I was at a zoo a few years ago and went to go see the monkey exhibit. Upon arrival we saw that the exhibit was closed because workers were busy installing a new fence.   Talking to one of the workers I asked him why a new fence was needed.  He exclaimed that the fences need to be redone about every 3 to 4 years as the monkeys who are very smart animals find ways to get out.   I asked if there was anyway to stop them and he said, "Oh yeah, years ago we could just electrify the fence to keep them from trying... but today that is considered to be too cruel.   But this also keeps the fence makers in business (he joked)"

    I think the same argument can be said about much of our own country.  We shy away from people being punished for their own actions.   Whether it's a kid who doesn't want to study for his tests to get good grades; or it's a home buyer that got in over their head with a variable interest rate mortgage; or it's an insurance company that made risky investments into derivatives.  We don't let natures own consequences take place.  We often call it "intervening" or "bailing out".   But whatever you call it, we seem bewildered when we keep getting the same problems occurring over and over and over again. 

    I was listening to Armstrong&Getty on the radio a few days ago and Joe Getty made the statement, "Stupid should hurt".  They were talking about people who made bad decisions with their life (drugs, alcohol, dropping out of school etc..) and how these people were able to eek out an existence on the government dime.   They had no incentive to improve their lives and they were content for the rest of us to pay their way for the rest of their pathetic life.  They were like the monkeys that had no incentive to stay away from the fences.  They would keep trying to get out until they succeeded.

    Pain is a wonderful solution to most of what ails our country.  For example,  the peril of having your company go bankrupt is what keeps most companies from being derelict with other peoples money.   Removing that consequence is like removing the electricity from the monkey-cage fences.  You now suddenly are left with the need to constantly re-build the fences by adding more and more legislation and restrictions to keep the possible offenders from going where you don't want them to go.  And like the monkey's in the cage, you won't find out about the problem until it's too late and the damage has been done.

    I believe you would have to be a complete and utter fool to think that you will be able to stop Wall Street with another set of regulations and governing boards.  Do you really think that Bernie Madoff is the only Ponzi scheme out there?  The problem with Wall Street has never been about regulation, its all about RISK.  Where there is high risk, there are fewer and fewer fools wanting to go there.  Take away that risk and you have an unlimited amount of fools placing their bets.  Risk is what makes capitalism work and its how capitalism regulates itself.  Some of course will get burned in the process, but we will all collectively learn a lesson from them. Reducing the risk of injury only perpetuates the problem (I once read an article that said risky driving has increased with the advent of driver and side airbags as more drivers feel more and more invincible behind the wheel). 

    Of course it seems we need refresher courses on these primcipals from time to time.  In 1929, we learned that if you want to invest in the stock market, you need to do it on your own dime and not someone elses.  Back then, people were investing by using "margin" (using loaned money from the broker) to buy stock.  The risk was low to these investors as it wasn't THEIR money they were risking.  We learned that lesson and stopped this ugly game.  But now here were again 80 years later only to find out that Congress had changed the rules again and allowed this practice once again.   

    The changes we need to make to keep bubbles like the one we just came through from happening again, are not more regulatory boards and regulations.  No!  What we need to put back into the capatilistic system is a good dose of RISK.  We need to:

1) End the options market, especially short-sales (a system of making a legal "bet" on a stock going DOWN in price rather than UP).
2) End the derivatives market (buying on margin) so  investors have "skin in the game" (their own skin of course). 
3) Take away "investment insurance policies" that large investors take out to hedge their bets that their investment decisions go south. 
4) Allow all companies to fail no matter how large they are.  Out of their rubble, better and more reliable companies can rise. 

    This last fix, brings up a point I would like to make.  In nature, forest fires are not only destructive, but actually necessary.   Old tree growths become weak and prone to disease and insects.   It is necessary for forest fires to burn them down on occasion so their pine cones can be burst open and have their seeds spread to make new trees.  Allowing the old trees to live would eventually lead to the death of the forest as disease can wipe out the forest , with no new trees to take their place.   So also with capitalism, recessions like the one we are experiencing now should allow poorly managed companies (usually old and rigid) to go under, thereby allowing younger and more pliable companies to take their place.    Bailing them out, as we did, will only put off their inevitable destruction.  And like the forest, killed off by disease, we won't have the seeds (money) to rebuild the forest.

   In conclusion, risk and consequences are the electricity we need to add to the fences of our market system.  Unless we do that, no fence (set of regulations) will ever be enough to keep the market-monkeys in.

    I was at a zoo a few years ago and went to go see the monkey exhibit. Upon arrival we saw that the exhibit was closed because workers were busy installing a new fence.   Talking to one of the workers I asked him why a new fence was needed.  He exclaimed that the fences need to be redone about every 3 to 4 years as the monkeys who are very smart animals find ways to get out.   I asked if there was anyway to stop them and he said, "Oh yeah, years ago we could just electrify the fence to keep them from trying... but today that is considered to be too cruel.   But this also keeps the fence makers in business (he joked)"

    I think the same argument can be said about much of our own country.  We shy away from people being punished for their own actions.   Whether it's a kid who doesn't want to study for his tests to get good grades; or it's a home buyer that got in over their head with a variable interest rate mortgage; or it's an insurance company that made risky investments into derivatives.  We don't let natures own consequences take place.  We often call it "intervening" or "bailing out".   But whatever you call it, we seem bewildered when we keep getting the same problems occurring over and over and over again. 

    I was listening to Armstrong&Getty on the radio a few days ago and Joe Getty made the statement, "Stupid should hurt".  They were talking about people who made bad decisions with their life (drugs, alcohol, dropping out of school etc..) and how these people were able to eek out an existence on the government dime.   They had no incentive to improve their lives and they were content for the rest of us to pay their way for the rest of their pathetic life.  They were like the monkeys that had no incentive to stay away from the fences.  They would keep trying to get out until they succeeded.

    Pain is a wonderful solution to most of what ails our country.  For example,  the peril of having your company go bankrupt is what keeps most companies from being derelict with other peoples money.   Removing that consequence is like removing the electricity from the monkey-cage fences.  You now suddenly are left with the need to constantly re-build the fences by adding more and more legislation and restrictions to keep the possible offenders from going where you don't want them to go.  And like the monkey's in the cage, you won't find out about the problem until it's too late and the damage has been done.

    I believe you would have to be a complete and utter fool to think that you will be able to stop Wall Street with another set of regulations and governing boards.  Do you really think that Bernie Madoff is the only Ponzi scheme out there?  The problem with Wall Street has never been about regulation, its all about RISK.  Where there is high risk, there are fewer and fewer fools wanting to go there.  Take away that risk and you have an unlimited amount of fools placing their bets.  Risk is what makes capitalism work and its how capitalism regulates itself.  Some of course will get burned in the process, but we will all collectively learn a lesson from them. Reducing the risk of injury only perpetuates the problem (I once read an article that said risky driving has increased with the advent of driver and side airbags as more drivers feel more and more invincible behind the wheel). 

    Of course it seems we need refresher courses on these primcipals from time to time.  In 1929, we learned that if you want to invest in the stock market, you need to do it on your own dime and not someone elses.  Back then, people were investing by using "margin" (using loaned money from the broker) to buy stock.  The risk was low to these investors as it wasn't THEIR money they were risking.  We learned that lesson and stopped this ugly game.  But now here were again 80 years later only to find out that Congress had changed the rules again and allowed this practice once again.   

    The changes we need to make to keep bubbles like the one we just came through from happening again, are not more regulatory boards and regulations.  No!  What we need to put back into the capatilistic system is a good dose of RISK.  We need to:

1) End the options market, especially short-sales (a system of making a legal "bet" on a stock going DOWN in price rather than UP).
2) End the derivatives market (buying on margin) so  investors have "skin in the game" (their own skin of course). 
3) Take away "investment insurance policies" that large investors take out to hedge their bets that their investment decisions go south. 
4) Allow all companies to fail no matter how large they are.  Out of their rubble, better and more reliable companies can rise. 

    This last fix, brings up a point I would like to make.  In nature, forest fires are not only destructive, but actually necessary.   Old tree growths become weak and prone to disease and insects.   It is necessary for forest fires to burn them down on occasion so their pine cones can be burst open and have their seeds spread to make new trees.  Allowing the old trees to live would eventually lead to the death of the forest as disease can wipe out the forest , with no new trees to take their place.   So also with capitalism, recessions like the one we are experiencing now should allow poorly managed companies (usually old and rigid) to go under, thereby allowing younger and more pliable companies to take their place.    Bailing them out, as we did, will only put off their inevitable destruction.  And like the forest, killed off by disease, we won't have the seeds (money) to rebuild the forest.

   In conclusion, risk and consequences are the electricity we need to add to the fences of our market system.  Unless we do that, no fence (set of regulations) will ever be enough to keep the market-monkeys in.

  Now some are going to click into this article thinking I am going to give some lecture on faith in God or the Bible.  To them, I apologize for misleading them. But I ask them to please read on as this is almost as important as those subjects. 

  Recently, a conservative in New York was able to oust a "moderate" Republican from a congressional race.  That person was Doug Hoffman.  A virtual unknown until a few weeks ago who captured the attention of our country and our party.   In recent years we have been convinced by so-called "party leaders" that true conservatives cannot win in elections today.  That we need moderates like John McCain to lead us and be able to "reach across the aisle" to get  things done.  But apparently no one told Doug this and he ran anyway.  His opponent, dropped out of the race for the "good of the party", but then later gave her endorsement to the DEMOCRATIC candidate.   I guess she was a GOP member in name only.... a virtual wolf-in-sheeps-clothing.   Evidently she was not a "true believer" in the true conservative principals of:

   - A free and unfettered market
   - A limited government
   - Lower taxes
   - Self Reliance
   - Self Control

   These principals are only just words to the likes of moderates like her. 

   So just what is a moderate?  To me it's someone who doesn't know what they believe.  They have a foot in the water and a foot on the beach at the same time (you are not going to have much fun there until you choose where you are ultimately going to be).   If I may quote a verse from the Bible, God says to the Church in Revelation 3:16, "So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth" and that is how I feel about moderate republicans candidates.  I love the taste of coffee ( I probably drink too much of it for my own good).  You can drink it HOT or you can drink it COLD (ice coffee), but if you have ever drank a coffee that has sitting out and has turned room temperature, it almost make you vomit it's so bad.  You have to either put some ice cubes in it or put into the microwave to make it desirable again.

   That is where we are at in the GOP.   Voters are giving the GOP the message:  Either you BELIEVE or you DON'T BELIEVE.  Ronald Reagan believed in the American dream and its ideals.  He lead with that belief and we gladly followed.   He didn't need think-tanks and marketing groups to word-smith his ideas to be palatable to 51% of the American public.   He believed that less government was BETTER government.  He believed in MAIN STREET and not WALL STREET.   He believed in everyday Americans and not in Washington. 

    Today's politicians remind me of a story on "faith" I read as a child.  In the story, a man traveling by foot in winter comes to a very large frozen lake and he needs to cross to the other side.  He decides that the "safest" way to cross is to get down on his belly and spread his weight over the most ice and slither across the lake.  After an hour of crawlling he is cold and nearly frozen, when he suddenly feels a rumbling underneath him.  Astonished he sees a man driving a team of 6 horses pulling a wagon full of lumber across the ice.  Who had more faith in the ice?  The man crawling on his belly and spreading himself out over the ice?   Or the man driving the team of horses?

    Our politicians are the man crawling on his belly. Trying to please everyone because they are too afraid of losing their jobs.  They have no faith in US, the American people.  They have no faith in the free market and capitalism.  They have no faith in the Constitution they are supposed to be guarding for us.  They have no faith in the freedom of speech and our ability to be civil.  They have no faith in our ability to protect ourselves and to limit our own use of guns.   And because THEY don't believe in thos principals, they think we don't believe in them either.   They only see us as sheep to sheered and manipulated and themselves as the enlightened ones.   They only see through focus groups,  infomercials, seminars and endless legislation and 2000 page bills.   They see themselves as our nations "saviors" and not us. 

   So my question to other GOP leaders and politiicans is this.....

   DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE?

I think today's politicians don't really see Red or Blue states.  Instead they only see GREEN.  I don't think we can make the assumption that our politicians truly care about US as Americans today.  What they do care about is their cushy jobs and in order to keep those cushy jobs they need one thing ... MONEY!

   When I used to write my representatives (house and senate) I would state my point and try to make the most logical (common sense) argument for my view and hope that it would make some impact on them and their decision.  I frankly don't believe that works anymore.  Today they need to be given a more compelling reason for listening to us.  Now when I write to Boxer or Feinstein, I mention to them that if they pass this healthcare bill I am prepared to give $500 to the candidate that runs against them in their next race ($1000 if they use the nuclear option).   Now it is a bit of truth-or-dare as they don't know if I am truly serious about this or not.  Do they want to take that chance?  If more of us made these threats in our letters I think they would listen more to what we have to say.  They know they have inflamed the opposition and we are angry as hell and not going to take it anymore.

    Several years ago, a series of books came out called "Where's Waldo?".  In them, readers were asked to spend time looking at highly detailed pictures of large groups of people and the object was to find a lanky looking young man wearing a striped shirt and hat by the name of Waldo.  He was somewhere in the picture and it was your job to find him. 

    Today, President Obama seems to be missing as well.  Decisions need to be made and he is no where to be found.  General McCrystal is needing a yes or no on his request for 40,000 more troops in Afghanistan.  Reid and Pelosi need his direction on Heathcare.  Is is for the public option or is he not?   He can find time to go to Europe to put in a few good words about Chicago for the Olympic Committee, but he can't be found to go to Berlin for the 20th anniversary of the falling of the Berlin Wall. So where's Obama?   Should we put his face on milk-cartons to see if anyone has seen him?   Should we put out an Amber-alert?   Where is he?  Maybe he is spending too much time watching Fox News to see what they are saying about him now and Michele needs to go in there and turn the TV off.  

    Of course we do know where he is.  He is in the Oval Office and probably meeting with various members of Congress.  But what we really want to know is, where is his leadership?  Remember back during the campaign, Sarah Palin chided him on being a "Community Organizer" and that a mayor was something "like a community organizer ... only with real responsibilties" thus calling into question Obama's ability to LEAD this great nation of ours.  He was rightly criticized as never having run anything in his life (not even a lemonade stand as a child).   Oh yes, there was the basketball team he played on in Hawaii ( they are really known for their basketball court skills there) and he had "run a multi-million dollar campaign".... but isn't that the campaign managers job?   Don't they get to make all the big decisions and just point you to your teleprompter?   We were told by John McCain that the presidency is no place for on-the-job-training yet that is EXACTLY what we got.  A president who looks great in front of a teleprompter but can't make the big decisions.  Now, I am not a big George W Bush fan, but I would rather have a bufoon in front of the camera (shown by David Letterman on a nightly basis) and a president who can lead and make the big decisions than a president who can make nice speeches but leaves our troops in harms way with no decision as to how to help them. 

Message to the troops: 
      Sorry men! The President is too busy dancing the samba with Jennifer Lopez than to give your General what he needs to help you.

I am sure they will understand!

     When a professional football team goes against an opponent they always have people high up in the press boxes watching the game and looking for clues and patterns of behavior that may help them know what the other team is planning.   From their high-up perspective they can see things that coaches down low on the field may not be able to see and then alert the coaches through their headsets what is going on.   For example, when the team puts the fullback directly behind the quarterback it may indicate a running play.   When he is off to the side it may indicate a pass play. (I know I am over simplifying the example).   You can see the results of these insights by noticing the second half scoring is much different than the first half of the game.   We often refer to this as "being on to their game plan".  Of course the ULTIMATE thing would be to somehow get hold of the other teams play-book so we can REALLY know what they are going  to do (some call this cheating,.... but I don't)

     The same can be said about politics.  We have 2 sides and they are pushing their agenda down the field. Each is trying to get "into the other coaches head" and stop their opponent from advancing.   We ask "Why are they doing X instead of doing Y?"   We try to see "patterns of behavior" so we can point out what is wrong with their views or ideas.   Today, we are in the 1st quarter of the Obama-game (also called "Socialism vs Capitalism").   We have had a chance to see how they have played the game so far and we have learned about some basic things about their plays

1) They love CRISIS situations.  After all, a crisis is a terrible thing to waste according to Rahm Emmanuel. 
2) They control the media as evident by Anita Dunn and also the NEA controversy. 
3) They hate greedy corporations and love unions

     But I think the play-book they are using is Saul Alinsky's book from the 1960's called: "Rules For Radicals" ; especially the play for defeating an enemy:  "Isolate and Ridicule".    In this play, you destroy an enemy by separating them from the pack.  This makes the group feel small  and weak.   No one wants to feel like an outcast, we all want to feel like we belong.   Making the  person or group feel alone is very important.  It's just YOU that feels this way.  EVERYONE ELSE feels differently from you.  This method has been used for years in high school and college class rooms across America.   By ridiculing the person or group you tap into their desire to be loved or liked.  This psychological brainwashing can be played out on a grand scale especially if you have the media on your side.  By constantly feeding the public with images of "right-thinking vs. wrong-thinking" you conjole people into thinking that somehow their views are out of step with the rest of America.  Hitler did this.  Muselini did this.  Mao did this.   Stalin did this.  And the list goes on and on....

    Recently the White House has openly attacked Fox News as not being a "real news network".   The claim that their news stories are slanted and can't be compared to other stations such as CNN or MSNBC.  Do you see the play?

     ISOLATE:  "Fox news is not like CNN or MSNBC"
     RIDICULE:  "...they are not a REAL news organization.  They are just an arm of the Republican Party"
     MESSAGE:  If you want to stay in our good graces, you won't run stories uncovered by the Fox News station

    Will this work? 

    I don't think so.  I believe this beacuse Saul Alinsky was before Talk Rado and the Internet (could be why Obama is so interested in controlling them as well).  His rules only apply where the media can be controlled 100%.  Back in his day, there were only 3 TV News stations and handful of national newspapers that you had to get your message out on.  But today with Talk Radio and the Internet (blogs and opinion websites), it is nealy impossible to isolate your enemy anymore as people can easily find MANY other people who believe like them and therefore not feel alone anymore.   Also, it is very difficult to dissect the media from the people.  You can't isolate Fox News without also isolating the viewers of Fox News.  Doing this will only further disenfranchize more and more citizens (many of which are independents who may have voted for Obama).   The only thing it may do is prevent other news outlets from following Fox and going after stories brought to light by them.  But eventually I think these stations will tire of being scooped on stories and having their ratings drop. 

The Obama administration uses this same "Isolate and Ridicule" strategy on other areas as well.

Tea  Parties:
     Obama: "You may see on certain news stations (Fox) where I am not very well liked.  People standing around waving "tea bags".  Well I am always open to having "serious debate" on how we are going to fix health-care in our country"

     ISOLATE:   Fox News and Tea Party goers
     RIDICULE:  "...standing around waving "tea bags"  (he also put his hand up in the air mimicing a person waying a tea-bag)
     MESSAGE:  If you watch THAT station and go to THOSE parties you are not a "serious" person (ie crazy, stupid)

Health-Care:  
     Health-Insurance companies who only care about profits are trying to block reform

     ISOLATE:  Evil Profit driven Health-care insurance (what company ISN'T profit driven?)
     RIDICULE: They don't care about YOU the average citizen.  They only care about their profits.
     MESSAGE: You can't trust what their arguments because they are just trying to protect their profits.

Cap-and-Trade: 
     The Oil companies are making billions in profit off the backs of the average American.  We need to take those profits and invest in smart-energy"

     ISOLATE:   Evil Profit driven Oil Companies
     RIDICULE: They are ripping you off and they are "NOT-smart-energy" (ie - can you say stupid-energy?) and making HUGE profits.
     MESSAGE: We need to strip them of their profits and let government run the energy industry.

So like the team that always does:

     - Pass on 1st down
     - Run on 2nd down
     - Run on 3rd down

You can start to predict what they are going to do before they even do it.   We need to be aware of these plays by the Obama administration and see how idiotic they really are.  We also need to also let others around us in on their playbook as well because Alinsky's "Rules for Radical" only works when the other side doesn't know the rules you are playing by.  Once the other team knows the playbook its....

GAME OVER!!

    We have all seen the movies where men with little or no necks walk into small businesses and talk to owner telling him that they are in the "insurance business".  They say it would be in the owners best interest to buy their "insurance" in case "something might happen in the future".  This form of racketeering is known as "the shake down".  It's wrong and it's illegal.  That is of course unless you are from the government (or a lawyer representing the "Disabilities Act"). 

    Our government today is acting much like the mobsters in the movies.  Shaking down businesses to make them cooperate with them.  For example, government through the "Community Reinvestment Act" (CRA) tells banks that if they want to be able to expand their business or they want to get a "good bank rating" they need to pay money to groups like ACORN or make loans to low income people who may normally be turned down (Hey isn't that how we got into this mess in the first place? ... hmmm..  I guess we don't learn our lessons).   Government treats the money in these banks as if it was owned by the banks themselves.  But its NOT the banks money!  It's OUR money they are playing with. 

    This racketeering has got to stop.  ACORN is nothing more than thick necked mobster arm of the Obama administration and they are using the CRA as a way to get around the halt of direct funding by the federal government.  This group needs to be shut down immediately and our government needs to stop acting as "thugs" and start acting as "servants" again. 

Letter to the President,

Dear Mr. President,
    In a speech before your adoring fans who were chanting "YES WE CAN" you said that "I don't quit... I am just getting started".   In less than a year you have

1) Taken over the banking industry (TARP 1.0 and TARP 2.0)
2) Taken over the car industry (Buying GM)
3) Indebted the country to the tune of 800 billion dollars through the stimulus plan
4) Lost over 10% of the jobs (you said we would only lose 8%)

You are now wanting to:

1) Take over the health-care industry (obama-care)
2) Take over the energy industry (cap and trade)

What else could you want to do?  Where will you stop?

1) Take over the media?  (FCC chairman wants to redistribute the wealth of talk radio with NPR?)
2) Take over the internet?  (FTC wants to limit what bloggers can say)

Well, Mr. President, I just want to say that as a fellow "Tea Party Patriot" (or tea-bagger as you would call me), I am just getting started too.  I get the feeling you are fighting the wrong war.   If you had the same attittude towards our fight in Afghanistan, you would have given our generals TWICE the number of troops they had asked for and Afghanistan would be solved by now.  But your war is not with the Afghanistans Mr. President.  It seems to be with the American people.   You can't stand the notion that there are people out there who do NOT LIKE YOUR IDEAS OR YOUR POLICIES.    I know you say you are at war with the "insurance companies", but we all know that is a smoke screen.   We know you have already made backroom deals with them.   You want to enslave the American people and you can't understand why we aren't greeting you with our arms reaching out to have our shackels placed on our wrists.

Is this payback  for slavery?  Is your plan to indebt the US so much to other countries that we become impotent "eunichs" to the rest of the world?    Do you want the dollar to be destroyed so a new "global dollar" can be ushered in?   That is where is appears you are taking us but maybe I am wrong.

Mr. President, we too are JUST GETTING STARTED.   I know that this will be a war of wills and who can last the longest. I believe their are more of us than there are of you and your followers.   The revolutionary war was not won over night.  It took years to defeat King George and his troops until they just gave up.   We too are prepared to fight but not with guns but with signs, letters, blogs, phone calls and peaceful (but assertive) assemblies.   Americans will ALWAYS FIGHT FOR FREEDOM Mr. President. 

WE WILL NOT GIVE UP!

Well like they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day.  In this case I will have to somewhat agree with Ralf Nader who recently posted a blog calling the president "a frightened man".  His assessment is that Obama is the kind of person who likes to be liked.  At his core values is his own like-ability and therefore tries to appease everyone, but in the end helps no one. 

Lincoln was not liked by everyone (especially in the south).  But in the end he knew that he had to do what was right and free the slaves.  Reagan was not well liked by members of the house and even some in his own party but he in the end made decisions based on his own convictions and beliefs and he defeater the Soviet Union.

Today, Obama has been agonizing ( hard to say that word when you see him salsa-dancing up on stage ) over what to do with Afghanistan and whether to listen to his generals who want 40,000+ more troops or his democratic counterparts in Congress that want us to cut and run.  This is not the time to be running a popularity contest Mr President !!   There is no middle ground.  You promised during your campaign that Afghanistan was more important to our national security than Iraq.  Did you mean that?  You said you would pull out our troops from Iraq and send them to Afghanistan.  Have you done that?  NO!   Yes Mr. President its easier to play "Sunday-Morning-Arm-Chair-Commander-In-Chief" than to actually BE Commander-In-Chief.   Now its YOUR war Mr. President. 

Do you want:

   A) The U.S. to look STRONG and you to be a man of your word?      Then SEND THE TROOPS!
   B) The U.S. to look WEAK and you to be just another politcian?         Then BRING THEM ALL HOME NOW!

Leaving them there without giving them the tools to win is a DEATH SENTENCE.   Mark my word, there will be another "Black-Hawk Down" situation again and YOU will have to answer to the families of those soldiers WHY YOU DID NOTHING!

  I and my brother-in-laws have different opinions about beer.  Their favorite beer is Bud Light and mine is Sam Adams (interesting thing is that they live in New England and I live in California).   They both like it for the same reasons:

1) It has NO taste

2) They can drink almost as much as they want without getting buzzed

3) Its cheap!

I am more of a casual beer drinker. I may have 1 or 2 on a weekend, but not more than that.   For me, if I am going to enjoy a beer, I want know I am having a beer (otherwise just drink a glass of water.... its a whole lot cheaper).   To me cost does not matter as much (although I do buy it on sale so save money) as a 12 pack can probably last me over 1 to 2 months. 

Today we seem to only have 2 choices in politicians,  Democrats and Democrat-LITE (Republican).   We have been sold the idea that the only way to get things done in Washington is to "reach across the aisle" (as John McCain would have it).  But what we have today is not just "reaching across the aisle" but instead "skipping across the aisle and putting down roots".    I often joke to my wife that Senators like John McCain have spent so much time across the aisle, they have been given honorary seats on the left with gold plated name plates.

These  Republicrats (kudos to Michael Savage for the name),  are no more Republican than I am a communist sympathizer.   They think that by voting on "key issues" like abortion or school-prayer that they can maintain their connection to the party.   They, like LITE-beer, are tasteless, cheap and useless.   They believe we are too stupid to see that their is no difference between them and democrats.  Oh yes, they may seem less dangerous to our future.  They are just taking the scenic-route to HELL instead of the freeway. 

Give me a Republican that: 

  - STANDS FOR THE CONSTITUTION
  - STANDS FOR INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTABILITY
  - STANDS FOR THE FREEDOM OF THE INDIVIDUAL

or give a me beer that will make me forget any of this matters

With Republicans like Senator Snowe, who needs Democrats?   Is there nothing this so-called Republican will NOT side with Democrats on?   She is quickly becoming the Achilles-heel of the conservative-base and will be wined-and-dined by all the left to get her vote over the next 3 years.   I look for Maine to get:

 - Its own NFL team complete with a covered dome stadium
 - 3 new airports with state of the art baggage handling and security
 - A new State House, Governors Mansion and Senatorial Office Building
 - Re-zoning of state lines and get half of New Hampshire and parts of Massachusetts
 - Free Congressional Health-care for all of its (10,000) residents.
 - All the plaid shirts and winter gloves their state needs for the next 20 years free of charge

What more can you ask for?  

In my opinion, Sen. Snowe should be sent a message by the Republicans that WHEN (not IF) they regain power in 2010, that her job will be in SERIOUS JEOPARDY if she sides one more time with the other side.

Today, giving money to political candidates or parties really amounts to nothing more than smart investing by large corporations or organizations.  Give a little, get a LOT. 

Take for example, SEIU.  This labor union brags that they gave 60 million to help elect Obama to the presidency.  But that will amount to chump change over the next 4 years.  Take for example the recent job of "helping" with the 2010 Census or the HR3200 health-care bill where they stand to to make several billion dollars in funding from congress.  One can also look at the contributions made by GE during the last election.  Spend a few million, rake in several billion in "energy or healthcare technology purchases".    

Not that this is a new thing.  It has been around for years (maybe even since the Civil War).  The problem is that it is getting worse exponentially. Thousands becomes millions.  Millions becomes Billions, Billions becomes Trillions...

So how do we stop this?

I propose the following:  A law that states

No company, corporation, individual or union may obtain any government contracts or funding for 3 years if that company, corporation, individual or union has paid more than $1000 to any political party or candidate directly or indirectly (through groups like MoveOn etc.)

This would stop dead in their tracts all speical-interest and manipulators who treat our government as one giant vending machine where you plunk in your money and out comes your candy.

A Nobel Peace Prize to put on their mantel. 

In keeping with the dumb-ing down of our world, now even the Nobel organization is now giving out prizes not based on what a person HAS done, but instead based on the HOPE of what they MIGHT do.  Was this given as a consolation prize for not having received the 2024 Olympics in Chicago?   Or should this award be re-named the Nobel Socialist Prize as Obama has done more in 8 months to drive our country to Socialism than towards "world peace". 

I think this award is just one more in a long line of "awards" Obama has received over his lifetime with out truly earning them.  I think the man has gone through most of his life being patted on the back for achievements that most people would receive no adulation for just because of the color of his skin.  That is what we have done in our country.  Instead of following the lead of Marin Luther King and judging people by the content of the character, we have judged people by the color of their skin and have different standards for different people.

Just what HAS Obama done as President?

Closed Gitmo?	NO
Out of Iraq?	NO
Improved Afganistan?	NO
Disarmed Iran from obtaining nukes?	NO
Solved Middle-East Conflict?	NO
Fixed Health-care?	NO
Brought down unemployment	NO

So what has Obama done so far?
Became an Illinois State representative by enlisting the help of people like Rev Wright
Became a Senator by defeating a weak encumbent embroiled in controversy
Did nothing as a Senator except write 2 books (about himself) and plan his run for President
Run against a weak (and out of step) opponent and had the help of: ALL news agencies (except one), Hollywood, Universities, Oprah

That deserves a Nobel Peace Prize?   By doing this the Nobel organization has destroyed the meaning of the prize and ruined it for future recipients.  Also by giving it to our illustrious President they have only encouraged this ego-maniac to become further entrenched into his own belief that he is "loved by the world over" and that his smile, charisma and charm can "bring the change needed to the world". 

God help us!

   Now with ACORN being exposed for the corrupt organization they are, we also now need to put pressure on our politicians to investigate the Tides Foundation as well.  This group is also closely tied to ACORN and SEIU as well.  In fact, when Wade Radke (a co-founder of ACORN) was found to have embezzled 1 Million dollars from the group he was never brought to court.  Instead, the Tides Foundation found it in their heart of hearts to "give" ACORN $1 Million to make the whole issue go away.  That's like someone being robbed and then having the robber's daddy pay the people who were robbed the amount of money or items stolen.   It may make the victims feel better to some extent, but a crime went unpunished and the robber will only feel more empowered to do MORE crime in the future and not less.  Maybe (and this is a BIG maybe) if Wade Radke had been prosecuted 8 years ago, it would have sent a strong message to others in ACORN to "straighten up or go to jail". 

   What is the Tides Foundation and what is its purpose?  According to their own web-site, they were started in 1976 by "anonymous couple" who wanted to help fund grass roots communities and environmental projects.  Started by Drummond Pike, many believe it serves as a "bank" for various organizations that want to keep their names and connections quiet and just like the ocean "tide", it can wipe clean any footprints in the sand that may traced back to their sources.

   What business is it of the Tides Foundation to step in and "fix" a embezzlement scheme?  Who really wanted to keep it quiet?  Did the Tides Foundation also commit a crime by paying to cover another one up?  Would people who gave money to this organization feel that their money was used appropriately?   I think its time we start expanding the investigation, revisit the Radke scandal and too see where the money all leads.  No one is above the law in this country, not even "good intentioned do-good-ers".

   It seems that Team-O has never gotten off the road of the campaign trail.  By now, their campaign bus must be pushing over 400,000 miles on it and has to be on its 10th set of tires.  Obama took time to be on all the major networks minus the BIGGEST of all Fox News.  Asked about everything from health-care to what he saw of the chances of the Chicago White-Sox winning another pennant (wow! who would have seen that one coming!). Most of the questioners were as strenuous as the ones on the 08 campaign trail with the exception of the George Stephanapoulus question on taxes and what constitutes a tax to Obama.

   Last night the President went on David Letterman.  Of course Dave is known for his hard hitting questions and holding his guests feet to the fire while staring at them in the eye to make them sweat buckets.   We also know Dave for his deep understanding of the issues, his masterful handling of the english language and his full understanding of what is on all Americans hearts and minds across this great country of ours.  Yeah Right!

   To me the time on Letterman was a complete waste of time.  I would rather have had Dave do "Stupid Pet Tricks" instead of "Stupid President Question and Answers".   Does the President really think this how you reach everyday people?  Do they want their health-care parlade with jokes about "being black before I ran for office" ??   And speaking of running for office, can the President please stop referring back to your campaign.  That is not supposed to be the pinacle of your career and aspirations. 

   Speaking of the campaign, I believe the White House needs to clean house on members who seem to think that the government is just an extension of their campaign machine.  First we had the "flag.gov" debacle where people in the White House felt that it was a good idea to use the government computers to gather information from the people on other citizens about health-care.  Now during a campaign, all is fair in love and war.  If they wanted to set up a web-site for democrats to send infromation about what the other side was saying about their positions on various issues, that is perfectly fine.  But when you enter the WH, all things change.  Using a government computer paid for "by the people" to gather information "on the people" you have a MAJOR problem.

   Next came the President making fun of  "people standing around waving tea bags".  This too is fine during the campaign because if you want to make fun of people in the other persons campaign rallies that is ok.  This is because most of those people are not going to cross over to your campaign anyway.  But when you are the President, those protests may not necessarily be "Republicans" who are not going to listen to you.  Also, those "tea bag wavers" also have friends and family who may be on the fence with you and by you making fun of them you have effectively pushed them over to the other side.   The President is supposed to be the president of ALL THE PEOPLE and not just those people he happens to agree with.

   Later we had Van Jones the "Green Jobs Czar" outed for his blatantly racist views on our country (said that "white polluters and white enviromentals were diverting polution into black communities and poisoning black people"), signed a 911-Truther petition,  was a self-avowed communist (said so in his own book), and ran an anti-police-group in the bay area.  Again, a campaign can employ whomever they want to get their message out and whoever they think can carry that message. But once you are in the WH, you need to vet all your staff as people like this only make people question the presidents policies and views (does he agree with Van Jones on "white polluters"?).   Is anyone vetting these people?  

   Today we have the WH employing the National Endowment for the Arts to create art to push the presidents agenda.  Agiain, if a politician running for office wants to gather some artists together to help his or her campaign that is fine and its called "marketing". Team-O did a VERY effective job of this throughout the campaign (although did take some fire for making his own "presidential seal".   But now that you are in the WH a new set of rules come into play.  The NEA is not your personal marketing group.  They are paid by tax dollars "of the people".  They answer to Congress, not the president.  Such employment smells of "propaganda" as used by other fascist regimes over the past century. 

   To me, heads need to roll in the WH as bad decisions are being made and are starting to paint this president as ill-prepared for the job.