Showing posts with label The Political Pharisee. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Political Pharisee. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

Love This, Read Below the Fold to Find the Humor :)

It's been around for a while, but it's well done.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, July 31, 2012

The Simple Answer for "Romney's Tax Returns"

It's one sentence long.

If there was anything criminal being concealed in Romney's tax returns, the IRS would be on it already.

That's the 1040EZ answer. The long form answer is that you better believe in a world of Joe the Plumber, those who want to know what's in them, already know what's in them. If there was anything criminal in them the investigation would have been started from outside the IRS by another Government agency, acting as a proxy for the Obama Campaign.

All that is contained in Romney's tax returns is information that can be characterized in a way that places Romney in a poor light with the electorate. It stands to reason that if these things are spoken of in public by Obama's campaign, or leaked, it will be fairly obvious that the point of origin of the information, was his Tax Returns. It will be fairly evident that the Conduit from the IRS to the Electorate (General Public) will be an inquiring Government official, who gives the information to the Press.

This of course is another reason you do not want the Government in Health care, since that unsightly lesion you have in thus and so a region, can become the topic of political speculation.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Then we don't need him either (It's Nihilism, Stupid)



Essentially he's telling us we don't need him either. He's President? Somebody else did that. He has legislative "accomplishments?" Somebody else did that. He's not necessary, he's just the lucky schlub someone picked to head the ticket. Joe Biden could do the job. He's not so special after all.

Obama is a Black Joe Biden I guess.

You didn't do anything. He didn't do anything. No one accomplishes anything and in 100 years we'll all be dead, right?



If you buy Obama's crap, you're about to get screwed.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Pegging Fiat Money to Land (Broad Stroke Reform, Part 1)

How to fix it lessons, part one. Our dollar really isn't worth anything it is said, so how do we make it worth something?
The Federal Government has assets, mostly in land. As alluded to earlier we as a nation could peg the dollar to land. This is good for several reasons.

First of all the Federal Government has too much land, so they could be made to give it up in this fashion, or a good portion of it. There is an arguable interest in mutual public ownership of land, but if we want that, we'd have to have an accompanying reduction in Federal Spending. There will be many arguments against this sort of solution. Perhaps the Feds are only required to sell land to fund deficits. Maybe they should have the right to sell off which portions they want to sell first. Perhaps mineral rights should be retained at a more local level, like the county.

There are a lot of Islands out there, in the South Pacific. Maybe if we freed up a few to be private property, maybe if a hotel could be built near "Hidden Lake" in Glacier Park, we'd be all a bit better off. There might be some need for covenants and zoning requirements. Maybe people could buy into US Citizenship with a certain size land purchase.

It's not a perfect solution, but having the Feds tie the buck to something real, would make our currency unique in the world. Unique and valuable. Next installment? How to deal with the problem of Washington DC itself, and yes, there is a solution.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

How to Balance the Federal Budget

It's really not hard. Stop spending and find something hard to back the buck. It's not Gold by the way.
"The United States government has direct ownership of almost 650 million acres of land (2.63 million square kilometers) – nearly 30% of its total territory. - Big Think"
The Feds for instance "84.5% of Nevada." What's the whole enchalada worth? All the land in the USA? The Feds for instance only own 69.1% of Alaska, but Alaska is our largest state. So the Fed's holdings in Alaska are greater in terms of acreage than a lot of states combined. 15 years ago it was worth "billions." In the age of typewriters, it was worth almost a billion. If you take a deep breath and realize that the real definition of inflation is not "rising prices" but the printing of money, then you know that a Billion in the '80's is a lot more money now.

But what is the actual value of Federal Lands now? Net Right Daily refers to the type written paper I linked to above when guessing at the value of Federal Oil and Gas rights at "$1.8 trillion, adjusted for inflation." It doesn't seem that anyone has a real account grasp of the total value of the holdings of our Federal Government. So how about a Dirt Standard? We don't have the assets outside of our land to back the dollar, so back it with dirt. We've got the dirt. I've been suggesting we should sell it off for years, though I don't recall if I've mentioned it here. It's a big country, so someone else as thought of this as well:
From "Winona 360" - "It might surprise you to hear that the Federal government owns 35% -- just about 650 million acres -- of the land mass of the United States. Most of this land is intended for all citizens (and future generations) to use and enjoy, and includes all National Parks, National Monuments, National Forests, and National Wildlife Refuges."
About a year ago, the Richmond Times Dispatch took a shot at it:
"Suppose, for instance, that 10 percent of the 650 million acres — 65 million acres — would be offered for sale only to domestic energy companies. Of course, each parcel sold would need to be priced at its respective market value and evaluated so as to weigh its comparative merits for producing energy versus being preserved for environmental or scenic value. For the sake of illustration, if these tracts were sold for an average of $1,500 per acre, the resulting revenue to repay our hemorrhaging national debt would be in the range of $97.5 trillion."
But, they must be using an early "Pentium" chip, because the total value of federal land at $1,500 an acre is more like a trillion. The concept of a trillion can be complicated by the fact that the British for instance, have more zeros in their trillion, than we do. For US consumption, a trillion is a "1" followed by 12 zeros. So 650,000,000 is 650 million. If you multiply it by 1000, that's 650,000,000,000. That's not quite 12 zeros. You add another half a thousand to the mix and it rounds up rather neatly to a trillion. It would seem that in dealing with Carl Sagan sized numbers, we can't quite get our minds around them.



Nevertheless, it's a lot of money. It's two trillion if you get an average of $3,000 an acre. I honestly don't know what the average value is, but doubtless oil and mineral right lands are going to pull a prettier penny than a swamp. The Debt Clock is racing toward a national debt figure if $16,000,000,000,000. So that's an eight of the national debt. If we backed the dollar with Federal Land value, in some creative way, I think it's going to take a chunk out of it. An eighth of the debt in terms of raw annual net worth of the lands the US Government holds is somewhat significant. At some point, the dollar must be rationalized to real value, not to numeric face value, or it's going to end up in the gutter. Stop spending and printing the dollar, and start backing it.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, May 14, 2012

I Won't Have Ron Paul to Kick Around Anymore



Well Dang. What will I write about? Who will you Paulie-Annas vote for?
Nobody? Consider that to be half a vote for Obama. I comment regularly on the previous Presidential Election in 2008. When all the Ron Paul for President signs came down on the east side of Flathead Lake, you know what replaced them? Obama for President signs.
The Washington Times - "Rep. Ron Paul of Texas said Monday he will not compete in primaries in any of the states that have not yet voted — essentially confirming Mitt Romney will win the Republican presidential nomination.

Mr. Paul said he will continue to work to win delegates in states that have already voted and where the process of delegate-selection is playing out. He said that’s a way to make his voice heard at the Republican nominating convention in Tampa, Fla., in August."
Yes, I voted for him. No I don't want him to be President. I voted for him because he couldn't win and I wanted to register with the Republican Party that I have largely Libertarian leanings. When I voted, absentee, I knew Ron couldn't win. Pauliacs and Paulie-Annas keep claiming that he can and then a large percentage of them say they won't vote if it's not possible to vote for "Dr. Paul." Get over yourselves. Dr. Paul is a professional candidate, not a Presidential Hopeful. It's a very good job.

Pray for the well being of the city (or country) you live in. Pray for the LORD's blessings upon your King (or President). You might also read that as vote in a similar way. Don't tear down the house so quickly. I know some of you want to. Don't.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, May 12, 2012

So I voted for Ron Paul in the Primary

Why did I do that?

That would be completely inconsistent, right? Not really, I use my vote to send messages. It's practical, in Montana, to vote in the Republican primary. Montana sends out ballots for the two leading parties in the state, for absentee voting. Montana's primary on on June 5th this year. It is way too likely that I will be traveling on that date so I asked for the absentee ballot. It's how I usually vote and even if I could vote Libertarian by absentee ballot, there aren't enough Libertarian candidates running for office in Montana for me to waste my time in their primary anyway. They're not getting elected in all likelihood and in most cases, the candidates they do forward, run generally unopposed in their own primaries.

So, I vote Republican, steering my party as much to the Libertarian side of the issues as I can. For instance former Congressman Rick Hill (one of our representatives back when we had 2) will probably be the Republican nominee for Governor, but the Tea Party (and me) both like Ken Miller. I voted for Ken. Rick will probably win and in truth he is a close second choice for me, so I won't have any trouble at all pulling the lever for him (or mailing in my paper ballot) in November.

My wife and I vote strategically and we have a lot of fun with our ballot and have our own little caucus right in our living room. It's a blast. We allocate our votes to steer toward freedom or to send a message when and outcome is a forgone conclusion. I voted Libertarian in the last Presidential Election (2008) because it was clear that McCain would win Montana's "winner take all" Presidential election for Electoral College representatives. My vote then became an expression of discontent over the way Republicans selected their candidate for President. I was not at all happy with McCain, but would have eagerly voted for him if the vote was at all close in Montana's 2008 November general election.

So I voted for Ron Paul because Ron is the only candidate that carries the Libertarian banner in the Republican Presidential Primary. Newt has quit. I liked and still liked Newt. Santorum quit. I liked Rick pretty well. I liked Cain better than both. I really wanted a much better candidate than any that were offered this cycle by the Republicans. Ron Paul offered me the opportunity to say to the Republican party that it ought to move more Right/Libertarian. It's not where I want it to be. It's not where most of my readers want it to be. I think I have three or four of you left don't I?

I won't vote for Ron Paul in the General Election because I don't think he'll be on the ballot and my views are well known as to Ron actually ascending to the Presidency. I might vote for the Libertarian if it's clear Mitt is running away with the race. It's way too early to say. I will only say that I have NEVER voted with a winning Presidential candidate. I always vote for losers. That's because when they're losing and they're the best alternative of the two leaders (always a Democrat or a Republican), they need my help. The rest of the time my vote has been cast strategically. I can safely say I've NEVER wasted my vote for President if you understand my criteria.

So Ron got my vote. I voted a whole slate of write in candidates on the ballot where the Republican was running unopposed. In some cases I voted for myself. I think the anonymity of my ballot is safely destroyed. I'm the Pharisee, and that's how I roll. With a Sadducee. That's because my vote has been used as a more benign version of the prophecy of Caiaphas throughout the years.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, May 10, 2012

God Willing: Tomorrow!



I've made my list:
God willing, I will begin doing it all, tomorrow. Well, in actual fact I've already gotten started but it's been half hearted. I wrote my book outline. I'm going to try to keep it short. I may be publishing it chapter by chapter ONLINE, but then edititing it after you folks offer criticism. Or not. This I haven't exactly decided on yet.

Also, tomorrow, I will tell you who I voted for in the Montana primary and why. You'll be surprised and probably think I'm a liar, but I'm not. If you don't think I'm a liar, you'll think I'm capricious and inconsistent. I'm not. I'll tell you why. Tomorrow.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, April 28, 2012

The Lesser of Three Evils


I will first digress and cover an issue that after repeated readings, I now know why only one set of sins (the matter of Uriah the Hittite) is covered negatively in the assessment of David the King. I've read this passage a lot, but always failed to notice one thing. David repented prior to being punished. Now that we've covered this great difference (with Uriah, David repented after being found out), on to show this matter applies to voting, and Ron Paul.
"David's heart smote him after that he had numbered the people. And David said unto the LORD, I have sinned greatly in that I have done: and now, I beseech thee, O LORD, take away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly. For when David was up in the morning, the word of the LORD came unto the prophet Gad, David's seer, saying, Go and say unto David, Thus saith the LORD, I offer thee three things; choose thee one of them, that I may do it unto thee. So Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land? or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue thee? or that there be three days' pestilence in thy land? now advise, and see what answer I shall return to him that sent me. And David said unto Gad, I am in a great strait: let us fall now into the hand of the LORD; for his mercies are great: and let me not fall into the hand of man. So the LORD sent a pestilence upon Israel from the morning even to the time appointed: and there died of the people from Dan even to Beersheba seventy thousand men. And when the angel stretched out his hand upon Jerusalem to destroy it, the LORD repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed the people, It is enough: stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD was by the threshingplace of Araunah the Jebusite."
I can't remember if the Facebook group's discussions are visible to the public, so I apologize if you can't see it, not being a member of the group, but one of the key quotes is this one:
"When choosing the lesser of two evils, you still are choosing evil."
Der.

I don't pretend to be an idealist, unless you take the monergist view that sin was ordained and this world we are living in is actually the ideal (big rabbit hole, not going there now). I speak more of the idealism of Joni Mitchell (love her) when she penned "Woodstock" & "We've got to get back to the garden." We can't get back to the garden, so pining for it is more than useless, it's sinful and dangerous. Joni is right that we are "caught in the Devil's bargain," but the lyrical idealism of retreating the path that got us there is a terrible folly. God blocks the path that we once took, when we take the wrong road. This is what the flaming sword is all about.

The words "only evil continually" are words used by God when referring to the thoughts of men. Also that our righteousness "is as filthy rags." It's clear in the word of God that God doesn't think so much of even our best efforts. They are laughably corrupt when measured against the motivations of a righteous God. The tedious assertion that we will make only a choice for good really condemns the chooser as self righteous. In view of the fact that we possess no righteousness other than that imparted to us by Christ, we'd do well to stop blustering in this way.

David's choice costs the lives of 70,000 men and untold women and children. This is the lesser of three evils that David picked. It doesn't even cost him more than 50 shekels personally, it costs his people. David builds an altar to God on land that he purchased from Araunah, with money he insisted Araunah take from him. This place is not insignificant, it is later memorialized by the construction of a Temple. The very place God's pestilence stopped is the site of the "merciful" end of the lesser of three evils that David chose at the offering of God. The Threshing Floor of Araunah (Ornan) the Jebusite is the Temple Mount.

Never come to me and say "I will not choose one of two evils" because you're holier than that. Choose. If you don't, I believe the condemnation of the "Lukewarm" is upon you and I would also equate you with servant of the parable, who buried his talent in the dirt, not wishing to risk losing it. In the end, even that was taken from him. Be salt instead, perfection awaits us after eternity begins, not here.

If Ron Paul is not on the ballot, and you won't vote for the best conservative alternative because he's not "good enough" then I have no time for you.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, April 22, 2012

Thomas Jefferson LIVES in Ron Paul? Really?

Ron Paul has a plethora of quotes on his site from Thomas Jefferson.
"Presidential Historian" and author Doug Weed says something to the effect that Thomas is reincarnated in Ron Paul. A discussion has been going on in a Facebook forum where it is asserted that when Ron Paul becomes President, our marriage issues will be essentially resolved. This relies on the same error that elects most bad Presidents, and the one that elected (in part), Barack Obama. It is that a President DOES have that much power (God save us), or that he will should have that much power. If a President is fulfilling his role as President, he shouldn't matter that much. He's important, but shouldn't matter that much. Thus when the time comes, I can vote for a Mitt Romney, or a John McCain, and do so happily. I seek to solve the nations ills on the level of Ron Paul's CURRENT office, that of Congressman. Elect another 300 Ron Paul types and fill the Senate with them too, and Barack's job is a desk job. I happily inveigh for the guy I want in the Presidency, and then go to the polling booth and try to build a more libertarian state, in the houses of Congress. My problem with Pauliacs and Paulie-Annas is that they think he will fix things as President. About the most that a President can do in a short period of time is mess things up. I contend Barack has done this, and that Ron Paul, if successful in any of his plans, would do more of the same. His solutions sound like lopping off limbs without anesthesia. The shock may well kill us. You have to go slowly so as not to capsize the ship of state. Phasing out bad programs over 5 years seems much more reasonable to me that trying to revamp them overnight. Pauliacs also forget (as he conveniently does) that Thomas Jefferson was the author of one of our Barbary wars. The first one. The Marine hymn intones "to the shores of Tripoli" for this reason. It's best to see what the founders DID with their ideas. It tells us more accurately what they really meant. A war. Halfway around the world. With Muslims. How George Bush I & II. I have concluded that Ron Paul has found out that running for President is a really good job, but he's got people believing his junk to the point that they may hand the election to the wrong guy. The really wrong guy. The Stones once said that politics was a "choice between Cancer and Polio." Few wiser things have been said. As I have said elsewhere, vote your conscience in the primaries, but vote defensively in the General Election. We can't let the wrong lizard get in (thanks Douglas Adams). Barack Obama is the Wrong Lizard. I'll vote for Romney because Romney isn't the Wrong Lizard. I'll vote as conservatively and as libertarian as I can in the Congressional elections in my state. I'll pray for the best. Why say this now? A large number of my Christian Polygynist friends insist on voting for Ron Paul, and in many cases, no one, if they can't vote for Dr. Paul. One friend went so far as to say he thinks it's all going to burn anyway, so the sooner the better. I ally more with King Hezekiah with peace and truth in his time. It's good that disaster comes tomorrow, far into the future, when we are gone. I've no desire to see the world burn in my time, or that of my children. If my children don't want it to burn for their children or in their time, they should see to it themselves, I will be gone. A vote for Ron or for no one in November is a vote for Barack Obama and destruction. I will not in a prissy way, declare that i won't vote for a man I essentially despise (Mitt Romney) to prove I don't like the choices given to me. A choice is a choice. If you don't make it, you really have made it. Be proactive. Do your best. Smile with me in November and vote for Mitt enthusiastically. Do your best to send him a congress with ideas like yours. Mitt's a capable administrator. That REALLY is the job of President. The discussion also included a Pollyanna view of how marriage laws would be made to change. Sorta a wand gets waived and it's done. No. Two things stand in the way of marriage laws being changed to be less intrusive. Marriage is a province of the State as long as there are income taxes, and statutory rape laws. In the first case, the Government wants to know your family classification so that they can assess your place in a progressive tax structure. "Progressive" is a nice way of saying "Tax the OTHER guy." Get rid of income taxes and you kick one strut out of the necessity of having legally registered marriages, which I despise more so than I do Mitt Romney. Child Rape laws raise a lot of dust in the discussion. Again, like with taxes, to make the laws work, people need to be classified. We forget easily that the Government doesn't really care if children are having sex, they only care if they have sex with adults without the proper papers. Marriage papers. There's no way out of legal registration of marriage if you allow sub 18 year old people to marry, and all states do. Ron Paul won't fix marriage. Ron Paul is a charlatan. Ron Paul is sucking away votes and we have a lot to do before marriage is in a more ideal state than it is today. Until then, vote for the least wrong lizard, and work for legalization of plural marriage. That's all I can offer. I can't offer Ron to you as a solution. He's not.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, December 30, 2011

Keith, There is no Spoon! (there are no corporations)


Keith Olbermann's program on "Current" is being promoted by his statement that any person is more important than any corporation. Well, duh. Except there are no corporations Keith. I am more than nothing. I feel so good being saved by the concept of zero. "Corporate," as it is used today (a pejorative) continues to amaze me.
In the light of the axiom: "He who controls the language, controls the argument," maybe not so much. While I was watching Mr. Olbermann, one of his commentators/body doubles tried to appropriate that axiom for the Political Left, claiming it was the Right that was so skillfully doing so in the political discourse. In the process the commentator (of course) did NOT note that the victory of the left in the arena of "wordsmithing" (something he accused Frank Luntz of doing) is made obvious his quoting Luntz. Luntz is credited with the "recognition" that "capitalism" is now a dirty word. Um, who is winning in the "wordsmithing" arena again?

Corporations are simply a prosthesis for a group of people, or a "waldo" by which the group accomplishes it's goals. The goals are pretty simple. In the capitalist sense, the corporation serves to make something someone else wants (a good or service) in such a way that it yields a profit so that the welfare of each of it's individual stockholders, is served.

So, "we have met the enemy (if indeed corporations are enemies) and he is us." The simplistic objectification (scapegoating) of a corporation for all things "corporate" then is a very convenient half truth. A corporation is in essence an object, so it's "objectification" is redundant. It's so easy to treat impersonally something that really isn't there, and is, impersonal. Remember, "they" is really "us." Look at who the corporation is comprised of, there is no spoon.

It's not the corporation, which is a tool. It's what we are using the tool to do? Are we using a corporation to get things done that contribute to our prosperity, or are we signing up for an interest group that is then manipulated by another group for political gain?

It is my contention that politics as an object is destruction itself. Pure politicians will print a trillion dollars, and waste 99% of it so they can put a million in their pocket. Capitalist Corporations are far more benign. Their concupiscence sleeps. So between the moral busybodies and the pure politicians they employ to accomplish their goals, I think I prefer Capitalist Corporations, and I'm proud of that. (Thanks again Jack, I like that quote.)

Ultimately though, there are no corporations, really. They are artificial persons. There is no corporation Keith.

BTW, Olbermann interviewed Jackson Browne as a source of Moral Authority (shut up and sing Jackson) and slagged Michelle Bachman by obtusely ignoring her point about marriage, which is that it's for men and women, not persons of the same sex.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, May 08, 2011

Advice to Obama: Pivot.

I'm sitting in Laredo TX, doing my homework (sermon preparation!), and out of one ear, I'm listening to the Sunday Morning political talk shows, and I have some advice for our President.


Pivot.

What do I mean by that? Mr. President, you have at this moment the very best and warm feelings from all of the American public, on both sides of the aisle as you're going to have between now and 2012. What's shocking is that your numbers really aren't that great after avenging this nation for 9/11.

But you have a moment.

We like what you did.

I'm first going to credit the people on the ground in the US Military and Intelligence community that did the heavy lifting and skilled work of getting the nation's number one most wanted man. I do believe that President Obama WAS the man who DID decide to get him up close and personal. I won't discuss his decision making process, whether he hesitated or not, it worked out. One helicopter crashed, we got our guy, and we got out. Contrast that with the number one contender with President Obama for "worst President in History," Jimmy Carter. Remember "Desert One" which was 31 years ago?

Mr. President. I don't think you'll take my advice but I'll still offer it.

Pivot.

Become the opposite of what you were. We'll let you at this point. Every American sees you as in some way responsible for the good thing that just happened.

So Pivot.

Become a supply sider.

Say you've tried socialism and it doesn't work.

Say you need to do things that do work (like your recent terrorism victory).

Then do them.

Stop spending, sit down with Republican Leaders in the House. Ask them what they want, then do it.

Go to the American Public and re-sell yourself as a pragmatic man who simply wants the best for the country. We will let you do that. It will be good for us, it will be good for you.

You will be remembered as a Great President. You will not be remembered as the contender for the Jimmy Carter crown of complete ineptitude.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, July 26, 2010

Prayer Request...The cost of Christian Polygyny

I keep saying, you don't have a defense if you're not legally wed.
I understand it shouldn't be that way, really, I do. Nevertheless it's a reality.

It just hit home. A person I "know of" is facing removal of their children. To my knowledge they have given no cause to anyone, save the cause of their polygyny.

They are NOT FLDS.

They are NOT in Texas.

They are Christian. They need prayer.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, May 29, 2010

Kurt gets to it before I do

Quoting Kurt at Contraries:
"Peggy Noonan seems bewildered in Saturday’s WSJ at the unremitting incompetence of Barack Obama during his first 18 months in office. What is more bewildering is that Peggy is bewildered."
I was going to "Fisk" the article while waiting in Seattle. I might not, now that Kurt Schulzke has gotten to it.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, March 22, 2010

Things my dog taught me, and Obama Care

Valena (may she rest in peace) my AKC registered Husky (miss her) taught me a few things.
Which is why I knew that Obama care was going to pass.

What Valena learned about me, taught me to watch body language and behavior more than listen to words, when such inputs were available. After a point in time Val didn't get excited by certain cues unlikely to produce the desired result. If she wanted to squeeze out the door and run the neighborhood or if she thought I/we were going outside and wanted to come along, she watched my feet. If my feet were pointed in the right direction or giving little subtle clues that I was going out, she got excited. In the meantime she lay in the appropriate doorway designed to give as wide a view of the living room possible, with her head between her front legs and her eyes followed everyone around the room.

Without going into great detail I stopped listening and started watching a long time ago, hence I knew that "National Health Care Reform" was going to pass. I've been using this as my cue for becoming more political in my commentary. Over the next few days and weeks, expect me to proffer my solutions to the problem. Nationalized Health care is not the solution, it's the problem. How do we fix it?

I've never been fond of the "taking back" talk in politics. Who were we, after all, "taking" what, "back" from? We've reached that point now. Battle lines are drawn. There is an "us" and there is a "them." Good guys. Bad guys. The Bad Guys have America now, unless you think the "Parliamentarian" will rule against the reconciliation process (strongly possible but probably not probable) and subsequently that vacuous rubber stamp whose time has come, Vice President Joe Biden, doesn't overrule the Parliamentarian.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Friday, October 09, 2009

Wednesday, October 07, 2009

Don't it always seem to go?

That you don't know who you got til he's gone?

More →

Sphere: Related Content