December 31, 2008
December 30, 2008
Arrrrrrrrg.............
More on today's events later this week or next, I have a mother f*****g headache from the insanity of it all. The world cannot have this many stupid people in it, can it?
December 27, 2008
Christmas at Lakeside 2008
While mother and Joey were busy preparing a detailed inventory per the facilitators request, Santa snuck in and dropped off a nice Christmas Tree. I reviewed the photos and did not see a hint of Santa sneaking in, he still has it!
Just a quick comment on comments....
I do appreciate them, please keep on message and keep things civil.
December 26, 2008
David Symons's way of saying Merry Christmas to his sister.
Folks I am disgusted, I am pissed and I am going to let everyone know about this. I'm Sorry, but this crosses the line between being decent and mature and showing sheer vindictiveness.
It's the day after Christmas and this is his idea of how to say Merry Christmas. Pathetic, simply pathetic.
It truly is a sad day for Lakeside and the other associations on Higgins Lake, when the Lakeside Camp president shows this much hatred towards his sister.
More later...I need to calm down.
Unfucking believeable, David Symons tries to ruin Christmas!
Knowing that mother wanted to use HER cottage one last time before it is sold, David Symons steals the Holiday spirit from his sister.
But thats not all....
And not just satisfied with getting a Judge to sign a motion on December 23 he then takes family love to an all new low.....
December 25, 2008
December 24, 2008
Perhaps it's a good thing not everyone is connected!
'Twas the Night Before Christmas
by Jason L.
'Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the house,
no devices were running, not even my mouse!
The blizzard had swept through the town an ice shower,
it had thrashed, it had crashed, we had all lost our power!
I was sitting there weeping with my mind full of dread,
when a great revelation popped in my head!
My BlackBerry, my BlackBerry...on 24/7,
it was my salvation, my new glimpse of heaven!
I leaped from my chair with a great sense of joy,
Christmas may be for children, but I had my toy!
With instant push email, a browser, and flash,
it was the most prized possession of my electronic stash!
My eyes lit up brightly as they fell down upon it,
I know it's an object, but I always did fawn it!
When, what to my glimmering sight should appear,
an email, a text, my eye shed a tear!
My night was not ruined, my nightmare deflected,
I knew in a moment, I was always connected!
I unwrapped my "sword" from its tight leather sheath,
and I whistled, and shouted, and gritted my teeth!
"I love you! I love you! My glorious BlackBerry!
I love you! I love you! My Christmas is merry!"
Open browser, open menu, and enter address,
to crackberry.com, joyous, God bless!"
The page began loading, the bar filled with blue,
I was filled with excitement knowing not what to do!
Like the Garden of Eden or lands milk and honey,
CrackBerry was my paradise, treasures greater than money!
With forums, and blogs, and up-to-date news,
it serves every person from Christians to Jews!
No matter what your religion or winter tradition,
crackberry.com brings all to fruition!
With tons of free goodies like ringtones and themes,
crackberry.com is more than it seems!
A central help center when your service is stopping,
or a bountiful warehouse for holiday shopping!
Wallpapers, skins, and cases to carry,
chargers, and cradles, and Bluetooths, how merry!
Forget hand-sewn sweaters, no fruitcakes, no more,
Don't need two front teeth just the Crackberry store!
After hours of surfing that wonderful site,
I bade my farewell and said my goodnight!
Put on my pajamas and I crept into bed,
while visions of BlackBerrys danced through my head!
I pulled up the covers and drifted to sleep,
praying the heavens my smartphone to keep!
A last roaming thought of my BlackBerry chum,
I knew in the night Kris Kringle would come!
He spoke not a word, but went straight to his work,
and filled all the stockings then turned with a jerk!
Ring-a-ling, ring-a-ling came a noise from his sleigh,
I woke up quite suddenly and heard Santa say,
"Yes Mrs. Claus I'll be home around dawn, and please stop worrying, my GPS's on!"
And away Santa flew like the down of a thistle,
but I heard him exclaim, and his BlackBerry whistle,
"Even Santa's connected and always doth carry, not magic, not Rudolph, but his faithful BlackBerry!"
December 23, 2008
Dirty laundry.......
I had hoped that this mess would have been kept between families where it should be but that is no longer the case. When one files a motion with the court it becomes a matter of public record. Hence I am free to inform all just what is currently taking place. I am going to try hard not to inject my personal feelings into this, but to give you the facts.
On December 8th of this year, David C. Symons through his attorney Philip R. Sturtz filed a motion for injunctive relief. There are eight (8) separate paragraphs to this motion, the first two are standard boiler plate, the remaining six (6) get to the meat of the matter.
1. That the Plaintiff has commenced a partition action before this Honorable Court.
2. That the court is well familiar with the facts and circumstances of the matter currently before this Court.
3. This matter has been hotly contested by the parties with no less than three (3) appeals being taken to the Court of Appeals. The Court in its last decision clearly and distinctly ordered the cottage sold to Mr. David C. Symons and directed Mr. David Meyer, the mediator to complete the terms forthwith.
4. That on or about November 24, 2008, apparently following the most recent motion in Court directing that the cottage has been sold, the defendants announce, "The cottage has been reserved for the Christmas holiday period. Dec. 23 through New Years", see exhibit #1 attached herto and incorporated herin. The Plaintiff, David C. Symons objects to the cottage, which he has purchased, being opened up for any parties for use during the Christmas holidays, or at any period of time.
5. That since this matter has been filed there have been numerous and repeated actions by parties which suggested the commission of waste or damage, including the painting of doors, and "the Internet saga Red Door Journal blog".
6. That it would appear from the e-mail, that while the cottage has been sold to Mr. Symons, that any and all parties will be using the cottage.
7. That the plaintiff is concerned about the commission of waste, turning on of water, re-heating, lack of oil and other neglect that may be committed to the cottage by parties.
8. That Mr. David C. Symons is the current purchaser, and as the purchaser has paid a large sum of money, and he is concerned about his investment and the condition that he may find the premises in if third parties are allowed to use the cottage.
WHEREFORE the Plaintiff prays that his Honorable Court would enter an Order stating that the cottage has been sold to Mr. Symons, that the mediator, Mr. David Meyer is preparing the finalization of all documents, including deeds and sale prices and that due to the nature of the sale and condition of the property the property will not be used by any parties since the cottage property has been sold.
Ok, so there you have the legal mumbo jumbo, the meat and potatoes of what has been filed. Now lets look at the facts.
David Symons submitted an offer to purchase, and gave a deposit to the mediator; nothing more, nothing less.
THERE HAS BEEN NO SALE.
THERE HAS BEEN NO LARGE SUM OF MONEY PAID TO ANYONE, THE DEFENDANTS OR THE COURT. THERE HAS BEEN NO RESOLUTION OF CONTENTS.
THERE HAS BEEN NO DEED TRANSFERED.
THERE HAS BEEN NO ACCOUNTING OF FEE'S OR COSTS.
SO ONE CAN CONCLUDE THAT THE COTTAGE HAS NOT BEEN SOLD. ONE WOULD THEN THINK THE OWNERS HAVE FULL RIGHTS TO THE USE OF THE COTTAGE AS THEY ALWAYS HAVE, UNTIL SUCH TIME AS A SALE IS CONSUMMATED. YOU WOULD THINK......
In other words, IT HAS NOT BEEN SOLD. A sale takes place when money is paid and deed is transferred. Not one of you loyal readers would sell your place and grant the purchaser full and exclusive use if there has been no money paid and no deed transferred.
Secondly, when the afore mentioned e-mail about the cottage being reserved for the Christmas holidays was sent out, per customary cottage protocol, it was followed up with a return email from David Symons, not only acknowledging that the cottage would be used, but included hints about how much oil was in the tank and should it get low, let Chris know to contact the oil provider. Now that doesn't sound like someone who is deathly afraid of the place being trashed. How did that turn about happen???
Now, mother and Joey are planning on going up for the Christmas holidays and will return after the new year.
Ok here is where I interject my opinion, for whats it worth.
So this latest attempt comes as no surprise and we will deal with it like we have in every other issue that has been thrown at us, and we will rise above, not stoop to his level.
Right now we are waiting on the Judge to decide on this latest motion, one that should be so simple even a 5th grader could get it right.
On December 8th of this year, David C. Symons through his attorney Philip R. Sturtz filed a motion for injunctive relief. There are eight (8) separate paragraphs to this motion, the first two are standard boiler plate, the remaining six (6) get to the meat of the matter.
1. That the Plaintiff has commenced a partition action before this Honorable Court.
2. That the court is well familiar with the facts and circumstances of the matter currently before this Court.
3. This matter has been hotly contested by the parties with no less than three (3) appeals being taken to the Court of Appeals. The Court in its last decision clearly and distinctly ordered the cottage sold to Mr. David C. Symons and directed Mr. David Meyer, the mediator to complete the terms forthwith.
4. That on or about November 24, 2008, apparently following the most recent motion in Court directing that the cottage has been sold, the defendants announce, "The cottage has been reserved for the Christmas holiday period. Dec. 23 through New Years", see exhibit #1 attached herto and incorporated herin. The Plaintiff, David C. Symons objects to the cottage, which he has purchased, being opened up for any parties for use during the Christmas holidays, or at any period of time.
5. That since this matter has been filed there have been numerous and repeated actions by parties which suggested the commission of waste or damage, including the painting of doors, and "the Internet saga Red Door Journal blog".
6. That it would appear from the e-mail, that while the cottage has been sold to Mr. Symons, that any and all parties will be using the cottage.
7. That the plaintiff is concerned about the commission of waste, turning on of water, re-heating, lack of oil and other neglect that may be committed to the cottage by parties.
8. That Mr. David C. Symons is the current purchaser, and as the purchaser has paid a large sum of money, and he is concerned about his investment and the condition that he may find the premises in if third parties are allowed to use the cottage.
WHEREFORE the Plaintiff prays that his Honorable Court would enter an Order stating that the cottage has been sold to Mr. Symons, that the mediator, Mr. David Meyer is preparing the finalization of all documents, including deeds and sale prices and that due to the nature of the sale and condition of the property the property will not be used by any parties since the cottage property has been sold.
Ok, so there you have the legal mumbo jumbo, the meat and potatoes of what has been filed. Now lets look at the facts.
David Symons submitted an offer to purchase, and gave a deposit to the mediator; nothing more, nothing less.
THERE HAS BEEN NO SALE.
THERE HAS BEEN NO LARGE SUM OF MONEY PAID TO ANYONE, THE DEFENDANTS OR THE COURT. THERE HAS BEEN NO RESOLUTION OF CONTENTS.
THERE HAS BEEN NO DEED TRANSFERED.
THERE HAS BEEN NO ACCOUNTING OF FEE'S OR COSTS.
SO ONE CAN CONCLUDE THAT THE COTTAGE HAS NOT BEEN SOLD. ONE WOULD THEN THINK THE OWNERS HAVE FULL RIGHTS TO THE USE OF THE COTTAGE AS THEY ALWAYS HAVE, UNTIL SUCH TIME AS A SALE IS CONSUMMATED. YOU WOULD THINK......
In other words, IT HAS NOT BEEN SOLD. A sale takes place when money is paid and deed is transferred. Not one of you loyal readers would sell your place and grant the purchaser full and exclusive use if there has been no money paid and no deed transferred.
Secondly, when the afore mentioned e-mail about the cottage being reserved for the Christmas holidays was sent out, per customary cottage protocol, it was followed up with a return email from David Symons, not only acknowledging that the cottage would be used, but included hints about how much oil was in the tank and should it get low, let Chris know to contact the oil provider. Now that doesn't sound like someone who is deathly afraid of the place being trashed. How did that turn about happen???
Now, mother and Joey are planning on going up for the Christmas holidays and will return after the new year.
Ok here is where I interject my opinion, for whats it worth.
So this latest attempt comes as no surprise and we will deal with it like we have in every other issue that has been thrown at us, and we will rise above, not stoop to his level.
Right now we are waiting on the Judge to decide on this latest motion, one that should be so simple even a 5th grader could get it right.
December 19, 2008
Now don't you go and tell Josephine where we stole this tree from, you got that?
For those with short memories, the cottage has been used many many times during the Holidays, and here's the proof.
From our cottage to yours Merry Christmas!
December 15, 2008
Back to business.......
Yesterday I reflected on that interesting situation in Baghdad where a journalist threw his shoes at President Bush, knowing that had that occurred just a few years ago, he would have undoubtedly met with an not so pleasant ending. As it were, the freedom that our President and our incredible troops brought to that country, gave that journalist an opportunity to express his views without fear. Freedom of speech is so important, regardless of whether we agree or disagree with the messenger; it’s his right to say what he will. With that in mind, allow me to get back to the intended purpose of “The Red Door Journal.”
It seems some feel that stifling my voice was critical to their cause. So I asked myself WTF are they afraid of? The truth perhaps? And for a while I refrained. Not any longer. If that journalist in Baghdad can hurl a size 10 hushpuppy at the president, I too should say what the facts are without fear of intimidation.
So, again here I sat in court for the umpteenth time listening to the same dribble and diatribe, a silly, frivolous and totally without merit motion. Has that man nothing better to do? For reasons only known to him, he believes since an offer to purchase was made, and a deposit given, this entitles him to full control and possession of the cottage, and none of the other owners have the ability to use it, or so it would seem.
Now color me stupid, but as my posting of December 8th, alluded to, it isn’t yours till you pay for it, unlike Wimpy of the Popeye cartoon fame who so eloquently stated, "I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.” That might work on television, but not in the real world. Is it fear and intimidation that drives the plaintiff to force my mother from using what is still hers? Or is it a fear of interacting and communicating with a sibling? I’m leaning towards the latter.
This cottage has been used at Christmas and over the holidays many times over the years. As kids growing up we always spent the Christmas holidays at the cottage skiing. As did many other cottage owners. We all have been blessed to have a caretaker who will go in and turn on the heat, let the old girl warm up for a few days, before turning on the water. Then when we're done, he goes in and turns off the water; drain’s the lines and turns off the furnace. How great is that? Some view that as cruel and unusual punishment, bordering on torture. I am trying to figure out how running water through warm lines is painful and torturous.
"The Red Door Journal" it seems has been getting more ink of late, along with a large increase in visits and page views, I can only assume from where it comes. If I’m correct, welcome aboard. Feel free to leave comments, you can do so now anonymously without fear of identification or reprisal. All comments are welcome. The president did a good job of ducking, so can I.
For those of you who are going north to Lakeside, Cottage Grove or Pinewoods for this holiday season, be sure to stop in and wish my mother and sister a merry Christmas and happy new year, they’ll be there with bells on and a freshly decorated tree in the living room! Not sure what Lucy will be wearing but it’s sure to be appropriate.
It seems some feel that stifling my voice was critical to their cause. So I asked myself WTF are they afraid of? The truth perhaps? And for a while I refrained. Not any longer. If that journalist in Baghdad can hurl a size 10 hushpuppy at the president, I too should say what the facts are without fear of intimidation.
So, again here I sat in court for the umpteenth time listening to the same dribble and diatribe, a silly, frivolous and totally without merit motion. Has that man nothing better to do? For reasons only known to him, he believes since an offer to purchase was made, and a deposit given, this entitles him to full control and possession of the cottage, and none of the other owners have the ability to use it, or so it would seem.
Now color me stupid, but as my posting of December 8th, alluded to, it isn’t yours till you pay for it, unlike Wimpy of the Popeye cartoon fame who so eloquently stated, "I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.” That might work on television, but not in the real world. Is it fear and intimidation that drives the plaintiff to force my mother from using what is still hers? Or is it a fear of interacting and communicating with a sibling? I’m leaning towards the latter.
This cottage has been used at Christmas and over the holidays many times over the years. As kids growing up we always spent the Christmas holidays at the cottage skiing. As did many other cottage owners. We all have been blessed to have a caretaker who will go in and turn on the heat, let the old girl warm up for a few days, before turning on the water. Then when we're done, he goes in and turns off the water; drain’s the lines and turns off the furnace. How great is that? Some view that as cruel and unusual punishment, bordering on torture. I am trying to figure out how running water through warm lines is painful and torturous.
"The Red Door Journal" it seems has been getting more ink of late, along with a large increase in visits and page views, I can only assume from where it comes. If I’m correct, welcome aboard. Feel free to leave comments, you can do so now anonymously without fear of identification or reprisal. All comments are welcome. The president did a good job of ducking, so can I.
For those of you who are going north to Lakeside, Cottage Grove or Pinewoods for this holiday season, be sure to stop in and wish my mother and sister a merry Christmas and happy new year, they’ll be there with bells on and a freshly decorated tree in the living room! Not sure what Lucy will be wearing but it’s sure to be appropriate.
December 14, 2008
December 11, 2008
December 10, 2008
Could not pass this one by....
U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) is “completely guiltless” in the alleged scheme to corrupt the appointment of a new U.S. senator from Illinois and will meet with federal investigators as soon as Friday, the congressman’s newly hired attorney said today.
… I can’t stop laughing when I re-read the phrase “newly hired attorney” in that last line. How stupid does he think people are? Wait, don’t answer that last question.
… I can’t stop laughing when I re-read the phrase “newly hired attorney” in that last line. How stupid does he think people are? Wait, don’t answer that last question.
This is a gift.....
Too many captions to choose from, add your own in the comments section...
1. "So, if I get sentenced to eight years or less, I can still run for president in 2016?" The Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come was really unprepared for this idiot.
2. "I sure as f**k *am* the Blago that you knew, Barry Soetero!"
3. No, that's not the year Chairman O leaves office, that's the Dow six months after Chairman O *takes* office.
4. "So, all of a sudden it's wrong for a dedicated public servant to make a few bucks selling a senate seat that hasn't even been used in three years. Jeez, next thing you know, you'll be coming after me for those fourteen year old hitchhikers I got buried in the crawlspace... What?"
5. "Donald Trump framed me, I tell you. He's jealous of my hair!"
December 8, 2008
This is not how you do it.....
You see, there is just one small problem with this new motion, someone has to pay for the cottage first.
Unlike our friend above who tried to pay Tuesday for something he wanted today, someone needs to write a check and deposit it with the court. Then this someone needs to sit down with his/her partners and work out the distribution of the contents, then and only then is a deed signed.
RealEstate 101, it's not brain surgery.
December 6, 2008
December 1, 2008
November 22, 2008
November 18, 2008
The man who should have been President hit's the nail on the head regarding the auto industry.
Let Detroit Go Bankrupt
By MITT ROMNEY
Published: November 18, 2008
IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.
Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.
I love cars, American cars. I was born in Detroit, the son of an auto chief executive. In 1954, my dad, George Romney, was tapped to run American Motors when its president suddenly died. The company itself was on life support — banks were threatening to deal it a death blow. The stock collapsed. I watched Dad work to turn the company around — and years later at business school, they were still talking about it. From the lessons of that turnaround, and from my own experiences, I have several prescriptions for Detroit’s automakers.
First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.
That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car. Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota’s Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product — it has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable.
Second, management as is must go. New faces should be recruited from unrelated industries — from companies widely respected for excellence in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations.
The new management must work with labor leaders to see that the enmity between labor and management comes to an end. This division is a holdover from the early years of the last century, when unions brought workers job security and better wages and benefits. But as Walter Reuther, the former head of the United Automobile Workers, said to my father, “Getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street.”
You don’t have to look far for industries with unions that went down that road. Companies in the 21st century cannot perpetuate the destructive labor relations of the 20th. This will mean a new direction for the U.A.W., profit sharing or stock grants to all employees and a change in Big Three management culture.
The need for collaboration will mean accepting sanity in salaries and perks. At American Motors, my dad cut his pay and that of his executive team, he bought stock in the company, and he went out to factories to talk to workers directly. Get rid of the planes, the executive dining rooms — all the symbols that breed resentment among the hundreds of thousands who will also be sacrificing to keep the companies afloat.
Investments must be made for the future. No more focus on quarterly earnings or the kind of short-term stock appreciation that means quick riches for executives with options. Manage with an eye on cash flow, balance sheets and long-term appreciation. Invest in truly competitive products and innovative technologies — especially fuel-saving designs — that may not arrive for years. Starving research and development is like eating the seed corn.
Just as important to the future of American carmakers is the sales force. When sales are down, you don’t want to lose the only people who can get them to grow. So don’t fire the best dealers, and don’t crush them with new financial or performance demands they can’t meet.
It is not wrong to ask for government help, but the automakers should come up with a win-win proposition. I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration. The federal government should also rectify the imbedded tax penalties that favor foreign carmakers.
But don’t ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass — they bet on management and they lost.
The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.
In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.
Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, was a candidate for this year’s Republican presidential nomination.
By MITT ROMNEY
Published: November 18, 2008
IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.
Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.
I love cars, American cars. I was born in Detroit, the son of an auto chief executive. In 1954, my dad, George Romney, was tapped to run American Motors when its president suddenly died. The company itself was on life support — banks were threatening to deal it a death blow. The stock collapsed. I watched Dad work to turn the company around — and years later at business school, they were still talking about it. From the lessons of that turnaround, and from my own experiences, I have several prescriptions for Detroit’s automakers.
First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.
That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car. Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota’s Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product — it has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable.
Second, management as is must go. New faces should be recruited from unrelated industries — from companies widely respected for excellence in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations.
The new management must work with labor leaders to see that the enmity between labor and management comes to an end. This division is a holdover from the early years of the last century, when unions brought workers job security and better wages and benefits. But as Walter Reuther, the former head of the United Automobile Workers, said to my father, “Getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street.”
You don’t have to look far for industries with unions that went down that road. Companies in the 21st century cannot perpetuate the destructive labor relations of the 20th. This will mean a new direction for the U.A.W., profit sharing or stock grants to all employees and a change in Big Three management culture.
The need for collaboration will mean accepting sanity in salaries and perks. At American Motors, my dad cut his pay and that of his executive team, he bought stock in the company, and he went out to factories to talk to workers directly. Get rid of the planes, the executive dining rooms — all the symbols that breed resentment among the hundreds of thousands who will also be sacrificing to keep the companies afloat.
Investments must be made for the future. No more focus on quarterly earnings or the kind of short-term stock appreciation that means quick riches for executives with options. Manage with an eye on cash flow, balance sheets and long-term appreciation. Invest in truly competitive products and innovative technologies — especially fuel-saving designs — that may not arrive for years. Starving research and development is like eating the seed corn.
Just as important to the future of American carmakers is the sales force. When sales are down, you don’t want to lose the only people who can get them to grow. So don’t fire the best dealers, and don’t crush them with new financial or performance demands they can’t meet.
It is not wrong to ask for government help, but the automakers should come up with a win-win proposition. I believe the federal government should invest substantially more in basic research — on new energy sources, fuel-economy technology, materials science and the like — that will ultimately benefit the automotive industry, along with many others. I believe Washington should raise energy research spending to $20 billion a year, from the $4 billion that is spent today. The research could be done at universities, at research labs and even through public-private collaboration. The federal government should also rectify the imbedded tax penalties that favor foreign carmakers.
But don’t ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass — they bet on management and they lost.
The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.
In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.
Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, was a candidate for this year’s Republican presidential nomination.
Surprising? I think not....
On November 4th, 2008 millions of Americans were shocked that a man of Barack Obama's limited experience, extreme liberal positions and radical political alliances could be elected President of the United States. For many of these Americans, the explanation was rather simple... the news media, completely enamored with Obama, simply refused to do their job.
Zogby Poll
512 Obama Voters 11/13/08-11/15/08 MOE +/- 4.4 points
97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates
Results to 12 simple Multiple Choice Questions
57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)
81.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)
82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)
88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)
56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).
And yet.....
Only 13.7% failed to identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes
Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter
And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her "house," even though that was Tina Fey who said that!!
Only 2.4% got at least 11 correct.
Only .5% got all of them correct. (And we "gave" one answer that was technically not Palin, but actually Tina Fey)
Is this a great country or what?
Zogby Poll
512 Obama Voters 11/13/08-11/15/08 MOE +/- 4.4 points
97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates
Results to 12 simple Multiple Choice Questions
57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)
81.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)
82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)
88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)
56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).
And yet.....
Only 13.7% failed to identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes
Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter
And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her "house," even though that was Tina Fey who said that!!
Only 2.4% got at least 11 correct.
Only .5% got all of them correct. (And we "gave" one answer that was technically not Palin, but actually Tina Fey)
Is this a great country or what?
November 17, 2008
November 15, 2008
November 11, 2008
November 10, 2008
November 5, 2008
November 4, 2008
Should have posted this last night but hey, I was busy....
No idea who wrote this, it showed up in my e-mail.
Twas the night before elections
And all through the town
Tempers were flaring
Emotions were all up and down!
I, in my bathrobe
With a cat in my lap
Had cut off the TV
Tired of political crap.
When all of a sudden
There arose such a noise
I peered out of my window
Saw Obama and his boys
They had come for my wallet
They wanted my pay
To give to the others
Who had not worked a day!
He snatched up my money
And quick as a wink
Jumped back on hs bandwagon
As I gagged from the stink
He then rallied his henchmen
Who were pulling his cart
I could tell tehy were out
To tear my country apart!
"On Fannie, on Freddie,
On Biden and Ayers!
On Acorn, On Pelosi"
He screamed at the pairs!
They took off for his cause
And as he flew out of sight
I heard him laugh at the nation
Who wouldn't stand up and fight!
So I leave you to think
On this one final note-
IF YOU DONT WANT SOCIALISM
GET OUT AND VOTE!!!!!
Twas the night before elections
And all through the town
Tempers were flaring
Emotions were all up and down!
I, in my bathrobe
With a cat in my lap
Had cut off the TV
Tired of political crap.
When all of a sudden
There arose such a noise
I peered out of my window
Saw Obama and his boys
They had come for my wallet
They wanted my pay
To give to the others
Who had not worked a day!
He snatched up my money
And quick as a wink
Jumped back on hs bandwagon
As I gagged from the stink
He then rallied his henchmen
Who were pulling his cart
I could tell tehy were out
To tear my country apart!
"On Fannie, on Freddie,
On Biden and Ayers!
On Acorn, On Pelosi"
He screamed at the pairs!
They took off for his cause
And as he flew out of sight
I heard him laugh at the nation
Who wouldn't stand up and fight!
So I leave you to think
On this one final note-
IF YOU DONT WANT SOCIALISM
GET OUT AND VOTE!!!!!
November 3, 2008
Dear Leader Quotes Chairman Mao In Final Appeal to Voters
Obama appeals to devotees in Virginia:
I feel like we got a righteous wind at our backs here, but we’re going to have to work. We’re going to have to struggle. We’re going to have to fight.
And here is an exerpt from the writings of Chairman Mao:
The ill wind of opportunism is falling, the righteous wind of socialism is on the rise.
By the end of this year the victory of socialism will be greatly assured. Naturally there will be many struggles ahead and we must struggle hard.
Hmm. It's almost as if Obama has a Maoist hardliner supporting his team somewhere?
Hat Tip Über
Is this what we really want for us, our children, and grand children? I don't think so, stop and think long and hard before you pull that lever tomorrow, it may not offer an opportunity to change your mind next month or next year.
November 2, 2008
October 31, 2008
October 30, 2008
October 29, 2008
October 28, 2008
Another reason to drink Diet Coke!
Advertising Age reports that Pepsi-Cola is launching a new logo as part of a world-wide branding campaign. Pepsico's Indra Nooyi, whom we wrote about here and elsewhere, and other top Pepsico executives explained the new look:
[T]op executives Indra Nooyi and Massimo d'Amore called for a "quantum leap" forward in transforming the soft-drink category and defining Pepsi as a cultural leader, said Frank Cooper, Pepsi's VP-portfolio brands.
"We felt like, as we move out of this traditional mass marketing and mass distribution era into today's culture, there's an opportunity to bring humanity back, both in terms of the design but also in the way we engage consumers," he said.
Here's the new Pepsi logo:
So...does that remind you of anything? Like this, maybe?
Could be an aesthetic coincidence, I suppose. But for those of us old enough to remember the ill-fated Age of Aquarius, it looks like a pathetic attempt to join the Age of Barack. Hey, they're trying to "bring humanity back." That's not too tall an order for a carbonated beverage, is it?
Diet Coke tastes better anyway. Drink it.
[T]op executives Indra Nooyi and Massimo d'Amore called for a "quantum leap" forward in transforming the soft-drink category and defining Pepsi as a cultural leader, said Frank Cooper, Pepsi's VP-portfolio brands.
"We felt like, as we move out of this traditional mass marketing and mass distribution era into today's culture, there's an opportunity to bring humanity back, both in terms of the design but also in the way we engage consumers," he said.
Here's the new Pepsi logo:
So...does that remind you of anything? Like this, maybe?
Could be an aesthetic coincidence, I suppose. But for those of us old enough to remember the ill-fated Age of Aquarius, it looks like a pathetic attempt to join the Age of Barack. Hey, they're trying to "bring humanity back." That's not too tall an order for a carbonated beverage, is it?
Diet Coke tastes better anyway. Drink it.
October 26, 2008
October 24, 2008
Obama's Fraud Continues
We noted here and elsewhere the astonishing degree of fraud that has fueled Barack Obama's record fundraising. The ultimate instance of Obama-fraud was achieved by a reader of The Corner:
So I went to the Obama website this afternoon and clicked on the "Donate" button.
I used my real MasterCard number (but was not asked for the 3 digit security code).
Used the following information and it was accepted...
First name: Fake
Last Name: Donor
Address: 1 Dollar To Prove A Point
City: Fraudulent
State: AL
Zip / Post: 33333
Email Address: allmyinfoismadeup@mediabias.com
Phone Number: 2125551212
Employer: Mainstream Media
Occupation: Being in the Tank
And incredibly, my $5 donation was ACCEPTED!!!
I then went to the McCain site and used the exact same information (and WAS asked for the 3 digit security code for my MasterCard). There, my contribution was rejected with the following message: "Your transaction was not approved for the following reason(s): Invalid data", and then: "We have found errors in the information that you have submitted. Please review the information below and try again."
I have screen shots and printouts of all of this as well.
Please tell me what I can do with this information? Is this a violation of FEC law by the Obama Campaign? How do we publicize this???
Everyone knows that Barack Obama has created the biggest money-machine of any politician in American history. But it is becoming increasingly evident that Obama's money-machine is largely fraudulent and therefore criminal. One can imagine a world in which newspaper reporters think it's a serious matter when a Presidential candidate tries to buy an election with illegal and fraudulent contributions. That, of course, is not the world that we live in. Have you seen Sarah Palin's shoes?
Provided by Powerline
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So I went to the Obama website this afternoon and clicked on the "Donate" button.
I used my real MasterCard number (but was not asked for the 3 digit security code).
Used the following information and it was accepted...
First name: Fake
Last Name: Donor
Address: 1 Dollar To Prove A Point
City: Fraudulent
State: AL
Zip / Post: 33333
Email Address: allmyinfoismadeup@mediabias.com
Phone Number: 2125551212
Employer: Mainstream Media
Occupation: Being in the Tank
And incredibly, my $5 donation was ACCEPTED!!!
I then went to the McCain site and used the exact same information (and WAS asked for the 3 digit security code for my MasterCard). There, my contribution was rejected with the following message: "Your transaction was not approved for the following reason(s): Invalid data", and then: "We have found errors in the information that you have submitted. Please review the information below and try again."
I have screen shots and printouts of all of this as well.
Please tell me what I can do with this information? Is this a violation of FEC law by the Obama Campaign? How do we publicize this???
Everyone knows that Barack Obama has created the biggest money-machine of any politician in American history. But it is becoming increasingly evident that Obama's money-machine is largely fraudulent and therefore criminal. One can imagine a world in which newspaper reporters think it's a serious matter when a Presidential candidate tries to buy an election with illegal and fraudulent contributions. That, of course, is not the world that we live in. Have you seen Sarah Palin's shoes?
Provided by Powerline
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October 23, 2008
Pandering to the Unions .. at Your Expense.
Part 5
Now since we're talking about jobs here, you need to be up to speed on The Messiah's "Employee Free Choice Act." Let me step out on a limb here and say that applying the words "free choice" to Obama's plan to eliminate secret ballots in union elections is like applying the words "fun sex" to an act of rape. Freedom has nothing to do with Obama's plan, and fun has nothing to do with rape.
Going in you need to recognize that union membership has been falling for decades. You only see growth in union membership in government employee unions. This, of course, is troubling to union leaders. It is also troubling to Democrats. Unions, you see, almost exclusively support Democrat candidates, both with money and time. Big money and lots of time ... and it's all behind Obama's candidacy.
To know what Obama is up to here, you need to know how union organizing works under the current law. Union organizers circulate a petition among employees. Employees are asked to sign a card saying that they would like to be represented by a union in their workplace. If a majority of the workers sign the cards the employer has the option of immediately recognizing the union and allowing them to organize the workplace. More often the employer will call for an election – an election using secret ballots. Every employee will be given the opportunity to express their desire to join or not to join a union in secret. Their co-workers will not know how they voted. They can prance around the workplace touting their support of unionization all they want in order to impress or appease their fellow workers, especially those who are trying to organize the union, but then vote "no" on the secret ballot if that's how they truly feel.
How, you might ask, do Democrats feel about the secret ballot in union elections? For a clue let's go to a letter from 16 House Democrats dated August 29, 2001. The letter was written on the letterhead of California Congressman George Miller, a Democrat representing the 7th District of California. That letter reads:
[Letterhead of George Miller, Congress of the United States]
Junta Local de Conciliacion y Arbitraje del Estado de Puebla
Lic. Armando Poxqui Quintero
7 Norte Numero 1006 Altos
Colonia Centro
Puebla, Mexico C.P. 7200
Dear members of the Junta Local de Conciliacion y Arbitraje of the state of Puebla.
As members of Congress of the United States who are deeply concerned with international labor standards and the role of labor rights in international trade agreements, we are writing to encourage you to use the secret ballot in all union recognition elections.
We understand that the secret ballot is allowed for, but not required, by Mexican labor law. However, we feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise chose.
We respect Mexico as an important neighbor and trading partner, and we feel that the increased use of the secret ballow in union recognition elections will help bring real democracy to the Mexican workplace.
Signed:
George Miller
Bernard Sanders
Lane Evans
Marcy Kaptur
William J. Coyne
Bob Filner
Martin Olav Sabo
Joe Baca
Dennis J. Kucinich
Fortney Pete Stark
James P. McGovern
Barney Frank
Zoe Lofgren
Calvin M. Dooley
Barbara Lee
Lloyd Doggett
So there you go. These 16 Democrats are on the record as being solidly in favor of using secret ballots in union recognition elections. So far, so good ... because that, as they point out in their letter, is clearly the right stance.
That brings us to piece of legislation – a piece of Obama sponsored legislation --designated as H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act. Would you care to guess just what H.R. 800 does? Well, that's simple. It will eliminate the secret ballot in union recognition elections. You got it! Obama has decided to really do something nice for the union bosses that are supporting him in this election, and he is determined to do away with secret ballots in union elections. When H.R. 800 gets passed ... and trust me, with Barack Obama in the White House, this thing will become law ... the union organizers will visit all of the workers, perhaps even visiting some of them in their homes, and "urge" them to sign the card calling for a union. I can hear it now: "Mrs. Johnson, wouldn't you and your children want your husband to be represented by our union at his job?" Now put yourself in the worker's place! Are you going to say no? This organizer is sitting in your living room looking at you and your wife and saying "You do want to be represented by our union in your workplace, don't you?" And you're going to tell him no?
Are you getting the big picture here? This is nothing less than Barack Obama and his Democrat pals legitimizing union intimidation in the workplace. If you don't see that, then there is virtually no hope for you when it comes to understanding basic politics. It's payback the unions time .. pay them back for all of that financial support and all of those volunteer hours. Besides ... the more union members there are the more union dues the union bosses have to spread to Democrats as campaign contributions.
But – we're saved, right? After all, we have those 16 Democrats who signed that letter to Mexico. What was it they said? Oh yeah: " ... we feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise chose." So these 16 Democrats will certainly put up a spirited defense of secret ballots in union organizing elections, right?
Well ... um ... maybe not. You see, four of these congressmen (Dooley, Sabo, Evans and Coyne) are no longer in the Congress. One of the signers, Bernie Sanders, is now a Senator. That leaves 11 of the 16 signees still in the house to defend the principal of the secret ballot.
I'm afraid we have a small problem though. It seems that every one of the 11 remaining signees is now a sponsor of H.R. 800. In fact, the so-called Employee Free Choice Act was actually introduced by none other than George Miller – the very California Democrat on whose letterhead that letter to Mexico was written. Bernie Sanders is a sponsor of the same legislation in the Senate along with Barack Obama. No surprise .
On the one hand we have these Democrats writing a letter extolling the virtues of a secret ballot in union organizing elections, and then they sponsor a bill eliminating those very secret ballots! And here's Barack Obama pledging to sign the bill as soon as it comes to his desk! So what changed between 2001 and 2007? What happened that made these 12 Democrats go from believing that a secret ballot in a union election was "absolutely necessary," to introducing a bill eliminating those "absolutely necessary" secret ballots? Control of congress; that's what changed. In 2001 the Republicans ran the show. In 2007 it was the Democrats ... and it was time to return some favors to union bosses. Do you know what you're seeing here? You're seeing just how much power unions have over Barack Obama and the Democrat party. It doesn't matter what kind of letter you wrote, or what stance you took in the past --- when we say "frog" you had better jump.
Let me tell you what is going to happen as soon as Barack Obama is elected. Employers are going to look at the so-called Employee Free Choice Act and they're going to be very afraid. They know what a union can do to their business and their profitability. Just look at our auto industry. So employers are going to immediately start working to minimize the damage. How do you do that? Well, automation is one way. Go ahead and buy that machinery you need to automate much of your workplace. That will allow you to get rid of these employees before they can unionize. You might also want to consider the possibility of moving some of those jobs overseas where union intimidation might not be such a negative factor in your business operations.
When Obama gets his unionization by intimidation thing in place – and he most certainly will – jobs are going to be lost and businesses will fail. This is the price Obama is willing to pay to pay back the unions who have supported him.
Just another reason to vote for The Chosen One, right?
Now since we're talking about jobs here, you need to be up to speed on The Messiah's "Employee Free Choice Act." Let me step out on a limb here and say that applying the words "free choice" to Obama's plan to eliminate secret ballots in union elections is like applying the words "fun sex" to an act of rape. Freedom has nothing to do with Obama's plan, and fun has nothing to do with rape.
Going in you need to recognize that union membership has been falling for decades. You only see growth in union membership in government employee unions. This, of course, is troubling to union leaders. It is also troubling to Democrats. Unions, you see, almost exclusively support Democrat candidates, both with money and time. Big money and lots of time ... and it's all behind Obama's candidacy.
To know what Obama is up to here, you need to know how union organizing works under the current law. Union organizers circulate a petition among employees. Employees are asked to sign a card saying that they would like to be represented by a union in their workplace. If a majority of the workers sign the cards the employer has the option of immediately recognizing the union and allowing them to organize the workplace. More often the employer will call for an election – an election using secret ballots. Every employee will be given the opportunity to express their desire to join or not to join a union in secret. Their co-workers will not know how they voted. They can prance around the workplace touting their support of unionization all they want in order to impress or appease their fellow workers, especially those who are trying to organize the union, but then vote "no" on the secret ballot if that's how they truly feel.
How, you might ask, do Democrats feel about the secret ballot in union elections? For a clue let's go to a letter from 16 House Democrats dated August 29, 2001. The letter was written on the letterhead of California Congressman George Miller, a Democrat representing the 7th District of California. That letter reads:
[Letterhead of George Miller, Congress of the United States]
Junta Local de Conciliacion y Arbitraje del Estado de Puebla
Lic. Armando Poxqui Quintero
7 Norte Numero 1006 Altos
Colonia Centro
Puebla, Mexico C.P. 7200
Dear members of the Junta Local de Conciliacion y Arbitraje of the state of Puebla.
As members of Congress of the United States who are deeply concerned with international labor standards and the role of labor rights in international trade agreements, we are writing to encourage you to use the secret ballot in all union recognition elections.
We understand that the secret ballot is allowed for, but not required, by Mexican labor law. However, we feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise chose.
We respect Mexico as an important neighbor and trading partner, and we feel that the increased use of the secret ballow in union recognition elections will help bring real democracy to the Mexican workplace.
Signed:
George Miller
Bernard Sanders
Lane Evans
Marcy Kaptur
William J. Coyne
Bob Filner
Martin Olav Sabo
Joe Baca
Dennis J. Kucinich
Fortney Pete Stark
James P. McGovern
Barney Frank
Zoe Lofgren
Calvin M. Dooley
Barbara Lee
Lloyd Doggett
So there you go. These 16 Democrats are on the record as being solidly in favor of using secret ballots in union recognition elections. So far, so good ... because that, as they point out in their letter, is clearly the right stance.
That brings us to piece of legislation – a piece of Obama sponsored legislation --designated as H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act. Would you care to guess just what H.R. 800 does? Well, that's simple. It will eliminate the secret ballot in union recognition elections. You got it! Obama has decided to really do something nice for the union bosses that are supporting him in this election, and he is determined to do away with secret ballots in union elections. When H.R. 800 gets passed ... and trust me, with Barack Obama in the White House, this thing will become law ... the union organizers will visit all of the workers, perhaps even visiting some of them in their homes, and "urge" them to sign the card calling for a union. I can hear it now: "Mrs. Johnson, wouldn't you and your children want your husband to be represented by our union at his job?" Now put yourself in the worker's place! Are you going to say no? This organizer is sitting in your living room looking at you and your wife and saying "You do want to be represented by our union in your workplace, don't you?" And you're going to tell him no?
Are you getting the big picture here? This is nothing less than Barack Obama and his Democrat pals legitimizing union intimidation in the workplace. If you don't see that, then there is virtually no hope for you when it comes to understanding basic politics. It's payback the unions time .. pay them back for all of that financial support and all of those volunteer hours. Besides ... the more union members there are the more union dues the union bosses have to spread to Democrats as campaign contributions.
But – we're saved, right? After all, we have those 16 Democrats who signed that letter to Mexico. What was it they said? Oh yeah: " ... we feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise chose." So these 16 Democrats will certainly put up a spirited defense of secret ballots in union organizing elections, right?
Well ... um ... maybe not. You see, four of these congressmen (Dooley, Sabo, Evans and Coyne) are no longer in the Congress. One of the signers, Bernie Sanders, is now a Senator. That leaves 11 of the 16 signees still in the house to defend the principal of the secret ballot.
I'm afraid we have a small problem though. It seems that every one of the 11 remaining signees is now a sponsor of H.R. 800. In fact, the so-called Employee Free Choice Act was actually introduced by none other than George Miller – the very California Democrat on whose letterhead that letter to Mexico was written. Bernie Sanders is a sponsor of the same legislation in the Senate along with Barack Obama. No surprise .
On the one hand we have these Democrats writing a letter extolling the virtues of a secret ballot in union organizing elections, and then they sponsor a bill eliminating those very secret ballots! And here's Barack Obama pledging to sign the bill as soon as it comes to his desk! So what changed between 2001 and 2007? What happened that made these 12 Democrats go from believing that a secret ballot in a union election was "absolutely necessary," to introducing a bill eliminating those "absolutely necessary" secret ballots? Control of congress; that's what changed. In 2001 the Republicans ran the show. In 2007 it was the Democrats ... and it was time to return some favors to union bosses. Do you know what you're seeing here? You're seeing just how much power unions have over Barack Obama and the Democrat party. It doesn't matter what kind of letter you wrote, or what stance you took in the past --- when we say "frog" you had better jump.
Let me tell you what is going to happen as soon as Barack Obama is elected. Employers are going to look at the so-called Employee Free Choice Act and they're going to be very afraid. They know what a union can do to their business and their profitability. Just look at our auto industry. So employers are going to immediately start working to minimize the damage. How do you do that? Well, automation is one way. Go ahead and buy that machinery you need to automate much of your workplace. That will allow you to get rid of these employees before they can unionize. You might also want to consider the possibility of moving some of those jobs overseas where union intimidation might not be such a negative factor in your business operations.
When Obama gets his unionization by intimidation thing in place – and he most certainly will – jobs are going to be lost and businesses will fail. This is the price Obama is willing to pay to pay back the unions who have supported him.
Just another reason to vote for The Chosen One, right?
Those Amazing Vanishing Jobs
Part 4
Barack Obama repeatedly tells the American people that he is going to cut taxes for 95% of them. Now that's a pretty nifty trick when more than 40% of Americans don't pay income taxes in the first place. Tell me please ... just how do you cut taxes for someone who doesn't pay taxes?
Here's the fancy narrative (Obama supporters just love that word) that the Obama campaign has come up with. Even if you don't pay income taxes, you still pay payroll taxes. So Obama is going to give these people who only pay Social Security and Medicare taxes an offsetting tax credit. At this point Obama's plan becomes almost impossible to explain. It's convoluted, to say the least, but that's out of necessity. When people started reminding him that about one-half of the people he's going to cut taxes for don't pay taxes he had to come up with something. The bottom line is this. Obama says that he is not going to take the cost of his tax credits from the Social Security Trust Fund. That's nice, considering the fact that this so-called Trust Fund exists only on paper anyway. But if that money isn't subtracted from the Trust Fund ... where does it come from? Obama's people explain that at first the deficit will just have to increase while these checks are written. Later they'll just go out there and get the money from those "rich people."
OK ... so there we are. It's tax the rancid rich time so that money can be transferred to the poor. But just who are these evil rich people destined to be beaten down by Obama's taxes? At first Barack Obama defined them as "people making over $250,000 a year." That definition had to change when it became known that the $250,000 a year figure was only for a married couple filing a joint tax return. In a heartbeat Obama changed his rhetoric to note that the tax increase would nail "families," not "people" earning over 250 grand. If you're single, the figure will be somewhere between $150,000 and $200,000, depending on who you're talking to. We'll try to let you know when Obama settles on a hard figure.
There's your first lie.
So, what does all of this have to do with jobs? Well the very people that Barack Obama wants to nail with these tax increases are the people who create most of the jobs in our economy; America's small business owners.
The Democrats spend no small amount of time excoriating corporations. To listen to a Democrat candidate corporations and lobbyists are the sole sources of evil in our society. Oh ... and right wing talk show hosts. Well, you can forget these evil, nasty corporations for now. Fact is 70% of all jobs in our economy come from America's small business owners. The Small Business Administration recently reported that 80% of all new jobs are being created by these small business owners. These are people who report all of their business income on their personal income tax returns. As such, they are squarely in the crosshairs for The Chosen One's tax increases.
If you are an American concerned about your job with a small business ... and if you vote for Obama ... then you very well could be cutting your own economic throat. Think about it. If the small business owner(s) who employs you has his taxes increased by Barack Obama he is going to look for a way to replace that money. So where does he go to replace his income lost to Barack's tax increases? The best way would be to cut expenses. Well guess what? You're an expense! Will it be your job that is cut to compensate for the increased taxes? Maybe you'll be lucky and just have to forego your next raise. Maybe there would just be a cut in your pay or a reduction in benefits. Cast your vote and take your chances!
In recent days the McCain campaign has finally started to warn people about the possible consequences of Obama's tax increases on America's small businesses. This has forced the Obama campaign to come up with a response. Initially Barack Obama started saying that he was going to give a break on capital gains taxes to small businesses. This worked for a while until people started figuring out that small businesses don't pay capital gains taxes. Back to the drawing board, and this time they came up with a beauty. It's a con, but it works. Barack Obama is now telling the media and anyone else who will listen that 95% of America's small businesses don't make $250,000 a year, and thus won't be affected by Obama's tax increases.
That's the second lie. A lie of omission.
Obama's statistics may be accurate .. or nearly so. But the statement leaves one very important statistic out. Initially when you hear that "95% of all small businesses" line you probably think that this 95% employ about 95% of all of the people working for small businesses. You could think that, but you would be wrong.
The trick here is that the vast majority of America's small businesses are just that ... small. I owned a title abstract business in the 80's that had one employee. My wife owned a travel agency that had two employees. Neither of these small businesses came anywhere near the $250,000 line.
When you think about it you will understand that the important statistic here is the percentage of small business employees who will be affected, not the percentage of small businesses.
The October 21st edition of The Wall Street Journal addressed this issue in an article entitled "Socking It to Small Businesses." The WSJ reports that Obama is right "that most of the 35 million small businesses in America have a net income of less than $250,000, hire only a few workers, and stay in business for less than four years." There's more to the story though: ".. the point is that it is the most successful small and medium-sized businesses that create most of the new jobs.. And they are precisely the businesses that will be slammed by Mr. Obama's tax increase." The Senate Finance Committee reports that of those who file income taxes in the highest two tax brackets; three out of four are the small business owners Obama wants to tax.
The WSJ reports that the National Federation of Independent Business says that only 10% of small businesses with one to nine employees will be hit by Obama's tax increase. However, almost 20% of the small businesses that employ from 10 to 19 people will get nailed, and 50% of small businesses with over 20 employees get punished.
Again ... it is not the percentage of businesses that will have to pay the increased taxes; it's the percentage of the total of small business employees who work for those businesses. The Obama campaign is counting on you not making that distinction; and they know the media won't make it for you; so Obama's "95% of all small businesses don't make $250,000" line will probably rule the day.
Come on folks. These are your jobs we're talking about here. It's time to take your blinders off and see through some of this Obama rhetoric. The Obama campaign has some wonderful people working for them to tell them just how to parse words to hide intent and meaning. Just because they're trying to fool you doesn't mean that you have to be so easily suckered. When Obama talks about change .. he may well mean that you are going to have to change jobs. Now that's change you can believe in, right?
Pandering to the Unions .. at Your Expense.
Barack Obama repeatedly tells the American people that he is going to cut taxes for 95% of them. Now that's a pretty nifty trick when more than 40% of Americans don't pay income taxes in the first place. Tell me please ... just how do you cut taxes for someone who doesn't pay taxes?
Here's the fancy narrative (Obama supporters just love that word) that the Obama campaign has come up with. Even if you don't pay income taxes, you still pay payroll taxes. So Obama is going to give these people who only pay Social Security and Medicare taxes an offsetting tax credit. At this point Obama's plan becomes almost impossible to explain. It's convoluted, to say the least, but that's out of necessity. When people started reminding him that about one-half of the people he's going to cut taxes for don't pay taxes he had to come up with something. The bottom line is this. Obama says that he is not going to take the cost of his tax credits from the Social Security Trust Fund. That's nice, considering the fact that this so-called Trust Fund exists only on paper anyway. But if that money isn't subtracted from the Trust Fund ... where does it come from? Obama's people explain that at first the deficit will just have to increase while these checks are written. Later they'll just go out there and get the money from those "rich people."
OK ... so there we are. It's tax the rancid rich time so that money can be transferred to the poor. But just who are these evil rich people destined to be beaten down by Obama's taxes? At first Barack Obama defined them as "people making over $250,000 a year." That definition had to change when it became known that the $250,000 a year figure was only for a married couple filing a joint tax return. In a heartbeat Obama changed his rhetoric to note that the tax increase would nail "families," not "people" earning over 250 grand. If you're single, the figure will be somewhere between $150,000 and $200,000, depending on who you're talking to. We'll try to let you know when Obama settles on a hard figure.
There's your first lie.
So, what does all of this have to do with jobs? Well the very people that Barack Obama wants to nail with these tax increases are the people who create most of the jobs in our economy; America's small business owners.
The Democrats spend no small amount of time excoriating corporations. To listen to a Democrat candidate corporations and lobbyists are the sole sources of evil in our society. Oh ... and right wing talk show hosts. Well, you can forget these evil, nasty corporations for now. Fact is 70% of all jobs in our economy come from America's small business owners. The Small Business Administration recently reported that 80% of all new jobs are being created by these small business owners. These are people who report all of their business income on their personal income tax returns. As such, they are squarely in the crosshairs for The Chosen One's tax increases.
If you are an American concerned about your job with a small business ... and if you vote for Obama ... then you very well could be cutting your own economic throat. Think about it. If the small business owner(s) who employs you has his taxes increased by Barack Obama he is going to look for a way to replace that money. So where does he go to replace his income lost to Barack's tax increases? The best way would be to cut expenses. Well guess what? You're an expense! Will it be your job that is cut to compensate for the increased taxes? Maybe you'll be lucky and just have to forego your next raise. Maybe there would just be a cut in your pay or a reduction in benefits. Cast your vote and take your chances!
In recent days the McCain campaign has finally started to warn people about the possible consequences of Obama's tax increases on America's small businesses. This has forced the Obama campaign to come up with a response. Initially Barack Obama started saying that he was going to give a break on capital gains taxes to small businesses. This worked for a while until people started figuring out that small businesses don't pay capital gains taxes. Back to the drawing board, and this time they came up with a beauty. It's a con, but it works. Barack Obama is now telling the media and anyone else who will listen that 95% of America's small businesses don't make $250,000 a year, and thus won't be affected by Obama's tax increases.
That's the second lie. A lie of omission.
Obama's statistics may be accurate .. or nearly so. But the statement leaves one very important statistic out. Initially when you hear that "95% of all small businesses" line you probably think that this 95% employ about 95% of all of the people working for small businesses. You could think that, but you would be wrong.
The trick here is that the vast majority of America's small businesses are just that ... small. I owned a title abstract business in the 80's that had one employee. My wife owned a travel agency that had two employees. Neither of these small businesses came anywhere near the $250,000 line.
When you think about it you will understand that the important statistic here is the percentage of small business employees who will be affected, not the percentage of small businesses.
The October 21st edition of The Wall Street Journal addressed this issue in an article entitled "Socking It to Small Businesses." The WSJ reports that Obama is right "that most of the 35 million small businesses in America have a net income of less than $250,000, hire only a few workers, and stay in business for less than four years." There's more to the story though: ".. the point is that it is the most successful small and medium-sized businesses that create most of the new jobs.. And they are precisely the businesses that will be slammed by Mr. Obama's tax increase." The Senate Finance Committee reports that of those who file income taxes in the highest two tax brackets; three out of four are the small business owners Obama wants to tax.
The WSJ reports that the National Federation of Independent Business says that only 10% of small businesses with one to nine employees will be hit by Obama's tax increase. However, almost 20% of the small businesses that employ from 10 to 19 people will get nailed, and 50% of small businesses with over 20 employees get punished.
Again ... it is not the percentage of businesses that will have to pay the increased taxes; it's the percentage of the total of small business employees who work for those businesses. The Obama campaign is counting on you not making that distinction; and they know the media won't make it for you; so Obama's "95% of all small businesses don't make $250,000" line will probably rule the day.
Come on folks. These are your jobs we're talking about here. It's time to take your blinders off and see through some of this Obama rhetoric. The Obama campaign has some wonderful people working for them to tell them just how to parse words to hide intent and meaning. Just because they're trying to fool you doesn't mean that you have to be so easily suckered. When Obama talks about change .. he may well mean that you are going to have to change jobs. Now that's change you can believe in, right?
Pandering to the Unions .. at Your Expense.
Does this reflect your philosophy?
Part 3
Come on! Put the celebrity worship aside for a moment. Put skin color aside. Just think about Obama and his "spread the wealth around" tax policy.
Let's talk heartbeats. Sounds weird, but I'm going somewhere here. A bit of Internet research led me to the fact that the average number of heartbeats in a life time for a human being is about one billion. To make this more understandable, the average human heart beats around 70 times a minute. In one eight-hour work day your heart beats around 33,600 times. This is your heart beating .. every beat subtracted from the one billion .. every beat a part of your life gone, never to be recovered. If you are a moderately successful human being Barack Obama is going to take about 13,000 (39%) of those heartbeats away from you every working day. Put your finger on your wrist and feel your pulse. Feel every heartbeat. Just count up to 100. How much of your life went by as you counted? You can't get those beats back. They're gone, for good. Remember, you only have a finite number of those beats of your heart left ... and Obama wants 13,000 of them every working day of your life. Those heartbeats – your life – being expended creating wealth. Your heartbeats, your wealth. Obama wants them. You don't need them. Someone else does. The police power of the state.
Taxes are a nasty little reality of life. Nobody wants anarchy. Government is a necessity. Government, though, is not supposed to create winners and losers. Government is not, as Obama intends, to be used as an instrument of plunder. Almost all Americans are perfectly willing to surrender an appropriate percentage of their earned wealth to fund the legitimate functions of government. I, for one, don't want to see my wealth confiscated because some bureaucrat has determined I don't "need" it, and then have to watch as that wealth is used to buy votes from someone who is simply too lazy to generate the income they need by themselves ... or, as Obama puts it, "spread around."
What is Obama going to do? How does he determine "need?" What data does he use to determine "fairness?" Maybe he'll set up some bureaucracy staffed with like-minded leftists who will use data collected in the last census and from those pesky American Community Surveys to establish a basic "need" level for people living in different areas. Once it is determined how much of a person's wealth they really don't "need," it will be a simple matter of confiscation and redistribution to those who do need it. After all, that would be "fair," wouldn't it? Come on, it's not exactly like you worked for that money.
Listen to the rhetoric of the left. Those who are in need are called "the less fortunate." This means that their status as needy was due to nothing but bad luck. It stands to reason, then, that those with more than they need were just lucky. The fortunate and the less fortunate. The lucky and the not so lucky. And here comes Barack Obama riding over the rainbow on his Unicorn to set everything right and make it all fair. Isn't that the world you want to live in?
There's a quote that's been floating around since I began my talk radio career. This quote is most often attributed to someone named Alexander Tyler writing in 1787 about the fall of the Athenian Republic. Others have said the guy's name was Tytler. Let's not argue spelling right now ... let's just get to the quote, because the quote goes to the heart of this presidential election:
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."
Think about this, my friends. Isn't this exactly what we're seeing right now? In fact, hasn't this pretty much been the theme of Democrat Party election politics for nearly as long as you can remember? Here we have Barack Obama promising that he's only going to raise taxes on the evil rich who make over $250,000 a year while 95% of Americans will get tax cuts. Think of this in terms of votes; higher taxes for 5% of the voters, lower taxes for the other 95%. It really doesn't take all that much brainpower to figure out how this is going to work at in an election does it? You take money away from the people whose votes you don't need, and give it to the people whose votes you do need. So very simple. The result is that people have, in fact, discovered that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. Who is promising those wonderful goodies? That would be Barack Obama. Just what percentage of voters out there do you think are going to vote for Obama simply because he is promising them someone else's money? My guess is that the number would be high enough to constitute the margin of victory for The Great Redistributionist.
Somehow I had this idea when I was growing up that if you wanted something bad enough, you would work hard until you got it. That was then. This is now. Now you vote for it. That's change you can believe in.
Come on! Put the celebrity worship aside for a moment. Put skin color aside. Just think about Obama and his "spread the wealth around" tax policy.
Let's talk heartbeats. Sounds weird, but I'm going somewhere here. A bit of Internet research led me to the fact that the average number of heartbeats in a life time for a human being is about one billion. To make this more understandable, the average human heart beats around 70 times a minute. In one eight-hour work day your heart beats around 33,600 times. This is your heart beating .. every beat subtracted from the one billion .. every beat a part of your life gone, never to be recovered. If you are a moderately successful human being Barack Obama is going to take about 13,000 (39%) of those heartbeats away from you every working day. Put your finger on your wrist and feel your pulse. Feel every heartbeat. Just count up to 100. How much of your life went by as you counted? You can't get those beats back. They're gone, for good. Remember, you only have a finite number of those beats of your heart left ... and Obama wants 13,000 of them every working day of your life. Those heartbeats – your life – being expended creating wealth. Your heartbeats, your wealth. Obama wants them. You don't need them. Someone else does. The police power of the state.
Taxes are a nasty little reality of life. Nobody wants anarchy. Government is a necessity. Government, though, is not supposed to create winners and losers. Government is not, as Obama intends, to be used as an instrument of plunder. Almost all Americans are perfectly willing to surrender an appropriate percentage of their earned wealth to fund the legitimate functions of government. I, for one, don't want to see my wealth confiscated because some bureaucrat has determined I don't "need" it, and then have to watch as that wealth is used to buy votes from someone who is simply too lazy to generate the income they need by themselves ... or, as Obama puts it, "spread around."
What is Obama going to do? How does he determine "need?" What data does he use to determine "fairness?" Maybe he'll set up some bureaucracy staffed with like-minded leftists who will use data collected in the last census and from those pesky American Community Surveys to establish a basic "need" level for people living in different areas. Once it is determined how much of a person's wealth they really don't "need," it will be a simple matter of confiscation and redistribution to those who do need it. After all, that would be "fair," wouldn't it? Come on, it's not exactly like you worked for that money.
Listen to the rhetoric of the left. Those who are in need are called "the less fortunate." This means that their status as needy was due to nothing but bad luck. It stands to reason, then, that those with more than they need were just lucky. The fortunate and the less fortunate. The lucky and the not so lucky. And here comes Barack Obama riding over the rainbow on his Unicorn to set everything right and make it all fair. Isn't that the world you want to live in?
There's a quote that's been floating around since I began my talk radio career. This quote is most often attributed to someone named Alexander Tyler writing in 1787 about the fall of the Athenian Republic. Others have said the guy's name was Tytler. Let's not argue spelling right now ... let's just get to the quote, because the quote goes to the heart of this presidential election:
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."
Think about this, my friends. Isn't this exactly what we're seeing right now? In fact, hasn't this pretty much been the theme of Democrat Party election politics for nearly as long as you can remember? Here we have Barack Obama promising that he's only going to raise taxes on the evil rich who make over $250,000 a year while 95% of Americans will get tax cuts. Think of this in terms of votes; higher taxes for 5% of the voters, lower taxes for the other 95%. It really doesn't take all that much brainpower to figure out how this is going to work at in an election does it? You take money away from the people whose votes you don't need, and give it to the people whose votes you do need. So very simple. The result is that people have, in fact, discovered that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. Who is promising those wonderful goodies? That would be Barack Obama. Just what percentage of voters out there do you think are going to vote for Obama simply because he is promising them someone else's money? My guess is that the number would be high enough to constitute the margin of victory for The Great Redistributionist.
Somehow I had this idea when I was growing up that if you wanted something bad enough, you would work hard until you got it. That was then. This is now. Now you vote for it. That's change you can believe in.
Obama's Tax Policies
Part 2
You may consider this to be horribly old fashioned, but I operate on the principle that governments have the power to tax so that governments can collect the money needed to pursue and pay for the legitimate functions of that government. By "legitimate functions" I'm referring to law enforcement, national defense, a system of courts to adjudicate interstate disputes, national infrastructure and the costs associated with running the legislative, judicial and executive branches of government.
Now we can get into quite an argument over what constitutes a "legitimate" function of government, but let's save it for later. Suffice it to say that Barack Obama has a much different picture of our government's taxing authority than many of us do.
Before we go on, let me remind you of a point that I first heard made by former Libertarian presidential candidate Harry Browne. Government has one unique power that you don't have, and neither do I. This is a power that is denied all private businesses and individuals in this country. That power .. the power unique to government .. is the power to use deadly force to accomplish its goals. If you have a business; a restaurant, for instance; you have to convince people to come to your establishment for a meal. You can advertise for customers, but they make the decision whether or not to give your restaurant a try. When the customers do come in it is up to you to deliver to them a superior product with exemplary service. This is how you get them to come back. Not through force, but through value and service.
Not so the government. You have no choice as to whether or not you are going to be a customer of government. Your patronage is compelled and your payments are extracted at the point of a gun. Supreme Court Justice John Marshall said that "the power to tax is the power to destroy." The power to tax in the wrong hands can certainly bring destruction to our economy and even to our country. I submit to you that the power to tax in the hands of Barack Obama is dangerous: Dangerous to you personally, and dangerous to the very fabric of our Republic.
Just take a look at some of the rhetoric Barack Obama uses when he talks of his plans to increase taxes on the evil, hated rich. In a television interview with (I think) Charles Gibson, Obama was asked if he understood that tax increases have often resulted in decreases in government revenue. Obama responded that he was aware of this fact. He was then asked why, then, would he be so eager to raise taxes? Obama responded that, to him, tax increases were simply a matter of "fairness." In other words, Obama didn't wish to use the police power of the state to collect taxes necessary for the legitimate functions of government; he wanted to use his taxing power to promote some vaporous "fairness" in our economy. After all, as Obama put it, the people he wants to tax have more money than they actually need and he wants to give that money to people who really do need it.
Now I ask you, does any of that sound vaguely familiar? Hmmmmm, let's see. I know I've heard something like that somewhere before. Wait! I think I have it. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Some character named Marx made slogan quite popular around 1875 in a writing called "Critique of the Gotha Program." This phrase is one of the most well-known principals of communism. You can yell, scream, spin around on your eyebrows and spit wooden nickels all you want, but what Barack Obama is pushing here, at least insofar as his tax policies are concerned, is communism. This shouldn't come as a surprise considering Obama's self-professed affinity for communist student groups and communist professors during his undergraduate years. Oh, you didn't read that? Maybe that's because you read his second book, not the first one. But what the heck. He's eloquent, isn't he? And he has a good narrative.
As I've indicated, I've been doing talk radio for 39 years now. I was on the air when we were fighting communism in Southeast Asia. I was flapping my jaws when Soviet leaders seriously entertained dreams of world communism. Throughout all of those years I was never one to scream "communism" every time someone came up with an oddball idea on governance, and I never once found a communist under my bed. But now, at least when you consider tax policy, we have a candidate for president who seems very comfortable with some basic communist principals. Too comfortable. But none of this should really bother you ... right? A little communism or socialism never really hurt anyone that you can remember. Besides, Europe is telling us that they'll like us again if we vote for Obama. That pretty much overrules everything, doesn't it?
You may consider this to be horribly old fashioned, but I operate on the principle that governments have the power to tax so that governments can collect the money needed to pursue and pay for the legitimate functions of that government. By "legitimate functions" I'm referring to law enforcement, national defense, a system of courts to adjudicate interstate disputes, national infrastructure and the costs associated with running the legislative, judicial and executive branches of government.
Now we can get into quite an argument over what constitutes a "legitimate" function of government, but let's save it for later. Suffice it to say that Barack Obama has a much different picture of our government's taxing authority than many of us do.
Before we go on, let me remind you of a point that I first heard made by former Libertarian presidential candidate Harry Browne. Government has one unique power that you don't have, and neither do I. This is a power that is denied all private businesses and individuals in this country. That power .. the power unique to government .. is the power to use deadly force to accomplish its goals. If you have a business; a restaurant, for instance; you have to convince people to come to your establishment for a meal. You can advertise for customers, but they make the decision whether or not to give your restaurant a try. When the customers do come in it is up to you to deliver to them a superior product with exemplary service. This is how you get them to come back. Not through force, but through value and service.
Not so the government. You have no choice as to whether or not you are going to be a customer of government. Your patronage is compelled and your payments are extracted at the point of a gun. Supreme Court Justice John Marshall said that "the power to tax is the power to destroy." The power to tax in the wrong hands can certainly bring destruction to our economy and even to our country. I submit to you that the power to tax in the hands of Barack Obama is dangerous: Dangerous to you personally, and dangerous to the very fabric of our Republic.
Just take a look at some of the rhetoric Barack Obama uses when he talks of his plans to increase taxes on the evil, hated rich. In a television interview with (I think) Charles Gibson, Obama was asked if he understood that tax increases have often resulted in decreases in government revenue. Obama responded that he was aware of this fact. He was then asked why, then, would he be so eager to raise taxes? Obama responded that, to him, tax increases were simply a matter of "fairness." In other words, Obama didn't wish to use the police power of the state to collect taxes necessary for the legitimate functions of government; he wanted to use his taxing power to promote some vaporous "fairness" in our economy. After all, as Obama put it, the people he wants to tax have more money than they actually need and he wants to give that money to people who really do need it.
Now I ask you, does any of that sound vaguely familiar? Hmmmmm, let's see. I know I've heard something like that somewhere before. Wait! I think I have it. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Some character named Marx made slogan quite popular around 1875 in a writing called "Critique of the Gotha Program." This phrase is one of the most well-known principals of communism. You can yell, scream, spin around on your eyebrows and spit wooden nickels all you want, but what Barack Obama is pushing here, at least insofar as his tax policies are concerned, is communism. This shouldn't come as a surprise considering Obama's self-professed affinity for communist student groups and communist professors during his undergraduate years. Oh, you didn't read that? Maybe that's because you read his second book, not the first one. But what the heck. He's eloquent, isn't he? And he has a good narrative.
As I've indicated, I've been doing talk radio for 39 years now. I was on the air when we were fighting communism in Southeast Asia. I was flapping my jaws when Soviet leaders seriously entertained dreams of world communism. Throughout all of those years I was never one to scream "communism" every time someone came up with an oddball idea on governance, and I never once found a communist under my bed. But now, at least when you consider tax policy, we have a candidate for president who seems very comfortable with some basic communist principals. Too comfortable. But none of this should really bother you ... right? A little communism or socialism never really hurt anyone that you can remember. Besides, Europe is telling us that they'll like us again if we vote for Obama. That pretty much overrules everything, doesn't it?
TO THE UNDECIDED VOTER
By Neal Boortz
© 2008 Neal Boortz
Because this is so long I am going to post it in parts. This is part 1.
This is long; very long. Hey, I'm a pretty entertaining writer ... so give it a go. If you're an undecided voter in this presidential election the least you owe your country is to try to base your final choice on some substantive facts. No, I don't have all the facts here ... but I have enough of them to perhaps convince you that voting one particular way on November 4th might not be the most brilliant move you've ever made.
This election is my 10th. My 10th presidential election since I became a radio talk show host. My 10th election since I began spending more time than the average American thinking about, researching, reading about and talking about the choices voters face. Look; I mean no arrogance here. It's just that the average American doesn't spend from 15 (then) to 22.5 (now) hours a week over the period of a presidential race talking about the candidates, the issues, the non-issues and the consequences of voter choice.
Never in those ten elections can I remember choices so stark and possible outcomes so perilous. For the record, over those 10 elections I voted for the Republican candidate six times and the Libertarian four. Never have I voted for a Democrat for president. I see no need to vote for a Democrat since I have no plans or desires to become a ward of the government. Somehow I don't think 2008 is going to be the first time.
I've noted that some other "pundits" out there are starting to post, in columns and in their blogs, the reasons they are going to vote the way they are going to vote. I'll make no attempt to refute their (oh-so refutable) arguments here. Instead, I'm just going to put my thoughts and reasoning in writing just to cleanse my mind. If you can make some use of them; whether it is for laughter, talking points or intellectual consideration, have at it. Me? I'm just pulling the handle.
© 2008 Neal Boortz
Because this is so long I am going to post it in parts. This is part 1.
This is long; very long. Hey, I'm a pretty entertaining writer ... so give it a go. If you're an undecided voter in this presidential election the least you owe your country is to try to base your final choice on some substantive facts. No, I don't have all the facts here ... but I have enough of them to perhaps convince you that voting one particular way on November 4th might not be the most brilliant move you've ever made.
This election is my 10th. My 10th presidential election since I became a radio talk show host. My 10th election since I began spending more time than the average American thinking about, researching, reading about and talking about the choices voters face. Look; I mean no arrogance here. It's just that the average American doesn't spend from 15 (then) to 22.5 (now) hours a week over the period of a presidential race talking about the candidates, the issues, the non-issues and the consequences of voter choice.
Never in those ten elections can I remember choices so stark and possible outcomes so perilous. For the record, over those 10 elections I voted for the Republican candidate six times and the Libertarian four. Never have I voted for a Democrat for president. I see no need to vote for a Democrat since I have no plans or desires to become a ward of the government. Somehow I don't think 2008 is going to be the first time.
I've noted that some other "pundits" out there are starting to post, in columns and in their blogs, the reasons they are going to vote the way they are going to vote. I'll make no attempt to refute their (oh-so refutable) arguments here. Instead, I'm just going to put my thoughts and reasoning in writing just to cleanse my mind. If you can make some use of them; whether it is for laughter, talking points or intellectual consideration, have at it. Me? I'm just pulling the handle.
In case anyone forgot what socialism is...
This was taken from the long forgotten book written by Billy Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Jeff Jones, and Ceila Sojourn, called "Prairie Fire" which was written during their days in the "Weather Underground".
At what point do you wake up and ask yourself, WTF are we doing even thinking about electing someone who harbors these views? How stupid do we have to be, and how stupid is the Main Street Media for not even mentioning these things?
Remember Joe the plumber's question?
Does the answer sound anything like the above quote?
October 21, 2008
Dem Leader: "There Should Be Tax Increases... There Are Plenty of Rich People We Could Tax
Get a firm hold on your wallet and vote the right way next month. I am surprised they broke from their regular game plan of announcing tax increases after being elected. Are they that confident or just plain arrogant?
Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
By Orson Scott Card
Editor's note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper columnist, and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current state of journalism.
An open letter to the local daily paper — almost every local daily paper in America:
I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.
This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.
It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.
What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.
The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.
They end up worse off than before.
This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.
Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)
Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?
I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."
Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.
As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled "Do Facts Matter?" ( http://snipurl.com/457townhall_com] ): "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."
These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.
Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!
What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?
Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.
And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.
If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.
But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign — because that campaign had sought his advice — you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.
You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.
If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.
If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.
There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension — so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)
If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.
Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.
But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.
If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.
Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means . That's how trust is earned.
Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.
Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.
So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?
Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?
You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.
That's where you are right now.
It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.
If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.
Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.
You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.
This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.
If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe — and vote as if — President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.
If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats — including Barack Obama — and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans — then you are not journalists by any standard.
You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city.
This article first appeared in The Rhinoceros Times of Greensboro, North Carolina, and is used here by permission.
Editor's note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper columnist, and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current state of journalism.
An open letter to the local daily paper — almost every local daily paper in America:
I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.
This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.
It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.
What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.
The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.
They end up worse off than before.
This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.
Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)
Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?
I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."
Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.
As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled "Do Facts Matter?" ( http://snipurl.com/457townhall_com] ): "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."
These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.
Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!
What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?
Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.
And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.
If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.
But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign — because that campaign had sought his advice — you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.
You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.
If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.
If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.
There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension — so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)
If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.
Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.
But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.
If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.
Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means . That's how trust is earned.
Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.
Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.
So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?
Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?
You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.
That's where you are right now.
It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.
If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.
Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.
You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.
This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.
If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe — and vote as if — President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.
If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats — including Barack Obama — and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans — then you are not journalists by any standard.
You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city.
This article first appeared in The Rhinoceros Times of Greensboro, North Carolina, and is used here by permission.
October 19, 2008
Obama Broke Illinois Ethics Laws As A State Legislator
Apparently, on Obama’s released tax records, he discloses income from speaking fees. The problem? Accepting payment for speaking fees when you’re a legislator is against Illinois state law.
Apparently, as an Illinois state legislator through 2004, Barack was prohibited from taking honoraria for speaking under the Illinois Governmental Ethics Act.
But what about Barack Obama’s 2000 and 2002 tax returns?
2000: On his 2000 Schedule C-EZ, Barack reported that he received $16,500 as a “Foundation director/Educational speaker.”
2001: On his 2001 Schedule C-EZ, Barack reported $98,158 from a Chicago law firm, Miner, Barnhill, for “Legal services/attorney” (and nothing for speaking).
2002: On his 2002 Schedule C, Barack reported $34,491 for “LEGAL SERVCES / SPEAKING FEES.”
These “speaking fees” are in addition to the amounts that Barack was paid as an employee, a lecturer at the University of Chicago, reported on the first page of his 1040s.
That’s not change we can believe in.
Just to sum up, the media can find Joe the Plumber’s tax woes within 24 hours of his having dared to question The One’s narrative, but they can’t find a clear ethical violation in the released records of a man who has been campaigning for President for two years now.
Another truth-telling moment brought to you by our fair and objective news media.
Illinois has an ethics law?
They have the same one that Pelosi has for the House. It only applies to Republicans.
Apparently, as an Illinois state legislator through 2004, Barack was prohibited from taking honoraria for speaking under the Illinois Governmental Ethics Act.
But what about Barack Obama’s 2000 and 2002 tax returns?
2000: On his 2000 Schedule C-EZ, Barack reported that he received $16,500 as a “Foundation director/Educational speaker.”
2001: On his 2001 Schedule C-EZ, Barack reported $98,158 from a Chicago law firm, Miner, Barnhill, for “Legal services/attorney” (and nothing for speaking).
2002: On his 2002 Schedule C, Barack reported $34,491 for “LEGAL SERVCES / SPEAKING FEES.”
These “speaking fees” are in addition to the amounts that Barack was paid as an employee, a lecturer at the University of Chicago, reported on the first page of his 1040s.
That’s not change we can believe in.
Just to sum up, the media can find Joe the Plumber’s tax woes within 24 hours of his having dared to question The One’s narrative, but they can’t find a clear ethical violation in the released records of a man who has been campaigning for President for two years now.
Another truth-telling moment brought to you by our fair and objective news media.
Illinois has an ethics law?
They have the same one that Pelosi has for the House. It only applies to Republicans.
October 18, 2008
Joe Biden: No friend of the working man
Michelle,
About 11 or 12 years ago, I was the foreman for a small blacktop company in Delaware. ( I still live in Delaware today) We paved good ole’ Joe the Senator’s driveway. At the time Joe explained he couldn’t afford it, so we worked out a payment plan. He was supposed to pay us 6k down then 1k a month for the next six months.
He paid the down payment (cost of materials) but Joe never made a single payment. After about 6 or 7 months, we finally got a lawyer and threatened to take him to court. He finally got his brother to pay us the money he owed. I don’t believe we ever got the interest we asked for.
Because of size of the company (about 5 of us) I never got my vacation pay that summer!
True story!
I ended my blacktop career in 99, but I’ll never forget this.
See what others have said:
I have never understood why the party that wants to take ever larger chunks of my paycheck to give to people who don’t work is supposed to be the party of the working man.
Joe the Plumber may have turned the campaign around.
How about Dan the Paver steppin’ up and sealing the deal??
Oh, wait. The MSM and HTP (Hussein the Politician) might sic the IRS and the Enquirer on you, your family, and all your friends and neighbors.
Never mind.
Wow, that’s unbelievable. CNN will be all over this. . . .oh, wait he’s a demoncrat. Never mind.
He finally got his brother to pay us the money he owed.
He just spread his brother’s wealth, is all.
Wealth redistribution begins at home
Of course afterwards he had it declared the “Joseph Biden Memorial Parkway” and was reimbursed by the state for it.
About 11 or 12 years ago, I was the foreman for a small blacktop company in Delaware. ( I still live in Delaware today) We paved good ole’ Joe the Senator’s driveway. At the time Joe explained he couldn’t afford it, so we worked out a payment plan. He was supposed to pay us 6k down then 1k a month for the next six months.
He paid the down payment (cost of materials) but Joe never made a single payment. After about 6 or 7 months, we finally got a lawyer and threatened to take him to court. He finally got his brother to pay us the money he owed. I don’t believe we ever got the interest we asked for.
Because of size of the company (about 5 of us) I never got my vacation pay that summer!
True story!
I ended my blacktop career in 99, but I’ll never forget this.
See what others have said:
I have never understood why the party that wants to take ever larger chunks of my paycheck to give to people who don’t work is supposed to be the party of the working man.
Joe the Plumber may have turned the campaign around.
How about Dan the Paver steppin’ up and sealing the deal??
Oh, wait. The MSM and HTP (Hussein the Politician) might sic the IRS and the Enquirer on you, your family, and all your friends and neighbors.
Never mind.
Wow, that’s unbelievable. CNN will be all over this. . . .oh, wait he’s a demoncrat. Never mind.
He finally got his brother to pay us the money he owed.
He just spread his brother’s wealth, is all.
Wealth redistribution begins at home
Of course afterwards he had it declared the “Joseph Biden Memorial Parkway” and was reimbursed by the state for it.
October 16, 2008
I AM Joe the Plumber
October 16, 2008
I am a high school graduate.
I didn’t have enough money to go to college.
I worked side jobs until I saw a commercial for computer programming school. I applied to go, got a small grant, took out a student loan and went there to learn to program.
I got my first ‘computer’ job at a small company on the second shift and made $2.75 per hour.
I was able to work my way through a few lowly computer jobs until I became a partner of a small computer programming firm.
Three years after I graduated programming school, I started my own programming company.
During the 80’s, I had as many as 50 clients and 4 employees.
Toward the end of the 1980’s, the economic recession took hold and I lost practically everything.
I took a job with a former client. I spent nearly ten years as an employee until I stalled at position #5. I left to pursue other interests.
I was a part-time consultant as I planned to open a food franchise. I secured the exclusive rights for the franchise in New York and New Jersey.
Three years after I left my staff job, I opened a restaurant and added the franchise component. We opened to rave reviews.
After a seventeen year run-up in the restaurant market in New Jersey, the market turned. Business started to fall off and by late 2007, we could no longer sustain the restaurant and sold the business a few months later.
As you know, today, I am a blogger. It was a natural progression of a person who is a mix of entrepreneur, IT professional and political junkie. I am not making a ton of cash, but I see a path and I am following it. I am passionate about what I do and see a way to make some money doing it. I have the support of my family and am in the best of health.
Much like Joe, I am a ‘regular guy’. I wish I was doing better and perhaps, with my drive and dedication, I may improve my lot in life. What I don’t need is to see a country in an economic crisis that if a candidate wins, will cap my success and insert an I.V. as soon as I get back on better footing. When I failed in business, where was MY bailout? I guess I wasn’t “too big to fail.”
I believe that this chaos is the perfect time for an unscrupulous person or person, using the pretense of the government help, to reorganize and socialize government programs. I must caution everyone, income redistribution DOES NOT WORK! It forces everyone to move to the lowest output and maximum gain - it’s a race to the bottom. It kills incentive.
I, like Joe the Plumber, am in a position that I have been before - lower than I want. I DO want to achieve more. I am willing to work for it. I am determined to do it. And I certainly do not want my prize to be that you take away my incentive once I cross the next finish line.
Are YOU Joe the Plumber? I bet many of you are.
Take the shackles off…free your spirit, an fly.
The ‘hope’ I have is that no one wants to control me because HE sees fit to give the spoils of my effort to another.
Borrowed from "The Armchair Energist"
I am a high school graduate.
I didn’t have enough money to go to college.
I worked side jobs until I saw a commercial for computer programming school. I applied to go, got a small grant, took out a student loan and went there to learn to program.
I got my first ‘computer’ job at a small company on the second shift and made $2.75 per hour.
I was able to work my way through a few lowly computer jobs until I became a partner of a small computer programming firm.
Three years after I graduated programming school, I started my own programming company.
During the 80’s, I had as many as 50 clients and 4 employees.
Toward the end of the 1980’s, the economic recession took hold and I lost practically everything.
I took a job with a former client. I spent nearly ten years as an employee until I stalled at position #5. I left to pursue other interests.
I was a part-time consultant as I planned to open a food franchise. I secured the exclusive rights for the franchise in New York and New Jersey.
Three years after I left my staff job, I opened a restaurant and added the franchise component. We opened to rave reviews.
After a seventeen year run-up in the restaurant market in New Jersey, the market turned. Business started to fall off and by late 2007, we could no longer sustain the restaurant and sold the business a few months later.
As you know, today, I am a blogger. It was a natural progression of a person who is a mix of entrepreneur, IT professional and political junkie. I am not making a ton of cash, but I see a path and I am following it. I am passionate about what I do and see a way to make some money doing it. I have the support of my family and am in the best of health.
Much like Joe, I am a ‘regular guy’. I wish I was doing better and perhaps, with my drive and dedication, I may improve my lot in life. What I don’t need is to see a country in an economic crisis that if a candidate wins, will cap my success and insert an I.V. as soon as I get back on better footing. When I failed in business, where was MY bailout? I guess I wasn’t “too big to fail.”
I believe that this chaos is the perfect time for an unscrupulous person or person, using the pretense of the government help, to reorganize and socialize government programs. I must caution everyone, income redistribution DOES NOT WORK! It forces everyone to move to the lowest output and maximum gain - it’s a race to the bottom. It kills incentive.
I, like Joe the Plumber, am in a position that I have been before - lower than I want. I DO want to achieve more. I am willing to work for it. I am determined to do it. And I certainly do not want my prize to be that you take away my incentive once I cross the next finish line.
Are YOU Joe the Plumber? I bet many of you are.
Take the shackles off…free your spirit, an fly.
The ‘hope’ I have is that no one wants to control me because HE sees fit to give the spoils of my effort to another.
Borrowed from "The Armchair Energist"
This is why we need John McCain as our next president.
Six minutes of the best of John McCain, lets hope the MSM picks this up and runs with it!.........waiting.....
October 15, 2008
October 14, 2008
Thomas Sowell says it all:
Jeremiah Wright, Father Michael Pfleger, William Ayers and Antoin Rezko are not just people who happened to be at the same place at the same time as Barack Obama. They are people with whom he chose to ally himself for years, and with some of whom some serious money changed hands.
Some gave political support, and some gave financial support, to Obama’s election campaigns, and Obama in turn contributed either his own money or the taxpayers’ money to some of them. That is a familiar political alliance— but an alliance is not just an “association” from being at the same place at the same time.
Obama could have allied himself with all sorts of other people. But, time and again, he allied himself with people who openly expressed their hatred of America. No amount of flags on his campaign platforms this election year can change that.
Some gave political support, and some gave financial support, to Obama’s election campaigns, and Obama in turn contributed either his own money or the taxpayers’ money to some of them. That is a familiar political alliance— but an alliance is not just an “association” from being at the same place at the same time.
Obama could have allied himself with all sorts of other people. But, time and again, he allied himself with people who openly expressed their hatred of America. No amount of flags on his campaign platforms this election year can change that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)