It goes to eleven

I was eagerly waiting Rush's take on the Obama win. I knew he'd have some great commentary and insight which would brighten my mood. Here are some of his basic points:

• The election was a celebration of conservatism because elections real conservatives won elections all over the place. (look at the races in Texas, for example).  Palin attracted crowds which helps prove that her core values are widely accepted, even though the MSM is trying to claim she killed the ticket.
• The stock market is down! How can this be?  Obama was supposed to usher in a new USA, a new World. How can Wall Street be worried with so many good things coming?
• The election proved that Republicans can't win by moving to the center and bowing to liberal agendas and trying to attract moderates. Poling data showed that 2/3 of moderates voted for Obama, 89% of Republicans votes for Mccain, and 80% of conservatives voted for McCain.  If 100% of conservatives had voted for McCain, would he have one?  This strategy to reach out to the other side and look appealing to them was a big part of the Republican strategy. FAIL!
• The Obama presidency will be one big campaign.

The thing I keep asking myself is, "What's next?" After hearing of the Obama victory, my only thought for was that my taxes will be going up. Now that the Democrats have made the declaration that things are going to change, it will be interesting to see what those changes are. Here's my tribute to the Obama win.

A popular talk radio host summed up the 2008 presidential race in a very witty way:

(Paraphrased) If Obama is elected, Obama voters are expecting to get something from the government and McCain voters are expecting the government to take something from them. The reality would be that everyone would have something taken from them, whether it be money, liberty, or rights.

If this man is elected, get ready for every hard-working person to get reamed to the tune of $1,200,000,000,000 dollars total. Take a look at the Obama Spend-o-Meter.

Here's a review of history:

1. Democrats push for banks to grant subprime home loans to people who have little means to pay them back.
2. Democrats resist all attempts by Republicans to investigate these practices.
3. The credit crisis hits and the stock market craters
4. The Democrats are now thought to be seen as the saviors for the whole situation.

Bend over everyone, get ready for mroe socialism. Anh oh, don't forget about the 5 million loans to illegals.

Even when you learn that it's not only the Dems that are involved in all of this, one still has to ask: Why is yet again more government the solution to this mess? And if you believe that only the republicians are to blame, why would you ask the Democrats to fix things? All they want to do is pass more regulations and rules and generally have the government control more things.

This article provides some evidence that's really no surprise to a conservative. It doesn't get any more simple than this:

The U.S. tax system is highly progressive. The top 1 percent of income earners, by household, paid 39 percent of all federal income taxes in 2005, whereas the bottom 50 percent paid a little over 3 percent. Further, 32 percent of all tax returns filed in 2005 were from people who paid no federal income tax at all.

Take a look at the graph provided with the story.

Liberals often whine about how some people aren't paying their fair share. NO SHIT! The POOR aren't paying their fair share!

I    am   tired    of    pulling    the    cart    for    the    slackers.

This article bemoans the poor condition of the poor areas of New Orleans, three years after the flooding. Based on how free markets work this makes perfect sense. First, the homes and businesses were destroyed by flooding. Second, the people were either evecuated, left, or died. Third, very few people came back to the poor areas. So what the world do you expect to happen?  People are just going to show up, build homes and businesses, and wait?

The truth is, the Lower Ninth Ward is an unmitigated disaster area, a wasteland, a battle zone, an abandoned community, and a national shame, all rolled into one.

I had to read this twice to see if it was referring to the area before the floods.  Because after decades of local democrat control, that really describes the areas before the water hit.

It was worse than I even imagined. This is a huge area that was once jammed with housing, and people. To be sure, the housing was poorly constructed and living conditions no better. Today, the dominant feature is weeds taller than most people. Buildings are few and far between.

Reconstruction and recovery? Not so much.

You can debate the reasons behind this all you want. But whatever is responsible for this, one thing is clear: This is a significant area of a major U.S. city that will likely never come back.

Oh gee, you think?  At the end of the story, we get this:

This is profound, depressing, and stunning stuff. It's amazing to think that nearly three years after the disaster, a prominent U.S. city still has massive areas that are nowhere near recovered.

The writer of the story must be living in some storybook fairlytale land where a sparkling magic pixie crayon can re-draw all of the demolished developement and destruction.  Sheesh. I agree it's depressing that an area where thousands of people lived is now largely empty, but get over it. The one thing that the writer seems to have totally missed is any knowledge that the Lower Ninth Ward was a dark haven for crime, poor educastion, physical separation, and neglect, and one positive truth is that this has been brought to an end.

Yes it is tragic that people died and so much chaos ensued, but it's no mystery that the area remians so uninhabited today. Once again the MSM shows their stupidity.

It's unfortunate that the media didn't pay more attention to this politician admitting her true beliefs:

The government continues to work toward taxing you more. This time, taxes on Internet purchases is ramping up.

Two bills are pending in Congress that would allow tax collectors to target out-of-state Internet and mail-order retailers, and their supporters are optimistic about their political prospects.

"I certainly would love to see a floor vote," said Neal Osten, federal affairs counsel for the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), a lobby group for state politicians. "We've heard encouraging words from the Democratic leadership in the House."

Note how no specific politician is mentioned, but a lobbyist for the politicians is named.  Yes, you heard it right: Politicians have their own lobbyists.  That's just great!  Now the damn politicians can hide behind a lobby group.

Once again, taxpayers are faced with the prospect of having more of their money taken by the government which refuses to slow its spending or make any kind of real cutbacks whatsoever. Something has to give.

If this legislation passes, may the heads of the pols who voted for this roll.  Will the voters hold them accountable? Probably not.

This is just priceless. I can't make this stuff up. No, I'm not that funny. Need more proof that the government is out of touch?

San Francisco, CA (AHN)-The city of San Francisco has begun an advertising campaign targeting illegal immigrants, welcoming them to the city the bay, as the country remains divided in fierce debate over the issue.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who prides San Francisco for its passage of the so-called sanctuary ordinance in 1989, said he wants illegal immigrants to understand that they are always welcome in the city, despite increased raids and deportations by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

This is great news for Texas where I live, and any other state except for CA. Let the illegals flock to the land of Fruits and Nuts and suck up all of the free healthcare and government services there, compliments of Jane and Joe taxpayer.

More and more lately, I am confused and frustrated by the fact that politicians believe that more government control is good for America. The core of my frustration centers around the idea that if politicians really wanted what was best for America, then they would return power to the citizens and have government step aside. I can only conclude that politicians do not really want what is best for America; they want will bring them the most power. What bring them more power? A populace that is dependent on government services and restrictions. A populace that holds its hand out. A populace that votes for politicians who give the handouts. A populace that buys into whatever subtle lie of the day is put before them by politicians and fostered by the MSM.

If you need more concrete evidence that politicians have totally lost touch with reality, read this article about government voting to raise gas taxes. So let me get this straight: Gas prices are at historical highs, and so it's a good thing to RAISE the prices even higher?

This isn't some back-woods box of clowns, either. Look on Google for many more legislatures looking to do the same thing. If you believe in economic fact, then you know that the higher the price of something, the fewer consumers will buy it.  So while governments raise taxes on gas, the trend to use less fuel will be accelerated and governments will continue to take in less tax revenue.  As it is now, the government already makes MORE money on gas (via taxes) than the petroleum companies do.

This article talks about the decreased tax revenue coming in and how that's pinching the state of Kentucky. Here's the money quote:

"We're very concerned about the impact March receipts may have on budgeted revenues for the year," Budget Director Mary Lassiter said in a statement.

[Gov. Steve] Beshear said it's too soon to say if a special session will be needed or what sort of tax proposals he might make.

"But the national economy does not look good right now," he said. "Four-dollar-a-gallon gasoline does not look good. People are not spending their money because they are concerned about their own financial security."

Okay, so taxpayers can cut back and spend less money, but the &%#ing government can't? They have to squeeze taxpayers harder? I say &#&! them.  Here's the Barney-style breakdown:

Voter & taxpayer is concerned with own financial security and spends less --> votes for politician --> politician refuses to spend less and raises taxes

That is why I hate so many politicians.

If we could only go back to the days of politicians who held office for a time and then went back to the business world or whatever they did before getting into politics.

Colorado ponders lowering the drinking age. It amazes me that politicans waste time on issues like this.  If this becomes law, maybe all of the illegals flooding into their state will enjoy the easier access to booze. Maybe thay'll draw some of them out of Texas.

This report shows that global temperatures have reached a 100 year low, wiping out 100 years of temperature gains.

How much you wanna bet you won't see this on the Evening News or in your local newspaper? The people who believe in so-called global warming are unwilling to see the truth because it doesn't fit their agenda of oppressing business and individual liberty.

A remarkable editorial article appeared in the January 2, 2008 Wall Street Journal. Entitled “Bye Bye, Light Bulb”, the article provided facts and commentary on the new light bulb efficiency requirements that will hit us in 2012. Thanks again to my father for clipping this for me, as I have not the time to read the whole paper every day.

“…the energy bill passed by Congress and signed by President Bush sets energy-efficiency standards for light bulbs that traditional incandescent bulbs cannot meet.”

The average uninformed consumer on the street, or any 5th grader, would likely believe that Congress passed this legislation to ban standard light bulbs in the name of using less energy and therefore saving the environment. I will not detail the problems with this whole underlying realm of false logic. What is more important is to ask this:

Why are the liberals not crying that a €26.976 billion company was able to lobby Congress to pass a law that makes it illegal to buy anything else but a product that this company happens to sell?

The answer, if course, is that it’s OK to wipe out the competition if it’s done in the name of ‘green’, even if there’s no scientific basis for any of it.

“Yes, the $3 bulb lasts longer. Yes, it cuts your electricity bill. Mr. Moorehead [of Phillips] says that when every one of those four billion light sockets has an energy-saving bulb in it, the country will be saving $18 billion a year on its electric bill. That’s $4.50 per bulb – and the bulb makers are standing by to make sure a substantial portion of those ‘savings’ get transformed into profits for them.”

Where is the liberal outrage here?  One of the biggest electronics makers in the world pushed to pass legislation in order to enrich itself. If Dick Cheney was anyhow connected with Phillips, I’m sure that we would have heard about how ‘big electronics’ was screwing the consumer and that the poorest amongst us would most deeply hit.

The thing that makes me mad is that we have yet another blinding example of government limiting consumer choice. I’m all for saving energy, but give me the choice!

I thought the liberals were all about choice?

The biggest outrage here is not the two examples of liberal hypocrisy, but Americans getting ----ed again by the politicians who continue to pass pointless laws instead of worrying about how to enforce the existing laws.

Oh, and the new high-efficiency bulbs are full of mercury, whereas the incandescent bulbs are free from this pollutant.  I guess this will be the foundation of another environmental crisis that the liberals and politicians can save us from in a decade. It sounds strikingly familiar to the scenario in which Congress said that banks weren't giving enough loans to high-risk hone buyers which helped lead to the increased default rate on home loans which Congress now wants to fix by enacting more laws.

Thanks again to my elected officials for representing me so well, you clueless morons.

My father was kind enough to clip an editorial from the January 23rd Wall Street Journal entitled, "Hillary and Say's Law". The opening line of the article says,

"But this stimulus shouldn't' be paid for," Hillary Clinton said to Tim Russert in a recent interview, when he reminded her that she's omitted a price tag somewhere. Shouldn't be?"

The article later states,

"Hillary's assertion that her 'stimulus' package shouldn't be paid for denies reality. Somebody has to pay for it."

In the real, factual world, sure, this is true because of the realities of accounting, economics, and math. But the WSJ editorialists have to realize that liberals often avoid facts and the real world. They ignore facts.

The reality here, I believe, is that since this $150,000,000 rebate would be obtained by incurring debt, then Hillary's core belief here is that, yes, it won't be paid for because that debt will NEVER be paid. Does the US debt ever get smaller, or vanish altogether?  No. Therefore Hillary is right.

I was listening to a talk show on the way in to work this morning, and one self-proclaimed liberal caller made one statement that he wasn't on the conservative side because conservatives didn't care about people. This, of course, is not a new page from the liberal playbook. Luckily the talk show host picked up on the comment and dedicated several minutes debunking the statement.

This got me thinking about the liberal media and how they could have gone either way or in their bias. In other words, instead of reporting both sides of an issue, they tend to emphasize the liberal side. Why did they choose the liberal side? I began to think about why this was and I realized that the answer is very, very easy:

Being a liberal is easy. This is true because buying into liberalism doesn't require that you pay attention to many facts or logic. Liberals are generally concerned with what feels good and looks good on the outside while ignoring the facts. Liberals are all about the way things look rather than the deep truth. Liberals are driven by intent rather than by real results. For example, liberals intend to help people by handing out welfare money, but does welfare really help our country in the log run? If it does, why does the program still exist? hmmm?  Should it have not been such a success that its own existence was stamped out? Liberals also seem to have a hard time being honest about their core beliefs. For example, they seem to believe that rich people have too much money and it should be given to poor people, but they have a hard time coming out and admitting it, and if they do, they have a hard time citing a specific dollar amount. I don't see the national nightly news commentators giving their millions to anyone. Liberalism is easy because it doesn't require that you commit to much; everything is a gray area rather than black and white. For example, it's OK to steal if you really need the money because your life is lousy.

Being a conservative is much more difficult, and apparently most of the media doesn't have the fortitude to endure the work it takes to get there. Conservatism requires that you understand the facts and depth of issues rather than simply spouting sounds bites and calling people names. Conservatism requires that you understand your core beliefs, stick to them, and let your core drive your actions at all times. Being a conservative requires tough love rather than quick fixes, and it requires that you take personal responsibility for your actions rather than blaming your problems on others. It requires that you remember history, use that knowledge, and hold politicians accountable. It requires that you think before you vote.

Yes, being a conservative takes a lot of work.

Washington has put together a $150 billion package to give money back to people and businesses. A married couple (man and a woman, I guess) making $150,000 with two kids will receive a total of $1800 sometime after May.  I'm sure the politicans will be bragging about this one for a long time. This is proof that politicians believe it's a good thing when people keep and spend their own money. This 'Christmas in May' giveaway program, however, is also proof that Washington has a stranglehold on us all.

There was some compromise in the process to craft the giveaway plan:

"Late in the negotiations that preceded Thursday’s breakthrough, Ms. Pelosi agreed not to include two proposals that have broad support among Congressional Democrats: an extension of unemployment benefits and a temporary increase in food stamps.

In exchange for those concessions, the Bush administration and House Republicans agreed that the stipend of at least $300 would be paid to all workers who earned at least $3,000 last year, even those who did not earn enough to pay taxes."

$300 to people who pain NO taxes? Now that's a giveaway progmam I'm sure the liberals are proud of. Surely Marx is smiling up from hell.

No article I read on this subject addressed the question of how the politicians arrived at the dollar figures used. Why $300 or $600 per person?  Why not $3000 or $60,000? If they could do even $600,000, then people would really spent a lot of money which would certainly be good, right?

From the related Wall Steet Journal, print edition,

"A small but notable contingent of economists, largely on the right, questioned whether the the stimulus was needed at all...at a time when unemployment measures 5%, a low rate historically."

Like I have said before, I have mixed feelings on this issue because I hate the idea of government handouts. While this package is largely framed as a "tax rebate", it is a chance for Washing to flex its muscles to demonstrate its stranglehold on the citizens.

Here's the other problem: Has the government pleged to spend less, decrease the amount it grows, or do anything else that would mean it burns less money? NO! Therefore this $150 billion package means that the government will go deeper into debt.  

I will gladly take whatever money they throw my way because it's my &*#)!ing  money, but I still hate most politicans because they're largely looking out for themselves this election year, not America. They're buying votes and doing nothing to fix any the root problems of this country, namely big and ever-growing government that continues to spend more and more money. Yes, I believe that most people want this money and this will give some benefit to the economy because that's how the free market works, but the bigger issue is taxation by an unrestrained, ever-growing government.

Rush Limbaugh's take today on the plan is that because the wealthy aren't included in the plan, then they are being used to pay for the handouts for the non-wealthy. He also said that since no new money is being put into the system, that the net gain is minimal and the whole thing is just an election year gimmick. This would explain why the politicans put the deal together so quickly. I still believe that money in the hands of people is better than in the black hole of the government.

Sadly, it's not diffiicult to envision politicians on both sides of the isle reminding voters how they supported the scheme and therefore deserve to be voted for at election time.

Finally, in one forum wife reads, the liberals were stating that the handout program wouldn't do anything to help the economy. I wonder if they'll send their checks back?

The continued talk in Washington of an economic stimulus package has proven two points. First, the discussion has forced Democrats to admit that the economy is helped when people actually have more of their own money. From the front page in today's Wall Street Journal:

"...admid broad consensus that the government should do something quickly to prop up the lagging economy. The White House wants tax cuts to help a wide range of individuals and businesses."

"In the summer of 2001, the government mail a total of $38 billion in $300 and $600 one-time rebate checks to two-thirds of U.S. Households. A 2004 study of U.S. economists from the U.S. Labor Department, Princeton University, and the University of Pennsylvania estimated that [...] most of the rebates quickly turned into spending."

"Democrats took the White House silence on the details as a sign that it's willing to give ground. They are working on alternatives, such as a rebate for everyone who files a tax return. Other possibilities are rebating payroll taxes or sending rebates to those who receive the Earned Income Tax Credit or the Child Tax Credit."

So, are the Dems admitting that if people have more money in their pockets that this is somehow good for the economy? This is conformation of what I believe most people know: Give them unexpected cash and people will spend it. There is no need to point out the irony, but I will anyhow: The Democrats have based much of their power on taking peoples' money.  Now they're admitting this slows down the economy.

Of course I'm not stupid. When asked about this, the Dems will likely spout something about being careful not to "overheat" the economy by giving people
"too much" money. Yeah, you don't want the neighborhood junkies to buy "too much" heroine and all end up dead after a day of $600 binges.

Second, the discussion provides proof that the Democrats will use any occasion to pander to specific groups:

"In addition to tax cuts..."

Oh. My. God.

"...congressional Democrats say they also want spending targeted at specific groups such as the unemployed."

Never mind that this would only hit a small group:

"Unemployment remains fairly low at 5% and the overall economy, while slowing, isn't necessarily headed for a recession."

Democrats never think twice about going out their way to give handouts to the down and out. No surprise here.

The other part of the discussion involved paying tax "rebates" to people who did not pay taxes. You don't need a hint about who supports this idea.

"Conservatives question the fairness of giving rebates to people who paid no income tax."

Thank God that someone here is thinking like me.

The one thing that bothers me about the entire discussion here is the idea that the government needs to step in and help people. This goes against my core beliefs. However if a check shows up in the mailbox I will gladly keep it. The bottom line, of course, is that taxes should be kept low across the board and the government should cease to grow larger.

In case you didn't understand the last point, I really, really dislike the politicians who politicize tax cuts in order to put their own personal political agendas ahead of the benefit of the country. While I can't hang them, I will be thinking of the noose when I don't vote for them in the voting booth. And shame of those of you who complain about things but don't get educated about politicans and vote.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is backing tax cuts as a way to ward off economic problems:

"Later when asked by lawmakers about tax cuts, Bernanke tried to avoid explicitly saying one policy was better than another. However, he did suggest that permanent tax cuts would have more long-term effects than provide short-term stimulus, implying it wouldn’t work in the current package..."

This backs what I have written as well as just plain ol' common sense that letting people keep more of of their money is a good thing. While politicians on both sides of the isles will often clamor for increasing taxes, I say f--- them because they're putting their personal political agendas ahead of the benefit of the country. Let them hang.

The article goes on to say:

"...The chairman also said, responding to another question, that “tax cuts do not pay for themselves.”

I'm not 100% sure what he means here, but it's as good time to point out that government needs to spend less in order to maintain a healthy balance sheet. Again I say f--- the politicians who can't f---ing seem to get that point. Let them hang in the hot Texas sun.

With some indicators pointing toward challenging times ahead, it's very interesting that we're in the middle of a presidential race that is unlike any in recent times because there are no incumbent candidates.

The Dems, of course, are up to their usual BS such as shouting for a so-called "Stimulus package". They believe that making a big deal about asking for one, working to get one, and then getting one is all they need to look good in the eyes of their voters. Nevermind if any good actually comes from the thing or not, because the average voter who seens a newspaper headline doesn't know or care about the truth.

I used to think that I could count on Republicans to do things right, and avoid such crap. Unfortunately, the Rebublicans have lost their focus in the last few years and don't have the balls to uphold fundamental concepts like smaller government, spending less, and lowering taxes. They also seem to have forgotten about simply enforcing existing laws which would greatly help the illegal immagration problem. In the unlikely event that there any conservative politicians reading this, here is a formula for success:

• Be open and honest with Americans and put the interest of the country before your political future.
• Stick to basic conservative principals and let these drive your actions.
• Lower taxes across the board and watch increased revenue flow to the government
• The government should remain the same size or shrink, not grow. More government is not the solution to any problem.
• Enforce existing laws. If you can't enforce laws you've created, then quit freaking making new ones.

What would you think when a car with gas mileage of 50 miles per gallon is produced, but is called an environmental nightmare?

I thought that we needed to raise the standard for fuel emmissions in order to consume less gasoline.  This one point that Rush Lumbaugh made today during his radio program.

The story from startribune.com says:

"The potential impact of Tata's Nano has given environmentalist nightmares, with visions of the tiny cars clogging India's already-choked roads and collectively spewing millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the air."

It would appear that at least one environmentalist isn't so much concerned with pollution as he/she is with denying the masses access to affordable transporation. I have no problem with a person holding that view, but at least be honest about your core beliefs, buddy.

The January 8, 2008 edition of the Wall Street Journal ran an article on page A6 about the primary presidential campaigns. This caught my attention:

...And then she [Clinton] got emotional. 'It's not easy. It's not easy,' an exhausted-looking Sen. Clinton said, shaking her head. Her eyes began to get watery as she finished answering the question: 'I couldn't do it if I didn't just passionately believe it was the right thing to do,' she said, her voice cracking. 'I have so many ideas for this country, and I just don't want to see us fall backward as a nation. This is very personal for me.'

Does Senator Clinton really believe that her ideas are going to move the country forward? Is taxing people and expanding government really going to help anyone? 50 years of social welfare programs have only served to increase the number of people in need, and it is a scientific fact that lowering taxes results in more money flowing in to the government. The Democrats have little to offer other than bashing conservatives and holding up the same old broken ideas of taxation, more government program, and more restrictions on our freedoms. I suspect that Clinton knows all this, and that her ultimate goal is to simply be the leader of the most powerful nation in the world by promoting class-ism, racism, and sexism in order to pit citizens against each other and turn to the government for help.

Here's a great idea: Take peoples' money away from them in order to stimulate the economy. Yeah, it makes about as much sense as setting your self on fire to lose weight, but that's what some politians would propose. Get this line from the January 7th Wall Streeet Journal, page A3:

"But for Mr. Bush, a big risk is that lawmakers might seize on a broad-based stimulus package to roll back some of his income-tax cuts..."

That's just f***ing great.. have the government grab MORE of peoples' money in order to stimulate the economy. This next line is even more bizzare:

"Democrats, meanwhile, risk turning off voters is they push too hard to raise taxes to cover the potentially high costs of a broad stimulus."

Well DUH!  If you RAISE taxes (or revoke tax cuts) and take more of peoples' money, they're going to have less money to pay taxes on, so the Government takes in less tax revenue!  So why not freaking LOWER taxes instead?  Then people have more money, pay more taxes, and spend more money.

Unlike the woman who abandoned her 8 children to get married to a guy she met on the Internet, I say we find these politicians, not string them up and shoot them twice, but instead vote their m%##%&$! asses out of office. To lose their political power will hurt them much more than being shot.

Here's more one-sidedness from the Houston Chronicle about the price of oil. While the article doesn't have any outright errors, it works to promote the concepts that the big oil companies are out to screw everone.

"But industry critics say refiners are using new energy policies as an excuse to keep refining capacity tight and their profits high."

Oh no, we wouldn't want an oil company to make a lot of money, would we? This would stand in the way of socialism. Hey Chron, where's the quote from an "industry supporter" telling us that profits are a great thing?

"Within 10 years, U.S. refiners could be producing less gasoline than they are today as a result of the new energy legislation, which calls for stricter auto gas mileage standards and more ethanol output, said the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, a trade group in Washington."

If cars are more fuel efficient, wouldn't it be safe to say that people will drive MORE because they can go further on the same tank of gas? And wouldn't it also be safe to assume that there will be more cars on the road, not less, as time goes by? Wouldn't these factors lead to a continuation of gasoline demand?

The bigger irony here is that politians, as usual, are talking on both sides of the fence: On one side, they bitch about the oil companies charging so much for gas, but on the other side they enact laws that raise the price of gas such as restricting where we can drill for oil and prohibiting the construction of NEW refineries:

"While a new U.S. refinery hasn't been built in three decades, U.S. refiners have been expanding facilities in recent years to keep pace with fuel demands and to take advantage of one of the most profitable periods in the industry's history."

The article fails to mention WHY no new refinery hasn't built. THe politians, as usual, are setting up a scenario of circular logic that can only be resoled by one thing: more laws and more government!  Yea!!!! The government that brought you the $300 hammer and the IRS is controlling the price of gas. Greaaaaaaaaaaaat.  Bend over, and no, you can't have any KY jelly.

This just makes me sick:

"Authorities are investigating after a Harris County woman apparently left eight children — six of her children and a neighbor's two — home alone while she went to Nigeria to marry a man she met on the Internet, leaving the youngsters with little food and no money."

 I believe in the right to a fair trial, but part of me says this woman should be strung up and shot. Twice.

"...and her 14-year-old and 18-year-old brothers are serving time in juvenile detention and prison for robbery and aggravated assault..."

Oh, gee, no surprise there! I guess it's foolish of me to even ask where the fathers of these poor children are, and it's probably politically incorrect to point out that the article states these people are from New Orleans.

I like to think that had a situation similar to this occurred 200 years ago, the criminal would have silently disappeared in the middle of the night as local townspeople took care of the situation on their own.

How will this cycle of neglect, irresponsibility, and foolishness ever end? Do we have the welfare state to thank for such a problem, and aren't we all glad that the liberals continue to promote and expand that system? Thanks LBJ for giving us such a great system to demonstrate how government totally sucks at most things. It's very sad that such a string of devastation has to be created to prove this.

The mainstream media (MSM) is promoting the idea of an impending recession. This really hit home when my father-in-law made an offhand remark about "the recession" and I had to question him as to the validity of the statement. He and my mother-in-law get most of their news about the country and the world from watching the national TV networks' news programs each day, so I was not surprised to hear him think there was a recession. He is doing OK, his neighbors are doing OK, and his family members are all doing OK, so why does he think there is a recession?  From watching the mainstream media who continually pushes small comments that imply that there is a recession. My in-laws are not stupid, but given a diet consisting primarily of MSM they're  not going to have a clear picture of reality.

Yes, it is true that the housing bubble has burst and home sales are down, people are left holding homes they can't afford, and being evicted from their homes. Petroleum costs are at an all-time high, and that pushes up the cost of almost everything. The push to make more ethanol is pushing up food prices in many areas.  But a recession?  I don't think so. Yes, some financial experts and indicators are showing a downturn, but this is the way it should be. The economy can't keep speeding along forever without variance and downturns and volatility. 

The housing market was kicking ass for several years, and with a downturn, prices are getting back to traditional long-term norms. 

The price of oil is going up due to global demand, short supply now, and no great outlook for a surge in supply. This is a classic economic equation. Everyone will adjust, pay more for things, and get by. There will be very long term adjustments such as people living closer to work, consuming less energy, and using other forms of energy such as nuclear and solar.

The mainstream media is pushing the idea of a recession because they love to report bad news and crises because this fits their agenda to promote liberalism. Liberalism of course encourages people to turn to the government in times of need rather than taking personal responsibility to help themselves.

Government programs rarely shrink or die; they usually seem to expand. The latest example is WIC, The Women, Infants, and Children nutritional aid program. The program is being expanded to provide more food more often. Although some items are being scaled back, such as reducing milk from 4.5 to 4 gallons per month, the woman interviewed for the article sees this as a benefit because the changes are in the best nutritional interest of the children. While that makes sense, this change reinforces in peoples' minds that the government knows what's best for you and will take care of you. I would argue that no reduction has been made here if people are gaining trust in the program. Anyhow, WIC is not forcing kids to drink a given quantity of milk because the parents should be controlling that. If a parent doesn't understand basic health and nutritional concepts, I'm sure thre are a dozen government programs to teach them in whatever language they speak.

Many people have cited WIC as being a worthwhile program in the sea of wasteful government handout programs, and I won't argue that. What I will say, though, is that people need to less dependent on the government, not more dependent.