Top U.S. military brass, once again showing how little they understand the ideals they purportedly work to preserve, are trying to suppress publication of a book that might give the American public a bit more information on what's going on over there. Do they not understand that working to keep information out of the public's hands is an affront to every soldier who has fought, been injured, or died, not just in this war, but in every war America's involved itself with? This action is tantamount to spitting (or worse) on the graves of soldiers who thought they were fighting for liberty, be it their liberty or some foreigner's.

What, by keeping this book out of the hands of Americans we're going to turn the corner towards victory on this (intentionally) unwinnable war? The wars the U.S. government chooses to involve itself in are no longer fought to be won, and they haven't been since the Korean conflict/war. If this war was a business (it is, actually, but just follow me here), the way it is being run would have not only bankrupted any company, but also would have (rightly) put its executives in the unemployment line due to their own gross incompetence.

Then again, perhaps it's not just the Pentagon's incompetence, for I have a suspicion that no one group can be that wrong so often for so long. The longer I live and learn, the more I see clearly that whoever is pulling the strings way behind the scenes, those who have picked and paid for our so-called leaders, don't really want victory. There's paltry profit in peace.

I haven't read the book, and I doubt I will, even if it is published, and the book may just be another over-hyped molehill, but Americans need to decide that for themselves, not the powers that be.

Take care.
DAL357

If a Libertarian...

It's been a while, eh?

I found this on another blog and thought I'd post it here. It's spot on in so many ways that I would be remiss not to disseminate it.

If a Libertarian doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a Liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a Libertarian is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a Liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a Libertarian is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a Liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a Libertarian is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A Liberal wonders who is going to take care of the them.

If a Libertarian doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.

If a Libertarian is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A Liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.

If a Libertarian decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A Liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

If a Libertarian reads this, he'll forward it so his friends know how to vote in November!
A Liberal will delete it because he's "offended."

As far as I'm concerned, when the word "Liberal" is invoked above it includes all who are not Libertarian, or at least strongly leaning that way. You may disagree, as is your right; I won't secretly wish for The Powers That Be to silence you.

Take care.
DAL357

P.S. On the same blog, I spied this quote which, we can only hope, comes to pass eventually; I'm not sure how it couldn't:

The legacy of Democrats and Republicans approaches: Libertarianism by bankruptcy. –- Nick Nuessle

Progessive Houston

She's a lesbian, and that's all that matters. No mention is made in this brief puff piece, designed to show how progressive Houston is when it comes when it comes to sexual orientation, about what this woman's politics might be, although one could probably guess. No, it's the fact that she's a lesbian, no doubt quite liberal, that matters. Symbolism over substance, what a triumph for modern man.

*****

Houston voters may elect openly gay mayor
Dec 12, 2009 (7:56a CST)

HOUSTON - Voters are deciding Saturday whether Houston will become the largest U.S. city to elect an openly gay mayor.

The runoff election pits City Controller Annise Parker against former city attorney Gene Locke.

Parker is a lesbian who has never made a secret or an issue of her sexual orientation.

But in recent weeks, anti-gay activists and conservative religious groups have endorsed the 61-year-old Locke and sent out mailers condemning Parker's "homosexual behavior."

Meanwhile, gay and lesbian political organizations around the country have rallied to support the 53-year-old Parker.

*****

The thing that's always irritated me about homosexuals is that they are a "gay" (a word which I despise because it's a verbal sleight-of-hand trick calculated to lessen homosexuality's overwhelming weirdness) doctor, or a "gay" lawyer, or a "gay" fill-in-the-blank. If, as homosexuals claim, their sexual orientation doesn't/shouldn't matter in whatever goal they are reaching for, why make it the foremost part of one's identity? Because, if the truth be told, sexual orientation does matter, especially to them. When a homosexual reaches his goal, this somehow equates, at least in his mind, to some kind of validation by the heterosexual community, something he desperately craves, mainly because, deep down, he knows his sexual orientation is against the laws of nature. If a homosexual reached his goal without making an issue of his sexual orientation, then he would have been elected purely on the merits/demerits of his arguments, ideas, etc.; his victory would be hollow against the backdrop of his wider identity, homosexuality, because there would be no concomitant validation of his personal lifestyle.

None of the above should be misconstrued as meaning I believe homosexuals should be persecuted. As long as it's voluntary, people have a right to do as they wish with each other. People have a right to be wrong in this country as long as they are not infringing on another person's liberty. I just don't want/need to hear about it.

Take care.
DAL357

Dinner's cold, where have you been?

One of the most ironic ideas I’ve heard over the last six months is that President Obama is swinging this country towards socialism. I’ve actually read more than one story where people are hopping mad because they believe Obama is taking America from freedom to socialism in one fell swoop. I’d just like to ask these people where they have been. You don’t go from freedom to socialism (fascism is actually closer to the mark, but I digress) without either one of the following two conditions being met: brute force, as from an invading army (or a domestic army/government gone bad); or because your country has been heading that way for a while anyway. America falls under the second condition, and it has for the last century +.

The Johnny-come-latelys to the (correct) notion that America is already far down the path towards socialism belie their own ignorance every time they open their mouths to blame Obama for our present course. While they are spot on in their assessment of the current President’s intentions, a Barack Obama could not have been elected without the gradual acceptance over the generations that government should insinuate itself more and more into virtually every aspect of the daily lives of Americans because it somehow knows best.

The Tea Party movement was a great display of (some) Americans waking from their decades-long slumber, but it is doomed to failure, ultimately, because it has no real philosophical underpinnings, at least none that I’m aware of. To make it a lasting force to be reckoned with would require it to transcend the usual Democrat vs. Republican partyism and take the moral high ground by stating that nearly everything the government is involved in is anti-liberty, anti-individual, and wholly socialist.

Unfortunately, the same people in the movement today will go back to sleep if the next election cycle produces a Republican majority in Congress, and two years after that, a Republican president. This might slow the run towards socialism to a crawl, but it certainly won’t reverse it, because Republicans, both the elected and the electorate, like big government. Big G brings perks Republicans like (the War on Drugs; a big-stick military; pilfering the productive for the benefit of the retired, etc.) that a government hemmed in by a pesky, adhered to, document of limitations on its actions (such as the U.S. Constitution) wouldn’t/couldn’t. (It’s only in how to use Big G that Republicans differ from Democrats, not in the notion that it shouldn’t exist in its present form.)

Obama is not dragging this country down the path to socialism; all he’s done is merely taken over the controls of a freight train headed that way already. Sure, he’s nudged the accelerator forward a bit more than a Republican might have, but we were going that way anyhow. Those who think everything was hunky dory, or at least tolerable, before Obama’s election have no clue about how much of the problem they really are.

(BTW, I am well aware that the Tea Party movement is not only made up of disgruntled Republicans, so please don’t take me to task for coloring it as such. But I believe disgruntled Republicans form the nucleus of the movement. On another note, it’s nice to see some Ayn Randism has infiltrated the movement [see photo above], as that can only be a good thing.)

Take care.
DAL357

Cali going to pot?

Now here's some outside-the-box thinking that makes sense:

Calif. Assembly Bill Would Legalize, Tax Marijuana

A state legislator is reviving the debate about legalizing marijuana as a way of raising money for cash-strapped state and local governments.

Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, introduced legislation Monday, that if approved by the California Legislature, would put pot on the same legal footing as alcohol — legalizing its sale and having the state tax it.

Under AB 390, adults over the age of 21 would be allowed to buy marijuana from licensed sellers, and driving under the influence of it would be prohibited.

Ammiano said massive eradication efforts have failed [YOU THINK?!?!] to make a dent in this underground industry, so it's time to bring what he calls "a major piece of our economy into the light of day."

His proposal, which has been endorsed by some law enforcement officials, would tax all pot sales at a rate of $50 per ounce.

Ammiano called it "simply nonsensical" to keep marijuana, the state's top cash crop, unregulated and untaxed in light of the state's massive financial problems.

"With the state in the midst of an historic economic crisis, the move towards regulating and taxing marijuana is simply common sense," Ammiano said at a news conference at the state building on Golden Gate Avenue in San Francisco.

I in no way advocate drugs or their use, including alcohol, but neither do I wish to prohibit them from the people that want them. As long as a person is not directly endangering others by their use/abuse of drugs, they can mainline Drano for all I care.

Of course, this isn't going to get even close to being signed into law. Too many drug warriors, those beefy, brush-cut boys in paramilitary garb who think they somehow aren't civilians, et al, not to mention idiot politicians, have a vested interest in keeping the already-lost War on Drugs going. So precious, dwindling resources will continue to be wasted on a lost cause.

It impovrishes the imagination.

Take care.
DAL357

Same ol', same ol'

I can't fathom that anyone would be surprised at the apparent chicanery going on behind the recent Iranian presidential election. What is especially surprising is how the Iranian people themselves could be hoodwinked into believing that they have any real say in their government. Free elections are instruments of change only for the relatively free; sham elections are an attempt by totalitarians and tyrants to lend themselves authenticity and credibility.

To the Iranian people: I guess it's time for another revolution, eh? Just be careful next time who you hook your wagon to. Sure, the Shah had to go, but who took his place? That's right, another cruel tyrant. You're about as dumb as the French who overthrew a corrupt monarchy in the late 18th century and then turned right around and installed a dictator, Napoleon, into power. Never forget that great line from the rock group the Who: Meet the old boss / same as the old boss.

In practically every nation it seems to be that the MO of the populace is to exchange one government for exactly the same type of government and then expect different results. It must have something to do with the human psyche; one example is an abused daughter that grows up to choose an abusive spouse because it's a familiar, known quantity that fits the patterns she was raised to believe are normal. Now, extrapolate that thinking to a national scale and you'll get the picture. It takes a truly strong, independent people to go in a completely new direction, which is why the American revolution was so rare and wonderful. Unfortunately, Americans no longer have the sense or stones to see the mess they've made and take a truly new path. I expect that kind of locked mindset from foreigners; I am ashamed of it from Americans.

Take care.
DAL357

Infinite hubris coupled with economic ignorance

Does it ever end? I suppose it will someday, but for now the attitude of the current idiot administration/party in power, as opposed to the last idiot administration, seems to be "in for a penny, in for a pound." They can't wait to display the depths of their economic illiteracy to the world. Check out the following hyper-moronic plan to stimulate U.S. auto sales.

*****

Obama, lawmakers agree on "cash-for-clunkers" bill
Tue May 5, 3:49 pm ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama and Democratic lawmakers reached agreement on Tuesday on a legislative proposal designed to stimulate U.S. auto sales, which have fallen to near 30-year lows.

The one-year plan crafted by members of the U.S. House of Representatives would offer vouchers worth up to $4,500 for owners to replace their less fuel efficient vehicles for models that get better gas mileage.

The goal of the "cash for clunkers" legislation is to sell 1 million vehicles.

"By stimulating consumer demand for new vehicles, this proposal will directly benefit domestic autoworkers and automotive manufacturers, which have arguably been hardest hit by the current economic downturn," said Rep. John Dingell, a Michigan Democrat and staunch industry ally.

House Majority leader Steny Hoyer has embraced the proposal and said in an interview with Reuters in April that the measure would be acted upon quickly once proposed.

*****

Why only $4500 towards a new car? Why not give the things away to everyone (citizen and illegal alike) and make those factories really hum?

Truthfully, I don't really care anymore. As someone I read recently said, it's all the Democrats' baby now; they can't blame the impending fiscal ka-boom on those worms known as the Republicans, who stand for nothing except a different version of big government. In fact, I implore all idiotic ideas be not only proposed, but adopted, thereby hastening the day of reckoning.

Take care.
DAL357

Swine flu update

Update: SHUT THE HE** UP ABOUT THIS MEDIA-DRIVEN NON EVENT!!! It's obvious to anyone with half a functioning brain that this is NOT the population-reducing pandemic that's been predicted for decades by sci-fi writers and epidemiologists, at least not yet. If the virus goes into hiding, morphs into something more deadly, then resurfaces during the next cold-and-flu season, we'll have something to worry about. But those are BIG ifs. In the meantime, try to refocus on how we're all getting bent over a barrel by a government run amok, elected by a people who are willfully deaf, dumb, and blind, for this flu thing is most assuredly an attempt to distract you from the real epidemic: venal politicians and the idiots who elect them.

Take care.
DAL357

The Battle of Blenheim

Here's a little poem I stumbled across that I thought others might like. Take a gander and see what you think.

*****

The Battle of Blenheim
Robert Southey (1774-1843)

It was a summer evening,
Old Kaspar's work was done,
And he before his cottage door
Was sitting in the sun,
And by him sported on the green
His little grandchild Wilhelmine.

She saw her brother Peterkin
Roll something large and round,
Which he beside the rivulet
In playing there had found;
He came to ask what he had found,
That was so large, and smooth, and round.

Old Kaspar took it from the boy,
Who stood expectant by;
And then the old man shook his head,
And, with a natural sigh,
"'Tis some poor fellow's skull," said he,
"Who fell in the great victory.

"I find them in the garden,
For there's many here about;
And often when I go to plough,
The ploughshare turns them out!
For many thousand men," said he,
"Were slain in that great victory."

"Now tell us what 'twas all about,"
Young Peterkin, he cries;
And little Wilhelmine looks up
With wonder-waiting eyes;
"Now tell us all about the war,
And what they fought each other for."

"It was the English," Kaspar cried,
"Who put the French to rout;
But what they fought each other for,
I could not well make out;
But everybody said," quoth he,
"That 'twas a famous victory.

"My father lived at Blenheim then,
Yon little stream hard by;
They burnt his dwelling to the ground,
And he was forced to fly;
So with his wife and child he fled,
Nor had he where to rest his head.

"With fire and sword the country round
Was wasted far and wide,
And many a childing mother then,
And new-born baby died;
But things like that, you know, must be
At every famous victory.

"They say it was a shocking sight
After the field was won;
For many thousand bodies here
Lay rotting in the sun;
But things like that, you know, must be
After a famous victory.

"Great praise the Duke of Marlbro' won,
And our good Prince Eugene."
"Why, 'twas a very wicked thing!"
Said little Wilhelmine.
"Nay... nay... my little girl," quoth he,
"It was a famous victory.

"And everybody praised the Duke
Who this great fight did win."
"But what good came of it at last?"
Quoth little Peterkin.
"Why that I cannot tell," said he,
"But 'twas a famous victory."

Note: Prince Eugene: François Eugene de Savoie-Carignan, a brilliant general who aided Marlborough in defeating the Bavarians and French at Blenheim, Bavaria, August 13, 1704.

*****

Ah, the folly of war. Too bad this bit of wisdom isn't learned by every child in grade school in America. Nah, that couldn't happen, it might give the little darlings nightmares, although many seem to watch movies with vicious characters and graphic, violent action at far too young an age with scant parental supervision.

Take care.
DAL357

Gouging out your own eye to help your neighbor see better

Gun control debate hangs over U.S.-Mexico violence
By SUZANNE GAMBOA, AP Writer

WASHINGTON – Members of Congress may be alarmed by the surge in Mexican drug violence and its potential to spill across the border, but they grow silent when the talk turns to gun control as a solution. [Yup, nothing like fear of not winning re-election to shut a politician's mouth; so, these creatures can be taught simple tricks, eh?]

With related kidnappings and killings occurring in the U.S., the Obama administration is likely to shift dozens of enforcement agents and millions of dollars to the fight against Mexican drug cartels. [A losing proposition, as the War on Drugs is unwinnable, and those without a vested interest in keeping it going (law enforcement, to name one) and a scintilla of sense know that.]

Underscoring the Obama administration's concern over the violence and the potential for a large-scale spillover into the United States, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will travel to Mexico on Wednesday to show support for its crackdown on drug cartels. [Oh, "the potential" for violence to come to the US. Yes, let's legislate on the "potential" of something that hasn't happened. Sure, why not? It helps distract attention from the FedGov's abject failure to protect its citizens from financial fraud, and it makes the pols seem like they're efficient go-getters, when, of course, they are not.]

Mexico has long tried to get the United States to curtail the number of guns — many purchased legally — that wind up south of the border, where gun laws are much stricter. The State Department says firearms obtained in the U.S. account for an estimated 95 percent of Mexico's drug-related killings. [So, in essence, what this paragraph is saying is that strict gun laws do not prevent murders (so why have them?). Also, I like how the word "estimated" is thrown in there. Whose estimate is that, what's it based on, and from which orifice did they pull that figure? Nonsense like this is easy to see through, unless you're a weak-minded dolt, and we have millions of them in the US--basically anyone who votes Republican or Democrat because they think there is no alternative.]

"If President Calderon's policies to roll back organized crime are to be successful, we need to defang the power of the drug syndicates to inflict damage upon our state, local and police forces," Arturo Sarukhan, the Mexican ambassador to the United States, said in January. "The best way we can do that is for a real ratcheting up of the United States' capabilities of shutting down the flow of weapons." ["Flow of weapons," could you please quantify that? Heck, one or two guns (or knives, or baseball bats, etc.) could be a "flow of weapons." You know, I agree with the ambassador on one point: we should ratchet up the US' capabilities by building a wall from one end of the border to the other, patrolling it incessantly, and shooting any Mexican citizens who happen crawl over or under it. That would cut down on the imaginary "flow of weapons" in one direction and the very real flow of illegal immigrants in the other.]

"I don't think the solution to Mexico's problems is to limit Second Amendment gun rights in this country," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, chairman of the Senate GOP's election committee. "What we can do is help our Mexican friends enforce their own laws." [Now here's a politician with his finger firmly in the wind. He's right, except about the part where "we" (the US) should help Mexico enforce its own laws; I missed that part of the US Constitution.]

For his part, Obama has signaled a willingness to tighten restrictions on guns, calling the flow of drug money and guns "a two-way situation." Yet 65 Democrats said in a letter to Holder that they would oppose any attempt by the administration to revive a ban on military-style weapons. ["Obama has signaled a willingness to tighten restrictions on guns." Really? Just a "willingness?" I'll bet he's foaming at the mouth at the prospect.]

Tom Diaz, an analyst at the Violence Policy Center, a gun [banning] control group, said cartels use military-style weapons such as the Armalite AR-50, a .50-caliber sniper rifle. ["Military-style weapons"...so the guns just have to look like military weapons, but not really be military weapons? Now we're talking about cosmetics?]

Semiautomatic rifles used by the cartels [Why would a drug-runner use a semiautomatic rifle when fully-automatic rifles are readily available from former Eastern-bloc countries, and corrupt soldiers in the Mexican army itself? These drug gangs have enough money to get practically anything they want, so why would they mess around with the relatively slower firepower of a semi-auto? The answer is they wouldn't.] are imported legally into the U.S. as "sporting" weapons, a policy that was stopped for years but revived under President George W. Bush. [I see, lay the blame at Bush's feet. The policy was "revived" because its ten-year lifespan expired--Bush had nothing to do with it. Not that I'm a fan of Bush, I'm glad he's gone, but let's at least try to act like an unbiased reporter, okay SUZANNE GAMBOA?]

Rep. John Tierney, D-Mass., who chaired a hearing on guns going to Mexico, said he is not seeking widespread gun control [No, that would be too ambitious. Just another nick in the Death of a Thousand Cuts gun owners are enduring will do.] but Congress must do something. [Even if it's the wrong thing. Hey, portraying a situation with an aura of desperation demanding extreme exigence worked like gangbusters for the TARP fiasco, so why not trot out the ploy again for this circumstance? If you really want to do something, as I said above, make the border as impenetrable as humanly possible. Until you do that, Tierney, you're just wanking around.]

"We don't want to get distracted by the gun industry lobby of the NRA trying to talk about (how) every attempt to bring some sanity to the situation is somehow an attempt to get rid of everybody's Second Amendment rights," he said. "That's a red herring." [I see. So any discussion that runs contrary to the course of action you've already decided upon should somehow be dismissed as a distraction? Further suppressing the God-given and Constitutionally-guaranteed rights of US citizens is somehow bringing "sanity" to a situation? No thanks, fool.]

*****

Honestly, if this is the best ploy the Obama administration can come up with to further suppress our rights, and I don't want to get over confident, but I believe we have little to fear as gun owners. If this is the best argument they can proffer for another AWB, then this is a sorry, incompetent administration with such a paucity of ideas that they may make the Carter administration look good.

Take care.
DAL357

Flame on!

If you don’t like the direction the United States is going, and you’re wondering what went wrong, ask yourself this: “Did I vote for the Democrats or the Republicans in the last election, or in any other previous election?” If you said, “Democrats,” you’ve just found out what has gone wrong. Those who said, “Republicans,” however, have no reason to feel smug or superior, for you too are part of the problem. If, in fact, you have ever voted for either party in your lifetime, you bear direct responsibility for the collectivist state America has become. (Honesty compels me to admit that I, too, bear direct responsibility for this mess, although I have achieved at least a partial absolution by voting for a Libertarian candidate in three out of the last four presidential elections. Prior to that, I voted a straight Republican ticket since Reagan was first elected, when I became eligible to vote.) Neither of the two major parties supports liberty (the ONLY thing you should be voting for), therefore, a vote for either is a vote against the principles espoused in the U.S. Constitution and a vote against liberty.

If you identify yourself with and support either major party, you truly are anti-liberty and un-American. I’ll even go so far as to say you have disrespected and spat upon the efforts of all our military war veterans, both those who returned and those who didn’t, in a way that’s far more grievous than any street protestor has ever done. You, my fellow countrymen, have offered up your precious, precious liberty to the monsters you’ve created: people, aka politicians, who tell you what you want to hear and promise to suppress or steal from others, even though it flies in the face of that one cardinal rule of reality: You can’t get something for nothing.

You who support either major party are not Americans; you’re far from deserving that lofty title. Perhaps when, if ever, you think outside your little self-imposed box and see yourself for what you really are--a stooge for those who purportedly stand for liberty, but who actually work feverishly against it--you will see I’m 100 percent correct. I won’t, however, hold my breath waiting for that to happen. Heck, you’re probably so PO’d at me now that you can hardly contain yourself. Tough. It’s high time those of us who understand what liberty truly means stop pussyfooting around with you one-dimensional psuedo-Americans and call you on your part in ruining what was once the most exceptional nation the world had ever seen.

Enjoy the country you have made, for you deserve it.

Take care.
DAL357

Oh, GREAT!

Yup, JUST what we needed here in Colorado:

Go East, young man? Californians look for the exit
By MICHAEL R. BLOOD, AP Writer

LOS ANGELES – Mike Reilly spent his lifetime chasing the California dream. This year he's going to look for it in Colorado.

With a house purchase near Denver in the works, the 38-year-old engineering contractor plans to move his family 1,200 miles away from his home state's lemon groves, sunshine and beaches. For him, years of rising taxes, dead-end schools, unchecked illegal immigration and clogged traffic have robbed the Golden State of its allure.

Why are so many looking for an exit?

Among other things: California's unemployment rate hit 8.4 percent in November, the third-highest in the nation, and it is expected to get worse. A record 236,000 foreclosures are projected for 2008, more than the prior nine years combined, according to research firm MDA DataQuick. Personal income was about flat last year.

"We've lived off the investments our parents made in the '50s and '60s for a long time," says Tim Hodson, director of the Center for California Studies at California State University, Sacramento. "We're somewhat in the position of a Rust Belt state in the 1970s."

Financial adviser Barry Hartz lived in California for 60 years and once ran for state Assembly before relocating with his wife last year to Colorado Springs, Colo.[!!!], where his son's family had moved.

As long as these dudes leave their scummy California politics behind, hey, they're welcome here in Colorado.

But I know they won't. How? I've seen the influx of Cali birds into Colorado for the last 15+ years and I've watched how they have nudged Colorado a little more to the left each election cycle. One example that springs to mind is the closing of the "gun show loophole." I'd bet bodyparts that that would never have gotten any traction prior to the migration of Golden Staters.

They say that as California goes, so goes the nation. I don't know about the nation, although I suspect that it's true, but I can testify to the fact that renegade Californians have changed the tenor of Colorado politics and individual liberty here, and not for the better.

Take care.
DAL357

P.S. I know at least one person who reads this blog lives in California, but he is quite libertarian in his politics from what I've read on his blog, so the above rant doesn't apply to him.

Damned if you do, taxed if you don't

It seems the average person just can't win:

Motorists' habits spur call for tax increases
WASHINGTON – Motorists are driving less and buying less gasoline, which means fuel taxes aren't raising enough money to keep pace with the cost of road, bridge and transit programs.

A federal commission created by Congress to find a way to make up the growing revenue shortfall in the program that funds highway repairs and construction is talking about increasing federal gas and diesel taxes.

A roughly 50 percent increase in gasoline and diesel fuel taxes is being urged by the commission until the government devises another way for motorists to pay for using public roads.

The 15-member National Commission on Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing is the second group in a year to call for increasing the current 18.4 cents a gallon federal tax on gasoline and the 24.4 cents a gallon tax on diesel. State fuel taxes vary from state to state.

Of course, this couldn't come at a better time, with the economy in a recession and being stalked by a depression that will pounce should it have a couple of wrong moves foisted upon it (like increasing taxes). Yup, more taxes in tough economic times is definitely the way to go. God forbid that services should ever be cut back to match revenues, that might give the impression that government is not, after all, omniscient and omnipotent, and we can't have that.

Actually, I wouldn't be against this tax if it is really needed to repair rotting infrastructure and, now here's the BIG IF, every penny collected would go towards its intended purpose; I believe those who drive, as opposed to those who walk as their main means of conveyance, should have to pay for the upkeep of the roads. But, having lived and learned enough about the U.S. government and the amnesia a fresh batch of money induces in it, I know this will not happen. A few token, pork barrel projects will get the green light but the overall system will continue to deteriorate and the money will somehow mysteriously vanish into black-hole government coffers.

One thing I wonder about, though, is why did this suddenly dawn upon the powers that be? The infrastructure rot they're talking about doesn't happen overnight. Why wasn't the upkeep maintained when the country was awash in illusionary wealth and guzzling gas like there was no tomorrow? Perhaps because the difference between the money collected and the pittance spent on maintenance was so vast? But with just a little more cash, the PTB assure us, things are going to be hunky dory. That's the same old song politicians and bureaucrats having been whistling for generations. They keep doing it, unfortunately, because it works. It's no wonder they have no respect for the electorate.

Take care.
DAL357

Bush administration finally throws gun owners a bone

According to this story, the Bush administration is throwing an 11th hour lagniappe to gun owners in the form of reversing a quarter-century-old federal rule that essentially banned the carrying of loaded guns in national parks.

Good, GW, now what else do you have in your sack of gifts for the folks who were instrumental in electing you not once, but twice, to the White House? Anything?

As might be expected, the gun banners are predicting catastrophe once the new ruling is enacted. I especially love the following quote by career politician Dianne Feinstein:

"The Reagan-era rules have stood the test of time and make our national parks safe for all who visit them," [emphasis mine] Feinstein said. "The Bush administration changes will make our national parks more dangerous and will upset the delicate balance that exists between park visitors and wildlife."

Well, not quite safe for all, Miss Ruling Elite. Check out this link to a story from back in 2000 about some brutal murders in Yosemite National Park. Your precious gun ban didn't help those four women, did it?

Regardless, this is a good thing and it looks like I know where I'll be spending at least part of my summer next year: in one of the National Parks here in Colorado...finally.

Take care.
DAL357

Paulson, Paulson, Paulson

"Paulson pulling more tricks to bolster US economy"

Finally, an honest headline about the parlor games and sleight of hand tricks that are being implemented to maintain the facade of never-ending growth and good times. I saved it, so here are a couple of excerpts I find particularly telling.


"With the economy showing further signs that it is headed into a steep swoon, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is pulling more tricks out of his bag to try bolster the country's battered financial sector."

"To revive the economy, President-elect Barack Obama has said a top priority will be working with Congress to enact a stimulus package with the goal of creating 2.5 million new jobs over the next two years. Analysts believe such an effort will require spending between $500 billion to $700 billion, a figure that would be on top of all the money being spent to stabilize the financial system."


Ah, the old stimulus package, as if the economy somehow just forgot to work and needs to be prodded to get back to business. You know, if it wasn't for the wisdom of governments here and abroad, concepts like an economy just couldn't exist. At least that's apparently the thinking behind the philosophy of government stimulus (aka interference). Oh, and that 2.5 million new jobs should really help alleviate the pain of the 10 million+ jobs that will be lost over the same period.

Will governments ever learn? I doubt it. It's not in their nature to let markets operate independently, only insuring that force or fraud are not present (something they haven't been doing, which is part of the reason we're in our present pickle). If they did that, people would soon see that very little government is needed to live a full, productive life, and where is the advantage for politicians and bureaucrats in that?

The only way the US government will stop (temporarily, at least) is when it has so thoroughly bankrupted and discredited our economy and, by extension, itself, that it has absolutely no more credibility with anyone anywhere in the world, much less its own citizens. Will our present crisis lead to that apocryphal event? I do not know, but it looks to be a good start.

Good luck in the future. I'm not going to let this stuff bother me because, as I've always said, "living well is the best revenge" (on your enemies). With that in mind, I believe I'll steal a few hours and head to the range to try out some new loads I made up (range report to follow, if I go).

Take care.
DAL357

Bailout, shmailout

As is often the case in life, intelligence is no guarantee of making the right decision. Take the debate on the automobile industry bailout for example. I've recently heard more than one otherwise intelligent person pontificate that the government should give money to that ailing industry, but only with strings attached. Those strings would include governmental oversight that the industry was using the money correctly and somehow, via the wise hand of the governmental guidance (BWAHAHAHA!), miraculously seeing the light and changing the deeply entrenched, decades-long, error of its ways.

HUH?

Note to the power brokers in DC, aka elected politicians and appointed bureaucrats: Why would you want to complicate your life like that? And who are you to give advice to anyone on the judicious use of money and organizational management? You've been spending more than you bring in for many, many years, so you have absolutely no standing to be giving advice to anyone. Let me help you to make your collective lives easier so you can concentrate on what you do best: bamboozling enough of your constituents to win your next term.

Okay, here's what you do, political creatures. Let the auto industry sink or swim on its own without one penny of taxpayer money. No special committees, commissions, or agency need be created to direct or give advice to the industry. This will free up plenty of time to hire prostitutes (male or female, as your preference dictates), diddle pages (male or female, as your preference dictates [right, Barney?]), make the party circuit, play in bathroom stalls, perform clandestine dope deals, fight the war on drugs, lard unneeded bills with pork (gotta keep those porkers at home happy), polish your lies, secretly siphon off ill-gotten money (taxes) for personal use, incite class warfare and envy, curry and grant favors to industries who kowtow to you, and generally be the log-in-the-eye slobs, sybarites, and sycophants you've always been.

That's a lot of activity and we are all only given 24 hours in a day, so don't complicate your life by taking on tasks that another system, the free market, can handle; you'll need your time and rest for the above exhaustive pursuits. Enjoy your life now, for if there is one after this, you likely won't. Don't worry, the free market excels at taking care of businesses that have become bloated and inefficient as a result of bad decisions. Let the free market take that wheezing, sweating, obese industry for a trip to boot camp and watch the lean, mean fighting machine that returns. That's right, the industry will survive in one form or another, perhaps not in Detroit, but it will survive. The phoenix that arises from the ashes will be able to compete with any other car maker on the planet. And the best part is you won't have to lift a finger for any of this to take place.

Sound like a deal? Good! Now get on out there, tiger, and pursue the illicit activities you were bred for!

Take care.
DAL357

Post mortem on conservatism (and the Republican party itself)

Although the following excerpt from this essay by Chuck Baldwin deals with guns, a big reason it caught my eye, the rest of the piece dissects the rotting corpse of conservatism. Hence, it's well worth a read.

"Then there was the pathetic attempt by the National Rifle Association (NRA) to scare gun owners regarding an Obama White House. Remember that John McCain is the same guy that the NRA rightly condemned for proposing his blatantly unconstitutional McCain/Feingold bill. McCain is also the same guy that tried to close down gun shows. He even made a personal campaign appearance for a pro-gun control liberal in the State of Oregon a few short years ago. In fact, the Gun Owners of America (GOA) gave McCain a grade of "F" for his dismal record on Second Amendment issues. Once again, Chicken Little-style paranoia over Barack Obama rang hollow when the alternative was someone as liberal as John McCain."

Gun owners had no viable friend as presidential candidate this time, but they talked themselves into believing McCain was their man out of desperation. See where it got them? As the differences blur between the two parties and they slowly meld into one, who can gun owners turn to? Basically no one, at least no one with a snowball's chance in heck of being elected, at least at this point in history.

The best that can be hoped for is Obama doesn't do too much more damage to our already perforated second amendment and the Republican party once again stands as a true alternative, rather than a pale imitation of, the Democrats. Like Baldwin, I am not too optimistic of that outcome.

Of course, even if the Republicans do thoroughly revamp their party and turn it into the antithesis of the Democrat party, that still doesn't guarantee success. Why not? Simply put, the American electorate won't stand for their politicians telling them the truth. Can you imagine a revamped Republican standing up and telling folks we are profoundly broke as a nation, we have to rely on borrowed money just to meet our day-to-day living expenses, and if he is elected that will all stop and everyone will have to tighten their belts and live within their means? He'd be lucky if his share of the vote reached double digits.

Americans can't stand the truth. They want lies, the bigger the better. They want, collectively speaking, something for nothing. I don't see this changing until...well, ever, actually. If/when the two main parties show themselves for the bumbling meddlers they are and everyone finally gets the message, do you really think American voters will turn to someone offering the only viable way out of the mess, liberty and freedom? If you think they will, you're far more optimistic than I. They will almost assuredly go for a fascist or semi-fascist who tells them too much liberty is a bad thing and what's needed is ever-more control from the top. He/she will make big promises (big lies) which the something-for-nothing American voters will eat up and beg for more. If you doubt me, please explain to me how we got to the point we are.

Something-for-nothing Americans, including "The Greatest Generation," with their demands for Social Security/Medicare, have ruined this once-great republic. I only see a bleak future, with the possible exception of a few head fakes here and there that won't last long.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to buy a ticket for tonight's state-sponsored lotto drawing.

Take care.
DAL357

If they're smart...

Just some of my ramblings:

Congratulations on bamboozling a majority of the American public and getting yourself elected. I'm talking, of course, to the Democrat party/Obama, but I could have used the same line had the Republican party managed to get McCain elected.

Okay, on to the issue that really concerns me: gun control. I realize the following will be giving them (Democrats who want to control/restrict gun ownership) LOTS of credit, but what if they don't start out of the gate with a new, non-sunsetting Assault Weapons Ban? In fact, what if they don't even introduce any new anti-gun legislation at all during Obama's first term?

Hey, it could happen.

This might very well make those who have been warning of Obama's anti-gun streak look like the boy who cried wolf, lulling people into a false sense of security and weakening gun-rights organizations. Then, during a second term, when he doesn't have to worry about getting re-elected, Obama and a Democrat congress can hack and hew at the second amendment with gay abandon.

But, of course, they're probably not that smart, so we'll soon be sweating out whether another, more inclusive, AWB will pass. See what reliance on only Republicans has gotten us? As power goes back and forth over the years between the Dems and Repubs, more and more of our rights are suppressed/lost. This is an insane fight that will eventually have only one outcome: a total suppression/loss of gun rights by American citizens.

I don't have any magic answers. The republic is dead, and I'm not saying that just because of the recent election; I've believed it for quite some time.

The one hope we might have, not only as gun owners, but also as Americans, is that both the Dems and Repubs so thoroughly discredit themselves by destroying what made America exceptional, its liberty, not to mention its economy, that even the dimmest-bulb voter will look for a better alternative. Of course, things have a long way to go before we get to that point, if we ever do, probably generations, so I doubt any of us will live to see that happen.

Take care.
DAL357

P.S. As I stated before, although I can't remember if it was on this blog or on someone else's blog, let's all hope that Obama and friends are kept so busy putting out fires caused by the financial meltdown we're experiencing, and will continue to experience after the honeymoon is over, that they don't have much time to put together much in the way of a new AWB.

Burning down the house

I know it's cynical of me to say this, but I actually hope that economic conditions continue to worsen. Why? Simply for this reason alone: Every time the fed/congress makes a move that is ineffectual in improving the US economy, which essentially means every move they make, they further expose themselves as the charlatans they are. Eventually, even the thickest US citizen will come to see that those in DC are nothing more than the equivalent of "that man behind the curtain."

*****

No one person, group, or country can evade reality forever. Reality states that consuming more than you produce is, eventually, a one-way ticket to ruin. In fact, the only possible way one can consume more than they produce is by taking it from another who has produced more than they can, or care to, consume. This is the state of our economy today. We, as a nation, are consuming more than we produce. The way we can do this is via foreign investment of around two billion bucks a day in promises to repay with future taxes. Without that daily infusion of money, we wouldn't be able to function in the way we have been conditioned to expect. Take it away and things get ugly fast. Reality will reassert itself and demand to be heard, and its message will be this: Live within your means or perish.

This does not mean that I think credit and borrowing are bad, for under the right circumstance, they are not. The right circumstance means one would use that money in a way that helps to produce more income, such as when a business buys a piece of equipment that makes them more productive. If the loaned money won't help one become more productive, it shouldn't be asked for. Borrowing should not be looked at as another income stream, as it is with the US government, and too many US citizens, today. Using borrowed money to finance consumables that produce nothing but an obligation is irresponsible, immature, and immoral.

It is impossible to get something for nothing in this universe, but that's exactly what the electorate has come to believe, and it shows via the representatives they elect and keep in office. Somewhere along the line, this something-for-nothing fantasy will answer to reality. I believe we are seeing reality's preliminary questioning of the fantasy now, with a full-blown interrogation to follow.

*****

All of the babble we are hearing today about this or that financial shenanigan is merely obfuscation for the undeniable fact that we have violated the key principle of living within our means and not spending more than we make. Until we, as a nation, face our profligate ways soberly, the kindling for the eventual fiscal meltdown will continue to pile higher and higher and make the coming conflagration more and more destructive.

Take care.
DAL357

A bit nuts

I'm not sure I understand the purpose of the organization ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). Is the purpose to register a bunch of folks who are too clueless to find out how to become eligible voters? If so, how well versed could they be on the mechanics of how our government is supposed, at least in theory, to work? I submit probably not well versed at all. If a citizen is not concerned enough to figure out how to get themselves registered to vote, then it's probably not all that important to him and he should be left alone, for a citizen with a vote who is unaware of the purpose and content of the U.S. Constitution, the proper functions of the three braches of government, and basic history, is a dangerous person indeed. Their voting becomes tantamount to throwing a cocked revolver into a playpen full of curious toddlers.

We already have plenty of uninformed voters. I'd venture to say the majority of registered voters have little to no clue as to the purpose of government in a free country, so why do we need to add to that group by getting still more of the same?

I heard an ACORN representative on the radio two days ago decrying the fact that the U.S. has the lowest number of registered voters in the Western world. So? Somewhow, ipso facto, this is supposed to translate into what? Discrimination? Repression? Unfairness? Today, unlike in the receeding past, I don't believe anyone in this country who is motivated enough to do so would be barred from registering to vote. So, with that in mind, how can an organization like ACORN, which takes more than $30 million from the government to function, fill any legitimate purpose? Truth be told, it can't and doesn't, unless inflating the voter rolls with more people than we already have who are likely to vote for the candidate who can promise them the most loot from someone else's pocket can be deemed a legitimate purpose.

Take care.
DAL357