Tolerance

All of you that read my blog on a regular basis have a pretty good idea as to my views on faith. Recently I've found a bit more faith in my personal dealings in life, not in any ONE god, but rather an introverted connection with life. Buddhism is pretty close to how I feel about our connection as a whole but I have faith in no god. One of my views remains unchanged, without faith, we are lost. Faith is what made many countries great and faith is what brought many down. Speaking in generalities, most of the religions follow a similar ideal: Be nice to one another, or there will be some one, some time that's going to hold you responsible for your actions.



Recently in the news, the Cyrus Cylinder has come back into the spotlight with its scheduled trip across the United States. Dating back to 600 BC, it has been regarded as an early 'human rights' charter although that has been disputed among some scholars. What it does illustrate is a leader that respected other's choice of who and how to worship. Even 2500 years ago a great leader was made greater through tolerance. When he conquered Babylonia (which was described as a peaceful takeover) he repatriated (freed) the peoples of other areas and restored their places of worship.

Religious toleration makes life grand. People are allowed to do as they please and if you don't follow someones particular creed, well then you'll be judged by their version of the great 'I AM'. This is the part where I make the blanket statement that is often brought as an argument against religion and its perceived forced morals, 'more people have been killed in the name of some god than for any other reason in the written history of man'. That's factual, look it up. Whether that meant a ruling faction killed people who did not subscribe to their creed or killed by ritual sacrifice, more people in history have been killed for religious reasons than any other reason. Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, The Aztecs and even early Mesopotamia that Cyrus repatriated. The violence that we bring upon man isn't created by any god, it's our interpretation of writings that does this. IT'S MAN THAT BRINGS DEVASTATION NOT ANY GOD. 

 As a self proclaimed atheist that dabbles in faith as it pertains to my choices and with an insatiable appetite for knowledge, it really chaps my ass when one of the 'beautiful people' get on the news for trying to take away a baby Jesus diorama on public property, ripping out the 10 Commandments from a courthouse or on the complete other side Fred Phelps protesting the funerals of soldiers "God Hates Gays So He Kills Soldiers" What kind of god would sanction that shit? That asshole really needs to get a grip. Judge not lest ye be judged shithead. When we get to the end, either we'll be judged or it's lights out, the jury is still out on that one.

The point that I'm trying to make is that life is more peaceful if we accept others choices even if those choices completely suck. The devote need to preach their views to people who will listen and the non devote need to accept it for what it is. Appreciate the beauty of life and let others live it as they choose. Whether that means getting all dressed up to meet in an opulent house of worship, wash and pray 5 times a day, going unwashed to a glen to pray to mother earth, rubbing the belly of a fat little statue or just finding peace within yourself. It's all interpretation on our part. Don't blindly hate someone's choice to follow or lead. If what they do doesn't include hurting you or trampling on your liberties, then live and let live.

Am I advocating a conversion to religion? Yes. Whatever gets you through the dark shit, but don't get all high and mighty. Am I advocating a complete lack of faith? Yes, but keep your wits about you. No need to go beating up on the faithful. Even the self proclaimed faithless believe in something.

That's my two cents, spend 'em or put 'em in the dish for the next person.

A Red Dawn

This blog post is purely circumstantial. I have never entertained rumor and conjecture. I am not, nor have never been a conspiracy theorist. While a good conspiracy is always a good source of entertainment and all too often rooted in fact, the connections made in it are usually tenuous at best. Looking at some of the current news it's tough to not make the connections in my own head. Using heavy connection to fact and sprinkling it with conjecture this is what it looks like...


After watching and reading all the grumbling about the current 'ammo grab' by the Department of Homeland Security, I decided to look a little deeper into the numbers to see just how this would supply and affect the department. Current estimates of ammo procurement by the DHS hovers north of 2 billion rounds. Estimates of rounds used per year by the department was around 15 million rounds per year. This current order by the DHS would supply them from about 150 years. Wait, WHAT? That can't be right, can it? Current estimation of ammo usage by United States soldiers in the war in Afghanistan stand at 1.8 billion rounds. That's split amongst 90,000 troops. So, rudimentary math puts that at 60,000 rounds per soldier. The DHS has 200,000 employees and before you criticize me, not all of them are field agents. I couldn't find any solid numbers, but let's just estimate that 75% of them are gun totin' federal agents. That gives us a number of 150,000 armed agents. That means those 2 billion rounds are divided up to a bit over 13,000 rounds per agent. Does anyone out there use that many rounds per year recreationally? Competition shooters maybe... Now, I can see the soldiers popping off 60,000 rounds a year..gotta keep up your skills when others are shooting back. But I don't recall the DHS agents in the news all that often for taking fire. I'm not going to knock down anyone that puts themselves in harms way for a paycheck, but the DHS is a relatively new governmental agency. And to be perfectly honest with you, barring some of the poor bastards working for Immigration and Customs Enforcement on the borders, I don't think any of them have much direct 'shoot out' potential details.

They have never had to stock up on this much ammo before, so it's causing quite a tizzy among the conspiracy theorist crowd. I don't think that it's unreasonable to stock up on ammo myself, but I also don't keep over 13,000 rounds on hand either!
 
Oh, and the MRAP's that they purportedly bought? Hooey. They only have 16 available to them, the Marines have the rest. Not to say that they don't have access to them tho...

I've even looked into certain connections myself that has me thinking. The slated FAA tower closings create a bit of a hole when it comes to tracking, by the general public, aircraft comings and goings. I have a friend in the business that told me that the government has the ability to cover the areas that we cannot, but what if they were selective like 'Fast and Furious'? I've even entertained the thought of a "Red Dawn" scenario. How difficult would it be for a foreign invader to put boots on the ground? Pretty friggin' difficult without some sort of collusion on the part of our own government. Could that happen? We are talking about the current administration that told us that Benghazi was due to a friggin' YouTube video. Our government is doing things that we think only other governments do.

How about natural disaster? A comet, meteor or even close to home, a volcano. What if something like that was going to happen? It'd be foolish to think that only the highest up would be made privy to any details, but in this day and age of electronic media it'd be next to impossible to hide if from the general public. It's probable that they wouldn't tell anyone due to the panic that would ensue. What if the FAA closings aren't to get boots on the ground, but rather people into the country under the radar to keep them safe from a coming apocalypse? We've got a pretty good network of 'safe' places in the United States, so many in fact that some have been decommissioned. Some of the more impressive ones can be seen here.

One theory is that they are trying to deny people from buying ammo for themselves by taking all the spare production. Another theory is that there is something coming that will enact Marshall law and they need to prepare (I don't buy into that at all, they don't have that kind of loyalty in the ranks). The point is, there are many connections that can be made about all sorts of things. Maybe it's just all bullshit. Maybe they are just doing these things to keep you whack jobs preoccupied. Nothing to see here folks, move along. That's my extent of conspiracy thinking.

I'll stick to calling out the retards (no offense to the real retards, you know who you are) in Washington for pissing away our children's future. Trillions of dollars down the drain in the name of power. Nothing more, nothing less. Nothing in our lives has been improved by the actions of the current administration. Nothing. Go ahead and prove me wrong I implore you. All costs across the board are up (except housing, unless you rent), we pay more for gas, food, electricity, healthcare (and that's rising like a rocket) and everything else that Obama said we'd be better off with. There is cause and effect. Everything is rising because Obama and his ilk want power. In order to retain that power they need to grease the wheels of the electorate. How's all those Obama phones and food stamps treating you? Better access to healthcare? LOL.

It's all about power, who has it and who wants it.  

That's my two cents, spend 'em or put 'em in the dish for the next person.

The Federal Fix

We've all heard solutions for fixing the mess in Washington, but none of them completely outline the hows and whys. More to the point they just say "Pick ME I'm for fairness!" Or "I'm for the little guy". This is all well and good, but when pressed on the unintended consequences of legislation from BOTH right and left political factions they can't give specifics.

Well, I'll give some specifics and their INTENDED consequences:

•  Create a 'FLAT TAX' that is constitutionally bound so that politicians cannot change it's purpose other than to raise or LOWER it proportional to budget constraints. Build in a buffer that cannot be touched for anything other than disaster or war. Any surplus at the end of the year automatically goes into this buffer account that, when reaches a certain level, goes back to the people in EQUAL amounts. Flat tax contribution to the federal government shall not be greater than the total budget of the contributing state. Any surplus from the contributing state shall be refunded to said state.
• Intended consequences: 
• This will REMOVE the power of the "deal" from the politician. They will not be able to offer 'friends' favorable tax status, tax breaks or other tax perks to any entity, public, private or otherwise. 
• This will force our elected officials to create and live by a budget. 
• This will create explosive business growth. Imagine, knowing what your tax bill will be every year. A flat tax is fluid. Make a dollar, pay 10 cents, make 1 million, pay $100,000. How's that for fair? Everyone has skin in the game.
• The surplus thing is a little tricky, but right now we have states that receive far greater than they contribute. People can argue that it's need because these states are poor, but I argue that if you can't survive somewhere, move.

• Rock solid budgetary solution. Create a CONSTITUTIONAL amendment that requires the federal government to balance the budget. Budgets for the following year shall be passed by no later than July 1st the year before the budget is to be in effect. Include in this Constitutional amendment a provision that prevents government from 'borrowing' monies from entitlement programs. Also include a provision that prevents carrying any debt that cannot be paid off in 15 years. Also include a provision that REQUIRES spending on infrastructure (ie: bridges, roads etc.) to be funded prior to any 'special' projects. Any special projects needs to be vetted by the public for 120 days. No changes to said budget other then to fund disaster or war.
• Intended consequences:
• Also removes the power of the deal from the politician. They will be too busy actually doing the business of government that they won't have time to make sweet heart deals to friends of the government. 
• Streamlines government. They will no doubt have to make do with less. Businesses do this, our government NEEDS to. 
• Forbidding the elected officials to 'borrow' from entitlement programs will solidify their future. The reason that Social Security is broke is because the bastard in Washington have taken all the money and applied it elsewhere. 
• It prevents our elected officials from "kicking the can" down the road. No more borrowing money from citizens who don't even exist yet. Who do you suppose is going to pay this $16+ trillion debt that we now carry?
• This will put the brakes on frivolous pork barrel spending. No more research on the mating of snails, monkeys on crack or bullshit bridges to nowhere. The 120 day requirement prevents those sneaky politicians from slipping a "monkey crack" amendment into a bill. 

• Create a system that prevents any FOREIGN aid to be applied prior to public approval. No money to other countries without a vote from the people. Also, no foreign aid can be made available until all current unserviceable debts are paid.
• Intended consequences:
• This too removes the power of the deal from the politician (see a pattern in all of this yet?). No more special treatment for politicians in other countries. 
• This will prevent the government from sending money, ARMS or aid to enemies of the United States. 
• This will put the power in the people's hands where it should be.
• It requires the debt to be paid off.

•  All bills proposed by government shall be completed in their entirety with all included amendments and available to the general public online for 120 days prior to a vote. This excludes emergency allocation for disaster or war. Any money spend on disaster or war will be carefully allocated and ALL receipts of said money will immediately be made available for public scrutiny. No more 'Presidential Administration' discretionary spending.
• Intended consequences:
• This will prevent (again) the power of the deal for the politician. No back room bullshit if anyone can see the progress. No more slipping an amendment into a bill at the last moment.
• No more blowing money on crap, or paying Billionaires millions of dollars on top of their insurance claims for disaster. 
• No more crazy deals during war like Haliburton, or Joe Biden's son.
• No more trips to Paris for the President's wife and all her friends, no more golf outtings with Tiger Woods and to appease the left, no more hunting trips for Cheney or fishing trips for Dubya on the federal tit. They want to take a trip, it's outta their own pocket. 

• Create a welfare system that requires active improvement in self-reliance. Create a system that rewards (pays retail) for food stuffs given to local food programs in all states. Reward people for using local food providers. Create a list of acceptable foods that can be purchases by food stamps (WIC does it why not food stamps?).  All federal receipts of  monies spent towards welfare be made available to the general public for scrutiny. 
• Intended consequences:
• This will prevent the power of the deal for the politician. No more going to Washington to beg for scraps for the politician's home state. 
• It will create a system that not only helps the hungry but in turn partially subsidizes food growers and creators by supporting local utilization of local foods.
• It will cut back on fraud and abuse, people won't be able to buy crap food with federal money.
• This will have the affect of people knowing and understanding where their tax dollars are going.
• It will create a system of 'hand ups' not hand outs.  

• Create real election reform. Allow reporters to be in ALL political gatherings with the only exclusion being executive sessions. All executive sessions must include a representative from ALL recognized political parties. No public business will be done in private. This is already a rule on the local level, it should be on a national level.
• Intended consequences:
• Actually this one is easy. Now that we've removed all the power of the deal from the politician, it will have the net effect of removing special interest dollars from politics. Done deal. Let's see those pricks in Washington get any money from anyone now. I bet this will COMPLETELY change the political landscape! 
• No more back room deals. WE ARE WATCHING THEM! 

• Any political posturing from the politician or an agent acting for the politician that can be construed as a threat automatically calls for an investigation of that politician's actions and if allegations are found to be true, impeaches them and excludes that politician from holding any office in the future. This is to include all political figures, elected or appointed. They are to be judged by a panel selected AT RANDOM of citizens. ALL politicians and their agents are subject to all laws and rules made by the government, past, present and future in perpetuity.
• Intended consequences:
• It removes any and all perceived power from the politicians.
• It makes the politicians subject to their own laws and rules.
• It keeps politicians accountable for actions by their agents and themselves. No more posturing by these people.
• It creates a not easily corruptible system of accountability by involving citizens who have nothing to gain from the process.

Now, I know that someone will poke all sorts of holes in my solutions. That's the beauty of the system. My ideas puts the power back in the hands of the people. Its not perfect, but can anyone give me a valid argument against removing the deal making ability of the politicians?

That's my two cents, spend 'em or put 'em in the dish for the next person.

History is full of great lessons

In response to a prior post on this blog a person sent me an email as a weak rebuttal to my views. His or her attempt at debate was immediately discredited due to the profane attack of juvenile name calling. If this person is representative of a sample of American society then our current administration is the least of our worries. The email and my response to it can be seen on my prior post "This way to socialism!" in the comments section.

This person tried to qualify a move towards socialism by stating we've always had it present in America. His statement " anyone who knows anything about this country knows it has always had aspects of "Socialism". or, what... were there corporations way back when to help the "tired, poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe free"?" fails to take into account that there was no direct assistance afforded to Americans until the early 1900's.

Most original federal assistance programs required mandatory self reliance of some kind. The 'food stamp' program was actually a supplement to actual consumer spending. A person was to buy orange stamps for a dollar and for every dollar spend they would receive 50 cents in blue stamps. Not until 1977 was the purchase requirement dropped. Social Security was initiated in 1935 and dependent on monies paid into the system to get money back out. Federal medical assistance programs weren't in place until the 1960's. Even the great work welfare projects championed by Roosevelt were really a job and a paycheck, not a hand out. Roosevelt felt that man needed a purpose.

Prior to all this, our great country's citizens had to rely upon themselves and each other and guess what? People did fine. They relied on themselves and the KINDNESS of others to help them through the darkest days. Our past citizens knew how to scrimp and save, put things away for the bad times and suffer a little bit to rise above the struggle.

Look at what we've done with all that American strength and perseverance, we've created a pseudo 'Robin Hood' system that takes from the 'rich' and gives to the 'poor'. A system of compulsory momentary reallocation through a government that is rife with mismanagement. A system that punishes excellence with taxes, regulation and penalties. The KINDNESS of Americans has been replaced by mandatory payments to a system that doesn't differentiate between who really needs it and who doesn't. Instead of making small cuts to welfare programs (I refuse to call them entitlements) the government instead chooses to make cuts to programs that, when cut, result in layoffs putting more people on unemployment (that's an entitlement, we pay in for that benefit). Absolutely no self reliance has created an entire generation of couch potatoes hanging off the federal tit.

Now, I have no idea what they are teaching this generation in school about federal programs, but I'm betting it's something that paints it in a wonderful light. Inclusion for all, no picking on the poor kid that's wearing the $100 Nike sneakers, $50 Aero jeans, $30 A&F tee, $25 DG hat, $15 Calvin Klein underwear (cause it's hip to wear your pant's half down), carrying a $600 Iphone, drinking a $5 Trenti  Starbucks Caramel Machiatto while his mother pays for 20 bottles of rootbeer with foodstamps (SNAP card). Am I the only one that notices this shit??

Enough of the feel good bullshit. When people suffer a little it prompts them to reassess their situation. We've replaced that reassessment with more and more assistance. It's time to suffer. WE ALL NEED TO SUFFER. We trust a government that mortgages our future to pay for the present. We're relying on people that have yet to be born to pay for a system that they will feel no benefit from.

That's my two cents, spend 'em or put 'em in the dish for the next person.

This way to socialism!

Imagine if you will, a Liberal's utopian socialist society. One born out of consideration for you fellow human and respect for Mother Earth. Where one man owns nothing and everything at the same time. Where life is a communal struggle or a communal triumph. Health care for all. No wars because there's nothing to fight about. A collective of humans all contributing to a system for the greater good of the whole. A society where each person is afforded a comfortable, happy and fulfilling life.

Sound beautiful doesn't it? A veritable heaven on earth. Sad fact is, it's been tried over and over again and it will not work.

 Now let's look at the nasty little variable that make it impossible: Human Nature.

Socialism is but a step towards communism. In order for socialism to be a viable direction for human existence it needs to be accepted by the whole. While this sounds like a possibility, human nature makes it an impossibility.There will always be someone that wants what someone else has. And there will ALWAYS be those who covet power.

The very system coveted by the Liberal Left is actually everything they stand against. In order for socialism to work it needs leadership that quashes any movement that could threaten it's existence. A government that prevents individual thought and censors art, literature and speech that would incite that individuality that would threaten the collective. A government that controls all scientific research and uses it's ideology to steer that research's direction. A government that while promoting a peaceful, loving, contributory socialistic structure secretly arrests, imprisons and tortures anyone that it perceives as a threat. A government that would build a war machine with compulsory servitude to further that machine under the guise of protecting the collective. A government that prevents individual profit from excellence but rewards itself and it's handlers with power and opulence.

Imagine a whole tribe of naked liberals protesting a something approved by the leaders of their utopia....hope they all like prison food. How about creating art that questions authority? That's a jailin'. Or researching something that they really don't want you poking around? Gulag baby. Think I'm full of shit? Look up all these things that Soviet Russia disapproved of for their 'idealistic or bourgeois' nature and then look where the people that championed those efforts ended up.


That's why I believe the Liberal Left have it all wrong. They have it in their head that a socialistic collective is a viable human direction. That all the problems of man can be fixed if we all contribute to a system that reallocates resources where they are best utilized. But who decides how much we contribute to that system? A human. Who decides how to reallocate those resources? A human. And who determines how those resources are best utilized? A human. A human that is susceptible to human nature.

The humans that are charged with leadership will affect their will on the system. They will make decisions not based on the collective's ideology, but upon their own. They will no doubt make decisions that promote the IDEA that the collective is truly the leader of the societal structure but it will be a ruse. This has been tried before and it does not work. We need only look at socialism in Germany (failed), communism in Russia (failed), China (currently adopting a capitalist agenda), North Korea (do I need to explain?) and Cuba (failing it's people) to see the product of a tyrannical government that tries to adhere to the 'peoples' agenda.

Arguments as to the viability of socialism and communism are bunk. History has shown us that human nature negates a collective. In a capitalist society the strong stay strong because of the benefits as such, the weak get stronger if presented with that same ability to benefit. If a society that promotes socialism takes from the strong to reallocate to the weak there will be no net benefit for the strong and no reason to promote strength in the weak because they benefit from weakness. Penalizing the strong by negating their accomplishments and reallocating their accolades to the weak will promote weakness. Why excel in life if your going to just have to share it with someone that doesn't contribute to your excellence?

I think we should let the socialists give it a whirl. Let's find a place in the world that we can put them all together to create this utopian paradise for themselves. Then we all can sit and watch it fail as all of the 'great' forms of socialism before it. Will this quell their need to promote their collective way of thinking? No, but it'll definitely give us some kick ass reality TV!

You want to truly comply with a liberal society? A live and let live social structure? Take a good look at the constitution ya unshaven hippies. 

That's my two cents, spend 'em or put 'em in the dish for the next person. (My form of sharing with the collective!) 

Medical Costs

Listening to the Governor Lepage's weekly address this morning on the radio and the following Democratic response by Senate President Justin Alfond peaked my interest. Lepage stuck with the fact that Maine needs to pay it's bills, that the money owed to hospitals is a necessity to the continued great care that Mainers deserve. Now similarly Alfond said we need to buckle down and pay these bills, but in the same paragraph outlined the need to address medical costs. Specifically he brought up a fact (where he found it I have no idea) that in Portland you can get an MRI for about $1000 and in Houlton that same MRI will cost you $4000. He stated it's these costs that drove the numbers that have yet to be paid by the state.

I call bullshit on this one. Medicare and Medicaid only cover a portion of any cost associated with medical testing. That means they only pay what they say they will pay 'reasonable and customary' charges. What does that mean? That means that the State and the Federal Government will only pay a portion of the bill and will not allow the provider to ask for more. It's the government's cost fixing that is driving up medical costs. Not only do they dictate that they are only going to pay $400 for a $1200 test, they also don't pay their friggin' bill for 5 years running! Senator Alfond is blowing smoke up your asses. The people that do pay their bill have to pick up the slack of the indigent, one of which is our own state. That means they charge $4000 retail for a test because no one else is paying the bills!

I've written time and time again about simple economics, how supply demand and cost drive a commodity's price. What we have here is simple: Supply- there is plenty of people needing (and most not needing) MRI's. Demand- you wouldn't believe the amount of people that DEMAND care. Cost- driven by the majority of people getting MRIs have Medicaid and Medicare because the old and infirm tend to utilize the majority of services, but because the friggin' State won't pay their friggin' bills the cost goes up. See, the cost of a commodity is driven by these factors. The biggest factor being cost of service. If the test only costs say $400, but only 40% of the people getting the test pays, then they have to pass that discrepancy to the consumer. A $400 test now costs $1200 just to get the other 60% paid for BY THE PEOPLE THAT ACTUALLY PAY.

People don't have any accountability. I have a deductible, so if I ain't bleeding to death, or in imminent danger of cashing it in, I'm not going to the ER. People on Medicaid or Medicare? Hell no. They show up at the ER for pregnancy tests, blisters on feet, tick bites, yeast infections, dental pain and countless other bullshit reasons. And if they don't get what they want, they just check in again or go to another ER. The problem isn't 'medical costs' Senator Alfond, it's the people that stack up one CT Scan after another for no apparent reason, visits to the ER for their complementary starter pack of narcotics, ambulance rides because they don't have money for a taxi cab and the STATE NOT PAYING THE BILLS THESE PEOPLE INCUR!

Do you moronic Obama followers actually believe that giving these nut jobs a card that lets them go into any hospital for any service without accountability is going to bring down costs? Your bigger idiots than them. You give a dog a pound of food he's happy. You give a dog 50 pounds of food, he eats all the food shit's everywhere and is just as happy. They will take all you will hand out, but they will learn nothing in the process. You've robbed them of their independence.  

So, Governor Lepage and Senator Alfond we the people of Maine don't care about your politics. JUST PAY YOUR FUCKING BILLS.  And as a side note, how about doing it with the money from the people that caused the problem, not our future citizens. Your doing a great job chasing off all the young people anyway, there won't be any future citizens to pay your bills.

That's my two cent's, spend 'em or put 'em in the dish for the next person. 

Self evaluation

In light of recent political events, I feel the need to reaffirm my position in the political landscape. My core beliefs revolve around, or rather, evolve from my view that every one is created equal. We all deserve to be left alone by a tyrannical government and contribute EQUALLY to a fair and just system to protect us. What does that statement entail? My views are considered extreme by many, not extreme enough by others.

Here are some of my views.

I have no view on gay marriage. My view on that topic reverts to the government in it's entirety. The government should make no rules or laws that create more or less liberties for any person regardless of sexual orientation. Therefore, why should I care if gays want to marry? They should be afforded the same liberties as anyone else. My more conservative friends would find offense with this, but I have gay friends that are members of loving families not deviants. They are individuals that are productive members of society. They are genuinely good people. While deep seated biblical conservatives will no doubt counter with their lifestyle choices as an abomination, I'll counter with the fact that you really don't need to look for a homosexual for abomination. That sort of thing is on both sides of that fence. We don't often hear about man on man rape or woman on woman rape do we?

That kind of leads us into all things moral. I don't subscribe to any particular religious belief. Most of the major religions are good rules to live by. How about lets just be good to one another and not judge lest ye be judged? I judge not on moral choice but by actions that question that morality.

I also have little concern for economic stature. All people are created equal and are given the freedom to excel in our capitalist society. Or so it would seem. The liberal would have you believe that it's the rich that keep people from exercising that ability. I counter with the fact that regulation created by the government makes it damn near impossible to do anything on a small level. Regulations put in place to control very large corporate entities have the unpleasant effect of huge burdens on small business. The little guy can't afford to hire a Certified Public Accountant, Tax Lawyer and someone that is well versed in all things about environmental law, employment law and local regulations. The sad fact is the only reason a person is stunted economically is because all these laws created to affect 'the rich' really just negatively affect the little guy. It's but an annoyance for a large corporation, who I might add, will just pass the added cost down to the little guy anyway.

I believe in smaller government, self reliance, fair taxation, less regulation, fiscal responsibility and truth. The government does not want to be smaller because it will denude it's power, it does not want us to be self reliant because it will take away it's social relevance, it does not want fair taxation because it would be easily understood and remove the power of the deal from the politicians, it does not want less regulation for that same reason, they cannot exercise fiscal responsibility for fear of losing the link with the uninformed voter they shower with 'free' things and they cannot tell us the truth because it's stranger than fiction. Our own government has lied to us so often and for so long that somewhere along the line they forgot what the real truth is.

I've made mistakes in my life too numerous to count. I make no excuses for them for they were truly character building. I classify my political position as a Libertarian. I believe in individual liberties for ALL citizens of the United States of America. I believe in individual accountability for ALL citizens of the United States of America. I believe in fairness across the board. There should be no separate laws, rules, regulations, taxation or permissions for ANY citizen.

Remember, it's us against the politicians. Sooner or later we're all going to find out that government really doesn't give a rat's ass for us. All they are concerned with is power and the perpetuation of that power.

That's my two cents, spend 'em or put 'em in the dish for the next person.

Sequestration Cuts, The Plot Thickens

Bo, The Obama's dog. His walker makes $100,000 a year.

Ah, the post many of you have been waiting for. My views on the 'Sequestration cuts'. Here we are on the Monday following the cuts...and much to the Democrats chagrin...the world didn't end. As matter of fact, they themselves are back peddling on many of their claims of fiscal brinkmanship. When posed with the question as to "who, exactly, will be receiving a cut in pay? Or a pink slip? Or a furlough?" Silence. Or a confused looking Jay Carney stammering in front of the national press corp. I finally got to hand it to the press corp though, they are finally asking some real questions of this administration, not just trying to figure out what Bo the dog ate that day and what color his shit was.

Does he look trustworthy to you?

It's kind of funny that not more than 48 hours after the Sequestration Cuts became reality that it was business as usually in Washington as, now Secretary of State, John Kerry announced that $250 Million would be sent to Egypt for humanitarian efforts. This being a first installment of a reported $1 Billion in allocated funds. And those rascally Democrats said they can't just cut indiscriminately..lol. How about starting with unnecessary foreign aid? Sending $250 Million to a country that's now controlled by religious extremists is probably not a great idea. How about sending them food? Or hell, I don't know, maybe send over some doctors to help out. Oh yeah..can't do that..those crazy bastards would probably kill them and drag their lifeless corpse through the streets as a protest of our awful 'Western' ways. Yeah...let's just hand over OUR hard earned money to a bunch of people that would like nothing more then to have our heads on a pike pole.

Our foreign aid package both humanitarian and military support will ring up to an astounding $70 Billion for the fiscal year of 2013. Want me to put that into a little better to understand terms for ya? That's going to be $23 for every CITIZEN of the United States. $23 out of every MAN,WOMAN AND CHILD'S pocket. And, I remind you that not all those people are taxpayers. Only 50% of the population pays federal taxes. So that's $46 out of every taxpayers pocket. Now, only about 2/3rds of the people that pay federal taxes have tax liability, the other 3rd gets what they paid in and in many cases more! So now we're up to $61.33! They take that money out of your pocket and give it to ANOTHER COUNTRY. $61.33 out of a working persons pocket that is trying to make it and has to scrimp and save every penny just to get his or her kids a pair of sneakers while juggling the day to day bills like heat, lights, gas to get back and forth to work and food. All of which have taken a large jump in the last 5 years. 

Which part of the pie do you fall in? Notice there isn't politicians in the pie chart? (Chart from USDOL website)

I've characterized President Obama many times as an idiot. That characterization, while in many peoples views correct, I've found to be false. The man is a cold, calculating, devious, sociopath. He knows what to say, when to say it and with what inflection that the words need for proper affect. Listening to Joe Biden one day on the radio..it popped in my head that he sounded like a preacher. So I spend some time listening to other prominent speakers throughout time. The most influential speakers of history had the ability to play the crowd. Through the spoken word and an ability to build a crescendo with words and the tone. The ability to get into the majority of the people listening to the speaker denotes his or her effectiveness. Even people who do not agree with Obama's politics say he's a great speaker. Joe Biden, even though he gaffs constantly, has an affect to his speaking that lends credibility to his bullshit. "They're going to put y'all back in chains!" Sorry doesn't sound as good as when Joe says it.

Many people across America have had to adjust their budgets to account for the changes in the economy. All we want is our own government to feel the pinch too. Is that too much to ask?

That's my two cents, spend 'em or put 'em in the dish for the next person.