It Seems To Me...

Money For the Executioner?

2012-02-13T11:35:00.000-08:00

By Dan Crummett

Well, by now you've heard of the President's proposal for a new budget for 2012-2013, something his own party has not seen fit to pass in the Senate for more than three years -- despite statutory requirements to do so.

The part I find interesting in the plan to spend more than $2 trillion (20% of the national debt when Mr. Obama took office) in one year alone, is an $800,000,000 item to fund the "Arab Spring" nations.

These borrowed dollars will have to be paid by tax payers and will go to folks like the Muslim Brotherhood who control Egypt, and someone in Libya if we can figure out who is in charge there, and probably Syria where the Islamists continue to slug it out in the streets to see who gets to kill who in the future.

Now, as we've stated before, the current national debt if it were represented by kernels of wheat valued at a dollar each would stretch more than 100 miles if it were loaded in 40-foot hopper trailers (WHEAT), the new spending will extend that lineup another 15 miles or so IN ONE YEAR! (So much for Bush being a big spender!)

And, now, to refresh your memory of where that $800 million for the "Arab Spring" folks is going, click here to relive what they think of us. ARAB SPRING.

Mr. Obama is funding his friends and soul-mates with this madness, and we and our grandchildren will be paying for it, unless he's sent back to Chicago in January 2013.

Audacity is a Thief Telling You What He Is Going to To Do, and When!

2012-02-09T19:33:00.000-08:00

By Dan Crummett

What would you do if you knew someone was planning, and telling everyone about it, to steal a third of your savings over a period 20 years?

Well, it's time to find out. The Federal Reserve Open Market Committee just announced its goal of devaluating the devaluated dollar another 33% over the next 20 years. That means in 2032 it will take $150 "dollars" to buy the same amount of goods and services that $100 will buy today. (Consider, too, today's dollar is worth only about a third of what it was in 1967!)

Now, 2% a year -- the stated goal -- doesn’t sound like much, when you consider what two pennies are worth today. But let's apply the same standard (albeit accelerated) to a leak in a ship. If a ship takes on 2% of its displacement in water -- no problem! But if that leak continues unabated, every day, in less than three weeks it is theoretically more than a third full of water! ("Theoretically" because if a ship is more than a third full of water it is most likely already UNDER water.)

Still, that's how the Fed and the current ring of leaders in Washington are dealing with the nation's inability to control its spending and profligate waste at the federal level. They're even telling us what they're doing!

Makes one want to write a book and call it "The Audacity of NOPE!"

We have to reign in this madness or our nation will be only the memory of a basement fire sale.

Next November is the first time we have a chance to make a real difference. Do you have the cojones to actually do something about it when you vote?

More "Good Intentions" Coming Back to Bite Us in the Butt

2012-02-07T12:48:00.000-08:00

By Dan Crummett

In the Old Testament the long-suffering Job realized it's not always a good thing to have folks in high places interested in your well-being.

Similarly, here in 2012 USA it's being proven nearly weekly by the "green energy" companies sugar daddied by the Obama Administration with taxpayer cash, it's probably not a good thing when the Department of Energy starts picking winners and losers in the auto business.

After a long line of "green industry" bankruptcies and reorganizations -- because the billions didn't help with products that don't sell -- we now have Fisker, a Dover, Del., firm with $193 million in hand from the DOE trying to renegotiate the rest of the $500 million loan and laying off workers -- so it can get on with developing an electric car it prices at $100,000. Come on! How many Americans will plunk down $100,000 for an electric car that wouldn't have been developed if it had been left to market forces? Hint: Very few... ala, the Chevrolet Volt.

Hmmmm. Does this say anything about the business acumen of an Administration that includes the fewest number of individuals who have ever actually worked in business or industry? Actually only 8% of the Obama appointees have any credible experience in careers that are concerned with making a profit. Hence, it's no wonder billions of taxpayer dollars go to politically-charged "green" giveaway … er … "investments."

Battery manufacturers, solar panel manufacturers, electric car manufacturers all have one thing in common -- good intentions backed with no credible or economically-feasible market.

And, like Job figured out during his run of bad fortune … we all know what's paved with good intentions.

Representation Without Taxation

2012-01-26T13:19:00.000-08:00

By Dan Crummett

As 2012's election season continues, we hear a lot about "fair share" -- particularly as it applies to taxes paid by folks who actually do something for a living and for those who risk capital in an effort to possibly make more capital.

The mantra of the Left and of the incumbent party in the Excecutive Branch and the U.S. Senate is that the "rich" don't pay their fair share of taxes, implicitly implying the rich "stole" the money and should be punished by paying more of their "ill-gotten gains." All this, of course to pay for additional spending from a government that already spends more each year than the nation's doers can produce.

In fact, the $15 trillion debt owed to U.S. creditors would take more than everyone's (including corporations) total income for a year -- that's all the money, folks, not the money available after living expenses -- all of it!

So, let's look at where the money is, who pays it, and who doesn't.

The top 2% of America's income earners pay 39% of the federal income tax (plus any capital gains taxes they might pay on investments), and the top 10% of the nation's earners pay 75% of the federal income tax along with their capital gains taxes. So, right there, 10% are paying three-fourths or more of the nation's basic income per year -- and the Democrats want to boost that "take" in the name of "fairness."

Now, consider 47% of the nation's earners pay NOTHING in federal income taxes -- this group of course is one of the base groups for Democratic Party political support, giving credence to the old saying "When you rob Peter to pay Paul, Paul is always in favor of the situation."

So let's consider "fair share" again in light of one of the reasons why the colonists revolted in 1776 against England and King George -- "taxation with no representation." Since nearly half of American wage earners pay no income tax, and 10% pay 75% of the income tax -- how fair is that? Essentially what we have is "Representation on the part of 47% of the nation's workers with no taxation."

That's an imbalance that can last only as long as producers don’t' figure out they're being screwed by Congress and the White House and Liberal lawmakers who want to create Utopia at someone else's expense. When the situation ends, there will be certain calamity and outrage by those who are accustomed to living on the gains of other.

And, I'll bet, the producers get the blame for it.

How Difficult Is It To Recognize an Enemy?

2012-01-18T12:59:00.000-08:00

By Dan Crummett

And how come we're not surprised the Obama Administration rejected the Keystone XL pipeline?

After all, it would have sourced much-needed energy resources for the U.S. from a friendly neighbor. It would have put thousands of people to work building the project. You'd think it would have been an easy decision -- particularly since it has the backing of the union vote, folks who have sold themselves down the river for the Obama Administration.

Well, we now have one more bit of evidence to a growing body of knowledge that President Obama is not really interested in the betterment of the U.S. economy, jobs or additional sources of energy from nations who share a common culture and Western Civilization with the United States. No, it's obviously better in the President's eyes to keep spending billions on oil from the Muslim brothers in the Mid-East and a Communist buddy in Venezuela. And, it's also better to placate the radical eco-freaks that make up much of the Obama base before the election -- after all, "we've already got the Union's in our back pocket, so who gives a rip what the rank and file think?"

This is just another example of the radical in charge, and why it's imperative to make him a one-term President this fall.

From the energy standpoint alone, Mr. Obama has been responsible for bringing U.S. exploration and production of oil and gas to a near standstill in the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean, while Russia and China go about their business of exploring in the area unfettered. Now, the Canadians will in all likelihood take their tremendous shale oil reserves to the marketplace dominated by the same folks! And, last I heard, China and Russia were pretty good buddies with Obama's Red brother in Venezuela.

Could it be the President and those folks all have the same thing in mind?

'Sure looks like it!

If Wheat Were $1 Per Kernel

2012-01-16T12:45:00.000-08:00

By Dan Crummett

'Got an e-mail this morning from a friend of mine that tried to make sense of $15 trillion -- the national debt figure after three years of Obama Management. Before Barack, the debt stood at $10 trillion, no small number in anyone's imagination, but it took decades to reach that amount of public debt. Obama's spendthrift habits, backed by a Democratic Senate and House in his first two years of office bumped that figure by 50% in three years!

Well, how much is $15 trillion?, asked my friend's e-mail. He used grains of wheat as an example.

If one kernel of wheat was worth $1, and there are nearly 1 million kernels of wheat in a bushel, it would take more than 13,333 semi-trailers, 40 feet long and 5' 6" deep to contain $15 trillion worth of wheat!

Now, consider that during the time of our current President, 4, 445 of those trailers were added to what you and I now owe -- and that same President wants the productive tax-paying people of the U.S. to pony up whatever it takes to pay it and is asking for four more years to continue his spending binge.

As you ponder this, think of it this way that $15 trillion worth of wheat in 40-foot trailers would stretch 101 miles (without the tractor cabs), and in the last three years Obama and Company has added about 34 miles to line.

Can you afford that? Check here to see what your "fair share" of the debt is and how it's climbing: DEBT CLOCK.

Mr. Reid, the Kettle, You Are Calling the Pot Black

2012-01-15T13:56:00.000-08:00

By Dan Crummett

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says the Republicans should "drop the Tea Party" if it hopes to do business with the Senate. Reid calls the Tea Party "extremist" and says the GOP needs to "learn what legislation is all about."

Of course Reid would want the GOP to drop the Tea Party -- the only force that stands in the way of Senate Liberal Progressives of getting everything they want, by bringing nothing to the table and demanding "compromise" on those who would cut budgets and the curtail the ever-increasing encroachment of the Federal government on U.S. citizens and their employers.

Here's a thought, why not Harry Reid drop the lockstep adherence to the wishes of his Marxist-trained Socialist President and meet the GOP somewhere in the middle on things like, oh, a national budget -- one of the Constitutional mandates of the U.S. Senate. Obama's been in office more than 3 years and there hasn't been even a whisper of a budget out of the Democatically-controlled Senate! Over in the House, where the "evil, extremist" GOP resides, there's been a budget passed, a repeal vote on Obamacare, and pieces of legislation too numerous to mention that would cut budgets and regulations and give the U.S. economy a very positive jolt. In the Senate, none of these bits of legislation has been so much as considered by Reid and the Left.

I'd think a first effort at "good faith" legislation might be a letter from Harry Reid and the various Democratic "caucii" of minorities, races, eco-voters and sexual orientation folks to the President urging him to approve the Keystone XL pipeline. Such an effort would actually help the nation by providing 20,000 immediate high-paying jobs, and the energy supplies to wean us off foreign oil, one of the goals the Marxist-trained Socialist President has said he supports.

Another good place to "craft legislation" might be around securing the nation's borders so that a discussion about what to do with 12 million illegal aliens in the country could begin. That's what "legislation" is all about Mr. Reid, and it comes from meaningful olive branches from both sides -- and so far, your side has only bucked up against anything the House has presented.

Might we remind the tired Senator from Nevada that "Tea Party" contingent in the House has stood strong even against the Business-As-Usual Republicans who would hold the coats of the Democrats as they spend this nation into oblivion. That same contingent was put in office in one of the biggest landslide shows of support of any movement in history -- and the anger is still out there, as strong if not stronger than it was in 2010.

A Little Perspective On the National Debt

2012-01-13T11:08:00.000-08:00

By Dan Crummett

President Obama this week asked for an additional $1.2 trillion be added to the nation's debt ceiling, as a part of the agreement he and members of Congress worked out in a so-called effort to control the nation's debt last year.

Throughout that debate, the President and his Administration were adamant the U.S. had to continue borrowing so it could continue to spend more -- or, according to the line at that time, "we would plunge the world into economic chaos."

Well, of course he'll get the debt ceiling boosted the $1.2 trillion he's seeking, and that puts the U.S. debt at more than $15 trillion and more than the U.S. produces in any one year. In other words, every one with a job, and every business with a profit would have to forgo pay checks and profit for an entire year just to pay what this nation now owes its creditors.

Back when Mr. Obama was an aspiring Senator from Illinois and a Republican was in the White House, this is what he had to say about debt ceiling limit expansions in March, 2006.

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America 's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America 's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”

That said, after only three years in office and when this latest debt ceiling is approved by business-as-usual Republicans and Tax and Spend Democrats in Congress, Mr. Obama as "leader in chief" is responsible for adding $5 trillion to this massive debt. And he wants four more years?

Are you any better off than you were $5 trillion ago? And, can you afford to pay some more of your "fair share" to service this debt?

For a quick look at how much you now owe for runaway federal spending, click here. DEBT CLOCK. Hint: Your figure was about $30,000 Before Barack!

Stay Focused on the Goal!

2012-01-02T19:50:00.000-08:00

By Dan Crummett

It's the eve of the Iowa Caucus and as the Republican hopefuls have spent their fortunes making mincemeat of one another, while the incumbent in the White House vacations and ponders where in the top five Presidents he really is, I'd like to list some quotes from the said incumbent during his campaign for the position of "Leader of the Free World."
“I promise 100% transparency in my administration.”

“I will allow 5 days of public comment before I sign any bills.”

“I will remove earmarks for PORK projects before I sign any bill.”

“I will end Income Tax for seniors making less than $50K a year.”

“I’ll put the Health Care negotiations on CSPAN so everyone can see who is at the table!”

“I’ll have no lobbyists in my administration.”

So, before you gloat on who chopped what off of whom in the GOP primaries, consider what we have in the White House now and remember what the overall goal of this process is for next November.

"Don't Call Me Shirley!"

2011-12-14T10:22:00.000-08:00

By Dan Crummett

Bureaucrats and members of Congress are so gullible.

In the country’s fight against radical Islam’s use of terrorism, Congress just passed a spending bill to fund military operations into the next year, and in doing so set the stage for the office of the President to be able to order the military to detain about anyone for doing anything without trial or hearing.

While efforts to “safen” such a dangerous bit of legislation (S.B. 1867) by including a provision exempting American citizens from the reaches of the law were included, many still see the ambiguous wording of who is and who isn’t a terrorist frightening – because of the misuse of such tools by the powerful to silence their critics.

The bill is written specifically to target Al Qaeda and its operatives and supporters, and seeks to allow the U.S. military to cast a broad net on those who are members of the group, those who aid and abet and those who would throw in with Al Qaeda.

So, we have endangered Constitutionally-guaranteed liberties (for security purposes) to fight Al Qaeda. And, what do we see less than a week after the vote? One group of Al Qaeda wants to change its name. So, where does that leave the “law of the land” and it’s targeting of Al Qaeda?

Really, the radical Islamists under the name of Al Qaeda in the Southern Arabian Peninsula don’t want to be called Al Qaeda anymore – something about rebranding to avoid the negative “baggage” associated with the larger terror group’s identity. For Allah’s sake, we certainly wouldn’t want to be associated with the other bunch of murderers and religious zealots bent on making the world submit to Islam or face beheading! That would be terrible. Let’s change our name!

So, here you have it. In the U.S. the law is written supposedly to fight Al Qaeda, to allow unfettered, unlimited detention of just about anyone for any reason because of the way it is worded, and chances are good there won’t even be an Al Qaeda (by name anyway) in the coming months. Still, the law will remain on the books, Americans will have lost a fundamental liberty, and the murderous reign of terror from the “Religion of Peace” will continue unabated.

Folks, the real war is against radical Islam (a redundancy), not the tools of terror -- suicide bombing, public beheadings and groups called Al Qaeda, or whatever other name such folks can find as a rallying point. I fear much American blood and liberty will soon be spilled on the ground because of our inability to grasp that fact.

The Military As a Police Force in the U.S.? HELL NO!!!

2011-11-29T15:37:00.000-08:00

By Dan Crummett

If you like the “pat downs” at the airport, the Patriot Act giving the government unlimited access to wire taps on your phone, you’ll love the effects of S.B 1867 which was drafted in a closed door meeting and approved in a closed door meeting of the Senate Armed Services committee recently.

The so-called National Defense Authorization Act would give the President of the United States the ability to order the military to pick up and indefinitely detain civilians anywhere in the world without charges or a trial – INCLUDING IN THE UNITED STATES!

Now think about it. Do you folks on the left want that kind of power for a Republican President? I know I certainly don’t want Barack Obama armed with that kind of power to harass his “enemy list.”

And who wrote this travesty? None other than former presidential candidate John McCain, R-AZ, and Carl Levin, D-MI.

This is one of the more dangerous propositions to come out of Congress recently, and should make folks on both sides of the political spectrum shake in their boots! It’s not without precedent, either. For instance, former President George Bush was wanting a rewrite of the Posse Comitatus Act (a Post Civil-War era act that prevented the use of U.S. federal troops to enforce state and local laws without express Constitutional authority or a Congressional Act) in the wake of Hurricane Katrina to use the military to “restore order and enforce laws” in the disaster area. Those on the left were livid.

Given the excesses people in high places – of both political persuasions – seem to take when allowed, it’s best to keep the military in its place – under civilian rule and used only for the defense of the nation. The military should NEVER be used as an adjunct police force because it’s much too easy for it to become a Gestapo-like force used to ensure political policies.

Regardless of where you fit in the political scheme of things, I implore you to contact your U.S. Senators and tell them S. 1867 should never see the light of day, and you will be holding them accountable for the way they vote. Basic freedoms are in the balance for American citizens with this legislation, and it should be killed immediately.

And, it’s up for a vote this week or next. There’s no time to delay.

Their Words Separate Them by Miles

2011-11-28T13:05:00.000-08:00

By Dan Crummett

President Obama, the man who would be a second term president, likes to compare himself with Abraham Lincoln.

Nowhere does the man’s delusion show more prominently than in the most recent televised Thanksgiving address delivered by Mr. Obama – a speech that never once mentioned God, and, instead, foisted the idea that Thanksgiving has been a “coming together in ‘community’ “ to draw strength from one another.” For a man who claims Christianity, the Father seems to always get lost in the teleprompter. (Actually any mention of God on Obama's part would be accidental if it happened at all!)

Here’s actually what Abe Lincoln had to say about Thanksgiving Day in October, 1863. Read it and you be the judge of how similar Abe and Barack are in their beliefs:

“It is the duty of nations as well as of men to owe their dependence upon the over-ruling power of God. To confess their sins and transgressions in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that with genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon. And to recognize the sublime truth announced in the Holy Scriptures, and proven by all history that those nations are blessed whose God is the Lord.

“We know that by His divine law, nations like individuals are subject to punishments and chastisements in this world. May we not justify fear that the awful calamity of Civil War, which now desolates our land, may be a punishment inflicted upon us for our presumptuous sins to the needful end of our national reformation as a whole people.

“We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of heaven. We have been preserved these many years in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power as no other nation has ever grown.

“But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us, and we have vainly imagined in the deceitfulness of our hearts that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace – too proud to pray to the God that has made us.

“It has seemed to me fit and proper that God should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged, as with one heart and one voice, by the whole American people.

“I do, therefore, invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea, and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November as a day of thanksgiving and praise to our benevolent Father who dwelleth in the heavens.”

Pancho Villa Would Have Liked Hope and Change

2011-11-21T08:48:00.000-08:00

By Dan Crummett

I was talking with my friend Harry Moody on the phone this morning, and I mentioned how the Obama Administration is telling folks they are “sending more people back across the Mexican border” than at any time in recent history.

I was impressed that the same administration which doesn’t want to control the flow of illegal aliens across the border into the U.S. was at least making the effort to weed out “really violent” criminals and get them out of our hair.

Harry, a man who has thought a lot about a lot of things asked me a simple question. “How long did the United States hunt for Pancho Villa?” I had to explain, “I watch Dancing with the Stars, not the History Channel, so how would I know?”

“Well, it’s a rhetorical question,” Harry told me, “The time we spent chasing Pancho Villa around in the early 20th Century doesn’t matter. What matters is, he was a known raider and criminal and he always escaped to his home country of Mexico.”

“Think back,” Harry said, “... all the old Westerns you watched on television and in the movies. Once a bad guy had robbed, raped, pillaged and murdered, where did he want to go?

MEXICO!

“The story’s still the same, but now we have a President who is providing federal escorts and transportation to those very people to get back across the border to their families and no prosecution – at your expense – and telling you he’s enforcing the law!”

I couldn’t respond. Harry was right again.

In a hole? QUIT DIGGING!

2011-11-18T10:01:00.000-08:00

This week, while most Americans were busy making a living, watching Dancing with the Stars, and trying to figure out if they’ll ever get to retire, the nation reached $15trillion in debt – more than 25% of which has come since Barack Obama became president.

You’d probably like to know your individual part of that debt is $48,000 and counting, and as you also know, Congress doesn’t seem to be able to get it through its collective head the spending has to stop before things get better. Still, every proposal to cut spending is met with a “compromise” proposal of small cuts and bigger tax increases – to fund the ever-growing federal bureaucracy.

Even when the President or liberal members of Congress propose cuts, invariably the “cuts” wind up to be in projected spending and the actual spending continues to go up!

This is madness! If a household operated this way, the bank and creditors would own the assets within hours!

When you get a chance, spend a couple of minutes in front of the screen at http://www.usdebtclock.org/ and take in how fast the nation is spending money. Then, ask yourself “IS ALL THIS SPENDING NECESSARY?”

Once you reach the obvious conclusion, contact your members of Congress and tell them “It’s time to cut federal spending across the board,” for the very survival of our nation.

Just Fix It!

2011-11-15T16:34:00.001-08:00

By Dan Crummett

I think members of Congress are making a very complicated issue out of fixing Social Security, when two avenues to “repair” and “restore fiscal order” to the program are so easily changed.

While folks on the left criticized GOP presidential hopeful Rick Perry for calling SS a “Ponzi Scheme,” there’s no other way to explain the current program given demographic factors which leave fewer folks to pay the way of increasing numbers of retirees. Add to that, the fact Congress has been complicit in adding benefits to the program with no way to pay for them, and Congress has seen fit to spend the money SS brings in on other things. That situation is criminal at face value, but any criticism of SS is a sure invitation to be skewered by Democrats and the media, regardless of how well today’s SS program fits the dictionary definition of a Ponzi Scheme.

That said, SS can be fixed, actually in one afternoon by the U.S. House and Senate.

First, raise the age at which one can collect “full Social Security” benefits to 70 years old and begin that transition with a one year extension each year from now until the 70 mark is reached. Second, take the cap off income on which SS taxes are collected. Today, once you pass the $108,000 income mark, you pay no more SS taxes on your income.

In 1932 when SS was being hatched, the average life expectancy for men in the United States was 61 years. Women were expected to live to 63. Now, however, the life expectancy in the U.S. is 76 years for men, and 81 for women (based on projections for 2010). By raising the “full benefit” age to 70 more realistically reflects the ages for which SS will have to provide benefits to those who have been mandated to pay into the system. In fact, it’s still more generous than the original plan – which bet you wouldn’t live to 65. In my recommendation, the plan would allow one to collect 6 to 11 years based on the averages, and would still bring in more money than needed to maintain SS benefits and build a surplus.

Also, since anyone involved in the federally-mandated “withholding” plan (the government calls them “contributions”, but they are mandatory, so they really are “taxes”) is materially participating in the program, no one should be excluded from receiving benefits who has paid SS taxes. Likewise, if there is no cap on income from which these taxes are withheld, then no means testing should be applied to benefits derived through the program. If you paid in, then you get the benefits all other SS recipients receive – regardless of how much you made while you were working.

These two “tweaks” would solve the “solvency problem” for Social Security and no one could accuse anyone of “starving grandma,” or “wanting old people to die” as we’ve heard from the chief apologists for doing nothing to SS.

It just makes too much sense and doesn’t single out anyone to bear the brunt of the changes. And, that’s probably why neither of these suggestions would be taken seriously by Congress.

With Apologies to Aesop

2011-10-07T12:30:00.000-07:00

By Dan Crummett

A hundred people go to a “Dutch” banquet (that’s where everyone is expected to pay their share of the cost of the meal). They eat and drink well and the bill comes to $3,750.

When it’s time for the waiters to collect the payment for the meal, it’s noted many folks don’t have money with them to pay for their food and drink. What to do?

My friend Harry Moody was in the group, so he stood up and suggested the bill be split up the same way the American income tax is collected. “After all, that would only be fair, wouldn’t it?,” he asked. “Yes! Yes!,” the crowd enthusiastically agreed.

And so it was. When the bills were presented,

One person paid $1,425.

Fifty paid $2.25

The other 49 paid the balance of the bill with some paying as high as $393.75 and some in the group paying as little as $8.25.

The wisdom of the “fairness” of that system cannot be questioned, but a number of those folks paying $2.25 became incensed that the person that paid $1,425 didn’t really pay his “fair share.”

“You’re absolutely right,” Harry told the protestors. “His fair share actually should have been $37.50!”

Harry had to go home early.

Harry Has a Point!

2011-10-06T11:46:00.000-07:00

By Dan Crummett

I was drinking coffee with my friend Harry Moody the other day and, as usual, we were discussing the political turmoil the country faces.

My mug empty, I stepped away from the table for a refill of the morning comfort and as I returned, I asked Harry what he thought of the talk of the Democrats wanting to suspend the 2012 elections “so the lawmakers could do the ‘right thing’ without having to face voters for their actions.”

Harry, a man of deep insight, sighed, and said: “Well, let’s look at it this way, it’s the same party that would sell guns it purchased with taxpayer dollars to the Mexican drug cartels and then lie about having ‘lost’ those guns.

“It’s the same party whose Attorney General refuses to prosecute Black Panthers who intimidate white voters at polling places – because the perps are black, yet calls the Tea Party racist for its desire to see the U.S. Constitution followed.

“It’s the same party that refuses to control the flood of illegal aliens across the Mexican border – and actually stands in the way of enforcement of its own federal laws on the matter – while, at the same time seeks to lavish benefits on those same aliens to win their political support.

“It’s the same party that is strangely silent on the union, Marxist and Communist participation in the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ commotion.

“It’s the same party whose President unabashedly wouldn’t salute the American flag until shamed into doing so.

“It’s the same party whose President feels more at home cavorting with Black Panthers and Muslim Brotherhood members than he does attending church with his family.

“It’s the same party who wants no restrictions on killing unborn babies, but will fight tooth and nail to keep death row inmates alive.

“It’s the same party that raided Social Security Funds by spending them in the general budget, but will not allow any talk of changing the rules or giving Social Security participants a say in how their money is invested.

“It’s the same party that cheers when Bernie Madhoff goes to jail for doing the same thing it has done with Social Security and Medicare.

“It’s the same party that is more interested in regulating industry and exerting bureaucratic control over every facet of American life than it is in seeing a growing economy or a thriving manufacturing sector.

“It’s the same party that would love to see enough chaos in the streets to declare martial law and make its President ruler-in-chief, ‘just until things settle down’ and until they can rewrite what’s left of the Constitution.

“So, yes,” Harry said, “I can’t really see any reason the Democrats wouldn’t want to suspend the 2012 elections. They can’t afford not to!”

I had to admit, Harry had a point.

Murder and Disease are Never in the Same "Context"

2011-09-29T18:51:00.000-07:00

By Dan Crummett

So, the Poynter Institute wants journalists to keep “Jihadist” murders and terrorism in “context” by comparing the number of those killed by mad-dog Muslims (for the sake of their peaceful religion) with folks who die because of malaria and Smallpox or cholera.

Now that’s nice. To do so would be tantamount to lumping corpses of those killed by premeditated “hate crimes” (if you will) with those who died of natural causes such as cholera, malaria, etc. It would give murders committed by insane followers of the Moon God of Arabia the “normalcy” of biological pathogens. We should just accept it and all get along!

Even one victim of "Jihad" is one TOO MANY, and should not be tolerated!

Let’s not forget that we’ve spent billions over the last century finding ways to kill vectors and organisms of disease. Why should the “Believe or be killed” religion of Islam be treated any differently than a pathogen that kills out of its normal life cycle? And, we haven't eradicated diseases by co-existing,tolerating or assimilating them into our lives as "normal."

Of course the Poynter on-line “journalism” course was brought to us by the generous handouts of billionaire George Soros, who would slit his mother’s throat if it would end free enterprise and individual liberty in the United States. But that aside, how twisted can thinking become to equate suicide bombings, mass murders, and all of the other atrocities Mohammed’s Soldiers commit in the name of religion, with even traffic deaths? There is NO comparison.

“Jihad,” only a struggle as Poynter would have you believe, is a religious and political battle cry no different than a “Banzai Charge” of the Imperial Marines of the Emperor of Japan in World War II – and no less out of the mainstream of human dignity and social responsibility. That bit of misplaced “religion” had to be rooted out foot-by-foot on the islands of the Pacific with flame throwers, and finally, the atomic bomb.

Regardless of what some would tell you, Jihad is real, and it’s been real since Mohammed set out to conquer all who bordered him in the 8th century. Jihad is the key difference in Islam and ALL other religions, and there is only one thing its practitioners understand – extermination, either its own, or that of all around who do not submit.

If you allow a rabid dog to live in your home, you are to blame when it bites you.

Thomas Paine on America 2011-2012

2011-09-28T09:17:00.000-07:00

By Dan Crummett
As the United States closes in on the beginning of a pivotal election year, many are saying we are at a crossroads of history, an intersection of choice that can begin to restore the principles upon which the founding fathers launched our experiment in personal liberty and responsibility, or can lead us to become simply another non-descript, amorphous society of drones herded by a ruling class of central planners.

On both sides of the issue are true believers, and on both sides of the issue there is passion. Being a nation blessed beyond measure by the same Creator who bestowed on all people the unalienable right of freedom, those in between the two poles have become comfortable, bland and lukewarm. A significant number of our population lean more to John Lennon’s humanist Utopian anthem Imagine and its call to overall non-belief and commitment, than to “The truth shall set you free,” and the responsibilities and demands of individual freedom.

And, yet, it is those betwixt the opposite poles vying for control of the United States who will decide which direction to take on the widely divergent paths before us.

I’m reminded of a passage from Thomas Paine’s American Crisis in which he implored his readers, “It matters not where you live, or what rank of life you hold, the evil or the blessing will reach you all.”

I see our time as a parallel to the turmoil in which Paine wrote these words less than a week before the turning point in America’s first revolution.

He continued, and I concur: “The heart that feels not now, is dead: The blood of his children shall curse his cowardice, who shrinks back at a time when a little might have saved the whole…”

The U.S. has created an ever-growing behemoth Federal government as a surrogate for self-determination and for 60 years has relinquished more and more of its “right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” to a false god of “equality of outcome” and so-called “rights” never envisioned by stouter souls who knew suffering first hand.

Today, that same government literally has the power of life and death, certainly freedom and prosperity, over what it sees as subjects, and continues to require more sacrifice of effort and treasure to its own bloated expansion. Demagogues in power assure us their plans “are for the good of everyone” and all must come to attention to follow and relinquish ever-increasing amounts of our privacy and self-determination to the state. The same people label those who would resist as insane or self-serving, somehow not fit to have a public hearing. To borrow a biblical phrase, the attitude of the state is “Every Knee Shall Bow” -- and since the state is not Jesus Christ, the arrogance of the phrase smacks of a tyrant addressing slaves.

Paine’s comments continued speaking to the heart of the 2011-2012 political struggle in the U.S. as he penned the following: “…but if a thief break into my house, burn and destroy my property, and kill or threaten to kill me, or those who are in it, and to “bind me in all cases whatsoever,” to his absolute will, am I to suffer it?
“What signifies to me, whether he who does it, is a king or a common man; my countryman or not my countryman? What is done by an individual villain, or an army of them? If we reason to the root of things we shall find no difference, neither can any just cause be assigned why we should punish in one case, and pardon in the other.”

I’m reminded of the current debate over whether Social Security is a “Ponzi” scheme. Truly, if an enterprising individual founded and conducted an investment vehicle under the same rules as the American Social Security System, he would be guilty of fraud and liable for jail time. Yet, the state has done the very crime and is lauded for it. In fact, my own mention here of this is heresy to a great number of people living in this country who will cover their ears and cry “NO MORE!”

By fiat the state’s scribes publish unending regulations that steal treasure from those who produce just as surely as if members of the U.S. Treasury Department kicked in the doors of a small business and, at gunpoint, took the content of the cash register. Those who complain are soon investigated by another branch of the state.

Again by fiat, the state and unelected officials decide to print more paper money (strangely also termed “fiat”) to devalue the savings and earnings of millions of productive and compliant taxpayers. Any questioning is roundly criticized and punished if at all possible.

So, insane or self-serving, I’ll continue thinking along the lines of Thomas Paine when he wrote: “ ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink, but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.”

My heart feels and I plan to vote my convictions as long as polling remains effective. I know the direction in which I want to travel.

Wish in One Hand and ... well you know

2011-09-22T13:01:00.000-07:00

By Dan Crummett
There’s an old saying about “wishing in one hand and defecating in the other” to see which fills up the quickest. That’s a somewhat graphic explanation of good intentions and ill-thought-out grandiose schemes of utopia.

I couldn’t help but think of that today when I got one of many e-mails from the folks at Friends of Earth who are against about everything that keeps the world turning and justify their stand by claiming they are championing a “healthy and just world.”

FOE has for years been against the Keystone XL pipeline project which would tap Canadian oil sand deposits and transport the crude south to Gulf Coast oil refineries where it would help the U.S. slow its purchases of Middle Eastern and Venezuelan crude – purchases that fund political activity diametrically opposed to everything the U.S. stands for.

The complaints FOE raises against the pipeline project claim the use of the Canadian oil would increase greenhouse gas emissions (a problem in fewer and fewer minds as more fraud is found within the global warming crowd), and it would transport the oil over the Ogallala Aquifer which FOE says “provides drinking water to 2 million people and supports $20 billion in agriculture.”

It’s interesting most of the folks who drink from the Ogalalla and the farmers who irrigate with its waters are pretty much in agreement the nation doesn’t need to be doing business for oil with the seats of Global Jihad and South American Communism.

In fact, I’d wager a vote taken of the folks who live between the Mississippi River and the Rocky Mountains and who make their livings on and from the land, would overwhelmingly favor continuing the Keystone XL project – for its stable, domestic supply of crude oil.

But, FOE explains it’s talking points completely with the salutation on its e-mail: “For an oil-free, justice-fueled future.”

I say, “Fine, let’s order up a couple million gallons of justice and fill the tanks of our cars, trucks, tractors, combines and irrigation engines. That way no greenhouse gas emissions would occur, no particulate matter would enter the air, and $20 billion in agriculture would vanish overnight!”

“Justice” is no substitute for diesel fuel, gasoline and staying warm in the winter!

“Justice” as promulgated by FOE is a lot like the “wish” in one hand. It just doesn’t outweigh the reality in the other.

Trouble in Paradise

2011-09-21T12:54:00.000-07:00

By Dan Crummett
You know the honeymoon is over when the Associated Press and other “mainstream” media outlets begin reporting on the gaffs of the naked Emperor of the United States!

First, the Associated Press actually does a fact check on the Pres’s comments about “rich” Americans not paying their “fair share” in taxes, and finds… Whoa!… the rich do pay more, a heck of a lot more, than middle class taxpayers. In fact, the AP finally figured out the top 1% of American taxpayers pay about 20% of the nation’s taxes. The wire service didn’t go on to point out that most of the 48% of Americans who pay NO taxes certainly aren’t in the “rich” category, but are on the receiving end of the government’s “redistribution” scheme. Still, it was nice to see my old employer actually doing some “enterprise” instead of just carrying water for the Obama Administration and the Statist Left that frequent the sidewalk near its 50 Rock headquarters in New York City.

Then, within hours, the Emperor with no clothes sticks his campaign hand wave in front of the Mongolian delegate to the U.N. during a group shot (Sorry Pres, this picture is for everyone who hates the United States, not just you!) and the photo goes viral – not just on conservative blog sites or Fox News!

It must be tough when even the closest of your fawning admirers begin to tire of your presence and start admitting by their coverage you have become a “problem” to the whole One World, Let’s Sit and Talk, I-know-better-than-you-how-to-spend-your-money, Candy Ass, Majority Rule Over the Constitution wing of politics.

Maybe, just maybe, we can hope for a change come November 6, 2012.

What You Could Hear vs. What You Will Hear

2011-08-31T11:43:00.000-07:00

By Dan Crummett
While the nation has been yawning at the long-delayed Obama Response to the pitiful unemployment figures for which the Administration has become known, the President is now hyping the upcoming speech he plans – to coincide with the GOP presidential contenders debate on September 7.

Part of the plan is to pick a fight with the conservatives in Congress by calling for an extension of the federal gasoline tax and claiming “millions” would be laid off if it isn’t extended. That’s political theater at its worst, and quite telling of a President whose Jobs Plan includes little beyond adding more time to unemployment benefits, and seeking more federal expenditures.

But let’s look at some of the President’s actions of late that do affect jobs:

The American Action Forum estimates in this year alone, the Obama Administration has imposed more than 47.2 million annual paperwork burden hours of new regulations on private industry and small business. In dollars, those regulations will cost small business in the private sector $65 billion this year! That’s $65 billion that won’t be spent on new tooling, new hires, market development, research and development on products, or payroll.

Now, what do taxpayers get for this barrage of Obama-commanded regulations? A bill for $54 billion more to support the regulators! That’s $54 billion + $65 billion that won’t go into new tooling, new hires, market development, research and development on products, or payroll.

Anytime government commands time and resources be spent on regulations, it takes that amount of time and resources – in this case $119 billion and at least 47.2 million hours – out of productive work and investment which would raise the nation’s Gross Domestic Product, improve the lives of millions of workers, and improve the balance sheet of trade deficits.

The President COULD talk about doing away with these regulations and regulators on September 7, but he won’t. Instead, we’ll hear how he inherited an economic mess from that Devil George Bush, and that increased government growth and expenditures is the only way to drag ourselves out of the Administration’s 9% unemployment rate.

Well, in an election year, I’m sure that will be a much easier story to tell than the truth.

A Litmus Test of Ideology vs. Expediency

2011-08-29T11:17:00.000-07:00

By Dan Crummett

The recent U.S. State Department declaration that the Keystone XL pipeline, a 1,700-mile project that would bring crude oil from Canada’s oil-shale deposits to refineries in Texas, poses “no significant impacts” to resources along its path is setting up a dicey decision for the Obama Administration.

On one hand, approving the controversial pipeline – the greens have found at least 3,789 reasons why the pipeline shouldn’t be built – would provide an immediate boost to U.S. jobs numbers and would ensure a the nation a politically-stable source of petroleum, estimated at 170 billion (WITH A “B”) barrels of heavy crude – the world’s third largest deposit. On the other hand, more than 300 protesters of the project have been arrested from near the White House recently where they’ve been demanding Obama cancel the project on claims it would pollute groundwater, enhance the production of Alberta’s oil-shales with the addition of a U.S. customer, and increase so-called “greenhouse” gas emissions by its very existence.

Now, while any oil transportation operation carries risks, and the State Department has noted there are potential spills from the project, the report indicates the effect of such spills depend upon the place and size of any incident. The report also says there are adverse effects to certain “cultural resources,” but adds those drawbacks are being dealt with in the proposal’s plans and agreements.

The long-awaited findings will play a key role in the U.S. federal government’s decision to approve or deny a permit to proceed with the project. And, the President can step in and block it.

So, faced with a political year in which unemployment remains over 9%, the nation continues to fight two wars in areas where it buys much of its crude oil, and most Americans are in favor of developing U.S. and North American petroleum reserves to create jobs and stabilize the nation’s oil supply, it will be interesting to see where the leftist President -- who would love another four years of vacations and use of Air Force One at the tax payer’s expense -- will stand when the decision is to be made.

We’d bet on a seeing a pipeline headed south by year’s end, but the President's ideology and devotion to his political base could surprise us. Regardless, we're please to see him have to make the decision.

The Ammo Can is Dry

2011-08-26T10:43:00.000-07:00

By Dan Crummett

Thank God Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke admitted the government was out of ammunition in its ill-fated fight to spend its way rich against a sluggish economy and jobs figures that have come home to roost on the Obama Administration.

All week the markets had been prepared for the announcement of more funny money (borrowed from the Chinese) being pumped into the economy to inflate an already emaciated U.S. dollar, and as the Chairman was speaking the markets fell 200 points – only to recover when he finished, noting the Fed and the Administration had no more ambitious plans at this point. (You’d think someone would notice those reactions besides me!!!)

Anyway, Bernanke really couldn’t upstage the President, who in a couple of weeks will no doubt announce more spending, higher taxes and more smoke-and-mirrors cuts to a bloated federal bureaucracy that is costing nearly as much as the nation produces – just to sit idling while China and India see nearly double digit growth.

Mr. Obama’s planning sessions at Martha’s Vineyard will produce more “big government ideology” and for certain will use the impending hurricane bearing down on the East Coast as cover.

The answers to both the jobs and economic dilemma are out there, they just don’t fit the Marxist mold in which the Administration sees the world. Both could be spurred – I dare say with results apparent within months – if red-tape regulations enacted only since Obama took office were rescinded, and a one-percent roll back in federal spending was enacted to kick off Rep. Connie Mack’s “Penny Plan.” (See more on the Penny Plan at: http://conniemack.com/contact_congressman_mack/mack-penny-plan?utm_source=adwords&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=pennyplan)

Alas, it appears 9% unemployment and a flaccid economy are our common fate, at least until November 2012!

Let's Throw Some More Billions at Jobs

2011-08-22T10:26:00.000-07:00

By Dan Crummett
Word is puposely leaking out of Martha’s Vineyard, where the President is relaxing for 10 days, that he’s planning to propose another so-called stimulus plan when he returns to work in September to try to reverse the nation’s humiliating unemployment percentage.

This one would be aimed at boosting infrastructure spending and repair across the country. Now, back before the first “stimulus” package was passed, I was in favor of a similar program aimed at upgrading highways, airports, and the nation’s aging water transportation system. I figured if you have to spend public dollars to create jobs, then the public should get something in return – like a transportation system that helps boost efficiency when the economy does turn around. Part of that “stimulus” was aimed at infrastructure spending, but not nearly enough of it, in my opinion.

Instead, we got political payoffs to unions and states that voted “blue” in the 2008 election. We got private industry bailed out and given to unions or sold to foreign entities (Chrysler and GM). We got expedited spending on projects that were no where near ready to be funded – but that were connected to union labor contracts. We got research projects funded for subjects like how important grandparents are to Inuit Indians. So, why would the next “stimulus” be any different? The same folks are calling the shots on where it will be spent!

And, where is the money going to come from? Most likely it will be borrowed from the Chinese and the Japanese, the same as the last nearly $1 trillion in “stimulus” spending that has proven not to add jobs or spur the economy. Still, we’ll be further in debt.

There’s an old saying about “When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” President Obama only knows how to spend other people’s money (having never worked himself, other than writing two premature autobiographies) and if a problem exists, he reacts in only one way – spend more money on it.

There are many other tools out there to use to spur jobs, like cutting regulations on business and industry that sap billions of dollars from the private sector each year, permanently lowering taxes on business – but making sure even GE pays its share of the tax burden, and increasing the tax base on individuals and business by making lower tax rates apply to everyone who works or makes money (not just the 52% who now shoulder the load).

The pretty part of all this is…taxes would not have to be increased to generate the additional jobs and increased revenue that history tells us would occur.