Tuesday, January 30, 2007

32 Powers and The One Sentence 

How We Got Into This Mess

I was doing research for a piece on how our rights as Americans are slowly, but surely being eroded. A little chip here, a little chip there. I got a little side-tracked.

I compiled a list of all of the powers listed in the Constitution that are granted to our government. For your information, there are only 32 specific powers granted to the Legislative Branch (23), the Executive Branch (8) and the Judicial Branch (1).

This research led me to try and find out how many federal agencies there really are, and what they're doing. I found this great resource at LSU. Don't go there unless you want your head to explode in a bloody, twisted mess.

I start seeing crap like this: Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled. What? We have a whole federal agency that makes sure the blind have pencils and apples to sell?

Or this: African Development Foundation. Or National Invasive Species Council. Hey, how about this: President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency. Is that an under-utilized agency, or what?

Clearly, not a single one of these has any remote connection to the 32 powers vested in our federal government. Yet we're paying for all of them, and hundreds more.

We have one sentence in one of the granted rights that I believe has led us down this horrible path of bloated, expanded government. Congress is empowered to:
Lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States
Now, most people might focus in on the "Lay and collect taxes" part. Not me. We have to pay for the government, so Congress must be empowered to collect taxes. No, the part that I believe has been the most ruinous is at the very end. Where Congress is providing for the "general welfare" of the United States. What the hell does that mean?

Because the "general welfare" can be interpreted in so many ways, we have built ourselves this Nanny State. It has been used as the justification for this rapid, unchecked growth in our government. This growth has taken the form of prohibition (DEA) to protectionism (FDA). From charity (FEMA) to art (NEA). All in the name of our "general welfare".

I believe that this run-away train started in 1914 with The Harrison Narcotics Tax Act. This was the first substantial step towards the government telling its citizens what was in their best interest. Interestingly, the debate in our Congress on this issue was not about Nanny State-ism, but about how the US should comply with international treaties. It was the first shot fired in the War On Drugs.

Once Americans became comfortable with Uncle Sam telling them what was good for them, it became easier for the government to expand its footprint. You merely needed to cite one horrific example - they used the opium scourge for the Harrison Act - and no one dared speak up against it. It's for the people, don't ya know?
"What? You don't want American kids to be the best educated in the world? Then how could you be against the Department of Education?"

"What? Don't you want this sick little child, or this poor, poor homeless mother to have the best medical options possible? Do you want them living in the streets, you rich, capitalist pig? Then how could you be against the Department of Health and Human Services?"

"Kids all across America are hooked on dope. You love your kids, don't you? Then how could you be against the Drug Enforcement Agency?"
Once they got on a roll, it became easy to rush this garbage past the American people. No smoking laws. Drunk driver checkpoints stopping citizens that have not shown any probable cause. Laws on which fats you can eat. Content prohibitions on TV and radio (can't I just turn it off if it offends me?!). Minimum wage. Gun control. Eminent Domain. Affirmative Action.

We're just so screwed. Clearly, in my lifetime - I'm 48 - I will not see the return to Self Reliance and minimal government, but I'll probably witness the coming crash. We will continue to spiral out of control for the next 30 years or so, until the current Gen Xers start to retire. The feces will hit the fan. I think we'll end up similar to the old Soviet Union. An obese centralized government that can no longer support itself. We'll just come crashing down, like a fat guy sitting on a wobbly bench.

And no one will be around to help us up. Considering where we've come, maybe that's not such a bad thing after all.


Thursday, January 25, 2007

Self Preservation 

Hey, it's not my job....

Many people have heard about the very sad story that recently unfolded in Sacramento. A 28-year old mother of two kids died of water intoxication. She was participating in a contest put on by a local radio station. You had to drink some huge amount of water. And hold it. Last one to the restroom would win a prize.

They found her dead in her home. Most likely, her heart stopped beating.

The clips of the radio program have people calling in and speaking of the side-effects of not purging your system of the excess water. One lady even mentioned that it could kill you. The DJs sounded very callous with comments like, "Hey, she signed a waiver."

Predictably, the family has hired a lawyer, and today they announced that they are filing suit against the station, the ownership and everyone involved. They allege it was a Wrongful Death.

Perhaps. I guess any time you die of something outside of old age, it could be considered "wrongful". But is the station, et al, responsible?

I say, "No". Hell No.

Oh, they're going to lose, the station will pay massive amounts of money in attorney fees, fines and "death cash" - hell, they may even lose their license and be put out of business. But the dead woman is the one that is responsible for this tragic series of events.

SHE decided to join the contest. SHE decided to drink the water. SHE decided not to pee. She was never forced to do anything at all. The shame of two kids being raised without a mother should be HER shame. Her personal greed won out over her common sense.

But, you see, in this country, not only do we not hold people responsible for their actions, we encourage and reward just the opposite. Don't want to work? OK, here's some cash, government housing and medical care. Don't want to put forth effort to raise your standard of living? OK, here's a minimum wage raise. And don't worry: If the economy tanks, we won't take the raise back.

What is worse is that we will now have another nail driven into the coffin that holds our personal freedom. No smoking. No riding in the back of a pick up truck. No trans fats. No spanking your kids. No riding a bike without a helmet. No driving in a car without a seat belt. Next up: No shows where someone is made to look stupid and may injure themselves while doing so.

You see, she agreed to be mocked in exchange for a video game console. It went bad, so now this must be outlawed. You prols are no longer able to discriminate between right and wrong; smart and foolish; risky and deadly. We will decide for you.

The FCC will soon come out with the No Mocking Law that prohibits programming that embarrasses, degrades, denigrates or lessens the self-image of any contestant. We will no longer have the "luxury" of acting stupid and getting something for it.

No more Jackass movies. No more American Idol. No more Fear Factor. No more Punked. No more Candid Camera. What about America's Funniest Home Videos? Or postings to YouTube?

Can you imaging the fall-out if an American Idol contestant blew their brains out after being pissed on by Simon? Hold on tight, it will happen some day.

Now, you may be saying, "No big loss". I, too, don't watch any of those shows or movies. But it should be MY choice, not some bureaucrat's, because we all know that once they start making choices for us, they NEVER give up that power.

It will be a big loss. We're just too used to being told how to think and what to do to realize we're getting hosed once again. The radio station will foot the bill, but our society will pay the price...


Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Hey, Al! 

You can't get a current pro head coach.

You can't get a current pro assistant coach.

You can't get a former pro head coach.

You can't get a current college head coach.

You can't get a current college assistant head coach.

You end up with a college offensive coordinator.

Now, this guy may end up as a wonderful head coach. He might be in the mold of John "Chucky" Gruden. I don't know.

But you'd think that Al Davis would eventually get the message that everyone, EVERYONE thinks he's a fuck-wad and doesn't want to work for him. I know that Count Dracula doesn't personally care. He had better start thinking professionally, though. Season ticket holders like myself will not quietly sit by and endure another sub-.500 season.

This is your last chance with me, Al. Get it right this year, or get used to not having my seat sold each game.


Sunday, January 21, 2007

Irrelevant Blackness 

With the Colts win over the Patriots, I'm in a very happy place. For two reasons: The Colts are my second-favorite team (after the sissy-boy Raiders) AND they beat New England. Ever since the infamous "tuck rule" screwing the Raiders got against the Pats, I've relished every single loss New England has been handed. I'm a happy guy. Considering how far ahead they were in the first half, I'm damned near sportin' wood...

Still, I'm a bit saddened, as well. After Chicago won their game, the sportscasters were falling all over themselves with the fact that the Bear's head coach is black. There's never been one in a Superbowl. I mentioned to one of my sons that the press was going to be especially frothy during the game itself, as it is in February - Black History month.

Now that Indy has won - with their black head coach - the pundits will be near-orgasmic.

Who cares about the color of these guys? How is it germane to the fact that they are extraordinary coaches of highly paid, self-centered, almost un-coachable athletes? Why degrade their superior accomplishment by bringing up their race? Remember that whole, "judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character" thing?

Doesn't that mean anything to blacks?

Both Lovie Smith and Tony Dungy should have used the opportunity (when the sportscasters brought this up) to say that it has nothing to do with their race. They bust their asses, work un-godly hours, sacrafice family relationships and ruin their health to be the best in their profession.

Their blackness is irrelevant.

Well, it should be.


Friday, January 19, 2007


Very discouraging

I was going to write a piece on the administration's recognition that the Illegal Wiretaps were, well, illegal, and that the FISA court did, in fact, have jurisdiction over the matter. I was doing my research, and came across some recent comments by Attorney General Gonzalez.

Our AG does not believe we have the right of habeas corpus. Really.

Read this section of transcript:

AG: “There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; there’s a prohibition against taking it away."

Arlen Specter: “Wait a minute. The Constitution says you can’t take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesn’t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there’s a rebellion or invasion?”

AG: “The Constitution doesn’t say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn’t say that. It simply says the right shall not be suspended” except in cases of rebellion or invasion.”

AS: “You may be treading on your interdiction of violating common sense."

Now, I'm just a regular guy. I have the ability to read the Constitution and, without really trying too hard, to understand what the Founding Fathers were trying to say.

Article One, Section Nine of the Constitution:
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
If something cannot be suspended, does that not mean that it is implicitly granted or permitted? And, if there were any doubt, would not the 9th Amendment also cover this?
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Translation: Simply because the Constitution does not explicitly list a right, does not mean it does not exist.

And then, to really bring the point home, the 10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Translation: If a power is not specifically granted to the Feds, they DON'T HAVE that right. Those rights are then reserved for the individual states or to the people.

Why is this pinhead trying to lay the groundwork to lessen this right, outside of "rebellion or invasion"? What does this maggot have up his sleeve?

This administration has been preoccupied with limiting our rights, all in the name of safety. The USA PATRIOT Act and the FISA challenge are only two of the more glaring examples. We just had the signing statement issue whereby Bush says the government has the right to open our mail when THEY believe we are at risk. Not a congressional declaration of war. Not during an invasion or rebellion. When THEY believe we're at risk.

That's not how this country is supposed to operate. We have laws that define when certain powers come into play. The three co-equal branches of government were designed specifically to limit any one branch from exercising too much power. The Founders remembered what it was like under a monarchy. In our own time, we have seen what a powerful central government can and will do to its people. We have seen how dictators and tyrants have abused their minions.

Yet Americans still sit idly by as this administration does the same. Or, worse yet, continue to support this administration. I think the term for that is collaborators.



Thursday, January 11, 2007

Wish I'd Said That 

Quote that best reflects my opinion of Bush's Surge speech:
So he can take his lying speeches and shove them up his arse, even though it means that he’ll have to ask Vicente Fox to pull out for a minute while he does so.

Emperor Misha I

By the way, the posting linked above contains a excellent open letter to all Border Patrol agents regarding some actions they should take on January 17th - the day two fellow Border Patrol agents will be incarcerated for performing their jobs.


He Almost Had Me 

Bush's Best Speech Yet

I've been an outspoken opponent to the war in Iraq since prior to the first bombs being dropped. It was a War of Choice. Still, after listening to Bush's speech last night, my initial reaction was one of, "Wow, that could work." So I got home, and pulled up the transcripts to see what the words really said, or how they could be twisted in the future - by either party - to suit a political objective.

Instead of "Stay The Course", it's just "More Of The Same". And we know where that's gotten us.

Let's dissect this speech, and see what it tells us:
It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq. So my national security team, military commanders, and diplomats conducted a comprehensive review.
Uh oh. I have now added another word to my list of, "When you hear this word or phrase, grab your wallet and cover your ass, because theft and buggery are coming your way". The new word is 'Comprehensive'. It's code for, "We ran around like chickens with our heads cut off, frantically trying to look busy and important and inclusive. We really don't have a clue." You hear it a lot when the Feds discuss Illegal Aliens, Universal Healthcare, Gun Laws and The War On Drugs (tm).

The other words and phrases are, "For your protection/security/safety", "It's in the best interest of..." and my all-time favorite, "It's For the Children".

Anyway, Bush has now conducted this comprehensive review. No new idea ever came from trying to gain concensus. Ever. That's not what leadership is all about. So, my first red flag has been raised.
The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people. On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq.
Yeah, in classic Bush-speak, use The Fear Factor. Bring up the unstable Middle East (Wow! When did THAT happen?!). Bring up 9/11. Pull out the big guns and bring up nukes. He foolishly left out WMDs.

A real leader does not need to use fear as a weapon against his own people. Think of Roosevelt and his, "We have nothing to fear, but fear itself" speech. It's the exact opposite of Bush's approach. "There's a boogie man under every rock, and they're gonna getcha if you don't go along with my plan. Boo!"
Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have. Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work.


In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents, but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned. This time, we'll have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared. In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter those neighborhoods -- and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.


Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.
I liked all of this, a lot, primarily for the second sentence in the first paragraph- "And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have." This is where I was beginning to think this may have some hope. If we're going to have our boys fighting in the streets, we must Release The Hounds. This ain't Two Hand Touch football. This is for real. Let these guys do what they do best - kick ass and take names.

But we've heard this tripe before, and we'll hear it again. Shock And Awe. Quickly followed by, "Winning the hearts and minds" campaign. It's bullshit. It's what Bush knows the American people want to hear, so he's shoveling it to us with a backhoe. And we're eating it all up.

Prior to the speech, there were portions of it leaked to the press. I kept hearing that "milestones" and "deliverables" were going to be incorporated into the new plan. Cool, I thought.
I've made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people -- and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people.
What? What are the expected, quantifiable results for our continued commitment? How will we measure success? How will we know if your new plan has worked? And if it doesn't work or meet expectations, what will be the consequences? They'll lose the support of the American people? Hello!? We're already there.

I wish I had squishy, chewy-in-the-middle deliverables like that in my line of work. Or maybe not, as nothing would ever get done.

Then, he dropped the bomb. My blood ran cold:
Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship.
OK, so what will it look like? How will we know when we've won this war? How will we know when to bring our boys home? What is our objective and how will we know we've met or missed it? If a president can't answer those questions, he shouldn't commit American lives to "a cause".

Of course, the answers to those questions were not contained in his speech. How could they be? Bush knows the way in which we are fighting this war is un-winnable. You cannot defeat a guerrilla force with a conventional military approach. You win by bringing terror to the terrorists. Like we're now doing in Somalia. Rain hell down on their heads until they beg for peace. You don't need 140,000 boots on the ground to do that.

What did Bush tell us? He's going to add 20,000+ more troops, deployed somewhat differently, with the goal of forcing our way of life onto a region that didn't ask for it. He's not going to hold the leaders of those who will be benefitting from our largess accountable for progress, other than to tell them, "We'll be mad if you don't". He won't tell us how we can tell if we're successful. He won't tell us how we can tell if we're making progress. He won't tell us how to tell if we've won.

So, the only thing that's new is the addition of the troops. That's not a plan, that's a white elephant. You buyin'?


Tuesday, January 09, 2007

Comrade Arnie 

As many of you may have heard, The Governator is trying to pull a Hillary-Healthcare-Lite by imposing a universal healthcare boondoggle down the throats of all Californians. I just shake my head in disbelief. Here's the letter I just fired off the Comrade Arnie:

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

Dear Comrade Schwarzenegger,

I'm sure you recognize, and now embrace, the communist party slogan above.

With your latest Big Government proposal regarding Universal Health Care, you've clearly jumped over the fence, away from fiscal conservativism, side-stepped socialism altogether, and got right in bed with communism.

Man, you're quick on your feet.

I wonder if you've actually read your proposal out loud to hear how foolish it sounds. "I will make sure everyone in this state, regardless of their effort or legal status, has health care insurance. I know that this incentive will draw more illegals, and more under-performing people to my state like maggots to a pile of rotting flesh. But that's OK. I'm Arnie. I'm rich. Power To The People!"

Honestly, you should be ashamed of your actions, but I doubt you are. You are foregoing all vestiges of economic conservativism in favor of further disabling the poor in our state with another government hand-out. The more they receive in freebies from the government, the less self-reliant they become, and the less able they are to care for themselves and their families. Why should they? Ol' Uncle Arnie will take care of them.

It's because of communists like you that I will be leaving this state, behind a long line of others that you and your predecessors have "helped out the door" with your higher taxes, antagonistic business environment, and Nanny State mentality.

Hey Arnie - who's gonna pay for all of these communist programs when there's no one left that makes any money? Just look to San Francisco as a model for what is going to happen to this whole state. Shutting down services (schools, etc.) while at the same time offering free health care to all who want it. Take a math class to see how well that's gonna work out.

I have been considering buying a business here in California - you know, living the American Dream right here in my home state. Clearly, you don't want me, or my kind here, so I'm going to oblige you and take it elsewhere. The capital, the business, the tax base, the salaries, the economic impact. All of it.

My God, you must be the most popular governor amongst the other state executives, as you have a veritable conga-line of people and business fleeing California.

Good luck with your plan, comrade. It worked well in the Soviet Union. I'm sure you'll be just as successful.


Friday, January 05, 2007

I've done my part 

Here is the letter I just wrote to Senators Feinstein and Boxer, and new representative Jerry McNerney. Do the same with your federal representatives. Copy this one in whole or craft your own. I don't care. Just do something to let these bastards know they need to do what's right for America.

UPDATE: It seems that Texas Representative Ron Paul feels the same way. As his article points out, this crap is all backwards. The Chimp can sign this thing into law, and the Congress would, in effect, have to veto his bill. Write your federal representatives now.

I am writing you, as my Federal representative, to encourage you to
vigorously oppose the "secret" bill being proposed by the White House
regarding Social Security payments to Illegal Aliens.

Here's a link in case you are unfamiliar with this issue:


Although it is painfully obvious that it borders on insanity to reward
people that have broken our laws, consider these facts as you debate
this issue:

1. Will encourage further illegal immigration. Clearly, if people
think there will be a "pay day" for breaking US immigration laws,
they will be incented to break them. Our actions should do nothing
that would encourage others to break our laws.

2. Hurts the poor. This is simple economics. If you have a large,
unreported workforce that is competing for low-paying jobs, the ones
hurt by this will be the poor that are here legally. Those that are
either citizens, or those that followed our rules and are here
legally. Why would you want to penalize these upstanding persons?
The argument that the illegals are doing jobs that Americans won't do
is hollow. Americans won't do these jobs for the wages being offered
by the businesses. By allowing in these illegals, you artificially
hold down wages by introducing a large, competing workforce. Simple
supply and demand.

3. Can't reward those convicted of a crime. Our country has myriad
laws that forbid those that commit crimes from profiting from their
crimes. Illegal aliens, by definition, have committed a crime simply
by crossing our borders without our permission. They have further
committed crimes by working in this country illegally. The list goes
on. You cannot reward someone - anyone - for breaking a law.

4. Bankrupts our schools. The illegals have strained our schools to
the breaking point. Test scores around the country - especially in
regions with high numbers of illegal aliens - are plummeting. The
legal residents of this country are unfairly being burdened with the
cost of this, and society as a whole is paying the price by turning
out under-educated teens.

5. Bankrupts our social services. Hospitals around the country are
being forced to close because they are forced to pay for the medical
services for these illegals without adequate compensation. And when
they are compensated, it's not by those receiving the services, it's
by our taxes. Welfare, WIC. Prisons (of which over 25% are illegal
aliens). Pick a service.

I am not unfeeling towards the plight of those from other countries
that don't have what we have. I may even follow their path if I were
trying to care for my family. But their circumstances are not the
fault of our country. We have no obligaion to fix the ills of the
rest of the world. In fact, by following our current policies, we are
actually allowing these other countries to continue to pass their
problems on to us. We (and you in particular, since you represent us)
DO have an obligation to those that are citizens and legal residents.
This is where your focus should be.

Our country does not have an endless supply of tax dollars to care for
these people. Your past actions were to place the burden on your constituents, instead of crafting bills that place that burden on their home countries. This cost will be passed on to our children and their children. As I'm sure you're aware, our current national debt - $8.6 trillion - is the equivalent of $29,000+ for every man, woman and child in this country. That is unacceptable as it is. To ask this country to further indebt itself is scandalous.

I ask you to put your special interests aside and make the right
decision for your country. Defeat this bill before this great country
is brought to its knees.

Thank you,

[Not holding breath]


Thursday, January 04, 2007

Thoughts of Sedition 

"The Founders must be spinning in their graves. Nearly everything the government does today is unconstitutional under the system they instituted. Governmental powers were expressly limited; individual liberties were not. Now it seems it is the other way around. If the Bill of Rights is to regain its meaning, we must rededicate ourselves to the principles it asserts and be mindful that a government powerful enough to give us all we want is powerful enough to take away everything we have."

--(Source: "Happy Bill of Rights Day!" op-ed in the Orange County Register,
December 15, by Adam B. Summers of the Reason Foundation
I see article after article of our government intruding into the lives and business of Americans, and I can see no end to the abuse. I also see no logical, sensible, or legal solution.

Here is the very first article I see in the morning:
Small employers ramping up hiring plans to levels not seen in two years face a labor shortage that's forcing many to increase wages and benefits.
What's at the top of the Democrats hit parade? Increasing the Minimum Wage. Why tinker with what will happen - naturally - when market forces are left to dictate prices and wages?
"This position that you have traditionally paid $12 an hour for, you're going to need to now pay $14 to $15 an hour," says Sandra Dickerson, CEO of Your People Professionals, a recruiter and employment manager in Santa Maria, Calif.
So the people in these positions are going to get a 20-25% "raise" because they possess a skill that the employer covets. But no. The fucking Dems have to screw with this, pass "feel good" legislation aimed at the under-achievers in our society, and place the burden on the backs of small businesses across the country when the economy turns sour. Fucking cocksuckers.

Then, I nearly stroke out when I read about the secret plan to give illegal aliens Social Security benefits. Holy Fucking Shit.
A confidential 2004 agreement between the United States and Mexico could require Social Security to pay billions of dollars in benefits to Mexicans who paid payroll taxes in this country, according to a senior citizens' group that forced the document's disclosure.
These ass-wipes work for us, right? Why the fuck would they think it's OK to give away our God Damned tax dollars to fucking law breakers, when there's not even enough to pay the promised benefits to those that have "contributed" to the system? You may notice that Contributed is in quotes, because you don't get to choose whether you participate or not. Unless you're a member of Congress, that is.

Here's the "money" quote (pun intended):
The Social Security Administration insists that the agreement — which has yet to be signed by President Bush and sent to Congress for consideration — would cost the retirement and disability fund a relatively scant $105 million annually for the first five years.
A scant $105 million a year for the first 5 years. Then, it might get expensive. These fucks have no idea about the value of our money. If it runs out, they just print more. And send the bill to our kids.

So what do we do? I will write all of my Congress-critters and the dim bulb in the White House, but I know it will do nothing. They're all bought and paid for. The fix is in, the bill will pass, and the illegals will get their lucre.

I am nauseous and my thoughts are seditious in nature.

At least for now, that's all they are. Thoughts.


Tuesday, January 02, 2007

2007 List 

I usually do my New Years list with a lot of enthusiasm and gusto. With all of the BS going on now around the globe, I'm just a little bummed. No spunk.

Here goes, but bring an umbrella for the gloomy weather:

Most Sad About

The loss of Rob Smith of Gutrumbles fame. He was my first read every day, without fail. Didn't always agree with his POV but he said it so well! Gonna miss ya.

Best Slap Down

Easy. It was Vinny over at Insignificant Thoughts when he bitch-slapped AOL when they were dicking with him over closing his account. He recorded the episode and got national coverage. It was a classic.

Most Frustrating Issue

Illegal Aliens. WTF are people thinking? How can anyone, other than the Illegal Alien and his/her employer think the Illegals are good for America? They push down wages of American poor and legal immigrants, they're bankrupting our schools and social services and their very first act in this country is to break the law. Yeah, I can get behind that...

New Year Resolutions

First, to become more politically active. I'm somewhat hamstrung in my current job, so I'll be leaving sometime this year. Met with the CPA and attorney two weeks ago to get the ball rolling on buying my own business. I know this will bury me for the next year or so (time-wise) but eventually I'll be able to devote some real time, effort and money to causes in which I believe. This shit-hole state in which I reside (People's Republic of California) is probably too far gone to help save, but there are many others that will welcome me with open arms. I've never lived anywhere other than CA (SF Bay Area for all but one year), but I simply can't wait to get the fuck out of here.

Best New Sites

(New for me, at least)

Hopes For The New Year

Have a great 2007!


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?