Sunday, May 31, 2009


A population weakened and exhausted by battling against so many obstacles -- whose needs are never satisfied and desires never fulfilled -- is vulnerable to manipulation and regimentation. The struggle for survival is, above all, an exercise that is hugely time-consuming, absorbing and debilitating. If you create these ''anti-conditions,'' your rule is guaranteed for a hundred years.
-- Ryszard Kapuscinski, Polish Communist

There is still little to no ammo in our local stores. The curse now includes .22LR. Explain that one to me. There is no military or police use or excuse.

The only stuff I can find online is the fancy crap at unreal prices. Look at this. 500 rounds of .22LR ammo.....WITH NO POWDER!! They want $25 a box!

I went to a Big 5, and they had no .22LR. They had two boxes of PNC 9mm for $17 a box, so I snapped up both of them. No .38 spl or .357 Mag.

I went to another local gun/fishing shop and the only ammo he had was .45 ACP for $44 a box, and some odd rifle calibers. He said he was supposed to get in some .22LR next week, and would be charging $35+ for a 500 box.

Yeah, nothing's being manipulated here....

Georgia Arms has some bulk house brand handgun ammo ("Canned heat") for very decent prices. Their house brand of boxed new ammo is pretty decently priced as well. No 9mm, but virtually everything else.

They also have new .22LR. BUT you have to wait 5-7 weeks for all orders. That's a hell of a long time to wait.

Oy! Decisions....


The spineless CA Assembly Appropriations Committee passed AB 962 from committee so it will now be voted on by the full assembly. This is the bill that requires ammo buyers and sellers to be certified, buyers to be fingerprinted at each purchase, forbids Internet ammo sales, and forbids the transfer of more than 50 rounds a month between private parties.

And this will make law-abiding citizens safer, how?

I'll be shocked if this doesn't fly through the Assembly, then the state Senate. They'll all be able to say what safety-minded public servants they are, and then they can cash their checks from the Brady Bunch and their ilk with a clear conscience.

Speaking of manipulations, WTF is going on with gold and silver prices? As of last Friday, gold was officially at $979/oz (up $20 on the day) and silver was at $15.78/oz (up $0.64 for the day).

Good luck buying anything at those prices!

Go over to Ebay and see what the free market is actually selling these metals for. Better yet, go to these two sites which aggregate all of the Ebay auctions to show actual market prices/values.



An ounce of bullion-quality (worst quality) gold is going for around $1,035/oz - or nearly a 6% premium. The smaller denominations, such as 1/10th ounce, are going for premiums over 20%.

Silver is the same. 1 oz bullion (silver rounds) are selling for $18.82, or more than 19% over spot.

I will try to make a run by a very reputable coin dealer sometime next week - just to see what kind of premiums he's paying/getting right now.

In the recent past, once gold got into the $1,000 range, for no rational reason, prices crashed, and rapidly. There have been a number of ideas ("Federal Reserve Cluster F@&k") why this happens. I just don't know enough about these markets to make an educated guess.

Still, it will be interesting to see if we have the sudden price drop, or if the market will actually take control, and precious metals will rise to meet the coming inflationary period.

Timmy's in trouble. Tim "I don't pay no stinkin' taxes" Geithner has been summoned by his real bosses - the Chinese - to 'splain his plans to keep the dollar and US Treasuries strong.

This was just priceless -
Geithner, 47, needs to show how the U.S. can prevent the value of China’s investment from being eroded by a weaker dollar or by the inflation that might be stoked by the stimulus money being pumped into the U.S. economy, according to Yu.

It will be helpful if Geithner can show us some arithmetic,” he said.
Hey, Tim! We'd like to see the math as well...

Labels: , , , , , ,


Saturday, May 30, 2009

Mid-Year Economic Review 

An economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance our budget, just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits.
--John F. Kennedy

Note: If you make personal financial decisions based solely upon the information I'm about to give you, YOU ARE AN IDIOT. You will be paid a visit by, the "Financial Darwin".

My conclusions and actions are what I believe are best for my personal circumstances. You need to investigate and challenge my data, assumptions and prejudices, then make your own decisions based upon your own circumstances.

OK, it's not quite mid-year, but it's close enough. I'm looking at the economy and the world and trying to figure out what to do in the next 6 month time frame. Normally, when you do an economic prediction of sorts, you look out further, but with the way our country is reacting to events in illogical ways, prudence says to keep your view short-term right now.

Assumptions and conditions are changing rapidly. Here goes....

Inflation: The rate at which goods and services you purchase rise or decrease.

Right now, we're in a flat or even deflationary (prices are dropping) period. With every fiber of my being, I believe inflation will be increasing.

The key driver of this is the amount of fiat currency our government is producing. They are literally producing money out of thin air - and at rates never before seen.

What is most disturbing is how our government is purchasing its own debt. The Federal Reserve has already purchased approximately $1.7 trillion in Treasury bonds/notes since August of 2008, and has committed to purchasing another $2 trillion by September of this year.

These actions can ONLY result in inflation. More dollars in circulation without a corresponding increase in anything of value.

I believe hyperinflation is a very real possibility -
The definition used by most economists is "an inflationary cycle without any tendency toward equilibrium." A vicious circle is created in which more and more inflation is created with each iteration of the cycle. Although there is a great deal of debate about the root causes of hyperinflation, it becomes visible when there is an unchecked increase in the money supply (or drastic debasement of coinage) usually accompanied by a widespread unwillingness to hold the money for more than the time needed to trade it for something tangible to avoid further loss. Hyperinflation is often associated with wars (or their aftermath), economic depressions, and political or social upheavals.
Unchecked increase in the money supply. Unwillingness to hold the money (see articles on China now holding Treasuries short-term rather than long-term). Economic depressions. Political or social upheavals (soon to come, or already here?).

Check, check, check, check.

Interest Rates: The amount of interest you must pay to borrow money.

Perhaps the one bright spot in this picture. If pure economics were in play, I'd be worried.

Because of the perceived declining value of US Treasuries by investors, we've had to start increasing the rates paid to purchasers of our debt. The Treasury Yield Curve has historically given us an indication of what will happen to rates for home loans, car loans and credit cards.

The Yield Curve (take a look) is named for charts that show a plotting of interest rates paid for the different maturities of Treasuries - from 3 months all the way out to 30 years. A normal Yield Curve is lower for the short-term Treasuries and higher for the long-term Treasuries.

We currently have a normal Yield Curve. At the peak of the sub-prime market - 2005 or so - we actually had an Inverted Yield Curve - long term rates were lower than short-term rates.

Anyways, one of the key consumer (and business) rate indicators has been the spread between the short-term and long-term rates. It heavily influenced consumer rates.

Right now, we are at the greatest spread ever. Never bigger.

This would normally be a signal that consumer rates were going to rise. Significantly. It is signaling that there is too much uncertainty (risk) in the financial markets. You protect against risk by raising rates.

The ray of sunshine in this is that the Federal Reserve can (and I believe will) continue to control the cost of money to the banks. If banks can acquire money cheaply, they can lend it out cheaply.

To drive home this point, at this moment, 30 year Treasuries - considered the safest investment in the entire world - are yielding 4.34%. A 30 year mortgage - clearly a much riskier investment - can be had for 4.55% APR - a difference of only twenty-one one hundredths of one percent.

Why? Because a bank can borrow from the fed at an interest rate of 0.15%. Click here to see Fed Fund rates since 1954. They have never been lower than they are right now. It is essentially free money.

That's insane, but it's also reality. This is government market manipulation in all of its glory.

Unemployment: The percentage of able-bodied persons that are without work.

This is the most difficult to predict. It's why Nanny can pull a number out of her ass and say, "Jobs will be increasing in X months" because there is generally no single, tangible economic factor upon which to hang your hat.

My gut says it will continue getting worse over my 6-month horizon.

Businesses continue to close. Layoffs continue to be reported. Profits continue to be squeezed.

I just don't see a Bright Light on the near horizon for business. If business doesn't look good, employment can't look good.

Again, it's just a gut feeling.

Taxes: The surcharge applied to goods and services by local, state and federal governments.

Just as unemployment fluctuations are unpredictable, increased taxes are an absolute certainty.

As John McLaughlin likes to put it: Metaphysical Certitude.

Barry is spending money like a lottery-winning coke-head in Columbia. Forty-eight of our 50 states are either broke, or will be soon. Cities are declaring bankruptcy (or are choosing to disincorporate, passing the local public burden onto the already cash-strapped counties).

Commercial loans will soon start crashing, requiring further bank bailouts. Universal Health Care sure seems to be coming. Our new Cyber Czar is sure to work some sort of Internet Sales Tax into his "safety" plans.

Barry has said that we need to stop borrowing so much. He has also said he intends on spending more than we already are spending.

Do the math.

The only option is to increase taxes. I guarantee you, every locality, state and the Feds will be increasing taxes.

In my opinion, the most insidious tax being considered by the Feds is a VAT or Value Added Tax. It's all the rage in Europe, so we'll adopt it as well.

It's kind of a rabbit punch tax. You don't see it coming - you're just suddenly hit by it.

What follows is a bit complicated, but you need to understand what it means to you. Read about this crap so you can intelligently shout it down.

Under our current system, a bushel of raw wheat costs about $10 and a cheap loaf of bread costs about $1.50. A bushel of wheat can produce 100 loaves of bread, or $150 in end-user sales. Right now, the Feds don't make any money off of the production or sale of that bread.

With a VAT, taxes are added on the sales price of the raw materials through each step of the production process until the product is sold the the final consumer.

Here's an illustration: Let's say there's a 10% VAT. Farmer grows his wheat. His cost to produce it, plus profit is $10 per bushel. He sells it to the wheat mill for $10 plus the 10% VAT, for a total of $11.

This process repeats itself at each stage of production, with each subsequent "handler" being able to deduct the VAT paid by the previous "handler". So if the miller sells his bushel of ground wheat to the baker for $30 a bushel, he pays a $3 VAT, less the $1 already paid by the farmer, or a net payment of $2.

At this stage, the Feds have now collected a total of $3 for a bushel of wheat (a dollar from the farmer and two dollars from the miller) from which they had never previously earned a dime.

By the time the raw wheat makes it to the store for you to purchase, that $1.50 loaf of bread will now cost $1.65 - each loaf having been assessed a 10% VAT throughout its journey to your table.

You will be paying 10% more for the same product. Not one that has more value for the dollar. Not one which is new-and-improved. You will get no added benefit, and the price increase will not have been the result of an increase in manufacturing, raw materials or distributions costs.

You won't see the tax listed on your sales receipt, because it is included in the sales price of the product. The cause of the increase will have been invisible, but the result will be seen in your pocketbook.

The Feds will have "earned" an additional $15 (15 cents on 100 loaves) off of a bushel of wheat that originally only cost $10 to produce, and for which they previously collected zero tax dollars. The US produces roughly 2 billion bushels of wheat a year. Not all of that is turned into bread, but you get the point. Not a bad deal if you can get it.

At the very minimum, the Feds would suck an additional $2 billion out of our pockets with this (2 billion bushels, times $10 per bushel, times 10 percent VAT). That is just on this ONE product.

Oh, and they're talking about a 25% VAT...

Throw in Cap-And-Trade carbon taxes. Increases in local sales taxes. Increases in gas and utility taxes. Sin taxes. Saint taxes (removing deductions for personal donations). Increases in income taxes. Increases in property taxes.

Not much left to spend on luxuries like housing and food...

So, what have we got? Let's re-order these things:

1. Inflation guaranteed to be heading upwards, perhaps very high if hyperinflation kicks in.

2. Taxes guaranteed to increase significantly. If a VAT is enacted, this will further increase the likelihood of hyperinflation.

3. Unemployment uncertain, but very unlikely to decrease in our 6 month window.

4. Long term interest rates look to be stable - virtually below market pricing.

The first two items will negatively affect day to day spending on consumables. Food, gasoline, entertainment, utilities, etc. Whatever you buy will now cost you more.

A reasonable conclusion would be to come up with strategies to reduce your requirement to spend money on consumables and non-essentials. Do without, reduce your requirements, develop less-costly alternatives, produce your own.

When you buy something, buy it as early as possible in the manufacturing chain to keep taxation at a minimum (i.e., buy raw wheat or flour and make your own bread). Develop strategies to reduce your taxable income (use your imagination and discretion).

The third item, employment is the real wild-card. Your experience, industry and location all affect how you'd figure this into your personal equation. For me, I'm a person with decades of experience in a shrinking industry (banking), in a state (California) that already has the highest unemployment rates in the nation.

A reasonable strategy would be - at a minimum - to change industries. California is also one of the most business-hating states in the country (Arnold and the state legislature, Nevada thanks you). On a strictly economic basis, changing industries and states would be a reasonable strategy.

The last item on the list, long-term interest rates, offers some possible salvation. If you borrow, long-term, fixed rates NOW, your future taxed and inflated dollars will go further.

If you are at or nearing retirement age, this can be huge.

For most people, housing expenses are the biggest part of a family budget. Reducing it and making it a fixed cost makes more sense now than it ever has. If your fixed or stable income is able to cover this cost, your biggest worry is addressed.

It may make sense to liquidate things like 401k's, SEPs and IRAs now, at lower tax rates, and put all of that money into real estate.

This is obviously very costly (penalties and taxes due NOW), and risky, but I think it has significant merit.

Because of virtually guaranteed higher future tax and inflation rates, when you start pulling those dollars out in the future, they will be worth less than they are now. Your purchasing power will have been decreased. You'd be getting more bang-for-the-buck right now.

Real estate prices are very low. Sellers are desperate. It is clearly a buyer's market right now.

There is the very real possibility that the Feds will pull an, "Argentina" on us, and seize these types of retirement accounts to provide cash-flow for Nanny. In exchange, they'll pay out a monthly payment when you reach the "proper" age.

Remember, in the 1930's - the last time we had an economic scenario anywhere near the one we're in now, the government confiscated privately held gold. They will take your wealth to feed the beast.

The risk is that property values will continue to fall, and the value of your cash injection into the property will be reduced. That's a real possibility. Still, you'll have a tangible asset as opposed to a promise from the government, or the use of devalued dollars.

There is also the risk that any Social Security or fixed pension payments you are supposed to receive will be eliminated or reduced for a variety of reasons. Pension fund bankruptcies or Social Security "Means Tests" - you have too many assets to get your full share.

So, for me, the best course of action would be to liquidate my retirements accounts, and buy a piece of farm-able property outside of California, in a low unemployment state.

Well, the pull of family is too strong, and we're not leaving CA in the foreseeable future. We can do most of the rest, although with less than optimal results because we'd be staying here in this bung hole of a state.

I just hope that this one condition does not result in our down-fall. Only time will tell.

Labels: ,


Friday, May 29, 2009

SCOTUS Litmus Test 

You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man's freedom. You can only be free if I am free.
--Clarence Darrow

One of my brothers and I were talking about the Sotomayor SCOTUS deal. We were talking about her comments concerning how a Latina woman can make a better decision than a white male.

While not agreeing with her blatantly racist and sexist views, he said that he has no problem whatsoever with having a SCOTUS made up of many different races and gender. In fact, he thought it would be for the best.

His view was that regardless of the expectations of Blind Justice, the SCOTUS are very often given cases where things are not black-and-white. Most things in life are shades of gray. As such, it is in the interest of justice that the SCOTUS have different life experiences so that all Constitutional law is not found in favor of a specific race or gender.

After the paramedics revived me from my sudden onset heart attack/blown forehead vein, we continued our conversation. ;-)

My view is that the SCOTUS in particular, has a relatively easy job. They have a playbook - the Constitution - as their guide.

For instance, if a case is brought before them, they first need to see who has been given the "power" over the issue. Is this a state's rights, individual rights or federal rights issue? Were any of these groups given specific powers or prohibitions in the Constitution regarding the issue at hand?

If the answer is, "No", then according to the 9th and 10th amendments, the issue MUST become the domain of either the state or the individual, and NOT the federal government.

As such, the verdict of the state court becomes the official ruling for that case.

Obviously, if the answer to the "powers" question is, "Yes", you follow whatever rules are set forth in the Constitution.

Here is where some of that, "grayness" can come into play. The job of the SCOTUS is to interpret what the writers of the constitution meant at the time, NOT what they want it to mean now.

For example, there is a phrase in the Constitution that I believe is the root cause of the sorry state of our nation. It's right up front in the preamble -
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
...promote the general welfare...

More importantly, I think, it raises its ugly head in Article 1, Section 8 -
The Congress shall have power 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; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
In this case, the founders actually had a great deal of disagreement on what, "general welfare" meant.
Madison asserted it amounted to no more than a reference to the other powers enumerated in the subsequent clauses of the same section; that, as the United States is a government of limited and enumerated powers, the grant of power to tax and spend for the general national welfare must be confined to the numerated legislative fields committed to the Congress. In this view the phrase is mere tautology, for taxation and appropriation are or may be necessary incidents of the exercise of any of the enumerated legislative powers.

Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States.
In my eyes, the correct answer is clear as day - Madison is right - it meant providing for an environment conducive to liberty - not the "cut 'em a check" bastardization we've come to know as the definition.

Hamilton was a big-government socialist. The founders meant for Madison's views to prevail, and they included the 9th and 10th amendments to make that abundantly clear.

Just as clearly, the Hamilton view has been adopted.

Back on point: Did the race and gender of the past SCOTUS justices have anything to do with this? Obviously not. Our sprint towards socialism began in the early 1900's. The only folks on the bench were old white guys.

They were the great Constitutional scholars of their time. I fail to see how their race or gender enter the equation. They made their (poor) decisions based upon their education, the leanings of their instructors and the influences of past precedence. Since they were all white and all old, race and gender were irrelevant, as it should be.

A Supreme Court Justice is supposed to be a referee of the law, NOT an advocate for either side. By supporting a judge because you want variety of viewpoints based upon how they were raised, abused, neglected, nurtured, cared-for or chastised goes against the core principles of justice.

Justice MUST be blind.

I don't want Sotomayor to support the position of the white and Hispanic firefighters because I am white. I want her to support them because they played by the rules, succeeded in passing the test, yet were discriminated against strictly because of the hue of their skin. No other reason.

That is injustice.

In her subsequent comments, Sotomayor has made it clear that she believes race and gender MUST become a part of the law. How can you expect justice from her (or anyone that believes as she does) if you are of another race or gender?

When I was having my go-around with my brother, we were trying to come up with an example of an issue that could be brought before the SCOTUS where race, gender or general up-bringing would be relevant.

Neither of us could come up with an example.

Does anyone have an example?

Kinda related, in a Big Brother, "general welfare" way: I've mentioned in some comments that I am reading Ayn Rand's, Atlas Shrugged. For the first time.

As I read it, I keep running into circumstance where I think Rand is tossing red meat to the small government folks. Like many authors, she's just clipping examples from the newspaper and inserting them into the book to give it some relevance.

It then dawns on me that this book was written over 50 years ago in 1957!

It is quite amazing.
Someone at "Nanny Central" is using Atlas Shrugged as a playbook. Can't wait to see how it turns out...
The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government.
--Thomas Jefferson

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Thursday, May 28, 2009

Any Questions On Where We're Headed? 

I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
--Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

The deeper you dig, the more shit you find.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Thursday that Obama was "very comfortable with her interpretation of the Constitution being similar to that of his."
"Her," being Barry's SCOTUS nominee, Sotomayor.

Just what might be her interpretation of the Constitution?
A 2004 opinion she joined also cited as precedent that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."

At least we now know - publicly - where Barry stands on the issue.

This poor fool has no idea what he's up against -
"Any investor in mortgage-backed securities has the right to insist that their contract be enforced," Frey, president of Greenwich Financial Services, told the Times.

Before the day was out, Frey received a letter from six members of the House Financial Services Committee who said they were "outraged" by what he'd said.

"Your decision is a serious threat to our efforts to respond to the current economic crisis," wrote Democrats Barney Frank of Massachusetts, Maxine Waters of California, Luis Gutierrez of Illinois, Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania, Carolyn Maloney of New York, and Melvin Watt of North Carolina.
Rule of law? Contractual obligations? Common decency?


What is wrong with these people? They are sooooo selfish. Come on, guys, give 'til it hurts!
The latest bond exchange offer from General Motors Corp "sends a chilling message to all individual bondholders," GM Bondholders Unite, a grass-roots organization representing individual GM creditors, said on Thursday.

"The 'offer' to individual GM bond investors is ridiculously lopsided because it arbitrarily favors other groups, at the expense of the legal rights, under the U.S. Constitution, of hundreds of thousands of individual GM bond investors," the group said in a statement on its website.
You rich bastards are just trying to take advantage of the poor auto workers. It doesn't matter that you risked your own money. What matters is the good of The Hive.

Barry sez so.

Who is John Galt?

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Just Add Water 

No Soup For You!
--Soup Nazi, Seinfield TV Show

Psycho day. No time to even consider what Barry's going to do to us today. Did I miss anything?

Anyway, I've got a big old post in the works for JAW recipes - Just Add Water. I thought I'd share an absolutely outstanding soup recipe.

I got the idea for this by walking down the aisle at the grocery store. I saw a bunch of dry soup mixes that came in bags. They had all kinds - chicken noodle, cream of broccoli, and creamy cheddar potato.

I bought one of the cheddar potato mixes. Before I made it, I wanted to see what was in the pack. I poured the contents into a fine sifter to separate out what was potato and what was other 'stuff'. I got the basic proportion between dehydrated potato (not flakes, but hash brown-like spuds) the rest of the filler.

I then pulled out a regular creamy cheddar potato soup recipe to see what went into that. After some WAGs (Wild Ass Guesses) and some playing around, I came up with this.

It is brain-dead easy and extremely good. Seriously good.

Makes 4 cups

1/2 C dehydrated potatoes
1/2 C instant potato flakes
3 tsp chicken soup base (or 3 chicken bullion cubes)
2 tblspn dehydrated onion flakes
1 tsp dehydrated parsley flakes
1/4 tsp ground black pepper
3 tblspn cheese powder
1 C powdered milk

Bring 4 cups of water to a boil. Add all ingredients, stirring very well.

Reduce heat to low, cover pot and simmer for 15 minutes. Quickly stir pot every 5 minutes to keep soup smooth.


The ingredients for the soup probably cost 50 to 75 cents. The packaged stuff was $4. Everything in the soup is available from the bulk bins in my local grocery (except for the powdered milk).

After my bad experience with the powdered butter, I was pleasantly surprised with the powdered cheese.

Now, if you're expecting a cheese that tastes like some hoity-toity French cheese, you're going to be disappointed. It tasted very much like the cheese used on Nachos at a ballgame. Very edible, nothing special.

If you don't want the cheese (or can't find it) you could substitute the 3 T of cheese powder for maybe 1-1.5 T of instant potato flakes, and maybe add a pinch of extra salt.

Before -

After -

I've made up a bunch of packs, vacuum sealed the ingredients and written the instructions on the bag. A nice bowl of creamy potato soup would be nice "comfort food" in the event of things going sideways in your life....


OT: Californian's Only - AB 962 is scheduled to be voted on again by the Assembly Appropriations Committee. This is the law that would require background checks to buy ammo, finger printing every time you buy ammo, and do away with our ability to buy ammo online.

Apparently, enough of us bitched and moaned when it first came up that they shelved it for a while.

Well, time's up. They'll be voting again, tomorrow.

If you don't know who's your Assembly member, go here.

Contact them today and tomorrow and tell them to back the hell off.

Labels: , ,


Tuesday, May 26, 2009


Where there are too many policemen, there is no liberty. Where there are too many soldiers, there is no peace. Where there are too many lawyers, there is no justice.
-- Lyn Yutang

Flabbergasted being an understatement about Barry's new SCOTUS nominee.

Stunned. Shocked. WTF!?, maybe.

Apparently, she didn't get the, "Justice Is Blind" handout while attending law school.
At a 2001 U.C. Berkeley symposium marking the 40th anniversary of the first Latino named to the federal district court, Sotomayor said that the gender and ethnicity of judges does and should affect their judicial decision-making. From her speech:

"I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society....
So, bitch your honor, does the race and gender thing only work if you're any color other than white? Or is it OK for whites (which, BTW, is a color, too) to interject their personal racial prejudices into legal precedent?

Tell me what kind of shit-storm would blow in if a white male made this statement, with the important parts switched around -
...I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.
On what topic? Puerto Rican female nail care?

Good Lord! Simply because you're a "wise" Latina, you've lived a richer life than a white guy? Could she make a more racist AND sexist statement?

Perhaps this unapologetic sexist/racist is Barry's, Harriet Miers - a feign to give him the ability to say, "Hey! I tried!"

I certainly hope so. I PRAY so.

Oh, and did you see who first placed her on the federal bench? Daddy Bush.

Any guesses who gave her a "raise" to the Appellate Court? Billy Jeff Clinton.

Could these two families fuck this country any harder?

Back to digging the bunker, caching guns and food, adjusting my tin-foil beenie and preparing for my upcoming visit to Barry's Re-education Camps.

I hope they have S'mores...

Labels: , , , , , ,


Monday, May 25, 2009


Gotta get me one of these....

Probably not legal in CA...

Labels: , , ,


Sunday, May 24, 2009


Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
--George Santayana

Earlier this week, I was having a back and forth over at TSLRF with a poster named Dorcas' Daddy. We were discussing the pros and cons of taxation and the resulting debt and impact on society.

In general, he thought taxation was innocuous, as we got more "value" than what it cost us. Foreign governments were essentially financing our way of life. Plus, since no national debt in the world had ever been paid off, we too, were unlikely to ever pay ours off.

I disagreed. I cited a number of outcomes of this form of economic modeling, including the Weimar Republic and Gleichschaltung.

I had forgotten about term - Gleichschaltung - which was used to describe the homogenization of thought and action in German society back in the 1920's and 30's.

Before I go on, I want to reiterate my political world-view. I have long said that I see little difference between far-left and far-right politics. Communism versus fascism. They are the two sides of the same totalitarian coin.

Back in March, I posted a video that very clearly explained this concept:

It's not a left or right thing, it's a control thing.

Gleichschaltung was about total political, military and economic control of Germany. It was a process to achieve totalitarian Nirvana.

Here's a good definition -
Gleichschaltung De-Gleichschaltung-pronunciation.ogg [ˈɡlaiçʃaltʊŋ], meaning "coordination", "making the same", "bringing into line", is a Nazi term for the process by which the Nazi regime successively established a system of totalitarian control over the individual, and tight coordination over all aspects of society and commerce. The historian Richard J. Evans offered the term "forcible-coordination" in his most recent work on Nazi Germany.

One goal of this policy was to eliminate individualism by forcing everybody to adhere to a specific doctrine and way of thinking and to control as many aspects of life as possible using an invasive police force.
One of the most disturbing steps the Germans took during this period was the systematic stripping of state's rights (Note: Länder is the term Germany used to describe the individual states) -
The Gesetz über den Neuaufbau des Reiches ("Law concerning the reconstruction of the Reich") (January 30, 1934) abandoned the concept of a federal republic. Instead, the political institutions of the Länder were practically abolished altogether, passing all powers to the central government. A law dated February 14, 1934 dissolved the Reichsrat, the representation of the Länder at the federal level.
The intent was to get everyone thinking and acting the same way. The ultimate goal was to support statism, and discourage individualism.

The parallels with Germany and the current path of our country are becoming are quite disturbing. The Weimar Republic - massive amounts of government control in all aspects of German life - are what led to Nazism.

That government economic policy crushed the country, and people looked for change. They got it in the form of the charismatic leader, Adolph Hitler.

Hyperinflation started the Republic's fall -
Since striking workers were paid benefits by the state, much additional currency was printed, fueling a period of hyperinflation. The 1920s German inflation started when Germany had no goods with which to trade. The government printed money to deal with the crisis; this allowed Germany to pay war loans and reparations with worthless marks, and helped formerly great industrialists to pay back their own loans. This also led to pay raises for workers and for businessmen who wanted to profit from it. Circulation of money rocketed, and soon the Germans discovered their money was worthless. The value of the Papiermark had declined from 4.2 per US dollar at the outbreak of World War I to 1 million per dollar by August 1923.
Hmmm. A country that had nothing to trade, and which couldn't afford to pay for its social programs and foreign debt (in Germany's case, it was war reparations).

Let's see: We have a massive trade imbalance with the world.

Our social programs already consume over 60% of our tax dollars. More programs are planned.

We are already perilously close to having our national AAA credit rating lowered. The cost to borrow will go up, requiring that more dollars be diverted to paying our debt.

If China and the rest of our creditors cut us off, the only way our country can pay its bills will be to print more money.

Welcome to hyperinflation.

So, how did the path to a centralized, totalitarian government progress?
The last years of the Weimar Republic were stamped by even more political instability than in the previous years. The administrations of Chancellors Brüning, Papen, Schleicher and Hitler (from 30 January to 23 March 1933) governed not through parliament but through presidential decree. This meant that they used the President's power to rule without consulting the Reichstag (the German parliament).
While our country has seen a slow, steady slide towards a centralized government since the early 1900's, Dubya really greased the skids. His staggering use of Presidential Signing Statements and the unprecedented increase in government spending (increasing the national debt during his two terms by as much as every single president before him) have given us a bloated, controlling government.

He gave us the USA PATRIOT ACT. He did nothing to reign in the BATF. He gave us massive increases to Medicare. He started a war with Iraq based on a hunch. He started the bailout-mania.

All with the assurance of, "Nanny Knows Best".

Obama hasn't missed a beat. Barry has championed the cause, grabbing the baton like a runner in a relay race. He seems hell-bent-for-leather to show Bush as a piker when it comes to government spending.

The Weimar Republic crashed after more than a decade of massive government build-ups - funded with fiat currency - were suddenly curtailed. It was like taking the needle away from the heroin addict. The country convulsed from the withdrawals, and in came Adolph.

I'm not totally clear where we are in the time line of our own demise. Is Barry "Hitler", or will it be his actions that bring us the full-on totalitarianism?

Certainly, his grand plans for Universal Health Care will increase the likelihood of hyperinflation. His nationalization of the banking, autos and insurance industries doesn't bode well for helping to spur the economy on its own.

Bringing on Cap-And-Trade or other similar forms of eco-terror will further degrade our ability to compete in the world.

How can any of this end well?

Does he go all "Argentina" on us, and seize 401k and other retirement funds when China stops funding us? Or, like the Weimar Republic, does he just cut off payments to the teeming, dependent masses and risk rebellion?

It's tough to tell.

Unlike Hitler, Barry is in bed with the unions. It seems as though our totalitarian model will be socialist in nature, as opposed to fascist. It doesn't really matter, though - either one results in subservience to the state.

It's actually economic servitude to the state. Unless you're very, very wealthy, or well-connected, you're a cog in the machine with few good options.

I don't know that there's much we can do. The joke called SCOTUS affirmed (Kelo vs. New London, CT) that the state can seize personal property simply because the seizure was "well planned" and it's profitable to do so. Statist needs trump personal needs.

If you decide to go "off grid" and not participate in society, can your land be grabbed because you and it aren't contributing as much as the state wants? Soviet, Chinese and Connecticut examples would tend to say, "yes".

States are flexing their 10th Amendment muscles. "Made In Montana" and the like. The experts point to legal precedence and believe that these states appear to be headed to similar Constitutional defeat.

Back in the 1940's, our SCOTUS actually said that commerce which never went outside of a state's borders was still the purview of the federal Interstate Commerce powers.

In this particular case, the product - wheat - never even left the farm, let alone the state, and SCOTUS still said it was under federal control because the larger national economy demanded it.

The "greater public good" was the justification for this unconstitutional action. If Nanny needs your 401k or other savings funds to pay for the "greater good", the precedent is already in place.

Seize at will, if it fits into Nanny's well-considered, big-picture plans.

The American form of Gleichschaltung is clearly in play. How it turns out is not so clear, but none of the possibilities seem very appealing.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,


Friday, May 22, 2009

Racial Observations and Disgust 

In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently.
---Supreme Court Associate Justice Harry Blackmun

Let that quote sink in. It is at the very core of the liberal view on race: Give special, unequal treatment to promote equality. This makes my head hurt.

It has worked out wonderfully, hasn't it?

Down in the LA area, Mexican gangs are specifically targeting blacks for murder. I found a handful of articles on the internet, and have seen nothing about this on TV. If this were a white, skin-head gang targeting blacks, this would be world-wide news.

Al Sharpton would have already walked through 3 or 4 pairs of Gucci loafers from his numerous protest walks. We would have every broadcast and cable station down in LA with reporters sporting furrowed brows asking questions like, "Why do whites hate so much?" and "Why do whites need their guns?".

20/20 and Dateline would already be showing two-hour long specials on, "White Hate In America". Diane Sawyer would be in tears.

If whites were doing it, there'd be Senate investigations and calls for money to be sent to "under-served" black neighborhoods around the nation. TARP funds would be allocated for this disaster.

Think I'm exaggerating? Do this: Go to Google, and key in this search query: Mexican gangs targeting blacks.

Then select the "News" tab (to show you how many news articles are out there right now). I got 103 hits.

Now, key in, White gangs targeting blacks. Click "News". I got 143 hits.

Why is that? There have been 150 Hispanic gang members arrested for specifically targeting blacks in their town. This is huge news. There is NOTHING "newsworthy" going on with whites doing anything even remotely horrific, yet there are more stories about evil whites?!

If you think "media bias" is a myth, you need to pull your head out of your ass.

I have a friend that inspects public housing. He makes sure the physical building and "plant" are in working order. Most of this property is owned or managed by HUD - The Department of Housing and Urban Development.

He just received the following instructions about the inspection reports he prepares:
We have received a directive from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) instructing that the term “graffiti” be omitted from all of our reports. It should be replaced with the term “urban art”.
From this point in time forward, photos for inspection purposes cannot include a person’s image. Photos with people may be perceived as racial or a display of the socioeconomic status of a community which may project the wrong impression of an area.
Why the new requirements? Well, the short answer is, this is a glaring example of what happens when government gets into the charity business. People that are down economically, STAY down.

Pictures or "hateful" words that accurately describe a situation have the real chance to destroy the fantasy, socialist image Nanny attempts to portray.

Is this what Barry meant with, "Change We Can Believe In"? All sizzle, no steak?

Graffiti is defacing the property of another person without their permission. Art is done with permission or payment.

Renaming it does nothing other than encouraging more of the same behavior. You're an "Urban Artist", not a "Graffiti Punk". It's kinda like renaming our welfare social assistance programs.

Great plan.

Head scratcher from jimmycrackcorn in the comments section of a past post: How many of the dealerships shut down by GM and Chrysler were owned by minorities?

I'd like to also know: If any minority owned dealerships WERE shut down, what percentage are they of the ones shut down, and what percentage of all dealerships do they represent?

What I'm getting at is, were they shut down in the same percentages as they were represented in the original "universe" of dealerships, or were some dealerships deemed "special" and spared the axe simply because they were minority-owned?

Constitution Check: Which article or amendment authorizes HUD? Which article or amendment authorizes TARP?

Just askin'...

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,


Thursday, May 21, 2009

For The Greater Good 

There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest.
--Elie Wiesel

From The American Thinker -
On Thursday, May 14, 2009 I was notified that my Dodge franchise, that we purchased, will be taken away from my family on June 9, 2009 without compensation and given to another dealer at no cost to them. My new vehicle inventory consists of 125 vehicles with a financed balance of 3 million dollars. This inventory becomes impossible to sell with no factory incentives beyond June 9, 2009. Without the Dodge franchise we can no longer sell a new Dodge as "new," nor will we be able to do any warranty service work. Additionally, my Dodge parts inventory, (approximately $300,000.) is virtually worthless without the ability to perform warranty service. There is no offer from Chrysler to buy back the vehicles or parts inventory.
He continues....


This is beyond imagination! My business is being stolen from me through NO FAULT OF OUR OWN. We did NOTHING wrong.
When this guy ends up on the news, perched atop his dealership with an Evil Black Rifle, I won't be shedding any tears. Push people once too often, and they push back.

BTW, there is indeed a Sunshine Dodge-Isuzu in Florida, with an owner (principal) named George Joseph.

I still haven't heard an explanation as to how Chrysler or GM can unilaterally close down these dealerships. If they want to cut off their financing - if it's being offered - that's just fine. It just makes it incumbent upon the owners to find new financing.

Something stinks about this. It just makes no sense.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,


Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Start Here 

The size of the federal budget is not an appropriate barometer of social conscience or charitable concern.
--Ronald Reagan

As many have heard, yesterday California voters shot down a number of measures that Aahhhnold tried to sell as a way to save our state. We didn't believe the crap he was selling.

More than likely, this will result in all you good non-Californians helping to pay our bills. YOU will get to pay for our over-spending, communist state ways. Thanks.

Next up will be MA, NY and NJ.

Just like the bank and automaker bailouts, we will all share in the down-side of the poor choices of others. Ain't this country great, commrade? Marx must be beaming.

Last week, a local radio station took a half hour and read a list of every single department in the State of California.

They were calling Bullshit to the politicians that say unless we raise taxes or borrow more money, we're going to have to cut firemen, police and teachers. Why don't we start with some other departments that are not "essential services." After all, isn't that the sole duty of government?

Here's my list of departments to get permanently, irrevocably cut. In my eyes, state government has the following core duties ONLY TO CITIZENS OR LEGAL ALIENS:

1. Provide for an environment to encourage business growth.
2. Provide for infrastructure, such as roads, levies, water, power, etc.
3. Courts, AG, State police
4. Basic legislature duties
5. Basic Executive duties
6. Regulate (not operate) business practices that an average layperson could not reasonably be expected to understand AND using those services could result in permanent harm or death (medical boards, etc.)

These that follow are the low-hanging fruit. Every single one of these should be a private charity or academic department in a college. This is what I came up with after a quick run through ONLY the A, B and C's. Let's start a-hackin':

African American Museum, California
Aging, California Commission on
Aging, Department of
Analytical Chemistry, Center for
Apprenticeship Standards, Division of
Arts Council
Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus
Assembly Democratic Caucus
Assembly Republican Caucus
Athletic Commission
Barbering and Cosmetology, Board of
Behavioral Sciences, Board of
Binational Border Health, California Office of
Biodiversity Council
Biogeographic Data Branch
Blind, Office of Services to the
Braille and Talking Book Library
California Broadband Initiative
California Council for the Humanities
California Cultural and Historical Endowment
California Digital Library
California Institute for Regenerative Medicine
California Museum for History, Women, and the Arts
California Science Center
California State Library
Cemetery and Funeral Bureau
Chief Information Officer Archives, Office of the (OCIO)
Climate Change Portal (Energy Commission)
Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy
Coastal Conservancy
Conservation Corps
Conservation, Department of
Cosmetology, Board of Barbering and
Cyber Safety for Children

I had to stop at the "C's" because I was getting a bit vomit-y.

I know some people will say, "Such and such department does good things!" and contend it should stay. Maybe some of the Conservation things. I still say, "bullshit."

This is the government telling private land owners how they can use their land. Being able to own land and other goods is the very core of liberty. Unless your use of that land or other possession infringes on the rights of another citizen, government needs to stay the hell out of that person's business.

And it sickens me to see that we pay extra money to help encourage our legislators to break into "special" camps - Democratic, Republican and Asian Pacific caucus'. I'm sure I'd find others if I continued through the rest of the departments.

Also, sorry (not!) about being hard-hearted with the aging and the blind. It is not a government function to help you out. It sucks to be old or blind, but it's part of life. Hell, I'm probably officially "old" now! Private charities or organizations do a much better job of providing services for these types of things.

After going through the easy stuff and just cutting it from the budget, you can do some house-cleaning at every other department. Anyone who's ever been to the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) knows what I mean.

I am a AAA member. I can get in and out to register my car through them in 5 minutes or less. On a good day, the DMV is a half-day adventure. Cut the fat, instill some fear in these dolts that you need to provide the citizens of this state with value for our tax dollars, or you are out on your ass.

THEN, if we are still under water, you can start doing cuts to essential services. Or, if the citizens see that our representatives are trying to legitimately control costs, we will happily agree to more taxes to keep things afloat.

The bastards we have representing us now don't even make half-hearted attempts at cuts. No more money, you pricks.

I'd expect the Tea Parties scheduled for July 4 to be very well attended. Even some hippies and commies are starting to see the light.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,


Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Don't Piss Down My Neck.... 

Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.
--Adolph Hitler

I'm guessing they'll keep doing bullshit like this until people start getting violent.
In what he casts as an attack on litterbugs and nicotine addiction alike, Mayor Gavin Newsom wants to impose a fee on an age-old inhabitant of city streets: the cigarette butt.

The proposal, to be introduced next month to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, would add 33 cents to the cost of a pack of cigarettes, to offset the estimated $10.7 million the city spends annually removing discarded butts from gutters, drainpipes and sidewalks.
San Francisco, like many big cities, sees huge swings between the number of people that actually live in The City versus the number that are there during the work day. SF has something like 750K residents, but around 1.5-2 million during a normal work day.

Lots of them smoke cigarettes. Most bring their smokes in with them, so the tax won't apply. Everyone recognizes this for what it is: Smokers are an easy target because we're dirty, disgusting, politically incorrect people. Punish us, and you'll get a pass.

Now, if this money were going directly into a protected, non-raidable "trust fund" that was only used for cleaning the streets, I'd be OK with it.

But we all know that the money will be dumped into the SF General Fund, it will be spent on providing health insurance for some freak that wants to get an Add-A-Dick-To-Me operation or in finding another way to attract more homeless people to The City so everyone can feel good about themselves.

It is just another step down the path of telling free people how to live their lives. If it moves, tax it.....

This bastard, Geithner, now looks us in the eye, and tells us that dumping a shit load of money into this sink-hole of a state - California - is not a "bailout".
In a live interview with Newsweek's Jon Meacham, Geithner said he's not interested in more bailouts or in having the government take the place of markets. See full story.

He flatly rejected the idea of having the government determine how much corporate executives should be paid. And, when asked specifically about California's fiscal woes, he said, "I wouldn't use the word 'bailout' or 'federal.'"

On the other hand, Geithner did say government has to take a more decisive role than it has before.
Read the article. He does more of this same double-speak crap. It's not a bailout, but we're giving them money. They're not going to tell companies how much they can spend, but they will force them to control compensation - to protect the tax payers.

How can these bastards look themselves in the eye in the morning? Nothing that comes out of their mouths even approaches the truth.

And I'm telling you, if they continue with this non-bailout bailout of California, people in other states will literally start shooting back.

The lying botox-hole, Pelosi. 'Nuff said.

I attended a function yesterday that I can't go into detail about (Way To Go, Bro!). At the reception afterwords, the sole topic of conversation was how we are going down the toilet, and how the lies being told to us have absolutely no credibility.

It was amazing.

One of my nieces, who is going to college to get an Econ degree even noted how none of this makes any sense. It "does not compute."

Many people have heard about the special elections we're having today in CA. Five out of the six issues we're voting on will increase taxes and/or let politicians off the hook with regards to balancing our state budget. According to the polls, they are all significantly behind in the polls.

The only one that looks like it will be passed will be one that will withhold pay raises for legislators when the state is in a deficit situation.

Imagine that: If you don't do your job (providing a state constitutionally mandated balanced budget), you don't get a raise. Comrades! Where's the love?!

People - even the majority of socialist Californians - are tired of the crap and lies.

Mark my words - violent protests and/or martial law within 18 months somewhere in the US...

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,


Think Hillary Had A Hand In This? 

The Pitch: "How would you like to spend some time on a tropical island, surrounded by hot, steamy women with French accents? They may even, 'smoke your pipe' [wink, wink]."

The Mark: A former president with a known penchant for the ladies.

The Result: Bill Clinton to Become Special Haiti Envoy

This is just too rich. Hell, they make cigars there too, right?



Monday, May 18, 2009


The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy, but the best weapon of a democracy should be the weapon of openness.
-- Niels Bohr

Am I just coming out of a coma? This Bilderberg Group has been around for more than 50 years, and I can't say I've ever heard of them.

Apparently, they're well known by the rich and powerful.
Attendees this year reportedly included U.S. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner; Larry Summers, the director of the U.S. National Economic Council; Richard Holbrooke, the Obama administration's special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan; World Bank President Robert Zoellick; European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet and European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso.
So, what are the boys talking about this year?
Meanwhile, Daniel Estulin, author of "The True Story of the Bilderberg Group," said before the confab the main topic of the agenda for this meeting was the world economy. He said his sources inside the group told him the movers and shakers would be discussing two options – "either a prolonged, agonizing depression that dooms the world to decades of stagnation, decline, and poverty ... or an intense-but-shorter depression that paves the way for a new sustainable economic world order, with less sovereignty but more efficiency."
.... less sovereignty but more efficiency. Sounds like communism to me. Centralized, efficient control, so long as you do as we say.
The highly secretive meeting is off limits to press, but past reports from sources that have managed to penetrate the high-security meetings have stated that the meetings emphasize a globalist agenda and dismiss national sovereignty as regressive.
Don't you just hate it when that national sovereignty stuff gets in the way? Of course, my hero, Ron Paul, hits the nail on the head -
The legality of such meetings can be questioned according to the United States law. The Logan Act forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments. In his website, Congressman Ron Paul says: "Are U.S. officials violating the "Logan Act" if they attend the current Bilderberg meeting in Athens? Would the "Freedom of Information Act" give reporters/citizens access to flights or cost associated with attending? Thereby proving any U.S official presence?"
I'm sure the, "National Security Card" will be played to keep us serfs in the dark. Now, go enjoy your bowl of gruel.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,


Saturday, May 16, 2009

Cooking With Prep Supplies 

I'm working on both my Emergency Preparedness class, as well as a text version (read: Book) so you all get to benefit from my latest test.

I try to make at least one meal a week from stored, prep foods (I need to share this stuff more often). Today, I did a breakfast - corned beef hash and eggs. Everything here could be cooked in your home, or by a campfire (one of the things that I try to ensure with my prepping recipes).


1, 12 oz can of corned beef
1 cup dehydrated potatoes (I used hash brown styled spuds)
2 tablespoons dehydrated chopped onions
3/4 cups (12 tablespoons) powdered eggs (equivalent to 6 eggs)
3 1/2 cups water
3 tablespoons oil or butter
Salt and pepper to taste

In a bowl, take your dehydrated potatoes and dehydrated chopped onions, and add two cups of water. Cover loosely and microwave on high for 3 minutes. Let sit covered for 30 minutes.

Alternatively: Bring the 2 cups of water to a boil, add the potatoes and onions, stir, cover and let sit for 30 minutes.

Drain any excess water. Take the corned beef, and cut into very small dices. Mix thoroughly with potatoes/onions in a bowl.

Heat a frying pan to medium high. Add 2 tablespoons oil or butter. Add the hash mix to the pan, pressing it flat into the pan. After 4 minutes or so, cut the hash into 4 sections, and flip each section over in the pan. The hash should have a very crispy crust. Pan fry for 4 more minutes, then set aside.

Mix the powdered eggs with the remaining water (1 1/2 cups). Mix thoroughly, ensuring there are no dry lumps whatsoever. Bring the frying pan up to medium high heat, add the remaining tablespoon of oil/butter, and scramble the eggs to the desired doneness.

Salt and pepper to taste.

Feeds 3 people or two really fat guys.

Yes, they were friggin' awesome (that's only eggs for two in the picture).

This was kind of a test within a test. The powdered eggs were "old" according to the "best by" date. They had been taken from a vacuum-sealed bag about 2 months ago. They have been in my pantry in a ziplock bag for that whole time.

They cooked up and tasted just like they do when they are "fresh" from the can. I really love these things and need to add more to my prep stores.

Go forth and prep. The prices on some staples are creeping up slowly but surely. Meat - pork in particular - seems to actually be dropping in price. Go figure.

If you think inflation is going to hit like a run-away train because of Barry's largess with our tax dollars - like I do - get your prep stores filled up before TSHTF. If you're wrong, worse case, you'll have a bunch of food that you can rotate into your regular eating schedule. Remember - only store what you eat.

Horrible, huh?

My next prepping post (sometime next week) will disclose The Perfect Prep Food, a bunch of JAW recipes (Just Add Water) and some other goodies.

Gotta go clean some guns. I'm WAY behind on my cleaning/maintenance schedule....

Labels: , ,


Friday, May 15, 2009

Lies, Cowardice and.... Bats 

The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie - deliberate, contrived and dishonest - but the myth - persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.
--John F. Kennedy

Chrysler and GM dealerships - I don't understand this. Between the two of them, they're closing nearly 2,000 dealerships. Why? Do the car companies "lend" the cars to the dealers?

Way back when, I used to do a type of financing called, "floor planning". It was to allow car dealerships to buy cars from the makers. It's been a while since I did this type of lending, so maybe the car companies got into the floor planning business. Why would these dealerships be closed down by the car makers? Aren't they owned by individuals under license by the manufacturer? Unless they have become the "floor planning" lender, I don't understand how the manufacturer could have any expense if a dealership stays open.

The CEO of GM was on Glenn Beck yesterday, promising that Barry and Co. won't be running the day-to-day operations of the auto maker.

He should pick up a newspaper once in a while -
U.S. officials have urged Bank of America Corp (BAC.N) to revamp its board and bring in directors with more banking experience, the Wall Street Journal said.
Chrysler is nearly two weeks into its bankruptcy, and the Auburn Hills, Michigan-based automaker is already getting an idea of just how engaged the Obama administration plans to be in the process. Chrysler planned to spend $134 million dollars on advertising during its supposed nine weeks of bankruptcy, but the Auto Task Force has reportedly cut the figure in half.
Right. No government "influence" into the daily operations of these bailed-out businesses. None at all. Maybe GMs CEO forgot that the way he got his job was by Barry firing his predecessor...

California spends $11 billion each year to warehouse criminals in CA prisons. Approximately 1/3 of all CA prisoners are illegal aliens - the responsibility of the federal government. This $4 billion is approximately 4-6% of our annual budget.

Arnold is threatening to turn over all of these illegal alien criminals (I know - redundant) to the federal government. WHY IN THE HELL DIDN'T YOU DO THIS WHEN YOU STARTED AS OUR SAVIOR GOVERNOR?

Can anyone say, "California Correctional Peace Officer's Union"....?

I attended an exploratory business meeting last night. Could be a very cool business venture. Historic venue, willing government officials, etc.

The main building has a bit of a problem, though.


At one time, over 40,000 lived in the rafters of this place. It's now under control, though. They're down to only 10,000 bats!

The upper floor of this place literally has sand dunes of bat guano. The owner has started using it on his commercial orchards. He gave us a couple of oranges that he has been fertilizing with the bat poop for the past two years. They were the size of grapefruits, and sweet as sugar.

That's some good shit.... ;-)

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,


Thursday, May 14, 2009


I started reading my normal news sources this morning, and just said, "fuck it."

Pelosi in a pissing contest with the CIA.

Barry setting the pay structure in banks.

Unemployment and foreclosures going up - with the Dow following suit.

The EPA getting called out by some congressman over a memo they received saying that they really, truly should have some facts to support their wild Global Warming claims - and proposed laws.

Talk of more "sin" taxes on smokes, booze and soda.

My brain is going to bed. This is just too much to absorb - what our government is doing to us.

Back spittin' nails tomorrow...



Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Writs of Assistance 

I also wish that the Pledge of Allegiance were directed at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as it is when the President takes his oath of office, rather than to the flag and the nation.
--Carl Sagan

I thought I'd add a bit of historical context to my last rant about our right to privacy being trampled upon.

Way back in 1751, the Brits first issued these little search warrants called, Writs of Assistance. They were used by customs officials to search stores and warehouses for "contraband" goods. The people were fed up with paying the exorbitant taxes, and had turned to smuggling in goods.

The Writs gave the government the legal authority to search the person's store, warehouses and even their homes. There was no need to define what was being looked for, nor where it had to be located.

It gave the government carte blanche to search when and where they pleased (sound familiar?).

After the Revolution, this grand government intrusion resulted in the Fourth Amendment.

We need to remember that our Constitution was born from experience. It was not some willy-nilly document thrown together by a bunch of whiny punks. At its very core, the Constitution was the result of an oppressive government encroaching on the liberties of its citizens.
Most British subjects assumed that all laws made by Parliament were incorporated into the [British] Constitution, and thus that Parliament could alter the Constitution as it wished, without question. The government was the sole judge of the constitutionality of its actions.
I think that's what most Americans believe: If the government passes a law, it must be Constitutional.

It's not supposed to be how things work here, now, but for all practical purposes, is exactly what has happened. In 1761, lawyer James Otis brought suit on behalf of the citizens against this grotesque expansion of government powers.
However, Otis' primary argument in front of the supreme court centered on the growing sentiment in the colonies that even Parliament could not infringe on certain basic rights that stood at the core of the Constitution, often termed 'the rights of Englishmen.' Otis contended that in the principles of government, there existed certain limits, "beyond which if Parliaments go, their Acts bind not."

There is a group of Americans, The Oath Keepers, that is making a public stand against this growth of government. They are made up of former and current active-duty military and peace officer. They are making a pledge to NOT enforce any unconstitutional orders.

I don't know enough about them to send them money - yet - but I like what I have read so far.

Here's a video that gives an overview of their pledge.

Labels: ,


Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Payback's A Bitch 

The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do his share in this defense are the constitutional rights secure.
--Albert Einstein

I was reading WND this morning, and I got a chuckle from one of their articles. It was called, "'Electronic Police State' report cites U.S." I find this hilarious.

Of course, the article is correct. Our government has way too much power to monitor virtually every facet of our lives. What I find funny is WND was one of the big proponents of loosening FISA restrictions - the whole 'warrantless wiretap' thing - back when Bush was in power.

Now that Barry has the reins, it's suddenly a problem.

Here is a typical WND right-wing response back in 2006 to left-wing protestations of Nanny snooping into our lives:
No doubt the vast majority of such messages turn out to be innocent, but this cannot be known until they are scanned. And what the Democrats are contending is that the administration ought to have sought prior permission from a FISA court to scan each individual message (or at least to have done so, as the law allows in emergencies, within 72 hours after the scan).

This is obviously impossible. Even if our intelligence officials could somehow isolate every communication between someone here and someone abroad, and bring each individually to the attention of a FISA court to seek approval for monitoring it, doing so would inevitably take many hours, by which time the communication would long since be over. And even with a 72-hour grace period in which to obtain retroactive approval, the burden of ruling on each of the thousands of applications would quickly overwhelm the court.
Then, each of these "excuses" would typically end with the following ominous prediction -
But it seems plain that we must either allow our government to monitor possible terrorist communications when they occur, or witness their consequences at our leisure.
This is an utterly bullshit argument. Think about the Franklin quote about choosing safety versus liberty. If we are willing to set aside our rights of privacy (as guaranteed by the Ninth Amendment) just because there are bad people in the world, we are just a group of quivering, cowering pussies, and don't deserve our freedoms.

There have always been bad people out there. In the early parts of our country's history, those bad people could legitimately kick our ass around the block, yet we still upheld our standards.

There will always be bad people out there. Deal with it, or fold up the tent called, 'America.'

The other thing that pissed me off about the FISA thing was, one of their biggest complaints was, "it's too hard." Too much paperwork. Bad guys might get away. AND PEOPLE BOUGHT THIS CRAP!!

I have screamed about this at the top of my lungs since this first came up. This isn't a left- or right-wing kind of thing. It is a Constitutional and personal privacy thing. It is an individual versus tyranny thing. If Nanny does not have probable cause, she can't search my records, regardless of the media upon which they reside.

Those of you that supported Bush and his terrorist scare tactics are responsible for this. DID YOU THINK THE LAWS WOULD BE RESCINDED WHEN A DEMOCRAT CAME TO POWER!

You asked for this, and now you've got it. Live with it.

For those of you unfamiliar with the aforementioned Ninth Amendment -
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Just because a right - such as privacy - is not spelled out in the Constitution, does not mean we don't retain it. The Tenth brings that home by saying that if a power or right is not specifically granted to the Feds, it is ours.

Since I see nothing in the Constitution allowing Nanny to squash our privacy rights - in fact the Fourth Amendment limits her powers - what the government is doing is unconstitutional.

If you disagree, tell me where I'm wrong. Bring your Constitution with you.

Labels: , , , , , ,


Monday, May 11, 2009

Starting The Week Pissed Off 

One should respect public opinion insofar as is necessary to avoid starvation and keep out of prison, but anything that goes beyond this is voluntary submission to an unnecessary tyranny.
--Bertrand Russell

How can you be sure you'd survive TEOTWAWKI? You take a quiz, of course!

Apparently, I'm going to make it...

The Biggest Fish in the Crater

63% Guts and 59% Intuition

The Biggest Fish in the Crater

You've survived the apocalypse. If someone asked you why, you'd tell them between shots of irradiated liquor that you're a man of action. If they press further, you'd press them into the dirt.
It isn't all luck that your Rambo tactics have kept you from choking on the mortal coil. Keeping on the move is a pretty viable strategy against unknown enemies of unknown origin as much as it is against other, more crazed survivors. Maybe your luck will run out someday. Maybe your brazen tactics just make you all the bigger target. Maybe death will come knocking at your door.
This is for certain: You aren't going down without a fight.
I'm not sure where the "Rambo tactics" notation came from. Maybe if you're willing to shoot a bad guy, you're a Rambo. Lord help you if you won't shoot a bad guy....

Our federal debt of $11.3 trillion, is nearly equal to our annual GDP of $14.3 trillion. By the end of the 2010 fiscal year, they WILL be equal.

Our federal government will steal and coerce bring in $2.186 trillion for fiscal year 2009. Assuming that's a normal "haul", that means it would take 7 years to pay off the debt - assuming all interest was forgiven and tax dollars were not used for any other purpose.

Instead, Barry is going to do the polar opposite - spend more money on services and borrow more to increase the debt.

We have left our kids a steaming, oozing pile of shit for a national legacy.

CBS Sports golf analyst David Feherty:
"From my own experience visiting the troops in the Middle East, I can tell you this though," Feherty wrote toward the end of his column.

"Despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death."
Of course, he had to apologize, probably over a threat on his job. That Freedom of Speech thing sure is cool, huh?

Look what the nice Republicans are doing -
Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., has sponsored H.R. 2159, the Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2009, which permits the attorney general to deny transfer of a firearm to any "known or suspected dangerous terrorist." The bill requires only that the potential firearm transferee is "appropriately suspected" of preparing for a terrorist act and that the attorney general "has a reasonable belief" that the gun might be used in connection with terrorism.
How nice. "Appropriately suspected" has now replaced, "...the right to a speedy and public trial," as the method by which your rights may be rescinded.

I wonder if falling on one of those "right wing extremist" government lists counts as being suspected....

Hey, maybe it's the Republican's way of getting back into that cost-cutting swing of things.

If you don't have all those 'spensive trials - with your witnesses not providing for The Collective while they're testifying - you can apply that public money to more productive, hive-growing projects.

Shit like this will sure help to re-build the Republican base. There is NO difference between the parties...

Don't all of these bastards get a copy of the Constitution on their first day of work? Maybe have to take a test to prove they understand what they have sworn to uphold?

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,


Saturday, May 09, 2009

Political Whoredom 

The worst of madmen is a saint run mad.
--Alexander Pope

It started with the firing of AIG CEO Robert Willumstad by Treasury Secretary Paulson.

After the administration change, it continued first with the firing of GM chief Rick Waggoner by Barry himself. Then it rolled to the bondholders of Chrysler being arbitrarily bounced from their legally protected status in favor of the United Auto Workers.

Not satisfied with merely controlling private business, Barry and Company have upped the ante, and are now openly and notoriously telling the states how to run their governments.
In a victory for its labor union friends, the Obama administration has ruled that budget-strapped California cannot cut the wages of in-home care givers since it is accepting federal stimulus funds.
The troubles this state have had with our budget have been all over the news. Our deficits were larger than the entire budgets of many states. It is horribly mis-managed.

Still, Ahhhnold and the legislature found a number of ways to balance our budget - at least temporarily. The process entailed some cuts in government spending, coupled with a boat-load of increased taxes. For instance, my sales tax rate is now 9.25%.

So, Barry got a hit on his Blackberry. It was his union buddies, and they said that the tax increases are all cool, but the union wage cuts just won't be allowed.

That leaves CA with a choice: We can keep the wage cuts, and realize a $74 million budget savings. Or, we can reinstate the cuts, and get $6.8 BILLION in federal stimulus goodness.

Hmmmm. What do you think will happen?

On behalf of Ahhnold and the citizens of California, I want to personally thank all of the citizens in the other 49 states for your donation to our wonderful state. Barry has served you well.

Hey, ya get what ya pay for. The SEIU - the biggest union in the country - spent their political contribution dollars VERY well.

For the rest of us folks that still believe in the Constitution, this is just horrifying. First we have a federal government that has a specific set of duties it is legally able to perform - and running private companies is not one of them. Yet they do so with a righteousness of purpose.

It's for the people!

Now, they are directly challenging the budgetary authority of a state. I guess it's not really that different from the feds threatening to withhold, say, highway funds, unless certain conditions are met.

But this just strikes me as particularly egregious.

Maybe it's because this was so clearly orchestrated by the unions. They said, "jump" and Barry said, "How high?"

Our president is their bitch, and that disgusts me.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,


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