Monday, December 30, 2013


There are some skeptics among those who comment on this blog. They keep saying that there is no evidence that Jesus really lived or that there are Roman documents that indicate his crucifixion.

If they had open minds and really cared they might read some or all of the following works. They could read them all the way through, but if they are lazy (or just don't care about whether they are really right), they can just read the pages listed.

In the 1940s and 50s it was fashionable to cast aspersions on the authenticity of Jesus. By the 60s documents were discovered and scholars began to realize that they had been wrong. Those who have an ax to grind about Jesus choose not to study the more recent investigations, preferring to languish in the inaccuracies of the older ones.

In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman (a secular agnostic) wrote: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. page 285

Michael Grant (a classicist) states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus by Michael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 page 200

Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more." in Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould (Apr 1, 2004) ISBN 0802809774 page 34

Jesus Remembered by James D. G. Dunn 2003 ISBN 0-8028-3931-2 page 339 states of baptism and crucifixion that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent".

Prophet and Teacher: An Introduction to the Historical Jesus by William R. Herzog (4 Jul 2005) ISBN 0664225284 pages 1-6

Crossan, John Dominic (1995). Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography. HarperOne. p. 145. ISBN 0-06-061662-8. "That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus...agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact."

Robert E. Van Voorst Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence Eerdmans Publishing, 2000. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 page 16 states: "biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted"

James D. G. Dunn "Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus" in Sacrifice and Redemption edited by S. W. Sykes (Dec 3, 2007) Cambridge University Press ISBN 052104460X pages 35-36 states that the theories of non-existence of Jesus are "a thoroughly dead thesis"

The Gospels and Jesus by Graham Stanton, 1989 ISBN 0192132415 Oxford University Press, page 145 states : "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed".

Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research by Bruce Chilton, Craig A. Evans 1998 ISBN 9004111425 pages 460-470

The Cambridge companion to Jesus by Markus N. A. Bockmuehl 2001 Cambridge Univ Press ISBN 978-0-521-79678-1 pages 123-124. Page 124 state that the "farfetched theories that Jesus' existence was a Christian invention are highly implausible."

Van Voorst, Robert E. (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence ISBN 0-8028-4368-9. page 83

Flavius Josephus; Maier, Paul L. (December 1995). Josephus, the essential works: a condensation of Jewish antiquities and The Jewish war ISBN 978-0-8254-3260-6 pages 284-285

Saturday, December 28, 2013

Five Easy Steps to Health Insurance As It Should Be

1.      Repeal ObamaCare. It is a fiasco of the first order and will hurt far more people than it is intended to help. The latest series of atrocities revolve around President BO (the amateur president)’s breaking his own “law of the land.” After insisting that the insurance-purchase mandate was not only constitutional but essential to the law's success, Obama decreed that millions of Americans are magically exempt. They are offered a “hardship exemption” if their policies were cancelled. No sign-up, no penalty tax. 

2.      Allow interstate competition among health insurance companies. 

3.      Cap excessive payouts from lawsuits by category. 

4.      Encourage health insurance companies to establish a fund to pay for pre-existing conditions. Allow them to charge an extra fee to cover those conditions. 

5.      Pass a Constitutional amendment that would limit the federal government’s role in the health insurance industry, requiring the government to revoke at least 20 of its most punitive restrictions on health insurance companies.
So there you go. It's all fixed (in your dreams).

Friday, December 27, 2013


By arrangement (which shall remain undisclosed) my wife has not had regular health insurance in her life. So now she has to purchase it through the PPACA, brought to us by President BO (the amateur president). She is not exempt.

So I went on line to sign her up. It was impossible to complete the transaction as the site produced an error message and placed me in a “virtual waiting room," from which I have yet to be called, but I did find out what her (my) costs will be. She will pay 345.00 per month. That’s $4,140 per year! Her deductible will be $12,000.00 per year. That’s with the bronze plan.

In those years in which she is not hospitalized with a major illness, that will amount to $16,000.00 for coverage down the drain.

Let me see…$0.00 for complete coverage with no limit and no deductible, versus $16,000.00 per year. Which is the best deal? The complete coverage with no limit deal will continue, but we still have to purchase health insurance! Do you think I am happy?

"Oh, well, Joe. You know that some people will be screwed so that the rest of us can have the health care that the government is forcing us to be a part of." Thank you, you liberal (insert bad word of your choice here).

Did you know that there is a $23.14 tax included in the premium? That adds up to $277.08 per year in taxes. There is also a $2.00 fee per policy that goes into “medical research trust fund.” There is also a 2.3% medical device tax that will inflate the cost of items such as pacemakers, stents and prosthetic limbs.

Insurers will pay a 35% user fee to sell medical plans on

There are subsidies for some low income Americans that will pay the taxes and a part of the premium, but for those of us who are $200.00 over the minimum income to qualify, that means nothing.

Oh, and if you have high medical expenses out of pocket, you will get a smaller income tax deduction. It was 7.5% of Adjusted Gross Income. Now it will jump to 10% AGI before deductions can be claimed.

Since I missed the deadline due to the site’s inability to complete my transaction, and since I have not yet been released from the “virtual waiting room” and have no idea what to do next, I guess we will just pay the first year’s penalty and wait it out. Other continuing web site issues.

Why did you liberals get lulled into thinking that the government was qualified to run this health care scam on Americans? Why? Are you really, really that uninformed? Did you learn nothing from Amtrack, USPS, the Veterans Administration, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid? Nothing?

Why not?

Thursday, December 26, 2013

CHRISTMAS RESPITE-Joy to the World-Mack Wilberg Arrangement


I am indebted to Glenn E. Chatfield at The Watchman’sBagpipes for much of the following information.

Every year discussions pop up about why we celebrate Christmas in December. Some say the birth of Jesus had to have been in the summer. This is the time the liberals like to choose, because it is so opposite of when most Christians celebrate Christmas and liberals just love to find issues with Christians’ beliefs. They just swallow each other’s lines and spew them out whenever the subject comes up.
Others say the shepherds’ tending their sheep close to the walls of Bethlehem indicates a deep winter time frame.

I would not argue with either position, because, frankly, I don’t care when it was.
That said, there is considerable evidence that Jesus was born some time close to December 25th.

Alfred Edersheim, in The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, wrote:
There is no adequate reason for questioning the historical accuracy of [December 25th]. The objections generally made rest on grounds, which seem to me historically untenable. The subject has been fully discussed in an article by Casselin Herzog’s Real. Ency. 17, pp. 588-594. But a curious piece of evidence comes to us from a Jewish source. In the addition to the Megillath Taanith (ed. Warsh. p.20a), the 9th Tebheth is marked as a fast day, and it is added, that the reason for this is not stated. Now, Jewish chronologists have fixed on that day as that of Christ’s birth, and it is remarkable that, between the years 500 and 816 AD the 25th of December fell no less than twelve times on the 9th Tebheth. It the 9th Tebheth, or 25th December, was regarded as the birthday of Christ, we can understand the concealment about it.

In the Jews for Jesus Newsletter of December, 2000 we read:
Ancient Jewish tradition … seems to recognize that date…. According to Alfred Edersheim, Jewish leaders established a special fast day on 9th day of the Jewish month of Tevet. Initially, no specific reason was given for this fast day, but later Jewish writers identified the 9th of Tevet with the birth date of Jesus. Edersheim further states that the 9th of Tevet had fallen on the 25thof December numerous times in the past.

There is also the possibility of a Hanukkah-Christmas connection. Hanukkah is celebrated on the 25th of Kislev, the Jewish month that corresponds with December. Could it be that early Jewish believers in Yeshiva (jesus) wanted to connect Hanukkah and the birth of the Messiah, and eventually that desire was transposed into the 25th of December? After all, Hanukah commemorates the rededication of the Temple in Jerusalem, which Jesus applied to Himself when He said, “Destroy this Temple and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19).
A person with a degree in agriculture tells us:

“Certainly, the Lord Jesus was born at Christmas. The only time shepherds spend the night in the fields with their sheep is during the time when the lambs are born. The ewes become ‘attractive’ to the rams in the month after June 21, the longest day of the year. the normal gestation period is five months so the ewes start lambing about mid-December.”
Isn’t it natural that the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world would be born when all the other lambs are born?

A Montana sheep rancher reports:
“Oh, yes! None of the men who have flocks are in church for weeks at Christmas. They have to be in the fields day and night to clean up and care for the lambs as soon as they are born or many would perish in the cold.” Isn’t that neat? God’s Lamb, who was to die for the sins of the world, was born when all the other little lambs are born. Because He came and died the centuries old practice of sacrificing lambs for sin could end.

So which one was it? I can’t say for certain, and I would not bet any money on any of the above scenarios.
If you don’t mind, I will continue to celebrate Christmas on December 25th.

Hope you had a great one!

Wednesday, December 25, 2013

Tuesday, December 24, 2013

Saturday, December 21, 2013


Everybody seems to agree that Wal Mart does not pay its employee very well. But to pay them more would require Wal Mart to raise prices on their goods.

What would be a fair wage for a Wal Mart employee? Maybe 15% more than they're getting now? What would it take for Wal Mart to pay that higher wage? What if they just raised their price by 15% and gave that increase to the employee? Would that be fair enough?

That would be a 15% increase in prices for a 15% wage hike. What could be fairer than that?

Let's not concern ourselves with the drop in the numbers of customers who would shop at Wal Mart or the resulting drop in revenue for this giant company. Let's just do it and get it done!

People would be willing to pay 15% more for products if they knew it was going to the employees, right?

Take a look.

Now, count the number of people who would support such a plan. Write the number here: ____________

(Hint: You won't need many fingers.)

FOLLOWUP FROM YESTERDAY'S POST- A HEADLINE: Walmart SELLS OUT of show merchandise as fans flock to support Phil.

Friday, December 20, 2013


A famous line from the O.J. Simpson trial concerning a glove in evidence was, "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit."

When I was a kid, my cousin and I used to work those 1,000 piece puzzles. We had a rule. After turning all of the pieces upright, we lost a point for each piece we touched without knowing where it belonged in the puzzle. In other words, it had to fit where it belonged in order to properly assemble the puzzle. When the puzzle was finished, the one with the fewest points lost was the winner. Sometimes we would try to force a piece to fit in order to avoid losing points. It never worked right.

Men don't fit men. In order for a man to have a man, a certain amount of force must be used. It becomes an unnatural fit and, regardless of what liberals pretend, it works poorly. It also hurts. It tears tissue, invites infection and introduces incurable diseases.

So I have come up with a brand new old saying. I will express it in an Italian accent: "If it don't-a-fit; you must-a-quit."

By simple math we know beyond all doubt that homosexuality is not normal. It is not natural, either, in spite of liberals insistence that certain mountain goats practice it. The only male goats that involve themselves with other male goats are those who can't win the battle for a female goat. Plus, animals tend to "engage" anything that comes along when they're in the mood.

Which of us has not had the experience of a dog coming up to us and suddenly start "dancing" with our legs? Everybody laughs because we tend to laugh at that which is unnatural or illogical.

Homosexuality is a sin practice that emerges as a result of behavioral conditioning. It is not in the genes and it is not a choice. It is a sin because it is not in the center of God's will. That is the definition of sin. Whatever is not in the center of God's will is a sin. That's why we are all sinners, like it or not.

Phil Robertson was asked and expressed his opinion on the subject of homosexuality. He did so and then was castigated for it, by liberals first, then the press and finally by A & E. He was fired.

Robertson was fired for expressing his belief. For freely expressing his opinion, he was terminated. A & E fired him for exercising his right to an opinion and for expressing it when asked.

That's real freedom.

Let me see if I have this straight. In the liberal mind you have a right to free speech as long as that speech is vulgar, uncivilized or bashed Christianity, Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney. You do not have a right, according to liberals, to speech that they don't agree with.

You do not have a right to believe that homosexuality is a sin and is wrong behavior. You do not have a right to express that opinion. If you do express that opinion, you might reasonably expect to be ridiculed, bullied and/or fired from your job.

All the while, A & E continues to carry programs that express opinions that do NOT offend liberals, no matter who else they offend. It's a good thing there's no double standard there.

The heads at A & E are among the stupidest people on earth. They are taking a false stand in favor of political correctness. They fired one of the lead characters of the most popular cable show in existence for thinking a certain way and then expressing what he thought when asked.

Occasionally, people ask me for my opinion on something. They say something like, "Joe, I'd like your opinion on something." I invariably reply, "Great! I have on on nearly everything!"

If you don't want the wrong answer to a question you ask me, don't ask the question. If you ask the question, I am going to give you my opinion, whether you like or agree with it or not. I do not believe in, nor do I practice, political correctness of any kind at any time.

Let me assert that A & E had the absolute right to fire Phil if they want to. A & E is their business, not mine. But in my humble, but correct, opinion, it was a stupid move and will prove to be very costly to them in the long run, business wise.

Note: I do not have cable. I have never watched Duck Dynasty, don't know what the show is about (except that it has something to do with duck calls, which astonishes me), and really don't want to watch it.

That said, the kerfuffle over the firing of Phil Robertson is indicative of the stupidity of the media in general (think Mike and Molly, The Middle, Two Broke Girls and other inane productions) is becoming ever more apparent.

The same people who screamed bloody murder when I refused to allow "freedom of speech" in the form of foul language on this blog are now attacking freedom of speech when it contradicts their thinking.

What a bunch of idiots!

Wednesday, December 18, 2013


Obama promised on numerous occasions that the average family of four will save $2,500 a year in premiums.

Where did that number come from?  Three Harvard economists wrote a memo in 2007 in which they claimed that then-Senator Obama’s health-care plan would reduce national health-care spending by $200 billion. Then, according to the New York Times, the authors “divided [$200 billion] by the country’s population, multiplied for a family of four, and rounded down slightly to a number that was easy to grasp: $2,500.”

Just like when my wife "saves" money at the store. Every time she does that my bank account total goes down!

Every time President BO (the amateur president) saves us $2,500.00, the cost goes up!

Monday, December 16, 2013


Good grief! People are arguing over whether Santa Claus is white, black or purple! Is there really somebody who cares?

Santa, to begin with, is a mythical figure (albeit fashioned after a real person) and has been portrayed in different countries and cultures in many different ways.
In my humble, but correct, opinion, Santa should represent whatever your particular culture wants him to represent. He should look like what your culture wants him to look like. I certainly have never been offended by the visage of a black Santa. Nor would I be offended by an Asian Santa.
Now for page two.
Lumped in with Santa has been Jesus. Jesus was not mythical, He was real. The question is, “Was Jesus black, white, Asian, or some mixture thereof?”
Well the answer is that Jesus was Jewish and probably looked like an Israeli. It is my (again humble, but correct) opinion that he probably had a stereotypically Jewish nose, dark whitish skin (some have called it "olive")and probably was not particularly tall.
Jesus was not Asian, nor was He a Native American. I doubt that He was black, but I don’t care whether he was or not. Americans have tended to think he was a mid-western American from, what, South Dakota, Kansas or Arkansas? Maybe they think He was from Ohio or Michigan.
Still, I cannot believe that people are getting their bowels in an uproar over the skin color of either Santa or Jesus. Certainly nothing in the Christian faith has anything to do with Jesus’ skin color. And nothing in the world dictates what color or tradition Santa has to be.
To those who care I say, “Give it an everlovin’ blue eyed rest!”

Sunday, December 15, 2013

Saturday, December 14, 2013


Jay Leno has fun with President BO (the amateur president) and Chlamydia. Who knew you could have fun with Chlamydia?

Friday, December 13, 2013



01. Did President BO (the amateur president) carry out military interventionism without Congressional approval?

02. Did President BO (the amateur president) close Guantanamo Bay as he promised he would?

03. Did President BO (the amateur president) promise that there would be no lobbyists in his administration, yet now has as many or more than any president in history?

04. Did President BO (the amateur president) nominate a six time tax cheater to head the federal agency that enforces the tax code?

05. Did President BO (the amateur president) increase the national debt more in one term than his predecessor did in two?

06. Did President BO (the amateur president) order a private company to fire 1,000 employees?

07. Did President BO (the amateur president) put thousands of guns into the hands of criminals?

08. Did President BO (the amateur president) lie about putting health care negotiations on C-SPAN?

09. Did President BO (the amateur president) give tax dollars to campaign contributors and lobbyists, and falsely claim the money was for “green energy”?

10. Did President BO (the amateur president) conduct dangerous and illegal scientific experiments on people?

11. Did President BO (the amateur president) have the government take 60.8% ownership of General Motors?

12. Did President BO (the amateur president) force banks to give mortgages to people who could not afford to pay them back, and collected $23,000 in legal fees for himself for doing so?

13. Did President BO (the amateur president) nominate a communist who said 9-11 was an inside job. (Van Jones)?

14. Did President BO (the amateur president) falsely said he would not raise taxes on the poor and middle class?

15. Did President BO (the amateur president) promise he would wait five days before signing bills?

16. Did President BO (the amateur president) nominate a past frequent user of illegal drugs to keep illegal drugs out of schools

17. Did President BO (the amateur president) use Tax Payer Money to fund a solar company to sell solar panels to itself?

18. Did President BO (the amateur president) give Obamacare exemptions to unions that supported the passage of Obamacare?

19. Did President BO (the amateur president) Make recess appointments when Congress was not in recess?

20. Did President BO (the amateur president) accept illegal campaign contributions from foreign citizens?

Would you like to read more about President BO (the amateur president)’s journey into hypocrisy, illegality and dishonor? Click HERE.

Monday, December 9, 2013

Saturday, December 7, 2013


( - 1,148,000 fewer Americans held jobs this November than did seven years ago in November 2006, according to data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Back then, according to BLS, 145,534,000 Americans held jobs. This November, according to BLS, only 144,386,000 Americans hold jobs. That is a drop of 1,148,000 in the number of Americans working.

This decline in the number of Americans who actually have jobs has come even though the size of the nation’s civilian non-institutional population and the size of the nation’s civilian labor force have both grown significantly over the last seven years.

Friday, December 6, 2013

Wednesday, December 4, 2013


The other day I got on a plane for a trip from Ft. Myers to Chicago. When we had all settled in to our seats the pilot came on the intercom and announced, "Ladies and gentlemen! This is your captain. Welcome aboard. We have a 70% chance of making it to Chicago without crashing, so sit back, relax and enjoy your flight."

I got off the plane.

Over 30 % of the  people who tried to sign up for ObamaCare on the web site either had their data lost, did not get the insurance they elected or were kicked off before finishing their business. 100% of them had their data subjected to compromise due to the failure of the web site's security features.

But not to worry. It's working fine for 70% of the people who don't care about security.

I think I'll get off.

Monday, December 2, 2013


From The Right Scoop

Today, two months and $1 billion after the ObamaCare roll-out, should have been the end of all troubles. Ya. should have:

And here is crashing today on live TV at CNN:

Sunday, December 1, 2013

Friday, November 29, 2013


Thursday, November 28, 2013

Wednesday, November 27, 2013

Tuesday, November 26, 2013

Monday, November 25, 2013


“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”

This quote is from one of my favorite spiritual leaders, the late Dr. Adrian Rogers.
Now whether you are a believer, non-believer, agnostic or atheist, that statement is true. You may denigrate its speaker if you are so inclined, but you will only be demonstrating your ignorance beyond a shadow of a doubt.

That statement defines the difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals believe you CAN legislate the poor into freedom if you can just get enough wealthy people to give up (or have confiscated) part of their wealth (Think 1%ers). Liberals believe that people who do not work should be sustained, regardless of the reason for their not working, and if they have some kind of addiction or social aberration, so much the better. They also believe that if you just spread the wealth everybody will be happy, quite apart from any incentive to be productive. And now it seems they believe that there is a heretofore unknown right to have any illness treated and paid for by the rest of the citizenry.
They believe that economy is a zero sum “game,” and that there is a finite amount of money available. They do not get the relationship between productivity and the increase in the overall wealth of the people.

They are running headstrong into the direction of taking The United States of America down and turning it into the same governmental chaos that prevails in most of the rest of the world.
Thanks, libs.

Sunday, November 24, 2013

Saturday, November 23, 2013


How well has President BO (the man who would be king) performed in the following important areas?
How well has President BO (the man who would be king) been truthful? Is his “If you like your plan you can keep your plan” an example of his idea of truthfulness? Was it when he said it?
How well has President BO (the man who would be king) done with the expansion of the massive Welfare State in the U.S.? How big should the Welfare State be allowed to become?

How well has President BO (the man who would be king) done enforcing immigration laws? Has he followed those laws as well as he has followed the ObamaCare law?
How well has President BO (the man who would be king) done controlling deficit spending? Has deficit spending increased proportionately with its expansion under former presidents or has it expanded more than all of the others put together?

How well has President BO (the man who would be king) done exploiting the Zimmerman trial, the Gosnell murders and other instances on which he has commented or failed to comment?
How well has President BO (the man who would be king) done giving millions of dollars to the abortion industry, both under the guise of welfare and of health care? Has he taken actions in his lives as a community organizer, senator or president to abate infanticide in this country?

How well has President BO (the man who would be king) done with his support of so-called “green energy?” How well have the companies he has supported with tax payer money done? Have those “investments” paid off or failed?
How well has President BO (the man who would be king) handled the Justice Department’s Fast and Furious scandal?  Did he know about it, or was he kept in the dark? If he was kept in the dark, why haven’t those who kept him in the dark been summarily dismissed? If he know about it, why didn’t he stop it?

How well has President BO (the man who would be king) done with arming terrorists overseas? Has he taken steps to be certain that those who would (by their own admission) destroy the U.S. would never be able to do so?
How well has President BO (the man who would be king) dealt with the issue of spying on journalists? Has he ensured that we will continue to have a free press, or has he tried to suppress it?

How well has President BO (the man who would be king) done with religious liberty in our country? Has he fought to preserve it or has he looked the other way when it was usurped?
How well has President BO (the man who would be king) handled the IRS targeting of certain groups? After saying he wanted to get to the bottom of the issue, did he do anything about it? Does his administration continue to defend it, or to deny it ever happened?

How well has President BO (the man who would be king) dealt with the truth about Benghazi? After he told us he would find the responsible parties and bring them to justice, has he found anyone? Has he tried anyone?
How well has President BO (the man who would be king) been truthful about the recent “government shutdown?” After Republicans tried to pass several bills that would fund the government, did he then pretend that Republicans were responsible for the shutdown, or did he admit that he allowed it to happen because ObamaCare was much more important to him than a government shutdown?

How well has President BO (the man who would be king) done with his handling of the shutdown? Did he close any facilities or memorials that were largely funded by private enterprise and not the government? Did he spend tax payer dollars to block off and guard open air monuments when it would have been better to just let them be? Did he try to stop WW2 veterans from visiting their own, privately funded WW2 memorial?
How well has President BO (the man who would be king) understood that places like the Lincoln Memorial have NEVER been shut down because of a government shutdown in the history of this country? Did he deliberately break with that practice, or did he just not know it existed?

So, in the end, how well has President BO (the man who would be king) done in his tenure? Are these just irrelevant questions or do they point to a basic short-coming of his ability to preside over, protect and defend our Constitution? Did his oath to do so carry as much truth as his ObamaCare promises?

Friday, November 22, 2013

WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! Consider yourself warned.

After a recent wave of identify thefts, the FBI estimates there are over 500 fake Obama Care websites set up for the sole purpose of stealing your personal information. 

So protect yourself and remember; the real one is the only one that doesn't work.

Thursday, November 21, 2013

The Man Who Would Be King

How many times have we heard Harry Reid and other Democrat “leaders” scream and whine that ObamaCare is the law of the land and Republicans had better not mess with it?

Is what’s good for the goose good for the gander?

In July of 2013 President BO (the amateur president) rewrote the employer mandate that is in the ObamaCare law. He ordered the date of the statute changed. It was the law of the land, but he chose to rewrite it. Can he do that?

Now he has changed the “grandfather” issue in the law of the land, ObamaCare by saying, “I’m going to extend the “grandfather” to some of these plans that people got after 2010.” It was the law of the land, but he chose to rewrite it. Can he do that?

When Congress tried to pass bills to deal with these issues by law, the same changes President BO (the amateur president) ordered changed, he threatened to veto them. Does he want them dealt with or doesn’t he?

This is the same guy who, during his campaign, said, “I believe in the Constitution, I taught the Constitution for ten years and I will not be doing an end run around Congress.”

Does all of this mean that if Congress passes a bill, the president signs it and it becomes law, the president can change some parts of the law if he wants to? Is that the way we work now in America?

Suppose a Republican gets elected president? Will it be OK for him to change the content of laws he does not agree with or that have issues? Will that be accepted by Democrats?

Are we to abandon the legislative process in favor of a presidential decree process?

Whatever you call that, its acting like a monarchy, not a representative Constitutional republic.

President BO is now President (the man who would be king) BO.

Sunday, November 17, 2013

Thursday, November 14, 2013


"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan...period."

""hat was not a lie. I just didn't know what was going to happen.

"I said if you like your plan, you can keep your plan if it hasn't changed?"

"Even though I didn't add that part in my previous statements, they were not really left out. It's in the bill (which we didn't get to read until it was passed)."

"OK. It didn't work and that's on me (even though it is really on the American people, who could not understand that I was including things in my first statement that I did not say and now I have to fix it)."

So, if it was a good plan, and if President BO (the amateur president) knew what he was doing, and if millions did NOT get to keep their plan, but it was a good plan and was working like it was supposed to, (except for where it wasn't)...





A comment by Mustang sums it up: The president’s announcement (and his response to questions) tell us two important things. First, the president’s proposed administrative fix is completely impractical, suggesting that Mr. Obama is out of his depth in understanding simple frameworks. Six states have already changed their laws to conform to ACA rules and regulations. For the citizens of these states, there is no “going back.” For everyone else, state insurance commissioners, who have largely completed their regulatory and oversight work for 2014, will now have to reopen the files and take another look at what can even be done, given that insurance companies have already begun to implement new state rules. The second thing we learned is that Obama has only attempted to give himself (and all the other communists who passed ACA without any idea what was in it) some cover in the next election.

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

ObamaCare Affects Many More Than Advertised

I have three cardiologists (one primary, the others electrophysiologists), a pulmonologist, an orthopedist and a family practitioner/dermatologist. They are all top-notch physicians who love their work and love their patients. Four of them tell me they are going to be adversely affected by ObamaCare and may have to change the superior way they do medicine.

My primary cardiologist is going to have to cut back his staff to meet the new demands placed on him by ObamaCare. Can you say, “Increased unemployment?” The electrophysiologists are going to be compensated less per case under this despicable plan. Their decisions about who can get what care is going to change for the worse, not the better.

Sure. These are anecdotal to the “experts” and to the masses, but they are directly affecting the way they are able to treat me, and thus are important to me.

For many years, The United States has been the destination of people from all over the world because of our high standard of health care.

Now I am the first to admit that the insurance industry had (has) major problems. Most of those problems, though, were brought on by federal regulations that made it increasingly difficult for them to provide the proper type of insurance coverage. Many of them are going to be forced out of business by ObamaCare. Can you say, “Unemployment” again?

One of the things that should have been done (and what can still be done if anybody has the political fortitude to get it done) is to have eliminated certain regulations that prevented insurance companies from directly competing with each other.

If an insurance company wants to expand to serve people in another state, it has to actually form a completely new business in that state, one that disconnects it from its parent company. In other words, it is prohibited from effectively crossing state lines to compete with companies already in that state.  A few large companies managed to accomplish this kind of service, but many have not. The result has been less competition and higher prices for policies.

That is the result of government regulation that has nothing to do with health care or insurance but is a result of government’s insatiable desire to control everything and to prohibit the free exercise of business.

Now I am not talking about health standards, I am talking about commerce standards.

Liberty demands that companies be able to offer what they want to offer, to whom they want to offer it when and how they want to offer it. If I don’t want what company “A” offers, I’ll go to company “B”, who offers what I want at the price I want.

By the way, it would be billions of dollars cheaper, and far less destructive, for the government to just provide demonstrably necessary coverage on preexisting conditions only for those whose insurance doesn't cover them than it would be for them to usurp the entire commercial activity of existing companies. As it is, we are going to proudly provide coverage for 30 million people while causing nearly 50 million people to lose the coverage they want. To a liberal, that makes good sense, but only to a liberal.

If my house catches fire, I’m going out immediately to purchase a fire insurance policy to cover the costs. If I have an accident I’m going to contact GEICO and save up to 15% on my car insurance and let them cover the costs of the accident. If I die, my wife is going to contact Met Life and let Snoopy give her a settlement (4 million dollars sounds about right).  I’m sure my home insurance company, GEICO and Met Life will appreciate the opportunity to cover what has already happened.

There are dozens of other regulations and restrictions that could have been lifted or altered to allow health insurance companies to offer better coverage at lower rates, but the government has a vested interest in keeping that from happening.

Instead we get ObamaCare, that will cost trillions of dollars and will work to provide good health care coverage about as well as their web site works.

Of course, Obama is sorry for the inconvenience 50 million people are going to experience, losing their health care. Not to worry, though. He will force them to sign up for ObamaCare, as soon as he can figure out how to make the sign up process work. He’s sorry alright.

Monday, November 11, 2013

Toward A Classless Society

When I was a kid, my mother had a very strong role in choosing my friends. While kids today seem to think parents have no business selecting their friends, and some parents feel the same way, they are distinctly wrong.
Parents not only have the right to be involved in the friends and associates procurement process for their kids, they have a moral obligation to be so involved.

Children are not adults. They do not have the reasoning power of adults, nor do they have the skills, social and otherwise, to make such important decisions. They need and deserve the help of their parents.

Here’s the thing. Children will tend to become like the people with whom he associates. If the people they associate with are classless, they will lift them up, but will sink to the level. This is almost a universal rule.

As a society, we have yielded the control and influence of our kids to the public school system. Not only does their education suffer as a result of this, their social skills do, too.

Does this seem counter intuitive? Does it seem like school would be a viable, maybe even ideal, place to develop social skills? Think again.

There might have been a time when schools were good places to make friends, develop relationships and grow socially. That time has passed. Schools have become quasi war zones and social cesspools.

When did schools degrade to the levels they are at today? The answer is multi-fold. It began with the moral degeneration associated with the removal of prayer the public school life. It progressed with the methods used to desegregate public schools.

The instantaneous desegregation that took place provided an extreme cultural shock to students. They were thrust into social situations for which they had not been prepared. In typical government form, desegregation was thrust upon children without their previous knowledge or training.

Desegregation was very late in coming to public schools in the United States. It should have been done from the beginning, of course. Failing that, however, it should have been introduced gradually over time, beginning with preschool and proceeding year-by-year until it was accomplished and appropriate adjustment had been made. By now the process would have been completed and schools would have been much more of a melting pot and less of a boiling pot.

But like everything else the government does, it was all-or-nothing. Thus the process bred contention and dissimilation. Teachers were not trained, administrators were not trained. The government just threw the desegregation baby in the pool and said, “Swim!”

Another influence in the degradation of class in the society is the entertainment industry’s insistence that people behave without respect or civility toward each other. To see this in its most reprehensible form, watch a few episodes of Maury. 

There you’ll find the dregs of society drowning in the depths of depravity. Other shows, as well as movies, are not any better.

The result of all of this is that children have been relegated to the lowest common denominator of society’s fractional nature. As they have grown up, no one has cared to correct their sociological plunge and they have led society to its present condition of virtual classlessness.

Isn’t it time to take steps to reverse the downward spiral? Are we beyond the point of no return? Will we ever see the day when there is a distinction between ignorant classlessness and societal maturity?

Friday, November 8, 2013


For those liberals who can't really understand English because they keep changing words' meanings, I present the following translation.

"I'm sorry that what we 'intended' to do didn't happen because we are so incompetent."

"I'm sorry that we, the most articulate, smartest, Constitutionally savvy, suave, sophisticated, intellectually astute people ever to hold office, couldn't find the words to properly express ourselves before thrusting this abysmal plan on the nation."

"I'm sorry people find themselves in these terrible situations based on assurances they got from me. They really should have known better. It's their fault."

"I'm sorry we have to work hard to make sure 'they' know we hear them, even though we don't really want to hear them. They make us very nervous."

"I'm sorry we're going to have to do everything we can to deal with folks who find themselves in a tough position because of the fact that we wanted them in a tough enough position that they would have to enroll in our 'exchanges', even though they were happy with what they had and thought they were going to get to keep what they had."

"I'm sorry that the fact that the plans we offer are so much better than the ones they had that they have to have premiums 40%-80% higher than the premiums for the plans they actually wanted to keep."

"I'm sorry that millions of people are going to loose their health care coverage so that millions can have health care coverage. I sure hope they don't discover that the whole thing will be a net wash in terms of numbers of people  covered. If they do discover it, I'll be sorry for that, too. I promise. And you know how I keep my promises."

"I'm sorry that everybody didn't get moved into better plans because they want them, as opposed to being forced into them by us, which is what we really wanted to do."

"I'm sorry you found out that I said you could keep your health care plan if you like your health care plan, when I knew I was lying about it."

"I'm sorry you heard me say that I never really said you could keep your health care plan if you like your health care plan but said it was tied to whether or not insurance companies made any changes to your plans."

"I'm sorry we were hijacked by a website. Even though it was our web site, designed and developed by our people, we didn't mean for you to find out that we knew all along that it was not ready for release."

"I'm sorry you are hearing me now trying to make you think I'm sorry I misled you, even though I'm really saying I'm sorry you didn't hear the stealth words I meant that were never once included in my original promise."

"I'm sorry you don't like me for lying. I really, really need you to like me. I'm worth liking, you know."

"I'm a sorry bunch of trash and lies, but I'm sorry you have discovered that, and if you haven't I hope you don't. If you don't you're probably a liberal."

Thursday, November 7, 2013


Is that related to the following?:

Monday, November 4, 2013

Clever with Words

I was wrong once last year. (Does that surprise you?)
How do you understand the statement? If you are a liberal, you think I said I was wrong ONLY once last year. That is not what I said. I was wrong more than 50 times last year, but “50” includes one. So I WAS wrong once last. Not ONLY once, but I was wrong once.
Liberals treat words that way. They hide behind “secret” meanings and half-truths. Remember, a half-truth is a complete lie.
Kathleen Sibelius told Congress that there was no data to support the idea that business has been adversely affected by ObamaCare. She did not say that businesses were NOT adversely affected, only that there is no data to support the idea. THAT does not mean businesses were not affected adversely by ObamaCare, only that the government either does not have or has suppressed data about the issue.
Because they already know the answer, and it would make them look worse, the government is not likely to start releasing data about businesses adversely affected by ObamaCare. Or, if they do, they will either not release the data or will deliberately skew it for their benefit.
Sibelius is the one who testified to Congress under oath that they did not know how many had enrolled in ObamaCare via the famously defective website. She said she would not have the figures until the middle of November. She said it over and over again.
(At the risk of embarrassing myself, I know how many people view and/or comment on my blog site every single day!)
Then someone leaked the documents. Surprise! We discover that she knew all along. In fact, we know that she deliberately lied to Congress. (It won’t mean anything, though, because she is immune to Congress.) What we found out is that on the first day a mad rush to the website resulted in 6 people being registered. I wouldn’t have admitted that either, if I were Sibelius.
Liberals play games with other words, too. If they don’t like a particular social tradition, they just change the descriptive words. For 81/2 billion years, “marriage” meant the legal and spiritual union of a man and a woman. Liberals did not like that tradition, so they just changed the meaning of the word so it now includes gays, transvestites and sand fleas.
Y’all think this post is about ObamaCare and marriage, but it’s not. It’s about how liberals think (or rather don’t think). Evasiveness, distraction, misdirection, deflection and half-truths are their favorite methods of discussion (as well as testifying before Congress).

Sunday, November 3, 2013

Saturday, November 2, 2013


Written in 2003 by ONE person, Face Mash (Face Book’s predecessor), written by Mark Zuckerberg, was rolled out in February of 2004 (one year later-for you liberals). The first day it successfully attracted 450 students (from a population of a few thousand students – the only ones allowed on). By the time it became Face Book, it had cost $13 Million USD. That’s all. Just $13 Million dollars.

Three years and nine months after it became law, ObamaCare’s registration  website was rolled out with national, yea, even international fanfare. It cost at least $88 Million USD (the amount already paid to developer CGI – a Canadian firm) and some estimates run as high as $600 Million USD!

On its first day of operation, the ObamaCare web site managed to sign up 6 people from a population of 300,000,000 people. DID YOU GET THAT! 6 PEOPLE!!

By the second day, there were 100 enrollees and by October 3rd, there were 248. DO YOU UNDERSTAND? Two hundred forty eight people enrolled. Not two hundred forty eight thousand or two hundred forty eight hundred, TWO HUNDRED FORTY EIGHT PEOPLE ENROLLED!

No wonder Kathleen Sibelius balked at revealing to Congress how many had signed up. It was NOT that she didn't know (although she said she would no know until mid-November). It was that she did not want anybody to know how colossal a failure its roll out had been. She admitted to its having had “problems,” but would not give the actual numbers.

Now documents have been obtained that show the actual numbers.

And it STILL doesn't work right.

But that’s OK. President BO (the amateur president) is now going to employ the “brightest and best” people from, of all places, Verizon (Can you hear me now?). Please explain why he spent between $88 Million and $600 Million on folks who were not the “brightest and best!”

I’ll bet you liberals will STILL defend it. I’ll bet you think this is normal for a new site.

(Warning: Do NOT read the history of the development of E-Bay, Amazon, Craig’s List, Angie’s List, YouTube or Linkdin. It will depress you).

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!  HA! Now the ObamaCare website has been shut down for “extended maintenance!”  "Extended maintenance"...right (Psst: Try "rebuilding from the first line of code to the last".)

Well, not for months, just much longer than usual  The site will go offline this weekend from 9 p.m. Saturday until 9 a.m. Sunday. Just 12 hours. No, wait! Thirteen hours. We set our clocks back an hour tonight, remember?
What a bunch of fools you people are.

Friday, November 1, 2013


So, how much does speech cost? If you are close to normal, it is free. In other words, speech is not a commodity. One does not go out and purchase speech.

We could say virtually the same thing about getting together with friends or to make a point to our leaders, having and expressing religious ideas and sharing what we know with others. Those are called “assembly,” “religion,” and the press, respectively.

You don’t buy unalienable rights. Once purchased (by bloodshed, if necessary), they do not have to be paid for again. They are free.

In language, we have to make distinctions between various ideas. Things you don’t buy but are able to exercise without interference are called rights. Things you have to pay money for are called commodities.

Americans do not have to buy their right to speech, their right to their religion, or their right to print what they want to print. They do not have to purchase their right to bear arms, their right to refuse the quartering of soldiers, the right to be secure against unwarranted search and seizure. They don’t buy their right to due process, their freedom from self-incrimination, their right to speedy trial if accused of a crime, their right to be free from double jeopardy, or their right to reasonable bail. They don’t purchase their right to keep their rights and to protect the rights of others and their right to be free to do anything not expressly prohibited by the Constitution. Those rights are not granted by the Constitution, but are recognized by the Constitution.

Rights are the recognition by government that there are certain things they can neither grant nor prohibit. That’s what rights are. If the government can require, provide it or prohibit it, it is not a right.

Commodities, on the other hand, are purchased. I go to the grocery store to purchase my food. I do not have a right to food. If I want food I have to grow it or buy it. If I want a car, I have to earn enough money to buy one.

I am free to choose whether to by food or a car. Nobody forces me to buy either. Since neither is prohibited by the Constitution, I can make that choice freely and of my own accord.

Now the government has dictated that I have a “right” to health (something that on their best day they cannot provide for me) and that I must purchase a commodity to “insure” it. Apparently, the government of the United States has decided that it has the right to decide what a right is and what is a right.

What, then, are the limits of the rights the government can bestow upon me. Can they decide I have a right to a house? Can they decide I have a right to a car? Can they decide I have a right to food? If they can decide these things, can they decide how much I pay for each? Can they decide what kind of each I can buy? How far can we take that concept and still dare to call ourselves a people of liberty?

Maybe, as long as the government is filled with kind, reasonable people, they can make those kinds of decisions without doing too much harm…maybe. But what if the government is infiltrated with people who are not so kind and not so reasonable? What if they overreach? Who decides when they have overreached?

The outcome could be very different. And it will be.

Thursday, October 31, 2013


The government knows
how, right?
A regular commenter on my blog wrote this (after I had said liberals don't understand the concept of liberty):

" We understand the concept of liberty just fine.

'the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.'"

" within society from oppressive restrictions..."? Give me a break!

You can keep your insurance if you like it, but if the company changes a single word of the policy or raises or lowers the rate by $5.00 then ObamaCare kicks in and you can't keep it. That's liberty.

If you don't want health insurance, you have to have it or pay a fine. That's liberty.

If you don't buy it by time-certain you face a fine. That's liberty.

I you choose to buy a health insurance policy that is flawed because your Uncle John sells it, you can't keep it unless it conforms to the oppressive restrictions imposed by the federal government. That's liberty.

And the really outrageous thing is, liberals think they are thinking straight; either that or they are deliberately lying. There are no other options.

Liberty my hind leg!

See, if you like it you can keep it, but you can't keep it if it is lousy, even if you want to keep a lousy policy because the government says you can't keep it if it is lousy, but if you want to keep it you can, as long as you don't keep it because its lousy and the market will decide.

You gotta love the logic...right?


Tuesday, October 29, 2013


According to liberals, if you say something that is not true, and you know it's not true, and have known from the beginning it isn't true, you are not lying, you just meant something other than what you said.

 So far, over 200,000 people in Washington State have received notices that they can not keep their current plan. And that has happened in state after state after state.

 President BO has lied about everything he promised about the AHA. He is a consumate liar, a polished liar, a consistent liar and a filthy liar.

 President BO is a greasy, slick nasty politician whose slime surpasses that of LBJ, RMN, WJC and JFK.

 I would retract all of those accusations if they were not true, but they are true.

 Now we learn that in 2014, those who have health insurance through their employers will now have their benefits counted as taxable income. How do you like them apples? (Check out box 14 on your W-2.)

My company just sent out notices about the decrease in benefits and increase in deductibles and co-pays in order to conform to the AHA.

 Whoo! Whoo! Go Obama! (You'd better go now, because when rank-and-file Americans find out what you really did and how different it is from what you said you'd do, they're not going to be kind to you.

Monday, October 28, 2013

Liberals Miss the Point

Homer and Jethro were out hunting. Night fell and they set up camp, ate dinner and climbed into their sleeping bags.

At about 2:00 AM Homer woke up and found himself gazing into the night sky. He reached over and shook Jethro, waking him up.

“Jethro, wake up! What do you see?”

Jethro thought a minute then he said, “I see a clear sky and stars.”

“Jethro,” asked Homer, “What does that tell you?”

“It tells me that the stars are out, that the universe is vast, that the North Star is right where it belongs and that God is still on His throne. Why, what does it tell you?”

“You numb chuck! It tells me that someone has stolen our tent!”

See, everything Jethro said was true, but he completely missed the point.

That’s the way liberals are. They have all sorts of irrelevant things they call facts (even though they are really very skewed), but they are unable to draw the right conclusions from them.

Liberals just miss the point. They totally do not understand the concept of liberty.


Sunday, October 27, 2013

Thursday, October 24, 2013


Only the Brightest and Best
Only a liberal IT guy would think 3 years and 24 days is not longer than it should take to get an application web site up and running correctly.

Good thing it didn't take FaceBook, Twitter and Linkdin that long. Of course they are private sector entities. They really don't know what they're doing, while the federal government does.

Based on their results from the Affordable Healthcare Act web site, we should feel confident that they can handle health care in the U.S. with ease.


Wednesday, October 23, 2013


I love when the government tries to plan, coordinate and evaluate something. It always works right out of the box, 'cause they're so knowledgeable and efficient.

Like AmTrack
Like Veterans' Administration
Like Army Corps of Engineers.

Oh, wait. Maybe like none of the above.

Sunday, October 20, 2013

Friday, October 18, 2013


Video: The Affordable Care Act is looking pretty darned unafforable

We're going to be saving so much money that our bank accounts will virtually disappear!


Thursday, October 17, 2013


Tuesday, October 15, 2013


And we really should trust them...really.

In fact, liberals think this is the way new web sites are SUPPOSED to work.

After all, they're the government. They KNOW what they're doing.

They're good at everything they do, like the Post Office, Amtrack, budgets, deficits, national debt, GNP, web sites.

It's all good.

"The launch, the website and the enrollment process all have been a complete disaster for ObamaCare," said Brett Healy, President of the John K. MacIver Institute for Public Policy. "Why doesn't the federal government wait until they successfully sign some people up for the program before they complicate things even further?"

Because they're the governmnet...that's why!

Wouldn't they have been better off hiring 1 and 1 to design the site?

How many things do they have to get wrong before liberals admit the government does NOT know how to run things?

Monday, October 14, 2013


It's a good thing we are too stupid to see through their stinkin' thinkin' and hypocrisy.

Notice how many times Sheldon expresses a complete willingness to continue the pain of the 14 in order to hold the rest of the bills hostage to ObamaCare.

Don't you just love the evil look of Sheldon's eyes?

Sunday, October 13, 2013



Monday, October 7, 2013


He is narcissistic, self centered, tyrannical, unthinking, uncaring, unsympathetic, boorish, a bully, unresponsive, unwilling to compromise (although he keeps saying he is willing to work with the "other side" if they would just do things his way), a complete fool and the worst example of what a president should be and do of any person ever to grace the White House, In fact, he not only does not grace the White House, he disgraces it.

Saturday, October 5, 2013


Sure am glad he's not an elitist. Or a truther.

Friday, October 4, 2013


Well, well, well! I see that although the House passed bills to re-fund the essential parts of the government, Dirty Harry has decided not to cooperate.

Let's be clear: the bills were there. The opportunity to "reduce the pain" of shut down was there. Nothing was in the way of funding what needed to be funded. Nothing.

If the Senate had gone along with the re-funding, essential service would have been re-funded by now.

So, he went along...right?


Dirty Harry decided that he would rather shut down the entire government than to give in and fund what needed to be funded.

He had the bills, OK? They were there to be enacted. All he had to do was to do it.

But he refused.

And of course, it's the Republicans' fault that Dirty Harry refused to bring up the funding bills. He is n not to blame for not bringing up the funding bills in the Senate. Just because he is the one who did not bring them up is no reason to accuse him of not bringing them up! (???)

As I say, there are folks who cannot think straight, but who think they are thinking straight. There are folks who cannot draw a proper conclusion from a set of facts but who think they are drawing the right conclusions. There are folks so corrupted in their thinking that they cannot see the stupidity of their thought processes. There are folks whose DNA prevented them from doing all of these things from birth.

They are called liberals.

Thursday, October 3, 2013

Much Ado About Nothing

Wednesday morning I got up, got dressed and headed out the door for work. I got in my car, started the engine, backed out of the driveway, drove in heavy traffic and noticed that every strop light was working very well. The police were out in force, keeping the peace, the garbage trucks were out trying their best to block as much traffic as they could, and the planes flew their landing patterns right over my head.

I go to work, and the phones worked, the calls came in, I answered them and the people on the other end of the line spoke with me about their need for a doctor. Every doctor's office I called was open and patients were being treated for whatever ailed them.

I ate lunch in the break room and watched through the great big picture windows as the roads were packed with cars trying to out smart each other to the next intersection. I finished work, took the elevator to the first floor, got in my car and drove home.

On the way home I called my buddy, Jeff, who was in the waiting room at the VA waiting to see which VA doctor wanted to do the surgery to correct the ankle the last VA doctor had put on crooked. He reported that they were only running two hours behind instead of the usual three and a half because so many veterans had stayed home thinking they would not get service.

I got home and at my supper, got ready for bed and fell asleep, secure in the knowledge that I was safe and sound because my government had shut down and for now were probably not going to bother anybody.

Our local "National Park," the "Ding Darling Wildlife Sanctuary" was reportedly closed for most of the day, but re-opened in the late afternoon.While it was closed, people continued to stroll the boardwalk without the services of the park rangers who usually sat in the office drinking coffee and collecting fees for the park use. The strollers got to use the park for free!

I watched the news on ABC, CBS and NBC. Not a one of them mentioned that Congress had begun passing legislation that would keep the military, the VA and the regular essential government services open, but that's exactly what happened. All we heard from the media was interviews with businessmen who complained that they might have to shut down. In the background you could see the workers slaving away at making whatever they were making. It looked like business as usual to me.

I kinda like having the government "shut down." It means that congress won't be wasting time making laws against cheating, lying, stealing and killing, most of which we already have laws against. How many laws do you need to say, "Don't kill people?"

Sequester was a total dud, despite the outcry that it would cripple the country, and so is the government shut down.

By the way, I selected the stupid picture above because liberty has nothing to do with the government shut down...absolutely nothing. The government does not promote liberty, it limits it.

I say the more government shut down the merrier.

Monday, September 30, 2013

A New Government

I have decided to start a brand new country. Until it is firmly established, I will serve as its Benevolent Dictator. Once it is operating smoothly, I will step down in favor of a duly elected president. Trust me. 

My new country will feature a federal government that will be a vital part of the country. It will be designed to be a great unifier, to help citizens work together to build a great nation for their benefit. 

This federal government will also have a role in actually establishing justice for all citizens. It will establish a judicial system that prevents the federal government from prosecuting an accused it cannot prove committed a crime. It will hold that a person is innocent of any crime the guilt of which cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. 

Another role of my new federal government will be to keep the peace. It will be prohibited from imposing any rules and/or regulations that would lead to unrest. It will also be charged with the responsibility of actively doing those things that would lead to peaceful lives for its citizens. 

The federal government of my new country will be required to defend the nation from all outside aggression or attack. It will maintain a military that is unequaled in the world, but it will be prohibited from being involved in any conflicts around the world that cannot be definitively shown to be a threat to the nation. 

My new country will encourage people to be self-sufficient. It will do what it can to help those who cannot help themselves, but everyone else will be expected to carry his/her own weight. The government will strive to promote, but not to provide, the welfare of its citizens through the effective communication. 

The cornerstone of this new land will be liberty. The federal government will actively seek to promote freedom at every level. Wherever freedom is challenged or attacked, it will step in to ensure that its citizens enjoy the highest possible level of liberty. Except as specifically required by the constitution, the less the government does, the better. 

My new government shall have the power to impose an income tax on its citizens the amount of which is not to exceed 9% of every earned dollar over the poverty level, whether the entity being taxed is an individual or a company. It may also charge an additional tax not exceeding 3% of the net income earned on any business that buys or sells products or services in any state other than the one in which it is primarily licensed. It may tax each state in an amount not to exceed 1% of the state’s total general tax income. No other federal taxes may be levied on the citizens of the new country. 

The IRS shall have two employees, one on the computer to calculate taxes, the other to check the first one’s work. Taxes shall be filed on the computer at home or at the local library. One-half page is all it will take to complete a tax return. It will show the amount one earned minus the poverty level times the tax rate. The government may not spend more than it takes in and may own no charge cards. This government will not have the power or authority to tax property, real or personal. 

The federal government will not be allowed to run any business of any kind at any time.  The regulation of business will be restricted to those businesses that engage in buying or selling products or services in a state or states other than the one in which it they are primarily licensed. Those regulations must be agreed to by the states involved. 

The country will be divided into three branches, each with equal power to the others. There will be an executive branch whose job it will be to implement the directions provided by the second branch, congress. That congress will consist of two “houses.” One of the houses will represent the citizens directly; the other will represent the states’ governments. Representatives in each house are expected to spend enough time with the people of their districts or states to know of their concerns and how they want to be represented. Representatives in each house may serve no more than 3 years consecutively. 

All laws made by the two houses shall relate to one of the following: theft of government property, threatening or murdering a federal agent or employee, lying to a federal officer, kidnapping across state lines, cheating in a business that buys or sells products or services in any state other than the one in which it is primarily licensed and the willful destruction of federal property. All other crimes fall under the jurisdiction of the states. 

Finally, there will be a judicial branch charged with the task of evaluating the decisions being made by the other two branches. It will ensure that the decisions made conform to the new country’s constitution. It will ensure that no laws would be passed that would infringe on the liberty of the citizens. This arm of the government may not make laws by any means whatsoever. If the constitution does not speak to an issue, the judicial branch may not speak to it, nor can they speak to a matter implied; only to those matters specifically delineated in the constitution. Members of the judicial branch may not serve more than 5 consecutive years.

Oh, yes! There will be a constitution designed to prevent my new nation’s government from violating any of its intended purposes. It will be a constitution that severely limits what the government can do. In fact, it will contain specific instructions about what the government cannot do. Each branch of the government will be required not only to follow the constitution but will also be required to “ride herd” on the other branches to ensure that they, too, comply. 

The federal government of my new country will have no right to place any form of restrictions or make any laws that have anything to do with religion, speech, what people write or say, how they can meet together for whatever purpose they desire or keeping them from complaining to or petitioning the government with their concerns. The states, social groups, churches, and other entities may restrict those rights if their citizens allow them to, but the federal government will not be allowed to violate this rule. The old adage, “You can’t yell ‘Fire!’” in a crowded theater will not apply to federal laws in my new land. 

The right of the citizens of this country to keep and bear arms cannot be restricted by my new government for whatever reason. States, social groups, churches, and other entities may do as they please, but the federal government is prohibited from placing restrictions on people’s right to arm themselves.

No military, police, or any other federal entity may force a citizen to allow him/her/them to stay or reside in the citizen’s home, owned or rented, for any reason at any time.

No entity of the federal government may enter the property of any citizen without the voluntary permission of that citizen unless he has a federal warrant duly generated by, and authorized by all three branches of the federal government. The federal government may not search a citizen’s property, personal or real, or seize any item belonging to the citizen without a federal warrant duly generated by and authorized by all three branches of the federal government. It may not spy on the citizens. 

The federal government may not accuse a citizen of any crime or misdemeanor without first establishing through a grand jury that there is demonstrable probable cause to do so. The federal government may not try a person twice for the same crime. It may not require a person to testify against himself and must afford every citizen “due process” in every circumstance.

Every citizen will have the absolute right to a jury trial when accused of wrongdoing, and will have the right to face his accuser in a court of law. Every citizen will have the right to an attorney when charged by the federal government, whether or not he has the resources to pay for one himself.

The federal government of this new land will not be allowed to require excessive bail or fines, to inflict cruel or unusual punishment or to deny a citizen a right to a fair trial by an impartial jury of his peers.

The federal government may not sue its citizens. Citizens may sue the federal government only for violation of the rights named herein.

No employee of the federal government may receive a gift of any kind from any person not directly related to him or her. Anyone caught lobbying any government personnel will be tried, convicted and shot at sunrise.

The constitution of my new country will apply specifically and exclusively to the federal government. There shall be an expectation that states will develop their own constitutions that complement and follow the guidelines of the new country’s constitution, making adjustments as their citizenry sees fit.

It shall be a requirement that the federal government of this new land shall be kept as small as possible as long as it is enabled to do the tasks, and only the tasks, assigned specifically to it by its constitution. 

The major job of the president, the congress and the judiciary will be to sit around eating, talking and maybe bowling. The president may occasionally delve into international affairs, but may not commit the country to any treaty, war or police action without the expressed written consent of the congress, the judiciary, the states and the people unless the new country is attacked on its own soil, in which case the offending country’s government shall be obliterated from the face of the earth.

The preamble to the constitution of the new country I’m forming will read as follows:

We the people of the (New Country’s name), in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the (New Country’s name).