Thursday, December 22, 2011

Christmas Poetry


When I was young and all was fresh and new,
and Christmas trees were tall and covered up
with fancy balls and bubbling lights that shone
through glittering tinsel hung upon each bough,
I could not seem to tear myself away.

Colored wrappers topped with shiny bows
could hold me in their hypnotizing trance.
I could not sleep at all the night before
so tossed and turned until the morning broke.

With energy I’d never have again,
I peeped around the corner just to see
if Santa had put toys beneath our tree.

Then as I grew, my childhood feelings changed.
Replaced by facts, as notions were debunked.
But I still searched for presents just to see
if Santa had left one or two for me.

The years flew by and I was Santa Claus.
My kids were now where I could only dream.
And once again I shared with them the awe.
But, in that joy, was weariness it seemed.
Brought on by months of gaudy ads and things.

I sat amid the rubble of our fete
and thought on why we give the gifts we do.
And as I did a peace came over me,
Jesus was the reason for our mirth.
Born in the little town of Bethlehem
God’s gift to undeserving men on earth.

Dennis Price

Saturday, December 10, 2011

Uncle "Santa" Sam robs children of Christmas future.

I hope you don't think I'm against looking for fuel alternatives for the internal combustion engine, or other carbon fueled applications, because I'm not.  What I am against is junk science and wasteful political paybacks, including laundering huge political contributions, by supporting alternative fuel source proclaimers who have no intention (or ever hoped to have) of succeeding.  I am against ignoring the basic data that proves they are nothing more than clever shells to cover spending tax dollars, we don't have to spend, in the name of improving the environment.  This article speaks clearly of another such company, in what I'm sure will be a long line, since the Solyndra failure was exposed.

Another Failed Energy Loan
Taxpayers are being stuck with the losses.

The biofuels bust continues. The latest failure: Range Fuels.
Last week, the company defaulted on a government-guaranteed $80 million loan that it had used to build an ethanol plant in Georgia. AgSouth Farm Credit, the servicer of the loan, will begin a foreclosure sale on the plant in January. The foreclosure provides yet another indictment of the Obama administration’s energy policies.
Twenty-one months ago, the Department of Agriculture trumpeted its $80 million loan guarantee to Range — which claimed it could produce millions of gallons of ethanol from wood chips — by saying it demonstrates the administration’s “goal to make the United States a leader in renewable energy production.” That loan guarantee followed a $76 million grant given to Range by the Department of Energy in 2007.
Last Thursday, David Aldous, the CEO of Range, responded to a request for comment with an e-mail that said the company “has no immediate plans to declare bankruptcy.” He also claimed that Range was “working towards a new business model which would spin off” the Georgia plant. But he refused to elaborate on how the company could spin off a plant that will soon belong to someone else.
Aldous said that Range has spent $38 million of the $80 million loan and “about half the grant” from the Department of Energy, but refused to be more specific. Fine. Using Aldous’s numbers, federal taxpayers are now on the hook for something like $76 million. How many employees are still on the company’s payroll? Aldous refused to say. In fact, he refused to answer any specific questions.
Spokesmen at the departments of Agriculture and Energy did not respond to e-mailed questions about Range.
The key financial backer and political mover behind Range: Vinod Khosla, a wealthy California venture capitalist who has been among America’s biggest biofuel boosters. In 2006, Khosla claimed that making ethanol from cellulosic material was “brain-dead simple to do” and that commercial production of cellulosic ethanol was “just around the corner.” A few months later, Kholsa was again hyping cellulosic ethanol, saying that biofuels could completely replace oil for transportation and that cellulosic ethanol would be cost-competitive with corn ethanol by 2009. Khosla — who says on his website that he is “passionate about alternative energy, petroleum independence, and the environment” — did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
There’s ample reason for outrage here. Range had claimed it could make ethanol at efficiencies far greater than those being achieved by corn-based ethanol producers. Tad Patzek, chair of the petroleum and geosystems engineering department at the University of Texas at Austin and a veteran critic of the biofuel craze, told me that Range’s failure “was easily predictable based on the thermodynamic inefficiencies of the refineries. But no one in the Department of Energy paid any attention.”
Instead, federal bureaucrats were once again gulled by extravagant claims from people like Khosla and a cadre of high-profile national-security types, who continue to claim that ethanol and other biofuels will somehow save America from the evils of foreign oil. And the federal bureaucrats were convinced even though a small dose of sixth-grade math would have shown that large-scale development of wood-based biofuels was little more than a pipe dream.
Proving that statement is simple. Let’s assume the U.S. wanted to replace just 10 percent of its oil needs with wood-based biofuels.
Here’s the math: The U.S. consumes now consumes about 19.1 million barrels — about 802 million gallons — of oil per day. Ten percent of that volume would be 80 million gallons. In 2007, Range was claiming that its new plant in Georgia would require 1,200 tons of wood per day while producing 40 million gallons of ethanol and 9 million gallons of methanol (which is more corrosive and has lower heat content than ethanol) per year, or about 134,000 gallons of fuel per day. But ethanol contains only about two-thirds of the heat energy of gasoline. Therefore, the plant’s output would equal about 88,000 gallons of gasoline.
Thus, to replace just 10 percent of America’s oil needs with wood-based biofuels would require about 900 ethanol plants like the one in Georgia that’s now in foreclosure. Those plants would require about 1 million tons of wood per day. That’s about 50 percent more wood than all of America currently consumes (about 236.4 million tons per year or 647,000 tons per day). Even if the U.S. were somehow able to more than double its wood production in order to feed all those new ethanol plants, the logistical challenge of moving that huge volume of material would be enormous and would undoubtedly require the burning of millions of gallons of diesel fuel. And yet, President Obama and his Nobel Prize–winning secretary of energy, Steve Chu, continue to claim that biofuels are the future.
Patzek says the Range fiasco is, in some ways, worse than Solyndra: “At least Solyndra was producing solar panels. Their panels were too expensive, but at least they had a product. Range never produced anything. The biofuels business was insane five years ago, and it’s still insane today.”
Alas, the insanity will continue. During his State of the Union speech in January, President Obama declared that “we can break our dependence on oil with biofuels.” Since then, the administration has committed hundreds of millions of dollars to new biofuel projects, including up to $510 million for the Defense Department. Just last month, the administration finalized a $50 million grant and a $54.5 million loan guarantee to a company that plans to produce biofuel from algae. The company building the plant, Sapphire Energy, is putting up just $30 million toward the $135 million project. Taxpayers are on the hook for the rest.
Like the failure of Solyndra, the collapse of Range Fuels shows that the Obama administration has let wishful thinking, not hard-nosed technical analysis — or even simple mathematics — determine its energy policies. And unfortunately, taxpayers are being stuck with the losses.
— Robert Bryce is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. His latest book is Power Hungry: The Myths of “Green” Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future.  

Sunday, November 6, 2011

Using a Democrat GPS

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents...." --James Madison
Nineteenth-century historian Alexis de Tocqueville once observed, "Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."
Tocqueville was commenting on liberty and free enterprise, American style, versus socialism as envisioned by emerging protagonists of centralized state governments. And he saw on the horizon a looming threat -- a threat that would challenge the freedoms writ in the blood and toil of our nation's Founders.
Less than a century after Tocqueville penned those words, elitist Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt tossed aside much of our nation's Constitution and unleashed an unprecedented assault on Essential Liberty. Though our Constitution's author, James Madison, noted in Federalist Paper No. 45 that "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined [and] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce," FDR summarily redefined the role of the central government by way of myriad extra-constitutional decrees, and greatly expanded the central government far beyond the strict limits set by our Constitution. In effect, he substituted a fallacious "living constitution for our authentic Constitution.
He even went so far as to call for a new "Bill of Rights," which he proclaimed should include, "The right to a useful and remunerative job ... the right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation ... the right of every family to a decent home ... the right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health ... the right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age ... the right to a good education."
Of course, none of those "rights" would pass constitutional muster, so FDR attempted to enlarge the Supreme Court so he could pack it with judges who would rubber stamp his proposals. When that failed, FDR implemented his programs by executive and legislative diktat, and the legacy of that gross expansion of the central government has proven disastrous.
FDR used the Great Depression as cover to establish a solid foundation for Democratic Socialism in America, and defended his unconstitutional statism with this this dubious assertion of classism: "Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle."
If Roosevelt's "American principle" sounds somewhat familiar, then you're likely a student of history (or The Patriot). Not to be confused with the Biblical principle in the Gospel according to Luke, "From everyone who has been given much, much will be required...", which some Leftist do-gooders cite as justification for socialist policies, Roosevelt was essentially paraphrasing the gospel according to Karl Marx, whose maxim declared, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
Some have suggested that Socialism is a Biblical concept, but the Bible places the burden of responsibility for stewardship on the individual, while Marx, FDR and his Leftist successors advocate that the state should enforce redistribution of wealth. In failing to discern this distinction, FDR set the stage for the entrapment of future generations by the welfare state and the incremental shift from self-reliance to dependence upon the state -- ultimately the state of tyranny.
English writer, sociologist and historian H.G. Wells, whose last work, The Holy Terror, profiled the psychological development of a modern dictator based on the careers of Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler, said of Roosevelt's reign, "The great trouble with you Americans is that you are still under the influence of that second-rate -- shall I say third-rate? -- mind, Karl Marx."
More to the point, Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev said of Roosevelt's "New Deal" paradigm shift, "We can't expect the American people to jump from capitalism to communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have communism."
Like Khrushchev, perennial Socialist Party presidential candidate Norman Thomas wrote: "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."
FDR never embraced self-reliance as the essential ingredient of a free society, nor have his Demo-successors Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Albert Gore, John Kerry and Barack Obama.
Perhaps it's because most leftist protagonists and their benefactors come from tragically broken families (see Pathology of the Left) compounded by the fact that many of them inherited their wealth, their privilege and their political office.
The character of these "inheritance-welfare liberals" -- those who were raised dependent on inheritance rather than self-reliance -- is all but indistinguishable from the character and values of their constituencies who have been inculcated to depend on state welfare.
Today, eight decades after FDR seeded American socialism, the Soviet Union is but a memory. Former Soviet Block countries are thriving on low taxes and free enterprise. In addition, China and most other states with centralized economies (Cuba notwithstanding) are undergoing a dramatic shift toward free-enterprise -- as well as the political challenges that accompany such a shift. Yet despite the collapse of socialism around the world, wealthy liberals still dominate the Democrat Party and control their Leftmedia propaganda machine. They continue to advocate all manner of dependence upon the state (the poor man's trust fund), but have always been more dedicated to their country clubs than our country.
Western apologists for socialist political and economic agendas are nothing more than "useful idiots" advocating Marxist-Leninist-Maoist collectivism.
The great promise of socialism was to replace the alleged uncertainty of markets with the comforting certainty of a central economic plan. Socialized central planning has failed in every national application.
In 1916, a minister and outspoken advocate for liberty, William J. H. Boetcker, published a pamphlet entitled The Ten Cannots:
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men. You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income. You cannot establish security on borrowed money. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they will not do for themselves.
Fact is that government cannot give to anybody what it does not first take from somebody else. And as Thomas Jefferson noted, a government that is big enough to give you anything, is big enough to take it away.
However, now the once great Democrat Party is replete with western apologists for socialist political and economic agendas advocating, essentially, Marxist-Leninist-Maoist collectivism -- the antithesis of Boetcker's principles of free enterprise.
Indeed, as George Bernard Shaw wrote, "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul."
Has America learned its lessons, or is our great nation still under the spell of its useful idiots? Perhaps one day an American majority will reject the propaganda of the Left and their inheritance-welfare benefactors, will restore our Constitution as the central authority of the land, and will reclaim self-reliance as the central character of our people.
If not, then tyranny will prevail and we will be a slave to the cycle of democracy:
From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty (rule of law); From liberty to abundance; From abundance to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage (rule of men). (Attributed to Frasier Tytler)
The only economic philosophy congruent with individual liberty and limited government is free market capitalism. Individuals contribute to this system through personal industry and initiative; government contributes by confining its regulatory activity within constitutional limits and by employing a system of taxation that is uniform (Fair or Flat) and comprehensible for all citizens. Entitlements and welfare schemes destroy not only personal initiative and responsibility, but also liberty and prosperity. Political freedom is inseparable from economic freedom. Thus, when the government stays within its constitutional role, America prospers.

Underlines by David in this article entitled;

Useful Idiots on the Left

· Friday, September 24, 2004

Thursday, November 3, 2011

An attempt to make sense of "it".

What is "it"?  It is the current situation in our National Economy.  I am often overwhelmed with the explanations offered by economists.  The blathering of most politicians who are reading from canned speeches never makes much sense to me either. So, I will once again attempt, with the aid of Monty Perelin's article from an October 31st edition of the American Thinker, to give some insight.

Gross domestic product (GDP) refers to the market value of all final goods and services produced within a country in a given period. GDP per capita is often considered an indicator of a country's standard of living.[1][2]  Wikipedia.

This is a simple explanation and is more than enough for me.  If you are given to finding out the three methods of determining the GDP, then go to Wikipedia and read the entire piece.  The following comments will be from the article I mentioned.  The sections in quotes will be those of Monty Perelin and the others will be mine.  Monty's entire piece is also worth reading.

"We are headed for an event that history will record as worse than the Great Depression. It is unavoidable."

"The principal reason for the dire prediction is the level of debt outstanding. Current debt levels are simply not sustainable. Assets and cash flows cannot support or service this debt."

"As a percentage of GDP, debt is at an all-time high. Immediately prior to the Great Depression US debt was about 200% of GDP. It rose briefly to 300% as a result of massive government interventions to combat the Depression"

"From 1870 forward, debt levels are generally in the range of 150% of GDP. That appears to be the norm for the last 140 years. Only in the 1920s and recently did debt exceed 180% of GDP. Even funding World Wars I and II did not drive debt above 180%."

"To return to 150% requires a reduction of about $30 Trillion in debt. That represents about two full years worth of GDP."

What then was the government's response in the 1930's and what is the response of the current Democrat led response today?

"After the 1930s politicians convinced themselves and the public of two things:
  1. Free markets need government interventions to produce a healthy economy.
  2. Keynesian pseudo science provided the tools necessary to manage the economy.
Both beliefs were false, but both aided politicians' insatiable drive for power and control. Once the public came to believe these myths, government owned the economy. Any economic problem became a political one. Economic slowdowns were no longer politically acceptable.

"Don't just stand there, do something" drove economic policy. It was politically impossible to allow an economy to correct on its own. Political action was required, even if such activity was ultimately harmful. Politicians had to do something, anything! Their constituents demanded it.

The "government is responsible" attitude quickly spread. Today, virtually any perceived problem or inequity is assumed to be fixable by government. Government readily took on responsibility for virtually every aspect of our lives.

The madness is evident. It is assumed that government creates jobs, educates kids, designs toilets and light bulbs. It is necessary to provide mortgages, retirement benefits and healthcare. "Green energy" and other new technologies are assumed impossible without the assistance of government.
This litany of the presumed need for government could continue for pages. Virtually all these presumptions are false. Worse, many in the public still believe that these "services" are "free."

"Every swing in the business cycle, no matter how mild, became the responsibility of government. Government was to step in and "fix" economic problems. Seventy years of such "fixes" preceded our current problem.

Economic downturns are both normal and necessary. Individual and business mistakes are remedied via economic slowdowns. Misplaced capital and labor is freed up for more productive uses. When this cleansing does not occur, an economy becomes less efficient and grows at a slower rate. The mistakes remain in place and are perpetuated.

Government intervention is not corrective. It is a cover up of prior mistakes. The phrase "pretend and extend" describes what happens. Instead of allowing the economy to correct, government attempts to avoid the correction and the pain by covering up the mistakes. That has been the history of much of the last 80 years. Continued interventionism brought the economy to this crisis point.

The artificial boom that began decades ago is exhausted. Response to the dot-com stock market bubble was the last coverup that "worked." The system was flooded with credit and one bubble was replaced with another. Now the housing bubble has burst, marking the high point of "pretend and extend."

Credit expansion since 2008 has been impotent. The real economy has stopped responding. Economists who advocate more stimulus or credit are either ill-trained or have political motives. Governmental stimulus and credit expansion created the problem. Recommendations for more of the same qualify as insanity per Albert Einstein's definition."

"The current credit bubble is bigger than the one that preceded and caused The Great Depression. Consumer and government balance sheets are worse than they were eighty years ago. Income is incapable of supporting current debt levels.

Reducing debt to manageable levels will produce another Great Depression, likely greater and more painful than the original. Debt reduction requires lower spending and higher savings. Large amounts of debt will not be paid and will be liquidated via defaults.

Until now, governments have done everything to prevent this natural process from occurring. According to Dalio, governments have "no more tools in the tool kit."

Thursday, October 6, 2011

Impossibility of Communication

The painting above by Paulo Zerbato is entitled, "Impossibility of Communication".  I feel it fits perfectly with how I feel on those days when I find the time and energy to post.  I know many of you read and understand at least some of what I am trying to convey, but outside the realm of ordinary folks I think my pondering may be lost.  I post some of my own creations, and when I find something that is well written, inspiring, and informative, I introduce it and give the author credit.  I never hope for complete agreement and I'm always open for factual evidence of why you might disagree.  Someone asked me if I ever write for the newspaper (Op/Ed) and I said no.

I read the local newspaper and I read selected articles in the electronic media.  I can automatically discount most of the major network sources because of their obvious bias and lack of research.  We are being led down a path of divisiveness in this country and it will eventually lead to anarchy.  The forces of divisiveness have been at work for a long time in this world.  Evil men with a desire for power and control realized long ago that if you can split loyalties and destroy confidence in the institutions of government designed to keep us functioning in relative harmony and agreement, you can profit from the confusion and stagnation that naturally results.

Our great country was miraculously formed and a unique system of governing was put into place despite a great deal of arguing as to how it was to be done.  No where else in the world has a system like ours been implemented with such success.  I believe that God created the universe, and that he intended for the United States of America to born out of impossible circumstances, and to succeed in spite of great trials and tribulations, to show the world His hand at work in this project.  I also believe He intended for us to pass along this vision and to continue to give Him our undying gratitude.  Our failings as a nation are the direct result of not doing what God intended for us to do.  When the majority of the people are in tune with the Creator, then there is voluntary compliance with the law, a spirit of responsibility to do one's chosen task, and a spirit of selflessness in relation to our neighbors.

The slide into the abyss is orchestrated to be played in tiny incremental variations so the disharmony is not evident to the casual listener.  The score looks fine to those unacquainted with music and the accidentals are cleverly hidden within measures of beautiful melody.

The beautiful symphony of a democratic republic dedicated to its Creator has now become nothing more than crashing cymbals.  The noise is now recognized as music.  Take God out of the equation and that's what you are left with.

Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think.  Niels Bohr

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Less Government = More Help

I am aware of numerous similar responses undertaken by people from many communities across the State of Texas to help their neighbors in a time of crisis.  I don't know the name of the author of the account below, but it does point up what happens to a successful effort to help when the Federal Government arrives to "help."  The Federal Government needs to get out of the helping business and let the good people of our various States take care of business.  Pappy

What makes Texas Special?
"You would never see this on the news.......
Here are some stories you won’t hear about the Tricounty fire in Montgomery, Grimes, and Waller County Labor Day week, 2011. Although Kenna promises to write a book.

My neighbor across the road has a sister named Kenna. Labor Day, when she saw the huge column of smoke over our homes, she left a birthday party at my neighbor’s house to meet with her friend Tara at the Baseball complex in Magnolia. She called the owner of the complex and got permission to use the warehouse there as a staging area for donations for the fire fighting effort.

They put a notice out on facebook that they were going to be taking donations on their facebook pages. That night as they were setting up tables and organizing, News 2 Houston came by and saw the activity, investigated and left with the phone numbers and a list of suggested donations.

The facebook notice propagated faster than the fire. By dawn they had 20 volunteers, bins, forklifts, and donations were pouring in. I stopped by with my pitiful little bags of nasal wash and eye wash, and was amazed. There must have been 20 trucks in the lot, offloading cases of water, pallets of Gatorade , and people lined up out the door with sacks of beef jerky, baby wipes, underwear, socks, and you name it. School buses and trailers from many counties around were there offloading supplies, students froming living chains to pass stuff into the bins for transport to the command center and staging areas. If the firefighters had requested it, it was there. What do you give the guy out there fighting the fire that might engulf your home? Anything he or she wants. Including chewing tobacco and cigarettes.

Kenna moved on to the Unified Command Post at Magnolia West High school . She looked at what the fire fighters needed, and she made calls and set it up.

Mattress Mac donated 150 beds. Two class rooms turned into barracks kept quiet and dark for rest. The CEO of HEB donated 2 semi trailers full of supplies, and sent a mobile commercial kitchen at no charge to feed all the workers, but especially our firefighters, 3 hot meals a day. An impromptu commissary was set up, anything the firefighters had requested available at no charge.
As exhausted firefighters (most of them from local VFDs with no training or experience battling wildfires) and workers came into the school after long hours of hard labor, dehydrated, hungry, covered with soot and ash, they got what they needed. They were directed through the commissary, where they got soap, eye wash and nasal spray, candy, clean socks and underwear, and then were sent off to the school locker rooms for a shower. HEB then fed them a hot meal and they got 8 hours sleep in a barracks, then another hot meal, another pass through the commissary for supplies to carry with them out to lines, including gloves, safety glasses, dust masks and snacks, and back they went.

One of the imported crew from California came into Unified Command and asked where the FEMA Powerbars and water were. He was escorted to the commissary and started through the system. He was flabbergasted. He said FEMA never did it like this. Kenna replied, "Well, this is the way we do it in Texas.”
Fire fighting equipment needed repair? The auto shop at the High School ran 24/7 with local mechanics volunteering, students, and the firefighters fixing the equipment.  Down one side of the school, the water tankers lined up at the fire hydrants and filled with water. Down the other side there was a steady parade of gasoline tankers filling trucks, bulldozers, tankers, cans, chain saws, and vehicles.

Mind you, all of this was set up by 2 Moms, Kenna and Tara, with a staff of 20 simple volunteers, most of them women who had sons, daughters, husbands, and friends on the fire lines. Someone always knew someone who could get what they needed- beds, mechanics, food, space. Local people using local connections to mobilize local resources made this happen. No government aid. No Trained Expert.
At one point the fire was less than a mile from the school, and everyone but hose volunteers were evacuated. The fire was turned.

The Red Cross came in, looked at what they were doing, and quietly went away to set up a fire victim relief center nearby. They said they couldn’t do it any better.
(Blogger's note:  Enter FEMA stage right.)

FEMA came in and told those volunteers and Kenna that they had to leave, FEMA was here now. Kenna told them she worked for the firefighters, not them. They were obnoxious, bossy, got in the way, and criticized everything. The volunteers refused to back down and kept doing their job, and doing it well. Next FEMA said the HEB supplies and kitchen had to go, that was blatant commercialism. Kenna said they stayed. They stayed. FEMA threw a wall eyed fit about chewing tobacco and cigarettes being available in the commissary area. Kenna told them the firefighters had requested it, and it was staying. It stayed. FEMA got very nasty and kept asking what organization these volunteers belonged to- and all the volunteers told them “Our community”. FEMA didn’t like that and demanded they make up a name for themselves. One mother remarked “They got me at my boiling point!” and suddenly the group was “212 Degrees”. FEMA’s contribution? They came in the next day with red shirts embroidered with “212 Degrees”, insisting the volunteers had to be identified, never realizing it was a slap in their face. Your tax dollars at work- labeling volunteers with useless shirts and getting in the way.

The upshot? A fire that the experts from California (for whom we are so grateful there are no words) said would take 2-3 weeks to get under control was 100% contained in 8 days. There was so much equipment and supplies donated, 3 container trucks are loaded with the excess to go and set up a similar relief center for the fire fighters in Bastrop. The local relief agencies have asked people to stop bringing in donations of clothing, food, household items, and pretty much everything else because they only have 60 displaced households to care for, and there is enough to supply hundreds. Again, excess is going to be shipped to Bastrop , where there are 1500 displaced households. Wish we could send Kenna, too, but she has to go back to her regular job.

These are a few stories my neighbor shared poolside with me tonight, Tues Sept 13, 2011. "

Thursday, September 15, 2011

Who creates jobs?

To All My Valued Employees,

There have been some rumblings around the office about the future of
this company, and more specifically, your job. As you know, the
economy has changed for the worse and presents many challenges.
However, the good news is this: The economy doesn't pose a threat to
your job.

What does threaten your job however, is the changing political
landscape in this country. Of course, as your employer, I am forbidden
to tell you whom to vote for - it is against the law to discriminate
based on political affiliation, race, creed, religion, etc.

Please vote for who you think will serve your interests the best.
However, let me tell you some little tidbits of fact which might help
you decide what is in your best interest. First, while it is easy to
spew rhetoric that casts employers against employees, you have to
understand that for every business owner there is a back story.

This back story is often neglected and overshadowed by what you see
and hear. Sure, you see me park my Mercedes outside. You saw my big
home at last year's Christmas party. I'm sure all these flashy icons
of luxury conjure up some idealized thoughts about my life. However,
what you don't see is the back story.

I started this company 12 years ago. At that time, I lived in a 300
square foot studio apartment for 3 years. My entire living space was
converted into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into
building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you.

My diet consisted of Ramen Pride noodles because every dollar I spent
went back into this company. I drove a rusty Toyota Corolla with a
defective transmission. I didn't have time to date. Often times, I
stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and
partying. In fact, I was married to my business -- hard work,
discipline, and sacrifice.

Meanwhile, my friends got jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a
modest $50K a year and spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy
cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes.
Instead of hitting Nordstrom's for the latest hot fashion item, I was
trolling through the Goodwill store extracting any clothing item that
didn't look like it was birthed in the 70's.

My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I,
however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into a business
--- with a vision that eventually, some day, I too, will be able to
afford these luxuries my friends supposedly had.

So, while you physically arrive at the office at 9 am, mentally check
in at about noon, and then leave at 5 pm, I don't. There is no "off"
button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a
weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have the freedom. I
eat, ****, and breathe this company every minute of the day. There is
no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. Every day this
business is attached to me like a 1 day old baby.

You, of course, only see the fruits of that garden -- the nice house,
the Mercedes, the vacations... You never realize the back story and
the sacrifices I've made. Now, the economy is falling apart and I, the
guy that made all the right decisions and saved his money, have to
bail out all the people who didn't.

The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to
the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed a decade of my life
for. Yes, business ownership has its benefits but the price I've paid
is steep and not without wounds. Unfortunately, the cost of running
this business, and employing you, is starting to eclipse the threshold
of marginal benefit and let me tell you why:

I am being taxed to death and the government thinks I don't pay
enough. I have state taxes. Federal taxes. Property taxes. Sales and
use taxes. Payroll taxes. Workers compensation taxes. Unemployment
taxes. Taxes on taxes. I have to hire a tax man to manage all these
taxes and then guess what? I have to pay taxes for employing him.
Government mandates and regulations and all the accounting that goes
with it, now occupy most of my time. On Oct 15th, I wrote a check to
the US Treasury for $288,000 for quarterly taxes. You know what my
"stimulus" check was? Zero. Nada. Zilch.

The question I have is this: Who is stimulating the economy? Me, the
guy who has provided 14 people good paying jobs and serves over
2,200,000 people per year with a flourishing business? Or, the single
mother sitting at home pregnant with her fourth child waiting for her
next welfare check?

Obviously, government feels the latter is the economic stimulus of
this country. The fact is, if I deducted (Read: Stole) 50% of your
paycheck you'd quit and you wouldn't work here. I mean, why should
you? That's nuts. Who wants to get rewarded only 50% of their hard
work? Well, I agree which is why your job is in jeopardy. Here is what
many of you don't understand ... to stimulate the economy you need to
stimulate what runs the economy. Had suddenly government mandated to
me that I didn't need to pay taxes, guess what? Instead of
depositing that $288,000 into the Washington black-hole, I would have
spent it, hired more employees, and generated substantial economic
growth. My employees would have enjoyed the wealth of that tax cut in
the form of promotions and better salaries. But you can forget it now.

When you have a comatose man on the verge of death, you don't
defibrillate and shock his thumb thinking that will bring him back to
life, do you? Or, do you defibrillate his heart? Business is at the
heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must
stimulate it, not kill it. Suddenly, the power brokers in Washington
believe the mud of America are the essential drivers of the American
economic engine.

Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change
you can keep. So where am I going with all this? It's quite simple. If
any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, my reaction will be
swift and simple. I fire you. I fire your co-workers. You can then
plead with the government to pay for your mortgage, your SUV, and your
child's future. Frankly, it isn't my problem anymore. Then, I will
close this company down, move to another country, and retire.

You see, I'm done. I'm done with a country that penalizes the
productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to
provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, will be my citizenship.

While tax cuts to 95% of America sounds great on paper, don't forget
the back story: If there is no job, there is no income to tax. A tax
cut on zero dollars is zero. So, when you make decision to vote, ask
yourself, who understands the economics of business ownership and who
doesn't? Whose policies will endanger your job? Answer those
questions and you should know who might be the one capable of saving
your job. While the media wants to tell you "It's the economy Stupid"
I'm telling you it isn't.

If you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the economy; it will
be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this
country, steamrolled the Constitution, and will have changed its
landscape forever. If that happens, you can find me in the South
Caribbean sitting on a beach, retired, and with no employees to worry

Signed, Your boss,

Michael A. Crowley, PE
Crowley, Crisp & Associates, Inc.
Professional Engineers
1906 South Main Street, Suite 122
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Phone: 919.562.8860 x22
Fax: 919.562.8872

This picture depicts Service Unions.  These are people whose salaries and benefit packages are taken from tax revenues and not from for profit businesses.

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

Why won't anyone look?

Have you ever wondered why no one, not even high ranking Republicans, will delve into Obama's past and credentials?  Well I ask myself the question daily.  Here is a piece by someone who tried to provide first hand accounts of Obama at Occidental College to all he thought might have an interest and was summarily rejected.

By John Drew
What would you do if you knew that the top Democrat running for president was lying about his past? 
That is the question I was faced with in 2008.  I had met the young Barack Obama while he was a sophomore at Occidental College, and I knew that his commitment to socialism was deep, genuine, and longstanding.  See my earlier article on American Thinker.
I had been a leader of the Marxist students at Occidental College myself, starting in 1976 when I founded the precursor of the Democrat Socialist Alliance on campus.  The young Obama I knew was a Marxist socialist who would have been quite comfortable with Communist party members like his Hawaii mentor Frank Marshall Davis, retired domestic terrorists like Bill Ayers, or active socialist politicians like Illinois State Senator Alice Palmer.
The Obama I knew was nothing like the lifelong pragmatic centrist that he was pretending to be in the 2008 presidential campaign.  When I talked politics with the young Obama, he expressed a profound commitment to bringing about a socialist economic system in the U.S. -- completely divorced from the profit motive -- which would occur, in his lifetime, through a potentially violent, Communist-style revolution.  In this context, I saw my report on young Obama as a key piece of evidence suggesting a profound continuity in his belief system.
Although I was surprised by Barack Obama's insistence on his mainstream ideological credentials, I was shocked that my attempts to spread the news about young Obama's Marxism failed to gain any media traction with reporters, activists, or campaign staffs during the 2008 presidential campaign. 
Once I saw the significance of my face-to-face observations on the young Obama, I went out of my way to get my story on record with the Orange County Register.  I tried to contact, among others, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, the folks behind the Swiftboat ads, and the McCain campaign.
I thought I would get a phone call back from Fox News -- someone, somewhere -- and I still do not understand why no one seemed to catch on to the urgency of the situation.  I understand that I did not have audio tape of young Obama.  I did not have any photos or home movies.  Nevertheless, I was extremely active in the leftist politics and counter-cultural milieu of Occidental College in the 1970s. 
As a younger man, I had earned a Ph.D. in political science from Cornell, which, I would think, gave me some credibility in measuring young Obama's ideological convictions.  I quickly saw that other people who had known the young Obama were featured in various news articles.  It seemed to me that I should have been just another interview for any journalist, producer, or campaign consultant interested in checking out my story and testing my credibility against the facts.
In frustration, I was also posting what I knew on The Caucus Blog site at the New York Times.  My expectation was that someone from the Times would call me and follow up on the leads I was sending out.  Here is a sample of what I was doing in October 2008 to get the word out about Obama's Marxist ideology.
I even thought of scheduling my own press conference on the campus of Occidental College through their campus Republican club.  Internally, I was conflicted by the urgency of what I knew and the sense that it was best for the story to break out in a manner supportive of the McCain campaign. 
What shocked me about my experience in the summer of 2008 is that I thought my experience as a Williams College political science professor, my small business owner status, and my visibility in the Orange County community would allow my message to immediately go to the very top of the McCain campaign.  I thought my story would be welcomed by Fox News. 
Since then, things have slowly gotten better.  My story on the young Marxist Obama has appeared in Michael Savage's Trickle-Up Poverty, Paul Kengor's Dupes, Stanley Kurtz's Radical-In-Chief, and Jack Cashill's Deconstructing Obama.
Nevertheless, I think there is something broken in our media and campaign system.  I do not think most independents or conservatives understand, or fully appreciate, the tremendous advantages the left derives from having the mainstream media serve as the fully paid, completely sympathetic, Dan Rather-level opposition research team of the Democratic Party.  It is a system that methodically ignores damaging information about flawed candidates like Sen. John Edwards and Rep. Anthony Weiner, while elevating minor errors among Republicans to the status of Watergate investigations. 
If Republicans are going to win in 2012, I think they need to make some changes so that they are more friendly to the whistle-blowers bringing them bad news about the Obama administration.  Personally, I would like to see Republicans create new ways to collect negative news stories on liberals by 1) including web pages requesting opposition research from leakers; 2) establishing guidelines for leakers that help them give campaign decision-makers the confidence to pursue appropriate leads; and 3) instituting feedback mechanisms so leakers have some minimal assurance that they have been heard by top campaign managers and that their information has been discarded for technical or strategic reasons and not simply because it was overlooked by a careless staff member.
I think recognition of this problem should be the first step in taking systematic action to prevent flawed Democrat candidates from winning office.  In the meantime, I predict that we will see more examples of media failure as the left dominates the muckraking journalism profession while the right seems too dependent on a small handful of seemingly obscure, overworked journalists and -- as my case illustrates -- unconnected and often baffled citizen activists.
John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist and a blogger at David Horowitz's NewsReal Blog.  Dr. Drew earned his Ph.D. from Cornell and has taught political science and economics at Williams College.  Today, Dr. Drew makes his living as an author, trainer, and consultant in the field of non-profit grant writing, fundraising, and program evaluation.  To book Dr. Drew for your event, please go here.

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Was Rick Perry Wrong?

Why not judge for yourselves with a little review of Social Security.  It sounded so good in the beginning.

History Lesson on Your Social Security Card

 Be sure and show it to your family and friends. They need a little history lesson on what's what and it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. 
Facts are Facts. 

Social Security Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and
Card were not to be used for identification purposes.
Since nearly everyone in the
United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the
Message, NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION, was removed.

An old Social Security card with the

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be
completely voluntary,

No longer voluntary

2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program,

Now  it's 7.65%

on the first $90,000

3.) That the money the participants elected to put
into the program would be deductible from
their income for tax purposes each year,

No longer tax deductible

4.) That the money of the participants would put into the
independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security
Retirement Program, and no other government program.

Under Johnson the money was moved to

The General Fund and Spent

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed
As income.

Under Clinton & Gore

Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are
now receiving a Social Security check every month --

We are now finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of
the money we
paid to the Federal government to 'put into the trust fund.
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ----

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the
general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically
Controlled House and Senate.

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
Deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -----

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gorecasting the
'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the US

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

Q: Which Political Party decided to start
giving annuity payments to immigrants?


A: That's right!

Jimmy Carter
and the Democratic Party.

Immigrants moved into this country,
and at age 65,
began to receive Social Security payments
even though they never paid a dime into it!

------------ -- ------------ --------- ----- ------------ --------- ---------

Then, after violating the original contract (FICA),
The Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want
To take your Social Security away!

Has Social Security become a Ponzi Scheme?

That you may retain your self-respect, it is better to displease the people by doing what you know is right, than to temporarily please them by doing what you know is wrong.  - William J. H. Boetcker

Monday, September 12, 2011

The NEW jobs plan.

"O.K. Congress, “No games, no politics, no delays.”  Barack Hussein Obama

Let me interpret that for you.  "I'm going to shove this down your throats just like all the other plans I've proposed.  Take my health care bill, please, take my health care bill.  Nancy told you not to read it and now you know why.  It is filled with hidden billion dollar funding clauses and who knows what else.  Well, this NEW jobs plan is just like all my other plans.  Spend, spend, spend.  Who cares if we are bankrupt and don't have the money,  We'll just print more.  So what if your job only lasts for a year.  That'll be a year you wouldn't have otherwise and should carry me through the next election.  Who will get these jobs you ask?  Well, it is the people who put me in office and the people who blindly line up to cheer exciting things like 'Four more years' ad nauseum."  Pappy's Paraphrase

   "Surrounded by police officers, firefighters, teachers, construction workers and others he said would be helped by the $447 billion package, the president said the only thing that would block its passage would be lawmakers deciding it wasn’t good politics to work with him. “We can’t afford these same political games, not now,” Obama said."  Chicago Sun Times

Who are these people who would follow the Pied Piper to Tophet?  They are the people who helped bring this unknown into the White House.  They are the people who were told how to vote and who to vote for. They are the largely under educated masses so prevalent in the Democrat Party.  The Democrat Party has become the party of endowment.  Therefore those who depend on the benevolence of the "Nanny" government for their sustenance are the largest supporters. Who are they?  Here is a partial list.  Those who live outside the accepted standards of civil and moral behavior,  Labor Union leadership with their complicit members who regardless of their own moral convictions must vote as they are told or be sanctioned, Trial lawyers who don't want any limits on their ridiculous judgements and exorbitant fees, Academics whose tenured jobs are subsidized by government grants, Artists whose work could not and would not stand on its own without support, Politicians who couldn't survive in the real world, and of course those who have through generations of laying the blame for their failure to succeed at any door step but their own depend on the government to support them;  These are the Democrats.

 Every time the president needs a crowd, he goes to an area where there is a goodly number of union members who can be marshaled under a threat of job loss or physical injury and stands in front of chanting hundreds.  The complicit media clones do whatever is necessary to spew their slanted messages about the events under the heading of "News".  

Perry is right.  Social Security cannot survive.  He isn't making this up.  Do the math.  The program has been plundered by a variety of unscrupulous politicians and it cannot sustain itself.  It is like a magicians act using smoke and mirrors to deflect your attention from what is really happening.  I put money in, but I'll never get any money out.  All the bull about payroll tax reductions are just political double talk.  Tax the rich, spread the wealth around, tax the huge corporations, all great rhetoric for those who are deluded.  Who pays those taxes?  ALL CONSUMERS DO.  Do you think for one minute that people who have become rich building businesses and corporations pay their taxes and don't pass the cost to those who buy their goods and services?  They couldn't stay in business if they did.  THOSE OF US WHO PAY TAXES PAY FOR ALL THE TAXES.  Somewhere around 50% of our population pay no taxes.  What does that mean?  IT MEANS THAT YOUR SHARE THEN BECOMES DOUBLE.  Wake up and smell the coffee.  We must cut spending now and we must make the cuts sacrificial.  Throwing more money into the mix will do exactly what the previous two attempts did; provide a huge war chest for Democrat politicians, and open the door for a continuation of the fraud and criminality in government.

The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind.  - H. L. Mencken