A few weeks ago I was at someone's house watching the UFC fights.  The sister of one of my friends was there; she claims to be a feminist and is a hardcore liberal, as is evident by the hybrid Civic she drives, plastered with more liberal, hippie, tree hugging, war loathing bumper stickers than any person could possibly read at a red light.  She has an assortment of different T-shirts with sayings and slogans on them that I have seen before, liberal for sure, but none too memorable.  But the shirt she was wearing this night caught my attention immediately and stands out in my memory.  It simply said "Reproductive Freedom Fighter."

I sat there in an unnoticeable awe for a moment or two because from this three worded statement I derived two meanings.  Think back to all the proclaimed "freedom fighters" from the War on Terror in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The liberals, like Cindy Sheehan, called them "freedom fighters," whereas those who see the value in war referred to them by their more proper name: terrorists.  They were terrorists because they killed innocent people.  They were terrorists because they utilitized violence to hopefully achieve a desired result politically.  They were terrorists because they terrorized people.

Here is this shirt claiming that this female is a "reproductive freedom fighter."  How utterly appropriate.  Like the "freedom fighters" over in Iraq and Afghanistan, these Feminazis too are terrorists.  They too kill innocent beings in order to achieve a desired political result.  How utterly appropriate.  It would be like Dahmer wearing a shirt that says "I kill boys and eat them."  The same message is conveyed; however, being a "reproductive freedom fighter" is much more politically correct and sociably acceptable.  Somehow murder is OK before delivery, I don't get it.  Somehow it is fine to terrorize children before they are birthed, but you can't do remotely the same after they are born.  Try stabbing a scissors in the stem of the brain of a birthed child.  But if you claim to be a fighter for reproductive freedom it is seen has heroic and tolerant.

The other meaning I derived from the shirt was the fact that it implied she fights for the freedom to reproduce or to have the choice to reproduce freely.  This argument, however, is utterly fallacious because every woman has the right and the freedom to choose whether or not to reproduce.  Each can make a conscious choice whether or not to pursue the activity that can end up in reproduction.  Women already have reproductive freedom; it's called choice.  They can choose the leave the pants on or take them off.  However, calling it reproductive freedom is just another one of the many sugar coated liberal sayings, kind of like our new word for terrorism, man-made disasters.  It's so warm and fuzzy!

On one hand she claims to be a freedom fighter on the reproduction front.  But on the other hand she claims to want the freedom to reproduce because assumingly she doesn't have such freedom.  She wants to be able to terrorize children and murder them, but at the same time have the choice to create them or not.  As fashionable as it is to be a "reproductive freedom fighter" these days, why can't these people realize that if they exercise their current freedom of being able to choose that they would not need to fight for further freedom in reproductive "rights?"  If "A" potentially leads to "B," why take that route?  Just for the sake of murder?

Which brings me to my next point.  One of my former co-workers once told me that her sister had her second abortion a day or two prior to when she told me that.  She said it nonchalantly, like saying that it is raining outside or that she walked her dogs before work.  Whether or not it was truthful, I am not sure.  That is besides the point, however.  The matter of saying it like so matter-of-fact and casually was ironic because she was talking about a human life.  This former co-worker was also a member of PETA, that crazy animal "rights" organization.  The utterly ironic part is that she doesn't want a pig to die for my eating pleasure, but doesn't have a problem with a child being murdered.

I enraged her one night before that, talking about my right to eat animals because I am on the top of the food chain and how they taste so good.  I could tell she got quite mad and I told her I was going to dine on pork chops for dinner that particular night.  She called me over to her work area and showed me a few PETA videos on animal cruelty and whatnot, like it was supposed to change my mind.  Imagine what she'd think if I tried showing her videos of the horrors of baby killing.  She claimed that pigs are smarter than humans (they probably are smarter than some humans) and that killing them is wrong.  My question to her: When was the last time pigs send someone to the moon?  When was the last time a pig did an open heart surgery?  When was the last time you had a pig do your taxes?  You get the picture.

She was outraged by a pig being my dinner, but had absolutely no problem telling me her sister had her second abortion.  This as totally backwards.  When someone is much more concerned with the treatment of an animal, and whether or not that animal ends up on your plate next to a starch and vegetable, than their concern for is a human life, something is wrong.  Somewhere down the road there was a disconnect.  When animals have more rights than humans, something somewhere went wrong.

These two ladies show the quintessential liberal view on life, however.  One claims to be a "reproductive freedom fighter," terrorizing life in the name of "choice" and the other places a pig's life much higher than the human life slaughtered by her sister's second abortion.  The fact remains, however, that there is no reason to be a "reproductive freedom fighter" because women already have the freedom to reproduce when they want to.  It's just greedy to want even more choices and options when they already have all they need.  Priorities are backwards, too, when animals are placed at a higher standing than children, than humans.  When killing a pig is seen as cruel and horrific, but the murder of an unborn child is as nonchalant as a casual nod, something is backwards.

If murder is illegal, how can women still freely opt to kill humans?

I just found out that according to Homeland Security and thus the Obama administration that I am considered a terror threat and pretty much a terrorist. Google "DHS assessment right wing extremism" and read the supposed "unclassified//for official use only" report on "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment." Funny that this report states that "it is to be controlled, stored, handled, transmitted, distributed, and disposed of in accordance with DHS policy relating to FOUO information and is not to be released to the public, the media, or other personnel who do not have a valid need-to-know without prior approval of an authorized DHS official" and "this product contains Law Enforcement Sensitive (LES) information. No portion of the LES information should be released to the media, the general public, or over non-secure Internet servers." Oops, someone didn't get the memo because it is now all over the internet.

This waste of tax payer money garbage is utterly ridiculous. The PDF file is ten pages, ten pages that will do nothing but make the "rightwing extremsits" it constantly talks about a bit angry. "Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration." That is how our government defines "rightwing extremism;" fantastic, is it not? It pretty much sounds like a "rightwing extremist" is anyone that doesn't want the federal government to control their entire life and someone that has moral principles. Wouldn't this then make our Founding Fathers "rightwing extremists?"

This little gem of squandered time and money goes on to say that "rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment." Of course racism has to rear its ugly head. I am utterly ashamed that my tax dollars were wasted on this assessment; it is utter garbage. But apparently I am playing my part of a "rightwing extremist" by "playing on fears about several emergent issues" such as the excessive spending Obama is seeking, our steady path to Socialism, the government constantly overstepping its boundaries, and all the other crap that has taken place in a short three months since Obama has been in charge. Oh, in the event that you were wondering, our fine government claims that "Threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts. Nevertheless, the consequences of a prolonged economic downturn—including real estate foreclosures, unemployment, and an inability to obtain credit—could create a fertile recruiting environment for rightwing extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities similar to those in the past." and "Rightwing extremists have capitalized on the election of the first African American president, and are focusing their efforts to recruit new members, mobilize existing supporters, and broaden their scope and appeal through propaganda, but they have not yet turned to attack planning."

This assessment goes on talking about how "The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks." After talking about how "Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups, as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for violence against the government. The high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary concern to law enforcement." the government report insults each and every person that served in our military. It claims that "Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities." Nice job by the Obama administration slapping our military veterans in the face. I'm sure all of them will appreciate the president and his administration even more.

I don't want to waste too much time directly quoting this piece of trash compiled at my and your expense, but it goes on to talk about the current economic and political climate and how "rightwing extremists" may exploit the economic downturn and undermine the historical presidential election. It goes on revisiting the 1990s and claims that historically economic hardship and extremism go hand in hand and even mentions "violent Christian Identity organizations" but fails to cite an example of one. The DHS then touches on illegal immigration and how "rightwing extremists" are xenophobes and legislative and judicial drivers, including how "Many rightwing extremist groups perceive recent gun control legislation as a threat to their right to bear arms and in response have increased weapons and ammunition stockpiling, as well as renewed participation in paramilitary training exercises. Such activity, combined with a heightened level of extremist paranoia, has the potential to facilitate criminal activity and violence." It then talks about the Brady Law and assault weapon ban. Apparently our government also thinks "rightwing extremists" are also paranoid by the perceived threat by other countries because it talks about that, closely followed by disgruntled military veterans, again asserting that "Rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the capabilities of extremists—including lone wolves or small terrorist cells—to carry out violence." Finally the outlook is discussed, stating that "rightwing extremism is likely to grow in strength."

It seems that the government is the paranoid one. How utterly ridiculous. All I've done my whole life is work hard, pay too much in taxes, and follow the law. Apparently that also makes me a terrorist. So be it. Strip me of my rights and put me in jail. Isolate me from society because apparently I am a "rightwing extremist" and it is very likely that the readers of this also are. The Obama administration thinks I am a potential terrorist. It is unfortunate that I particularly favor the Founding Father's principles of limited government, more state government, morals, a strong, independent country, practicing religion, and bearing arms. Comrade Obama doesn't much care for these things. Maybe if he would open a history book he would understand that the "rightwing extremists" that his administration is talking about, and that he undoubtedly knows about from this assessment, are very much like George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, Alexander Hamilton, and so many other of our fine founders. May I be as guilty as them. Please let me also cement my fate as a "rightwing extremist:"

If I am a terrorist, what does that make Obama?

I am absolutely delighted that we finally killed the Somali terrorists holding our US citizen, Captain Richard Phillips, hostage. Apparently Obama gave the OK to use military force to ensure his rescue and if that is true, I'm glad he did something I finally agree with. Granted I would have had four Marine or Navy SEAL sharpshooters take four .50 caliber rounds and simultaneously place them in the head of these Islamic terrorists posing as pirates on Wednesday, better a little late than never I suppose.

What did we learn from this experience? We need more than fire hoses to protect our ships. If you agree to release one of these Islamic terrorists in exchange for a hostage, it is no use because they won't keep their end of the bargain, surprise surprise. Negotiating with terrorists doesn't work. And the only way to beat them is to kill them. I hope we carry this forth in the future if again the Somali terrorists try to terrorize our ships and/or our citizens. A good place to start is the US ship that the terrorists captured with Italians on board. Cut out all the middle stuff and load the rifles. There is no reason why our military's best cannot do this. It must be strictly political.

Other countries better learn from this experience as well. They can't let these filthy, lowly Islamic terrorists terrorize them or their citizens. Load the rifles and show the terrorists you mean business. It really is no different than fighting them on land. Negotiating is useless, unless you negotiate fire power with greater fire power. The only way to victory is a bullet in the brain. However, most countries wouldn't know much about this because they are afraid of fighting wars. They don't have the experience that our fine military does; thankfully our military does have such experience.

If a bullet in the brain is the only way for these terrorists to refrain their activities, why don't we pull the trigger more often?

I am getting absolutely sick and tired of how absolutely incompetent the government is.  Regardless of party affiliation, Democrat, Republican, Independent, Green, whatever, 95% of these Americans are worthless.  They are liars, cheats, fakes, and tools.  End of story.  They are willing to bend over backwards to accommodate the issue of the day, pander for it, lobby for it, create laws for it.  I've had enough of these deceivers.  They can cheat and lie to obtain power, and temporarily enough its high, but it is time to end it.

We need to stand up and let those sitting in our Senate, both national and state, our president, our governor, the school board members, thesuperintendent of the school district, and all the other elected officials that work for us that we will no longer take this abuse.  They obviously have forgotten that they work for us, not the other way around.  Bombard them with letters, phone calls, e-mails, what have you, and tell them to get out of our daily lives.  Thegovernment has infiltrated our daily lives far too often, have gone far beyond the original line drawn by our founders, and continue to tread deeper and deeper into, and on top of, our sacred freedoms. 

Tell them you have had enough.  Tell them you don't want them to tell you how to drive and ride in your own car.  Tell them you want actual representation for the taxation.  Tell them you are tired of your hard earned money being squandered like a bum buying cheap booze.  Tell them you will keep your guns until they pry them from your dead hands. Tell them you don't want them to tell you what you can and cannot eat.  Tell them to get their fingers off of every aspect of your life.  Tell them you expect infinitely higher standards for public schools, for teachers to actually teach factual, useful information, and for students to learn and achieve.  Tell them you are capable of making decisions for yourself.  Tell them you will see to it that they don't serve a day after their term expires if they don't drop the partisanship and deceit.  Tell them to take their CO2 propaganda and stick it where the sun doesn't shine.  Tell them to pay their taxes before they steal our hard earned money.  Tell them you are mad and won't take it anymore.

America is being thefted right before our eyes.  Everything the government thinks it has the right to do is reminiscent of socialist regimes around the world, both failed and those inevitable to fail.  Take back your individual right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  There is no need for themonstrous government to help you in any aspect.  They will only deprive you of such things; they will turn your life into a living hell because they will use you for its benefit, they will take your liberty away when you place your trust in them, they will remove the pursuit of happiness and replace it with the pursuit of government satisfaction.  As the majority of Americans do their best impression of sheep, this is what will come to them. 

People need to start realizing what the government is doing and how they are hurting you daily; your prosperity, your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.  It is about time the sheep realize just how inefficiently the government spends their money.  They need to know why their property taxes went up $400 and what that $400 is being spent on.  And they better demand results for that extra $400 shelled out of their pockets.  Blind faith will lead you down the wrong path and directly into the dangerous flames burning America into obliteration.  That's what our gracious government is giving to us, but is that what you want?  Is that why you think George Washington endured extreme hardships, to defeat the British and the immense amount of government control that came with them?  It took bravery and endurance, tenacity, and pain, but in the end the Revolution revolutionized the world.  It's time for another revolution, to tell those who have been elected that their days are numbered. 

The alarm clock is ringing, will you answer its call?

I'm having a difficult time distinguishing between the reality show starring Donald Trump called "The Apprentice" and reality with an apprentice in the White House named Barack Obama.  Both have their fans that love to watch them to see what will happen next, both are the top man in charge in their individual show, and both are able to fire people.  There is one minute difference, however, one that Obama doesn't seem to mind or care about, and that is Trump can fire people because it is both a TV show and a private entity in which people desire to work.  On the other hand, Obama sees it fit to fire someone from a private company as the leader of, at one point, the free world.

Now that the line has been crossed, shouldn't every private citizen that is employed in the private sector be fearful that perhaps Obama will fire them next?  Just imagine, Jimmy who works at a coal plant could be fired because Obama deems him not "green" enough because of how he does his job.  Dr. Smith could be fired because he might want to be paid by either the individual patient or their insurance company directly, not the government-run health programs.  Suzy that manages a McDonald's could be fired because she is making children fat.  Tim Geithner could be fired for not paying his taxes.  Wait, that one is implausible.  The point is that if Obama sees it fit that he fires the CEO of GM, what will stop him from firing anyone else he sees fit?  Maybe Ron Gettelfinger, the current chief president of the UAW, should have been fired.  It's the UAW's fault for running GM into the ground in the first place.  If Obama oversteps the line again and fires someone, I pick him.  Maybe we can all vote on it, American Idol style, on who to fire next.

Which brings me to my next point.  I don't know if the firing of GM's CEO, Rick Wagoner, was a deal of sorts that guaranteed GM more of our tax dollars if he left.  Regardless the reason behind it, PLEASE STOP GIVING GM AND CHRYSLER MORE OF OUR MONEY!  They have already gotten much more than enough.  Stop wasting our tax dollars on these businesses that are so far into the grave that four feet of dirt would have to be shoveled off of them to even discover their rotting corpses.  If we want to support them we would go buy their cars.  Give us every penny of our tax dollars back that was sent to these failures and maybe we can then consider buying something from them.  That should be the only way, though, that they receive a cent from any of us, by the willing transaction at a GM or Chrysler dealer.  This government's socialist idea of wealth redistribution obviously isn't working and it won't work in the future.  Let them fail, let them go bankrupt, let them figure it out like every other company would have to do.

I am getting awfully fed up with the enormous waste of my tax dollars, even though Obama has only been the apprentice for three months or so. Now not only do I have to watch tax dollars be wasted like the water from sprinklers in the middle of a rainstorm, I have to be concerned about perhaps being fired by the government.  This is America?  What gives them the right to remove a private individual from their job?  Absolutely outrageous!  This is getting so old and I've about had enough with this recklessness and waste.   I'm getting tired of the abuse of power and socialization of America.  Let GM's CEO quit on his own, or be fired by the company.  Let GM and Chrysler figure out survival on their own.  And give me my tax dollars back!

Why did we elect an apprentice when we were suppose to elect a president?

According to this website, http://costofwar.com, the cost of the Iraq War is a bit over $607 billion at this moment.  How accurate the number is, I haven't a clue.  This website, http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home, says that $656.1 billion have allocated to the Iraq War.  Chances are it is somewhere in the low to mid $600 billion range.  That will suffice for the time being.

Think back a few years and recall that anytime President Bush wanted more money for the Iraq War, say, another $150 billion, he was criticized for wasting so much money, for spending so much money, on an "unjustified" war.  What these critics neglected to realize, however, is how those billions of dollars were, for the most part, put to good use.  It bought freedom, the end of oppression, and more rights most Iraqis saw under Saddam's vicious rule.

Now think back a few days and recall another figure, $9.3 trillion.  That is the amount the Congressional Budget Office said Obama's budget plan would create in deficits in the next decade.  You don't have to be a mathematician to realize that $9.3 trillion > $600 some billion.  The Iraq War is a few days over six years old.  If its total cost to date is $650 billion that would calculate out to approximately $108.3 billion a year.  That is a drop in the bucket to even Obama's grand scheme of the "stimulus" scam.  Taking Obama's budget down to a per year cost would make it $930 billion.  Again, you don't have to be a mathematician to see that a yearly cost of $108.3 billion < a yearly cost of $930 billion.

So what is the purpose of this math lesson, you may be asking; that is, if you made it this far through the crunching of humongous numbers.  It isn't hard to remember, as aforementioned, the immense outrage each and every time President Bush wanted more funding for the Iraq War.  Another $100 billion was deemed way too much.  But where is the outrage from the media and all the other critics at the massive amount of money President Obama wishes to spend?  Obama is spending a trillion dollars like it is pocket change.  There is no outrage, however, by the elitists saying that it is wasteful and unnecessary.

I am getting utterly sick and tired of my money be wasted by our new president, and it's only been three months!   At least when President Bush "wasted" my money it was going to buy freedom and opportunity.  Obama is wasting my money on handouts, bogus "research," and rewarding failure.  Obama is seeking to spend more than 8.5 times the cost of the "extraordinarily expensive" Iraq War for much less worthy reasons.  Unfortunately these numbers, like $9.3 trillion, are so massive that I cannot wrap my head around them.  They have no tangible meaning because I have never held $9.3 trillion, much less $1 million.  All I know is that $9.3 trillion is a lot of money, but have no perspective of it and nothing to compare it to.  I am, however, utterly appalled at the lack of outrage that this amount of money should draw from everyone.  It seems soon our money will be worth less than the paper it is printed on.  Hyperinflation is exactly how Hitler rose to power; I hope we are not headed there!

Why is outrage towards money spent and/or wasted so selective?

Liberals love to take the moral high ground, or at least their version of it, on numerous issues.  One of them is war.  Classic liberal foreign policy is about appeasement, negotiation, and peaceful resolutions, if that is even possible most of the time.  What's missing, of course, is war.  They see war as an unnecessary evil.  Some even see it as unjustified murder with the slaughter of innocent civilians and even innocent sheep herders.

It seems that liberals are also against capital punishment as a means of punishing criminals, the worst of the worst among us.  They don't see it as justification and proper punishment for someone who destroyed human life.  Not only is it wrong in their eyes, it is torture because sticking a needle in the arm of a criminal causes cruel and unusual punishment.  That is laughable, to me at least, because I have a friend that draws blood in a hospital.  Therefore, by that logic, he is torturing each patient he encounters every day he works.  Where's the ACLU for all of these tortured people?  If anything we need capital punishment that strikes fear into potential criminals so it is a deterrent.  That's exactly what crucifixion was in the time of Jesus, and why they paraded the soon to be crucified around so people could see why they were going to soon be nailed before them.  That way, if they were smart, they would not commit the same offense, unless they wanted to suffocate to death. 

Yes, the liberals have a much higher moral standing on murder than conservatives, except for, of course, the killing of babies.  They particularly like that.  An embryo, kill it; a fetus, kill it, a terrorist, give him iced tea and turn down the music.  It's starting to make sense, isn't it?  Babies are bad and criminals are good.  Of course there is a huge difference, fetuses and embryos are not alive whereas murderers are.  So by default they have a right to life, regardless of the fact that they have taken life.  Plus liberals don't like the word "consequences" very much, which is why they like to rid babies from women who can't get enough choice and why they don't like to punish criminals or terrorists with what they have coming their way.

Luckily for liberals and scientists alike, Obama has resumed federal funding to destroy embryos.  This is after he pledged millions of dollars for overseas family planning, or abortion, depending if you want to use the sugar coated, feel good name or the actual name.  I'm absolutely delighted that my hard earned and easily thefted tax dollars can be put to use to murder children.  I would prefer my tax dollars only be used to kill terrorists and criminals, but, really, what's the difference anyway?  I remember when President Bush denied federal funding to stem cell research of the embryonic kind.  People swore he made such research illegal when he obviously didn't.  In fact, the Star Tribune published a letter to the editor about just that; a woman was outraged that mean President Bush made embryonic stem cell research illegal.  I had to comment on her piece and set her straight, whether or not she believed the facts, I haven't a clue.  President Bush had it right though, he didn't want my tax dollars being used for legalized murder.

Scientists must also be delighted that Obama has decided to take the politics out of science.  That must mean that now scientists and the like are free to more or less kill at will.  There won't be any of those pesky politics to interfere with the destruction of life, especially pro-life politics.  That would be horrible.  Not to mention that embryonic stem cells have been shown to be far less successful than those from the umbillical cord or adult stem cells.  But those don't involve death, so they are less preferred by those liberals with outstanding morals.  Now that politics are out of science, does that mean "global warming" or "climate change," take your pick, will be forgotten about since it is totally political?  I won't hold my breath.

Apparently Obama sees it a different way.  He will take, or at least say he will take, the moral high ground on war.  But unborn babies and embryos, destroy them at will.   Women can't get enough of the thing called choice.  And even when they choose incorrectly they won't have to suffer any of the consequences, good or bad, because there is always another choice.  What I don't understand is if the issue of choice is such a big deal, what about the choice to partake in the activity that certainly leads to a fetus?  They chose to do that, so they have already had their choice.  Apparently not however.  The thing is that denying a woman choice after choice would be immoral, regardless what the choice leads to.  So again, liberals take the moral high ground because they care and let people live without consequences.  Unfortunately, without consequences they will never learn.

Maybe I'm blowing this all out of proportion.  After all, fetuses and embryos really aren't real people.  Maybe I just long for such moral high ground and the ability to be sensitive like these liberals with no regard for babies, but much regard for terrorists, both foreign and domestic.  Is it that I have been brainwashed and that I am not tolerant and sensitive like liberals?  I highly doubt it.  I will gladly sacrifice such "morality" to oppose infanticide.  I would rather be called any and all names in the book than advocate someone to vacuum out a baby's brain so it does not see the light of day.  It is a great tragedy, however, that our leaders don't see it the same way.  Instead we slaughter babies and embryos like they are baby cows.  That is an unfair comparison, though, because baby cows seem to now have more rights than humans. 

How is there not more outrage against the extermination of unborn babies and embryos, at least as much as there is against "animal cruelity" and the like?

When will people realize that unions are bad for business? Look at the “Big 3” car companies here in the U.S.; they are failing, no surprise there. They want money from the government, and more of it, and more of it. But why is it that I should willingly give them my hard earned dollars to support their idiotic decisions? 

Let’s look at some data, compliments of Forbes. In 2006, Forbes reported that the average compensation, wages and benefits, for workers at the “Big 3” car companies and Toyota, Honda, and Nissan. Chrysler workers received an annual average of $151,720 each, GM workers received an annual average of $146,520, Ford workers received an annual average of $141,020 each, and workers for Toyota, Honda, or Nissan received an annual average of $96,000 each. Breaking those numbers down into hourly wages, Chrysler paid the workers $75.86 an hour of compensation, GM paid $73.26 an hour of compensation, Ford paid $70.51 an hour for compensation, and Toyota, Honda, or Nissan paid $48.00 hour for compensation. 

How many jobs do you know of, especially jobs requiring a mere high school degree, that will pay comepensation of even $48.00 an hour, not to mention almost $76.00 an hour of total compensation? How can it be that a high school degree can earn someone over $150,000 a year? And why is it that Toyota, Honda, or Nissan workers make almost $30 less an hour or $55,000 less than Chrysler workers? The “Big 3” car companies have the United Auto Workers (UAW) union working for them, the Japanese companies do not.

The UAW is responsible for the astronomical wages that these workers earn, the enormous compensation packages they receive, and the lavish pensions rewarded to the workers. Sure the workers love it, but it is extremely difficult for a business to undertake such enormous costs and be profitable. And what are the car companies at the current time? Unprofitable.

It is true, however, that Chrysler, GM, and Ford don’t absorb these exorbitant prices. They do what any business does when the cost of doing business increases: change things like passing the increased cost along to the customer. Imagine how much cheaper a new car would be if the average UAW worker screwing in the headlights was not getting $75.00 an hour, if that worker was not earning over $150,000 a year. Moreover, in addition to passing these costs on to the consumer, spending such money unnecessarily hampers innovation, research, and expansion.

When Chrysler got bailed out the first time back in the late 1970s there workers were making two and a half times the amount the national average was for someone in their line of work. Two and a half times more! It’s no wonder they were failing when they were basically throwing money away at paying their workers. Reviewing the aforementioned numbers, it seems as if the car companies still throw away an unnecessary amount of money on their high school educated workers. Why don’t they learn from the past? Speaking of learning from the past, why is it that American car companies take so long to adjust production to align it better with demand? Anyway, workers at the American Toyota, Honda, and Nissan plants aren’t part of the UAW and they still are nicely compensated. They also aren’t apparently on the verge of collapse. Coincidence? 

Even if you may consider yourself more patriotic for buying an American car, as in from one of the “Big 3” car companies, doing so only makes the UAW union stronger because they see the money. Conversely, if you buy an American made Japanese car, such as a Toyota Camry built inside the U.S. you are paying the American workers, not the union to pay the workers.

Other than requiring companies to pay ridiculous wages, unions are bad for business for other reasons. In a union you advance in the workplace based on seniority, which is a good concept in theory. But what happens when you work at a unionized place for two years and know infinitely more than someone that has been employed there for 25 years? Even if you would deserve the promotion due to your knowledge and skill, the other person would get it because they have been there longer, regardless of knowledge and skill. It is not difficult to see that such a scenario is disastrous for businesses. Unions also take away the worker’s voice. They claim to represent the worker’s, but really they represent the union’s own self interest. If the worker wants the same thing, then fine, they represent it. However, if the worker has an opposing want, good luck getting union support. Lastly, unions, and their policies and demands, also have a negative effect on the economy, particularly the GDP. Reverting to the asinine price of wages, assuming aggregate demand does not change, a higher paid wage leads to a decreased aggregate supply, which means a lower number of total goods and services produced, increased price levels, and a decreased real GDP.  Not only is this bad for the business, but it is also bad for the economy as a whole.

How inefficient must a business become before it realizes that unionization was a bad idea?

I am so thrilled that Jimmy Carter could be elected to his second term, even though it took almost 30 years for it to happen. But perhaps more importantly such reelection is historic. I am so delighted to be alive for this second term since I was not alive for his first. When is a rogue nation, perhaps Iran once again, going to take our citizens hostage for over a year? How long until the 20% interest rates return? When are the 70% tax rates going to make their return to boost this struggling economy? How long until the inflation rate it back up to 16%?

What do Jimmy Carter circa 1976 and Barack Obama circa 2008 have in common? Carter had and Obama has a complete lack of knowledge of international relations and the economy. The ignorance on both fronts is frightening, especially with such hateful countries that would like nothing more than to see us crumble. Domestically things could be just as grim with the utter lack of knowledge that Obama has on economic issues. I have taken two economics classes and I know more than he does. 

Obama got to where he is today based on the platform of being against the Iraqi War. Congratulations! Being so anti-war, he was also against the troop reinforcement and he was dead wrong on that. He rose to fame based on this one aspect, without having much knowledge of it, and managed to get his party’s nomination. But then the war started going well, too well to be an anti-war candidate. You know when you don’t hear anything about the Iraqi War for a month or two that things must better. Luckily for Obama, however, the economy tanked because of, in part, the subprime mortgage mess that the Democrats earnestly supported because everyone needs a house. Then Obama became a pseudo resident expert on the economy. And for some reason the ignorant Americans who are completely brain dead economically found their messiah.

Can anyone point me to an example in history where redistribution created new wealth and a better society? Certainly it didn’t go so well in Communist Russia. The last time I checked Cuba didn’t have the fastest growing economy in the world, or this hemisphere for that matter. I also want to see an example of how increasing taxes on the “rich” has previously made the middle class better. From the logical standpoint, doing so will create fewer jobs, raise prices, and be more of an incentive to drive jobs overseas. Sure the “middle class” might get a “tax cut” but it will do nothing for the economy. It won’t create new jobs, expand businesses, innovate, or even be extra cash in your wallet when prices increase. Why will they increase? A business will not absorb a tax increase and lose money; they will fire people, not hire people, raise prices, or any combination or all of the three. 

That’s something else Obama fails to realize. He claims he wants to give “tax cuts” to companies that don’t ship jobs overseas. Ironically, jobs are shipped overseas because of the astronomical tax rates they would otherwise have to endure here in America. A 40% combined corporate tax rate doesn’t help business, that’s for sure. The 40% is the current rate, who knows what it will go up to once Obama takes charge. All the European countries have lower rates, even the socialist welfare states like Sweden.   Is it too much to ask for our politicians to have knowledge of the basics of economics? The matters seem so simple and straight forward, but, in general, the policies of one party do not support the principles of economics and the policies of the other party do.

Just like after Jimmy Carter left this country in shambles, I hope someone is ready and able to rise up in four years and lead us back to security and safety, prosperity and growth, respected and feared. The prospects are not looking so well right now, but four years is a lot of time for something to happen.  After four years of being operated by someone with absolutely no experience in operating or running any type of business or other entity where money had to be earned and bills had to be paid, this country will need change. Perhaps it won’t be hard to find someone that can, again, deliver us from evil, the evil of our foreign affairs policies, or lack there of, and asinine economic policies that have been tried before, and have failed each time.

Will the law be changed so Jimmy Carter can run for a third term?

Barack Obama is a liar, or, at very least, a word twisting deceiver with his smooth talk of empty words and “inspiring” persona. And beyond my general dislike for the man on the basis of him being more or less invisible, completely unknown, and not criticize on the basis of being deemed a racist, I have two glaring examples of his lies that he has muttered in the past few days.

The first one comes from his interview on FOX News last Friday. It must have been important because he went on FOX News.   He told Major Garrett that he never heard his pastor say any offensive or derogatory words while sitting in church. But then yesterday at his race speech, he said that he did hear such comments, and tried to draw common ground by suggesting that we have all heard things by our pastors that we disagree with. Alright, fine. That has no correlation to what he previously said, in fact, it contradicted it. From never to it did happen in a couple of days, foggy memory? I doubt it, rather, I believe it is him trying to save his political career and presidential aspirations that have been, in my opinion, falsely held up, sustained, and kept away from such controversy. Apparently he saw it necessary to say one thing to initially condemn his pastor, then the other to draw comparisons to each and every one of our pastors. In his first comments concerning his apparently revered reverend, he is going to say that he has no idea of the statements made and play dumb. But then just a couple days later he changes his story? Talk about doing whatever he can to save himself. What a politician, say what you need to at the appropriate time; which leads me to my second example.

Obama runs around talking about he has been against the war from the start. But with a little fact checking from the past, one is able to conclude contrary to this statement. The first problem is being against the war since the beginning and being against the war in the beginning. He was the latter, not the former. He initially was against the war, seeing no justification to remove a brutal dictator that terrorized his own people. But then in 2003, he had thoughts that he may have been wrong to oppose it and that his position and that of President Bush really had no difference. Perhaps Obama can cite when, in 2003 at this time, President Bush was too against the war. In September of 2004 when campaigning for the Senate, he thought that pulling out of Iraq would be disastrous and even said that he would send more troops to stabilize the country. And in November of that year, he said that we are committed since we went into Iraq in the first place. Again, like the politician he is, when the American people saw Iraq as bad, mostly because of the corrupt media and their own incompetence, he changed his position and I believe has been against it ever since said change. However, he cannot logically be talking about how he has been against the war from the beginning, implying that he has for the past five years, when that obviously isn’t the case. Perhaps he was initially and has been the past few years, but what about specifically 2003 and 2004 where he likened his position to that of President Bush, that he would support a “surge,” that we cannot pull out because it would be ruinous, and we are committed now that we went. At least President Bush hasn’t changed his position from one to the other, back to the first during this war. Imagine going to war, pulling out the troops, and then putting them back into action. We cannot have a president that changes such important positions depending on what the average, ignorant American thinks. Who knows who they are polling anyway? Yet he still gives his speeches on how he’s been against the war from the get go. 

How long will it be until we see the “Obama Lied” bumper stickers?

Isn’t it ironic how things work sometimes? The Republicans are the party of disenfranchising voters, I mean, they stole the 2000 election by doing such, and routinely disenfranchise blacks and poor people. Not to mention those Republicans always want to pass a voter ID laws where those same people would again be disenfranchised because they wouldn’t be able to afford these free IDs. This, at least, is all according to liberals. And if you listen to them, you have other problems much beyond disenfranchised voters. 

I find it funny that these minorities and poor people can’t afford free IDs and/or can’t obtain them. But I bet they don’t have any problem getting government handouts. If you can have one privilege, free stuff, then in order to obtain the other privilege you too should have to, in a way, earn it. Not to mention doing so is chock full of benefits, like voting for those who will keep the handouts coming. 

Here is where the irony comes into play; the Democrats are now essentially disenfranchising voters with the whole mess they made in Florida and Michigan. Here’s the thing, the Republicans can coherently solve the problem on their side by seating only half the delegates and the Democrats can’t because they said that they would seat no delegates, fine. But now that is not the case. They are trying to figure out more ways to screw over tax payers and waste more and more of their money to have primaries again or whatever. If you can’t figure out how to nominate a president, then how is that president going to run a country? If you can’t run your party, your party can’t run this country. 

So it stands, at the current time, all of the Florida and Michigan voters are being disenfranchised, or something like that. I hate to break it to them, but it isn’t my problem that the Democrats can’t figure out how to nominate a candidate. It is quite funny to see them trying to scramble to fix the mess that they made. A mess they can’t fix by raising taxes, though one they can “fix” by squandering more tax dollars on stupid things. But that is second nature to them anyway. They didn’t think they would have to worry about this mess, that Hillary would have had the nomination locked up when they made this genius decision. But now it seems as if those delegates from Florida and Michigan would put her ahead in the delegate count. And Howard Dean is showing fine Democratic leadership by not solving the problem. Is there no direction in this party?

And we want to elect these people to run our country? I don’t get it…

I wish school didn't waste so much of my time; I would much rather wisely spend said time writing here.  Unfortunately, that is not the case.  But there is one thing that made me completely and utterly enraged today, the state I reside in, Minnesota.  Soon I will no longer be able to hate it any more, for my hatred will be at its maximum point.

Minnesota is already one of the highest taxed states, but that doesn't stop the democrats from wanting more, more, more.  And now, more of my money they will be stealing out of my pocket; socialism at its finest.  The legislature passed one of the largest tax increase in state history because those elected by the ignorant citizens of this worthless state like to spend money like it's not theirs...because it isn't theirs.  It is mine and I want to keep it.  Now us Minnesotans will be lucky enough to pay one of the highest gas taxes in the nation in our effort to shell out an additional $6.6 billion to these income redistributing socialists than run this state.  To Governor Pawlenty's credit, he vetoed this needless bill.  But that never stops the efforts of those longing to stab us citizens in the back...and bank account. 

My ire is great at these socialist loving democrats we, for some reason, elect.  To see them smile after passing bills to steal more of my money deepens the hatred for what they advocate.  Perhaps Minnesota should learn how to spend the already enormous and extravagant amount of money that they steal from me before taking more.  Cut off some hand outs and use that to "fix" our "broken" roads.  But that would be too hard for the democrats.

Besides, in their perfect state, Lenin would be governor and Marx would be the house leader.