Freaky Friday cont.

I guess the PETA people won this one.  It’s a shame that there is so much political correctness out there.  Oh Well, I guess they convinced someone they had a point.  Read the story here

Freaky Friday

On the lighter side of life, PETA is upset again. Read this for a good laugh:

Kraft draws ire for road kill candy
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) ― Animal rights activists are disgusted by a new candy from Kraft Foods Inc. that's shaped like critters run over by cars ― complete with tire treads.

The fruity-flavored Trolli Road Kill Gummi Candy ― in shapes of partly flattened snakes, chickens and squirrels ― fosters cruelty toward animals, according to the New Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

"It sends the wrong message to children, that it's OK to harm animals. And that's the wrong message, especially from a so-called wholesome corporation like Kraft," said society spokesman Matthew Stanton.

The society is considering petition drives, boycotts and letter-writing campaigns to get the candy pulled from the market, Stanton said.

After receiving a complaint from the NJSPCA Wednesday, Kraft officials pulled an animated advertisement from Trolli's Web site that featured car headlights and animals. No other decisions on changes have been made, said Kraft spokesman Larry Baumann.

"If you look across the Gummi category we certainly have many products that are offbeat, and that's what we were doing in this case," Baumann said. "We didn't mean to offend anyone."

Quotes of the Day, a continuing study

The point to remember is that what government gives it must first take away. John Strider Coleman, 1897-1958

A military operation involves deception. Even though you are competent, appear to be incompetent. Though effective, appear to be ineffective. Sun-tzu, forth century B.C.

No government can be long secure without a formidable opposition. Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of Beaconsfield, 1804-1881

The world of politics is always twenty years behind the world of thought. John Jay Chapman, 1862-1933

A liberal is a man who will give away everything he doesn't own. Frank Dane

Remembering World Travels

One of the many memories I have from my world travels as a Marine center on a Serbian soldier I shared a beer with in an open air bar in Thailand in 1994 during Operation Cobra Gold. We talked a while about our individual duties, where we had been, and the camaraderie that members of all the worlds armed forces seem to share when they aren't scuffling with one another.

He then struck me with a question I could not answer. I have given it much thought since then, and am struggling with the answer more today. He asked me..."You are from America, which is a Christian country, My people are also Christians, so why are your people bombing my people? Aren't we all Christians? They are just Muslims!"

Granted Milosevic is guilty of ethnic cleansing and other atrocities, but given the world events over the last 3 1/2 years, wouldn't most Americans now agree with my Serbian friend (not Milosevic). Were we on the wrong side in Bosnia? I used to think that we were indeed on the right side because it was unjust for one group of people to try to wipe out another just because they are different. I am now thinking that maybe it was the Muslims who "started it" and it was the Christians who had finally gotten the upper hand and were trying to just win their own war, which in a round about way has become the "Global War on Terrorism". Maybe Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, Congress and about half of the American Public won't admit it, but we are in a holy war. No one will admit it because it is not politically correct, but everyone knows it deep down inside.

Let the Felons Vote?

Hillery Clinton wants felons to vote read the story here.
I don't know why this catches me off guard. It only makes sense for someone like Hillery to propose this idea.

Felons committed a serious crime. Once that line is crossed, they lose certain rights for the rest of their lives. These rights include possessing a firearm and voting. Most states (if not all) also forbid a felon from owning real estate.

This is just more evidence that the Democrats are losing their grip on reality. I guess they no longer feel they can win a national election using only honest people and empty lots in Chicago.

Local Newspaper threatens Blogger....A must read for all political and current issue bloggers

February 15, 2005

Whirled threatens BatesLine

NOTE to those of you who normally skip the Tulsa stuff here: Please read this entry. This is not just about the sordid little world of Tulsa politics. This is the old media trying to intimidate their critics in the new media into silence. It has repercussions for any blogger engaged in media criticism. It strikes at the heart of what blogs do. I'd appreciate your help in putting the blogosphere's spotlight of shame on this legal threat.

Full Story here..http://www.batesline.com/archives/001274.html
also see...http://michellemalkin.com/archives/001521.htm

Quote of the Day

"It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs, whether any free government can be permanent, where the public worship of God, and the support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape. The future experience of Christendom, and chiefly of the American states, must settle this problem, as yet new in the history of the world, abundant, as it has been, in experiments in the theory of government." --Joseph Story

"We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this Land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition, and that every person may here worship God according to the dictates of his own heart. In this enlightened Age and in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man's religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest Offices that are known in the United States." --George Washington

What Social Security Crisis

In 1935, wealthy liberal do-gooder Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the most notorious violator of Constitutional federalism in the 20th Century, found a clause in that venerable document authorizing the central government to provide retirement benefits for all Americans. Apparently, 100 years earlier, that clause did not exist. So claimed another Democrat, Tennessee's Davy Crockett, who rose on the floor of Congress and chastised his colleagues for their proposal to appropriate benefits for the widow of a distinguished naval officer.

Crockett protested: "I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we...have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity."

Crockett was echoing the words of our Constitution's author, James Madison, who said, most eloquently, "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...." Madison further noted, "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."

However, those words were long lost on FDR, who eviscerated federalism in his relentless endeavor to make the central government the agent of salvation for all ills. In June of 1934, he announced to Congress one lasting example of that endeavor -- his intent to create a nationalized Social Security program, ushering the United States into the ranks of Europe's welfare democracies. The nation was in the midst of the Great Depression, and FDR was funding his political dynasty by redistributing wealth. After all, as noted by George Bernard Shaw, "A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend upon the support of Paul." FDR's plan, like all unbridled populist-entitlement programs, was popular with the democratic majority -- and helped ensure his re-election to office three times.

Social Security's first beneficiary was Ernest Ackerman of Cleveland, Ohio, who retired one day after the Social Security Act was signed into law 14 August 1935. A nickel was withheld from Ackerman's final paycheck, but he received his one-time lump-sum Social Security payment ... 17 cents.

That 12-cent return was the beginning of unforeseen things to come. Soon, congressional amendments added benefits for spouses, minor children and survivors, and by 1950 the program assured virtually universal coverage. 1972 saw the addition of the Supplemental Security Income

(SSI) program (AKA "welfare"), and by 1975 the addition of annual Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAs) assured the SS juggernaut's exponential growth. In 1977, Medicare became an independent entitlement, spun off from the Social Security system. Today, despite its humble beginnings, the Social Security system confronts our young people with the grim prospect of paying for unfunded promises made to past generations.

Notwithstanding the "welfare reform" acts of the 1990s, when Social Security turned 65, SSI benefits covered 6,688,489 Americans at a cost of $32,165,856,000, while Social Security itself disbursed some $431,949,000,000 to 45,877,506 beneficiaries. However, those staggering numbers are mere chump change compared to what lies ahead.

President George W. Bush's modest proposal to reform Social Security appears to be a good start at diverting this behemoth from its collision course with insolvency. Predictably, though, the latest retort from the Left is, "What insolvency? What crisis?" Indeed, these do-nothing Demos claim the Fed's IOUs in Social Security's so-called "trust fund,"

combined with minor tweaks to the system, will keep it solvent for generations.

Well, not exactly. Unless Democrats plan to "tweak" the system by increasing both the retirement age and the current 12.4% SS tax, adding more government debt and reducing benefits, Social Security will not have the revenues to refund current IOUs and meet the SS revenue shortfall. IOUs? For generations, every dime forcibly taken from worker paychecks -- ostensibly to finance the non-existent SS "trust fund" -- has been taken from that fund and applied to other massive entitlement programs.

Social Security outlays now consume 4.28 percent of GDP but will exceed 6 percent in 20 years. There are two reasons for this growth:

demographics and benefits increases.

There are 48 million Social Security beneficiaries today, but in 2030 there will be 84 million. In 1950, there were 16 SS taxpayers for every recipient. Now there are only 3.3 taxpayers for every recipient, and that will be reduced 30 percent by 2030. Additionally, when SSI was formed, life-expectancy was 61 years, which is to say, most Americans did not make it to 65. Now, however, average life expectancy is 77.

The second reason for the SSI balloon is that benefits have not been indexed to inflation. Future retirees are being guaranteed retirement increases that grow substantially faster than inflation.

Social Security, as currently managed, will incur an estimated unfunded liability of 27 trillion 2003 dollars over the next 75 years. To offset this jaw-slackening shortfall, President Bush has proposed the incremental privatization of some SSI taxes by allowing individuals under age 55 to invest in personal retirement accounts (PRAs). Additionally, Congress must resolve to index benefits to inflation.

The President's three-year PRA opt-in for SSI taxpayers born after 1950 would allow them to put up to four percent of their wages in their PRAs. At retirement, those invested in PRAs would be guaranteed to receive at least what their payout would be if they only had SSI income. But those beneficiaries whose PRAs have a higher return can share in that return, which reduces the burden on the SSI fund, and the principal balance is fully inheritable.

from The Federalist

More Quotes of the Day

·Bumper sticker of the year: "If you can read this, thank a teacher -and, since it's in English, thank a Marine !!"

"[I]n 1848, Karl Marx said, a progressive income tax is needed to transfer wealth and power to the state. Thus, Marx's Communist Manifesto had as its major economic tenet a progressive income tax. ... I say it is time to replace the progressive income tax with a national retail sales tax, and it is time to abolish the IRS." --Rep. James Traficant, Jr.

"President Bush...release[d] his 2006 budget, requesting slightly more than $2.5 trillion in spending. That's $2,500,000,000,000. If a Democrat proposed a budget this big, Republican fiscal hawks would squawk to the top of the Capitol dome." --Stephen Moore ++

"A Republican president sits in the White House. The GOP enjoys clear majorities in both houses of Congress. If now isn't the time to control federal spending, when will it be?" --John Fund

"Social Security should be phased out and ended altogether. ... Social Security in any form is morally irredeemable. We should be debating, not how to save Social Security, but how to end it -- how to phase it out so as to best protect both the rights of those who have paid into it, and those who are forced to pay for it today. This will be a painful task. But it will make possible a world in which Americans enjoy far greater freedom to secure their own futures." --Alex Epstein

"[I]f the party of gloom is ever to regain its footing, it will have to start by understanding that those who defeated them are not a bunch of ignorant yahoos looking forward to Armageddon." --Mona Charen

"Iraq's real Minutemen in the vanguard of popular revolt are the Iraqi voters whose actions said 'give me liberty,' despite the threats of reactionary thugs who promised to give them death." --Austin Bay

"This President well understands the war for Iraq, and for the Middle East, is fought not just in Iraq and Afghanistan but here, on the home front. This is a war not just for Iraqi freedom but for American opinion." --Paul Greenberg

From "The Federalist"

Quotes of the day

"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." --Nikita Khrushchev

 

"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 knowing how it happened."--Norman Thomas

 

"Of all the properties which belong to honorable men, not one is so highly prized as that of character." --Henry Clay

 

"The high-minded man must care more for the truth than for what people think." --Aristotle

 

US citizens want to move to the Great White North

According to the New York Times, there are over 18,000 US citizens trying to move to Canada because of the election results that kept President Bush in the White House, and gave him an even larger majority in both houses of Congress.  I say good riddance.  Don’t these people realize that if they move, and hopefully give up their citizenship, they won’t have a say in the future of our government.  Maybe that’s the point.  They will live else where, but still vote.  I sure hope they enjoy Canada.  It seems to me to be a very scenic country, with lots of hockey.  It can’t be all that bad, even if it does take a week or so to see a doctor if you have strep throat.

 

Maybe Barbara Streisand will throw a benefit concert to help all of these disgruntled liberals with their moving expenses.  Maybe she will go too….Maybe that’s just wishful thinking.

 

But seriously….Am I the only one who thinks that if these people were truly patriotic, they would stay I their country and try to help keep the country on the track they think is the correct direction. Not that I will miss these people who want to move, but they would better serve OUR country by staying.

Two words for Bush's Budget....Too Big

 

 

I miss the days of the “fiscal conservative.”  Our president is one of the biggest spenders I have seen.  So much for the days of big government being over.  I didn’t think that was true when Bill Clinton said it, and I sure don’t believe it with Bush either.  I guess compassionate conservatives are radically different from fiscal conservatives.  I can only hope that Sen. Inhofe gets to take a red pen to the budget and cuts everything except the FAA and the DOD, my 2 personal favorites.

 

The larger government gets, the more it can, has, and will take our freedoms away from us.  Whatever happened to the days when a limited federal government was something every citizen wanted.  I almost feel like that concept died with Publius.  I wish we still heard of cuts as large as entire departments.  The Department of Education would be a lovely start.  Don’t get me wrong, I am not anti-education.  Instead, I support more control of education by local and state governments.  The 10^th amendment to the Constitution guarantees the states every right and function not explicitly given to the federal government.  Education is not mentioned in the constitution, therefore this includes oversight of the education system.  Somewhere along the way, some major sidetracks happened.  Yes, that’s right.  I am on record as saying that The Department of Education is unconstitutional.  Ronnie was RIGHT! Not just right wing.

 

Hey Bush, Thanks for the tax cut, get control of spending! Then give me another tax cut.  It’s my money, not yours!

 

Sounds like I’m an evil conservative huh.

Back to current events tomorrow

Just to break up the routine this blog is starting to form I’m offering you…….

The World's Easiest Looking Quiz

=================================

(Answers at the bottom. Hey - NO Cheating!)

1) How long did the Hundred Years War last?

2) Which country makes Panama hats?

3) From which animal do we get catgut?

4) In which month do Russians celebrate the October Revolution?

5) What is a camel's hair brush made of?

6) The Canary Islands in the Atlantic are named after what
animal?

7) What was King George VI's first name?

8) What color is a purple finch?

9) Where are Chinese gooseberries from?

10) How long did the Thirty Years War last

Answers To The Quiz

1) How long did the Hundred Years War last? 116 years, from 1337 to 1453.

2) Which country makes Panama hats? Ecuador.

3) From which animal do we get catgut? From sheep and horses.

4) In which month do Russians celebrate the October Revolution?
November. The Russian calendar was 13 days behind ours.

5) What is a camel's hair brush made of? Squirrel fur.

6) The Canary Islands in the Atlantic are named after what animal?
The Latin name was Insularia Canaria - Island of the Dogs.

7) What was King George VI's first name?
Albert. When he came to the throne in 1936, he respected the
wish of Queen Victoria that no future king should ever be
called Albert.

8) What color is a purple finch? Distinctively crimson.

9) Where are Chinese gooseberries from? New Zealand.

10) How long did the Thirty Years War last?
Thirty years, of course. From 1618 to 1648.

It's amazing how the simple is not so simple and the obvious is not so obvious.

Also, when you've been wrong nine times, you don't trust yourself anymore and even when truth is presented to you, because of past failures, you doubt the obvious

...you doubt you.

Don't let past failures convince you that you can't be right, that you can't do it, that success isn't destined for you.

We don't fail because we don't succeed,

we fail because we quit,

believing that we can't win.

Thought of the Day

 

 

If beans are vegetables, and coffee comes from a bean, are Starbucks patrons vegetarians?

I overheard.......

 

…….a conversation today that made me think.  The only voice I heard was that of a young lady. I’d say about 25 years old.  She was commenting on Bush’s State of the Union speech last night.  She started off by saying “I am a liberal, I am about as extreme a liberal as you can get.”  “I mean I just hate Bush.” “I watched the speech last night just to count the number of times he would stutter.”  She went on and on, but she just kept re-stating that she hated Bush.  I just sat and thought about my blog entry a few days ago where I talked about a party in decline.  This young lady had no desire to talk about issues and ideals.  You could just tell she had a “hate” within her that I thought would not quit.  Her attitude of hate is why the liberals will not gain more power than they already have.  Hate doesn’t win elections, and you have to win elections to set policy.  Being a conservative, I quietly hope the liberals never quit hating like that, but the thinker in me hopes that they will actually enter into fruitful debate.  Maybe then we can all come up with lasting solutions to our problems.  I finally had to say something, so I turned to her, extended my hand, and said “I am your political antithesis, I hope we can still be friends.”  She shook my hand and smiled, but it wasn’t genuine.  That’s too bad.

I thought 5.6% was bad

European Economies: German Jobless Rise to Record (Update3)

Feb. 2 (Bloomberg) -- German unemployment jumped to the highest since World War II as new rules added welfare recipients to the jobless register, clouding the outlook for Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder in elections this month.

The number of people out of work in January rose by 227,000 to 4.71 million in seasonally adjusted terms, including 230,000 new jobless claimants, the Nuremberg-based Federal Labor Agency said today. The adjusted unemployment rate rose to 11.4 percent

And I thought everyone was complaining that Bush was a terrible President because he “caused a 5.6% unemployment rate?  I guess socialism doesn’t work, so why do the liberals keep trying to take the USA there?

 

 

Freedom of Speech and College Professors

Amendment I, Constitution of the United States of America

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I don't want to write about that Professor from the University of Colorado and his inflamatory comments. There is enough coverage out there to bore anyone to tears.

What I do want to do is ask you to read the 1st amendment carefully, and think about whether the professor had his rights infringed upon. Then I want you to decide whether the University has the right or obligation to fire this man. Why or why not? Feel free to leave a comment.

Differences

One of the things that really glares at me is how the two political parties act in different situations.  I think these differences give the Democrats an advantage that the Republicans could take away if they would act.  When the Democrats are in the majority of either house in Congress, they act as if they own the house.  They enforce what they want and to hell with what ever anyone else thinks.  When they are in the minority, they act as if they are still in a position of power.  They use that power to control the direction of debate and still manage to put the Republicans in a defensive posture.  They also simply refuse to admit that they really are the minority. 

 

The Republicans on the other hand, always act as if they are the minority party.  They are afraid to assert any power that is theirs for the taking as the majority party.  When the Republicans are in the minority they simply act as if they belong there and are just along for the ride.  Come on guys, YOU CONTROL THE ENTIRE CONGRESS! PASS YOUR AGENDA! Or you will lose that power to the guys who act as if they still have it.  Perception is reality to the common voter.

Third Rail in the Spotlight

Looks like the good ol' 3rd rail of politics is heating up again (or did it ever cool down). Social Security is in the spotlight for the State of the Union Address on Wednesday night. We all need this change. I have been putting thousands of dollars into a system that I have known since I was 12 would be insolvent by the time I qualified for benefits. Around half of our income tax goes to Social Security. Look at your paystub if you don't believe me. If I could opt out of the system and not receive benefits I would take it in a heartbeat. Even if I spent the money immediately and did not save a dime, I would be better off. Deep down inside everyone knows that social security is on a course for self destruction.

Word on the street has it that several Republican House members are threatening not support this idea because they are worried about re-election. If they would support the bill it looks like a win-win situation to me. If the bill passes and we get private accounts for a portion of our contributions, that is GREAT. Then if the Republicans lose control of the House but keep the Senate, government spending will decrease because it will be gridlock all over again. Gridlock is good for taxpayers that are concerned about their pocketbook, it usually stops loads of spending bills. Anytime there is gridlock government becomes paralyzed which means they cannot pass laws, fewer laws is a good thing!

If there are no changes made to SS and it goes bankrupt and gets desolved soon the better off we are.

What a bittersweet response

Reuters indicates that 72% of registered Iraqi's turned out to vote with 3 hours to go before polls closed. That is wonderful! That is the voice of freedom speaking loud and clear. It's not a perfect election, but we can't even have one here. I say it is bittersweet because it is so sweet to see so many Iraqi's show up to vote to move their country forward, but bitter when I think that we are lucky to get a 50% turnout for a presidential election WITHOUT threats of death if we vote in America.

Every beginning has a consequence-every beginning ends something. Paul Valery, 1871-1945