Smoking Gun

So everybody says (but the Democrats) that the 'Smoking Gun' email is out; the one that proves Obama lied about the Benghazi attack on purpose and for political motives.

Those of us who know Obama well knew this two years ago. Obama does NOTHING that doesn't have a political motive.

Like the whole Minimum Wage Senate vote. The whole thins was a sham; Harry Reid knew it wouldn't make it to the floor- Hell; I'll even bet him and McConnell had the whole thing planned out. The way the vote went plays well with both bases. So it was win/win.

But it was political.

Sorry for another short post, but my real job is breathing down my neck today, and there are only so many hours in the day.

Just in Time for April 15th

I'm not sure I will ever be able to blog from my back porch. The only time I can do it is when the weather is nice, and when I'm sitting on the porch swing in nice weather I can't seem to be snide, cynical or raucous. All I can do is a post like yesterday's. It is another nice day, but two posts in a row like yesterday's will drive away my last reader.

I will need to abandon my porch swing and back to the desk.

First an update on a post I did a few days ago on Clivden Bundy, the Nevada rancher the Bureau of Land Management was harassing. Apparently they the BLM has seen the light and pulled out, and returned his cattle in the process. Did my post have something to do with that? Probably not. But a Blogger can dream, can't he?

I don't follow Lame stream media at all; newspapers, TV news or the alleged news magazines, so I have no idea how they have been following or covering the IRS scandal and Lois Lerner's involvement, if at all. But it has been almost a year since the news broke of the way the IRS was holding up approval on 501 (c)(3) applications for conservative groups. Just in time to stop them from participating in the 2012 election. And now we find out that the ranking Democrat on the oversight committee was encouraging them, and targeting one outfit in particular; True the Vote.

I looked for a Lame Stream Media outlet to link to, but none existed. ABC; NBC; CBS. None are covering it. Is it because it isn't news, or is it becasue they Don't want it to be news?

I have said many times that News reporters have always been biased; a situation that goes back to the founding days of the Republic. What is different now is not the bias, but the declaration that their bias is not biased.

And that is wrong. I don't mind that  ABC, NBC and CBS are basically Outlets for Democrat propaganda. What I mind is that they aren't honest about it.

Even the folks on the left should be upset about what their friends in the media are doing. If you believe you are getting all of the news from these folks, then why aren't you upset that you're not?

Like this IRS deal. If you are only getting the part of the story that doesn't harm your elected officials, how do you know that its time to vote them out? If the Administration is as crooked as a ram's horn don't you want to know that? Or are you happy with the rainbows and unicorns you are being feed, and don't want to know?

Maybe I'm different, but I don't want to be represented by crooks no matter what letter follows their name on the ballot.

President Paul has a Nice Ring, Doesn't It?

I found this article though a Facebook Post. It is written from a Democrat, OH NO WHAT WILL WE DO!!!!! perspective, but still raises some good points.

"Don’t laugh but Rand Paul could be our next president" is the title. Apparently this news scares the daylights out of the Left side of the country. Probably because he could draw a large number of voters not just Republicans, but Independents, Libertarians and yes, even a substantial number of Democrats.

In short he could beat the margin of cheat Democrats have become accustomed to winning with.

Face it; Rand Paul has the attractive ideas the country is looking for; smaller government; lower taxes, less government intrusion. >His one weak spot; foreign policy. But that is where is is probably strongest with the left side. He wants to end the foreign entanglements, which sounds like a good thing, and some of it is.

But the world is like a 6th grade classroom; everybody is either your friend or your enemy. Switzerland is like the teacher; for all appearances neutral, but does play favorites. You have to make friends, or you have made enemies.

And making friends with countries cost more than picking them early for Dodgeball or sharing your Fig Newtons. You still need to pick them early for games and you still need to share your goodies, it's just that the games have higher stakes and the goodies have multi-billion dollar price tags.

 I wish the law allowed the Presidential Candidate to announce who they would pick for certain cabinet positions. Knowing who Rand Paul would pick for his Secretaries of State and Defense would pur my mind at ease about the Foreign policy issue.

On the Butcher Block

Well; they are at it again.

Carter did it; Clinton did it and now Obama is doing it.

Read the US Constitution. It is written in pretty plain English, unlike some modern laws that seem to be written in Sanskrit. There is a direct charge to the Federal Government to pay for an Army and Navy. Defense of our borders is, in some respects, the ONLY charge to the Federal government.

Yet when money gets "tight" (yes I am using that word sarcastically) the first cuts are in Defense. There are so many things wrong with this announcement  i don't know where to start.

How about here: The cuts assume the United States no longer becomes involved in large, prolonged stability operations overseas on the scale of Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Really? And what happens if that assumption is wrong? NO problem; call up more of the National Guard and Reserves. Except, damn the bad luck; they are getting cut too. So with less regular Army and less Guard and Reserve Units, what happens when the manure hits the fan? What happens when Iran and North Korea conspire to attack Israel and South Korea at the same time, plunging two areas of the globe into chaos at the same time?

I'll tell you what happens. Have you ever locked two feuding boys into a room without parental supervision? Then come back a hour later to the utter devastation? Without the US as a stabilizing force a Korean conflict will drag in Japan and China at least. An Iran- Israel war will drag in Iraq and Syria and probably Egypt as well. And maybe Russia, as a 'silent' partner. Which side of the world would we respond to? Where would the limited resources get allocated?

Which ally will we throw to the dogs? and don't mention the United Nations as a solution; without US firepower (both figurative and literal) they are a laughing stock.

Don't misinterpret me; I don't want the United States military to be used the world's policeman. I don't want out best young men dying between the fighting factions in a backwater Civil War. But like it or not, our country has international interests; both treaty and trade related.

Those interests need to be protected. We can no more abandon South Korea than we can, should she require our help, England.

But these cuts may force just such a decision. There is a reason we have not had a Army smaller than it now for the last 70 years; its because we need to be prepared to not just fight a war on two continents; we need to WIN both wars.

Have you ever watched a show on the nature channel? Have you ever watched a pride of lions chase after a herd of wildebeests? Have you ever seen them take on the biggest meanest one they could find? No, they are chasing the old, the sick, the weak. The vulnerable.

Have you ever watched a how on a wolf pack, or a wild horse hear or a any other group of wild animals? They all have A leader. When is that leader challenged? when he is at the height of his power? Or during his decline?

Like it or not it has been both the United States' power- and willingness to use that power- that has kept the world largely at peace since 1945. What happens when that power is no longer there?

Its not just our way of life we need to worry about (although I do see an increasing testing of US resolve in the last 4 years; and there will be more and more incidents to test 'President Bluster' in the coming year; watch carefully the response to his 'line' in the Ukraine), but also that of our allies. Yes Israel is a potent force, but it is the looming US Club that has helped keep the rest of the Middle East at bay. And yes; we have interests other than Israel in the Middle East; a conflict in that area would be disastrous to energy prices, not to mention the possibility of Moslem uprisings in any country in Europe that joined in on Israel's side. Yes; quite a few countries have sizable Moslem populations, like France, Belgium and England; enough that could swing a balance of power in a 2015 Mideast War.

The thing the Obama Regime doesn't think about when doing their figuring: Cutting Defense is easy.

Dealing with the results of those cuts will be hard. Hopefully not harder than we can cope with.

But I have my doubts. And the history of this Administration does nothing to ease those doubts.

Indistinguishable

I hope you will forgive the lack of posting the last few days; events overtook time, and something had to give.

But I'm back now; ready to go.

But where to? How about Facebook?

What? Facebook? Yes; Facebook. To share some BREAKING NEWS !

I don't care who you are or how you take it, that's funny right there....

Okay; now that I've gotten THAT out of my system...

The part that isn't funny is that we are talking about the 2016 Presidential race already and nobody bats an eye.

Because we started talking about 2016 in 2012. And there were brief mentions of 2016 in 2008. It has become a never ending cycle; one we have no relief from. The question is; is that a bug or a feature?

Face it; how many of us are big enough political junkies that we want to be immersed in politics completely and consistently? We have other concerns; other interests; hobbies, families, jobs.

Somewhere on one of my many bookshelves I have a copy of Theodore H. White’s Making of the President: 1964. The story starts in Dallas, November of 1963. Not particularly because of the assassination, but the reason for JFK's trip to Dallas- to kick off his re-election campaign. A year out from Election Day; not 4 years out.

And at that year out point it was only the political junkies paying attention; not the media. Real public interest didn't start until the Conventions, in July and August. You got whipped into a political frenzy for a few months, voted in early November, and packed away the political trappings like a child would pack up his room before heading off to college; it would be 4 years before the fever hit again.

Today we are constantly bombarded with the political. Hell; we have been told since 2000 that Hillary was inevitable in 2004; 2008; 2016. 

Just like a kid facing another week of school in June; we don't care. We are burned out.

And this is where the bug turns into a feature; we are burned out; we tune out and stop caring. The media doesn't stop bombarding us with 'information' we just stop listening.

And by the time we enter the voting booth in Election Month, it is Name Recognition Lottery Time, and the name(s) we have been bombarded with for YEARS require a Pavlovian response.

Bug, or Feature?

The thing is (HOPEFULLY) this; maybe it will all backfire again. Maybe 2008 wasn't a fluke. Maybe Obama wasn't the "Magic Negro" he is purported to be, but just a latter-day Bill Clinton; an alternative to what else there was. He was the only one to even consider running against the "Inevitable" Hillary.

Was it just palpable Hillary burnout in 2008 that has saddled us with this fiasco?

I am also not discounting the Bush burnout in 2008. The Hillary fatigue got us Obama the Candidate; the Bush fatigue got us Obama the President.

2012? That was just massive voter fraud, up and down the board.

But that is another post.

BC Ain't PC?

I was looking for a subject for today's post and found this cartoon strip. Which hits the nail on the head.

Nobody is happy with either party, but for vastly different reasons.

Dems are unhappy with Repubs because they are Repubs, and are angry at the Dems because they aren't Left enough.

Repubs are unhappy with Dems because they are Dems, and unhappy with Repubs because they aren't Right enough.

Okay; so maybe they're reasons AREN'T vastly different, just the reasons for their reasons.

The question each party has to ask (and successfully answer) is where do the voters stand?

Kind of simplified, but we can break it down into 5 positions:

Far Right: Right: Center: Left: Far Left.

Earth shattering isn't it? Yeah I know; nothing new to see here.

The chart isn't new, but maybe my analysis of it is. Because the question is where are the voters?

First; they aren't evenly distributed; Second; they aren't static and Third; they aren't mobile.

And no, the last two aren't contradictory.  Very few voters will change their minds on a specific issue. Other than the change from young liberal to older conservative. But in this case they are just replacing their dying parents and likewise being replaced by their growing children. And most of the time they go from left leaning Center to right leaning Center; that aren't going from Left to Right.

Then there are those who start at Far Left. They tend to stay there. Nobody who shouted "Power to the People" in the 1960's grew up to join the John Birch Society. Unless they only shouting "Power" to pick up chicks. Trying to attract women will make men do strange things; sometimes Very Strange things. But you see my point; they are static in their position.

Same with those on the Far Right. If they are God, Guns and Country at 18, they will be God, Guns and Country at 68.  Static.

The Center is a little more fluid. Sometimes they are left leaning Center, bumping up against being Left, and other times they are right leaning Center, bumping up against being Right. A great swilling mass, always stable in ultimate position, but always in motion within the position. Kind of like stirring a big bowl of pudding. right around the spoon the pudding is always deeper than anywhere else n the bowl, but not really deep enough to make a big difference in the depth anywhere else.

The spread breaks down like this: Far Right- 21%; Right- 21%; Center- 25%; Left-20% and Far Left- 13%. The far left has the fewest adherent, but they are the most vocal. Power to the People!, remember?

Assuming all of there groups are static, how can they also be mobile?

Because changes in government will cause their relative positions to change. the problem is they aren't on a line, but in a circle. Your 'Power to the People' Lefty isn't too far away from a limited government Tea Partier when you get right down to it. They want the same thing, just have different methods of trying to get it.

Which brings us back to my premise; where do the voters stand?

It depends; what is the issue?

So much has been made over the years of the Reagan Democrats, and why they were willing to cross party lines to vote for a Republican. Here is my take on it: Reagan said it best; "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party left me". Reagan carried the old line Democrat principles into the Republican Party, and bridged the gap between the two. It hasn't worked since, and will never work again. All of the old line Democrats are gone already, and no one will follow a so-called Progressive from the Dems to the Repubs, even if one was so foolhardy as to try.

And no Repub would bother to vote for them either, knowing the conversion wasn't Saul-like, but one of opportunity.

So, after all of this prattling; WHERE DO THE VOTERS STAND?!?!?!!?

Right where you would expect the to be; in favor of limited government, less taxation and a strong defense. They may say it different ways, and define 'limited' or 'less' or 'strong' a little differently, but other than the 13% fringe left, this is what they want.

So why won't either party give it to them?

How Much Did You Miss Yesterday?

Was yesterday a bust-ass day or what?

Half a dozen bloggable things happening and I, to use my Dad's phrase, felt like death warmed over.

I'm a little better today, but not by much. Now I'm only a near death experience warmed over.

Rand Paul hit Hillary rather hard yesterday, didn't he? Not hard enough, but still, harder than anybody else did.

And he's right. We not only no longer keep score in kid's sports, apparently we no longer keep score in government.

Who was responsible for the four deaths in Libya? What  is/will be their punishment?

What are we doing to make sure this does not happen again?

All questions that should be asked and answered.

But won't be. We don't want to ruin somebody's career over a little thing like this, now do we?

Even Hillary's. She will bail on the job of Secretary of State- a 'post turtle position' for her for sure. And don't even get me started on Kerry's "QUALIFICATIONS"- and retire to her estate in New York or somewhere, and start showing up at shopping malls and diners in Iowa in a couple of years.

And no one will ever mention it was her inadequacies and errors that cost us the lives of 4 Americans, including an Ambassador.

And then we have Biden hinting he will be in the running in 2016. Why? is he looking for another 4 years as Vice-President?

And last, but by no means least, we have Leon Panetta stopping on his way out the door as Secretary of Defense to announce the end of the ban on women in combat roles.

Really? Talk about dumping a hot mess into the lap of whoever is next Secretary. Who is the current sacrificial lamb? Is it still the RINO Hagel? But that description even gives RINO's a bad name. When was the last time we actually had a Democrat as Secretary of Defense? The middle of the Clinton Administration? 20 some years ago?

Why don't any Democrats want the job? Too much responsibility? You can lose a few diplomats an still keep your job. Lose a dozen young men and there is Hell to pay.

And of course they won't change the standards; any woman wanting a combat MOS will need to meet the same standards as the men currently do.

Yeah; that'll last. Only until the first batch of 250 women wing up producing 5 qualified applicants.

Three of which who will withdraw when they break a nail.

And then watch the race to the bottom.

I'll be blunt; I have never served in a combat unit. But I have served in the military, and I have seen what happens to a group of young adult males when a few women have been dumped among them.

It ain't pretty. The men lose all control and the women gain it. And nobody can resist following their instincts to protect the weaker sex.

It wasn't just in the military; I saw it happen in the workforce too. Not as pronounced- because the folks are older, in general- but still the same jealousies and conflicts.

Comparisons will be made to the integration of the services during the Truman Administration. Some of them may be valid, but I really doubt there were breakdowns in unit cohesion because the new arrivals stopped dating one fellow soldier and started dating another, or a breakdown in discipline because of an over protective attitude toward the black unit member.

Hopefully we can start reversing the damage before it's too late.

But I am starting to have my doubts.

23 times ZERO Equals Nothing

I was looking for a list of Obama's 'NEW AND IMPROVED' gun control measures so I could snark.

Instapundit lead me here. And he does teh snark at least as well as I could have, and with absoluteley no effort on my part.

Well, except for the pun in my headline.

Ready for a Little Bang-Bang-Bang?

I want to show you a video. I found it a few minutes ago on the The Borderline Sociopathic Blog For Boys.

Great video. My goal is to make it to the shoot one day. Just as soon as I can justify the thousands of dollars it would cost.

But here's my point, especially tonight, right before Obama tries to outlaw 'Assault Weapons' by Presidential fiat.

During the video the report says something to the effect of "you could kill a lot of people with all this firepower.

Yep. Sure could. Even if one shot in a hundred killed somebody this shoot would have probably killed thousands.

But guess what? Nobody even suffered a wound from these fully automatic firearms. Why was that? because they are in the hands of responsible citizens, not criminals or spaced out victims of modern psychiatry. 

If the guns were evil; if the massive magazines were evil, then this would have been a complete blood bath.

I don't see any blood. All I see are a bunch of folks having a good time. A DAMN good time.

When some body asks why I need a 30 round magazine to shoot a deer I tell them I don't. I tell them I need a 30 round magazine because it's FUN to shoot 30 rounds in a row.

This video proves just how much fun it can be.

Placebo

Everybody knows what a placebo is right? A pill or procedure that does absolutely nothing, but we are supposed to be convinced it is working wonders.

Kind of like the Republican Party.

They keep talking a good game- and have since 1988- but accomplish nothing.

They held the House, the Senate and the White House for 6 years.

6 YEARS!!!!

And government got bigger, along with the debt. Abortion is still legal, along with a host of other things they supposedly are against. But it's not there fault. It's the Democrats.

Don't take my word for it; spend a few minutes with talk radio.

I have become convinced that talk radio is our circus, designed solely to keep possibly expatriating Republicans on the ranch. Keep us convinced that the Republicans are doing their best and are deserving of our complete support.

And they cave again.

Just like on the 'Fiscal Cliff', when it comes time for the debt ceiling they will fold with the best of intentions. The debt ceiling will go up, debt will increase, spending will increase and taxes will rise again.

All things we sent them to Washington to OPPOSE.

I have faith in some of the younger members; ones who are now holding their first elected office- like Rand Paul- but the old timers have learned the ropes. When to speak out and when to act. Or not to.

Just start making real noise about a new third party; one to represent the people of this country, not the people and the companies sucking at the government teat, and watch the words fly. The only time most of these idiots can quote Ronald Reagan is when they say one of two things: 'Never criticize a fellow Republican', and 'we don't need a third party; we need a revitalized Republican Party'.

Just about the only two things President Reagan ever said that I don't agree with.

Did Anybody Else Lose Two Days?

I almost feel like I had a Lost Weekend. I can't believe I missed posting Monday and Tuesday. Well, a belated Happy New Year!

I did have a lost couple of days; I was lost in a book. Started it Sunday and finished last night, along with a few other things. I had to finish before I started back to work; I knew I wouldn't have time to read for the next few weeks.

I intend to do a review here in a few days, as soon as I collect my thoughts. I read the whole book- 1087 pages- and there is a lot to digest. It will be an interesting review; trust me.

The New Year so far has been good. The weather hasn't been too bad- 20's but sunny, and the family is all healthy.

And the 'Fiscal Cliff' has been avoided.

Well; postponed anyway. Maybe.

Interesting vote, wasn't it? According to the NBC News Article:

More Republican congressmen (151) voted against the Senate bill than for it (85), meaning that Democrats' support was needed to advance the final deal. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, took the rare step of casting a vote, and did so in favor of the legislation. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., the former Republican vice presidential nominee, also supported the package. But Boehner's top two lieutenants, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., each opposed the deal.

I won't have a Congressman until tomorrow, so nobody to berate in the House. Paul Ryan's Yea surprised me. Was all of the deficit hawk just a campaign posture? Hard to tell at this point.

The Senate is another matter. I had to get after Mitch McConnell the other day; apparently I need to do it again. He needs to start paying more attention to the Junior Senator from Kentucky when it comes to voting the people's interest.

And then we go through it again in February. Oh well; no sense having the Republicans cave all at once. Lets break it up into 2 separate cave-ins.

But the good news is it is only the leadership that is caving; the rank and file are holding true. we just needed to change 45 more minds.

I'll have to see how many of those 45 were 'Lame Ducks' this session....

Funny Business in Washington

I have been holding this post until after Christmas, just because I promised only happy thoughts before Christmas.

I can't come down on one side or the other; they each bother me equally.

And then I found another strip that so much so quickly:

I'm not sure how the cartoonist was looking at the issue, but Doesn't Cooperate can cover a lot of ground. My first sense was that they don't cooperate with the people who elected them, but he could also mean, given the current 'fiscal cliff' fiasco, that they don't cooperate with each other. Also true.

But it seems to me the only time the Politicians do cooperate is when they are screwing over the people who elected them.

The one exception I can think of is Rand Paul, my Senator from Kentucky. Not being a politician or a lawyer, he understands the evil that government is.

He just put forth an amendment to the FISA bill to increase Fourth Amendment protections on electronic communications; basically to give email and cell phones conversations protection from warrant-less searches. Here is the transcript of his speech on the Senate Floor.

Its about time we had some one in Washington who understands what the people want and is ready to fight for it.

Apparently, based on the vote in the Senate, we are at least 79 people short of what we need, including my other Senator, the one I don't claim much, Mitch McConnell.

He will hear from me today.

Gas Drops = Economy Sucks- Says Obama

On the way home tonight I saw gas for $2.99 a gallon; down almost a buck since the election.

Remember what Obama said during the second debate with Romney about why gas was so cheap before he was elected?

Maybe a refresher?

OBAMA: Well, think about what the governor -- think about what the governor just said. He said when I took office, the price of gasoline was $1.80, $1.86. Why is that? Because the economy was on the verge of collapse, because we were about to go through the worst recession since the Great Depression, as a consequence of some of the same policies that Governor Romney's now promoting.
So, it's conceivable that Governor Romney could bring down gas prices because with his policies, we might be back in that same mess.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/16/transcript-second-presidential-debate/#ixzz2FLzeEbTU

But if gas drops when the economy sucks; why is it dropping now, Mr. President?

Does your economy suck?

My guess is he doesn't think so.

And his probably doesn't.

It just that for the rest of the country the economy sucks, and has since 2008.

Scary Numbers

I was just listening to the news on the radio and they had a case of dueling quotes.

John Boehner was asking Obama where his list of spending cuts were.

Nancy Pelosi was asking where Boehner's revenue was coming from.

Nancy: right now the Federal Government is spending over $11,612.00 a year for each man, woman and child in the country, over $4,800.00 of that amount is borrowed money.

Don't take my word for it; do the math yourself. $3,600,000,000,000.00 spent; $1,300,000,000,000.00 borrowed divided by 310,000,000 million citizens.

Scary number, ain't it?

Comments Anyone?

The article is more or less fluff. Its the comments I find interesting. Not enlightening mind you, but interesting.

The article is a back handed compliment/slap at Sarah Palin.

The comments are pure Lefty hatred.

What is it about that women that raises the left's hackles so bad?

Servant; or Master?

In the United States of America the government is supposed to be the servant of the people; we, as the voters are supposed to be in charge. Congress is supposed to listen to us, and act accordingly. The President is supposed to hear our voices and respond.

Isn't that what they tell us every 2, 4 or 6 years? Hell; some of them may even believe it.

But then the election is over and the mask slips. Then we find out out servant is a tyrant.

Take for instance the EPA and the new ethanol requirement. There has been a lot of resistance to the increase of ethanol in gasoline, but all of the complaints have fallen on deaf ears. Big, jug-eared deaf ears.

The EPA doesn't care that less than one-half of one percent of the vehicles on the road right this minute can use this fuel without damage. Knowing this administration, they probably consider that a feature; not a bug.

What type of damage are we looking at? Well, ethanol is alcohol, which absorbs moisture. so anything it comes into contact with that contains moisture will start to be dried out; things like fuel line hoses; rubber seals on gas tanks and gaskets on intake systems. Ethanol is also less cohesive than oil based gasoline; meaning it will flow past the rings in engine cylinders, washing the lubrication off of the cylinder walls, allowing the rings to mark or scar them, which will hasten engine wear.

This cylinder wall bypass will also allow ethanol to contaminate the engine oil; thinning it so that it provides less protection, increasing wear on the bearing surfaces of the internal moving parts.

Bottom line: ethanol will cost the owners of 228 million vehicles in the country money. money for either a major engine repair or a new car or truck. What are the chances you vehicle is one of the 228 million affected? Odds are pretty dang good.

I don't know about you, but in the New Normal Economy (also known as Obama's Depression) I ain't got that kinda cash.

And that is just cars. This fuel will also damage/ruin your lawnmower; chainsaw; weedeater; rototiller and snow-blower, as well as every other piece of gasoline powered equipment you put it in.

 Plus- and here is a real kicker- the addition of ethanol LOWERS fuel economy. There is less 'bang' in each quart of ethanol that there is in a quart of gasoline, so the more ethanol you burn the more fuel you will use. Since the addition of ethanol will not lower the price of a gallon of gas, the cost of your commute has just gone up.

And ANOTHER kicker; burning food in your gas tank will raise the demand for corn, which will also raise the price/cost of the corn. Which means the addition of ethanol will most likely mean an increase in the cost of a gallon of gas.

Unless the Federal government continues to subsidize the ethanol industry with a larger subsidy, paid for out of our taxes. Unless of course they just borrow the money (hey; when you are $16,000,000,000.00 in debt already, whats another billion or two?) instead, meaning we will pay for the subsidy and the cost of the interest to borrow the money to pay the subsidy, in addition to paying for the repairs to our gas powered equipment caused by the ethanol we are paying to subsidize.

But that subsidy won't apply to other uses of corn; like as animal feed or creating sugar. An increase in the cost of corn will lead to an increase in the cost of any foodstuff that relies on corn. Not only Fritos, Doritos and tacos, but anything that contains High Fructose as an ingredient, or eats corn, like cattle/beef, hogs/pork and chickens.

Not to mention what this will do to the cost of moonshine and bourbon.

This is a government that is the servant of the people?

How do I fire this servant?

Oh yeah; never mind; apparently we can't fire this servant until we can find a suitable replacement.

And we have to wait four three two more years to even start the search.

What Can I Say?

If you voted a certain way, you gotta agree with this guy.

If you voted the other way, you probably don't like guns anyway.

Personally I would like to see these signs appearing at more businesses.

Like Papa Johns; "If you voted for Obama you have just proven you are not responsible enough to be trusted with pizza".

Ah; if only it were a perfect world...

Its Time For A Change

I haven't yet analyzed exactly why Romney lost. Maybe I really don't care why. I really wasn't that enamored of Romney anyway. I voted for him because he wasn't Obama. I would have (ALMOST) voted for the devil himself instead of Obama, but I am convinced that Obama is the devil himself.

Something has to explain those ears.

But, I digress.

As of today we have just short of four years and a Congressional election to do SOMETHING.

Tomorrow I am changing my voter registration form "Independent" to "Libertarian".

I have never been much of a joiner. I'm not a big fan of people or being around them. But sometimes you need to do things you hate in order to support things you love.

And I love this country. Or, at least what this country used to be. And will be again.

I'm thinking Libertarian is the way to go for a lot of reasons, but mostly because they believe in leaving folks alone.

Are they perfect? Hell no. Most of their foreign policy stands are naive, especially in the modern world. In George Washington's day we could ignore what happened in West Africa; it would take months to get the news and years for it to affect us, if ever. But when you can have lunch in Kenya and dinner in Washington, we need to take a little more notice of what happens overseas. The Libertarians need to recognize that our national interests do extend beyond our borders.

It's on domestic issues I am 100% behind the Libertarians.

Take Colorado; they just voted to legalize recreational marihuana. I don't know the details, like distribution or sales, but why has the government determined that one intoxicant- alcohol- is legal, and another- marihuana- is not? Or why do I need a prescription for one medication and not for another? Some Medications once required a prescription now do not, and some medications that do not require prescription are locked up behind the counter and restricted for sale. Why?

If I think I need a medication for a head cold, why do I need permission to buy that relief? Am I not a competent adult? Who makes these decisions, that one medication is over the counter, and another is not? Whoever it is has decided I am not competent enough to handle my own health without supervision.

Should all drugs be over the counter? Hell no. Antibiotics should still be prescription. Here's why: A lot of diseases can be made resistant to antibiotics by over medicating, which would affect everybody, and not just the one who is over medicating.

But that is what Libertarianism is all about. You can screw yourself up all you want. But not me.

Look at all of the government would could get rid of if we just stopped  controlling every little thing.

Would we still have an EPA? Maybe; but it's role would not be as controlling and punitive as it is now. But we would still need to make sure that what you did on your land didn't affect me. Think of them more as cops; the oil you dumped in your backyard ruined my roses. The EPA is the special police to handle the issue.

We have four years to sort it out and to get a viable candidate; some one right and left can get behind.

It's time to drain the swamp in Washington, and it is obvious neither party is up to the task. Lets see if somebody else is.

What do we have to lose?

Seriously; what do we have to lose?