Natural Rights

The idea of "Natural" or "God-Given" Rights is as old as humanity.  In the absence of government, there are things we will do.  We will speak as we choose, worship as we choose, defend our lives and property, own property among myriad others, but I would say these are the foremost.  Government can only take these Rights away, they cannot confer them, since they already exist.

We are now in a time of great risk.  Our most fundamental Rights are under attack as never before.  The City of New York wishes to limit free speech so as to appease Muslims.  (If you don't want to be compared to savages, stand up to those who act like savages.)  Obamacare abridges your Right to defend your life by limiting the medical care you can receive.  You cannot even pay cash.  The UN Small Arms treaty seeks to take away your Right to defend your life as well.  Our government intends to sign on to it.  NDAA takes away your Right to be secure in your property.  The War on Drugs takes your property without due process.

Where am I going with this?  Not to a "Vote Romney" because he is little better (I intend to hold my nose and vote for him, but I have no intention of spending a ton of time extolling his virtues).  It is only to warn you about the future.  The past is exactly that.  We got here through 50 years of apathy.  We allowed government to slowly erode our Rights and to indoctrinate our children to government dependency.  It will not be reversed in one election...or two...or maybe many, many more.  I do not expect to live long enough to see the turn-around.  I hope my children or grandchildren do.

They are the reason for this Blog.

I Don't Think I Like That Tone of Voice

A Repost from 2009

AG Eric Holder claimed we are a "nation of cowards" when it comes to discussing race. My gut reaction was to tell him what to kiss and when. But after carefully spending some time thinking about it, I realized it wasn't what he said, but how he said it.

Holder is correct that the subject of race needs discussion in this country, but it's not because we are cowards. For most of my lifetime, any honest discussion of race has been distilled down to "racists" or "victims of racism". Any dissent from this orthodoxy has been de facto banned.

Three examples:

• During my stint in the Navy, more than once I was subjected to a race relations course. It was handled very poorly. Generally speaking, a Black enlisted man, usually a Chief Petty Officer, stood in front of the class and told us we were all bad because we were White. Or at least that's what I took from the class.

• I also recall my college political science class. We had a guest lecturer - an African Studies professor - who told us there were only two choices in the discussion of inequality of outcome. Either you believed that it was because of racism or it was because Blacks were stupid. I was incredulous at this statement because I had worked with many people over the years (I went to college in my 30's) who were fine, upstanding, competent, successful and ....Black. But dissent from the professorial dogma brought the dreaded "racist" label.

• I had a job in an office setting. One of the secretaries (that was back when it wasn't a demeaning job title) was Black. I wouldn't say we were friends, but we had a friendly, professional relationship. One day, I was called into my bosses office and told I had made racist statements to her. I asked what they were and was told to sit down and shut up. I asked if I could talk to my accuser. Nope. The entire office had to sit through sensitivity training. I never found out what it was I said or did.

The racial extremists and PC pimps have effectively shut down any real discussion of race. There can be no discussion of how the welfare system has destroyed Black America. There can be no discussion of why the Black family has been torn apart by poorly-thought-out programs. There can be no honest discussion of the culture of violence and failure in the Black community.

OK Mr.Holder, put your money where your mouth is and let's start talking.

The State of Modern "Science"

In my 56 year lifetime, I have seen science go from the pursuit of truth and fact, from the brave view into the unknown to a politicized drive for greater funding.  Not unlike the religions of 600 years ago, the scientific political elite have determined what is fact and what is not based on political demands and the ability to get funding.  As government becomes larger and more powerful, the ability to skew "science" to fit the political agenda has become much greater.  Many scientists are no longer independent, but willing to sell their research to the highest bidder.  Special interests have arisen over the last 50 years to drive an agenda based on politics, not true science.

The Scientific Method asks a question, forms a hypothesis, performs experiments to test the hypothesis, makes conclusion and communicates results.  Once the results are communicated, others have the ability to check and recheck, challenge and support or disprove the hypothesis.  Or at least that was how is used to be.  Now, "The debate is over", "The science is settled".  Results are checked by those residing in the echo-chamber; outsiders are not allowed.  After all, we can't have non-scientists making wild statements like, "Hey...wait a minute...that doesn't really make much sense."  I mean, what non-scientist ever made a discovery or invented anything?  I mean, Benjamin Franklin was a PhD physicist, right?  No?  Oh, my bad.  Then maybe Edison?  He HAD to have some kind of scientist degree thingy from a major science-thingy university, right?  No?  Ooops.  

Environmental "Science" and "Climate Change" are first among the agenda-and-money-driven pseudo-sciences.  The clues are the unwillingness to debate, the unwillingness to release all raw data, computer code and any other basic information, the vilification of those who challenge the "science" ("climate deniers").  That's not science.  Interest groups like The Union of Concerned Scientists claim some sort of piety in science and technology; only they can save us from the evils of fossil fuels and nuclear power.

True science is honest and transparent.  Modern Science is corrupted by the money and power of government.  The bigger and more powerful the government, the more corrupt.  Science is no different.

OK NFL...Joke'sOver

Worst...officiating...ever.

How is This Not Painful?

Or maybe more correctly, how does Robert Franks end up an economics professor at Cornell?

Franks' argument in NYT is that the Nations Choices Need Not Be Painful.  He then goes on to claim that all the woes which have befallen the country can be solved with more-of-the-same.  

• More stimulus.  Repair more roads a bridges and more people go to work.  OK.  But more people only go to work until the project is complete.  Unless there is a follow-on project and there is no indication such projects exist.  Stimulus has not worked over the last 4 years, what evidence is there that another trillion dollars will?  In the meantime, another trillion dollars in debt for future generations. That's pain.  For the 53%
• Shifting taxes toward activities the government sees as "bad".  

Consider highway congestion. Because drivers can generally enter a congested highway without charge, they often do so — thus adding to the crowding. But many drivers would willingly pay a fee for using that road if it resulted in fewer delays. A modest congestion fee, administered with E-ZPass-style technology, would raise needed revenue and provide an incentive to use crowded roads only when the benefits outweigh the social costs.  He goes on the say that even though such a tax would harm low-income families, the tax can be increased and extended to allow redistribution of wealth.  Sounds like more pain to me.  At least for the 53%.

• Force people to quit spending so much of their own money.  "There's too much consooooomin' goin' on 'round here".  it's your money.  You earned it.  you should spend as you please without penalty.  Once again, Franks argues for pain for the 53%.
• Last, the Coup de Grace: The Carbon Tax.  That's pain for the 100%.  Of course, guys like Franks will make sure it is only pain for the 53%.

For Franks to claim the solution to our economic woes has little pain associated with it shows just how out of touch he is with reality.

What of our Energy Future

The Beer:  A ten-gallon batch of Red Ale has been brewed and divided between a 5-gallon keg and bottles.

The Bicycle:  No riding, but I'm down about 10 lbs.

The VRWC:  The US economy runs on energy.  Lots of it.  98 quadrillion BTU.  37% is from petroleum (most of which is transportation), 25% natural gas (electricity and home heating), 21% coal (nearly all for electricity generation).  Nuclear and renewables account for the remainder.

But what of the future?  The Administration is squarely against coal (remember "bankrupt" and "necessarily skyrocket"?).  Petroleum and the evil oil companies have always been the Devil incarnate to the enviros and assorted Lefties.  Now natural gas is also under attack.  Not so much for its use, but for the extraaction method of "fracking".  Nuclear is now "acceptable" apparently.  Either that or they've run out of paid protesters.

83% of our energy supply is currently under attack.  83%.

The Left never offers viable alternatives.  They have this absurd notion that "renewables" (wood, ethanol and other biofuels, wind, hydroelectric)  can meet our energy needs.  Ethanol makes up about 75% of biofuels, or 1.4% of total energy consumption.    Let's just say we want 50% of the 28 quadrillion BTUs in transportation to come from ethanol.  Right now, about 30% of corn acreage goes to ethanol.  About 17% of the 8 quadrillion BTU from renewables is ethanol (1.4 quadrillion BTU).  To get to 14 quadrillion BTU, we need to increase production by a factor of 10.  You do the math.

The only conclusion I can draw from this is that the Left intends to make the United States "energy poor".  There can be no other conclusion.  I follows the line that the Left and the President believe that United States wealth and power is some sort of ill-gotten gain.  Restitution must be made and the method of restitution is to have the US "feel the pain" of those countries we have "raped".  It is a meme which has been used to indoctrinate the population for 50 years.

The Administration will have more flexibility in the second term.

Why Obama Wins in 2012...

And the Democrats take  the House and hold the Senate.

1. The Republicans play by "rules" while the Democrats do not.  The Butch Cassidy rule:  "There are no rules in a knife fight".  Republicans think this is all collegial and stuff.  It's not.   Politics with the Democrats is hard ball, take no prisoners stuff.  There are no rules.  Opposition research means figuring out how best to spin it in a manner that makes the opposition look the worst.  For weeks, Democrats have been calling for Romney's tax returns and Romney fell for it.  Now they are beating him to death with it.
2. Republican money is tapped out.  Money flowed from everywhere to Republicans in 2010.  It flowed to support Republican judicial elections and recalls in Wisconsin.  It flowed into the coffers of candidates for primary elections.  The tank is empty.  
3. Paulbots.  Ron Paul supporters who would otherwise vote Romney are staying home  because their guy got shut out.  Romney is far from the perfect Conservative candidate, but he is the candidate.
4. The media.  It has been in the tank for the Leftist candidate every election since Nixon, but never like this.  At least for Carter/Reagan, the media gave lip service to vetting Carter.  In 2012, the media demands every detail of the Republican candidates from Cain and Huntsman to Ryan and Romney.  But they have never vetted Obama.  Not even a little.  When D'Souza finally handed them a documentary, they ignored it.  No investigation, no questioning.  Nothing.
5. The 47%  They'll vote Obama by a huge majority.  The permanent entitled class has nothing to gain and everything to lose in an Obama loss.  Further, Seniors have been frightened into voting for Obama by the Big Lie.  A vote for Republicans means a vote to lose Social Security and Medicare.  Never mind that Republicans are the only ones with a plan to save them both.
6. Republicans are unwilling to hammer on illegal wars in Yemen, Iran, Pakistan, Libya.  They are unwilling to confront Obama's horrible foreign policy.  They are unwilling to bring articles of impeachment because "the Democrats control the Senate".

By my count, the Republicans are doomed until they solve their messaging issue.  Until they articulate a clear and concise message that the American people understand,  they are done.  Until Republicans in Congress circle  the wagons around their own and until they fight back against the bully pulpit they will always be in the minority; "The Party of Stupid".  They have had chance after chance and they keep screwing it up.

Doomed.  Doomed, I say.

Is Krugman Capable of Shutting the F Up?

Apparently not.  Now he claims Romney has a disdain for "the workers".  There's that term again, "the workers".

Apparently, unless you are a minimum wage earner or a union member, you don't "work" for a living.  The term "worker" is used in Communist Lexicon to differentiate between the "Proletariat" and the "Bourgeoisie". Is it any surprise it has become a common term for the Leftists in this country.

Krugman takes Romney's comments not only out-of-context, but out of meaning.

For the fact is that the modern Republican Party just doesn’t have much respect for people who work for other people, no matter how faithfully and well they do their jobs. All the party’s affection is reserved for “job creators,” a k a employers and investors. Leading figures in the party find it hard even to pretend to have any regard for ordinary working families — who, it goes without saying, make up the vast majority of Americans.

This is just absurd.  Krugman is a shill for the Left and, in particular this administration and has shown himself willing to say anything to advance the cause.  Any focus on "job creators" only helps Krugman's "workers".  There's been no help for "workers" from the Obama Administration.  We continue mired in 8% unemployment and twice that many are actually out of work.  Housing still sucks and the latest anemic jobs report shows fewer than 100,000 jobs added again.

So I call "bullshit" on Krugman.  Once again, he shills for a failed administration by demonizing the challenger.  He's got nothin'.  For a Nobel, he's not all that smart.

Facebook and Blogging

I've been spending far too much time on the neo-chat-room echo-chamber that is Facebook and not enough time doing my own research and presenting it here.  So I deactivated my Facebook account if you have looked for me there.  I can go back, but I want to not.  I miss some of the "friends" I've made, but the real world is far more interesting.

A Second Obama Term - The Worst Thing?

I am rapidly becoming pessimistic about the November election.  The Chosen One's numbers are still good, in spite of an ugly economy, terrible foreign policy, broken promises and tyranny on the horizon.  I don't know what the people of this country are thinking.  Four years of Obama has been far worse than I believed it could be.  Obamacare, executive orders, the loss of both Afghanistan and Iraq (yes, we are losing both), the destructive energy policies and the Mainstream Press propaganda machine have brought the Republic to the brink.  How is it possible that Obama still leads every poll?  So, I have shifted my thinking to how bad another Obama term can be.

I assume that if Obama is re-elected, Democrats will maintain control of the Senate and quite possibly take back the House.  I expect we will see either legislation or executive order to implement a carbon tax.  This will mean the end of the coal industry.  A VAT is also likely.  The Beast must be fed.  Obviously, Obamacare will continue and grow.  Once the insurance companies are driven out of business, a single-payer system will be implemented.  Expect Blue Cross/Blue shield to willingly become the National Health Service.  "The Blues" are heavily invested in Obamacare because they know they will be the last ones standing.

There was talk by many delegates coming out of the DNC about making abolishing profit in private business.  I predict they will try.  They may even succeed.  The administration will attempt draconian gun control by legislation or fiat.  The Supremes will go along because of the retirements of four of the nine justices (Scalia-76 years old, Kennedy-76, Ginsburg-79 and Breyer-74).  The entitled class will have grown to nearly 100 percent.

The economy will fall to third-world status (it's not a bug, it's a feature).  Will anyone wake up?  It doesn't look like it.  If the last four years is any indication, the United States of America will have become Greece in a mere 8 years.

Yeah, it's the worst thing.

War Crimes and The Hague

Retired Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu thinks former President G.W. Bush and former British P.M. Tony Blair should endure a War Crimes trial at The Hague over the war in Iraq.

"The Iraq war 'has destabilized and polarized the world to a greater extent than any other conflict in history,' wrote Tutu, who was awarded the Nobel prize in 1984."

Tutu doesn't know his history.  First and foremost, The Hague has no jurisdiction over the United States. Nor does the United Nations, Indonesia or anyone else.  The United States is a sovereign nation made up of independent states, with its own Constitution and laws.  Don't like it?  Suck it.  Second, no war destabilized the world like WWI, the proximate cause of WWII, the Cold War and damn near every war since.  Third, the war in Iraq is legal and sanctioned by the U.S. Senate.  The Democrat cowards who only wanted to de-legitimize the G.W. Bush presidency have been lying about this for a decade.  Fourth, the United Nations also sanctioned this war through varying resolutions within that body.

Some questions for the Nobel Prize Winner (proof that it is a worthless prize):

• Do you condone the use of chemical weapons by Saddam against  the Kurds and others?
• Do you condone the government-sanctioned abductions, torture and murder of innocent civilians by Saddam's regime?
• Do you sanction Saddam thumbing his nose at UN sanctions?

Tutu is a doddering old fool.  He supported the violence in South Africa which overthrew the apartheid government, but freeing Iraq from the chains of a megalomaniac like Saddam, not so much.

The International Community

The Beer:  Bad Santa wants to be bottled

The Bicycle:  Wants to be ridden.

The  VRWC:  Bill Richardson says "The International Community" wants Obama re-elected.  Is that going to play in Peoria?  Let's look at what the "international community" looks like.

Europe:  An economic basket case which has followed the tenets of Keynesian economics for decades.  Social democracies with unsustainable cradle-to-grave social programs which threaten to bankrupt the entire EU.  Russia is looking forward to becoming the pre-eminent military power.

Asia:  Economically, Japan is little better than Europe.  China revels in the economic demise of the United States as they are poised to become the leading economy in the world.  Others in the region will continue to get their "piece of the trade pie", except they will trade more with China, rather than the United States.

The "Third World":  Most of the undeveloped/underdeveloped world sees the United States as needing to be brought down a peg or two.  Filled with 2-bit dictators and corrupto-crats, they will never move beyond their current conditions, even with the petroleum wealth some control.  Why should the US have all that wealth?

So, you tell me...would this "international community" want re-elected a US President who continues to drive the country further in debt, has de-facto disbanded NASA, downsizes the military and does nothing to move  the economy forward?  A President who abandons our allies and tells our rivals he will have "more flexibility"?

Yeah, I'm sure they would.