Ogre's Politics & Views

January 15, 2007

Socialist March on Raleigh

It seems the socialists in North Carolina are on the move, planning to "march" on Raleigh on Feb 10th. Why? Well they've got 14 points of socialism they want to advance. And who's marching? Why the NAACP and 20 other groups: such as the communist council of churches, the anti-freedom AFL-CIO, and the pro-criminal group El Pueblo. What do they want? Cash:

Cash for public schools

Despite the billions already being spend and the increases from last year AND the massive, $400+ million lottery funds, it's just not enough. It's never enough for socialists. Once, I actually heard an educrat admit how much they wanted for schools: MORE. And no, they honestly do not care that it takes money from working people and has absolutely no effect on education. They just want power and control of cash.
Abolishing the death penalty

And instead spending hundreds of millions of dollars (yes, taken from the taxpayer) to keep murdering child molesters alive and in comfort in jails where they get anything they want at the taxpayer's expense. Oh, and you can be sure they'll also work to try and free these sub-humans because they'll be "rehabilitated."
collective bargaining power for government employees

Because they want more cash, more power, and more for people who do absolutely nothing more to actually EARN that more. Again, I'm sorry if you're a government employee -- but you don't actually produce. I'm not saying that you're not a hard worker, or that you don't work. I'm saying that your work does not produce anything other than taking freedoms away from people.

And they want the government workers to be able to strike -- and get paid for the entire time they're on strike. Why? Because they want your cash. They want those who work to be punished for working while they reward those who do not.

expanding health care coverage for all

Again, only by taking money from those who produce and making literal slaves of anyone in the health care industry. You see, if anyone has a "right" to health care, then anyone who is able to provide it is REQUIRED to provide it -- no matter if they are compensated or not. Any government that decides that everyone is allowed health care, regardless of cost, ensures the absolute worst possible health care for all.

So watch the news on February 10th and see how much news coverage the socialists get "for the children." The liberal press will be more than happy to do anything to advance socialism and destroy freedom -- which is what all these groups want.

Posted by: Ogre at 12:09 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

January 14, 2007

New Neighbor #45

This week's new neighbor is

Martha's Distraction


Martha (actually Kristie) is
a 40 something woman who is always trying to figure out how to be a Christian while living within American Evangelicalism.

She also homeschools her two youngest boys. That is certainly admirable! The blog tagline is
"Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus."--John 11:5 "But the Lord said to her, 'Martha, Martha you are anxious and troubled about many things...' --Luke 10:41

The blog has been around since at least 2005, based on the archives links! Also impressive. However, I'm guessing the categories listing hasn't been around that long -- there's only around 100 entries in the categories list. I suppose that could be all the posts from over a year...

The latest post claims to explain her "beef with American Evangelicalism." But reading it, I can't tell what her beef actually IS. I mean, I think she's complaining about false teachings, but is that a condemnation of everyone who tries to spread the Word? Can anyone else tell what that's about?

And if she started what she promised to start last week, well, she's ahead of me and I need to invite her over to start me going in that direction, too. I need the (my) money!

She's also got some suggestions on getting the Bible read in a year, including links with other suggestions. I did that once -- actually did it while I was on an aircraft carrier. For some reason, I found that I had plenty of time...

So hey, on this wonderful Sunday afternoon, while you're sitting around reading blogs (perhaps while watching some football), why not head on over and take a peek. You might meet someone new and find you like them. You can go now, there will be no more posts here until tomorrow morning!

Posted by: Ogre at 05:06 PM | Comments (232) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

January 12, 2007

Silly Friday

Well, The Ogre is fresh out of jokes (and time) for this Friday afternoon, so if you're looking for the Friday afternoon funnies, I'll direct you to One Happy Dog. This week's "Humor for Dreaded Wednesday" included one REALLY bad pun and a computer joke.

And before you complain, I already warned you it was a BAD pun, right?

Posted by: Ogre at 08:03 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Friday Llama

Now that's a llama nose!

lnose.jpg

Posted by: Ogre at 06:07 PM | Comments (748) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Marines vs. Muslim Terrorists

I just read this post over at Dagney's Rant. It's a story that I am very familiar with. However, I realize that there are likely many people out there that are quite unfamiliar with the story about the Barbary Pirates. I'm quite sure there's no mention of these battles in government schools any more, they're too busy teaching students how to be a Muslim. Go over and read that story. It's excellent and it's very historically accurate.

Posted by: Ogre at 05:05 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Child Medicine

Now I realize that there's a lot of people that are, well, let's just say that they're a few beers short of a six pack. And for those of you reading this, if you're of "average" intelligence, or even above average, realize that means that there's over 100 MILLION people in America who are dumber than you. But I have to wonder -- am I the ONLY person who actually reads all the labels on medicine?

I mean, this "big news" from the CDC really makes me wonder. They're talking about how more than 1,500 babies wound up in emergency rooms because of reactions to medicine. And it makes me realize how useless the CDC is, too...

I hate to take medicine. I only take it when I really have to. But I always read the side of the box and the bottle to help me decide how much I need to take. No, really. I don't just open up the bottle of cold medicine and take a "swig," figuring that would help. But apparently, there's a lot of people who. Instead, I read the side and see how much it tells me to take. And I've noticed there's usually at least 3 categories for dosage: one for adults, one for children 2-12, and one for children under 2. And without exception, as far as I've seen, the section that says "children under 2" says, "CONSULT WITH A DOCTOR."

So I wonder about those 1,500 people. Did they read that line and ignore it? Or did they never read it at all. I would love to see the demographic breakdown of those 1,500 families. I would like to know how many were illegal immigrants, how many couldn't speak English, or how many couldn't read. But to even ask that question today, despite it's validity, is likely to get me branded as a racist. Heck, it might even be a "hate crime" now to even ask. I do know that not only do hospitals not keep such records, they're not allowed to. How screwed up is our government when it won't let a hospital keep records on people that might actually lead to saving more lives?

Worse, since this report was released by the CDC, a massive, massive government agency, look for more government. Whenever government sees a problem, they always have a solution: and the solution is ALWAYS more government. Since the CDC named the particular type of drug that contributed to these injuries and deaths, look for it to be regulated more. Look for pseudoephedrine to be added to the list of government-controlled substances in the next year. Be prepared for today's cold medicines to get even LESS effective as the government orders companies to not produce them. Watch for lawsuits from lottery entrants who seek cash from companies who make medicine with the product in it.

So what's my point? Folks, we can't save people from themselves and we should not try. Is that harsh? Perhaps. But it's reality. Life isn't safe, by definition. No, I am not advocating death to the stupid. I'm just saying that some people ARE going to be killed because of their lack of sense or brains -- and there's absolutely no amount of government regulation or spending that will stop that. Unfortunately, Democrats and bureaucrats don't understand or care. They will use any excuse to take more money from taxpayers and spend it on "programs" that are designed to save people from themselves. And in a free society, that's just wrong.

Posted by: Ogre at 04:03 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Christians Attacked Again (in America)

Picture this, if you will:

It's a late-night television show -- one where the FCC doesn't really mind what goes on. Maybe it airs at 11pm or later. Imagine it's a comedy show. Perhaps they do skits often for laughs. Now imagine for one skit, a fellow comes out on stage with a guitar and sings a song with these lyrics:

"I like you Allah, but that's as far as it goes. I know you like boys, but I don't want to be your toy.
Mohammed might like it from behind, but that's not me. I'll kill and murder for you, but let my rear be."

What do you suppose would happen? Do you think people would laugh? How many things would be burned the next day? How many "hate crime" violations would be filed? How much news time would be spent on "reaction" from "outraged" Muslims? How many people would be sent to re-education camps sensativity training?

Or how about if the skit was a little different:

Let's say the person was introduced as "a complete idiot" and then sang:

"I'm black, I'm black, I like it in the back. Whitey is supreme, us blacks should take it inbetween."

How fast do you think Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would make it to every single national stage and news report? How many millions do you think Jesse would demand for "reparations" against the network and studio? How many more "offended" people would be interviewed? How many opinion columns the next day would scream for government regulation and shut down of the network and show?

But what if the skit introduced "the idiot" and the lyrics went like this:

"Oh I love you Jesus, But only as a friend. You touched my heart but I hope that's where the touchin' ends.
You're always lookin' over me when I need a higher power. But you better look at somethin' else when I'm in the shower."

Well then, no one would care. There'd be no news reports. There'd be no opinions in the newspapers about it. There's be no lawsuits, arrests, or screaming offended victims on television. Why? Because it's okay to make fun of Christians, but it's not okay to make fun of anyone, or anything else.

How can I say this with assurance? Because that's exactly what happened on Late Night With Conan O'Brien. Did you hear about it? Did you read about any outrage? Did you see "civil rights" lawsuits filed? No. Did you hear any network or public figure condemn the skit, network, or studio? Not one.

Of course the difference also reflects which type of people actually are interested in "acceptance." The Muslims would, according to their holy book, have rioted in the streets and burned things. They would have killed people and tried to burn down the network. The blacks, through their spokesmen Jackson and Sharpton, would have screamed about oppression and demanded lots of money. They would not relent until the studio paid a hefty fine (to be used by Jackson and Sharpton) and until the network agreed to be racist and hire people based on the color of their skin instead of their abilities.

Christians, however, tend to follow their holy book. They tend to turn the other cheek. Their book tells them that they will be persecuted in Jesus' name. And instead of killing and destroying people, they simply pray for those who offend them. They know that those people will be dealt with by a power higher than themselves.

Now you tell me which group of people you'd rather have more of in America today.

Posted by: Ogre at 02:08 PM | Comments (18) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

NC Budget Short. Again

Yesterday, NC Senator Smith explained various budget problems with the state of North Carolina. And showed how the "next governor" Purdue (yes, in NC, we select governors long before people vote. It's how the Democrats have retained power in Raleigh for over 100 years) was wrong with her suggestions on how to deal with the problems.

Newspapers are now starting to notice the $1 BILLION or more gap. Of course Easley, because he's the governor, simply denies there's any gap. Everyone else estimates that there's between $500,000,000.00 and $1,000,000,000.00 in expenditures for North Carolina planned for next year MORE than the income the state will take in. But don't worry, they're still planning on giving away even MORE money!

Yes, while there is talk of problems with the state of North Carolina not having enough money and complaints about the millions of dollars NOT coming in from the lottery; the North Carolina Democrats are doing what they do: planning MORE spending! They're preparing to give tax money away to "the poor" and using taxpayer cash to bribe even more businesses. Apparently in the mind of the North Carolina Democrat, the way to get out of a fiscal problem where you don't have enough money is to spend MORE money.

But of course, it's a government -- so they won't ever run out of money. They'll just take more in taxes from those who work. Last year they increase spending and raised taxes over $1 billion dollars. This year they're starting out a billion short, so they're planing on spending MORE.

Oh, and to put the numbers in perspective, the entire budget of the state is "only" $18 billion. So that's over 5% that they're in the hole, BEFORE you start adding in all the new expenditures for this year that they're planning. The ONLY thing keeping North Carolina from completely collapsing in upon itself is the weather. Literally. The nice weather continues to draw unsuspecting working plebes who will pay into the system and keep it afloat. One day the people will stop coming -- and the North Carolina State government will completely collapse because there's no one left to shoulder the burden of the total fiscal irresponsibility of the Democrats.

Posted by: Ogre at 12:07 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

January 11, 2007

A New Blog

MeKender, who's been commenting here recently has taken my insults prodding suggestions about starting a blog seriously and has actually gone and started one: My Little Corner. And it's got a perfect tagline:

Insane ranting, raving, driveling and general madness brought on by the world we live in.

And I have to say, there's posts there that I wish I had written. There's two up there now on topics I looked at and wanted to write about, but just didn't have time this week:
The attention-seeking weenie who is DEMANDING his right to purchase coffee from one specific location, no matter the cost or risk to anyone else on the planet; and then there's the stupid f-ing moron socialist whiny uninformed wankers in Bangor, ME who banned freedom in personal automobiles (again).

And to think I really used to like Bangor, and made a point to visit there whenever I was near. You can forget that happening any more. Any locality that makes laws based on junk science is shows themselves as total fools.

So anyway, head on over, there's other good stuff there -- and lots of it already!

Posted by: Ogre at 06:04 PM | Comments (27) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Stop the ACLU

by John Stephenson

I just finished reading Indefensible : 10 Ways The ACLU Is Destroying America by Sam Kastensmidt. I highly recommend it for everyone.

The book covers most of our own top ten reasons to stop the ACLU, however much more extensively. It covers everything the ACLU stands for. From the agenda of silencing the churches and abortion to the sexualization of children...the book covers it in excellent detail.

There have been many great books written on the ACLU. Most focus on the social and religious issues that are under attack. Alan Sears' book, ACLU Vs. America, focused on mainly on these issues, however it did touch upon how the ACLU attacks our soverignty. This book, Indefensible, also focuses on the social issues, but I was happy to see that it devoted an entire chapter on how the ACLU is Impeding America's War On Terror. I'm going to share a few excerpts from sections within that particular chapter.

ACLU Fights Measure To Halt Terrorists' Funding

Only weeks after the tragedy (911), Congress acted to dismantle the financial infrastructure supporting known terrorist organizations. On October 3, 2001, U.S. Rep. Michael Oxley (OH) introduced the "Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001," seeking to freeze all accounts directly linked to the "financing of terrorism."

The need for such legislation was deemed so vital to national security that it passed the U.S. House on a vote of 421-1. Almost the entire Congress recognized that this legislation's passage was imperative. Still, on the day before the vote was scheduled, the ACLU delivered letters of opposition to all members of Congress.

"We urge you to oppose the 'Financial Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001,'" the letter began. Why? One portion of the bill made it a federal crime to conceal large amounts of "illegally obtained" cash (over $10,000) while traveling. In a desperate and shameful attempt to justify its stance, the ACLU played the race card. The letter argued, "This provision may impact, disproportionately, people of color and immigrants....[because] these groups of people often have a more difficult time getting access to sources of credit and bank accounts and so use cash transactions more frequently than others do."

Under the ACLU's reasoning, impoverished people would be discriminated against by this bill. The likelyhood of impoverished minorities carrying around more than $10,000 in cash and concealing it was supposedly a grave concern for the ACLU. Thankfully the ACLU's efforts to stop this were unsuccessful.

A little more from the book:

Later in the war, the ACLU actually volunteered its legal services to represent suspected terrorists!

In 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments from several alleged "illegal combatants," including two cases involving U.S. citizens and one case involving 14 foreign "illegal enemy combatants." The ACLU filed amicus briefs on behalf of the suspected terrorists in each case, arguing that ll "enemy combatants" cpatured during a time of war should have access to American courtrooms-regardless of their citizenship.

The Pentagon contended that "enemy combatants" should face military tribunals-the standard procedure in all previous international wars. U.S. Solictor General Theodore Olson, whose wife, Barbara Olson, was killed on September 11, when Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, reminded the Supreme Court Justices that the plaintiffs were requesting a "jurisdiction that is not authorized by Congress, does not arise from the Constitution, and has never been exercised by this Court."

Though the U.S. Constitution does not extend rights to non-citizen enemy combatants, judicial restraint did not prevent the moder Court from creating this new right out of thin air.

Thankfully this decision was made moot by the passing of the Military Commission Act. However, the ACLU's war on National Security continues, and giving habeous corpus to non-American citizens is on their New Year Resolution list. It is actually number one on the list, followed by destroying the NSA terrorist surveillance program, and destroying our ability to keep secrets.

Overall the book was well put together and very informative. I highly suggest checking it out.


This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board.

Posted by: Ogre at 04:08 PM | Comments (329) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Kennedy's Constitutional Amendment

As Right on the Right so carefully points out, the current Kennedy Bill, S.233 (text not online at Thomas as of this writing) is not a Legislative Bill that can exist in the structure of today's country. However, minor things like the United States Constitution, never seem to bother or slow down Democrats.

Now Big Dog thinks this is a symbolic move by the Democrats to show that they're anti-war. Is there really anyone on the entire planet that doesn't know that Democrats are anti-war? Haven't they been screaming since the election that they're anti-war? Isn't that why they claim they were elected in the first place? Obviously EVERYONE knows they're anti-war. So I'm not so sure this is a "symbolic vote" for them.

However, from what I've been able to gather, here is the extent of the text of Kennedy's bill:

Prohibition. -- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no Federal funds may be obligated or expended by the United States Government to increase the number of United States forces in Iraq above the number for such forces which existed as of January 9, 2007, without a specific authorization of Congress by law for such an increase.

That's it, word for word. Really.

Of course, the "other provision of law" is pretty clear (to conservatives, anyway):

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States

So in a logical, real world, this legislation that Kennedy has thrown out there and which has gotten so much press is completely and utterly worthless. It has absolutely zero power of law. But that's in a logical, real world, where today's Democrats have never been.

Instead, the Democrats will actually believe they can do this. Then, when Bush sends more troops, the Democrats will complain and "launch investigations." You see, they don't care, because it's not their money they'll be spending on the investigations. It's YOUR money that they WILL be raising taxes to get more of.

They will demand special councils when instead they should read the damn Constitution. Kennedy should be drummed out of office for even suggesting such a blatantly unconstitutional action. But since he doesn't even get in trouble for murder, why would such a minor thing like breaking Constitutional Law get him in trouble?

It's going to be a long two years with Democrats and their fantasy world in charge. I only hope that few Americans will have to pay for Democrat foolishness with their lives.

Posted by: Ogre at 02:06 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

North Carolina Budget

Time For Leadership on NC budget
By North Carolina State Senator Fred Smith


During the 2006 election, many candidates for office faced questions from voters about the increasing size of North Carolina state government. Questions about the fiscal responsibility of the Easley Administration and Democratic legislative leaders are timely. The past ten years, General Fund spending has grown 24% faster than combined inflation and population growth translating into a $1,116 increase in real dollars for a typical North Carolina family.(1)


State government spending continues to be out of control with a projected $500 Million revenue shortfall in 2007. The most recent state budget increased spending 9.7%, on top of an 8% increase last year. The failure of the Democratic legislature and Governor Easley to prioritize and control spending has resulted in millions of dollars of inefficient expenditures instead of worthwhile investments like educating our children or building and maintaining roads. Ultimately, this careless, undisciplined spending has also forced North Carolina to impose on its citizens the highest tax burden in the southeast. Meanwhile, the local tax burden is also increasing.(2) Irresponsible year-after-year increases in spending strain family budgets, stifle private sector growth and damage the ability of small businesses and entrepreneurs to create new jobs.


Even Lt. Gov. Perdue, one of the most liberal Democratic officeholders in our state's history, seems to recognize the problem. She recently penned an email to supporters touting her hot new "reform" idea: a permanent state efficiency commission. The commission, she says, would "present a maximum of ten separate governmental efficiency proposals" to "counter the pressures in the system favoring wasteful spending and loopholes."(3)


Taken as a stand-alone plan, her proposal is not a bad idea. However, Perdue's latest press release misses the larger point. The failure to control spending isn't for lack of boards, commissions, or processes it's for lack of leadership. The governor already has the power to appoint advisors or seek outside counsel on fiscal issues or any other state problem. The governor has the veto power on the budget. He controls the Office of State Budget and Management. He has the bully pulpit.


On the campaign trail in 2004, Gov. Easley's "solution" to the spending problem was a self-enforced spending cap. During the 2005-2006 General Assembly, Easley promptly broke that pledge by signing two budgets that blew through his own cap. Now, Perdue has the magic bullet: her permanent efficiency commission. She says the group will create the "institutional momentum" needed to fight spending. Why add a new commission to the over four hundred boards and commissions already in existence, rather than just rolling up our sleeves and tackling the spending problem? Real leaders take excuses off the table, use the tools they have and get the job done.


Some skeptics may look at Perdue's record and fear that her efficiency commission proposal is just political lip service. She can prove the skeptics wrong though by signing on to support the constitutional amendment I have introduced to cap state spending growth.


Our rapidly growing, rapidly changing state doesn't have time for bureaucratic piddling with new processes. Instead of tinkering with the system, we must make real change which requires leadership. My Taxpayer Protection Amendment limits government spending growth to inflation and population growth. This legislation would immediately put real limits on government growth, finally forcing the legislature to prioritize spending.


Talking about fiscal restraint, finding government efficiencies, and getting tough on spending is a lot like talking about going on a diet. There are a lot of gimmicks and new fads, but we all know there's only one real solution: discipline. We don't need a new "fad" plan, we just need a leader with the discipline to make sure government eats less and exercises more. A constitutional spending cap would force government to create a strategic plan for growth, prioritizing what we consume and cutting outmoded, irrelevant spending.


We don't need a new blue ribbon commission. We don't need to pass the buck. We need results and that takes disciplined leaders who will roll up their sleeves and make tough decisions. At the end of the day, improving government efficiency and reducing unnecessary spending reduces the demand that government places on the private sector, so the private sector can create jobs and economic growth.


(1) "The State Budget." John Locke Foundation: http://www.johnlocke.org/agenda2006/statebudget.html
(2) Lowrey, Michael. "By the Numbers: What Government Costs in North Carolina Cities and Counties." The Center for Local Innovation. http://www.johnlocke.org/acrobat/policyReports/btn2006.pdf
(3) Perdue News Update, December 29, 2006.

Posted by: Ogre at 12:07 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

January 10, 2007

Another Political Quiz

Raven pointed out another interesting quiz. This quiz supposedly

was written by Victor Kamber and Bradley S. O'Leary and appeared in the October 28-30, 1994 issue of USA Weekend.

Me, I don't remember much past yesterday, much less 1994 (I'm just trying to fit in with the general voting public). It has a whole list of questions (it doesn't take that long) that attempts to measure you on the liberal-conservative scale (yes, another one).

This one was a little different than others I've seen. Go check it out and see how you end up. In case you're wondering, yes, I got a perfect 40.

Posted by: Ogre at 06:07 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Fair Taxes

by Debbie of Right Truth

John Edwards is running for president of the United States on his same old theme, 'two Americas'. He hopes to get votes by pitting the 'haves' against the 'have nots'. He even chose New Orleans to make his announcement, with the unspoken message that the government failed the poor people and he has stepped in to be their savior.

Edwards is promising universal health care, pulling out of Iraq ,taxing oil company profits and eliminating President Bush's tax cuts to pay for his priorities. Edwards is not alone in his thinking about the evil rich (of which he happens to BE ONE). Yesterday Thomas Sowell had a wonderful article that relates to this, titled 'A Dangerous Obsession'.

Mr. Sowell picked up on the media, the left, and academia's continuous obsession with gaps and disparities in income. 'As one talk-show host put it, It makes no sense that a corporate executive makes over $50 million a year.' Sowell says, "Ninety-nine percent of all the things that happen in this world make no sense to any given individual."

If you cannot understand something as simple as making a lead pencil, why should you be surprised that you dont understand why someone is making a lot more money than somebody else?

Moreover, if this obsession with income disparities is to be something more than mere hand-wringing or gnashing of teeth, obviously the point is that somebody ought to do something to change what you dont understand.

That's what the left, liberals, and Edwards wants to do. They want to correct what they perceive as something wrong, ...some people having more money than others. And how would one go about correcting such an atrocity? That's easy. Take away the excess from one, and give it to another. Or as Mr. Sowell puts it, "Usually that means that the government politicians should impose policies based on your ignorance of what is going on."

Of course, such political control of incomes is usually advocated only to deal with the rich. But, when income taxes were imposed in the early 20th century, they applied only to the rich and they took a very small percentage of their income.

Once the floodgates are opened to this kind of political power, however, we have seen with the income taxes that they not only spread far beyond the rich, they took a serious share of even middle class incomes.

Moreover, the income tax has spawned an intrusive bureaucracy, creating so much complexity and red tape that millions of ordinary citizens have to go get some accountant to fill out the forms for them and then sign under penalty of perjury that it was done right.

If you knew how to do it right, you wouldnt have to go to somebody else to have it done, would you? ...

It is also worth noting that the people who are said to be earning obscene amounts of money are usually corporate executives. There is no such outrage whipped up when Hollywood movie stars make some multiple of what most corporate executives make.

In short, Mr. Sowell is asking, "Whose wealth is it anyway?" Did the government earn this wealth? No, they didn't. Why should they be the ones to decide who is worthy to spend that wealth? Did the government produce any product, any widgets, any business that will employ others? Unless you count the bureaucracies needed to collect and redistribute this wealth, the answer is no.

In reading Mr. Sowell's article, I thought directly of the United States, but Tom at Libertarian Leanings looks at this from a world view.

Israel has nowhere near the natural resources of the Arab states, yet they are wealthier by far. According to the CIA World Factbook, Israel produces a measely 2740 barrels of oil per day. At the same time Saudi Arabia puts out 9,475,000, and Iran 3,979,000. Yet Israel enjoys a per capita GDP of $25,000, while Saudi Arabia and Iran come in at $13,100 and $8,400 respectively. The income gap is not a crisis in Israel because Israelis have the freedom to produce wealth. Arab state citizens have less freedom, less wealth, and less hope for getting it.

Unfortunately, leftists (and Democrats) can't bring themselves to support the spread of freedom. Their antidote to the growing gap between the rich and the poor is to prevent the creation of wealth. Taxation discourages an activity, so the lefty solution to their contrived crisis is to tax wealth (income) at ever higher rates as a person demonstrates ever higher success in creating it. The Arab solution is to wipe Israel off the map. Actually, there are Democrats who seem to be coming around to that view.

This brings me back to the United States, to the Fair Tax, which would replace the federal income tax system with a progressive national retail sales tax. It provides a "prebate" to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue replacement and, through companion legislation, repeal of the 16th Amendment.

This nonpartisan legislation (HR 25/S 25) abolishes all federal personal, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment, and corporate taxes and replaces them all with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax collected by existing state sales tax authorities.

The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend, not on what we earn. It does not raise any more or less revenue; it is designed to be revenue neutral. (more)

Why should people be punished because they took the risks to build a business, to produce a product, to creat a new widget? Why should they be punished by having the government take away a large portion of their profits, profits that could be used to produce MORE jobs, more widgets, more wealth? Why should the creators of wealth, who give much of that wealth away to worthy and needy organizations, be punished? They shouldn't.

On the world scene, Brad leaves a comment at Thought Streaming
"One can never force a productive, ambitious, disciplined spirit to subsidize weak mindsets girded by overactive libidos, they will always rebel,...". Graeme also leaves a comment, " ...if you give people a "voice" at work, they will produce more. They have incentive to work."

If you let people produce wealth, reinvest wealth, and use it as they see fit without government intrusion, you will actually see more help being given to those in need; more opportunities for those in need of better jobs, higher salaries, more education. Don't punish people for using the gifts and opportunities God gave them.

That my dear friends is what folks like Edwards (and Hillary Clinton) want to do.

Posted by: Ogre at 04:04 PM | Comments (456) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Comments on Sowell

Thomas Sowell is one of the most brilliant minds of our time. If you've never heard that name before, you are truly missing out on a wonderful thinking. I hope one day that I might get to meet and talk with this man. Occasionally he posts "Random Thoughts" that are anything but random. Here's some of them.

Climate statistics show that, with all the "global warming" hysteria today, our temperatures are still not as high as they were back in medieval times. Those medieval folks must have been driving a lot of cars and SUVs.

Isn't global warming funny? Err.. I mean, fun? For every scientist that claims it's real and true, you can find another to refute them. But that doesn't matter to those to whom global warming is a religion. The facts absolutely destroy any concept that man has caused the earth to warm by driving SUVs -- but try making algore understand facts.
Increasing numbers of people seem to think that it is "name-calling" if you refer to someone as a liberal. There are no inherently negative connotations to the word "liberal." If it has acquired negative overtones, that is because of what liberals have done and the consequences that have followed.

That one is so true. "Liberal" used to be a good thing. It used to be based on "liberty." Classic liberalism is a wonderful philosophy. But today's liberals have morphed the word so that Democrat, Liberal, and Socialist are all synonyms.
Can you cite one speck of hard evidence of the benefits of "diversity" that we have heard gushed about for years? Evidence of its harm can be seen -- written in blood -- from Iraq to India, from Serbia to Sudan, from Fiji to the Philippines. It is scary how easily so many people can be brainwashed by sheer repetition of a word.

Seriously. Is there ANY evidence at all that diversity is good (other than nice feelings for a few)? Anything at all. I've certainly never seen any advantage to selecting someone to do a job based on their race, country or origin, color, sex, or any other physical characteristic. When I hire someone, I would prefer to hire someone who is best able to actually DO the job, no matter their heritage.
Civil rights used to be about treating everyone the same. But today some people are so used to special treatment that equal treatment is considered to be discrimination.

Now go back and read that one again. Read any news article complaining about "civil rights." Then go back and see if you can find the equal treatment -- that will be why there's a lawsuit or complaint, nearly every time.
The next time somebody says that the government is forced to intervene in the economy to protect the poor, ask why the government is forcing taxpayers to subsidize municipal golf courses, the ballet, opera and -- the biggest subsidy of all -- surrounding affluent communities with vast amounts of expensive "open space."

This one gets me every time. When they want more money, it's always "for the poor" or "for the children." But when they're spending it, you don't see any poor or children anywhere around. Charlotte, NC is especially good at this trick.
We can only hope that the rumor that Israel is going to take out Iran's nuclear weapons facilities is true. If they do, Israel will be widely condemned by governments that are breathing a sigh of relief that they did.

Amen.

Posted by: Ogre at 02:02 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Government vs. Government

So what do you suppose your money has been doing for you lately? Well, if you're in Durham county, NC, part of YOUR labor is being used by the government in a lawsuit. And know who's paying for the defense? You guess it, you're paying for that, too. And I bet you can guess who is paying all the court costs, fees, and operating expenses for the court, can't you? And all the lawyer's fees on both sides? And the salaries of everyone involved? Correct again, YOU are.

You see, the "County of Durham" decided to sue the state of North Carolina. Since Durham is IN North Carolina, yes, the people who live in Durham have to pay for ALL the expenses for everyone involved. What a deal, huh? Next time you hear about the "need" for higher taxes, remember what they're doing with your money -- they are literally suing themselves. Why not, they can't lose! It doesn't cost them a dime -- the taxpayer pays for everything.

If it weren't such a horrible deal for the taxpayer, this particular lawsuit would be funny. You see, Durham county is suing the state for exercising eminent domain. The county actually claimed that it was immune to eminent domain seizures of the state. Nice idea, but this is North Carolina. In the North Carolina government, state government is supreme to, well, anything and everything (including state and federal constitutions).

It would also be very interesting if the appeals court rules the other way -- that counties are immune from the state's power of eminent domain. That would be very interesting because that would reduce the value of people, individuals, and freedom even more because it would create a new class of land -- land owned by the county -- that is of higher value and protection than any allegedly "privately" owned land. And that could set up a nice argument about property taxes. You see, if I truly owned the land, I wouldn't have to pay a property tax. Therefore, the county actually owns my land, and I pay a yearly rent. Now, if county land becomes immune to state actions, MY land now becomes completely and totally immune to state actions and laws. Yes, I realize that wouldn't get anywhere in court, but only because the courts couldn't stand me actually having any freedom.

Worse, this entire argument is over LESS THAN AN ACRE of land. Millions of dollars taken from taxpayers and spend on lawyers and courts fighting over less than an acre. But to the county and the state, it's not costing ANY of those people one thin dime -- so they honestly don't care how much they spend nor how long the fight takes.

Just remember such utter and total waste when the Democrats come screaming about tax increases "for the children."

Posted by: Ogre at 12:03 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

January 09, 2007

Cyborg Name

I found this one at Reformed Weltanschauung Blogging, posted because she didn't have time to post anything else. Well hey, it's afternoon, so it's fun time here!


Organism Generated for Repair and Exploration

Get Your Cyborg Name

Now I wonder how many of my good readers will complain that you can't see THIS Ogre repairing much of anything. I'd have to agree -- destroying is so much more fun!

Posted by: Ogre at 08:08 PM | Comments (397) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Romney 08?

A quick question -- have the candidates for president for the 2012 election announced yet? If not, why not? I mean, these elections are getting worse than the "mew model year" car sales and commercials starting earlier and earlier. Folks, if you're running for president for 2012, you better get started now, because you'll be behind! Can we finish one presidency before we start the next one?

But of course, with 24-hour news and blogs, everyone has to talk about something, so the 2008 presidential election is it.

So, Mark Joseph, of the Associated (with terrorists) Press has an analysis that claims that Mitt Romney doesn't stand a chance to get the GOP nod for 08 because of his religion. This will never be an issue with Democrat politicians, because to loyal Democrats, government IS their religion.

However, Mr. Joseph makes the same error (perhaps intentionally) that many "analysts" make -- he associates conservatives with Republicans. The National Republican Party, George Bush included, has nothing to do with conservatives. If you think President Bush is a conservative, you're misinformed. There is almost nothing that Bush has done that could be considered conservative. The same goes for the previous Republican Congress.

Now, do conservatives vote for Republicans? Sometimes simply because they feel that they don't have any other choice. One of the biggest tenents of conservatives that simply has no home in today's national politics is smaller government. If you want smaller government, there is NO home for you at all in national politics today.

But then Mr. Joseph goes on to insult Evangelical Christians by declaring that none of them will vote for Romney because he's a Morman. I'm sorry, but I haven't seen that poll. I know a lot of Evangelicals that vote, and I don't know a single on that would base their decision primarily on membership in the Mormon religion. Instead, Mr. Joseph tries to muddy the waters by mentioning a poll in which 35% of Americans claim they wouldn't vote for a Mormon -- not mentioning how many, if ANY, of that 35% were these evangelical Christian voters.

Perhaps that entire 35% were atheists. There are no links or data for the actual poll, so no one knows.

Mitt Romney's going to have a harder time overcoming the idea that he's from super-liberal Massachusetts than he's going to have convincing people to vote for him because of his religion. But that wouldn't help the AP's agenda of attacking and insulting evangelicals, so that's not going to make the reports, is it?

Posted by: Ogre at 04:02 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Right to Food

As I was browsing algore's internets, I happened upon an article that was lamenting "starving children in India." No, that wasn't your mom talking, that really was a "news" report. They claim that 46% of children are malnourished. Here's an easy solution -- let's send our obese children and swap them for the malnourished ones.

But as I was glancing over the article, one line really caught my attention:

Economist and Right to Food activist, Jean Dreze told CNBC-TV18

ExCUSE me? Turns out I did read that right. There really is a communist organization that claims that everyone has a right to food:
We consider that everyone has a fundamental right to be free from hunger and undernutrition. Realising this right requires not only equitable and sustainable food systems, but also entitlements relating to livelihood security such as the right to work, land reform and social security. We consider that the primary responsibility for guaranteeing these entitlements rests with the state. Lack of financial resources cannot be accepted as an excuse for abdicating this responsibility.

This is the total opposite of freedom, no matter your feelings on hunger. They specifically advocate the state taking anything and everything they can from anyone who produces something so they can give it to others who do NOT work.

A quick review on rights for those who consider supporting these communists:

Rights cannot, by definition, require anything of anyone else. To claim that "food" is a right, you require others to create, produce, package, and deliver that food to you. That's not rights, that's slavery.

So no, no matter how compassionate you might be, you simply cannot claim there is a "right to food" unless you support slavery.

Posted by: Ogre at 02:03 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

NC Democrats: Raise Taxes!

While the federal Democrats are working hard to punish you as much as possible for working, the Democrats in North Carolina, apparently emboldened by the national Democrats, are making plans to really raise taxes even more this year. Democrat David Hoyle is proposing massive, massive increases.

Now if you listen to his press reports, they all claim the changes will be "revenue neutral." Think about that for a minute, if you will. The primary complaint is that revenues are down and not enough is being collected. Therefore the system needs to be "reformed." But if the reforms are including ZERO increases, then there's no need for the reform, is there? One part or the other has to be a lie:

1. The NC Tax system needs to be reformed because it's out of date, and it's distribution has shifted, and it's not providing the needed revenue.
2. The new, redesigned system will be "revenue-neutral" and not result in an increase to the state.

Logically there's no possible way those two make sense together. Then again, logic and Democrats have never been known to exist in the same space at the same time.

Here's some of their complaints:

Problem: Around 1930, when the current system was put into place, few people went to college. Now, education accounts for 60% of the state budget.

Democrat solution: more, higher, punitive taxes.
Freedom solution: Cut the entire 60% of the budget and let the free market educate people. It works every time it's tried.

Problem: Around 1930, Medicaid didn't exist. Today, Medicaid takes up 17% of the budget and is predicted to take upwards of 53% by 2030.

Democrat solution: more, higher, punitive taxes.
Freedom solution: Cut all spending on Medicaid. I'm very, very sorry if you cannot afford medical care. Know what? I can't afford it, either. But you have zero right in a free society to force other people, against their will, to pay for your poor medical decisions.

Alleged Problem: Services aren't taxes.

Democrat solution: more, higher, punitive taxes. Tax all services, despite the explicit prohibition against doing so in the NC Constitution.
Freedom solution: Hello? Lack of taxes is NOT a problem. Leave it alone.

Alleged Problem: Sales tax revenue have fallen from 41% in 1957 to 35% in 2002. Somehow that can be blamed on the internet despite there being no internet in the 50s and 60s.

Democrat solution: more, higher, punitive taxes. Tax the internet. Tax all sales, no matter who is the seller or buyer, even if it's a clear violation of the commerce clause of the United States Constitution.
Freedom Solution: Once again, the LACK of taxes is NOT a problem. Stop trying to take from those who produce and shut up.

State Senator Robert Pittenger, a Republican in the gerrymandered minority; who would be majority leader if Senate districts were drawn fairly, since a majority of people who voted in NC in the last election voted for Republican Senators; says it right:

I wouldn't address any form of tax increase or broadening the tax base until we have faithfully done our job to streamline our government and operate it in a cost-effective way. That is inexcusable.

The government is in my pocket the whole time. I'm saying, get out of my pocket.


Nicely said, Mr. Quixote Pittenger.

But again, liberal Democrats have a gerrymandered majority in North Carolina and they are highly likely to get their ideas passed into law. Prepare for any "cost of living wage" you get this year to be quickly absorbed (and more) with higher taxes.

Posted by: Ogre at 12:02 PM | Comments (23) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

<< Page 49 >>

Processing 0.16, elapsed 0.586 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.4551 seconds, 1680 records returned.
Page size 918 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.