I was reading through the diary entry and post of one of the others here, and one of the respondents had asked the diarist to make a conservative arguement for “gay marriage” without using typical liberal talking points, getting into the religion conundrum, or just being downright insulting to social conservatives.

My first point is for all of us to accept a definition of conservatism as if the choice is between more government or less government, less government is always better.  Lets also accept that as conservatives we would be against any other type of discrimination where the availability of rights for one would not be available to someone else.  If these two things hold true, then it would be the conservative point of view that some legal recognition of these homesexual relationships should be recognized so that there is an equitable way for these couples to do things like transfer property upon death, name insurance beneficiaries, hospital visitation, etc. 

The questions becomes what we call it.  And that is where I too am a little leery of the marriage title.  My main reservation about the label is what can be done with that label once it is given to a homosexual couple in whatever state where they want to give that title.  For example, once a homosexual couple gets a marriage license what stops them from going to the local churh and insisting that the church marry them, and when that church doesn’t because of their 1st amendment rights, that church gets locked into litigation which could bring that church down because they are going against the unlimited resources of the ACLU. 

So where do we go from this point.  Personally, I would have no problem with a state deciding to recognize these unions as marriage, with the caveat that they would have no right to approach a church, synagogue, mosque, or recognized house of worship to force them to give a religious blessing to the union.  I would go as far as criminalize the ability to sue said religious institution so that our courts would never get bogged down with the cases. 

While I was at McDonalds, enjoying a nice Angus Burger, fries, and diet coke, I picked up my local rag, (Cincinnati enquirer), where I found this little gem talking about Obama’s “win streak”, I looked at this and felt the serious need to some truth to the garbage that this guy is spewing.

To see the full article, you can go here, but I will highlight just a few things, that tack the Leopard B.S. o-meter to 12.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100820/EDIT02/8210347/1019/EDIT/Obama+is+riding+an+undeniable+win+streak

1.  He mentions the troops getting of out Iraq.  That is all well and good, however, if I am not mistaken, that evil, incompetent guy George W. Bush set the table for that in his last year of office, Bambi didn’t have to do a damn thing, but let Bush’s guys run the war, and peace and stay the hell out of the way. 

2.  BP oil spill, can’t get credit for fixing a problem that first off, many members of your own constituency created, with the pushing of garbage enviromental laws that made it so that the only place to get the oil that is needed, is doing the high risk drilling of miles under the ocean.  Secondly, all he really did was get in the way, and never shut is f’ing piehole about how evil BP was, and how he was going to kick asses, but it was both him, and at the time ineffective leadership from the people put in charge, that dragged out that spill longer than it had to be.  If I had to check with my boss, everytime, I went to the bathroom, I wouldn’t be effective at my job either.  I still thoughly believe that if he would have taken the option of getting the hell out of the way, that whole oil mess would have been taken care of earlier, and the whole Gulf region would not have suffered economically as it did due to him and his minions, playing up the “crisis”, instead of getting the job done.

3. GM and auto bailouts.  That too, if I was not mistaken, was another policy (one that I did not agree with whatsoever) by that evil, idiot George W. Bush, you know the guy that we should be blaming for close to 10% national unemployment now, and the reason everyone seems scared of their own shadow when it comes to finances and job security.  Instead of the fact that there is a looming tax hike about to hit in the next 3 months because nothing that is going to be paletable to either side is going to pass to stop that train from hitting us dead square in the ass.

Mr Robinson, tends to have a very warped view of current history, or he is waiting in the line right after Michelle O, to give oral favors to Barak, because this entire article to me was about as true as the dream I had about me and Halle Barry having a steamy love affair on the beaches of Aruba.

Listening to talk radio, Fox News, and the news in general, it appears that the Democrats are perilously close to having to make that decision.

The question is which way is this going to go.  Will the progressives, allow their dream candidate in Obama to go down in flames in 2012, or are they willing to sacrifice the 2010 congressional dems like a master chess player will sacrifice a queen to leave the opening for a rook-bishop combination attack for a checkmate?

My initial thoughts on this subject have always been that the liberals wanted to be able to claim the mantle of having the first African-American president come from their ranks, and then once he was shown as a complete failure they would let him fall to the wayside and then make sure that they used the tools of the NAACP, media, etc. to make sure that there would be no way in hell that if the GOP ran an African-American candidate, that they would be elected.  The terms of sellout, race-traitor, Uncle Tom, or other disparaging terms used against African-American conservatives would be used, combined with the ginning up of mistrust amongst some of the racist fringe on both sides of the political spectrum would make sure that even if the black candidate was the reincarnation of Ronald Reagan he/she would never be elected.

However, looking at things recently however, I am starting to get the feeling that Obama is the king on the chessboard, that needs to be protected at all costs, therefore, the progressives would take the defeat in 2010, let Obama have to compromise with a GOP until 2012, then make Obama out to be the only thing standing between the evil GOP and the American people, and then attempt to use the 2012 elections to get more of their type of Democrat elected as well as get Obama reelected.

Now I am hearing some conspiracies such as Hillary taking another shot in 2012, leading to probably a very bloody primary, and if Hillary did win, then their would be a comfort level from the American public because at least she is not as “radical” as Obama was, especially since the Obamacare reforms are already passed, there would be no look at what she wanted to do when her and Bill were running the show back in the 90′s.

So I guess in thinking out loud, I am trying to get into the twisted mind of an Alynskyite of what the true strategy is so that they don’t lose the gains that they seem to made in 2006 and 2008.  Any thoughts would be appreciated.

I just got done voting in the primaries here in Ohio, and let me tell you it went without fail that when I told the people my party registration, I got the gasp of surprise then the sigh of disappointment from one of the election workers.  This is the second time that this has happened to me, once in NJ and again out here in Ohio.

Let me elaborate further, I live in a majority African-American suburban neighborhood in the Cincinnati-Metropolitan area, and I myself am 1/2 African American, 1/4 German, and 1/4 Polish, so obviously I should have asked for a Democrat primary form right?  Wrong, I broke the trend I guess I guess and asked for the Republican primary ballot.

Now in the Ohio Primaries for the Republican side, there were a lot of boxes that were single candidates (Rob Portman for Senator, Steve Chabot for the OH-01 House of Representatives seat, however I did take an interesting delight in their little surprise, but at some point where I am certain I won’t have police locking me up I will explain my rationale to them just like I intend to explain it here.

I grew up in the 80′s where I saw a great president in Ronald Reagan pretty much win the Cold War and ensure at the time that I would never be a victim of a nuclear holocaust at the hands of the Soviet Union.  By the time I was 18 the first real election I could be a part of was the Clinton/Bush/Perot election.  As I was watching Clinton, Bush, and Perot do their thing, I remember myself telling my friends, that I could see the strings through the TV screen and was very cynical of both Clinton and Bush, and I went ahead in my Freshman year and voted for Ross Perot.  Sometimes I do regret that decision but Bush number 1 did not really instill a confidence in me, and Clinton I could see was a scumbag from jump street.

As my college years went on, I was exposed to a good amount of liberalism when I took a class that was outside of my major (I was a Economics and Business Major), but again this didn’t truly make sense to me, but there was really no other alternative viewpoint or example of how conservatism worked, until I stepped into my Corporate Finance class.  Where the professor I had, (who was also the guy that wrote the book), started off the first couple of weeks talking about this thing called Libertarianism.  It was weird but for some reason it made sense to me.  As I listened to him more, I started thinking about the role of government and how it related to African-Americans and saw that the solution was exactly what this guy was saying, get the government out of the way, and anybody in general, and African-Americans in particular could thrive.  Why should I trust a government that turned a blind eye to years of African-Americans being treated like 2nd class citizens in the South, the subterranean racism that was prevalent in the North with lovely practices like redlining and having real estate agents sell a house to a African-American family then tell all the other white families how their property values are going to go down because of the family moving into the neighborhood, and those things were only addressed when the people in government found it politically favorable to address these issues.  Sorry, I don’t trust in the kindness of the heart of LBJ, when he is known to have said something along the line of if we give the n_______s the vote and welfare they will vote for us forever.  So it only fell in line to have a political philosophy that limited the governments ability to have any power beyond what is delegated in the Constitution over me.  So how does that translate into being more apt to support the GOP over Dems?

In listening to Dems I always heard about the government doing this and that but we will let you do anything socially you want, and knew that was not the answer, the GOP at least talked about and addressed limiting government’s reach into my pocketbook, if not in my social affairs, and I made the decision that the only true freedom is economic freedom, and social freedom blooms from that. hence my support for the GOP.

I guess what was surprising then disappointing to that election workers eyes was that I don’t buy into the belief that the red elephant = racist white guy, I also see the conditions of the uptown area of Cincinnati, and see what Democrat control has wrought throughout the years, and personally don’t want any part of it.

My mother once told me that insanity is repeating the same thing expecting different results, well in my mind being an African-American, and voting for folks who believe in government control, and having the same crime ridden, no advancement, and little opportunity is insane to me, I would rather attempt a different route.

This past week, while driving my wife to work, and again this morning doing some shopping before I go down to officiate the Big East Track and Field Championships down at the University of Cincinnati, one of the big local stories in the Cincinnati-Metro area is the closing of the Kroger store in the Roselawn community.  Now as a conservative/libertarian type that I am, my visceral reaction was that if the store was profitable the company would not see the need to close the store, and I am sure there are many ways for folks to get the needed food.

However, listening to the radio stations that my wife has programmed in her car stereo all I can hear is how this is unfair for those poor, majority black folks that live in this neighborhood that this store is closing although the place was operating at a loss which seems to me tells me that the people in that area were probably already going to other stores, and received more than enough assistance to get to those other stores.

What really gets me riled up about this as a member of African-American decent is that now quite a few politicians are now attempting to use this as an election time issue, and of course they are dealing the race card like it was the big joker in game of spades, so far the only folks that I have heard try to make this an issue is of course Democrats.

This diary started out as a solicitation for seeing how other conservatives would feel about this, but as I was writing I saw that this issue is being used as a club by some politicians who want to capitalize off of the race/victim card to get themselves elected.  So I went from having some sympathy for those that live in the community to actually no sympathy thanks to those who are now wanting that store to stay open and want the government to come to the rescue and force the store to not only stay open, but invest more into a losing store so that they can have “quality food” available.   I would like to ask my liberal fellow citizens, when does the government control end, and freedom begin and if I am not mistaken, when the government is telling businesses how to run their businesses but allows the business itself to stay open, that bespeaks of a fascism that was practiced by such lovely folks like Adolf Hitler, and Benito Mussolini.

Why can’t folks on the Democrat side of things be honest as to where this bill will ultimately lead within the time frame of about 8 to 10 years from this point?  I am sitting here listening to Cavuto and a Dem strategist is on talking about how right now this current bill puts insurance companies in a stronger position than they were before, probably due to the insurance mandates causing a captive audience, but they don’t mention some of the other things that will do the Cass Sunstein nudge to what the left ultimately wants which is a single payer system, and make it so that we are begging for it by this time. I am going to list some of the things that I have heard below which will make that nudge a reality.

1.  The pre-existing condition mandate.  This mandate sounds really good on paper, hell being a diabetic myself I would think this is great, however if these insurance companies are going to have to know that they are going to be paying claims on day one of a policy such as covering someone’s insulin from the jump or paying for someone’s chemotherapy for cancer on day one and not be able to charge as such, what is an insurance company to do.  1. They will raise their rates on everybody in the insurance pool. 2.  Cry to the government to bail them out to keep their shareholders solvent.  Either one of these will either get to the point where single payer is the only solution.

2.  HHS being able to determine what the insurance companies need to cover.  This is another mandate, where we know that right now to start, to put the insurance companies on guard to a point where they will beg for the bailout will be to make these insurance companies cover everything under the sun regardless of need, this in itself will raise rates on everyone in the pool because of more things needing to be covered for everybody. These rate hikes will easily cause a majority if not everyone in the populace saying screw it, let’s go to a single payer system believing that this will be a better option than the private companies.

3.  Subsidies for people up to 88,000 a year.  This will bankrupt the government eventually considering we are already a few trillion in debt already.  This bankruptcy will probably even cause conservatives to say what would be cheaper to keep ourselves solvent, keeping these subsidies or going to a single payer system, those seem to be the only two options.

These are just three things that I can see that makes this bill not a healthcare reform bill, but a poison pill which will eventually infect the system so badly that when all is said and done, the people, the insurance companies and any doctors that are left will be begging for the government to save them and then we as a people are rolling the dice against the house of government bureaucracy where I don’t know about anybody else, but I would rather take my chances at a casino in Atlantic City than the house of the federal government.

I welcome anybody else’s thoughts on this.

This morning, after dropping my wife off at work today, I was listening to the Tom Joiner Morning Show on the radio (I was driving her car not mine, hence did not have any control of the radio), and they had Michael Steele on the phone interviewing him.  They were talking about the health care legislation, and I heard that tired old line of, “The Republicans had eight years of control, and they did not do anything to address health care.”.  I am so sick of this meme, and I would love to hear a good answer back to this.  Just from my observations of what the political climate of the environment at the time, I would like them to answer, what would they have expected Bush to accomplish given the following variables.

1.  At no time during the Bush administration did he have a “filibuster proof majority” in the Senate to push any legislation that he would have wanted through.

2.  It was such a partisan time with the question of his “legitimacy” being raised that there would have been no cooperation from either the Democrats, or the media on anything that he or some congressional Republican would have wanted to try to propose.

3.  September 11, 2001, happened, where our president by neccessity needed to shift focus from domestic issues to trying to stop the next airplane, missile, bomb, or random terrorist attack from hitting our shores killing more citizens. (Sorry, health care doesn’t matter when everyone is dead).  This focus required at least the Afganistan war, and to fight startegically the war on terror, plus Saddam’s support of the same type of terrorists that attacked, required the war in Iraq after we initially succeeded in toppling the Taliban. 

Personally, I do believe that Bush and the Republicans were focusing on the right thing, when he attempted to address Social Security Reform.  If folks are financially secure the acquisition of health care does take care of itself, however Dems and the media made sure to make the Social Security reform look as if the Republicans wanted Grandma and Grandpa to eat cat food because they were going to “Privatize” Social Security, but under the there criteria that listed above, even if Bush proposed single payer, it still would not have passed because some Dem would have found something wrong with enough to block it. 

Also listening to the same radio show, after the interview was over, it was stated that the republicans don’t even listen to Michael Steele, and of course racism was the cause of that.  It couldn’t be that at most times Steele does not do a good job of defending and advocating for the GOP, has focused on backing RINO candidates, and overall has been very ineffective as a GOP chariman by attempting to chart a proper path for the GOP, while constantly whenever he is in a “black” media forum, like this radio show is, he seems to be wanting to regain his black card instead of defending the GOP from said charges. 

What I would love Steele to say to some of these people, is for them to take a look at many of the cities and states that are run by the democrats that supposedly represent their views and look at their conditions.  I live in a suburb outside of Cinicinnati, and Cincinnati has been in control by democrats since I have lived out here (at one point, Jerry Springer was mayor), but yet, there are many areas within the city that I would not go for fear for my life, where there are more abandoned buildings and houses than occupied.  Then ask them if they should probably look for a different direction.  I would also love for our media to have a little intellectual honesty and neutrality when they look at politics instead of being cheerleaders for the Democrat party.

I have been thinging through things the last day or so and I have a couple of fears that I would like to share with this community to see what they thing.

My first fear is the whole healthcare thing.  The more I see of this debate, especially after the “bi-partisan” healthcare confrernce, I am wondering how much of this garbage can be repealed after the the dems go the “Reconciliation” route to push it through.  My thinking goes like this:

1.  These scumbag progressive Dems in the House and Senate go ahead and pass the bill, with all of the “House” fixes throught the reconciliation process of the House passing the Senate bill, then passing their “fixes” and the Senate gets the 50%+1 to pass the fixes through the senate, then the president signs this garbage. How much of this can get rolled back assuming the following factors. 

A.  Even with big wins by the GOP, it will still not be enough to either override a veto from the president, or break a filibuster in the Senate.

B.  What happens after 2010 is done, and the complicit MSM makes it seem like a GOP congress is impotent, and 2012 turns into people stating ”We want the Gov to be able to do something.”  I can see Obambi and the the dem/progressive caucus getting swept right back into power in 2012 and we are completely screwed.

My second question is probably more philosophical, but I think this deems an answer to assuage my fears and the fears of many people, and that is the arguement of incorporation.  It is my belief that certain things are incorporated to being a citizen of the United States of America and cannot be crapped upon no matter where one lives.  For example, I may have to register the fact that I am a gun owner in certain states vs. other states, but no state and or locality can out and out ban me owning a gun.  I was listening a little bit to the Mike Church show on my way home and it appears that even some conservatives have the belief that since the idea of Incorporation is such an evil extension of the Federal government that the right to own and bear weapons for self defense should be one of those things that the states can regulate but the federal gov. cannot.  For somebody like me who tends to be very sympathetic to things like individual rights to things like being able to bear arms to protect my property, and the right to things like being able to vote, which there has been a history of certain states stating that if certain racial critera were not met one could not vote or barriers were put in the way to exclude people who did not meet a certain racial critera.   

Again, I know where I stand as far as the political spectrum, I am for the most part a strong libertarian that believes in a strong national defense.  My beliefs can be summed up by stating that even if we had the rights to bear arms, and the individual rights to do things to ourselves as long as they did not harm anybody else that it does not matter if some 3rd world country develops nukes, and gives those nukes to some terrorist org. that turns around and gives up underwear bomber Part II, but instead of a failed attempt a city like Newark, NJ or Detroit, MI turns into a mushroom cloud.  However, as someone who comes from a group that has had their rights perpetually crapped upon by this country, I would like to know how others who are conservative like myself look at these issues.  Again, if anybody has read any of my posts, I do not hold to any progressive leanings, and tend to puke whenever I hear the race baiters and race pimps state anything because I know they do nothing more but perpetuate more progressive control that only leads to the race that they are representing becoming more and more marginalilzed in the political discouse. What I seek with this post is others giving me a better viewpoint of how to see things from the conservative point of view that I can look to so that I can tell the progressives who want to smear the conservative/Libertarian point of view as racist that they are dead wrong, and this is how conservatism/libertarianism works to bring equilibrium to all people in this country and that the progressives have used race as another piece on the backgammon board to further their cause without a care for those that are truly affected by their policies.

As I was eating my non Michelle Obama approved lunch at McDonalds, I picked up a paper that they offered and was treated to this article.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100210/NEWS0108/2110316/1055/NEWS/This+time++money+flows+to+Driehaus

This article pretty much states that Driehaus has outraised Chabot from a number of businesses in the area including Procter and Gamble in which Cincinnati is home base for them. 

Of course this made me cringe on so many levels. My biggest cringe was the hypocrisy of the coverage.   We all know that if this was the GOP or conservative candidate getting money from these same sources, they would be beyond evil. The press would have made sure that this article was put in such a negative light that the candidate could never attempt to try to show any credentials that they care about the middle class.  In this article however this was nothing more than cheerleading with about two or three lines covering Chabot’s reaction.

So now can we drop the pretense that the GOP is the party of big business and that the Democrat party is such the party of the little guy?

I just got done watching the clip on Eric Brockaway’s RedHot where Chris Matthews is interviewing Alan Grayson and is pretty much telling Grayson that he is either living in fantasy land or pandering letfy netroots in stating that they are going to attempt to fight for a health care bill through reconciliation.  I also saw a few days back, I don’t remember exactly when but it did seem that he was taking a more moderate tone since the Scott Brown beatdown in Massachucetts.  Now considering that he was frothing at the mouth douche, since about October 2008.   I wonder what is changing his tone.

Does he possibly see the writing on the wall, that MSNBC is akin to the Titanic, and he is readying his life jacket so that he could possibly get a gig on a station that is not super rabid liberal, (as a personal note if I saw him on Fox news, I would probably cease watching the entire station), and that there is no other outlet that will hire a rabid lib, since Air America went bye bye. 

I know that my next statement is not going to very Christian, but I do wish nothing but utter failure and desolation for this idiot Matthews for the utter damage that he has done, not only to the political discourse in this country, but that he and many others is the symbol of the death what the media should have been doing instead of playing a game of cover-up.

I listened to Obama’s economic statement today, and the only thing I could think of is Rodney Dangerfield, in Back to School when he is in the Business 101 class with his son, and when the professor is talking about making widgets, he screams, “Try Fantasyland”.  That was the only thing that came to my mind with his statement.

The Fox news link is here:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/08/economy-loses-jobs-december-jobless-rate-stays-percent/

He states that we are going to throw 2 someodd Billion toward green jobs and companies so that they can lead the way so that America can lead the way since we are behind China and Japan on making batteries and solar panels.  My thought on this is that if the market was there for this, wouldn’t people have jumped on this without the government throwning money in their direction.

How about this for an idea of building our economy, shut up and get out of the way. Stop making America the highest or second highest corporate tax rate in the world, and make it worth a company’s while to invest and employ in the U.S.  How about stopping the onerous regulations that stop people from investing in businesses and hiring people.  How about shelving this B.S healthcare reform knowing that it is going to make it less attractive to hire in the U.S.

I would wish just once during Obama’s tenure as president, and the Democrats next 10 months of rule, they extrictate their heads from the behinds and actually come up with legislation that helps us all instead of hurting a majority of us for the benefit of an elite few.

I know that this won’t fly in anywhere but my own little fantasy land, but listening to the radio talking about the terrorist attach on the Detroit flight, and then thinking about the whole healthcare debate, I came up with this argument. 

If we were to concede the arguement, (which I don’t), that health care is a right for every citizen, although it’s technically nowhere in the constitution, and needs the government to come in and pay for those that do not have health care, then the right to own a gun, which is enshrined in that little thing called the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights, then the government should pay for those that don’t own a weapon.

Looking at some of the things in the health care bill, you could also apply to gun ownership. Example, this healthcare bill mandates that people either have health insurance or face penalites or jail time, well. the same should be said about gun ownership.  Every citizen over the age of 18 should be mandated to own a weapon and be trained on using it, or face fines and jailtime, since they are willfully breaking the law and not exercising their 2nd amendment responsibilities.  Also the govenrment gets to mandate what is an acceptable caliber of gun that can be sold, for example no one can sell or own a .22 because it is too small, and all bullets have to be hollowpoint so as to not have residual through and through innocent bystander damage.  

Another part is the whole subsidizing of those that can’t afford healthcare, well if we got to subsidize them, then we should also subsidize all the poor who cannot afford a gun.  That would be nice if granny in an inner city neighborhood could get a subsidized .38, and be able to defend themselves against the gangbanger or thug that is going to try to steal their social security check, welfare check, or paycheck.  Also if everyone was mandated to carry a weapon, how many terrorist attacks would really happen on airplanes, or public places if there was a strong possibility that it would not be successful, because as soon as they attempt to ignite a bomb, they would be dying due to a dose of highly accelerated, forced, lead poisoning. 

Finally, the whole idea of a health insurance exchange, that insurance companies have to be a part of so that the exchange can provide affordable insurance. Well, how about a gun exchange, where Smith & Wesson, Glock, Khar, and other gun manufactuers have to be a part of so that people can buy affordable weapons through the exchange. 

Again, this is mostly meant to be a sarcasm about the stupidity of the arguement that the healthcare is a right and that their bill guarantees that right.  However, it would be nice that once and for all to be able to say that the 2nd amendment does mean something, and that every citizen would be protected even if they don’t want to be.

Came home from work today, and flicked on Fox and Glenn Beck was on, and this was my first observation.  Some Canadian editorial is talking about how there shouldn’t be an argument between Global Warming or Global Cooling, but that world overpopulation was the problem and that we should all be under a one child policy like that of China’s.

Now, my first point of hypocrisy of the left comes from the “reproductive rights” groups.  If it is a individual “reproductive right” to have an abortion, is it not also a “reproductive right” if you want to have 2, 3, 4 children.  So let me get this straight, the government can’t tell you that you can’t have an aborition, but the government will have the right to tell you to not have a child or have an abortion.  I don’t know about anyone else, but if a G-man came to my door and told  me that me and wife could not have a child, or attempted to hold me and my wife at gunpoint and engage in reproductive activities to produce a child, I think, Mr. G-man would be getting introduced to MR. 9mm.  Individual freedom is individual freedom. To be consistent, you must defend both the positive and negatives of individual freedom.

My second and last observation of hypocrisy is the current health care debate.  You got the DASM (dumb ass stream media) representative Ezra Klien talking about how Libermann would rather settle a political score and allow people to die then pass healthcare reform. Now didn’t this douche and other’s like him scream bloody murder when Sarah Palin, put a post on facebook talking about “death panels”, which in any shape of looking at this legislation, that is one result that is definitely going to happen.  Sorry MSM, and this is the reason you do not get my viewership of your news programs (Sorry Katie Couric is not doing it for me, and the other networks are better than Ambien for putting one to sleep), and I actually feel dumber after I read a MSM newspaper, or have the feeling of wanting to beat someone within an inch of their life, is because this hypocrisy is sickening.

Other forms of hypocrisy are welcome.

I was listening to of all things (MSNBC’s The Ed Show), and I could only listen to it for a total of 3.5 seconds when this idiot started talking about a public option that does not have a policy say would be more palateable. Which got me thinking about my football days.

I played football for a Division 1-AA football team (AKA the Football Championship Subdivision, the one not many people don’t pay attention to), and if I could have been in the position where I could have refereed, and been a player, my penalty yards would have been greatly reduced, (I was an offensive lineman, and we always hold, it’s just a matter of getting caught), and I could have pretty much been an All-American.  But alas, in the game of football the referee, for the most part is neutral and calls the game both ways and here I am a lowly computer tech doing the working man thing.

This is analogous to the “public option”.  From what I can see this “option” is going to “compete” with private insurance companies. How is that going to work effectively, when the “public option” will have an unlimited capital pool from which to draw from then any other insurance company, so it would be fine for them to take about 5 years of solid losses, covering everything that the referee (federal govt, the owner of the public option), makes every other insurance company cover, so right there the insurance company, plays against a stacked deck, until they fold, then the “public option” becomes the only player in the game then we are in a “single payer”system.  Then somebody is going to find out that the first 5 years is not sustainable, and then we get the rationing and “economic decisions” of who gets treated or not.

Another thing about this deal is what happens if the private company’s (I know probably a long shot but hear me out), still have the ability to out perform the “public option” by maybe advertising that they can deliver services better than the “public option”, and then doing so.  Is the referee, still going to call the game down the middle, and let the “”public option” die.  No, they are going to change the rules so that the private insurance companies cannot market against the public option, therefore tilting the deck once again in their favor.

This whole healthcare thing as the Democrats are pushing is a raw deal for America as a whole, but for a country that thrived on competition and innovation, these proposals are going to kill it, and we will be under a “single payer” system, and personally, I don’t like my survival chances in that environment.

I hold a bachelor’s degree in Economics and Business from a relatively small (some may call higher end) liberal arts college, and I look at all that Obama has proposed and done, and am shocked at how he thinks this economy is going to improve. I will list some of the policies below.

1. Taxes – It’s been proven time and time again, that when taxes are cut, those that are paying the majority of taxes (damn those evil rich folks), the money that they have in their pocket goes out and buys better things, which goes to the manufacturers of those better things, which then lets those manufacturers hire people at good competitive wages, which those people use those wages to buy goods and services that they desire and need, and the circle continues and continues to a point where we have a productive economy, the whole time a percentage of the economy is paying taxes. Now when taxes get raised, or are expected to raise (letting tax cuts expire), those that are paying the taxes (again damn thos evil rich folks), stop spending the better things, the manufacturers of those things lose money, and hence fire workers, those workers are now not buying the goods and services they need, and you get what we have now of a 9.8% unemployment rate and going higher.

Cap and trade (the no energy, energy proposal)- How do people do any job in this country now. I am a computer geek, my place of employment probably uses a real large amount of electricity to keep our networks up and running so that we can support an maintain our client’s networks, now you are going to make the price of keeping those networks go up, because the electricity supplier is going to have to make someone pay for the fact that the electric use of my company, may push the supplier over the cap and therefore they are going to have to buy the carbon credit from somebody to keep producing the energy. This leaves only one option for my employer which is to cut the only thing that they can control, and my job goes bye bye so that they can keep the lights on, because if they don’t they get sued by the client for breech of  contract.

Also on this front, when we had the tech explosion, and went from using punch cards and dumb terminals, to using PCs and Cisco Routers, and the servers running Microsoft Windows NT, and the Internet, I maybe wrong, but I don’t remember Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, or the head of Cisco asking the government to fund their work on an unproven technology until they got it working, but this is exactly what the wind energy folks, solar energy folks, and I don’t know the unicorn fart energy folks are asking us to do.  Sorry, if I were to look at a profit loss statement or a business plan as a private citizen see that company x wouldn’t be worth a pint of my urine let alone an investment of my cash, why should the govenment use my tax money to invest in that.

Spending-Now I hear the govenment complain that credit is not flowing and businesses are not getting loans, and people aren’t getting mortgages, but I know one group that is getting all the credit in the world right now, and thats the Federal Government to the tune of $1.8 Trillion dollars.  A simple look at supply and demand would tell me that if out of all the money that can be supplied for credit could be counted, I am sure 1.8 trillion getting taken out of that lowers the supply for everyone else, which should naturally raise the price of the remaining supply of available money to loan for everyone else, and add to the fact that now you are going to scream if a bank makes a loan that may lower their capital, it is no wonder to me why credit is not getting out to businesses and people, even if they are the most responsible, credit worthy people in the world.

Now again, I don’t have a Ph.D in Economics or Politics, but even with my lowly Bachelor’s degree I can tell that this economic policy would make most of my economic professors puke.  So I have to ask where did the economic education for this administration come from a real place of higher learning or Romper Room

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/10256766/Upon-further-review:-The-word-on-Rush

I read this today at work, and just got more and more pissed off about the race-baiting, 21st century version of what happened in the 1950′s during the HUAC, and Hollywood blacklisting.

The only difference is this time, instead of having someone come in front of a committee and either admit to, or denouce being a communist, you don’t even get a chance to defend yourself, you go straight from accused to blacklisted.

As for this article from Jason Whitlock, I got to quote what Warren Ballentine said to Juan Williams, and this is from one black man to another, get off of the porch of your liberal plantation owners.  If you want to ever be seen as a credible journalist, please stop with the 1/2 hearted, “Although the quote may have been wrong, I am still justified in a character assasination”.

I am not the biggest fan of Rush Limbaugh, but I do understand, and most times agree with his point of view, but I would be just as pissed off, and question a bunch of reporters and people, if they tried to drive Olbermann off of the air of NFL Sunday Night, and did it by attibuting quotes to him such as, “Conservatives are satan incarnate”, and, “Republicans are the political arm of the KKK”, knowing that they were false and could only be found in Wikipedia.

I look at it like this, if the HUAC and Hollywood blacklist was wrong, and unamerican, doing what was done to Rush Limbaugh is just as wrong.

I remember reading somewhere I don’t know if it was here or on another blog site, about one of the ALinsky rules was to always argue that there are more than two choices.  For example, in Afghanistan, according to Obama, it is a false choice to either grant the requested troops, or get the hell out of Afghanistan, there is some third blurry choice that will grant success, and that we are just to damn dumb to know what it is. But when it comes to the recent Health Care debate it’s either his plan, or no plan at all.

I constantly hear attacks about how Republicans and Conservatives, don’t have a plan at all (which is false), and that only his plan (public option, mandatory requirement for insurance, stacked deck rules against insurance companies) is the only way to go.

Sorry, but if Obama wants to try to split the baby on Afghanistan, and split the baby on a whole host of other issues, please in Cbama’s infinite Solomon like wisdom, come up with a way to split the baby on health care, or cap and trade, or the whole host of domestic issues instead of the dual choice that Obama is giving us of his way or do nothing.

There is a way to split the baby on health care reform. Things like allowing Interstate commerce of insurance plans instead of insurance company’s needing to taylor plans to mandates of each state, and paying their tributes to each state’s insurance boards, and tort reform which will stop or curtail some of the defensive medicine, and lower the doctor’s malpractice insurance premiums.

There is a way to split the baby on the so called “climate change” action and energy policy, that split is to allow domestic nuclear energy for electricity generation, and domestic drilling for our own oil, and more capacity for refining, (I believe that our ability to refine cleaning outstrips those of many of the 3rd world cesspools that are doing it now).

So, all I ask is a little consistency, if Obama is going to look for the third choice on each issue, then at least look at the third choices that are so blatant that if they were Mike Tyson in a championship fight Obama would be picking himself up off the gound with the obvious punch that he should know is coming.

Listening to the news in regards to Afganistan, and Obama and folks waffling around about sending more troops into it or not, really bothers me.

Afghanistan, according to the debates was the war of necessity, and Iraq was the war of choice.  Now it seems that he and his people are trying anything to get an out of Afghanistan, yet split the baby and show that he is still strong on national defense.  What I don’t think his folks understand, would be if you want to be trusted on national security you better do the things that will secure us, which for me is fighting and defeating the Islamofacists where ever they try to hidey hole, and fight them on their ground so that they got to keep playing the home game, because if they travel for the away game here, we will have 9/11 part 2.

Now, unlike the liberals who tried to cheerlead the U.S. to a loss, if Obama wanted to put in more troops, I don’t think there would be objection one from our side of the fence, and I don’t think many independents would decry the increase, the only people that seem to decry this are hippie maggots like the now senior senator from MA. and the far-left.  As a matter of fact Obama and the Dems would probably be fully supported by us, and we wouldn’t be the ones blaming the deaths on Obama as long as he was fighting this war honestly.

Right now, I see only two options to the whole thing. Option 1, is to surge and surge hard, fight the insurgents, fight the Taliban, and load up the body bags with those that want to kill us.  Option 2, is withdraw everybody, and fortify our home defenses so that they are air tight, which would probably mean having our military on our soil defending our borders.

I was watching the only tolerable show on CNN tonight (that would be the Lou Dobbs show), since if I look at Shepard Smith or hear him for more than 10 minutes I find my self resisting the strong urge to put six holes in my TV, and they were discussing how some Democrats are pissed, because this bill is starting to get slanted to what Olympia Snowe wants instead of going full bore communist

One congress woman from CA (Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)), stating that, “This is the United States of America, not the United States of Maine.”, and when asked for follow up on that, whe proceeds to state, “One senator cannot hold the nations health plan hostage.”  Then queen dunce (my opinion) Shiela Jackson Lee, stating, “The idea that we are going to succumb to the insurance companies’ fears, and then do a trigger, will mean that we will delay our constituency, the American people, a public option”.

Great job Snowe, in her quest to be seen as the “resonable one” and get her head patted like a loyal dog, she now became enemy number 1, and now it’s her turn to get demonized.

Of course, she will probably cry that she needs to be defended by the GOP when she really starts getting attacked, and the outside state money comes in against her in  droves, because she is wanting to limp to socialist healthcare instead of sprinting to it so fast that Usain Bolt looks like a turtle.

Now I hope that Senator Snowe knows how to play this hand and make sure that in the end, that this bill which looks like now is going to pass irregardless, doesn’t do too much damage.  However, My hope dwindles, when I look at her prior record from what I read here.

Enjoy having the target on your back Snowe, and you will now know how the rest of us feel every damn day since Ronald Reagan became president.

Read this in the Cincinnati Enquirer a couple of days ago.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20091007/NEWS01/310070003/Stings+expose++gun+show+loophole++

This pretty much was a sting operation done by Mike Bloomberg (R for convience) mayor of NYC, had agents go to a gun and knife show that is held in Cincinnati every year, and go to private sellers, and buy a gun acting like they should in no way be allowed.

They had a guy go to the private collectors table, and state something like, “Yeah, I probably wouldn’t pass a background check”, while the sale is already closed.

Of course we all know that this is going to be used, as a agitprop piece to toughen the private ownership laws.  Which I think is completely rediculous.  First off, if it is incumbent on me as a seller to ascertain if someone could not get a gun through a dealer, when am I opened up to discrimination lawsuits.  I mean, right now, if some hip hop style wearing individual came up to me and wanted to buy my weapon, and I told him no, when is he going to sue me for discrimination.  Second off, I am not sure that a cop shop in one city let alone one state should be able to cross lines to sting legitimate businesses in another state.   Especially New York from Cincinnati, OH, it would be one thing if this was Virginia, or somewhere on the I-95 corridor, I don’t think folks are coming out to Cincy from NY to buy a gun to drop it back on NY streets.

This gave me a big warning sign that if this is not the start, it is an escalation on the war on the 2nd amendment.