Two Scoops Of My Mind

Dogs are worse than SUVs for the environment. Where are we headed?

2009-12-22T10:30:00.000-08:00

So I opened up Yahoo news to an article titled: Polluting pets: the devastating impact of man's best friend. Interesting that people first explained away global warming as a result of vehicles. Skip ahead a few studies, and it was because of cows, so naturally, we should cut our consumption of beef, and do away with cows. Now it's dogs?!?

I am starting to realize that although it may not have started as such, this type of study in conjunction with summits like the one this last week in Copenhagen, are leading up to a stunning result. The grand finale will be a startling revelation: Humans are bad for the environment!

In response to this, governments will start talking about how we can make the environment happy. End result will be that governments will enact "population control" legislation.

Do I really think this will happen? I give it a very slim chance. Do I think certain people want this to happen? Absolutely! People who are currently in high positions have wanted this for a long time. An example is John Holdren (right), the "Science Czar" for President Obama. This guy co-authored the book "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment", in this book the three authors wrote "To provide a high quality of life for all, there must be fewer people." In the book they mention ways to achieve this quality. Those include: forced abortions, "compulsory sterilization", and the creation of a "planetary regime". Sounds like a high quality of life John. The sterilization bit would include spiking water and food with chemicals designed to make people sterile, or implanting sterilizing capsules in people when they reach puberty. Sounds amazing John. Where do we sign up John? You are an idiot John!

I would think that somebody who advocates for those types of ideas would be shoved off to the side, much like the so-called "Christians" who hold up signs that say "God hates [gays]" (gays is a toned down word from what they use). Every time I see people on the news with those signs I cringe, because that is not an accurate representation of Christianity. Yet, somehow, people don't shy away from John Holdren's views. Holdren spent the last thirteen years at Harvard teaching in the Kennedy school of government (hopefully named after Ted Kennedy, not John). Holdren is in the White House!! The religion of liberalism is insane, but I will give them credit for worshiping their god (mother earth) openly and unashamed, even to the point where they suggest human sacrifice, just for the sake of the quality of life of the rest of us of course...

Hillary Clinton imitating Steve Martin.

2009-11-10T19:01:00.000-08:00

Hillary Clinton did a surprising Steve Martin impression when she introduced a video message from Barrack Obama in Berlin for the 20th anniversary of the fall of the wall. As she was introducing Barry, she said "I am deeply honored to introduce now a message from someone who represents the fall of different kinds of walls. Walls of discrimination...." and she goes on and on with all the walls that have fallen.
As she talks about all of the walls that he is responsible for knocking down, I can't help but think of the speech given by Lucky Day (Steve Martin) in the in-famous movie "The Three Amigos"...
here it is:

Where Are They Now?

2009-10-28T22:00:00.000-07:00

Just when I thought that they might be an honest (although misguided) movement, I find out they were a bunch of fakes.

This was not a quick discovery.

I have been patiently waiting for the waves of anti-war people to protest the wars that are still going. B.H. Obama has more soldiers deployed now than G.W. (pronounced Gee-Dub) ever did. One would think that this would be a motive for anti-war protesters to grab their signs, and head out to their closest friendly, peaceful gathering.

So where are they?!? Where are you A.N.S.W.E.R.? Where are you Code Pink? Where are you UFPJ? Where are you moveon.org?

I think the answer is clear. The anti-war crazies (not to be confused with people who oppose the war(s) in a rational matter) irritated me to begin with, but for some reason, even though the war has not changed, they have changed their tune. Their disingenuous-ness irritates me above all.

Maybe they are just confused easily. After all, there is no longer a "global war on terrorism," now it is a "overseas contingency operation." So there you have it, the war is over simply by changing the words. Right? Guantanamo Bay is closed too just because the President said, right?

Brilliant. I guess that's where a "dime bag" a day for thirty years will get you.

Peace.

Where Are His Priorities?

2009-10-28T18:00:00.000-07:00

Our President has been rushing to all kinds of new legislation. He rushed to the largest spending bill in our country's history (aka American Recovery and Reinvestment Act), he is now doing everything he can to rush toward a Washington D.C. health care takeover. One of the things that he loves to say is that the bills are not perfect, but the cost of taking no action is much greater.

Why does he not have the same attitude toward Afghanistan?? It has been two months since the request by the General that President Obama appointed, and still no action. He requested an additional number of troops, and we are sitting on it and considering the ramifications to his voter base, should he deploy more troops. He tries hard to disguise his delay as deliberation over strategy. Perhaps if we had a President with military experience, he would not be so indecisive. Maybe he should simply defer to the Generals who have a lifetime of experience. We already know what they have requested. No, instead he is going to focus his agenda, and full political might on a health care bill that is so urgent, and can't wait, yet does not take effect until 2013!

Mr. President, let's not leave our troops flapping out there. They are risking their lives daily, and need more help. You have the responsibility as Commander in Chief to make the decision. I understand you are scared, and inexperienced, and don't particularly care for the military, but it's your job to do what is right by them, and to win what you called "a war of necessity." Do it already!

COEXIST. Also my favorite bumper sticker.

2009-10-21T18:25:00.000-07:00

Alright. So I know I just put up my 12 favorite bumper stickers, but as my good friend Chris pointed out, I left out this gem. Coexist is a bumper sticker that I have talked back to more than probably any other one...except maybe "9/11 was an inside job", but I can't even take that one as a serious belief.

Now back to COEXIST. Here is my main beef with this sticker: the "oexist" are largely non-violent. As we look at the violence in the world today, just about all of it comes from the "C" (aka Islam)... I don't know who came up with it's nickname, but the so-called "religion of peace" was founded on forced conversions, and blood. Mohammad was not peaceful, so why should his followers be? The people who have these bumper stickers are "coincidentally" also the people who respond to Islamic violence by saying "what have we done to make them so angry?"

This bumper sticker is like a parent who watches one child repeatedly punch another child in the face, and then asks both of them: "can't you get along?" Are you serious?

As I was doing my research into the variations of this bumper sticker, I ran into this one. It is a kind of humorous view of what I have been writing.

I also ran into this one. I was apprehensive about putting it on here, but figured I would. I think it's important to call out my own side when they do things like this. In my mind this one below is a failed attempt at humor. The attempt for humor is that communists and nazis are well known for killing dissenters. It is a failed attempt because although I consider communism a conclusion of atheistic (religious) thought, I hate responding to idiocy with nazi or communist symbols. It's overused. The symbols kind of make me sick to look at. Knowing that the two symbols represent so many dead. If I low ball the numbers, between just Mao Tse Tung and Joey Stalin they killed 70 million people. When I think Nazi, I think Hitler, without Hitler there would have not been a WWII, so I attribute all WWII deaths to Adolf Hitler: somewhere between 60-75 million people. So for the reason that we are talking about the deaths of 130 million people at a minimum, you will excuse me if I don't find this sticker very funny.

Twelve of my favorite bumper stickers.

2009-10-20T22:51:00.000-07:00

I once heard that bumper stickers are terrible "because they are a one way conversation"... I was driving up to Sacramento on Sunday and spent probably ten miles behind a vehicle which repeated the same sentence to me over and over again. I have heard this conversation before, but it really bothered me more and more the more I read it. Here it is:

The first issue is: who will fight our wars? Oh, thats right, the whole world would live in peace... The second issue is: what can you possibly say to have "free" college make sense. How does it make sense for those who don't go to college to flip the bill for those who do?
The third issue is: do soldiers get a say in it? they enlist voluntarily. they know they are signing up for potentially going to war, they aren't tricked into thinking it's freshman orientation at community college. Don't insult the soldiers.
In honor of that bumper sticker, I have dug up a few more that I really dislike. We'll start with the anti-war:

All of those bumper stickers show a brilliant thought process.

Now some other bumper stickers that are pretty ridiculous:

- more soldiers deployed now than at any time under George W. Bush...as for cutting veterans' benefits, that was President Obama's first proposed cut. So...

- great! i often find myself wondering: "what would an actor do?" (WWAAD)
- seriously, why don't they just replace the "Give Hope a Chance" with "Kumbaya - Obama '08"
- borrow + spend = both parties!!

- hello, you are insensitive and enjoy making people mad.

- why is your boyfriend their choice? your parent or sibling? they should just take their noses out of your family's business and let you kill who you want.
- this may be my absolute favorite. i don't think Jesus preached big government on earth.... I could be wrong, i havent read the gospel of Thomas yet...

Incredible DNC Statement!

2009-10-20T17:37:00.000-07:00

I am so sorry I didn't bring this to my blog earlier! I don't frequent POLITICO's site, but this is a gem! This is a statement released on October 9th made by the DNC's communications director. First I'll give you the statement, then a couple quick observations:

"The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists - the Taliban and Hamas this morning - in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize," DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse told POLITICO. "Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize - an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride - unless of course you are the Republican Party.

"The 2009 version of the Republican Party has no boundaries, has no shame and has proved that they will put politics above patriotism at every turn. It's no wonder only 20 percent of Americans admit to being Republicans anymore - it's an embarrassing label to claim," Woodhouse said.

Observations:

1. This may be the first time a Democratic official has admitted that the Taliban and Hamas are terrorists, usually they are only extremists. Great breakthrough!

2. Those of us who find this award unmerited have never blamed the President for receiving it. Rather the committee for granting it, oh and whoever submitted his name for consideration.

3. Democrats disagreed with the wars, so did the terrorists. Democrats criticize our soldiers more than the terrorists' ideology, so do terrorists. Democrats wanted Barrack Obama to win in the presidential election....wait for it....and so did terrorists.

4. Terrorists would have liked the Olympics to be in Chicago. That would have provided a huge target for them, and one which would have been extremely hard to defend entirely.

5. Although only 20% of people identify themselves as Republicans, it turns out Republicans are polling ahead in just about every senate seat race for 2010. Something doesn't add up.

6. He says this is an award for which "every American can take great pride"...maybe i was raised wrong, but I thought I was supposed to take pride in things like "hard work" and "accomplishments", not winning awards that frankly were not earned.

Another White House Communist?

2009-10-16T20:06:00.000-07:00

Glenn Beck played this video on his show yesterday. Really a very interesting video. The White House Communication Director, Anita Dunn, refers to her two favorite political philosophers: Mother Theresa, and Mao Tse Tung. She is speaking to a group of high schoolers. Nice, love me some Mao. Love me some libs.

Term Limits.

2009-10-16T19:43:00.000-07:00

One of the main sources of corruption in the legislative branch of the government is the pressure to not tick off certain entities so that you can be reelected. To that end, a congressperson has to sell out to his/her party, so that they contribute to his or her reelection campaign. The congressperson has to sell out to special interests, unions, the media, lawyers, and anybody else that will help them get reelected. There are 11 senators, and 26 representatives that have been there since before I was born. Senator Byrd has been there for fifty years!
We have term limits for the President. Why not have it for the legislative branch? A senator should be allowed to serve for one term, or six years. A representative should be allowed to serve for three terms, or six years.
I am convinced that the longer a Congressperson spends in D.C., the further they are from the realities of their states, or districts.

Labor Unions: The Real Enemies of the Worker.

2009-10-15T21:20:00.000-07:00

At one point in history large corporations looked out for their bottom lines even at the cost of the safety of the workers. Some workers were barely paid, and lived in real poverty. That is overwhelmingly not the case today. Workplace safety is now governed at a Federal, State, and sometimes local level. Wage levels are also governed at the Federal and State levels.

So what do the unions do now? Attempt to effect the law making process, as well as wage war on corporations for ever increasing wages and benefit packages? That's a part of it.

Meanwhile, with unions growing into conglomerates of unions they carry more and more clout. The AFL-CIO being the largest conglomerate of unions to the best of my knowledge. According to their website they represent 11.5 million workers. President Obama gave speeches to that group during his election. Although I am not sure that they donated money to his campaign, I do know that the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) has. Millions in fact. The SEIU represents roughly 1.8 million workers. It has organized events, and donated to various political candidates in the democratic party.

Where does the money come from? Union member dues.

Does every employee in the union lean the same way politically? No.

Is it an option when being hired by certain corporations to NOT be part of the union? No.

So we see in effect here forced donations that are used to fund a candidate or view that the individual may completely disagree with!

My wife was part of the SEIU when she was a CNA for a nursing home. When she was employed there, one of the forms she had to fill out was for the union. She then had to pay dues to a union that did not represent her. Almost seems like extortion in order to keep a job.

So unions started out lobbying for employee rights, now they force the worker to contribute to causes against their will.

Unions have become what they hated, and are now worse than large corporations.

Hitler, our President, and the Media.

2009-10-15T19:54:00.000-07:00

So I will start out by saying that I dislike any comparison of any American politician to Adolf Hitler. I disagreed with it when it was President Bush, and I certainly disagree with it just as much now that it is President Obama.
Yet there is something that disturbs me even more than the people out in right field (or left field) with their phony toothbrush mustaches scribbled in on Bush, Obama, Pelosi, or anybody else! The thing that bothers me more than the crazies is the media. The media who covered the protesters who likened President Bush to Hitler, and thought nothing of it. Now they are outraged that some fringe people show up at protests likening the media's hero, President Obama, to Adolf Hitler.
Below is a very clever video with audio from MSNBC talking about how irrational the opposition to President Obama is, meanwhile the pictures are how liberals protested President Bush.
What is amazing to me, is that even as the MSNBC commentator says that it is ironic that they draw parallels between President Obama and Hitler, he goes on to compare protesters to Nazi "brown shirts".... they really don't get it do they??

The Real Inconvenient Truth.

2009-10-15T18:51:00.001-07:00

Last night I wrote about the Nobel Peace Prize, and mentioned that Al Gore won the "prize" for the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth". On the movie poster (picture on the right) under the title it says "a global warning", which is a play on words of course on the main theme of the film, "global warming". Since the release of the movie however, the planet has been cooling. So now the term is "climate change." So the whole documentary was based on something completely false, yet the term is changed and all of the sudden it's real again? You can't argue with any of their theories, because according to them "the debate has been settled." If only that worked with my wife. Genius.

Amazing Award.

2009-10-14T19:00:00.000-07:00

I have been up in Washington this last week, so I have not had the chance to blog about this yet, or better put, I have had the chance, but elected to spend the time with some great friends.

So here it goes, the number one thing that I wanted to write about from last week:

You guessed it. The Nobel Peace Prize. The man who won it, and why he won it.

As I am sure the whole planet has heard by now our very own President won the extremely "prestigious" Nobel Peace Prize. I put the word prestigious in quotation marks because of the history of this award.
Yassir Arafat, the defunct leader of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) won this prize! Jimmy Carter won the prize in 2002 for his successful negotiations which led the middle east to an unprecedented era of peace that lasts to this day...right. Al Gore received the prize for his flawless documentary film "An Inconvenient Truth." Through this educational film he began to seek peace between us evil humans and mother earth. Although, as it turns out, there were nine major points in the film that have been proven false since the release of the film.

Meanwhile, people like Gandhi, or Pope John Paul II who, although I may disagree with religiously, are largely credited with a huge contribution and dedication to peace go "un-prized"... seems to me this award is about making statements, not about peace.

President Obama was nominated, and judged by the committee on his life from birth through his first 11 days of Presidency. At the risk of drawing the ire of a certain segment of the population, I will explain, so that there is no doubt how he won this highest peace award. First I think it's important that we remember how he won the general election. He won it through his amazingly elegant oratory skills. He did not win it with any time tested record, he had none. He did not win it through having great ideas, he had no new ideas. He convinced moderates that he was above politics, that he was going to unite us all.
This is the same way he won the Nobel Peace Prize, through talking. When he ran for President and shortly thereafter he was celebrated as the man who would unite the country, and now, apparently the planet. If Al Gore's "prize" didn't solidify it, President Obama's "prize" certainly proves that this award is not given based on anything specific. It may not have always been this way, but lately, this "award" is given based on similarities in ideology. After all, he is liberal, they are Swedish. It's a perfect match.

This does more to discredit the Nobel Peace Prize as a legitimate award, and less to credit the President with any actual achievement.

The Polanski Controversy

2009-10-02T22:12:00.000-07:00

A long list of celebrities have volunteered their invaluable opinion about [the child rapist] Roman Polanski.
They are demonstrating two things:

1. Their loyalty to a fellow "artist" is incredible: They will defend one of their own no matter what the issue. After all, he won an Oscar. He is a good guy.

2. They seem to have had their moral filter surgically removed.

There are consequences for actions, and yes that includes drugging a 13 year old girl and raping her!! The fact that it was a long time ago does not change anything! How do you justify it?? I am outraged at these people who want to justify his actions, saying things like "it was statutory rape, it wasn't rape rape." WHAT?!? You are idiots.

Would their position be different had this guy not won an Oscar?

Chicago Derailment: How the Olympic Dream came off the tracks.

2009-10-02T20:19:00.000-07:00

As we all know, the First Couple went to Copenhagen to try to convince the International Olympic Committee (IOC) accompanied by Oprah Winfrey...clearly a dream team of persuasive experts.

Some people (Rush Limbaugh) have called this a failure on the part of President Obama. Roland Burris has even blamed former President G.W. Bush! (yes, he is the guy who was appointed to a seat that allegedly was for sale...)

Everybody is overlooking the most likely culpable party. I will give you the story of how it actually happened. (well, I have no proof, but if I was on the IOC this would have happened)

So here is how the decision making process happened at the IOC:

IOC chairman: "So let's see, we are looking at candidates for the 2016 Summer Olympics" (flipping through papers) "It says here the cities we are considering are Tokyo, Madrid, Rio de (long pensive pause)... we'll just call it Rio, and Chicago."

IOC member 1: "Chicago? Oh, I love Chicago! The Sears Tower, Millennium Park, and the pizza! Oh, the Pizza!"

IOC member 2: "Chicago sounds like fun. I do not want to have the games in Tokyo, we just had Beijing. We need to move to another Continent"

IOC chairman: "I agree, Tokyo is out. We need to narrow it down to two cities in this round, so what other city is out?"

IOC member 3: "I like Madrid, it is a beautiful city with more history than the rest. The King and Prime Minister are here campaigning for it as well."

IOC chairman: "So Madrid is in, now we need to pick between Rio and Chicago."

IOC member 1: "I love Chicago! Did I already say that?"

IOC member 2: "Rio is one of the murder capitals of the world!"

IOC chairman: "So that is a pretty serious strike against Rio. Who came to represent Chicago?"

IOC member 2: "President Obama with his wife Michelle, and Oprah Winfrey."

IOC member 3: "Oprah? She is from Chicago?"

IOC member 1: "Yes"

IOC chairman: "So if the games were in Chicago, she would be there?"

IOC member 1: "Yes"

All in unison: "Chicago is out!!!"

So there you have it. That is the story of how Chicago was eliminated from contention for the 2016 games. You will not hear this elsewhere, but it is quite possibly the way it went down.

Political Disagreements

2009-10-01T22:14:00.000-07:00

So I regularly correspond with my congressman (Rep. Baird) regarding a wide range of issues. Representative Baird is a Democrat, and in my opinion a fairly liberal one. I have written him regarding my concerns with HR 3200, and he has answered my concerns with a respectful disagreement. I understand his reasoning, although I think he is wrong, and respect his position as being the legitimately elected representative of my district.

I know I have at least one reader out there who thinks that I am a Republican, so let me say this: I am a conservative Independent. I have not read any Republican plan, nor have I read the new Democrat plan, because these plans don't have a very good chance of passing.

Now, back to what I was writing about: Alan Grayson (a representative from Florida), as you have undoubtedly heard, said that "...the Republican plan is this: if you get sick, die quickly." Clearly this is a move caused by a man who has been so frustrated by not getting his way that he is now characterizing his opponents as wanting people to die. He has characterized this as the American Holocaust! Let me just say that by calling this issue a holocaust he is showing how crazed he is about it. Grayson is not only accusing House Republicans, but he is accusing everyone in the country who does not agree with the current Democrat plan as wanting people to die quickly. According to what I gathered from my C-SPAN watching includes a "public option" (aka "free health care") as well as prohibiting the health care providers from requiring a photo I.D. I will follow up with that with it's own separate blog.

I attended a rally on September 12th, in which I was actually disappointed at the lack of tact of my conservative "co-ralliers." One sign in particular bothered me. It said "Obama's plan for seniors: Arsenic." This is blatantly stupid. The last bill would have required counseling every five years, how is that equivalent to arsenic? Ridiculous. In the same way this man does a dis-service to all of those that agree with his view point.

The huge difference is that the person at the rally was just some random person with no political background or knowledge. Grayson is a United States Congressman! He should comport himself accordingly.

I was waiting on Nancy Pelosi's response before writing this blog, because I was hoping that she would demand an apology from him. Especially after her teary-eyed moment the other day talking about how frightened she is with all the "rhetoric" that is going around. The "rhetoric" she was referring to was apparently only conservatives who oppose her view. This was clarified when she was not satisfied with Representative Joe Wilson simply apologizing to the President (which the President had already accepted). She demanded that he apologize to the House as well. Now she sees no need for an apology for accusing just under half of the country of wanting sick people to die quickly? Lying vs. Dying: only the former requires an apology? Oh, that's right. The first one was directed toward a member of her party. Got it. Politics as usual. Should expect nothing else out of you Nancy.

As for Grayson, I sure hope Florida decides that he is not cut out for a career "serving" in politics.

"The Age of Stupid"

2009-09-25T11:42:00.000-07:00

Very interesting video. Summary: "The Age of Stupid" is an environmentalist documentary which claims that flying in airplanes is the second worst man made cause of global warming (the first being "setting fire to a forest").
Interesting though, that these people who believe that flying is so terrible may have all flown to New York City for the premiere of the documentary. How much of this do they really believe??

This video was brought to my attention thanks to the David Boze Blog.

The Role of Government...at least in Massachusetts.

2009-09-24T12:10:00.000-07:00

Today I was stunned as I opened my Internet Explorer, which took me to my homepage. My homepage is Yahoo. The front page article is: Mass. gov tells state workers to shut out Hyatt.
I read the article in disbelief. A state governor is trying to retaliate against a private company for laying off workers during an economic crisis. This is NOT the role of government! Hyatt laid off 100 housekeepers from Massachusetts, and hired a contracting company from Georgia, who is providing 100 housekeepers. The main reason for this move? Hyatt is trying to run a business! The article says that the housekeepers from Georgia are getting payed less, but let's think about this: They laid off those housekeepers, paid them severance, are paying for counseling, retraining, and health coverage until the end of the year. After all of that, the new housekeepers are still cheaper!! Were the original housekeepers offered to keep their jobs by taking a pay cut? Undoubtedly. If they were offered pay cuts, did they turn them down? That is why they are unemployed!
No employer ever takes pleasure in laying people off, but during economic downturns, it is sometimes necessary. If you don't believe me, ask the Governor of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick. So wait? He is mad that somebody laid people off to save money, when his state government has done the same thing? Interesting.
But the main point, and I will be brief here: Government has no business trying to inflict economic damage on a private business, because they are trying to keep themselves profitable! What law gives the governor the right to use his position, as the state's head executive to do this?
Oh well, I shouldn't judge him so harshly. After all, what would the state of Massachusetts know about a budget?

Lawyer speak at it's finest...

2009-09-21T22:14:00.001-07:00

I ran into this video on David Boze's blog. It is a great video which exposes the art of "subtle distinctions" that the President thrives on in order to look us in the eye and willfully deceive the nation. I believe that is how he phrased his accusation of the previous President in regards to the war in Iraq. So nobody can accuse me of calling the President a liar, because if there is one thing he is not, it's a liar! Joe Wilson was wrong. Well, let me say that Rep. Wilson was wrong to yell it out like he did. The reality is that the President is not looking to insure illegal aliens (aka undocumented workers) rather he wants to give them amnesty and citizenship! huge difference. it's worse!
The video is below, but I am not sure if it works, so here is the link.

Unpatriotic America

2009-09-18T20:27:00.000-07:00

Nancy Pelosi:

Is your point of view the only patriotic one? When you were the minority, it was patriotic to dissent, now that you are the majority, the people who are dissenting are unpatriotic/un-American. This is ridiculous. You are ridiculous.

Here is a good article about this in the Washington Examiner.

Racist America

2009-09-18T19:45:00.000-07:00

I am still bothered today that a former President of the United States would say that the overwhelming amount of opposition to President Obama is race based. The latest Rasmussen poll indicates that 40% of Americans "strongly disapprove." Now, if we take just that percentage, and start asking what is an "overwhelming amount"? Sixty percent? Seventy-five percent?

Using my impeccable math skills, I have determined that 62.5% (which is probably at the low side of being an "overwhelming amount") of that 40% of the country who strongly disapprove of the President is 25% of the general population! At a very minimum, Carter is saying that one quarter of the American population is racist! A quarter of the same country who elected the same African American man just a year ago is racist?!? This is insanity. How can Jimmy not see that those people are upset over a deficit of 1.87 trillion dollars and counting in his first year in office!

When Bill Clinton attempted to pull the entire health care sector under the umbrella of government, he was strongly opposed and eventually abandoned his attempt. Was that racism?

I am sick of the racism card being played like a "get out of jail free" card in monopoly. Barack Obama, just as G.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and every other president, will be evaluated based on his job performance, and when I do not agree, I have the right to voice that and not be called a racist.

The red line below is the percentage of people who disapprove of the President's job performance. I guess this is really an index of American racism. Isn't that right Jimmy?

My latest question about healthcare

2009-09-16T20:43:00.001-07:00

While I was writing my congressman last week about health care, I came up with a question that I cannot really find an answer to. Here it is: How does government plan to insure more people, creating more regulations, and not add to the deficit?

The problem is that the new bill introduced makes health care more complex, adding to bureaucracy, so there will be even more administrative costs. Call me crazy, but I also don't think the President was completely honest about being open to malpractice litigation reform at a national level either. Factcheck.org didn't think he was honest about that either.

So what can we do to provide healthcare to the uninsured, without raising the deficit? (as the President said in his speech to Joe Wilson and company)

You can't have your cake and eat it too...or can you? I guess they could always just fire up the ol' printing press at the treasury department, that always seems to work!

Carter is wrong, Gibbs is right.

2009-09-16T19:48:00.000-07:00

Jimmy Carter (that's right, I didn't address him by his title, because he disgraces that title by comments like he made today) said "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barrack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he is African American."
So wait, if I disagree with President Obama's policy there is an overwhelming probability that I am a racist?!? The last blog I wrote included pointing out the ACLU, and their John Adams Project. I talked about Nina Ginsberg, a white woman. Why do I do that Jimmy?? There must be a good possibility that I am a sexist. In this blog I am disagreeing with Jimmy. What does that make me?? Is that race based? Gender based? I guess the real answer is that I hate humanity, and myself...right, that must be it.
Press Secretary Robert Gibbs (who I also have a lot animosity toward, in fact he is probably the most incompetent person in President Obama's administration) actually got it right. According to Reuters: "Gibbs said the uproar among Obama's opponents was more likely a reaction to some of the decisions Obama had made to help the U.S. economy, such as bank and auto bailouts."
Gibbs got it right. Carter got it wrong. Very wrong.

ACLU again stands up for the country with "The John Adams Project."

2009-09-16T15:16:00.000-07:00

So you may or may not have heard, but the ACLU has a new project going on called the "John Adams Project."

I am outraged that the ACLU has stooped to this level, then again, I shouldn't be, after all, they are the ACLU.

According to the ACLU website, the John Adams Project seeks justice in military commission proceedings.

What justice do they seek? They seek justice in three ways:

The first part of their justice is representing the detainees, who are facing prosecution at Guantanamo Bay. Why does the ACLU spend their money and resources defending foreigners? After all, they are the American Civil Liberties Union, right?

The second part is ending Military Commissions. Congress authorized the President in 2006 to continue his plan of military commission proceedings. Yet the ACLU seeks to prove that the proceedings are in fact illegal, and that the detainees deserve the rights of an American citizen, including a civilian trial within the United States. I am not in 100% agreement with how things are run, but I can't think of a better way, and apparently neither can the ACLU.

The third is absolutely the most heinous part. John Adams Project investigators are attempting to identify who the CIA "torturers" are by showing names and pictures of CIA agents to Al-Qaeda members. Wow. I don't know in which world this seems justified. It seems to me that the ACLU perceives injustice, and says: "Fine, if the US legal system won't punish these agents, we will!" (just to reiterate for accuracy of this blog, that is my opinion of what the ACLU is thinking, not what they actually say.)

When Nina Ginsberg, one of the leading attorneys at the John Adams Project, was confronted with the accusation that they are putting CIA agents' lives in danger, her response was: "CIA agents put a lot of people in danger, they put this country in danger, they put American soldiers overseas in danger." Wow. No denial. No hesitance. This woman has suffered in her life. She obviously has never heard her mom or kindergarten teacher ever say "two wrongs don't make a right." If you feel like they are at fault, pursue them legally, not with dirty tactics. This is equivalent to me visiting the mob with a scrap book of police/FBI informants, showing them the pictures and asking "could this be the guy that is informing on you?"

Never knew that the ACLU cared about soldiers. The only time they get involved with defending soldiers is when their interests run against those of the military. (such as deserters and spies)

All this is, according to Ms. Ginsberg is done "because the government won't turn over that information people in this country have the right to defend themselves." What does that even mean?? How will finding out who the agents are defend us?

The CIA, as a whole, has protected this country, sometimes even at the cost of their own lives. I am grateful that we have the CIA, sure there are faults, and there are bad apples, just like everywhere, but to try to endanger the lives of people who are dedicated to protecting us is infuriating.

Van Jones - The post-resignation scoop.

2009-09-06T17:07:00.000-07:00

Green Jobs Advisor to President Obama resigned early Sunday morning (about 12:30 AM). Curious timing to get the least press possible. Middle of the night during a federal holiday weekend.

Jones said: "On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me," Jones said in his resignation statement. "They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide." (AP quote)

The (unbiased as usual) Associated Press story says that Jones "was linked to efforts suggesting a government role in the Sept. 11 attacks and to derogatory comments about Republicans."

So here is my question: Can you be the leader of your own smear campaign?

Every quote I have heard from Van Jones is a self-incriminating glimpse into his mind, and points toward radicalism.

Van Jones' history does all the smearing necessary. He burst onto the "activist" scene after being arrested for his role in the violent riots protesting the Rodney King verdict(red flag 1). He was outraged by racial inequality in that case and elsewhere. After the riots, Jones returned to Yale Law School to finish his degree. Tough life. Upon graduation he started working with the San Francisco group STORM (Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement) which is a Marxist group.(red flag 2, no pun intended)

He later founded a group of lawyers called PoliceWatch, dedicated to prosecuting police officers for cases of alleged abuse. (red flag 3) He also has been an active lobbyist for the freeing of "a brother" convicted of murdering a police officer, and who is on death row. (red flag 4)

In 2004, he was heavily involved in anti-war protests as well as a group known as the "truthers" who believe that the U.S. Government knew about the terrorist attacks before they happened, and allowed them to happen. He says that he does not agree with that view, yet signed his name on the petition, as "Van Jones, Executive Director, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights."
Here is my question about that: Do you sign your name and title before reading something? Sure, people might sometimes scribble their name down. But he didn't just scribble his name, he was proud to sign, he put his position, and organization.

And then there are the quotes...

"The white polluters and the white environmentalists are essentially steering poison into the people of colored communities. " (red flag 4)
"...it's just very, very hard for white people to hear the pain of the subjugated people in this country." (may I remind you this is a Yale Law School graduate speaking) (red flag 5)
"I'm willing to forgo the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of radical ends." (self-described radical: RED FLAG 6)
"...you have never seen a Columbine done by a black child. Never. They always say 'we can't believe it happened here, we can't believe it's these suburban white kids'. It's only them!" (red flag 7)
Answering a question about Republicans: "The answer to that is that they are..." and continues on with an insult that I was taught by my parents better than to use. This answer came in February '09! It's not like this was way back in his past. It shows a lack of maturity, and quite frankly professionalism to use that language. In his defense, he was in Berkley, and "When in Berkley..." (this is not a red flag, it's just a lack of good judgement.)

With his hole life (or smear campaign) as evidence against him being in the mainstream American spectrum, he resigned.

But here is the more important question: Why did they ever hire this guy?? How many red flags did they know about? (answer: all of them) and how many red flags are too many?!?

Email from Congressman Baird: Join Me on Monday for a Town Hall Meeting in Olympia

2009-08-29T09:51:00.000-07:00

Ladies and Gentlemen of Olympia:
I just got the following email from Congressman Baird's office. I think it went out to everybody who has contacted his office, so some of you may have already received it. He will be in town on Monday, with a town hall meeting that will be open to the public. If you are in Olympia on Monday morning, and not working, please attend, and voice your opinion to your elected representative. I would have loved to have gone. I actually briefly entertained the idea of driving up to go. Fifteen hundred miles is just too far... anyway, here is the email:

Town Hall Meeting in Olympia

August 29, 2009
Dear Friends,
Since my first days in Congress, I’ve made listening to you and your concerns my top priority. One of the best ways to do that is with town hall meetings.We’re facing some tough times, and it’s important for me to know what’s on your mind. Town hall meetings are a great way to share your thoughts on issues and legislation, or to hear how government can serve you better.
Please join me this Monday at the Washington Center for the Performing Arts in Olympia for my latest town hall meeting.
Here are all the details:

What:
Town Hall Meeting

When:
Monday, August 31, 2009

Where:
Washington Center for the Performing Arts512 Washington St SE
Olympia, WA 98501
Google Map Link

Time:
7:00 - 9:00pm

It's truly an honor to represent and serve you. If you ever need anything, or just want to let me know about an issue that concerns you, please feel free to contact my office.

Sincerely,
Congressman Brian Baird
Representing Washington's 3rd District

Do Our Elected Representatives Respect The People?

2009-08-19T23:58:00.000-07:00

In one word: No.
This didn't start in 2008 with the election of Barry Obama. This has been an ongoing issue. A democrat issue. A republican issue.
The latest demonstration of that was Rep. Sheila Jackson (D-TX)
In a town hall meeting she had recently, a woman was asking a question. After you heard somebody in the audience say: "she is not even listening" the camera pans back to Ms. Jackson. Sure enough, she was talking on her cell phone. Simply astonishing. According to interviews with people who were in attendance, this happened three times during the meeting. That makes me a little mad.
In another town hall meeting hosted by Rep. Sheila Jackson (D-TX) a doctor stood up, identified herself as a General Practitioner, and tossed the representative a softball about preventative medicine. As it turns out, the General Practitioner was not a doctor at all, she was a planted question/supporter of HR 3200. The Houston Chronicle buried that fact in the depths of their seldom read paper. What they didn't report is that this woman was actually an organizer in Houston for the Obama '08 campaign, and sent to the DNC as a delegate from Texas. Interesting. Does Sheila respect her constituents? Clearly not. She also assumes the public is too stupid to figure things out.

Possibly one of my favorite political quotes: "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson

Controversial.

2009-08-19T23:42:00.001-07:00

As I prepared my research for my previous blog, I did a yahoo search on Rick Warren. In nearly every search result, the name Rick Warren was preceded by the word "controversial."
He is controversial for his opposition of gay marriage. If he were in favor of gay marriage as a Chritian Pastor, would he be called controversial by reporters? Probably not. Had Prop 8 not passed in California, would that have been controversial? Certainly not. It is only controversial when it goes against the wishes of the reporter. Incidentally, reporters, overwhelmingly have a certain world view (secular). That world view will make Christianity controversial no matter what.
Just an observation.

Where are you James Dobson, Franklin Graham, Rick Warren, and Joel Osteen?

2009-08-19T20:45:00.000-07:00

Ed Schultz recently called out Dobson, Graham, Warren, and Osteen from his MSNBC show for their lack of support of Barrack Obama's health care bill. Ed says that Christians should be all in favor of it alluding that Jesus is in favor of socialized medicine (which is the same thing as "universal health care," or "single payer option.")
One of his points is that Jesus healed the sick, and that we should provide for the same. I completely agree with that. The problem with that argument is this: Jesus healed people, He did not give them money to go elsewhere for medical treatment. So if we are to follow Jesus' example, we should have faith in God's present day ability to physically heal, and we should be willing to pray to God for the person's healing.
The second reason for opposing this bill is a troubling provision, hidden deep in the text (page 424 of 1017) of the bill (HR 3200, Section 1233) that requires "compulsory end of life planning" every five years for those collecting Social Security. Part of that mandatory counseling includes counseling on "end-of-life services" (aka "death with dignity", aka doctor assisted suicide). Last time I checked, suicide does not line up with Christianity very well.
Thirdly, the bill does not explicitly exclude federal funding for abortions. Abortion (aka infanticide) is something that I, as well as Christianity very vocally oppose.
Lastly, no Congressperson has actually read the full bill. Henry Waxman, a co-sponsor of the bill, claims he has not even read the full thing. A Christian leader should be very careful about making public declarations of support for anything, because they have a responsibility to God to shepherd their flock well. If politics is your full time job and you haven't read it, a leader of a large congregation/large ministry most certainly does not have time to read it. Maybe it should be a requirement for Congressmen to read a bill before they vote on it... i guarantee you there would be no more 1,000+ page bills.

Short Question

2009-07-06T13:00:00.001-07:00

Here is a question for all of you:

If President George Washington is the defining President of the 18th Century, and President Abraham Lincoln is the defining President of the 19th Century, who was the defining President of the 20th Century? Why?

Cap and Trade Letter to my Congressman

2009-06-26T07:08:00.000-07:00

So here is the scoop:
Today will be the day that Congress votes on a monumentally insane bill. "Cap and Trade" is a HUGE bill that will increase all of our energy prices, and create out of thin air a multi-billion dollar market. We will undoubtedly need an entire new federal department to manage and regulate the trade of carbon credits (aka trading the right to pollute).
Here is my letter to Congressman Baird. I encourage every one of you to drop a quick note to your Congressperson and tell them that cap and trade is a monumental lunacy. It is the next step in using "global warming" as an excuse for more government control.

Congressman Baird,
I would like to write and respectfully request that you vote no on "cap and trade". It will have two undeniable results.
The first is that it will increase energy prices to ALL consumers. In my mind, legislation that increases my cost of living might as well be a tax increase, and it was my understanding that President Obama among others ran on a platform of helping working class families.
The second effect will be a multi-billion dollar market subject to regulation by the US Government, which also has two consequences: bigger government (to manage the market), and another chance for corruption.I look forward to seeing your "no" vote on "cap and trade", as well as hearing back from you on this, and the other issues that I have e-mailed you about.
Thanks,
Ross Jackson

Do They Have Time For That?

2009-06-03T13:05:00.000-07:00

Members of Congress are demanding that David Stern, the commissioner of the National Basketball Association, defend the rule that young men need to be 19 years old to enter the NBA draft.

Hey Congress! if you suddenlyfind yourself with a ton of extra time on your hands, why don't you start reading the bills that you are passing instead of messing with professional sports. the vast majority of Americans are unaffected by the NBA's minimum age for draft policy. not the same for debt, that concerns us all.

Does This Make Me A Racist?

2009-05-27T20:27:00.000-07:00

I would hope that a wise Caucasian man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina who hasn't lived that life.

If I were to say that, would people call me a racist? I am pretty sure they would.

Well, this is what Judge Sonia Sotomayor (the nominee for the US Supreme Court) said:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

That's part one. Here is part two:

There is a case in the US Supreme Court, which challenges Sotomayor's ruling against a group of firefighters who performed well in their promotion tests. This is an excerpt from the ultra-liberal Huffington Post talking points on Sonia Sotomayor:

"At the center of the case is New Haven's 2003 promotion exams to select firefighters for 15 open captain and lieutenant positions within the fire department. One hundred eighteen candidates took the test, 27 of them black. After the tests were scored, no blacks scored high enough to qualify for consideration for the promotions. In response, the city decided not to promote anyone, citing the Civil Rights Act of 1964. "

I am a strong believer that not only white males are capable of discrimination, after all, that would be a discriminatory belief. I am pretty sure I don't need to say that it was racism to take back the results of the test, after the city was unhappy with it. Would the city have been able to take back the test results if 18 black firefighters performed well enough to be promoted? NO! The NAACP, ACLU, and every media outlet would be down there covering the story as racism. So if there is outrage if it happens to blacks, shouldn't there be outrage if it happens to whites?

Nevertheless, Judge Sotomayor ruled in favor of the city, and racism against white people. So put this together with the quote to open up the blog and there is cause for concern.

I am not whining here, I am just extremely sick of being the only race capable of racism. If we are all equal, which we are, shouldn't we all be held to the same standard?
I also don't want a racist on the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court pick

2009-05-26T10:31:00.000-07:00

So 25 days ago, I commented on an Associated Press story that speculated that President Obama would pick a Hispanic, or a woman or both for the vacant Supreme Court seat. What do you know? Today he announces that Sonia Sotomayor is the candidate. So was she picked based on gender and race? I would say, given that the AP (who is not particularly anti-Obama) didn't predict the candidate, rather the candidate's gender and race, that she was picked based on gender and race. But what do I know?
She will no doubt be approved by the Senate, because the democratic party senators will love her, I am sure she is pretty liberal. The republican party senators will also vote to approve her, because they don't want to be branded as sexist or racist, plus they want to expand their voter base in the Hispanic demographic.

Completely Ridiculous!

2009-05-18T12:36:00.000-07:00

Check this out:

This is a cartoon from the Seattle Post Intelligencer.

I am not sure if this is a slap in the face to waterboarding, or a glorification of islamic terrorists.

In what world is crucifixion the same as waterboarding? One is torture en route to death. The other is playing with somebody's mind, without causing any physical harm.

In what world is Jesus Christ the same as an islamic terrorist? One is (even if you don't believe He is the savior) a man who lived his life in a 100% pacifistic way, teaching morality and love by example. The other is a person who is full of hatred and dedicates his life to killing every person who believes differently than him.

No difference at all! This is completely ridiculous!

Am I way off on this?

Thank You Mr. President! As For The ACLU....

2009-05-13T20:49:00.000-07:00

As those of you who follow the news know: President Obama now says he will not release photos of alleged detainee abuse. The President has said that he wants to block the release of the photos to protect the US reputation as well as keeping from giving terrorists another reason to attack US soldiers.
Thank you President Obama! I appreciate your concern for US soldiers and the country's reputation. IF these photos actually do show detainee abuse, they would definitely serve to unduly accent the rarest of exceptions instead of the overwhelming norm. Take it from a guy that knows a little something about it. So again, from the bottom of my heart and with all honesty, thank you. As a Commander in Chief, this is the decision that you must make, and stick with. Keep it up, please.
I wish I could just leave this blog at that, but I cannot. Unfortunately somebody is fighting to have the photos released. Any guesses? The ACLU. Surprise, surprise. Here is my question to them: What does abuse of foreign detainees have to do with defending American Civil Liberties?? Answer: Nothing!
The ACLU doing everything they can do to undermine the US military is nothing new. In fact the ACLU was an offshoot of an organization called the American Union Against Militarism. The AUAM opposed US involvement in World War I, and encouraged soldiers to claim conscientious objector status. They paid legal representation fees for service members charged with Espionage and Sedition.
So it's no wonder now that the ACLU is demanding the pictures of detainee abuse. The soldiers in the pictures have already been prosecuted, so what good would it do to release the pictures? No matter, the ACLU simply wants to disgrace the US Military.

End of normal blog. Commence the fuming rant against the ACLU:

The ACLU wants to disgrace the US Military again, and again. So if the pictures are released and published, terrorists will recruit a couple suicide bombers who will kill a few American service members. Then the ACLU will protest those soldiers deaths and demand that the US pull its forces out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, South Korea, Japan, Germany, Italy, Spain, Turkey, and anywhere else they might be. Once that happens, the US will be attacked here on our own soil. After we are attacked, the ACLU will protest America's "outspoken support of Christianity" which caused us to be attacked, and will ask that we change our nation so that others don't find us so offensive.
Have I mentioned that I have great respect, and admiration for the ACLU? That's because I don't!

Real Classy.

2009-05-11T19:22:00.000-07:00

I just watched part of Wanda Sykes' speech at the White House correspondents dinner. Can she really be this class-less?

Check it out. It makes me a little angry that they have somebody spewing this kind of stuff from a White House sponsored event, but what should I expect?

Extremely Unbiased Reporting: Newsweek!

2009-05-09T23:54:00.001-07:00

So I am not a Star Wars, or Star Trek fan, but I saw this comparison of characters in Newsweek, and it bothered me just a little bit. Check it out. Am I the only one that realizes that it is tremendously slanted toward the Democratic viewpoint?

I also find it a little disrespectful to not even give George H. W. Bush or George W. Bush names. Instead they refer to them simply as "41" and "43". I don't see a "42" or "44" on the other side. How weird! Then again, this is Newsweek. The publication that ran Senator Obama love stories throughout the entire election season (and I do mean entire)

Next they will be casting politicians as Biblical characters... I know who gets to be Jesus!

Original Newsweek Article

What Am I Missing Here?

2009-05-01T21:47:00.000-07:00

I just read an article put out by the Associated Press titled "Obama's high court choice could be Hispanic, woman".
Quick disclaimer: I do not have any experience with Constitutional Law, let alone teaching it, nor have I had the privilege of attending Columbia University, or Harvard Law School, despite the fact that I am a white man.
In light of that, he is probably right, and I am probably wrong, BUT, isn't it racist to choose somebody for a job based on race instead of qualification. I could be wrong again, BUT, isn't it sexist to choose somebody for a job based on gender?
I have maybe 3/100's of the intellectual capacity of President Obama, President George W. Bush (who nominated Harriet Miers based on gender after similar speculation), or anybody in the Associated Press, but I am pretty sure discrimination should be frowned on regardless of who it benefits. Right? I am sure I am missing some deep, philosophical rationalization.
What am I missing here?

Another Great Idea!

2009-04-27T20:27:00.000-07:00

I just read a news article on Yahoo front page titled: "White House apologizes for Obama plane's NY flyover" Wow! How do you come up with an idea to fly low over New York City unannounced?? By the way, flying over the financial district in which a couple planes crashed into a couple pretty famous buildings and killed thousands of Americans, you might have heard of it, but I am guessing if you are a "New Yorker", that day will forever be in your mind. So seeing planes flying low over your city again? Probably not the best thing.

Here is my best attempt at recreating the conversation that happened in the White House earlier in the day:

President Obama: I had an idea about sending out one of my airplanes to do a photo op (opportunity) with the, uh, the Statue of Liberty. It would be a great way to publicize the Statue of Liberty, and really set that monument as one of the symbols of this nation.

Rahm Emanuel: Mr. President, although I believe that you are the source of all good ideas, I think there is already a picture of Air Force One posing with the Statue of Liberty.

President Obama: Who was the last President to do it?

Rahm Emanuel: I could be wrong, but I think it was Bill Clinton in his first term.

President Obama: So George Bush didn't do it? Good! I think this will symbolize change in Washington.

Rahm Emanuel: So how do you think we should do this?

President Obama: Well, let's send our airplane out for a quick fly-over New York City so that the people can see that the government cares about them.

Rahm Emanuel: Great idea, as always, sir. Should I call the local officials to coordinate with them to let the people of NYC know what's going on?

President Obama: Well, we should tell the government organizations, but the people don't really need to know.

Rahm Emanuel: Great job sir. The little people don't need to worry their little minds with one more thing. After all, Americans are struggling in this, the worst economy since the Great Depression.

Good work gents. Scared the people in New York City to death! They say this is the most transparent government in this Country's history? Sure, I trust you with trillions of dollars... INSANITY!

Solutions for solving our deficit.

2009-04-07T20:30:00.000-07:00

I have been thinking for a while about how we can solve our national deficit, without compromising any priceless social, educational, or entitlement programs. I have come up with a few "progressive" solutions to the deficit, and may suggest them to my representatives.

Here is a list of possible solutions to this problem:

1. Print money: So we have already printed over a TRILLION dollars to help pay for the new stimuli (or stimulus packages). If we print three trillion more, we should break even for the year. Of course there is the issue of devaluation of currency, but what do I know. I only have a high school degree, and am in the military. (which means I am too dumb to do anything else)

2. Get rid of the Department of Defense: I am talking about laying off the ENTIRE military. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, Reservists, DoD civilians and contractors. That will just about cover the deficit and will ensure that we don't get into any more wars with terrorists, oh, sorry, I mean "man-caused disaster makers."

3. Legalize all types of drugs: Marijuana alone will not cut it, especially when the baked dealer "forgets" to do his taxes. Cocaine is where the real money is. So why don't we legalize all drugs, oh, and while we are at it we should legalize assassinations, as long as the hit is carried out by a licensed "assassinator" who pays taxes on his income from assassinating, as well as paying a yearly fee for his license.

4. Release all federal prisoners: Well, officially that only covers one quarter of one percent of the deficit, but if you add in state prison budgets, judge salaries, public defense attorney salaries, federal and state Attorney Generals, deputies and staffs, and that is a significant cut.

5. Tax actors and athletes at 100% above 500k: Sound familiar? I think we should allow congress to tax actors and athletes just like they tax financial executives. Of course the determination will be left up to the head of the treasury, Tim Geithner.

Now, none of these proposals will net the entire deficit, unless we use option 1. Of course, any one of proposals 2-5 will come with a huge rise in unemployment benefits payed out, so in order to balance a budget, all of proposals 2-5 should be adopted.

When God doesn't factor into the equation.

2009-04-02T16:15:00.000-07:00

On Wednesday night, at the Bible Study at church, the pastor mentioned an article written by Dinesh D'souza titled: "Why Peter Singer makes the New Atheists nervous". (wow, I just figured out how to put links in my blog. This is a great day!) In this article, Mr. D'souza, fresh off of a debate with Mr. Singer, shares some of his thoughts about Mr. Singer's views, as well as a few very revealing quotes from Mr. Singer.

Mr. Singer is the chair for bioethics at Princeton University's Center for Human Values. He is a well respected philosopher, and has authored (so far as I can tell) between 25-30 books over the last 40 years.

Mr. Singer actually wrote this: "My colleague Helga Kuhse and I suggest that a period of 28 days after birth might be allowed before an infant is accepted as having the same right to life as others." Mr. D'souza aptly calls this "fourth term abortion" and is an outrage to even consider. It is no surprise that this idea comes from a guy who also advocates killing mentally handicapped people as well as the elderly, once they have "outlived" their usefulness.

In truth, Mr. Singer is just taking atheism to it's natural conclusion. Our Declaration of Independence says that men are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights". Among those rights is the right to life, but I guess if you don't believe there is a Creator, than we are not endowed with any unalienable rights, which is to say, any of them can be taken away at any time.

This is where Christians come in to the picture. This is often confused for a political issue, and as such, many Christians shy away from talking about it. This is not a political issue, this is an issue of criminality, and an issue of inhumanity. This is an issue of standing up for our fellow "image bearers of God" and not accepting what should be called "legalized murder." My friends, people seek to rationalize when it is alright to kill a baby. Some say "it's alright in the first trimester" others say "it's alright as long as it's not in the final trimester" still others are alright with "partial birth abortions" (look it up if you don't know what that is) When will it end? Are children going to become merchandise under warranty? "If you don't like 'em, you have 28 days to bring 'em back, and we'll take care of 'em!" Outrageous! And this guy is part of Princeton's Center for "Human Values"?? (am i the only one that finds that slightly humorous?) This, if nothing else, should prove that humans are NOT good by nature. We need to stop trying to invent "Human Values", because humans in and of themselves can only breed corruption, destruction, and ultimately death. We need to push our nation toward God's values.

The bottom line is that without the Creator, there is no moral baseline, no purpose, no compass, there is nothing.

Stunning Step to Socialism.

2009-03-30T12:50:00.000-07:00

So I opened up my internet explorer. It took me to Yahoo as I have trained it to do. I saw a headline that caught my attention. It says: "Stocks fall as automaker plans are rejected." This is a story by an AP writer who claims that the market has dropped today because a bailout was not approved. This is an interesting OPINION about the reason for the drop (as if there needs to be a reason for the stock market to drop even more).

I may not have a fancy college degree in communication, political science, business management, or anything else for that matter, but let me take my uneducated stab at how the General Motors news may be affecting the stock market:

Last night I opened up my internet explorer, and it took me to Yahoo as I have trained it to do. The story that opened up is one that I was shocked to see. The GM CEO resigned at the 'request' of the White House. WHAT?!? Let me say that again for those of you just zoning: THE GM CEO RESIGNED AT THE REQUEST OF THE WHITE HOUSE.
So whoever the guy is that is in charge at "The White House" (probably the President, but not sure) now decides who should stay and who should go in American companies. I get it, the reason he can say that is because the company got a bailout. Wait, didn't we get a bailout from China to pay for stimulus packages? Should they decide who our President is? Let me think about that one for a while.

Another reason I think this is so incredibly nonsensical is this: the idea that just because you are in Government, means you know best. General Motors has been around for over a century and has been a very profitable business. The business is run by executives who mostly have backgrounds and education in (no surprise) business. What profession is represented more than any other in ALL branches of Government? Lawyers. So who knows more about how to make a business successful: A person with education and experience in business, or a person with education in law and experience in writing failed bailouts? For the government, who has not balanced a budget in a decade and will not for the foreseeable future to tell a company how to do so is ludicrous, preposterous and ridiculous!

After those logical (or brilliant) observations, we get into the whole issue of capitalism turning in to socialism. You may call me crazy for this one, but we are turning more and more into Europe. Every day government seizes more and more power under the disguises of bailouts, universal healthcare and global warming legislation. If you think that's a good thing, check out unemployment statistics in the EU! You think it's bad in the United States right now, just wait.

AIG: The Real Corruption

2009-03-20T16:39:00.000-07:00

AIG (the company or it's executives) has regularly contributed money to political campaigns. Most recently their largest contributions went to Senator Chris Dodd, (D-CT) who received 103,100 dollars, and President Barrack Obama, (D) 101,332 dollars.
Who included the language in the amendment to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to allow AIG execs to get their bonuses? Why it was Senator Dodd! Interesting. Senator Dodd received huge contributions, "ammends the language" to take care of the people who finance his election. President Obama received the second highest amount, I don't think he necessarily saw this one coming. To be fair to him, he probably doesn't read what he signs.
From now on I don't want to hear one word from Senator Dodd or President Obama about transparency, ending corruption, or special interest groups because they are the first ones to blame.
This is an outrage and a scandal that for some reason, nobody really wants to cover. Why do you think that is?

AIG: The Real Concerns.

2009-03-20T14:21:00.000-07:00

American International Group (AIG).

I am sure, if you watch, read or listen to news at all, you know about the whole AIG bonus outrage. Everybody is outraged about AIG employees who want to keep the bonuses that they have already received. I do not think that members of a failing institution should receive bonuses. To me it says: "We, at AIG, love to reward failure." I think our fearless legislators are going about things the wrong way.

Here are the things that bother me about this whole situation:

The recipients of these bonuses are under a lot of heat, when all they did was accept the money that their contract said they would receive. There have been reports of death threats against these employees. So what does Congress do? Leverage the threats for their own benefit. They have gone as far as saying that employees who do not return their bonuses will have their names released publicly. Nice! We won't do anything to you, but we'll give your name to the people who want to kill you! What happens if names are released and an AIG employee really is killed? Absolutely ridiculous.

This is what happens when congress rushes legislation and doesn't bother to read it! If Congress doesn't like what is happening, they have nobody to blame but themselves! In the letter I wrote to my congressman earlier this month I pointed out to him that it was upsetting to me that nobody actually would read something that they vote on, and not just something, but the most expensive something in history! If anybody should pay back money, it should be the US Congress for being negligent!

The last thing that I would like to point out is that our legislative branch has been tied up for the last two days worrying about 165 Million dollars. Our budget deficit is going to surpass the 1 Trillion mark in 2009, not just surpass it, but it's going to 1.8 Trillion! They are throwing money at anything that moves (or stays still) in hopes of reviving the economy. Yet they spend two days (a day of hearings and a day to vote) on 165 Million dollars?!? 165 Million is .009% of the 1.8 Trillion deficit. Can you please worry about the big things first. Like, oh I don't know, eight thousand earmarks in the year's budget totalling 8 Billion dollars?!? Oh, right. That passed already. Politicians probably forgot to read that one too.

But what do I know?

A new, gentler term.

2009-03-20T08:39:00.000-07:00

Janet Napolitano, the Homeland Security Secretary is moving away from the term "terrorism" and has replaced it with "man-caused disaster". She says she is doing it to move away from "the politics of fear". This is absolutely ridiculous. Call things what they are. So now, I guess a terrorist is called a "man-caused disaster maker"? If we want to talk about an Islamic terrorist group (I know they don't exist, but lets suppose) it would be an "Islamic man-caused disaster making group". I feel like this should be one of those "Real men of genius" commercials. If you don't know what those are, you can probably find them on YouTube.
Thank goodness. I don't have to be afraid anymore! We have a new term. Great.

Two Very Different Stories

2009-03-19T22:52:00.000-07:00

So it is no secret if you read the letter I wrote to my congressman that I am fed up with the spending, spending, spending, and more spending. A new stimulus is being talked over in the House of Representatives! How many will it take to figure out that we cannot spend our way out of a crisis brought on by debt!
That is NOT why I am writing this blog however. I am writing to you tonight to tell you about a story that is not getting a lot of press, and another one that is. Stick with me for this one, you NEED to know about this!
The top story being read on yahoo news right now deals with a blog entry from Lawrence B. Wilkerson, who was a member of Secretary of State Colin Powell's staff. He said that many of the detainees in Gitmo are innocent. Now, it could be just me, but I find this to be a non-story (considering the source) that has been made into more by the title "Ex-Bush admin official: Many at Gitmo are innocent". Mr. Wilkerson says that in the beginning stages of the war we just rounded people up and sent them off to Cuba. If we just rounded up people and took them to Guantanamo Bay, there would have been a lot more than 800 detainees there! He (Mr. Wilkerson) says that men were arrested for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time. He may be right about that statement if by "wrong place, and wrong time" he means in a known terrorist training camp while training is going on. Yes. Definitely just a mistake.
Now to the real story that is not getting much play. President Obama is thinking about turning a few Guantanamo Bay detainees into U.S. residents. That's right! President Obama has a plan. (those words have become very scary) He wants other countries to take some of the detainees to their countries, so to show them that it is alright to do that, he wants to make some of them U.S. residents! Brilliant plan! Now take some well deserved time off and go hang with your boy, Jay Leno.

The absolute worst holiday ever!

2009-03-17T09:50:00.000-07:00

So here is the scoop:
I am not a fan of St. Patrick's day. Every year on March 17th, I think about what a dumb celebration St. Patrick's day has become. Don't get me wrong. I am not saying anything bad about Patrick (aka St. Patrick,) just the holiday named after him.
How do you take a holiday based on a guy who brought the message of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ and turn it into a day based on wearing green and getting trashed? Wikipedia claims that the wearing of green is a sign of either Irish nationalism or support of the Roman Catholic church. Wikipedia did not even attempt to explain the excessive consumption of alcohol associated with this day. In the end, St. Patrick's day has nothing to do with St. Patrick, so why not call it "Irish Day"?
Oh well, I guess one could say that St. Patrick's day is to beer, as [St.] Valentine's day is to flowers. Wait, I forgot how much I dislike the holiday that revolves around flowers and chocolate, but is actually based on a martyr from the early church. Makes perfect sense.
So I guess current celebrations of St. Patrick's day and Valentine's day share the top spot for worst holiday ever.

Letter to my Congressman

2009-03-07T08:17:00.000-08:00

Alright, so here is the scoop:
I am sick of the fiscal irresponsibility in our nation's capital! They are no different than the person who got into that house they could not afford.
"It looked good, we got the financing, and thought that in a few years we would be able to afford the payment." That quote could just as well be from a member of the legislative branch of the U.S. government! Bailout after bailout with a stimulus package here and there! What is this??
I have never writen my congressman, but I am so fed up, that I had voice my opinion.
So I thought I'd share this letter. If you are fed up with the spending, I encourage you to write as well. Legislators can only tune out their constituents for so long, and the more of us write, the more that legislator (whomever he or she may be) will have to self-rationalize their position.
Here it is. Read it. Write one. You can copy and paste if you want, I dont care.

Congressman Baird,

After the stories concerning the loss of oversight with the "bank bailout" late last year, I have started paying more attention to what happens in D.C.. I have to say, I am very concerned over the amount of proposed, and passed new spending. I watched the House on CSPAN the day the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was debated. I heard one Representative (don't exactly remember who, but I am sure you do) claim that not one member of Congress had read the Act, or knew fully what was in it. The fact that not one other person in the Chamber disputed that statement was a little upsetting. There was no time to read it because it was an emergency, yet it took President Obama four days to sign the bill, that does not make sense to me. I have also read that the Omnibus bill has some large increases to Government programs. At a time where everyone in the country is cutting back to survive this economic recession (or depression,) it does not seem right to me that Government would give itself such large increases.

As for earmarks, special projects, or whatever else they go by these days: Enough is enough! While I applaud the statement on your website that you believe names should be included in legislations, this does not go far enough. Washington D.C. should not be the place to allocate specific funds for projects. If it is a state project, let the state find the money for it, if it is a local project, the city should be able to make the sacrifices necessary to implement it. In most cases, I suspect, these projects are very low on the agenda at a local or state level, so why should they receive any attention at the federal level? The money used for earmarks could simply be given to states so that they can decide what is best done in their state, or better yet, the money could be cut out completely.

I read your statement dated: 2/5/2009 concerning the budget proposed by the President, it was confusing to me because you raise the issue of adding to the deficit, and then seemingly argue that there should be more spending. I agree that balancing the budget should be a priority, which is why there should have been meaningful cuts from this bill. The first thing that should have been cut were all of the earmarks. We cannot continue to live beyond our means as a country. President Obama said in his first address to Congress that everyone would need to make sacrifices, including himself. I have to say, I am not seeing it.

I know we are making sacrifices in my household, I am sure you are in yours as well. We need to carry that discipline over to federal spending. The root of this economic crisis as I understand it was that too many people borrowed too much money, and they could not repay it. Aren't we doing that as a country now?

Thank you for taking the time to read this and address my concerns. My friends, family and I anxiously await your response.

Ross Jackson

Friends are friends forever!

2009-03-02T20:57:00.000-08:00

As one of the most successful Christian musical artists of my lifetime put it in his 1991 song titled "Friends":
"Friends are friends forever, if the Lord's the Lord of them."
This statement conveys a very deep and theological truth, and that is that if you have ever let a friendship die due to lack of attention, you are NOT letting God have control of your life. Repent!
But seriously, all theologically flawed song lyrics aside, I miss my Olympia friends!
Over the last almost six years I have been blessed to stay in the same place, and have made some great friends.
Friends who took care of my family when I was in Iraq. Friends who moved all my furniture and belongings three days after I had knee surgery. Friends who challenged me to grow spiritually by holding erroneous theological views (you know who you are.) Friends who...I could go on and on and on, but that is not my blogging style....right.
I thought about naming friends, but this blog would never end. Yep, that's right, I have just that many friends. So let me just say that I have never been surrounded by a group of friends who have been so selfless, honest, mature, fun and --to use one of Andrew's words -- "authentic."
So I wanted to write a "thank you" to all of you. Thanks, and I will see you all again soon.
Until then: "Friends are friends forever, if the Lord's the Lord of them."

Back to the Blog

2009-03-01T21:09:00.000-08:00

It has been three months since my last blog. Sounds like I am at confession. "Bless me father for I have sinned. It has been three months since my last blog."

During the last three months we have undergone some changes.

About three days after my last blog I decided to accept a job in Orange County, California. We had a beautiful daughter on Christmas Eve. Four weeks after having our little girl, we started driving down here to sunny California. We rented our house out in Tumwater, and found a house to rent down here. We have our house unpacked and I am adjusting to my new job.

I have been meaning to update my blog for a while, but I am a "blogcrastinator", so it has taken me a while.

Early Christmas Shopping.

2008-11-17T19:36:00.000-08:00

So on Saturday afternoon, Angel and I took Ezra to the store. We told him we were going to pick out some Christmas presents to send in a shoe box to another child somewhere that otherwise would not be receiving anything. We are doing this through Operation Christmas Child (www.samaritanspurse.org), which is a great ministry. Angel and I have been doing this for a while, but we had never explained it to Ezra, much less let him pick stuff. He is three years old and so we decided to make a box for a boy between the ages of two and four. We told him to pick out toys that he would love to play with. He picked out a few things: a truck with candy in it, a coloring book, some squishy balls, a couple other things. I was waiting for the moment, after we bought all of that stuff that looked so fun to him, when we got in the car, and he asked to open up the toys and play with them. That moment never came. He was very happy that we could get all of this stuff for a kid somewhere that will not be getting a whole lot this year for Christmas. I was impressed. Because of events in our family life the last few years, we have not been able to establish very many family Christmas traditions. I am excited to make this a new tradition with our kids!

I'm a loser, you're a loser. Get over it!

2008-11-15T22:24:00.000-08:00

I filled out my mail-in ballot about a week before the November 4th election. I waited with cautious anticipation to see what would happen in a presidential election, gubernatorial election, a few local races, I-1000: Death with Dignity (a.k.a. Doctor Assisted Suicide,) another couple initiatives that I cared a little less about, and some judges. I must have filled out at least twenty bubbles on my ballot. What happened on November 4th? Every single thing or person I voted for failed! Not a single thing or candidate that I voted for was successful. I have heard it said that "when you don't vote, you lose." It is very apparent to me that you can vote and still lose. This election season, I am a loser. I accept it and look forward to a different result in two years, and especially in four.
Today, November 15th, eleven days after the election, there were protests nationwide. Why? Because Proposition 8 passed in California. The Proposition defines marriage specifically as a union between one man and one woman. The Proposition passed by roughly the same margin in the state as the margin in the national popular vote between our next President, Barack Obama and Senator John McCain. Although the organizers of the protest have asked protesters to remain peaceful, they "have sometimes been angry and even violent" (according to the AP article: Gay advocates protest marriage ban across nation.) Many of the protesters are specifically targeting the Mormon Church or as they call them "The Church of the Latter Day Snakes" as well as criticising the Roman Catholic Church with signs like: "Catholic Fascists Stay Out Of Politics". There are an estimated 71 million Roman Catholics in this country. That is a quarter of the country's population, and you want them to stay out of politics because they disagree with you?
Proposition 8 was the only "conservative" winner on election night. You will not find me out there protesting against the soon to be President, our Governor, or I-1000. You will not read a story about me calling any of the results of the election "unconstitutional." Why not? Because I understand something that apparently these protesters do not: Regardless of whether I win or lose, I win. Let me explain that. I win because I live in a country where people can vote, and a magical thing happens during elections: The side with the most votes wins. What that means is that the people decide. You can march against a church all you want. The fact is that the voters of that state decided to keep the traditional definition of marriage.
I saw a picture of a protester with a sign that read: "Gay is the new black". Really? Is that why nearly 70% of African Americans who voted in California voted for Proposition 8? Please stop it already with the comparisons of homosexuals to African Americans. I was not around when human beings, just like you and me, were called property, assigned a monetary value and sold nearly naked and in shackles on the open market like cattle. I was not around during the time when you could not enter an establishment, a school, a restroom, or even drink from a water fountain just because of skin color. I was not around when it was popular to spit on, throw things at, or beat a person to death just because their skin was darker than mine. Call me crazy, but that comparison, to me is offensive. It trivializes the very real, and often times deadly history of African Americans in the United States.
Some Prop 8 opponents are now starting to attack the African American community. Roseann Barr posted a blog on November 10th, part of which says: (speaking of African Americans) "They showed themselves every inch as bigoted and ignorant as their white christian right wing counterpartners who voted for mccain-palin and bush-cheney." Is she really attacking the African American community by calling them bigots and ignorant? Wow, that may be a new low for Roseann. At least she didn't isolate them in that category, she tossed Christians in as well. It's somehow refreshing to be on Roseann's bad side.
The protests began before the election even took place! As the names of donors to the Proposition 8 campaign were released, many of them would find protesters in front of their homes or businesses. Now that the election is over, the website antigayblacklist.com offers a list of contributors to the Proposition 8 campaign along with where they work, and ask the public to boycott those people.
Am I the only one that thinks that these people are taking it too far? Am I the only one that understands the democratic process? Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a protest outside a Mormon temple just as much as the next guy, but lets be grown-ups here.
Save your "peaceful" protests. Stop looking to your liberal judges to overturn the will of the people. Stop blaming certain groups of people, like Christians, Mormons, and African Americans, for having beliefs and acting according to those beliefs. Stop trying to intimidate and cause financial hardship to private citizens who oppose radically changing the sacred institution of marriage. Instead, understand, just as I have that as far as the 2008 election goes: I'm a loser and you're a loser. Get over it!

Late to the party!

2008-11-06T11:00:00.000-08:00

When it comes to new developments in the online (and tech) community, I always seem to be late. I am not talking like the cool fashionable 15-20 minutes late that says "the party can start, I am here now!" I am talking about the kind of late when you are so late that you knock on the door only to find out everybody left two hours ago, and the party was at the neighbors house!
It wasn't always that way. Back when I was in high school, I was on the technological edge. I remember building myself my first computer. It was a 486 (yes, that's right, pre-pentium) with a screaming 8 MB of RAM and a 210 MB hard drive.
I guess I never moved on. I was late to the cell phone world, I was late to the MySpace party. I still haven't gotten on Facebook. I was very late to the text message craze, and here I am now, tired of trying to convince myself that blogging is a passing fad.
So I will blog. What will I blog about? Probably things that I care about. What do I care about? A lot of things. So I will blog about a lot of things.
So here I am, joining you all in the blogging party. I hope the party isn't over.