Obama yesterday said that even if we got rid of ALL the earmarks it would only be 1% of the budget. Either that is an outright lie and he knows it, or, lets be charitable and say its a serious SPIN.
I don't know if the 1% number is correct or not. Maybe it is. BUT...even if it is, it controls 100% of the budget.
Earmarks are placed on bills to buy votes for the bills. Yes, each earmark in itself is not much, but if the main bill would not have passed without buying that vote or those votes, then it is leveraged to 100%. For every 100 billion dollar bill that is passed only because 1 billion in earmarks purchased votes, there is a leverage of 100%. So the 1% becomes the 100% of the budget.
If ALL earmarks (that according to the president are only 1%) were eliminated by law. Then more than half the bills they are attached to would not pass. The bills they are attached to could not pass on their own merits so in order to buy votes for an otherwise unacceptable bill, leaders will throw in some "meat" for the voters so they vote in order to get their earmark passed. They don't vote for the main bill, they just vote for the money that is attached for themselves and to hell with the rest of the country. We saw that with the health care bill. It didn't have a chance in hell if they hadn't purchased votes with add-ons, earmarks, and exemptions.
By outlawing earmarks the budget could be cut in half immediately!!!
So Obamas comment that earmarks are only 1% of the budget is intentionally misleading. That in my book is a Lie. He lies.
Jim Isbell
==================================================
==================================================
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Guns and Money are Evil
I have a pet peeve that just drives me nuts almost nightly. Every night on the 10 O'clock news I, invariably, see shots of a team of police going into a home where they are exercising a search warrant to seize some drug dealer or house burglar or other kind of criminal.
No, I dont object to that, but I do object to the presses depiction of the event. Almost without exception, the reporter standing in the street will say, "They found a huge store of guns and $35,000 in cash." What are they reporting on? There is no law, at least in Texas, against a store of guns in the house, and as far as I know there is no law in the United States against having $35,000 in cash in your house. There are laws against certain types of guns, but invariably the ones pictured are shotguns, rifles and hand guns of various types. None of which are illegal in ANY quantity, at least in Texas. And in fact, if I chose to have $35,000 in cash in my house, which I most definitely would not, I WOULD have a large number of guns there to defend it. So why is the reporter reporting on something that is NOT a crime? I don't hear him/her giving an inventory of the refrigerator, or the bedroom closest, why then, do they report on the guns and cash which are as legal as the milk and cookies in the refrigerator that they didn't mention?
I believe it is because they are against the Second Amendment.
Another one along those lines that really makes me mad is the way they reported on the guy that walked into a hospital and shot his mother and himself. Even the FOX news people were guilty of this one. The reporters on FOX news made a big deal of the fact that he had a "semi-automatic" weapon. It was a pistol. Almost all pistols are semi automatic. Most revolvers are semi automatic. Only antiques are single shot and require re-cocking before the next shot can be fired. Semi automatic means that each time you pull the trigger a round is fired and the chamber is reloaded for the next pull of the trigger. They are NOT illegal in most states. Now an "automatic" weapon is illegal. Federal law makes them legal ONLY if you have a permit for the gun and it requires a background check to get the permit. A criminal would not pass the background check. That is a weapon that fires rounds as long as the trigger is depressed or until the magazine is empty. This was NOT an "automatic" weapon. FOX news was trying to find fault with a system "that allowed a man to walk right into a hospital with a "semi-automatic" weapon." as though it was some sort of assault rifle and he carried it in the open. It was just a pistol.
The news media are anti gun and anti wealth. That is the antithesis of our Constitution. The news media are anti-Constitution.
Jim Isbell
==============================================================
==============================================================
No, I dont object to that, but I do object to the presses depiction of the event. Almost without exception, the reporter standing in the street will say, "They found a huge store of guns and $35,000 in cash." What are they reporting on? There is no law, at least in Texas, against a store of guns in the house, and as far as I know there is no law in the United States against having $35,000 in cash in your house. There are laws against certain types of guns, but invariably the ones pictured are shotguns, rifles and hand guns of various types. None of which are illegal in ANY quantity, at least in Texas. And in fact, if I chose to have $35,000 in cash in my house, which I most definitely would not, I WOULD have a large number of guns there to defend it. So why is the reporter reporting on something that is NOT a crime? I don't hear him/her giving an inventory of the refrigerator, or the bedroom closest, why then, do they report on the guns and cash which are as legal as the milk and cookies in the refrigerator that they didn't mention?
I believe it is because they are against the Second Amendment.
Another one along those lines that really makes me mad is the way they reported on the guy that walked into a hospital and shot his mother and himself. Even the FOX news people were guilty of this one. The reporters on FOX news made a big deal of the fact that he had a "semi-automatic" weapon. It was a pistol. Almost all pistols are semi automatic. Most revolvers are semi automatic. Only antiques are single shot and require re-cocking before the next shot can be fired. Semi automatic means that each time you pull the trigger a round is fired and the chamber is reloaded for the next pull of the trigger. They are NOT illegal in most states. Now an "automatic" weapon is illegal. Federal law makes them legal ONLY if you have a permit for the gun and it requires a background check to get the permit. A criminal would not pass the background check. That is a weapon that fires rounds as long as the trigger is depressed or until the magazine is empty. This was NOT an "automatic" weapon. FOX news was trying to find fault with a system "that allowed a man to walk right into a hospital with a "semi-automatic" weapon." as though it was some sort of assault rifle and he carried it in the open. It was just a pistol.
The news media are anti gun and anti wealth. That is the antithesis of our Constitution. The news media are anti-Constitution.
Jim Isbell
==============================================================
==============================================================
Monday, September 27, 2010
I Can Absorb This Attack
I got my insurance bill this morning. Its up 11%! Ok, thats not much compared to some so maybe I shouldn't complain. But, I thought the health care bill would "drop my insurance costs." Mr Obama said it would! It didn't!
I can absorb this attack on my health care. But I don't want to when I was assured by Mr Obama that he would protect me.
Mr Obama also recently stated that he would do everything in his power to protect me from another 9/11 attack. Can I trust him in this matter any more than I obviously couldn't in the mater of my health care?
Probably not, since he also said in that same interview that we could absorb another 9/11 attack. This shows that he isn't thinking of stopping the attack, but just absorbing it.
I wonder if this"absorption" discounts the victims and the relatives of the victims? Are they willing to be cannon fodder in this war on terrorism? Are they willing to be the human shield that protects Mr Obama?
This way of thinking is similar to the bank robber that grabs a customer and uses them for a human shield as they run for the door. The robber figures he can "absorb" the bank guards attack if the customer will just take the bullets. But the customer is not a willing shield!
Are we, the American population, just another human shield for the administrations war on terror? Are we a willing shield? I hope not and I hope that in November we will express that dislike of being taken hostage to be used to absorb another 9/11 attack.
Jim Isbell
==================================================
==================================================
I can absorb this attack on my health care. But I don't want to when I was assured by Mr Obama that he would protect me.
Mr Obama also recently stated that he would do everything in his power to protect me from another 9/11 attack. Can I trust him in this matter any more than I obviously couldn't in the mater of my health care?
Probably not, since he also said in that same interview that we could absorb another 9/11 attack. This shows that he isn't thinking of stopping the attack, but just absorbing it.
I wonder if this"absorption" discounts the victims and the relatives of the victims? Are they willing to be cannon fodder in this war on terrorism? Are they willing to be the human shield that protects Mr Obama?
This way of thinking is similar to the bank robber that grabs a customer and uses them for a human shield as they run for the door. The robber figures he can "absorb" the bank guards attack if the customer will just take the bullets. But the customer is not a willing shield!
Are we, the American population, just another human shield for the administrations war on terror? Are we a willing shield? I hope not and I hope that in November we will express that dislike of being taken hostage to be used to absorb another 9/11 attack.
Jim Isbell
==================================================
==================================================
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Congress Did The Right Thing
They voted to turn down the COLA and the bill is on the presidents desk awaiting his signature.
In a way, that is too bad because I was getting ready to have another go at this subject. So now I have to write another blog message.
Luckily its Sunday and I can blog about the preachers sermon this morning.
Actually this blog wont touch on the sermon, but will be about church membership and what it means to many Christians (I was daydreaming about this during the sermon, sorry pastor).
Today, I suddenly realized that there was a reason that many Liberals have the mindset they do about taxation and social reform. Its because many of them are non church affiliated. Many will say they are Christians but not know the meaning of what they are claiming. They went to a Christian church as children and feel that it was absorbed by osmosis and feel no real need to attend anymore. And many others consider religion to be a crutch that they don't need. Maybe in this life, but one day they will be in the after life looking for that crutch they threw away and now cant get to.
Many Christians believe in the tithe for today, even though most admit that it is an Old Testament requirement that is no longer incumbent upon the modern Christian. Even so they still feel comfortable with the practice, 10% of their income to the "Church". I put that in quotes because one can consider the "Church" to be the entire spectrum of charity. In other words not necessarily all of that 10% needs to go in the collection plate, but it can be spread around to many other charities directly, which, by the way, is much more efficient. Also donating ones time to a charity fits within that tithe.
However the Liberal, non-Christian or atheist doesn't feel this need to charity so it makes very good sense to him/her to have government forcefully take it away from you and "redistribute" it on your behalf.
Perhaps the tax law should be written so that you have the option of sending the money to Washington for "redistribution" or you can submit your 1040 with the list of charities to which you have sent the money. In other words you get full tax CREDIT (not deduction) for the full amount that you, individually, redistribute? It would be far more efficient and far less invasive.
Jim Isbell
==========================================
==========================================
In a way, that is too bad because I was getting ready to have another go at this subject. So now I have to write another blog message.
Luckily its Sunday and I can blog about the preachers sermon this morning.
Actually this blog wont touch on the sermon, but will be about church membership and what it means to many Christians (I was daydreaming about this during the sermon, sorry pastor).
Today, I suddenly realized that there was a reason that many Liberals have the mindset they do about taxation and social reform. Its because many of them are non church affiliated. Many will say they are Christians but not know the meaning of what they are claiming. They went to a Christian church as children and feel that it was absorbed by osmosis and feel no real need to attend anymore. And many others consider religion to be a crutch that they don't need. Maybe in this life, but one day they will be in the after life looking for that crutch they threw away and now cant get to.
Many Christians believe in the tithe for today, even though most admit that it is an Old Testament requirement that is no longer incumbent upon the modern Christian. Even so they still feel comfortable with the practice, 10% of their income to the "Church". I put that in quotes because one can consider the "Church" to be the entire spectrum of charity. In other words not necessarily all of that 10% needs to go in the collection plate, but it can be spread around to many other charities directly, which, by the way, is much more efficient. Also donating ones time to a charity fits within that tithe.
However the Liberal, non-Christian or atheist doesn't feel this need to charity so it makes very good sense to him/her to have government forcefully take it away from you and "redistribute" it on your behalf.
Perhaps the tax law should be written so that you have the option of sending the money to Washington for "redistribution" or you can submit your 1040 with the list of charities to which you have sent the money. In other words you get full tax CREDIT (not deduction) for the full amount that you, individually, redistribute? It would be far more efficient and far less invasive.
Jim Isbell
==========================================
==========================================
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Short and Sweet
OK, this will be very short.
Just someone tell me why the congress feels that they need a $36,000 a year raise because of "Cost of living allowance" (BTW, they just voted it to themselves) but the seniors were DENIED a COLA increase in SS this year.
I am NOT calling for a COLA increase for seniors if there really hasn't been an increase in the cost of living. BUT...if that is so then it is also so for the congress.
One of the two is a LIE!!!
Jim Isbell
===============================================
===============================================
Just someone tell me why the congress feels that they need a $36,000 a year raise because of "Cost of living allowance" (BTW, they just voted it to themselves) but the seniors were DENIED a COLA increase in SS this year.
I am NOT calling for a COLA increase for seniors if there really hasn't been an increase in the cost of living. BUT...if that is so then it is also so for the congress.
One of the two is a LIE!!!
Jim Isbell
===============================================
===============================================
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Alcohol And Gasoline Dont Mix
Remember that old saying from the 1950s ? It was true then and its true now. But for maybe another reason.
Two months ago we started getting the alcohol laced gasoline at the fuel pumps. Now its almost everywhere. I cant find any pure gasoline here in the Corpus Christi area.
The reason for this alcohol gasoline mix is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and replace it with alcohol made from corn. But its a total failure right from the start. It doesn't even do what it is supposed to do and further it is causing hunger in other parts of the world.
The gasoline alcohol mix is 90% gasoline and 10% alcohol. Thats being generous, because the pumps say "up to 10% alcohol" but if its actually LESS, then it is even worse for the world!!
Why would I say that? Are we not saving 1 gallon in every 10 gallons of gasoline? NO, we ARE NOT!!! The mix results in a 10% loss in mileage. I defy you to test it and see if you are not getting 10% less mileage than you were on pure gasoline.
If you take out 1/10th of each gallon of gas and replace it with 1/10 gallon of alcohol and the result is a loss of 10% in mileage, then why add in the alcohol? The mileage would be the same if you just ran the 9/10th gallon of gasoline without the alcohol!!! The alcohol only adds bulk so that it can be sold as a "Gallon of Gas".
This means that you will buy 11 gallons of the mix to replace 10 gallons of gasoline to go the SAME distance. You will pay 3% LESS per gallon for the mix than for the pure gasoline, but you will loose 10% mileage. Therefore you pay more PER MILE than before and use the SAME amount of petrol derived gasoline for a given distance, but you also use about 2 gallons of alcohol, per tank full of gas, made from corn which someone could be eating.
In the end, for NO GAIN IN MILEAGE OR REDUCTION IN PETROLEUM USE someone in a third world country can DIE OF STARVATION and the motoring public PAYS FOR IT.
Does this make ANY SENSE to you?
In might make sense if someone is trying to make us dependent on government subsidized corn production. But why would anyone want to do that?
Jim Isbell
===============================================
===============================================
Two months ago we started getting the alcohol laced gasoline at the fuel pumps. Now its almost everywhere. I cant find any pure gasoline here in the Corpus Christi area.
The reason for this alcohol gasoline mix is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and replace it with alcohol made from corn. But its a total failure right from the start. It doesn't even do what it is supposed to do and further it is causing hunger in other parts of the world.
The gasoline alcohol mix is 90% gasoline and 10% alcohol. Thats being generous, because the pumps say "up to 10% alcohol" but if its actually LESS, then it is even worse for the world!!
Why would I say that? Are we not saving 1 gallon in every 10 gallons of gasoline? NO, we ARE NOT!!! The mix results in a 10% loss in mileage. I defy you to test it and see if you are not getting 10% less mileage than you were on pure gasoline.
If you take out 1/10th of each gallon of gas and replace it with 1/10 gallon of alcohol and the result is a loss of 10% in mileage, then why add in the alcohol? The mileage would be the same if you just ran the 9/10th gallon of gasoline without the alcohol!!! The alcohol only adds bulk so that it can be sold as a "Gallon of Gas".
This means that you will buy 11 gallons of the mix to replace 10 gallons of gasoline to go the SAME distance. You will pay 3% LESS per gallon for the mix than for the pure gasoline, but you will loose 10% mileage. Therefore you pay more PER MILE than before and use the SAME amount of petrol derived gasoline for a given distance, but you also use about 2 gallons of alcohol, per tank full of gas, made from corn which someone could be eating.
In the end, for NO GAIN IN MILEAGE OR REDUCTION IN PETROLEUM USE someone in a third world country can DIE OF STARVATION and the motoring public PAYS FOR IT.
Does this make ANY SENSE to you?
In might make sense if someone is trying to make us dependent on government subsidized corn production. But why would anyone want to do that?
Jim Isbell
===============================================
===============================================
Monday, September 20, 2010
Religion
Sunday the Pastors subject included the idea that we should pray for our political leaders, especially for those with whom we disagree. Some would think that praying for the well being and guidance of an "Evil" leader is counterproductive.
This is not so. This is, in fact essential, no mater what your religion is! I am of the opinion that at least ONE of us must be right and if we all pray, then at least one is talking to the real God and will get results.
Realize, that any leader will be guided by either God (whatever name you give him) or by the antithesis of God, in my religion called the Devil. If we pray for him/her to be guided by God, then we have eliminated the other option. This is good.
I do not push my religion on anybody. I may present it as the truth as I know it, I have PROOF that satisfies me and most people that I explain the proof to. But I dont give my proof unless asked for it.
BUT...and many people on my side of the street wont agree with this...I don't see why if the Indian who worships Shiva has a different word for love than I do, why couldn't he also have a different word for God than I do? If the Japanese who worship Buddha have a different word for heaven than I do, why couldn't they have a different word for God than I do?
The argument against this, from people that believe similarly to myself, is that the "story" that tells of Gods works and his/her (I don't think that is relevant) moral expectations is different so it cant be the same God. But I respond by reminding people of the game where you whisper a secret around a circle of friends and see how it comes out at the end. Thats always a real surprise. Since all religions have their beginnings in an oral history I can see how the message could become garbled, but the God still be the same one. After all, the bible tells of the Tower of Babble.
Now, of course, I think mine is the "Inspired word of God" and could not be garbled. The Buddhist also thinks the same as I do, that his is unaltered, as does the worshiper of Shiva.
But it is really irrelevant, at least while we are still alive, since MOST of the religions teach a moral code, a code of conduct, that if followed is supposed to insure your AND your neighbors well being while still here on earth. If we all followed that code, which ever one it is, the world would be a better place.
Of course, we all feel that OUR religion is the best one when it comes to the afterlife as we all feel the other one wont be able to deliver. But that is only relevant for oneself. My religion tells me to tell others about my religion, but it does not tell me to shove it down their throat as one interpretation of Islam seems to.
Jim Isbell
============================================
============================================
This is not so. This is, in fact essential, no mater what your religion is! I am of the opinion that at least ONE of us must be right and if we all pray, then at least one is talking to the real God and will get results.
Realize, that any leader will be guided by either God (whatever name you give him) or by the antithesis of God, in my religion called the Devil. If we pray for him/her to be guided by God, then we have eliminated the other option. This is good.
I do not push my religion on anybody. I may present it as the truth as I know it, I have PROOF that satisfies me and most people that I explain the proof to. But I dont give my proof unless asked for it.
BUT...and many people on my side of the street wont agree with this...I don't see why if the Indian who worships Shiva has a different word for love than I do, why couldn't he also have a different word for God than I do? If the Japanese who worship Buddha have a different word for heaven than I do, why couldn't they have a different word for God than I do?
The argument against this, from people that believe similarly to myself, is that the "story" that tells of Gods works and his/her (I don't think that is relevant) moral expectations is different so it cant be the same God. But I respond by reminding people of the game where you whisper a secret around a circle of friends and see how it comes out at the end. Thats always a real surprise. Since all religions have their beginnings in an oral history I can see how the message could become garbled, but the God still be the same one. After all, the bible tells of the Tower of Babble.
Now, of course, I think mine is the "Inspired word of God" and could not be garbled. The Buddhist also thinks the same as I do, that his is unaltered, as does the worshiper of Shiva.
But it is really irrelevant, at least while we are still alive, since MOST of the religions teach a moral code, a code of conduct, that if followed is supposed to insure your AND your neighbors well being while still here on earth. If we all followed that code, which ever one it is, the world would be a better place.
Of course, we all feel that OUR religion is the best one when it comes to the afterlife as we all feel the other one wont be able to deliver. But that is only relevant for oneself. My religion tells me to tell others about my religion, but it does not tell me to shove it down their throat as one interpretation of Islam seems to.
Jim Isbell
============================================
============================================
Saturday, September 18, 2010
It Ain't Gonna Happen
Term Limits "ain't gonna happen."
Just like campaign reform "ain't gonna happen."
Just like Congress giving up their Golden Parachute retirement and health care "ain't gonna happen."
Why not? Because asking the incumbents, the guys in power, to write a law that limits their free ride is like asking me to give up my first born.
Term limits would mean that they would have less time to steal. I have actually heard politicians defend their vote against term limits on the grounds that it takes two terms just to learn how to work the system and they will say the "old timers" will have the advantage if term limits are enacted.
Well, gosh, isn't that what we want, keep anyone from learning enough to be able to steal? As far as an advantage for "old timers", there wont be any "old timers" if there are term limits.
But, it "ain't gonna happen."
Campaign reform. Well that's how they stay in their seats long enough to learn how to steal. The advantage is with the incumbent on almost every aspect of an election. Why would the incumbent give up that advantage voluntarily?
It "ain't gonna happen."
Give up the cushy retirement that becomes vested in 5 years? Would you? They are not about to give up a full retirement plan and a Cadillac health care program that they can get for serving only 5 years of a 6 year term.
It "ain't gonna happen."
Not until we the people stand up and insist on a Constitutional amendment that forces all these issues. Maybe after November the TEA Party could take that on as an agenda?
Jim Isbell
=================================================
=================================================
Just like campaign reform "ain't gonna happen."
Just like Congress giving up their Golden Parachute retirement and health care "ain't gonna happen."
Why not? Because asking the incumbents, the guys in power, to write a law that limits their free ride is like asking me to give up my first born.
Term limits would mean that they would have less time to steal. I have actually heard politicians defend their vote against term limits on the grounds that it takes two terms just to learn how to work the system and they will say the "old timers" will have the advantage if term limits are enacted.
Well, gosh, isn't that what we want, keep anyone from learning enough to be able to steal? As far as an advantage for "old timers", there wont be any "old timers" if there are term limits.
But, it "ain't gonna happen."
Campaign reform. Well that's how they stay in their seats long enough to learn how to steal. The advantage is with the incumbent on almost every aspect of an election. Why would the incumbent give up that advantage voluntarily?
It "ain't gonna happen."
Give up the cushy retirement that becomes vested in 5 years? Would you? They are not about to give up a full retirement plan and a Cadillac health care program that they can get for serving only 5 years of a 6 year term.
It "ain't gonna happen."
Not until we the people stand up and insist on a Constitutional amendment that forces all these issues. Maybe after November the TEA Party could take that on as an agenda?
Jim Isbell
=================================================
=================================================
Friday, September 17, 2010
NewSpeak from 1984
The Obama administration is borrowing a trick from George Orwells novel, "1984".
In that novel the leaders of the government had a department that was in charge of making everything say what they wanted, even to the extent of changing all written history so that a flip flop in policy looked like it had always been that way. It was called NewSpeak.
The Obama administrations latest attempt at NewSpeak, is now calling the "Bush Tax Cuts" the "Obama Tax Cuts." Nancy Polosi yesterday referred to the extension of the "Bush" tax cuts as the "Obama" tax cuts. This is a blatant lie and a complete reversal from the earlier position of being in favor of letting the "Bush" tax cuts expire. Now they want to extend them and rename them the "Obama Tax Cuts."
Obama wins with new tax cuts...they will declare.
How about "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" which a year ago was a massive idea of ignoring the borders and grandfathering all 12 million illegals into citizenship. They couldnt pull it off so rather than admit defeat, they re-defined "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" to be the Dream Act. A small part of the original failed idea, a part that might even be able to garner bi-partisan support, and then attach it to the military funding bill, which most will not want to vote against, and then declare a WIN on "Comprehensive Immigration Reform"
Obama passes "Comprehensive Immigration Reform"...they will say.
Now they tell us that "Global Warming" will become "Global Climate Disruption" Thus they can argue more effectively for the Cap and Trade legislation. By removing the discredited theory of global warming they will sound more intelligent and less like the fools they are.
"Recovery Summer" was touted as a celebration of the US coming out of the recession. Now as the summer draws to an end and the recession shows no sign of abating, they redefine the phrase "Recovery Summer" to mean that they are working hard to spend enough money to effect a recovery in the future.
Today Obama appointed a cabinet position officer that will "organize" a new "Department of Consumer Protection" without Senate confirmation. She will sit on his cabinet. How could he do that? Well, we are told, because she wont actually be heading the department, in fact no one will, she will just be in charge of setting it up, running it, and organizing it "Until someone is selected to head it." This is a blatant attempt to appoint another Czar with no accountability and no Senate approval.
Unfortunately this is not the end of his lies and redefinitions.
We need to redefine "President Obama" to mean "Past President Obama"
Jim Isbell
==================================================
==================================================
In that novel the leaders of the government had a department that was in charge of making everything say what they wanted, even to the extent of changing all written history so that a flip flop in policy looked like it had always been that way. It was called NewSpeak.
The Obama administrations latest attempt at NewSpeak, is now calling the "Bush Tax Cuts" the "Obama Tax Cuts." Nancy Polosi yesterday referred to the extension of the "Bush" tax cuts as the "Obama" tax cuts. This is a blatant lie and a complete reversal from the earlier position of being in favor of letting the "Bush" tax cuts expire. Now they want to extend them and rename them the "Obama Tax Cuts."
Obama wins with new tax cuts...they will declare.
How about "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" which a year ago was a massive idea of ignoring the borders and grandfathering all 12 million illegals into citizenship. They couldnt pull it off so rather than admit defeat, they re-defined "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" to be the Dream Act. A small part of the original failed idea, a part that might even be able to garner bi-partisan support, and then attach it to the military funding bill, which most will not want to vote against, and then declare a WIN on "Comprehensive Immigration Reform"
Obama passes "Comprehensive Immigration Reform"...they will say.
Now they tell us that "Global Warming" will become "Global Climate Disruption" Thus they can argue more effectively for the Cap and Trade legislation. By removing the discredited theory of global warming they will sound more intelligent and less like the fools they are.
"Recovery Summer" was touted as a celebration of the US coming out of the recession. Now as the summer draws to an end and the recession shows no sign of abating, they redefine the phrase "Recovery Summer" to mean that they are working hard to spend enough money to effect a recovery in the future.
Today Obama appointed a cabinet position officer that will "organize" a new "Department of Consumer Protection" without Senate confirmation. She will sit on his cabinet. How could he do that? Well, we are told, because she wont actually be heading the department, in fact no one will, she will just be in charge of setting it up, running it, and organizing it "Until someone is selected to head it." This is a blatant attempt to appoint another Czar with no accountability and no Senate approval.
Unfortunately this is not the end of his lies and redefinitions.
We need to redefine "President Obama" to mean "Past President Obama"
Jim Isbell
==================================================
==================================================
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Government To Loan Money To Small Businesses To Pay Their Taxes
This is the latest idiocy of the Democrats. They want so bad to raise the taxes on the small business owners, the Mom and Pop businesses that file as individuals and have an income over $250,000 a year, that they are now offering loans to them so they can pay the taxes.
For months now the Democrats are arguing to let the "Bush" tax cuts expire. (I suspect that the reason to let them expire has to do with the name "Bush" that is attached to them, they HATE GWBush) Also for them its an easy way to raise taxes without being blamed for it. Just let the tax cuts expire and taxes go up. But not to worry, it wont cause a reduction in job creation. They have that all figured out.
Today the House passed a 80 billion stimulus bill for small businesses that will allow those same businesses that have had their taxes raised barrow money....to pay the taxes?...!!!! But dont worry, this 80 billion bill will be paid for by the Taxes that were raised in the paragraph above.
Are you dizzy yet?
The whole idea is insane because there will be a loss due to "friction" as the money comes from the businesses, is gathered by the government, and then sent back to them as a loan.
This is a real cool idea, take someones money and then give it back to them while charging them both management fees AND interest. This is a new concept to me but it looks like it will work.
The problem is that the money NEVER belonged to the government, it belonged to the small business owner and the government has just found out a way to charge the owner interest on HIS OWN MONEY!
Jim Isbell
=========================================================
=========================================================
For months now the Democrats are arguing to let the "Bush" tax cuts expire. (I suspect that the reason to let them expire has to do with the name "Bush" that is attached to them, they HATE GWBush) Also for them its an easy way to raise taxes without being blamed for it. Just let the tax cuts expire and taxes go up. But not to worry, it wont cause a reduction in job creation. They have that all figured out.
Today the House passed a 80 billion stimulus bill for small businesses that will allow those same businesses that have had their taxes raised barrow money....to pay the taxes?...!!!! But dont worry, this 80 billion bill will be paid for by the Taxes that were raised in the paragraph above.
Are you dizzy yet?
The whole idea is insane because there will be a loss due to "friction" as the money comes from the businesses, is gathered by the government, and then sent back to them as a loan.
This is a real cool idea, take someones money and then give it back to them while charging them both management fees AND interest. This is a new concept to me but it looks like it will work.
The problem is that the money NEVER belonged to the government, it belonged to the small business owner and the government has just found out a way to charge the owner interest on HIS OWN MONEY!
Jim Isbell
=========================================================
=========================================================
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
TEA Party is weak and inconsequential
I said this before and not too long ago.
The establishment is underestimating the TEA Party. They believe the TEA Party to be a small bunch of "Bible thumping, gun toting extremists", weak and inconsequential.
Last night the Republicans got a wake up call as did the Democrats. Both were shocked by the success of the TEA Party backed candidates.
Yes, some of the TEA Party backed candidates failed to win, BUT, the establishment didn't think ANY would win. Instead most of them won.
They won in the primaries by putting conservative nominees into the Republican slots. I have ALWAYS said the the best way to change America is to put conservative candidates into the primaries of BOTH parties thus insuring that a Conservative would be elected no mater which party won.
It has always been my position that the TEA Party Movement was just that, a movement, not a party. My part of the TEA Party, the group that I guide, is totally non partisan when it comes to Republican, Democrat, or Independent. We always invite all to our rallies. True, most Democrats do not come, many Republicans do come, but all are welcome.
I dont believe that a third party has the chance of a snow ball in hell. Here in my town we had a three candidate election for Mayor. The winner got 36% of the vote, hardly a mandate. But a Conservative movement that is willing to reach across the isle to Conservative Democrats could lead to the salvation of our country.
These primary elections show that we CAN do it. 60,000 people showed up to vote in the CLOSED Republican primaries in Delaware. In the past only 20,000 would be expected in the primaries. This shows the power of the TEA Party Movement.
BTW, The fourth Ingleside-On-The-Bay TEA Party rally will be on the 16th of October at the Bahia Marina in Ingleside OTB starting at 3PM. The keynote speaker will be Tom Pauken, the Texas Republican Party Chairman from 1994 thru 1998 the period when the Republican Party came to dominance in Texas. He has also written the book "The Thirty Years War: The Politics of the ‘60s Generation" and more recently, "Bringing America Home." If you have never heard him speak, you are in for a real treat. Tom Pauken is a Conservatives Conservative.
Jim Isbell
===================================================
===================================================
The establishment is underestimating the TEA Party. They believe the TEA Party to be a small bunch of "Bible thumping, gun toting extremists", weak and inconsequential.
Last night the Republicans got a wake up call as did the Democrats. Both were shocked by the success of the TEA Party backed candidates.
Yes, some of the TEA Party backed candidates failed to win, BUT, the establishment didn't think ANY would win. Instead most of them won.
They won in the primaries by putting conservative nominees into the Republican slots. I have ALWAYS said the the best way to change America is to put conservative candidates into the primaries of BOTH parties thus insuring that a Conservative would be elected no mater which party won.
It has always been my position that the TEA Party Movement was just that, a movement, not a party. My part of the TEA Party, the group that I guide, is totally non partisan when it comes to Republican, Democrat, or Independent. We always invite all to our rallies. True, most Democrats do not come, many Republicans do come, but all are welcome.
I dont believe that a third party has the chance of a snow ball in hell. Here in my town we had a three candidate election for Mayor. The winner got 36% of the vote, hardly a mandate. But a Conservative movement that is willing to reach across the isle to Conservative Democrats could lead to the salvation of our country.
These primary elections show that we CAN do it. 60,000 people showed up to vote in the CLOSED Republican primaries in Delaware. In the past only 20,000 would be expected in the primaries. This shows the power of the TEA Party Movement.
BTW, The fourth Ingleside-On-The-Bay TEA Party rally will be on the 16th of October at the Bahia Marina in Ingleside OTB starting at 3PM. The keynote speaker will be Tom Pauken, the Texas Republican Party Chairman from 1994 thru 1998 the period when the Republican Party came to dominance in Texas. He has also written the book "The Thirty Years War: The Politics of the ‘60s Generation" and more recently, "Bringing America Home." If you have never heard him speak, you are in for a real treat. Tom Pauken is a Conservatives Conservative.
Jim Isbell
===================================================
===================================================
Monday, September 13, 2010
Kidnapping and Ransom
The Iranian government is no better than the rabble of pirates off the coast of Somali.
They arrested three young people 18 months ago and accused them of spying because they accidentally crossed an unmarked border. Compare that to what they think we should do to people that cross our borders without papers.
Now they have found that the girl they detained has serious health problems so they offer to return her for a $500,000 bond that they know will be forfeited as the girl will never return for a trial...at least no one with any sense would return to the Iranian clutches once out.
This then amounts to "Ransom" not "Bail bond"
The government of Iran should be treated as the pirates they are. They are not a legitimate government, they are pirates plundering and kidnapping for ransom.
Jim Isbell
===================================================
===================================================
They arrested three young people 18 months ago and accused them of spying because they accidentally crossed an unmarked border. Compare that to what they think we should do to people that cross our borders without papers.
Now they have found that the girl they detained has serious health problems so they offer to return her for a $500,000 bond that they know will be forfeited as the girl will never return for a trial...at least no one with any sense would return to the Iranian clutches once out.
This then amounts to "Ransom" not "Bail bond"
The government of Iran should be treated as the pirates they are. They are not a legitimate government, they are pirates plundering and kidnapping for ransom.
Jim Isbell
===================================================
===================================================
Sunday, September 12, 2010
"Radical Christianity VS Radical Jihad
Today, for the first time, I heard our Pastor ask for blessings on our troops and for a return of our nation to a Christian nation. Whether or not I agree with his assessments, he is finally becoming political. In the past he has avoided politics altogether.
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Or as it is said in Mathew in the Christian bible, "Would you say,'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?"
I am constantly hearing from Christians that say, "If the moderate Muslims do not agree with the Radical Jihad, why dont they come out and say so?" I, myself, have said that in the past.
But this past week, a "Christian" (in parenthesis because I doubt that he subscribes to enough of the teachings of Jesus to warrant using the name) nut case in Florida, threatened to burn some Korans and the world went into heavy discussions on the pro and con of this act. However, I have not heard one Christian leader come out and denounce this pastor and his band of 30 miscreants. I have heard lots of middle America come out against him, but no pastors or priests have spoken up.
So how can we, as Christians, complain when the Imams of moderate Islam do not come out firmly against Jihad or Hamas when our Christian leaders do not denounce a nut case "Christian"?
Jim Isbell
===================================================
===================================================
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Or as it is said in Mathew in the Christian bible, "Would you say,'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?"
I am constantly hearing from Christians that say, "If the moderate Muslims do not agree with the Radical Jihad, why dont they come out and say so?" I, myself, have said that in the past.
But this past week, a "Christian" (in parenthesis because I doubt that he subscribes to enough of the teachings of Jesus to warrant using the name) nut case in Florida, threatened to burn some Korans and the world went into heavy discussions on the pro and con of this act. However, I have not heard one Christian leader come out and denounce this pastor and his band of 30 miscreants. I have heard lots of middle America come out against him, but no pastors or priests have spoken up.
So how can we, as Christians, complain when the Imams of moderate Islam do not come out firmly against Jihad or Hamas when our Christian leaders do not denounce a nut case "Christian"?
Jim Isbell
===================================================
===================================================
Friday, September 10, 2010
Inflation IS Coming
If you think that the spending of the current administration is going to cause inflation, you are right, but not like this next idea of the Obama administration.
The bill is HR-4646 introduced by US Rep Peter deFazio D-Oregon and US Senator Tom Harkin D-Iowa. It is now in committee and will probably not be brought out until after the Nov. elections.
President Obama's finance team is recommending a transaction tax. His plan is
to sneak it in after the November election to keep it under the radar. This is a 1% tax on all transaction at any financial institution i. e. Banks, Credit Unions, extra. Any deposit you make, or move around within your account, i. e. transfer to, will have a 1% tax charged. If your pay check or your social Security or whatever is direct deposit, 1% tax charged. If you hand carry a check in to deposit, 1% tax charged, If you take cash in to deposit, 1% tax charged.This is from the man who promised that if you make under $250,000 per year, you will not see one penny of new tax.
On an income of $5000 a month that is direct deposited to a bank account, there would be an immediate $50 tax before the recipient even saw it. Then again as he removed it from the account, another $50 would be extracted. In a year that would be $1200 in taxes. Then it starts all over again when the next person deposits it to his bank.
I will be putting my money in Gold because the inflation this bill will cause, if it becomes law, will rival the inflation prior to the second world war in Germany. Only land and gold will save you from ruin.
Jim Isbell
========================================================================
========================================================================
The bill is HR-4646 introduced by US Rep Peter deFazio D-Oregon and US Senator Tom Harkin D-Iowa. It is now in committee and will probably not be brought out until after the Nov. elections.
President Obama's finance team is recommending a transaction tax. His plan is
to sneak it in after the November election to keep it under the radar. This is a 1% tax on all transaction at any financial institution i. e. Banks, Credit Unions, extra. Any deposit you make, or move around within your account, i. e. transfer to, will have a 1% tax charged. If your pay check or your social Security or whatever is direct deposit, 1% tax charged. If you hand carry a check in to deposit, 1% tax charged, If you take cash in to deposit, 1% tax charged.This is from the man who promised that if you make under $250,000 per year, you will not see one penny of new tax.
On an income of $5000 a month that is direct deposited to a bank account, there would be an immediate $50 tax before the recipient even saw it. Then again as he removed it from the account, another $50 would be extracted. In a year that would be $1200 in taxes. Then it starts all over again when the next person deposits it to his bank.
I will be putting my money in Gold because the inflation this bill will cause, if it becomes law, will rival the inflation prior to the second world war in Germany. Only land and gold will save you from ruin.
Jim Isbell
========================================================================
========================================================================
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Burning Books
Burning books is a practice that cannot be tolerated. The burning of the Koran is no exception. Both the burning of the US flag and the burning of the Koran are protected "speech" under the First Amendment to the Constitution. But the fact that it is protected does not say it is advisable.
I do not believe that, tomorrow, some Taliban warrior will say to his buddy in the trench beside him,"Today I will not aim my rifle as close, since they talked that nut case in Florida out of burning the Koran." Being on the battle field in time of war IS dangerous and it wont get more dangerous by burning a Koran.
I object to the burning of the Koran, not on Constitutional grounds and not the grounds that it endangers our troops. I object to it on the grounds that it is the destruction of information.
The library at Alexandria was burned because of the cultural intolerance of the invading army. That burning would send the world into the Dark Ages. No telling how far the human race would be today if we hadn't lost 1500 years in our development!
The Dark Ages did not extend immediately to the Americas, but the invading hordes of the Spanish exploration eventually brought them across the Atlantic to the Aztec nation. There the Spanish, in a fit of cultural intolerance, burned almost all of the Aztec codices, the books describing the history and knowledge of the greatest civilization to its time. It was more advanced that its European contemporaries in many ways. Today we know little of that great civilization and none of its knowledge
Later, Hitler burned the "non-German" books in 1938. And today Obama would like to burn the Internet. Both because of cultural intolerance. However, today we are protected from the total loss of information because the printing press and electronics have made it possible for information to exist in more than one place.
However, we cannot accept cultural intolerance and book burning. If we allow the mind set to exist, someday we will find a civilization on a planet in another solar system and if the commander of the space ship that gets their first decides to burn the history and knowledge of another civilization, another great loss could occur. Two civilizations lost is enough.
We must not accept the cultural intolerance of the Radical Islamic Jihad.
Jim Isbell
================================================
================================================
I do not believe that, tomorrow, some Taliban warrior will say to his buddy in the trench beside him,"Today I will not aim my rifle as close, since they talked that nut case in Florida out of burning the Koran." Being on the battle field in time of war IS dangerous and it wont get more dangerous by burning a Koran.
I object to the burning of the Koran, not on Constitutional grounds and not the grounds that it endangers our troops. I object to it on the grounds that it is the destruction of information.
The library at Alexandria was burned because of the cultural intolerance of the invading army. That burning would send the world into the Dark Ages. No telling how far the human race would be today if we hadn't lost 1500 years in our development!
The Dark Ages did not extend immediately to the Americas, but the invading hordes of the Spanish exploration eventually brought them across the Atlantic to the Aztec nation. There the Spanish, in a fit of cultural intolerance, burned almost all of the Aztec codices, the books describing the history and knowledge of the greatest civilization to its time. It was more advanced that its European contemporaries in many ways. Today we know little of that great civilization and none of its knowledge
Later, Hitler burned the "non-German" books in 1938. And today Obama would like to burn the Internet. Both because of cultural intolerance. However, today we are protected from the total loss of information because the printing press and electronics have made it possible for information to exist in more than one place.
However, we cannot accept cultural intolerance and book burning. If we allow the mind set to exist, someday we will find a civilization on a planet in another solar system and if the commander of the space ship that gets their first decides to burn the history and knowledge of another civilization, another great loss could occur. Two civilizations lost is enough.
We must not accept the cultural intolerance of the Radical Islamic Jihad.
Jim Isbell
================================================
================================================
Monday, September 6, 2010
Solving The SS and Medicare Problem Painlessly
I was watching an old recording of Ben Stein and realized that he had half of the solution to the problem of our Social Security and MediCare bankruptcy problem. We all know that within just a few years, if we do nothing, they will both be bankrupt and the people will then become the slaves of the government who will just print money to fill our pockets...until the whole stack of cards comes tumbling down and our society degenerates to a free for all like the French Revolution or the current Greek situation.
Well when I realized the Ben Stein had half of the solution I just put a little thought into it until I came up with the total solution. Ben's part, and I really am not a fan of Ben Stein, is really the largest part, I am just contributing a small push to get it going. AND....it might actually be something that could pass both houses and become law.
Ben said, that maybe we should not pay Social Security and Medicare to those that are wealthy enough that they don't really need it. Thats a real radical idea, but one that both the Left and the Right can get their arms around. Since the left see the "rich" as undeserving, and the right are for fiscal responsibility, maybe this would fly.
If you limit SS and MediCare payments to only those that have an income below $xxx,xxx thousand a year. Hey, you can pick the number, I don't care, any number will work as you will soon see. But after a few months of haggling I am sure a number could be found. Once the number is found, just pass the law.
Then with a standard, average inflation rate of 6% (historically probably reasonable) in 10 years there would be 50% fewer people receiving these benefits. In another 10 years there would be another 50%, or 25% of the original number, fewer receiving these benefits. Inflation would slowly but steadily reduce the number of recipients. At the same time, the taxes to support it would be increasing because of inflation.
This would be a gradual weaning of the public off of assistance and slowly return them to self reliance, as they were before 1929. Where they were for 150 years, before the advent of the "Progressives".
It would be painless and would probably even accelerate because politicians would begin to realize that they could steal more of the public money if they lowered the cap level, which they would then proceed to do every session.
Jim Isbell
==================================================
==================================================
Well when I realized the Ben Stein had half of the solution I just put a little thought into it until I came up with the total solution. Ben's part, and I really am not a fan of Ben Stein, is really the largest part, I am just contributing a small push to get it going. AND....it might actually be something that could pass both houses and become law.
Ben said, that maybe we should not pay Social Security and Medicare to those that are wealthy enough that they don't really need it. Thats a real radical idea, but one that both the Left and the Right can get their arms around. Since the left see the "rich" as undeserving, and the right are for fiscal responsibility, maybe this would fly.
If you limit SS and MediCare payments to only those that have an income below $xxx,xxx thousand a year. Hey, you can pick the number, I don't care, any number will work as you will soon see. But after a few months of haggling I am sure a number could be found. Once the number is found, just pass the law.
Then with a standard, average inflation rate of 6% (historically probably reasonable) in 10 years there would be 50% fewer people receiving these benefits. In another 10 years there would be another 50%, or 25% of the original number, fewer receiving these benefits. Inflation would slowly but steadily reduce the number of recipients. At the same time, the taxes to support it would be increasing because of inflation.
This would be a gradual weaning of the public off of assistance and slowly return them to self reliance, as they were before 1929. Where they were for 150 years, before the advent of the "Progressives".
It would be painless and would probably even accelerate because politicians would begin to realize that they could steal more of the public money if they lowered the cap level, which they would then proceed to do every session.
Jim Isbell
==================================================
==================================================
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Straw Men And Aliens
I was just talking to someone about the introduction of “Straw Men” in a debate. In the course of this discussion of “straw men” I realized that the immigration debate is a perfect example of the tactic.
I am traveling around the USA right now, and this week I am in Fremont Nebraska. This town is famous for its most recent escapade, passing a law against the hiring of or rental to, illegal immigrants. The Obama administration has decided to sue Fremont, NE for its blatant attempt to enforce United States law, just as they are suing Arizona for trying to enforce United States law.
But Ironically, the Feds are going to “negotiate” with Nancy Polosi's town, San Francisco, about their blatant attempt to break federal law. SF wants to be “exempt” from the requirement of submitting finger prints of criminals to the FBI because they are afraid it might identify illegal immigrants, I wonder why the Feds are so intent on stopping those that want to uphold federal law, but want to “negotiate” with those that want to break federal law? Why should one city be exempt from Federal Law while all others must toe the line?
Just what do the liberals not understand about the word “Illegal”? Instead of presenting arguments for their position, they set up straw men to knock down:
1.You cannot just round up 11 million illegal aliens and deport them. It would be too big a project.
No one is proposing “rounding up” 11 million illegals. So this argument is a straw man. The 11 million will all go home if they cannot find a job or a place to live. No one will have to deport them, they will all go home voluntarily if, in Fremont they cannot get a job or a house, sometime before the first SNOW fall.
2.It is inhumane to make them go home, family's and all.
That implies that it is NOT inhumane to allow those that have been on the waiting list for years and are still living in poverty in a Mexican slum, awaiting their chance to immigrate legally to remain in poverty while the “cheaters”, the “illegals” get to apply for citizenship before them. This is another straw man. If the illegals are voluntarily going home because of laws like Arizona's and Fremont's, then there will be places for the people that have waited patiently in line.
BUT....this line jumping is a cultural anomaly in the country of Mexico. I have traveled there extensively and almost daily see the people jumping lines, its accepted and you don't even see any complaints. If they were in London, they would be hung from the nearest lamp post. The English will wait patiently in line for hours without a whimper. But woe be it to a line jumper.
3.We need the workers because they take jobs no one else will take.
When unemployment is at 9.6% you cannot convince me of that. Well, maybe you can now that we have 99 weeks of unemployment benefits. I know when I was unemployed back in the early 90s, I used every single penny of my unemployment benefits before I started seriously looking for work. I calculated that the amount the government was offering to stay unemployed was more than the amount I would have left over if I had a job and was paying taxes on the income and car expenses and lunch expenses, and clothing, etc, etc. It was not a political decision, it was a simple economic decision. But that is a whole 'nother blog.
4.They do not contribute to crime in the US
Simple, the statistics prove otherwise. Just saying it does NOT make it true. Another straw man.
5.You are a racist to be against ILLEGAL immigration.
Just ANOTHER straw man. How can I be a racist when my ancestry, proven by my Spanish sur name, is Hispanic? I am also partly Irish and I don't want any illegal Irish immigrants here either.
The entire Democrat argument is made up of straw men. I hope that this November will set fire to the straw and winnow out the wheat.
Jim Isbell
=================================================
=================================================
I am traveling around the USA right now, and this week I am in Fremont Nebraska. This town is famous for its most recent escapade, passing a law against the hiring of or rental to, illegal immigrants. The Obama administration has decided to sue Fremont, NE for its blatant attempt to enforce United States law, just as they are suing Arizona for trying to enforce United States law.
But Ironically, the Feds are going to “negotiate” with Nancy Polosi's town, San Francisco, about their blatant attempt to break federal law. SF wants to be “exempt” from the requirement of submitting finger prints of criminals to the FBI because they are afraid it might identify illegal immigrants, I wonder why the Feds are so intent on stopping those that want to uphold federal law, but want to “negotiate” with those that want to break federal law? Why should one city be exempt from Federal Law while all others must toe the line?
Just what do the liberals not understand about the word “Illegal”? Instead of presenting arguments for their position, they set up straw men to knock down:
1.You cannot just round up 11 million illegal aliens and deport them. It would be too big a project.
No one is proposing “rounding up” 11 million illegals. So this argument is a straw man. The 11 million will all go home if they cannot find a job or a place to live. No one will have to deport them, they will all go home voluntarily if, in Fremont they cannot get a job or a house, sometime before the first SNOW fall.
2.It is inhumane to make them go home, family's and all.
That implies that it is NOT inhumane to allow those that have been on the waiting list for years and are still living in poverty in a Mexican slum, awaiting their chance to immigrate legally to remain in poverty while the “cheaters”, the “illegals” get to apply for citizenship before them. This is another straw man. If the illegals are voluntarily going home because of laws like Arizona's and Fremont's, then there will be places for the people that have waited patiently in line.
BUT....this line jumping is a cultural anomaly in the country of Mexico. I have traveled there extensively and almost daily see the people jumping lines, its accepted and you don't even see any complaints. If they were in London, they would be hung from the nearest lamp post. The English will wait patiently in line for hours without a whimper. But woe be it to a line jumper.
3.We need the workers because they take jobs no one else will take.
When unemployment is at 9.6% you cannot convince me of that. Well, maybe you can now that we have 99 weeks of unemployment benefits. I know when I was unemployed back in the early 90s, I used every single penny of my unemployment benefits before I started seriously looking for work. I calculated that the amount the government was offering to stay unemployed was more than the amount I would have left over if I had a job and was paying taxes on the income and car expenses and lunch expenses, and clothing, etc, etc. It was not a political decision, it was a simple economic decision. But that is a whole 'nother blog.
4.They do not contribute to crime in the US
Simple, the statistics prove otherwise. Just saying it does NOT make it true. Another straw man.
5.You are a racist to be against ILLEGAL immigration.
Just ANOTHER straw man. How can I be a racist when my ancestry, proven by my Spanish sur name, is Hispanic? I am also partly Irish and I don't want any illegal Irish immigrants here either.
The entire Democrat argument is made up of straw men. I hope that this November will set fire to the straw and winnow out the wheat.
Jim Isbell
=================================================
=================================================
Friday, September 3, 2010
Alan "Its Bushes Fault" Colms
I just watched the interview with Alan Colms on FOX news where he said that what Obama should do, to end the recession, is to "Speak, and educate the people as to how bad it could have been without the stimulus." Now that is what I call beating a dead horse to get it to move. For the past 18 months, that is ALL Obama has been doing. And it hasn't worked.
Now they are saying that the Democrats will try cutting taxes just before the midterms. I predict, A) that wont produce results by the elections. B) They will try to claim it was their idea in the first place just in case the Republicans are right and it does work. They will try to gain votes for lowering taxes as a tough it was a new idea when, in fact,its an idea that the Republicans have been advocating since the beginning.
When asked about the reports on housing sales Alan touted the upswing in home prices saying that it was an indicator that the economy was improving and then said the rising prices made up for the fact that sales were DOWN 25%. What this means is that fewer people are buying more expensive homes. Now, I ask, Alan, how is that good for the economy?
Then when asked about unemployment that is just measured at 9.6% when it was, last measured, at 9.5% Alan said things were moving in the right direction. Higher unemployment is in the right direction? Cummon, Alan, only a fool would believe that. Oh, I forgot, you are a fool.
Jim Isbell
====================================================
====================================================
Now they are saying that the Democrats will try cutting taxes just before the midterms. I predict, A) that wont produce results by the elections. B) They will try to claim it was their idea in the first place just in case the Republicans are right and it does work. They will try to gain votes for lowering taxes as a tough it was a new idea when, in fact,its an idea that the Republicans have been advocating since the beginning.
When asked about the reports on housing sales Alan touted the upswing in home prices saying that it was an indicator that the economy was improving and then said the rising prices made up for the fact that sales were DOWN 25%. What this means is that fewer people are buying more expensive homes. Now, I ask, Alan, how is that good for the economy?
Then when asked about unemployment that is just measured at 9.6% when it was, last measured, at 9.5% Alan said things were moving in the right direction. Higher unemployment is in the right direction? Cummon, Alan, only a fool would believe that. Oh, I forgot, you are a fool.
Jim Isbell
====================================================
====================================================
Thursday, September 2, 2010
A Little Bit Older and Deeper in Debt
Roamer is finally leaving. But as she leaves she is trying to torpedo the ship as she sails away in the lifeboat.
Remember, this was the official of the Obama administration that said that the stimulus package would keep unemployment under 8% and after it passed, unemployment rose, at one point, to 10%. That is an error of gargantuan proportions.
Now as she walks away from the mess she created, with unemployment still above 9.5%, she leaves us with advice to continue spending and at the same time cut taxes. Can we believe her when she was so wrong in her last pronouncements?
Ok, I can agree with her on the cut taxes point. But if you cut taxes and then increase spending, where does that get you......"a little bit older and deeper in debt"
So once again she is at least half wrong...or should I be an optimist and say, half right?
We cannot afford for our leaders to be only half right. I say good riddance to her. Our good luck is Berkeley's bad luck.
I can be half right by flipping a coin. We don't have to pay salaries for that kind of accuracy.
Jim Isbell
=====================================================================
=====================================================================
Remember, this was the official of the Obama administration that said that the stimulus package would keep unemployment under 8% and after it passed, unemployment rose, at one point, to 10%. That is an error of gargantuan proportions.
Now as she walks away from the mess she created, with unemployment still above 9.5%, she leaves us with advice to continue spending and at the same time cut taxes. Can we believe her when she was so wrong in her last pronouncements?
Ok, I can agree with her on the cut taxes point. But if you cut taxes and then increase spending, where does that get you......"a little bit older and deeper in debt"
So once again she is at least half wrong...or should I be an optimist and say, half right?
We cannot afford for our leaders to be only half right. I say good riddance to her. Our good luck is Berkeley's bad luck.
I can be half right by flipping a coin. We don't have to pay salaries for that kind of accuracy.
Jim Isbell
=====================================================================
=====================================================================
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Selling the Message like a Circus Barker
This past week I was staying in the home of a friend that is a Liberal Democrat...albeit a good friend for over 20 years.
As usual we got into discussing politics, in fact that is where I was educated on the Missouri "Adult" Industry Law that I have been posting about. The Missouri version of Sharia Law. During our debate we came to Glenn Beck, of course. My friend commented that he didnt like the yelling and "used car" salesman type of delivery but confessed that when seen in print he tended to agree with Glenn Becks comments.
I questioned whether he had ever actually watched the Glenn Beck show because the Glenn Beck I know didnt yell and was actually more of a history teacher with a soft spoken attack. Soft, but very direct, occasionally raising his voice but then very quickly dropping it again. We then got into who was watching what. It became apparent to us both that he was listening to the RADIO show and I was watching the TV show.
We both agreed to watch/listen to the other and report back. I hope Gene is reading this, because this is my report. Maybe its good that we have only the written words of our founding fathers and no TV tapes or audio recordings, because I found Glenn Beck to be similar to what my friend did on RADIO....however I didnt have to listen to the yelling because I just turned the volume down.
But now I see what he is talking about...and its only a mater of delivery, not the message.
If we had been able to hear Thomas Jefferson saying some of the things he is credited with, and heard it in a ranting voice, maybe we would not, today, be so agreeable with them.
My suggestion to anyone that doesnt like Glenn Becks delivery, turn down the volume, or switch to the afternoon TV show 5 days a week on FOX news. The words are worth putting up with the delivery!!
Jim Isbell
=====================================================
=====================================================
As usual we got into discussing politics, in fact that is where I was educated on the Missouri "Adult" Industry Law that I have been posting about. The Missouri version of Sharia Law. During our debate we came to Glenn Beck, of course. My friend commented that he didnt like the yelling and "used car" salesman type of delivery but confessed that when seen in print he tended to agree with Glenn Becks comments.
I questioned whether he had ever actually watched the Glenn Beck show because the Glenn Beck I know didnt yell and was actually more of a history teacher with a soft spoken attack. Soft, but very direct, occasionally raising his voice but then very quickly dropping it again. We then got into who was watching what. It became apparent to us both that he was listening to the RADIO show and I was watching the TV show.
We both agreed to watch/listen to the other and report back. I hope Gene is reading this, because this is my report. Maybe its good that we have only the written words of our founding fathers and no TV tapes or audio recordings, because I found Glenn Beck to be similar to what my friend did on RADIO....however I didnt have to listen to the yelling because I just turned the volume down.
But now I see what he is talking about...and its only a mater of delivery, not the message.
If we had been able to hear Thomas Jefferson saying some of the things he is credited with, and heard it in a ranting voice, maybe we would not, today, be so agreeable with them.
My suggestion to anyone that doesnt like Glenn Becks delivery, turn down the volume, or switch to the afternoon TV show 5 days a week on FOX news. The words are worth putting up with the delivery!!
Jim Isbell
=====================================================
=====================================================
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)