THE OLD REPUBLIC GAZETTE

Ameritopia – The Unmaking of America - A Book Review

2012-01-27T17:18:00.001-05:00

Ameritopia – The Unmaking of America

by Mark R. Levin

Threshold Editions, Simon & Schuster

Last week saw the release of Mark Levin's new book, Ameritopia – The Unmaking of America. Mr. Levin has been marketing his book on his popular radio show for months and now that it has been released he has made his show an almost non-stop infomercial for the book. He did the same thing with his last book Liberty and Tyranny, which in my view was a better, more ground-breaking book. What has been proven by radio hosts Mr. Levin, Howard Stern, Glenn Beck and others with a book to sell is that using their microphone and their particular soap box, there is no better tool for selling books than a large radio audience. Unfortunately, Mr. Levin takes great advantage of this fact and rather than mentioning it just a few times and then moving on, his tomes become the centerpieces of his radio show for weeks.

All this said, I am a steadfast fan of Levin's radio show, but I cannot wait until he gets past being an unrepentant shill for his book.

As with his last book, Levin introduces a new term which he uses throughout the book, and ineffectively on his radio show, to describe the people who want to control our lives. Where liberal elite, radical egalitarian, elitist, and even Illuminati might be good enough terms to fill the bill, Levin repurposes mastermind, a term which is used by Napoleon Hill and his followers as a group of people serving as a larger sort of braintrust. Two heads are better than one. Levin's use of the term sort of parallels the use of the term in the sense of the evil James Bond anatgonist or of say, Osama bin Laden, but it doesn't work in the political philosophy sense in which he uses it and it is unnecessary in describing the political elite that want to control us.

While reading Ameritopia, it will be noticed that there is probably more quoted text in this book than there is original text by the author. That said, the quotes are generally enlightening and germane to the subject matter at hand.

In the first chapter of the book, Levin lays the groundwork for his thesis by saying: “Equality, as understood by the American Founders, is the natural right of every individual to live freely under self-government, to acquire and retain the property he creates through his own labor, and to be treated impartially before a just law. Moreover, equality should not be confused with perfection, for man is also imperfect, making his application of equality, even in the most just society, imperfect. Otherwise, inequality is the natural state of man in the sense that each individual is born unique in all his human characteristics.” This statement about equality is one that Occupy Wall Streeters and liberals in general will disagree with.

The author suggests that in the utopian worldview, an individual is just a cog in the wheel of society. This runs counter to what America is all about and, what Levin argues every utopian society offers, that is a loss of individualism, not to mention freedom.

Speaking of labor, property, and freedom Levin says: “...the individual's right to live freely and safely and pursue happiness includes the right to benefit from the fruits of his own labor. As the individual's time on Earth is finite, so, too, is his labor. The illegitimate denial or diminution of his labor—that is, the involuntary deprivation of the private property he accumulates from his intellectual and/or physical efforts—is a form of servitude and, hence, immoral.”

Throughout Ameritopia, Mr. Levin looks at utopian societies as envisioned by political philosophers of the past, starting with Plato from two thousand years ago. He finds that: “Utopianism requires power to be concentrated in a central authority with maximum latitude to transform and control.”

For example, Levin looks at Plato's Republic and de-idealizes his Ideal City. “But in the City, the individual is indentured to the state. Justice is synonymous with the well-being of the City. The classes exist to work as a harmonious collective to ensure order. Dissent, independence, and change are considered destructive. Ironically, it is unlikely Socrates would have survived long in Plato's City, given its totalitarian complexion.”

In his look at Thomas More's Utopia, published in 1516, Levin calls it “...a tyrannical society, destructive of individual sovereignty and free will, with many of the attributes of a communist state.”

The author next turns his critical eye toward Thomas Hobbe's Leviathan, written in 1651. He applies some slippery slope logic to Hobbes' utopian government, saying: “Indeed, is not an all-powerful Sovereign, which is Hobbes' answer, a great and more certain threat to the individual?” And having concluded that Hobbes' model government is sure to be despotic, Levin says, “Hobbes creates a false choice between polar opposites. Either they live in anarchy or live under despotism.” I disagree with Levin here concerning the quoted Hobbes material. He takes Hobbes Sovereign to its ultimate logical extreme, which would not always or often be the case. But Levin is correct that the civil society always needs to worry about who it invests its power in.

Levin then moves on to Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels' Communist Manifesto, written in 1846. Levin publishes a damning quote from the anti-humanistic treatise which those authors seem proud to expound: “In this sense the theory of Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.”

First of all, “Abolition of private property” is a phrase, not a sentence. But be that as it may, Levin handily evicerates the Communist utopia calling them “totalitarian regimes” where the people have no “individual liberties and rights”. I think it may be easily said that there is no single document which has resulted in more dead humans than the Communist Manifesto.

Levin then looks at some of the people who had a positive influence on the Founding Fathers. John Locke was one of those, a thinker who had a great deal of influence on the nascent country. Levin points out that Locke believed “that the wealth created and possessed by one individual does not prevent another individual from creating and possessing wealth.” This is a popular belief among conservatives in the U.S. today, and is something that is forbidden in the various utopias.

One of the thinkers that Levin reviews and talks about often on his radio show is Alexis de Tocqueville. In regards to the tyranny of government Levin mentions this: “De Tocqueville then made the profound observation that this dreary existence is accepted by the people, for they go through the motions of electing their guardians, deluding themselves that they and their fellow citizens remain free for they participate in self-government. However, as the administrative state grows, the vote is less effective and the individual is increasingly disenfranchised.”

I agree with Levin and de Tocqueville that the result of elections sometimes seems to result in little change, but voting is all we have when we want change in a representative republic. Revolution in a democracy can be as simple as voting the bums out. And as Levin often espouses on his radio show, it is imperative that if we want to effect change we must vote, not sit at home.

Mr. Levin's brief look at the liberal/statist Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt was instructive to me and I am sure will be to others as well, considering the whitewash these guys are given in the public school system. Of Wilson, Levin points out: “In short, for Wilson, rights are awarded or denied the individual as determined by the government.” And of Roosevelt Levin opines, “Roosevelt repositioned the utopians as enlightened, modern, and futuristic, and, conversely, presented the advocates of civil society and constitutionalism as obstructing individual and societal progress.”

Roosevelt's New Deal increased the scope and reach of the federal government in ways unprecedented since the ratification of the Constitution, some would say in breach of it. And in speaking of Roosevelt's “Second Bill of Rights” Levin says: “There is little space between Roosevelt's premise and the distorted historical views of Marx and Engels.” He goes on to point out how closely Roosevelt's “Second Bill of Rights” mirrors the Soviet Union's 1936 constitution.

Levin argues that America is already well on its way to being Ameritopia, the utopia that statists, liberals, and progressives want it to be. The federal government has burgeoned to an uncontrollable size. Taxing, spending and debt are irresponsible and immoral. Regulations and bureaucracy are leviathans unto themselves, intruding into every corner of our lives in spite of the Constitution, and entitlements burden and provide foundation for the growing utopia.

Levin says that the Constitution “...secures for posterity the individual's sovereignty...” Little wonder then that utopians attack the Constitution as much as they do. Levin states that it is still not too late to preserve the American republic.

Ameritopia is a cogent argument against utopianism. The reader will learn much of political philosophy. It is a fine historical essay as well. It's not an easy read by any means, especially considering all the middle English usage in the quotations, but you can grasp it if you soldier on.

But as far as fighting liberalism, progressivism, socialism, and Marxism, Liberty and Tyranny is the better book and it will have the longer lasting value.

Mark Levin's radio show can be found here.

Mark Levin's Liberty and Tyranny can be found here.

Mark Levin's Ameritopia can be found here.

President Obama's State of the Union Address - The Egg McMuffin of Speeches

2012-01-25T18:11:00.003-05:00

The political stump is where you can hear the real, unadulterated words of President Obama. You hear sound bites of them every day in the news. In the speeches that he gives when traveling the country while fundraising or pushing a particular issue, the president uses Republican bashing, wealth bashing, petulant, blame-everyone-but-himself, fudge-the-numbers, fudge-the-reality language and comes across as little more than a left-wing ideologue.

And then there's last night's State of the Union address. In the televised address to both houses of Congress, President Obama came across as someone who might be willing to cross the aisle to work with the other political party. He and his speechwriters tried to sound more moderate, more reasonable, and more pliable. He spoke well of America and its flag, he spoke well of the military and their successes against bin Laden and in Afghanistan and Iraq. He spoke of liberty and tyranny (!) and of intolerance for Iran's nuclear ambitions. He also spoke almost conservatively when speaking of unfair trade and piracy from countries like China.

Appreciative and appreciated words.

But the president and his speechwriters are liberals and a liberal message can't help but pervade even this attempt at an aisle-crossing speech. He went on to say in the State of the Union address that our relationship with Israel is stronger. It is clearly not. His actions have distanced us from Israel and increased the threat against them from multiple enemies in the region. Egypt, Libya, the Palestinians, Hamas, Syria, Turkey, and Iran are all greater threats to Israel than ever. He said our ties with Europe and Asia are stronger. They are not. He said our ties with South and Central America are stronger. This is true, if the government is left-leaning, or socialist. It is not true of more democratic, or conservative states like Honduras or Colombia.

He said in his speech that our military will be stronger in the years to come, but 500 billion dollars in cuts, a smaller fighting force, and the smallest navy since 1947 counter this statement. All of this in the face of increasing threats around the world. Everything Barack Obama has done since entering office has been aimed at reducing the military's strength (not too mention increasing the size of the budget, and the debt).

In his State of the Union speech, the president (a Democrat) said that he believes what Republican Abraham Lincoln believed: That government should do for the people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more. However, his actions for the last three years show just the opposite. He wants government doing any and every thing that people could do better for themselves.

This president once again called for immigration reform so that illegal immigrants can enjoy the benefits of American citizens and not have the worry of being deported hanging over their heads. :`-( I ask again, what kind of country do we live in where our leader wants to sanction the illegal actions of millions of people? Against the will of the majority.

The 44th president also called (yet again) for a tax increase on millionaires. Nothing new there. He and his speech writers know what works with his base, I guess.

He continued on to say that he wants to develop more energy in the U.S. from all sources of energy and even suggested opening up more public lands to drilling. This would be great if it were true, but he has turned down the Keystone XL Pipeline from Canada which would have greatly helped reduce oil imports from the Middle East and has continuously been a thorn in the sides of oil companies that want to drill in the Gulf of Mexico or off the coasts. And despite his failed backing of solar energy company, Solyndra, he wants to double down on that type of investment.

My suggestion to those who listened to President Obama's 2012 State of the Union address (hopefully his last)--Forget everything you've heard, because it's the stump speeches where the truth (and more lies) comes out to play. As Rush Limbaugh likes to say, this is nothing more than a State of the Union Show.

Get a free download of State of the Union addresses. State of the Union Address (1790-2001)

Egg McMuffin is a registered trademark of McDonalds Corporation.

The Republican Presidential Primaries - 2012

2012-01-23T17:02:00.000-05:00

What should be clear to anyone of voting age in the United States of America is that there have been way too many debates in this election season. What is it, sixteen or seventeen by now? And the same topics come up over and over. When the eventual Republican nominee is finally chosen, he will meet in a debate just two or three times with President Obama, when the voting public should see five or ten of those debates. How wrong is that?

The debates have generally not hurt Mitt Romney, but have catapulted Newt Gingrich from a low percentage, second tier candidate to a top tier, South Carolina winning candidate. Mr. Gingrich received two standing ovations for answers in two subsequent debates which helped him seal the deal in South Carolina.

To date, Herman Cain, a great conservative candidate has been drummed out of the race due to perceived infidelity problems and a subsequent drop in funding. Michele Bachmann is out, so the only shrill badger left in the race is Rick Santorum. Jon Huntsman is out due to consistently low poll and voting numbers. And the latest dropout is Governor Rick Perry due to his poor showing in the New Hampshire Republican primary (where Democrats and Independents can vote for which Republican should run for president).

Mr. Romney had won the Iowa caucus by eight votes in the first week of January, but now that most of the votes have been certified it appears that Mr. Santorum won the Iowa caucus by thirty-something votes. What further muddies the muddy Iowa waters is that a number of counties or districts' votes will never be certified or counted, leaving the question of who actually won the Iowa caucus an answer that perhaps only God knows or cares about.

Mr. Romney went on to win the New Hampshire primary the next week by a comfortable margin over Ron Paul, Mr. Gingrich, and Mr. Santorum.

And this Saturday, Mr. Gingrich stole the show by defeating Romney in the South Carolina primary, with 40% of the vote after the aforementioned recent debate performances. Mr. Romney took 28% of the vote, Mr. Santorum took 17% of the vote, and Mr. Paul took 13%.

The sunshine state of Florida is the next battleground for the Republican hopefuls. The Republican primary there takes place on January 31. One can only hope that the topics in the coming weeks are more focused on what President Obama has done wrong with his administration and to this country, and less on Republican "vulture campaign" tactics, to paraphrase Mr. Perry.

The Wealthy Freelancer - A Book Review

2012-01-13T12:00:00.001-05:00

Get a copy from Amazon.

The Wealthy Freelancer - 12 Secrets to a Great Income and an Enviable Lifestyle
by Steve Slaunwhite, Pete Savage, and Ed Gandia. Alpha Books, 2010

I was in Barnes and Noble - one of my favorite haunts - the other night and while browsing the shelves came across a great softcover book whose title jumped right out at me. (Actually the red Corvette on the cover jumped out as well since I have always loved that car.) The title jumped out at me because I am a freelance editor and writer, and there is nothing more appealing to me than the idea of being a wealthy one.

For those who may not know it, a freelancer is an independent contractor or self-employed individual working for various clients or companies, owing allegiance to none of them, and being responsible for all the business trappings that any small business owner must face. Being a freelancer (in any career field) can be daunting. Lack of clientele, lack of income, lack of productivity, and lack of time are just some the problems that freelance professionals may deal with. The pluses are being your own boss, not having a regular commute, no office politics, and more time with family to name a few. My favorite is control of the thermostat.

The subtitle of this particular must-have book - 12 Secrets to a Great Income and an Enviable Lifestyle - is unfortunately a little misleading. The twelve "secrets" actually refer to the twelve chapters of the book, each of which is a broad topic incuding many more secrets (tips, ideas, strategies) for getting the most out of your freelance career. Because there are dozens of great ideas in this book the publisher sort of undersold the book's value to the reader with this subtitle.

Unlike many other career books, this one gives you more than you expect - loads of steps you can take today and tomorrow to grow your freelancing business, make it more efficient, and increase your income.

Steve Slaunwhite is a marketing coach, copywriter, speaker, website creator, and the author of several books. Pete Savage is a marketing consultant, speaker, author, and coach. Ed Gandia is a marketing consultant, copywriter, speaker, author, and coach.

Each of the authors has been freelancing successfully for many years and the reader learns from them about the ups and downs, and dos and don'ts of a successful freelance career. In their engaging and informal style they also use many anecdotes and stories from other successful freelancers to support their many helpful strategies.

The authors set the stage by desribing what a wealthy freelancer is. As you can guess it's about money, but it's also about the perks and benefits of being a freelancer as well. The reader is constantly reminded to remember why he or she wanted to become a freelancer in the first place and to keep that in mind when pursuing goals and clients. They then cover getting and keeping clients, pricing your services for success (you don't want to undersell yourself with your rates), and boosting your productivity.

The authors even include an appendix which can serve as a troubleshooting guide when you run into certain inevitable freelancing obstacles.

If you're a freelance professional you will definitely find some useful secrets to apply to your business once you're done reading this enjoyable and well-constructed book.

P.S. It's cheaper on Amazon than what I paid for it at Barnes and Noble and is available in paperback and for the Kindle.

When Oppression Comes in Round

2012-01-09T17:52:00.002-05:00

Round, Iron Manhole Cover

What brilliant civil engineer decided to place manholes and their attendent, round manhole covers in the middle of the road?

Is this ancient Rome's fault (as so many things are), or Thomas Edison's, or is there someone else whom we can blame for persisting in the use of these iron banes to a commuter's existence?

Maybe it didn't matter as much when cars were going 14 miles per hour or when horses were pulling buggies and wagons through dusty city streets, but it matters now.

As if potholes, train tracks, and buckling New Jersey asphalt isn't bad enough, the brain surgeons in charge of roads, sewage, or utilities in New Jersey (and America at large) persist in increasing the wear and tear on our cars and the crappy driving conditions by placing manholes in the middle of side streets, and highways alike.

And not only do they place them on roads where you will hit them every few hundred feet while you are going 50 or 60 miles per hour, but they seem to indent them into the road surface just for a little bit of extra fun -- or at least for maximum discomfort on people and wear to vehicles. (Perhaps this was a deal with auto makers in Detroit to shorten vehicle life.)

Manholes in all cases should be placed under the sidewalks near the street, or at least as close to the edge of the travel surface as possible. How about placing them at the shoulder of the road, whether that shoulder is dirt or paved? It doesn't seem like a difficult requirement, at least going forward. (But then again we'll all be in flying cars soon, right? So the point will be moot. Or will it? Leave it up to the civil engineers and they will find a way to add potholes to the sky.)

I don't appreciate this travel malady, this civil engineering oppression, nor have I ever done so and I think the next president of the U.S. should address the malplacement of manholes.

I think it's an issue we can all support.

A U.S. Spy Plane: The Latest Spoils of Iran's War Against the West

2011-12-19T17:42:00.001-05:00

The Islamic Republic of Iran has committed its various acts of war on the United States of America over the last thirty years. There is the Iranian plot to blow up the Saudi ambassador in a Washington, D.C. restaurant in October of 2011; there is the IED production which led to the deaths and maiming of countless U.S. soldiers; there is the training of insurgents in Iran to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan; there is the continuous kidnapping of American citizens; there is Iran's support of terrorist organizations with direct responsibility for attacks on U.S. citizens and interests. And now, because they have somehow nabbed one of our unmanned spy planes, allegedly over their airspace, they say the U.S. has committed an act of war against them.

They are, and have been in a state of war against the U.S. and the West since 1979.

So, on December 08, 2011 Iran's government revealed that it has in its possession a top secret, United States stealth drone, known as the RQ-170. They have displayed it on Iranian TV for all the world to see. (There are anti-U.S. banners covering the landing gear. Why? Are they hiding something there?) If it is legit, they will surely try to reverse engineer it, and perhaps ask for China or Russia's help to do so, if they haven't already sold it to one of those countries. And they have laughed at and mocked President Obama for asking for it back.

Is the President worried about this? He doesn't appear to be. (Have fun in Hawaii, Barack.)

My first question is, why didn't this UAV have a self-destruct mechanism? My second question is, why don't we go get it or go destroy it so that the technology doesn't benefit our enemies?

I really hope there's more going on here than meets the eye.

Everything Is Not Steve Jobs' Fault

2011-10-07T16:24:00.000-04:00

Steve Jobs of Apple Computer has been gone just a couple of days now and already the well-deserved kudos he's received for a life of innovation are being marred by undeserved and ugly criticism of his company's manufacturing policies in China. Steve Jobs is not responsible if people who work at his plant in China commit suicide. I am not responsible if I buy an iPhone or a MacBook. The worker who takes his own life is responsible for that decision. Despite the fact that it is a communist country, these people work in modern factories with lots of amenities, not gulags.

So now according to some it's blood diamonds, blood Levis, blood Thinkpads, and blood iPhones? Where does it stop? What is the limit of the buyer's responsibility for worker oppression? Apparently we have to crochet our own TVs and churn our own eggs. I'm not buying it. The consumer in the U.S., Uruguay, Indonesia, New Zealand, and France (and every other consumer country) isn't responsible for every worker in China and vice versa. Of course, companies should do their due diligence. And Apple has, according to some sources. But there is such a thing as personal responsibility. That is something that the Occupy Wall Street crowd doesn't appear to buy into.

The workers in China in 2011 can take responsibility upon themselves and form their own labor unions if they are unhappy with their working conditions. How arrogant and patronizing liberals are to think that the almighty U.S. can wave its omnipotent scepter of guilt and make things better for the plebes "over there". We don't have to form or export unions from the U.S. for the workers in China! They are intelligent and industrious people - ascending in the world to their own credit. And if the Chinese workers looking for the union label run into trouble with their communist Chinese government, they can overthrow it and form a democracy, or reform it to an undiluted communist one if they prefer. Revolution's not easy, but it's been done before. It's up to them to make their labor conditions better, if they are truly bad.

At the very least, the Chinese Foxconn/Apple workers should quit their unpleasant jobs and go home to their families before they consider jumping off the top of the company dormitory to their deaths.

Let's not blame Steve Jobs for all the world's injustices, nor even for this one. Hundreds of thousands of people worldwide wouldn't have jobs but for him and Apple. That is a fact. Is every human endeavor perfectly good or perfectly bad? No. Never has been; never will be. People aren't perfect. Companies aren't perfect. Political systems aren't perfect.

The Fires of Mayan Doom

2011-09-23T17:14:00.000-04:00

The following allegory is not about Mayans, global warming, or the destruction of trees, though the second two figure prominently in the story.

It is the year 2012. The Mayans with their calendar of doom have been proven right in a way that could never have been predicted. The Earth is now facing a catastrophe unrivalled in its history, which could indeed mean not only the end of civilization, but of life on Earth.

Unseen until it was too late, and unimagined by scientists, a large, rogue, gas giant planet passing through the solar system has wreaked havoc on the planetary system at large. Dubbed “Goliath” by astronomers, just one of the devastating effects engendered by Goliath is its disturbance of the usually tranquil asteroid belt. This has caused a shower of asteroids towards the inner solar system and out towards Jupiter. Earth’s moon has so far received the brunt of this violent asteroid shower in Earth’s neighborhood, but this fortune is by no means guaranteed to continue.

However, the worst effect of Goliath’s rampage through our solar system and the real crisis for Earth is that the passing gas giant planet caused just a slight change in Earth’s trajectory through space. This slight change dragged Earth off its usual course and resulted in a new orbit for humanity’s only home.

Where Earth’s average distance from the Sun had always been 93 million miles, its new average distance to the Sun is now 145 million miles – putting us 60 percent further away from our source of life sustaining heat. This orbit is very nearly where Mars had orbited the Sun until this earlier this year. Unfortunately for Mars, but lucky for Earth, Goliath passed by Mars close enough to eject it and its moon from the solar system forever, leaving plenty of space for Earth’s new path around the Sun. Consequently, Earth’s year has also become 200 days longer.

As the news gets out to the public, many of Earth’s scientists and leaders freak out, not to mention the public. Some of these policymakers paint the worst possible outcome for Earth’s future – the extinction of all life within a few years. Still other respected scientists paint a more moderate picture – a cooler planet, but still livable, due to the moderating effects of the world’s oceans and the planet’s latent interior heat. These moderate voices say that we can expect longer, harder winters, cool summers, and no more hot tropical areas on the planet. But life can go on and humankind can adjust, as it has during climate changes in its past.

To show the panicky public that something is being done, a disaster summit is convened including presidents, prime ministers, and scientists from all nations. Bold and radical ideas are presented in an effort to deal with humanity’s imminent extinction.

This is what the president of one nation said in an address at the World Disaster Summit of 2012 at the United Nations in New York City. “We must use global warming to save mankind and all other life on the Earth. If we get enough carbon dioxide into the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels, we can maintain the Earth’s average temperature and avoid this catastrophe.”

Another leader from a northern country, pounded his fist on the podium during his reply, “What about the pollution? My scientists say that there will be a 900 percent increase in lung cancer deaths from the increased hydrocarbon burning. And where is our oxygen for breathing going to come from? The increased burning of all these fossil fuels will use up a lot of the Earth’s oxygen as well.”

The other president responded, “Well, of course a few more people will die, but we’re talking about saving the planet here. Every struggle of humankind has involved sacrifice. As far as the oxygen goes, my scientists say that ocean vegetation produces more than enough oxygen to sustain life on the planet.”

At the month long summit, the arguments go back and forth like this, until finally, the global warmers win the day and plans are drawn up for all countries to drastically and immediately increase their carbon dioxide emissions. For the plan to work, each country is given a 30-day target to meet, and a 565-day target to meet (the length of Earth’s new orbital year).

Industrial and personal carbon emissions are to be increased. Energy-saving compact fluorescent light bulbs are banned, as are conservation, wind turbines, and solar power. More fossil fuel power plants are to be built, while nuclear power plants will be taken offline whenever possible. But according to computer models, these actions are not enough. At the Disaster Summit, it is decided that to get global warming really going, four strategically chosen countries, would each have to build (with the help of all nations) a mountain-sized bonfire within their borders. Canada, Brazil, Russia, and Congo were chosen for their distribution around the globe and for their proximity to what would be the bonfire’s main fuel source – wood.

Canada and Russia had no trouble getting their huge bonfires going. Satellite photos from space showed significant smoke and cloud formation as a result of the monster fires. At the start, the fires in Brazil and Congo are smaller than hoped for because of their wetter climates and weaker industrial capabilities.

The fires consume the trash of dozens of countries and anything else that can be burned. Ad hoc bonfires and forest fires are started in other countries as well. Recycling has ended. But the main fuel for the fires, trees, are disappearing at an incredible pace in an effort to keep Earth warm and stave off human extinction.

There are those leaders and scientists who say that we must burn all the available trees in the shortest amount of time to fend off the looming disaster. This will create the most CO2 the fastest, helping to retain more of the Earth’s invaluable heat. There are still others who say that we must be more prudent if we are to keep the fires going for a long time. “We must plant trees, and allow the trees to seed the ground naturally, replacing themselves. Done correctly,” one scientist said, “We can actually increase the number of trees on the planet and even mitigate some of the toxic effects of the fires.”

The global warmers scoff at this and argue that more trees would be counterproductive to the idea of increasing carbon output and they outlaw the idea of allowing regrowth of forests, despite the fact that the fuel that feeds their bonfires will soon be gone. “We need the carbon now. Earth needs the CO2 blanket now. We must burn all the trees as fast as we can. This is what the computer models tell us will save the planet.”

Thus, no action is taken to protect the remaining trees, except by rebellious individuals and organizations who illegally plant trees wherever they can get away with it. But the government pillage of the forests is too effective. At the pace that trees are being consumed by the fires, it is projected that they will all be gone by July 47th of 2013. UN projections, based on computer models, are that average world temperatures will be stabilized by that time.

However, despite all human activity to the contrary, the average world temperature is dropping by two degrees Celsius per extended month. No hurricanes have been generated through 2012, less tornados were spawned on the United States mainland, the aurora borealis has all but disappeared, and snow fell last week for the first time ever on the islands in the Caribbean. There have even been fewer reported earthquakes in 2012.

In the middle of 2013, when the Earth’s surface is completely denuded of trees, the fuel for continuing the greenhouse gas bonfires (and the main source for building homes) will largely be gone, perhaps forever. The Earth will never be the same. But the gamble is that the atmosphere will at that time have sufficient greenhouse gases in it and enough of a permanent cloud cover to keep the Earth warm enough to support life indefinitely.

At least that’s what the computer models say.

The Things Autocratic Capitalistic Countries Are Doing Right That the United States Is Not

2011-09-21T17:09:00.001-04:00

I understand the thinking of President Obama and the others on the political left. I understand the logic behind the Buffett Tax. It is playground bullying times a trillion. If Timmy Turner has more marbles than the other kids on the playground and a bully takes Timmy’s extra marbles to make it fairer to everyone else, that’s the Buffett tax. That’s the death tax and the millionaire tax.

The Buffett rule, or tax, is the Obama administration’s latest nomenclature for the millionaire tax, and is named after Warren Buffett, a wealthy billionaire who is in arrears with the IRS over unpaid taxes, but who thinks people like him should pay more taxes to the U.S. treasury. Makes sense, right? The Obama administration apparently thinks that if a tax is named after a rich man, (thereby giving it the Millionaire Seal of Approval) that Americans will hop on board and agree to increasing the tax burden on all those shiftless wealthy people.

The problem with millionaire taxes (and higher taxes in general) is that they may bring in a little more revenue in the short run, but at the expense of money that would have stayed in the economy generating economic growth and job creation.

Why are citizens who make more money and who already pay more taxes than I do responsible for paying a larger share of their income to support the government? They are not.

It is class envy. It is class warfare. It is playground redistribution. It is neo-Marxism.

I paid roughly $10,000 in taxes to the federal government last year. My neighbor, Bob, made a million dollars last year and paid the federal government roughly $200,000. Twenty times what I paid. Who on Earth can say that my neighbor isn’t paying his fair share? He paid what 20 people making my salary pay in income tax! Good for him!

But that’s not good enough for Progressives, and liberal Democrats like Barack Obama. You see, they want Bob to pay $396,000 on his million dollar earnings. Thirty-nine times what I am paying! Because Bob is successful, they want him to pay what 39 average tax payers pay in taxes. And, they want to take away as many deductions from him as they can so that he has a harder time lowering his tax burden than I do.

I think Bob is paying his fair share. He is paying MORE than his fair share. He is an “engine” in the economy of the community. What would be truly fair, in the spirit of American fairness, would be a flat tax, or a Fair tax that would involve everyone paying SOMETHING to the U.S. treasury, including the 47% of Americans who now pay nothing in federal income tax. Russia has a 13% flat tax that everyone pays and that has been very successful…. Russia!

No one person should have to pay a higher percentage of his or her income than another person to the federal government. Check it: In the small island nation of Singapore, everyone is capped at $2500 of their income, no matter how high their income is. And this is an autocratic government. (However, the country does have many other taxes that the U.S. does not.)

It is fundamentally unfair in a nation that is supposed to be fair, and provide a level playing field to expect Bob to pay a higher percentage of his income to the federal government than I do. That is not fair, it is punishment for being successful. The progressive income tax (where one person pays 0%, another person pays 25% and another pays 39% of their incomes) is government theft from people who have been successful, or lucky in their lives.

Why take away the incentive for Bob to spend his extra dollars on boosting the U.S. economy by buying expensive products and services, which provide jobs, or hiring extra employees for his business?

President Obama, if you want to spur consumer spending, excite the economy, and jump start job growth, you need to cut federal spending. You also need to cut the corporate income tax (which at 40% is among the highest in the world -- even the communist-capitalist-dictatorship Red China has a lower corporate income tax). You also need to make permanent the Bush tax rates, and level the tax burden playing field so that everyone has “skin in the game.”

Perhaps Congress should pass a special tax on all people who think they and others aren’t being taxed enough. I think a 90 percent rate would be fair.

Earthquake in New York City Metropolitan Area and Beyond

2011-08-23T22:36:00.000-04:00

Today New Jersey, New York, Virginia, and much of the eastern half of the U.S. and even Canada felt an unusually strong shaking of the earth that this region is not all that comfortable or familiar with. The earthquake's epicenter was near Mineral, Virginia and registered a 5.8 on the Richter scale. Most quakes in this region of the continent are usually much less noticeable than this one was.

I didn't time it, but the shaking seemed to go on for around thirty seconds or so. At my office, it wasn't strong enough to knock things down. But it was definitely a new experience for many of us. The quake only caused limited damage to some buildings near its epicenter in Virginia.

Office buildings in New York and New Jersey emptied themselves out as if they were all having simultaneous fire drills, including the one I work at in Parsippany, New Jersey. In our building, many of us remained inside, wanting to get back to work. But building security, showing an abundance of caution asked everyone to wait outside. After twenty or thirty minutes, we went back in. It was nice a nice break to get out in the summer sun for a little while and talk.

While this quake was disconcerting and worry inducing for parents and families, and even a little awe inspiring considering the power involved, we can be thankful that it was not worse than it was. Hopefully the involved faults have had their pressure relieved for another 50 years or so.

Obama Administration Gives Administrative Amnesty to People in the U.S. Illegally, but Not Committing Other Crimes

2011-08-21T14:20:00.001-04:00

It's called selective enforcement of the laws of the United States of America, and it is not something the director of the Department of Homeland Security or the Executive office should be engaging in - and especially not announcing it to the world. "Oh, we won't be enforcing these particular laws, so... you're good." The people behind this outrage are sworn to uphold the laws and Constitution of the U.S. I state here and now that it's treacherous and treasonous, because it erodes the rule of law and the power of Congress and the Constitution. It is plain circumvention to support a liberal political intention. What they could not get through the legislative process last year, because it was unpopular, they have initiated by executive fiat.

Why can't the liberal numbskulls in this country get it through their heads that illegal is illegal? Why also do they insist on calling illegal aliens (or illegal immigrants) just plain immigrants, as if they had gone through the same legal process of getting into this country that legal immigrants do? Or they are often referred to as "undocumented" immigrants, as if they somehow overlooked getting a visa or passport, or as if some bad Tea Party person came along and stole these poor, downtrodden people's documents. It really is like we're in Bizarro World!

Do we want laws that enforce the borders of our country or not? If it is OK for people to come to the United States and stay at will, then change the law to reflect that idea. But as it stands now the laws make it illegal for foreign nationals (aliens, as they are called to the left's annoyance) to come into this country without asking whether they may do so. What's wrong with that? And do you know why we don't make it legal for people to cross the border at will and stay here legally? Because the vast majority of Americans want border security and additionally don't want to throw their tax dollars away supporting every down-on-their luck poor person that breaks into this country expecting to get rich. We just cannot afford it.

But this "rule change" from the Obama administration is going to make coming here illegally MORE ATTRACTIVE to people outside this country, since it is now de facto okay for them to do so. There won't be consequences for being illegal. And the burden on the taxpaying citizens of this country will increase.

On top of not pursuing the illegal immigrants, they will be allowed to apply for work permits, which will allow them to compete legally for jobs with the 30 million Americans looking for work. Good news for job hunters! Not.

My suggestion to La Raza, Robert Menendez(D) NJ, Janet Napolitano, and every other illegal alien supporter, if you don't want to break up families, then suggest they don't do something that's illegal in the first place. Don't rob a bank, don't commit tax fraud, don't commit document fraud, and don't break into a sovereign nation expecting that the citizens of that nation will look the other way.

Let's get out of Bizarro World before it becomes the New World Order.

2012 Presidential Primary Update

2011-08-18T17:09:00.000-04:00

Things are looking good in the Republican primary race for the 2012 presidential election. After an ornery second debate on Fox News last week, Governor Tim Pawlenty has left the race and Governor Rick Perry of Texas has entered it. Pawlently placed third in the Iowa straw poll, which Michele Bachmann won by a small margin over Congressman Ron Paul.

After an errant Tweet by a staffer, Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey has once again reaffirmed that he is not going to enter the race, much to columnist Ann Coulter's dismay.

Governor Sarah Palin remains cagey about her plans as far as running for president in 2012. To date, she has not denied or affirmed. But to all appearances she is certainly acting as if she could jump in at any moment.

Real estate developer and reality show Don, Donald Trump is still threatening to throw his hat in for 2012, but I think he will be content with Governor Perry's candidacy and will choose to stay out. However, if Mr. Trump doesn't like the eventual primary choice, then don't rule out an independent run for president from Trump. And though he believes he would pull voters from Obama in the general election, he would also split the conservative vote. It would probably be a disaster for the Republicans and lead to Obama's reelection.

Rick Santorum and Herman Cain are both still in the race, and they are both great conservatives, but neither appears to have the traction that Bachmann, Romney, or Perry have. I believe they will be the next candidates out of the race along with Newt Gingrich. Newt would be a smart and effective president and get the country's economy turned around, but he can't get conservatives to coalesce around him, much less the independents and Democrats he'd need for the general election.

Ron Paul's ideas resonate with blue collar Republicans, and young voters like no Republican since Ronald Reagan. However, he does not appeal to the broad base of conservatives or Republicans due to his drastic foreign policy and social ideas. He will likely stay in the race as long as he can to take advantage of the extremely visible platform that his ideas have as a presidential candidate.

On the other hand, Michele Bachmann is looking strong after her Iowa straw poll win despite the mainstream media bias against her and continuous, baseless liberal attacks. She looks poised and espouses a consistent recipe for dealing with the country's economic woes, as do most of the Republican candidates.

Presidential frontrunner, Governor Mitt Romney's poll numbers took a big hit this week due to the entrance in the presidential race of Governor Rick Perry. While Romney would make a fine president who would handle the U.S.'s economic woes much better than President Obama has, Governor Romney has some negative baggage that might make Perry more attractive to voters. We'll have to wait and see what kind of negatives come out on the Texas governor in the days ahead.

Is Ralph Nader running? LOL, jk.

U.S. Thinks Pakistan Handed Over Pieces of Secret Helicopter to China

2011-08-16T20:20:00.001-04:00

A Black Hawk Helicopter

Pakistan may have allowed a helicopter (used in the raid against Osama bin Laden) with secret stealth technology to be viewed by the Chinese government, according to the New York Times. And U.S. intelligence officials even believe that the Pakistanis may have allowed the Chinese to take a sample of the downed chopper.

As can be expected, Pakistan denies letting anyone see the helicopter and China denies any involvement. No surprise there. Pakistan and China are always denying things after sticking it to the U.S.

At the very least, it’s time we stop giving money that we don’t have to Pakistan. The U.S. gives that country billions of dollars a year and what we get is a haven for the Taliban who operate against and kill our troops from bases in Pakistan. We get Osama living in a compound in Pakistan for at least six years. We get begrudging help in the fight against the Taliban, all from a country that is filled with Islamic extremists that hate the West.

New York Times Reader Kills Dozens in Norway - HUMAN EVENTS

2011-07-28T14:07:00.001-04:00

The following is a sobering article by Ann Coulter regarding the crazy Norway murderer and the news coverage about him. Apparently facts are fruits that The New York Times and other mainstream media outlets can pick and choose from, like they're at the fruit market.
New York Times Reader Kills Dozens in Norway - HUMAN EVENTS

Stunning Australian Night Sky

2011-07-06T18:07:00.000-04:00

The following is a beautiful night-time, time-lapse video of the Australian night sky including the Milky Way Galaxy. It is so stunning that it almost doesn't look real. Watch for sporadic shooting stars! (hat tips to the Blaze via Wired)

Ocean Sky from Alex Cherney on Vimeo.

By Blade and By Bullet They Died -- A Revolutionary War Poem

2011-07-04T10:26:00.000-04:00

Before the day that blood was shed,

the Revolution was plied with words said

by pen, by press, and by speech.

King George then had little to dread.

The words were easy to speak, and though noble,

earned no badge of courage.

With the king we had yet to see trouble.

But tyranny does not sit forever idle

when want of freedom rises like a tide --

nor yet does courage stay in the middle.

Tyranny’s fist clenches

A king’s ears and eyes become wide

Men are sent to Prison, to Death,

Mowed down in the street.

And with that tyranny we collide.

By blade and by bullet men died.

Patriots pledge

to country, to neighbor, against the other side.

Courage blooms in the fight for the noble cause

because life is dear

and death men do fear.

Yet for the freedom of men and women,

and sons and daughters here

from a distant tyrant, or near

From the rule of an oppressive king,

Men and women will ride with bravery --

do battle to choose their destinies.

Many by blade and by bullet they died

Who sought a free country

for they and their families, some toiled and some cried

with courage their only guide,

But by blade and by bullet, they too often died.

June 13 GOP Debate Will Push 3 Candidates Down in the Polls

2011-06-17T13:03:00.000-04:00

(AP Photo/Jim Cole)

On June 13, CNN held a Republican debate in New Hampshire and there were actually winners and losers (despite what you may have heard elsewhere) and I don’t just mean the moderator John King.

It’s now seventeen months until the 2012 presidential election and the fight for who will be the next president of the United States has begun in earnest. The discussion and debates between the candidates will hopefully enlighten the voters as to why they should not elect Barack Obama to another term as president. The Republican primary debates are an especially important forum for voters getting to know the candidates and the issues better.

In my opinion, no one person really won the debate, though Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, and Mitt Romney came out looking the best. Businessman Herman Cain also performed well, though I really think his thin political resume is going to hurt him. My advice to Mr. Cain is to run for governor or senator first and then come back and run for president. He’d be a shoe-in then!

Rick Santorum and Tim Pawlenty didn’t do themselves any favors in Monday’s debate for the simple reason that they have no charisma. You must have some charisma or likeability factor if you’re going to have a chance and they didn’t have it. Ron Paul was his usual self, sometimes making sense and sometimes expressing radical and untenable ideas.

If you are going to be elected president of the United States you need to have charisma, and/or political gravitas, and not hold radical positions that most people would disagree with. Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, and Mitt Romney have the charisma. Newt Gingrich doesn’t really have charisma, but he does have the political gravitas. Rick Santorum and Tim Pawlenty have zero charisma, so even though they have good political backgrounds they are not electable to the presidency. Ron Paul has a non-politician’s genuineness but he consistently supports ideas outside the mainstream and is frankly too old. So, he is also unelectable to the presidency.

So the only person up there on Monday with charisma, political chops, and no baggage was Michele Bachmann. In my view, the race will be between her and Mitt Romney, assuming that no one else throws their hat in the race.

You Won’t Have Anthony Weiner to Kick Around

2011-06-17T10:52:00.000-04:00

I am extremely pleased that U.S. Representative Anthony Weiner from New York has done the right thing and resigned and this fantastically lame story is going away. To see all of these news organizations making anatomical connotations and jokes playing off of his name is sixth grade, childish stuff. While you’d expect it of the late night hosts, the Comedy Central windbags Stewart and Colbert, morning radio show shock jocks, morning radio "zoos", and Saturday Night Live, where you don’t expect or want to see it is on news talk radio, television news programs, and in newspapers. I feel like the adults have left the room and the middle schoolers have locked the doors and are in charge of the voice of the media.

The quicker the always obnoxious Mr. Weiner disappears and this issue disappears the better. Now we have to hope that these pictures and texts were the complete extent of his Tweeting and Facebooking and nothing else rears its ugly head in this sorry political debacle.

And why does every political scandal have to be tagged with the suffix “gate”? Weinergate? Come on mainstream media, let’s get a little more creative. And how about growing up too.

Obama Calls for Drilling, Gas Prices Fall

2011-05-26T16:59:00.000-04:00

President Obama said in his weekly Saturday address on May 14, that he is directing the Department of the Interior to conduct annual lease sales in Alaska and in the Gulf of Mexico, to streamline permitting in these areas, and to "speed up the evaluation of oil and gas resources in the mid and south Atlantic." Speeding up evaluation is very vague and could just as easily be taken to mean that they will hurry up and say "no" to new leases and permits in the Atlantic.

However, on the face of it, this all sounds very friendly to oil development. It may not be true, and probably won't amount to anything, but it has had the effect of causing gasoline prices drop more than 10 cents in the last two weeks. Personally I think it's been 15 or 20 cents. The same thing happened when prices were high under George W. Bush. Just the mention of drilling HERE softens the market speculation and causes futures prices for oil to drop and soon after that retail gasoline follows. Seeing that the mere mention of making oil development easier in the U.S. can drop gasoline prices, Mr. Obama is probably using this fact to get gasoline prices down, making it easier for his re-election, while not actually having to do any actual new drilling and thereby keeping his environmental base happy.

The fact that he puts the old canard out there that oil companies aren't using or developing the leases they do have is straight from the liberal playbook. There are many reasons that oil companies may not use a lease that they hold to drill for oil somewhere. One is the Obama administration's bureaucratic processes and hurdles for getting permits to drill for oil. Another is the cost-effectiveness in drilling in a particular location. Finally, the location of the lease may not have enough, or any, oil.

According to AAA, gasoline prices were $2.77 one year ago. They are on average $3.81 per gallon now. From the consumer's point of view, any downward direction in the price of fuel is going to be appreciated, regardless of whether more drilling permits are given.

No Official Bin Laden Death Photos - For Now

2011-05-04T15:50:00.000-04:00

I agree wholeheartedly with the Obama administration's decision not to release pictures of Osama bin Laden's dead body. The fact that he is shark food at the bottom of the ocean and no longer a source of terrorist activity, murder, mayhem, and jihadist inspiration should be enough satisfaction for those of us in the U.S. and everywhere else in the civilized world who believe that the U.S. government wouldn't lie about THIS. In fact, they could not lie about it because the truth would leak out eventually. And for those that seriously want proof, I am sure they can approach the White House for the DNA evidence and other evidence, which some press outlets like 60 Minutes, The New York Times, or The National Enquirer will likely do. Besides, photographic evidence is almost worthless these days with the easy digital photo manipulation of photographs that goes on.

Already a horrible, fake, dead Osama is floating around on Facebook and probably scaring some kids whose newsfeed it shows up in because some friend or family member commented on it. The fake is really gruesome as I am sure the original is.

What would be the good reason to release the pictures? To assure our enemies the Islamic Jihadist terrorists, the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbolla, and Ahmadinejad that we are not lying, Osama really is dead? Will that suddenly convert them to our side? No. We don't even need to think for a second about releasing it for their sakes. Should we release it for the sakes of the people of Afghanistan who may be on the fence about whether to support the U.S./Afghan government or the Taliban? Maybe, if it will convince the leaders and the citizens of Afghanistan that the main source of funds to the Taliban in the past is out of the picture and that they can side with the forces of good, then it may be a useful tool in ending the hostilities in that country.

As far as skeptical governments, the U.S. can work directly with any of these and show them directly all evidence it has, including the photographic evidence. But this is the problem.

Unfortunately, the way the world works today, information can't be kept secret for long if there is a desire for it. Think wikileaks. At some point the real photo will leak out, by someone within the government, or someone who the government shows the evidence to, then the U.S. government will feign anger at the leak, but then admit that the photo or photos are authentic.

It is just a matter of time before evidence or photos of Osama bin Laden's death leak from the sieve that is the U.S. government, so unfortunately, the arguments for or against releasing them are really a moot point.

Hell Welcomes Its Newest Resident

2011-05-02T10:44:00.000-04:00

Passport to Hell Stamped Approved

Almost ten years after planning, funding, and training fellow jihadists for the attacks of September 11, the founder and leader of the al Qaeda terrorist network, Osama bin Laden is dead, gone from this world thanks to the CIA, the Navy Seals, and other special ops forces, and a strong leadership hand from Barack Obama. You can see the president's statement here.

The U.S. special ops team raided bin Laden's mansion/compound in Islamabad, the CAPITAL of Pakistan, killed the world's leading terrorist, and dragged his body out of there with them, presumably in their Blackhawk helicopter. Later, after gathering the evidence needed for proof of his having been killed (whether DNA or photographic or both, we don't know at this moment) the terrorist's body was buried at sea so that a Muslim tradition of being buried within twenty-four hours of death could be adhered to.

I want to congratulate President Obama for staying strong in terms of wanting to find bin Laden and for not hesitating to go into Pakistan to do it. I remember candidate Obama stating that he would go into Pakistan if necessary to pursue al Qaeda, the Taliban, and bin Laden and he has shown willingness to do so. President Bush wanted very badly to find Osama bin Laden and had seven years to do it. We don't know if it was for lack of trying, or lack of political will, or lack of intelligence on the ground that he didn't find bin Laden. But thank God he has been finally found and brought to justice, and the families of the 9/11 victims and all U.S. citizens and residents, and all civilized peoples can for a moment feel that justice can be served in this world, and that evil people and evil acts can and will be punished at some point in time.

The world is clearly better off without its most notorious terrorist and Islamic radical jihadist, but the coming days could see a spike in terrorist bombings or bombing attempts as al Qaeda cells strive to prove that the fight will go on without their infamous and now deceased leader. It is also clear to all that the war against terror will and must go on until the radical, bloodthirsty wing of a religion that is practiced peacefully by most of its adherents, find nonlethal tools to express themselves. Unfortunately this doesn't seem likely to happen anytime too soon. For the moment at least, we have some good news in the war against civilization - General Osama bin Laden is dead!

Decision Points – A Review of George W. Bush’s Presidential Memoir

2011-04-28T19:07:00.002-04:00

I am sure many people will scoff at the idea of reading former President George W. Bush’s recent presidential memoir Decision Points. Perhaps these skeptics will say that the book is just more lies, trumped-up excuses, or inside-the-beltway “spin” from a man who ended his presidency with pretty low poll numbers. But the decision not to read the book because you disagree with some or all of the policies of the man would be the wrong decision in my view. The book may not change your opinion of the man, but it does end up presenting him as a man, who in the end picks up his dog’s poop with a plastic bag just like the rest of us.

Decision Points is candid, informative, and deals in a behind-the-scenes way with issues that were argued about ad infinitum during Bush’s presidency, giving the reader his perspective on why he lead the way he did. You won’t get this take on what happened over the last decade from The New York Times or CNN. He deals with the reasons behind decisions he made concerning his response to the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan, his decision to take down Saddam Hussein’s regime, his rescue of Chrysler and GM, and the much maligned TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program). He also deals with personal issues such as why it was finally time to take responsibility for his life and actions and stop a personally destructive drinking habit.

Here are some of the topics Mr. Bush covers in the 480 page book:

The former baseball team owner talks in detail about his formative younger years and overcoming his negative relationship with alcohol and the effect it was having on his personal and family life.
He talks about his relationships with his wife, his daughters, and his parents.
Bush discusses his years as governor of Texas, his decision to run for president, and the two difficult presidential campaigns.
He speaks of his relationships with the people in his administrations like Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, and Don Rumsfeld, and his reasons behind choosing them for their various positions.
The education reform known as No Child Left Behind is covered in detail along with statistics before and after its implementation.
The attacks of September 11, 2001 are discussed and here the behind-the-scenes activities of a president during an unprecedented crisis are informative, enlightening, and emotional.
The decision to go to war in Afghanistan against the Taliban and al Qaeda is explained.
Though extremely unpopular with many people, the context surrounding the Iraq War is again laid out before the reader.
Protecting the Homefront was one of the most important things to George W. Bush as president, and he discusses the steps he and his administration took in concert with Congress to successfully protect Americans from another attack.
Hurricane Katrina was the worst natural disaster in U.S. history and Bush explains things his administration got right and the things they got wrong.
Aid to Africa to fights AIDS and malaria was also important to President Bush but this received little public attention while he was president. He explains in the book that it was one of the most impactful and important things he did.
TARP, AIG, and the auto bailout, were attacked from the right and the left in the last year of the president’s term in office. He deals with the decision to go ahead with these actions while placing them in the context and dismal climate that existed at the time.

The book is honest, heartfelt, and often displays a humbleness that many people found admirable in the man when he was in office. Decision Points was written by someone who comes across as a man who had the country’s best interests at heart, and based his decisions on what he felt was the best choice for protecting or supporting the American people. Clearly he was wrong many times, as most presidents have been about some things, and many times in this book he points out the places where he may have been wrong or would have done something different. But he also defends many of the decisions where he feels he was right and acting in the best interests of the American people. He places all the decisions back into the contexts in which they were made, reminding us of the environments and conditions in which the actions were taken.

I did not agree with some of the policies of President Bush while he was in office, including his push for amnesty for illegal aliens, his painfully slow turnaround on implementing the surge in Iraq, his apparent lack of will to concentrate on winning in Afghanistan, and the extreme bailout mentality at the end of his term. But I believe that anyone who is interested in U.S. history, policy, politics, or presidents, whether they agree with this president or not, will benefit from reading this book. I enjoyed getting to know a decent man a little better, and understanding some of the important events of the last ten years with greater depth and clarity.

Atlas Shrugged Part 1 - Movie Review

2011-04-27T13:24:00.001-04:00

Image copyright The Strike Productions

The movie Atlas Shrugged is based on a continuously popular novel of the same title by Ayn Rand published in 1957. Atlas Shrugged opened April 15 (the usual IRS tax return deadline) and through April 28 has made 3.1 million dollars while playing on just 465 screens. (A normal release being 2500 to 3000 screens.) Hopefully the limited distribution of the film and the correspondingly lower box office receipts won’t hurt the chances for the production and release of Part 2. Why? Because for someone who hasn’t read the book, the movie ends frustratingly abruptly and leaves too many loose ends untied. I won’t hold my breath for this movie to have made a profit based on the mere eight people who were in the theater with me and a friend on a Tuesday evening. Hopefully, The Strike Productions will do a better job of marketing and distributing the DVD when it comes out a month or two from now.

Atlas Shrugged, the movie, is set in 2016 in an only slightly surreal United States mired in economic depression, and hyper-government control of business, and industry. Innovation, invention, and capitalism are frowned upon; success is anathema. Laws are being passed left and right to place controls on businesses and individuals that gain too much success. An anti-dog-eat-dog law is one example. Another example is that individual citizens are limited by law to owning one company. But lobbying, cronyism, political favoritism, and plenty of other immoral activity continues apace, while a liberal agenda of spreading fairness and spreading wealth is brought to bear as the government policy for dealing with the deepening depression and poverty in the country. Unfortunately, and probably not coincidentally, the subject matter bears striking similarities to some of the policies and activities being pursued in the U.S. under the Obama administration.

In the movie, gasoline is 37 dollars a gallon which causes personal travel and movement of freight by train to be the preferred methods of locomotion. It is in this atmosphere that Dagny Taggert, an owner of a family-owned railroad struggles to bring her business back from a disastrous railway accident. She has decided to use a revolutionary metal made from a new alloy to rebuild the tracks of her broken and decaying Rio Norte line. Hank Reardon is the beset owner of the steel company and developer of the new metal. The two CEOs collaborate on the project with Ellis Wyatt, a tough, down-to-earth oil company owner who needs the train line to move his oil cross-country. They succeed, despite being continuously dogged by government regulation, divestiture of personal property, political and industrial sabotage, etc.

Atlas Shrugged has some beautiful cinematography, and good acting by Taylor Shilling, Grant Bowler, Matthew Marsden, and Graham Beckel. Without the background of having read the book, some of what goes on in the movie is maddeningly mysterious, and as previously mentioned the ending is a dissatisfying truncation. But all in all, the good outweighs the little bad there is and this allegorical story is worth the time and money spent to see it. I just hope there is a part two to come.

Source Code - Movie Review

2011-04-18T15:51:00.001-04:00

Image copyright Summit Entertainment

Source Code is an exciting, interesting, emotion charged, and sometimes baffling movie. And considering that it is also a riveting whodunit thriller, I am surprised that the box office take isn’t larger than the approximately $36,000,000 (thru 4/18/11) it has garnered since April 1 when it opened in theaters across the U.S. I went to see it on Sunday afternoon and there were eight, maybe ten people in the small theater. I’m not complaining, because the fewer people in the small space we were in, the less distractions while the movie played. But as good as the film is, this didn’t seem like a fair-sized audience. Maybe the marketing of the movie is inadequate, though I do have to give kudos to the studio, who, besides making the standard trailers available for the film, also made available the first five minutes of the movie as a teaser on Yahoo’s movies website. The trailers, including the five minute one hooked me and I had to see the film. Source Code has even gotten many good critical and user reviews (including this one).

Jake Gyllenhaal, is terrific as Captain Colter Stevens, an Air Force helicopter pilot who wakes up in another man’s body on a doomed train headed for Chicago (doomed I tells ya). For a good portion of the movie he is trying to acclimate himself to his confusing situation and finds out a little here and a little there to keep the viewer interested in what is happening to the man. In the seat across from him on the commuter train is a friend of “his”, a woman named Christina who is played very well by Michelle Monaghan.

At the start of the movie, the viewer is made aware that Captain Stevens is apparently on a mission to find out who bombed a commuter train and thwart a possible nuclear dirty bomb attack on the city of Chicago. And there is time travel of a sort involved. The twists and turns of storyline as Stevens tries to figure out where the bomb is, who the bomber is, and what his own situation is, make the movie plenty exciting. The unhomogeneous cast of characters on the train adds a realistic flavor to everyday life in the suburbs of an American city.

If you have ever seen Groundhog Day then you’ll recognize the parallel with that movie almost immediately, but unlike Groundhog Day which beats you over the head with its plot gimmick, Source Code does not. In an interesting casting nod, Scott Bakula, who played a time traveler in Quantum Leap, is cast as the voice of Capt. Stevens’ father, though I didn’t realize it at the time and it doesn’t matter in terms of the movie, it is just a cool connection.

What a great picture! If you’re going to see a movie in the next week or two, see this film!

Donald Trump, "Political" Opportunist

2011-04-16T19:22:00.002-04:00

Donald and Melania Trump (by Boss Tweed)

I hate to admit it. I too was caught up in the Donald Trump possible-presidential-run media-hype, protocampaign tour as much as many other Republicans, conservatives, and independents are. He has compelling arguments. He is saying all the right things about China, OPEC, and Obama's spending. Trump's a successful, self-made "billionaire". He says he's conservative. He's a businessman and would do things as president that would benefit the American economy, and from the point of view of a CEO. I read "The Donald"'s first two books, the first one, The Art of the Deal, was a runaway bestseller and I enjoyed it very much. It was a motivating read. The second book, which may or may not have been called BlaBlaBla, wasn't nearly as interesting. Additionally, the real estate mogul and casino owner also has a successful show called "The Apprentice" and a commanding presence to boot. How many people can say they have a catch phrase? ("You're Fired") In short, he's a doer, not a socialist, community organizer looking to bring the U.S. down a notch.

But my thanks go out to radio talkshow host Mark Levin for opening my eyes to who this guy really is. Mark has been skeptical of Trump since his potential presidential run began. It started with questions about his financial contributions to politicians which were all over the map and seem to actually favor Democrats. Trump sloughed off this criticism as him just being loyal to friends and though he didn't say it, from how it looks it seems as if he is basically greasing the palms of everybody just in case in the future he ever needs to call in a favor from one of these politicians. I'm not saying he is doing this. I'm just saying it looks like that.

Here is the text of some of the recordings of Trump that Levin played on his show on Friday. You can hear them on Mark Levin's website and find them easily on YouTube. Go to the tape: "I'm impressed with Nancy Pelosi...but I'm surprised that she didn't try to have Bush impeached, which personally I think would have been a wonderful thing. He lied. He got us into the war with lies." "I think Obama will lead by consensus." "He's (Obama) done an amazing job." "Bush has been a disaster, he's been terrible...who could be worse?" "Bush has been so bad, so incompetent, so evil, I don't think any (Republican) could have won." And here's the pièce de résistance, something we conservatives say whenever we wake up in the morning, but in this case they are Donald Trump's words, "We must have universal health care."

Wow! What a true-blue conservative. Yep. What? You can't hear me through the dripping wet digital sarcasm that's slogging its sticky way through your broadband Internet connection? Sblorry.

But wait! Just when you thought we'd had enough fun for one day, Mr. Trump switches gears. Back to the tapes: "I used to say Jimmy Carter was the worst president in U.S. history, now I say it's Barack Obama." "Barack Obama is the worst president ever."

Donald Trump calls himself a conservative, and practically called himself a compassionate conservative (which was George W. Bush's label) the other day on Sean Hannity's television show. But many of Trump's views are downright liberal Democrat views. His venomous position on George W. Bush and the Iraq war is a liberal Democrat position. His view that America needs universal health care is a liberal Democrat position. His previous support for Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi is certainly not a conservative position. And a conservative would not financially support Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, the Democratic National Committee, and the like.

While Donald Trump would be certainly be better to have in the office of President of the United States than Barack Obama, he would not be better than ANY of the other serious, and proven Republicans. He just happens to know how to play the media. His opportunistic "campaign" for president will end by his own hand when he sees the jig is up, when he doesn't need a ratings boost any more, or when skeptical Republicans dismiss him as the "fake, phoney, fraud" that he is.