Liberty Alert

Book Review – Decision Points by George W. Bush

2011-04-29T05:21:00.000-07:00

You can tell my life has been busy. It took me 3+ months to finish a book I got for Christmas! However, that should not reflect on the quality of the book. Decision Points by former US president George W. Bush is considered his memoirs. The book recounts President Bush’s early political career, but focuses on the major decisions (i.e. decision points) throughout his eight years in the White House.

Regardless of how you feel politically about George W. Bush (and he was certainly an unpopular president at the end of his second term), Decision Points gives a fascinating look into how decisions are made by a US president. It seems every presidency is somewhat of an adventure. No 4-year span can pass in American history without significant incidents that must be addressed by the President. Decision Points was especially insightful because of the magnitude of events that occurred during the two-term presidency of George W. Bush. Decision Points gives the most inside view of the disputed election with Al Gore, 9-11-2001, Katrina, the fiscal crisis, and several other key happenings during President Bush’s presidency. It also recounts President Bush’s pre-presidential life. I found it refreshing that President Bush was able to discuss his now-famous early life issues (drinking, partying, etc.). Throughout the book Bush was also able to point out mistakes made during his time in office. One common criticism that the left through at President Bush while in office was that he never admitted mistakes. In this book he admits them, as well as explains why he would never admit mistakes while in office!

Even though I may not have agreed with every decision that President Bush made, while reading I found myself respecting the thought process he went through to come to his decisions. The book clears up some of his decisions by providing inside information that was not available to the public at the time.

President Bush will be a president that will have to be judged by history. I believe time will vindicate many of the actions President Bush took as president. Note that as I write this Syria is in the middle of a public uprising in the name of liberty. Libya is involved in a fight for freedom from a despot. Egypt similarly erupted before that. Don’t think it’s a coincidence that these events occurred next door to a free Iraq. The story is yet to be written, but history may shine upon the liberation of Iraq as a turning point in the quest for freedom and stability in the Middle East. Time will tell, but I have to believe that the conviction of George W. Bush had a hand in the current events in the Middle East.

I’ve read President Obama’s books. I will read his 3rd book which he will certainly write at the conclusion of his presidency. People with an open mind will likely find the memoirs of both men worthwhile. My only hope is that President Obama’s memoirs are released in 2013 rather than 2017.

Book Review: Developing Executive Skills by John R. Hook

2011-01-12T13:39:00.000-08:00

Developing Executive Skills: Managing Yourself, Others and Organizations. (Agile Manager Gold)

Occasionally I stray from the political theme are read books on other subjects. I have often thought that if I spent as much time reading books about my actual profession as I do books about political philosophy I might be much better off. Liberty Alert is generally devoted to ideas regarding liberty. However, I also use Liberty Alert as a chronicle of books I have read, even if they are not political in nature. Since it’s my blog, I have that prerogative! Additionally, discussing books on different subjects changes it up a bit; helps to keep things interesting.

With that in mind, I have recently completed reading the book Developing Executive Skills: Managing Yourself, Others, and Organizations by John R. Hook. As the title suggests, this is a business management book. I decided to read this book after meeting the author. He happens to be the grandfather of someone who works in my office.

As a management book, I thought it was a little on the simplistic side. At 191 pages, the book provides mostly an overview of upper-level management topics. It does provide a good starting point to lead an interested researcher in the right direction for further study. I’m not sure how much of the book I will retain. Many of the concepts seemed to make sense, but were not particularly unique or memorable. There was one particularly thought-provoking section in the book. The most memorable discussion had to do with leadership. I dog-eared this page and later made a photocopy so I could hang it in my office. The author quotes the military historian S. L. A. Marshall regarding leadership:

“Quiet resolution. The hardihood to accept risk. A willingness to share rewards with subordinates. An equal willingness to take full blame when things go wrong. The nerve to survive storm and disappointment and to face each new day with the score sheet whipped clean, neither dwelling on one’s success, nor accepting discouragement from one’s failures. This is the essence of leadership. For these are the things that have enabled one man to draw others to him in any age.”

I thought this was a good, simple, straight-forward list of good leadership traits.

Book Review: A Patriot's History of the United States by Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen

2010-12-27T15:13:00.000-08:00

A Patriot's History of the United States tells the true story of the USA. The book tells the story of the USA without the modern bias or political correctness that ravages most modern American history books. This book should be required reading for every high school student in the USA!

I thoroughly enjoyed reading the book, but be forewarned...this book is long. It's not for the faint of heart. It will take some dedication to get through the 829 pages. However, the chapters are short, so it's the kind of book that can be easily picked up and put down frequently. Several long plane trips, including one from New York to Singapore gave me my best opportunity to make a big dent in this one, and I was glad I did it.

I recommend this book for anyone who has an interest in American history. I especially recommend parents to try to steer their young adult children to this book. It would certainly help them in their American history and world history understanding. The book does an especially fine job of making connections to events in history that seemed unrelated. Once you read the book, you come to realize that hardly anything of significance in world history happens in a vacuum. You will learn a lot and enjoy the story.

Blog Status

2010-11-01T06:18:00.000-07:00

I've determined that there's too much redundant opinion out there. Therefore, this bog will only include opinions that provide a unique perspective. Therefore, the number of posts will be controlled by this hurdle.

Reading and reviewing books is one way to provide a unique perspective. Many of the posts on this blog have been book reviews. Right now I am in the middle of reading a 900 page book. Therefore, posts have been few these days. Once I'm through this book, posts should resume more regularly.

Book Review: Shop Class as Soulcraft by Matthew Crawford

2010-07-18T14:53:00.000-07:00

Shop Class as Soulcraft is an essay-style book that highlights the virtues of physical craftsman work (or work in “the trades”) while discussing some of the shortcomings of work in the “intelligence professions”, i.e. cubicle office work, utilizing philosophies from historical thinkers to bolster the author’s conclusions.

The book is humorous, entertaining, intellectual, and interesting. The author has quite a unique background. He is a former communist. Not to say he is a member of the party, but he was brought up on a commune. He is a classically trained philosopher, boasting a PhD. Yet he is also a licensed electrician. But more importantly, he is also a gear head. He spent his adolescence around speed shops, later transitioning from cars to motorcycles. I have no census data, but I think I can say with some certainty that he is one of the few motorcycle mechanics out there holding a PhD. The wide variety of experiences in the author’s background adds color to the stories throughout the book.

Although I enjoyed reading the book, and found the theories presented compelling, it is difficult to make a decision on how I feel about the author's conclusions. The subtitle of the book is “An Inquiry Into the Value of Work”. I agreed with many points made in the book. I agree with the author’s theories that so-called white-collar work can lack the satisfaction of seeing the direct results of labor that is offered by the so-called blue-collar professions. I also agree that people in the “thinking professions” underestimate the problem solving and mental skill required to skillfully complete trade work. Where the author falls short is in his discussion of the macroeconomics. Although the author shows no serious love for the left as it is defined today in American politics, it seems his communist upbringing comes through a bit when he discusses his view of unfairness of the money supply (the haves and have nots). In these arguments, the author strays from his core competency of understanding, and delves into areas that perhaps were not necessary to complete his book. In short, I liked everything in the book except the final chapter. It was a bit like a great movie with a bad ending.

I recommend Shop Class as Soulcraft. The author's writing style, unique thinking, and whit make it worth while, even if I did not agree with all the conclusions. Even still, it will make you think in new ways.

President Obama is Wrong to Characterize Our Choices as One or The Other

2010-07-17T11:02:00.000-07:00

President Obama and the Democrats are in political trouble, and they know it. They are projecting to November and anticipating the difficulties their party will likely have, as they are at great risk of losing control of the House of Representatives, as well as lose significant seats in the Senate.

So the President is doing what he can to change perceptions. He continues to use the unpopularity of the Bush presidency as a crutch. He uses it to paint our choices as voters as a black and white choice between his policies, and "going back" to the Bush policies. The President presents this as if there are no other policy choices out there. This is not the case.
Nothing is static, especially in politics. The Republican party is not the same. The mistakes of the Bush administation, the tea party movement, and the aggressively radical policies of the left (lead by President Obama) are factors that have influenced the Republican party today. The party today is no longer the party it was when Bush was in office. Change is unavoidable for both parties. Despite how the President sets the scene, nobody can go back, even if one wanted to go back.

The President is wrong. The choices for direction of the country is not a straight line, either A or B. It's an array of choices in infinite directions. The President wants us to believe we have to either support his policies or support the old Bush policies, a kind of either-with-me-or-against-me credo. This is not so. Americans are wiser. Republicans are wiser. Conservatives are wiser. We have all learned from the failings of the previous big government administrations, whether they were Republican or Democrat. My fear is that it's too late. We've gone too far down the Big Government road to reel it in. Perhaps. One thing of which I am certain; the Obama-left-big government direction of the country can not be sustained, and the direction will eventually change.

Book Review – Conservative Victory by Sean Hannity

2010-06-14T17:02:00.000-07:00

National TV and radio host Sean Hannity has released a timely book chronicling the deficiencies of the Obama administration and suggestions for conservative leadership to repair the tyranny that Obama and the Democrats have ushered into America.

Hannity is donating all profits for the book to charity.

As opposed to some other conservative books recently reviewed on this blog, Conservative Victory is not intended to change any minds. A liberal reader of this book will likely not be swayed. The subtitle of the book is “Defeating Obama’s Radical Agenda”. Hannity is obviously targeting the conservative majority in the United States with this book. Hannity is an unabashed conservative, so this book is targeting people that politically agree with Hannity’s philosophies.

The book does a find job of summarizing the failures, un-Americanism, and danger of the Obama administration. Hannity then gives some suggestions for Republican conservative leadership.

Most of Hannity’s suggestions are reasonable, yet somewhat unimaginative. Hannity focuses mostly on re-tread ideas like the renewing a Contract with America. Such ideas may be valid, but they are hardly novel.

The book was generally an interesting read, but as an instruction manual for the average person to “defeat Obama’s radical agenda” it came up short. The book was more of a suggestion manual for conservative political leaders rather than an action plan for individual conservative citizens.

Conservative Victory is worth a quick read. Expect a good summary of the issues, but don’t expect Conservative Victory to be life-changing.

Consider Good Holster with Any Handgun Purchase

2010-05-01T13:45:00.000-07:00

I recently purchased a Ruger SP101 revolver in .357 magnum.

I like the gun, but I'm having a heck of a time finding a practical holster for it.

Yesterday, I went to Hoffman's Gun Center in Newington, Connecticut to try to find a suitable holster. I was looking for something that offers maximum concealment with a good fit. Hoffman's had plenty of holsters, but none for the Ruger SP101.
Cabelas in East Hartford had a good selection of holsters (not as many as Hoffman's, but still a large selection), but still nothing specifically made for the Ruger SP101.

I bought a generic belt holster, and it works OK, but is far too bulky for normal carry.

I wanted to avoid ordering something without first being able to see it, but I think at this point, the internet is my only option. I found the following websites to have a good selection of holsters:

http://www.safariland.com/

http://www.usgalco.com/

Of course, there are others, but I found that these two have a good selection and reasonable prices.

A Visit to Wolf’s Indoor Range and Shooting Center – Bristol, CT USA

2010-04-05T14:11:00.000-07:00

Where: 597 Middle Street (Route 229), Bristol, CT 06010

Website: www.wolfsrange.com
Phone: 860-585-0447
Hours: Monday 2 PM – 9 PM, Tuesday – Friday 10 AM – 9 PM, Saturday 9:30 AM – 9 PM, Sunday 9:30 AM – 5:30 PM
Cost: It cost me $19 and change for ½ hour and 5 targets
Details: 15 bays, 50+ feet indoor facility. Small shop.

I’ve never visited a shooting range before, so I was not totally sure what to expect when I visited Wolf’s Indoor Range and Shooting Center in Bristol, CT. The experience was stress free. The staff at Wolf’s was no-nonsense, but still friendly. They explained all the range etiquette and rules, and most importantly, welcomed any questions.
Wolf’s has 15 bays available. The range goes beyond 50 feet, which is plenty far for handgun shooting. They have a small store that sells targets, ammo, and various accessories.

If you are visiting a range for the first time, here are a few things to keep in mind:

If you have them, bring ear and eye protection. If not, Wolf’s has some available to borrow.
DO NOT “expose” your firearm in the office. It needs to be kept in a case until you get out to the range.
If you don’t have targets, you can buy them at the range. The targets I purchased were $.30 each.

I will definitely visit Wolf’s again.

Equipment Review: Gunvault Minivault Standard Gun Safe

2010-03-26T13:55:00.000-07:00

The Gunvault minivault gun safe is a small size safe intended to hold one or two handguns. The safe is small enough to fit under a bed or in a drawer. It is made of heavy gage steel, and lined with foam. The foam protects the internal contents of the safe. The safe features a spring assisted latch door. When the safe is opened, the door springs open unassisted. The safe features two unlocking methods. One is a standard key entry, and the other is a keypad made to mimic the position of fingers. The keypad runs on AA batteries, which are installed inside the safe. The safe has a low battery indicator light. The safe also includes mounting hardware and a template to allow the user to secure the safe to a floor or other solid surface.

The safe has an optional security cable available. It does not come standard with the safe. It must be purchased separately.
The deluxe version of the safe includes an internal light, an audible warning signal, and an AC connection for power. There is also a more advanced version that includes a biometric (fingerprint) reader to open the safe. This version is significantly more expensive than the standard and deluxe version.
The safe is large enough to fit 2 small guns. I was able to fit one revolver, plus two boxes of ammo in the safe.

I purchased the standard version. The safe appears to be a good option for firearm security in the home. The keypad is quick and easy to use, yet provides strong security. There is a key entry to back up the keypad, so even if batteries run out, the safe can be entered using the key. Additionally, the battery indicator light should remind the user to change the batteries. The spring-loaded door allows for only 1-step opening. As soon as the key is turned or the code is entered, the door springs open. No latches or hinges to operate.

I bought the Gunvault safe at Cabela’s for about $100. I am happy with the purchase.

Gun Show Disappoints

2010-03-16T19:21:00.000-07:00

I made my way to the gun show at the Easter States Exposition in Springfield, MA this past weekend. It was not what I was looking for as a new gun shopper. I was expecting several booths where one could view and hold different guns. I was expecting salesmen trying to sell potential buyers on the virtues of their firearms. While there were some booths selling new guns, the majority of tables were devoted to antique items. All but one of the tables selling new guns had them behind glass. The one booth that had the guns available to handle was the most crowded booth at the show. One would thing the other sellers would catch on.

Perhaps my expectations were too high, but the show was closer to a flea market than a convention.

If you are in the market for a new gun, in my opinion the show is not the way to go. The selection at a store like Cabela's is likely better than the show. Additionally, there is no entry fee for Cabela's, and all the accessories you need are available in one place.

For the new firearm buyer, go to your local store. For antique items, check out the show.

West Springfield Gun Show

2010-03-10T16:25:00.000-08:00

I've never been to a gun show before, but I plan on attending one this weekend.

This weekend there is an NRA sponsered gun show at the Easter States Exposition (Big E fairgrounds) in West Springfield, MA.

The link for the show poster is below:

http://users.erols.com/fasttrack/loc/w-spr/SPRINGFIELD-FLYER-MARCH-10.pdf

There is also a coupon online for $1 off admission. You can print that coupon here:

http://users.erols.com/fasttrack/loc/w-spr/w-spr-coupon.gif

Feel free to visit and exercise your Constitutional right

Book Review – Going Rogue by Sarah Palin

2010-02-19T08:03:00.000-08:00

Sarah Palin spends a lot of time setting the record straight in her book Going Rogue. If you followed the campaign in 2008, you will recall that there were times when Palin seemed to be stymied by the fear of saying the wrong thing. Palin owns up to the deficiencies of her campaign performance, and does a fine job explaining the behind-the-scenes reasons why the campaign proceeded as it did. Palin sheds light on some of her mistakes, staff mistakes, as well as reinforces some of the actions she believes were handled well during the campaign.

In a format that’s pretty standard for a memoir, the book starts by recounting Sarah Palin’s early years. She explains the upbringing that contributed so much to her present beliefs. The book then gets into the meat of the story, revisiting the 2008 US presidential campaign. The book concludes with Palin’s vision for the future.

Palin does not present herself as having all the answers. She does not present herself as being always right, nor does she believe that everyone should agree with her. She states her beliefs, the reasons for her beliefs, and lets them stand on their own.

During the campaign, liberals liked to take shots at Palin’s intellect and worldliness. The book demonstrated that Palin is well educated, well informed, well intentioned, and a woman of action. She gets things done. She believes in common sense and integrity over party loyalty.
Regardless of the perceived intellect of any candidate, one does not have to be a genius to be a good leader, or in this case, president. One only needs to have a sound foundation and commitment to the core principles of the founding documents of the United States. As is said in the oath of office, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. The recipe has been created by the great leaders of the past. Men like Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, and the many other unmentioned founding fathers created the recipe with the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Despite the wishes of the left, these documents are the law of the land. Subsequent leaders have a much less difficult task. The path has been cut. Subsequent leaders don’t have to blaze new trails (in fact, they are legally forbidden to it unless by amendment); they only need to follow the existing path. If someone asked me to create a cake from scratch, I would not be able to do it. However, give me a recipe to follow, and I can make a cake just as well as Betty Crocker. If the public can come to understand that “change” in the United States is limited by to the constraints set in the US Constitution, leaders will fall in line, and freedom will reign. Any deviation from the recipe represents a reduction in freedom. Freedom (not equality, success, fairness, or any other idea) should be the driving principle of any action the government takes. Does anybody remember freedom?

Anthem Blue Cross Owes You NOTHING President Obama

2010-02-09T13:43:00.000-08:00

http://www.dailynews.com/ci_14357792?source=most_emailed

By Erica Werner, Associated Press
Updated: 02/08/2010 10:45:44 AM PST

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration on Monday asked California's largest for-profit health insurer to justify plans to hike customers' premiums by as much as 39 percent, a move that could affect some 800,000 customers.

===============================================================

Question: Who is the President to tell a business in the private sector how much to charge for their services? What’s next? Is Obama going to go to Costco and tell them they are charging too much for paper towels? How about going to Yankee Stadium and telling them that the $8.75 beers are over priced? Where does it end?

This kind of stuff from the White House is the stuff of dictators.

This is Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the CEO of Anthem Blue Cross were able to call a press conference and tell President Obama straight up that Anthem Blue Cross does not have to justify ANYTHING to him? The CEO and his staff can run their company how they want to run it. They are accountable only to customers and shareholders, not to a despotic wannabe. Despite the best efforts of President Obama, the United States is still a land of laws – Laws that do not allow the president to bark orders. The last I checked this was still a representative republic, and not a monarchy, dictatorship, or empire.

President Obama – Keep your nose OUT of the private sector and worry about governing, not ruling. Who am I to tell the president what to do? I'm a citizen and voter, and that's enough.

Massachusetts Delivered Us in 1775 and Massachusetts May Have Delivered Us in 2010

2010-01-20T05:25:00.000-08:00

Hope is not lost!

I'm speaking of Scott Brown's Senate race win in Massachusetts.

This past year plus has been a depressing time for lovers-of-liberty. How refreshing to learn that even in uber-progressive Massachusetts, there's still that undercurrent of liberty that was not able to be held down.

Some thoughts about the events in Massachusetts:

Is this win actually a positive in the long run for the Democrats? It seemed like there were a lot of sighs of relief from many Democrats (especially those known as the "Blue Dogs"). This Republican victory means the Democrats now have an excuse not to have to vote for a health care reform bill the American people don't want. If the Democrats retain this Senate seat in Massachusetts, the Democrats would be saddled with approving this fiasco of a bill, and would pay even more dearly in 2010 and 2012.
Scott Brown is not exactly a conservative Republican. It remains to be seen if he can stay true to his campaign promises and avoid a progressive agenda.
Does this loss cause any soul searching among Democrats, or will they still continue to be a party courting fringe groups of society (unions, minorities, wealthy urbanites) while ignoring "middle America"?
In an ironic twist, was the Barack Obama win in 2008 exactly what this country needed to wake up and appreciate liberty? Barack Obama may have been the best thing that could have happened for the liberty-movement. Think of how events would have progressed had John McCain won. Things would be mostly business as-usual. There would be no Tea Party movement. No awakening throughout the country. Progressive statists likely would have won in Massachusetts and New Jersey. Perhaps Obama was the shock the country needed to finally be able to identify the anti-American statist progressive agenda.

Yes we can!

What Liberal Political Correctness Got Us

2009-11-11T10:19:00.000-08:00

Liberal political correctness is to blame, not for the shootings at Fort Hood, but for not being able to prevent it. The shooter is to blame. There are multiple reasons for the shooting, but the blame starts and ends with the shooter. However, liberal political correctness is to blame for creating a culture of fear that prevented anyone from acting to prevent the shooting. Army officials were so scared of saying the politically incorrect thing that they did nothing.

Liberals have pussified the United States. People can't say what they really mean without being personally attacked (think Joe the Plumber). Men go to day spas. No one keeps score and all kids get trophies. Nanny-state regulations protect us from ourselves. TV personalities lose their jobs for speaking the uncomfortable truth. We no longer fight wars to win. Pussified.

Liberal political correctness has gone beyond an annoyance. It is now costing lives. Check my previous post regarding the book Lone Survivor explaining how liberal political correctness cost the lives of US soldiers in Afghanistan. Add that to the 13 innocent people just killed at Ford Hood.

It's time for everyday Americans to do what they know in their hearts, and stand up to political correctness that has moved in these times from ridiculous to dangerous.

Petit Family Foundation Food and Wine Event November 15th 2009

2009-11-03T06:47:00.000-08:00

The Petit Family Foundation cordially invites you to a Food & Wine Event to benefit the foundation and to honor the memories of Jennifer-Hawke Petit, Hayley Elizabeth Petit and Michaela Rose Petit on Sunday Nov. 15th 2009 5:30-8:30p.m. at Carmen Anthony Fishhouse, 1770 Berlin Turnpike, Wethersfield, Ct.
The foundation’s funds are given to help foster the education of young people, especially women in the sciences; to improve the lives of those affected by chronic illnesses; and to support efforts to protect and help those affected by violence.
Please call Beth Tracey for reservations at 1-860-677-1223 Ext. 23

Here’s a sneak preview:
"Wines To Be Paired With All Food Courses"

Reception:
Fruit & Vegetable Crudités
1st Course:
Campagna Salad
Mixed field greens with gorgonzola cheese, red onions and tomatoes,
with our house vinaigrette
2nd Course:
Capellini Piedmontese
Capellini pasta tossed in a creamy pink sauce with Prosciutto, peas & Parmesan cheese
Served Family Style
3rd Course:
Petite Filet Mignon Trio
A filet trio cooked to perfection accompanied by sauces of blackberry bordelaise,
green peppercorn au poivre and béarnaise served with baby vegetables
Dessert:
Chocolate Torte
Coffee or Tea

We look forward to seeing you at our first Wine/Dinner Event!!
Petit Family Foundation~http://www.petitfamilyfoundation.org/Use GoodSearch for The Petit Family Foundation http://www.goodsearch.com/?charityid=863000%7E

Conservative Internet Radio

2009-10-21T05:01:00.000-07:00

AM talk radio is one form of media dominated by conservative commentators. Many radio shows also simul-cast over the internet.

I've written before about some local Connecticut shows available on WTIC 1080 in Hartford.

I stumbled upon a station that plays all the big national shows back-to-back-to-back and is available over the internet. "The Big Talker" AM 1210 out of Philadelphia broadcasts Glenn Beck at 9 AM Eastern, followed by Rush Limbaugh at noon, followed by Sean Hannity at 3 PM. They also have local personalities before and after these national shows. I'm able to fire up AM 1210 over the internet starting around 9 AM, and leave it on for rest of the work day.

If you're looking for a one-stop-shop for conservative talk, check out AM 1210. I've included the link below.

http://www.thebigtalker1210.com/

Please let Liberty Alert know if you have other favorite radio shows available over the internet.

USA Today Vote on Second Amendment

2009-10-15T07:19:00.000-07:00

I had this message emailed to me today:

USA TODAY IS TAKING A POLL ON 2ND AMENDMENT - GUN CONTROL

Obama's new Attorney General, Eric Holder, has already said this is one of his major issues. This takes literally 2 clicks to complete. Please vote on this gun issue question with U S A Today. It will only take a few seconds of your time. Then pass the link on to all the interested friends you know. Hopefully these results will be published later this month. This upcoming year will become critical for gun owners with the Supreme Court accepting the District of Columbia case against the right for individuals to bear arms. Here's what you need to do:

VOTE

The Question is: " Does the Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms?"
Answer choices are: Yes or No or Undecided then click on V OT E now white tab!

Boycott The Book (The Cheshire Home Invasion)

2009-10-08T08:42:00.001-07:00

For those of you not familiar with this story, below is a letter regarding the rape, torture, and murder of 2 daughters and the wife of Dr. William Petit of Cheshire, CT. This letter is attributed to Dr. Bill Petit. I can not verify for sure that this is from Dr. Petit, but I have reason to believe that this letter is authentic. Regardless of the source of this letter, the message remains the same. No criminal should benefit from a crime, especially a crime as hideous as this one. It seems like an easy decision to stay away from this book. You'll have to make up your own mind, but see Dr. Petit's words below before you make your decision.

===========================================================
Please Help Boycott This Book
Share
This is the illegally obtained book written by one the defendants who killed Hayley and Michaela. He illegally met with the author in jail before he was stopped by the DOC and released it prior to the trial in Contempt of of the gag order, that has been in place over a year. The book was common knowledge but Donovan, his defense attorney has reacted like a moron as if he had no knowledge of this. Judge Fasano had a hearing yesterday and ignored the entire topic-of course the session was in chambers so it is hard to know exactly what was said-our justice system is far less than transparent. This allows this animal to give his side of the story without cross-examination or forensics and then causes the other side of the defense to whine that they cannot get a fair trial. Amazon The author, Brian McDonald, acts like he did nothing wrong-it was only his job to write a book no matter who it hurts. St. martin Press is the division of McMillan that published the book and it is out at Amazon, Barnes and Noble etc. None of them care that an 11 year old was terrorized, raped and burned alive and that a 17 yr old was beaten and burned alive while a 48 year old mother with MS was strangled while she tried to save her children. They are all the epitome of the American blood lust for money and publicity at all costs. Shame on them. they will get their final rewards in their afterlife of hell. Now 26 months later there is no thought of starting the trial and the judicial system wants me to cheer because this is faster than most trials come to court. Yes I am angry, and suspect I will get angrier, but if you have a minute send an email or call or boycott. Thank you for caring about Jennifer, Hayley, and Michaela.
Bill Petit

Book Review: Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell

2009-09-29T05:31:00.000-07:00

Outliers – The Story of Success is an international best seller. There are scores of articles and reviews by “professional” book reviewers available for this book, but I'll still add my take to the pile of information available on this book.

Outliers explores the role circumstances have in the creating success. The basic thesis is that although talent and hard work are certainly necessary for success, they are a bit over rated when reviewing what creates success. As the thesis goes, circumstances and even luck can have just as important a role in creating great success, or outliers.

Besides what I gleaned from this book, I know little about Malcolm Gladwell. I have not read any of his other best sellers. However, based on what I learned from this book, I would say that Gladwell is a statistician and a sociologist. He uses data to make correlations, then draws conclusions about the cause and effect of these correlations.

Outliers was quite interesting, and somewhat eye opening. It was fascinating to see the pieces that had to all fall in just the right place to create a great success like a Bill Gates or even a Malcolm Gladwell.
The tone of the book was tough to pinpoint. One of the messages of the book was that there are other factors out of your control that determine your success. Regardless of how hard you work, or how talented you are, you will have a difficult time becoming a true success outlier without good fortune. For example, if you are a young kid starting hockey in Canada, even if you have great natural talent, you will likely not get anywhere unless you were born in one of the first 4 months of the year (You’ll have to read the book to see the reason for this.). At the same time, there is some message of hope in the book. Gladwell contends that talent is overrated. He believes that in many cases, people viewed as great talents were really of average talent but through hard work and lucky circumstances, were able to become successful. Therefore, there is some hope in believing that although you may not be born with great talent, you can still become a success outlier. However, I believe this hope message is drowned out by the fact that Gladwell puts such a large emphasis on luck as a key factor. It’s a little disconcerting to become aware of the fact that regardless of your hard word and talent, whether or not you become successful is in large part due to luck. Even if it is likely true to some degree, it’s still a tough message to face into. I think we all internally know that circumstances are a big factor in life, but to have it laid out in black and white with supporting data can be a bit depressing, unless of course you are one of those on the good side of the luck equation (which is all relative)!

One point that is critical to understanding Outliers is that Gladwell makes generalizations based on data. He does a good job pointing out that he deals in just generalizations, not hard rules. For example, it may be easier to become a hockey star in Canada if you were to be born in February, but not impossible if born in November. One always needs to be careful when making generalizations about people. Gladwell points this out.

One criticism of Gladwell is that he does not discuss any data contradicting his conclusions. This is an understandable criticism, but it’s also understandable why Gladwell leaves most contradictory data out. His intention is to write a book in everyday terms, not create an academic research paper.

There’s a good reason why Outliers is a best seller. I highly recommend this book.

Getting to the Heart of the Healthcare Debate

2009-09-14T10:49:00.001-07:00

Millions of protesters at “tea parties” and town hall debates are an obvious indicator that there are clearly differing views throughout the American population regarding government provided healthcare.

Polls have indicated for quite some time now that more people are opposed to government provided healthcare than support it.

Whether against the present Obama-supported healthcare plan due to fear of high costs, poor performance, government intervention, or any number of reasons, in the end all these reasons really funnel down to one central idea – mistrust of government.

The debate over government provided healthcare in the United States is in essence a debate between people who generally trust government, and people who generally mistrust government.
The words “generally” in the statements above are crucial words. Few people always trust or always mistrust government. It is a general perspective of trust versus mistrust that is at the heart of this debate.

To the chagrin of big government supporters, the United States was founded under a purposeful mistrust of government. The United States Constitution was set up to give people maximum liberty precisely because the founders did not trust government. The second amendment to the US Constitution is a direct descendant of the founders mistrust.

The left may not like this built-in mistrust of the US Constitution, but unfortunately for them (and fortunately for the rest of us), the Constitution is the law of the land.

This idea of governmental mistrust is something that most liberals don't understand. The US Constitution is meant to err on the side of too little government, not too much. It is why the left is wrong in the healthcare debate.
Keep in mind that just because the left is wrong in this debate, does not mean that they will not prevail. For this reason, liberty-loving Americans need to continue to stand up to the anti-Constitutional socialization of America.

Book Review -- Lone Survivor by Marcus Luttrell

2009-09-10T13:10:00.000-07:00

Lone Survivor is the true-life chronicle of a Navy Seal team that was ambushed in the mountains of Afghanistan. The author was the lone survivor of this ordeal.

This book was a national best seller with plans in the works for a movie.

The book focuses on the events in Afghanistan, but it traces Luttrell’s journey from small-town Texas kid to highly skilled soldier. Luttrell was already preparing to become a Navy Seal during his high school years. The book spends a lot of time giving the background of Luttrell’s Seal training. It also explains the events taking place back at Luttrell’s Texas home while he is fighting for his life in Afghanistan. This background sets the stage for the hardships Luttrell and his Seal team battle in Afghanistan.

The story of operation Redwing is a powerful true-life war story. Just the dramatic events that unfolded on the mountains of Afghanistan alone would make a fine book. However, the book sets itself apart by the detail the author spends on the non-battlefield aspects of this story. Though the battlefield adventure is the climax of the book, Luttrell intersperses the themes of honor, valor, love, family, dedication, excellence, and leadership as much with his off-battlefield stories as he does with the actual war story. Luttrell also gives his own matter-of-fact assessment of the battlefield impact of political events back home. He pulls no punches as he explains how the soldiers fighting in hostile lands are handcuffed by the ridiculous rules of engagement thrust upon them by liberal politicians back home. He also discusses the negative impact the liberal-slanted media has on the fighting soldiers. Luttrell explains how tactics that are the absolute right thing to do from a military strategy perspective are second-guessed because of the potential for negative media coverage. Luttrell makes the case that these policies cost actual American lives. To the soldiers, they are not abstract. They are living with the result of policies implemented by Washington Liberal do-gooders.

The book is an interesting look into the mindset of an elite soldier. It’s an action packed, and often gruesome war story. It’s an interesting political commentary. It’s a reassuring story about family, community, and ideals. This book is a recommended read.

Liberal Voters Would Not Be Satisfied with True Government Health Insurance

2009-08-20T08:27:00.000-07:00

This post builds off my previous post.

Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, we can all agree that government health care as it is presently being pursued by the Obama administration would be an expensive proposition. Health insurance as it is presently constituted is expensive whether it's paid for by an employer, or a government. We can all agree on that.

There are a number of people uninsured in this country. The number differs depending on the source, but I've seen estimates between 12 and 44 million. The true number probably lies somewhere between these two extremes.

We hear hyperbole in the main stream media about people dying out there because they can not get the life saving medical procedures they need. Making the big leap that this is true, instead of the government providing very expensive health insurance like our employers generally provide today, what would be the reaction of the left if the government provided cheaper catastrophic-only health insurance? I am not saying I support such a move, but it would be an interesting compromise. The plan would have a high deductible. Much like car insurance. The individual would be responsible for anything under say for example $3000. Insurance would cover anything after that number. The government could institute a tax deduction for the money spent under $3000. The government would not be involved in any medical decisions or end-of-life issues. The government would put the contract out to bid to existing private insurance companies.
There are a lot of advantages to this type of plan. This type of plan would be much less expensive than full government health insurance. It would cover catastrophic medical needs, but still require the individual to be responsible for their day-to-day health charges. It would also require people to pay attention to their health care costs and introduce market forces into the system, which would drive competition, which would in turn drive up service and drive down costs.

If you had no health insurance, wouldn't one think this kind of plan would be welcomed? Mama always said beggers can't be chosers, right? This would give people the assurance that they would not die or be saddled with high health care debt, while possibly not totally bankrupting the government. What would be the liberal voter reaction to such a compromise plan????

I suggest that the liberal voter would not be satisfied with such a plan! I portend that the liberal voter does not really want health insurance for the uninsured. The liberal voter does not appear to care about federal spending and the damage to our economy. The liberal voter does not want the responsibility for their health care. What the liberal voter truly wants is "free" health care. The liberal voter wants to get any prescription they want, go to the doctor whenever needed, and not have to pay a dime out-of-pocket. They want the so-called rich to pay for their trip to the doctor or pharmacy. They want free health care, not health insurance. The statists-socialists running our government today are all to happy to push for such an all-powerful, all-encompassing bureaucratic option.

As we all know, nothing works that way. Nothing is free. Everything has a cost.

The cost of the current Democratic health care plan will result in lower quality service and care, and will be incredibly expensive. The people know it, hence the public backlash we are witnessing in town hall meetings etc. all across the country. Reports of the death the American public as a powerful entity are greatly exaggerated!

Healthcare Insurance We Have Now Is Not Insurance

2009-08-16T08:37:00.000-07:00

The healthcare insurance debate rages on in the United States, with President Obama in the middle of the lion’s den…a place nobody belongs. He’s a statist and he just can’t help himself, but that’s a topic for a different day.

There have not been many posts on Liberty Alert of late. There are two reasons for that. One is business. The real life of a no-name blogger is definitely at odds with the blog. The second reason post have been sparse lately is that I want Liberty Alert to be a place for original thinking, not just retreads of the crap spewed by the main-stream media, and non-main stream talking heads. I’m not always successful at it, but I try not to be sucked into the trap of basing my opinions (and blog posts) on the points made and developed by others. I like to try to use my own original logic here. Again, I’m not always successful at it, but that’s the idea anyway. That does not mean that I can’t take ideas and learn from others. I just want to avoid repeating the babbling of others. This means that sometimes I’d rather write nothing at all, until I have something original in mind.

I’ve been doing some travel to the Caribbean island of Puerto Rico this past week. Although Puerto Rico is a part of the United States, it is not a state, and has a totally separate culture from the mainland. Therefore, it’s interesting to read some of the opinion pieces in the local newspapers to get a unique viewpoint on national matters, especially the current healthcare debate.

One letter-to-the-editor I read in a Puerto Rican newspaper raised an interesting point. The way we pay for healthcare is not insurance at all. We call it insurance, but it really is not. It’s closer to pre-paid healthcare than insurance.

This letter made me contemplate other insurances that we have. The most common insurance that nearly everybody uses is auto insurance. Think of the contrast between how we use auto insurance versus health insurance.
Auto insurance has a set premium based on how much of a risk you present. This premium can be raised or lowered based on the risk assessment of the insurance company. However, you have the freedom to shop around and switch at any time. With auto insurance, there is a deductible. The insurance is meant to cover catastrophic events, not everyday maintenance activities. The insurance company does not pay every time you enter the auto body shop. Does this mean you should stop doing maintenance like oil changes on your car? No, of course not. The driver is still responsible for the upkeep of their automobile. The incentive for the driver is to do the maintenance in order to keep their car running well longer.
When an accident occurs, the driver is free to address the issue as they please. They can take the money from the insurance company and leave the damage on the car, or they can use the money to pay for repairs at any garage or autobody shop of their choice.
In addition to insurance, most new cars come with warrantees. These warrantees cover unexpected mechanical breakdowns, but the driver is still responsible for general maintenance.
Contrast this insurance model to our current healthcare insurance model. In our current health insurance system, we expect insurance to cover every trip to the doctor. We expect to take no financial responsibility for our own healthcare. We have no concern toward cost (since insurance is paying for it), and we have restricted choice. In essence, we ask the insurance company to pay not only for accidents, but for every oil change, tire rotation, brake job, radiator repair, tune up, etc. regardless of our lifestyle choices and risk. This is not insurance. I’m not sure what one would call it, but insurance it is not.

Twitter-ization

2009-07-24T06:03:00.000-07:00

I read this on a bumper sticker the other day:

"READ BANNED BOOKS"

I agree.

Al Gore is a Hero! Global Warming is Over!

2009-07-08T10:05:00.000-07:00

Hooray for Al Gore! His dream has come true. In addition to inventing the internet, he has apparently successfully stopped global warming!

The temperature of the earth has not risen since 2000 (some data suggests even earlier). We're approaching a full decade without any global warming.

Let me be the first to thank Al Gore for a job well done. Now PLEASE go away.

More Evidence That Liberals Hate America

2009-06-01T04:38:00.000-07:00

More accurately, the political left in the United States hates freedom and liberty, not specifically just the United States of America. All freedom is a threat to statism. The founding ideals of the USA represent the most conspicuous example of freedom and liberty in the world today (even with the constant assault on liberty from the left), so liberals in turn hate America.

Why do I make such a bold and divisive statement? This is not a new thought to me, and I'm certainly not the first one to make such a statement. This is something I've long suspected, but every once in a while I find an example that reinforces the hypothesis.

This weekend while mowing my lawn, a thought came to me...

(I do most of my best thinking while either walking the dog, taking a shower, or mowing the lawn.)

Why is it that the vast majority of US military personnel are right-of-center (mostly members of the Republican party), while the majority of political protests come from the left? With the recent "Tea Party" movement being the exception, it's generally accepted that most protests come from the left. For example, think of the political demographic of protesters during the Vietnam war. Think of the disruption at the last Republican National Convention. Think of pies and shoes thrown at prominent political figures during speeches. Again, with the recent exception of the "Tea Party" movement, the left is where the protest crowd generally originates.

Why is that?

I have my theories.

Protesting and criticizing America comes easy to liberals because they have never bought in to the founding principles of the country.

Liberals consider running down the USA as patriotic. In some instances that could be true. However, the men and women of the US military, which as a group are largely politically conservative, can teach the liberal bunch the true meaning of patriotism. These soldiers don't scream and shout. They quietly dedicate everything, including risking their own lives, to defend the principles of the United States. The liberals talk the talk, but the brave people of our military walk the walk.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the US military special forces. These are the Rangers, Navy SEALs, Green Beret's, etc. These groups are made up of dedicated volunteers that set aside their personal well being for something bigger than themselves. These people believe in something. These individuals would not put themselves through such hardship without being fully dedicated to the principles of their country. Liberty and freedom are critical to these brave soldiers, and they would give their lives to protect these principles.

I recently stumbled across a book while waiting for a plane in the airport. It's called Lone Survivor by Marcus Luttrell and Patrick Robinson. The book chronicles a firefight in Afghanistan between the Taliban and a Navy SEALs team. I have not finished the book yet, but the author makes it clear how the men of the Navy SEALs feel about their country. The book also clearly spells out the distaste special operations soldiers have for the political left in the United States.

The men and women that walk the walk, dodging bullets and IEDs for what they believe, are nearly all conservative-leaning. Beyond that, they have a loathing for liberals.

The contrast between the actions of people that truly love America, and the liberals that hate America is stark.

If the liberalization of the US is not reeled in, the experiment in freedom and liberty known as the United States of America will essentially end. Let's hope it's not already too late.

"Water Boarding" is Not Torture

2009-05-26T17:24:00.000-07:00

A lot of talk has recently been emanating from the Executive Branch of the US government regarding torture.

Let's make one clear declaration: So-called "water boarding" is not torture.

None of the "enhanced interrogation" techniques to which President Obama takes such offense are torture.

Sleep deprivation, water boarding, solitary confinement, etc. are uncomfortable circumstances, but certainly not torture. They cause discomfort, not pain. They leave no permanent damage, and in no way threaten the life of the subject. At most, these tactics scare the subject, or cause some temporary stress or discomfort.

If you want to know true torture, watch the final scenes of the movie Braveheart. Watch Senator John McCain deliver a speech without the ability to move his arms. Read Uncle Tom's Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe's to learn how African slaves were whipped within inches of their lives in the American South prior to the Civil War. These are only a few of the numerous examples of true torture.

Given the choice, what would William Wallace, John McCain, and Tom choose water boarding over the fate they actually received? You bet they would.

Water boarding is not pleasant. Hopefully it never needs to be used. However, it is a tool that likely saved thousands of lives. A little discomfort and unpleasantness for some of the nastiest human beings to ever exist is a small price to pay for saving thousands of innocent lives.

Once again, liberals come down against the military, against citizens, against America.

Book Review -- Liberty and Tyranny by Mark Levin

2009-05-08T19:28:00.000-07:00

On this blog I usually try to review books that might not be the first title that comes to mind when you try to identify a book to read. Sometimes I review classics that might be gathering a little dust at the local library, or unique books I discovered by chance. I typically stay away from the best seller lists for two reasons. One is that best sellers typically are not available at the library, so they would require me to purchase the book. I try to utilize the "free" books at the library whenever I can. The second reason is that best sellers already have so many reviews and information available on the Internet, that I often feel my review will not add significant value. However, every once in a while a book comes along that grabs my interest so much that I can't wait for the library version. Liberty and Tyranny by Mark Levin is such a book. It's been a best seller for a while now, but even though there is a ton of information available regarding this book, the book was so good that I needed to add my review.

Liberty and Tyranny is a non-fiction book. I don't remember the exact price but I believe it was around $20. It's subtitled "A Conservative Manifesto". This book traces back the root of conservative political ideology in the United States of America and breaks it down to the most basic philosophical building blocks. It's clear, concise, and strong in its arguments. It explains the conservative position with examples and logic. It also provides counterpoints to squash the opposing liberal (or "statist" as the book uses) positions.

If you are a liberal, I have my doubts that you will like the book. However, if you are truly open minded (a trait that many liberals profess to posses) I believe you have to at least respect the positions that Mark Levin lays out. You might not agree with them, but based on this book I believe you have to respect their orgin and logic.

If you are a conservative, you will love this book. You will be reading and shaking your head in affirmation throughout. It will help you clear your mind and reaffirm what you've always felt in your gut. It puts reason, logic, and examples behind your beliefs.

If you are somewhere in between liberal and conservative, this is a powerful book that I suggest reading. If you are a "lost conservative" i.e. someone who has typically considered themselves right-of-center, but have recently been questioning yourself, this book is more than suggested reading! It should be mandatory! It's like medicine when you have a sickness. It's the cure to your philosophical confusion. So called "moderates" have the most to gain by reading this book. If I were a doctor, I would prescribe this book.

Liberty and Tyranny is the kind of book I hope my family will all read. I hope my children will someday read it. Better yet, I hope I can pass the ideas presented in the book on to my children so they will not have to read it. Liberal, conservative, or somewhere in between, Liberty and Tyranny is a well crafted book that should cause you to think.

Obama's First 100 Days -- Connecticut Political Leadership Phone Numbers

2009-04-21T09:29:00.000-07:00

The Democrat's and the Obama administration have no respect for the US Constitution, and the people of this country know it.

In Connecticut (my home state), requests for pistol permits are at all-time highs. In the town of Southington, permit request have already surpassed the total requests for the past 2 years, and we are only in April.

Nationwide, gun and ammo sales are soaring.

You can fool some of the people some of the time, but the people of this country have already sniffed out the attack on the US Constitution lead by Barack Obama, specifically his plans for attacking our second amendment rights.

Don't stand idly by and let it happen. We can feel the assault on our rights is coming (based on the permit and sales data), so be sure to do something about it. Fight for your legal rights. Join the NRA. It's not expensive. You can find a link to the NRA in the "Favorite Links" area of this website. Your membership comes with your choice of 3 good magazines. There are 60 million gun owners in the US today, but only 4 million active members of the NRA. This needs to change.

The left is great at demonstrating, protesting, and working up firestorms for their favorite issues (think of the anti-war protests during the Vietnam war, and even more recently the protests of the Iraq war). It's much easier for the left to cause disruption because they don't hold themselves to the rules of respect, decency, or even law (think of the criminals that tried to disrupt the 2008 Republican National Convention, or the criminal that recently attempted to hit best-selling writer Ann Coulter with a pie while she delivered a speech at a college campus). However, it's time for us on the right-of-center to take action with our voices, actions, and money.

The NRA is not just about guns. It's about protecting our Constitutional rights. If one of our individual civil rights (the second amendment) can be attacked, repealed, or destroyed, what's to stop them from moving on to other rights they don't like, such as freedom of speech (think Fairness Doctrine), freedom of peaceable assembly (think of the total disdain on the left for the recent "Tea Party" protests), and on and on and on.

I recently attended a game dinner held at a local church. The cost was $40 per ticket. The food started at 5:30 PM and did not stop coming until 10:30 PM. The menu included bear meatballs, venison steaks, venison lasagna, wild mushroom soup, pheasant, rabbit, goose, salmon, venison chili, and many other great dishes. It's one of the local highlights of spring in northwest Connecticut. I dare say there was possibly not one Obama voter in the crowd of 200+. If there was one, they would never admit it! The organizers of this dinner provided a list of phone numbers of local politicians so the voting public could remind our political leaders to honor the oath they took to uphold and protect the Connecticut and US Constitutions. I've provided a copy of the list below:

To Help Fight For Our Gun Rights Call:

1-800-842-8267 CT House of Representatives - D

1-800-842-1423 CT House of Representatives - R

1-800-842-1420 CT State Senate Democrats

1-800-842-1421 CT State Senate Republicans

1-800-406-1527 Gov. Jodi Rell

1-202-224-2823 U.S. Sen. Chris Dodd

1-202-224-4041 U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman

Risk of Confusing Ideas with Politics

2009-04-14T13:46:00.001-07:00

I had an interesting conversation with a relative following Easter dinner this past Sunday. He is a long-time conservative who is a member of the Republican party. Like many conservatives and libertarian-leaning Republicans today, he has become frustrated and disenchanted with the GOP. He's approaching the point of defeat. His anger and frustration are directed at the Republican party, not the liberal Democrats. He feels that the Republicans have left him. This is not an uncommon theme these days among conservatives. Many conservatives would admit that the Republican party is lacking direction. The troubling thing about my relative was that his frustration with the GOP caused him to question his core principles. He was questioning capitalism. He was considering the benefits of socialism. He was sipping the Kool-Aid. Due to his distaste for our present group of politicians, he was ready to turn his back on all traditional politics only flail about aimlessly hoping to find something on which to politically attach himself. He had lost his compass.

Questioning yourself is not a negative thing. It's a sign of a healthy and true thinker to question, update, and revise views base on learning and life experiences. However, the reason my relative was questioning his beliefs was not a valid reason. He was confusing the Republican party with conservative beliefs. These two entities are separate. The Republican party can certainly make mistakes. The GOP is a political party, so by definition, it is influenced by politics. Politics involves compromise to get things done and to win elections. A core set of ideals is not compromising. They are bedrock. Regardless of what the Republican party does or does not do, conservative principles do not change. Conservatives principles are founded on equality, liberty, our founding documents, enumeration of powers, and limited government (among other things). Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Regan are titans of conservatism. Historically, the Republican party has tended to align with these conservative principles, but there is never any guarantee. For various reasons, the party may not always stay true to these principles. However, if these principles are truly part of your core beliefs, your DNA, then the actions of any political party should not impact those beliefs.
So, question yourself. Explore. Read. Learn. Revise. But don't let the politicians impact your value system.

Plainville, CT Troops Coming Home

2009-04-09T10:47:00.000-07:00

On Friday, April 10th members of the community have an opportunity to show their support and appreciation to our troops.

Between 6 and 8 PM Marines from Charlie Company, 1st Battalion, 25th Marine Regiment based out of Plainville are scheduled to return home after a seven-month deployment in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Friends, family, and community members are invited to come to the Marine Reserve Training Center at 1 Linsley Drive, Plainville CT to welcome the troops home.

Hartford Tax Day Tea Party

2009-04-06T06:29:00.000-07:00

Tea parties are popping up all over the country. There are over 400 tea parties planned for tax day, April 15th, to protest bloated government spending, overbearing government intrusion, and the continual attack on the rights of the individual.

In the spirit of 1773, when patriots also protested oppressive government, consider joining your fellow countrymen in a show of strength, liberty, and independence. Information below:

What: Tea party protest

Where: North steps of the Capitol building, Hartford CT

When: 12-2 PM, April 15th 2009

Liberty and Tyranny by Mark R. Levin

2009-04-03T06:22:00.000-07:00

Get this book! I'm only on the third chapter, but so far it's excellent. Look for a full overview once I finish the book.

Why Do Liberals Care About US Auto Companies?

2009-03-30T08:13:00.000-07:00

Why do liberals care about the plight of US automobile companies (i.e. the "Big Three")?

Liberals love Honda's and Toyota's (i.e. the Prius), and for years have turned their noses up at so-called "redneck" American cars.

Their policies have continually handcuffed Detroit's auto companies, and have put them at competitive disadvantages to their counterparts in Japan.

Liberals claim to care about the American worker, but when the rubber hits the road (i.e. when it's time for them to buy a new car) they are less likely to buy American.

How Big Is Big Enough To Satisify Liberals

2009-03-30T06:43:00.000-07:00

Just a few questions:

How big would government need to get in order for liberals to be satisfied?

How big would government need to get before liberals would say it's too big? What's the limit?

Into how many areas would the tentacles of government have to reach before liberals would agree that it's too big?

Just wondering.

I aint sayin', I'm just sayin'.

Book Review – The Sun Also Rises – Ernest Hemingway

2009-03-30T05:38:00.000-07:00

The Sun Also Rises is a semi-autobiographical account of a group of friends that go to see a bull fight.

Yup.

That’s it.

That’s about as exciting as it gets.

Oh, and they spend all their time drinking and eating at restaurants, pubs, cafes, and bars.

As you may have already sensed, I did not find the novel very entertaining. This was mainly because nothing really happens to any of the characters. They drink. They hang out. They go fishing. They drink. They talk. They watch a bull fight. They talk. They drink. In a somewhat pathetic display, all the male characters fawn over one tramp that they allow to tag along on all their adventures mostly because she flirts with all the men, and sleeps with half of them. The main characters are mostly young writers, but they all have enough money in the post-WWI era to travel around Europe drinking all along the way.
I can appreciate the story as an autobiographical re-telling of the group’s trip. However, it lacked excitement as a novel. Critical writings on this novel claim it was an account of the “lost generation” -- the post WWI, pre-WWII generation. However, if this represents this generation, it’s no wonder they were considered lost. The characters more closely resemble a group of hobos rather than the educated, enlightened group of young writers some have tried to make them represent.

Read The Sun Also Rises if you want a good description of a bullfight. Be sure to have a strong cup of coffee nearby to get you through. One saving grace is the novel is short at just over 200 pages. Otherwise, skip it, and look for something else if you want to experience Hemingway.

Jim Calhoun Needs to Go

2009-03-26T14:17:00.001-07:00

The sleigh ride is over Connecticut.

The clock is about to strike midnight on the national prominence of the University of Connecticut men’s basketball team.

Even if Jim Calhoun survives these current allegations of recruiting violations, his health and age indicate that his retirement is near. In college basketball, it’s all about the coach. Kentucky was once a perennial basketball power. It was considered on the level of UNC and UCLA as a historical basketball power. This year Kentucky was not even a bubble team for the NCAA tournament. Kentucky’s former coach, Rick Pitino, is now at Louisville. Is it a coincidence that Louisville is the Big East champ, a number one seed, and one of the favorites to win the whole tournament? It’s all about the coach.
John Calipari was once the coach at UMass. During those years, UMass went to the final four of the NCAA tournament. Since John Calipari left for Memphis, UMass has barely scratched the surface of the NCAA tournament. Meanwhile, Memphis made it to the NCAA title game last year, and is a strong number two seed in the tournament this year. It’s all about the coach.

Jim Calhoun’s time with UConn is drawing to a close. Even if these recruiting violation allegations end up proving unfounded (which I have my doubt will happen at this point), Jim Calhoun should have known better. Jim was already a hall-of-fame coach before Nate Miles. We’re not talking about a player with the skills of Michael Jordan here. Why a hall-of-fame coach would subject himself to even the smallest amount of risk for a player the caliber of Miles is beyond comprehension. Calhoun did not need Miles. Calhoun did not need any player at this point in his career. He was above all of this. Regardless of the recruiting violations, why did Calhoun let a questionable character like Josh Nochimson hang around the program? Again, a 67-year-old hall-of-fame coach should have known better.

Besides these alleged recruiting violations, Jim Calhoun has had his rocky moments at UConn. Most recently he made national news for going on a tirade at a press conference when a reported asked him about his salary. This was one of many examples of Calhoun losing his temper. Then there are all the questionable kids Calhoun has recruited over the years resulting in several run-ins with the law (laptop, anyone?).

Regardless of the outcome of this most recent mess, Jim Calhoun’s time is drawing to a close. The party is likely over for Connecticut. Unless UConn is extremely fortunate, Jim Calhoun’s successor will be hard pressed to match the basketball success UConn has enjoyed during the Jim Calhoun era. With no pro-teams, UConn basketball is one of the few bright spots to get the state though cold winters. Remember, Connecticut is one of the few states that have actually lost population over the last few years. Let’s face it, unless you’re a wealthy Manhattan business person, it’s not a great place to try to build a life. Property is high. Taxes are high. The general cost of living is high. The weather is poor. The list goes on. UConn athletics has been one bright spot, and one of the best ambassadors for the state. Jim Calhoun was a major factor in building up UConn athletics. However, as much as Calhoun does not like to admit it, he did not do it alone. He had the support of the University, a staff, other programs (i.e. Geno and the women’s team), but more importantly, he had the support of the people of Connecticut. Hopefully, as his time at the helm of the most important team at the flagship university comes to a close, Jim Calhoun does not tear down much of what he helped to build up.

Obama Can't Find Any Honest Democrats

2009-03-25T06:25:00.000-07:00

I generally don't like to do this, but I read an article in that rag of a magazine called Newsweek that so outraged me that I needed to comment on it.

Apparently, based on this article, all we have to do to address the federal budget deficit is to get Democrats to pay their taxes.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/190355

The writer actually laments that the standards of integrity are too high for the Obama administration. He whines that Obama can't fill posts because it's virtually impossible to find Democrats that follow the law and pay their taxes. The writer almost scoffs at the notion that people actually pay all their taxes as intended.

Wow.

It's hard enough to believe that someone would make this argument, but even more amazing that a so-called reputable news magazine felt the article was appropriate to publish.

Is it really too much to ask that people appointed to positions in the Treasury Department actually pay their taxes?????!!!! Silly me for thinking the government should follow the laws they created. Perhaps Leona Helmsley was right when she said, “Only the little people pay taxes”.

Looks like the tax-cheat-in-chief Geithner has lots of company in the beltway.

Who's the One AIG Executive??

2009-03-24T08:32:00.000-07:00

It's been splashed all over the news today that 9 of the top 10 highest paid AIG executives have given back their bonuses.

I want to know one thing: Who's the one guy who DID NOT give back his bonus?

That's the guy I'd like to interview. That's a guy with some leadership qualities. As said by Jim Calhoun, coach of the University of Connecticut men's basketball team, if I were an AIG executive and I was asked to give back money, my response would also be "Not a dime!".

The government got themselves into this mess. It's similar to loaning money to your dead-beat cousin, then being shocked when he wastes it on booze and gambling. HOPEFULLY the Obama administration has learned something from this. Government should not butt into private industry in this manner. Government should not dump tax money into a failing private enterprise. The failing enterprise is failing for a reason. The market is more than capable of making the necessary corrections without saddling generations of US taxpayers with enormous debt amassed in the name of bailouts because certain institutions are arbitrarily deemed "too big to fail".

It's a fool-me-once-shame-on-you-fool-me-twice-shame-on-me situation. Liberals never learn, so I won't hold my breath.

Blog on Temporary Hold

2009-03-12T09:28:00.000-07:00

Please bare with me as the blog is on temporary hiatus. I am traveling to attend to a business emergency. Regular posts will resume upon my return.

J

Book Review – Rabbit, Run by John Updike

2009-03-04T17:55:00.000-08:00

Usually I most enjoy reading non-fiction, but every once in a while I like to throw in a novel for variety. I generally let time be my filter, sticking mostly to novels that have stood the test of time. Since my reading opportunities are limited, rather than weeding through questionable contemporary novels, I typically concentrate on novels already identified as classics. John Updike recently passed away. Updike is considered one of the most prolific and skilled American writers of his time. Updike wrote novels, short stories, and poetry. In honor of John Updike’s passing, I decided to tackle probably his most famous novel – Rabbit, Run.

Rabbit, Run is the first novel in what eventually became a four novel series chronicling the life of “every man” Harry “Rabbit” Angstrom. Harry is a former high school basketball standout now in his late 20’s dealing with a seven-year-itch-type crisis in his life and marriage. The story centers on Harry’s struggles finding direction in a suburban family life of mediocrity that seems to have boxed him in. He feels he has few options in a disappointing life, and takes to physically fleeing to escape his troubles. However, Harry finds his life “on the road” provides only a temporary respite, in the end leading to more problems for Harry as well as the people he leaves behind.

John Updike has said that he wrote Rabbit, Run as a response to Jack Kerouac's On the Road. On the Road is considered a seminal 1960's novel that helped usher in the "beat generation". Updike's version of the escapist-adventure novel is considered more pedestrian in literary circles. Updike's character escapes to the next town rather than across the country. To me, Rabbit, Run was more enjoyable. It was more real than On the Road. Kerouac's characters struggle little with their responsibilities. They are consumed with a hedonistic quest, worrying little about other people, or really even themselves. Although he does work some odd jobs from time to time, the main character in On the Road is routinely wired money from an aunt in New Jersey. It's easier be wild and free when you are not bound by responsibilities, and have the life-line of an aunt back in Jersey to bail you out. Harry Angstrom in Rabbit, Run struggles to balance his responsibilities against his need for independence. The tone of his adventures are shaped more by Harry's inner feelings of guilt, misgivings, and carnal needs, rather than having adventures fueled by the synthetic aid of drugs and alcohol. Updike spends more time exploring the people left behind. He goes into detail on the reaction of the parents, wife, children, and even the community to Harry's abscondment.

John Updike writes in a style of great detail. He is able to describe scenes down to the littlest detail. This writing style can be a bit of an acquired taste. At first you ask yourself if it's really critical to the plot to describe every fold of a curtain, or every brick of a building. However, by the middle of the novel you come to appreciate Updike's attention to detail as an entire world comes together. As I read the novel, I was astonished to think that Updike, who wrote this novel in his twenties, could be such a polished writer at such a young age. You begin to not only see the novel, but hear, smell, taste, and feel the world of Harry Angstrom. Updike takes a rather unremarkable main character, and makes him interesting by painting an entire world around him. But more remarkable than the details of Harry Angstrom's physical world, are the details in which Harry's feelings are presented. Updike is able to explain Harry's emotions in such a way that is relatable. Throughout the novel, as Updike skillfully describes in great detail what Harry is feeling and thinking, one is able to call upon a time when you had similar feelings. Although unremarkable from the outside, this exquisite inner view into Harry's mind and heart makes Harry the "every man" interesting.

The novel ends abruptly, leaving you wanting more. This certainly must have been what Updike was going for considering 3 other novels followed (Rabbit Redux, Rabbit is Rich, and Rabbit at Rest) in the Rabbit series.

Another Open Call To Liberals -- Rush Limbaugh CPAC Speech Transcript

2009-03-02T10:58:00.000-08:00

It seems lately I've been addressing a liberal audience in my posts nearly as much as a conservative audience!

Liberals -- You claim to be open-minded. I might disagree with this general premise, but not today. Today I plead with you to practice what you preach and read the speech below with a truly open mind. Ignore the jabs. They are attempts at humor. These tweaks are appropriate considering the crowd being addressed. Use an open mind to look beyond those barbs. Be objective. Read the text and tell me, in a civil, studious, debate-like manner where and why you disagree. Teach me. I anticipate I could get a lot of hate-speech comments from liberals considering the source of the below text. I don't want that. I'm issuing a challenge to liberals. Prove to me you can rise above. I want to understand.

We on the right (including conservatives, libertarian-right, even conservative Democrats, etc.) want what's best for the country. That's our motivation. I question the motives of the current leftist movement. Set me straight!

The following is a raw transcript of Rush Limbaugh's speech on the final day of CPAC:

RUSH: Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you all very, very much. Thank you all. I can't tell you how wonderful that makes me feel. It happens everywhere I go, but it's still special here. [ Laughter ] If you all will indulge me, I learned something, I guess, it's early Friday morning that I didn't know. Friday morning is when I learned this. I learned that Fox, God love them, is televising this speech on the Fox News Channel, which means, ladies and gentleman, this is my first ever address to the nation. [Applause] Now, I have someone in back taking phone numbers. In fact, I would like to introduce to you my security chief, a man who runs all of my security. His name is Joseph Stalin. Joseph, would you please --
[Laughter ] I am safe from any liberal attack, in public, because they would be afraid of offending Stalin.
[Laughter] Now the opportunity here to address the nation, a serious one, it really is. And I want to take it seriously. I want to address something. I know that people are probably watching this who never have listened to my program and may not even really know what conservatism is. They think they do based on how they've been told -- the way we've been impugned and maligned and so forth. One of the things that is totally erroneous about me -- and I just want to get this up front -- is that I'm pompous. [Laughter] And that I am arrogant. Neither of these things are remotely true. I can tell you a joke to illustrate this. Larry King passed away, goes to heaven. He's greeted by Saint Peter at the gates. Saint Peter says, "Welcome, Mr. King, it's great to have you here. I want to show you around, give you an idea of what's here, maybe you can pick a place that you'd like to reside." King says, "I just have one question: Is Rush Limbaugh here?" "No, he's got a lot of time yet, Mr. King." So Saint Peter begins the tour. Larry King sees the various places and it's beyond anything we can imagine in terms of beauty. Finally, he gets to the biggest room of all, with this giant throne. And over the throne is a flashing beautiful angelic neon sign that says "Rush Limbaugh."
[Laughter] And Larry King looks at Saint Peter and says: "I thought you said he wasn't here." "He said, he's not, he's not. This is God's room. He just thinks he's Rush Limbaugh."
[Laughter] [Applause] So you see I'm not pompous.
[Laughter] Now, seriously, for those of you watching on C-SPAN as well, and on Fox, I want to tell you who we all are in this room. I want to tell you who conservatives are. We conservatives have not done a good enough job of just laying out basically who we are because we make the mistake of assuming people know. What they know is largely incorrect based on the way we are portrayed in pop culture, in the Drive-By Media, by the Democrat Party. Let me tell you who we conservatives are: We love people. [Applause]
When we look out over the United States of America, when we are anywhere, when we see a group of people, such as this or anywhere, we see Americans. We see human beings. We don't see groups. We don't see victims. We don't see people we want to exploit. What we see -- what we see is potential. We do not look out across the country and see the average American, the person that makes this country work. We do not see that person with contempt. We don't think that person doesn't have what it takes. We believe that person can be the best he or she wants to be if certain things are just removed from their path like onerous taxes, regulations and too much government. [Applause]
We want every American to be the best he or she chooses to be. We recognize that we are all individuals. We love and revere our founding documents, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. [Applause] We believe that the preamble to the Constitution contains an inarguable truth that we are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life. [Applause] Liberty, Freedom. [Applause] And the pursuit of happiness. [Applause] Those of you watching at home may wonder why this is being applauded. We conservatives think all three are under assault. [Applause] Thank you. Thank you.
We don't want to tell anybody how to live. That's up to you. If you want to make the best of yourself, feel free. If you want to ruin your life, we'll try to stop it, but it's a waste. We look over the country as it is today, we see so much waste, human potential that's been destroyed by 50 years of a welfare state. By a failed war on poverty. [Applause] We love the people of this country. And we want this to be the greatest country it can be, but we do understand, as people created and endowed by our creator, we're all individuals. We resist the effort to group us. We resist the effort to make us feel that we're all the same, that we're no different than anybody else. We're all different. There are no two things or people in this world who are created in a way that they end up with equal outcomes. That's up to them. They are created equal, given the chance - -[Applause] We don't hate anybody. We don't -- I mean, the racism in this country, if you ask me, I know many people in this audience -- let me deal with this head on. You know what the cliche is, a conservative: racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe. Excuse me, ladies and gentlemen of America, if you were paying attention, I know you were, the racism in our culture was exclusively and fully on display in the Democrat primary last year. [Applause]
It was not us asking whether Barack Obama was authentic. What we were asking is: Is he wrong? We concluded, yes. We still think so. But we didn't ask if he was authentically black. We didn't say, as some Southern Christian Leadership Conference leaders said: Barack is not authentic, he's not got any slave blood. He's really not down for the struggle, but his wife is. So don't expect the race industry to go away. Southern Christian Leadership Conference -- you may not know this, because it wasn't reported in the Drive-By Media -- the racism, the sexism, the bigotry that we're all charged with, just so you across the United States of America know, and you'll see demonstrated here as the afternoon goes on, doesn't exist on our side. We want everybody to succeed. [Applause] You know why? We want the country to succeed, and for the country to succeed, its people -- its individuals -- must succeed. Everyone among us must be pursuing his ambition or her desire, whatever, with excellence. Trying to be the best they can be. Not told, as they are told by the Democrat Party: You really can't do that, you don't have what it takes, besides you're a minority or you're a woman and there are too many people that want to discriminate against you. You can't get anywhere. You need to depend on us. Well. Take a look, someone has to say this -- I am thrilled for the opportunity to say it in my first national address to the nation -- and I'm going to touch on this in more detail in a moment, but this is just to get you thinking -- take a look at all the constituency groups that for 50 years have been depending on the Democrat Party to improve their lives. And you tell me if you find any. They're still complaining, still griping about the same problems. Their problems don't get fixed by government. And those lives have been poisoned. Those lives have been cut short by false promises, from government representatives who said don't worry about it, we'll take care of you. Just vote for us. [Applause]
For those of you just tuning in on the Fox News Channel or C-SPAN, I'm Rush Limbaugh and I want everyone in this room and every one of you around the country to succeed. I want anyone who believes in life, liberty, pursuit of happiness to succeed. And I want any force, any person, any element of an overarching Big Government that would stop your success, I want that organization, that element or that person to fail. I want you to succeed. [Applause] Also, for those of you in the Drive-By Media watching, I have not needed a teleprompter for anything I've said. [Cheers and Applause ]
And nor do any of us need a teleprompter, because our beliefs are not the result of calculations and contrivances. Our beliefs are not the result of a deranged psychology. Our beliefs are our core. Our beliefs are our hearts. We don't have to make notes about what we believe. We don't have to write down, oh do I believe it do I believe that we can tell people what we believe off the top of our heads and we can do it with passion and we can do it with clarity, and we can do it persuasively. Some of us just haven't had the inspiration or motivation to do so in a number of years, but that's about to change. [Cheers and Applause] For example, we gather here -- I understand that. I talked to David and Lisa in the super exclusive private green room that nobody, but about 55 people were allowed into, and they said that there's a sense of liberation here among all of you that are attending CPAC. I understand what the sense of liberation is about. But don't make the mistake at the same time of feeling liberated as thinking we're better and we can do better as a minority. Because we're not a minority. And if you start thinking of yourselves as a minority, you're going to be defensive. And you'll allow the majority to set the agenda and the premise and you're responding to it. The American people may not all vote the way we wish them to, but more Americans than you now live their lives as conservatives in one degree or another. And they are waiting for leadership. We need conservative leadership. We can take this country back. All we need is to nominate the right candidate. It's no more complicated than that. [Applause]
Now, let me speak about President Obama for just a second. President Obama is one of the most gifted politicians, one of the most gifted men that I have ever witnessed. He has extraordinary talents. He has communication skills that hardly anyone can surpass. No, seriously. No, no, I'm being very serious about this. It just breaks my heart that he does not use these extraordinary talents and gifts to motivate and inspire the American people to be the best they can be. He's doing just the opposite. And it's a shame. [Applause]
President Obama has the ability -- he has the ability to inspire excellence in people's pursuits. He has the ability to do all this, yet he pursues a path, seeks a path that punishes achievement, that punishes earners and punishes -- and he speaks negatively of the country. Ronald Reagan used to speak of a shining city on a hill. Barack Obama portrays America as a soup kitchen in some dark night in a corner of America that's very obscure. He's constantly telling the American people that bad times are ahead, worst times are ahead. And it's troubling, because this is the United States of America. Anybody ever ask -- I'm in awe of our country and I ask this question a lot as I've gotten older. We're less than 300 years old. We are younger than nations that have been on this planet for thousands of years. We, nevertheless, in less than 300 years -- by the way, we're no different than any other human beings around the world. Our DNA is no different. We're not better just because we're born in America. There's nothing that sets us apart. How did this happen? How did the United States of America become the world's lone super power, the world's economic engine, the most prosperous opportunity for an advanced lifestyle that humanity has ever known? How did this happen? And why pray tell does the President of the United States want to destroy it? It saddens me. The freedom we spoke of earlier is the freedom, it's the ambition, it's the desire, the wherewithal, the passions that people have that gave us the great entrepreneurial advances, the great inventions, the greatest food production, the human lifestyle advances in this country. Why shouldn't that be rewarded? Why is that now the focus of punishment? Why is that now the focus of blame? Why doesn't -- Mayor Bloomberg the other day, ladies and gentlemen, resisting his Governor's call for an increased tax on the rich in New York had some astounding numbers. Eight million people live in New York. 40,000 of those eight million pay roughly 60 to 70% of New York's operating budget. He was afraid that if he raised taxes on those people some of them might leave. Mayor, one already has, by the way. [Applause]
Stop and think of this, though. Stop and think of this. Forty thousand people out of eight million. He's right, if 10,000 of them leave, or 5,000, they've got a huge problem. Because New York has its own welfare state inside the one the federal government's created. They've got a dependency class that has grown up and been educated that their entitlement is to be fed and taken care of by these evil mean people who have more than they do. If New York City, New York State or Washington, DC were a business, these 40,000 people would be taken on golf tournament trips to Los Angeles, and they would be wined and dined and they would be thanked and they would be encouraged to keep it up. They wouldn't be told they're the problem. They wouldn't be told, except there's -- I pride my accuracy rating. There is one other business where the customer is always wrong and that's the media. Sorry about that. [Applause]
Have you ever called to complain about whatever they do? They say, yes, sir, yes, sir, three bags full. They hang up and say you're too stupid to know how they're doing what they're doing. You can't get it. You're not sophisticated enough. So that's another business where the customer is always wrong. But, seriously, the people who have achieved great things, most of it is not inherited. Most wealth in this country is the result of entrepreneurial, just plain old hard work. There's no reason to punish it. There's no reason to raise taxes on these people. Barack Obama, the Democrat Party, have one responsibility, and that's to respect the oath they gave to protect, defend and follow the US Constitution. [Applause] They don't have the right to take money that's not theirs, from the back pockets of producers, and give it to groups like ACORN, which are going to advance the Democrat Party. If anybody but government were doing this, it would be a crime. And many of us think it's bordering on that as it exists now. [Applause]
President Obama is so busy trying to foment and create anger in a created atmosphere of crisis, he is so busy fueling the emotions of class envy that he's forgotten it's not his money that he's spending. [Applause] In fact, the money he's spending is not ours. He's spending wealth that has yet to be created. And that is not sustainable. It will not work. This has been tried around the world. And every time it's been tried, it's a failed disaster. What's the longest war in American history? Did somebody say the war on poverty? Smart group. War on poverty. The war on poverty essentially started in the '30s as part of the New Deal, but it really ramped up in the '60s with Lyndon Johnson, part of the Great Society war on poverty. We have transferred something like 10 trillion, maybe close to 11 trillion, from producers and earners to nonproducers and nonearners since 1965. Yet, as I listen to the Democratic Party campaign, why, America is still a soup kitchen, the poor is still poor and they have no hope and they're poor for what reason? They're poor because of us, because we don't care, and because we've gotten rich by taking from them, that's what kids in school are taught today. That's what others have said to the media. You know why they're poor, you know why they remain poor? Because their lives have been destroyed by the never-ending government hay that's designed to help them, but it destroys ambition. It destroys the education they might get to learn to be self-fulfilling. [Applause]
And it breaks our heart. It breaks our heart. We lose track of numbers with all of the money, with all the money that's been transferred, redistributed, with all the charitable giving in this country. Ladies and gentlemen, there ought not be any poverty except those who are genuinely ill equipped. But most of the people in poverty in this country are equipped for far much more. They've just been beaten down. They're told don't worry, we'll take care of you. There's nothing out there for you anyway; you'll be discriminated against. Breaks our heart to see this. We can't have a great country and a growing economy with more and more people being told they have a right, because of some injustice that's been done to them or some discrimination, that they have a right to the earnings of others. And it's gotten so out of hand now that what worries me is that this administration, the Barack Obama administration is actively seeking to expand the welfare state in this country because he wants to control it. George Will once asked Dr. Friedrich Von Hayek, tremendous classical economist, great man, 1975, George Will, Dr. Von Hayek, why is it that intellectuals, supposed smartest people in the room, why is it that intellectuals can look right out their windows, their own homes and cars and look at their universities and not see the bounties and the growth and the greatness of capitalism? And Von Hayek said: I've troubled over this for years and I've finally concluded that for intellectuals, pseudo-intellectuals, and all liberals, it's about control. It's not about raising revenue. You think Obama has any intention of paying for all this spending? Folks, if he had any intention of paying for it, he wouldn't do 90% of it because we don't have the money. [Applause]
They don't care about paying for it. All that's just words. All that's just rhetoric paying for it because he knows you have to worry about paying for it. He knows we all have to be concerned -- oh, except, wrong again. Except the words of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd who were given homes that everybody knew they could never pay for, and now Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, the architects along with Bill Clinton of the policy that gave us the whole sub-prime mortgage crisis, get to sit around and act as innocent spectators to investigate what went on when they largely had the biggest role in causing it. [Applause] Congressman Frank's definition of affordable housing is you get a house you don't have to pay for that everybody else in the neighborhood will pay for. Why? Because it's unfair that some people can have a house and some people can't. Geez, it's just unfair. So here we have two systems. We have socialism, collectivism, Stalin, whatever you want to call it, versus capitalism. Admittedly over on the right side capitalism there will be unequal outcomes because we're all different. And some of us care more and have more passion and we know what we want to do and others are still struggling for it. Some people are just going to work harder than others. Okay. You get what you work for. Those who have a genuine inability for whatever reason are taken care of. We're compassionate people. On the left side when you get into this collectivism socialism stuff, these people on the left, the Democrats and liberals today claim that they are pained by the inequities and the inequalities in our society. And they believe that these inequities and inequalities descend from the selfishness and the greed of the achievers. And so they tell the people who are on different income quintiles, whatever lists, they say it's not that you're not working hard enough, you could have what they have, perhaps, if you applied it. They're stealing it from you.
So what liberals do, and I say this again to the -- another thing, I know people in the country are watching. I was watching a focus group after some event this week. Might have been after Obama's State of the Union show. [Laughter] And they had -- it was a typical, you know, Drive-By Media focus group. They round up losers -- [Laughter] -- who hear Obama speak and think that the next day their gas tanks are going to be filled up and get a new house and a new kitchen and a new car. And so this one guy said -- oh, it was some guy responding to Bobby Jindal. Oh, by the way did you hear about Joe Biden? Joe Biden was mystified how Bobby Jindal got his shift off at 7-Eleven that night to make the speech. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Time out. Suspend speech for explanation. People watching at home. I'm glad this happened. Glad this happened. You think I just made a joke, an ethnic joke about Bobby Jindal, don't you? I didn't. I made a joke about the bigotry of the Vice President of the United States, Joe Biden. It was Joe Biden while walking through the train station he knows so well because he's such a real guy, that he made a comment that you can't go into a 7-Eleven without seeing some Indian guy behind the counter. They're all over the place. Now, let a conservative say something like that and he's brought up before John Conyers' committee with Pat Leahy wanting at you next. Many people think I lose my place in these speeches because -- by the way what time is it? We have plenty of time. We have to be out of here by -- [Applause]
We have to be out of here by 6:00 -- okay, depends on how you behave. I'll decide as we go on. What liberalism Democrat, for those of you in the country, I really want you to believe this because it's the truth. I'm not saying it just because I believe it. This is a core. I want the best country we can have. We want the most prosperous people. We want to be growing. We want to lead the world. We want everybody to come here legally. We want this country to be so damn great and we just cringe to watch it -- basically capitalism be assaulted and our culture be reoriented to where the people that make it work are the enemy. That's not the United States of America. The people that make this country work, the people who pay on their mortgages, the people getting up and going to work, striving in this recession to not participate in it, they're not the enemy. They're the people that hire you. They're the people that are going to give you a job. They're the people that are going to give you a raise, the people that need you to do work for them. [Applause]
President Obama, and take your pick of any Democrat, love to say we've tried it your way. Meaning Reaganism. We've tried it your way. We tried it your way in the '80s and it didn't work. We tried it your way eight years, the last eight years and it didn't work. Excuse me. Excuse me. Have you ever noticed those of you watching around the world in my first international address to the world, Fox is on some international satellites. They're watching this in the UK right now going (cringing). When Obama talks about past economies, he somehow always leaves out the recession of the '80s as worse than this one. Why does he leave it out? Because you know why he leaves it out, America? He leaves it out because we got out of that recession with tax cuts. [Applause] For those of you watching at home, I'm not nervous it's just really hot in here. These people are wired. We got out of the 1980s recession with tax cuts. Do you know that President Obama, in six weeks of his administration, has proposed more spending than from the founding of the country to his inauguration? Now, this is not prosperity. It is not going to engender prosperity. It's not going to create prosperity and it's also not going to advance or promote freedom. It's going to be just the opposite. There are going to be more controls over what you can and can't do, how you can and can't do it, what you can and can't drive, what you can and can't say, where you can and can't say it. All of these things are coming down the pike, because it's not about revenue generation to them, it's about control. They do believe that they have compassion. They do believe they care. But, see, we never are allowed to look at the results of their plans, we are told we must only look at their good intentions, their big hearts. The fact that they have destroyed poor families by breaking up those families by offering welfare checks to women to keep having babies no more father needed, he's out doing something, the government's the father, they destroy the family. We're not supposed to analyze that. We're not supposed to talk about that. We're supposed to talk about their good intentions. They destroy people's futures. The future is not Big Government. Self-serving politicians. Powerful bureaucrats. This has been tried, tested throughout history. The result has always been disaster. President Obama, your agenda is not new. It's not change, and it's not hope. [Applause]
Spending a nation into generational debt is not an act of compassion. All politicians, including President Obama, are temporary stewards of this nation. It is not their task to remake the founding of this country. It is not their task to tear it apart and rebuild it in their image. (Crowd chanting "USA")
It is not their task, it is not their right to remake this nation to accommodate their psychology. I sometimes wonder if liberalism is not just a psychosis or a psychology, not an ideology. It's so much about feelings, and the predominant feeling that liberalism is about is about feeling good about themselves and they do that by telling themselves they have all this compassion. You know, if you really want to unhinge a liberal it's hard to do because they're so unhinged now anyway, even after -- but all you have to do is say you know that the things you people do, the things you people believe in are cruel. That's the last way they look at themselves. They are the best people on the -- they're the good people. You tell them that their ideas and that their policies are cruel and the eggs start scrambling. I have learned how to tweak liberals everywhere. I do it instinctively now. Tweak them in the media. And no reason to be afraid of these people. Why in the world would you be afraid of the deranged? There really is no reason to be afraid of them. And there's no reason to assume they're the minority. And there's no reason to let them set all the premises and all the agendas to which we respond to. I'm getting a little bit ahead of myself here but everybody asks me and I'm sure it's been a focal point of your convention: What do we do as conservatives? What do we do? How do we overcome this? Well, the one thing, and there are many, but one thing that we can all do is stop assuming that the way to beat them is with better policy ideas right now. I don't want to name any names. It's not the point.
But I talk to people about the Obama budget or the Obama Porkulous bill or whatever else TARP 2 whatever it's going to be, and they start talking to me in the terms of process and policy. I say stop it. What do you mean? Who is setting the process or policy? They are. You want to tweak it? No. This is philosophy, folks. This guy, I forgot -- the guy in the focus group after Bobby Jindal said, I didn't want to hear him talk, he said: Republicans and Democrats. Republicans and Democrats. Ladies and gentlemen of the United States of America, that's exactly what your future is about, who wins, Republicans or Democrats, conservatives versus liberals. The notion of partisanship, false premise. Let me define bipartisanship for you. Bipartisanship -- everybody seems to go orgasmic over the concept of bipartisanship. Don't worry, I checked with Fox, that word's okay. [Laughter] [Applause]
Remember, they covered the Lewinsky thing, so that's my -- bipartisanship occurs only after one other result, and that is victory. In other words, let's say as conservatives liberals demand that we be bipartisan with them in Congress. What they mean is: We check our core principles at the door, come in, let them run the show and agree with them. That's bipartisanship to them. To us, bipartisanship is them being forced to agree with us after we politically have cleaned their clocks and beaten them. And that has to be what we're focused on. [Applause] Why would any of us in this room who hold the core beliefs we believe, somebody tell me where is the compromise on all of this spending? Where is the compromise on all this punishment of the achievers. I don't know. [Laughter] [Applause]
Where is the compromise between good and evil? Should Jesus have cut a different deal? Serious. From the standpoint of what we have to do, folks, this is not about taking a policy or a process that the Democrats have put forward and fighting around the edges. If we're going to convince the minds and hearts of the American people that what's about to happen to them is as disastrous as anything in their lives in peacetime, we're going to have to discuss philosophy with them. We are going to have to talk about principles, because our principles are not present in what's happening here. So where the hell do we go to compromise what we believe in when our principles are not their principles, they're just the opposite of what's happening? [Applause]
The American people -- it's a tough challenge. I admit -- I admit it's a tough challenge, but it's worth it. It's worth it. The way I just defined bipartisanship you could turn it around and liberals will define bipartisanship when we surrender and say okay we give. We're not quitting. We are not giving up. The country is too important. [Applause] There are certain realities. We don't have the votes in Capitol Hill to stop what's going to happen. What we can do is slow it down, procedure, parliamentary procedures, slow it down and do the best we can to inform the American people of what's really on the horizon. I know it's going to be tough. At some points, I don't think it can happen even right now. This is still the honeymoon period, and there's a lot of devotion to the Obama administration. It doesn't have anything to do with intellectual thinking, it's feelings. It's going to take some time for this to play out. But I spoke to David Keene, interviewing him for my newsletter. I asked him about this. He said they're going to overreach. Wouldn't you say they have? [Laughter].
They're going to overreach. At some point, at some point people have got to realize none of this is possible. You can't have people living in homes they don't pay for. You can't have people driving cars they don't pay for. I mean, you can for a while. But after a while the people paying for it -- screw this. We're not putting up with it. And you're going to see -- you're already starting to see evidence of these. All the tea parties that are starting to bubble up out there. Those are great. Fabulous. [Applause] And here's the big question. Here's the big question. And I ask this again in the context of my first address to the nation. [Laughter] You don't know how I love saying that, how excited I am about this. Aside from the bastardization of the Constitution that the Obama plans are, that TARP is, it's not constitutional. Aside from that, where is the evidence that the people offering all of this have ever succeeded in any similar plans before? There's none. There is no evidence it works. [Applause]
So you say how is he getting it done? Dumb down public education. Emotions. And the ongoing -- this is why I think it's such a waste for a man as gifted as President Obama with the communications skills, you know he could wipe out the Republican Party. He can wipe out the Republican Party if he would inspire this country to be the best it could be, but we don't have to worry about that because that's not what he wants. He wants people in fear, angst and crisis, fearing the worst each and every day because that clears the decks for President Obama and his pals to come in with the answers, which are abject failures, historically shown and demonstrated. Doesn't matter. They'll have control of it when it's all over. And that's what they want. Because they think they can do it better. They see these inequalities, these inequities that capitalism produces. How do they fix it? Do they try to elevate those at the bottom? No! They try to tear down the people at the bottom. It's not fair you're up there. So they whack us. That's not what made the country great.[Applause] And no evidence of it is in play here. John Kerry [Boos], who served in Vietnam. [Laughter] Think about this, and, by the way, Barney Frank got involved with this, too. Northern Trust, a bank in Chicago -- by the way, which holds the mortgage to the Messiah's house, purchased by Tony Rezko, Northern Trust holds the mortgage. Northern Trust was forced, like Wells Fargo was forced, to take TARP money. The Wells Fargo CEO said they were taken into Paulson's room and they were given until 5:00 to sign it. They weren't getting out until they did. They wanted it spread all over the banking business. 17.35.34 Northern Trust was in there. They didn't want it. They took $1.6 billion. As you know, they went out and they sponsored the LA Riveria Open two weeks ago that Phil Mickelson barely hung on and won. [Applause]
And we find out they hired some liberals to entertain, but it still wasn't good enough. They hired Sheryl Crow. And they hired the rock crooner group Chicago, but they had the audacity, Northern Trust did, to entertain their clients, to try to reward their best customers, to get new customers, banking is in trouble, Northern Trust is trying to do what they always do, what all businesses do, and that is mine for new clients and reward existing good customers. Not since they took $1.6 billion, I guess. The haughty John Kerry wrote a piece of legislation said: He's getting sick and tired, sick and tired of these CEOs using taxpayer money to throw all these lavish parties. And I'm saying where do you get yours, Senator? [Applause] Sad thing, sad thing is it works. They've created class envy in so many average Americans that they love hearing that. Yeah, you get even with those bank guys. How is it going to improve here? Let me ask a question for those of you watching my first national address. Take the favorite villain you've got, maybe it's John Thain at Merrill Lynch, because he used his own money, his company's own money, his company's own money, to redecorate a bathroom in an office for $1.2 million. By the way, to do that he had to hire a contractor. They got paid. Had to hire a designer and buy furniture, that's called stimulus. And he did it. But all of a sudden John Thain's thrown out. John Thain is thrown out. He's humiliated and embarrassed; how dare he? He did it a year before they took the TARP money. And all these Congressmen are standing up saying this is not going to happen. We are not going to watch these people capping executive pay while Obama tries to live like one. You know, he's trying to emulate the lifestyle he is attacking. That's what liberals do. Two sets of rules: One for them; one for everybody else. But it's coming. See, if you think that John Thain or the Northern Trust CEO, if you love them getting attacked, if you love them being ripped, ask yourself the next day, do you have any more money in your pocket? Is your life any better because that guy got taken out or down by some haughty senator from Massachusetts?
If you ask yourself this, you'll realize your life is no better off. That the Democrats and Obama are asking you to feel better simply on the basis that they're going to get revenge for you, but your life isn't going to improve, somebody else's is just going to be destroyed and they want you to be happy over that. That's sick. And that is not the United States of America. [Applause] Besides, as far as John Kerry is concerned, if it wasn't for his varicose veins, he would be totally colorless. [Laughter] 17.39.13 Now let's talk about the conservative movement as it were. We, ladies and gentlemen, have challenges that are part and parcel of a movement that feels it has just suffered a humiliating defeat when it's not humiliating. This wasn't a landslide victory, 52 to, what, 46. Fifty-eight million people voted against Obama. There would have been more if we would have had a conservative nominee. [Applause]
I don't mean that -- I mean that in an instructive way, as a lead-in to what I'm talking about here. No humiliating defeat here. I can't -- sometimes I get livid and angry. We do have an organizational problem. We have a challenge. We've got factions now within our own movement seeking power to dominate it, and worst of all to redefine it. Well, the Constitution doesn't need to be redefined. Conservative intellectuals, the Declaration of Independence does not need to be redefined and neither does conservatism. Conservatism is what it is and it is forever. It's not something you can bend and shape and flake and form. [Applause] Thank you. Thank you. 17. For the purposes of this occasion, I'm not going to mention any names, I bet with you I won't have to. People watching my first address to the nation might be curious what I'm talking about. They'll find out in due course, trust me on this. I cringed -- it might have been 2007, late 2007 or sometime during 2008, but a couple of prominent conservative but Beltway establishment media types began to write on the concept that the era of Reagan is over. [Crowd Booing]
And that we needed to adapt our appeal, because, after all, what's important in politics is winning elections. And so we have to understand that the American people, they want Big Government. We just have to find a way to tell them we're no longer opposed to that. We will come up with our own version of it that is wiser and smarter, but we've got to go get the Walmart voter, and we've got to get the Hispanic voter, and we've got to get the recalcitrant independent women. And I'm listening to this and I am just apoplectic: The era of Reagan is over? When the hell do you hear a Democrat say the era of FDR is over? You never hear it. Not only that, the President of the United States today thinks he's FDR, thinks he's Abraham Lincoln, and sometimes, Tuesday night, thinks he's Ronald Reagan. Our own movement has members trying to throw Reagan out while the Democrats know they can't accomplish what they want unless they appeal to Reagan voters. We have got to stamp this out within this movement, because it will tear us apart. It will guarantee we lose elections. [Applause]
We have to. You see, to me it's a no-brainer. It's not even something to me: How do you get rid of Reagan from conservatism? The blueprint -- the blueprint for landslide conservative victory is right there. Why in the hell do the smartest people in our room want to chuck it? I know why. I know exactly why. It's because they're embarrassed of some of the people who call themselves conservatives. These people in New York and Washington, cocktail elitists, they get made fun of when the next NASCAR race is on TV and their cocktail buds come up to them, those people are in your party? How do you put up with this? It would be easy to throw them overboard, so as to maintain these cocktail party/Beltway/New York City/inside-the-Beltway media relationships. 17.44.01 But I tell you: This notion that Reaganism is dead, conservatism needs to be refined, let's take a look at this. We've got to go get the Walmart voter. I opened my remarks tonight by telling the people watching on Fox who we conservatives are. When I look out at you in this audience, I don't see a Walmart voter. And I don't see a black, and I don't see a woman, and I don't see a Hispanic. I see human beings who happen to be fortunate enough to be the luckiest people on Earth since you are Americans. [Applause]
Conservatism -- for us to make the decision that we've got to figure out policies, to get the Walmart voter -- psst, we've got most of them already, is the bottom line. Conservatism is a universal set of core principles. You don't check principles at the door. This is a battle that we're going to have. And there are egos involved here, too. When the situation like ours exists, there are people who want to lead it. They want to redefine it. Their egos are such that they want to be the next X, whoever it is. So there will be different factions lining up to try to define what conservatism is.

And beware of those different factions who seek as part of their attempt to redefine conservatism, as making sure the liberals like us, making sure that the media likes us. They never will, as long as we remain conservatives. They can't possibly like us; they're our enemy. In a political arena of ideas, they're our enemy. They think we need to be defeated. Why do you think -- you all in this room know this. For those of you watching at home, my first address to the nation -- [Laughter] -- I'm sure you paid close enough attention, that you knew at one time Senator McCain was the favorite Republican of all the cable news networks and the Sunday shows. And they would just -- I mean their tongues would be on the floor. The media people (panting) when they knew McCain was coming. And they would treat McCain as the greatest guy in the world. Did you wonder why? You were told he was moderate. He was not strict. He was not an authoritarian, he was able to walk to the other side of the aisle, able to get along with the enemy. And everybody wants love and bipartisanship. That's not why they invited Senator McCain. They invited Senator McCain because he happened to be the loudest at criticizing his own president and his own party and that's what they want, is people from our side -- and there will be factions in our movement, folks, who are going to make an effort to say we have to grow, we can't stay stale, I think I heard the term used the other day. Nothing stale about freedom. There's nothing stale about liberty. There's nothing stale about fighting for it. Nothing stale whatsoever. [Applause] Freedom. Are you getting tired of standing up, I don't blame you. By the way for those watching on TV you think the standing -- people are just tired. They've been up and out of their chairs 100 times here. [Applause]
Thank you. Freedom -- freedom is the natural yearning of the human spirit as we were endowed by our creator. And the United States of America is the place in the world where that yearning flourishes, where freedom is expected because it's part of the way we're created.
I loved it when the Soviet Union went down and the wall went down and the liberals in our country said you know they may not be ready for freedom over there. They've been oppressed -- yes, liberals will gladly tell you who can have freedom and who can't. And that's what the pieces of legislation are all about, folks, freedom, liberty, economic prosperity, they're all entwined here. We'll have to as a conservative movement understand that our job, after we come to an agreement among ourselves, which shouldn't be hard but it's going to be difficult because the people that think they're smarter than everybody else are going to be out there forging alliances with people that try to make themselves look like new power brokers, and they will become the spokesmen, by the way. By the way, explain that to you. This is a funny story. Show you how I can hijack a news cycle even by doing anything. The Tuesday before the inauguration, President Bush invited me to the Oval Office for lunch. And it was on and off the record, some of the conversations. And he brought out, interesting, at the end of it -- my birthday had been the day before. He brought out a chocolate birthday cake, a microphone, and stood beside me with Ed Gillespie and sang happy birthday. Photographers taking pictures. I wish my parents were alive. My parents wouldn't believe my life. They came out of the Great Depression. They didn't think it was possible for somebody who did not go to college -- and even for people who did -- they didn't think this was possible. Life has changed so much for the better in this country.
That's why I cringe when I see what is in store. So as I'm flying home from lunch, I'm watching television and I see that the word has leaked out that Obama is hosting a dinner with conservative media pundits at the home of George Will. I said: I wonder who these people are? [Laughter] In the media, one of them is going to have to leak it. Sure as heck, one did. Now, we all know who were there. And let's see -- I can't remember all the names, so I won't mention any. But let me tell you Obama's purpose. Does anybody really think that Barack Obama had dinner with a bunch of conservatives hoping they would change his mind?
CROWD: No!
RUSH: Hell, no. His purpose -- and his purpose really wasn't to change theirs -- his purpose was to anoint them as conservative spokesmen. These are the people that Obama's willing to break bread with. These happen -- some of the people there happen to be the people who think the era of Reagan is over, who believe that conservatism needs to be redefined. Of course Obama would try to lure them in. Well, all of a sudden I land. I get home about 5:00, and my e-mail is jammed with questions from reporters, are you, is that why you took the day off today? Is that why you're not on the air? Are you going to dinner with Obama? By the way, I left out a crucial part of the story. Was this a Monday, Kit? It was a Tuesday. I had forgotten to tell my audience that I was going to miss the next day. I signed off the show saying I'll see you tomorrow. That's the last thing I said. The staff reminded me you're not going to be here tomorrow. I came up with a plan, that the guest host the next day would say that I was called out of town to Washington at midnight the night before. Just an innocent little trick on the radio audience. Everybody picked that up and thinks I'm invited to the Obama dinner. So those people that were invited to it got less coverage than I did and I didn't even know about it. [Laughter] It was fun. [Applause]
Conservatives are naturally happy. We seek happiness. We pursue it. It's part of who we are. So what can you do? Live your life. I swear, folks, you do not know in just the everyday life that you live in your homes, your neighborhoods, the favorite word of this administration, your "communities." Remember the root word there is "commune." [Applause] Be happy, live your life according to your values and principles. Know you're going to fail, no human being is perfect, you're going to make mistakes, but live your life -- you'll be stunned at how many people you impress. Don't be afraid to tell children that they're wrong. They don't know what you do. They simply haven't lived long enough. It's not their fault, but they're being fed a bunch of garbage in school and don't be afraid to tell them that they're wrong. Don't go the Oprah route and say gotta be friends with my parents, my kids, first and foremost. Understand they're going to hate you for a while and they're going to rebel against you and someday they're going to think you're the smartest person they ever met. But you owe them the truth. You owe them the truth about things. You owe them the truth about morality. You owe them the truth about values. [Applause]
You owe them the truth about politics. Next thing, we've got to stop treating voters as children. [Applause]
Somebody says they want something that's bad for them, do you give it to them just to be nice? Or do you tell them, regardless of their age, no, you shouldn't have that? Well, it's none of your business. Maybe not. And then you back out of it. But you still have to have the ability to tell people what's right and wrong. And that's not authoritative. That's not authoritarian. And it's not trying to deny somebody a good time. It's not trying to interrupt somebody's hedonism, pleasure, it's about all of us with shared values trying to make sure that people live the highest quality lives they can. Ultimately, it's their decision as to what they do. But the point is, don't treat them -- especially voters -- as kids just -- they say they want it okay we'll come up with a plan to give it to you. Have any of you seen the movie -- I'd never heard of it, but I happened to get a DVD the other day. Anybody see the movie Swing Vote with Kevin Costner? You know, it's kind of a moronic movie like most things out of Hollywood are. But this is fascinating in the way -- tell you a short story, because a voter screwup in New Mexico there's one voter who is going to elect the president. His vote didn't count because his daughter voted for him. I won't give the whole story away. But New Mexico's electoral votes, New Mexico's electoral votes determined it. And they have a two-week period before this guy can vote again. So the challenger and the president both relocate to where this guy lives in New Mexico and they end up like the Democrat played by Dennis Hopper stands for antiabortion.
The Democrat candidate comes out with a commercial for life. The Republican candidate comes out, because this guy is an idiot and doesn't know what he believes, and every utterance that he makes these politicians react to it throwing their principles on the floor, just to get his vote. Sadly, this is what some of the conservative intellectuals in our movement want to do, essentially. And that we cannot do. We've got to stand for what we believe and treat people as adults and understand they can learn. [Applause]
Go optimism. Joe Biden, ladies and gentlemen, was watching CBS -- when did you start here? Thursday. You might have seen this. The days run together. It might have been Wednesday, but Biden was on the CBS Early Show. And he was asked -- the anchorette -- sorry. I'm trying to change my ways. I've been doing women summit programs so not to offend women. The anchor, Maggie Rodriguez, went out and got some man-on-the-street questions. And one guy, woman, I think question for Biden. What is in the stimulus package for small business? Biden was clearly stumped because there isn't anything in the stimulus package for small business. So what Biden said, honest to God, what Biden said was: Well, if there's a bridge to your small business, we're going to make sure that bridge stays open so that you can get to your small business and your customers -- honest. I kid you not. Now, of course, the media today is a bunch of hacks, they're out there as PR agents; they're starting to get a little embarrassed. Maggie Rodriguez says, Senator Biden, there's a website that answers all these questions. What is the name of the website and Biden says I don't know. He looks off stage. "Does somebody have the website number?" [Applause]
I realize those of you watching at home during my first address to the nation, you have never heard liberal Democrats be made fun of in this way. Get used to it. [Applause]
Two other things and we'll get out of here contractually over time. The president's stimulus package, the TARP, the whatever, the budget, relies on one thing for its success. Well, aside from authoritarian government power. It relies on the complacency of the American people. It relies on their belief that they can convince the American people that there's such a crisis that only government, the only entity that can fix it is government, as Obama has said. So they get complacent and they sit around and they wait. See, this is something liberals will never understand about the United States of America and it's right under their noses, right in front of their faces, we are a competitive people. We strive, enough of us do, to be the best. We strive to win. We strive to avoid defeat. Enough of us still do. Don't believe otherwise. The liberals have made efforts to shut that aspect of our nature down. Wherever you live, I am certain that you, when you were a child or your kids today in youth sports are told not to keep score, because the losers, it's just not fair. They'd be humiliated, especially if one girl's basketball team can defeat another one 100 to nothing. And let's fire the coach who put that game together. It's so unfair. So let's not keep score. Well, here's the dirty little secret. The kids are keeping score. [Applause] You know they are. They don't want to lose. They know what winning and losing is. They're saying, well, why go out there and put on the pads and play football or T-Ball if the objective here is to not keep score. So they're keeping score. They get in the car with mom and dad and they tell mom and dad: Yeah, we kicked their butts tonight. Wait a minute, I thought you weren't keeping score. They weren't officially. They keep score. We're competitive people. Adults are doing the same thing.
It didn't take long for people to get fired up when they figured out that they're going to be paying mortgages for people who should never have been lent money in the first place for the bogus excuse of maintaining property values in the neighborhood. This is something that -- the complacency of the American people is something they're going to rely on along with their authoritarian efforts to control it. But they will not succeed at this. Because we're not quitters. We don't acquiesce. We're not going to give up the American dream and watch idly while it is restructured and transformed. [Applause]
As I say, we want the best: Happiness for everybody. Now, about my still-to-me mysteriously controversial comment that I hope President Obama fails. I was watching the Super Bowl. And as you know, I love the Pittsburgh Steelers. [Cheers and Applause] So they have this miraculous scoring drive that puts them up by four, 15 seconds left. Kurt Warner on the field for the Cardinals. And I sure as heck want you to know I hope he failed. I did not want the Cardinals to win. I wanted Warner to make the biggest fool of himself possible. I wanted a sack, I wanted anything. I wanted the Steelers to win. I wanted to win. I wanted the Cardinals to fail. This notion that I want the President to fail, folks, this shows you a sign of the problem we've got. That's nothing more than common sense and to not be able to say it, why in the world do I want what we just described, rampant government growth indebtedness, wealth that's not even being created yet that is being spent, what is in this? What possibly is in this that anybody of us wants to succeed? Did the Democrats want the war on Iraq to fail!
CROWD: Yes!
RUSH: They certainly did. They not only wanted the war in Iraq to fail, they proclaimed it a failure. There's Dingy Harry Reid waiving a white flag: [doing Harry Reid impression] "This war is lost. This war is" --
[Cheers and Applause]
They called General Petraeus a liar before he even testified. Mrs. Clinton -- [Crowd Booing] -- said she had to, willingly suspend disbelief in order to listen to Petraeus. We're in the process of winning the war. The last thing they wanted was to win. They hoped George Bush failed. So what is so strange about being honest to say that I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation? Why would I want that to succeed? [Applause]
Let me add a caveat here. My friends, I know what's going on. I know what's going on. We're in the aspects here of an historic presidency. I know that. But let me be honest again. I got over the historical aspects of this in November. President Obama is our president. President Obama stands for certain things. I don't care, he could be a Martian. He could be from Michigan, I don't know -- just kidding. Doesn't matter to me what his race is. It doesn't matter. He's liberal is what matters to me. And his articulated -- his articulated plans scare me. Now, I understand we can't say we want the President to fail, Mr. Limbaugh. That's like saying -- this is the voice of the New Castrati, by the way, guys who have lost their guts. You can't say Mr. Limbaugh that you want the President to fail because that's like saying you want the country to fail. It's the opposite. I want the country to survive. I want the country to succeed. [Cheers and Applause]
[Crowd Chanting "USA" ] I want the country to survive as we have known it, as you and I were raised in it, is what I mean. Now, I have been called -- and I can take it. Pioneers take the arrows, I don't mind what anybody says about me, any time ever. I don't have time for it. I don't give other people the power to offend me. And you shouldn't either, by the wasted time being offended.[Applause]
I mean, there's some people you can't say you want the President to fail. Ladies and gentlemen of the United States, the Democrat Party has actively not just sought the failure of Republican presidents and policies and now wars for the first time, the Democrat Party doesn't stop at failure. Talk to Judge Robert Bork or Justice Clarence Thomas about how they tried to destroy lives, reputations and character, and I'm supposed to say I don't want the President to fail? [Applause] We're in for a real battle. We are talking about the United States of America -- and there will always be an America, don't misunderstand me -- we're talking about it remaining the country we were all born into and reared and grown into. And it's under assault. It's always under assault. But it's never been under assault like this from within before. And it's a serious, serious battle. So as you leave here, as you leave here optimism, confidence, not guilt, it's not worth it. There's nothing to be guilty about. Don't treat people as children. Respect their intelligence. Realize that there's a way to persuade people. Sometimes the worst way is to get in their face and point a finger. Set up a set of circumstances where the conclusion is obvious. Let them think they came up with the idea themselves. They'll think they're smart that they figured it out. Who cares how you persuade them, the fact they can be persuaded is factually correct, it's possible. But the main thing to do here is stop thinking that we are a minority. Stop thinking that it is being in the minority that liberates you. It is your beliefs. It is your core principles, it is your confidence that liberates you. It's not being in the minority. In fact, for those of you watching my first national address and still hanging in there, we really are not that happy about being a minority and we're out to change it. [Applause]
So I have -- I've gone over my allotted time by an hour. [Applause]
I want to thank all of you so much for everything that you have meant to me and my family in my life.
CROWD: Thank you.
RUSH: I understand it's mutual. And I hear people -- you have made my heart grow so much that it barely fits in my chest cavity here tonight. But the things that by virtue of your listening to my radio show and being active in this movement that we all cherish and love, you have meant more to me, my family and my life than whatever it is I might mean to you, even though I know that's considerable. [Applause]
You still can't outdo the absolute joy and awe and thanks I feel for all of you. I've been doing this for 20 years and the numbers just keep growing. And I can't tell you how appreciative I am and proud to be in a movement with the same passions, desires and core beliefs that all of you have, because we know that it's right for the country, and we know it's right for people. It's not something that has to be forced on them. It's not something that has to be authoritatively pressed on them. We are what is, and that's why we are an enemy because we're effective. The people that do want control look at us as the enemy. We're always going to be -- don't ever measure your success by how many Drive-By Media reports you see that are fair to us. Never going to happen. Don't measure your success by how many people like you. Just worry about how they vote. And then at the end of the day how they live, but that's really none of your business once they close the doors. Thank you all very much. It's been great.

How to Contact Your Representative in Congress

2009-02-28T18:05:00.001-08:00

If you ever feel the need to make your voice heard, you can find contact information for you Senators and Representatives at the following link:

http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

Hartford Tea Party Largely a Disappointment

2009-02-27T12:32:00.000-08:00

I attended the "Hartford Tea Party" today during lunch. It was the first time I've attended something that might be classified as a political protest. I'm sorry to say that my worst fears were confirmed. Don't get me wrong, the people at the event were good people. I believe in the ideals of the event. However, the event was just not that well attended. There were maybe 200 people struggling with forced group chants. Although there are few people as anti-big-government as I, I have to admit I felt mostly silly standing there among the meager crowd of patriots adorned with signs, bells, and costumes. If this event was going to be effective, it would have needed closer to 200,000 people, rather than 200.

The purpose of the event was the protest "pork" spending. However, one problem is that so-called pork is not the only government over-indulgence. Even if all the pork were removed from the state and federal budgets, we would still be spending unseemly sums of money. Even with all the pork trimmed, the expanding reach of government would continue to tighten its grip on our personal liberties. We need more than a fat trim. We need a serious roll back of government. Unfortunately, we are getting just the opposite with the current administration and congress.

I, like many responsible citizens out there, fell helpless. That's why I went to the Hartford Tea Party. I thought, perhaps if we band together we can make a difference. It was reassuring to know that even in a deep blue state like Connecticut, there are still some sensible citizens out there. It was reassuring to hear people blow their car horns in support. The print, TV, and radio journalists were there to cover the event (with a special appearance by Jim Vicevich), so perhaps the message reached some new people. Maybe, but I fear that in reality it was just a waste of a lunch hour.

Hartford Tea Party -- TODAY (2-27-2009) 12-1 -- Directions

2009-02-27T06:33:00.000-08:00

Political protest against big government.

Gathering on the Supreme Court steps at 11:45 AM.

Directions:

http://www.jud.ct.gov/directory/directory/directions/supremecourt.htm

Liberals – Is this REALLY what you wanted?

2009-02-20T13:17:00.000-08:00

An open plea to liberals:

Liberals, you finally got your wish. You got your liberal in office, and not just any liberal. Not John Kerry, or Al Gore, or even Bill Clinton. You got the uber-liberal, the leftist, the socialist, Barack Hussein Obama. You got your big government man.

I want to hear from HONEST liberals – is it everything you thought it would be? Big, wasteful government. Rewarding failure. Punishing achievement. Stoking class envy. Turning a blind eye to corruption. Wallowing in hypocrisy.

Liberals, I want to hear from you! Please tell me why I should be happy. Make me hopeful. Make a case for your big government plan. Use some logic to convince me that this spending bill will work! Please! I need some of that audacity of hope to rub off on me.

Many proclaimed that the Obama election would be the “end of conservativism”. If this is liberalism in action, it’s quite possible that just the opposite may come to pass. People are more fearful and distrusting of the government than ever. It’s possible that liberalism will fail miserably and the illogic of liberalism will come to light to the masses that are doped by the liberalism opiate. I’m not making any predictions. I have too much respect for the political savvy and tenacity of liberals to make any predictions. I’m merely pointing out the possibility.

Be careful what you wish for because you just might get it.

Government Violated A-Rod's Trust

2009-02-11T06:44:00.001-08:00

Note: Author is a Red Sox fan.

Alex Rodriguez has a right to be mad. Out of 104 players that tested positive in the supposedly secret and anonymous 2003 MLB steroid testing, his was the only name leaked from the court sealed results.

The government and MLB is presently on a steroids witch-hunt with pending criminal investigations against retired star pitcher Roger Clemens and out-of-work star outfielder Barry Bonds, as well as actual charges filed against all-star infielder Miguel Tejada. However, investigation into the government leaks of supposedly anonymous tests that were sealed under court order have been slower in coming. Perhaps something is in-process on this, but thus far, not much is being mentioned about the lies told to players regarding the testing. The players union agreed to the testing under the auspices that the results would not be shared. This has clearly been violated. Furthermore, the court order sealing the results has also been violated.

This is not just a matter of embarrassment for Alex Rodriguez and the union. This will impact A-Rod financially. His name has been sullied which will certainly cost him endorsement money. If the travails of Mark McGuire are any indication, this could also cost A-Rod election into baseball's hall of fame. It's hard to come down on the side of illegal drug users, but even criminals have rights. This information should never have been made public.

Some may argue that A-Rod took the illegal drugs, so he's getting what he deserves. The argument is that regardless of how it come out, and regardless of the repercussions, in the end justice is served. To me, that's not the issue. A-Rod's rights were violated. He, and all the players in MLB were lied to. If the testing was truly for the purposes of understanding the impact of steroids, samples should have been collected without traceability, i.e. no identification should have been put on the samples to trace a particular sample back to a particular player. The samples should then have been destroyed. Major League Baseball, lead by the commissioner, has struck out on this one.

I rarely come down on the side of unions, but I hope the players union sues MLB for this violation.

MLB is one thing, but what's the government's culpability in this matter? The results were sealed under court order. Courts are part of the judicial branch, and the last I checked, the judicial branch is part of the government. In my mind, the players, specifically A-Rod, may have a case against the government. The government was responsible for keeping the results secret. They were entrusted with this data. They broke that trust. What if the blood tests showed a player had an embarrassing disease or condition not related to baseball performance that he wished to keep private? Would it be acceptable for that information to be leaked too? This situation is a great argument for the civil libertarians that are against the government collecting data on citizens. This plays into the whole government sponsored health care debate. President Obama is presently pushing for a program to digitize all patients health records to improve medical industry efficiency. Based on how well the government kept the MLB steroid testing data, would you trust this same government to keep your health records safe? Imagine your health records are leaked to your employer. Imagine your insurance company dropping you after getting a look at your government leaked health records. In the state in which I reside, they require a finger print in order to own a hand gun. I can understand the good intentions of such a rule, but I don't want the government to even have my fingerprint data on record. Who's to say that this could not be inappropriately used against me in the future? People scoff, but it could happen. I may sound a bit paranoid, but take a moment to consider all the corruption in government brought to light just in the last year (e.g. Blogo, Geitner, Dodd, Frank, Daschle, Hartford mayor Perez, former CT governor Rowland, ACORN etc, etc, etc). I may fall on the paranoid side, but someone who thinks the government is fully on the "up-and-up" is naive.

This is yet another example of why the government can not be trusted. They can not be trusted with our personal data, our medical data, or our dollars.

Why Taxes Matter -- The Perfect Government Stimulus Plan

2009-02-09T05:54:00.000-08:00

I work for a large international manufacturing company (one of the largest in the world) with manufacturing plants across the globe. In 2008, an unexpected Brazilian tax law revision changed the tax rate on a product we manufacture in Brazil from 8% to 20%. In 2009 a project is being executed to move production of that product out of Brazil.

I give this example to demonstrate the impact of government rules and laws on business, and how quickly businesses react. In the example above, the project to move the production location was actually started in 2008, the same year the tax law was changed. Taxes are not just a nuisance with which businesses must deal -- they drive decisions. In this real-life example, the Brazilian government's tax increase has led directly to job losses. Politicians take note.

The opposite can also be true. Businesses don't just react to raised tax rates. They also react to lowered tax rates.

If the US government is serious about stimulating the economy and creating real, long-term job growth, the solution is simple: lower corporate and business taxes. Based on the latest pork-filled "stimulus" bill, I fear that the government is not serious about stimulating the economy. They are more concerned with petty politics. However, that's a subject for another day. Getting back to the subject at hand...

Surprisingly, to the credit of the main-stream media, it's been well publicized that the United States has the second highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world. Only Japan has a higher rate (see chart). It should be noted that Japan is just now starting to come out of a decade long recession.

Remember my example above -- businesses react to tax changes. Imagine the stimulation to the economy if the United States were to lower their corporate and business (taxes on manufactured goods need to be considered as well as corporate tax rates) tax rate to be the second lowest instead of the second highest. Even better, what do you suppose would happen if the United States eliminated the corporate tax altogether. Businesses would flock here to set up shop! Businesses want to do work in the US already. The US has the best educated, most productive work force in the world, but as it stands now the financial numbers don't add up. The movement to the US would be quick and dramatic if the government could set up the proper tax incentives.

What would be the impact of corporations moving business to the US? Jobs. Production. Income. Wealth. Instead of exporting jobs, the US would import jobs. In addition to the incentive for non-US companies to set up shop in the US, the benefit to companies already in the United States would be enormous. Imagine the programs corporations would tee up with a new-found store of cash. In the small division of the company I work for, we have several proposals for new product introductions that can not be started at this time. That would change immediately if tax reductions were made to free up cash. Projects that have been on the back burner would immediately be green-lighted. Instead of a disadvantage, US companies would have a distinct advantage on the global stage. This would drive innovation and growth.

The cash freed up as a result of a significant corporate tax rate cut would give the short-term injection the economy needs now. The job creation from international businesses setting up shop in the US would provide the long-term boost to sustain the economy.

Of course, this plan would cause the government to lose significant tax revenue. The government is now trying to spend somewhere in the neighborhood of a trillion dollars on a stimulus package with dubious potential for job creation. You tell me which approach would be a better way to spend a trillion dollars.

Some people have a knee-jerk opposition to lowering taxes on businesses, especially larger corporations. This is plain foolishness. These people suffer from class envy, as they mistakenly think corporations represent rich "fat cats". Quite the opposite is true. Successful businesses are the foundation of a healthy middle class.

So far, the government has considered no other ideas except excessive pork spending. A truly bold and effective economic stimulus plan would include dramatic corporate and business tax reduction.

Book Review -- Guilty by Ann Coulter

2009-02-04T18:59:00.000-08:00

Title: Guilty -- Liberal "Victims" and Their Assault on America

Author: Ann Coulter

Price: $27.95 cover price. Available for less on-line.

Ann Coulter has written 5 best sellers. Guilty is her latest best seller. This was my first Ann Coulter book, and it will certainly not be my last. In fact, I'm upset I waited until best seller #6 to finally read one of Ann Coulter's books. I now have a lot of catching up to do on books 1 through 5.

Ann comes out swinging against liberals. Finally someone has the balls (ironic, huh?) to leave political correctness behind. Ann spews the truth about liberals as she cites numerous examples of liberal hypocrisy, idiocy, and bias. Liberals love victims. They use victims for votes. They thrive on creating more and more victims to stay in power. Selfish liberal power-grabbers even portray themselves as victims with the assistance of a willing main-stream media. Ann gives all the evidence any rational person would need to understand media bias and the absurdity of liberal logic.

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book. However, I'm a conservative-minded person. I believe liberalism is the single most toxic ideology in the United States today. Liberal venom is the #1 threat to liberty in the United States of America. Therefore, I'm not the most accurate barometer of Ann's book. Beyond the significant entertainment value, I fear that there may not be a point to the book. Ann devotes many pages to showing examples of liberal main-stream media bias. Although I enjoyed reading the examples, I'm not sure who Ann is trying to convince with her arguments because I believe even most liberals would acknowledge a media bias in a rare honest moment. Ann was not telling a conservative person anything they did not already know, and I fear her aggressive style would turn off most limp-wristed, panty wasted liberals to the point that they would not even be able to get through the book. So, if you go with the assumption that liberals would be turned off, and conservatives are already convinced, I guess the arguments of this book could be effective towards moderates. Fortunately, a moderate is something I am not, nor could I even pretend to be. I enjoyed the analysis, aggressive style, and examples in the book, so I can only hope that Ann was able to bring some moderates onto "our side". I have no hope of even the most skilled author being able to convert a true liberal. Logical thinking means less to a liberal than the US Constitution.

Obama Cult of Personality Scary

2009-01-21T18:19:00.001-08:00

From Wikipedia:

"A cult of personality or personality cult arises when a country's leader uses mass media to create a heroic public image through unquestioning flattery and praise. Cults of personality are often found in dictatorships"

If that definition does not describe the media treatment of Barack Hussein Obama, I don't know what does!

As I watched the crowd wildly cheer a man who has yet to accomplish anything real, I can understand how dictators such as Hitler, Stalin and Mao were able to control the masses. It frightened me. Not to say that Barack Hussein Obama is in any way comparable to these evil dictators. However, the behavior of the crowd and the Obama-ites in general made me realize that it would not be impossible for the American people to be subjugated by a despot. I once thought this behavior was impossible from the American people. I now see that it is not. Paraphrasing Michelle Obama, for the first time in my adult life I was scared for the future of my country. This makes the fight for liberty all the more important for the rest of us non-kool aide drinkers. To listen to the mass media one would think Barack Hussein Obama could do no wrong. Even with his (along with Chief Justice Roberts) colossal screw up during the swearing-in, Barack Hussein Obama was treated with god-like reverence.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090122/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_oath_do_over

Listening to ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC, one might forget that nearly half the country voted for John McCain. These networks totally ignore the 47% or so that did not vote for Barack Hussein Obama. Is it any surprise why Fox News, which actually tries to address both sides, dominates the other news networks? Is it any surprise that the more balanced Wall Street Journal has a significantly larger newspaper circulation than the left wing New York Times?

President Barack Hussein Obama has a lot of power. All presidents have great power, but with the media and the lemming-like masses bowing at his feet, Barack Hussein Obama has more power than most. Let's hope he uses his power to increase, and not attack, liberty.

P.S.

Barack Hussein Obama likes to draw parallels between himself and Abraham Lincoln. Lest we forget Lincoln's greatness, I've included the Gettysburg Address below. Perhaps it's been a while since you've read it. I ask you to consider taking a moment to re-read this speech. While reading, be sure to consider the circumstances the country was under at the time Lincoln delivered the speech.
I've had the opportunity to read the Gettysburg Address at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D. C. and at the cemetery in Gettysburg, PA where the speech was originally delivered. The profundity of the speech impacts me every time I read it.

Barack Hussein Obama may be good, but he's no Lincoln!

The Gettysburg Address

Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that this nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate…we cannot consecrate…we cannot hallow…this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us, the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us…that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion; that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Right and Wrong Is Irrelevant This Time In Israel-Gaza Fight

2009-01-12T16:15:00.000-08:00

Why there is any question as to what the US stance should be in the current fight between Israel and Hamas is baffling. In an increasingly complicated world, the citizens of the United States have seemingly lost sight of who is the enemy. Back in the “good ole days”, determining the enemy was easy. In WWII the Germans and the Japanese were clearly the enemies. Through the cold war the Soviet Union and communists were the enemies. Now, with the end of the cold war and the fall of the Soviet Union it appears people are not able to see the enemy. Let me help remind everyone: Muslim-based governments and Islamic extremists are THE enemy! They are responsible for nearly every military conflict across the world. Hamas represents Muslim-based government, terrorism, and extremism. Israel is the ONLY responsible government in the Middle East.

Imagine you are walking down the street and you see a fist fight between Adolf Hitler and The Pope. Would you stop to figure out who started the fight? No! You don’t care who started it, or even who’s right and who’s wrong. You would immediately help The Pope.

In this way, the citizens of the United States should be fully backing Israel in their fight against the Hamas terrorists. We don’t even need to know all the details to know this is the right think to do. It’s possible that Israel may have taken some inappropriate actions that could put them in the wrong. In this fight, it does not matter. If you think the Middle East is unstable now, imagine the Middle East if the one free and viable government in the region were removed.

Bristol, CT -- Another Example of Government Waste

2009-01-10T11:30:00.000-08:00

The city of Bristol, CT has enhanced the quality of life in town by flooding a sand volleyball court in a municipal park to create a small ice skating rink. The rink is nothing fancy, but it's a good use of a town park during winter months when it mostly stands dormant. However, Bristol takes it a step further by posting a town worker at the rink to over see activities. Keep in mind this is a pile of sand with ice on it, not an NHL hockey rink. So, some town employee is paid to sit there are watch people (mostly kids) skate. Why is this necessary? Why is this necessary, especially considering the budget constraints under which the city is operating? The answer is that it's not necessary. After all, the town does not post a worker at the park during the summer months to supervise volleyball, basketball, softball, or the playground. Why are these summer activities any different from a small skating rink in the winter? I know many smaller towns that have made similar rinks. They leave the rinks open to public enjoyment. No supervision required. In order to save money (and common sense) Bristol should do the same, and get rid of the unnecessary "supervisor" at the town rink.

New Favorite Link Added to Blog

2009-01-07T09:37:00.000-08:00

Liberty Alert has added new links to our list of favorite websites.

A link to the famous Cato Institute has been added.

Check it out at http://www.cato.org/.

Liberty Alert is now a "Basic" sponsor of Cato.

Book Review -- One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez

2008-12-31T12:30:00.000-08:00

One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez is considered a masterpiece. It won the Nobel prize for literature after being published in 1967. It is the one of the best selling Spanish books of all time.

With all that being said, I did not enjoy the book. To me, the title seemed appropriate because it felt like I needed 100 years of solitude to get through the 450 pages.

The book chronicles the history of several generations of the Buendia family during the rise and fall of the fictional town of Macondo. The Buendia family is the founding and most prominent family in the town.

I can appreciate the unique writing style that Garcia Marquez invented with this book. I can also appreciate the great creativity required to create an intricate and colorful fictional town. However, I just did not find the book that entertaining. There is no real plot, in the traditional sense. The book reads more like a diary of a crazy old aunt recounting family history --filled with exaggerations, superstitions, and folk legend -- rather than an actual novel. The book also combines fantasy with reality. There were descriptions of day-to-day life in the Buendia family, when suddenly some supernatural miracle would occur. For example, one character suddenly floats off to heaven while folding laundry. Other characters live to be 150 years old. In that respect, One Hundred Years of Solitude reminded me of the Old Testament of The Holy Bible.

One other criticism was that the names of the characters were too similar. Several of the characters had the same first and/or last names (as children were born and named after previous generations). This made it often difficult to keep track of the characters. When I looked up the novel on Wikipedia, there was a family tree. I wish I had such a family tree available to me while reading the novel to help keep all the characters straight.

One Hundred Years of Solitude is highly acclaimed. It has been translated into 27 different languages, and won numerous international awards. It is taught in schools as a classic and propelled the author (Gabriel Garcia Marquez) into the highest echelon of modern authors. So what do I know? Perhaps I just don't "get it" when it comes to this novel, but the bottom line is that I was not entertained by the book. Isn't the point of reading a work of fiction to be entertained (or educated) at some level?

Why Are the Red Sox Not Making Any Moves?

2008-12-21T16:38:00.000-08:00

The Mets have signed 2 top quality back-of-the-bullpen pitchers. The Yankees have signed 2 big free agent starting pitchers, and are in discussions for another pitcher. They continue to be in the mix for top free agent sluggers. Even if they make no additional signings, the Yankess have clearly gotten better. Yet the biggest move the Red Sox have made thus far is to announce new uniforms.

The Red Sox were beat out by a divisional rival (Tampa Bay Rays) last year in the playoffs. Yet the Red Sox have done nothing to get better this winter.

In baseball, if you're standing still, you're going backwards.

Red Sox Nation is starting to get restless. The Sawx need to fire up the hot stove! Rumor has it that the Blue Jays are dangling Vernon Wells and BJ Ryan. Wells would certainly be a nice upgrade offensively in center field without sacrificing defense. BJ Ryan would finally give the Red Sox that 8th inning guy they've been struggling to find for two seasons. Oh, and let's not forget Mark Texeria. The Red Sox need to get that deal done to legitimize their Manny-less lineup. Pedroria, Ortiz, Texeria, Wells, Youkilis, Bay, Drew would be a formidable offense, especially if the bullpen were improved. The Rockies have bullpen help available. The Red Sox could still use an upgrade at shortstop, and need to deal with their catcher situation.

There are lots of moves that could be done, should be done, and need to be done. I could go on and on. The point is, Theo and the gang need to get going to bring a merry Christmas to Red Sox Nation.

There Otta Be A Law...

2008-12-15T16:46:00.000-08:00

I spend a lot of time on this blog complaining about silly government laws, and the "nanny-state" encroaching on our personal freedoms. Smokers are a huge target of over reaching government. Whenever there's a whiff of cigarette smoke in any venue that might be detected by a non-smoker, the government tries to pass a law. The general premise is that smokers do not have the right to smoke if it inhibits someone's right to breath smoke-free air.
Today I had an experience that made me question my personal rights versus the rights of someone else. A smoker did not usurp my personal rights, but my personal space was certainly violated! Yes, I had the displeasure of spending 4.5 hours in the middle coach seat of an airplane alongside an obese woman. This woman needed a seatbelt extension because the regular seat belt would not fit around her waist. She could not enter and exit her seat without moving the armrest out of the way. She could not even think about lowering the tray table. There I was, stuck next to her. Typical of my luck. People talk about the rudeness of smokers, but I would have rather sat next to Joe Camel than this woman. She had no respect for my personal space. Her arms, legs, elbows, etc. crowded my already small coach seat. And she did not care.
I don't have a problem with this woman being whatever size she wants. That's her prerogative. However, why is she allowed to fly in coach? If smokers are not allowed to smoke because it infringes on the comfort of others, why is this woman allowed to cause me discomfort? Here's my proposal for a useful rule that someone needs to institute: If the standard seatbelt does not fit, you can't fly in a single coach seat. Here are the alternatives:
1) Don't fly.
2) Buy the bigger first class seat.
3) Buy 2 coach seats.
4) Lose some weight.

I paid for a full airline seat, not 3/4 of a seat. I'm sorry, but every person cannot be accommodated in every situation. Smoking sections in restaurants went the way of the dodo because everyone realized how ridiculous it was to think that the cigarette smoke would only stay in one area. Well, allowing obese people on coach airplanes, or any other public venue with "regular" seats needs, to follow the path of the restaurant smoking section.

I fly this airline frequently. I am going to be complaining on my return trip. Stay tuned for the results of my complaint.

Link to Book Review -- Historic Photos of Connecticut

2008-12-13T07:26:00.000-08:00

Below is a link to a book review I published on my other blog, Connecticut Outdoors:

http://connecticutoutdoors.blogspot.com/2008/12/book-review-historic-photos-of.html

Goodwin Hotel Closing a Bad Sign for Hartford

2008-12-12T06:09:00.000-08:00

The Goodwin Hotel is an excellent hotel in the heart of downtown Hartford. It is directly across the street from Hartford’s biggest attraction, the XL center (formerly the Civic Center). The hotel is privately run, unique, and luxurious. The Goodwin hotel has hosted celebrities such as Neil Diamond, Bruce Springsteen, and Tina Turner while they were performing in Hartford. The Goodwin Hotel offers a good value with rooms available for less than $100 per night. The Goodwin Hotel is closing at the end of the year.
I had the occasion this past weekend to spend a night at the Goodwin Hotel. It felt like a stay in an old-time luxury hotel – the kind of hotel that existed before the big chains took over.

Hartford is a city that has long struggled with its image. It does not speak well to the health and vibrancy of the city that it cannot support a hotel like the Goodwin. The state of Connecticut has pumped a lot of money into Hartford in the past decade with the funding of the Adrian’s Landing project and the Connecticut Science Center. I fear that the closing of the Goodwin is a sign that the state taxpayer investment in Hartford may not have been a wise one at this time. Let’s hope I’m wrong.

2nd Amendment Protects Citizens From Incompetence As Well As Tyranny

2008-12-02T18:03:00.000-08:00

The recent shooting in Mumbai, India could have been controlled. The bloodshed could have been significantly reduced, and maybe eliminated. The Islamic terrorists in Mumbai walked though the crowded city unimpeded by anyone. Due to laws making it close to impossible to get a firearm in India, the security guards in the various hotels and buildings were unarmed. The few police that were not fleeing only had bamboo sticks in which to fight back. Citizens only had stones in which to hurl at the attackers.

You can search the blogosphere and find several sites pointing out how if the Indian citizenry had the right to own guns, this disaster could have been largely abated. Putting that fact aside, regardless of what the citizens could have done had their rights not been impeded, the Indian government had absolutely no police or security force equipped to handle such an incident. Mumbai had no SWAT teams. No special forces units. They did not even have armed police officers! This goes beyond gun control. This is plain incompetence.

Imagine what the police response would have been to a similar incident in an American city. The terrorists my have been able to attack one place, but they would never get out. Even if the citizens did not defend themselves, police and SWAT teams would have surrounded the attackers in minutes. Streets would have been cordoned off. Snipers would have been on rooftops. Tear gas canisters would have been at the ready. A serious police force did not even arrive in Mumbai until the next day. Can you imagine gunmen running around Manhattan without any police resistance for an entire 24 hours?! It would never happen because the governments (local, state, and national) have some level of competence when it comes to fighting crime. It is hardly perfect, but comparatively, it is excellent.

Previous to this tragic incident, I had only thought of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution as a tool against government tyranny. However, after this incident I have come to realize that the Second Amendment is indeed protection against government incompetence as well as tyranny. It's now evident that the Indian government cannot be trusted to competently protect their citizenry. Therefore, the Indian people, and all people, should have a right to keep and bear arms similar to the rights spelled out in the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. Episodes such as the Mumbai shooting, and 9-11, prove the danger of putting too much blind trust in government to provide protection for you and your family. A person needs the right to protect themselves in situations in which the government cannot.

Governmental Erosion of Personal Liberty -- Connecticut Town Institutes Smoking Ban on Public Street

2008-11-30T10:52:00.001-08:00

As Reported in the Hartford Courant: Bristol, CT -- Bristol Considers Smoking Ban On Public Streets

I'm not a smoker. I never have been and I never will be, so as far smoking goes, I have no horse in this race. However, I am a citizen that is concerned with governmental intrusion into our lives. Smoking is generally unpopular, so it's an easy target. When government over reaches it's bounds in any direction, it's dangerous for all of us. An attack on the freedoms of one group encroaches on the freedoms of all.

The town of Bristol, Connecticut has banned smoking on a small town road (Newell Road), and is considering implementing a smoking ban on all city streets that boarder parks, schools, libraries, and hospitals. Outside. A total ban. OUTSIDE folks!

Smoking generally does not bother me (as a non-smoker) as much as it tends to bother other non-smokers. I tend to agree that smoking bans in indoor public venues are generally a good idea. However, when is enough enough?! The nanny-state already "protects" us from ourselves with seat belt laws, transfat bans, indoor smoking bans, "unhealthy" snack bans in schools, and various blue laws. Now they are moving to smoking bans outside in public places?! We're not talking about an outdoor concert or the like where people are gathered outdoors in close proximity. We're talking about a general ban.

I've written about bans before on this blog. I don't like them. Bans are dangerous. My frustration is that the general public seems to willingly give up their personal liberties with nary a peep.

This smoking ban may be unconstitutional. What's worse is that it just makes no sense. Who is the mayor of Bristol trying to protect? With huge budget deficits facing the state of Connecticut, and perhaps the town of Bristol, perhaps the mayor should be concerned with real issues rather than attacking personal freedoms for political showmanship.

Why Newspapers Are Failing -- The Closing of The Bristol Press, New Britain Herald, and the Steady Decline of The Hartford Courant

2008-11-16T12:08:00.000-08:00

It was announced last week that unless a buyer can be found, two local central Connecticut newspapers, The Bristol Press and New Britain Herald, will close within the month. This comes on the tail of a 25% newsroom reduction at the largest paper in Connecticut, The Hartford Courant. The Hartford Courant revamped (read: cut content) from their paper following this staff reduction. The paper is noticeably thinner. Despite this most recent big cut, the down slide of content and quality at the Hartford Courant is not a new trend. For years the paper has been going downhill. As a long time subscriber, I've witnessed the decline first hand. I can remember when the Sunday Courant used to be so think and so full of interesting information that I could hardly finish it in one day. Now I finish the Sunday paper before my first cup of coffee is done. Papers across the country are having a difficult time adjusting to the "new media" of 24 hour cable news and the internet. They are floundering to find a strategy in today's reality. Perhaps the most troubling trend for the newspaper business is an apathetic younger generation that seems to have no interest in serious news in any format.

This story is certainly not unique to Connecticut. All around, the newspaper business is in a bad place.

I am a dedicated newspaper reader. It's part of my routine and part of my life. I start every day with the Hartford Courant. However, these days even I'm having second thoughts. The content of the paper has never been thinner. Of the remaining content, much of it has fallen into a heavy bias. Perhaps the Hartford Cournat is simply playing to their market with Connecticut being one of the bluest of the blue states, but if that's the case it's not good journalism. Good journalism is supposed to be non-biased. I am not naive enough to believe that anything can be truly unbiased, but I do believe that a paper can at least strive to be impartial. The Hartford Courant has lost it's way. Out of the 5 significant regular columnists (Stan Simpson, Jim Shea, Susan Campbell, Helen Ubinas, Colin McEnroe) to the Courant, all 5 are unapologetic liberals. The paper has absolutely no conservative counterpoint to balance out the opinions. I wonder if I'm the only reader who's noticed this. Does the editorial staff notice? Do they care? They've sold their journalistic soul and become a shell of themselves. Intelligent readers, regardless of their political leanings, can tell the difference.

The Hartford Courant and the newspaper business in general needs to do what any business needs to do when they are losing out to competition. They need to improve the quality of their product. They can start by getting back to doing some real reporting and dropping the political agenda.

A Quick Truth About Corporate Taxes

2008-11-13T04:35:00.000-08:00

President-Elect Obama has grand ideas to siphon tax revenue from the "greedy" corporations in the form of higher corporate tax rates, as well as a "windfall profits" tax. He has especially gone after the oil companies.

Remember and understand one thing: Corporations do not really pay taxes. Consumers pay taxes. Like any business, large or small, expenses such as taxes simply get passed onto the consumer.

Therefore, a "windfall profits" tax on the oil companies is nothing less than a tax on every single man and woman in this country that uses gasoline or home heating oil.
Not to be overlooked is that it's an extra tax on American oil companies that puts them at a competitive disadvantage against international companies, thereby threatening jobs.

Perhaps President-Elect Obama does not see a problem with higher gasoline prices. After all, he was quoted during his campaign to not be alarmed by this summer's gasoline prices. He was only concerned with the speed at which they got to the record high prices. I guess when you're busy chartering separate MD-80 airliners for you and your wife to separately fly to Washington DC from the same location on the same day for a 1 day trip you don't worry too much about how gasoline and heating oil prices (never mind the dreaded greenhouse gases!) might impact the "little guy" you claim to care so much about.

Temporary Hiatus

2008-11-11T15:20:00.000-08:00

As the election season has come to an end, and the fall hunting season picks up, you can expect a slowdown (slowdown, not a full halt) to posts on Liberty Alert as I concentrate more on my other blog: connecticutoutdoors.blogspot.com.

I'm still stockpiling post ideas, so there should be plenty of material stored up once winter hits.

If you have any post suggestions, or interesting stories, leave a note. If someone manages to get me riled up enough, I'll surely leave a reply.

Understanding the Liberal Mind -- Part 2

2008-11-02T17:41:00.000-08:00

In my on-going quest to understand the liberal mind, I again try to find some analogies to display the absurdness of liberal ideology.

Let's look at some examples of what the sports world would look like if the same principles liberals wish to apply to our government applied to sports.

1) The Windfall Bating Average Tax
Alex Rodriquez, Manny Ramirez, and Albert Pujols are 3 of the best hitters of all time. They have devoted their lives to being the best at what they do. From a very young age they have spent countless hours practicing and honing their craft. They have lifted thousands of pounds of weights, and participated in thousands of drills for hand-eye coordination improvement. They have worked themselves to exhaustion in the batting cage. They have studies video and reviewed scouting reports until their eyes glazed over. They have made sacrifices to be the best. When others were relaxing, they were working to get better. This tremendous amount of work, plus the good fortune of some level of God-given talent has paved the way for them to be listed with the greats of the game, and to eventually be enshrined into the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown. They are without a doubt amount the best at what they do.
However, according to liberal principles, their level of achievement is not fair to many of the other players who are not as good. Therefore, Major League Baseball will institute a Windfall Bating Average Tax. This is how the tax will work: Every player that has a batting average above .300 will be deducted 1 strike. This strike will be given to every player with a batting average below .250. Since the vast majority of player have a batting average that falls between .250 and .300, this tax will only impact a relatively small number of players. With this new tax, players batting under .250 will get 4 strikes per at bat, while players batting over .300 will only get 2 strikes per at bat.

2) The "Spread the Wealth" Act
This act is inspired by Barack Obama's "spread the wealth" quote in his conversation with "Joe the Plumber". The New York Yankees have 26 World Series championships. That's 16 more than the second place team (St. Louis Cardinals with 10)! The Yankees definitely need to spread the wealth. It's totally unfair that they have done all the things necessary to bring 26 championships to their fans, while teams like the Tampa Bay Rays have none.
In 2009, MLB will be awarding an honorary World Series Championship to the Tampa Bay Rays. Celebrate Tampa! Your team did not earn it, but we know deep down inside you really, really wanted a World Series championship.

3) From "Dream Ticket" To "Dream Team"
Even with the occasional stumble, USA basketball is recognized around the world as the standard for high quality play. It is not uncommon for Team USA to blow teams out by 30 or more points. This display of domination could cause angst in teams from other countries. It is not fair that the USA is blessed with so many resources while the rest of the world suffers. We need to understand the plight of these nations, and instead of demolishing these teams, we need to learn to be our brother's keepers. Therefore, Team USA will agree to face these teams on "equal terms". To make the terms equal, Team USA will hereby spot every team 15 points at the start of every game. This will hopefully appease the basketball extremists from other countries that may refuse to play Team USA, or worst, possibly engage in "dirty play" (hard fouls, grabbing, etc.) against team USA.

4) The Travis Knight Rule
Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in Major League Baseball in 1947. However, since that time the pendulum in all major American sports has swung considerably in the other direction. Even though African Americans make up less than 15% of the population, the players that make up the NBA are approximately 83% African American. The whites that make up some of the remaining 17% are often from European countries. The NFL also has a high percentage of African American players, and MLB is filled with Latin players.

I understand that teams try to field the best players, regardless of background, in order to give them the best chance to win. However, where does that leave diversity? Diversity, not skill or qualifications, is much more critical to creating a team. Therefore, in the name of diversity, starting in 2009 the following requirements will be added to the lineups of the 3 major team sports in the USA:

NBA:
The NBA will be required to start 2 white players, 1 Asian player, and 1 Hispanic/Latin player. This leaves one remaining wildcard spot, which will likely go to an African American player. This line up will better reflect the make up of America, and will truly be a diverse team. After all, Democrats want a presidential cabinet that "looks like America". Shouldn't your starting line up look like America?

MLB:
Baseball has plenty of white players, and plenty of Latin players, and a growing number of Asian players coming over from Japan. However, MLB is still short on African American players. Additionally, with 9 positions per team instead of 5 as in basketball, baseball has a greater opportunity for diversity. Therefore, MLB needs to consider players of Indian origin (they can tap into the cricket leagues), and Middle Eastern origin. Therefore, MLB will be required to field a team with 2 white players, 2 black players, 2 Latin players, 1 Asian, 1 Indian player, and 1 Middle Eastern player.

NFL:
With 11 positions on offense, 11 positions on defense, and 11 positions on special teams, plus many bench positions, the NFL is a treasure chest of diversity opportunity. Sadly, today the NFL is disproportionally filled with players of African American origin, with many white American players. There are almost zero players of any other background. Since there are so many available positions in the NFL, the NFL can be the champion of diversity. Although the details have not been worked out yet, the NFL will definitely be required to increase the percentage of white players, as well as integrate players from dozens of different countries.

==========================================================
Liberalism is the triumph of emotion over reason. Any logical person can see the absurdity of the above scenarios. However, all of these ideas are pushed upon our government by liberals, mostly in the name of fairness. Liberals are at war with unfairness. There is this warped feeling that there should be absolutely no hardships to be overcome in the world. Every hardship is labeled as unfair. Liberals scream "Unfair!" at every difficult situation like a kid on the school yard crying when they lose a kickball game.
Whenever liberal ideology is applied to something outside of government (parenting, sports, etc.) the illogical nature of it is clear. However, when it comes to government, emotion takes over the liberal mind and logic goes out the window.

Understanding the Liberal Mind -- Part 1

2008-10-28T09:00:00.000-07:00

I am always on a quest to understand the liberal mind. How could other wise intelligent people view the world in such a wrong manner? It baffles me.

In an effort to better understand and explain the liberal mind, I came up with the analogy below.

Imagine this...

If We Ran Our Household in The Same Way Liberals Want The Country To Be Run -- A Scenario To Consider:

A parent has twelve year old twin sons. The sons both want to buy a new bike. The bikes they want cost $300 each. The boys fear that they will not be able to save up the money to buy the bikes before the summer is over, so the parent agrees that if the kids can save up half the cost of the bike, they will match them dollar-for-dollar for the rest.

Son #1 is diligent in saving his allowance. He gets a paper route. He mows lawns around the neighborhood. He rakes leaves and does various other jobs. At the end of the summer he saves up the $150 needed to pay for half the cost of the $300 bike.

Son #2 is not as diligent. He spends his allowance on candy. He gets a paper route, but is often late and does not do as good of a job, so his tips are low. He does not bother to look for jobs around the neighborhood. At the end of the summer he is well short of his savings goal. He has saved $100.

The two boys go to their parent. Son #1 says, "Mom, I've lived up to my part of the deal. I have my $150. I'm ready to buy my bike." Son #2 says, "Mom, I think I deserve the bike. Even though I did not save up the required amount of money, I really need and want that bike."

What are the parents to do?

Most parents would buy the bike as agreed for son #1. They would then use the opportunity to teach son #2 a lesson about work ethic, sacrifice, saving, discipline, setting and obtaining goals, etc. They would tell son #2 that he has to go back and work for the the final $50 then he too would get the bike. That's generally what a good, logical-thinking, loving parent would do.

But what would the liberal parent do?

The liberal parent would think, "It's not fair to son #2 that son #1 is such an achiever". Applying to parenting the same liberal policies that liberals want to apply to our government, the parent would then take $25 from son #1, give it to son #2 so they would both have $125. They would then buy each of them a $250 dollar bike.

Moral of The Story:

You can see from this example how the liberal policy brought down the entire standard. Both boys were forced to accept an inferior $250 dollar bike, rather than applying a little extra work and discipline to son #2 to allow both of them to get the $300 bike.

If, as a parent, you truly believe that the latter way (the liberal way) of handling this scenario is superior to the first method, I have nothing more for you. I can not ever hope to understand you. If that is your belief, I can no longer consider your liberalism to be just a difference of political outlook, but more of a mental illness. However, I suspect that most parents, even politically liberal parents, would have handled this scenario closer to as I first described. They would agree that my first solution makes more sense. If that's true, why then does this not carry over to politics? Why do liberals believe in burdening achievers with the dead weight of non-achievers? Is this a collision of logic versus emotion?

Liberals: Please weigh in!

A Classic Tax-n-Spend Liberal – That’s Change?!

2008-10-27T10:24:00.000-07:00

It’s just over a week until Election Day, and I’ve resigned myself to a Barack Obama victory. Obama has run a campaign with the theme of “Change”. Change you can believe in. Change we’ve been waiting for. (Note: Both of these Obama slogans end in a preposition – a grammar no-no. I hesitate to point this out because I’m no grammar expert. I’m sure to have grammar faux pas in this very post. However, I’m not running to be leader of the free world, with millions of dollars at my disposal.). Change for America. Change the course of history. Change the rising tides of the seas. Change, change, change, blah, blah, blah.

Oh, there will be changes, but they won’t be the kind of changes Obama supporters are hoping.

If you think the economy is tough now, wait until Obama wins.

Despite all his grand talk, Obama is nothing more than your classic tax-and-spend liberal. A fact that cannot be disputed is that Obama plans to increase the level of federal budget spending. This is not my opinion, or some Conservative attack. It’s simply fact. Obama’s social programs, particularly his health care plan, will increase the federal budget. Even with an end to hostilities in Iraq, an Obama administration plans to increase spending. The argument here is not whether increasing federal spending is good or bad. I’m simply pointing it out as fact that spending will increase under the Obama plan. That’s the “spend” part of Obama–the-tax-and-spend-liberal.

As far as taxes go, yet another undisputable fact is that Obama plans to increase taxes. OK, one can argue that he plans to raise personal income taxes on only the top 5% of Americans (More on that later), but regardless of who will be paying the taxes, the fact remains that he certainly plans to raise taxes. When the government plans to take a higher percentage of available income in taxes, no matter who’s paying, that’s a tax increase. That’s the “tax” part of Obama-the-tax-and-spend-liberal.

Let’s delve a little deeper into Obama’s tax increase plan. In addition to raising the personal income tax on the top 5% of wage earners, Obama plans to let the Bush tax cuts expire. Regardless of his campaign rhetoric, this will certainly impact some of that precious 95% that Obama claims will be unaffected. On top of these taxes, Obama’s plan is to raise the capital gains tax as well as taxes on corporations. Such tax increases are indirect taxes on individuals. They don’t show up on your 1040 form in April, but they certainly impact you, whether you notice it or not. These hidden taxes play well with the populace because they tap into people’s intrinsic jealousy. They fan the fires of class envy, and eventually get passed on to the “little people” anyway.
Senator Fred Thompson used an analogy of a pool to help explain Barack Obama’s tax plan. Imagine our economy as a big pool. We are all in that pool together; corporations, working people, rich people, unemployed people, retired people – all together. So, if the corporations are on one side of the pool, and Obama takes water away from them, what happens to everyone else in the pool? The water level does not just go down on the corporation’s side; it goes down for all.
Obama is under the impression that an increase in the corporate and capital gains taxes will not have impact on most Americans. Well, again to steal a concept from Fred Thompson, raising the corporate tax will have no impact on you as long as you don’t work, invest, or buy anything from a corporation. Unlike government, which continually runs on deficit, the bottom line is not a moving target for a corporation. If the government takes away more money in the form of taxes from a corporation, that corporation will have to take actions to make up for this loss. Those actions could come in the form of tightening their corporate belts, but it can also come in the form of layoffs, reduced spending and investment, and the passing on of costs to consumers. Corporations are already meeting to layout plans for cuts to offset the Obama tax increases.
Obama likes to say that we are all in this together. In his now famous lecture to Joe The Plumber, Obama said, “spread the wealth”. Obama needs to understand that when it comes to taxes we are also all in this together. Once again, liberal policy will fall victim to unintended consequences, and instead of “spreading the wealth” the Obama tax plan will most certainly spread the pain.

Majority Should Not Rule On Gay Marriage

2008-10-11T09:27:00.000-07:00

You may have heard that Connecticut (my home state) became the third state to allow gay marriages. The state supreme court ruled in favor of gay marriage in a 4-3 split decision. This quick post is not about the issue of gay marriage. If you wish to read the details of the Connecticut decision, you can go to the Hartford Courant, or some other news source, to get the full story. I've included a link below.

http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-gaymarriage1011.artoct11,0,5399554.story

This post is about understanding the risk of tyranny of the majority.

One of the arguments put forth by gay marriage opponents in Connecticut is that gay marriage is not supported by the majority of voters in Connecticut. Their argument is that courts should not decide the issue. They wish to put it to a state-wide referendum, knowing full well that gay marriage would be rejected in such a referendum.

At first glance, one might argue that a state-wide referendum makes sense. After all, this is a democracy. Majority rules, right?

However, even in a democracy there are some issues that can not be left up to the people. This might seem to some like democratic blasphemy. However, I leave you with this thought: What would have been the outcome if the issue of slavery were put to state-wide referendums in the mid-1800s?

Our founding fathers were wise to understand the risks of a direct democracy. I hope that risk is still understood today.

Bring on the Socialism!

2008-10-08T09:36:00.000-07:00

After watching the second of three US presidential debates last night, it's clear that both candidates intend to move the country towards complete socialism.

In anticipation of the proliferation of socialism throughout the country, and using the logic laid out by politicians during this election season, I've listed three services that the new socialist government should provide.

New Socialist Government Service #1: Maintenance and Up-Keep of Homes
If I or my neighbor does not keep his/her house in good condition, neighborhood property values can be hurt. Through this most recent $700 billion bailout discussion we've already seen how the decline in housing values can lead to a financial-credit crisis. The government needs to take all steps necessary to bolster home values and avoid a financial crisis in the future. Therefore, the government needs to take over the maintenance of homes. This would include lawn care, painting, and general maintenance like leaky gutters, broken windows, etc. In a country with as much money as we have, our stability should not be held hostage by the laziness of a few. Also, imagine all the jobs that would be created with this new service. I'm already looking forward to the extra free time on my weekends and evenings!

New Socialist Government Service #2: Repairs to Motor Vehicles
The biggest complaint by educators and local governments regarding the "No-Child-Left-Behind Act" is that it's an unfunded mandate. No more unfunded mandates, such as the government burdening individuals with ensuring cars meet emissions and fuel economy standards! Global warming is such an immediate threat that it is too important to trust individuals with the up-keep of greenhouse gas-producing vehicles. Besides, I'm not a car expert. The government needs to take over car maintenance to make sure cars are running at peak efficiency (to limit our dependence on foreign oil), and as clean as possible. Plus, people are already burdened with such high gas prices that it would not be compassionate to expect them to shoulder the costs of repairs. Therefore, the government should take over auto repair to prevent the collapse of the economy, and the destruction of the earth.

New Socialist Government Service #3: Babysitting of Children
We all know that there is nothing more important than our children. They are our future, and there is no amount of spending that is enough for our precious children. We need to give them the best of everything. The government already controls education, and has their hands in regular daycare. However, how can we in good conscience trust our children to local teen aged girls to watch our children when we go out for dinner and a movie?! These local babysitters are largely untrained in early childhood development, and emergency medical response. This is unacceptable. Think of what damage could be done to our children's self esteem if they are continually subjected to such untrained personnel. Therefore, for the future of our country, the government should provide babysitters. The government should initiate a training program to qualify all sitters. Any parent that leaves their kids with a non-government certified supervisor should expect a visit from the local department of children and families. The stakes are just too high! Just think of the risks we are taking entrusting our children to people with no government oversight!
Come to think of it, there is no governmental oversight or training for parents either...

These are just 3 of many new services the government could, and should, offer in the near future.

My friends, we need to embrace this socialist movement. We are on the cusp of a Utopian society where we "average citizens" no longer have to worry about anything because the government will take care of it for us. The future looks bright.

Why I Can't Cancel My Newsweek Subscription

2008-10-04T15:06:00.000-07:00

I've been a subscriber to Newsweek magazine for years now. The magazine has always had a left-ward slant, but in recent years it has become nearly unbearable. The magazine is filled with liberal opinion pieces, and liberal-biased journalism disguised as non-biased reporting. While reading the most recent issue, I became disgusted vowed to cancel my subscription. This vow has passed my lips several times before in the past. However, this time, like all the previous times, I was drawn back. I read George Will's column on the very last page of the magazine. George Will's column, once again, prevented me from canceling my subscription.

The subject of this weeks column was the erosion of election day due to the rise of pre-election day voting. You can read the column at the following link:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/161202

I was appalled at the mess our election process has become.

But beyond the actual issue discussed in the article, I was taken aback once again by the skill of George Will. His use of language and ability to lay out an argument is unparalleled. No other person has had the ability to change my mind on a subject as often as Will.

George Will is known as a conservative columnist, but more often than not his articles are non-partisan. The article this week has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans. He also throws in a column about sports and other various subjects on occasion.

The columns written by George Will are so good that they keep me subscribing to the liberal propaganda publication by the name of Newsweek magazine. I recommend taking the time to read his columns regardless of your political leanings.

Democrat Bail Out Logic Fails

2008-09-29T16:23:00.000-07:00

No MBA. No PhD. Just a citizen with a belief that there has to be a better way.

Follow the logic here...

Throughout this campaign season Democrats have been claiming that this is the "worst economy since the great depression" for the working and middle class Americans that make up the majority of the populace. Democrats further claim that if we do not pass a $700 billion dollar economic bail out package, Wall Street will collapse resulting in a severe drop in stock prices. Given these two premises I pose the question: Why would a drop in stock prices hurt the struggling "little guy"? If the working and middle class are doing so bad, how would they be able to own significant amounts of stock? Using the Democrat's logic, working and middle class people are in such bad economic shape that they could not possibly afford to own significant caches of stocks. Therefore, again using Democrat logic, a stock market crash would have no impact on working class people!

Ahh, but you counter by saying "A crash on Wall Street would trickle down to Main Street." I heard this line over and over again in the first presidential debate. Wait a minute! According to Democrats there's no such thing as trickle down economics! How can this be?!

Ignoring this incongruity in Democrat economic dogma, let's suppose that a Wall Street failure could indeed trickle down to the working class, and eventually cause mass unemployment. Although highly unlikely (boardering on impossible), let's even go as far to assume that it could cause Great Depression-level unemployment. If that's the case, then why would we not let the free market purge Wall Street through the natural market forces, then set the $700 billion aside for the "little people" in anticipation of the great mass of unemployment and hardship that could follow? Let's assume the $700 billion doesn't make it to Wall Street and an economic meltdown follows. Let's do some math, using approximate numbers and some general assumptions, to see what $700 billion could do:

There are approximately 300 million people in the USA.
Out of those 300 million, about 70 million are children.
About 50 million people are already retired.
That leaves 180 million people.
There are about 14 million non-working spouses (a.k.a. stay-at-home moms/dads)
That leaves 166 million.
Out of that 166 million, let's assume 5% of the people are unemployable in any economy.
That leaves us with about 158 million workers that have the potential to lose their jobs if massive Great Depression-like job losses were to occur.
Jobless rates during the Great Depression reached into the 30% range.
30% of 158 million means that we are looking at a potential pool of 47 million unemployed workers at absolute worst case levels.

Even at those crazy-high, sky-is-falling, end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it rates, $700 billion would be enough to give about $15,000 of benefits to each and every one of these unemployed people.

Now, $15,000 would not be a fortune, but remember it would be $30,000 for 2 income families. With the median annual family income in the US at about $50,000, this $30,000 could possibly keep a family afloat for nearly a year assuming they tightened their belts (which is not an outrageous assumption considering they are out of work). Also, consider that this money would be in addition to any state provided unemployment insurance that currently exists. Needless to say, even in this economic Armageddon situation, the $700 billion would go a long way in getting a family back on their feet.

Being more optimistic, assume that instead of 30% the unemployment level would double to about 12%. It sounds low compared to the 30%, but it would represent a huge economic issue in the US.

12% of 158 million is about 19 million workers.
With 19 million unemployed, the $700 billion could provide a whopping $38,000 in benefits per person. A 2-income family would get $76,000. That's $26,000 more than a median income family would make working for a year! In other words, their share of the $700 billion would be a raise.

That's the numerical look.

So, what's my point? Do I really believe the government should hold $700 billion in anticipation of 30% unemployment levels? Of course not. Do I think the government should lay back and just let the economy collapse? Definitely not. My point is that $700 billion is a lot of money, there are a lot of ways that $700 billion could be used. However, the only option being discussed is a Wall Street bail out.

Our government leaders should use this No-vote as an opportunity to reevaluate their approach. Maybe I'm dreaming, but wouldn't it be nice if the so-called economic experts came up with some innovative alternatives for $700 billion besides a Wall Street bail out? In the end, a Wall Street bail out may still be the best option, but is it too much to ask for our leaders to come up with some alternatives to at least consider?

As much as I believe it makes sense to now consider other alternatives, I my expectations remain low. After all, how can I expect anything other than a Wall Street bail out approach to the current economic slide when the Senate Banking Committee Chairman is in the back-pocket of the Wall Street banks. See the graphic below courtesy of The Hartford Courant showing the top 20 donors to Senator Chris Dodd. Jeez! Money drives behavior. With that list, why would we expect anything different. It's been said that the definition of insanity is to continue to do the same thing and expect different results...

Election Over Load Creates Apathy

2008-09-28T17:36:00.000-07:00

Typically during my normal day of work, reading, radio listening, and TV watching, I find one or two things that give me the thought "I should write a blog post about that!". Once I identify a potential topic, my mind wanders during free moments to start contemplating the pieces of the post. What are the points I can make? What research do I need to do? What format should I write in? Sometimes I'll even jot down a few random thoughts on a piece of scrap paper and fold it into my pocket until I can get to a computer. Not all of these daily epiphanies actually become posts, but almost all that do become posts have been born of this sort of haphazard process. I'm pretty sure that's not how George Will comes up with his columns, but for me, that's how the process goes. However, I've noticed that lately, I've had less of these moments. I took a moment to reflect on the cause of this observation, and I can point to one thing as the source -- election over load.

It seems that the nearly 2 years of 24-7 election coverage has finally gotten to me. Most days, much to the disappointment of Fox, CNN, and MSNBC, there is nothing going on save for the typical campaign stump speech by one of the candidates. They analyze and over-analyze every word uttered by every candidate. Sick of the faux analysis, I waited weeks for the first debate to come. When it finally arrived (and there was definitely some question whether it would arrive as scheduled) I struggled to not fall asleep on my couch as the candidates repeated talking points we've all heard dozens of times before.

The vice-presidential debates are Thursday. I fear that these debates have the potential to be another yawn-fest. It seems that dialogue the caliber of the Lincoln-Douglas debates could not live up to the hype of this upcoming debate.

So, for my own selfish reasons, and the sake of this blog, I hope these next 5 weeks produce some substance. Other than that, November 4th can't pass fast enough for me!

Spending Taxpayer Money Is The One True Bipartisan Issue

2008-09-23T14:04:00.000-07:00

Citizens constantly hear the call for bipartisanship from whinny politicians looking to divert blame away from their culture of do-nothingness, and from a left-leaning media hoping Republicans, which they view mostly as irrelevant, kooky pests, will come over to the left side of the aisle in the name of “cooperation”. But, as much as we hear these misguided pleas, gridlock and personal-attack politics between Democrats and Republicans mostly remain the standard of the day…except on one issue -- spending taxpayer money.

As congress contemplates a $700 billion bank bailout, there has been little quibbling between the parties. The Democrat-controlled congress seems to be in unprecedented agreement with the Republican Bush administration. Oh, there have been a few descending voices, especially from the right, but for the most part both branches of the government are eager to write off an jaw-dropping chuck of taxpayer money. Never before have we witnessed such a love-fest between Bush and the liberal-controlled congress.
To put $700 billion in perspective, the national debt is about $9.2 trillion. We spend over $400 billion per year servicing interest on the national debt. This bail out would be equal to 8% of the enormous national debt that has been built every year since the 1970s. The federal budget is about $2.9 trillion dollars. The $700 billion bail out would be equal to about 24% of the federal budget.
To put the proposed bailout into individual terms, if you have a total personal debt (mortgage, car loans, credit cards, etc.) of $250,000 (this is reasonable since the median home price in the US is about $212,000), the bail out would represent a one-time payout of $20,000. I don’t know about you, but I think most middle class families would have a tough time dumping $20,000.
Thinking of the bailout in terms of income, the median household income in the US is about $50,000. If you had a $50,000 household budget, this bailout would be the equivalent of dishing out $12,000.
Whether the number is $12,000, $20,000, or $700 billion, the point is that it’s a big number relative to US government finances. Republicans and Democrats both belly-up-to-the-bar when it comes to spending taxpayer money. Republicans claim to be fiscally conservative, but seem to rarely live up to their tough talk in practice. George Bush, a supposed conservative who’s run up record spending and record deficits is a great example of the lip-service-only philosophy politicians of both parties seem to exhibit towards fiscal responsibility once they get to Washington. When it comes to politicians in practice, there seems to be no such thing as fiscal responsibility, regardless of party. Democrats don’t even bother to pretend to have fiscal responsibility. Their party platform for years has been based on reckless spending and redistribution of wealth in an attempt to buy votes with give-away programs. Their party-first philosophy gives no thought to the ramifications of their actions on the welfare of the nation. I’ve come to expect fiscal irresponsibility from Democrats. However, I expected more from our so-called free market-loving, fiscally conservative Republican leaders.

Get Government Out of the Private Sector

2008-09-18T19:44:00.001-07:00

A quick list of private business sectors screwed up or soon to be screwed up by a meddling US government:

Mortgages (That's obvious in light of the current Freddie/Fannie situation)
Real estate (As a result of their meddling in the mortgage business, home prices were artificially driven up by the availability of "cheap" money, thereby actually making it harder, not easier, to get people in homes. Ironic that a programs meant to make home ownership easier, actually pushed it farther out of reach. Liberal policies continue to be disasters as a result of unintended consequences.)
Finance/banking (The recent bail outs speak to this. Why are American tax payers subsidizing risk for private industry?)
Energy (The government is subsidizing the oil industry with our military actions intended to protect oil access. However, we ain't seen nothin' yet! Barak Obama wants to meddle in oil company profits. If the trend of government intervention in the oil industry continues, wait and see what happens to the US oil industry.)
Auto (For example, meddling government fuel economy standards making US companies non-competitive in North America.)
Rail (Remember Amtrack?)
Airlines (Just wait for more bail outs when these start failing.)
Pharmaceuticals (Bush's prescription drug bill ensnared government into this business.)
Medical industry (Is there any doubt government health care will be an economic and logistical nightmare?)
Insurance (US government is now the biggest private insurer in the world thanks to AIG bail out. How do you feel about being part owner of an insurance company?)
Farming (Subsidies have made it impossible for farmers to charge what they need to charge for their goods.)
Education (This is a tough one because colleges and universities are run by liberals, so liberal policy-makers are hesitant to meddle in this cash cow. However, don't underestimate the desire of the 2008 Democratic ticket to extend the reach of government into every sector. Even liberal colleges are no longer safe.)

How many more fiascos will it take for the American people to realize we need government out of the private sector? Although this government meddling is the result of liberal policy, it can't all be laid at the feet of Democrats. Republicans (aka Bush) have also abandoned conservative ideals and grown the scope of government tremendously these past years. Remember, these bail outs happening now are being lead by a Republican administration. Funny that Democrats so hate Bush. Many of his policies have been more liberal in execution than his predecessor (Clinton).

Some regulations are needed to ensure a fair playing field, but the US government has clearly stepped over the line.

Are there any other industries that I've forgotten from my list?

Why Does An All-Conservative Radio Station Thrive in a Blue State?

2008-09-11T18:58:00.000-07:00

Recently while flipping through the AM dial on my way home from work I discovered a new (to me) talk radio station in Connecticut. The station calls itself the "Talk of Connecticut". The station affiliates include WDRC 1360, WMMW 1470, WWCO 1240, and WSNG 610 providing coverage through most of Connecticut. I tune in on 1360. The stations contains a continuous stream of conservative leaning talk shows starting with local radio guy Brad Davis in the morning, moving to Bill O'Reilly in mid-day, again to local radio guy Dan Lovallo in the afternoon, and ending with Michael Savage in the evening. I enjoy listening to the station, especially the shows that put a local spin on issues. The stations website is:

http://www.talkofconnecticut.com/

Keeping in mind that Connecticut is one of the top five "bluest" states in the US, how is an all-conservative radio station able to thrive? Why do conservatives unquestioningly dominate talk radio, as well as having an upper hand in the blogosphere? I'd be interested in hearing your ideas.

I have a few theories:

Theory #1: Liberals so dominate the print and TV media, that conservatives are hungry to hear their message. Rush Limbaugh is such a powerful and successful radio personality that he pushed open the door for an entire legion of conservative radio show hosts.

Theory #2: The radio format is more conducive to a conservative message. The liberal message relies more heavily on emotional manipulation. TV and print allows the use of images that can more easily play to our emotional side. In radio it's more difficult to illicit an emotional response, therefore, it becomes more difficult to convey a liberal message. Radio plays into a more logic based conservative message.

Theory #3: Outside the urban centers, America is generally a conservative-leaning country. The news media has propagated the incorrect theory that the coasts are blue states and the heartland is red. This is not the true blue-red divide within the United States. If you look at the red-blue breakdown you will see that even in the reddest states, the urban areas are solidly blue. The real red-blue divide is between urban and rural. The coastal states are blue simply because they are the most densely populated (i.e. the most urban), not because of some liberal elixir in the ocean air.

Theory #4: The Democratic base largely does not listen to talk radio. Radio stations create a format to attract listeners, which attracts advertisers, which attacks revenue. Remember, radio stations are a for-profit business.

Regardless of the reasons, there's no denying that conservative ideals dominate talk radio, even in a blue state like Connecticut.

A New Blog: Radioviceonline.com

2008-09-09T17:57:00.000-07:00

Perhaps you've noticed that I don't have a lot of links to other blogs or websites on Liberty Alert. That's on purpose. My thinking is that generally if a reader knows what they are looking for, they can just as easily find it as I can. Therefore, I try to be selective and only include a few links to some unique, high quality sites I've stumbled upon.
Towards the bottom right of Liberty Alert there is a short list of Favorite Links. Until today, there were only 2 links on that list. One of those links was for the Jim Vicevich radio show. I'm a big fan of Jim's radio show, and I've plugged him on Liberty Alert in the past. Jim has just created a new blog (actually, he's moved to a new host/format). The blog can be found at:

http://www.radioviceonline.com/

Jim describes himself as a Republitarian. I believe he has a unique and entertaining radio show.

I've added Jim's blog to my short list of favorite links. Check out Jim's blog and radio show.

An Observation on Immigration Policy, Globalizaton

2008-09-07T16:35:00.000-07:00

Newsweek magazine's non-election feature article this week had to do with how the United States is prepared to compete in the global market. As China and India continue to grow, how will the United States continue to stay on top economically? Will the United States be able to stay on top economically?
One of the points made in the article was that India and China are greatly outpacing the US in producing engineers and other technical professionals. According to the Newsweek article China and India now graduate 5 times more engineers than the United States. At this rate, by 2011 90 percent of all engineers in the world will be in Asia.

With that in mind, I'm forced to consider the demographics of the technical and medical majors in American universities. The engineering departments are filled with Asian students. Most of these students come to the United States on student visas. They get educated in the American universities, then many return to their home countries without ever contributing to the American economy.

In light of the continually rising global economy and the pressures US businesses are facing from all over, why does the US government continue to allow these student visas? Americans are essentially training our competition, and if these students are being trained in public universities, Americans are using tax dollars to do it. Americans are essentially subsidizing the weakening of any US technical advantage.

Why?

There was a time when a high number of foreign students in US universities did not pose a threat. Perhaps that time has passed.

I have a suggestion. Instead of limiting student visas, the State Department will still allow student visas, but with one stipulation. If you take advantage of a US education, post-graduation you have to work at least 7 years in a job within the United States or if working outside the United States it would need to be for a US company. I suggest this stipulation should be required for all foreign students looking to take advantage of the superior American university system, but especially for students looking to go to a public university.
Why did I pick 7 years? As a engineering degree-holder myself, I know that the first two years on the job are mostly training. I figured that 5 solid years would be a fair contribution. Therefore, you need 7 years; 2 for training, 5 for production.

What would be the result of such a policy? I suspect the number of student visas would go down. Universities would not like it because they make a lot of money off these students tuition. Supply and demand would dictate that Universities might actually have to lower tuition, or at least slow the tremendous growth of tuition. Is that such a bad thing? Secondly, demand for engineers and professionals may increase in the workplace. Therefore, there would be more incentive for US students to fill the gap.

I'm not suggesting that we should keep foreign students from our universities. We should accept the best qualified students regardless of location, but is it too much to ask for a little bit back in return?

Latest Target of the Nanny-State: Plastic Bags

2008-09-05T09:23:00.000-07:00

The nanny-staters are at it again. Westport, Connecticut has become the first community on the east coast of the United States to ban plastic shopping bags. The ban, done in the name of “green”, will levy a $150 fine to any merchant that offers a plastic bag to shoppers. No word yet if there will be a solicitation fine for any customer that asks for a plastic bag.
Starting in 2009, Seattle, Washington has instituted a $.20 per bag tax on all plastic bags, again in the name of protecting the environment.

Are plastic shopping bags really the scourge of our pristine environment? Even the liberal machine MSNBC has questions about paper versus plastic. Anne Thompson writes that the debate of paper versus plastic in not so clear-cut:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18538484/

================================================

Plastic bags
— Each year, an estimated 500 billion to 1 trillion plastic bags are consumed worldwide.
— Plastics do NOT biodegrade. Rather, they photodegrade, a process in which sunlight breaks down plastic into smaller and smaller pieces.
— It can take up to 1,000 years for a high-density polyethylene plastic bag to break down in the environment.
— Plastic bags are on the top 10 list of most common trash items along the American coastline (both on land and in the water).
Paper bags
— Paper bags generate 70 percent more air pollutants and 50 times more water pollutants than plastic bags.
— 2,000 plastic bags weigh 30 pounds, 2,000 paper bags weigh 280 pounds. The latter takes up a lot more landfill space.
— It takes 91 percent less energy to recycle a pound of plastic than it takes to recycle a pound of paper. It takes more than four times as much energy to manufacture a paper bag as it does to manufacture a plastic bag.

Sources: reusablebags.com, NRDC and International Coastal Cleanup 2005 Report from the Ocean Conservancy
================================================

Paper bags use trees. Trees require a significant amount of energy to harvest. The machines that harvest, transport, and convert trees into paper burn evil fossil fuels. Where’s the research backing the ban of plastic bags? Where’s the evidence that they are a public hazard?
Once again, liberal policy falls into the trap of unintended consequences.
I suspect a lot more anecdotal data was used over hardcore scientific research by the banning lawmakers in Seattle and Westport. Politicians have locked onto plastic bags as a cause celebre, using it to perpetuate the image of doing something, rather than actually accomplishing something useful. Image and intentions are everything to liberals.

Who is the city government to tell a merchant what they can and cannot give away to their customers? Who is the city government to burden merchants with keeping track of the number of bags they give out in order to support their tax collection? Talk about an unfunded mandate!

What if you owned a business selling plastic bags to merchants? Who compensates you for the loss of your livelihood? Isn’t the government supposed to promote life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Once again, I guess the Constitution does not apply to liberals.
Banning in general is the juvenile solution to problems. It’s the governmental equivalent of the crying child on the playground taking his ball and going home.

Bans rarely address the root of the issue, often are triggers of multitudes of unintended consequences, and generally reduce the liberty of the public. We should demand more from our lawmakers.

A Rarity: School Board Pulls Off Budget Surplus

2008-09-04T18:10:00.001-07:00

I've been especially tough on school boards and school administrators in this space in the past, especially the school board of my local town of Bristol, CT. Since I've been so tough in the past, I found it only fair to give credit when credit is due. The Bristol, CT Board of Education announced this week that they ended the fiscal year with a surplus of nearly $800,000.

I send my kudos to the Board of Education and administrators of all Bristol schools that made this possible.

This demonstration of efficiency and fiscal responsibility in the face of rising costs (energy, food, etc.) should be applauded. The effort will go a long way towards increasing the trust of the local tax payers in the school system management.

I don't know all the details of what created the surplus, but I'm taking this one at face value.

Great job BoE and thanks for looking out for the local tax payers! Keep it up.

Book Review: Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali

2008-09-01T09:12:00.000-07:00

Infidel is the memoirs of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Ayaan Hirsi Ali fits so many labels it's difficult to exactly give her a title. She's a writer, a film maker, a Dutch politician, a feminist, and an opponent of Islam. She's an extraordinary person.
The book describes Hirsi Ali's life from childhood to present day. She was born in Kenya but moved around to several other Muslim countries throughout her childhood. The book describes how she survived an abusive mother, an non-present father, a religious system that treats women as property, genital mutilation ("female circumcision") at age 5, forced religious teachings, poverty, being beaten so severely by a teacher that it cracked her skull, the preventable death of her sister, forced marriage, exile from her family, the murder of her business partner, and finally her life in forced isolation due to threats on her life. Through all this Ayann Hirsi Ali survived, became a best-selling author and a member of the Dutch Parliament.
What struck me about Hirsi Ali's hardship was not how incredible they were, but how common such abuses are in the Muslim world. If fact, it is more normal for a woman to be beaten, genitally mutilated, and forced into marriage in the Muslim world than it is abnormal. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is extraordinary for how she overcame this abusive system, but not for what she went through within the system. Millions of Muslim women go through similar abuses. Hirsi Ali's main platform as a politician is to give rights to oppressed women throughout her country and the world.
The book is written in a simple, matter of fact manner. It is not written lyrically or in a fancy style. The power of the book is in Ayaan Hirsi Ali's story, and not in the style of writing. She is so raw in opening up about her emotions as well as the events in her life that it evokes a powerful response in the reader. At about 351 pages it was a quick read.
The book does not just discuss the events of her life. She delves into the lessons she has learned, and how the event of her life have shaped her philosophy. She logically explains many points regarding the farce that is modern Islam. As she explains, Islam is not a religion of peace. The religion you see in practice (violence, abuse, radicalism, anti-liberty) is not radical Islam. As Ali explains, there really is no radical Islam. All these things we observe are standard Islam, right out of the Quran. Westerners can hardly imagine such a system, so we give it the label "radical-Islam" to help us make sense of it. The system set up in countries like Kenya and Saudi Arabia is totally contrary to the concepts of liberty in which western society is built. Islam is the number one threat to liberty in the world today. Islam is the number one threat to the United States. Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali has opened my eyes to the true nature of Islam in practice.
The book was highly educational for me as a westerner, relatively unfamiliar with Islam. In light of the current state of the world, this book and Ayaan Hirsi Ali's message are especially important. This is one of the most eye-opening books I have read.

Ever Wonder Where Your Local Property Taxes Go?

2008-08-27T18:00:00.000-07:00

A Redding, CT non-partisan action group has created an on-line calculator to demonstrate how the town spends local property taxes. In the state of Connecticut nearly all local government is funded by one of the highest property taxes (taxes on real estate and registered vehicles, i.e boats, cars, motorcycles, etc.) in the nation.
Although the distribution of expenses in your town will not be exactly the same as Redding's, the calculator still gives you a general idea of what the budget requirements are for a typical town.

The calculator can be found at the following link:

http://betterredding.org/html/taxspending.html

One thing that is noticed immediately is that 71.4% of the town budget is spent on the public school. This is again typical of a Connecticut town. Connecticut spends more per pupil on public education than any state. Despite this spending, Connecticut remains in the mid-30's in standardized test scores, including SAT scores.

Thanks NABR for bring transparency to taxpayers with regards to local government spending.

Ban Baby Ban! A Short List of Items Banned by State Law in the State of Connecticut

2008-08-22T18:19:00.000-07:00

Here is a short list of banned items, by state law, in CT. Some of the items may surprise you.

Banned:
- Sunday hunting
- Sunday alcohol sales
- Sale of alcohol past 9 PM
----------Just recently bumped up from 8 PM
- Incandescent light bulbs in state buildings
----------A mandate to require mercury filled, China manufactured, compact fluorescent bulbs

- Smoking in any public place, including bars

----------The states two mega-sized, mega-profit, mega-tax contributing Indian casinos are exempt

- Talking on a cell phone while driving

----------Listening to the radio is still allowed

- Gambling

----------Allowed in the aforementioned Indian casinos
----------Apparently the state run lottery is not considered gambling

- Fireworks

----------Legislature was duped into allowing "sparklers" a few years ago

- Hunting with a rifle on public land

- Driving without a seat belt

- "Non-healthy" snacks in public school snack machines
---------- No soda, candy, etc.
- Jarts
- Common sense----------Not really, but some times it seems like it

On the Docket:
- Transfat in restaurants
- Billboards along the highways
----------Even though the state of CT is a top purchaser of billboard advertising space

Bans Recently (within approximately 10 years) Lifted:
- Auto dealerships open on Sundays
- Radar detectors

Curiously Not Banned:
- Riding a motorcycle without a helmet
----------Seat belts, yes! Helmets, no!

-An open container of alcohol in a car

-Civil unions

Things that Should be Banned, but Are Not:

- Speedo's on the beach if you're male
- Wearing a blue tooth headset in public

Connecticut: Super-nanny of the nanny states.

Note: For some reason the formatting on this post is terrible. I tried, but the software would not let me fix it. I had to use these ridiculous dashes instead of bullets, and the spacing is all screwed up.

New Concept for Illegal Alien Problem -- Alternative to a Sanctuary City

2008-08-20T18:30:00.000-07:00

You may have recently heard that the city of Hartford, CT USA has just passed legislation to make Hartford a "sanctuary city". What that means is that city officials are no longer able to ask if someone is a legal US citizen. The city basically turns a blind eye to illegal aliens. If an illegal alien comes to the Hartford town hall seeking some type of aid (welfare, etc), they will get it regardless of the fact that they are illegally in the United States. Apparently officials that have sworn to uphold the law believe they only have to uphold the laws they like. As ridiculous as the idea of a "sanctuary city" seems to any logically thinking individual, that's not the main point of this post. The recent legislative activities in Hartford made me spend some time contemplating the issue of illegal immigration.

What should be done with an illegal immigrant? In Hartford the answer is nothing, but that certainly does not seem like the right approach. It's so wrong on so many levels that I don't believe I should even go into further discussion here. I could write pages on why the "sanctuary city" concept is wrong. Some say illegal immigrants should summarily be pursued and deported. The argument is that they are law breakers, and the sovereignty of the US boarders needs to be honored. However, this iron fist approach does not seem right either. It's easy to say, but it shows no nuance. Proclamations like "round 'em up and ship 'em out" fuel the liberal fire of portraying conservatives as heartless, mean spirited, and uncompassionate. Besides, such approaches demonstrate no real thought on the issue. There are many hard working illegal immigrants that have achieved in this country. The US wrestler, son of an illegal immigrant from Mexico, that just won a gold medal in the Beijing Olympics comes to mind. For most people their families, specifically their children, are the most important thing in their lives. I can't say that I would not come to the US to try to give my family a better life if I were poverty stricken in Mexico.

So the solution lies somewhere in between 100% deportation and 100% amnesty.

I'm here to propose a new concept. I'm not here to say it's the greatest concept, but it is at least a unique concept to try to address the issue. I have not worked out every detail, but the concept would be called socio-economic asylum. It's not a totally new concept. It's based off of political asylum that most western countries already offer. Political asylum is typically granted to people that are displaced or can not return to their native country due to issues such as civil war, or an oppressive government. The United States could grant socio-economic asylum to people that are not able to engage in the pursuit of happiness (or life or liberty) due to hopeless economic conditions in their native country. Here's how it would work: Once someone comes to this country (illegally), they would not have access to social services (welfare, permission to work, unemployment, food stamps, housing assistance, etc.) unless they apply for socio-economic asylum. In fact, they would not be guaranteed access to anything, including constitutional rights since the US Constitution applies only to US citizens. The requirement of applying for socio-economic asylum would need to be strictly enforced. No sanctuary. If you want services, you need to at least apply. This would do a couple of things. First, the government would have documentation on the illegal immigrants. No more guessing who is illegal, and how many are out there. Secondly, by agreeing to be a part of this asylum program, the government would have the opportunity to make special demands on the individual. Remember, this person has come to the United States illegally. In order to be granted amnesty for their crime it is not outrageous for the United States to put some demands on these individuals.
There would also be a process for people to seek socio-political asylum before coming to the US. If granted asylum, the follow-up demands from the government would be much less on these people because they do not have to work to achieve amnesty for the crime of coming to the US illegally.
First, the socio-economic asylum-seeker would need to prove that his situation was hopeless in his former country. You can not come to US simply because you want more stuff. Socio-economic asylum can only be granted if, through little fault of your own, you would not be able to improve your lot in life if you stayed in your former country. Second, you need to also prove how this would change by coming to the US. If you were living on welfare in some other country, you can't just plan to come to the United States because the welfare pay is better. You need to have a skill or some plan of how your circumstances could be improved by relocating to the United States. If you have a skill, you can not just come to the US to pursue your craft simply because the pay is better. For example, if you are a chef and your plan is to come to the United States and use your savings to start a restaurant, you would have to prove that a similar plan could not be implemented just as easily and effectively in your former country. You would need to give reasons. If the United States is going to take you in and provide this asylum, the government should have assurance that the aslyum-seeker is going to try in good faith to be a productive member of the United States. The idea is that the United States becomes a better, not a worst place for letting the person in. If the asylum-seeker's plan is solid, the government could possibly even provide some assistance in getting started, but that's open for debate.
Once the asylum seeker has proved all this, his socio-economic asylum application would be preliminarily approved pending further commitments. Within a certain time frame, these further commitments would include:

Need to demonstrate progress towards getting off of social services.
Need to stay "clean". That means, no illegal activity of any sort.
Need to take English classes or demonstrate a proficiency in English. If you are able to teach yourself, that's fine, but you would eventually need to pass a basic exam.
After getting established, need to commit to volunteer some minimal amount of hours to council other socio-economic asylum seekers through the process. Something like 2 to 4 hours per week seems fair.
Need to be working towards eventual full citizenship.

If these stipulations are not met by a certain amount of time, the individual receives sanctions, and faces possible deportation. There would be a zero tolerance policy for the bullet regarding not engaging in illegal activity. That would lead to immediate deportation. However, if the illegal immigrant could make it though this process, they would first be granted asylum, then eventually possibly full citizenship.

A program such as this would produce a citizen that is ready to contribute and improve the United States, rather than drain it.

The flip side is that deportation would have to be strictly enforced for anyone that does not participate in the program, or refuses to meet the stipulations.

I'm not typically one for suggesting new government bureaucracy to address an issue. However, even the most fiscally conservative person has to agree that there are some problems that government is necessary to handle. Mostly, these illegal immigrants are trying to do the best they can to provide a life for their families. The United States provides political asylum, so why would socio-economic asylum be so outrageous to at least consider?
There are special circumstances that could fast-track a person in the asylum process. For example, a wife or child that came to the US to escape an abusive husband. Someone in need of life saving medical care that would not be available in their former country. People that are denied education. People that are victims of discrimination so severe that they can't work. These people move to the front of the asylum line, but be wary because the asylum-seeker would eventually need to produce proof other than just their word.

There are other actions that would need to go hand-in-hand with the implementation of such a program. Employers would be severely fined for hiring non-documented illegal aliens. Authorities would need to proactively go after suspected employers of non-documented illegal aliens. Secondly, US boarder patrol would need to be improved. Third, a 100% deportation policy would need to be instituted for any illegal alien that did not at least apply for socio-economic asylum.
Once the potential illegal immigrants still in their home country know that the US is serious, they would not attempt to come to the US on a whim.

I'm not arguing that this is the best idea ever. It still would have a lot of details to be figured out. However, it's a much more compassionate approach to the 100% deportation crowd, and a much more practical approach to the 100% automatic amnesty crowd.

What are your thoughts and ideas?

Note: I just came up with this idea today, so feel free to let me have it.

Readers Bare with Me

2008-08-17T12:45:00.001-07:00

I need to beg the pardon of Liberty Alert readers of late. I've been a bit under the weather fighting a sudden and pesky summer cold, so I'm not able to post with the frequency I would like.

Hopefully this week I will be as close to full strength as I can be to resume my goal of posting once every 1, 2 or 3 days.

Thanks for your understanding.

Gadsden Flag -- First Flag of the United States

Neil Cavuto is a New Liberty Alert Hero

2008-08-12T19:14:00.000-07:00

I'm a little late to the party on this one, but Neil Cavuto of the Fox News Network has become my new hero for this week. Up to this point, I have not seen a lot of Neil, but the other day I happened to catch an interview he conducted with New Jersey Democratic Congressman Frank Pallone regarding off-shore oil drilling. Neil Cavuto totally whipped the floor with this clueless congressman. You can see the transcript of the interview here:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,399384,00.html

Unfortunately I was not able to find a video of the interview. However, since I was so impressed with this interview, I searched for other Neil Cavuto interviews. Check out this one on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUsLLDClJRE

It's refreshing to finally see a reporter that does not take any bull from these double talking politicians.

I can't speak for Neil Cavuto's entire body of work, but these recent interviews really impressed me. I will be looking to catch Neil's show on the Fox News Network in the future. Neil's show is called Your World with Neil Cavuto. A link to the show is below:

http://www.foxnews.com/yourworld/index.html

Hartford, CT -- Local African American Leader Becomes An Apologist for Violence in City, Keney Park

2008-08-06T19:21:00.000-07:00

This entry will discuss race. Read on if you dare! It's a delicate subject, but one that Liberty Alert readers deserve to explore. If you want the news, you can go to CNN. If you want watered-down, low risk opinions, you can go to the op-ed page of your local newspaper. Liberty Alert tries to provide opinion not concerned with political correctness.
I recently played a round of golf at Keney Park golf course in the heart of Hartford, Connecticut. The golf course was fine. However, while trying to find the course I had to drive all around Keney Park. Keney Park is a series of forested and park areas, including ball fields, playgrounds, and a golf course. It is quite large and is split by several through roads. While driving through the park, in the back of my mind I physically feared for my safety. I passed by groups of people apparently just "hanging out" around parked cars. Yes, nearly all the people were minorities (African American or Hispanic). Young men with their pants sagging walked in front of my moving car apparently oblivious to the fact that I might hit them. It was a display of passive-aggressive (or maybe aggressive-aggressive) behavior to try to intimidate. As I slowly drove by in my business-casual clothes I thought I heard people shouting at me as I panned my head back-and-forth looking for the golf course. At the time, I told myself it was all my imagination. It was my prejudices as a white male from a mostly rural background that were making me have irrational fears, or so I told myself at the time. Anyway, despite the uncomfortable moments, I found the golf course and played my round without much issue.
Then came the news this week. Dead body found in Keney Park. I started investigating further. The week before: Woman sexually assaulted in Keney Park. I started to re-evaluate the thoughts and fears I had during my recent drive through Keney Park. Maybe my fears were not irrational at all. Perhaps my fears were not a by-product of profound prejudices. I'm sure there are African Americans out there that would argue the contrary, but the data does not lie. My instincts were dead-on. I'm a relatively young, and healthy man. Imagine how a woman or older person would have felt taking the same drive I did.
Perhaps by co-incidence, perhaps not, columnists in the local newspaper, The Hartford Courant, have recently written columns touching on crime in Hartford. One of the columns describes the fear of Hartford living. A white male authored this column. The second column discussed police prejudice, how Keney Park was an "underplayed asset" within Hartford, and how Keney Park was indeed safe. It's interesting that two different columnists for the same paper could have such different perspectives on the same subject. Something did not add up here.
The column regarding fear in Hartford was by well-known local liberal radio talk-show host and columnists Colin McEnroe. I describe Colin as a liberal not in a derogatory way, but as a fact. He does not hide his political tendencies. He is as openly liberal as Rush Limbaugh is openly conservative. The column by Colin printed July 27th was one of the most interesting columns I have read from Mr. McEnroe. You can read the column at the following location: http://www.courant.com/news/local/columnists/hc-colin0727.artjul27,0,3116101.column The title is "When the City You Love Starts to Scare You". The column explains how Mr. McEnroe moved to Hartford because he enjoys the choices and diversity of urban life. However, it goes on to detail instances of crime and police incompetence that have made his favorite city unlivable, even for a single, successful man without any family to worry about. At the conclusion of the column Mr. McEnroe explains that he will be doing what nearly all people of means have done in Hartford: He is moving out in 2 weeks. Who can blame him? Why should a successful, smart, generally peaceful person subject themselves to crime, violence, and fear? Still, it's sad. In his words, Colin McEnroe was someone deeply committed to city life. He put his faith in city life. He put his faith in the goodness of people. In the end, his faith was stomped upon by thugs, and well as a police department that seems to accept thuggery.
Just one week prior (July 19th) prominent African American columnist and also part-time radio talk show host Stan Simpson wrote a different column. I describe Mr. Simpson as an "African American" columnist because that is generally how he identifies himself. Most of his columns have to do with race, and his blog site, stansimpson.com, is dedicated to "the African American experience". He considers himself one of the leaders of the African American community. (Aside: Isn't it interesting that Caucasians do not have any "community leaders"? Caucasians do not consider themselves part of the "white community". You would never see a Caucasian running for president of the United States who's previous work experience included the job title of "Community Organizer", what ever that is! Ok, just an interesting sidebar. Back to the main point now.) I have enjoyed hearing his perspective through his radio show, and reading his columns. In his July 19th column Mr. Simpson laments that a new Hartford police officer considers Keney Park dangerous. The column can be read at: http://www.courant.com/news/local/columnists/hc-ctstan0719.artjul19,0,5984769.columnMr. Simpson states, “Anyone who has ever visited Keney to golf, watch cricket, play basketball or fire up a grill knows that it is safe.” Mr. Simpson goes on to criticize the Hartford police officers stating that the young officers lack “seasoning”. Hello! Talk about denial! Does the woman who was just sexually assaulted in Keney Park believe it’s safe? What about the family of the dead man just found in the park? I myself have driven through Keney Park and my instincts told me it was not safe. My instincts were supported by the recent crime headlines. Who better to know about crime in Hartford than a Hartford police officer? Then there was the column by Mr. Simpson’s colleague at The Hartford Courant (and I can assure you that Colin McEnroe and Stan Simpson know each other) explaining the violence that is driving him to the suburbs. In light of all these events, I spent some time considering how such a chasm could form between my perceptions (backed up by Colin McEnroe, and a Hartford police officer) and Stan Simpson’s perceptions. Are black and Hispanic people the only people who can feel safe in Keney Park?
I did some digging into crime statistics in Hartford. Hartford has way too many urban problems for a relatively small city. People may be surprised to learn that Hartford has a population of only about $120,000 people. Most people familiar with the city think it would be more. This is hardly a huge metropolis. It’s not even the biggest city in the small state of Connecticut. It is third largest behind Bridgeport and New Haven, which have populations around 120,000 to 140,000. Despite Hartford’s small size, murder in Hartford is nearly 5 times the national average! Overall violent crime is 2.42 times the national average. Compare that to the similar sized cities in the state of Connecticut, such as Bridgeport and New Haven. Bridgeport’s violent crime rate is 1.62 times the national average, and New Haven’s violent crime rate is .26 times (i.e. under the national average) the national average. That’s the real data. Then there’s the anecdotal data, such as my unpleasant drive through Keney Park, as well as the Hartford hit-and-run story. It made national news when the hit-and-run of an elderly man was caught on tape. The outrage came when nobody bothered to help the man after the accident. See the coverage at this link: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=5013503
Hartford is too small of a city to have these big city issues. The mayor and the Hartford Police chief should be ashamed. Perhaps one might expect crime issues in cities with 1 million plus people like Detroit, Washington DC, or New York, but Hartford has unrealistic big-city expectations if the perception is that crime at this level is acceptable.
It might be tough to hear, but demographics are a big issue here. Nobody that has the means to move out would stay in Hartford. Colin McEnroe is a perfect example. Therefore, Hartford is left with an 80% minority population with an equally high percentage below the poverty line. African American leaders such as Stan Simpson cannot remain in denial. Keney Park is not safe. Hartford is not safe. Hartford is not a place that anyone with any other option would choose to live. Hartford is not a thriving community. View the hit-and-run video again as a reminder. Bill Cosby has been an outspoken advocate of accountability within the African American community. Leaders like Stan Simpson should stop being apologists for the disgraceful urban culture that thrives on intimidation, machismo, and violence. Instead of criticizing the police perception, perhaps leaders should advocate responsibility, accountability, and just plan politeness within the urban minority community. A city of 120,000 in the middle of the wealthiest state in the wealthiest country in the world has the potential to overcome these issues. Perhaps suburban people will have more interest in investing in the city if they are able to feel as safe passing through the city as a city-dweller would feel passing through the suburbs.

Two final questions to ponder: Does Stan Simpson live in Hartford? If so, why?

"Republicans get out of my bedroom! Democrats get out of my wallet!"

2008-07-31T19:34:00.000-07:00

This was a great quote I heard today while listening to the Jim Vicevich radio show on WTIC.com. Jim is a Libertarian leaning Republican who has a radio show from 10 to 12 AM Eastern time on WTIC 1080 in Hartford, and WTIC.com. Jim has a great show. His views and core values regarding government are the closest to my own that I have found in all media (print, TV, radio, etc.). I recommend the show. I've put a link to his show further down on the right side of this blog. Jim also has a blog here on blogger at radiovice.blogspot.com. I have not had much time to explore his blog, but I hope to in the future.

I thought this quote from Jim summed it up nicely.

Just a quick post today because I think the quote speaks for itself.

Let's hear your thoughts, supporting or opposing.

Manny Ramirez Has Officially Jumped the Shark on Red Sox Nation

2008-07-26T10:19:00.001-07:00

Note: On occasion, Liberty Alert will comment on events outside the world of politics, government, etc. These forays into other various topics will be occasional, and all fun. I've used this space before to discuss Manny Ramirez, so this entry is a sort of follow up to my previous entry.

OK, I've finally had it! I've been an apologist for Manny being Manny for a while now. I put up with the water bottle in the back pocket, the high fives while the ball is in-play, the bathroom breaks inside the Green Monster, the erratic fielding, the arguments with teammates, and even the phantom injuries. But enough is finally enough! In case you have not heard the latest, Manny Ramirez, perennial all star, World Series MVP, and future Hall-of-Famer has suddenly and mysteriously begged out of the last 2 games due to a supposed knee injury. What's worst is that his sudden unavailability came against the arch rival New York Yankees. The Red Sox have a $20 million team option on Manny next season that they have yet to exercise. Speculation is that Manny, who happens to be one of the top 5 highest paid players in the game, is unhappy with ownership for not yet picking up his option. Therefore, he is using this knee injury as the ultimate passive-aggressive revenge.
What does Manny Ramirez have to be upset about? Red Sox Nation has winced and looked away at all of the previous Manny-isms because the guy has produced at the plate. However, Manny has continued to show a lack of respect for his teammates, the Red Sox organization, the fans, and the game of baseball in general. In case you have not noticed (which I know that you have), Manny's production was significantly down last year. Red Sox Nation was able to look past it because Manny came through in the playoffs, followed by a decent first half this year. Regardless of his production, there comes a point when an organization and fan base needs to stand up for principles. Manny Ramirez is taking advantage of the good will of Red Sox Nation. It's a shame because he's one hell of a hitter, but he's finally gone too far.
I would not have said this a week ago, but I hope the Red Sox stand up and do not pick up Manny's option for next year. Instead of turning into a facsimile of the over-paid, over-arrogant Yankees, I would rather the Red Sox use the $20 million on a player(s) that cares as much about the team as the fans do. Let Manny be Manny somewhere else. What do you think?

Exercising Civil Disobedience While Paying Property Taxes

2008-07-24T19:29:00.000-07:00

July and August is the time when vehicle property tax comes due in all 169 Connecticut municipalities. As if the property tax Connecticut residents pay on their real estate is not enough, like many states, Connecticut residents are also taxed on all registered motor vehicles including cars, trucks, campers, boats, and even trailers.

This summer, the tax payers here at Liberty Alert (i.e. me) used the opportunity to let the town of Bristol, CT know what we really think of their tax collection. See the attached picture. Each tax bill was separately mailed with a special label for the tax collector on each envelope.

Now, I fully understand that the tax collector does not determine the tax rate or tax system. However, this small act of civil disobedience was done not just for the benefit of the tax collector. Those envelopes will be seen by multiple post office employees, and likely some town hall staffers on the way to the tax collector. The envelopes may even draw enough attention to get the mayor or some council members in the act. The point is, this small act of rebellion could get noticed, and help encourage some civil disobedience in others. Is it a bit childish? Perhaps. But, in the spirit of Henry David Thoreau, a little civil disobedience is a good thing. Humor and satire can be a strong tool to get your point across. I look at it more like playing a prank on a good friend. You like the friend, but it's fun to see them go through a little harmless suffering. Don't let the government off the hook. It's ok to give the government a hard time once in a while. The government is not above being harmlessly punked. Remember, the government should fear the people, not the other way around!

Incidentally, Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau is an American classic that I highly recommend. The essay inspired such leaders as Martin Luther King and Gandhi. It is a quick read, and can likely be found at any local library. It's a must read. Look for a future book review of Civil Disobedience on Liberty Alert.

What the US Government Should Do About High Oil Prices -- Nothing

2008-07-19T13:15:00.000-07:00

Nearly everyone in the US is struggling with the high price of gasoline driven by the recent run up in crude oil prices. Rightly so. In the United States, gasoline is closer to a utility service than a luxury item. The layout of the country requires gasoline to drive the economy. Where in Europe their transportation infrastructure was built upon rail travel, the United States has the greatest car-based infrastructure in the world. To get to the point, the US needs gasoline. So naturally, when prices go up, people look for relief. The question to ponder is; should US citizens look to government for that relief?
The US exists in what is supposed to be a free market economy. A free market has proven to be the most successful economic system. When government gets out of the way, the natural ambition of people is able to thrive. One needs only to look at the recent rise of the Chinese economy after the government loosened the reigns and moved towards a free market system to see the power of a free market economy. A free market is intended to be just that: free. Free from government meddling. Given time, free economies have been able to correct themselves. The forces of supply and demand are powerful. Perhaps even more powerful than anything the US government can do.
However, it's an election year. Candidates love to make promises to people. Republican or Democrat alike rarely miss an opportunity to promise government action to alleviate any ill. And what is government action? Essentially it's spending money. What is government money? It's our money! Spending money to try to save money does not make sense, especially when you consider the device spending the money is the highly inefficient government machine. Regardless, this does not stop the pandering from politicians. I'm reminded of the old saying "When your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." Government seems to believe that more government is the only solution to any problem. Perhaps even more troubling than the political pandering on the campaign trail is the citizenry demand for government action. The victim-mentality of a large segment of the population constantly looks to government to solve every problem. This fuel that drives the growth of Big Government. Unfortunately, the price of that fuel seems to be all too low these days. Let it be known that although the Democrats are synonymous with Big Government, the Republican party is hardly innocent of the recent build up of Big Government.
I urge people to have a little patience and a little faith. Understandable that can be difficult, but it's necessary. I'm right in the high gas price fox hole with the rest of you. But I have faith in the free economy. Without any government action whatsoever, the price of oil has gone down for 2 weeks in a row. Again, the forces of supply and demand are at work. The market could not sustain such high gas prices. People are changing their habits. Americans are using less gasoline. Demand is down. Prices have followed. All this with no government action. I'm hardly naive enough to believe that were are out of the high-oil woods. The price can certainly spike back up. It can continue to climb. And if that happens, the free market will again react. Technology will step in. New technology that we have not even yet anticipated would eventually come to fruition. It might not happen over night, but I have the highest faith that the market would certainly respond quicker and more effectively than any government action.
So, is there anything the government can do? Certainly there are actions the government can take to promote beneficial behaviors. First and simplest, they could reduce regulations on drilling, allowing for more drilling. This is a great example of how government intervention staggers a free market economy. Loosening the regulations would allow the free market to respond to the natural market demand. I'm also open to hearing about potential government economic incentives. Perhaps tax breaks on alternative energy companies or users. However, beware of government intervention in the free market! Ridiculous ideas like a "wind-fall profits tax" is one of the scariest things I have ever heard escape the lips of a politician. What's even scarier is that when those words were uttered, the crowd cheered.

Restaurant Review: Chevy's Drive In -- Bristol, CT -- Forget About It

2008-07-12T18:14:00.000-07:00

I did not plan to use this space to review restaurants, but part of the purpose of this blog is for me to be able to vent. Tonight (7-12-2008) I had an absolutely terrible attempt at a dining experience at Chevy's Drive In on Farmington Avenue in Bristol, CT. I use the word "attempt" because we never got our food. If you are from the Bristol area, I would recommend saving your money and not bothering with this place.
Without getting into details, the service was so bad that I left before my food arrived. The waiters were rude and incompetent. The table next to us left a nasty note telling them what they thought of the restaurant, so it was not just me. If you want the details, leave a post and I can expound.
I hope I can save some of my local readers some time, money, and aggravation.

I apologize to my non-local readers for including such a Bristol-specific post, but this was very likely the worst restaurant experience I have had in my life. I could not let it pass without writing about it.

There. I feel a little better now.

Obama Wants People to Pay Down Hillary's Campaign Debt

2008-07-11T09:19:00.000-07:00

So Hillary Clinton has sold out again. During her failed campaign to secure the Democratic party presidential nomination, Hillary has apparently racked up over $20 million in debt. Now Mrs. Clinton has embarked on a joint begging tour as a tag-along to Senator Barack Obama as he continues his fundraising. Hillary is asking the American people, specifically Democratic supporters of Barack Obama to pay off her debt. What's next for the former First Lady; panhandling?

I suppose we should not be surprised. Hillary Clinton has a history of selling out her values for personal gain. She has proved time and again that she is a woman that knows no shame. She sold out her marriage by staying with a cheating husband that any other reasonable wife would have been expected to divorce. She sold out her roots by moving to New York simply because there was an open Senate seat there. This is a state in which neither of the Clinton's had previously had any residence. She's the true definition of a carpetbagger (look it up if you've never heard the expression). Would she have established residence in Alaska if they were the state with the open seat? She acts and talks now as if she's been a New Yorker all her life. However, isn't funny that when she made political stump speeches in the south she suddenly found her southern twang? Now she is selling out her own ego to beg for money. Has the woman no pride? What's even more appalling is that she expects the American people to pay this debt. Last I checked, nobody forced Mrs. Clinton to run over by $20 million in her campaign. If that's the kind of fiscal responsibility that Mrs. Clinton showed in her political campaign, imagine how she would have handled the national finances!

Readers can ignore this one. Just a post to set up a technorati account. Sorry for the inconvenience.

2008-07-09T18:53:00.000-07:00

Technorati Profile

A Note Regarding the Writing in This Blog

2008-07-08T17:47:00.000-07:00

Just wanted to let everyone know that most of the writing in this blog is of the brain-to-finger-tips-to-keyboard style of writing. I have a full time job and a full time family, so I don't always have all the time necessary to craft perfect posts. Sometimes you may notice a stream-of-consciousness style. Other times you may see some grammatical issues, or an occasional spelling mistake. I want to take this opportunity to apologize in advance, and ask you to bare with me as I try to add content to the site.As always, if you see a mistake, feel free to point it out in the form of a post. I'll do my best to make corrections.

J

Movie Review: Wall-e -- Can We Please Stop Putting Blatant Political Messages in Children's Movies?!

2008-07-07T19:35:00.000-07:00

So this weekend I took my 3-year old son to see Wall-e. In case you've been in a cave, that's the new Pixar-Disney robot movie. Here's all I have to tell you to review this movie: both me, and my 3-year old fell asleep during the movie. However, we both managed to catch enough of the movie to get the gist. Despite his falling asleep, my son did seem to enjoy the movie.

The plot summary is that in the year 2700, due to man's negligence, the Earth is a garbage dump incapable of supporting life. Wall-e is a robot left behind to help clean up the garbage in anticipation of an eventual recovery. People have left the Earth and live in some sort of huge space ship. The human race has become a bunch of fat, blubbering, spineless blobs that do nothing but float around in levitating chairs and eat. Eventually, plant life is discovered on Earth, and the humans come back.

This was one of the most political children's movies I have ever seen. The message is right from the "environmentalist-whacko" handbook. Man is bad. We are destroying the Earth. Fortunately, my son is young enough to not really understand the undertones of the message.

This would not bother me so much, except it is right on the heels of another blockbuster children's movie with an environmental message. Happy Feet was another movie that attempts to infiltrate our kid's minds. Can it please stop?! Whether you agree or disagree with the message, do our kids need to be slyly bombarded with politics when they go to the movies? Adults can typically see when they are being sold to. However, children are not able to distinguish the difference.

Growing up, the most political movie I can recall was Bambi, but that message came nowhere near breaching the political firestorm pushed upon our kids in Wall-e and Happy Feet.

In the future, I'm going to be more careful about exposing my children to political messages in their entertainment. I anticipate some difficulty when my son wants to see the latest movie that "everyone" is seeing. Perhaps I'll cave, but I hope to at least be on-alert for these tactics in the future. I hope I can let my kid be a kid. He has his whole adult life ahead of him to complain about politics.

To the film makers: Stop trying to save the world! Do your job and entertain us. Make it worth the $10.50. If not, at least make it hold my attention enough to keep me awake through the entire film. Thanks.

Update -- We're Published

2008-07-02T18:25:00.000-07:00

The blog entry I posted June 27th regarding the contradiction in messages created by the recent closing of Connecticut public schools due to "excessive" heat was also sent to the editor of The Bristol Observer-Step Saver newspaper. Much to my surprise, I opened the paper today to find the letter published in the July 3rd edition. Finally gettin' some love from the local press!

Should Red Sox Nation be Fed Up with Manny Being Manny?

2008-06-30T18:22:00.000-07:00

These days, as a life-long Red Sox fan, when you hear a report about "Manny being Manny" you cringe until you get the details. The now famous phrase "Manny being Manny" refers, of course, to the other-worldly (and, yes I do mean that in both senses of the phrase) All-Star outfielder Manny Ramirez. These Manny Moment episodes from the future Hall of Famer usually end up being something goofy. Occasionally it's something that goes just far enough beyond goofy to make you a little upset. Then he goes and hits a 3-run jack in the 9th inning, and it's hard to hold a grudge. The latest is a story out of the Providence Journal about Manny shoving the Red Sox press secretary when he could not get 16 tickets to a sold out game for Manny. This on the heels of journeyman pitcher Shawn Chacon being released by the Houston Astros for similar behavior against the team General Manager.

Look guys, Manny Ramirez is like the hot girlfriend. As a guy, you're going to put up with a lot more crap from the hottie than you would from say, Star Jones (before and after her procedure).

The Red Sox organization has to look out for the overall well being of the team. Regardless of how zany Manny is, the team is better with him in the lineup. I'd love for Manny to get disciplined by the team. That may have actually happened behind closed doors. However, the team should not get into a "cut off their nose to spite their face" situation in which they hurt the team by benching Manny for any length of time.

The team should ride the Manny-pony for all it's worth. Get every HR and RBI they can from that horse, then put him out to pasture and move on.