Then We Should Do It
That's what Obama said when he gave is speech kicking off his assault on the Second Amendment.
Do you agree with him?
If so, then the below information might be helpful in focusing your attention on the Obamacure (the cure Obama would push, using his gun control logic.)
Annual Child Deaths in US by Cause (recent data rounded off to nearest 100, as reported):
Gun-related: 1500. Two thirds are drug or suicide related. ObamaCure: No guns. Partial cure: no drugs.
Car crashes: 1500. ObamaCure: Make it illegal for kids to ride in motor vehicles.
Drownings: 900. ObamaCure: Make it illegal for children to be allowed near water of any sort.
Animal Attack: 30. ObamaCure: Round up all animals.
Horse Riding: 23. Data from Alberta, BC. Scale up for yourself. ObamaCure: Confiscate horses.
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
The American KGB
It looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck . . .
First, let's make sure you know what the KGB was. Back in the Soviet Union days, the KGB was the internal police ('Committee for State Security') for the Soviet Union. They rounded up offensive people, tortured and executed them as needed. They served the Soviet government as a stability tool.
In the United States, the military is prohibited from carrying out such actions by the 18th Amendment.
So we're safe, right?
The DHS (Department of Homeland Security) has acquired 2 billion rounds of military small arms ammo (about 30 years' worth for a Vietnam - level conflict) and ordered 2700 mine-resistant armored vehicles.
What for?
The DHS 'agents' aren't bound by the 18th Amendment. Thirteen years ago - well before the 9/11 attacks, which were used as an excuse to create the DHS - your Ostrich Killer wrote a prediction that such an agency would inevitably be formed. I called it the Bureau of Internal Stability, but what's in a name? It's the intent that matters.
Wait, you say. The DHS is for anti-terrorism. Yes, that may have been what we were all told at the time, but all that ammo, those armored vehicles - what terrorist threat are they arming themselves for?
Your Ostrich Killer will now go out on a limb and answer that the arms and equipment are for use against a revolutionary citizenry, since the Federal armed forces cannot be used for that purpose. The DHS is an analog to the KGB: a tool to help maintain internal stability. Simple as that. It looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck. It's a duck, genus KGB. It may be a kinder and gentler KGB - that remains to be seen - but it's a duck nonetheless.
Our elected officials see a revolution coming. They are preparing. Are you? Or are the blinders still firmly attached?
Farewell, Maggie
Adieu to a Heroine
The twentieth century saw Great Britain produce three prime ministers of note: First, there was Neville Chamberlain, who eventually resigned in dishonor and disgrace, although he and his country both put a different face on it at the time. His limp-wristed appeasements to the Nazis at the infamous Munich conference was a major encouragement to Hitler to assume Great Britain would not interfere with his plans of conquest. That encouragement may have been the final necessary catalyst to kick off World War 2.
Next came Winston Churchill, who took over from Neville Chamberlain the disarray of both the office of Prime Minister and the English war effort. History tells us that this man may have been the most inspired and doggedly persevering of all English leaders in the last four hundred years. You'll find his name on any list of the Top Five leaders of the 20th Century.
Finally, there was Margaret Thatcher, or just plain Maggie. Her accomplishments were massive and jaw-drop amazing. She made decisions based on principle instead of politics, brought England back from the brink of abject socialism and economic ruin, and returned the Falkland Islands to the British after Argentina so stupidly captured them. The Argentinans made the same mistake about her that the Nazis made about Churchill - they seriously underestimated resolve. Now we see endless 'news' footage of the human debris of England carrying signs reading such hateful things as 'The witch is dead' and other disgusting symbols of their delight over her death.
Why are they rejoicing? Because she made these scum choose starvation or work when she was Prime Minister. This vermin preferred sitting on their asses and smoking dope to being productive in both personal and societal contexts. They liked being paid to do nothing, much the same as the typical Obama voter does. Sadly, Maggie's efforts were magnificent only in the short run, as England is once more paying more and more people to do less and less.
She'll be missed by all of us who were there, watching and learning, as she kept Great Britain afloat and proud on her watch.
Will there ever be another team like Reagan and Thatcher? One can only hope, but the prospects don't look good.
Farewell, Baroness Thatcher.
Tuesday, March 12, 2013
RE-PURPOSING BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR GUN OWNERS
Or, the Goose / Gander Model
Never let it be said that your kinder, gentler Ostrich Killer is not interested in re-purposing to save money.
With that caveat in mind, let's explore (briefly) the concept of background checks for all gun buyers. Ignoring the logistical and financial burdens of tens of millions of such checks, the setting of criteria of who is disqualified for gun ownership can also be applied to other disqualifications.
Voting, for example.
Citizen Jones fails a background check for gun ownership? Then Jones' name is automatically removed from voter registration lists and 'flagged' to alert officials that re-registration is to be denied.
Background checks for gun buyers is supposed to make us all safer.
What could be deadlier than a mentally or criminally inferior voter population in the general electorate? Look what they got us the last two elections.
Okay, okay. I take that back. I shouldn't have called all those voters mentally or criminally inferior. My apologies to those voters, although none of them read this blog. Most of those voters are just rationally challenged - either too uninformed or lazy to do the thinking necessary to cast a responsible vote.
It's early yet. Back to the coffee pot.
Saturday, February 23, 2013
Trading Away Your Freedom is STUPID
Or, Welcome to the Gun Owner's Black Market
Yes, gentle readers, when the law is passed to require background checks on all gun purchases, there will be a de facto gun registry put in place. Every gun purchased by a law-abiding citizen will be known about by your benevolent government. All the information on those background checks will be placed into databases. This, we are told, will prevent school shootings.
Does that mean that if there had been a background check that the Connecticut shooting wouldn't have taken place?
No. It would have had no effect. The gun owner was the perp's mother. She had the guns legally. He killed her, stole her guns, and took them to school. No amount of background checks would have prevented this.
The proposed legislation isn't about safety. Or preventing crime - after all, criminals won't submit themselves to such background checks. For that matter, neither will American patriots. To the left and their enablers of course, the terms American Patriot and criminal are synonyms.
Which brings us to the question: who has the most to fear from an armed and anonymous citizenry?
Your Ostrich Killer contends that your government does. Which is why they want background checks - so that they will know where the guns are, so they can confiscate them before a revolution gets a good start. The history of the 20th Century is rife with countries that have imposed such registration, only to then confiscate the guns and then decimate the citizen population afterward. Twenty or more millions died because they were 'purged,' something that would have been more difficult for their executioners to accomplish had the citizenry been able to legally own guns.
So what can you do to stop this background check legislation? Probably not a lot. You've surely noticed a shortage of brains up on capitol hill, and that most of those with brains won't really listen to you. But you have a civic duty to try. So contact your representatives and senators, and tell them not to sign on to such legislation.
I doubt that will work, but you have to give it a try. It's the right thing to do. You could send a link to this blog to your rep, and let him / her know you agree with its general tone and will remember his / her vote on this issue come next election.
What's the right thing to do should such legislation pass?
An American will refuse to buy guns on the retail market, nor will they transfer them with the required paperwork. They will do their gun trading on the black market. The underground. Cash or barter. Your Ostrich Killer, should he wish to buy a gun after the passage of such legislation, will become a criminal under the proposed laws. I don't worry a lot about that, as I will have the better part of 100,000,000 like-thinking patriots for company. I don't think even the US has jail space for a small fraction of that number.
Will you be in that company of patriots? Or are you content to prostrate yourself before your government and say to them 'do with me as you will, I trust you?'
Google this saying: A people that will trade freedom for safety will wind up with neither. That has been shown time and again throughout history to be absolutely true. As you will discover, a lot of different people have said basically the same thing. And they were all right.
". . . the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's a direct lift from the Second Amendment, written in pretty plain English. Is a national background check and its associated databases an infringement?
You bet it is. It requires government permission for you to exercise your Constitutional right. When permission is required, it is no longer a right, it is a government - granted permit. The Constitution exists to define our INDIVIDUAL rights, and SPECIFICALLY forbids government to interfere with them.
Did you know that? If not, read the Constitution complete sometime. It's pretty short, about one cup of coffee's length.
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
WHEN IS IT TIME FOR THE REVOLUTION?
Speaking hypothetically, of course
How will YOU know it's time to get involved in the next American Revolution?
It's coming. Question is, when and what will be the catalyst for it.
What's YOUR catalyst? Here are some possibilities:
1. When you see that the Supreme Court has abandoned the Constitution.
2. When the 'checks and balances' of a divided government fail to check and balance, and instead become enablers of an imperial presidency.
3. When you, as a law-abiding citizen, are made into a criminal by Executive Order.
4. When the country's security from foreign enemies is endangered by unilateral disarmament.
5. When you can no longer travel even in the US without scrutiny and being tracked.
6. When foreign enemies have already attacked and occupied the US.
7. When the government takes more of your money than you keep?
Any of the above important enough for you to put on your boots and get busy? If not, what would it take?
Just wondering. Aren't you?
How will YOU know it's time to get involved in the next American Revolution?
It's coming. Question is, when and what will be the catalyst for it.
What's YOUR catalyst? Here are some possibilities:
1. When you see that the Supreme Court has abandoned the Constitution.
2. When the 'checks and balances' of a divided government fail to check and balance, and instead become enablers of an imperial presidency.
3. When you, as a law-abiding citizen, are made into a criminal by Executive Order.
4. When the country's security from foreign enemies is endangered by unilateral disarmament.
5. When you can no longer travel even in the US without scrutiny and being tracked.
6. When foreign enemies have already attacked and occupied the US.
7. When the government takes more of your money than you keep?
Any of the above important enough for you to put on your boots and get busy? If not, what would it take?
Just wondering. Aren't you?
Friday, February 01, 2013
Stock Market Price - Cause for Celebration?
The Dow Jones Price versus its Value
In October of 2007 the Dow Jones climbed above 14,000. Since then it's been below that. Except for today, when it again went above 14,000. The Major Media had orgasms. Proof of recovery, they all said. Business on the rebound. A triumph of Obamanomics.
Really?
A 2007 dollar is $1.14 today. What that means is, for the Dow Jones to be of equal value to what it was in October of 2007, it would have to exceed 16,000.
Still a ways to go. Don't hold your breath. In the meantime, remember that price is not the same as value. The value of a 14,000 DOW today is actually 12,281 in 2007 terms, even though its price is 14,000. You're paying more for less, in other words.
Put that Champagne back in its bottle.
In October of 2007 the Dow Jones climbed above 14,000. Since then it's been below that. Except for today, when it again went above 14,000. The Major Media had orgasms. Proof of recovery, they all said. Business on the rebound. A triumph of Obamanomics.
Really?
A 2007 dollar is $1.14 today. What that means is, for the Dow Jones to be of equal value to what it was in October of 2007, it would have to exceed 16,000.
Still a ways to go. Don't hold your breath. In the meantime, remember that price is not the same as value. The value of a 14,000 DOW today is actually 12,281 in 2007 terms, even though its price is 14,000. You're paying more for less, in other words.
Put that Champagne back in its bottle.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
IMPEACH OBAMA
For Crimes and Misdemeanors
A sitting president can only be impeached for committing crimes and / or misdemeanors. Obama has stated he will not comply with a law requiring him to furnish his budget plan to Congress by a date certain. Read more here.
Your ostrich killer thinks that refusing to comply with the law is a crime. Ergo, Obama is about to commit a crime.
When he does, impeach him. Rid the country of this oppressive, intrusive, destructive imperial ruler.
A sitting president can only be impeached for committing crimes and / or misdemeanors. Obama has stated he will not comply with a law requiring him to furnish his budget plan to Congress by a date certain. Read more here.
Your ostrich killer thinks that refusing to comply with the law is a crime. Ergo, Obama is about to commit a crime.
When he does, impeach him. Rid the country of this oppressive, intrusive, destructive imperial ruler.
Friday, January 11, 2013
The Monitored Society
Your Privacy - NOT!
Do you have a cell phone? A tablet? Any other app-running device? If so, you have no privacy. Here's how you can confirm that for yourself.
When you install a new app, one of the things it does is inform you what permissions and access the app uses on your device. Some of the permissions and accesses I've seen include:
1. Access to your contacts list.
2. Permission to email / txt names on your contact list, using YOUR name.
3. Read the contents of your txt and email messages.
4. Listen to your voice conversations.
5. View and monitor your video chats.
6. View and copy your pictures.
7. Track your movements.
8. Turn on your device cameras at any time they choose.
9. Turn on your device microphone any time they choose.
10. The ability to modify, add to, copy or delete files from your personal storage.
And others. Turning your device 'off' will not interfere with any of the above. Only removing the device battery will prevent monitoring. - - But Wait! Have you ever tried to remove the battery from your tablet device? Can you?
No problem, you say. You'll just send sensitive messages through the US Mail. Okay, that might be more secure than using a cell phone, but the US Postal Service has devices that read hand writing. How do you suppose they sort all that mail, after all? So each piece of mail is automatically scanned for destination and return addresses, and entered into a database. Before long the US Postal service has your 'contact' list. You can combat this by not using a return address. That's still legal. I think.
A couple paragraphs earlier you probably snorted and said something about the ostrich killer's paranoia. That's just business, you say. I ask you: are you so sure? Did you know that Microsoft and the National Security Agency (NSA) coordinate with each other on the release of new Windows operating systems? Don't be alarmed; this news is several versions of Windows old. Bet you didn't know it, though. Right? Why do you suppose they coordinate with each other?
About twelve years ago a study revealed that Americans living in metropolitan areas were photographed an average of 18 times a day. Since then traffic cams, mall cams, parking lot cams, sidewalk cams, etc. have proliferated. There are television shows - multitiples of them - that use the pervasive presence of these cameras as part of their story lines. Catching bad guys, usually.
Don't get me started on RFIDs. They were a private venture to help shoppers, then government got their hands on them, and then - but don't get me started.
Does it comfort you to know you can't move around without being watched? That when you pick your nose while waiting out the traffic light, you are being watched? Do you like knowing you can be tracked down to about 13 feet accuracy? Do you like knowing that after you check into your hotel room, your cell phone / tablet is recording voice and video? Or looking over your shoulder as you order room service? Next thing you know your cell phone will notify authorities when you're speeding. Big surprise in the morning's mail after that . . .
The Ostrich Killer leaves it to you to determine what nefarious purposes this information can be put should Big Brother decide he wants to. You know who Big Brother is, right? If not, read 1984.
You think the above is a bit of a joke? Let me quote Will Rogers: "I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts."
Do you have a cell phone? A tablet? Any other app-running device? If so, you have no privacy. Here's how you can confirm that for yourself.
When you install a new app, one of the things it does is inform you what permissions and access the app uses on your device. Some of the permissions and accesses I've seen include:
1. Access to your contacts list.
2. Permission to email / txt names on your contact list, using YOUR name.
3. Read the contents of your txt and email messages.
4. Listen to your voice conversations.
5. View and monitor your video chats.
6. View and copy your pictures.
7. Track your movements.
8. Turn on your device cameras at any time they choose.
9. Turn on your device microphone any time they choose.
10. The ability to modify, add to, copy or delete files from your personal storage.
And others. Turning your device 'off' will not interfere with any of the above. Only removing the device battery will prevent monitoring. - - But Wait! Have you ever tried to remove the battery from your tablet device? Can you?
No problem, you say. You'll just send sensitive messages through the US Mail. Okay, that might be more secure than using a cell phone, but the US Postal Service has devices that read hand writing. How do you suppose they sort all that mail, after all? So each piece of mail is automatically scanned for destination and return addresses, and entered into a database. Before long the US Postal service has your 'contact' list. You can combat this by not using a return address. That's still legal. I think.
A couple paragraphs earlier you probably snorted and said something about the ostrich killer's paranoia. That's just business, you say. I ask you: are you so sure? Did you know that Microsoft and the National Security Agency (NSA) coordinate with each other on the release of new Windows operating systems? Don't be alarmed; this news is several versions of Windows old. Bet you didn't know it, though. Right? Why do you suppose they coordinate with each other?
About twelve years ago a study revealed that Americans living in metropolitan areas were photographed an average of 18 times a day. Since then traffic cams, mall cams, parking lot cams, sidewalk cams, etc. have proliferated. There are television shows - multitiples of them - that use the pervasive presence of these cameras as part of their story lines. Catching bad guys, usually.
Don't get me started on RFIDs. They were a private venture to help shoppers, then government got their hands on them, and then - but don't get me started.
Does it comfort you to know you can't move around without being watched? That when you pick your nose while waiting out the traffic light, you are being watched? Do you like knowing you can be tracked down to about 13 feet accuracy? Do you like knowing that after you check into your hotel room, your cell phone / tablet is recording voice and video? Or looking over your shoulder as you order room service? Next thing you know your cell phone will notify authorities when you're speeding. Big surprise in the morning's mail after that . . .
The Ostrich Killer leaves it to you to determine what nefarious purposes this information can be put should Big Brother decide he wants to. You know who Big Brother is, right? If not, read 1984.
You think the above is a bit of a joke? Let me quote Will Rogers: "I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts."
Wednesday, January 09, 2013
SECOND AMENDMENT MUSINGS
A Prepper's Guide to Guns and Ammo
A Scout's motto is 'Be Prepared.' It should also be every citizen's motto. Slaves don't need mottos; their governments tell them what to think.
Don't worry, Gentle Reader, we're not going to talk about slaves here today. It's enough to say that if you've read 'Atlas Shrugged' then you know who the slaves are.
No, we're going to talk about guns and ammo from a Second Amendment perspective: what to acquire to help be better prepared for eventual revolution, should that be required. Our forefathers thought it prudent to be prepared. So should we, and for the same reasons.
First, ammo: This is easy. Go to any gun show and buy military surplus ammo for your existing weapon(s). This ammo can be made in the USA, or Greece, or Norway, or any place else. Making ammo isn't a high-tech industrial skill, so pretty much any governmental source will work fine. The thing about military ammo is that its projectile is of a type called 'military ball,' also known as 'full metal jacket' or 'FMJ.' It's very destructive and preferred for use by every military in the world. You won't need a lot of this ammo. You'll read why in a moment.
Next, guns: This is also easy. First choice is any that will use ordinary military ammo. This, in a conflict situation, will aid resupply. The top of this list would be any rifle chambered to handle the Standard NATO 7.62 x 51 round. This round is also commonly known as .308 Winchester, and the two are interchangeable for our purposes. It is the ammo fired by the M-60 machine gun, the M-14 rifle, and a variety of earlier generation European weapons. This particular cartridge, shooting military ball, will penetrate light vehicles and of course softer material. It is vastly superior in range, accuracy, penetration and stopping power to the lighter military calibers such as 5.56mm, used in the AR-15s and their clones.
There is no second choice for the Privately Owned Weapon (POW). The AR-15 and its clones are not suitable for the use that a POW will properly be put to during a Second Amendment situation - and that is, to obtain a better weapon. Yes, Gentle Reader, the only Second Amendment use your existing weapon will have is to help arm you better. It will help you acquire the weapons your government doesn't want you to have. Automatic weapons. Rocket launchers. Grenades. Of course, since you'll be in a revolution anyway, maybe it won't matter much that your government disapproves.
Our Founding Fathers noticed that our revolution succeeded because the American citizen fighting the British was as well armed as the British. So they wrote the Second Amendment to perpetuate that paradigm. First order of business, then, is to become as well armed as the tyranny.
What about handguns? Of the millions of handguns issued to US troops in all wars, they have probably not averaged shooting twice in anger each. Statistically speaking, they simply don't matter. So if you want one, carry the one you like.
Your Ostrich Killer has done his duty. You're welcome. Now, for that next cup of coffee . . .
A Scout's motto is 'Be Prepared.' It should also be every citizen's motto. Slaves don't need mottos; their governments tell them what to think.
Don't worry, Gentle Reader, we're not going to talk about slaves here today. It's enough to say that if you've read 'Atlas Shrugged' then you know who the slaves are.
No, we're going to talk about guns and ammo from a Second Amendment perspective: what to acquire to help be better prepared for eventual revolution, should that be required. Our forefathers thought it prudent to be prepared. So should we, and for the same reasons.
First, ammo: This is easy. Go to any gun show and buy military surplus ammo for your existing weapon(s). This ammo can be made in the USA, or Greece, or Norway, or any place else. Making ammo isn't a high-tech industrial skill, so pretty much any governmental source will work fine. The thing about military ammo is that its projectile is of a type called 'military ball,' also known as 'full metal jacket' or 'FMJ.' It's very destructive and preferred for use by every military in the world. You won't need a lot of this ammo. You'll read why in a moment.
Next, guns: This is also easy. First choice is any that will use ordinary military ammo. This, in a conflict situation, will aid resupply. The top of this list would be any rifle chambered to handle the Standard NATO 7.62 x 51 round. This round is also commonly known as .308 Winchester, and the two are interchangeable for our purposes. It is the ammo fired by the M-60 machine gun, the M-14 rifle, and a variety of earlier generation European weapons. This particular cartridge, shooting military ball, will penetrate light vehicles and of course softer material. It is vastly superior in range, accuracy, penetration and stopping power to the lighter military calibers such as 5.56mm, used in the AR-15s and their clones.
There is no second choice for the Privately Owned Weapon (POW). The AR-15 and its clones are not suitable for the use that a POW will properly be put to during a Second Amendment situation - and that is, to obtain a better weapon. Yes, Gentle Reader, the only Second Amendment use your existing weapon will have is to help arm you better. It will help you acquire the weapons your government doesn't want you to have. Automatic weapons. Rocket launchers. Grenades. Of course, since you'll be in a revolution anyway, maybe it won't matter much that your government disapproves.
Our Founding Fathers noticed that our revolution succeeded because the American citizen fighting the British was as well armed as the British. So they wrote the Second Amendment to perpetuate that paradigm. First order of business, then, is to become as well armed as the tyranny.
What about handguns? Of the millions of handguns issued to US troops in all wars, they have probably not averaged shooting twice in anger each. Statistically speaking, they simply don't matter. So if you want one, carry the one you like.
Your Ostrich Killer has done his duty. You're welcome. Now, for that next cup of coffee . . .
Friday, January 04, 2013
WHY OBAMACARE MUST GO
And Any Other Federal Health Care Programs Too
Okay, brace yourselves, o gentle reader. You're about to read about the 'good old days.'
In the Good Old Days (before, say, 1970) if one wanted health care, they paid for it. If they couldn't afford it, they either did without or worked something out with the hospital / doctor. This unenlightened approach - treating health care as a commodity (like a visit to your local barber shop or hair stylist) instead of a right - was the natural result of noticing that the US Constitution did not include 'health care' as a right anywhere within it.
It still isn't in there. And in those good old days, people seemed to get along pretty well, health-wise and longevity-wise. Doctors did okay too.
Then along came health insurance. Actually, this started much earlier in our history. Its purpose was simple and obvious: like all insurances, it was to provide a risk transfer mechanism for those who weren't sure they would be able to pay for a serious round of health care. Like all risk transfer mechanisms, the customer was the sole decider of whether or not they needed it. Then some large businesses started including health insurance as an employee recruiting and retention tool. After all, it didn't cost much (in the Good Old Days.)
Of course, they didn't tell their employees that the cost of that insurance was being offset by decrements to their paychecks . . . which meant, in simplest terms, that the employee was forced into buying company-provided health care, whether they wanted it or not. Put even more simply, the employee would have larger paychecks if they were not REQUIRED to have the company - provided plan.
Some enlightened companies understood this and offered their employees an option: a larger paycheck w/out health care, or health care with a smaller paycheck. Correct me if I'm wrong about this, o gentle reader, but that employee option has been removed from all businesses, most likely due to legislation.
It certainly hasn't escaped your notice that anything provided by the Feds costs at least twice as much as it would cost in a free market, through enterprise and entrepreneurship It probably hasn't escaped your notice, either, that health care costs (meaning insurance) have risen sharply, much faster than the rate of inflation. The Feds would have us believe this is a natural consequence of better medical technology. The truth is that it's a natural result of layer upon layer of Federal oversight staffs, auditors, auditors of the auditors, insurance oversight, auditors of the auditors of the insurance industry, and so on. All those people have to get paid. They all have to work in buildings, in offices furnished w/ taxpayer-provided desks and other furniture and computers with which to oversee and audit and audit the auditors.
Looking at this another way, Obamacare is a federal worker's jobs program. Tens of thousands of IRS employees have been hired just to review tax returns for proof of health care coverage. Look at all the tens of thousands of other employees . . . But we've already discussed that.
We don't need a federal jobs program whose cost is a good seventh of our GDP - another way of saying a seventh of what you earn. What we need is choices - which Obamacare denies - and a sense of personal responsibility for our own health. Got the clap? Go to the doctor and get a shot of penicillin. Pay for it. Walk out. Guess what? That won't be possible under Obamacare. No, you'll have to have exhaustive diagnostics run (to help reduce the likelihood of a malpractice suit and indemnify the insurance company), samples taken, the data entered into the Medical Information Bureau's database and into the Social Disease (or whatever it's called these days) registry. All this, of course, once you've shown your Obamacare proof of insurance.
But that's no different than it is now, you're about to point out. True. Except for two things: the cost (far more than even the current punitive costs) and your choices. You don't have a choice: you MUST have Obamacare. You can't elect, because you're young and healthy, for example, doing without any form of health insurance except perhaps for catastrophic coverage. Nope. Everyone into the same pool. The healthy pay for the sick. The males pay for female contraception (a purely voluntary medical action) and even abortion ('reproductive rights,' we're told by NARAL and others, includes the right to have other people pay for your abortion. I looked in the US Constitution and did not see such a right.) - never mind that your religion condemns abortion. Non-smokers pay for smokers.
It's ridiculous. So your Ostrich Killer says Back to the Good Old Days. Want health care? Go get it. Pay for it (it would be a LOT less expensive.) Or do without, just like you'd do without a visit to the barbershop or hair stylist. Seemed to work pretty well for a very long time. Those uninsured people built this country into the greatest nation in the history of the Earth. What have we, the nanny-state children, done? And even more importantly, what are we doing? More directly, what are YOU doing?
Okay, brace yourselves, o gentle reader. You're about to read about the 'good old days.'
In the Good Old Days (before, say, 1970) if one wanted health care, they paid for it. If they couldn't afford it, they either did without or worked something out with the hospital / doctor. This unenlightened approach - treating health care as a commodity (like a visit to your local barber shop or hair stylist) instead of a right - was the natural result of noticing that the US Constitution did not include 'health care' as a right anywhere within it.
It still isn't in there. And in those good old days, people seemed to get along pretty well, health-wise and longevity-wise. Doctors did okay too.
Then along came health insurance. Actually, this started much earlier in our history. Its purpose was simple and obvious: like all insurances, it was to provide a risk transfer mechanism for those who weren't sure they would be able to pay for a serious round of health care. Like all risk transfer mechanisms, the customer was the sole decider of whether or not they needed it. Then some large businesses started including health insurance as an employee recruiting and retention tool. After all, it didn't cost much (in the Good Old Days.)
Of course, they didn't tell their employees that the cost of that insurance was being offset by decrements to their paychecks . . . which meant, in simplest terms, that the employee was forced into buying company-provided health care, whether they wanted it or not. Put even more simply, the employee would have larger paychecks if they were not REQUIRED to have the company - provided plan.
Some enlightened companies understood this and offered their employees an option: a larger paycheck w/out health care, or health care with a smaller paycheck. Correct me if I'm wrong about this, o gentle reader, but that employee option has been removed from all businesses, most likely due to legislation.
It certainly hasn't escaped your notice that anything provided by the Feds costs at least twice as much as it would cost in a free market, through enterprise and entrepreneurship It probably hasn't escaped your notice, either, that health care costs (meaning insurance) have risen sharply, much faster than the rate of inflation. The Feds would have us believe this is a natural consequence of better medical technology. The truth is that it's a natural result of layer upon layer of Federal oversight staffs, auditors, auditors of the auditors, insurance oversight, auditors of the auditors of the insurance industry, and so on. All those people have to get paid. They all have to work in buildings, in offices furnished w/ taxpayer-provided desks and other furniture and computers with which to oversee and audit and audit the auditors.
Looking at this another way, Obamacare is a federal worker's jobs program. Tens of thousands of IRS employees have been hired just to review tax returns for proof of health care coverage. Look at all the tens of thousands of other employees . . . But we've already discussed that.
We don't need a federal jobs program whose cost is a good seventh of our GDP - another way of saying a seventh of what you earn. What we need is choices - which Obamacare denies - and a sense of personal responsibility for our own health. Got the clap? Go to the doctor and get a shot of penicillin. Pay for it. Walk out. Guess what? That won't be possible under Obamacare. No, you'll have to have exhaustive diagnostics run (to help reduce the likelihood of a malpractice suit and indemnify the insurance company), samples taken, the data entered into the Medical Information Bureau's database and into the Social Disease (or whatever it's called these days) registry. All this, of course, once you've shown your Obamacare proof of insurance.
But that's no different than it is now, you're about to point out. True. Except for two things: the cost (far more than even the current punitive costs) and your choices. You don't have a choice: you MUST have Obamacare. You can't elect, because you're young and healthy, for example, doing without any form of health insurance except perhaps for catastrophic coverage. Nope. Everyone into the same pool. The healthy pay for the sick. The males pay for female contraception (a purely voluntary medical action) and even abortion ('reproductive rights,' we're told by NARAL and others, includes the right to have other people pay for your abortion. I looked in the US Constitution and did not see such a right.) - never mind that your religion condemns abortion. Non-smokers pay for smokers.
It's ridiculous. So your Ostrich Killer says Back to the Good Old Days. Want health care? Go get it. Pay for it (it would be a LOT less expensive.) Or do without, just like you'd do without a visit to the barbershop or hair stylist. Seemed to work pretty well for a very long time. Those uninsured people built this country into the greatest nation in the history of the Earth. What have we, the nanny-state children, done? And even more importantly, what are we doing? More directly, what are YOU doing?
Wednesday, January 02, 2013
GUNS AND THE AMERICAN EXPERIMENT
Why Americans Are Armed and Dangerous
No, it isn't to allow us to hunt Bambi. No, it isn't to allow us to shoot burglars. We are armed so that should our government become a tyranny, we the citizens will have the means to revolt.
Remember the times in which the Constitution was written: we had just come out of a bloody revolutionary war against a tyrannical government - and we won because the average citizen was as well armed as the troops of the tyrannical government. It was the clear intent of our founding fathers that the citizenry have the means and be able to undertake such a revolt again, should it be required. That is why they wrote :". . . the right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
Think about what that means to you, the citizen. And think about the threat such a concept means to those holding federal power - the executive branch, the legislative branch, the judicial branch.
You, dear reader, are a threat to them. They, however, have the power to make you less of a threat. They can pass laws that make you a criminal. For example, let's suppose they pass a law that requires you, the citizen, to register your firearms. I can predict that there will be a 100,000,000 increase in the criminal population of this country overnight - because very few citizens will comply.
Which raises the next question: what can the Federal Government do to identify gun owners?
1. Track ammo sales, or restrict them to gun owners who can show proof of registration.
2. Search your home on 'probable cause' (maybe a neighbor reported they saw you with a gun.)
3. Restrict hunting licenses and access to shooting ranges to those with proof of gun registration.
Our government is quite innovative when it comes to legislating means to control the population.
Why not register, you ask? Because a registered firearm is one that can be confiscated. This is the sole purpose of such a registry. Do a check of the history of the 20th century and see if that is so. Start w/ Czechoslovakia before the Soviets invaded.
But, you point out, passing such laws would be an infringement . . . You're right. But many such laws already exist. And the Constitution is being trammeled daily, its laws ignored. Where, for example, does the Constitution give the Federal Government the authority to collect money from Jack, who has money, and give it to Joe, who doesn't? Isn't that robbery? Two thirds of your taxes are used for that purpose. I've talked about entitlement programs elsewhere in my blogs, so we'll drop that discussion for now. Just understand that the Constitution is no barrier to bad legislation. Even members of the supreme court cite 'international law' when ruling one way or another - yet they're supposed to be bound by the Constitution.
You have a responsibility to 'protect and defend' the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, just like any member of the military. You can do so by arming your household and teaching your children responsible firearm safety and how to shoot straight.
Think about our society today, compared to 50 years ago: today our every move is monitored (cell phones, tablets, traffic cams, mall cams, store cams, cars with OnStar or GPS, drones, etc.) and our every conversation is monitored (cell phones, tablets, emails, blog postings like this one, etc.) Our shopping habits are entered into databases - think about that little 'membership' card you use at your local food store. So are our library book check outs. Any interaction with commerce involving a sale ring-up and a debit or charge card. Our privacy is gone. What is this data used for? Profiling. Think about how your web browser, your cell phone, your tablet device knows what ads to show you. Now scale up that simple paradigm to the federal level and imagine how those in power who want to stay in power might use that capability. Imagine the laws they might try to pass. Think about the laws already in place.
So don't go thinking that we'll never have another revolution, because at some point it's either revolt or become slaves either of our own government or some invading country's forces. Today we have a chief executive in the White House whose personal thinking is that the private sector economy exists to fund the public (government) sector. Doesn't that make the private sector slaves of the public sector?
You and I may not see the next revolution. But it's inevitable.
One last thought: the price of living in a free and open society is that we are a target-rich environment for wackos. Freedom isn't free, and it isn't necessarily 100% safe. But, as Ben Franklin is often quoted as saying: "people willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."
No, it isn't to allow us to hunt Bambi. No, it isn't to allow us to shoot burglars. We are armed so that should our government become a tyranny, we the citizens will have the means to revolt.
Remember the times in which the Constitution was written: we had just come out of a bloody revolutionary war against a tyrannical government - and we won because the average citizen was as well armed as the troops of the tyrannical government. It was the clear intent of our founding fathers that the citizenry have the means and be able to undertake such a revolt again, should it be required. That is why they wrote :". . . the right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
Think about what that means to you, the citizen. And think about the threat such a concept means to those holding federal power - the executive branch, the legislative branch, the judicial branch.
You, dear reader, are a threat to them. They, however, have the power to make you less of a threat. They can pass laws that make you a criminal. For example, let's suppose they pass a law that requires you, the citizen, to register your firearms. I can predict that there will be a 100,000,000 increase in the criminal population of this country overnight - because very few citizens will comply.
Which raises the next question: what can the Federal Government do to identify gun owners?
1. Track ammo sales, or restrict them to gun owners who can show proof of registration.
2. Search your home on 'probable cause' (maybe a neighbor reported they saw you with a gun.)
3. Restrict hunting licenses and access to shooting ranges to those with proof of gun registration.
Our government is quite innovative when it comes to legislating means to control the population.
Why not register, you ask? Because a registered firearm is one that can be confiscated. This is the sole purpose of such a registry. Do a check of the history of the 20th century and see if that is so. Start w/ Czechoslovakia before the Soviets invaded.
But, you point out, passing such laws would be an infringement . . . You're right. But many such laws already exist. And the Constitution is being trammeled daily, its laws ignored. Where, for example, does the Constitution give the Federal Government the authority to collect money from Jack, who has money, and give it to Joe, who doesn't? Isn't that robbery? Two thirds of your taxes are used for that purpose. I've talked about entitlement programs elsewhere in my blogs, so we'll drop that discussion for now. Just understand that the Constitution is no barrier to bad legislation. Even members of the supreme court cite 'international law' when ruling one way or another - yet they're supposed to be bound by the Constitution.
You have a responsibility to 'protect and defend' the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, just like any member of the military. You can do so by arming your household and teaching your children responsible firearm safety and how to shoot straight.
Think about our society today, compared to 50 years ago: today our every move is monitored (cell phones, tablets, traffic cams, mall cams, store cams, cars with OnStar or GPS, drones, etc.) and our every conversation is monitored (cell phones, tablets, emails, blog postings like this one, etc.) Our shopping habits are entered into databases - think about that little 'membership' card you use at your local food store. So are our library book check outs. Any interaction with commerce involving a sale ring-up and a debit or charge card. Our privacy is gone. What is this data used for? Profiling. Think about how your web browser, your cell phone, your tablet device knows what ads to show you. Now scale up that simple paradigm to the federal level and imagine how those in power who want to stay in power might use that capability. Imagine the laws they might try to pass. Think about the laws already in place.
So don't go thinking that we'll never have another revolution, because at some point it's either revolt or become slaves either of our own government or some invading country's forces. Today we have a chief executive in the White House whose personal thinking is that the private sector economy exists to fund the public (government) sector. Doesn't that make the private sector slaves of the public sector?
You and I may not see the next revolution. But it's inevitable.
One last thought: the price of living in a free and open society is that we are a target-rich environment for wackos. Freedom isn't free, and it isn't necessarily 100% safe. But, as Ben Franklin is often quoted as saying: "people willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both."
Register your firearms if you're willing to be a slave in exchange for knowing only the police and the criminals will have firearms. If you're not willing to register, let your representatives know. Show this blog to others who think like you.
Friday, December 28, 2012
THE TEBOW TEMPEST
Why Tim Tebow Doesn't Start for the Jets
Let's take a dispassionate look at Tim Tebow, the quarterback.
- he took a floundering 1-4 Broncos team to the playoffs LAST YEAR with an end of season record of 8-8, and beat the Steelers in the first round of the playoffs.
- because the Broncos acquired Peyton Manning, he was traded to the Jets. The Jets immediately announced that Tebow would be their second string quarterback.
- the Jets starter Mark Sanchez this season has a remarkable pass completion record, if one counts the number of his passes caught by players of the opposing teams. The coach of the Jets has started a third-stringer a couple times to try to find a way to get some completions to his own team's receivers. That hasn't worked. So what does the coach do? He announces that for the last game of the season, it'll be Mark Sanchez again.
One has to wonder: why not Tebow? Why was the third-stringer started over the second stringer (Tebow?)
Oh, wait a moment. There is one other item that wasn't listed above: Tebow is a Christian. Worse, he's evangelical - meaning he lets people know he's Christian and does his human best to live up to the teachings of his faith. He has a strong and faithful fan following.
Dispassionate analysis of Tebow's demonstrated football record would seem to indicate that he should have been starting at least a few games. Why not give a proven winner a shot?
I think you, my faithful reader, can figure it out. Yes, it's looking more and more like he isn't being given the opportunity his demonstrated football performances would seem to indicate he should be given because of his religiosity. It would be unseemly, I suppose, to hear post-game quarterback interviews where the words 'God' and 'Faith' came up regularly. Better, it would appear, to have those interviews with a losing quarterback who says something else - excuses, reasons, apologies for ineptitude, all the interceptions and losing, etc. Yes, that's better.
Don't get me wrong here, o gentle reader. I am not a Jets fan. I'm not especially a Tebow fan. But I am a fan of good football, and good football requires putting the best you have on the field. I don't think anyone can honestly say that Sanchez and the third stringer are the best the Jets have. But week after week, loss after loss, they have been on the field while Tebow - a proven winner in his first season with the Broncos - sat on the sidelines getting paid to do nothing.
This season I have watched more than my usual number of Jets games just to see how terribly Sanchez does. And he has never failed to disappoint. Morbid fascination drew me to watch game after game, wanting to see how long it would take for coach to pat Tebow on his head and tell him 'go out there and kick some ass, son.' But no. Never happened. And it clearly should have.
Even usually diplomatic football broadcasters and commentators are aghast at the folly of the Jets misuse - or more accurately non-use - of Tim Tebow. A weekend doesn't pass without most of them shaking their heads and wondering what is wrong.
What a waste. And what a statement about at least the Jets coaching staff, if not football in general.
Jets fans are right to be offended. They spent good money to see the games, and what do they get? Anyone but Tebow. Ask a Jet fan sometime if they'd like to have seen Tebow start a few games in place of the inept Mark Sanchez.
Let's take a dispassionate look at Tim Tebow, the quarterback.
- he took a floundering 1-4 Broncos team to the playoffs LAST YEAR with an end of season record of 8-8, and beat the Steelers in the first round of the playoffs.
- because the Broncos acquired Peyton Manning, he was traded to the Jets. The Jets immediately announced that Tebow would be their second string quarterback.
- the Jets starter Mark Sanchez this season has a remarkable pass completion record, if one counts the number of his passes caught by players of the opposing teams. The coach of the Jets has started a third-stringer a couple times to try to find a way to get some completions to his own team's receivers. That hasn't worked. So what does the coach do? He announces that for the last game of the season, it'll be Mark Sanchez again.
One has to wonder: why not Tebow? Why was the third-stringer started over the second stringer (Tebow?)
Oh, wait a moment. There is one other item that wasn't listed above: Tebow is a Christian. Worse, he's evangelical - meaning he lets people know he's Christian and does his human best to live up to the teachings of his faith. He has a strong and faithful fan following.
Dispassionate analysis of Tebow's demonstrated football record would seem to indicate that he should have been starting at least a few games. Why not give a proven winner a shot?
I think you, my faithful reader, can figure it out. Yes, it's looking more and more like he isn't being given the opportunity his demonstrated football performances would seem to indicate he should be given because of his religiosity. It would be unseemly, I suppose, to hear post-game quarterback interviews where the words 'God' and 'Faith' came up regularly. Better, it would appear, to have those interviews with a losing quarterback who says something else - excuses, reasons, apologies for ineptitude, all the interceptions and losing, etc. Yes, that's better.
Don't get me wrong here, o gentle reader. I am not a Jets fan. I'm not especially a Tebow fan. But I am a fan of good football, and good football requires putting the best you have on the field. I don't think anyone can honestly say that Sanchez and the third stringer are the best the Jets have. But week after week, loss after loss, they have been on the field while Tebow - a proven winner in his first season with the Broncos - sat on the sidelines getting paid to do nothing.
This season I have watched more than my usual number of Jets games just to see how terribly Sanchez does. And he has never failed to disappoint. Morbid fascination drew me to watch game after game, wanting to see how long it would take for coach to pat Tebow on his head and tell him 'go out there and kick some ass, son.' But no. Never happened. And it clearly should have.
Even usually diplomatic football broadcasters and commentators are aghast at the folly of the Jets misuse - or more accurately non-use - of Tim Tebow. A weekend doesn't pass without most of them shaking their heads and wondering what is wrong.
What a waste. And what a statement about at least the Jets coaching staff, if not football in general.
Jets fans are right to be offended. They spent good money to see the games, and what do they get? Anyone but Tebow. Ask a Jet fan sometime if they'd like to have seen Tebow start a few games in place of the inept Mark Sanchez.
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Dumb Bombs for Dumb People
THE CASE FOR COLLATERAL DAMAGE
The most recent exchange of hostilities between the Gazans and the Israelis points up, your Ostrich Killer thinks, a philosophical flaw in the Israeli defensive posture: to avoid killing innocent palestinians when responding to rocket fire from the Gaza Strip.
Much of that rocket fire is coming from places immediately adjacent to playgrounds, schools, mosques, markets, etc. Why? Lack of real estate? No, it's so that when Israel returns fire there's a good chance the palestinians can show a wounded or dead baby, child, shopper, or damaged 'holy' place to the willing and eager CNN camera crews.
What were those people doing close to those launch sites in the first place?
How can they be thought of as 'innocent civilians' when they tolerate that tactic by their elected officials? When the rocketeers locate rocket launchers next to their hospitals, why does the hospital staff and security not evict them? That they don't makes them enablers, not innocents. In the U.S., someone who enables a murder is an accomplice and can suffer the same penalty as a murderer. Why should this sort of situation be any different? By what sort of perverted PC logic can they be considered 'innocent?' Why should they not share the same fate as those rocketeers?
So I suggest Israel re-think their collateral damage reduction philosophy, and instead reverse it so that there is a LOT of collateral damage. Your ostrich killer would approve of carpet-bombing sites from B-52s flying at 50,000 feet, but Israel doesn't have those. So a reasonable alternative might be deliveries of cluster bombs and napalm and fuel-air explosives and artillery-delivered area-denial minefields on those launch sites. Yes, a lot of people might be killed. But maybe, just maybe, other communities' citizens might not want the same fate for their communities, and maybe they'd drive out those rocket launching sites and thereby preserve their lives and the lives of their families. If that sort of social ostracism catches on, there might actually be some sort of peace.
War is hell. But it can't be waged without blood, and it can't be won without one side deciding it's had enough. One more thought, and then you can go back to your coffee: there is no point in prolonging the obvious. If war is necessary, conduct it with maximum violence and destruction, so that it is over quickly. In the long run, many lives will be saved. The whole concept of 'proportional response' is ridiculous.
The most recent exchange of hostilities between the Gazans and the Israelis points up, your Ostrich Killer thinks, a philosophical flaw in the Israeli defensive posture: to avoid killing innocent palestinians when responding to rocket fire from the Gaza Strip.
Much of that rocket fire is coming from places immediately adjacent to playgrounds, schools, mosques, markets, etc. Why? Lack of real estate? No, it's so that when Israel returns fire there's a good chance the palestinians can show a wounded or dead baby, child, shopper, or damaged 'holy' place to the willing and eager CNN camera crews.
What were those people doing close to those launch sites in the first place?
How can they be thought of as 'innocent civilians' when they tolerate that tactic by their elected officials? When the rocketeers locate rocket launchers next to their hospitals, why does the hospital staff and security not evict them? That they don't makes them enablers, not innocents. In the U.S., someone who enables a murder is an accomplice and can suffer the same penalty as a murderer. Why should this sort of situation be any different? By what sort of perverted PC logic can they be considered 'innocent?' Why should they not share the same fate as those rocketeers?
So I suggest Israel re-think their collateral damage reduction philosophy, and instead reverse it so that there is a LOT of collateral damage. Your ostrich killer would approve of carpet-bombing sites from B-52s flying at 50,000 feet, but Israel doesn't have those. So a reasonable alternative might be deliveries of cluster bombs and napalm and fuel-air explosives and artillery-delivered area-denial minefields on those launch sites. Yes, a lot of people might be killed. But maybe, just maybe, other communities' citizens might not want the same fate for their communities, and maybe they'd drive out those rocket launching sites and thereby preserve their lives and the lives of their families. If that sort of social ostracism catches on, there might actually be some sort of peace.
War is hell. But it can't be waged without blood, and it can't be won without one side deciding it's had enough. One more thought, and then you can go back to your coffee: there is no point in prolonging the obvious. If war is necessary, conduct it with maximum violence and destruction, so that it is over quickly. In the long run, many lives will be saved. The whole concept of 'proportional response' is ridiculous.
Saturday, November 17, 2012
HOW TO CONVERT A LIB TO A CONSERVATIVE
YOUR OSTRICH KILLER'S CONSERVATIVE COOKBOOK
Ingredients needed:
1. a liberal brain (NOTE: while this may be a rare commodity, they do exist.)
2. a catastrophic personal, financial or geopolitical event with crystal clear fallout.
We've all heard the conventional wisdom - that a conservative is a liberal who got mugged. Or that if you're under 25 and not a liberal, you don't have a heart, but if you're over 35 and still a liberal you don't have a brain.
Both are true. But neither says the obvious - that a liberal, confronted with inescapable reality and whose blinders have stopped working, will, assuming a brain between the ears, develop / invent conservatism all by themselves. They will become functioning conservatives, believing that they are still liberals. Yet, in talking with them, the principles they promote will almost always be a combination of social liberalism mixed with conservative financial and geopolitical views.
Your ostrich killer is good with that. As long as their brain continues to function they will come to see that there are consequences to even social liberalism.
So to my liberal readers, and their families, I suggest that if you agree that the above is most likely true, your ostrich killer has a suggestion: why wait for a catastrophe to bring you over to the conservative viewpoint? You could become conservative now, and maybe even help fend off that catastrophe. As a bonus, you'll make new thinking friends.
My duty is done. Time for a beer.
Ingredients needed:
1. a liberal brain (NOTE: while this may be a rare commodity, they do exist.)
2. a catastrophic personal, financial or geopolitical event with crystal clear fallout.
We've all heard the conventional wisdom - that a conservative is a liberal who got mugged. Or that if you're under 25 and not a liberal, you don't have a heart, but if you're over 35 and still a liberal you don't have a brain.
Both are true. But neither says the obvious - that a liberal, confronted with inescapable reality and whose blinders have stopped working, will, assuming a brain between the ears, develop / invent conservatism all by themselves. They will become functioning conservatives, believing that they are still liberals. Yet, in talking with them, the principles they promote will almost always be a combination of social liberalism mixed with conservative financial and geopolitical views.
Your ostrich killer is good with that. As long as their brain continues to function they will come to see that there are consequences to even social liberalism.
So to my liberal readers, and their families, I suggest that if you agree that the above is most likely true, your ostrich killer has a suggestion: why wait for a catastrophe to bring you over to the conservative viewpoint? You could become conservative now, and maybe even help fend off that catastrophe. As a bonus, you'll make new thinking friends.
My duty is done. Time for a beer.
Wednesday, November 07, 2012
ANOTHER DREAM INTERVIEW
A PRESS CONFERENCE WITH A TRUE CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE
Reporter 1: "Mr. Smith, what do you say to those many Americans who are out of work?"
Smith: "Under my leadership the private sector business climate will improve, which will mean they will need more employees. So vote for me if you want a better chance to get a job."
Reporter 2: "Will you extend the federal safety nets for those long term unemployeds?"
Smith: "No. To those people, I suggest they become more aggressive about finding work. Either that, or find a relative willing to support them. Because I will work very hard to eliminate such safety nets. It isn't the federal government's job to provide charity. It isn't in the Constitution. Some of you may have heard of it. If not, Google it and read it."
Report 3: "Aren't you afraid that taking that position will lose you votes from that group of voters?"
Smith: "No. They'd vote for my opponent anyway, assuming they're not too lazy to get off their asses long enough to vote. People who are tired of paying support for the indigent, stupid, incapable and illiterate will appreciate my position on federal welfare."
Reporter 4: "Mr. Smith, what do you say to those that advocate raising taxes on the rich in order to help balance our budget?"
Smith: "I have a plan to balance our budget. First, eliminate all entitlement programs. That will reduce annual federal spending by over a trillion dollars. Next, I'm in favor of reinforcing success; therefore I will propose and lobby strongly for a graduated tax plan, where the more money one makes, the lower their taxes rate becomes. Those making over, say, a million dollars annually will pay no taxes at all. Doing that will encourage entrepreneurial-ism and thus hiring. More hiring means more people paying taxes."
Reporter 5 (Alarmed!): "But wouldn't that be unfair to the poor and middle class?"
Smith: "Would you rather encourage hard work and initiative, or sloth and mediocrity? Part of the tax code's charter is to encourage certain types of fiscal behavior, and discourage others. I think we should encourage hard work and success, don't you?"
Oh, well. Another cup of coffee.
Reporter 1: "Mr. Smith, what do you say to those many Americans who are out of work?"
Smith: "Under my leadership the private sector business climate will improve, which will mean they will need more employees. So vote for me if you want a better chance to get a job."
Reporter 2: "Will you extend the federal safety nets for those long term unemployeds?"
Smith: "No. To those people, I suggest they become more aggressive about finding work. Either that, or find a relative willing to support them. Because I will work very hard to eliminate such safety nets. It isn't the federal government's job to provide charity. It isn't in the Constitution. Some of you may have heard of it. If not, Google it and read it."
Report 3: "Aren't you afraid that taking that position will lose you votes from that group of voters?"
Smith: "No. They'd vote for my opponent anyway, assuming they're not too lazy to get off their asses long enough to vote. People who are tired of paying support for the indigent, stupid, incapable and illiterate will appreciate my position on federal welfare."
Reporter 4: "Mr. Smith, what do you say to those that advocate raising taxes on the rich in order to help balance our budget?"
Smith: "I have a plan to balance our budget. First, eliminate all entitlement programs. That will reduce annual federal spending by over a trillion dollars. Next, I'm in favor of reinforcing success; therefore I will propose and lobby strongly for a graduated tax plan, where the more money one makes, the lower their taxes rate becomes. Those making over, say, a million dollars annually will pay no taxes at all. Doing that will encourage entrepreneurial-ism and thus hiring. More hiring means more people paying taxes."
Reporter 5 (Alarmed!): "But wouldn't that be unfair to the poor and middle class?"
Smith: "Would you rather encourage hard work and initiative, or sloth and mediocrity? Part of the tax code's charter is to encourage certain types of fiscal behavior, and discourage others. I think we should encourage hard work and success, don't you?"
Oh, well. Another cup of coffee.
CONFRONTING THE OBVIOUS
THE MAJORITY OF AMERICAN VOTERS -
1. Pretend to believe an attractive lie so that they don't have to act on an unpleasant truth.
2. Believe the major media.
3. Think celebrities are smart about politics and should be listened to.
4. Want to tax heavily anyone who doesn't depend on government.
5. Have not grown up into adults - they think and act like little children, who only know what they want.
6. Are the result of two generations of hate white America indoctrination in public schools.
7. Will vote for anyone who promises 'free stuff.' Just like a kid.
8. Don't care about national security, or the security of our international friends. Free stuff is much more important.
9. Lack moral standards, and think this is a positive thing.
10. Prefer to parrot slogans because it's easier than thinking.
Your Ostrich Killer knows you can add to this list. Send your additions to me and I'll post them w/ credit.
It's a sad, sad day for America.
1. Pretend to believe an attractive lie so that they don't have to act on an unpleasant truth.
2. Believe the major media.
3. Think celebrities are smart about politics and should be listened to.
4. Want to tax heavily anyone who doesn't depend on government.
5. Have not grown up into adults - they think and act like little children, who only know what they want.
6. Are the result of two generations of hate white America indoctrination in public schools.
7. Will vote for anyone who promises 'free stuff.' Just like a kid.
8. Don't care about national security, or the security of our international friends. Free stuff is much more important.
9. Lack moral standards, and think this is a positive thing.
10. Prefer to parrot slogans because it's easier than thinking.
Your Ostrich Killer knows you can add to this list. Send your additions to me and I'll post them w/ credit.
It's a sad, sad day for America.
PUT A MAP OF THE WORLD ON YOUR WALL
FOUR YEARS TO A NEW DARK AGES
Elections have consequences. Especially American elections. Below is a list of the consequences you can expect to see. Check this blog posting four years from now (if you still can) and see how close your Ostrich Killer came to a perfect prediction. See if that map on your wall looks like ancient history.
Here we go:
1. Israel will no longer exist. There will be no live Jew in the middle east. According to his actions, Obama hates the Jews.
2. There will be no major centers of population left in the Middle East. All will have been destroyed as Israel, going down swinging after a massive islamic invasion and attack w/ chemicals, goes nuke. Damascus, Tripoli (both of them,) Beirut, Benghazi, Tehran, Bandar Abbas, Qum, Bushehr, Shiraz, Cairo, Port Said, Ismailia, Riyadh, and many others that are unfortunate enough to be situated near a significant military installation will be wiped off the map. They will be reduced to glowing, glass-paved rubble.
3. China will control all of the South China sea, including the Spratleys and any other islands they wish to control. No one will contest them. They will also have conquered Taiwan, and turned Japan into a cowering, fearful Finland-like nation who only asks 'How high?' when told by the Chinese to jump. The same will be true for Australia and New Zealand. Because the US won't prevent that. Our president will not stand for anything other than tearing down this country to the lowest, meanest mediocrity he can.
4. Private sector unemployment will skyrocket. Only government job employment will improve.
5. Russia, knowing full well ("I'll have more flexibility after my re-election" Obama told Medvedev) that the US will not intervene, will re-establish the old Soviet Union under the inspired and ruthless leadership of Putin. All those east European, Balkan and other states that became separate countries on the collapse of the old Soviet Union will be re-captured without significant resistance.
6. The rich will be taxed punitively. Many will leave the country. The jobs they would have created will not be created.
7. At least one weapon of mass destruction will be deployed successfully in the US. That means chemical or nuclear weapon, with hundreds of thousands dead. We will do little except bury the dead and deplore the action. Maybe we'll hunt down one man and execute him.
8. The American military will have its nuclear arsenal whittled down by presidential order to less than 1% of its size thirty years ago. Manpower will be reduced to such low levels that we will be unable to take significant military action anywhere except on training grounds in the US. The Navy will not be any better off. Military recruiters will not be able to meet even their dramatically reduced quotas. Vast disillusionment in the ranks ("Why should I risk my neck fighting for something we aren't willing to win?") will send desertions to historic highs.
8. America will print money in the trillions of dollars. Prices will skyrocket accordingly - too many dollars chasing too few goods. It's automatic.
9. American businesses will either move overseas, be bought in place by foreign investors, or fail. None will be immune. Even mom and pop businesses will have to tighten their belts to survive - meaning layoffs.
10. If America isn't invaded and captured, it will only be because the invaders know that the ripe plum is ready to fall of its own weight.
11. The price of energy will go so high that no one will be able to afford to move around in the country.
I could go on. So could you. Doing the math from above, how many millions of people around the world are going to die?
And all because we re-elected Obama. Why did we re-elect Obama? Because we have become a welfare state - a state where the citizenry holds out its hands for "free stuff" from government, and it doesn't matter what foreign policy issues there are. Where does government get this "free stuff?" From the producers in our economy, buying it with money that comes from the wallets of every living American.
Alexis de Toqueville's grim prediction is on the verge of being realized: "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." That day has long since come.
And now, to quote the obnoxious Rev. Wright, the chickens will come home to roost.
Goodbye, America. It was a good run for awhile. Now you're just another third world nation of beggars.
Elections have consequences. Especially American elections. Below is a list of the consequences you can expect to see. Check this blog posting four years from now (if you still can) and see how close your Ostrich Killer came to a perfect prediction. See if that map on your wall looks like ancient history.
Here we go:
1. Israel will no longer exist. There will be no live Jew in the middle east. According to his actions, Obama hates the Jews.
2. There will be no major centers of population left in the Middle East. All will have been destroyed as Israel, going down swinging after a massive islamic invasion and attack w/ chemicals, goes nuke. Damascus, Tripoli (both of them,) Beirut, Benghazi, Tehran, Bandar Abbas, Qum, Bushehr, Shiraz, Cairo, Port Said, Ismailia, Riyadh, and many others that are unfortunate enough to be situated near a significant military installation will be wiped off the map. They will be reduced to glowing, glass-paved rubble.
3. China will control all of the South China sea, including the Spratleys and any other islands they wish to control. No one will contest them. They will also have conquered Taiwan, and turned Japan into a cowering, fearful Finland-like nation who only asks 'How high?' when told by the Chinese to jump. The same will be true for Australia and New Zealand. Because the US won't prevent that. Our president will not stand for anything other than tearing down this country to the lowest, meanest mediocrity he can.
4. Private sector unemployment will skyrocket. Only government job employment will improve.
5. Russia, knowing full well ("I'll have more flexibility after my re-election" Obama told Medvedev) that the US will not intervene, will re-establish the old Soviet Union under the inspired and ruthless leadership of Putin. All those east European, Balkan and other states that became separate countries on the collapse of the old Soviet Union will be re-captured without significant resistance.
6. The rich will be taxed punitively. Many will leave the country. The jobs they would have created will not be created.
7. At least one weapon of mass destruction will be deployed successfully in the US. That means chemical or nuclear weapon, with hundreds of thousands dead. We will do little except bury the dead and deplore the action. Maybe we'll hunt down one man and execute him.
8. The American military will have its nuclear arsenal whittled down by presidential order to less than 1% of its size thirty years ago. Manpower will be reduced to such low levels that we will be unable to take significant military action anywhere except on training grounds in the US. The Navy will not be any better off. Military recruiters will not be able to meet even their dramatically reduced quotas. Vast disillusionment in the ranks ("Why should I risk my neck fighting for something we aren't willing to win?") will send desertions to historic highs.
8. America will print money in the trillions of dollars. Prices will skyrocket accordingly - too many dollars chasing too few goods. It's automatic.
9. American businesses will either move overseas, be bought in place by foreign investors, or fail. None will be immune. Even mom and pop businesses will have to tighten their belts to survive - meaning layoffs.
10. If America isn't invaded and captured, it will only be because the invaders know that the ripe plum is ready to fall of its own weight.
11. The price of energy will go so high that no one will be able to afford to move around in the country.
I could go on. So could you. Doing the math from above, how many millions of people around the world are going to die?
And all because we re-elected Obama. Why did we re-elect Obama? Because we have become a welfare state - a state where the citizenry holds out its hands for "free stuff" from government, and it doesn't matter what foreign policy issues there are. Where does government get this "free stuff?" From the producers in our economy, buying it with money that comes from the wallets of every living American.
Alexis de Toqueville's grim prediction is on the verge of being realized: "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." That day has long since come.
And now, to quote the obnoxious Rev. Wright, the chickens will come home to roost.
Goodbye, America. It was a good run for awhile. Now you're just another third world nation of beggars.
Friday, October 26, 2012
BUILDING A DEMOCRATIC VOTER
How to Create a Democrat
To keep liberals (democrats) in office, the leftist power elite (elected democrats and their socialist - commie pinko Soros-clone rich enablers) need people to vote democrat. So they have this playbook that they pull out every time they get the chance. This playbook tells them how to create a democratic voter base. Here's how (outlined):1. Divide and conquer. This they do by first convincing blocks of people that they are victims. Examples of such blocs include hyphenated voter blocs (Hispanic-American, African-American, Native-Americans, women, seniors, sexual extroverts and deviants, illegal aliens, etc. etc.) The idea is to get them to believe that all others in America are somehow looking for ways to unfairly exploit them.
2. Promise to protect these various blocs from each other and the evil white blue-eyed male population.
3. Pass laws that provide these blocs a label of 'protected' so that any ills that befall them can be punished more severely than the same sort of offense perpetrated against a white blue-eyed male.
4. Provide money to these groups via any method possible (special programs such as Affirmative Action, welfare programs, abortion funding, free contraception, various 'subsidies' (wealth transfer programs) like health care, free college tuition, etc.)
5. Come election time, tell these folks that if they don't vote democrat, the money may stop.
Duh.
So who's a democrat? Mostly they are people with their hands out for other people's money.
I know you already knew all this, o faithful reader. But on the off chance that some lefty will drop by, your Ostrich Killer thought it would be amusing to let them know that we have them figured out.
Now, back to my beer. Too late for coffee.
Friday, October 19, 2012
CHECK THE TRANSCRIPT
HUH?
When Gov. Romney, during the second presidential debate, said that Obama took 14 days to concede that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist action, Obama said that wasn't so, that he'd called it 'terror' the morning after the attack.
Then he pointed at Candy Crowley. "Check the transcript," Obama said.
She shuffled through papers on her table and confirmed that he had called the attack 'terror' the morning after.
Later investigation revealed that Obama had not been talking about the Benghazi attack when he used the word 'terror,' but let's leave that aside. Your Ostrich Killer has a few questions:
1. How is is that Candy Crowley, the 'impartial' moderator, had those transcripts?
2. Did she have supportive transcripts for Gov. Romney as well?
3. If so, were both candidates allowed to provide her with transcripts and other documents?
4. If yes, why haven't we heard that from anyone? Why wasn't that made public knowledge prior to the debate?
5. If Candy having transcripts was a surprise to Gov. Romney, how did Candy get those transcripts?
6. How did Obama know she had those transcripts?
7. Why did Gov. Romney look so surprised that she had transcripts?
8. How was it that a question that prompted the invoking of those transcripts got asked?
Your Ostrich Killer smells a set-up and professional malpractice on the part of Candy Crowley, in conspiracy w/ President Obama. He clearly knew she had transcripts; he probably provided them. How else could he suggest she consult them?
It's gratifying that the day after the debate, she had to admit that the transcripts were taken out of context and that Gov. Romney had been correct.
What lingers is the willingness of Obama to stoop to any devious trick to try to survive the debates. For what other purposes has he stooped to such low, Chicago - style tricks?
When Gov. Romney, during the second presidential debate, said that Obama took 14 days to concede that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist action, Obama said that wasn't so, that he'd called it 'terror' the morning after the attack.
Then he pointed at Candy Crowley. "Check the transcript," Obama said.
She shuffled through papers on her table and confirmed that he had called the attack 'terror' the morning after.
Later investigation revealed that Obama had not been talking about the Benghazi attack when he used the word 'terror,' but let's leave that aside. Your Ostrich Killer has a few questions:
1. How is is that Candy Crowley, the 'impartial' moderator, had those transcripts?
2. Did she have supportive transcripts for Gov. Romney as well?
3. If so, were both candidates allowed to provide her with transcripts and other documents?
4. If yes, why haven't we heard that from anyone? Why wasn't that made public knowledge prior to the debate?
5. If Candy having transcripts was a surprise to Gov. Romney, how did Candy get those transcripts?
6. How did Obama know she had those transcripts?
7. Why did Gov. Romney look so surprised that she had transcripts?
8. How was it that a question that prompted the invoking of those transcripts got asked?
Your Ostrich Killer smells a set-up and professional malpractice on the part of Candy Crowley, in conspiracy w/ President Obama. He clearly knew she had transcripts; he probably provided them. How else could he suggest she consult them?
It's gratifying that the day after the debate, she had to admit that the transcripts were taken out of context and that Gov. Romney had been correct.
What lingers is the willingness of Obama to stoop to any devious trick to try to survive the debates. For what other purposes has he stooped to such low, Chicago - style tricks?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)