I been away for a while and it seems things went crazy. An oil spill, Health care reform (sort of), obamania wearing off, and the Republicans taking back congress just to name a few. Well, I will try and give my thoughts breifly on each one.

The Oil Spill – Well… I saw the live videos, the reports and estimates from everyone it seems. I loved how suddenly everyone became an expert on such obscure subjects as “how much oil can come from an open 21 inch diameter pipe at ocean depths”. Everyday some new “expert” was telling me there was ever more oil coming from the well. No estimates were good after a day or two, and no two estimates were alike. It was almost like a contest to see who could put up the largest numbers. Frankly it all got a bit confusing.

Finally I asked how much oil came out of it. No one seems to know. I then asked how much oil was in the well originally. And again no one seems to know that either. Just seems rather odd that all these people and groups or organizations can claim this or that millions/bajillions of oil is spilling per day but no one can tell me how much was in the well it was coming from and finally how much came out after it was essentially capped. I smell media and political BS…

Don’t get me wrong the oil spill was a terrible tragedy and it was obviously an insane amount of oil did spill, but that does not make it alright for politicians and media to BS me. All I want is the truth, you guys got that? Don’t pander to me, don’t lie to me or try to scare me, just tell me like it is. I can’t understand why this is such a hard thing to grasp. 

To show what I mean do a google search for either “how much oil was originally in the deepwater horizon well”, or “how much oil was spilled in the deepwater horizon oil spill” and see what you get. You will get (like I did) a huge listing of things all of which do not answer either question. You will find various estimates on how much flowed per day ranging from 100,000 barrels a day to 1000 barrels a day. As it turns out it was estimated finally on August 2nd officially at 62,000 barrels a day. But even the best estimates cannot compensate accurately for however much methane or other substances/gases came out with the oil. And even BP couldn’t tell me how much was in the oil well they had a hole at that depth and at great expense to get. What the hell guys? You cannot seriously expect me to believe you would dig a well like that and at such great difficulty, setting a record for depth and all that, with no real knowledge about the amount of oil (profit) you stood to gain from it. If you are still using “best guess” in todays age of technology its a wonder you ever found any oil at all.

Oil drilling is a business. Its run like a business and doing risky things like that oil well with no idea if it would even be profitable is just unbelievable. They would not spend so much time money and effort into a well like that unless they had a dam good idea there was a LOT of oil there.

The bottom line is, if we knew how much oil was in the well to begin with all the scary headlines and numbers or estimates would either be bogus or just a start at the real damage. By not having a clear estimate to the amount in the well they do not have a way to show how much they lost in revenue from that well either. Kind of handy number for an investor to have wouldn’t you think? Yeah…

No matter what the damage to the environment is incomprehensible. This will be felt for generations of wildlife and that is a tragedy of epic proportions. But in the end I would still want the truth no matter how big or small it may be.

Health Care Reform– This next line is for my nephew and brother… TOLD YA SO!… Yeah they both said “no way, it will pass” but I told them it will pass because its really a global thing and soon all countries will have some form of socialized medical system. Its simple really, medical costs are out of control. Costs from the obvious like the equipment, facilities and professionals to the not so obvious like malpractice suits/insurance,unpaid medical debt, and the ever growing cost of keeping the technology up to date. Not to mention the fact that as our standards of living get better we in turn live longer, have lower birth mortality rates, and more people living longer means more diseases by volume to treat.

To show what I mean lets do a little hypothetical math here… First say we have 1000 people 5 years ago. Of those say 50 have some form of disease requiring treatment to varying degrees and we have 1 doctor to treat them. 5 years later those 1000 people are now 3000 and instead of the 50 with diseases needing treatment we now have 150. We now need 3 doctors, and 3 times the number of everything that treatment entails. Now none of those numbers are based on any real data they are just common sense and logic. But using them we can see how nearly 400 million people in a country can lead to medical costs skyrocketing. You add in the other factors mentioned previously and you have medical costs that cannot be stopped or slowed. Also as infant mortality rates drop with better medical treatment, so will the number of diseases needing treatment increase across the board. If you have 100 live births and 10 have diseases needing treatment, increasing live births to 1000 will increase the number of diseases to 100. Even if we manage to early diagnose and or cure some of those diseases they will not match the increase even in the best estimations.

All of this means we will need more medical professionals, more facilities, more medicines, and more of just about everything related. As those increase so will the number of malpractice suits, and unpaid medical bills leading to rising costs in malpractice insurance and outstanding debt. Using simple logic and reason we have to concede there is no other way to combat this cycle without a fundamental change. Like it or not there is no other viable alternative.

I am not a fan of this Obamacare or most socialized medical schemes in the world, but until there is fundamental change in the medical profession we have little choice.

Obamania wearing off – Yeah… Even a nobel prize for nothing can’t stop the reality from coming in under the door. Superman lost his cape and his approval ratings are plummeting already. All I can say is I told ya so… One more example of how new or different is not always better. So far outside of health care he has pretty much mirrored George W’s policies. But I guess its different because hes not George W….. Okay…

When I saw how close he and Kissinger were I smelled a rat. And sure enough its business as usual. We are still in Afghanistan just as I said we would be. We are still throwing money at problems and increasing debt exponentially and despite all the big talk nothing outside healthcare has changed anywhere near what was promised. Oh and no repeal on the patriot act either…. Thanks for the BS Mr. professional politician.

Republicans taking back congress – Saw that coming… With a presidential approval rating in the gutter and the democratic congress showing their true democrat nature ( spend, spend, spend) there was little doubt they were going to be gone soon. The sad thing is though many people just went in and voted Republican across the ballot with no idea who many of the people they voted for were or what they were about. I can’t help but fear a few 700 club members got in the mix. I am sorry but I like my religion and government to be separate. Whenever the two mix it always ends badly.

And BTW for anyone who watches the 700 club. They have been going on about the separation of church and state for a while now. In fact Pat Robertson likes to pretend he is a constitutional law expert and claim the first amendment to the constitution does not mention the separation of church and state… Well Pat you are right it doesn’t say those words. Here is what it DOES say word for word..

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

It says there very plainly that congress shall not make any laws establishing a national religion or church. That means they wanted the church to remain a separate entity from the government. Separate and chosen individually by each person on their own with no interference from the government. Pretty clear to me its meaning anyway.

Pat likes to twist words and meanings around on this as you can see on his official website here. Read as much as you can, but please try and at least get through the first 5 paragraphs. In his words there he associates the word “state” to mean state as in “Ohio” or “Virginia”. However the word “state” when used to describe the first amendment clearly means the government, or the federal government to be more precise. For example we have a secretary of state. So that person is not the secretary of each state but rather the secretary of the federal government. In fact this is from wikkipedia

The United States Secretary of State is the head of the United States Department of State, concerned with foreign affairs. The Secretary is a member of the Cabinetand the highest-ranking cabinet secretary both in line of succession and order of precedence. The current Secretary of State is Hillary Rodham Clinton, the 67th person, and third woman to hold the post.”

So if the US Secretary of State does not oversee the States in the union but rather foreign affairs. One can easily see how the term “state” refers to the government itself and not the States in the union individually. So in Pat’s ramblings about this on his website he tries to associate the term “state” inaccurately in so doing makes it all too clear that he is trying to use misleading and utter false information to justify his belief that we need religious oversight in government. Sorry Pat but you are flat wrong on that, and trying to use word play will not make it right.

Allowing church to influence government in any manner ultimately will result in a violation of the first amendment. And all the wordplay and misleading arguments will not change that. Do I think having witnesses swear in using a bible or having the supreme court start meetings with prayer while telling schools they can’t do that is hypocritical? You bet I do, but that DOES NOT change the fact there is a separation of church and state by the first amendment nor does it make it okay to allow church or religion to influence government. I say take all references to religion out of all court and government proceedings. Courts are supposed to be about law, they make it very clear that justice, right and wrong and truth are subject to proof under the laws. What we feel, think or want to believe are to be put aside and what we can prove under the law is all that will stand. If that is indeed the case than religion cannot be a factor in the courts or laws. The two cannot coexist in any functional form. One is faith based, the other is fact based. A judge or lawyer can use his personal religion as a moral compass to make his decisions or choices but that would be on a personal level, not an action of the court itself or laws. For example murder is both illegal and immoral in a religious and social sense. So that is an easy and nearly universal decision. However not paying your taxes is illegal and although not socially accepted it is a far cry from universally viewed as immoral. Is not paying your taxes a sin? Seems a bit foggy now doesn’t it…. Thats the problem with mixing religion and government as well. Sometimes the correct action or decision is not a correct religious one and vice versa. 

So thats about enough constitutional law interpretation from the religious right if you don’t mind….


Sometimes things that seem like a greater good on the outside, have a much darker potential inside. Take for example the United Nations, and so many of their affiliates. On the outside or at first glance, things like Global sustainability research or Agenda 21 seem like good and noble undertakings. But look at the actual documents and then the way they are being implemented, and we may get a different picture.

A one world government sounds all wonderful but is it the government we want? Socialism sounds like a fine idea but is it truly a government for the people?

You run down the list of agencies in the UN who will be interacting and changing things in the various countries of the world and you will find a great number of experts from all fields one can imagine. And although they are considered experts, do they have our best interests in mind or those of their stated agendas? After all they are not voted in to their position, nor are they even appointed by our governments elected officials. So who can say that this or that expert from another country is able to grasp a situation in a country which may give extenuating circumstance to a proposed new legislation or action.

Say he is to integrate new environmental laws to coincide with those of the UN, and finds they are not applicable or even effective in a given country? Will he be more obligated to the UN or the people he is supposed be there to help. Well he wasn’t appointed by that countries government, and not elected. In fact the only oversight they have is from the UN itself. We cannot refuse their plan or it will be a violation of UN agreements. If we say no to them we are listed as a rogue nation or receive sanctions or embargoes.

Remember in this country our forefathers made the government into equal branches. That was so we would always have oversight; each one keeps the other in check. The UN’s oversight comes only from within itself. The members are not elected, they have no populace to answer to, and they can and do effect the governments of the world with near impunity. What is the old saying about power? Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The next time you here of a UN mandate or a proposed legislation or action, remember in a given situation a power will seek to preserve itself before any other considerations. This is true of even elected officials, but you consider this same principle in a governing body of unelected officials and imagine the problems that can arise.

Are they in this for us all still? Or are they in it to preserve themselves? Are their interests still our interests?

For some reason these days questioning the UN or its motives has become a traitorous offense, especially on the liberal side. You want to have a heated argument? Go to a liberal chat room or blog and write anything even questioning the UN and watch the response you get. You will be called all kinds of names, and harassed until you leave or change your tune. I am truly shocked from the behavior of the so-called liberals on anything regarding the UN or its agendas.

Why all the rage over a simple question? Debate is democratic, discussion is the key to understanding, yet from the supposed more flexible, open-minded, socially conscious, and understanding side I see little to none of these traits at all concerning the UN or its policies.

If you have any insight into this trend please share it.

Its summer time and the new batch of scary headlines are out on global warming. Or is it climate change? Or should I use the latest name for it; Anthropogenic climate change. Ever notice when the scary predictions fail to come through or the climate doesn’t do as its’ told, they change the name or more ridiculous the predictions themselves?

How about the way they word an article describing what a scientist believes? A scientist will say something like his studies show a marked increase in summer ice melt in the upper arctic region. And the press will take that and write a frightening headline that has little or nothing to do with actual science or the researchers findings. The headlines from that scientist’s statement will read “Arctic ice melting due to devastating CO2 levels” Now that’s not what he said and any true scientists would not make such a wild claim in simple statement.

Scientists work in the realm of facts, and would not make such an obvious assumption based on what little scientific evidence he had. All he knew was the ice melted more than the previous year or time since last measured or studied. He wouldn’t make such an assumption and thats the sad truth of this whole issue.

A great many of the scientists they cite and base their horror stories on are not making those assumptions. The press and their money backers are trying to sell papers or get hits to their stories, and that’s what sells. Also AL Gore and the AGW cultists are making billions off it. Its an entire green cash cow for many of them, and they will do what they can to make it pay.

And what the heck is it with all the celebrities making “green” indie films now? You have stars flying in private jets, riding in limos and living in a house the size of a federal building, drinking lattes from Styrofoam cups made from oil, all telling us that we are killing the planet with our CO2. They even put a cute little polar bear on the TV and tell you some tear jerker about ice melting and them dying from it in droves.

The truth is polar bear populations have grown from about 5000 in the 1950’s to about 20-25,000 now. In one area of Canada (Nunavut territory)the population increased 25%. They are not even an endangered species yet. Yep that’s right folks, they are not endangered. They were listed as “threatened” which means they may become endangered in the future. And whats so incredible about this is its the first creature added to this list because of the as of yet, unsure threat of AGW.

This is big business people, and big plans on control. Same old plan new application.

Let me know what you think.

Just got let down by someone I admired and respected a great deal, and the sad thing is i saw it coming but played dumb. Yeah, like some kid or something, I let it happen. Shameful a 40 year old man still trusting people like that. But I did and took this person at face value.

Yeah, I’m a sap I know. I suffer from “truebelieverism” seems the best name to give it. Its when you believe in people and truth, honor, justice, blah, blah, blah. You know when someone tells you they are a simple person who wants truth and simple existence of respect and such. Uh huh, I buy it hook line and sinker. Even when those little things begin to show that tells me the true nature of a person I deny it and keep on believing.

Let me tell ya folks, anyone who is nice to you but rude to the waiter, says all these great and wonderful things and spouts off their fine values and upstanding character, yet at every chance they get to show theses things, they act opposite their claims. These people are not the person they are selling you, just a bad person with a good line.

Well if any of you have anything similar to relate please speak up.

How many here ever met someone and thought they were a fine and wonderful person, only to find later on they are the exact opposite of what they led you to believe?

This just happened to me recently. Ya know you think at the age of 40 I would stop putting so much faith in people. I mean I have met many people who do this and yet for some reason I still take them at their word and face value. Maybe I’m an overly trusting sap, but I jsut can’t seem to stop.

Heck all someone really has to do to win my trust is ask for it the first time. Some cases it even takes me a while to see the reality of them. I mean if they sell me a good line I’ll forgive alot of conflicting behavior, even consider alot of it my fault or mistake. But even the blindest of bats will see the truth sometimes. Finally had enough little things to tell me the truth abut my latest trust mistake.

A guy in a web forum I go to once said in a post,” If a person is nice to you but rude to the waiter, he is not a good person, just a sneaky one.” Well let me tell you all, that is some of the truest but most often forgotten bit of sound advice ever.

I forgot that and didnt see the truth in front of me for almost 2 months with someone and made every excuse I could for that person. Finally in the end I had to realize the truth, and let em go. I hope you can see this quicker from people than I do. Share your thoughts on this folks.

You kill a dollar by doing what’s  being done right now.  You create more and more money or debt in the name of a bailout or stimulus package, and when the value per dollar is low enough. You call a national emergency, and bring in the new currency which will be most likely one with a stronger, wider base like the Euro. You can call it the Amero and it could represent the US, Canada, and Mexico.

Believe me folks this is coming like it or not. Just as sure as this stimulus and the next will lower the dollar to the basement. Its coming, and apparently to rounds of applause and joy. All we need anymore to believe in something that is so obviously bad, is the proper salesman.

Seriously, I am nor friend of the Bush administration but if this was from him we would be having a fit. But it comes from Obama and now its the best thing ever. Maybe I’m a bit cynnical but really, this is nuts.

Well let me know your thoughts folks.

How to kill a currency? Easy just take the money off any standard other than itself and the power of that government, minus the debts and ability to pay, then keep printing and borrowing more and more. See, very simple. In fact most won’t even realize it until after the fact.

Seriously keep supporting bailouts and stimulus packages that create billions and even trilions of new money and debt, then watch the result. Sometimes I wonder if anyone is thinking anymore. If you have a surplus of something, anything even money, each item is worth less. The more you have available of anything the less valuable per unit it will become.

This is common sense folks not rocket science. So the next time you support one of these dollar killers, remember where its going.

Another billion here, a few hundred there… What’s the difference huh? I mean we can print more right? Sure we can and then even more until the value of each one is nothing. But don’t fret we can fix that easily enough too. We will then switch over to a regional monetary unit like the Euro. Yeah, tell me how it’s not going to happen soon when we keep printing more money to stimulate the economy and bail out greedy corporations. You know there are other ways to stimulate the economy which don’t include printing vast amounts of new money and killing the dollar value.

Maybe we could stop waste in government spending, or make social security off limits for anything other than caring for the elderly. How about not asking for a 5 million dollar school levy two years after getting a 2.5 million dollar one and wasting it on nonsense. Or even better, why not keep pet projects and ear marks off the stimulus package. If you want socialism just keep supporting this nonsense.

You know what its called when the government owns all the business and property? Socialism. And what will the government get for bailing out businesses? A big fat piece of those businesses. And when the dollar value drops as a result of all this bailout and stimulus money flooding the market, what do you think will happen when those businesses try and pay back their government loans? They will default because the 5 billion they got will cost 20 billion to pay back. When that happens the government will take control of the businesses and there you have it, socialism.

Better think hard about what it all entails before we jump on this bandwagon folks. You want to be under the thumb of your government or you want the government to work for you? Socialism is complete governmental control period. You want that then you really don’t want democracy in my opinion.

Let me know what you think.

    This election has gotten ugly, and it won’t get any better. The days of candidates running on the issues and intelligent debate are long gone, and sadly they won’t be back any time soon. Now it’s a matter of who can scare the hell out of you the most about the other guy. So little time is spent on the issues it’s hard to know what the real issues are in America. Sure we know the economy is a shambles, the war is a mess, and this administration lies, but what about gun control or the schools? I know the war and economy are the more pressing problems and should be addressed first, but both candidates seem to be avoiding everything else.

For instance do any of us know what Obama thinks on immigration, or John McCain’s’ views on jobs going overseas? These are issues as well yet they seem to be more interested in winning than doing a good job. This tells me one thing for sure; in four years, no matter who wins they will then be more interested in keeping their job than doing their job well. I know I know, it’s nothing new, but at least before they acted like they cared about what they were doing. They used to make us believe they were trying.

The media is probably the number one cause of this but who really knows for sure. I mean do they act this way because of the media or does the media do this because they act this way? Wow, that can give me a headache. I got to cut this short tonight, but I just hope one of these ding-a-lings can convince of something sooner or later. I’m about to lose faith in the whole system. Night folks!

Election of fear.

This election has again turned into a fear contest. Who’s afraid? We are thats who. What are we afraid of? You name it; censorship, freedoms, change, taxes, all of these and more are used to frighten each and every one of us until they decide our vote for us.

The Republicans tell us that Obama is going to raise taxes on the middle-class. When every single annalist who has looked it over claims it will lower taxes for them. Democrats claim that John McCain’s plan will be more of the exact same thing we’ve had for the last eight years. When in fact it is quite different, it even has some points that are polar opposite of the current administration.

Who’s telling the truth? Neither one. And the sad thing is they don’t care. It is not about the facts or truth anymore; merely who can scare us the most about the other guy.

I would like to say to both of them; ENOUGH! I don’t care about the BS and nonsense about your opponent; I only care about what you are going to do.

If you have based your campaign on this scare tactic you have no right to be president! You care more about winning than you do about doing a good job that is evident. Both of you need to stop and focus on your positives and forget the other guys negatives for a minute, before you loose the voters who should really matter.

The voters I refer to are the ones who are intelligent enough to ask what you stand for and how you plan to accomplish your goals. The ones who care about America and what matters most to real Americans. Not just the corporate executives, or the labor unions but all Americans.

Here are some basic truths that need to be realized by everyone before they vote.

  1. What is best for the richest 10% is not always best for the rest of us.
  2. No one is going to take our guns.
  3. No one is going to take away your religion.
  4. The only administration who has undermined the constitution is in office right now.
  5. No one will automatically end the war in Iraq.
  6. No one will miraculously save America or kill it.
  7. No one will bring about socialism or fascism.
  8. Neither of them are Muslim.
  9. Both of them are American, one was born in Hawaii and one born in panama from American parents.
  10. Neither of them are saints or saviors.

Keep these things in mind before you cast your vote.

Next Page »