Liberals are attacking Bush for not destroying Georgia

We are now watching a new round of attacks on Bush (you know Lefties, the more you attack Bush the more I respect him). This time the anti-war people on the Left are saying Bush is not doing enough about the Russian invasion of Georgia.

Now this invasion pisses me off. It is pure naked aggression, and Russia only felt secure doing it because we are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. And that is what the Left is using. They are saying we don't have enough troops to respond to Russia's invasion and that Bush is so preoccupied with Iraq that he let Russia invade.

So what is your solution, Lefty? Oh, you have no solution? You just liking taking shots at legally-elected George W. Bush because you are mad your side can't get control of the White House.

Your implication seem to be that we should respond militarily to this problem. So let's say that we did not work to liberate Iraq as we did. So now half of our forces are sitting on state-side American military bases waiting for something to happen. Now Russian invades Georgia. So we load up our first-response airborne and Marine expeditionary forces and land them in Georgia to fight the Russians, while the rest of our forces begin the process of loading into ships for transportation. Sorry folks, we still have move the bulk of our forces over the ocean, the idea that some people have that we can fly everyone all over the world in 2 days is a myth. And it takes several weeks to coordinate a material move the size of one needed to face down the Russians.

So now we have airborne troops and air support forces fighting the Russians in Georgia. Air strikes, anti-tank rockets, artillery barrages. In response, Russia sends in the entire 58th Army instead of just a single Motor Rifle Regiment. And being located in Vladikavkaz, they are just 15 miles from the South Ossetia border (vs our forces which are 6000 miles away). This means one airborne division (the other still working in Afghanistan) plus one Marine expeditionary forces (with American air support) is fighting an entire army alone, in Georgia. Meanwhile 9 other Russian armies are gearing up to reinforce the 58th.

The Russians arrive in force and eventually the American military machine arrives and we finally go toe-to-toe with the Russians. More air strikes, tank battles, heavy artillery barrages, and hand-to-hand fighting. Now don't get me wrong, the American military will wipe up the countryside with the Russians. Even now there isn't a weapon that can penetrate a M1 Abrams tank (I don't think a M1 can destroy a M1). But the towns of Sup'sa, Samtredia, K'ut'aisi, Khashuri, Gori and T'bilisi with be smoking, flaming wrecks.

The entire country of Georgia will be a wasteland. Millions of civilians will be dead, millions more starving and homeless. So now we have to fly in emergency supplies and aid workers, plus start rebuilding the country at our expense because Russia would never pay. Golly, it sounds like Iraq over there, doesn't it??? And since there would have been no Iraq war to compare this to, the Left-wing press would be all over Bush for this over-blown response.

Or we could continue to show support for the freely elected Georgian government and let the UN actually enforce their demands for once in their worthless existance and push Russia out of Georgia without destroying the country. The minute blue-hats land in T'bilisi, the Russians will actually fall back into Ossetia. They are just flexing their muscles to see how long they can get away with it. Its not as if they in Spetznatz with heavy armor support. Its a bunch of lazy 18-year olds on outdated APCs. Their "success" is due to superior numbers, not superior forces. Its like a 30-year with a gun breaking into a house where only a 12-year old is home at the time. Eventually the child's parents will come home and the 30-year old will have to flee, but until then he is raiding the fridge and not using coasters for his beer cans.

That's how it breaks down to me. Either we let the world handle this (aka the UN) with our backing and let it end in a couple of weeks (remember, the majority of the destruction is in South Ossetia where the trouble started, and in the one town of Gori); or we could send hundreds of thousands of US troops in there to fight back the Russian armies and destroy the entire country.

And I thought the Left was supposed to be the compassionate anti-war party.

The Fallicies of Majority Vote

So I'm watching Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity talking about Ludacris's new song for Obama. The only I have to say about the song is this the reason Obama won't win. Most American voters are white. This isn't racism, its fact. And middle-class white voters aren't going to vote for someone who chronically associates himself with extreme racists.

But what has stirred me is the line about Barrack winning majority vote in every state. It was also used by Hillary at the end of her FAILED bid for the Presidency. If I may quote the Constitution: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector." "The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President..." and "The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President..."

So basically it says each State shall appoint Electors who will vote by ballot for the President, and the person with the majority shall be the President. Can anyone find anywhere in the United States Constitution where the President of the United States is elected by the majority vote of U.S. citizens? No, you can't because it doesn't exist. That is not how our system works, it never has! So teachers and parents, take the time to learn how our government works so this fallacy will stop. And die-hard Democrats, quit your bitching about the 2000 election. George W. Bush won the majority of electoral votes as outlined in the Constitution and has been a far better President than the weakling coward liar Al Gore.

And don't waste our time in November by complaining that Barrack Hussein (yep, I said it!) Obama lost unfairly. He will lose because he is wrong: the wrong person for the job and wrong about everything he believes in (except that men should be more responsible fathers, he is right on that score, but he should expand to include women too).

California Communists Strike Again

According to a Wall Street Journal article today, LA city-council member Jan Perry wants to band fast food restaurants from opening in her section of the city. Her reasoning is perfectly consistent with the Left's philosophy that people are not responsible for their own actions. In a quote from the article "The targeted area is already home to some 400 fast-food restaurants, she says, possibly contributing to high obesity rates there..." Did you get that? Possibly contributing... So let's create laws banning some of the greatest free market success stories because maybe, just maybe they might possibly be helping people get fat.

Let's completely ignore the fact that in order for fast food to actually make people fat, the people first have to choose to eat it and then they have to choose to not exercise. We can ignore that because that falls to individual responsibility wherein each person makes that decision on their own, each and every time they eat there. And since the Left doesn't believe that even exists, we can't really use that as an argument. So when we eliminate that, what remains?

Oh yeah, that fact that you can't even support your own claim, and admit with your own words. You want to limit financial growth and prevent the creation of new jobs in your district for the sole reason of making it seem like you are dealing with the obesity problems in your district.

People like you, Jan Perry, make me sick to my stomach. You look at the Constitution (you have read it, right?) and say "well it doesn't expressly forbid me from limiting civil liberties in this way, so it must be ok." The job of lawmakers is not to create laws just to make it look like they are earning their salaries. In fact, the problem of obesity in your district is not yours to solve. It is an individual problem to face. If an individual asks you for help, them help that person.

And I'm sure your primary argument is that it raises the cost of public health care. But here is a thought, radical as it is. How about denying health care to people who are not willing to take responsibility for their own health. Oh, but we can't do that, healthcare is an American right! Isn't it, Liberals? It says so right in the Constitution, doesn't it? Wait, I can't find it. Did I miss it somewhere?

No, I didn't because it does not exist. Denying people the right to choose is not the answer to any problem, unless the problem is "How do we turn the United States into a Communist State?" If people are choosing to be obese and unhealthy (and make no mistake it is a choice for 99% of those who are, its a choice to take the easy way out and blame others), then chose to deny them free health care.

But that's not a Liberal response, so try this. Assign a health care tax to every plate of chili-cheese fries. Increasing taxes is a very liberal response, plus it helps offset the cost of health care. Set a colorie limit, total the calories in each bill (its not that hard since nearly every restaurant uses a computer to calculate the bill) then divide by the number of eaters. If the average exceeds 600 calories, slap a sliding-scale tax on it. Either the eater pays for his/her own health care, or they can't afford to order the item so they don't get fat from it. (Please note, I do not endorse this. It is simply a suggestion to help the Left tax their way into feeling good about themselves.)

fSexfuallfy Exfplicfit

Can one of you spammers please explain to me this naming system? If I have taken the time to create a filter blocking the word "Sexually Explicit" from reaching my inbox, why would I open your spam-mail? Its obviously the same material I purposefully blocked initially, so why would I now open it when it has clearing been sent by a moron this time?

Do us all a favor SPAMMERS, make it clear and concise in your subject line what your email is about without trying to bypass filters. That those who will actually open your garbage will still receive it and open it (since they won't have created the filters in the first place), but saving those of us who will never even open the spam-mail much less give you money from your filth. Can you do that? Probably not since you are scum to begin with.

Since when are economic policies supposed to increase the number of people on Welfare?

Does it strike anyone else as strange that John McCain says he doesn't know as much about economics as he should, yet his economic plan is the best of the two?

McCain's plan is to cut taxes on businesses. I'm sure many people see this and say "but then they will raise taxes on workers to make up the difference!" And as long Liberals run Congress, that's probably true. That's the Socialist way, tax everyone 100% then redistribute it the way they want to. And guess what, that means you get a shot at whatever is leftover after they take their share. Care to guess who gets the higher percentage? That is how Socialization...I mean, er...Nationalization works. The government, that can't even balance their own budget and have spent away the portion of your retirement fund that they force you to pay, will decide how much money, fuel, food and the luxury items that Americans thrive on (televisions, computers, cars, and good old toilet paper) that each individual citizen is entitled to. This only benefits those way at the bottom of the social-economic ladder that would rather lay around all day instead of working, at the expense of all the rest of Americans.

But back on the candidates' economic plans. One of the core truths of economics is that businesses do not pay taxes out of their pockets, that slap that burden onto their customers by raising prices. They have to, there is no other way for them to pay the difference. By lowering taxes on businesses, two things happen: 1) businesses lower prices and 2) they can hire more workers.

So what are the benefits of each of these results? Since most consumers have a limited, fixed amount of money to use each month (within certain parameters), lower prices means consumers can buy more items. To account for increased demand on goods, businesses have to hire more workers to supply more goods and services to meet the demand. This means more people have money to purchase more goods from more companies (because once you meet daily needs such as food, clothing, and toilet paper, you stretch out into comfort and luxury items which is where the American economy actually lies). As more and more people are able to buy more and more goods and services, more workers are needed and the work force becomes more specialized which increases the need for trained and educated workers which increases wages and the economy gets even stronger.

This is all sounds good for John Q. Public, but how does that help keep taxes down? This part is even more simple. If you have 1000 workers earning $1600 a month ($10/hr) paying 30% taxes, the government gets $480,000 a month in taxes. But if you only have 500 workers earning $800 a month ($5/hr) and 500 unemployed earning $0, at 30% the government only gets $120,000 a month. So they have to raise taxes. But to make up the difference they would have to raise taxes, except that would require taxing at 120%, which is of course not even possible so they tax at 50% and borrow the rest from China.

In the first economy workers have $1120 per month to spend on goods and services in the economy and the government has $480,000. In the second, workers have $400 per month and the government has to borrow (and pay interest) on the $320,000 SHORTFALL. Plus, they have to increase their spending to help the 500 unemployed. Which economy do you want to live in???

So now I've made McCain's plan sound all rosey and good (which it is), how does Obama's plan stack up? He wants to raise taxes on businesses and use the money to fund Social and Welfare programs. This causes businesses to raise prices because they have to, and to fire workers because 1) the business can't afford to keep them and 2) the higher prices means consumers are buying fewer individual items so supply exceed demand and fewer workers are needed to keep up. So now you have fewer consumers and fewer people paying taxes and the government has to borrow even more money to pay unemployment and Welfare to the poor people that the government made poor to begin with by forcing their companies to fire them to be able to afford the extra taxes levied on them.

Basically Obama's plan creates a larger poor class so that Uncle Obama and Aunt Pelosi can take care of you in the way they want to, instead of giving you the freedom to choose on your own. And we all know deep down inside that money is freedom. Anyone who thinks differently has never been poor (and believe me I have, but am no longer). Money buys us transportation to leave our homes and gives a reason and destination once we do leave. Six Flags, Disney World, Oceans of Fun or even Put-put Golf all take money. State Parks, National Parks, Wildlife Refuges charge admission and require gas (and we know how much money that takes). Even picnics in the park require a car and gas, or at the very least, bus fare. Want to play catch with your kid? You need to buy a ball and maybe some ball gloves.

Money is freedom and that will never change. So the question is do you want to decide how to earn and spend that money? Or do you want Uncle Obama and Aunt Pelosi to make those decisions for you?

In the spirit of change, Obama says the same old things.

Once again Obama proves himself to be the very politician he claims to despise. In reading Liz Sidoti's article today about the Presidential candidates' position on the Supreme Court's ruling to end the D.C. handgun ban (at least they were 1 for 3 today), Obama flip-flops on this one subject than John Kerry did in his entire FAILED campaign in 2004.

"'You said in Idaho recently, I'm quoting here, 'I have no intention of taking away folks' guns.' But you support the D.C. handgun ban and you've said that it's constitutional," said the moderator, Leon Harris of Washington television station WJLA.

'So, there is nothing wrong, I think, with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets,' Obama said."

My question, Senator Obama, is this: How does banning average law-banning citizen from owning handguns get ILLEGAL weapons off the streets? It is the very nature of criminals to behave in an illegal fashion, that is why they are criminals. In other words, making it against the law to own a handgun won't make criminals surrender their firearms since they are already intentionally breaking the law. All it does is make their illegal activities easier.

Let's look at this another way. Here is another quote from Obama in the same article "...but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets..." I think everyone can agree that criminals are lazy and selfish. Everything they do is for themselves (yes you can cite stories about how people steal to feed their families, but there are other ways to feed your children so its not a valid argument). They want to get things things the easy way, otherwise they would work like the rest of the population (again arguments about how work is hard to find is invalid because there are many jobs out there, people are just not willing to 'demean' themselves in order to take some of these jobs, plus why should they when the Social Welfare state the Congress has created will coddle them).

So basically you have a bunch of lazy, self-serving criminals looking for the easiest score. Their choices are a house in Virginia where free handgun laws make any home likely to be protected or a house in Washington D.C. where it is against the law to own a gun. That lazy bastard is going to pick D.C. clean because he knows he's the most heavily armed so the victims have to comply with any and all demands. Whether that's watching his 62" flat-screen walk out the front door, or watching his wife and daughter getting gang-raped.

Laws do not stop criminals, point blank. Neither do police. It is naive to think so. That's not an attack on the police, it is simply not how the world works. The police exist to solve crimes and arrest criminals in an effort to prevent that specific individual from committing a future crime (and OK, every once in awhile a cop stumbles upon a crime in progress and will do everything he/she can to stop it.). But the only way to stop crime is to stop potential criminals before they commit the crime, and until ESP is more commonplace that is impossible.

The only way to stop crime before it occurs is deterence. You can either make the legal alternative more attractive than the crime or make the crime less attractive than the legal alternative. For the first part, increasing pay faster than inflation is the best option, but not necessarily practical (especially with increasing consumer prices). Or make the punishment for the crime so severe that the daily grind of washing dishes or flipping burgers is Disney Land in comparison.

And the first step needs to be the real fear of death, even if its just a burglary. Some will scoff at that and ask how getting killed over a television is right. My response is simple: if the criminal proceeds with the crime knowing he may be killed in the process, he is voluntarily accepting that as a consequence. Most crime is a voluntary act. By knowingly committing a crime, you are consenting to all possible punishments. If the criminal doesn't feel that television is worth dying for, then he shouldn't try to steal it. Its really that simple.

And Mr. Obama do not try to take the cowardly way and use Congress to take away my Springfield XD subcompact, or my shotguns, or my Remington 700. If you wish to try and take my Constitutionally-protected rights from me, come to my home and attempt it personally.

But Obama's flawed ideas on guns does not end there. He wants to eliminate all semi-automatic weapons, grouping them all under the often misused term "Assualt Weapons." Appearantly ignorant people claim its easier to kill larger numbers with "Assault Weapons." Maybe they ask Charles Whitman, who on August 1, 1966 killed most of his 16 victims with a 6mm bolt-action. Meanwhile Robert Hawkins was only able to kill 8 people with his "semi-automatic rifle" in Omaha's Crossroads mall in Dec 2007.

The gun is nothing more than a tool for the shooter. Without a shooter, a gun is nothing more than a chunk of wood and metal. You cannot blame the gun, and you certainly cannot blame the gun manufacturer. They are simply producing a consumer good that is in demand. You cannot blame Remington for Charles Whitman any more than you can blame Eli Lilly and Co because a depressed teenager committed suicide while on Prozac.

Obama is a FOOL and a SOCIALIST. His plans and ideas are dangerous for Americans. Just ask the Russians. In case you are unfamiliar with history, the USSR (that's Union of Soviet SOCIALISTS Republics) failed miserably. Put this man in charge with backing from the Congressional Communists from California (headed by Maxine "Nationalizing Big Oil" Waters), and we will be goose-stepping around Carter's tomb in 5 years.