Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Obama Pushes Constitution to the Brink of Extinction

The Obama administration will have yet another case heard in front of the Supreme Court. The Obama administration appointed three members of the National Labor Relations Board (NRLB) as recess appointments last year. A federal appeals court ruled Obama exceeded his constitutional power by making these appointments. Let’s be clear, all presidents make recess appointments. The Constitution gives the President the power to appoint federal positions if Congress is in recess. However, Obama used a gimmick by having Majority Leader Harry Reid end a Senate session even though members were reconvening in a few days. If Obama wins his Supreme Court appeal, it says the President can assign anyone to any post if Congress is merely out to lunch. To make matters worse, Obama never nominated or told Congress who he planned to assign to the NRLB posts. If the Supreme Court puts an end to the Obama madness, then nearly 300 decisions made by the NLRB will be voided. However, thus far, the Obama camp has pretty much gotten their way with the Supreme Court.

In the Arizona Immigration law, the Supreme Court upheld the most controversial provision of the law which allows law enforcement to check the immigration status of any individual they stop or arrest if there is reason to suspect the individual may be in the United States illegally. The court struck down all other provisions of the law citing the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. Congress passed the Immigration and Reform Act of 1986 which the Supreme Court said could not be preempted by State laws. For instance, the Arizona law wanted to make it a misdemeanor for illegal aliens to apply for work in Arizona, but the 1986 Federal law states it is illegal for employers to hire illegal workers, but the law makes a deliberate choice not to impose any criminal penalties against illegal employees. Also, the Supreme Court also said “It is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States”. This means Arizona authorities cannot hold and or deport an illegal alien assigned for deportation since the Federal law of 1986 sets procedures and guidelines for illegal alien removal. The court sympathized with Arizona citing property damage, environmental degradation, and crime associated with illegal aliens, but their hands were tied by the 1986 law. This is true even though the Court felt the federal government was being negligent with its enforcement of the law.

Since the passing of the Federal Immigration Law in 1986 over 10 million illegal aliens have come to the U.S. from Mexico (an estimated 3.5 million via Arizona). In other words, the federal law has done nothing to diminish illegal immigration and secure our borders. And the one glaring issue with a federal immigration law is it assumes each state is affected equally by illegal immigration. This is not the case; border-states suffer much higher crime and costs associated with enforcement. Yet, the federal government and the Supreme Court fail to see illegal immigration as a state issue. And when the federal government law is failing to protect the citizens of Arizona, local law enforcement and officials are powerless to act. Yet, instead of trying to work with Arizona to help them with their immigration issues, the administration decided to sue them. Remember, Arizona merely created the law because the administration refused to help them with their immigration problem in the first place.

In the Supreme Court ruling on ObamaCare, the court upheld the law citing the Federal government has the right to tax citizens. The Court ruled that the government can mandate people must buy health insurance or face a fine (tax). If this is true, then what is stopping the federal government from mandating that each home have a garden and at least 3 trees on the front lawn or face a fine? Nothing! This is outrageous and basically makes the Constitution moot and it certainly makes the Commerce Clause irrelevant because the Court has given the federal government the right to create interstate commerce through taxation. the Supreme Court handed down a split decision on Arizona's 2010 immigration law. The court unanimously sustained the best-known part of the law, which requires state law enforcement officials to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest if there is reason to suspect that the individual might be an illegal immigrant. But it blocked the implementation of other provisions.the Supreme Court handed down a split decision on Arizona's 2010 immigration law. The court unanimously sustained the best-known part of the law, which requires state law enforcement officials to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest if there is reason to suspect that the individual might be an illegal immigrant. But it blocked the implementation of other provisions.the Supreme Court handed down a split decision on Arizona's 2010 immigration law. The court unanimously sustained the best-known part of the law, which requires state law enforcement officials to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest if there is reason to suspect that the individual might be an illegal immigrant. But it blocked the implementation of other provisions.

So there you have it! If the Supreme Court says Obama’s recess appointments are Constitutional then any president can assign a person to a post during a lunch recess without being formally nominated. Remember, the purpose of the recess clause in the constitution was due to the fact Congress was only in session a few months each year 200 years ago. Obama has already won landmark Supreme Court decisions on immigration and healthcare that yields a great deal of power to the federal government and makes states powerless

Monday, October 28, 2013

Does the Federal Government Treat Americans Equally

The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause applies only to state governments, but the requirement of equal protection has been read to apply to the federal government as a component of Fifth Amendment due process. But are “All men created equally” in the eyes of the federal government? No, most laws are not enforced equally amongst people, organizations, corporations, and government.

For instance, ObamaCare funds are not distributed equally amongst the states on a per capita basis. For this reason, it is easier for some states to implement the law while other states are opting out from setting up Medicaid exchanges. Other provisions of the law favor unions over other groups of people; taxes on medical devices and equipment will hit seniors the hardest; and reducing healthcare savings accounts will affect families with special needs children the most. There is even a provision exempting government workers from ObamaCare. ObamaCare itself places the onus of healthcare reform solely on insurance companies whereas individuals, the government, companies (big Pharma), and other groups have no responsibility to lower healthcare costs. If any law were applied equally amongst all, the legislation would not have to be 2,500 pages long consisting of carve outs and earmarks bartered by lobbyists.

Social security is not applied to government workers who are instead treated with pension plans where most will withdraw more than they put in. On the other hand, individuals only receive what they put into corporate contribution based 401K plans. Title IX removes opportunities for male athletes. Diversity or quota systems whose purpose is to lower standards for one group of people are by no means equal. Obama’s green investment program picks winners and losers in industry based on the vicious cycle of campaign contributions and quid pro quo favors. Roe v. Wade provides women the sole right of determining the birth right of a fetus regardless of a partner’s belief. People who collect welfare are not held to the same standards as working individuals – they do not have to be drug tested and their welfare rights are not rescinded for being irresponsible.

Recently, the military proclaimed that women are now eligible for front line combat. This is fair so long as they are required to meet the same standards as men. Otherwise people will be put in harm’s way. Just as it would be ridiculous for college or pro basketball teams to place a quota for Caucasians and individuals under 6 feet, it is just as ridiculous for government to place quotas and lower standards on anything and proclaim that as equality. Not everyone is created equally in terms of talent and abilities. Since I have very limited athletic and artistic ability, no one should be forced to give me an opportunity in these fields. This is not discrimination; it is merely a fact of life.

The government’s interpretation of equal protection basically accomplishes the opposite – it discriminates against one group of people to level the playing field in its estimation. This makes little sense and is counterproductive because it suggests that minorities and women are inferior to White males. And we all know this is not true. While each individual has their own attributes to offer to society; skin color, gender, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, and so forth should not be one of them.

Friday, October 25, 2013

Taking Cover

I discussed the evils of social media and technology in the past. I discussed how technology has made us less personable. Remember, the social media was created by social retards (I am one of those geeky engineers who has worked on creating technological products). Social media is an introvert’s dream. They can send emails and texts without having to talk to anyone in person or even over the phone. People hide behind social media and would be much happier spending an evening on Facebook than in a social environment. It is very sad how technology has made us less personable. It has gotten so bad that we send an email to a person who sits in the office next to us. Really? I understand sending an email to document a conversation, but most people are afraid to have that conversation.

This is a huge problem in many regards. First, words can have many interpretations and without conversing in person or over the phone it can lead to a failure to communicate. This leads to unnecessary conflicts, mistakes, and project errors and or failures. Secondly, the internet and social media is the perfect place for identity theft criminals, pedophiles, and bullies to hide and thrive.

Message forums have turned into a place to go for fight. I do not belong to many forums, but the few I do, are populated with narcissists with no people skills. What is so unfortunate is that people on message forums are discussing issues that they have in common. Hence, one would think there would be little arguing and bullying over subjects people fully agree. But this is not the case. For instance, I belong to a few wrestling forums – including one for Penn State fans. Each week people hide behind aliases to criticize, belittle, and harass comments made by others in a very demeaning manner. And what’s worse, participant comments over performances by team members are not only critical, but opinions based on no facts or data. Calling out a bad performance as “he sucks” or creating a rumor that the person is hurt, does not practice hard, or has family issues is just not proper etiquette.

On the same forum, it is common for people to debate the best pound for pound wrestlers. This is a very subjective issue because the national champ at 133 pounds would never wrestle the national champ at 184 pounds. To try to clear up some of the unknown parameters in the heated debate I created a simple mathematical model to compare wrestlers. Well, I was called every name under the sun from an idiot to a genius. People also hypothesized about what I did for living because they could not understand anyone having the time to do this (But yet they have the time to make thousands of comments). This was my first and only post. I simply lost respect for a forum of people who want to start rumors and be critical while hiding not only behind technology, but doing so with an alias.

If you have something critical to say and are not able to do it in person, then you are a coward. And if you have something critical say and are not willing to do so with your real name (hide behind a computer handle or name), then you are beyond cowardice, you are nothing more than a narcissistic carbon emitting oxygen thief. It is time for people to man up and to stop this technological power grab. It is unbecoming, divisive, and unhealthy.

Wednesday, October 23, 2013

What's the Point?

What’s the point or purpose of all the acting award shows? There are so many: The Academy Awards (Oscars), The Golden Globe Awards, The Screen Actor Guild Awards, The Teen Choice Awards, The Independent Spirit Awards, The MTV Awards, The TV Land Awards, The People’s Choice Awards, The Emmy Awards, and The BET Awards. And if you cannot win an award for doing a good job acting then you may win a Razzie at the Golden Raspberry Award Foundation. If this is not enough, there are awards for singing – The Tony Awards, The Grammy Awards, and the Country Music Awards. And of course there are award shows for sports – The ESPY Awards. What’s worse, all of these shows have many hours of one preshow after another whose purpose is to provide each individual attending their solo opportunity to walk on the red carpet spotlight.

There are no shows in the real world for the best doctor, engineer, lawyer, union worker, cook, waitress, meteorologist, accountant, painter, and so forth. If people do a good job they are generally rewarded with better pay, promotions, bonuses, and other perks. This is how the real world operates. So why does the music, acting, and sporting industries operate so differently? Why are these industries highlighted by dozens of award opportunities? I do not know the answer, but I will try to speculate.

First, Americans watch this garbage and as long we pay attention to these shows and they continue to receive strong ratings, they will continue to have these award shows. I do not watch them anymore partly because I almost always disagree with the choices for nominees and winners. These shows main purpose, in my opinion, is to provide these personalities the opportunity for self-promotion, bragging rights, righteousness, ego boasting, public relations, and to give them a forum to spew their political views. Most of the people attending these award shows have one in thing in common; they are liberal and are free to provide their ideological opinions without any debate at these events. They are merely preaching to the choir. This is the sad state of our narcissistic society. Everyone wants to be showered with gifts and awards for merely doing their job. There are so many awards it is hard to image anyone not receiving some sort of award or acknowledgment within the acting industry.

These events are sad; people should not expect awards and accolades for doing a good job. Is it that hard to expect each person will attempt to do the best they can at any particular job? I would hope so.

The winners usually get on stage and make a political statement about how they support our troops and talk about their charity work such as their efforts in Africa to wipe out genocide or to save our environment. The only criteria to win is that the individual’s views are politically correct which of course is to support the righteous liberal cause.

What disgusts me the most about these shows is the materialism which is on display. Each individual tries to outdo the others with expensive attire and jewels. Many of these performers do not even look real – they look plastic with their identities hidden behind tons of makeup and dozens of plastic surgeries. If these people really cared for others and about our environment more than their personal satisfaction of receiving an award, then they would donate all the money for these shows, attire, jewels, and cost for plastic surgeries to their causes. But that is not what happens because these people only care about one thing and that is their own self-gratification.

Monday, October 21, 2013

What Did We Learn From the Government Shutdown?

Not Much! Here are a few things I observed:

While politicians referred to each other as jihadists, terrorists, hostage holders, and a few other niceties, Obama and liberals came out in force against the nickname for the Washington Redskins. If “redskin” is a slur, then why have I heard Obama and Bob Costas use the term in the past? If they really believe this is a slur then they would refuse to say it, right? In any event, I am going to go all out and try to get name of the Notre Dame Fighting Irish changed – as an Irish American I am offended by this slur (of course I am kidding). It is just odd that Obama can talk about a slur at the same time he is demonizing and name calling others.

Over 90% of Americans were not affected at all by the shutdown. And the number would have been higher if Obama did not go out of his way (and spend taxpayer money) to inconvenience Americans by shutting down monuments that were in open space. Even worse, the shutdown did not include the death benefit for fallen soldiers families. Obama went out of his way to purposely inconvenience veterans and their families and use them as political pawns.

While the public mostly blamed Republicans for the shutdown, the President and liberal politicians also saw their approval numbers drop.

While Republicans caved to the Democrats, in the long run this will be better for the conservatives. Since ObamaCare is not delayed and no improvements were made to the law, chances are most Americans will feel the pain of this law. Not only is it hard to sign up for the law, but most families will see massive premium hikes. If that is not bad enough, many hospitals and medical facilities are laying off workers meaning less people will be available to care for a larger patient pool. Does anyone find it the least bit odd that Obama can use technology and metadata analysis to win elections by profiling all Americans, but the administration cannot even put together a website to enroll people into healthcare insurance plans? The bottom line is that ObamaCare will hurt Americans and this will be the one talking point Republicans can use to win in the midterm election and the next Presidential election. This is one example of how big government intrusion leads to more pain and suffering, fraud, waste, and bureaucracy that families will be able to relate to. Democrats may have won the shutdown fight, but ObamaCare will doom them as Americans will ultimately be the losers in this deal.

While most Americans saw the government shutdown as a bad thing with each side of the political spectrum blaming each other as obstructionists - I see it a different way. I see it as checks and balances to prevent either side from garnering too much power – that is it.

Friday, October 18, 2013

Benign Fasciculation Syndrome (BFS) and Mycoplasma (Part III)

I would have died when I was 10 if our general practitioner did not find out I had a gamma globulin deficiency (called the silent killer because it symptoms are hard to detect). He solved the problem, there were no specialists. Today, our doctor crams 30 patients into a daily schedule (15 minutes per patient). He only works 3 days a week, but does not seem to have any time to do any research on patients in his care that are struggling. And our doctor also made it a point to blame our insurance company, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Colorado, for the reason referrals and appointments were moving slowly. All of the specialists my wife saw said a person’s health insurance coverage has no bearing on appointment availability. Interestingly, Blue Cross Blue Shield regularly adjusts our doctor’s claims by as much as 50% for an office visit. This is why he does not like Blue Cross Blue Shield - because they do not think it is acceptable to charge over 100 dollars for a 15 minute appointment (we live in the middle of nowhere, so doctors are far and few between). This is especially true for a doctor who sets up appointments to merely say “I do not know what is wrong with you”. This information could have been conveyed in a simple phone conversation. He told us it takes up to 3 months to see a Rheumatologist, especially a patient like my wife who he continued to assume had nothing wrong with her, other than depression (Yes, my wife became depressed. She didn’t start out depressed, but after being sick for 6 months, anyone would become depressed. More than depressed, she was frustrated with the medical industry. She is a fighter and was her own best advocate.). My wife set up an appointment with one of the best hospitals in the country and only had to wait 1 week to see a top rated Rheumatologist. Why? Simply because my wife advocated for herself and called the hospital directly. She went over her records with a nurse who reported the information to a Rheumatologist who expedited her appointment. It took our doctor’s office 2 weeks to fax my wife’s records to this hospital and even lied about getting it done sooner. Yes, my wife’s waiting time for an appointment was less than the time it took to set up the referral. Interesting how our doctor would not take 15 minutes to advocate for his patient to expedite an appointment because he saw no urgency, but a Rheumatologist who had yet to see my wife thought differently. This is quite a contrast in urgency. In other words, it is sad to say, but we are convinced our doctor cares more about money than my wife’s well-being. If he cared about her health he would have called a few times to check in on her. The doctor who saved my life as a youth visited me at home on his own free will and dime. The bottom line; advocate for your own health and if your doctor is not listening go elsewhere – even if you have to drive hours for an appointment.

We think my wife’s condition was intensified by the fact we live at 8000 feet (mycoplasma thrive at low pressure). What is interesting about this story is that at times my wife had several BFS symptoms similar to mine including muscle twitching. As it turns out, I suffer from many symptoms of a mycoplasma infection including arthritis (but blood work says I do not have arthritis but I have bone growths on my knuckles), low body temperature, hair loss (more so than others in my family), skin rashes, Raynaud like symptoms, allergies, sore throat, muscle pain and fatigue, and so on. It turns out, I too am positive for mycoplasma. Unfortunately, in my case, the organisms have not only been present for a long time but probably active for a long time doing irreversible damage. The sooner mycoplasma infections can be identified the quicker they can be corrected and the better chance of making a 100% recovery.

Wednesday, October 16, 2013

Benign Fasciculation Syndrome (BFS) and Mycoplasma (Part II)

Just like BFS, mycoplasma symptoms are unique for each person. Mycoplasma symptoms can be complicated when a person has an infection due to multiple forms of mycoplasma. Mycoplasma infections can also be complicated by the number of internal organs the infection infiltrates. The same can happen if a person with BFS has multiple triggers or causes – they can get very complicated symptoms. If some BFS cases are caused by mycoplasma infections, then this gives credence to the argument that BFS is an autoimmune disorder. Is it feasibile mycoplasma infections can lead to BFS symptoms? Absolutely, in fact it is the most sensible argument of a catalyst working inside our bodies to transform a traumatic experience into actual symptoms. We know very little about mycoplasma and as more research comes forth, it may become more obvious of its role in BFS. If mycoplasma is shown to commonly coexist with ALS, MS, and fibromyalgia patients, then how hard can it be to accept that mycoplasma coexists with a high percentage of BFS sufferers. What’s worse mycoplasma can be masking chronic conditions that can be cured in BFS sufferers.

My wife had a mycoplasma infection that literally had her sick for months. Our doctor’s response was slow and he showed little urgency even though I thought she was dying. He took his time with referrals and took constant badgering to get referrals done and appointments set. Our doctor says he believes my wife when she says there is something wrong, but he said there is nothing he can do to expedite matters because most of her tests were normal. He showed no urgency even though she had lost 15% of her body mass over a four week period of time. Gradually my wife saw one specialist after another - gynecologist, gastroenterologist, rheumatologist, and so on over a 6 month period of time. She had numerous blood tests, but everything came back negative except the mycoplasma test. It was my wife’s own advocacy for her own health that pointed our reluctant doctor in the right direction. Her research led her to ask the physician to check for a mycoplasma bacteria and it was positive. Once she was put on an antibiotic she slowly began to improve. The doctor was also reluctant to give her an antibiotic prescription and was even more reluctant to give her a cycline based antibiotic – which works best for mycoplasma. Our doctor called the request a “Hail Mary” and seemed dumbfounded when she reported feeling better.

If a patient has no history of “crying wolf” then a doctor should show more urgency to help the patient. It is not acceptable to throw your arms up in the air and give up. Our doctor admitted his job was merely to treat symptoms and refer patients to specialists. That is a shame. Doctors seem to be reactive instead of proactive. Our doctor never consulted with his colleagues over my wife’s case.

Monday, October 14, 2013

Benign Fasciculation Syndrome (BFS) and Mycoplasma (Part I)

I need to open with the disclaimer that I am NOT a medical professional. I am merely a person who suffers from Benign Fasciculation Syndrome (BFS) and have been analytically evaluating the disorder. So my writings are generally based on personal experience and a mathematical analysis of the disorder. The information in this writing was obtained from Dr. Greg Emerson, the U.S. National Library of Medicine, and the National Institute of Health.

Many people with BFS can point to a trigger that initiated the start of their symptoms. Some of these triggers were an illness (virus), prescription drugs, vaccination, spine injury, exposure to toxins, stress, trauma, exercise, or some other cause. But something has to happen within the body to act as a catalyst to convert these triggers into symptoms. Mycoplasma may be one such catalyst. I am not saying that mycoplasma is the catalyst for all BFS sufferers, but I do believe it is the reason for some including in my case.

Mycoplasma is the smallest free living organism and is cross between a virus and bacteria. What differentiates mycoplasma is that they lack a cell wall and that makes them hard to treat because they are resistant to most antibiotics and penicillin. Mycoplasma can lie dormant in the body until another bacteria, virus, stress, or toxin activates the symptomatic phase. Once this occurs mycoplasma multiplies within the cells of our bodies and destroys the cell. Once the host cell is destroyed, symptoms are created by the release of three types of toxins into the bloodstream – Ednocytokines which cause inflammation and pain; Neurocytokines which produce symptoms found in MS, Depression, and anxiety; and Allergens causing allergies.

Most immune systems can fight these organisms; however people with compromised immune systems may develop chronic diseases and infections. Chronic infections implicated with mycoplasma are Rheumatoid arthritis, reactive arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, chronic fatigue syndrome, pneumonia, flu, allergies, fibromyalgia, Gulf War Syndrome, lupus, scleroderma, vasculitis, multiple sclerosis, Sjogren’s syndrome (dry eyes and throat), Crohn’s disease, irritated bowl syndrome, heart disease, depression, AIDS, ALS, appendicitis, Grave’s Disease, thyroiditis, Lyme’s Disease, asthma, Alzheimer’s, and a plethora of other autoimmune disorders.

There are four main types of mycoplasma found in humans: mycoplasma pneumonia, mycoplasma hominis, mycoplasma genitalium, and ureaplasma urealyticum. Some people are born with some or all of these forms of mycoplasma. They thrive during times of low pressure and live off body cholesterol. They are commonly found in animals and insects and can be transported by the dust in the wind. Mycoplasma can also be passed between humans similar to how the flu is transported. And some mycoplasma can be transported sexually. Needless to say, most people have mycoplasma.

Mycoplasma symptoms include chills, cough, fever, shortness of breath, chest pain, headaches, fatigue, muscle pain and stiffness, joint pain and stiffness, sweating and clammy skin, diarrhea, ear and eye pain, skin rashes, sore throat, allergies, phloem, sleep disturbances, visual disturbances, memory and concentration impairment, arthritis, kidney stones, gall stones, testicular pain, asthma, heart attacks, stroke, burning while urinating, the sensation of a full bladder, Raynaud’s Syndrome like symptoms, low body temperature, hair loss, spine paralysis, weight loss, and dozens of other symptoms making mycoplasma infections hard to identify and treat.

The good news is that people with chronic conditions caused by mycoplasmas can be corrected if not 100% to some degree. The common treatment is a certain type of antibiotics – tetracycline and minocycline work well. Unfortunately, it could take several months or even years of antibiotic treatment to rid the body of these toxic organisms. If a prolonged antibiotic treatment is required then they should be rotated to avoid the development of resistance. During the first few days or weeks of the treatment, symptoms can initially get worse before they improve – this is known as a Herxheimer reaction.

Friday, October 11, 2013

Liberal Science: Money

Liberals claim to be the Party of science. Part of this claim is due to the fact many Conservatives are religious and or have strong faith based beliefs. And since liberals believe in evolution, they claim they believe in science and conservatives do not. But liberals cannot say with any certainty conservatives are wrong about the existence of higher beings. Besides, most conservatives agree that religion and evolution can coexist since evolution is God’s plan. All this being said, I have seen very little evidence liberals understand the first thing about science. In fact, liberals not only think money is the answer to all scientific problems, but money can be used to overcome or change scientific theories.

In the Supreme Court ruling for Citizens United, the court ruled that the government could not limit campaign contributions. Liberals argued that money is not free speech. However, the meaning of the first amendment, thanks to many liberal decisions by the Supreme Court, has expanded over the decades to not only include freedom of speech, but freedom of expression. And no one can debate that money is used to express people’s feelings on a daily basis via the purchase of gifts, products, and services.

This is typical liberal philosophy: They want to impose limits on how people and companies can spend their hard earned dollars. But at the same time, progressives expect people to pay more in taxes so the government can raise more revenues. And what do liberals expect the government to do with your hard earned dollars? They want them to use money to end climate change and to alter the theory of evolution. Even if climate change is manmade, I do not care how much the government deficit spends to alter science; there is not enough money in the universe for this to happen. And then there is the theory that the government can redistribute wealth and eliminate poverty. In other words, redistribution of wealth can eliminate the theory of evolution, survival of the fittest, and the statistical normal distribution. And despite redirecting trillions in wealth over the past several decades the result are mindboggling – wealth distribution in the U.S. remains unchanged.

This progressive theory about the power of money is beyond crazy – it is idiotic and or arrogance. To think wealth and money can change the naturally occurring events on this planet is at best na├»ve. Liberals may argue that money is not free speech and there is no such thing as a God or faith. But at the same time Liberals want to use or redistribute money as if it is the answer to all their prayers and the solution to end climate change and eradicate evolution. If liberals believe money is this magical than they may as well pray to God, it is much and cheaper and a wiser solution to these problems.

The day money changes the Earth’s climate, eliminates poverty, and ends evolution is the day the world comes to an end.

Wednesday, October 9, 2013

Did Obama Come Out Against Unions?

While campaigning in Maryland this past week about his stance on the government shutdown, Obama made the following analogy about Republicans: He claimed a person working for a company who was not happy and decided to stop working would and should be fired. In other words, Republicans unhappy with ObamaCare who stop doing their other job functions should be fired. But isn’t this analogy contradictory to Obama’s beliefs about unions. People who are unhappy at work because, for instance, they do not have healthcare or their healthcare is not good, in the past Obama and liberals would claim these people have the right to unionize and stop working until they get better healthcare coverage. So are Republicans following Obama’s union beliefs and sticking to their core principals or do they follow Obama’s Presidential belief that they are overpaid extremists who need to be fired. Face it; Obama lives in a state of constant confusion, contradiction, and hypocrisy.

Monday, October 7, 2013

The Fear Mongering Obama Drama

Obama may be the only President who purposely tries to needlessly incite fear into the public and global markets. This past week Obama tried to spook the markets into a sell off saying Wall Street should be very worried and concerned with the shutdown and looming debt ceiling. Obviously, Obama has political motive for these unnecessary words – if he can get the markets to unravel then Republicans will give him what he wants – A clean federal budget bill.

Obama also tried to intimidate citizens by using a barricade to block Washington DC monuments that are in the open. He also placed guards outside of monuments to prevent people from entering. This is ridiculous and the only reason to do this is to make a political statement and catch the ire of the public.

Obama has done this in the past – remember how he preached that the U.S. economy was going to collapse if sequestration was instated. Well, it has been nearly year and the sky has not fallen. The sequestration only cut 85 billion of spending on a nearly 3 trillion dollar budget (less than 3%). Interestingly, the government shutdown has furloughed about 40% of all federal employees (800,000 workers out of about 2.1 million nationally). Of course this is bad news for these workers and their families. But Obama and Democrats do not want the government shutdown to last very long for one important reason. The American public might find out that the government operates just fine with only 60% of its employees on the job.

NASA has kept only 3% of its workforce (NASA, incidentally, is the most innovative government entity), Obama’s beloved EPA has decided only 6.5% of its workforce is essential for government operation, only 9.3% of the IRS was deemed essential, 10% of the Education Department, 18% of the Treasury Department, 20% of the Department of the Interior, and 22% of the Labor Department. On the other hand, 86% of all Department of Homeland Security employees were retained, 95% of Veterans Affairs employees remained on the job as did 100% of the State Department. If Americans become informed of this information and the government shutdown lasted a prolonged amount of time – then Americans may demand these cuts be made permanent.

Obama has been screaming for a “clean” budget bill. A clean bill means there are no amendments attached to it. But there is really no such thing as a clean bill anymore. ObamaCare and the Recovery Act for instance, which passed on a partisan basis, had several dozen amendments attached to the bill. Hence, even bills agreed to by one Party cannot even get through the bureaucracy of congress without an amendment. Obama has signed hundreds of bills riddled with earmarks, pork barrel spending, and carve outs. And now he expects something as large as a federal budget bill to get through congress without an amendment? Oh the drama portrayed by this hypocrite.

Obama has even claimed he is open to ideas to improve ObamaCare. He has claimed he has bent over backwards to work with Republicans. This is not true, and if Republican input was allowed on ObamaCare we would not be in this mess. There is bipartisan agreement amongst Congress to fix things in ObamaCare such as removing the medical device tax. This would be a middle ground compromise on the budget shutdown fiasco. But Obama and his fear mongering drama will not let his ego ever admit he made any mistakes. Instead, Obama is pushing forward with a very flawed law while at the same time he is warning the public and Wall Street the sky is falling (Yes, once again).

Friday, October 4, 2013

Obama Would Rather ……. Then Negotiate with Republicans

Sure, the media and public will side with Democrats over the budget (ObamaCare) fight. At least Bill Clinton negotiated with Republicans every day up to the 1996 shut down and thereafter until a deal was reached. Stopping ObamaCare for a year sounds like a good deal for everyone. FYI, I tried to get insurance quotes at: to test they system. Not only was the site tedious, it has since targeted my computer with tons of spam. All quotes I received where substantially higher than our current health insurance plan (which is not cheap). The website claims I would save thousands of dollars using their insurance plans. Instead, Obama would rather do the following than negotiate with Republicans over a budget:

  • Obama would rather negotiate with the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Syrian government, Russia, and Iran than negotiate with Republicans over the budget. Yes, that is right, Obama will negotiate with terrorists, genocidal leaders, and rogue nations before dealing with Republicans.
  • Obama would rather campaign than negotiate with Republicans over a budget.
  • Obama would rather praise our enemies and chastise Republicans as being extremists.
  • Obama would rather use federal monies to implement ObamaCare at the expense of government workers losing their jobs.
  • Obama would rather go on overseas trips than negotiate with Republicans over the budget.
  • Obama would rather play basketball and golf than negotiate with Republicans over the budget.
  • Obama would rather lecture Republicans than negotiate with Republicans

There are many reasons Obama would opt for a government shutdown than negotiate with Republicans. First, history is on his side, the public general blames Republicans in these instances because they believe in a smaller federal government. Secondly, there is no better way to change the narrative from administration scandals: Fast and Furious, DOJ targeting, EPA targeting, IRS targeting, Syria, and Benghazi. Thirdly, with Obama’s approval numbers tanking, he has little to lose by going this route.

Ted Cruz may be portrayed as the villain by the media and public in this budget fight, but at least he is donating his salary to charity during this time. Every other politician, including the President, is getting paid.

Wednesday, October 2, 2013

Investing in Companies is NOT Innovation

Obama and liberals claim his 100 billion dollar “green” energy project that was embedded in the Recovery Act (Stimulus) is investment in innovation. This is far from the truth. I have written several blogs about how the government is providing very little innovation compared to the private sector. Here are some reasons and statistics as to why this is true.

First, 98% of all patents in 2010 were filed by the private sector, 1% were filed by the government, and 1% were filed jointly between the government and private sector. Hence, we can conclude the government is involved in about 1.5% of all U.S. patents. Government discretionary spending for the fiscal year 2013 is expected to be about 8% of our GDP. Hence, the government should produce over 5 times as many patents as they created. This statistic shows the government’s inefficiency in spending compared to the private sector. And I am giving the government the benefit of the doubt here because about 12% to 13% of GDP this year will be for welfare and entitlement spending, which we can conclude has nothing to do with investment in innovation (although Democrats would disagree). Hence, the private sector generated 98.5% of the innovation despite being less than 80% of the nation’s GDP.

Secondly, more than half the government patents come from the Department of Defense including NASA. However, Obama has made massive cuts to NASA and progressives alike would like nothing more than to cut military spending by 4 or 5 times. Hence, we can expect government patents and innovation to decline in the future based on cuts to innovative science organizations such as NASA.

Thirdly, money from Obama’s 100 billion dollar “green” stimulus is not funding research and development to create innovative ways to improve costs and performance of renewable energies, instead the money is going to companies whose technologies are already established. In other words, these companies are not generating any new technology which essentially means they are making products that have no advantages over global competition. Since companies in China have huge advantages over U.S. companies in manufacturing costs, most U.S. companies without any technological edge are destined to fail despite being subsidized by the government.

Fourthly, anyone can invest in a company, there is nothing innovative about buying a stock or handing out a loan. However, very few people have the capability of being innovative or investing in innovative start up companies.

What’s worse, government investment in corporations is hypocritical and bad for many reasons. First, as pointed out above, this is not investment in innovation. Secondly, it provides the government the opportunity to pick winners and losers in any given industry. And the winners are generally those with financial ties to the administration (campaign contributions). This creates a vicious cycle of tainted money based on quid pro quo deals and legislation filled with carve outs and earmarks. The only people this type of investment benefits besides the CEOs and politicians are the lobbyists. If you believe in separation of Church and State than you should believe the government has no business investing in companies because this cannot be done fairly without the involvement of bias. Secondly, if you think investment firms like Bain Capital are vulture capitalists than you should not expect the government to conduct similar business ventures. However, there are stark differences between Bain and Government investment. People have a choice to invest in Bain Capital. Taxpayers do not have a choice in how the government spends their hard earned money. Bain Capital has to be transparent by informing investors of their future business plans and goals whereas the government does not have to be transparent with their investments. And if Bain Capital fails the company goes belly up whereas if government investments fail they attempt to collect more revenues to squander. So who are the real “vulture capitalists”? The federal government! And who are the real innovators? The private sector! So it makes sense to keep the money in the hands of the private sector and out of the hands of the bureaucratic government.