dampened the collapse that was inevitable.

The big lesson from the mess we are in now is that people with bad credit have those ratings for one reason only. They don't pay their bills. No matter how unfortunate their circumstance or your feelings about the poor, using the Government to solve such problems will always make matters worse. Eventually, somebody was going to have to pay for those bad mortgages. We as Americans can pay for them, or those institutions that bought and sold those Mortgage Backed Securities can just suck it up and take the losses. But there is a question of fairness. The Federal Government started this ball rolling by encouraging the relaxation of lending rules. Coercing the primary lenders into making bad loans, and then having the loans underwritten by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and others was bad policy. Those remarkable loan instruments and securities were in response to the wishes of the Democrats who were responsible for creating those opportunities. What may have began as a sympathetic cause for the underprivileged, only provided us with another reason why socialism just doesn't work. We should be glad that home prices stopped escalating or the mess would have been even worse.

Democrats start out with a flawed premise. Good hearted but flawed. To begin with, people, no matter their race, do not have any reason to appreciate something that they haven't got a stake in. I learned this lesson in the freeze-dried coffee business. At the time, the company I worked for sold coffee dispensers and freeze-dried coffee for offices. Our objective was to set up accounts for the continuation of sales for our coffee. The dispenser was just the vehicle for the convenient use of our products. The account and subsequent coffee sales was the valuable part to us. In the beginning, we gave the dispenser to the customers just for their account. But when we serviced those accounts, the dispensers were mistreated, especially if it had ran out of product. But at the time, the customer had no vested interest in the dispenser so it came under rough treatment. To instill appreciation for our dispensers, we began selling the dispensers to the customers. We set a price high enough to cover its cost and to convey to the customer the pride of ownership for the dispenser. It made a lot of difference. The results were amazing. Fewer trouble calls for broken dispensers meant lower expenses.

If you do not believe what I am telling you, take a good look at public housing. No, public housing isn't like owning a home, but the residents who live there do not appreciate and take care of the units. They have no stake in them and even resent living in them. Acquiring a house with no down payment with a 5-25 mortgage is a recipe for disaster. (2-28 and 5-25 are loans that feature a teaser rate or interest only for the years of the first number, and then jumps up to a higher rate for the remainder of years, the second number.) Since house payments seem a lot like rent payments, when things get tough, they can just leave or not pay for the house and wait for eviction. They have no stake in the property. The person with a 20% down payment in his new home has a stake in the home and the home is 1/5 his. Not many people walk away from that much of an investment.

Remember, if there is no top of the heap, then the bottom has nothing to aspire to.
Below are some topics to search for if you want to learn more about the housing bubble and crisis.

collateralized mortgage obligation (CMO)
collateralized debt obligation (CDO)
collateralized fund obligation (CFO)
Mortgage Backed Security (MBS)

Cheers,

-Robert-

Reaching Across the Aisle

Nothing is more distressing than to hear McCain babble about his 'reaching across the aisle'. You would think that he never examined the results of his flirting with the Democrats. Certainly, this is not a complete list, but the ones that come to mind.

Immigration Bill: McCain and Democrats would have legalized 12 million illegal aliens if the public had not sounded off to stop it.

McCain Feingold: Deprived citizens of their first amendment rights of expression during a campaign and spawned the 527's that have created so much havoc with the elective process.

Torture Legislation: This despicable piece of legislation gave the world the impression that the United States condoned torture, and only a legislative act would be strong enough to stop those evil Americans. Nothing could have been further from the truth, but the act bolstered enemy propaganda. And by the way, if there was a problem, (and there wasn't) there were other options to take care of it. The act helped to discredit the Bush administration and restrict the ability of this nation to obtain information from prisoners.

In fact, because of McCain's willingness to compromise his political core, Kerry actually considered him as a running mate in 2004.

Now that he is the nominee of the Republican Party, McCain still thinks 'reaching across the aisle' is a winning tactic. Absolutely remarkable!

Every time he has reached across the aisle, we lost. The problem was his naiveté in thinking that the Democrats had an interest in solving the problems. The Democrats only motive was the recapture of their power. The Democrats would only agree to anything if it discredited the Republicans or benefited the Democrats.

Don't expect improvements in any proposal unless both parties are honorable and have a sincere desire to solve a problem. But if either party has an agenda other than the resolution of a problem, then compromise is useless. I just wish McCain would learn that.

These Democrats would yank McCain's head off and spit down his neck if they could. What in the world does he think is useful by trying to get their cooperation? Cooperation with the radical leftist Democrats of today means capitulation. Unless the outcome of compromise means an opportunity to embarrass the Republicans or bolster their interests, they will have none of it.

In conclusion, I say to John McCain, win the election first. Win it convincing enough and you might get a congress that will be supportive. But let me assure you, you will never win with the continuous babble about 'reaching across the aisle'. Shame the Democrats into replacing the radicals they have in Congress. If that effort is successful, then you might have a chance with your ideas of inclusion. But under no circumstances is that a winning tactic in today's political climate.

Cheers,

-Robert-