For those who haven't noticed...

I've stopped posting here (except for this post, anyway) and have moved all postings to my main blog at http://csmdad.blogspot.com .  There's a link on the side, or you can just click the link here and it'll take you on over where you can read more of my in-depth, pertinent, relevant, thought provoking, insightful commentary on the day's events.

See you there!


A quick quiz from my man, Boortz

1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

A. Karl Marx
B. Adolph Hitler
C. Joseph Stalin
D. None of the above

2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few...and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."

A. Lenin
B. Mussolini
C. Idi Amin
D. None of the Above

3) "(We)...can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."

A. Nikita Khrushev
B. Jose f Goebbels
C. Boris Yeltsin
D. None of the above

4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own...in order to create this common ground."

A. Mao Tse Dung
B. Hugo Chavez
C. Kim Jong Il
D. None of the above

5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed."

A. Karl Marx
B. Lenin
C. Molotov
D. None of the above

6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."

A. Pinochet
B. Milosevic
C. Saddam Hussein
D. None of the above


(1) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/29/2004
(2) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007
(3) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(4) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(5) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(6) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 9/2/2005

Read more... HERE


The rich and taxes

Warren Buffet,"Look, tax me because I'm a patriotic American and I want to make sure our country stays strong and is fair."

If you are truly a patriotic american who wants to make sure our country stays strong and fair... why do you want the government to use police force to seize your assets instead of giving willingly and openly to those areas which need help?  Why is our government better suited for allocating your funds than you?

Last I checked, Mr Buffet, you seemed to have your finances in some semblance of order.  Can you say the same for the government?  

You scrutinize your investments.  Can you say the same for the government?

You have and hold to mission statements.  Our congressmen continually try to re-write the rulebook they swore to uphold.

Nothing keeps an american from giving more than they're taxed to the government.  If you aren't taxed enough, write a check.  Nothing keeps people from donating openly to charitable causes.

Keep your mantra out of other people's pockets.


Not because I've had nothing to say.

It has been a while, I know. Believe me, it is not because I've had nothing to say, rather, it has been the opposite, only I've been saying it, not typing it.

Today is not one of those days, so welcome back.

Have you read this?

So we now know guns in school are bad. Ok. I'll go with that. Kids should not bring guns to school. But when you say that kids can't doodle a laser pistol (with no victim) in the margin of an assignment because it is a "threat"... and suspend them for a week... ? I can't begin to tell you how many times I might have been suspended if this type of thing were going on where I went to school... when I went to school.

That's only the beginning of the story. My biggest problem in this story is the following line...

"Ben Mosteller was allowed to see his son’s drawing at the school but was not permitted to make a copy to bring home to his wife."

I can think of but one good reason why they would not let him do this. Was it because they were trying to protect his wife from this horrendous pistol drawing? Was it because they were afraid that in doing so, the father could say they were subjecting he and his wife to the same trauma?

Or could it be because the administration knew that they were being foolish and were trying to protect this drawing from winding up in the media's hands?

I suspect the latter.

Every day, I'm happier that we homeschool.


Stossel vs Moore - The pre-20/20 report

The following transcript is taken from Townhall.com where John Stossel has a regular column. In this particular one, he shares his interview encounter with Michael Moore, director of Sicko and a few other recent popular movies (Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 911, and my personal favorite, Canadian Bacon with John Candy {his [Candy's] 2nd to last movie})

I interviewed Michael Moore recently for an upcoming "20/20" special on health care. It's refreshing to interview a leftist who proudly admits he's a leftist. He told me that government should provide "food care" as well as health care and that big government would work if only the right people were in charge.

Moore added, "I watch your show and I know where you are coming from. ... "

He knows I defend limited government, so he tried to explain why I was wrong. He began in a revealing way:

"I gotta believe that, even though I know you're very much for the individual determining his own destiny, you also have a heart."

Notice his smuggled premise in the words "even though." In Moore's mind, someone who favors individual freedom doesn't care about his fellow human beings. If I have a heart, it's in spite of my belief in freedom and autonomy for everyone.

Doesn't it stand to reason that someone who wants everyone to be free of tyranny does so partly because he cares about others? Wishing freedom to one's fellow human beings strikes me as a sign of benevolence. But Moore and the left don't see it that way.

Moore thinks respecting others' freedom means refusing to help the less fortunate. But where's the connection? All it means is that the libertarian refuses to sanction the use of physical force (which is what government is) to help others. Peaceful methods -- like voluntary charity -- are the only morally consistent methods. I give about a quarter of my income to charities because I've seen that private charity helps the needy far better than government does

Moore followed up with a religious lesson. "What the nuns told me is true: We will be judged by how we treat the least among us. And that in order to be accepted into heaven, we're gonna be asked a series of questions. When I was hungry, did you feed me? When I was homeless, did you give me shelter? And when I was sick, did you take care of me?"

I'm not a theologian, but I do know that when people are ordered by the government to be charitable, it's not virtuous; it's compelled. Why would anyone get into heaven because he pays taxes under threat of imprisonment? Moral action is freely chosen action.

I'm not a theologian, but I do know that when people are ordered by the government to be charitable, it's not virtuous; it's compelled. Why would anyone get into heaven because he pays taxes under threat of imprisonment? Moral action is freely chosen action.

If Moore's goal is to help the less fortunate, he should preach voluntary charity instead of government action.

Surprisingly, he did show an understanding of the importance of the libertarian philosophy to America. "John, your way of thinking actually was great for this country. I mean it; it helped to found the country. It helped build us into one of the greatest nations, perhaps the greatest nation, that the earth has ever seen. Limited government, pull yourself up by your bootstraps, every man for himself, forward movement, pioneer spirit. That's why a lot of people in these other countries really admire us, because there's this American get up and go."

I interrupt here to point out another smuggled premise. Did you catch that "every man for himself" line? America was never about every man for himself. A free society is about voluntary communities cooperating through the division of labor. Libertarianism is far from "every man for himself."

After acknowledging that limited government helped make America great, Moore went on to say, "But I don't think that what you believe is what's going to allow us to survive."

He means that if government does not assure people health care and food, our society will disintegrate.

But why would a philosophy that was good enough to build a successful society be unsuited to sustaining that society? Individual freedom, with minimal government, made it possible for masses of people to cooperate for mutual advantage. As a result, society could be rich and peaceful. As the great economist Ludwig von Mises wrote, "What makes friendly relations between human beings possible is the higher productivity of the division of labor. . . . A preeminent common interest, the preservation and further intensification of social cooperation, becomes paramount and obliterates all essential collisions."

Freedom and benevolence go hand in hand.


Getting myself in trouble

I've been quiet for a while and it is in no part to my having nothing to say. I've had LOTS to say, but haven't. Prepare for a partial windfall of what I've been stewing about for the past week.

1: This is a special note to Republicans, Democrats, and fellow Libertarians alike.

Stop the crap. I had a serious conversation with J the other day about just upgrading to a larger sail and circumnavigating the globe for a while until we find a place that's not going down the toilet in which to live. We homeschool anyway (and the imperial government even wants its hands in that as well) and there's a lot to learn on a boat... physics, biology, electronics, math, astronomy, literature, history.

Republicans: People who oppose the war in Iraq are not unamerican (They may not be thinking it all the way through the same way as you or me, but they're not unamerican on that accord alone). People who oppose waving a magic wand at the illegal alien problem are not unamerican. There are places for religion... in homes, in churches, in the hearts and minds of those who practice. Stop trying to legislate morality beyond the BIG 10. The constitution was erected to protect the rights of the individual, not limit them with improper legislation preventing two loving consenting adults from calling themselves married... who the hell are you to tell me I'm married to my wife or not anyway. Marriage is a church or personal arrangement, not the government's business. Stop Eminent Domain Abuse. Stop spending like drunken sailors and get back to your stated principles. Pardon agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, they were doing their job... the job YOU hired them for and sent them to do.

Democrats: Robin Hood is a fictional character. I've never heard of a poor person giving someone a job. The rich are so because they do the things which make them rich, the poor are so because they do the things that make them poor. Redistribute all you like, it will always be that way. You can't just solve a problem by waving a magic (often made of money) wand at it. You don't help a guy without a job by giving him an income without work. You teach him to not work. Just because kids pray in school doesn't mean you have to... their freedom of speech is just as important as yours. There are more amendments to the Constitution than the first... start your re-education by reading the second. Actually, re-read the whole darn thing, along with the Federalist Papers, and take copious notes. Stop Eminent Domain Abuse. Stop spending like drunken sailors and get back to your stated principles. And if you really want to relieve the burden at the pump, don't tax the corporations, they'll add the tax to the price of a gallon... How about starting by taking away the tax you place on us for purchasing gas. That'd be a good start.

Speaking of taxes you guys... how much tax did England expect us to pay before we revolted?

Libertarians: We have other platforms than pointing out the failure of the dumb "War on Drugs". They actually sell pretty well also. Stop making us look like a bunch of drug crazed hippies, people don't take us seriously when you do that. Oh, and that Isolationism platform... it didn't work in WWI or WWII. Sometimes we've got to go there before they get here... sometimes. Start reminding people how we can get back to a basic government at reduced cost while still providing the basic services a federal government should provide.

2: "The bill would tighten borders, institute a new system to prevent employers from hiring undocumented workers, and give many of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants a pathway to legal status." Horsesqueeze. You want to give 12 Meg of illegals a path to legal status? Send'em home and let them do it the LEGAL way. If that takes too long or is too hard... FIX IT. The problem is not a lack of laws... its a lack of enforcement. You can't tell me it can't be done.

What happens when a 12 year old goes into a store to buy alcohol? Why? Now why can't we enforce the legal status of immigrants and kick out those who are breaking the law?

Just because people oppose illegal immigration does not mean we oppose immigration. And while I'm on the topic... what's with this point system?!? We should not deny, nor give preferential treatment to people when considering citizenship because they have a certain skill set. If they have something to contribute, give'em a work visa and a plane ticket over... they're in line just like anyone else for their citizenship though.

3:  Have I mentioned that I hate it when people I work with tell me they vote republican because they [republicans] give us [the military] raises?  Well, I hate it.  You vote for or against people for an elected office because of their stance on issues which affect the departments and constituents overwhich they would control and influence... not personal job security.  That's the same  "gimmie" attitude you complain about the democrats having (or haven't you noticed?)

Ok... I think I've successfully driven off the three people who ever read this blog.  I'll post again when my reader base replenishes.


Say WHAT?!?

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards and his wife reported $29.5 million in assets, including millions of dollars in a hedge fund he worked for part-time.

The couple also reported investment income of nearly $6 million over the past 16 months and earned income for Edwards of $1.25 million.

His biggest single source of earned income was his $479,512 salary from Fortress Investment Group, the hedge fund for which he was a consultant last year.

Edwards has made fighting poverty a signature element of his campaign. He has said his work for a fund that generally caters to the wealthiest of investors was designed to educate him about the relationship between poverty and wealth and should not overshadow his work for the poor.
Wait, let me get that last line there...

He has said his work for a fund that generally caters to the wealthiest of investors was designed to educate him about the relationship between poverty and wealth and should not overshadow his work for the poor.

How on earth can suckers on the left actually believe people like Edwards when they say they are for the poor? Edwards is for Edwards.

Tell me, how can you be FOR THE POOR, when at every turn you are coming up with more plans to keep them dependent on the government? Why not allow them to excel? Why not keep more money in the private sector so jobs can be created and the poor could collect EMPLOYMENT checks?

Oh... who am I kidding? That would make Republicans (or worse... free thinking LIBERTARIANS) out of them and the democratic party would cease to have a cause.

Oh, wait... they'd still have global warming, right?

Go ahead Edwards. Earn your money. I'm not faulting you for that. Just don't try to tell me you were doing it "for the poor".
More to follow...