Do-It-Yourself Guide to Tax Info

With both candidates throwing numbers on taxes at us, it has become a topic of debate and argument in a lot of places. Here's a detailed discussion of the issue with dispelling of a lot of the myths.

Mythology of Taxes

The important thing in the article is that it provides you with links to authoritative government statistical sources to verify everything that is said. You can go there directly and verify that you haven't been lied to or victimized by someone seeking your vote.

What Do They Know?

Much in the news today about the manipulation from the Obama campaign of blogs, polls, web pages, etc. The gist is that the campaign has teams of hit squads which flood online polls to give the impression of huge leads for the Messiah. You've seen it. Maybe you've even done some of it; logging on repeatedly to a poll site and casting vote after vote to get the desired impact.

You've seen it on conservative blogs. Someone posts some damning info on the Socialist Savior and the comments section is overwhelmed with input ridiculing or disclaiming the information, often in crude fashion.

What happens, however if we get some data from folks who have a heavy investment in America? How about Americans working in Israel who will be casting absentee votes? Who are they supporting? Is it within the margin of error?

Americans Living in Israel Polled

And, what about the guys and gals in harm's way? What do the service members think? How does it break out by service, by rank, etc.? Is it close? Will their votes count?

Votes From the Spear Point

Somehow I think that these folks are real Americans, not seeking a government handout or "social and economic justice"...whatever that means.

From an Old Friend

Here's an interesting letter from a former POW who was in Hanoi with John McCain. I'll let you dig out your own reference to Phil Butler and his comments which this rebuts. I know Joe Crecca. He was two classes behind mine in AF pilot training. We met in the squadron halls on a daily basis and we shared a few beers on Friday nights. He went to a back-seat F-4 Phantom assignment upon graduation and while I finished my first Vietnam combat tour in early November, he was only half-way through his when he got nailed deep in North Vietnam. He was in prison from 1966 until 1973. He knows John McCain well.

As a former POW in North Vietnam I must respond to Phil Butler's very misleading article entitled, "Why I Will Not Vote for John McCain"

The timing of this article is very telling. While the Democrats are at each other's throats for the nomination, Sen. McCain's numbers are rising vs. either opposing candidate. Could this be a reason for the timing of this article?

Most of what Mr. Butler alleges about Senator McCain is the distant past. Those were in his college days so long ago. Mr. Butler wants us to believe nothing has changed over the course of the last 50 years.

Mr. Butler states that we had "Our own seniority system, based on time as a POW." Not true. Date of rank was what determined seniority. Can anyone honestly believe that a 1st Lt. should be senior to a colonel just because he was captured on an earlier date than the senior officer? Pretty bizarre.

John Sidney McCain was shot down 26 OCT 67. Mr. Butler had his dates wrong. As far as the Vietnamese [communists] stopping torture in September, 1969 I wish someone would have told them, Contrary to Mr. Butler's statements that "rudimentary health care" started at that time, the reality is that we were getting a modicum of health care all along. I was taken to a dentist in 1967. One POW got Penicillin shots in 1968. Another POW got the "Rexall Award" for consuming more medications than anyone else. POWs were treated for Hepatitis, ringworm and intestinal worms. More stories abound. Many suffered for long periods without medical or dental attention, too. But it was not that one-sided.

Mr. Butler tries to paint a picture of John McCain being made out by the media to be the only "hero POW" and somehow that this was to "further his political goals." I fail to see how this could possibly be true since the vast majority of the news media is no friend of conservatives, even moderates like John McCain. Besides that, prominent conservative radio talk show hosts and television show hosts have incessantly criticized Senator McCain for his moderate conservative views.

The case in point is that John Sidney McCain WAS tortured to a far greater extent than many other POWs. The enemy knew of his family hierarchy and therefore what a propaganda bonanza it would be for them if they could turn him to their ends.

When John Sidney McCain was shot down both his arms and one of his legs were broken. He landed in a lake in the capitol city of Hanoi and sank into 20 feet of water. Despite his severe injuries he managed to propel himself to the surface, catch a breath and sank back to the bottom. With one more courageous attempt, his last, he paddled and flopped back to the surface again, this time being hauled unceremoniously into a boat by Vietnamese that saw his first surfacing attempt.

Later, in his captivity, after his limbs had at least partially healed the communists re-broke one of his arms when he refused to comply with their propaganda plans for him. These acts alone paint a far different picture of John McCain's courage and character than Phil Butler would have you believe. The next point of contention is that Mr. Butler conveys a picture of most new POWs "arriving with broken bones and serious combat injuries." This was not my experience. Some POWs did have serious wounds but most arrived in camp with none or minor injuries. Witness the fact that all of the sick and wounded POWs went home in the first group of one-fourth of all POWs held in Hanoi. And not nearly all of that group of about one hundred were categorized as "sick and wounded". Less than 10% died in captivity with many of those occurring in prison camps outside Hanoi in camps in South
Vietnam where conditions were even harsher than in Hanoi.

Mr. Butler states that POWS would "refuse early release" because "we were bound by service regulations, Geneva Conventions and loyalties". What he does not say is that twelve POWs, in four groups of three, did accept early release. Only one of these did so without stigma and that was Seamen Apprentice Douglas Brent Hegdahl who had the misfortune of falling overboard from the U.S.S. Canberra on April 5, 1967. In fact, Doug was ordered by the senior ranking POW, Gen. John P. Flynn, to accept early release, if offered, and to take with him as much intelligence information as he could. I know this first-hand because I taught Doug the names of 252 POWs, the names and locations of several prison camps and other useful information. Doug was
released A August 5, 1969 and brought home 272 names (he added 20 more after we were separated) thus bringing relief to several POW families when their loved one's status was changed from MIA to POW. The other eleven POWs are looked down upon by the rest of us who stayed the course.

The fact is that many of us, including myself, were offered early release. But it came with a price that only those few paid. The difference between somebody like me and somebody like John McCain accepting such a dishonorable deal was that my early release would not have made nearly as big a propaganda splash as an admiral's son. That's why John McCain was tortured far more than any of the rest of us. In fact, with respect to an early release, I was not tortured at all simply because, compared to John McCain, I was small potatoes. His Dad was an 4-star admiral. Mine was a bus
driver.

As far as John McCain's POW experience not qualifying him for President of the United States I would ask what either of his political opponents in the Democrat Party possess that qualifies either of them. One democrat candidate is a former First Lady and now a senator who has passed no major legislation. The other candidate is a first term senator that has spent half of his four-year career campaigning for president. John McCain has been in public office for over 25 years, more than both their tenures combined. Neither of his opponents have demonstrated leadership qualities and both have serious baggage problems. I would place my trust in John McCain well before either of the other candidates for the highest office in
the land.

And why does Mr. Butler wish to connect the issue of a hot temper with a finger on the red (nuclear) button? Because he's desperate to place doubt in the reader's mind about the stability of John McCain. Fifty years have passed since Mr. Butler's accusations toward his Annapolis roommate. What about the frog you ran over with your tricycle, Phil? Are you still so cruel?

Finally, Mr. Butler shows his true colors and the real reasons behind his open, rash and mostly untrue allegations against Senator McCain when he says McCain supports "Bush's war in Iraq" further blaming the current administration for its "entrenched and bankrupt policies". He criticizes Senator McCain's views on many popular issues and ties him again to President Bush. So, that's what it is. Mr. Butler is a democrat. He supports democrat policies and decries those of the Republicans. This is the real reason why Phil Butler says he will not vote for John McCain.

Joe Crecca
POW, North Vietnam
22NOV66-18FEB73

Worth Watching

One has to wonder how the Democratic Party has been so successful in hanging the financial crisis on the Bush administration and how they have managed to link Sen. McCain to the Bush policies which supposedly caused it.

Take a look at this timeline captured by our Canadian neighbors from a Fox News broadcast. Notice Bush warning about the dangers in his first year in office! Notice Bush's Treasury Secretary warning. Notice Fed Chairman Greenspan warning. Notice Barney Frank disregarding. Notice Chuck Shumer disregarding. Notice Sen. Obama abstaining when his party refused to act and he could have broken ranks.

Frankly one must wonder how stupid we could be to reward the guilty and punish the innocent come election day.

The Simple View

Economics need not be complicated. Here is a very short video that is so simple, even liberals and Messiahs should be able to understand the concept:



If you would like the more detailed view, here's a more dignified and detailed explanation. This one requires a superior intellect to understand...maybe like Joe Biden or Barney Frank:



Now for those seeking the graduate school coverage of the topic, such as the pointy headed intellectuals in our universities and think tanks, here's application of the principles to several specific situations:

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, Old Buddy

In another example of what could be a trend, we see VP-in-waiting, Sen. Joe Biden on the hot seat in a TV interview which dumps some quotes on him and some facts.



Don't you just hate it when they nail you on live TV? Wait until the Goebbels truth squad shows up on their doorstep. And, it's a CBS affiliate! What would Katie Couric say?

Halloween Reality

When they tell you what they plan to do, why wouldn't you believe them?

The folks over at NRO do and they simply took the time to compile the list. When you read it you will be afraid.

National Review Predicts the First 100 Days

He's Got a Plan

Listen carefully to this. The Messiah condemns, of all things, the Warren Court, one of the most liberal of our last century. The complaint he notes is that pesky old Constitution which LIMITS the government. The Warren Court, he asserts, didn't go far enough in stretching the power of the federal government which the Founders had so cautiously constrained in their document. The feds should not only correct past social injustice by freeing slaves and giving the disenfranchised the right to vote. The federal government should also aggressively redistribute wealth.



So, he has been consistent through the years. He is an unabashed socialist. He's got a plan. You've got a job. He's going to take your earnings and distribute them to others seeking economic justice.

This begins to look like a Thomas Jefferson moment when the tree of liberty will need refreshing. Ol' Tom predicted that it would come around every forty years or so. We've muddled through for 220. We're overdue, but this should trigger it if we still have the backbone.

Wannabees for Obama

This guy is simply too stupid to be prosecuted. Yet, we gain insight into the electorate and the manner in which some supporters of the Messiah try to attract followers to the "cause."

Degrading Those Who Served

It ain't Halloween yet, so there's simply no justification for the costume.

On Rationality, Conservativism, and More

Could Not Have Said It Better

Although I think I've said much the same thing. As Billy Beck would say, "the endarkenment beckons."

Take Inventory

We often assume that the outcome of an election won’t really matter in our daily lives. We have enjoyed the luxury of choosing a pretty face in the horse race and blithely voting for whomever. Deep in our hearts we know that we could stay home or vote our emotions without much concern over whether or not our society would collapse around us. That gradually has changed.

You might offer the historical argument that it changed on August 6th 1945 with a nuclear weapon over Hiroshima. Or, you could say the change took place a few years later when the Soviet Union became a nuclear power and we began to watch the Doomsday Clock. Maybe it was the political turmoil of 1968 erupting in our streets and universities. But, then things quieted and we continued on our slide into antipathy and government by emotion. The video of the World Trade Centers collapsing one September morning changed that forever. Now we know that it does make a difference whom we elect. Our future security depends upon it.

Despite that, we have failed to seriously take an inventory of what qualifications the frontrunner in the Presidential race has for the office. We seem oblivious to what he really plans to do if given the reins of power. We’ve grasped the sound-bites and taken them into our lexicon without applying any analysis or reason. Joseph Goebbels rules. Simply say something, even if it is totally counter to observation, and if you do that often enough, it becomes reality. “New-Speak” of Big Brother’s 1984 is prevalent. Black is white, peace is war, and we believe it unquestioningly.

What is going to happen with regard to taxes under an Obama administration? It is absurd to believe that 95% of the people are going to get a tax cut. It defies simple math to think that government spending can increase by several trillions and it only needs 5% of the people to fund it.

What is going to happen in the global war on terror? Sen. Obama has repeatedly denied the efficacy of the surge in Iraq, touting as his greatest achievement his opposition from the start. Regardless of that, his stated policy will be to increase troops in Afghanistan—a surge—to deal with the situation there. How can that work? What happens in Iraq?

Does he have a plan for Iran’s threat? How will he do the only thing he suggests, meet with Ahmadinejad, if the president of Iran doesn’t want to meet with him? Will a President Obama defend Israel? Will he do it in the event of an Iranian attack? Why would a Jewish voter trust him? How will he strike terrorists in Pakistan, a sovereign nation, when they deny us access? And, what of Venezuela, Argentina and Bolivia? Africa anyone?

How do you reduce our dependency on foreign oil while simultaneously refusing to exploit America’s domestic resources? How do you supply our growing electrical power needs with wind and solar, but not using nuclear energy?

What are his plans with regard to the environment? I don’t mean feel-good discipline in the US. I mean the overwhelming impact of the two big kids on the global block, India and China. Our impact is a drop in the polluted bucket compared to those behemoths.

What sort of an administration can we expect with regard to First Amendment protections when we see the strong arm tactics his campaign employs against those in the media who might actually challenge some of the mindless assertions of his campaign? Are you folks in Orlando comfortable after the Biden/West interview?

What really is the function of this domestic police/youth/service corps which he intends to create? What is going to happen to a military under an Obama administration which anticipates a 25% manpower cut and denial of new weapons acquisitions? Who defends? Who supplies? Where do the former defense contract employees work?

What has Sen. Obama ever managed, directed, operated or administered? How many people has he supervised? What size payroll did he budget for? How much profit or loss did his effort generate? What problems did he encounter? How was his leadership instrumental in facilitating “change”? What executive experience does he bring to the office?

Where are his writings? How do you edit the Harvard Law Review without leaving a legacy of work? How do you become a Constitutional Law professor at a major university without a curriculum vitae that includes extensive writings and records of professional presentations? Where are his undergraduate and graduate grades?

Where are his moderate, non-controversial, friends and mentors? We’ve heard about Ayers, Dohrn, Wright, Pfleger and Alinsky. Now I want to find some reasonable people.

I’ve never bought the muslim connection nor do I worry about the middle name. I’d like to know how the Berg lawsuit in Hawaii regarding Obama’s birth turns out before the election, but I think the issue is a red herring. I’m more concerned about the real future of this nation under an Obama administration. I’d really like America’s voters to pay attention and take inventory of the man.

Catchy Tune

Ahh, yes. The muse strikes and maybe makes the hit parade:

Worthless Disclaimer

Read this NYT piece by Nickolas Kristof:

Exactly Opposite

Did you notice this disclaimer:

Look, Mr. Obama’s skin color is a bad reason to vote for him or against him. Substance should always trump symbolism.

Yet, despite that brief head nod to logic and reason, that is exactly what the whole piece is about!

He offers Asians, Africans, Europeans and Jamaican comments at the improbability of us electing an African-American President and then proceeds to suggest that it is Obama's ethnicity that will restore America to stability, leadership, respect and peace in the world. It is simply his blackness that will do that!

No matter how you spin that assumption it comes out short of reasonable.

First, let's acknowledge that it really shouldn't matter what the rest of the world thinks of us. It is nice to be loved, but better to be respected. It's good to be liked, but better to be the source of aspiration. Africa and Jamaica are cesspools of political and economic disaster. They don't have to like us. Better they should envy as and try to emulate our past. Europe is inexorably sliding into socialism and politically correct follies without realizing that their embrace of liberalism is destroying the very foundations of European greatness. China might be an economic giant, but Mr. Kristof should realize that probably a billion of those 1.4 billion people don't notice or care who is the President of the US. They are too busy trying to eke out a living. We don't need for them to like us. We need for them to respect us.

True to the credo of the NYT, Mr. Kristof appeals to grand liberal inanities while seeking to justify the emptiness of his thoughts with that short sentence of disclaimer. It doesn't work. It merely highlights the stupidity of the concept.

I Didn't Before I Did

This video will make your day. It was compiled several months ago. Note that the D-J Index in the crawl is over 12,300!

Yet the case is made very completely and thoroughly.



A tip of the hat to New Paltz Journal for pointing me at it.

Publish or Perish

If you've wondered how the major, prestigious universities choose their faculty you may have encountered the title phrase: "Publish or Perish." Gaining reputation in academia requires one to expound upon their theories, their philosophy, their research, their life work or their studies. The writings offer insight into the qualification of the individual. When the publications are evaluated, the individual can be judged.

Given that principle, we find this today:

Deathless Prose?

It offers critical insight into the criteria of the University of Illinois/Chicago. They sought an academic to teach the principles of elementary education and they hired the guy who wrote that. Sure sounds to me like the sort I would want inculcating values in the next generation of teachers to mold the minds of American children. And they hired his wife as well!

The relevance to the Presidential election today is discussed as well at Zombie Time. Take a few minutes from your busy day to read it.

One can only ask ruefully why the booboisie of mainstream America doesn't get it.

Nothing Fair About It

Fairness is a dirty word. When they talk about fairness with regard to income or taxes or wealth you can be certain that means that something you have is going to be taken away and given to someone who deserves it less than the person who earned it.

Fairness in the world of ideas is a tougher nut to crack. When someone suggests that a media outlet be "fair" they might mean that the reporting should be even-handed and unbiased. That would be good. But what if they mean that you must give up some of your property, your intellectual property, to expound on something with which you deeply disagree? That's what the "Fairness Doctrine" seeks.

It was the law of the land until the Supreme Court ruled, correctly I might note, that with regard to a First Amendment protected right to freedom of speech and the press the government cannot demand that I say or publish someone else's opinion simply to create some sort of fairness. The media cannot be compelled to support someone else's idea if they can't get an audience on their own. It was deemed unconstitutional.

But, we've seen that the conservative viewpoint has commandeered talk radio. It isn't forcing people to listen. They just offer a product that people choose. Left-wing talk shows have come nowhere close to building a similar level of support. They screech and squeal but no one is listening. So, the Congress-critters seek to re-establish the Fairness Doctrine and force people to think in a certain way on their licensed airwaves, privately sponsored commercial stations, on their editorial pages, and undoubtedly on their blogs.

Listen to this emotional plea from a US Senator who obviously is unfamiliar with the Bill of Rights or the Supreme Court, but really likes fairness:

Link:

The Inadvertent Truth

We should very properly be apprehensive about an Obama presidency. I’m deeply uncomfortable with his extraordinarily brief resume. He’s got very little experience in a lot of areas and what background he has revealed is generally counter to what I know and believe. His associations indicate questionable judgment and his pandering to the audience in front of him on major positions is simply scary.

That’s why this is so damning:



This isn’t a McCain hit piece. It is Sen. Obama’s own running mate telling us the truth. We can choose in the coming election whether or not we trigger an international crisis! If we vote for one candidate, we get a high probability of stability and security. If we vote for the other we get a virtual certainty of something very bad happening—that means either a significant terrorist attack or an event leading to major upset in American society. That doesn’t seem like a tough choice to me.

But note particularly the last half of Sen. Biden’s statements. When this event happens, President Obama will act decisively (he predicts) and he will be doing things which the American people will find extremely unpleasant and will have difficulty supporting! Does that mean that plans are being laid for suspension of civil liberties? Martial law? Weapons confiscation? Muzzling free speech? Confiscation of private industry?

If you weren’t frightened before you damn well should be now!

In The Age of the 707

An interesting item that really highlights differences between the current state of the airline business and the "Good, Not-Really-So-Old, Days":

Those were the good ole days. Pilots back then were men that didn't want to be women or girlymen. Pilots all knew who Jimmy Doolittle was. Pilots drank coffee, whiskey, smoked cigars and didn't wear digital watches.

They carried their own suitcases and brain bags like the real men that they were. Pilots didn't bend over into the crash position multiple times each day in front of the passengers at security so that some Gov't agent could probe for tweezers or fingernail clippers or too much toothpaste.

Pilots did not go through the terminal impersonating a caddy pulling a bunch of golf clubs, computers, guitars, and feed bags full of tofu and granola on a sissy-trailer with no hat and granny glasses hanging on a pink string around their pencil neck while talking to their personal trainer on the cell phone!!!

Being an Airline Captain was as good as being the King in a Mel Brooks movie. All the Stewardesses (aka Flight Attendants) were young, attractive, single women that were proud to be combatants in the sexual revolution. They didn't have to turn sideways, grease up and suck it in to get through the cockpit door. They would blush and say thank you when told that they looked good, instead of filing a sexual harassment claim. Junior Stewardesses shared a room and talked about men.... with no thoughts of substitution.

Passengers wore nice clothes and were polite, they could speak AND understand English. They didn't speak gibberish or listen to loud gangsta rap on their IPods. They bathed and didn't smell like a rotting pile of garbage in a jogging suit and flip-flops. Children didn't travel alone, commuting between trailer parks. There were no Mongol hordes asking for a 'mu-fuggin' seatbelt extension or a Scotch and grapefruit juice cocktail with a twist.

If the Captain wanted to throw some offensive, ranting jerk off the airplane, it was done without any worries of a lawsuit or getting fired.

Axial flow engines crackled with the sound of freedom and left an impressive black smoke trail like a locomotive burning soft coal. Jet fuel was cheap and once the throttles were pushed up they were left there, after all it was the jet age and the idea was to go fast (run like a lizard on a hardwood floor). Economy cruise was something in the performance book, but no one knew why or where it was. When the clacker went off no one got all tight and scared because Boeing built it out of iron, nothing was going to fall off and that sound had the same effect on real pilots then as Viagra does now for those new age guys.

There was very little plastic and no composites on the airplanes or the Stewardesses' pectoral regions. Airplanes and women had eye pleasing symmetrical curves, not a bunch of ugly vortex generators, ventral fins, winglets, flow diverters, tattoos, rings in their nose, tongues and eyebrows.

Airlines were run by men like C.R. Smith and Juan Trippe who had built their companies virtually from scratch, knew many of their employees by name and were lifetime airline employees themselves...not pseudo financiers and bean counters who flit from one occupation to another for a few bucks, a better parachute or a fancier title while fervently believing that they are a class of beings unto themselves.

And so it was back then....and never will be again

In Case You Missed It

How to be a good sport:

Stone Cold

Would anyone who has seen his other work believe for a minute that Oliver Stone was going to produce an insightful movie about President George W. Bush? Would they think it mere coincidence that it is released three weeks before the election? Would they predict that it would be a chronicle of a young man’s growth into maturity, responsibility and leadership? Would you like to buy some nice beachfront property in Florida or possibly a well traveled large bridge in a NY borough?

I checked some of the trailers available at YouTube and thought maybe my pessimism was ill-founded. Here’s a sample:



Maybe the derogatory scenes are simply prologue for a docu-drama covering the response to 9/11, the trackdown of al-Qaeda leaders, the overthrow of a despot, the handling of an energy shortage, and the response to setbacks in the effort to establish a democracy in the Middle East. Could be, but then maybe I’ll win the lottery tonight.

Here’s the reaction from someone who has seen the film:

Telling It Like It Is

I guess Mr. Stone has remained true to form. His Hollywood credentials will remain intact. And, of course, the great unwashed will lap it up as a courageous true depiction of the man and his life.

Maybe if I win the lottery, I’ll make a film about Oliver Stone. Yeah, that’s the ticket!

Really?

The late Jeff Cooper coined the term “hopolophobe” to denote a person with an obsessive fear of weapons. They are the frantic metrosexuals and soccer moms who decry gun violence as being related to proliferation of guns rather than proliferation of criminals. They somehow believe that taking the means of defense away from rational, honest, law-abiding people will somehow purge society of the asocial Neanderthals who prey upon the helpless. If we simply outlaw guns as they try in Washington DC, Chicago, New York City, or San Francisco there will be much less crime. It doesn’t seem to be working very well in those cities.

The liberalization of gun control policies has demonstrably reduced crime in the 38 states that now have “shall issue” legislation for concealed carry permits. I’ve got to guess that liberals might feel outraged that I’ve just used that term with regard to the issue, but that’s what it means.

Now, take a look at this item that surfaced today in places like San Francisco and Dallas:

The Sky is Falling

This is like someone suddenly noticing that the sun shows up regularly each morning. They suddenly realized that inside the security zone, there are people without weapon and everywhere else there are people with weapons. That is cosmic deduction, Sherlock!

The implication is clear. The hopolophobes are rushing the ramparts and will soon demand that they be protected outside the security zones from all of those airport shootings we’ve been having at places like SFO and DFW. Oh, we haven’t had any shootings? Well, we might, so we better do something! Like what?

What would you do? Would you expand the security perimeter? Wouldn’t that compound the problem of supervising the space? A bigger area fenced, means a lot more fence to be penetrable and a lot more bodies required to patrol it.

How about a secondary security area? Would that mean only some weapons would be screened out? So, you couldn’t take a gun but you could take a knife, a shoe-bomb and your large sized bottle of shampoo and lip gloss? I could get stabbed, blow-dried and blown-up but not shot then?

What is there about the concept of concealed carry that these people don’t understand? If I know that I can’t carry through security at the airport and into the boarding area, I leave my gun at home. If I’m only going to drop off or pick up someone without planning on entering the secure zone how will anyone know I’m armed? If I’m on level five of the parking facility at 2:45 AM and some street punk decides he likes my Rolex and his girl would be impressed with my car, why should I be disarmed?

If the intent of the hopolophobes is simply to declare the entire airport terminal building and surrounding parking areas as a “gun-free zone” by erecting prominent signage declaring it so, then I think they should get on with it whenever they feel like. That should certainly deal with the problem perfectly and with minimal inconvenience. Of course, I will continue to do what I’ve been doing and the punk on level five will have to decide whether he feels lucky or not… “Well, punk, do ya?”

Just A Guy in the Neighborhood

That's CNN, not Fox. Maybe the MSM is not buying the spin.

Be Prepared

Just in case you haven't checked your survival gear recently, follow along:

It Didn’t Work for Marx

The concept sounds so wonderful when you first hear it: “From each according to his ability…” Isn’t that a great idea? Why you simply do the best you can at whatever you are good at. Some of us are better at writing and teaching and flying jets, so that is what we will do. Others are better at retailing crack cocaine, robbing fast food marts, and playing basketball in back alley lots with a “forty” in a brown paper bag on the side and a “nine” in their waistband in case the other guys drive by.

Then “…to each according to his need.” That’s the sweet part. You’re going to get what you need! A house, even if you don’t have the income to pay the mortgage; a car, so you can look phat when you roll the ‘hood; some bling so the bitches dig ya; and healthcare paid in case you get stabbed or shot during the night. You do what you want to do and you get what you want.

The problem is that it is too difficult to determine what you need. What I think I need is a lot more than what you might think is appropriate for me. I’m not happy simply having the bare minimum. I’m greedy. I want it all and I want it for my family as well. I feel fulfilled or in psycho-babble terms, self-actualized, when I’ve got more than you do. The catch is that I don’t expect the government to do it for me. I understand that I have to prepare myself to succeed and then I have to devote myself to applying my skills if I am to achieve my greedy goals.

Poor Marx didn’t live long enough to see his utopian concept play out. The co-optation of the idea by Lenin and Engels followed by the implementation of Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev and the rest failed miserably. Shortages rather than success were the norm. If you know you will get what you need, if your state-established need is less than you thought it would be, and if your level of effort doesn’t impact the result, then the system fails.

That is why the new euphemism for Marxist principles, “redistribution of wealth” is such a thin lie. It appeals to the basic demands of the venal masses with the idea of taking from the rich who don’t deserve their prosperity and giving to the majority who didn’t earn it. Check this discussion and note particularly the Obama quote about “spreading the wealth around”:

Wealth
by luvnews

You can feel confident that you are correct if you interpret “spreading wealth around” as taking from me and giving to you. That is something that might garner votes, but it cannot succeed for any length of time as a policy of government. It has been tried repeatedly in the last hundred years and has failed abysmally every time.

Forget About the Constitution

You’ve been deeply insulted in the last two days. You probably didn’t notice. In fact, you more likely said thank you because you’ve been so deeply conditioned to believe in change and hope and audacity. It certainly has been audacious to the point of hubris.

It started with this seemingly innocuous announcement:

Pie In the Lame Duck Sky

Consider that proposal by Speaker Pelosi for a minute or two. Did you get the insult? No? Let me explain it to you.

You have been so receptive to selling your vote and your emotional support to the candidate that promises you the most stuff at the expense of “them” that now they know that they don’t even have to deliver the bribe to you before you act in response. The bell rings and you salivate. The dog biscuit never gets delivered by Speaker Pavlov…er, I mean Pelosi.

That’s right. The Congress has gotten in the habit of perpetuating themselves by deferring the bill through deficit spending and larding up the budget with extraneous welfare programs for so long that now they don’t even have to actually do anything before getting your vote. You vote because Nancy the Generous is suggesting that she “might” call the critters back into an additional feeding frenzy in celebration of their great victory. She’s going to give you a “middle class stimulus”. It hasn’t happened and in all probability won’t. That sounds an awful lot like a bell but no biscuit. Regardless, it works!

A few minutes ago I watched Fox News cover a speech by the Messiah to a rally in Ohio. It was a veritable litany of largesse. There were tax cuts for everyone, independence from imported oil, five million jobs here and ten million there, repaired infrastructure nationwide, free college for everyone, healthcare as comprehensive as what Congress gets, mortgage interest tax credits rather than deductions, and more. It was “chicken in every pot” taken to the 21st century extreme. There were mortgage payment reductions, a stimulus check in the mail soon enough to buy yourself a winter coat or your kid a new computer for school, and world peace in our time.

The obviously missing component was how all of this could be paid for. The subtle insult was the suspension of what we’ve come to know as the legislative process executed by an elected Congress and President. Senator Obama wasn’t saying he would “propose” or that he “promises” to do these things. He was speaking first person present tense as though he was the current Fuhrer and like the King of Siam he simply pronounced, “so let it be written; so let it be done.”

Chutzpah!

The adoring throng was rapturous. They whooped, they applauded, they swooned in the aisles. It was so easy to make this perfect place, it made them wonder why it hadn’t been done already. One can only wonder if they will notice tomorrow morning when they arise that none of it has occurred overnight. And then one hopes that they will not have buyer’s remorse the days, weeks, months and years after the election of this demagogue when the things don’t happen, the bills come due and the price in lost liberty is apparent.

Shoe On the Other Foot

When you've got a full time staff to sift through the mud, you can compile a detailed, illustrated list like this one:

Take the Full Tour

The point, she is making of course is that it is quite late in the game for the left to be complaining about the level of discourse.

Memories

They don't make them like this anymore:

Magical Mysteries

This wonderful insight comes from the opinion page of the Wall Street Journal. It helps to pinpoint the magic and mirrors that reflect the concepts of hope and change in total apparent defiance of all economic principles:

The Great Obama

And, only at ThunderTales can you see this original footage of the early years of his act when he was learning the arcane skills of the magician:



Nowhere else do you get such documentary evidence!

The Rising

I've likened the Messiah's propaganda machine to the film works of Leni Riefenstahl, particularly at the 1934 Nuremberg Party Congress. I pointedly avoided posting the Hitler Jugend style step team antics that made the rounds from obscure blogs to mainstream news media last week. I did point out that absurdity of the Brandenburg Gate pre-Victory Tour before the conventions, but now we really need to get serious about this:

Channeling Hanna Arendt

There are way too many similarities here for a George Santayana fan like me to dismiss. Let's throw in the economic meltdown that is ongoing and recall the hyper-inflation of Weimar and the world-wide economic collapse of the Great Depression.

Power to the people, indeed!

Character Matters

Let’s admit something up front. Politicians on the campaign trail tell us what we want to hear. That’s reality. Let’s also acknowledge something never mentioned. Presidents often have huge gaps between what they promise to do and what the circumstances after election actually allow them to do. Dreams don’t always equate with policy. That’s a good thing, not a bad one.

So then, if we start at that point and try to make a rational voting decision for President (I hope that isn’t hopelessly oxymoronic), then we might minimize the breathless anticipation of impending bread, circuses and sugar-plums dancing and focus on something more concrete. How about the background, the history, the retrospective view of the candidates’ lives? Where have they been, what have they done, whom did they ally themselves with, what battles have they fought, what have they accomplished? These are all knowable facts and not hopes for a misty future. That’s what is going on right now and which is often viewed as either mud-slinging or irrelevant to the “issues” which should be debated. These are the things which matter.

I’ve written a couple of books. I couldn’t have done it twenty years ago. I simply didn’t have the skills to string that many words together and create a compelling story. It took several years of free-lancing, mostly doing computer software and hardware reviews for e-zines and local publications. Participation in a lot of online discussions on early bulletin boards then Usenet groups and eventually interactive web sites broadened the topics I wrote about and honed the skills. Then I could write a book and it would be bought by a publisher and people would read it.

Now I’m working with Robin Olds’ daughter Christina to compile his writings into the incredible story of his life. The experience drives home what they are noting at American Thinker in this piece:

Write a Book...Try It

Robin Olds was every bit a renaissance man. He not only was a great leader and combat aviator, he was also a very talented writer. His style is distinctive from mine. Christina is gathering, sorting and organizing the chronological record of his journals, and then stitching it together into the narrative. Her style is distinctive from Robin’s and I don’t have to look hard to note where shifts in origin occur in the manuscript. I edit, massage, overlay the technical details and insure final product readability. My style conflicts with both Robin’s and Christina’s. There are easily identifiable differences.

That’s the point that American Thinker is making. When you’ve got two books out, there should be fairly consistent styles between them. These are measurable with various analytical tools which AT applies. The differences aren’t naturally occurring. The lack of additional literary record from the former Editor of the Harvard Law Review seems conspicuous. This might develop.

Then there is the question of whom we associate with in our professional lives. Again, the past can’t be denied. When linkages occur they might be ships passing in the night or they might be significant. Those are the questions we see being raised here:

Escape Your Past...Try It

There seems to be too many suspicious links for too long to really be coincidental.

Of course, if you are in politics, then there is going to be an issue of where you align yourself ideologically. Since the early 20th Century rise of extremist movements embodied by the likes of Lenin and Hitler, we’ve had fringe parties in the US. Usually they are unsuccessful; refuges for disaffected paranoid intellectuals and impressionable college kids. Occasionally, they can be more problematic. That’s why this linkage seems worth exploring:

Deny The Record...Try It

This is quickly becoming way too much and there is still three weeks to go. Watch the denials and whining accelerate rapidly from this point.

No Winners—Two Losers

I knew what would happen, but I tuned in anyway. I wasn’t disappointed. I had low expectations and they were almost met. I wanted a home run from my guy, but he whiffed. I wanted an easy grounder into a game ending double-play from the other guy and he drew a walk. It was boring, anticlimactic, inane and continually untruthful. Somebody get Brokaw off those tranquilizers before he bores again.

Obama didn’t win. For anyone familiar with the issues and conversant in his campaign stump speeches, it was a litany of platitudes. It was feel good stuff about socialist policies. There is no way you can let a guy repeat that 95% of Americans will get a tax cut and revenues will rise on the contribution from the wealthiest 5%. That line is most obviously false when you simply point out that 40% of Americans already pay ZERO federal income tax. You can’t get a cut from zero.

But, Obama didn’t lose badly. He didn’t lapse into Jeremiah Wright-speak. He didn’t demand reparations for his family’s years in slavery…oh, they weren’t slaves? Never mind. He didn’t talk about his great respect for the contributions to building redevelopment instigated by his close associate William Ayers and the Bomb Squad. He didn’t get into how disappointed he is that Iraq is edging toward democracy and stability in the region. He didn’t explain how he’s going to reason with Ahmedinadjad about nuclear energy. No comments about whether or not Georgia belongs in NATO or Putin/Medvedev are out of their minds. No, he simply spooned out pabulum and McCain let him.

McCain surely didn’t win on anybody’s score sheet. He was bland, repetitious, populist and even more boring than Brokaw. He scored no body shots. He made no dramatic pronouncements. He delivered no punch-lines. And, the Golden Gloves tactic of demonstrating his conditioning by not sitting on his stool between rounds was sophomoric. Wandering the stage like a hyper-active teen-ager while your opponent speaks was gauche.

McCain did lose more obviously than Obama. He did nothing to convince an undecided voter that his version of change would be more rational than the Messiah’s. He didn’t convince anyone that he had a way out of the economic crisis. He offered little in explanation of how his healthcare plan is superior to nationalization of the industry. He didn’t point out the vast quantity of petroleum reserves we possess or the difference between drilling in low probability available leases versus the high-probability currently off-limits areas. He offered no initiatives for jobs, for growth, for international cooperation. His trick-bag was empty. He was gray, old and dull.

Which brings us to the “moderator.” Who in their right mind allowed the “town hall meeting” to be morphed into Brokaw-ville? The whole dynamic of a town hall meeting is about spontaneity. There’s randomness, occasional irreverence, off-the-wall questioning, a bit of give-and-take, some humor and pathos, a bit of the unusual and quite often revealing moments from the candidates. None of that showed up under Brokaw’s steady hand. He had his minions pre-screen the questions so that he could introduce selected citizens and they would be his ventriloquist dummies mouthing his droning news media senior talking-head drivel. It couldn’t have been more obviously staged and more obviously hooked to the previously recorded stump speech snippets which the candidates were primed to deliver.

The moderator killed the stars of the show and they were already dying when he started.

It was a pathetic night for American voters.

Publicist Coup

So, a well-known anti-Obama academic with a best selling book digging into some of the less savory associations of the Messiah heads to the Land of His Father to do a bit of background research. He is welcomed by the progressive nation seeking tourist dollars, an improving economy and a bright spot on the world stage. He is welcomed, as the item notes, by high ranking Kenyan officials. Then he schedules a press conference to discuss his findings.

That's when the Thought Police snatch him up for no disclosed reason and the modern attractive hotel issues a press release indicating that they don't support free expression in either their establishment or their country.

Just a Little Local Spin

How do either the hotel or the Kenyan immigration folks know what Dr. Corsi was going to say? How can they characterize his yet-unstated findings as a "smear campaign?" What do they have to worry about?

And, maybe most importantly, as Red Riding Hood said to the wolf, "My, what long arms you have, Sen. Obama."

The better to do what?

Imagine the same thing occurring in the US. If they can do it globally, they certainly would have the ability to do it locally, wouldn't they?

Some Starting Points

First, consider the source of this piece. It is going to reflect an obvious partisan slant. That, however, doesn't make it false. It simply tells you what to expect.

What it delivers is a detailed listing of a more-than-casual relationship.

Building the Relationship

I've served on boards and committees. I've generally known the people who served with me. We've been thrust, by the duties of the board, into a close working relationship. We have sometimes disagreed, but the foundation of the relationship was a basic agreement on the goals and objectives of the organization. That's the key to this.

I'm quite certain that if any member of those boards or committees that I worked on had expressed anything close to the anti-American sentiments of Mr. Ayers and Ms Dohrn that I would have severed my relationship with both them and the organization. I am equally certain that I would not be visiting their home for any neighborhood gatherings.

Why is Sen. Obama so different in that regard? My increasing belief is that it goes to the core of his judgment. And, frankly, it scares the hell out of me.

Here's an interesting timeline on the story:

From a Few Days Ago

This pot is going to get stirred very hard in the next three weeks and I'm thinking the stew still might get burned.

Anti-Semitism as a Policy

This is Samantha Power. She held the position of Chief Foreign Policy Advisor for the Obama campaign until about three months ago when she was replaced in the aftermath of some unpleasant comments about Hillary Clinton. She is at Berkley, so the audience is receptive. She has long been known as pro-Palestinian, which makes her, by default, anti-Israel. Listen carefully:



Did you catch the cautious phrasing about possibly alienating a powerful, influential and wealthy segment of the electorate? Did you catch the part about "significant" and "serious" security forces imposed in the region? Did you notice the demand for billions of direct aid to prop up the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah? If it doesn't scare you, I don't know what would. I wonder what Barbara Streisand thinks about this approach to Israel?

She is considered a definite component of an Obama administration. Since her expertise is foreign policy that might mean National Security Advisor or maybe SecState.

And, on other fronts, have you heard that Sarah Palin's pointing out that Obama is linked to William Ayers was really not-so-thinly veiled racism! That from the AP, not an aggrieved Obama spokesman.

Clear Contrast in Styles

The differences between the two tickets are astounding. No one who has ever called American politics a choice between Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee can make that claim today. You’ve got a very clear choice between two philosophies, two cultures, two visions and two life-views. The one seems to offer hope and the other scares the hell out of me. The hope is of a return to an America of proud, hard-working, self-reliant people with their head held high. The fear is of an embarrassed, apologetic, dependent society shuffling forward with their hand held out waiting for a distribution of their share of the government dole.

Here’s a summary from Fred Barnes in the Weekly Standard:

Another Warrior, Another Priest

His title, he notes, comes from an earlier book contrasting Roosevelt and Wilson. That would be Teddy Roosevelt, he of the warrior culture and Big Stick. The comparison to today’s candidates is not far-fetched. Teddy was a combat veteran who had been to town and seen the elephant. He had a war and he won it decisively. He drove Spain out of the region and in the process acquired what arguably might be called the seeds of American global reach. He recognized diplomacy, but he also knew that American interests occasionally needed a strong military behind it.

Wilson, on the other hand, was the ultimate in diplomacy; the academic who knew that peace could prevail if we simply came together and talked things out. That, of course led us to World War I. The Wilsonian model then endured as we oversaw the disastrously punitive treaty of Versailles and the abortive attempt at a world council, the League of Nations. Detached visionaries don’t seem quite as effective when it comes to practical application as do realists.

Here’s another take on the contrasts, one which is a bit more ambivalent but which still highlights the clear differences between the two sides:

A Liberal in Limbo

Whether you agree with her political posture or not, you’ve got to respect the objectivity she brings to her evaluation of the candidates. At the end of her piece she implies indecision, yet I think she realizes the alternative which bodes best for America. She has not yet fully accepted what between the lines tells me that she’s going with the Genial Warrior and the Soccer Mom. She will though.

Before You Read the Reviews

Setting Priorities

It has been almost embarrassing, the effort which the media has expended in seeking the dirt on Sarah Palin. Hosting reporters and investigators in Wasilla has become an economic mainstay of the community. We’ve heard that her hubby went fishing without a license, that she keeps her baby up too late, that she asked the town librarian about book banning policy, that she sought to fire a state trooper who beat his wife and Tasered his ten-year-old, and we’ve learned that her church sings hymns and offers sermons. Great coverage gang.

Then, of course, there is the review of John McCain. Unfortunately for the media there are simply too many former POWs and military folks who know John for the muck-rakers to build a Swift Boat sort of campaign. Had they only been able to uncover a few hours of Tim Russert interviews or Senate anti-war testimony starring McCain they might have painted him like John Kerry. Nothing showed up similar to that treason. Yep, his wife runs a successful beer distributorship. That’s not damning, it’s a community service!

But, we don’t get similar depth or even curiosity about Sen. Obama. We did see his pastor do some of his finest preaching. The alibi is that the good Senator didn’t make it to church on those weeks and never read the bulletins or heard any feedback from his co-worshippers for twenty years.

What is more interesting to me is the Ayers/Obama connection. We keep hearing about it, but we really don’t get any depth. Read this scathing piece regarding the sort of coverage the NYT offers:

Link at the Hip Unrecognized

Got all that?

Some things I would like to know:

• How many board meetings of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge did both men attend?
• How many meetings of the Wood Fund had both present?
• What sort of documents bear both men’s signatures?
• How much money did each get from those organizations?
• How much campaign money can be traced back to Ayers and his affiliates?

And maybe the biggest question of all, for this humble observer:

What would it take in someone’s background for the University of Illinois to disqualify a candidate for a professorship? If bombing public buildings and advocating violent overthrow of the United States government don’t do it, what would? Just doesn’t seem like what I would look for in an expert on elementary education. Of course that depends on what you want to teach the little tots, doesn’t it?

Inquiring minds and all that…

Frank Luntz Focus Group Report

Take a look:

Second Half Coming Up

Charles Krauthammer looks objectively at the glib shift from wild-eyed socialist to petunia-planting neighbor next door on the campaign trail.

Coming to a TV Near You

Last night, if you watched, you saw a dull, pallid, washed-out old man recite boring numbers and statistics, while a young, vibrant, self-confident woman told 10 million people things in complete, understandable sentences. If you didn't watch, you should not be influenced by the spin you read, see or hear from the media. The only way you can make a judgment is by observing the evidence yourself.

My view on last night was GOOOAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLL, Palin!

Leaders Lead

The difference between executive experience and legislative experience is one that many Americans don’t seem to understand. Anyone who has managed a project knows what it is. Anyone who has run a department knows it. Anyone who has run a business and met a payroll knows. Anyone who has been responsible for making something happen gets it. Someone who sits at a conference table and participates in the process doesn’t get it.

Leadership requires bold action, aggressive participation, being in the front, running the risks and making difficult choices. You don’t have to be President to have experienced the pressure. You get a call at mid-night. The meeting has been rescheduled to the morning and we need updated numbers now, so you drop everything and get in the car to head for the office. You are on that long awaited vacation when there is an email from the office. Your Blackberry chimes and the vacation is over. Pack it up and rush back.

That is why last week was so illustrative of the difference between the candidates. The financial underpinning of our society was collapsing. The President had rushed to Congress with an emergency proposal. The 100 senators of the United States would have to get on the job to hammer out a solution. It must be done quickly.

One of the two suspended his stump speeches and headed to the office. The other went on with campaigning as usual. One said, “I’m a leader of the Senate and my party. I can make a difference.” The other tacitly admitted that he was a bit player on the Senate stage, didn’t understand what was going on, and didn’t want to run the risk of being on the wrong side of the outcome. He symbolically confessed that he couldn’t make a difference at all.

What he could do was carp about Wall Street versus Main Street; another vacuous slogan of class warfare to list with the other clichés. The fact that Wall Street and Main Street are America and deeply intertwined seemed to be beyond his conceptions. He would show up when the work was done and cast a meaningless vote. He wouldn’t take any leadership role. He would be able to discredit anything the opponent did. And finally, he could claim a piece of whatever success the others had managed.

I’ve seen leaders. I’ve seen leaders in combat. I know what leadership is and how it acts. I’ve followed leaders into the mouth of hell and I’ve led others who willingly followed me to the same place. You don’t lead by staying out of the conflict. You don’t lead by simply showing up for the vote. You don’t lead from a position of safety.

The difference is clear. Leaders get to make mistakes. But leaders know that the risk of failure is minimal compared to the risk of inaction.


Lead, Follow, or Get the Hell Out of the Way.

Mind Blowing

What do dishwashers, plug-in electric vehicles, wooden arrows for toys, bicycle commuters, Puerto Rican rum, and Indian tribes have in common?

How about they all have significant and detailed provisions mentioned in the newly passed Senate bailout bill for the subprime mortgage market!

Do not read the 451 page page document or you will have your mind turn to mush and your stomach simply turn.

More Than You Ever Wanted to Know

Got ten minutes? Want to know the genesis of the financial crisis? Want to know where it started, how it grew, who abetted it and who tried to slow it, stop it or at least warn us about it?

Take a look:

Script for Ifill

Don't doubt for a minute that tonight's VP debate won't be loaded with traps for Sarah Palin. That's a sure thing. But, what if, just for the sake of a bit of entertainment someone offered some pithy, insightful questions for the benefit of moderator, Gwen Ifill to ask Sen. Biden? I mean we all should realize that she's been busy writing a book extolling the politically ground-breaking campaign and canonization of the Black Messiah and to reap maximum profits she will have to get that manuscript done quickly if it will be released for greatest impact on His Excellency's inauguration day. She admitted today in response to challenges on her impartiality that she hadn't yet written much of it!

So, take a minute to look at this great list of questions for Biden:

Senator, What Is Your Position On This?

Oh, and if you find yourself stumped as well by the last two questions, the answers are:

Francois FILLON and Horst KOEHLER

Sarah, you might want to memorize those.

Mistrial!

As a proudly published author, I know that you don't develop a book project, spit out a manuscript and get it on the streets in a week or two. It takes at the very minimum, several months. That means Gwen Ifill knew about her very clear conflict of interest long before her name was pencilled in as the VP debate moderator. She knew, her publisher knew, her network employer knew. Yet, no one raised that issue as an ethical challenge to her ability to be impartial in such a pivotal event.

Full Disclosure Missing

This simply stinks. Somehow, I doubt that the mainstream media will have a moment's regret.

Needs to be Said

I grew up in Chicago during the reign of Richard J. Daley. I know exactly what this piece is talking about:

Winning is the Only Thing--Vince Lombardi


That is the issue in a nutshell. Consider the regular whining of Democrats that we have watched for the last ten years. When Gore loses in 2000 (and he did!) under the rules clearly spelled out in the Constitution regarding Electoral College procedures, he obfuscates about winning the popular vote. It wasn't about the popular vote, Al!

When Michigan and Florida defy the DNC and hold their primaries after the clearly spelled out judgment that their delegates will NOT be seated, the rules get changed to allow half and then all to be heard at the convention.

It is like children of spoiling parents. No punishment ever will be inflicted, no pleasure ever will be denied, no rule will ever be enforced and nothing is off the table with regard to nefarious conduct if it means gaining power.

Campaign Coverage

Mature audiences only:


Obama Promises To Stop America's Shitty Jobs From Going Overseas