The United States of America, Inc.

I'm Moving this Publication over to Medium

noreply@blogger.com (mm) — Sat, 09 Jul 2016 05:40:00 +0000

I've been blogging on and off here (mostly off) for years now. I initially set up this blog when Barack Hussein Obama took office, because it seemed necessarily fitting. The USA was about to go down the toilet, and I knew it. And, as I believed back then 7 years ago, it indeed has swirled around for a few years and been flushed completely just this week as predicted.

Those who gloss over the headlines and get soundbites from the internet and radio and other pop media may not agree. There are still those (I've seen a poll with BO's approval rate recently at 50%. I don't see how that's possible. Congress: 14%. Possible, but insane. That's an indictment of the people that elect those fools, not the politicians. Learn how to hire people, fer cryin' out loud.) that support the man and his policies. Safe to say they'll support anything with very little persuasion, it seems, as long as they believe their personal ideologies are sustained, no matter how far-flung or selfish. Politicians are experts at doing that, and BO certainly hasn't gotten less manipulative over his tenure. Anyway... not the point of this post.

The reason I set up shop here was because it was free and I didn't know anything about blogging. Also Medium didn't exist, and the world both online and off was a different place. Now that things have been chugging along for a while and I've decided to keep this blog alive, it's time to make some tweaks.

Medium is a place I think I'll find a larger readership and I just like the UI and UX better. I also have some other publications I manage there, so my writing will be centralized, to a better degree. I have another blog here at Blogger, but I don't kee it up much, rather I post on my personal WordPress blogs for such detria.

So...say goodbye to the sidebar and all the boring design flourishes here at Blogspot, and say hello to stark, minimalist, utilitarian design over at Medium. It's still USA, Inc.

Hillary Walks

noreply@blogger.com (mm) — Wed, 06 Jul 2016 00:42:00 +0000

July 5th 2016 is a date that will live in infamy. It marks this country's final swirl around the hole in the bottom of the toilet before we begin to disappear. It will also be a day we look back at as a pivot point, I believe. If anyone was unsure of whether the fox was running the henhouse, they should be convinced now. This is black and white.

Hillary Clinton was allowed to basically walk away from her list of crimes today, according to h~~andpuppet~~ FBI guy James Comey. That's big for all sorts of reasons. But I believe that it basically assures her winning the presidency, now that the legal problems are slithering off her, like water off a toad's back. Who has any respect for this woman? For what? She even gets disrespected by her husband, and he's not exactly the most chivalrous guy in the room, for that matter. They wouldn't want you in their house, and you wouldn't want them in yours, trust me.

How are we as American citizens, supposed to believe or even care what this woman says from now on? For her to get off of all charges, it wasn't just one guy, like Obama saying "hey: she's cool." There had to be a lot of people involved to make this happen. This wasn't a simple misdemeanor shoplifting charge she was looking at. Lots of things had to happen in the system to patch this over so it doesn't register. That indicates a pretty systemic problem to me.

What does Hillary herself think? (God only knows) But imagine what's about to transpire: she's going to be sworn in, to protect the constitution, a woman who has been disbarred for life and whose husband, also disbarred for life and was impeached for perjury, and they're moving back into the White House. A Husband-wife leader of a country. A Matriarchy whose leader is apparently immune from the very law she plans to swear to uphold and defend. The people that state they're "with her" are keeping some seriously slimy company.

Just yesterday her former aide, Huma Abdebin or whatever admitted that Hillary would burn her schedules. I'm no Barack Obama, but that's destruction of federal records. She's as dirty as they come, and she's heading to the Oval office, I'm afraid. It's going to be a disgusting 4 years.

I'm waiting for James Comey to make an announcement that he's retiring to tour with mummenschantz and a cast of other brainless puppets.

The part that makes me want to vomit the hardest, out of so, so many, is that the Bill & Hillary Clinton Foundation will swell and they will be billionaires before they die. Mark my words. From freaking politics. How does that happen, again?

I look at HRC and all I can see is the tyrannical Mom from Futurama.

Puerto Rico Loves Democrats, and it Shows

noreply@blogger.com (mm) — Fri, 01 Jul 2016 04:29:00 +0000

For the record, I am neither Republican nor Democrat, lest anyone read this with the thought I am affiliated with either major party. I'm bi-partisan. I'm voting Libertarian this fall, because that's what I line up with ideologically the most (I'm not saying the lp candidate isn't flawed, but he's no narcissistic Cheeto or felon and genuinely horrible person, which the other 2 candidates are), and my conscience won't allow me to vote for either of the major party's candidates. If that's the best the major parties can come up with, with their resources, something ain't right. Sure, the job sucks and has become less prestigious (but much, much more lucrative) in the recent past, but we're still a nation with some great citizens, leaders and innovators. We just can't hire worth a damn.

With that aside, if you haven't heard, Puerto Rico's having some financial issues. To be more vivid: the island is falling apart at the seams. Venezuela Minor. People aren't dying in the streets(yet) like in the former Socialist Nirvana Hugo Chavez helped build, while chilling with his $8 billion fortune, amassed while taking care of the worker bees. But it's heading in that direction. The health care system and hospitals are in danger. People are fleeing. The country's broke. Crime is most likely rising, in a place it already was high. Sounds wonderful, eh? Like booking a vacation in Jamaica, and finding out you're staying in Trenchtown. Management is not responsible for items left in room, or any death you may experience.

I spent a week or two in Puerto Rico in 2006. It was OK. But even then I could feel that it was a place that was filled with despair. And I was staying at the Ritz. (Maybe the sense of malaise was because of the casino that was connected to the hotel) The people I met and talked to, the vibe, the appearance of some areas of San Juan looked familiarly on the downturn, as someone who's seen this before. I was all over that island, from top to bottom, left to right, and it was evident then a storm was afoot. So, why didn't anyone do anything then?

I'll tell you why. It's a familiar story, that I know well. As do many men that study global affairs micro and macro news around the globe, are interested in politics, and so on. Boring men, in other words. But ones that can connect some important dots with serious consequences blindfolded.

It's because of their voting habits. I use "habits" very intentionally because that's what they become with people. People vote down party lines. Idiotic. People vote with their hearts instead of their minds. Charming, but not smart. People vote like their parents did. Decades ago. And so on...People don't do their research, and I don't just mean of the candidates running to represent the Puerto Ricans. I mean of how their policies will affect them, and how things work financially, and systematically in government and private enterprise. I don't expect the Commonwealth, with an education level befitting that part of the world, to have Wharton MBAs, but some simple due diligence like our grandparents would have done, and we owe them and our other ancestors, would be nice. The internet works there, for example. Use it for something else than socializing for a few minutes a day.

The point I'm aiming at by rambling everywhere firstly is that Puerto Ricans consistently vote democrat. Just as do, historically, other low-income, low-educated, high-crime, high-mortality groups. Can you think of any others?

The policies of the left don't really change. And with that in mind, neither do their voting base. As a whole, the democrat voting base is the working class, a group that wants better for themselves, and thinks the government can provide that betterment for them. Has it? Is that a group, if you had to choose who you'd like to have a lifestyle and vision more like, that you'd choose?

The best argument I've heard, and only one that's worth debating, is that things are better because of Democrat policies than they would be otherwise, or under Republican control. I respectfully must disagree, based on history. Regression analysis.

Ignoring outliers, cities in America have performed far worse under Democrat control. The list is long and filled with names associated with corruption, bankruptcy, premature death, and systemic problems galore: Detroit, Baltimore, Atlanta, DC...Yet their citizens persist in electing men that promise to help them, yet fail every time. And not just fail, but break many laws while doing so, often. Those promises are: we'll spend money and more money and more money and just throw money at everything. It's a solution that makes sense to their constituents, because they don't understand the nuances of how complex things are, and that money doesn't cure all ills. In fact, it usually brings on new ones and brings out the worst in people, which helps explain the corruption.

The plan to bail Puerto Rico out of its mess is a plan formed by Republicans, based on a Republican plan used with success for another city, the name of which escapes me at the moment. That was why everyone was surprised when it passed so easily. Fact is, Republicans are conservative, and smart with money(comparatively and overall-nothing is steadfast, of course). If you're having financial problems, they're who you call. Look at the crowd running for president before everyone dropped out: Over in the Democrat camp: Hillary Clinton, who's made her money via white collar crime along with her Democrat husband, and Bernie Sanders, who looks like he buys his suits at K-Mart and whose state has a GDP less than my neighborhood's.

Over in the Republican corner you have: A billionaire, the former head of a Fortune 500 company, a brain surgeon... need I go on?

There are exceptions, yes. A Democrat I admire as a man as much as a mayor is Joe Riley, who was mayor of my hometown of Charleston, SC for over 40 years. He was a terrific manager. And there are others here and there. So, there are exceptions, of course, but they hardly make the rule.

However, so go these cities, so goes Puerto Rico. Down the Democrapper.

European Xenophobia, American Xenophobia, Where will it all End?

noreply@blogger.com (mm) — Wed, 29 Jun 2016 05:28:00 +0000

Unless you fell into a well last week, you've probably heard the UK is exiting the EU. Seems that has caused some ripples in economic, political, cultural and several other important ways. As someone who champions individual freedoms, and can see the threat of terrorism becoming more dire across Europe(as instances escalate in number and size), I thought leaving when they had the chance was wise. There are those that disagree. Those may be among the large number of Brits that were Googling "what is the EU" after the vote.

But I'd like to point out a few things. The cries of racism, firstly, are sort of dumb. I'm not saying there aren't racists alive in the UK that feel that England should maintain some sort of inbred purity, but they aren't a reason for anything to do with something of this magnitude.

What people are afraid of isn't the nationality, race or color of strangers in their midst, aka xenophobia, or even bigotry. It's a fear of being killed. A real fear. Not just a newspaper calling something a "-phobia." Just today in Instanbul 30+ people were killed and 60+ injured from 2 bomb blasts. Mulsim terrorists, again. Day before yesterday: terrorist attack; Muslim. Last week: terrorist attack; Muslim. Every week, if not every day, you can find a terrorist attack or horror in the world, and it's always a Muslim claiming allegiance to Allah. I'm no genius, but that tells me there's a connection. The FBI agrees. Look at the FBI's Most-Wanted Terrorists list. Nearly all have the name Muhammad in their name somewhere. And guess what kind of wave is pulsing through Europe right now? Refugees that are followers of Allah. It has nothing to do with race, or nationality. Syria, Niger, Kenya, whatever... If anything call it Islamophobia, which to some people is immediately a "red flag" word, but I'll be willing to be they have A) prejudices of their own against something B) a similar desire to live C) a phobia of something, even if it's cancer. It's not necessarily a bad thing, if it'll keep you alive. Unless that's a shame you feel is worth dying for in order to avoid.

On this very blog, I maintained long ago when refugees began seeping into Europe there would be major adjusting pains. I didn't see the EU falling apart; even "Magic-man with his stock buys and shorts" George Soros didn't see it coming. Which I realize it hasn't "fallen apart" but the UK isn't going to be the last to jump ship, trust me. Next up to bat: Probably Greece. The refugees and immigrants of today don't assimilate to their new countries. They find communities of like nationalities and expect others to adapt to their presence as they live in cells(not jail cells, "cells" like in Excel). That causes friction. And friction causes violence. But that isn't the reason for terrorist violence by a long shot. There will be other violence from those culture clashes.

Imams have preached that followers of Allah should kill out of compassion. Gays, for example. Not hatred, as the above-cited article repeats over and over. Compassion. Where does that leave the charges of "hate crimes" and the chants of "end the hatred?" Courts are trying to criminalize thought by labeling a crime a hate crime, so if they murder out of compassion, that would hardly seem applicable, no? I'm not pro-hatred, incidentally. But we;re beginning to get intimate and pretty granular with the punishments when we're looking for human thoughts to penalize.

The cited article also states that Islamic office for British relations "has a list," they made presumably, of 100 instances of some sort of aggression towards their followers, whatever that entails. But police reports don't corroborate this claim. I tend to believe Scotland Yard in this situation, but if you don't I'd like to hear why not. I can't think of any legitimate reason to doubt them. I can think of some reasons to doubt the counter-claim. This "list" was just mentioned. Seems like that may have been something to present to the proper people, if anything is to be done about it. But no.

Hi. I'm your new next-door neighbor.

New Firearm-Related Violence Report WIll Surprise You

noreply@blogger.com (mm) — Sun, 26 Jun 2016 07:17:00 +0000

Obama issued 23 executive orders in January 2013. One of those was for the CDC to put together a report on "gun violence." Because you know, gun ownership is a health problem? And the form of violence is the problem, not the violent person committing the crime? I'm not even sure why this had to be done via executive order. Couldn't he just have asked for a report, being the president, and all?

In any strange case, the report just came out. It has some things that are surprising, and some that aren't. Here are some highlights:

Here's the full report: Firearm-related Violence

1. The United States has a problem with using guns violently. According to the report, “the U.S. rate of firearm-related homicide is higher than that of any other industrialized country: 19.5 times higher than the rates in other high-income countries.”

2. Most reports of crime and gun violence are getting better, not worse. “Overall crime rates have declined in the past decade, and violent crimes, including homicides specifically, have declined in the past 5 years,” the report notes. “Between 2005 and 2010, the percentage of firearm-related violent victimizations remained generally stable.” Meanwhile, “firearm-related death rates for youth ages 15 to 19 declined from 1994 to 2009.” Accidents are down, too: “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”

3. We have 300 million firearms, but only 100 million are handguns. According to the report, “In 2007, one estimate placed the total number of firearms in the country at 294 million: ‘106 million handguns, 105 million rifles, and 83 million shotguns.’ ” This translates to nearly nine guns for every 10 people, a per capita ownership rate nearly 50 percent higher than the next most armed country. But American gun ownership is concentrated, not universal: In a December 2012 Gallup poll, “43 percent of those surveyed reported having a gun in the home.” Consider many handguns have serial #'s removed or are otherwise illegal.

4. Handguns are the problem. Despite being outnumbered by long guns, “Handguns are used in more than 87 percent of violent crimes,” the report notes. In 2011, “handguns comprised 72.5 percent of the firearms used in murder and non-negligent manslaughter incidents.” Why do criminals prefer handguns? One reason, according to surveys of felons, is that they’re “easily concealable.” I'm not sure a survey of felons was needed to answer that question. I think it makes sense to look at who's doing most of the murdering, but that's not a politically popular idea, apparently.

5. Mass shootings aren’t the problem. “The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths,” says the report. “Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” Compare that with the 335,000 gun deaths between 2000 and 2010 alone.

6. Gun suicide is a bigger killer than gun homicide. From 2000 to 2010, “firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearm-related violence in the United States,” says the report. Suicides among middle-aged whites have been increasing noticeably in recent years. Firearm sales are often a warning: Two studies found that “a small but significant fraction of gun suicides are committed within days to weeks after the purchase of a handgun, and both also indicate that gun purchasers have an elevated risk of suicide for many years after the purchase of the gun.”

7. Guns are used for self-defense often and effectively. “Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year … in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008,” says the report. The three million figure is probably high, “based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys.” But a much lower estimate of 108,000 also seems fishy, “because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.” Furthermore, “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

8. Carrying guns for self-defense is an arms race. The prevalence of firearm violence near “drug markets … could be a consequence of drug dealers carrying guns for self-defense against thieves or other adversaries who are likely to be armed,” says the report. In these communities, “individuals not involved in the drug markets have similar incentives for possessing guns.” According to a Pew Foundation report, “the vast majority of gun owners say that having a gun makes them feel safer. And far more today than in 1999 cite protection—rather than hunting or other activities—as the major reason for why they own guns.”

9. Denying guns to people under restraining orders saves lives. “Two-thirds of homicides of ex- and current spouses were committed [with] firearms,” the report observes. “In locations where individuals under restraining orders to stay away from current or ex-partners are prohibited from access to firearms, female partner homicide is reduced by 7 percent.”

10. It isn’t true that most gun acquisitions by criminals can be blamed on a few bad dealers. The report concedes that in 1998, “1,020 of 83,272 federally licensed retailers (1.2 percent) accounted for 57.4 percent of all guns traced by the ATF.” However, “Gun sales are also relatively concentrated; approximately 15 percent of retailers request 80 percent of background checks on gun buyers conducted by the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.” Researchers have found that “the share of crime gun traces attributed to these few dealers only slightly exceeded their share of handgun sales, which are almost equally concentrated among a few dealers.” Volume, not laxity, drives the number of ill-fated sales.

Some of these takeaways I can jive with and some, well...let's say I've been around guns my whole life. I grew up bird hunting and am certified in gun safety, for whatever that's worth(nothing). I'm southern. What do you expect? All my friends and relatives hunt and fish, including my grandparents. In fact, one of my prized possessions is a Remington model 17 20 gauge my grandmother used for hunting dove and quail. It's gorgeous.

But these types of guns have different purposes, which may be worth looking at. Assault rifles? They're for gun collectors, gun nuts that like to shoot things, and actual nuts that want to kill people. They aren't the deadliest, however. That's not stopping some people from demanding their disappearance. Pistols? Self-defense, collectors and people that like to shoot at ranges. Also gangs like them and they're mostly used by urban blacks to kill other blacks. Getting all the handguns off the streets would curb the shootings (although probably not the violence, since that's a separate issue) but that's an impossible task at this point in the US. Shotguns? Hunting, collectors, and nuts modify them to be the deadliest of the weaponry. Rifles are for ex-military that have cracked, larger game hunters, gun enthusiasts, and nuts in general. The Virginia sniper comes to mind, but rifles aren't used that often in crimes, I don't believe. Most people just aren't that great of a shot, unless they've had training or grew up hunting. Many, if not most, people that have one gun have several, in my experience. (Yes, there are exceptions. Always are.)

Have Democrats Ever Heard of Digital Security?

noreply@blogger.com (mm) — Wed, 22 Jun 2016 20:22:00 +0000

The number of recent security failures the democrats have been involved in is startling. BIG issues mind you: Lois Lerner's computer crashing, the Air Force's computers crashing...pretty much daily computer crashes, and with important, if not confidential and classified material on them. The amazing timing of such failures aside, they are claimed to happen a lot. Almost if they've found a scapegoat in technology, in fact, if it weren't so potentially damaging to them politically. Recently Russians hacked into Hillary Clinton's databases and stole her opposition research on Donald Trump. Now we have a hacker going into the Clinton Foundation's servers and taking confidential (or what one would imagine Hillary would want confidential) information yet again. It's not really helping her argument that her emails were secure when she was Secretary of State because the Secret Service was guarding the basement or other non-secure room they were stored in(who set them up for her in her house, anyway? Other people obviously knew about this the whole time). And overlooked as possible by some people and organizations, as always.

EDIT(July 1, 1016) - I've been reading more and more about these "hacking" problems, and what they entailed. I slap myself on the wrist for not realizing this sooner, as a guy who handles some security for people online and knows a few things about how the web works. These bureaucrats aren't being "hacked" as portrayed in the movies, where a Russian is is sitting in a little room full of super-high-tech espionage equipment, frantically trying to access database after database. It sounds like these were basically trojan attacks and emails people at the State Dept., DNC, and elsewhere, were opening that allowed the snoopers access. These problems were because of basically stupidity at the user's level, not a brute force attack. 70% off UGG Boots? Sure, I'll click that link! Of course, this is when they weren't watching porn at work, which is another troublesome pastime that has been well-documented in the news and then swept away as quickly as possible.

Apple's Board Tells Tim Cook, "Sorry, Nancy"

noreply@blogger.com (mm) — Sat, 18 Jun 2016 21:33:00 +0000

Most companies of any size and with any ambition donate to both major politcal parties, just to cover their bases. They may endorse one or favor one or the other, but that party's not going to win every time. So, you play it smart and hedge your bets. Not with Apple. Not this time.

Tim Cook's openly gay. Islams (not just Isis) want gays dead, which we're been given ample evidence recently, and not just in Orlando, if you don't read the news much. Trump, if nothing else, is for reducing terror attacks by controlling the Muslim presence in America. It makes sense to some people that to reduce the threat, you reduce the probability of an incident at the source. Since the leaders of Islam refuse to reform their religion, that makes it tough.

Democrats have shown they've chosen Islam over gays. So, Apple's board deciding to not donate AT ALL to the GOPs because of "Trump's rhetoric" is a pretty harsh statement to their CEO, I would think. Some men's ideologies matter more to them than other men do, I guess.

"Islam isn't the Problem. Extremism is."

noreply@blogger.com (mm) — Wed, 15 Jun 2016 04:02:00 +0000

I've been hearing the title of this article a lot lately, especially from people that aren't Islamic (or claim not to be anyway despite evidence to the contrary) and lean left on the old political spectrum.

If you believe that, then you must also believe guns aren't the problem; extreme use of them is. However, that's doubtful.

Our president says Isis isn't the problem; "we" are the ones to blame. Aside from being a load of crap, "WE" is fairly general. Intentionally general, even. This statement is like the beaten wife claiming she's the one to blame for her abuse. It's sad to think this is the leader of the USA right now.

Obama's response to the Orlando tragedy was trademark politician: some platitudes for the upset people, some red meat for the opposition to gnaw on, speak in vague terms and have no plan.

Here we have a computer crash that wiped out a bunch of Air Force records. Nothing meaningful, just reports that would incriminate people. Ever heard of Dropbox, AF? This type of stupid, elementary problem leads me to think our government isn't taking security, or the rules/laws that stipulate retention rules very seriously.

Here we have Puerto Ricans, whose island is falling apart financially at the seams, voting for the Democratic primary. I have a feeling PR leans left, for some reason, and I bet Hillary wins there. It seems things are going so well, they want to stay the course. Or maybe they are just idiots. You decide. The plan to make Puerto Rico solvent again, incidentally, is a GOP strategy that has been used elsewhere with success, and it passed very easily in a bi-partisan vote. Political pundits were "surprised."

House floor erupts into chaos after a moment of silence for Orlando. That chamber's pretty civil compared to some parliaments and houses around the world. I've seen some doozies of fights break out. Politicians are passionate about their stances. And insane. It's all acting and grandstanding in the US, however. The insanity is still there, though.

Finally, for those of you that think assault rifles are the pinnacle of deadliness and should be banned, they aren't. I hunt and have been around guns my whole life. So I know a few things about them, unlike most people discussing them these days, especially in the media. A pump 12 gauge shotgun with the plug taken out, 00 buckshot with a decent spread would have been FAR deadlier in that nightclub. You have 8 pieces of shot in one of those shells, so conceivably you could kill 8 people with each shot, and get 5 shots off lightning quick before easily reloading. Do the math. An AR-15 which is semi-automatic would need the trigger pulled 40 times to match that. So, should shotguns be banned?

Who Leads the Domestic Terrorism Counsel? They Should be Fired.

noreply@blogger.com (mm) — Mon, 13 Jun 2016 07:23:00 +0000

Here we have a counsel created by the justice department, at great expense I have to imagine, to oversee domestic terrorism issues. I'd say they shouldn't have slept in yesterday, whoever the person is. You see, I can't locate who this person is exactly, in this transparent administration we're enjoying. That info is off-limits. And no indication under the "history" tab on Wikipedia. But whoever the loser is dropped the ball, big-time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Terrorism_Counsel

Orlando: The Latest American Terrorist Attack, but Not the Last by a Mile

noreply@blogger.com (mm) — Mon, 13 Jun 2016 01:37:00 +0000

Waking up today I was besieged, but not surprised, by news that another terrorist attack had occurred last night. As were you, probably. The news is usually the first thing I check, but it may have taken a few minutes longer for you to catch wind of it, no matter where you turned on the internet. But definitely the news of the day.

So, a young middle eastern man with ties to islam shows up at a gay nightclub and blows away 50 people and injures a lot of others. Being a gay nightclub chock-full of Americans, with even the possibility of Christans present, it was a target-rich location to carry out his plans. According to muslim law, not ISIS specifically, incidentally. The FBI had looked at him twice previously, and decided he was no threat for some reason. And now we have mass funerals in Florida.

The ironic thing here is that I'm sure the dead voted for Barack Obama, who I point my finger at for this avoidable tragedy. Obama's an Islam fan, if not outright muslim himself. He won't make any sort of religious commitment, although he's called himself a Christian(I call that a lie) which goes along with his past that's a redacted question mark. Whatever he thinks he is, he's very sympathetic to muslim causes and bows to their will. That's put a lot of stress on a country founded by and full of Christans. Even if you aren't a Christian, there are plenty of muslims that would love to see you die a violent death, just as an American. Don't believe me? Search around the internet. Just make sure you haven't eaten recently.

For years I've gone on about Obama's approach simply emboldening terrorists, and as I've been warning, attacks on Americans and elsewhere in the world have been increasing. A LOT. So there you go. (There are people that disagree with that, somehow. I've lost interest in trying to figure out where in their lives they checked out of reality. For many, it was the college years. For others it was a decade or so later when they realized they wouldn't be able to take care of themselves and would need help through life via Uncle Sam, aka taxpayers. But I don't know, and have stopped caring. These problems are greater than their sad lives.)

This is the price we pay for political correctness. If we, as a nation, don't want to "offend" or disturb a minority's world in which they live(minority being just 1 person, or a minority of the population. Not talking protected classes here.), even if it's alongside or intimate with our own, someone must make a sacrifice. Same with freedom; it's not free. NOTHING is, and that especially goes for political pandering. So, we kept a few people from not being offended, and the bill came due.

Politicians have bought votes with promises of political correctness, and the bill keeps coming due. The price is life and freedom.

The reaction has been predictable, at this point especially. Obama zeroed in on gun control, of all things and as always. He was quick to say this was the worst in 15 years, which was the horrible day we all remember: 9/11/2001, and what personally invited Americans to this muslim party. Removing himself from all blame and any sort of recent attack is his worry. He even cancelled a fundraiser with Hillary(because as president, that's what his job is...) to focus on damage control. His and his party's own.

I'll show you gun control

But there have been attacks on American soil. They're even what I'd call frequent. And there have been worse killings around the globe, quite regularly in fact. Women and children used as bombs, men hacked to death with machetes, women stoned to death for claims of adultry without a real trial, and horrors most Americans can't imagine. (Which is part of the problem. Show an average American what Sharia law is really about, and I assure you some opinions will be changed. Quickly. We live in a nice, comfortable air-conditioned bubble in the US.) And those are just the gruesome deaths. Add in the slavery, rape, torture (psychological & physical), and the rest of the satanic activities connected to this "peaceful" religion around the world, and you have quite a show.

Since these were "protected minorities" instead of just some white guys, you can bet there's special handling by authorities. Homosexuals are by and large Democratic voters. So that presents a political problem for Obama, Clinton, et al. However, from what I've seen so far, they aren't blaming their political choices, but guns, and even Donald Trump, somehow. Self-indictment is something liberals are very careful about. Just watch any of them on trial or at a hearing, which isn't difficult to find. In any case, the script is being adhered to, strictly.

CAIR won't say anything incriminating, which is anything truthful, about it. Oh, they'll "condemn" it and SAY it's terrible. But that's it...which to me is akin to nothing. Crocodile tears or just plain bullshit, whatever you want to call it. But Sharia law will remain intact, nothing will change in the muslim world, and America will go on her way, worrying about islamophobia, racial profiling, Don Trump and Kim Kardashian.

America handles this Muslim/American problem as if it's a military operation. Which makes no sense. This is a religious war waged by, for all intents and purposes, regular-looking muslims among billions of other muslims. Does any politician really think we can push back with military might? Not unless we spend a lot more on R&D in our military which, again, the very people that's meant to protect vote directly against. Some confused people out there.

But once the dust settles and the media finds another tragedy to focus on, like this presidential election cycle, nothing will have changed. And we'll see more frequent, larger-scale and bolder attacks. I've said it before a lot, and just for kicks I'm saying it again. Seems like Jeff Sessions agrees.

Oh, The Political Corruption.

noreply@blogger.com (mm) — Mon, 30 May 2016 02:11:00 +0000

How to "Stop" Donald Trump

noreply@blogger.com (mm) — Mon, 30 May 2016 00:55:00 +0000

If there's something that's become clear during this horrible election cycle, it's this: neither Democrat has anything substantial or possible to run on, and as a result the campaign has become the ugliest I've ever seen in my nearly 50 year life. We're looking at pretty much nothing but a negative campaign where each person smears the other for their transgressions. I'll give Bernie credit; he hasn't devolved to Hillary's level, yet. And for that reason, I'm willing to take a close look at him. But for fear of my grandfather rising from the grave and haunting me the rest of my life, there just is no way I could ever vote for Bernie Sanders. His nose is cleaner than Trump's, and FAR cleaner than Hillary Clinton's, whose entire face is covered in scandal and misdeeds, and she still persists on a daily basis to lie and ooze her way around the country telling her voting base the same tired stupid lines. Which they eat up and don't challenge her on in any way. Sigh.

So Democrats, with nothing to brag about, have set out on a mission: STOP TRUMP. Of course, the nominees want to, but I'm takling about the swaths of liberals in the US that are pseudo-activists. You know the ones. Incidentally, Here's an article that prompted this piece of opinionated tripe of mine you're reading: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/04/how-silicon-valley-created-donald-trump

To stop someone from being elected, there are a few ways to go about it. Offer a better candidate. They can't do that, amazingly. Trump is flawed but, sadly, he's nowhere nearly as fouled as HRC, and I think many people view Sanders as I do: a goofy white socialist whose experience is limited to being a legislator for a resort state half the size of the city I live in, Louisville, Kentucky. (Does that make me a "racist" to some people, to point out BS is white? Probably.) And Louisville isn't a big city, by any means. We're small to mid-size. And tiny compared to a few metropoli.

Of course, experience is a matter of taste apparently. Our current administration is littered with people that, for all intents and purposes, are in their first real jobs, and they're freaking running the country. And I use the term "running" loosely. And although Obama still has some supporters that seem to get their information from another planet, things haven't been going well, and they're now staged to become REALLY bad as laws, unintended consequences, and other time bombs Obama's planted over his terms start to detonate all over the place.

The other ways to "stop" someone from being elected? Kill them, literally. Liberals have pondered that, I'm sure, but I wouldn't consider that a real possibility, at least for the sake of this article. (That's not to say anything can happen, and you never know what some nut might do.) It's a solution, but not legal, and not sportsmanlike, so I'm including it, with an asterisk.

And the other ways are to have him removed by some legal detail, as Obama did with his opponent to win his junior senatorial seat in Illinois. And then another is to just slander the guy incessantly, which is a tactic that is being pursued as well. Never in the history of the world has someone been so attacked by media and piled on by critics. I hear Obama gets it hard, but 1) He's the president, and will take some knocks as such, and 2) What he's criticized for is usually rightful, and 3) I read political commentary and stuff all the time, every day. Obama hasn't been drug around by the media and liberal citizens with a internet connection since....well, never. People have tried to debate that with me, and already lost, easily, when I can present evidence by the pound each hour of each day. Heck, even a LOT of Republicans have shunned him, at best, and are trying to ruin him, at worst, with the dumb #nevertrump stuff. And it cost them some of their success.

I'm not Trump's #1 fan or anything at all, but I do believe in fairness, hate hypocrisy, know made-up lies when I hear them, and if Trump is going to be scrutinized, then the other candidates should as well. The made-up full-page article in the Boston Globe? Amazing. If Obama was vetted half as much as Trump has been(and the guy isn't even nominated yet) we might have a very different America right now. A better America, for sure. Trump's campaign slogan takes that to heart, in fact. "Hope" and "Yes We Can" became predictably "False Hope" and "Never Mind, We Can't. But We'll Screw Everything up Trying."

Trump has thick skin, so berating him is a tactic that's not going to work, I'm afraid. It'll dissuade any liberals from voting for him, which they weren't going to do in the first place, and piss them off as they read, shaking their greasy dreadlocked heads, but that's it.

Mitt Romney was 100% correct in his statement that 47% of the voters don't matter. Of course, that was blown out of proportion and misread by liberals, intentionally or otherwise, to mean that nearly half of Americans "don't matter," as if they're disposable garbage. What he meant, however, as most adults could figure out, is that 47% of voters have their minds made up already and his strategy isn't to persuade them. Worry about the swing voters. The 6% of America that's so politically ignorant they don't know what they want at any given time. Like most elections, this one is going to be close, no matter who's nominated. Because of those 6%.(these percentages are estimates, before anyone tries to take me to task about my data.)

So, how is Silicon Valley going to "stop" Donald Trump? Sorry super-rich young nerds; You aren't.

Is Facebook a Proper Place for Politics?

noreply@blogger.com (mm) — Sun, 29 May 2016 04:01:00 +0000

I post a lot about politics on Facebook. More than some people care for or can stand, apparently, because I've had over 100 "friends" de-friend me over the years because our politics are different. Some people I've known for nearly 3 decades. People are passionate about their politics, myself included, even though I wouldn't put politics before friendships. That I care about.

I don't think FB is a great place to discuss politics, but I'm fairly alone in that regard, and here's the thing:
Everyone has an opinion, sometimes many opinions. These opinions are based on several things primarily: education, social groups, income, religion, social values(if any), life experiences, locale, parents, and all the other factors you can probably just imagine yourself.

This creates all sorts of people of different stripes politically with many different lenses through which they view the world. Some people hate politics, don't want to see anything about them, and will run and hide when they appear, by either "hiding" you, defriending you after a barrage of cusswords (a customary liberal move), or some other manner of censorship to escape it.

Then you have the crowd that NEVER follows politics, business, education, etc...except during elections. The suddenly they're experts and have a STRONG opinion on everything, despite the fact they may be a 46-year-old guitarist for crappy bar bands, or some government monkey that works 40(or less) hours a week in a cubicle, or just some buffoon that needs serious correcting. This is usually who I butt heads with, though not always.

For reference, I'm conservative with my values and finances. Socially, I'm liberal, and in fact I'm a Libertarian. So I like hanging out with artists and weirdos and people that socially are not really from my background. (Somehow we may have gone to the same conservative prep school, however, and inexplicably emerged at different ends of the political spectrum.) I have an MBA and an English degree, so I've been immersed in the humanities and the world of executives, and I enjoy both scenes. I've run businesses and worked for charities, so my worldview is fairly wide. I've traveled a lot around the world. I've followed politics since I was a child, as I have a political family. My aunt worked closely for Jimmy Carter in the NEA, for example, and a close family friend still works for the Carter Center as JC's right-hand man. Doesn't get much more liberal than that. My mother was even mentioned in Hamilton Jordan's book "A Boy from Georgia," which was written just before he died.

Anyway, back to Facebook. Here's a fact: liberals only want to be with other liberals, despite their insistence they're "open-minded," treat everyone as equals, or at least how they want to be treated, and use other phrases that are immediately disproven via their actions. Unless they want to be treated like crap. And the more this current campaign drags on, the more tension and emotion is bubbling over.

I have my political stances, and I rarely waver. I don't know what my strategy is going to be this election. It's a nightmare for everyone. The democrats are truly a joke, and on the GOP side there's Trump. I don't have the problems liberals do with his persona. But obviously that's THE most important thing to liberals. Lies, corruption, cheating, raping, murdering...all fine. Just don't insult people from another country. That's a position I can't even begin to understand. I can handle someone calling me or a stranger something I may not like. I'm not a paper-thin-skinned wuss like Dems seem to be. But do your job, and do it well, and we have no problem. The president's job isn't to be friends with the world and cater to dictators and bow to evil men, like many seem to think it is, a la Obama. It's an EXECUTIVE position. Which means this: develop visions and execute them. Manage people, delegate, finance, plan budgets, etc... and execute. Not via midnight executive orders, loopholes and the court system as Obama does. (How many lawsuits are now against the Obama Admin/US gov't? I lost track when it hit the thousands.) I actually had someone tell me Trumps' business experience has nothing to do with running the US as president. As if Obama's total lack of any experience did. But that type of stupidity is sometimes more than even I can handle. And I post about it on Facebook, because it's so unreal.

And I shouldn't. No one cares what I think, and I'm not going to change anyone's mind, especially if I haven't yet. EVERYone knows where I stand. (Sort of--most liberals just classify me as an enemy and move on, making all sorts of poor and wrong assumptions after stating some insane things with no evidence, as is their MO in life). I truly have been trying not to post political posts on FB. And have failed. I'm not giving up, though. I'm going to try and post my ranty opinions and important political stories I find around the web here instead.

So, if you're reading this (and who isn't!?) and sick of my political crap on FB, take heed: I'm trying to curb that habit. But it will be here in spades. And as non-PC as it gets, baby.

The Flood Gates are Wide Open

noreply@blogger.com (mm) — Mon, 09 May 2016 02:05:00 +0000

Here we are in the thick of the primaries and about to head to the conventions and what have we got: Donald Trump versus Hillary Clinton. Pretty much expected for weeks if not months. And running mates haven't been decided, which is going to make this even more laughable. Both are horrible managers that despite their lack of skills, have managed to build quite the political and business empires. It happens; there are exceptions in this world, and there are always some BIG exceptions. It's just too bad that the American people are horrible managers as a whole as well. We can't hire worth a damn.

When I was born Richard Nixon was in office. And I've followed politics ever since, listening to the nightly news from my crib with my parents watching it on the blaring tv down the hall. My mother watched a lot of PBS, incidentally, as did I as a consequence. ("A lot" being a couple of hours a week back them, not the 40-50 people spend in front of the tube these days.)

I've seen Nixon, Regan, Carter, Ford, Clinton, and 2 Bushes sit in the oval office and managed to study the preceding in my 47 years of meantime. And now Obama, as closely as his tightly guarded and strangely competent media control has allowed me. My political views, including economic and social, haven't wavered much in all that time over those decades. I've become more liberal if anything in my middle years, which is a result of my youthful wife and wisdom/maturity making some things more relevant and important to me than others. Having a family makes me worry more for the future, of course. Financially I want to spend money on my daughter instead of myself and make sure I'm more responsible for her benefit, for example. Well, that makes me more financially conservative, but socially I'm a lot more laid back, trust me. Just in ways no one cares about, enough for me to list them here.

I say without hyperbole Obama's been the worst of any of them and caused more damage to this country/planet than we can imagine, which I've been saying long before I began this blog. He still has his core supporters, and his idealistic believers, and those that think his policies are sound. But they still haven't done their research or their data is bad if they think he was competent in any way, or had any reason to be. You don't hire an obvious charity case who's average in every way, with no real experience, and nothing but a law degree and a shady past to run the executive branch of the USA. His vetting was terrible. That brings me back to the last sentence of my first paragraph. We can't hire worth a damn. We have the common, classic case of the manager being wowed in the interview, and once hired and immediately tenured, we're horrified to see the real person show up for the job. Either we don't know what we're hiring for, or we don't recognize red flags when we should, or we're idiots and easily bamboozled, or we just didn't do our homework. Whatever the case, with the hiring of Obama, the flood gates have been opened wide, and the circus is fully operational. There's no limit now to the insanity we're about to witness, no matter who wins this next election.

It's only going to somehow get worse, most likely through a continuation of current policy via inertia. Things don't pivot on a dime in our massive US government just because we have a new president one day. It takes years, if not decades to steer this ship around sometimes. That's the plan with Obamacare to get us to a single-payor system. Some people think that's a dumb idea, but they simply can't see that far down the road and the trail of consequences that lead us there. They haven't done their homework to know how these policies have worked in the past, within the set of natural, constitutional and economic laws they also know nothing about. That's not to bash on a large group of people, just to analyze the situation from above with all goggles removed.

The Humor in Election 2016

noreply@blogger.com (mm) — Mon, 07 Mar 2016 14:23:00 +0000

Although I rag on liberals quite a bit and make no apologies for hating Brack Obama's policies and think he's impotent as any sort of leader, I am in fact neither for or against the GOP or Democrat party in principle. Usually, the players are the problem and their interpretation of what it means to be a leader.

But I have to laugh watching this election. Democrats have no one to champion: Sanders and Clinton are terrible in their own right. But they sure have someone to gang up on together: Trump. If you can't speak well about your candidate, trash the other guy, I guess. Nice lesson.

Which brings me to this tidbit I found posted on a friend's Facebook wall in reference to Trump, among a string of angry rants by liberals over Trump's very existence in this galaxy:

"A great litmus test is this: how will it reflect on our country when kids get in trouble at school for repeating what they hear their President say?"

Say what? Let's break these criteria down.

"...how it will reflect on our country..." So, our main concern is our appearance, to ...? Other countries? I wonder how worried they are about how they appear to the US. Is this really what you're worried about? For real?

"...when kids get in trouble at school..." Um...our kids are beating up the faculty and each other, when they aren't out shooting each other in their neighborhoods and beating up homeless people. I think our kids are already getting into trouble on their own. Without memorizing and reciting edgy political speeches.

"...what they hear their President say?" The kids that are listening to State of the Union addresses aren't exactly the at-risk crowd. If anything, and at worst, they'll be future politicians.

This is the kind of nonsense we're seeing in this country. And we can't believe we have the clowns we have as candidates and office-holders. You just have to laugh at the stupidity.

The funniest thing is watching so many liberals, Obama fans all in 2008, full of excuses these days, but no apologies or shame, getting their panties in a wad over Trump's ascension. They have no one to blame but themselves. This is proven by a quick look at history and politics in the US, but presumably, that is something they aren't aware. (They were probably too worried about how they were reflecting on the US school system to other countries to attend school the day they taught that.)

What we're seeing is a slingshot effect, which is common and even to be expected. Carter/Reagan. Bush/Clinton/Bush. And when you put an extreme-left crackpot in the Oval office for 8 years, guess what's going to happen next round? (That's right: extreme-right crackpot.)

The Fall of America

noreply@blogger.com (mm) — Sun, 28 Feb 2016 08:10:00 +0000

By "Fall" you can interpret that metaphorically with the season, or the literal meaning of slipping in a downward manner, depending upon your poetic leanings.

But the fact we now are looking at a possible Hillary Clinton/ Donald Trump election is telling enough about the situation the USA is in. Not a good one.

And to me, this began with the campaign of Obama and the rise of social media from being just a toy for the early adopters to a marketing tool that persuades its users. Social media has enabled the already clueless to now feel like they have a participating voice (because they do, via vote) that's well-informed (that isn't, on any scale) because of simply seeing memes and sound bites around the web on Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Instagram, Pinterest, Snapchat, etc...

Even my 13-year-old stepdaughter runs around the house telling me how much she hates Donald Trump. When asked what she knows about Mr. Trump, I get a very short list, mostly of inaccurate "facts." I can only conclude this would be the same response when the average adult American Trump-hater is asked because they get their information from largely the same sources, save The Daily Show(If you consider clownish pop-opinion "information."). And also have about the same work ethic, meaning: they won't bother doing any comprehensive research on their own.

But the ludicrousness of the candidates aside, some very disturbing things are being illuminated. A blatantly lying felon can now run for president while somehow burying evidence and delaying what would have put the average American behind bars long ago. Obama winning, twice, illustrates that a candidate doesn't need any relevant experience whatsoever for the highest office in the land. Those that claim he had any just make themselves dubious by stating such an inaccurate thing.

The odds that a poor, by most American standards, pot-smoking, black, self-admitted average student (who somehow went to 2 ivy-league schools, but has followers that don't think he was an affirmative-action case), working out of crime-ridden Chicago, with no record to run on, affiliations with very seedy people who he distanced himself from immediately(at least some. The rest he put into his cabinet and admin), no meaningful work experience at all, and on and on and on could become president of the USA seemed HUGE prior to that first election. He couldn't round up a birth certificate which, born in the US or not, who in America can't find their birth certificate? Especially someone that is in politics?. He said he was Christian but seems to favor Islam. But doesn't seem to actually practice any religion. And, of course, won't just come out and say it whatever the case is.

So when it was time for the second term election, our faux-pas-committing, inelegant and classless, lover of "missteps" and "misstatements" milquetoast prez, with a slew of failed projects under his belt, and committing us to Trillions more in debt for no reason ran, surely he wouldn't win again.

Wrong.

He won again no problem, and now we're looking at an election that reads as a bad SNL sketch. And you know how bad those can be.

We have an information problem. I've lost faith in the numbers being used and provided, by anyone really, when the government gets to tamper with them first or is involved and there are agendas at hand, which is most of the time with an activist president. And a deprecated IT system. And other factors that dirty data.

For the past 2 presidential terms, "facts" and figures have been spun and manipulated so badly, that no one should trust what they're being fed anymore. I don't know why you would. Yes, some of the press willingly helps with this, as people lament and argue about, but some media outlets, I believe, just are reporting what they're given, without the resources to verify or argue what they're getting from their sources, and so that's now what becomes history. And don't count on Joe Sixpack to be able to handle regression analytics and the intricacies of polling and surveys and the entire political and global economic system to weed through it all. By the time that "news" is distilled and memified and put on Twitter in under 140 characters, the damage has long been done, in many ways, and irreparably.

What all this points to, to me, is that most US citizens no longer care about "the USA." They are concerned with, in this order: themselves and their immediate gratification, their cable tv and iPhone, their car, their family, their health, their job, and then WAAAAY down the list are their neighbors and the USA. So who cares who the president is? As long as those things are cool, then put Satan in the Oval Office for all we care.

Billy Bob is the Problem & Threat Apparently, Not Muhammed. Just FYI.

noreply@blogger.com (mm) — Mon, 19 Oct 2015 06:43:00 +0000

Holy Moly. Check out this article, and then see if what I think makes any sense and this country's gone crazy, or if I'm nuts.(EDIT: CNN decided to "update" their article after I posted this to be a little more palatable)

So now anti-government beliefs constitute domestic terrorism and, according to this article and the man put in charge of this "despicable," and to be equated with flat-out racism and anarchy. And, despite young men of middle-eastern descent doing nearly all of the terrorism-related killing and the article itself presenting 30 of the FBI's most-wanted for terrorism and all but 2 are middle-eastern men, a bunch of white supremacist morons with no real agenda are who they're devoting their efforts and our resources to thwarting? I'm not defending white supremacists at all or in any fashion whatsoever, but how can Louis Farrakhan call for 10,000 black men to immediately revolt and kill whites as he just did the other week, and that not be a problem to anyone? Not only that, but he was later just sitting on the front row at the million-man march reunion last week, with his giant portrait next to MLK Jr's, as if.

The effort that's being put forth to segment voters into targetable groups is off the chart. I've never seen so much disharmony, racial tension, hatred, discontent, resentment, or man being pitted against man in America my life, and I'm at the age now where I've seen some stuff.

Ted Cruz Calls Out Mitch McConnell

noreply@blogger.com (mm) — Sat, 25 Jul 2015 07:03:00 +0000

Mitch McConnell, the Republican senator from my state Kentucky, got slammed by Ted Cruz, and Ted calls him a liar. Which he is. Most, if not all politicians are. But Cruz is right. McConnell is a bad person to be "leading" this state, in my opinion. And I'm conservative, with the exception of quite a few social issues.

Majority Leader Gets Called Out

The USA, Inc by Mary Meeker, 2011 Style

noreply@blogger.com (mm) — Sat, 11 Apr 2015 10:30:00 +0000

I just stumbled across a 244 page .pdf by Mary Meeker from 2011 which I remember well. This is a great read. I wanted to post it here, since the title of her work is the USA, Inc., which is the same as this blog. WordPress may be my saviour. I think you can post .pdfs on their free sites(the .com side of the coin). I'll link to it if I can make it happen. Success! CLICK HERE!

What's Going On With Lois Lerner and the IRS Scandal?

noreply@blogger.com (mm) — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 06:07:00 +0000

There isn't a lot of hurry and rush apparently to answer some tough questions concerning the IRS scandal and Lois Lerner and her "lost" emails. I personally believe there's something fishy going on, to be polite.

Weeks turn into months, which become years. And we have no answers. Maybe one day.

EDIT: It's now April 11th 2015, and still nothing.
EDIT: It's now over a year later on Feb. 28, 2016 and nothing has happened, still.

http://blogs.fedsmith.com/2015/02/11/senator-asks-irs-how-it-recovered-lerners-lost-emails/

Cold War 2.0

noreply@blogger.com (mm) — Tue, 27 Jan 2015 10:33:00 +0000

I really wonder if Putin would have felt so emboldened if someone else with some balls were in the White House. We've basically restarted the Cold War, unbelievably. Or, maybe it isn't that shocking, considering.

The people that will die and suffer because of this is incalculable. Not because it's a large number, which maybe it is, but there isn't a way to tally the misery.

Standard & Poor's just listed Russia's credit rating as junk. Russian military has been spotted in all sorts of weird places. Strange times we're suddenly living in.

Why are "We" Giving the Government so Much Power over Ourselves?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 18:39:00 +0000

Here's yet one more program recently developed by our community organizer that has quickly failed: The Obama Mortgage Program.

Add this to Cash for Clunkers, the massively expensive 'Stimulus' (which assures indebtedness for every American for decades, if not centuries and was nothing more than a Democrat Pork Barrel dream come true) and the other "crises" that only government, not private citizens as always in the past, could solve. My favorite analogy to date is the Wizard of Oz, which hinges on another appropriate analogy: a movie set. There is nothing behind the curtain, and no substance to the actual players or set. It's a cardboard set with good lighting, believable actors and of course plenty of cue cards. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain that you believed could give you a heart, brain, courage, and pay your car payment and stop an oil spill.

I think it's pretty clear to most that are paying attention that this administration is inept, excuse-laden, totally power-hungry, egotistical, and dirty. If you disagree, please let me know and I'll give you more evidence than would ever be needed to convince the wobbliest of jurors. Yet even in the midst of the latest fiasco, the Gulf oil spill, people are clamoring to get the government involved, as well as any other daily personal malady that normal people are faced with and used to handle themselves via work and smarts. That's something this administration would LOVE, and will continue to fully exploit. Nancy Pelosi had already said this is going to lead to her fighting to pass her "flagship" legislation, cap-and-trade. She also said she was "agnostic to the means that lead to the end," meaning law, procedure, public opinion, common-sense, research, contrary fact, and the pesky constitution all be damned. She and her commemorators will try to ram this down our throats, as we've already seen happen. Hopefully this will not come to pass, or else I'm moving to another planet. (If it does pass, and has already made it past Congress, we will be mandated to reduce our power consumption to the level of the year 1867 within 4 decades. I kid you not.

Incidentally, I saw a Rasmussen poll this AM that stated that 62% of Americans say that most politicians want more money and power for the government. Meanwhile, 58% of Americans want the government to have less money and power. Huh? I guess that sheds some light on why we are where we are.

Is This What It's Come to? A Modern Civil War?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 19 May 2010 22:33:00 +0000

If you haven't heard yet, you will soon enough: a civil war is brewing between Arizona and Los Angeles.

So this is how we're going to go about unifying a nation: have America vs. Washington and the states and municipalities shutting each other down, economically and literally, because too many democrat's votes are at stake?

I have my doubts that the mayor of LA is really concerned with 4th amendment rights, and is actually more interested in amnesty for all illegal hispanics=larger voting base for himself: a hispanic mayor (whose girlfriend I know from S.C.) in a huge city with an enormous hispanic population. Call me a skeptic about this whole thing.

Obama's Transparent, But Not in the Way He Promised.

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 19 May 2010 19:55:00 +0000

This is just becoming silly. Yesterday I expressed a concern that our President, (whose eloquence and wit like most actors and talking heads, is matched only by the number of teleprompters nearby, with other people's ideas scrolling away,) is quietly working to suppress media that point out his misdeeds, disagree with his policies, or he just doesn't care for. And I don't just mean Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, but the entire network and system, including the internet. (Hmm...that sounds familiar, but I dare not point out the obvious past "leaders" that favor this tactic, and why.) With media companies hurting so badly right now, I can almost see the play: bail them out with taxpayer money in the name of "too big" or important to fail, then the U.S. government owns them as well, and that's the end of that. Our bedmate China surely wouldn't have a problem with that tactic.

In addition, he's also (scarily) working to have the White House only release and distribute news it sees fit to publicize, and just do away with all middlemen that may not only put the spin Obama needs, but even mention why this long stream of stupidity coming out of D.C. is completely treacherous and ill-conceived, especially for the middle and long-term. Sort of like how government schools choose what and how to release information/education to its unfortunate pupils, to prepare them for the most mundane and mediocre of lives, but be perfect government employees/subjects. However when the Freedom of Information Act is employed, it will be interesting to see how Obama skirts it and what sort of immunity he claims.

So, here's today's ridiculousness from the White House: our president, who (along with Pelosi and the other Dems currently on a major power trip), as I pointed out yesterday hasn't has a press conference in nearly a year, meets with the Mexican president yesterday. Seeing as how there is a small item in the news lately and an ongoing and increasingly heated and important battle about illegal immigration reform on this continent, one would think that would have been a nice opportunity to have a sit-down with the two people in charge of the countries' governments and discuss it, with goals set, action items laid out, and a meeting of the minds formed. In fact both Obama and Calderon stated there needs to be reform, which seemed to be the entire conference. Calderon wasn't even asked a question. Of course I hope it goes without saying that BOTH men would love a borderless arrangement. More money for Mexico, more votes and power for Obama; therefore, Nothing will be done by the federal government while democrats are in charge. Plain and simple. Another reason for the Eric Holder jump to blast AZ's bill without even reading it, and all the knee-jerk democrat reactions to a law that merely mirrors what's already on the Fed's books and in fact was used to create the AZ law. But I digress.

In what was already going to be a joke of a very expensive conference, it then was distilled down to only having 2 reporters allowed at the "event," and only one question asked, only to Obama, to which no real answer was given. That's a complete waste of time and resources like only the government could develop, but it makes me wonder: if this was Bush, would there still be an absence of outrage, especially from the left? So why is this getting a free pass (I ask myself that daily about the hypocrisy I see in America and politics in particular)? But no one seems to notice or care, other than apparently me. Obama's frequent and mighty promise of transparency has been broken over and over to the point it is now just a laughable whopper of a lie. In fact, it's beginning to come across as hiding, for which no one could blame him. But no outrage or even worry. The president is not only thumbing his nose at the media, which put him where he is, but now alienating them and, for some reason, staging faux press conferences.

This, in addition to many other courses that are being set by this administration, cannot be good precedents, and undoing the tangles caused by this administration's attitude of entitlement will take decades, if not centuries to undo, if ever.

Same Country, Different Worlds

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 18 May 2010 21:47:00 +0000

I've been watching what this administration does as much as I can, and one of my smaller issues is quickly becoming larger, and I've mentioned it before on this blog. But lately it's becoming blatant: the "stealthy"(I am using that word euphemistically) manner in which the government is implementing "change" and for once not entirely what that change is and how it's leading to a status quo which few Americans want.

Obamacare is a scam that was run through using a legal technicality, and the outrage over that seems to have subsided, along with unpopular bailouts, the massive stimulus bill that hasn't even been spent and many states want no part of, and on and on. It seems if anyone would like to question someone who may have answers about any of this, they're quickly labeled a teabagger, Nazi, or provided some other uninformative retort.

I haven't heard much debate lately about whether the mainstream media is biased--maybe because facts that firms such as the Pew Center collect don't lie. Maybe it's because Obama is biting the hand that fed him, and actually seems to want to bite it off.

Obama hasn't held an official press corps meeting in nearly a year. He refuses to speak to them, as witnessed HERE. He recently claimed that the Internet is a poor place to find information, which was humorous, but alarming. The Internet helped put Obama in the oval office and he relied on it heavily during his campaign. He also promised all legislature that passed over his desk would be posted for at least 72 hours on the White House website for everyone to read before he acted on it, but that's another story. However, the weapon he used against McCain is turning on him, as an overpreponderance of facts and information are coming to light.

I'm not ready to jump overboard and claim Obama is a tyrant yet, but he is quietly implementing a plan to bypass the private media outlets and just release the "White House News" or whatever his focus groups deem catchy. One of the first steps tyrants take is to grab for media control, just as cutting power is one of the first steps when an army wants to immobilize an enemy camp.

Also, he now is futzing around with grabbing the Internet under the realm of the FCC. A court ruled the Internet was for information, not communication, so it fell under a non-governmental authority. We can't have that, of course, so now Obama is rigging it so the Internet may be covered by the government. Not much press play on this. Same with the Puerto Rico movement, which I really think has a chance as being passed, and PR being our 51st state. Especially since an earthquake hit it yesterday. No good crisis shall go to waste.

Also, I'm about to call Hell and see if it has frozen over. I agree with Bill Maher on not one but two(2!) points: Steve Jobs would rip this country into shape(Not that a sane person would ever want to be president of this country), and Obama's strategy of attacking the media is stupid, as far as he goes.