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
============================================
============================================
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)