Today the President gave a speech asking that Republicans and Democrats end "petty politics" to do the work of the people. Well if he is truly serious about the matter he may want to start with his very own Press Secretary Gibbs who today took time in his briefing to belittle former Republican Vice President candidate Sarah Palin by mocking her use of "palm-notes" during a recent speaking engagement.
  
Petty Politics?

This seems to get right at the heart of the matter.   Is Joe Gibbs trying out for his own show on "Comedy Central" or is he serious about "doing the work the people have sent them there to do".  

Does Gibb's jab help or hurt tensions between the 2 parties?  Does it heal wounds or put salt in them? 

I think the answer is clear.  The president needs to clean up his OWN act before telling others to clean up theirs. 

    Announced today, the unemployment rate in the US dipped to 9.7% in December and the White House is dancing and singing "Happy days are here again!"   But pardon my lack of enthusiasm, but this is coming from the same administration that can't seem to figure out it thousands, 10's of thousands or millions of jobs have been "saved or created" by the so-called stimulus plan.  This is also the same administration that put together a web-site to track the stimulus money and how it was being spent and saving/creating jobs only to find out that many of the congressional-districts on the web-site don't even exist and that $1500 lawn mowers are saving 100 jobs (wow! must be some lawn mower). 

   I wrote a blog several months ago detailing how and why the government UNDER reports the inflation rate in our country.  The same goes for the unemployment rate.   We never get a real picture of what is really going on.   Lets take for example people who are NOT included in the unemployment rate.

   First of all there are the people who STOP looking for a job altogether. They have given up looking for a job.  I was unemployed for 2 months in 1989 after the Massachusetts Miracle turned into a Nightmare.  I collected unemployment compensation for 6 weeks and each time I went I had to ask the question: "Did you actively look for a job this past week?"  Of course for me the answer was always YES.  But had I answered the question "NO" they I technically would not be added into the unemployment figure because the unemployment number ONLY counts people looking for a job. 

    Second, the unemployment figure does not count people taking low-wage jobs to fill in while they are still looking for a real job that meets their needs.  For example, I might take a part-time job at Taco-Bell to at least put food on the table while still looking for a sales job at the local car dealers.  Technically I am employed, but in reality I am under-employed.  Will I be able to own a home and put my kids through college on a Taco-Bell income?  Absolutely not!  But as far as the Department of Labor (DoL) is concerned, I am employed and should not be counted. 

    Third, I may be considered "self-employed".  For example, if I am an out of work carpenter, I could be doing work on my own helping people fix up their houses for sale.   The DoL has always had a difficulty with how to include or exclude the self-employed.  Are they working?  Yes.... sort of.  

   What is needed is a NEW figure or figures to measure our countries employment health.   Statistics is a difficult subject and all too often too much is pushed into a single number like the unemployment rate.  In reality its not the employment number that matters anyway.  What really matters is what people are earning.  If you have stopped looking for a job you are earning 0 dollars.  If you have taken a part-time job at Taco-Bell you are earning $8000/year.  If you are doing odd jobs as a carpenter, you still need to file quarterly-tax records showing your earnings (much less than what you were getting when you were building 5000 square-foot mansions of course).  These are the figures we need?  Not the unemployment number we are given every month.

    And finally who here believes that it was the stimulus bill that brought down the unemployment rate and not that little know holiday called.... CHRISTMAS!    The unemployment historically ALWAYS goes DOWN during the month of December.   DUH!   Sorry for raining on your parade Mr. President, but the numbers don't mean anything to us anymore.   What matters is money in our pockets.
  

    The president received another (less obvious) "You Lie!!" moment during his State-Of-The-Union address this week when Judge Alito was found to be mouthing the words "Not True Not True" when the president chastised the court for determining part of the campaign finance bill was unconstitutional as it impeded on peoples (corporations) first amendment rights.  Normally the judges, who sit in on the addresses, sit quietly and appear almost stoic during the speech.  But it appears even THEY have had it with Obama's lies and half-truths and are not going to take it anymore.  

   This president had better wake up and realize that the American people are not taking this lying down anymore.  They (as he talked about during his election) are tired of "politics as usual" and in his case they ware tired of his elitist, smart-than-thou, narcissistic attitude and speeches.  The vale is being taken off and we are seeing that this president is Woodrow Wilson reincarnated and will spell disaster for this country unless we take back congress and the senate.  Progressivism must be stopped and meet its final end or we are doomed

   I just got done listening to Judge Napolitano's latest installment on the Constitution and Freedom.  (I recommend all to go to the FoxNation website and check them out.  You will learn so much you were not taught in school).   In the latest one, the judge lays out why our Constitution originally had the Senators being appointed by the State legislatures rather than by popular vote.  What this amendment did was it did an end-run around the states themselves and removed their voice from the federal government altogether.  We forget that the states created the federal government and NOT the other way around.  By having the state government elect their senators to represent THEM in Washington,  they could hold the federal government in check.  If for example, the Fed's wanted to take over how the states ran their schools,  the states could prevent that takeover by telling their senators to vote against that power takeover.  The senators worked for the STATES and not for the people in the states.   By circumventing that method of election, the senators became subservient to the people and not to the state government.  Therefore when the Feds took power away from the states,  they could do NOTHING about it as they now have no voice in the federal government. 

   We need to repeal this amendment and give our states back their voice so they can take back the power that has been stolen from them over the last century. 

   Or at least that's according to a principal at a Taunton Mass elementary school who sent a child home for drawing a stick figure of Jesus on the Cross.  The boy was asked to draw a picture of what reminded him of the Christmas holiday.  The boy has been order to under a full psychological evaluation as the picture which had X's for Jesus' eyes to indicate that he had died.  The picture was labeled "disturbing" by the boys teacher and inappropriate.  

   I guess the teacher was expecting a picture of Santa, Rudolf or even Frosty-the-Snowman but instead had to endure a picture with religious overtones.  What!  Christmas is a religious holiday too??   The boy obviously sees more in Christmas than just a baby wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger.  He see's past the quaint view of shepherds and wise-men and to WHY Jesus came at all and that was to die a horrible death on a cross for all of mankind.   Offensive?  Yes to those who don't want to be saved.   Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 1:18, "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing but to us who are being saved it is the power of God".   The boy sees that without Easter, you have no Christmas.  Without Easter, Christmas is just another poor child being shunned by an uncaring world ... yadayadayada.."  

   I am appalled by how this boy is being treated.  He is ridiculed for his faith and treated like there is something wrong with him.   Yet I believe that God speaks through little children such as him.  Jesus was ordered in the temple to to have the little children who were following him singing praises to him to "be quiet", but Jesus showed them that their child-like faith was based in scripture.  "Have you never read 'From the lips of children and infants you have ordained praise' "  

   This boy has faith beyond his years and beyond many adults.   He is why Jesus also order the worst of punishments for those who would hurt the faith of one such as this when he says "But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believes in me to sin, it would be better if a millstone were wrapped around his neck and he was cast into the midst of the sea."   Not that Jesus was telling his disciples to go around throwing people into the sea (as he says "would be better") but was saying their standing before God will not go well and that being thrown into the sea " was like saying "better not being born at all". 

    It reminds me of the "Charlie Brown Christmas" cartoon we watch every year.  Linus gives the MOST impacting sermon in the fewest words possible by quoting Luke and the story of the shepherds.  His monologue to this day still gives me a lump in my throat as he delivers the "good news for all people" and reminds Charlie Brown what Christmas is really all about.  But sad to say, today Linus would be chastised for quoting scripture to his fellow students in a public setting paid for my public tax dollars.  He too may be sent for psychological evaluation for believing in "myths" and his parents may be called into question for their way of raising him and filling his young impressionable mind with ridiculous ideas of a gracious God who loves all mankind so much he is willing to die for them.

   

   Yesterday my wife and I watched a episode of Oprah (more my wife than I).  In the show, she interviewed a NY Times writer by the name of ____ who has spent much of his time and energy on atrocities of Africa and their treatment of women and girls.  I must say, it was an interesting show and much must be done to improve conditions in these countries.   I began to question, however, WHY Africa has taken center stage in AMERICAN politics. 

   Back in the 1960's, Harlem was at the center stage of politics in our country.  TV and Newspapers highlighted the conditions in the inner-cities (much of it created by our own government)  and discussed drugs, prostitution, gangs, unemployment, poor medical care etc.  But now we seemed to be having our attentions turned to other countries.  Have we solved the "Harlems" of our own nation and so we have no need to address them anymore?  Absolutely NOT!  Today the left is promoting the idea of the "Global Village".  We see commercial after commercial saying "Look at how small the world is".   We in the U.S. are seen as the only ones who can fix these problems.   We are the "rich kid on the block" and therefore we are the "solution" for all the ales the world around us.   Forget about being the world's "policemen".   We are now the world's police, fire and (if healthcare passes) medical providers. 

   Watch out America!  Your sovereignty is slowly being sold.  Obama himself has said he sees himself more as a citizen of the world than as an American and has already passed President Bush in the number foreign trips abroad.  Politicians who push for amnesty for illegal immigrants say borders are artificial in nature and are meaningless in the 21st century (what right do you have to say where someone else can live or not live?)   Congress is slowly selling our rights as a country as they increase our debts to other countries and thereby making us subservient to dictatorships like China.  Our Supreme Court has hinted at aligning our constitution and laws with that of other countries to make us more like them.   Political Correctness puts ethnicity before nation with all of its african-american, mexican-american, chinese-american to separate and divide us into little factions that can be manipulated and controlled.  Under the disguise of "climate-change", some are proposing a world-wide "cap-and-trade" type of plan that would force the redistribution on a global scale.  

   Now I am not saying we should ignore places like Africa altogether.  As individuals if we want to help change these countries for the betterment of their people then so be it.  But that is not what many in Washington and on the left have in mind.  They have great disdain for our way of life here in American.  To them, it's unfair that we have clean water and plenty of food while other countries don't.  They don't want to bring other countries UP, but instead want to bring us DOWN to their level.   Tired of dealing with budgets in the billions, they want to control budgets in the trillions.   Power always wants MORE power.   It's a disease that left untreated will eventually destroy our country and our way of life. 


  

    Well now we have the mirror opposite of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" story breaking in recent weeks as emails have been uncovered by some of the most "reputable" scientists on the subject of Global-Warming (notice they often use the term Climate-Change now....hmmm).  These emails show a shady side of these so-called scientists as they discuss:

• Destroying evidence (emails, documents) in case there is a Freedom-of-Information request
• Falsifying data to cover up a lack of warming
• How to prevent other scientists who don't buy into their view by keeping their papers from being published

   We have always regarded scientists in an almost religious manor in our society putting their ethics up there with priests and doctors.  But now the curtain is being pulled back and revealing someone less than the "great and glorious Oz" behind the scenes.   Men, not armed with facts and data but instead with a political agenda.  These scientists are riding a wave of political ideology rather than following the truth.  They  know there is more money to be made by government grants searching for the global-warming boogy-man rather than letting the dat speak for itself.   In the end these men will have not only destroyed all arguments for global-warming, but will have also destroyed the credibility of their craft.  We now see that even scientists are not above reproach and are given to the same vices as the rest of us.  That they to can lie, cheat and deceive as much as the rest of us.  Maybe even MORE than the rest of us as they most often reject the idea of an all-knowing, all-seeing (and yes even all-loving) God!   For if there is no God, then there are no reprocussions of my behaviors which may include lying to the rest of the world and causing un-founded fear, panic and the spending of TRILLIONS of dollars to fight a non-existent problem. 

   Of course this is not the first time scientists have been caught lying to the public.  About 20 years ago a small team of scientists claimed to have found "cold-fusion" in a chemical reaction.  Of course their findings could not be replicated and they were chastised as having jumped to a conclusion in order to make headlines.  But in this case, science did the RIGHT thing and did what it is supposed to do by checking their findings by could replicating the results.  When they could not be replicated it was denounced.  Therefore the scientific-method prevailed as it should.  But what differs in this case is that here we do not have the scientific-method being allowed to be used.  Instead we have scientists actively attempting to thwart the scientific-method and to cover up their TRUE findings by tweaking data and destroying evidence.  In the case of the cold-fusion scientists, they were only guilty of jumping the proverbial "gun" and announcing their findings before they could be corroborated by their fellow colleagues because they didn't want to get beaten to the press.  Also, their lies (or half-truths) caused no real harm to society except to their own careers and reputations.  The global-warming scientists should be brought up on charges of misleading the public and possibly causing mass panic and alarm (if I were a more of a litigious person, I could see suing them for causing psychological and mental stress and anguish by saying The earth is warming! The earth is warming! .... doesn't this fall under the law that prevents a person from yelling FIRE! in crowded room??)

   We also need to take a closer look at the policies that caused this to happen.  Where did the train come off the tracks in this case?  Was it politicians (ahem.... Al Gore) with agenda's and fist fulls of cash from the government that could have been the culprits?  Haven't we learned the politics, like salt-water, is a corrosive element.  It's very nature is to corrupt and destroy whatever it comes into contact with?  And why is that the case?   Without getting too philosophical here, it is simply because governments sits at the very top of society's grand pyramid.  Unless that society is governed (implicitly not directly) by a higher power (God), that government has the ultimate final say in what is ethical and acceptable.  It therefore itself becomes corrupt and thus having nothing to prevent it otherwise, it corrupts all who come in contact with it as well.   In the case of these scientists were corrupted by politicians with social and political agenda's to control their citizens and to redistribute their wealth.   Seeing that there was more money and prestige in making up data and covering up the truth these scientists denigrated themselves and their profession.

    But now we see that the lies don't stop there either.  As of today, hardly a word is spoken of this massive cover up that has been found by the computer hackers.   ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN,, MSNBC, CNBC have not made one mention of it on their news programs.  Fox News and the NY-Times have made mention of it (and maybe the Wall Street Journal...but I am not sure on that) have checked the story and are declaring it factual and the emails a reality.  I am sure now these stations are busy digging up dirt on the computer hackers to see if there were any laws they had broken and if they should serve any jail time for their offenses.  They may do an article or two on computer security in the 21st century and how easy it is to break in a steal information.  But no mention will be made of the lies these "truth-revealers" have uncovered and how the rest of us are being played as fools and that global warming is really...

A CONVENIENT LIE!

 

   If you recall from your high school chemistry class, the definition of a catalyst is a chemical that helps in the chemical reaction but remains unchanged in the process itself.  For example, chlorophyll aids in the process of photosynthesis by which carbon-dioxide is combined with water to form sugar and oxygen and water.  The chlorophyll itself does not change in the process, but the process itself would not be possible (or incredibly slow) without it.

   In regards to Sarah Palin, many are wanting to know if she will run for President in 2012 or not.  Those in Washington feel that the only way to elicit change is to become a player of the game and to get into the "inner-circle" of Washington.  But to me, that would be a job too SMALL for Sarah.  I think her role can be much, much bigger than that.   Yes! You got that right, bigger than the president!   Without getting to religious here, Jesus said, "Unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground it remains a single kernel. But if it is buried and dies, it yields a harvest 10,50 or 100 times"

    Now, how does that apply to Sarah Palin you ask?   To me it's simple.  Sarah could run for office and quite conceivably become the next President of the United States.  But she will still have to deal with an out of control Congress (Left and Right) that does not answer to majority of Americans (even in their own districts).  Her ability to effect change would be limited and her time in office limited to 8 years but her adversaries are not limited at all and would essentially just out live her in the end.   But if Sarah Palin is willing to put aside her political asperations for the betterment of the people, she could be a major catalyst for change our country has never seen.  She would in fact be the GOP's answer to Oprah and allow her star-power to give energy to newcomers to the political front that would never get past the GOP's front-door because they don't belong to the correct clubs or have graduated from the right schools.   She would be able to open doors for people like Doug Hoffman who before would have had ZERO chance of being elected to Congress.  She could effect a change in attitude that Washington has been needing for a VERY long time while herself never setting foot into the oval office. 

   In fact, I believe Palins "power" stems from the fact that she is NOT from Washington DC or New York City, or any other major metropolitan area.   Her roots are in Wasilla, and like some plants, which flourish in some climates and die in others.  She too needs to keep her roots there.  Any attempt to "transform" her into a more palitable candidate would in the end make her less appealing to those in middle-american that today are shunned and scorned by the ellites on the east and west coasts.  Wasilla-Palin has unlimited cultural and motivational power, whereas Washington-Pallin only has minor and limited political power. 

   Sarah Palin could also be the "voice of reason" that the GOP has lost since Reagan stepped off the stage.  She does not have to "channel" Ronald Reagan.  She merely must reintroduce us to the principles that guided him in office.  She can help short-circuit the dismantling of our Constitution by the progressives that are in our own party by discussing Constitutional answers to the problems we face.  She can help take back our culture and show that our families are our most precious resource we have.  She can be the voice that middle American has been needing to rise up and counteract the Progressive (communist) revolution that has been slowly imposed on us over the last century.  

   That is where Sarah Palin will have the biggest effect to me!

     I am often suspicious these days of "crisis situations" discussed on the evening news these days, for often they turn out to be more "red-herrings" than anything else.  The mortgage crisis pushed by congress last year was used as the motivational force behind the stimulus plan.  Today our economy is stalled, (but not tanking) but only about 10% of the 878 billion spent in the stimulus bill has actually been spent and of the 10% spent very little has been capable of growing jobs.  In fact so few jobs were created that the government is forced to look for "jobs saved" in order to not be embarrassed by the truth of how little it has done.  

    Back in April and May when the swine flu (now called H1N1 so as to not belittle pigs) much as made of this "pandemic" in the news.  Some said this was mostly to take our attention away from the stimulus bill and the taking over of major US companies like GM and Chrysler. It seemed that the flu had run its course and it had not turned into the pandemic is was played out to be.  But then comes August and September, and now Congress is fighting of all things the takeover of health-care in our country.  What is needed now, to them, is a crisis in the health-care industry to force us to hand over our freedoms once more to them.   You can't turn on the evening news anymore without their being 2 or 3 reports on the flu crisis and the inability to get vaccines to the at-risk-groups of the very young and very old.  I am sure the arguments for government run health-care will be:   "The un-insured are the most "at-risk" group in America.  We need the public-option (ie Obama-Care) to stop this group from dying in the streets from the H1N1 flu!  Past it NOW ... It's an EMERGENCY!"

    But the counter arguments for these absurde ideas are:

1. Obama-Care doesn't even start handing out care until 2013.  So unless H1N1 has a very long gestation period, you're screwed!
2. If government (which is already in charge of handling the H1N1 flu) cannot take care of one VERY small aspect our our health-care industry, who in their right mind thinks they can run all of  our health-care?
3. Unless we are going to expand Health-care to illegal immigrants (and the world for that matter),  passing the public optional will do very little if anything from stopping the flu's advancement

    We must face the fact that we are playing poker with a master of deception, who has bluffed his way to the top.  It's now time to start calling his bluff and stand up to these fake crisis situations.   Of course they will ague that our position will cost thousands their lives.  But so did the decisions of Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Hancock etc..   Their decision to call King George's bluff cost thousands their lives, but gave millions their freedom.   I am will to take that chance.... are you?   I hope and pray you are!

   Today, whenever the issues of citizenship comes up, no one wants to nail down exactly what it means or requires.   Birth Certificate?  Driver's License?  Proof that you are living in a certain county?  But now it seems that congress has come up with at least ONE requirement for citizenship:  Proof of Heath-Care Insurance.   For the first time in our nations history, we as inhabitants of this land are being told that having proof of health-care-insurance will be required or else huge penalties will be slapped on us ... maybe even jail time.   What happened to "all men are created equal and endowed by their creator to have certain inalienable rights" ?   Did that just get forgotten along the way to socialism?    

   Arguments have been made that states do the same for registering your car at the DMV and requiring car owners show proof-of-insurance.  But these arguments don't fly as driving a car is optional and is deemed to be a privilege and not a right.  Living is not a privilege, but a right (at least the last time I read our constitution).   And where will this all end?  If my government can require this, the most basic aspects of life, then what can they NOT impose on me? 

   Frankly, I am fed up with all the government imposed "requirements" of the nanny-state.   Most of the laws are not so much invented to protect us, but to protect corporations and to keep them in business.   Let's take for example the child car-seat laws.   I, like many people my age, grew up in cars with no car seats at all.   In fact, seat belts were used as lethal weapons against our siblings sitting in the back seat  when mom and dad weren't looking.   Oddly enough, we made it to puberty and onto adulthood.  Then insurance companies got involved and lobbied state legislatures to mandate that we actually wear the seatbelts or else be fined.   Did our legislatures pass those laws because they cared so much for us, or was it because they cared so much for their insurance buddies who where stuffing thousand-dollar bills down their pants?   Did this stop here?  No!   Insurance companies got in bed with car-seat manufacturers and said babies under the age of 1 should be in specially designed carriers and it should be against the law to not use one.   This created a whole new market that was never there before.... the car-seat-market.   Seeing that there was gold in them-there-seats, the manufacturers began their own lobbying and pushed the age and height requiremetns higher and higher until its almost required for kids to be using them when they are going for their own driving test (sarcasm added).  Manufacturers also would "improve" the designs and make older designs un-usable so they couldn't be re-sold and forced parent to buy new ones.  This scam has been used on whole hosts of products ranging from bicycle helmets to heavy-work-equipment and the wheelchair-ramps in parking lots.

    What else could government mandate we buy to be citizens?

• Home computers

Argument: This can be thought of as an extension of the no-child-left-behind bill in that no child should be raised in a home without one.  Apple and Microsoft should lobby hard for this one and raise the minimum hardware requirements from time to time to insure a steady rate of new purchases.  

• Cell phones with GPS built in

Argument: a fair number of people get lost or kidnapped every year and by having one of these the government could more easily locate you if needed (of course they would NEVER use it for any illegal reasons like locating your where-abouts at a DC Tea-Party....no of course not!

• An American made car, van or truck

Argument: since so much of our countries GDP depends on the American auto industry,  buying one keeps people in Detroit employed and keeps the Amercan economy moving.

• A menmbership at a local health-club or gym

Argument:  Let's face it American, we are just getting too darn fat!  Have you been to Texas lately?   Your fat is impacting the mental and physical health of your fellow comrads... urr I mean citizens.  24-Hour-Fitness and other accepted gyms are there ready to help you get rid of that belly or butt fat you are holding onto.    Also, China says that they don't want to give more money to a bunch of fatties anymore so... shape up America!  Or China won't buy our next set of bonds.

• Join a UNION

 Argument:  It's not fair to all the union people to have to do all the picketting of businesses and corporations for you.  Here they are out there day after day after day.  Holding prefabricated signs.  Yelling prefabricated slogans. Marching in circles for hours at a time.  Doing all of this FOR YOU!   You need to be involved too.  You need to get off your rump and help them fight for the rights of workers (or their union bosses money).  

Note: Acutally this is part of the health-care bill. Did you know that if you belong to a union you won't get the health-care tax penalty?  It's true... it's in the bill.

• Volunteer your time

Argument:  Government workers can't do it all.  We need a well funded army of volunteers to do the government's bidding.  This is already being done in high schools across America as seniors are required to do various numbers of hours of "community service" in return for getting their high school diploma.  So why can't we extend this to becoming a voting member of society?    You want to cast a vote?   50 hours of community service please!  (500 if you are a evil Republican).  After all voting is a earned privilege and not a right!

    I am sure the list will not end here, but this is all that I have time to think up at the moment.  

   I am tired of hearing commentator after commentator talking about how the number of jobless claims is "slowing" (still RISING ... but SLOWING) and that may be a "sign" that the recession may be ending.  Yet no one sees that the reason for this is that the Christmas (I refuse to say "holiday season") is upon us.   In talking with various people, stores are hiring temp-jobs to fill in as they normally do.  But come January, where will all those jobs be?   GONE!  That's where. 

   Today the jobless level is at 10.2% (Obama said that without the stimulus we may see unemployment at 8.0%).  After Christmas I believe we will see that level go dramatically up and maybe reach levels of 11 or 12 percent.  Let's be real here.  Anyone who says the worst may be over is a fool.  The price of gold is rising faster than ever,  showing that many people (including myself) have no faith that all this spending is going to have a good effect on our economy.  With that level of pessimism, I think we are in for a rude awaking sometime in January or February and we need to stop deluding ourselves like the wife of an alcoholic husband that thinks he will stop drinking ... THIS TIME.   We take any good news they have to offer us as a sign that its all going to be alright soon rather than look behind the curtain to see what really is there.    

    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.