A Christmas Apart But Near In Our Hearts

Merry Christmas from the Olds family!

Christmas Blessings To You All!

Christmas will be different for our family this year because, for the first time since the birth of our first child, none of us will be together. (The picture is from last year.) That makes it a good time to appreciate all the good times we did have together over the past 30 years and to appreciate that distance doesn't diminish our deep love for one another.

Most of all we celebrate God's gift to us, His son and the joy that brings to our lives. We celebrate our family and the joy. love and enrichment it's brought to our lives. We celebrate our friends near and far and how they've enriched and blessed our lives. We count our blessings of a home and good health, appreciating constantly that they could be gone in an instant but the other things that bless our lives are dependably lasting.

Count your blessings this Christmas season and don't let troubles steal your joy. Know that, whatever challenges exist in your life, our Father loves you and offers you peace and joy. It's there for the asking. God Bless You and Merry Christmas from the Olds family!

Democrats Can't Describe The Constitutional Authority To Do What They're Doing Because It Doesn't Exist

Various Democrats in Congress have been asked to explain what in the Constitution gives them the authority to take over health care. Since the government has never done anything remotely like this before, it's a logical and rational question deserving a serious answer. Problem is, they don't have a serious answer. When a politician can't come up with a mature answer to a reasonable question they turn the question back around in ridiculing fashion.

For example, Ms, Pelosi's answer: "Are you serious?" And, just in case the questioner didn't understand her profound answer, she asked it again: "Are you serious?" Try to make the questioner feel like an idiot for even asking the question in the first place not only deflects the question but attempts to make the questioner feel like such an idiot they won't dare ask it again, lest their intelligence be questioned again. Real mature madam speaker and without a doubt it is a very thoughtful and reasonable answer which clearly proves there is a solid constitutional basis which you know and understand.

How about this response by another Congressional Democrat to the same question: "That's why we have constitutional lawyers". In other words, "I don't have a clue how we can justify it but trust me, we have lawyers (oh, good, I feel better now!) looking out for the constitution for us and for you". Huh? How's that for deflection and non-answer? Not bad, eh?

These two responses above are CLASSIC non-answers for when the reponder really has no clue what the real answer is. I'm sure they're now busy figuring out how to spin future answers to that question so they don't sound so clueless next time.

Fact is, there is NO constitutional basis for what they're doing. And one aspect of this is glaringly unconstitutional. Never, ever before has our federal government forced all citizens to purchase a private company's product. There's a reason why it hasn't been done before ... it's unconstitutional! Dems argue that it's no different from requiring people to buy auto insurance which is total BS because driving and owning a car is A CHOICE! It offends me that they take us for such idiots.

Oregon Lawmakers: The Travesty of Measures 66 and 67

Oregon lawmakers chose to institute two new taxes a few months ago without citizens' approval (measures 66 & 67). Doing that in the midst of a really bad economy with Oregonians suffering more than most got citizens' attention and two petition drives resulted in both measures being put to popular vote next month.

Our legislators said the money is needed because of revenue shortfalls caused by our economic troubles. On that basis ALONE these two measures should be defeated because they are permanent tax increases for the purpose of fixing a temporary problem. How dare they claim that they're only trying to address the current shortfall when it couldn't be more clear that they're just using it as an EXCUSE to permanently increase the tax burden on citizens! Lying weasels, the lot of them.

Such an argument to justify these measures fully demonstrates how those poor excuses for representatives have NO integrity or honor. Obviously they don't respect us citizens and they have no self-respect.

Legislatures commonly do things like this and we citizens are getting pretty fed up with it. They also love to get us to approve a tax and then they steer the money to something else. Additionally, did you ever see a tax phased out after it's no longer needed? They always find something else for which they need to keep our money don't they? Case in point: the TARP fund that was supposed to be repaid and then used to pay down the debt that borrowing that money in the first place created. Now the executive branch and many in the legislature think they can steer the returning money into something else they want to spend it on, breaking their PROMISE to return it to The People. Crooks, thieves and liars the lot of them!

I, for one, am sick of it! We need to throw them out and elect people with some semblance of integrity, honesty and honor.

Time For A Third Party ... Really

As a 'dyed-in-the-wool' Republican, I have a hard time saying this but it does seem to be time for a third political party. Check out the latest Rasmussen poll results to the question (shortened version): 'If The Tea-Party Folks Organized Themselves Into A (Competent) Political Party, With Whom Would You Vote?:
Democratic: 36%
Republican: 18%
Tea Party: 23%

It shows us two things that are going on:
1. It is certainly, to a significant extent, a vote in support of such a party.
2. It is also, to a significant extent, a 'vote' AGAINST both 'major' political parties.

What I like about such a third party is that neither of the current major political parties would have control over legislation without working cooperative with the other two.

Yes, it would likely usher in a period of little getting done in Congress as each party's partisanship kept it from conceeding anything. But would that be such a bad thing? Considering what both parties have been doing throughout recent decades, couldn't we actually do without their brands of legislation for a while? Wouldn't no legislation be better than what we now have going on? Of course it would!

But what will it take for them to 'get' that We The People' are FED UP with politics as usual? Politics that serves both party agenda and special interests above the will of The People and/or what's actually in The People's best long-term interests? Amazingly, it appears that they truly don't get it yet! They need a serious slap in the face and this could very well deliver the medicine that's needed don't you think?

What do we have to lose with a third party in play whose focus is freedom and constitutional principles and values as originally intended, not as interpreted as 'relative' to today? We may lose a little in terms of the good effects of liberal or conservative policies but we have much more to gain that far outweighs those minor drawbacks.

In the end, Democrats and Republicans would have to work with other parties to get anything done. With a strong third party whose focus is on more traditional constitutional values and principles, they would necessarily have to gravitate legislation to what's in the best interests of The People, rather than special interests. We could have REAL REFORM on Capitol Hill whose institutions are in dire need of it!

Federal Employees Get 2% Average Pay Increase

In the middle of one of the worst economic periods in our history, our representatives have taken it upon themselves to give federal employees an average 2% raise. That completely defies logic and common sense and it flies in the face of constitutional fiduciary responsibility. NO rational argument could justify giving federal employees raises while citizens are suffering to this extent economically.

It makes one curious what our representatives have been doing with the federal payroll while you and I have been struggling to survive. Here are some facts just reported in the National Review:

1. % increase in the number of federal employees making more than $100k/yr = 46%
2. % increase in the number of federal employees making more than $150k/yr = 119%
3. % increase in the number of federal employees making more than $170k/yr = 93%
4. Number of people in the Transportation Department making more than $170k/yr increased from ONE to 1,690! (Just chew on THAT beauty of a statistic for a minute!)
5. FIVE TIMES more people in the Defense Dept making more than $170k/yr.
6. Average salary for federal employees is $71,206/yr while the average private sector salary is $40,331/yr. (And that doesn't account for the much more generous benefits for government employees!)

Do you see ANYTHING wrong with this picture? Does it bother you that, if you include the dollar value of benefits, federal employees make nearly TWICE what the average private sector non-government employee makes? Does it bother you that, while the average private sector employee is suffering greatly in this economy, government employees are GRANTING TO THEMSELVES salary increases as if there's no such problem?

Where is the morality in this? Oh, that's right! Morality is 'relative' now. There are no absolutes except what you want to define for yourself and the special interests you serve.

What about responsibility? Well, Congress, the Executive Branch and the Supreme Court began redefining the constitution and constitutional responsibilities a long time ago. That too is 'relative' today. 'Responsibility' is what you feel like defining it to be. Responsibility to special interests is the easier and more profitable way to go. Grow a spine and do the right thing? You can't be serious!

Open questions to our so-called representatives: When exactly can we expect you to start representing what we want rather than what you want? When exactly can we expect you to start representing us ahead of special interests and your party? Answer: probably never with this current crop of self-serving, agenda-serving, special interest-serving, and party-serving poor excuses for representatives of The People!

Aren't These Laws Unconstitutional?

Democrats set about at the beginning of the year to exclude elected Republican representatives from the legislative process. I guess we shouldn't be surprised. After all, they put us on notice this would happen when Democratic leaders in both houses and the executive branch actually said(!) "we won so we get to do it our way". Big picture, they cannot do that legally. Democrats can certainly get their way on any legislation by the end of the process when votes are taken but, constitutionally, they may not exclude elected Republican representatives from the process itself.

Excluding elected Republican representatives from the legislative process denies them the opportunity to represent the interests of their constituents. If those elected representatives are allowed no effect on legislation and are, in fact, denied participation in most of the front room and back room processes then Democrats have purposely (and, arguably, with malice and hostility) rendered them incapable of representing their constituents.

If elected Republicans are actively denied a voice in legislation, then the people who elected them are denied a voice in it. That means that the votes of those who elected them are made irrelevant. That's bad, really bad, for two reasons.

First, the result IS taxation without representation. We Republicans have NO say but we pay the tax anyway or literally go to jail. How can this be a government of, by and for the people when both legislative bodies AND the executive branch GRANT TO THEMSELVES(!) the power to deny representation of nearly half of the country's citizens? This is unconstitutional without doubt but it is more than that. We fought a revolution over that issue. How could this be more wrong?

Second, it represents de-facto disenfranchisement of nearly half of Americans who no longer have any significant voice in their government. Common sense, the very definition of a Republic and any sense of fairness dictate this is wrong. In fact, the Supreme Court has affirmed and reaffirmed disenfranchisement is unconstitutional!

Before you go to the standard argument that Democrats are just doing what everyone does, let me correct you at the outset. Democrats have a held veto-proof majority in one or BOTH houses 30 of my 67 years. Question: how many years did Republicans hold a veto-proof majority in EITHER house? Answer: zero! Republicans have never pursued this course (in my lifetime) because they could not! Claiming that they're 'just as bad' has no significant merit.

That the Democrats' 'denial of representation' process is unconstitutional is an easy and rational argument to make. It's an equally easy and rational argument to say that any laws deriving from unconstitutional processes are EQUALLY unconstitutional ... and, therefore, must be thrown out. Yes, the current health care bill should be thrown out and they should start over cooperatively because they may be wasting their time and our money. The Supreme Court has every reason to declare the resulting laws unconstitutional. No future bill should be allowed to follow such a process by either party ... ever.

Democrats would likely argue that we Republicans shouldn't worry about this and ought to trust them because they're looking out for us too. Fact is, even if they're correct, they don't have the right or authority to make that decision for us. In fact, our founders admonished all future legislative bodies to guard against the very 'majority oppression' we're now beginning to experience. They understood and explained that, in a Republic (at least for it to work properly), the majority party actually has a responsibility to ensure all minority parties DO get fair participation in the process rather than actively blocking them out. Undeniably, Democrats are failing miserably at this admonition.

I don't see how the above argument can be disproved. There is sufficient evidence of an unconstitutional process being used that The People should stand against. This should bother ALL Americans because it amounts to a hijacking of constitutional processes and fundamental, constitutionally-guaranteed rights. It's SO wrong on principle that we should not stand for it regardless of party. I'd ask Democrats to reflect as objectively as possible whether they'd stand for this happening the other way around. It's simply really, really bad for America to go down such a path.

Our freedoms, republic (representative) form of government, constitutional rights (like conservative's rights to representation and free speech), and constitutional principles are evaporating before our eyes and most Americans don't seem to understand what's happening. Perhaps it's so unfathomable that people are in denial ... it can't happen here. I have news for you. It's been happening and is accelerating. It's wrong and it must stop.

Congress: Spend Our Hard-Earned Money On What You Say You Will

Open Letter To Democrats: DO NOT DIVERT TARP FUNDS TO SPENDING ON THINGS OTHER THAN WHAT YOU SAID YOU NEEDED IT FOR!

IT WAS A TARP FUND, NOT A SLUSH FUND FOR YOU TO SPEND ANY WAY YOU WANT!

If you're done using our money for that purpose, GIVE WHAT'S LEFT/RETURNED BACK TO US! BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT YOU PROMISED US YOU'D DO!

Diverting funds to something else is fraudulent ... except when government does it, I guess. Legislation amounts to a contract with The People. You tell us what you want the money for and we give it to you or, in this case, LOAN IT TO YOU. You said we'd get it back since the fund was set up as a loan. In fact you went out of your way to emphasize that fact! That money represents a BIG sacrifice for us. Just who do you think you are that you can then spend it on something else rather than return it to us LIKE YOU PROMISED WHEN YOU BORROWED IT?

Your arrogance is astounding! Were you lying when you took the money from us or do you have no integrity? Do you respect us or yourselves? Apparently not!

By the way, do you really think we'll give you money again if we can't trust you to do with it ONLY what you say you will? Here's a hint: NO WAY!

Senator Reid Is Nuts!

Early this week, Senator Reid compared those who are opposing the Democratic health care plan with those who slowed down and otherwise inhibited abolishing slavery. Good grief!

For one thing, it was Democrats who opposed or slowed down the abolition of slavery not Republicans.

For another thing, by what leap of irrational thinking could a person put the passage of health care reform in the same league with the abolition of the evil of slavery? The illogical of that is mind-boggling. If there ever was a doubt, there can be no longer. Harry Reid is getting really nutty.

Spend Our Way Out? Huh?

I take it back. President Obama no sooner says something smart (lower taxes for small businesses) than he says something really lame: "We have to spend our way out of this recession".

I ask you, average American, is that what YOU do when you're hurting economically? Improving your situation begins with spending less, right? Isn't that how companies survive too ... cutting expenses (like #employees, travel, etc)?

What is it about that fundamental formula for economic improvement and success that so many in government don't get? Why do they think fundamental economic truths don't apply to them?

Saying He Gets It But Doesn't Get It

Wow! President Obama just announced temporary(!) tax cuts and other actions designed to help small businesses because that's the real jobs engine in America (70% of jobs in America). Why does that approach sound familiar? Hmmmmm.

Oh yeah! That's what Republicans have been pushing hard for ALL YEAR! It is exactly what Republicans, especially we conservatives, have been saying ALL YEAR is a much better way to revive the economy than bailing out and stimulating big companies.

Hmmmm. All the government bailouts and 'stimulus' spending hasn't done anywhere near what Democrats said it would do because it left out stimulus to the largest jobs sector. Our 10% unemployment rate has proven the President didn't understand what really stimulates jobs. His concession to do what Republicans have wanted all year vindicates their arguments and is a defacto admission that he let PARTISAN politics and agenda get in the way of a more balanced and more effective solution.

If he thinks that stimulating small businesses really IS a good approach after all, imagine how much better shape we'd be in if he had involved ALL parties in the original solution rather than shutting Republicans out of the legislative process. I said it then in my blog and I'll say it again. These are serious problems we face and we need the ABSOLUTE BEST FROM EVERYONE BEING INVOLVED. No one person or party has all the best solutions. We continue paying a BIG price for Dems shutting Republicans completely out of the legislative process all year. And they have the nerve to say Republicans are being partisan? That's pretty funny now that even Obama admits the Republican approaches are also needed. I'd laugh if I weren't in so much economic pain. Thanks guys!

One rather amazing thing about Obama's new jobs initiative is that, now admitting that tax cuts and other incentives to small businesses are essential to getting our economy back on track, he INEXPLICABLY says he'll not only limit these tax cuts to one year, but he'll actually INCREASE taxes above current levels on small businesses then! If he really believes that tax cuts stimulate small business growth in proposing the new incentives, what does he think will happen when he raises them back up (even beyond current levels!) in a year?

I don't know about you but this makes absolutely no sense to me. The only way to connect these dots is to say that his liberal agenda is more important than a healthier ecomony (that he needs to pay for his 'stuff'). In effect, HE is admitting that reducing taxes leads to growth so increasing taxes obviously leads to killing jobs doesn't it? Talk about a bizzaro world!

Some In Media Beginning To Report Actual Facts? OMG!

Wow! This is just one example that I've seen lately where 'the media' is doing actual journalism and trying to understand the REAL facts so they can report truth to Americans instead of what government wants them to report.

Check this out: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34280589/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/

While Democrats, especially president Obama, are trying to take credit for 'turning around the economy' as they say last week's statistic that unemployment decreased from 10.2% to 10%, the journalist in the article above reported the truth behind the numbers. At least most of the truth.

A couple of blogs ago I took the current administration to task for lying to the public with incomplete jobs statistics, reporting only the aspect that makes them look good. The media deserves credit when they do the right thing like this.

We need more truthful and honest reporting in order to know what to tell our representatives what we think of their actions or inactions. This article is encouraging but the media has a loooooong way to go to help us know the truth about what this adminstration and their co-conspirators in Congress are doing to America. We need the unvarnished truth in our news. We need to know harsh reality when it is harsh, not some pie-in-the-sky reporting on only the 5% or 10% of it that makes it look positive. It's not the media's job to cheer us up. It's their job (if they're going to honor the principles of journalism) to report the facts and put them in a context that helps us understand what it means.

I was beginning to think they lacked the skills, integrity and, yes, smarts to report and analyze the truth but articles like the one referenced above give me hope that maybe they can do what journalism's principles call on them to do.

Thomas Jefferson: A plea to return government to its original AND legitimate purpose

Thomas Jefferson often reflected on excesses of the federal government which began to occur even within his lifetime. He saw the federal government overreaching its constitutional authority that he helped define along with 55 other committed patriots at the constitutional convention.

He discussed impacts on his state of Virginia of federal intrusions in the following way "... the great experiment which shall prove that man is capable of living in society, governing itself by laws self-imposed, and securing to its members the enjoyment of life, liberty, property, and peace; and further to show, that even when the government of its choice shall manifest a tendency to degeneracy, we are not at once to despair but that the will and the watchfulness of its sounder parts will reform its aberrations, recall it to original and legitimate principles, and restrain it within the rightful limits of self-government. And these are the objects of this Declaration and Protest." [Ref http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/jeffdec1.asp]

In the referenced document, he was urging restraint in the face of intrusions into state and individual rights that were VERY minor by comparison with what we're experiencing today. I can't imagine what he'd think about what powers and authority our federal government has taken upon itself in recent decades, especially lately now that the right to representation has been stolen from half of Americans. No doubt he would be horrified and would be calling for action instead of restraint (most likely leading it!) considering the degree of 'degeneration' we are experiencing now. No doubt he wouldn't recognize the government we have today as having much relationship to the one those dedicated and courageous men designed.

When A Decrease In Unemployment From 10.2% to 10% Is Bad News

The government just announced that unemployment decreased from 10.2% to 10% and 'the media' is all over that as an encouraging sign. Problem is, it's another example how to mislead (ie, lie) with statistics.

Those numbers are based on unemployment compensation information. There are fewer new applications for unemployment and fewer people drawing unemployment. That statistic makes no accounting of why that happens.

First distortion is, there are far more people who have given up looking for a job because they recognize it's a futile effort. They stop drawing unemployment ... but NOT BECAUSE THEY FOUND WORK and NOT BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT WORK! Estimates for the number of people who've given up until the economy rebounds is in the range of 800,000 people now and is still increasing! That's a huge number of people who are now invisible to the government's 'unemployment numbers'.

Second distortion has to do with the limit on collecting unemployment. After people have collected unemployment up to the maximum allowed, they no longer take money from the government and the government therefore loses all ability to track what they're doing. These people ARE STILL LOOKING FOR WORK but the government can't account for them because they no longer draw unemployment compensation! To that government 'unemployment number' it looks just like these people found work. The number of people in this category (ie, who've been unemployed 27 weeks or longer) increased by 293,000 to 5.9 million, an increase of 2.9%!

THE TRUTH(!) is, unemployment is NOT decreasing and the government AND THE MEDIA should NOT be saying so just because there are fewer people drawing unemployment. That is a statistic that distorts actual truth of what's going on in the job market.

This administration and it's willing accomplices in 'the media' are painting a false picture. The stimulus package HAS NOT TURNED AROUND UNEMPLOYMENT (YET)! Unemployment is still increasing but the GOVERNMENT CHOOSES TO USE A STATISTIC THAT HIDES WHAT'S REALLY HAPPENING. And the government has the nerve to claim or at least imply that unemployment is decreasing ... when THEY KNOW(!) FOR AN ABSOLUTE FACT THAT IT IS NOT! They're not stupid. But they think we are! Gads!

Dying: A Taxable Event. Say What?

So, Congress is set to extend the estate tax that was set to expire soon. Doesn't that just gnaw at your sensibilities? Doesn't it just feel inappropriate?

What about dying, exactly, makes it a taxable event? Oh yeah, it's 'income' to whomever gets part of another person's estate. Worse, the person receiving it may not have done anything to earn it so why shouldn't government take HALF OF IT? After all, the government certainly earned it or otherwise deserves it. Actually, the government never 'owns' money it collects in taxes either but that's different, right? Oh, and since the government doesn't earn it but, rather, spends in on the rest of us that means the rest of Amercans who do get it did something to deserve taking it from people who earned it?

By the way, didn't the person who died already pay taxes on that estate ... on all that he earned? And in the case of estates that are most subject to the death tax, didn't he pay taxes at the rate of about 40% already? Question, when 40% of what a person earned has already gone to the government when he earned it, why should the government get 50% of what's left when he dies? Why wasn't it taxed enough already before he died? Hmmm. No, I agree. It's better to make 'rich people' even poorer. Take the money from 'rich people' who have a proven track record of creating jobs and building businesses and give to others in the form of welfare. It's fine that some job-creating economic machinery gets the axe. Welfare to strangers is much better than jobs they might use to make a living on their own.

Fact is, after a person dies his estate goes immediately into an 'ownership limbo' where, technically, no one 'owns' it. To say the estate 'deserves' to be taxed because it's going to people who didn't earn it ... that it's kinda like new income to others ... is a fake argument. Under that rationale it shouldn't be taxed until AFTER inheritors receive it so it is taxed as their income. Oh, but wait! If the government waited until AFTER it actually becomes someone's income, then it has to be taxed at that person's LOWER TAX RATE at which time the government cannot steal a whopping 50% of it! The only way the government can abscond with that much of it is when it's in that ownership limbo. I guess the argument is, since it doesn't really belong to anyone yet, it's automatically the right of government to do whatever it wants with it.

One last aspect worth considering. The next time government tells you a new tax they want you to approve will never increase or is temporary and will expire on a given date, seriously ... I mean really seriously ... consider whether it's more likely that the government will not only extend it but make it permanent and/or increase the tax. Based on actual history, it's MUCH more likely that our representatives are lying when they tell us a given tax is temporary or will never increase. If they'd be honest they'd admit they have no real commitment to do what they're PROMISING(!) you. Liars and weasels, all of them. Seems to be in the job description, eh?

Not much about government can be counted on any more. Promises certainly mean nothing. But these CAN be counted on: A temporary tax WILL become permanent ... always. The lifting or reduction of a tax will NEVER be permanent.

Absconding With Public Funds: Not Illegal When Congress Does It

The Democrats say their health care plan will cost $860B between 2010 and 2020. They're going to pay for it by increasing taxes starting immediately. Thing is, however, the benefits those taxes will pay for don't start kicking in until 2014. That means the money that is supposed to pay for health care starts getting collected 4 years before it's needed. That must mean that the money being collected to pay for it will be set aside until it's needed to pay for the new health care program, right? It won't be frittered away on something else in the meantime, right? It won't be used to pay for entirely different new entitlements they dream up, right? We can trust them to sit on such a windfall and not spend it frivolously or recklessly, right? Sure. We can trust them!

Wait a minute! Maybe we should check their record on collecting new tax money for a new entitlement and spending it on only that. Hmmmm. Remind me again why Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are about to bankrupt us? Oh yeah, they spent much (most?) of the taxes collected for them on things OTHER THAN those programs! And now they're acting surprised those programs are running out of money? AND they're reaching into our pockets to save those programs, all of which THEY bankrupted through THEIR mismanagement? Sounds good to me. Where do I sign up?

Let me get this straight. THEY bankrupted Medicare (by spending money collected for Medicare on other things instead, expanding the scope of Medicare to cover things never intended and generally mismanaging the program). And NOW they're coming back to us, hat in hand, asking for more money and approval for a huge new bureaucracy to fix a problem THEY created. And after they start collecting this additional money, they expect us to believe they'll actually save it to spend ONLY on the health care that starts kicking in in 2014 ... in spite of their SPOTLESS record NOT doing that?

Oh, and while we're talking about it, doesn't something bother you about Democrats' claimed net cost of their health care plan? Hmmm. Let's see. They collect new taxes for 10 years but the benefits don't start for 4 years so the costs they quote actually only cover 6 years. If they're going to claim that the plan's 10-year costs are 'only' $860B shouldn't we be weighing the 10-year costs over an actual 10-year period of benefits? Wait a minute! We can't do that because, then, the number will be so big that no sane person would agree to it. It turns out that, in it's first full 10 years between 2014 and 2124, the plan's actual costs will be around $2.5 TRILLION! Wow! No wonder they don't want to talk about that! It works out to about $30,000 PER FAMILY!

When they say the 10-year costs will be $860B but that number only includes 6 years of costs, why doesn't that qualify as blatantly intentionally misleading, if not an outright intentional lie? Where's the integrity and honesty in their claims? What are we to assume except that those qualities in elected representatives don't matter any more, at least to them? What would YOU do if you signed a contract with someone to, for example, buy a house for $300,000 but later when you read the fine print you found out you had to pay almost four times as much as you were told to pay?

Maybe you think these lies are no big deal because they guaranteed you that SOMEONE ELSE (ie, big evil corporations and 'the rich') will have to pay for it. Does that make it fair and honest? Or does fair and honest only matter if it affects you? (By the way, you WILL have to pay for it because corporations and 'the rich' will just pass the costs on to the rest of us in one way or another.)

'Stuff' Is Irrelevant When You've Lost Your Freedom!

From the president today, Thanksgiving 2009: "Too many are wondering if the dream of a middle-class life, that American dream, is slipping away".

Stunning ignorance of our history (what the pilgrims wanted and what they gave thanks for) and actual constitutional goals/principles in my opinion.

Hey Mr. President, THE REAL AMERICAN DREAM IS FREEDOM! Stuff is irrelevant when we've lost that ... and it's going fast!

The Vast Left-Wing Fiscal Irresponsibility

The Constitution says it is CONGRESS(!), not the president, who has primary responsibility for spending, balancing the budget (or not) and controlling the national debt. Since taking over Congress (and, therefore, primary responsibility to reign in spending and the debt) nearly three years ago Democrats have spent themselves silly and, in the process, DOUBLED the INTEREST on the national debt from $100B to $200B. Assuming you think that's bad, it gets worse. Much worse. And Bush isn't responsible for any of this (read the Constitution if you don't believe me).

According to the NY Times(!) article linked in my previous blog, we're on track to continue doubling JUST THE INTEREST on our national debt approximately twice more in the next ten years to $700B in 2018. According to the NYT that's more than our spending this year on education, energy, homeland security and the wars in Iraq and Afganistan ... COMBINED! GASP!

Think about that for just a minute. That's the debt problem we'll have WITHOUT enacting the bills for health care reform, cap and trade, immigration, etc. Imagine what the interest will be WITH those bills passed. The Democrats' health care reform will cost at least $2.5 TRILLION the first ten years after the benefits kick in. (They like to say it's only going to cost $860B the first ten years but that's a lower number because the benefits don't kick in until 2014, more than 3 years AFTER the taxes increase. It's a great example how to lie with statistics.) We can't afford our debt BEFORE these bills pass! And guess what happens to our economy after adding on the economic burden of the cap and trade bill?

Any economist worth his salt will agree that we're headed for mind-boggling high debt, interest rates and unemployment. Devaluation of our currency followed by national bankruptcy is inevitable unless we change our course dramatically. Democrats are sailing this ship straight into economic chaos and the average American doesn't seem to know (or knows but doesn't care), certainly not the more liberal among us.

This problem is as serious as it gets people. Wake up!

This Much Spending Has REAL Consequences

Even 'the media' is beginning to figure out what the more conservative among us have been saying for the past two years. Check this out:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34103722/ns/politics-the_new_york_times/

Debt, especially this much of it, has real consequences. As if this amount of debt isn't bad enough in the absolute sense, getting out of this debt will be really, REALLY difficult. That's 'difficult' as in REAL pain for the AVERAGE American ... including the poor! 'The spenders' in Congress (and some big minority of well-meaning Americans) think they're helping the poor but the result of this will make life more difficult for the poor, not better.

After we've ruined the economy it'll be worse for the poor, not better. How does doubling the cost of all the basics of life (via inflation and a ruined economy) help the poor? How does doubling the cost of gas, food, etc help people below the povery level? How does fewer jobs and a 20% unemployment rate (because the government has sucked the productive life out of the economy) help anyone, including the poor? Why don't more people understand this? It's just the same as when an individual spends his way into excessive debt. He pays so much in interest that he cannot afford the basics in life. Hello? He'll likely go bankrupt. Hello? Going into debt may feel like fun but it has REAL consequences. Hello? This 'government money' IS NOT FREE. Hello? This cure IS worse than the disease. Hello? We need to use the brains God gave us and think through this rationally.

For the sake of our future, we need new thinking at all levels of government:
1. Government is wayyyy too big ... we cannot afford it and we're losing freedoms at an alarming rate! In fact, we need government to be reduced by at least half ... quickly.
2. Government debt is not only bad, it should be UNacceptable. We're at a point where even balanced budgets are, by far, inadequate.

I have NO respect for what our representatives call a 'balanced budget'. Their version always, ALWAYS has loopholes that allow them to create more debt anyway. They're, collectively, a bunch of lying, conniving weasels.

Just think how difficult it is to get our governments to balance their budgets every year. Then consider the FACT that we need them to do better than that. We need them to spend way less than they take in for several years until the debt is gone. Do you honestly think they're capable of that? Of course not! At least not until The People take them to the political woodshed for a thrashing to change their behavior.

Did You Think Democrats Were Fixing The Health Care 'Bankrupting The Country' Problem? Surprise!

Reported in today's newspapers: Nancy Pelosi spokeman just said a report just released by the Medicare oversight agency "shows that our health reform bill [the democratic bill that just passed in the House] will extend the life of the Medicare trust fund by five years". We don't get it. How is that a fix?

Doesn't that mean that in five years we'll have to pass ANOTHER GIANT HEALTH CARE BILL with MORE GIANT COSTS to keep from losing ground on the remaining life of Medicare? All your cost and savings claims look out ten years but you're telling us we'll have to make it bigger and even more costly in half that time? What's the point of looking out ten years if the fix won't last more than five? Gads, what are you thinking?

Ms. Pelosi, we thought you guys said you were going to fix our nation's medical costs problem with your legislation, not kick it down the road a few years. Kicking the problem down the road is what you all have been doing for years. THAT is what we citizens have been telling you that we're tired of! You said you agreed that it was time we stopped doing that and get serious about health care reform. You all ran on a platform of "health care in America will bankrupt the country soon ... elect us [democrats] and we will fix it". We bought that argument and now you're telling us this is your version of serious health care reform geared to reigning in the costs once and for all? Are you serious? This is not a fix. It barely qualifies as a Band-Aid on the problem. Here, again, is a question I keep asking in this blog, do you think we're stupid?

The biggest leverage you had trying to convince us to support your bill and its mind-boggling cost was that you were saying you were actually going to fix it this time. Don't you get it yet? ACTUALLY FIXING IT IS WHAT WE WANT! Hello? Anyone home there on capitol hill?

Bet You Didn't Know: Denying Representation To Half of Americans IS Constitutional!

A little background first ...

The president and democratic leadership in the House and Senate continue to deny elected republican representatives participation in the legislative/governing processes. The president and other democratic leadership will only talk with republicans whom they believe may be persuaded to vote for their bills.

Official requests since April by republican leadership to meet with the president and democratic leadership to discuss important legislation have been ignored or rejected ... never accepted.

Democratic leadership in the executive and legislative branches campaigned on restoring bipartisanship and also promised it in their acceptance speeches. Then, within days(!) of taking office, the president's staff and democratic leaders in the House and Senate said "We won so we get to do it OUR way!". Of course we have seen that they, indeed, did exactly that. S'up with that? Does this bother anyone else?

Here's the deal ...
I told one of our US Senators in a town hall meeting 3 months ago that this partisanship whereby nearly half(!) of the citizens' elected (chosen!) representatives are denied a voice in legislation:

1. Ends up denying approximately HALF of American citizens(!) a voice in government. [By the way, it's called disenfranchisement!]
2. Was warned against by the founding fathers. [Madison even had a term for it: "Majority Oppression".]
3. Represents the ultimate in hypocracy by a party that claims a monopoly on being truly fair to Americans.

That Senator's answer to my question: "Well, we're not doing anything unconstitutional. If you want to change it you'll need to change the constitution." In today's vernacular, OMG!

He was clearly saying (at least) four things: 1) yeah, I know we're doing it ... so what?, 2) you can't stop us (nyah, nyah, nyah), 3) we're going to keep doing it (nyah, nyah, nyah), and 4) I'm ignorant of constitutional history, constitutional limitations on federal government, and The People's right to representation (ie, not just a right of those people to whom those currently in charge choose to 'grant' representation).

There are tons of powers, actions and processes not specifically excluded in the constitution but that doesn't mean they're okay. What ARE you guys (democrats in the executive and legislative branches) thinking?

Then, when The People, upset with state of affairs, began practicing their constitutional(!) right to protest and free speech via town hall meetings and Tea Parties, the president actually said ... actually said: "be quiet and get out of the way" and was dismissive of us as "teabaggers". Double OMG to that!! The president ordering those who vocally protest his actions and those of his cohorts in the legislature to be quiet? I thought all these people (leaders in the executive, legislative and judicial branches) swore an oath to protect and preserve the constitution ... for ALL the people! I suppose these guys think that's constitutionally okay too, huh? Got news for you, the Bill of Rights IS part of the constitution.

Gotta feel sorry for the current democratic leadership in one way though. For them, the constitution certainly is "An Inconvenient Document"! Declaration of Independence too. Those pesky documents sure can get in the way of a perfectly good political, power-grabbing agenda.

There is good news however ... there appears to be hope, even from within the democratic party. I asked the same question of Senator Wyden in yesterday's Grants Pass town hall meeting and he said he thinks this partisanship is wrong. He said he is working hard to involve republicans. In fact, he is the sponsor of one of the Senate versions of health care reform and has worked diligently to get equal participation by and content from republicans. To that I've gotta say OMG! too ... in a good way.

Reality Is No Fun So Forget About It!

Oh good. President Obama wants to convene a conference of employers next month to figure out how to create jobs in a meaningful way. Uh, didn't he promise us he knew how to do that? Isn't that what the stimulus package was all about? After all, he told us to trust him and give him all that stimulus money because he promised it would result in a ton of private sector jobs such that unemployment would stay below 8% or so.

What's that? You say that private sector jobs have just kept evaporating all year and unemployment is still increasing? How can that be with all the jobs that were created? Oh, those became jobs in ... drum roll ... government! Maybe no one told those in the White House that government jobs don't contribute to growth in private sector jobs or, in turn, the GDP and don't, therefore, make a real difference in unemployment. I guess they don't teach basic economics where they attended college. Sorry if that sounds harsh but I don't see any other way to explain what they've been believing and doing.

By the way, if a conference on creating jobs is good to do now, wouldn't it have been even better to do back in March? After all, wasn't this problem becoming big enough even then to warrant doing absolutely everything to stem this tide? Why is 'community organizing' of actual employers about how to increase jobs a last resort? Seriously, if this administration is so big on community organizing, why didn't they do that with employers back in March?

What are the chances that the president is calling these people together to listen to what they want done because he's actually interested in doing that? Recent history would suggest otherwise wouldn't it? What's more likely is that they're being summoned to his house to hear what he wants them to do. He'll probably throw money at their companies with all the usual government strings attached so that he can tell them how to manage their companies and pay employees/managers. When he gets done with them we'll probably own them too! Funny ... but not funny.

By the way, it's complete nonsense to assume there's a recovery going on just because the stock market is going through the roof. The housing sector is showing signs of 'recovery' too but that's not because of an economic reality. This thinking is totally built on smoke, mirrors and hope ... not reality. There's no rational way to connect the fundamentals of our economic condition with what's going on in the stock market. The next sound you'll hear will be the dollar and stock market coming apart after The Fed and those wizards on wall street finally get in touch with reality. Think this recession has been bad? Better fasten your seatbelts because we ain't seen nothing yet!

Huh? I Say, Huh?

Reported in the media last week: President Obama's stimulus package created or saved about 600,000 jobs and they said that half of that number were 'saved' teacher's jobs. Similar numbers came from our state's (Oregon's) leadership ... thousands of jobs saved, half of which were teacher positions. I have a couple of questions about those claims.

That means they're saying that without the stimulus package, America WOULD HAVE fired 300,000 teachers. Think about that for a minute ... 300,000 teaching positions that are filled today would have been gone now were it not for the stimulus package. 300,000! Are you kidding me? Do these numbskulls actually expect us to believe that?

In fact, any reasonable person knows that without the stimulus money states would not have cut back teaching positions anywhere near that much. They would have cut back in other areas of state/local government so they could keep most teachers employed. They would NOT have discarded anywhere near 300,000 teaching positions. Probably would have eliminated some ... I'm guessing it would be closer to 10,000. (I may be off but my number is a LOT more rational than theirs!) It's nonsense to justify the stimulus after the fact by falacious and nonsensical jobs saved claims. C'mon folks! We're not stupid, although they apparently think we are.

By the way, how exactly does steering HALF of the stimulus money into education spending help create jobs that stimulate the economy? Said another way, how exactly does keeping government big in a time of economic crisis help the economy? The ONLY sector of the economy that didn't decline this year is ... drum roll ... government. How exactly does more government contribute to the gross national product? Answer: ZERO!

On a different front, if you were to hear that one American has been an official visitor to the White House at least 22 times since Obama took office, of which 7 were one-on-one visits with the president, whose name would come to mind? Would you believe it was Andy Stern, president of SEIU? Well, believe it! If we're to believe President Obama's PROMISE to bring a new era of bipartisanship to the executive office, how come Stern gets 7 one-on-one's with him and people like Republican House and Senate minority leaders get ZERO? Where is the slightest hint of bipartisanship in that? Seriously, how exactly is that better than under Bush?

Also, Democratic leadership, including President Obama, rags incessantly on Republicans in general and Bush in particular for catering to special interests. They also said they do not do that and will not do that. It's a new day with Democrats in charge, right? Wrong! The leadership of BOTH parties gives too much access and, therefore, influence to special interests. The only thing different about Democrats is their special interests are different from Republicans' special interests. They both corrupt the democratic process in this respect ... arguably equally.

The Only Thing That's Transparent: He's The Demander In Chief

The president and his administration have gone off the deep end attacking conservative/Republican opposition. The extent to which he and Democrats in Congress are committed to taking our country on a hard left turn is astonishing and inconsistent with their consitutional responsibilities.

What they don't get is this. Just because we elected them does NOT mean we automatically agree with everything they want to do and therefore grant to them full authority and license to do whatever they want. Dissent is completely American now just as it was during the Viet Nam war in the 60's and the Iraq war under Bush. If they don't get that, they don't understand the constitution or the principles on which our country was founded.

The founders of our country never intended for one political party to be able to institute changes of such magnitude so unilaterally, and with malice, disdain and hostility toward opposition. Total majority rule to this extent was never intended. Our founders went out of their way to express their concern about this happening, declaring this to be a Republic (ie, full and fair representation of and participation by all Americans) in the process of creating the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

The current administration clearly wants submission to its will and obedience of its demands and laws from us. We allow this at great risk to our Republic!

We're Back!

Well, we're back and we 'escaped' Montana just before freezing and snow hit the Lincoln area. I had a great time with Karen. Camping with my sweetheart in such beautiful country is fun and relaxing, not that we have anything all that stressful to relax 'from' now that we're retired in Roseburg OR! We enjoy nature and we saw a lot of it ... some a little too close for comfort!

We got to spend time with Son Matt and his wife, Heather, both at our first campground (Trout Creek near Superior MT) and for a couple of days at their house in Coeur d'Alene ID. It was our first opportunity to check out their new (first!) home, a beautiful house and property short blocks from beautiful Coeur d'Alene Lake! (I admit to being a bit jealous!)

Trout Creek campground is where we had a close encounter with a brown bear in our campsite. I was about 14 feet from him when I first noticed him and a few minutes later I got a close-up look at him from about a foot (through the trailer window). Don't care to be closer to a bear than that! FYI, according to a forest service expert, if you want to scare off a black or brown bear carry a soda can with coins in it to rattle at the bear.

Karen and I spent one week in the Trout Creek campground followed by three weeks in the Aspen Grove campground near Lincoln MT. We arrived at Aspen Grove the day they stopped collecting camping fees so our accommodations cost zero there. They turned off the main water faucets but that campground has a well (hand) pump that stays available and they kept the garbage and vault toilets open. Therefore we didn't have to 'dry camp' ... had all the amenities available that we needed to have a wonderful time. And the weather cooperated ... too well in fact for fishing. I had a really sweet time with Karen and we were sad to leave Aspen Grove a couple days early but snow was imminent so we didn't have much choice.

We saw lots of beautiful MT scenery on various 'scenic tours' and had lots of fun just spending time together playing cards ... even took in two Lincoln High School football games. Karen and I enjoy scenic tours so much ... we're so fortunate to live in this country and have such natural beauty to appreciate up close. Saw lots of wildlife which is always fun. Then we left MT just as Fall colors were setting in. While we didn't get to see the colors at their peak it was still a good display to appreciate.

For most of our time there the temps were well above normal (92 degrees on the Missouri River one day ... very warm for mid-September!) which made for lazy trout not too interested in taking the flies I tossed their way. I got to add six(!) new rivers to my list of MT rivers fished: Clark Fork, Fish Creek, Blackfoot, North Fork Blackfoot, Dearborne, and Sun River. Fished the Missouri previously.

Got Matt out on two fly fishing float trips alone with me for the first time. We had such a good time together ... soooo sweet! I love my sons and value every opportunity to spend time with them and get to know them better as adults. The fishing trip was fun for both of us but, for me, it was 'just' an excuse to spend time with Matt. I had a great time with Heather too while Karen and I stayed at their house. What a cool young lady she is! Smart, responsible, compassionate, and beautiful inside and out. She certainly blesses us. Can't close without mentioning fun time with their pup, Johnny Cash, a cute and energetic Boston Terrier.

It was a terrific trip. We're already looking forward to our next adventure in God's great outdoors!

Next month Matt and I will be getting together for some 'man time'. There are lots of reasons I'm looking forward to it, the primary one being that we two have not had many opportunities to do things together over the years. In fact I've never taken him on a fly fishing float trip for just the two of us so that's what we'll be doing for two days on the Mighty Missouri. We'll be camping too so that'll be fun. I'll have the trailer/campsite all set up for his arrival so he can just plop and relax.

As I commented earlier in the year about this planned trip, fishing isn't the point of this get-together although I hope it adds some fun to it. Time with Matt is its own reward regardless what we're doing.

Life for Matt and his sweet wife, Heather, has settled down considerably. Matt has a really good job now and Heather just started her first full-time job since graduating with her Master's Degree about three months ago. And they bought their first house last month. These two vagabonds are putting down roots now and they're near enough (more permanently) that we can do more together.

A couple of weeks before Matt and I take off on our fishing trip, he and Heather (with pup Johnny Cash in tow) will join Karen and me for a couple days of camping. That'll be so fun too! Family time together is way cool!

Trippin' W/Karen

I'm planning to do some camping with my wife, Karen. I'm getting excited about spending time with her in God's great outdoors! We always have such a good time together wherever we go so it'll be fun. What a blessing it is that we share a love of the outdoors and that we still have good enough health to enjoy camping. Now if only we could get a break in the price of gas!

We're planning to spend a little time in Montana in areas where we haven't spent much time yet. Our usual routine is fanning out around the area where we camp and see whatever sights there are. We'll just hang out a lot too. We'll play a lot of games, especially rummy. Maybe I'll win a few games ... for a change! Whadda ya think, Hon?

I hope to have opportunities to get in some fly fishing, one of my favorite activities. Not many places one can go and have such an abundance of good fishing rivers available as in Western Montana.

Son Matt and his wife, Heather, with their Boston Terrier pup, Johnny Cash, are planning to join us for some camping together. We enjoy all the time we're able to have with them but we haven't done this together yet. We're really looking forward to it. In addition, Matt and I are planning a guided fly fishing trip on one of Montana's many good streams. It'll be sweet just to have one-on-one time with him regardless how the fishing goes.

By God's grace we're able to enjoy retirement this way. Time away together. Time with family. Sweet!

Obama's Hostility Toward Those Who Oppose His Solution(s)

From the President's mouth last week: "I don't mind cleaning up your mess but be quiet and get out of the way". This is an extraordinary notion and even more extraordinary demand.

I know that comment sounds all authoritative, confident, leadership-like, and presidential to those who support him but consider this.

Basically, he has no business saying such things to the people for whom he works. There are three points in his 'command' to us that beg a response so this is for him.

First, you say you're burdened with cleaning up a mess that we who are protesting created? It's OUR mess? To that I can only say HUH? Mr. President, who exactly created the Medicare system as it stands today? Ans: YOU ALL on capitol hill, sir, not us! Who exactly failed to provide proper oversight to prevent fraud, waste and mismanagement since it's inception? Ans: YOU ALL on capitol hill, sir, not us! Who exactly failed to change the system when it became clear (many years ago) that it was unsustainable on its current course? Ans: YOU ALL on capitol hill, sir, not us! How EXACTLY is this mess of our creation? WE don't make laws and run the country YOU ALL do, sir. You all on capitol hill (Congressmen and Presidents, Democrats and Republicans) created this mess and proceeded to mismanage it over the years. You have a lot of nerve blaming us for it and getting all indignant about having to fix it. WE are the ones who have a genuine right to be indignant ... you all created this mess and WE citizens are the ones who are going to have to pay for cleaning up YOUR mess.

Second, telling(!) us to "be quiet" flies in the face of constitutional guarantees of free speech. The President has no right to demand we be quiet. In fact, you have a sworn duty (check your oath of office sir) to protect that right. This is a fundamental violation of your responsibility to stand up for freedom(s) as well as a technical violation of your oath of office.

Third, telling(!) us to "get out of the way" flies in the face of our constitutional right to and guarantee of fair proportional representation and participative government. You are obviously telling us to let you and the liberals in Congress do whatever you all want without vocal or significant opposition from us. You and Democrats in Congress have shut down Republican opposition and you want Republican citizens to be quiet as well? You want to pass all this important legislation without Republican participation. How is that not one-party rule sir? This "get out of the way" comment is a fundamental violation of your constitutional responsibilities to protect our democratic form of government. You may as well declare that only registered Democratic citizens will be allowed to vote in Congressional elections. That's in effect what you want, is it not? Worse, that's in effect what we HAVE, is it not, since Democrats are ignoring what Republicans want done in/with legislation?

So, sir, I respectfully demand that you get out of our collective face with such hostile comments to us and honor (a word/concept kinda foreign to you apparently) your oath of office as well as the implied/documented duties/responsibilities of your office.

Yes Republicans in Congress failed to do things but so did Democrats. After all, Democrats have held a veto-proof majority in one or both houses of Congress for 30(!) of my 60 years while Republicans have NEVER had that in my lifetime. Doesn't that make it a little harder to justify this is Republicans' fault? Another reason you have to NOT blame us who oppose your plan is that many of us helped put you in office because we were fed up with our Republican representatives. So what do you do to respect the support we gave you? You tell us to go away when we express disagreement with you.

One last thing Mr. President. You and your Democrat friends in Congress seem to think that because we elected you, that gives you complete license to do whatever you want. We sent you to Washington to work FOR us, on OUR behalf in just and due consideration of our express wishes ... issue by issue! Just because you were elected does NOT mean we automatically agree with everything you believe and want to do and therefore grant to you full authority to do whatever you want. Getting elected is NOT license to do whatever you want. If you don't get that you don't understand the constitution or democracy nearly so well as you claim. It's really, really difficult to believe that you actually taught constitutional principles as an educator. Gads!

Can They Handle Complicated Legislation Or Not?

President Obama says he, his administration and the Democratic Congress can indeed take care of such complicated matters quickly. A major makeover of the financial industry and oversight of it, major makover of health care, major stimuli to the economy, taking over major industries, improved international relations, better running of the war(s), etc, etc.

So how is it they can't make any significant progress securing our Southern border with Mexico? What's 'complicated' about a stinking fence? What's 'complicated' about adding sufficient (and properly equipped/armed) police and other enforcement there? Hey, if Democrats want to stimulate something, how about putting some of the stimulus money to use hiring Americans to build that fence and otherwise protect the border, accomplishing two things at once that a large majority of Americans actually WANT them to do(!) ... putting Americans to work AND securing the border. Hello?

Common Sense #1: Tanning Beds Cause Cancer

Just saw on msn.com: a STUDY just concluded that the use of tanning beds greatly increases the chance of contracting cancer of skin and eyes. Here's my thinking on that ... well DUH! With respect to those who've been harmed by these things, why do we need a study to prove that? Let's see ... we know excessive exposure to sunlight causes skin cancer. Hmmmm. Maybe blasting light into your skin and cooking it browner with a high intensity light from a few inches away could do that too? Gads ... who'd have thought?

I understand we need such a study in order for government to regulate our use of something that's obviously bad for us (and we should therefore know better!) but it seems to me that common sense would convince us that's true so that there'd be no demand for the beds and companies making them would just go out of business.

Guess what's next? Lawsuits of course! Lots and lots of lawsuits suing tanning salons and tanning bed manufacturers to hold them accountable after we've CHOOSEN to do something that's obviously, by any reasonable amount of common sense beforehand, not good for us. C'mon folks! Let's use more common sense to motivate us to stop doing things that are bad for us ... or do them in moderation. An added benefit of doing that would be lower medical and insurance costs. Oh, but that will create a problem too. We'll live longer which means we'll need social security and medicare longer. Hmmmm.

Common sense tells us that this 'new' information will lead to: 1. government will 'regulate' this by requiring big labels with dire warnings (like those on smokes); 2. all companies making tanning beds will put even bigger signs of their own on their beds telling us that we're using their product at our own risk (to help them avoid being sued); 3. tanning salons will display even bigger signs telling us that we're using their service at our own risk; and 4. people will go right on using them anyway ... and getting cancer anyway.

37 Very Good Years!

It's our 37th wedding anniversary today. They've been such good years! Karen blesses me every day of our marriage by her unconditional love, kindness, support, and encouragement. She has a good heart.

She's been a wonderful mate. She's also been a wonderful mother to our two sons ... just as loving, kind, supportive, and encouraging to them as to me. God Bless Her and God Bless Our Marriage!

I Love You Hon! :-) XO!

Obama Inherited This Economic Mess From A Democratic Congress, Not Bush

As are most Republicans I'm upset how Republicans failed to control spending during Bush's two terms. President Obama in particular likes to remind us that he inherited this economic mess from his predecessor. There's just this one pesky little problem with that argument however. According to Section 8.1 of the Constitution (Enumerated Powers of Congress), Congress is responsible for taxing and spending, not the president. That means that when Democrats took over control of the House and Senate 2 1/2 years ago they (not Bush!) had Primary authority and responsibility for taxing and spending ... and, therefore, for any resulting surplus or debt.

For two years prior to this disaster Democrats had total control of EVERY Senate and House committee and sub-committee that had oversight responsibility for all the institutions and regulatory agencies that let us down. It's was THEIR JOB (per the Constitution), not Bush's, to see this coming AND do something about it.

It's Constitutionally (ie, factually) incorrect for President Obama or any other Democrat to claim they inherited this economic mess from President Bush as if they bear no responsibility for it. In fact, Obama himself(!) was a member of one body (Senate) that had responsibility and authority during Bush's last two years. Doesn't that mean that it's technically more accurate for President Obama to claim he inherited this mess from himself since, per the Constitution, he had more responsibility for spending and taxing than Bush his last two years?

If you take issue with the argument that Obama is more responsible than Bush, you must at least agree (because it's completely, factually and Constitutionally true) that Obama inherited this 'mess' from Democrats, not Bush, since (via majority control of Congress) they had 100% of the authority and responsibility for spending and taxing (therefore debt or surplus) during Bush's last two years. It's at least disingenuous for Democrats in Congress to complain about 'the mess' Bush handed them when, in fact, they had two years being in control of it to make changes that would have prevented the mess but didn't. If nothing else, they deserve at least an equal share of the responsibility for what's happened.

I suspect most Americans don't know this division of responsibility or forgot it or just haven't taken the time to think this through. It's easier to just accept what Democrats and the media are feeding us, right? Our ignorance of the Constitution can be a dangerous thing, a risk to our future in fact. After all, how can we hold the proper people responsible for anything if we don't understand who's responsible for what? For that matter, what does it say about Congress, the President and the media that they don't seem to know this? I encourage everyone to bone up on 'government' and get more involved in getting our current problems properly resolved.

San Jose CA: Ridiculous Crime Rate

My wife and I raised our boys in San Jose CA. I say that with significant regret. I think I should have picked somewhere else due to the incessant property crime there.

We were immediately attracted to a middle-class neighborhood in North Valley when my wife and I started looking for our first home in 1977. After we moved into a smallish 3 bed 2 bath home the San Jose version of Welcome Wagon greeted us in less than a month ... while we were sleeping a man broke into our home via the garage, apparently with burglary on his mind. Thankfully the police showed up quickly and he left through the back yard over the fence. It could have ended badly because he dropped an axe by the back fence that I had used to chop wood in the garage the previous evening. We should have taken a lesson from that but we hoped it was an anomalous event in an otherwise peaceful and reasonably crime-free neighborhood. We were wrong. Man, were we wrong!

Over the years living in two different houses in that area of town we experienced a property crime about every two years which included: the aforementioned attempted home invasion burglary, another attempted burglary, three car break-ins (various stereos and musical equipment stolen), bike stolen from the garage, motorcycle stolen from driveway, the grill removed from one of our cars, stolen camera, two stolen wallets, and a hit and run car accident. I think I've missed a couple of crimes but you get the idea.

We bade good riddance to San Jose when we retired and moved to Oregon two years ago. We were happy to leave the crime behind us. However, one of our sons still lives there and we just heard his motorcycle was stolen (2nd time!) from his carport yesterday (in a complex that claims to have good security). So, our family's record of experiencing a property crime about every two years in San Jose continues unabated.

Why anyone would want to live in San Jose CA is a mystery to me.

Congress: Where It's Fine Not To Learn From Mistakes

The first stimulus package isn't working as advertised. Wow! What a surprise!

The unemployment rate is now higher than President Obama said it would be if we had done NOTHING! Huh? Everyone involved in this shennanigan is now admitting "it hasn't done what we thought it would". The key people responsible for it are saying that's because "we didn't really understand what was going on in the economy". Oh yeah, that makes me feel better about it!

The self-proclaimed experts guaranteed us that we HAD TO do something immediately. In fact, it was so urgent that they chose not to take time to read the bill! Assumed it would work because you-know-who created it. Didn't have the necessary expertise or knowledge to construct a bill that would actually work and didn't have time to try to understand and discuss what it would do once it was written? Doesn't that represent incompetence and irresponsibility on a mind-boggling scale? Hello?

But that's not the best part! Now they say that just means they need to do it again! Huh? Where is the logic in that? First they admit incompetence at understanding the problem, then they say they want to do it again. This result shouldn't be a surprise because every time government has tried to fix an ailing economy in the past via an increase in taxing, spending and debt it didn't work. Every time it has tried stimulating the economy by decreasing taxing, spending and debt it has worked. Let's see, what should LOGIC and COMMON SENSE tell us about this? Hmmmm. Is this Bizzaro World or what?

President's and Congress' Objectives: Mislead Americans

How to pay for President Obama's Health Care Reform is the burning question. We've heard for months that he intends to pay for it by raising taxes on people earning more than $250k as if that's no big deal for the average American. Opponents claim that tax increase is a huge financial hit on small businesses and will put lots of people out of work. Obama responds with "relatively few businesses will be affected by this tax increase." Sounds contradictory. So what's the truth? Wouldn't you like to be able to make your own judgement how bad this is for the economy based on ACTUAL impacts?

Turns out they're both correct but Obama's claim is deliberately(!) misleading to give the impression that it's not so bad. It's true that "relatively few small businesses will be affected" (ie, about 1/3 of them) as he says but those 'few' businesses employ 2/3(!) of the total small business employees. In fact, according to IRS(!) data, those 'few' small businesses most likely to be hit by this tax increase employ about 25% of the entire (emphasize ENTIRE) US workforce!!! IN ADDITION, 68% OF ALL MANUFACTURERS file as individuals and their average taxable income is well above $250k.

So, the FACT is that some 1/3 of all US workers will see their employers' taxes increase. What does an employer do when his taxes increase which drives his profit down? He fires people. He also spends less on capital expenditures ... so other companies make less off him and those other companies also have to fire people.

Taxing 'only' people making more than $250k sounds 'safe' for most of us but it affects the employers of about 1/3 of the US workforce. Is that as trivial as the President makes it sound? Do you feel misled, if not lied to? I do!

Electronic Medical Records Being Oversold

One of the most prominently mentioned benefits President Obama and his supporters describe every time they promote his Health Care Reform plan is electronic medical records. That may help prevent errors although most 'medical errors' I've experienced or heard about would have happened regardless because existing records were correct ... people just screwed up. But they've also promoted this as a big cost-savings.

Guess what? The Congressional Budget Office, responsible for estimating costs and cost-savings of legislation, refuses to document a cost-savings estimate for going to electronic records ... because it's such a small amount!

We all need to pay attention to claims our elected representatives are making about the huge changes under way. Based on the non-performance of the last 'stimulus' package we should be more skeptical from here on. There's much at stake and the results are falling far short of promises.

What Nature of Person Does This?

Top pic above: headed West on highway 89 in California about 30 miles before you get to McCloud ... beautiful scenery including Mt Shasta in the background.

Bottom pic above: HUGE pile of trash right next to highway 89 a mile or two from where I took the top picture. What nature of person does this? It's disgusting. It's sad. Sad to think a person can live in this great country God has blessed us with and do this. Sad to think what it means about the country we're becoming. (I had no way of cleaning up a mess of this size so I reported it to the Forest Service.)

More Government = Less Freedom

Just finished reading "Glenn Beck's Common Sense". I particularly appreciate that he included Thomas Paine's "Common Sense". To understand what's so wrong today it's important to understand the context in which our federal government was formed.

We need the perspective offered by Glenn's book because we've truly lost focus on and appreciation of what made our country so unique and what's so bad about where we're headed politically. To regain that appreciation we need to understand the history of our country and what our founders intended for and hoped from our various governments.

The individual's spirit and potential were seen as paramount then but we're becoming a nation of dependents and whiners. We need to understand the insideous sapping of the spirit of the individual by Progressive (Republican and Democratic) agendas over the past 100 years or so. We also must understand the speed with which those efforts are accelerating and the extent to which they are becoming successful. There's is much about our way of life that is at risk.

The most progressive of our states is now bankrupt and is paying bills via IOU's (in effect, they're basically printing their own money which is unconsitutional). It's debt is greater than most state's entire budgets. Shouldn't that tell us something? European countries led the way down the progressive road and progressives here in American have long envied them but the Europeans finally came to understand the cost and are now reversing course (while we move more rapidly down that path). Shouldn't that tell us something?

The fundamental question is: isn't it JUST COMMON SENSE what's happening to us and why it's bad for our future? We're becoming irresponsible, dependent on the government and materialistic at great risk. We ALLOW our government to pass major Progressive-based reform legislation even though they don't read it (much less understand it's content or consequences) and in spite of the fact that most Americans are opposed to major aspects of the legislation. We ALLOW our elected representatives to treat us with disdain and disrespect, forgetting they work for us. They patronizingly tell us what they're doing is too complicated for us to understand as justification for doing what they and special interests want. They think it's their job to 'take care of us'.

Are you aware that ours is no longer a representative form of government? Are you aware that 40% of Americans have NO representation instead of a 40% say in what gets done? Are you aware we are a ONE PARTY government now that Republicans are shut out of all participation in major legislation that's bringing government control to every facet of our lives? Regardless your political party affiliation you must be uncomfortable having one political party control everything at the federal level. Common Sense tells us something's not right with that and that it's fundamentally not good for the future of our country.

Wife's Back From Her Trip!

Life is 'right' again ... Karen's back home from her trip visiting family. I'm glad she went but it's good having her back home. Was getting pretty lonesome around this ol house.

I Miss My Wife!!!!

I miss Karen a lot. She's visiting family in Wisconsin for about 11 days so, in the meantime, I'm home alone. :-(

It's cool she's doing this because family is important but I'm counting the days til her return!

Current Proposed Health Care Plan: The Real Story You Won't Hear From 'The Media'

70% of Americans rate their health care good to excellent. We’re not going to be able to pay for Medicare the way it’s set up but, overall, Americans’ health care is among the best in the world. (Even Canadians come here to get care they can’t ‘qualify’ for in Canada.) So, YES, we need to overhaul how Medicare is set up. But, NO, we don’t need an overhaul of our ENTIRE health care system!

Here are some facts about President Obama’s current health care plan:

He says it will only cost $1 Trillion. What he's NOT saying is that $1 Trillion is just part of the cost because the Congressional Budget Office can't figure out the other costs until the legislature has more details in their bills. Current estimates I'm hearing is that it'll cost around $4 Trillion over 10 years. (Keep in mind that isn't a one-time cost ... it keeps up at that rate and increases with inflation.)

The president says 46 million Americans aren’t covered. He’s not being truthful and it’s a transparently blatant attempt to mislead us. For one thing, at least 21% of those (ie, 10 million) are illegal immigrants … they’re NOT Americans. So the truth is 36 million Americans aren’t covered but for MOST of them it's not because they don't have coverage available already.

Another 14 million of those 46 million are ALREADY eligible for Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIR, and veterans benefits but they have CHOSEN(!) not to enroll.

Another 9 million of those 46 million have household incomes of at least $75,000 and therefore have enough income to pay for private insurance. (That also means that many people with less income than that need less help than others … a family with $20,000 income would need more help than someone with a $60,000 income.)

That leaves 13 million Americans out of a total population of 300 million who are inadequately insured. And many of them are well above the poverty level so they would need less help than those below it.

In addition, even the Congressional Budget Office agrees that the president’s plan will force around 30 million people off their current insurance and/or doctors (because of the impacts on insurance companies and medical care providers). That’s a net decrease or outright loss of medical care for at least 17 million Americans in order to provide medical care for 13 million Americans. AND we’re going to spend around $4 Trillion over the next 10 years to accomplish that feat? Huh?

Even if we agree to provide coverage help to illegal immigrants and the 13 million who are inadequately insured there has to be a better way to help those 23 million people. We need to reform Medicare so it’s more cost-effective but overhauling our ENTIRE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM at a cost of $400 BILLION per year is ludicrous!

Thomas Paine's Common Sense - A Must Read For Our Times

A few days ago I bought Glenn Beck's new book, "Glenn Beck's Common Sense (The Case Against [Today's] Out-Of-Control Government)". Glenn included the complete text of Thomas Paine's "Common Sense". While the text of Paine's commentary is in the back of Beck's book, I began with that to get a sense of where Mr. Beck might be going with his 'case'.

About Thomas Paine's commentary: striking & startling in the context of today's political environment and temperament in America. What's amazing is that Paine makes a lucid and provocative case for us today(!), 233 years later. That's because his argument is timeless in it's definining what the human heart yearns for and how government ignores, if not destroys, that when it becomes self-serving instead of citizen-serving.

So far, all I've read is Paine's commentary and, for me, that may even be sufficient but I still want to read what Mr. Beck makes of it. I can imagine where Mr. Beck takes his argument based on that because, upon reading many of Paine's comments, I remarked to myself "that's us TODAY"! That was, no doubt, Mr. Beck's desire. Good call sir!

I'm Baaaaaccckk!

Chris and I had a good time together last week camping in the McCloud CA area (@ Fowler Campground). He arrived late Sunday and left late Thursday. I had been worried about the weather but it was perfect while he was there. Stiffling hot the week before and rained each day after he left (until I got fed up with it and returned home Saturday, 2 days early). Fishing wasn't the best but it wasn't too bad. Chris caught quite a few more than I did and caught the biggest (pic above). I claimed one record ... catching the smallest. (That's all good with me!)

We also played rummy (he's the champ this time around, handily winning 2 of 3 games), took in some sights, BBQ'd steaks one night (with baked beans & potato baked in foil on the coals), cooked hot sausages over the fire pit another night, and Chris roasted marshmallows for smores. Saw some wildlife, including mule deer all over the place and even a bear. We made some new memories and had a good time together.

Next 'adventures' for me will be a camping trip or two with my sweetheart and one with my other son, Matt, in mid-September. Looking forward to it all!

Got Better Things To Do For A While!

No more blogging for two or three weeks while I'm away on a camping/fishing trip. (Check my previous blog for the what, where, who of it.) I'll be Tweeting however. :-)

P.S. I miss you Sweetheart!

Where I'll Be Tomorrow

The Fly Shop in Redding has this pic on their website of someone fly fishing the Upper Sacramento River. HA! This could be me tomorrow. I'm hoping to get the trailer set up in a campground early enough to do some late-afternoon fishing and then I'll have a couple of weeks to do more of it. Looking forward to it. Not looking forward to being away from my wife. Will miss her a lot ... although these trips do have their compensations. ;-)

Ready For My Fishing Trip With Son Chris

Plans are firm now and the date is fast approaching when Chris and I will do some fly fishing together. I'm leaving with the trailer Monday (May 25th) and will be looking for a good campground in the Shasta CA area. It'll be about a 4.5 hour trip for me I think.

Chris plans to join me on Sunday, May 31st, and return home on June 4th. The only thing certain about our fishing plans is guided fly fishing on the Upper Sacramento River May 2nd. The rest of our time together will be spent hanging out and fishing whenever/wherever we feel like at the time.

By arriving several days before Chris I'll be able to find a good campground and get a campsite set up for us. Then I'll spend several days getting familiar with where and how to fish the many good rivers in the Shasta area, hopefully getting in some quality fishing time by myself.

According to current reports, Shasta area rivers are beginning to clear up now and will be getting low enough to fish well around the time I arrive but may not be their best until about the time Chris arrives. I may stick around a few days after Chris leaves, especially if the rivers haven't lowered enough and bug hatches haven't developed well enough to provide me with some good fishing the days I'm there before Chris arrives.

Chris' last day of school work was today. It's been a challenging semester for him in the Music Ed Program at San Jose State so I know he's more than ready for some fun time throwing some flies at trout. I'm certainly ready ... it's been a long, cold winter and I'm hankerin' for some decent fishing. Whether we catch many fish (although I expect we will!) it'll be a good time together.

Yay Chris! Yay Matt!

My sons are always surprising and blessing me. Both are living life with a lot of maturity and responsibility. That's not unusual but there are times like now that bring more clarity to how far they've come in their (nearly) 30 years. I'm happy to see it ... more so for them than for personal satisfaction.

Chris just concluded one of the toughest semesters one can have in one of the toughest programs (Music Ed) for a person who also has to put himself through school. He did it with much sacrifice and hard work. Also with very impressive commitment and persistence. Proud of him? You bet! But more than anything it's further evidence (and proof ... to him) he'll do well in life long after I'm gone.

Matt has proven and well established himself in his chosen profession ... a ministry (much more than a 'job') actually. He's a valued and productive contributor to the mission at His Place Church in Post Falls, ID. He just keeps growing in those responsibilities and there seems to be no limit to ways in which he can make a contribution and demonstrate leadership. Cool! Now he and his wife, Heather, are beginning a new chapter in their lives with the confluence of two major accomplishments ... Heather's Master's Degree and the purchase of their first home (closing on 5/29).

My sons have always blessed me.

Heather Graduates!

Heather, our youngest son's wife, received her Master of Social Work degree Saturday in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. We were able to attend the ceremony and it was fun to see her and Matt reap the rewards of their commitment to this. Heather has a generous spirit and a good heart for this kind of work and is committed to making a positive difference in people's lives. God Bless her in this work and bless those whose lives she touches.

Immigration Reform: Historical Congressional Irresponsibility

Poll after poll, year after year for nearly 30 years, showed that American citizens:

1. Want their representatives to DO SOMETHING to stop illegal immigration and
2. Oppose amnesty AND any new path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

But our so-called representatives haven't wanted to do that. So, what HAVE they done? Since we won't let them do what they want, they've chosen to do nothing ... except grant more amnesties, each time promising never to do it again. I guess they showed us, huh? Question is, why do you suppose they've chosen to ignore us?

Mostly, their reason for not doing what we want is about getting re-elected. No one, Republican or Democrat, wants to risk losing the Latino vote. The sad bottom-line is, Special Interests have more influence with our politicians than the majority of Americans. That's a whole other subject for another day but it's crucial to this issue.

They obviously figure if they can just wait long enough and avoid getting locked into legislation they really don't want to pass, the percentage of Americans who oppose their approach will eventually decrease to a point where they CAN eventually have their way. If they actually passed legislation that citizens wanted in the meantime then they'd have to follow it and it would be difficult to change later. It's easier to just wait us out and do it their way later. Waiting is almost as good as passing legislation that illegal immigrants want. For sure it's better to wait than alienate people who are here illegally.

For reference, from my 05/02/09 post, here is what most Americans want:

1. NO MORE Amnesties ... period. To say that means we don't care ignores the FACT that we've approved MANY amnesties. We're just saying we've reached our limit.
2. NO new/faster path to citizenship. Existing laws have worked fine for two hundred years and we therefore have no justifiable reason to change them.
3. Implement a Guest Worker Visa.
4. Close the border and enforce border security ... ASAP.
5. Enforce existing immigration laws. Sanctuary cities are by definition against the law. Communities aren't immune to federal law.