Friday's Journal

How McCain should have responded to Whoopi on the view

Sat, 13 Sep 2008 19:37:14 GMT

On the View, Whoopi asked John McCain if she should fear being returned to slavery if McCain appoints judges who strictly interpret the constitution. McCain acknowledged that it was a good question, thanked Whoopi for bringing it up, but was unable to answer before Walters interrupted him. This is what McCain should have said:

Whoopi,

I'm glad you asked this question. It is very important and I believe I have a simple answer. When our constitution was written, it provided for three separate branches of government, to act as checks and balances of each other. The judiciary was created to ensure that congress and the President do not pass legislation that contradicts our constitution in either words and authorial intent.

Authorial intent, by the way, is very important. It makes it so that the constitution must be interpreted in context, not just in the words themselves. It requires that those who interpret it know not just the words as written, but the spirit in which they were written.

The judiciary and it's role is incredibly important. You should no more have judges writing law than you should have a President overturning law apart from the veto process or congress enforcing law that has never seen the President's desk. The judiciary has a specific job, and that is to interpret and protect our constitution, not to redefine it, alter it, re-interpret it, or politicize it.

Now, you might ask shouldn't we have a document that is living and can change and adjust itself with the times? Well, we do. Within the constitution is provision for changing the constitution, called the amendment process. This process requires a super majority of congress and the states to write and pass alterations to the constitution. Once accepted, these amendments hold equal weight both in word and authorial intent as the original document itself. And within this process lies the answer to you question.

Whoopi, if I nominate strict constitutionalist judges, they must interpret and protect the entire constitution, including all amendments. Including by the way, the thirteenth amendment which reads as follows:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

You will be happy to know that the thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth, and nineteenth amendments not only ensure that you will never be returned to slavery, but also grant you, a black woman, equal rights as me, a white man. In fact, because of the fifteenth and nineteenth amendments, you are free to vote. I hope this answer will aid you in your decision.

Whoopi, the simple answer to your question is that the only way you would ever have to fear returning to slavery would be if I did not nominate judges who strictly interpreted the constitution by it's original words and authorial intent. Or if a majority of congress and the states choose to repeal the thirteenth amendment, in which case God help us all.

Sun, 31 Aug 2008 00:42:58 GMT

Contact your senator

Sun, 01 Jun 2008 02:02:29 GMT

My letter to Senators Martinez and Nelson,

I am writing to implore you to vote no on Warner-Lieberman. Raising taxes on businesses and energy is not a viable solution during or leading up to a recession. In one of the coldest years in recent history we must not sacrifice the poor on the altar of so-called Global Warming.

In addition, the solution to high fuel prices, pollution, and use of fossil fuels is not legislation that takes away capital from American businesses, oppresses poor consumers and artificially manipulates the market. The result of Warner-Lieberman will be higher fuel prices, which we already cannot afford, and outsourcing American energy jobs to the Middle East and Venezuela.

Vote no on Warner-Lieberman.

Sincerely,

Also, please go to Americansolutions.com and sign the Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less petition.

My letter to Senator Nelson of Florida

Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:00:12 GMT

The following is my letter to Senator Bill Nelson of Florida

Mr. Nelson,

Please explain to me the Democrat energy policy. I work with businesses as an accountant, and I seem to be missing something. Democrats are proposing that the solution to the higher gas prices and energy costs is to stop subsidies for the oil industries. Isn't it basic Intro to Business, 1st semester, thought that if you increase a companies costs artificially that they will increase prices to compensate? In other words, if you make it more expensive for oil companies to do business, how does that cause them to lower prices?

On the other hand, why are Democrats opposed to letting American companies drill and refine American oil and build American nuclear power plants? Economics 101, again 1st semester basics, seems to show that if you increase supply it will spark more competition and prices will drop. And this would create hundreds of thousands of American jobs.

Taking away oil subsidies but not allowing them to explore or refine would be like taking away farm subsidies but not allowing them to develop a percentage of their fields.

Democrats are against outsourcing except when it comes to good high paying jobs in an industry that should be growing exponentially and contributing to our economy. You seem to not have any problems with outsourcing our oil production and refinement to other countries, especially terrorist funding countries.

Please explain the logic behind this. I really do want to know and I know you are busy but I think the state of Florida which would benefit greatly from allowed exploration deserves an explanation.

Sincerely,

Christianity for Democrats

Wed, 05 Mar 2008 02:31:28 GMT

Can someone tell me what I am missing here? I know it is long, but I have read through it and obviously Obama knows something I don't.

"I think that it is a legal right that they [homosexuals] should have that is recognized by the state. If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans."
- Obama

Ok, here is the obscure passage from Romans:

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

And here is the clear teaching on homosexuality from the Sermon on the Mount:

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4 Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. 5 Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. 6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled. 7 Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. 8 Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. 9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God. 10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 11 "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

13 "You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men. 14 "You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. 16 In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.

17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

21 "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell. 23 "Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift. 25 "Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. 26 I tell you the truth, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.

27 "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. 31 "It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.

33 "Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' 34 But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

38 "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' 39 But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

43 "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

5 "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

9 "This, then, is how you should pray: "'Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, 10 your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. 11 Give us today our daily bread. 12 Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. 13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.' 14 For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

16 "When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 17 But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, 18 so that it will not be obvious to men that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

19 "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. 22 "The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are good, your whole body will be full of light. 23 But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness! 24 "No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.

25 "Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? 26 Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? 27 Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life? 28 "And why do you worry about clothes? See how the lilies of the field grow. They do not labor or spin. 29 Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of these. 30 If that is how God clothes the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? 31 So do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' 32 For the pagans run after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them. 33 But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well. 34 Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. 3 "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. 6 "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.

7 "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened. 9 "Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11 If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!

12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. 13 "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

15 "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23 Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' 24 "Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26 But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash."

McCain and Huckabee

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 14:03:14 GMT

I have been asked alot what I think of Huckabee and McCain, the remaining Republican candidates. So here is my synopsis:

John McCain: On spending we have much in common. He doesn't like earmarks, I think pork spending should be illegal. He thinks tax cuts should be accompanied by spending cuts. I agree. But the bus stops there. McCain first voted against Bush's tax cuts because he thought they favored the rich, since then he has changed his reason for voting against them. I am not fooled. McCain also thinks that Gitmo detainees should be brought to the US and given the right to a fair jury trial that any US citizen would enjoy, with the added benefit of being able to view classified information in their defense. This flies in the face of precedent. Even the treatment they recieve right now flies in the face of precedent. In world war II we hung non-uniformed enemy combatants who could not demonstrate their military rank.

McCain also is against harsh interrogation techniques. Perhaps the terrorists will surrender their knowledge of impending attacks out of the goodness of their hearts. Or perhaps McCain thinks that if we stop waterboarding terrorists, the terrorists will stop torturing and dismembering their captives. On national defense and the war on terror, McCain is extremely weak.

McCain is also for amnesty. Now don't be fooled by his renewed committment to set aside McCain/Kennedy amnesty and build the border fence. If you listen to the nuance of his speech, his plan is to build the fence and then institute McCain/Kennedy amnesty. So, if you are reading this and you are one of our illegal friends south of the border, the time to cross is now. You have nothing to lose, except if McCain is elected you won't be able to go back for your stuff because there will be a fence there. If Hillary or Obama is elected? Hey, mi casa es su casa.

I don't like McCain/Feingold, but I wouldn't not vote for someone because of it. I just think it shows McCain's mindset as a senator, that somehow Government is the answer. Hopefully he will get a good conservative free market vice president to set him straight.

McCain is nominally anti-abortion, but effectively pro-choice. He is one of those 'Abortion is terrible, tragic, I hate it, it should happen as little as possible, but it should be safe, legal, available to all for any reason and the cost should be shared by all Americans' type. By the way, the first part of that quote is directly from Hillary herself.

The worse part about McCain though is his temper, lies, and dirty tricks. What he did to Romney two days before the Florida election by lying about Romney's record on Iraq was terrible. It left a terrible taste in my mouth that won't soon be washed out. McCain is better than Hillary or Obama, but if a good third party candidate comes along..................

Mike Huckabee: Mike is a good guy. He is a nice guy. Somewhat naive, grandious ideas at times, but overall a nice guy. I understand his raising taxes as a governor to a certain extent, but I think his excuses are lame. He, like McCain, seems to have a government is the answer mentality.

He also is kind to prisoners, especially the ones who don't deserve it. But again, that is not something I wouldn't vote for him for. He has signed a pledge saying 'read my lips, no new taxes', but I don't know if we should believe him.

My biggest problem with Huckabee is that he supports the so-called Fair-tax. I have many many issues with this particular pipe dream of 'getting rid of the IRS' that I have discussed to death in many places. If you have any questions about why the fairtax is a terrible idea, let me know. But I don't think he will get it passed, perhaps just in the light enough to finally realize all the problems and kill it.

So Huckabee is ok. Too bad he doesn't have a snowball's chance in Florida of winning. So in the end, the winner is, Hillary. God save the queen. (by the way, this is not an endorsement, I would never vote for Hillary, and in fact, I would vote for the bum on the street corner before I voted for Hillary.)

Vote for me

Sun, 06 May 2007 00:21:21 GMT

Hey everyone, I am running for President. Be sure to go to http://www.u4prez.com/index.php?do=rate&act=profile&id=1781 and vote for friday!

My thesis

Sun, 29 Apr 2007 23:46:16 GMT

I have been thinking about writing a book. The following is the summary. Let me know if it sounds interesting or at least which paragraph you fell asleep at:).

is the fair tax a good tax?

I have been reading the Fair Tax Book by Neil Boortz. Mr. Boortz, through wit and research, attempts to make an argument for an alternative to our current tax system. Any argument started with "our current tax system is not good" will win every time. But is the Fair Tax a "good" alternative? As a rarity among conservative Republicans, I would say no.

As a matter of fact, any system where you are forced to spend money on items that do not affect your own self-interest is hard to label "good". For example, if you are forced every morning to fill up your neighbor's SUV with your own gas money, you would hardly call that good. In the same way, when our tax system takes 35% of one person's income to pay for the healthcare of an illegal immigrant, it is hard to call that system "good".

In addition, a system where you have to pay hundreds of dollars to file a tax return, so that a large percentage of your tax money can be eaten up in government bureaucracy is not "good". So it is easy to say that our current tax system is not "good". But is the Fair Tax any better? For those of you who don't know what the Fair Tax is, I would recommend Mr. Boortz' book. Unfortunately I don't have the space here to familiarize you with it.

So why would I, a Conservative Republican, not think the Fair Tax is any better than our current system? There are four reasons. First, it will not be any easier to comply with. Second, it will not make our system any fairer or reduce the abuses it is subject to. Third, it will encourage government control in our lives. And fourth, it will not solve the real problem. Let me take these points somewhat one by one, although you will see they bleed into each other:

Right now for all tax purposes, we file a variety of tax returns throughout the year, but for federal purposes we file quarterly payroll returns, an annual Unemployment return, a corporate/partnership return and a personal income tax return. These returns range from two to many pages long depending on the schedules, credits, and so on that we use. They are complex and many times have rules written by politicians in attempts to win political votes. Will the Fair Tax be easier? I have a slight knowledge advantage over Mr. Boortz in this area simply because I have probably filed about 300 more sales tax returns than he has. I am a tax professional in Florida. We have a sales tax in Florida and every month, every retail business and rental business is required to file a sales tax return. They are only one page long. Why do I file them? because we have local rates as well as state rates and I have seen several clients attempt to file these returns on their own and completely botch them. This is just on a one page return. A national sales tax return would probably have one page just to list the necessities that are exempt. Where would they come from? See points two and three.

So now we have gone from an annual income tax return and quarterly payroll tax returns to monthly consumption tax returns. Here is also where the first and second point blur together. In a perfect world, with true conservative Republicans in charge, and money being spent for constitutional purposes, a Fair Tax might look in 5 years what it was originally designed to look like. We do not live in a perfect world.
For example: how long would a democrat majority allow every American, including Bill Gates, Brad Pitt, and John Kerry to get a monthly check from the government for basic living expenses as Mr. Boortz suggests?
How long would our elected officials stay in office if they made people making $10,000 a year pay the same 23% consumption tax as people making 10 million a year?
I would give the Fair Tax 3 years with a Republican government, 3 months with a Liberal one, before we have bracketed sales tax rates, an IRS to figure out your income and net worth, and credits depending on income levels. In case you haven't figured it out, that puts us back at square one.

Same point, different angle: How long will the consumption tax on Toyotas and fords be the same if we have a speaker of the house from Detroit? how long will the consumption tax on ethanol and gasoline stay the same? How about priuses and SUVs? We can see where this is going....straight into the third point.

Right now the government has certain controls over our lives. Tax policy governs how much money we make, and they take a percentage if we make too much. Tax policy also encourages such things as IRAs, Mortgages over renting, HSAs, etc. The government has put itself in a position where it can have some influence on our lives by taxing what we earn. Look at investments after Bush lowered the tax on dividends and capital gains. Now the Dow is over 13,000.

The only way the government could have more fiscal control, short of socialism, is by taxing how we spend our money instead of how we make it. If the consumption tax on fluorescent light bulbs is 10% and 50% on old fashioned light bulbs, which will you buy? If the senator from Idaho sees a shortage in potato crops, and the senator from New York needs the senator from Idaho to vote on say a troop withdrawal time line, how long will the consumption tax on potatoes remain at 23%?

And finally, the Fair Tax does not solve the real problem. It is revenue neutral. It is like replacing a Sponge-bob band aid with a Spiderman band aid and saying "there, all better". The real problem is that the government is spending so much money that we would even need to take 23% of your expenditures in taxes. Constitutionally, the US government should be spending on protecting the US, standardizing weights and measures among states, and promoting the general welfare (not the welfare state). If the government could stay within those boundaries, we could go back to a 5% flat tax on the middle class and higher and be all set. I wish I could go into all of these points more, but I doubt half who started reading this are still with me, so I will stop here.

My latest correspondence

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 20:45:00 GMT

Mr. Nelson, I am both saddened and disappointed that you chose to vote for a bill that announces the defeat of the USA at the hands of terrorists, gives the specific timetable for defeat, and was sold to fellow senators in exchange for earmarks. What was your price?

To vote against funding our troops would be a clear final statement from congress on our defeat in the war in Iraq. To support our troops would be a strong statement of unity and strength against our terrorist enemies, and could even help bring about victory.

To decree that we will surrender within 6 months if we haven't defeated the enemy by then is nonsensical! Can you think of a single enemy in history who was so badly beaten that they wouldn't have kept fighting if they knew we were 6 months away from giving up? I don't think Al Qaida falls into this category.

Please reconsider your vote on this surrender bill, and when the President vetoes it, do not delay in providing him with a realistic bill that will help our troops and hurt our enemies. What a breath of fresh air that would be for America.

Sincerely,

Here's an idea

Thu, 26 Apr 2007 00:18:04 GMT

yes, it's another post about liberals...

So, I was thinking today, couldn't libs get so much more accomplished by actually implementing their ideas rather than trying to get the government to force everyone else to? For example, and I am sure I have given this before, but what if all the hollywood and government libs used as much energy in their homes as George W. Bush? Btw, I have heard his home uses 25% of the energy of the average american home. Or what if they took all their lobbying money and instead bought priuses for poor people with old run down muffler-less cars? they would be helping the poor and stopping global warming at the same time!

Then I was thinking...

what if they ran a business they way they want the government to run corporate america? For example, the CEO would be paid the same as the janitors. Every employee would have 12.4% taken off the top of their paycheck to pay for the retired workers retirement plans. They would also have 2.9% taken off the top to pay for the retired workers healthcare. Speaking of which, they would have a mandatory healthplan deducted from their wages and paid to a network of doctors of the companies choosing. These doctors would be paid the same no matter how well they perform, but if they are white and male they might be fired for poor performance. Speaking of which, half the company would be minority, half would be women and there would be a small tax on white male salaries that would be redistributed to the women and minority workers just to make sure things are fair.

Employees would have to walk or bicycle to work, but VPs and up can fly private jets to work. Sure we have to save the environment, but we also have to keep the VPs safe. think of walking to work as a carbon offset.

There would be a 100 member panel in charge of analyzing every decision the CEO makes to make sure there were no motives behind it. No motives of any kind. The company neutralize more carbon than it puts out, and the cafeteria would serve non-transfat foods.

To pay for these things and to keep the company competative, shareholders would have to give 35% of their dividends back to the company, and if they ever try to sell the company's stock they must pay 35% of the sale back to the company. in addition to this, and the above mentioned taxes, every employee would have to give 35% of their annual income so that the VPs can redistribute it and buy each other's support through bribes and project designations. by the way, there is nothing wrong with a VP taking a bribe, in fact, he or she might get promoted.

God cannot be mentioned inside the four walls of the company, and any negative word or thought about a minority will result in immediate dismissal. however, you can say whatever you want about the white males. a portion of every employee's paycheck tax will go towards homosexual partner benefits, testing on humans (never on animals), and free abortions.

trust me, once everyone sees the vast success of this business model, all businesses will become lib businesses and the world will be a changed place...

Letter to my Senator

Thu, 29 Mar 2007 23:21:53 GMT

Senator Nelson,

The so-called emergency troop funding bill recently passed by the Senate is disgraceful. If I propose to simply think the best of the senators who voted for it, including yourself, my best thought is that you are simply incompetent in handling a war. Our troops do not need more than 20 billion dollars of my tax money for pork barrel earmarks. They do not need 100 million dollars for political party conventions. They do not need more than 3 million dollars for Capital tours. And although I am sure our troops drink milk, and eat spinach, peanuts and fish, I don't think they need hundreds of millions of dollars going towards those special interests. Furthermore, our troops do not need a set surrender date, especially when General Patreus' surge is showing great progress. I might remind you, you helped unanimously confirm General Patreus. Our troops do not need to lose the support of our congress. If you truly believe that Al Qaida is not in Iraq, that our troops cannot win in Iraq, and that their efforts and lives are simply being wasted, then why vote to surrender a year from now? Why not vote for immediate surrender? It would be one thing to cut off all funding and end the war now. It is another to bleed our troops and give our enemies a future surrender date, and then leave our troops in Iraq in the interim.

I do not believe as you do. I believe Gen. Patreus' surge is working. I believe most Iraqis want freedom. I believe there are more terrorists in Iraq than there are in Okinawa, Kuwait, Germany, the U.S. or anywhere else you might "redeploy" our troops. And most of all, I believe once they have secured Iraq, the terrorists will follow us home. Please, if you can explain your shameful vote on this special interest surrender bill, do so. If you find yourself at a loss for words, it is time to re-examine your position on the war in Iraq. Perhaps it is time to start supporting our troops.

Sincerely,

(the previous has been a copy of my letter to Democrat Senator Bill Nelson of Florida. I would encourage anyone likeminded to write their own version to their own senator.)

It's not that they're unpatriotic....

Tue, 20 Mar 2007 02:08:51 GMT

It turns out we were wrong. When the democrats mistook our troops for nazis, or accused them of terrorizing Iraqi women and children in the dead of night, it wasn't because the democrats are unpatriotic. No, they just are clueless when it comes to fighting a war on terror. Examples? Well, John Kerry said out troops were "terrorizing Iraqi women and children in the dead of night", but instead of condemning this, he then said "Iraqis should be doing that". Murtha doesn't think we should withdraw from the war on terror, he just thinks there are more terrorists in Okinawa then there are in Iraq. What other reason could he give for saying that we will be stronger in the war on terror if we leave Iraq in favor of redeployment to Okinawa.

Stick with me, I am getting to the really good part...soon. There are of course dems who think we will get more information out of terrorists by nicer interrogations, and that we should close gitmo and give Osama Bin Laden's limo driver and men who have confessed to 9/11, the USS Cole bombing and embassy bombings a fair American celebrity tv trial. Worked for OJ and Scooter, why not for the Sheik?

But still, you might argue that this proves anti-Americanism, not just pure imbicilism. Well, let seal my argument and make it airtight with a final example. See, the troops need additional funding right now. According to the Army they are already pinching pennies waiting for the latest supplemental funding bill to come through. What is taking it so long? Well, the most ethical and open congress in history, the fiscally responsible democrats who are going to end earmarks, have put together a shopping list for our troops. And what do our troops need?

1. Our troops need $25 million for spinach growers. (by the way, the Wall Street Journal suggested maybe they are drafting Popeye)
2. Our troops need $50 million for a Capitol Hill Power Plant. The Iraqis in outer lying areas with only a few hours of power a day might disagree.
3. Our troops need $5 million for tropical fish. Perhaps a nice moral booster, but you know you can't eat 'em, they're probably all protected species.
4. Our troops need $283 million in subsidies for milk farmers
5. Our troops need $74 million to store peanuts
6. Our troops need $145 million in subsidies for shrimp fishing industries and livestock
7. Our troops need $15 million for damaged crops. By the way, all this is domestic spending. Not for farmers and crops in Iraq or being used to actually feed our troops.
8. Our troops need $100 million in citrus subsidies.
9. Our troops need $16 million to expand capitol office buildings (apparently to host more democrat military funding specialists)

So you see, it's not that they don't want to fight the war on terror, it is that they are completely incompetent to fight it. They have just spent more than $700 million dollars of your tax money and have not built a single peice of body armor, bullet or canteen. Write your senator or congressman and give them some simple instructions on what troops might actually need to fight a war, like guns, tanks, food, body armor, working hospital facilities stateside, etc. And maybe suggest that if California wants to help out their spinach farmers, by golly California can shell out the $25 million themselves.

Thu, 08 Mar 2007 01:46:26 GMT

Create your own Friend Test here

Thu, 01 Mar 2007 01:15:59 GMT

You know the Bible 100%!

Wow! You are awesome! You are a true Biblical scholar, not just a hearer but a personal reader! The books, the characters, the events, the verses - you know it all! You are fantastic!

Ultimate Bible Quiz
Create MySpace Quizzes

The problem with James Cameron's "documentary"

Thu, 01 Mar 2007 01:09:25 GMT

for those of you who don't know, James Cameron is producing a documentary about an archeological find from 1980 which has new DNA evidence which he says proves that it is Jesus tomb, and Jesus body. Oh, and Joseph's body (apparently moved from Galilee), Mary's body, Mary Magdalene's body, Jesus' brothers' bodies, the disciple Matthew's body, and Jesus illigimate son Judah's body.

Apparently the statistical probability of a Jesus, Joseph, Mary Magdalene, Etc all being found in one tomb is like 1 in 100. I would like to know, what is the statistical probability that more than 12 men, who saw Jesus die and be buried, moved his body to this wealthy man's tomb, buried his family with him, buried his lover with him, buried his illigitimate son with him, would suffer execution to protect the lie that Jesus lived a perfect life and then rose from the dead? none of the apostles were rich, and they were beaten and executed.

Yet, Cameron would have you believe that these men somehow obtained a rich man's tomb and buried Jesus whole family, including lover and illigitimate son, there with engraved ossuaries, and not only did none of them ever give away the secret even when faced with death, but no one ever found out either, until 2007.

So, what is the big DNA evidence? well, apparently, the DNA residue (no bones were left in the ossuaries, they were buried in 1980) from the ossuaries of Jesus and Mary Magdalene dont match, proving they were not brother and sister. I think it would be interesting to find out whose DNA did match. For example, was Mary Magdalene the only one whose DNA didnt match with the others? did supposedly illigitimate son Judah's DNA match with both Jesus and Mary Magdalene? Here's the kicker, does Jesus DNA match Joseph's?

Imagine if the jews or the romans knew about Jesus body being buried with the rest of his family and illigitimate family members. Christianity would be over before it started. Why, when Judah (son of Jesus) died and the original disciples had all been martyred by then for believing in a sinless resurrected Jesus, who would know where to bury him? who would still know the family secret?

We have history books of America. We can name our founding fathers, we have historical records of what they have accomplished. If we discovered graves in Canada from the 1700's marked George and Martha Washington and Thomas Jefferson, would that be enough to throw away 200 years of american history and assume we stole our rich history from the canadians?

As a skeptic myself, I still think it takes more faith to believe Cameron on this one than it does to believe the Bible and other historical records.

well, it started out good

Sat, 30 Dec 2006 23:07:12 GMT

My Peculiar Aristocratic Title is:
Imperial Majesty Isaac the Confused of Herring-le-hole
Get your Peculiar Aristocratic Title

what I got for Christmas

Tue, 26 Dec 2006 00:46:11 GMT

Well, it was an awesome weekend. On saturday we went to D&B to celebrate my degree and I had a really good double cheeseburger and then we played games all afternoon. then on sunday we sang in the choir in the morning and then went to the NE Patriots Jax Jaguars game. we had awesome seats and it we won! then we went to church that night and then bethany and I watched Firefly until midnight and went to bed. then this morning was Christmas and I got a new raquet ball racquet, a NE Patriots blanket, NE Patriots towel, flip flops, candy, money and an awesome t-shirt that says "Although the voices in my head aren't real....they have some pretty good ideas". I thought that was awesome. actually it says "voice's", not "voices", so it was driving my wife nuts. "the voices shouldn't be possessive!" so now I like the shirt cause its funny and it drives her nuts. then we played card games all afternoon and are watching that movie "invincible" tonight. so yeah, it's been an awesome weekend. and I have work tomorrow...

Sat, 23 Dec 2006 00:33:35 GMT

Christmas is coming,
The isaac is getting fat,
Please to put a penny
In the old man's hat.

Christmas is Coming
from the Christmas Song Generator.

the sad thing is, my wife took one look at this and cracked up saying "its so true!" between outbursts of laughter. yeah. and the sadder thing is, I weighed myself last night and still weigh what I did two months ago.

swearing in...on the Koran? Good.

Fri, 01 Dec 2006 01:09:50 GMT

Keith Ellison, new Democrat congressman in Minnessota, and the first Muslim in congress, is planning on shirking the usual tradition of taking the oath of office with his hand on the Bible, and instead will swear in on the Koran. Good. But what about the tradition? what about our heritage? That is the problem. The Bible has become a tradition and a heritage. That is why you can put your hand on the Bible, take the oath of office, and then hide $100,000 in bribe money in your freezer and still get elected. That is why you can put your hand on the Bible, swear an oath, and then have an adulterous affair in the oval office and lie about it.

If you dont believe in the Bible and you dont hold to the values contained therein, then by swearing on it you are breaking your oath as the words leave your mouth. Your oath is worthless. That is why you swear an oath on the Bible instead of just saying "I promise to be a good congressperson."

If he holds to the values and teachings of the Koran, then his swearing an oath on the Koran might actually mean something to him.

Listen, if you want the Bible to be the basis of our society, the tradition we uphold, and the values of the Bible to be the values of our society than for goodness sakes, vote for someone who believes in the Bible! If you want biblical values, you should vote for people who hold to those values. If you want the values of the Koran, then by all means, vote for a Muslim, but don't expect that he is going to swear by your biblical values.

Once we start swearing on the Bible simply because that is what we do, then the Bible obtains the same value as the floor the man stands on when he takes the oath. The Bible and the values contained in it are worth more than that.

the draft ( a lib explainer )

Thu, 23 Nov 2006 00:03:08 GMT

It is now more than two weeks after we elected a party that promised us a new direction in Iraq. As I type this, no one knows what that new direction is, but hey, we trust them enough to elect them, they must have a good plan cooking. One that might include...the draft??

Now if all your suggestions sofar include immediate surrender of US forces, delayed surrender of US forces, one year's notice of surrender of US forces, and so on, why would you want a draft? If the notion that we can win in Iraq is just plain wrong, its the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time, and so on, why on earth would you want to draft more soldiers and send them to their meaningless death?

Well, there actually is a rationale. See, when John Kerry said get an education or you'll end up stuck in Iraq, libs tried to distance themselves from him. But not because they disagree with him. Only because saying that is unpopular. Charlie Rangel has made it quite clear, the reason we need the draft is because right now the military is made up of only the poor, powerless, dreggs of society who had no other choice than to join the military. His thought is that if we draft people from John Edwards "other america", then we will be less likely to get involved in "wars of choice" (which by the way defines every war America has ever fought in).

Liberals cannot understand why the US continues to meet it's recruiting goals. It cant be because we have honorable men in our country who want to serve our country. It cant be because Iraq actually has anything to do with the war on terror, and fighting in Iraq somehow is defending the US. It must be because our troops are uneducated, have no opportunity, and can't make it in this world. By the way, in the liberal mind this also means most of them must be black. Only liberals seem to think that blacks can't make it in america without their help.

So there you have it. Rangel's attempt to reinstitute the draft is not meant to help us win the war in Iraq, only to keep us out of war and to hopefully send some smart people into the military. So don't you dare accuse him or any other lib of not supporting our troops...

sick and tired of $&#^% actors reading the ^&$( bible

Sat, 18 Nov 2006 02:36:45 GMT

Zondervan is coming out with a new audio bible featuring the voices of some prominent actors, including Denzel Washington, Angela Bassett and others. Samuel L Jackson will be the voice of God. Well, I wonder how that compares to having an anti-semitic actor known for foul language, violence and nudity scenes produce a movie about the crucifixion of Christ?

The producers of this audio bible finally decided to let anyone (christian or non-christian) participate in the project so that they could get the best talent and because there were christians and non-christians in the bible....

I guess that makes sense, I mean, if Steve Jobbs is better at explaining computer stuff, why not have him teach your Windows seminar. or if Chirac is more eliquent, have him give the US state of the union speech.

Projects like this turn the Bible into nothing more than quaint stories. the actors reading this dont believe what it says, and they certainly arent the type who represent the morals of the Bible. some argue that more people will get saved because they will listen to this audio recording to hear the voice of the stars and will hear the gospel. Well, that is possible, but my argument against any christian commercialism is that it turns away more than it brings in. after Mel Gibson's drunken rage (which I anticipated to a certain extent and even warned fellow bible classmates about), how many will get saved from watching his "passion" movie?

I believe God is more likely to bless the work of his faithful children than of the devils. harsh? sure, but i think i am telling it like it is. Although I guess if we remain silent the rocks will cry out. I guess it is just sad that we have been so silent that it is not the harmless rocks, but the non-christians who make a poor representation of our faith who are crying out in our place.

Don't forget to vote

Mon, 06 Nov 2006 17:11:13 GMT

If you want a party who is committed to fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq, who stands by their decision to remove an anti-american dictator who had the technology to build an atomic bomb and plenty of buyers who have the materials, who took us from recession to boom and 4.4% unemployment, who has stopped numerous terrorist attacks, who has worked to uphold our values, then dont forget to vote.

If you want a party that wants to surrender to Iraq, thinks Saddam was better for Iraq than freedom, thinks the answer to our problems is increased taxes and socialist spending, who thinks we should be able to call al qaeda terrorists and not worry about the US listening in, then by all means, forget to vote.

What Kerry meant to say

Wed, 01 Nov 2006 17:27:42 GMT

First of all, we all know that Bush did better in school than John Kerry did. So maybe he meant to say "If you study hard and do well and are smart, you will get us stuck in Iraq".

Or maybe Kerry was talking about how he voted to invade Iraq.

Or more likely, since Dems always get Iraq and Vietnam confused, maybe he meant to say "Study hard do well or you will end up stuck in Vietnam, like me".

The second thing is, with an all volunteer army I don't see how him meaning Bush could be any better. Either he is saying our troops were too stupid to go to college, or he is saying Bush was so stupid he wanted to invade Iraq and our troops were too stupid to not sign up.

An easy strategy to defeat

Fri, 20 Oct 2006 22:04:03 GMT

Well, we have a golden opportunity. Air America is bankrupt, and the DNC is borrowing millions of dollars in a dismal attempt to match Republican contributions. Democrats have proven they are bankrupt of ideas as well. Their best plan for Iraq is to send Al Qaida our one year notice. Their best plan for energy is to make gas unaffordable through taxes to force us all to use solar paneling and windmills. Nuclear energy and drilling are out of the question. Their best plan to counter this *terrible* economy is to raise taxes across the board and have the government pay for everything. If Republicans stay strong and come out en masse on November 7th and 2008, by 2012 the presidential race could be between two Republicans with a Democrat running as a third party spoiler.

But the liberals have one viable strategy that just might work. Liberals want to open our borders and shovel in the illegals. But if they can convince Republicans that our members in congress arent strong enough on immigration, we might stay home and let dems win by default. Libs want to surrender in Iraq, but if they can convince us that Republicans aren't strong enough on defense, they might convince us to stay home and let them win by default. Dems want to raise taxes across the board, drastically increase spending, and introduce socialism, but if they can convince us that Republicans spend too much, we might stay home and let them win by default.

Are you sensing a pattern here? Democrats can become a third party allowing Conservative and Liberal Republicans to battle for control, but not if we stay home and give Democrats a false sense of support. If we have a 15% voter turnout, but the dems win by a couple percentage points, it will be their mandate for their values and their (heheh) agenda. If we didnt like the republicans we had, we should have taken care of that in the primaries. Now its Republicans versus Democrats, we cant let them win by default.

Schools out, I'm back

Sat, 14 Oct 2006 13:41:25 GMT

I get a week break, and just in time. Right now we are capturing dozens of Al Qaida and Al Qaida in Iraq, the economy is the best in the world and some say better than Clinton's best economy, the deficit is shrinking rapidly, we are doing something about border security for the first time in 20 years, and bringing in record tax revenues with lower taxes. The only way democrats can win in November is if republicans stay home. The only way republicans will stay home is if they are disgusted with their party. That is why Dems have been holding on to Mark Foley for over a year, just to spring him now. Their best hope is one disgraced unemployed republican congressman from Florida.

So I thought it might be interesting to take a look at recent disgraced politicians (or should-have-been disgraced politicians) and kinda do a "where are they now" bit.

Starting with....
Gary Studds (d) and Dan Crane (r). Both accused of sex with underage congressional pages. Dan Crane (with a 17 year old girl) tearfully apologized and was defeated in his bid for re-election. Gary Studds (with a 17 year old boy) did not apologize, was embraced by his party, and retired 13 years later after being re-elected several times.

Ernis Konnyu, 1987 (r) accused of sexual harrassment, defeated in 1988 by another republican

1988 Jim Bates (d) accused of sexual harrassment, was reprimanded, and then re-elected

1988 Donald Lukens (r) sex with a minor, sexual harrassment and bribery. Resigned in 1990 and went to jail.

1989 Gus Savage (d) sexual assault of a peacecorp worker. Re-elected in 1990, defeated in 1992 by....

Mel Reynolds (d) 12 counts of sexual assault (including a 16 year old campaign worker), child pornography, and obstruction of justice. Resigned after being sentenced to 5 years in jail. Was sentenced again in 1997 to 6 1/2 years in jail for wire and bank fraud and lying to the FEC. Was pardoned by Bill Clinton in 2001.

1989 Barney Frank (d) had a male prostitution ring being run out of his apartment (unbeknownst to him?) and fixed more than 30 parking tickets for his aide and lover who was running the ring. Barney Frank is still a house representative.

skipping a little, surprisingly in 1998 five republicans were found to have had extramarrital affairs (most of them being well over 10 years ago.). Coincidentally, this was also around the time when Bill Clinton was in the impeachment process for lying to a federal grand jury and obstruction of justice (which included witness tampering and intimidation). Clinton was not removed from office and is still a party star.

and more recently, we have republicans Duke Cunningham and Bob Ney accused of bribery and such, both resigned, and republican Mark Foley accused of sending bad instant messages to an underage page, also resigned.

On the flip side you have William Jefferson, democrat, caught accepting bribes in a taped conversation with the FBI and found with 100,000 dollars in bribery money in his freezer. Congress had to kick him out of the subcommittee he was sitting on and he is still employed as a representative.

We have Tom Delay, of whom half the charges have been dropped against, charges that were filed after the democrat DA tried them on a third jury (the first two rejected them) of money laundering. He resigned.

and we have Harry Reid, who it has just been learned broke senate ethics rules by not disclosing all of his financial activity and may be involved in a tax evasion scheme. will he resign?....

so having said all that, should Mark Foley be the focus of the 2006 election? Or should we maybe focus a little on the issues.