Camp Logic

Are they really all that different?

2011-03-03T15:49:00.000-06:00

Amanda is going to hate me for this, but am I the only one seeing the similarities here?

Guilty by Reason of Stupidity

2010-08-21T08:21:00.001-05:00

There's a major Catch-22 when it comes to the world's perception of Christianity. I've seen it so much lately and it's got me thinking. The catch goes something like this: if a Christian lives life guided by the Holy Spirit, he or she will act in such a way that causes non-Christians to label him or her a legalist. However, if that Christian (or so-called-Christian as the case may be) lives life attempting to do good deeds to convince God of his or her righteousness, such person truly is a legalist and also likely a huge hypocrite. A person who lives life trying to convince God of a righteousness that simply is not there is also likely to judge others who are also failing miserably at convincing God of their righteousness. So, the Catch 22 is either be a legalist or be labeled a legalist.

So, what do we do? The answer hinges on who we, as Christians, are ultimately subject to and controlled by: God and his grace, or people and their perceptions (and inherent lack of grace). For the true Christian, the answer should be obvious. Those of us who understand the doctrine of total depravity know and understand that there is no amount of "goodness" we can accomplish to convince God of our righteousness. We also understand how ridiculous it is to judge the actions of others as either righteous or unrighteous and try to brow beat or guilt-trip others into being more righteous.

Lately I've been reading through the gospel accounts and my attention has been drawn to the ridiculous level of legalism in the Pharisees and scribes juxtaposed with the utter lack of legalism in Christ. Jesus turned water into alcohol (taboo in certain Baptist circles to say the least), healed on the Sabbath, and hung out with the worst of sinners. I particularly liked his response to the Pharisees when they questioned his healing of the man with the withered hand on the Sabbath (Mark 3:1-6). Before the Pharisees could even get the question out, Jesus asked, "Is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the Sabbath, to save a life or to kill?" With that one question Jesus declared the Pharisees to be guilty by reason of stupidity.

Are you guilty of stupidity? I have been on occasion. Is it possible we're making Christian living way more difficult and complex than it should be? Jesus lived righteously AND exercised common sense. He wasn't bound up in the letter of the law, which if exercised in some situations would have completely gutted the spirit of the law. As Christians we need to trust the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Of course, this will result in a big fat "legalist" label being slapped on us, but that's certainly better than the alternative of actually being a legalist. I challenge you to examine yourself and your motives and make your own determination about who or what you really are. Just a thought.

Warning: This is a Rant

2010-07-02T14:33:00.000-05:00

If you read the title to this post, consider yourself warned. There is so much crap going on right now that I really just need to vent some things. So please excuse the stream-of-consciousness style of this post.

I check out the Drudge Report on nearly a daily basis because I like to keep up with what's going on in the world. Almost every time I do I get so mad I just want to throw something. If you're a regular reader of Drudge, you know exactly why. Our current government is made up of the most incompetent, selfish, morally defunct, pieces of excrement on God's green earth. No, I'm not just talking about Democrats, although they are in power (and have been since 2006) and therefore are mostly to blame for the mess we're in. I am so sick of agenda-based decision-making. Case in point--the Gulf oil spill. One company screws up and Obama stops all off-shore drilling for 6 months to try to "figure out what went wrong." BP has a strong history of killing people and causing petroleum crises in this country. Why is anyone surprised that this happened? The 6 month moratorium will have the effect of raising energy prices and putting 10s of thousands of people out of work. All because the administration doesn't like fossil fuels!

Almost every day I read an article where a prominent Democrat is still blaming President Bush for the economic collapse, the Gulf oil spill, or the plight of the black man. I'm sick of it. Why can't anyone take responsibility for anything anymore!?! President Obama is 18 months into his administration. The Democrats have controlled Congress for almost 4 years. How in the world is all this stuff Bush's fault? Even if it is, Bush no longer has any power to do anything. Current elected officials do, but they choose to do nothing while blaming others who can't do anything about anyting.

Nancy Pelosi thinks handing out welfare checks is the fastest way to create jobs. Obama waited 70 days to accept help from foreign vessels to help clean up the oil spill. Obama is suing the State of Arizona for passing a law that allows state law enforcement to enforce federal immigration laws that the federal government refuses to enforce. Obama campaigned on a platform that demonized small businesses for having the audacity to want to make a profit. This is the President who made the comment of some CEOs that "at some point, you've made enough money" less than a year after he himself made over $5 million off the sale of his book! His entire political party continues to demonize the financially successful in this country. Apparently individuals should take on enormous financial risk and work really hard to build businesses for the sole purpose of handing out jobs to people. I don't know what fantasy land they live in, but it's certainly not reality. Rather than offering tax incentives and freeing up credit for small businesses--tactics that have a long history of creating jobs and strengthening the economy--this administration is hell-bent on finding ways to punish entrepreneurs. Our government is more concerned with giving refuge to and granting amnesty to 12 million illegal immigrants because if those folks are given the right to vote, they'll vote for Democrats. Never mind the fact that illegal immigrants are a huge drain on our social system and civil services. Never mind the fact that if you truly have a medical emergency you'll have to wait hours in the ER while illegal immigrants use ER docs as primary care physicians on the dime of the taxpayer, knowing full well that the ER can't turn them away on the basis that they can't pay. Nevermind the fact that illegal immigrants can claim injuries and sue American businesses for damages even though they are here illegally--and lawyers cannot ask them if they are here legally!

As a struggling small business owner, I'm sick and tired of taking responsibility for myself and being punished and demonized for it. I really feel like the more you try to take responsibility for yourself, the more this government tries to place the burden on you to take responsibility for everyone else too lazy to do so. When are people going to wake up and see what's happening. Quit blaming Bush, Fox News and entrepreneurs and get off your lazy butt and do something! If you don't like your life, no one is responsible for making it better except you!

Ok, that's all for now. Sorry to yell so much but I actually do feel a little better.

Quit Blaming Bush

2010-06-03T10:52:00.001-05:00

For the last year and a half plus, we have continuously heard that President Bush is to blame for this and that. You know, I kind of expected that during Obama's campaign, even though I personally believe the blame placed on Bush for the economic disaster was completely unfounded. But, politicians don't really do a whole lot of fact checking before talking, especially the ones backed by the main stream media.

But now, Obama is almost 18 months into his presidency and he's still blaming Bush for his own failures. Bush wasn't the one that created a debt that will take a couple of lifetimes to pay down. Bush wasn't the one who went on a world apology tour that has caused every terrorist organization and sponsoring country in the world to lick its lips at the thought of striking a blow to the US. Contrary to popular belief, Bush didn't cause the Gulf oil spill. In case you're wondering who did, it was BP. It's their well, their rig, their operation. Bush had nothing to do with it. Bush isn't responsible for the double digit unemployment we see now. As a matter of fact, Obama told us his massive injections of cash into the economy would cause unemployment to stop at 8%. What a load of crap that was! And finally, Bush isn't responsible for Obama's approval rating dropping below 46%.

Yesterday, I got really tired of reading news reports about Bush being blamed for everything, including the Gulf oil spill. So I formed a Facebook group called Quit Blaming George W. Bush for Everything. Honestly, I did it as kind of a joke just to let off some steam, but it seems to have sprouted wings. More than 2/3 of the people who have joined the group are folks I've never had the pleasure of meeting, so apparently it's not just me and my friends that think this way.

So, if you are tired of people blaming W for everything, join our Facebook group and contribute some thoughts. Or, if you're a liberal who thinks Bush is to blame for everything evil and bad thing in the world and want to express your opinion, join the group and let us rip you to shreds. Your call.

Writer's Block and Spiritual Growth

2010-04-22T17:16:00.003-05:00

Ok, so I don't know what's happening to me lately. I just can't find anything that's worth writing about and that's not like me. Most of you know I started a new blog that is specific to my love for technology (Tech Consumption) but I can't seem to find anything to write about there either. Despite the total lack of material, I still feel like there's something I need to write. So, when all else fails, write about something God has been working you over about, right?

Amanda and I both have the spiritual gift of giving. We love to give and there have been so many times in our marriage where God has moved on both of us to give to a particular person or cause and has given us the exact same dollar figure to give. That is so cool! We look for opportunities to give because we find so much joy in it.

Lately we've felt led to give, but this time God hasn't told us where or how much. This might be because I've been neglecting daily time with my Lord and have therefore closed down the communication channels. I honestly don't know what the deal is but I'm excited about the prospect of God once again using us to further his kingdom.

Around the beginning of this year I went through a season of feeling like God was stripping away everything I was holding on to too tightly. I lost my job and my family immediately took about a 75% pay cut. It was almost as if God was telling me he doesn't need my earning power or accomplishments in order to use me effectively. In my heart I know that, but I don't think I was acting that way.

So, without the ability to simply write someone a check, I've had to be purposeful about looking for opportunities to give to people without giving them money. This has opened my eyes to a whole new level of need, which as an introvert, I have always ignored. Giving can consist of mowing someone's lawn so they can rest and spend time with their family. Or help someone plant a garden or do some landscaping, or just have lunch with someone and be available to listen. It doesn't have to be anything extravagant or extremely creative. Just be available and willing to lend a hand.

I know there isn't much structure to this post. After all, I am in the middle of a writer's block. But it feels good to get some things down in writing. My hope is that you'll read this and feel the need to be purposeful about serving others. Now, get out there and serve someone!

Pulling Weeds

2010-04-07T09:50:00.002-05:00

Yesterday while Zachary was sleeping I decided to go out in the back yard and pull some of the weeds that had sprung up over the winter. Amanda and I have been working to make our back yard a retreat of sorts and I take a lot of pride in how my grass looks. I wanted to get rid of the crab grass and clover that had taken over various segments of the yard so that all you see when you come over is nice, beautiful St. Augustine grass.

I love yard work because it's a time for me to plug in my iPod and listen to podcasts. Lately I've been listening to Matt Chandler sermon series, so I began listening to a three-part series called Games People Play. The theme of the series is a look at religious people who followed Jesus in an effort to look religious and pious, but who had no intent whatsoever to commit their lives to him. They talk a good talk, but refuse to submit their lives to the Lord if that submission seems uncomfortable to them.

I don't often pull metaphors from ordinary tasks, but as I was pulling weeds out of my yard, it dawned on me that I often talk a good talk but then do things to mask the sin in my life so that I can give an appearance of righteousness. Looking a little deeper into the weed-pulling metaphor, sometimes it's easier just to break the weed off at the surface of the ground rather than pull the root up. It takes much more time and effort to find the root and make sure you get all of it. Sometimes when I get tired, I'll just break the weed off to give the appearance that there are no weeds, but if the root is left in place, the weed will be back very shortly.

I've been examining my life to find the areas where I'm masking sin rather than pulling the root up. How about you? Have you taken the time to examine your life in the same manner? I encourage to find the root of your sin and remove that root. Don't just break the weed off and pretend it's gone.

New Venture

2010-03-13T14:58:00.004-06:00

As some of you may know, December of 2009 was a crazy time for me and Amanda. The same day Zachary turned 2 weeks old, I found out I lost my job. This was just a couple of weeks before Christmas! Many people have asked me how the job hunt is going. Just to set the record straight, there is no "job-hunting" going on in the Camp household.

For those of you who know us well, you know that Amanda and I have wanted to work together for quite some time. This little turn of events puts us in a great position to do just that. Amanda has operated restyle by herself for 2 1/2 years and done a fantastic job. The vast majority of small businesses fail, but ours has thrived under her direction. Now, I finally have the time to take some of the load off her shoulders and let her concentrate on the things she loves to do--interacting with customers and consignors and developing new relationships to grow our business. I'll be taking over the nerdy tasks of finances, legal and marketing. It's a perfect fit for us!

While working on "store stuff" does keep me pretty busy, it doesn't take up all my time. I actually now have more time to do what I have always loved doing--writing. I have done some major brainstorming to come up with ideas on an outlet for my love of writing and I have settled on a new blog that I want you guys to know about. After surveying various topics, I have decided to write about the use of technology in small business. I considered writing about politics, but I just end up getting mad. Technology makes me happy, so I'm going to stick with that.

So, today I am announcing the launch of Tech Consumption as my new venture. In this blog I will write about how small business owners can use various forms of technology to grow their businesses while simultaneously satisfying their technology cravings. If this topic interests you, I would encourage you to follow along. If you know some small business owners that might be able to profit from this content, please pass this along to them.

In the meantime, I'll continue to keep this blog up so you can keep up with the Camps. More to come shortly!

The Reliever

2010-02-20T10:55:00.002-06:00

It was the top of the 7th inning. The home team was down by two runs and the bases were loaded. It had been an up and down year for the home team. They had started the season off like gang busters, putting winning streaks together and making things look easy. Then all of a sudden, with about a quarter of the season left, things began to tank. Maybe all the arrogance began to catch up. Maybe the opposition had finally figured out the secret to knocking the home team down a notch. Whatever it was, winning was not quite as easy as it had once been. Blow out losses were becoming all too familiar and the fans were smelling blood in the water.

If the season ended today, the home team would not make the playoffs, but they were not yet mathematically out of it. All they had to do was win out--5 more games. They had put together many 5 game winning streaks earlier in the season, so the task didn't seem too far-fetched. But winning 5 in a row started with today's game and they were down by two in the top of the seventh inning.

While the team was struggling, the fans began clamoring for the brass to call up their star reliever from the minors. This reliever had been all-everything in college and had moved his way up through the minors with blazing speed. He was charismatic, confident and the fans adored him. He had a way of putting everyone at ease when he took the mound, no matter what the situation was. Although the reliever had no major league experience, the fans had made their desires known--call him up to save the season!

So, shortly before today's game, the front office called up the reliever. The fans turned out in record numbers in hopes they would get a chance to see the reliever work his magic. In the local press the reliever had jockeyed for this opportunity, promising the fans he could work his way out of any mess, including the downward spiral the home team was currently in. All the home team needed was new blood and a new style. All he needed was a chance.

The reliever was finally getting his chance. With two outs and the bases loaded in the top of the 7th inning, the manager walked out to the mound and signaled for the lefty. The fans exploded in jubilee, high on the promises made by the reliever that he would be able to deliver the home team from any mess and resurrect them into a playoff contender. All he needed to do was get a strikeout, fly ball or grounder to end this inning and give the boys with the bats a chance to put some runs on the board. All he had to do was get one out to keep the game close.

The manager handed him the ball and told the reliever, "I'm depending on you to get us out of this mess. But even more so, all those fans in the stands are depending on you to deliver on your promises. You're getting your chance--now do something about it!"

The reliever took the ball, toed the rubber and to the tune of 40,000 fans cheering him on, delivered his first pitch. The batter put wood on the ball and lined a single up the middle plating a run. The crowd noise died down a little, but realizing the home team was only down by 3 runs and a grounder could still easily end the inning, they forgave the reliever and began cheering for him again. He toed the rubber, got the sign from the catcher and delivered his next pitch. As if he were able to read the reliever's mind, the batter stepped into the pitch and launched a double off the right field wall, plating 2 more runs.

The crowd grew eerily silent and then began grumbling a little. This was the guy who had promised he would deliver the team from it's downward spiral. He had convinced the multitudes that he was the answer to all the problems. Then he comes into the game and immediately turns a 2 run deficit into a 5 run deficit. This is not how this was supposed to go down. This is not the guy the fans wanted called up from the minors. The reliever thought he was ready for the big leagues, but apparently he wasn't.

Not to be fazed by the disappointment he had delivered so far, the reliever decided he would show what he was made of and blow a fastball right by this next batter. That would convince the fans they had vouched for the right guy. He toed the rubber with 2 outs, a man on third and a 5 run deficit. He repeatedly shook off signs from the catcher until the catcher gave up and gave him the sign to throw whatever pitch he wanted to throw. The windup--the pitch--the crack of wood hitting leather reverberated throughout the entire stadium. The white ball became a speck against the blue sky and sailed over the left field fence.

As the batter trotted around the bases, the crowd erupted, but this time in a chorus of boos. The reliever for whom they had incessantly campaigned to be brought up not only failed to live up to the hype, but had instantly turned into a monumental failure. Rather than keeping the game close so the rest of his teammates could do their jobs, he had put the home team in such a huge deficit that there was no way they could climb out of it in time to win this game. The 2 run deficit that was bad, but not quite daunting, had turned into an insurmountable mountain--a 7 run blowout.

As the boos continued, the fans began streaming out of the building, unable to tolerate this any longer. The manager plodded out to the mound and called for the righty. As he took the ball from the reliever, he gave the reliever an exasperated look and told him to hit the showers.

At the post game press conference, a reporter asked the reliever, "What happened out there? For months you have been telling every reporter who would listen to you that you were the answer to the home team's woes. You could salvage this season and put the home team back on the winning track. Instead you have destroyed any hope of this team reaching the playoffs. What do you have to say to all the fans who campaigned for your call up?"

The reliever looked into the cameras with fire in his eyes and said, "It's not my fault! I inherited this mess and I know I said I could pull us out of this tailspin, but the tailspin was greater than anyone could have imagined. None of this is my fault. I know the team called me up for precisely this situation, but if the starting pitcher had not loaded the bases, I could have gotten us out of the jam. It's all his fault, not mine! Things are always going to get worse before they get better and you can't blame me for that, even though I told you I would be able to turn things around immediately."

The fans at home, upon watching this press conference, banded together and began calling for the reliever to be cut from the organization. How dare he promise to do something, fail, and then blame it on his predecessor! Isn't a reliever's sole job to come in when the team is in a bind and get them out of the jam? Even more so when he spent months telling the fans he was capable of just such a feat, causing them to throw all their support behind him resulting in his meteoric rise to the big leagues. Otherwise, what's the point of calling in a reliever in the first place? If the fans had only known this popular reliever would point the finger and blame his failures on everyone else around him, they never would have begged and pleaded for his promotion. Now their only course of action is to band together once again and plead with the establishment to send this reliever packing. If he can't do the job he promised he would be able to do, there's no sense in paying him to do it.

Google Buzz

2010-02-10T17:06:00.003-06:00

Most of you know I'm a bit of a techno-geek, so imagine my amazement when I woke up this morning to crazy news about Google Buzz coming out of nowhere. Literally I had no idea what this was, so I started reading all the articles. Apparently Google is still on track to dominate the world through the internet. Google Buzz is like Twitter, only integrated with your Gmail account as well as other Google products like Picasa Web, YouTube, Flickr, Blogger, etc. You can also integrate with your Twitter account to post your Buzz updates to your Twitter stream.

What differentiates Buzz from Twitter, and the reason I think I'm going to like it so much, is its seamless integration with Google products--particularly Gmail. For those of you who already have Gmail accounts, once you sign up for Buzz (you can do so here), you'll see a label just under your inbox called "Buzz". You can go in there to see friends who have posted updates, comment on those posts, or post your own updates. You can do all this with Twitter, but Twitter doesn't do as good of a job bringing the conversation to you. For example, if I post an update on Twitter and a friend @replies me, I won't see that reply unless I go into Twitter and look through my stream. Or, I can use a third party app and look at my mentions. The point is, I have to go searching for those replies. Buzz, on the other hand, will let you know when someone comments on your update by showing up in the Buzz label and your Gmail inbox. From right there within Gmail, you can comment back.

It's day 1 of Buzz, but I'm already pleased with what I see. In fact, if you're following me on Buzz, you'll get this blog post in your Buzz box and can comment on it from there. Pretty sweet if I do say so myself.

For those of you holding out on getting a Gmail account, I would encourage to quit fighting the Google domination and join in on the fun.

The Ultimate Under-Estimation

2010-02-06T23:53:00.002-06:00

Ok, so I severely underestimated how much free time I would have for blogging after having a child. But after several friends commented that they missed my political commentary, I think it's time to jump back in the game. I am honored that anyone would like to hear my opinion, so the least I can do is resume spouting my rhetoric on this forum for my 2 or 3 loyal fans. Nothing in mind tonight, but just wanted to let you know I'm back.

The Fountain of Youth

2009-12-02T16:12:00.002-06:00

As evidenced by the hysterical writings of one Mark Lackey, I'm sure this will be the first of MANY hilarious experiences with my son. And so it begins...

After only a couple of days with our little man, Amanda and I had to run up to the store to get some paperwork so Amanda could pay her employees. Being that we're both brand new at this parenting thing and really wanted to get out of the house for a while, we loaded up Zachary and took off.

When we got to the store, the little man dropped a load in his diaper, so we laid him up on the counter to change him. I opened up the dirty diaper and was fishing around in the diaper bag for a fresh diaper when up sprung a fountain. He wet down an entire jewelry rack and a lot of the counter. I was laughing so hard that I physically could not continue the diaper changing process and Amanda had to take over.

Before any of you call the health commission, we did get the jewelry cleaned up and Lysol'd, so everything is good now. But the moral of the story is, never leave a baby's water hose unattended.

Zachary Has Arrived

2009-12-01T18:08:00.012-06:00

Let me just say right off the bat--I have missed blogging the past several weeks. Life has just been entirely too crazy to sit down in front of the computer and try to weave my thoughts into a pattern coherent enough for people to read. Since it's been a while and A LOT has happened over the past couple of months, you'll have to excuse the length of this post.

As some of you may (or may not) know, Amanda and I have been interested in pursuing a child through adoption for some time. About 3 years ago we went to an orientation meeting at an agency in Dallas, but God never gave us peace about pursuing it further. We then went through the entire application and approval process with Depelchin, but quickly discovered that also was not God's calling on our lives. So we kind of gave up hope for a while.

In January of this year we felt the yearning again, so we requested some information from an agency that some of our friends have adopted through. It's called New Life Pregnancy Center and is located in Tomball, TX. If you click on the link, there is a bar at the bottom with photos of families. The couple to the far left are our friends Dave and Alicia. They're the ones who originally told us about New Life. I won't go into all the detail here, but our experience with New Life has been absolutely amazing. If you are considering adoption, please talk to us and we'll get you all the information we have about New Life.

In February we turned in our initial application and were told it would be June before we would do the next phase. June came and we interviewed with New Life and received the big application (30 pages or so). But every time we started working on it, we just got depressed and couldn't do anything. In September, we got a call from New Life saying there were 2 birth moms that looked to be a good match for us and we were asked to step on it and get our application done. One of these birth moms was due in November! We completed the entire process, including home study, in the next few weeks. How's that for motivation!

On Wednesday, October 14, we found out we had been chosen by a birth mom...and that she was due November 16! Words couldn't begin to come close to adequately describing the emotion we felt. I was having lunch with my mentor and friend, Rene Rivera, when I got the call from Amanda and it was so cool that he was there when I got the call because he had been praying through all of this with me for some time (thanks, Rene!).

Then the reality settled in that we had a month to prepare for this baby. While we were unbelievably excited, we didn't want to tell too many people because a birth mom can easily change her mind. Nothing is certain until you take that baby home. So in order to protect our emotions as much as we could, we chose not to tell many people.

We got to meet with our birth mom 4 times before the placement which was an absolute blessing. She is a wonderful young lady and we are so blessed to have gotten to know her. Unlike some adoptive parents, we will not have to candy-coat who she is with our son. We can tell him the full truth about her and not feel like we have to hide anything.

So we frantically spent the next month preparing our home for a baby. We knew it was going to be a boy, so that was good. We slowly started telling more people the more certain we got that this was actually going to happen. The due date came and went and we were told the doctors would induce on November 23 if the baby had not come by then. The wait was excruciating but worth it because we got to spend a lot of time praying for the birth mom and our son. Zachary Bradon Camp was born at 11:18 AM on November 23, 2009. He was 7 lbs, 4 ounces, 20 1/2" and perfectly healthy.

We gave him the name Zachary and the birth mom gave him the name Bradon. We chose Zachary because it means "the Lord remembers"--very fitting for our journey through this process.

On November 25, we went to the hospital and spent a couple of hours with the birth mom and her family. She placed Zachary in Amanda's arms and while crying told us how happy she was that we were going to provide a loving home for her son. We cried together for a while, said our goodbyes, and left the hospital.

I know I've said a lot, but I would also like the summarize this whole post and the whole experience. God is a great and graceful God. He is our Redeemer who has adopted us as His own and I have such a greater understanding of that now. Zachary will be a constant reminder that the Lord remembers.

More posts will be coming soon, but you have no idea how good it feels to be able to talk about this openly now. Here are some pictures of our new little man and a very happy new mom and dad!

More to Come Soon

2009-11-13T12:56:00.003-06:00

Sorry for the delay in cranking out new posts but it's been a bit hectic lately in the lives of the Camps and not likely to calm down any time soon. Work has been a beast lately and restyle has been performing so well recently that it's almost more than we can handle.

We were able to find Bailey a new home which is great. We miss her, but we don't miss the havoc she brought to our lives. The couple that took her have a 5 year old weimeraner with an energy level that matches Bailey's. They go swimming in a pool and wrestle until they both pass out. It's the perfect match. And, it looks like Bailey will be trained to hunt which is really cool. The couple and their 15 year old soon will be moving to Beaumont soon and when that happens, Bailey will have 2 1/2 acres to run on and get her energy out. I couldn't have dreamed up a better scenario for her.

Some crazy life changes are headed our way that you'll hear more about in the coming weeks. Just pray that God will equip Amanda and me to handle these changes and that we would rely solely on Him for guidance, direction and wisdom.

Talk to you soon!

God's Grace from a Contrarian Point of View

2009-10-21T15:26:00.003-05:00

A couple of weeks before we got the phone call saying we had been chosen by a birth mom, Amanda and I made the difficult decision to try to find our dog Bailey a new home. Many of you have kept track of our adventures with Bailey. If you haven't, check out my other posts and this will make a lot more sense to you. When this decision was made, we had absolutely no idea what was about to happen on the adoption front. Anyway, we contacted a brittany rescue organization (who shall remain nameless) to help us find a home for Bailey.

As it turns out, the birth mom that chose us was due November 16 giving us right at 1 month to prepare. That's when our world got turned upside down. Not only did we need to find Bailey a new home, but we needed to do so pretty much immediately. For those of you who know Bailey, you understand this. She's not mean but is very energetic and could easily hurt an infant without intending to.

So, I contacted the rescue organization to let them know we would be welcoming a baby into our home shortly and we needed to find Bailey a home very quickly. Seems reasonable, right? You would think the rescue organization would be happy for us and that they would put in some extra effort to help us find a home for Bailey, right? WRONG! I received an email from the person I was working with basically condemning me for choosing to adopt a baby if that meant we would no longer be able to care for Bailey. Here is a short excerpt from that email:

I am sorry you are in a position that sets Bailey up for losing on this one. There is tremendous responsibility that goes along with caring for and loving a dog... it does not end with the beginning of a new adventure no matter how "inconvenient" the dog becomes.

I just about blew a gasket! How dare this person spit upon our decision to care for and raise a child by elevating the value of our dog above a human!

I spent the next couple of days fuming and dreaming up everything I wanted to say to this person to set the record straight. I even typed out a vicious email in response and thankfully sought Amanda's advice on whether to send it before I actually sent it. During that time I cooled down and decided sending the email was not the Christ-like thing to do.

Also during this time, it dawned on me that I do something very similar to God all the time. Jesus offered me salvation through His death and resurrection and I accepted this free gift of mercy and grace. However, I continue to snub God through my sin. Though I continually spit upon the gift God has given me and the sacrifice of His Son to pay my debt, He still loves me and shows me grace. He doesn't sit up in heaven dreaming up ways to punish me for my less than graceful actions toward Him.

The rescue organization's attitude toward me was less than graceful, but it helped me have a deeper understanding of God's grace toward me. In that light, I'm kind of glad it happened. I love how God can take the good and the bad and teach us about His character.

And for those of you who are curious, I did send an email to the rescue organization politely telling them I no longer desired to work with them and that we would find Bailey a home ourselves. We did so in less than 2 weeks.

Capitalism and the Opinion Police

2009-10-15T08:58:00.003-05:00

Recently rumors have been swirling about Rush Limbaugh joining a group of investors interested in buying the St. Louis Rams NFL franchise. Rush quickly confirmed his desire to take part ownership and also confirmed that he was to be a limited partner in the venture (no responsibilities in the day to day activities/decision-making). So it's not like he would be the face of the St. Louis Rams like Jerry Jones is the face of the Dallas Cowboys.

As soon as the rumors started, everyone from Chad Ochocinco to Sheila Jackson Lee to the head of the NFL Players Union began expressing their opinion that Rush should not be allowed to buy into an NFL franchise because he is a divisive personality who has made some racially motivated comments. Since when has a person's desire to invest in a private enterprise been subject to the approval of people who have absolutely no interest involved?

Most of the objections are coming from comments Rush made regarding Donovan McNabb during his brief tenure with ESPN. Most people have construed his comment as a stab against McNabb because he's one of a few black quarterbacks in the NFL. I don't have the exact quote, but the gist of it was that Rush felt McNabb was a very overrated QB who was being overly hyped by the media who only wanted to see a black QB succeed in the NFL. I heard the comment when it was made and it never crossed my mind that Rush meant McNabb was overrated because he was black. He genuinely thinks McNabb is overrated as an NFL QB and his comment was aimed more at a fawning media who, Rush felt, had over-committed to the desired success of McNabb rather than taking an unbiased stance. Rush said that he thought all the media hype focused on McNabb was because he was black.

Did you catch the difference there? Rush never said McNabb was not a good QB because he's black. Rush never said he hoped McNabb didn't succeed because he's black. What he said was he thought the media was overplaying the situation because McNabb is black. His comment was meant to slam the media, not McNabb. And if I remember correctly, after everyone blew up about this and ESPN even fired him over it, Rush repeatedly explained that he had nothing against McNabb personally and that McNabb himself was not at all responsible for all the hype. It was the media blowing everything out of proportion. And honestly, is anyone really going to debate that the media has a tendency to blow things out of proportion?

So recently I saw a headline that Rush has been dropped from the group of investors wishing to buy the Rams. My question is, when did it become the business of the general public to decide who is or is not worthy of buying into a private enterprise? What would happen if Michael Moore tried to buy into an NFL franchise? That guy hates capitalism even though he's made millions because of capitalism. Everyone involved in the NFL--owners, players, union reps, etc.--are capitalistic. They sign contracts and make business deals for the sole purpose of making more money. Since Moore is fundamentally against capitalism, would he be railroaded the same way Rush was? I doubt it. Is Michael Moore any less polarizing of a public figure than Rush is? No.

Or how about this scenario. Should people who think tobacco products are harmful and bad be prohibited from buying stock in Phillip Morris? Should loyal patrons of Lowe's Home Improvement stores be prohibited from buying stock in Home Depot? Of course not. Free speech is a two-edged sword giving people the right to have opinions even if others disagree with those opinions. I don't agree with a single thing Michael Moore, Barack Obama or Sheila Jackson Lee believe or say, but I wouldn't have the slightest problem if any of them, in their individual capacity, wanted to buy into a private venture. Why? Because that's their decision and my like or dislike of their values and opinions is wholly irrelevant.

I'm so sick and tired of tolerance of opinion being a one-way street. If Rush wants to buy the St. Louis Rams, he should be allowed to do so if he is able to offer the best deal to the current owners and the current owners want to sell it to him. Everyone who doesn't think Rush should own the Rams should shut up and try to outbid Rush to keep him from doing it. That's how capitalism works.

Reality Check: Money Does NOT Grow on Trees

2009-10-01T13:26:00.004-05:00

We've all seen numbers like billion and trillion thrown around recently and unless you own a billion or trillion dollars, the reality of it probably doesn't set in. I saw a graphic not long ago that puts these numbers in perspective and I couldn't remember if I had posted it anywhere. In case I didn't, I'm doing it now.

Pagetutor.com, using Google Sketchup, created a graphic showing the progression from a $100 bill to $1 trillion. Eye opening to say the least. As a follow up, Pagetutor created a graphic showing the size of the US debt ($11 trillion when the graphic was created).

I tried posting the graphics themselves, but they are too big to fit on my blog, so you'll just have to click on the links to see them for yourselves.

Now that I've gotten your attention, let's get to work.

The US economy, measured in terms of gross domestic product, was worth about $14.4 trillion in 2008. GDP is a basic measure of a country's economic performance and is the market value of all final goods and services made within the borders of a nation in a year.

In July of this year, the US national debt was measured at $11.6 trillion. So, logically you might assume the US has a net worth of $2.8 trillion, except that you'd be wrong.

If you are alive and breathing, you are well aware of the debate over reforming the health care system. As most of you know, the US already has government run health care in place for certain portions of the population, namely Medicare and Medicaid. And everyone has heard that these programs are in the hole. What you may not know is by how much these programs are in the hole.

According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, the 2009 Social Security and Medicare Trustees Reports show the unfunded liability of Medicare has reached more than $89 trillion in today's dollars! The unfunded liability is the difference between the benefits that have been promised to current and future retirees and what will be collected in dedicated taxes and Medicare premiums. I wish Pagetutor.com had a graphic for this, but I couldn't find one. Just take the $11 trillion graphic above and multiply it by 8 in your mind.

The question is, if the government has run Medicare into the ground to the tune of $11 trillion in unfunded promises, should we trust the government with health care for all? I think the answer is pretty clear.

A Weekend to Remember

2009-09-30T18:05:00.002-05:00

This past Saturday (Sept. 26) was one crazy weekend. Let's start from the beginning. We got up and took Bailey to the kennel because we were going to be gone all day. We left from there to go to a 5 hour seminar in Tomball. We got a 2 hour break in there, so we went and hung out with the Peschkes for a while and then headed to the church for the second annual High Altitude Olympics. Amanda and I competed in events where she poured water on my face (a slight modification of water boarding), I threw foam balls at her, and she led me around an obstacle course blind folded. At the end, there was a three way tie for first, so we competed with the Peschkes and Weenases in a newlywed style game for the gold and all the glory. After two rounds we were all tied so we went to sudden death and Amanda and I won because I knew her favorite book of the Bible was Leviticus (I love my wife)!

Solely by the grace of God, and with the help of a UH student who works for Amanda, I was able to get my hands on some tickets to the UH v. Texas Tech game that night. Because of the extended High Altitude Olympic finals, I got to the game about half way through the first quarter. Colin Sproule went with me.

For those of you who don't know or don't care to keep up with college sports, this game was unbelievably good. For about 20 minutes, Colin and I were standing next to Moses Malone, which was pretty cool. The Cougars were trailing by 5 points in the 4th quarter when they stopped Tech on a 4th and goal from the 1 yard line. With 5:37 to go in the game, the Cougars had to drive the ball 95 yards for the go ahead score. They did just that and the largest crowd in Robertson Stadium history erupted. When the game was finally over, the students rushed the field. What a game! Because it was a nationally televised game that didn't start until 8:15, I got home at 1:00 a.m.

Pretty good weekend if I do say so myself!

Bailey's Most Glorious Journey

2009-09-21T14:35:00.004-05:00

Just thought I'd take a few minutes to update everyone on Bailey's new found unquenchable desire for freedom from the confines of our estate. On Saturday evening as Amanda and I were headed out the door to go to a friend's birthday party, Bailey saw her opportunity and bolted out of our gate and into the streets of our neighborhood. No big deal--she does this all the time. I got the car keys from Amanda and my neighbor from across the street (he's 14 years old and a very good sport!) and we set out to chase Bailey down. I will go ahead and tell you that at this point I'm wearing shorts, a t-shirt and am barefooted. Just remember the barefooted part.

Here is the route we took. I apologize that the maps start in the same spot in teh middle of the route. I couldn't figure out how to make it start in different places. You'll have to click and drag to the right to find the start (at our house on Dawson Road) and then click and drag each map to follow the route.

View Bailey's Journey in a larger map

The route started out normally and I usually catch up to her somewhere on Freestone because she has never left the neighborhood before. But this time was different. She got to the end of Freeport and made a brief stop at the house on the right corner where Freestone intersects with Kirby. When I saw her leaving, there was a large Boxer by the name of Oscar following her. I knew his name was Oscar because his entire family was chasing after him yelling, "Oscar, Oscar!!!" So I got back in the car and headed out onto Kirby while the rest of the entourage headed out there on foot. About 100 yards down Kirby, Bailey and Oscar hooked a left and ran out into an open field. I chased Bailey and Oscar through the open field (still barefooted) until I finally caught up with Oscar about 200 yards in. However, Bailey kept running until she nearly reached the houses in Southern Trails. At this point, Oscar's family had caught up and I told them I was looking for a new home for Bailey anyway and she had just made the job a lot easier. I had resigned myself to let her go.

So my neighbor and I walked back to the car (which I left in the middle of Kirby with the hazards on) through the open field (still barefooted, although it hurt a lot more now than it did at first!) and drove down Kirby to the mall to turn around. When I started driving back toward the neighborhood, there was Bailey standing near the road. So I sped down there, jumped the curb with the Murano (sorry Amanda, but I didn't want to leave it in the middle of the road again) and made another effort to lure Bailey into the back of the car--to no avail.

Bailey took off down the side of Kirby going toward the mall. But instead of staying in the grass, she zig-zagged her way back and forth across Kirby causing numerous cars to slam on the breaks to avoid hitting her. I really wish one of them had hit her because it would have cut this journey in half!

So, we chased her down Kirby where she crossed over to the right and took a brief dip in the pond. While she was enjoying her swim, the neighbor and I were parking at Goodyear so we could get out and chase her on foot. We nearly had her at Goodyear, but she took off around the parking lot going behind the mall. As I was going back to get the car, she started coming back toward us only to veer off to the right and start heading toward Dillards. We quickly got back in the car and continued our pursuit.

This is where it got a little scary. As she rounded the corner near Dillards, she was trotting behind the landscape bushes headed toward the front entrance of Dillards. And of course, like most big retail shops, Dillards has automatic doors. And it being a Saturday, numerous people were entering and exiting leaving the doors open for the most part. I decided then and there that if she ran inside Dillards (dripping wet since she recently went swimming in the pond) that I would take advantage of the fact that she had no collar or tags on and just leave. No one would ever know she belonged to me!

Thankfully she did not go into Dillards. I think she may be more of a Bass Pro Shops/Academy girl. But she did continue on her way. The neighbor and I were still following her in the car yelling at every person along the way to grab her if they got the chance. Finally we came to a back alley were the dumpsters are kept for the mall. Someone had left the gate open and we saw this as our chance to corner her. Unfortunately they had left the gate open on the other side which had the effect of funneling her into the mall! At least it's an outdoor mall so she was just walking alongside the people on the sidewalks.

Oh, I almost forgot to mention--as she was trotting down the corridor between the dumpsters and the mall, there was a guy standing near the restrooms. I called out to him to grab her if she came near. He looked at me, then down at Bailey who was standing right next to him sniffing him, then looked back at me as Bailey left. It was all I could do to not punch him in the gut when I walked past, still in pursuit of Bailey, and still barefooted.

We rounded the corner to the left where she was walking down the sidewalk in front of Barnes & Noble. There were some people sitting at a table outside and I called out to them to grab her if she came near and not let go of her. The guy reached over to pet her and grabbed her. I almost kissed him when I caught up.

So, I thanked him profusely, scooped Bailey up in my arms (40 pounds of wet dog) and walked back out to the car. I'm sure I looked perfectly normal walking barefooted with a wet dog in my arms through the mall. No embarrassment there at all. I put/threw Bailey into the back of the car and headed home. I marked this spot on the map with a volcano which is a pretty close indication of my blood pressure level at this point.

When we got home, I put Bailey in her crate, quickly took another shower and headed to the birthday party which we were now approximately 1 hour late for. The next day I found 7 or 8 splinters in the bottoms of my feet from the run through the field.

After all this, I can't say there wasn't anything good about it. Any sadness remaining in me about having to give Bailey up is now completely gone!

Bailey Needs a New Home

2009-09-18T10:19:00.001-05:00

Over the past several months since I started this blog, many of you have grown accustomed to the occasional sprinkling in of Bailey stories to lighten the mood in here. Well, it's with great sadness that I'm telling you we need to find a new home for Bailey.

I know what you're thinking--how can you give up a dog with such great entertainment value? The honest answer is that it's going to be best for all involved to find her a new family. We simply don't have the time, energy, sanity, space or yard size to accommodate a dog with her energy level. In the nearly two years we've had her, she has eaten or otherwise destroyed two pairs of eye glasses, several plants, several pairs of underwear, dozens of pens and clothes pins, my new wallet and I'm pretty sure she ate a $5 bill. That's just a small random sampling of the havoc she has brought to our lives. Happy and well-adjusted dogs who are content in their environments are not that destructive.

On top of that, she will do anything to escape from our back yard including digging under the fence and jumping over the fence. She has been really creative in her escape tactics including moving plastic chairs to the fence so she can get over and getting a running start and catapulting off the grill. And as you have probably seen from a previous video I posted, she has successfully jumped a six foot fence to escape the friendly confines of our back yard.

The only way we have found that even comes close to dissipating her energy build up is to attach her to the bicycle and let her drag us through the neighborhood on a dead sprint for a couple of miles. She barks the whole way and scares the bejeezus out of everyone. I think she nearly gave a jogger a heart attack the other night.

So, Amanda and I have decided that we would like to preserve what is left of our youthful sanity and accordingly have sent her information to a Brittany rescue to try to find her a new home. You can view her profile here (she's the 4th one down under Texas):

Please feel free to forward this link to anyone you know who may be interested. We think she would make a great hunting dog or even a great family dog if she had a large yard to play in and probably another dog or two to play with. Sorry for the sad news, but it needed to be said.

Posted via email from camplogic's posterous

Go Coogs!!!

2009-09-14T15:54:00.002-05:00

I need to take a moment to congratulate and brag on my alma mater, the University of Houston Cougars. For those of you oblivious to the college football world, UH defeated the #5 ranked Oklahoma State Cowboys this past weekend 45-35, in Stillwater. This is the first time UH has beaten a top 5 team since 1984 and they have achieved their first top 25 ranking since 1991 (currently ranked #21). This kind of play is a far cry from when I attended UH (1998-2002). The best record the Coogs achieved while I was there was 7-4 in 1999. In 2001, they went 0-11. So you can understand my excitement at seeing my beloved Cougars not only winning games, but beating really good teams.

Here is a little highlight video for your enjoyment.

Bailey v. Garden Hose

2009-09-11T22:55:00.002-05:00

Sorry for the length of this video, but there weren't really any parts I wanted to cut out. Bailey drives us nuts all the time, but it's times like this that we really enjoy her.

Obama to Circumvent Normal Congressional Vote on Health Care Reform

2009-09-11T09:31:00.002-05:00

Our lovable president got on national TV Wednesday night and waxed eloquent about how Congress was actually in agreement on about 80% of the ideas needed to pass health care reform and that the bickering needed to end so they could get something done. He talked about his grand ideas to provide affordable health insurance to all Americans without adding a penny to the deficit, despite the fact the Congressional Budget Office, using the numbers given to it by the White House, predicted a $220 billion increase in the deficit over the next 10 years as a direct result of Obama's health care plan.

The president made a noble request for bipartisanship to get this reform done "because something has to be done." And less than 48 hours after his speech on Wednesday night, he's laying the groundwork to use the budget reconciliation maneuver to circumvent a true congressional vote on the bill.

So much for listening to the people who turned out in 10s of thousands at town hall meetings in August to express their concern about this health care bill. We the people can state our opinions all we want, but our leadership simply doesn't care. According to a recent Gallup poll, 39% of the people polled said they would direct their representative to vote AGAINST Obama's health care plan as opposed to 37% who would direct their representative to vote for it. The other 24% had no opinion. 64% of the people said their vote in 2010 would be directly affected by how their representative votes on health care.

Despite all of this, Obama continues to ignore the citizens. In the article above talking about use of the reconciliation measure, Obama is quoted as saying, "there are a lot of politicians like that who, all they're thinking about is just, ‘How do I get reelected?’ and so they never actually get anything done." That quote was followed by this one from an administration official:

“I think getting something done is paramount here," a senior administration official said before Obama’s address to Congress. "We want to bring along everyone who’s willing to come with us, but the fact that not everyone is willing to come with us is not an excuse to fail in dealing with what is really a fundamental issue that has to be done."

There you have it. This administration has an agenda and they couldn't care less what you and I think. We need to "get something done" because we the people are apparently too stupid to decide what's best for us. We need some out of touch elitists in Washington to make those decisions for us.

In summary, our president thinks that a representative or senator who votes against health care reform because his or her constituents have requested him or her to do so is purely an act of selfish desire to get re-elected. Sounds like a classic Catch-22 to me--represent your constituents by voting against health care and be smeared by the president and his democrat buddies for playing partisan politics, or ignore the majority of your constituents and vote for health care, thereby ensuring you don't get re-elected.

Experimenting with Posterous

2009-09-09T16:07:00.001-05:00

For those of you who don't know me very well, I'm always on the look out for new technologies, even if they aren't particularly useful for me. Free technology is my Achilles heel. Today I found a pretty cool free technology and am trying it out to see if it will be useful for me.

Posterous let's you post to your Facebook, Twitter, blog, etc by emailing content to certain email addresses. You create an account and set up your linked accounts like your own blog and then use certain email addresses to post to your various linked accounts. For instance, I'm posting this to my blog by emailing all the content to blog@posterous.com.

I'm still not sure how useful this will be, but I wanted to give it a shot. Posterous has some other cool features that I'll be trying out in the near future. I'll keep you updated on whether it's worth it or not.

Posted via email from camplogic's posterous

The Twitter Experience

2009-08-19T16:26:00.002-05:00

As most of you have probably seen, I have a "Follow Me on Twitter" button on my blog. I've been using Twitter for several months now and I must say I'm really enjoying it. For those of you who don't know, Twitter is a micro-blogging, social networking medium. In other words, it's a replacement for (or supplement to) your Facebook status updates.

But what non-Twitter users don't really understand is that Twitter allows you to do so much more than simply update your status. By using a common language made up of hash tags, you can keep track of trending topics. You can also follow your favorite people just like you can friend them on Facebook.

As an example, I'm a UH Cougar alum and I follow Cougar Athletics religiously. Football season is inching closer and closer and I want to make sure I get breaking news updates on all things Cougar football. So, I follow @UHCougarSports and @campbellcoogs, 2 Twitter users who focus on Cougar sports in general and football in particular. But, I want to see if there are other people out there talking about Cougar football. So I use the hash tag system to search for #UH, #UHCougars, #UHfootball, etc. There I can find all the people discussing UH football in real time and can choose to follow those people if I so desire.

It's also great to use as an educational and networking tool for your occupation. If you're a small business owner, in marketing, sales, or whatever your profession, you can find people on Twitter doing the same thing and exchange ideas with them.

Finally, it's a good way to market your wares. Let's say you like to sell things on ebay. Create your listing in ebay for your item and then post a short description and link to your item on Twitter and use the #ebay hash tag. This lets people find your listing when they search Twitter using the #ebay hash tag. The same can be done for Craigs List entries or anything else you want to sell.

I hope this helps. I know there are lots of people out there on the fence about Twitter because they like Facebook and don't care for another social networking tool. Just remember that Twitter and Facebook can be used in completely different ways. Leave me a comment if you have any questions or have some other ideas for Twitter usage.

If you decide to sign up, you can follow me by clicking the button on my blog or going to www.twitter.com/TyCamp. Also, check out this Twitter guide book put out by @Mashable. It will tell you a lot more about how to use Twitter and get the most out of it.

Have You Changed Your Mind?

2009-08-12T09:26:00.003-05:00

Ok, we're 8 1/2 months in to President Obama's first term which has given us plenty of time to observe what his policy ambitions are, how those ambitions may or may not differ from his campaign promises, how he intends to handle congress, whether any of his campaign promises are coming true or likely to come true, whether he can be trusted in general, and whether he is leading our country in the right direction.

Having had that time to review and reflect, would you change who you voted for in this past election? This is not aimed solely at those who voted for Obama. If you voted for McCain and wish you had voted for Obama or someone else, I'd like to know why. Likewise, if you voted for Obama but have changed your mind about him, I'd like to know your reasons for that too. All too often people get married to their choices even if they have come to realize they were bad choices. It's ok to change your mind as long as you have a good reason for it.

So, leave a comment and let me know what you think. I know most of my followers are conservatives and I certainly want to hear your opinions. But if you have any friends or family who voted for Obama, please send them the link to this post so I can see what they have to say, regardless of whether they have changed their mind or not. Once I get a good amount of comments, I'll create a new post summarizing my thoughts.

Thanks for helping me satisfy my curiosity!

Vacation Time

2009-07-31T15:45:00.002-05:00

Well, the Mrs. and I are headed out on vacation tomorrow to the great state of North Carolina. I'll try to twitter some of the action for anyone who cares. In the meantime, I leave you with this article that provides a pretty good summary of Obama-style unity and bipartisanship. Enjoy and I'll be back soon.

A Brief History Of White House Thuggery

Simple Lesson in Economics

2009-07-17T10:30:00.002-05:00

Let's say you win some kind of odd lottery and you have two options for payout:

(1) You can have 50 people pay you $1,000 a year for the next 10 years

or

(2) You can have 100 people pay you $750 a year for the next 10 years

Which one would you take? The answer is pretty simple, right? Apparently not for our government. They would rather take $1,000 a year from a few people than smaller amounts from a lot of people.

Can someone please point me to one time in history where a tax increase stimulated an economy? Just one. Saying a tax increase brings in more money for the government ignores everything except for the fact that you have an immediate, short-term, temporary increase in revenue.

Amanda and I own a small business. By small, I mean we have 5 employees. If our sales start to pick up and we have more and more customers coming in, we'll need to hire an additional person to keep up with the pace. Now, let's assume the government increases our taxes to help pay for something it wants to do. It also increases taxes on our 5 employees. Does the government get more money initially? Sure it does. It gets the difference between what we and our employees were paying collectively and what we're collectively paying now. The drawback is that with increased costs, we can't afford to hire anymore employees.

Wouldn't it make more sense to either decrease our taxes or leave them alone? In doing so, we could afford to hire an additional employee and the government would then be getting additional tax revenue from that new employee in addition to the same revenue it was getting before from us and our 5 other employees. If the government actually decreased our taxes, we might even be able to hire more than one new employee to try to grow our business rather than just keeping pace with current business. Extrapolate this across America, and it's easy to see why a broader tax base is a much better way to increase tax revenue than increasing taxes on existing tax payers.

The honest truth is, the democrats know all this, but they would rather punish the successful than require everyone to chip in. History shows that when you raise taxes on businesses and the wealthy, jobs suffer. When jobs suffer, people suffer. It really is a simple concept that gets largely ignored by our government. I, for one, am sick of it. Why should I seek to excel in my job if I'm only going to be punished by higher taxes? Socialism kills innovation and hard work. Just look at the former Soviet Union. In just a few more years, we might be able to say, "just look at post-2009 America."

The Great Hunter

2009-07-05T17:17:00.004-05:00

So, as you've seen from one of my earlier posts, I recently stumbled onto a way to give Bailey a decent amount of exercise that fits my limited athletic ability. Yesterday morning I ventured back to the pond again thinking since it's 380 degrees outside, Bailey might enjoy a swim in the pond. To my surprise, she found something more exciting than swimming--hunting butterflies.

For those of you who don't know, Bailey is a Brittany. Brittanies are specifically bred for bird hunting and are pointers by nature. Bailey has never had any pointer or bird hunting training, but she certainly knows how to point. When she sees something she wants to hunt, she will freeze in place and watch for an opportunity to pounce. It's a very majestic sight.

Anyway, back to the story. As I'm pacing Bailey back and forth by the pond trying to get her to jump in, she sees something and freezes into the point position. I was able to get my phone out and take some pictures before she pounced on her prey--a tiny yellow butterfly/moth which she proceeded to chase around for the next 20 minutes or so. I'm so proud!

Title VII "Sex" Discrimination

2009-06-24T14:09:00.003-05:00

Without getting into what I really think about all the extra-marital affairs going on in national politics right now, I wanted to bring a snipit from this article to everyone's attention.

Ethics Watchdog Files Complaint Against Ensign Over Affair-Related Activities

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington ("CREW") has filed a complaint against Senator Ensign because the lady he had an affair with and her husband were terminated from their positions in Senator Ensign's campaign organization. CREW thinks the terminations were possibly related to the affair. An affair is certainly no laughing matter, but here is a quote from the article and CREW that made me laugh:

CREW alleges in its complaint that Ensign may have terminated the Hamptons from their staff positions for reasons related to the affair, which began in December 2007 and ended in August 2008.

"If true, the senator likely engaged in discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII, and Senate Rule 42, which incorporates the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to Senate employees and prohibits discrimination based on sex," the group said in a press release Wednesday.

Someone needs to tell CREW's law school dropouts that Title VII's "sex" discrimination prohibition refers to gender, not whether one has had sex. And since the lady's husband was fired too, CREW is going to have an uphill battle trying to convince anyone the firings were related to gender.

Barney Frank Cracking Jokes Again...or Just on Crack?

2009-06-24T12:13:00.004-05:00

My friend Mark passed this article on to me and I couldn't help but blog about it because either Barney Frank is joking or he's an even bigger idiot than I once thought (if that's possible).

Fannie, Freddie asked to relax condo loan rules

Fannie and Freddie got into a boat load of financial trouble because, at the insistence of Congress, they were insuring mortgages with little to no proof from homeowners that the mortgages could be paid off. This was all in the name of helping people achieve the American dream of home ownership even if they only had a snowball's chance in hell of ever paying off that obligation. These subprime borrowers began defaulting in droves causing Fannie and Freddie to go down with the ship.

So, in response to mistakes made in the past, Fannie and Freddie tightened up some of their mortgage insuring standards. For instance, we all remember the recent condo project collapses in places like Miami that sparked a lot of the housing market bust. Investors were paying ludicrous amounts of money to buy condos that had not even been built yet, much less occupied, with the hopes of flipping them for a quick buck. It worked for a while, but when the prices reached a certain level, no more buyers were available and these stupid investors were left holding the bag. This is called the "greater fool" theory of investing--you buy when prices are high and hope there is a greater fool than you willing to pay more than what you paid. There's my short lesson on supply and demand in case you weren't paying attention in high school and college economics.

So, Fannie and Freddie have decided not to insure loans to purchase condos if fewer than 70% of the units are sold, where more than 15% of the occupants are delinquent on their condo fees, or where a single person owns more than 10% of the units. It seems reasonable that these 3 factors could be an indication of lack of financial viability.

Apparently Barney Frank and his cohort Anthony Weiner were sleeping through the housing bust because they have fired off a letter to the CEOs of Fannie and Freddie complaining that the new standards are too prohibitive and might interfere with the housing market recovery.

It seems unlikely Barney would be using his Congressional letterhead to play a practical joke on Fannie and Freddie, so I have to assume he's serious. The article says Fannie and Freddie are preparing their response to lawmakers. I think my response to Barney would be, "get off the crack, idiot!" And for all the folks in Massachusetts who keep voting for this guy, you get off the crack too!

Adventures with Bailey

2009-06-20T10:40:00.002-05:00

Amanda and I have had our dog Bailey for about a year and a half now and we are constantly searching for a way to get her enough exercise so she's not uncontrollably hyper all the time. So we've done some thinking and here are the ideas we've come up with so far and the results.

First, I would take her jogging, but since I can't sprint at 20 mph for 2+ miles, that didn't work.

Next we tried buying a bike attachment thinking we would leisurely pedal through the neighborhood with our beautiful dog in tow. It didn't quite turn out that way. The feeling of a bike pulling back against her instantly turned her into a sled dog and she would pull us around the neighborhood at break neck speed. It was the one dog Iditarod without the snow. I'm serious...she would run at a dead sprint pulling me on the bicycle for over a mile before I ever had to start pedaling. This tactic wears her out for a little while, but I was a little concerned her heart might explode some day.

Then, I made a fascinating discovery about our neighborhood. As I was taking her for a bike ride last night (or was she taking me for a bike ride...I'm not sure), I discovered a grass road along the outside of our neighborhood. So, we took off down the grass road and half a mile later arrived at a drainage ditch with a nice little pond on the other side. I took her down to the pond to get a drink and she jumped right in. Luckily I still had her on the short leash or I probably would have had to jump in after her. I decided that the next day I would take her back and take a long leash with me so she could swim.

So, this morning after a 2+ mile sprint in just over 10 minutes, here's Bailey cooling off in the pond. Don't worry...I eventually helped her get out.

Getting Older

2009-06-19T16:03:00.003-05:00

I wanted to take a quick break from my political rants to talk about something else for a change. This past April I turned the ripe old age of 29. No, seriously, I am 29. I'm not one of those people who will stay 29 forever for fear of turning 30. I see nothing wrong with being 30 years old. It's just one more year.

But, I have to say, I'm starting to feel much older than my years. Life has a way of being exciting and exhausting all at the same time. About this time 2 years ago, Amanda opened up restyle and our lives have never been the same. Don't get me wrong, restyle has been an amazing adventure and something we feel strongly led by God to do, but it is a lot of work! Amanda has done an amazing job running the place and turning it into a successful business. But when you couple that with my 8:30 - 6:00 job plus a dog that no one can control, plus responsibilities and obligations at church, you have a recipe for disaster.

Slowly but surely over the past several years, I have seen my physical activity dwindle because it's more work than fun and there just aren't enough hours in the day for such frivolity. Now when I go out to the garage to work out, I do so with the knowledge that I'm going to be incredibly sore for the next 2-3 days. I also do it knowing full well that none of it will be easy or enjoyable.

I can remember the days that I could work out in the gym for more than an hour and never get sore. I could run the stands at the football stadium and be out of breath, but not barely clinging to life. I could play basketball in the driveway with my brothers for 5+ hours in 98 degree heat and be disappointed when we ran out of daylight. I could do all kinds of things that I either can't do anymore or can't do well anymore and it's a little depressing. I kind of thought this would hit around age 40, not 29.

So, anyway, I know this post kind of came out of nowhere, but it's just something I've been thinking about lately, so I thought I would share it with my loyal and avid followers. If you guys have any thoughts, send me a comment.

The Dictatorship Has Arrived

2009-06-16T10:42:00.003-05:00

ABC to Air Infomercial for Obama's Health Care Reform While Excluding Opposition Voices

Looking back over history, what set of criteria is used to determine when a nation has become a dictatorship? Just to name a few, a head of state with no checks and balances, a state-run media, and the systematic and unapologetic silencing of voices of opposition.

Congratulations to all who voted for Obama...the USA is now a dictatorship by these standards. Soon we'll have presidential elections with only one person to vote for and armed men in uniforms making sure no one shows up at the voting locations to protest. Say goodbye to freedom and liberty.

Stay Tuned

2009-06-11T09:08:00.003-05:00

I just wanted to apologize to my avid following of 5 readers for the lack of posts lately. I know there have been a lot of blog-worthy news items recently and I certainly plan to address some of them soon, but I simply have not had time. Between working my full time job, helping Amanda as much as I can with the marketing aspect of the store (follow restyle on twitter for special deals), and trying to train the possibly untrainable dog, life has been chaotic at best.

So, hang in there...more blog posts are on the way. In the meantime, please entertain yourself with this clip of our wonderful dog Bailey.

Teddy Roosevelt on Printing Money

2009-05-28T11:31:00.002-05:00

I'm currently reading a biography of Teddy Roosevelt and it's been a very interesting read. TR was very much pro-big government even though he was a republican. There were very few things he did not feel the federal government was best equipped to handle. That's why I was shocked when I read a quote from TR that occurred in 1907. Let me set the back drop a little first.

Roosevelt was admittedly lost when it came to handling financial crises and therefore depended very heavily on advisers to handle the economy. In 1907, severe economic problems were caused by the lack of a consistent money supply. Everyone agreed the US needed a more flexible money system that would provide better liquidity during crises. Republicans wanted to put more control of the money supply into the hands of bankers and the corporate sector while Democrats wanted government to have all the control (no different than today).

Roosevelt didn't know what to do. He didn't trust corporate America, but also realized that he was inept to handle the situation. So, he turned to one of his advisers, Tom Watson, who urged TR to issue $50,000,000 in greenbacks--notes unsecured by gold or anything else except the government's promise to pay. This was Roosevelt's response:

It seems to me that the trouble about issuing greenbacks as you suggest is that it is like a man temporarily relieving himself by issuing notes of indebtedness. He can do it with safety if he exercises severe self-control; but a government will not permanently exercise such self-control. I have no doubt that $50,000,000 of greenbacks, if it was absolutely certain that no more would be issued, would achieve something of the purpose that you have in mind; but I also believe that most people would think that it foretold an indefinite issuance of greenbacks and that in consequence it would have a frightening effect.

102 years ago...how prophetic!

Climate Change Idiocy

2009-05-26T14:31:00.002-05:00

Check out this article about how eating certain foods contributes to climate change. Are these people insane or what?

Here's the first paragraph of the article:

"GIVE up lamb roasts and save the planet. Government advisers are developing menus to combat climate change by cutting out “high carbon” food such as meat from sheep, whose burping poses a serious threat to the environment."

Seriously! If I promise not to eat lamb, will the lambs agree to stop burping? Is that how this works?

Fortunately these lunatics are in the UK, but given our panting over all things European, I'm sure we're not too far behind. And, given the fact that our government is already telling us what kinds of cars we should drive, what companies we should invest in and what kinds of lifestyles we should embrace, it's not too far fetched that it will also begin telling us what foods we can eat.

Time to Buy a Home in River Oaks

2009-05-19T15:33:00.002-05:00

Amanda and I were driving around town this weekend when I heard a news clip on the radio that quoted Timothy Geithner as saying the financial companies are getting stronger because the credit markets are clearing up and getting stronger. All of a sudden a light bulb clicked on in my brain as I realized for the first time that I could afford a home in River Oaks and so can you. Here's how you do it.

Pull together all of your financial data--assets, liabilities, sources of income, etc. Take your liabilities and magically convert them to assets. If you need an example, refer to the episode of The Office where Michael Scott "declares" bankruptcy (if you don't get this, you really need to start watching The Office). Now, take your assets and increase their value ten-fold. For instance, I have a 1999 Toyota Camry with 220,000 miles on it and a giant dent on the passenger side. My most optimistic guess at its true resale value is about $1000, but that's not nearly good enough to buy me a River Oaks home. So, I'm just going to adjust my books so that it's value is $10,000. Next, I'll take my current home and multiply its value by 10 making it worth well over $1 million. Of course, I'm not considering the outstanding mortgage on it as a liability because I've already converted that liability to an asset. I'll do this little exercise with all my assets and liabilities. I think that should bring my new net worth to somewhere in the $2.5 million range, enough to buy a decent home in the River Oaks area...or at least on the outskirts of River Oaks.

Now, I can feel your skepticism for my plan and ordinarily you would be correct in thinking I'm out of my mind. However, what I have described above is no different than what the banks are doing with the federal government's permission. I've mentioned the mark to market accounting rules several times in other posts. What the federal government has done is tell the banks, "We know you have billions and billions of toxic "assets" on your books in the form of default credit swaps and subprime mortgages. We know that even though we call them "assets" they are really liabilities because if those subprime borrowers default on their loans, and we all know they will, not only do you not get paid back, but the home serving as collateral for that mortgage is worth less than the outstanding balance of the mortgage so that you lose money. But, we really need the American people to believe that our financial system is strong. So, next time you go to balance your books, consider your subprime debt holdings to be assets, and even though those assets have no value because no investor in his/her/its right mind would purchase those "assets" from you, give them a "value" of your choosing so you can claim quarterly gains when you report to shareholders."

So, when I take my little plan to the bank to get a mortgage to buy my new River Oaks home and the loan officer tells me I don't have enough money to buy my dream home, I will simply tell him or her that it's all a matter of perspective. If his bank gets to value its assets any way it pleases, thereby deceiving its investors regarding the true value of the bank, then I should be able to value my assets any way I please in order to get the bank to invest in my dream of owning a River Oaks home. That seems fair to me. What do you think?

Does Anyone Really Think This is a Good Idea?

2009-05-14T09:56:00.002-05:00

During my daily reading of the Drudge Report, I ran across the following article published in the Wall Street Journal:

U.S. Eyes Bank Pay Overhaul

But it was the subtitle that really caught my attention:

"Administration in Early Talks on Ways to Curb Compensation Across Finance"

The Obama administration is proposing the regulation of compensation at all financial institutions even if those institutions did not accept bailout funds. WHAT!?! If that didn't make your jaw drop, read it again and let it soak in.

The administration's so-called "authority" for the ability to do this is that the Federal Reserve and SEC have the power to supervise financial institutions and that these supervisory powers would allow them to "curb banks' ability to pay employees in a way that would threaten the "safety and soundness" of the bank." Obama and Geithner are using public outrage over bonus payments at financial institutions to nationalize the financial system!

Let's take a look at one of the biggest culprits--AIG. AIG got in big trouble with credit default swaps. A credit default swap is an insurance policy protecting against a borrower defaulting on his/her loan. At the time AIG received it's $170 billion bailout from the federal government, it had $372.3 billion in exposure from its risky investment. The only way it would have to pay that is if every single borrower covered by these swaps defaulted on their loan obligations. Regardless, that is a huge amount of liability exposure by any standard. For more in depth reading about what exactly was going on with AIG, click here.

AIG is a very large company. If you take a look at its balance sheet for 2008, it had total equity (assets - liabilities) of $52.71 billion. Of course, that number is a joke because the administration decided to get rid of the mark to market accounting rules which allows companies like AIG to give value to their subprime "assets" when everyone knows they have no market, and thus, no value.

But, back to my point. Obama and Geithner are seizing on the public outrage over AIG paying out $165 million in retention payments (which the media falsely brainwashed people into believing were bonuses. See my earlier post on this issue.) in order to try to take over the financial system. Does anyone really believe that AIG's payment of $165 million in executive compensation is what made the company less "safe and sound"? In light of the $372 billion debt exposure, I don't think it's the $165 million in compensation payments that has the company in deep doo-doo.

So, here's what's going to happen. If the government regulates how much financial institutions can pay its employees (this is communism in case anyone was wondering), the true talent will not work at those institutions. They'll go wherever they can to make as much money as they can. In the absence of talent, the government will fill those positions with its own picks and thereby have complete control over the institutions. It's already happening in the auto industry.

In our once free-market society, there were three distinct groups of people who controlled how businesses were run. First is the consumer--you and me. If we don't like a particular company's product, we don't buy it. The second group of people, the company's board of directors, is tasked with the responsibility of hiring people and making corporate decisions that convince the consumer that the company has a product worth buying. If the board of directors fails at that task, the third group of people--the stock holders...also known as the OWNERS--vote to fire the board members and replace them with people who can do the job. There is no room for, nor need for government intervention. Markets always work themselves out.

So far Obama has taken over the auto industry and is well on his way to taking over the financial industry. What's next?

Gangster Government

2009-05-06T15:14:00.002-05:00

I would strongly encourage everyone to read these two articles. All I will say in the way of commentary is that apparently Obama is not even going to hide his communistic intentions anymore. The American people need to wake up and see what's going on here.

Hedge Funds Outraged At Obama Bullying But Also Cowering In Fear

White House puts UAW ahead of property rights

Transparency At Its Finest!

2009-05-05T10:16:00.002-05:00

President Obama, our beacon of hope in troubling times, amidst all his promises of transparency which the American people deserve, is refusing to release the photos of the fake Air Force One buzzing New York a couple of weeks ago. He'll release photos of Gitmo prisoners and memos that tell our enemies exactly what we will and will not do to them in order to get information to prevent future acts of terrorism, but he won't release photos of his staged act of terrorism that make him look unbelievably insensitive to the people of New York--photos that everyone knows exist!

In case you can't figure out why--one of the disclosures vilifies President Bush, the other vilifies President Obama. Thanks for the transparency, Mr. President!

Government Investor

2009-04-30T14:39:00.002-05:00

What's the quickest way to stifle the creativity and ingenuity required to make a business successful? Place a large chunk of the ownership in the hands of an investor who takes no part in the day to day operations of the business. How can you make that scenario even worse? Let that ownership fall into the hands of the government.

Obama backs Chrysler bankruptcy as wise move

Obama thinks it's a good idea to send Chrysler into Chapter 11 bankruptcy and let the government use $8 billion of taxpayer money to take a large financial interest in Chrysler. I feel kind of like I'm being robbed at gunpoint here (metaphorically of course). I would never, in a million years, invest my hard earned money in American car companies who are so totally controlled by unions that they are no longer competitive with foreign car manufacturers. People can complain all they want about Americans who don't buy American-made products, but I for one will spend my money on better products that happen to be cheaper. However, I don't have a choice here. Obama is taking my hard earned money and forcing me to invest in Chrysler. Just like he forced me to invest in overseas abortions. Mark my words, this will come back to bite him.

But even more intriguing is this quote from the President himself:

"No one should be confused about what a bankruptcy process means," Obama said. "This is not a sign of weakness but rather one more step on a clearly chartered path to Chrysler's revival."

Now wait a minute here. This company cannot make enough money to pay its secured creditors off, so it's filing bankruptcy so it can screw its creditors out of money rightfully belonging to them AND it's taking on $8 billion in government aid...just to live to fight another day. Mr. Obama, I'm not exactly sure what your definition of "weakness" is, but I think we have a vastly different understanding of what that term means.

Finally, Obama is blasting some of Chrysler's secured creditors for not applauding the Chapter 11 filing. He says they were "holding out for the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer bailout." You bet they were because that was the only way they were going to get their loans paid back. Anyone who knows anything about the bankruptcy process knows that bankruptcy creditors get pennies on the dollar for their claims...even the secured creditors. If you invested a million dollars in a company expecting to get a million and a half back after interest on your investment only to find out the company is filing bankruptcy and you're only going to get about $300,000 back, wouldn't you hold out for a better deal?

Obama is setting a very dangerous precedent in allowing the federal government to take over private companies. If these companies couldn't survive on their own, what in the world makes him think they'll survive just because their getting government funding? Weak companies fail for a reason. The wisest course of action is to let them fail allowing stronger businesses to come to the forefront.

And finally, if you believe for a second that the Obama administration is going to take a hands-off approach in this deal, you are inexplicably naive. He even said in the article that Chrysler has failed because it hasn't moved quickly enough to adapt to the future. What he means is Chrysler hasn't adopted his meaning of future which places a hefty premium on fuel efficiency. Everyone appreciates fuel efficiency but history has proven people won't buy a piece of crap just because it gets 50 mpg. If the government forces Chrysler to make cars that no one wants, this "bail out" will mean absolutely nothing and he will have wasted another $8 billion in taxpayer dollars. But hey, he does excel at wasting taxpayer dollars. It's just going to be interesting to see how he blames this one on President Bush.

The Party of Transparency?!?

2009-04-24T09:27:00.002-05:00

The party of transparency sure has been opaque since the democrats have taken over. President Obama campaigned vigorously on the platform that he would not hide things from the American people and his lap dogs in Congress panted their agreement during the whole process. They decried Bush's tactics of keeping national security items top secret and said the American people had the right to know what was going on. So where is all this alleged transparency? Let's take a look at just a few of major issues since the beginning of the year.

1. Democrats repeatedly met behind closed doors and prevented republican input on the gigantic stimulus bills that have passed since Obama took over. In fact, the $787 billion stimulus package was passed despite the democrats' refusal to post the plan online for the viewing public at least 48 hours prior to the vote, as they promised. Not a single member of congress had time to read the entire bill before voting on it. Doesn't seem very transparent to me.

2. President Obama recently decided to declassify top secret CIA memos outlining "enhanced interrogation techniques" under the auspices of transparency. However, former VP Dick Cheney immediately came out asking that the rest of the memos be declassified--you know, the ones that prove the techniques actually worked. Strangely, the parts of the released memos that discussed the effectiveness of the techniques were redacted due to the "normal editing process." Seriously! My guess is--and this is just a hunch--President Obama and the democrats were much more interested in villifying President Bush than being open and honest with the American people. Why else would they filter those memos for us? The former CIA director seems to agree with me, saying, “For the first time in my experience we’ve crossed the red line of properly protecting our national security in order to gain partisan political advantage.”

3. In an effort to convince the world that global warming is a fact rather than paranoid opinions at worst and paranoid theory at best, the democrats in the House are holding hearings this week on climate change. The democrats' star witness--Al Gore. Since the democrats were allowed to bring in a "star witness" it's only fair the republicans be allowed to do the same, right? Wrong! Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex) brought in a well-known global warming skeptic (Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher) from the UK to testify alongside Mr. Gore. However, as soon as Monckton's plane landed, he was informed his joint appearance invitation had been rescinded.

Mr. Obama...Democratic party...where is the transparency? What are you so scared of? How about you allow true public debate on the issues and quit hiding behind your power? If you're so interested in being so open and honest with the people, then quit lying to us and quit suppressing opposing viewpoints. As far as I can tell, there has been no constitutional amendment transforming our country into a dictatorship or tyranny. If your ideas really are best, then put them up against opposing ideas and prove it and stop being a bunch of cowards!

Don't Ask If You Don't Want the Answer

2009-04-21T15:58:00.002-05:00

My lovely wife always tells me, "don't ever ask a question you don't want the answer to." Of course, 9 times out of 10 she's talking about women who ask their husbands/boyfriends "do you think I'm fat?". But I think it applies here as well. Perez Hilton asked Miss California if she thinks all states should legalize gay marriage. She said no and he promptly called her a "dumb bitch" with "half a brain". Hey idiot, don't ask questions evoking an opinion if you think there is only one right answer. What a moron!

Our New Moral Compass

2009-04-21T15:33:00.002-05:00

President Obama says employing the waterboarding technique on terrorists who have slaughtered thousands of innocent Americans shows we [America] have "lost our moral bearings." Does anyone else find this statement vile, repugnant, revolting (insert any other adjectives you want) coming from this man's mouth? This is the man who:

1. Is in favor of killing unborn children out of convenience. If you think he's just in favor of abortion in rape, incest and protection of the mother cases, don't forget he also said he wouldn't want his daughter punished with a baby just because of a mistake. Those aren't my words, they're his.

2. Supports same-sex marriage.

3. Attended church services under Jeremiah Wright, who for 20 years spewed hatred of Americans in general and white people in particular.

4. Has close ties to Bill Ayers who is a terrorist and makes no apologies for it.

5. Has befriended Hugo Chavez whose regime is among the world's leaders in human righs abuse and who hates America as much as any other terrorist regime out there.

I would really like to know under what definition of "morality" President Obama is operating because I am completely at a loss.

Evil Protesters

2009-04-16T15:56:00.003-05:00

Some democrats continue to insist that the American public is incredibly stupid. Democrats go out of their way to praise certain groups when they protest certain things (Cindy Sheehan protesting the war in Iraq, John Kerry throwing back his war medals, etc.), but blast other groups when they protest governmental over-stepping.

Schakowsky: Tea parties 'despicable'

Here's the quote from Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) with my emphasis in certain places:

"The ‘tea parties’ being held today by groups of right-wing activists, and fueled by FOX News Channel, are an effort to mislead the public about the Obama economic plan that cuts taxes for 95 percent of Americans and creates 3.5 million jobs," Schakowsky said in a statement.

"It’s despicable that right-wing Republicans would attempt to cheapen a significant, honorable moment of American history with a shameful political stunt," she added. "Not a single American household or business will be taxed at a higher rate this year. Made to look like a grassroots uprising, this is an Obama bashing party promoted by corporate interests, as well as Republican lobbyists and politicians.”

Ok, let's break this down a little bit. First, the creation of 3.5 million jobs through this economic stimulus has been thoroughly debunked. Obama never said his stimulus package would "create" 3.5 million jobs. He said it would "create or save" 3.5 million jobs. He hasn't explained how in the world he will be able to prove his plan has saved jobs, but then again, it is his job to be optimistic as vaguely as possible so there's always a way out when you're wrong.

Second, she says the Tea Parties were a cheap political stunt compared to the original Boston Tea Party. My question is, what is the difference? The original tea party was a protest against the British government overstepping its authority on the tax front. The recent tea party protests are in opposition to the way the federal government is currently spending money that it has not yet raised in tax revenue. Anyone with half a brain cell can see that this borrowing and spending madness will eventually result in vastly higher taxes. Hence all the signs begging the government not to tax our children.

Third, she says this was made to look like a grassroots uprising, but was really an Obama bashing party promoted by corporate interests. Really? Did she go out there and ask any of those protesters if they were (a) being paid to be there by some corporate interest, or (b) being forced to be there at gun point? Why is it grassroots if you're protesting conservatism, but chaotic anarchy if your protesting liberalism? Geez!

Finally, she says not a single American family will be taxed at a higher rate THIS YEAR. Did she think we wouldn't notice those last two words? Setting aside the fact that democrats want to eliminate the tax write off for mortgage interest, eliminate or reduce the tax deduction for charitable donations, and raise taxes on every single American by instituting the cap and trade taxes on energy companies, she tacitly admits that Americans will see increases in their income taxes shortly...just not this year...at least not directly.

So Ms. Schakowsky, why don't you do us all a favor and quit protesting the protesters, go back to your cozy office on Capitol Hill and rethink your wording so people with nominal intelligence can't see right through what you're saying.

Efficiently Offensive

2009-04-16T10:53:00.002-05:00

Apparently President Obama is no longer satisfied in making single barbs at Christians and conservatives in his speeches. He has decided to become a little more efficient and start making multiple offensive remarks and gestures. Maybe that way he can cut down on the number of speeches he's required to give.

Georgetown Says It Covered Over Name of Jesus to Comply With White House Request

1. Obama goes to a Catholic school to give a speech and demands that the symbol for the name of Jesus be covered up. I'm not sure there is a universe of thought in which this makes sense. Maybe the next time he gives a speech in a Muslim community, he'll require them to remove all references to Mohammed and Allah. Let's see how that goes over.

2. After demanding the removal of the name of Jesus, he quotes Jesus completely out of context. He talks about the parable of the houses built on sand and rock and how the one built on sand will collapse, but the one built on a rock will withstand the storm. He then tells the audience that the financial system must be built on a rock in order to withstand storms like the one we're going through. Nice analogy, Mr. President, but I'm pretty sure Jesus was not at all concerned with the state of the US economy when he spoke that parable. In fact, I think He may have been referring to building our lives on the Rock of our salvation, Jesus Christ, whose name you had covered up so you could give your precious speech.

Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy

2009-04-15T17:05:00.002-05:00

Apparently if you disagree with higher taxes and how the government is spending your tax dollars, you are anti-government and anti-CNN. I had no idea CNN's existence was so tied to higher taxes. Interesting...

Power Hungry

2009-04-06T10:13:00.002-05:00

Obama Wants to Control the Banks

The current administration loves it when the public is outraged over how TARP recipients spend money. It somehow convinces the people that the government is the body best equipped to run private businesses. Now that there are some responsible banks trying to pay back that loan so they can operate as they see fit, Obama doesn't want the money back. Do I need to point out just how absurd and outrageously tyrannical that is?!? How would you feel if you mailed your final mortgage payment to the bank only to find out the bank has rejected it because they would rather have your house?

Just another piece of evidence that the Obama administration wants to move us away from capitalism which incidentally has made us the greatest economic nation in the world. It's very difficult to keep your thumb on people when they are allowed to operate under free will.

Bonus Hypocrisy

2009-04-01T12:18:00.003-05:00

As I was making my daily perusal of the Drudge Report, I came across the following article that struck me as odd and somewhat infuriating.

Lawmakers Have Long Rewarded Their Aides With Bonuses

For those of you who don't want to read the linked article, it talks about how congressional offices gave bonuses to staffers at the end of last year that totaled $9.1 million. On average, staffers made 17% more in the 4th quarter of last year than they made in the other 3 quarters of 2008. And, of course, like any other government expenditure, these bonuses were paid with tax dollars.

So, maybe you're thinking, big deal. $9.1 million is nowhere near the $165 million AIG paid in bonuses to its employees. Besides, AIG got us into this huge economic mess and certainly its employees do not deserve bonuses. If that were all there was to the story, maybe you would be right in thinking that. However, let's talk about what is really going on here.

First, the so-called "bonuses" paid to AIG execs were not really bonuses, but rather salary. In exchange for not jumping ship when the government took over, these men and women agreed to work for $1/year in salary. I don't know many people who can afford to live on $1/year, so in order to provide some incentive to stay in light of the unparalleled salary cut, AIG promised "bonuses" to these executives that would be paid out in installments (otherwise known as retention payments). No matter who you blame for the AIG fiasco, no one can honestly assert that every executive in that company was responsible for AIG's demise. Some people needed to stay on in order to right the ship and not many people qualified to run that company were going to leave their current job security at another company to go to AIG. Therefore, I really don't see much wrong with paying these executives these "bonuses". The other alternative is to let AIG sink into bankruptcy and start over.

Despite the above explanation, for the sake of argument, let's call the AIG payments bonuses--which brings me to my second point. People are outraged over the AIG bonuses for 2 reasons: (1) the company is a complete and utter failure and people don't deserve bonus payments for running a company into the ground, and (2) the bonuses were paid with tax dollars and these people shouldn't be getting rich off of taxpayer money. Both of these are pretty good arguments with which I would agree.

So, let's take a closer look at these congressional staffer bonuses. Does anyone happen to know what congress' approval rating was for the year 2008? Take a look at this graph from polls conducted by Gallup:

For the calendar year 2008, congress' approval rating never got above 25% and ended the year right around 20%. Since then, it has shot up to a whopping 39%, the highest it's been in 4 years. Something to be proud of...hardly! So, with a 20% approval rating ending last year, why did these staffers deserve the taxpayer-funded bonuses they received? Besides the total amount of bonus money paid, and the fact that the AIG bonuses were not on top of salary like the bonuses paid to congressional staffers were, is there really any fundamental difference between the "bonuses" paid to AIG and the bonuses paid to congressional staffers? Am I really surprised at the level of hypocrisy going on in Congress?

Just to point out one fundamental difference between the bonuses, I haven't heard any members of Congress clamoring to tax congressional staffer bonuses at 90%.

One World Currency

2009-03-24T12:49:00.002-05:00

If this isn't pointing to the end times, I don't know that we'll ever be convinced that it's coming, and coming soon.

China calls for new reserve currency

Most of Europe has already consolidated its currency into the Euro. If the other major currencies are folded in, we'll have a one world currency in no time.

What is really scary about this is we are currently indebted to China in the amount of $2 trillion and China is getting really nervous about the inflationary effect on its investment. With trillions being thrown around like monopoly money right now with no real plan to generate revenue sufficient to cover those debts, it is a real possibility that China would have enough leverage to move us in the direction of consolidating our currency with the rest of the world just to pay off our debts.

The Bible doesn't refer specifically to a one world currency, but Revelation 13:16-17 refers to the "mark of the beast" that will be required during the end times to buy and sell necessities for living. How easy would it be to replace all currency with this "mark" once all currencies have been consolidated into one?

I personally believe the church will be raptured prior to Antichrist taking over, and that current believers will not have to worry about making a choice between taking the mark of the beast and survival, but the purpose of this post is to point out that the Biblical prophecies concerning the end times are quickly becoming reality.

As always, comments are appreciated. Let me know what you think about this.

What Does One Trillion Dollars Look Like?

2009-03-23T11:18:00.003-05:00

For all of you who, like me, can't wrap your minds around the concept of how much $1 trillion truly is, take a look at this website (click on the title). This is absolutely amazing and should be very, very scary considering how many trillions our government is throwing at our problems right now with only "hope" that it will correct things.

The Gigantic Idiot Just Keeps Talking

2009-03-05T16:14:00.003-06:00

Tim Geithner seriously needs to shut his mouth. Every time he opens his trap, the Dow falls 200-300 points. It would probably help matters if he had ANY idea what the heck he was talking about. Here's the latest:

US Treasury secretary attacks oil, gas tax breaks

First, he says oil and gas companies shouldn't get tax breaks because their businesses contribute to global warming. Why is global warming still being touted as fact? Why is dissent to this crazy concept totally ignored? But, for the sake of argument, let's roll with the assumption. Are oil and gas companies the only ones contributing to global warming? How about their contributions of jobs and an enormous amount of taxes to our economy? I guess that doesn't really matter when we're fighting a phantom enemy.

Second, he makes the following statement:

"We don't believe it makes sense to significantly subsidize the production and use of sources of energy (like oil and gas) that are dramatically going to add to our climate change (problem). We don't think that's good economic policy and we think changing those incentives is good for the country," Geithner told the Senate Finance Committee at a hearing on the White House's proposed budget for the 2010 spending year.

Let's examine just how exactly this stance is good for the economy. I've talked about this in a previous post, but we'll take the quiz again. When oil companies are forced to pay higher taxes, who ends up paying for that? WE DO! Everyone who goes to fill up their car with gas, turn on their AC, or even turn on their lights or plug in their refrigerators will have to pay this tax. Not Exxonmobil, not Chevron, not Shell. We do. Does Geithner really not understand this concept? Is fighting "global warming" really more important right now than helping the American people out of this recession?

Finally, we get this unbelievable lack of economic and business logic from our fearless economic leader:

Geithner said the additional taxes "can be absorbed" by the oil and gas companies, given the billions of dollars they have earned from high energy prices.

"The impact of these subsidies are very small relative to revenues produced by U.S. oil and gas producers," he said.

To address this, let me explain this like Oscar explained a surplus to Michael on The Office: assume your mommy gives you $10 to start a lemonade stand. You spend all $10 on lemons, sugar, and cups. With all your supplies, you're able to sell 10 cups of lemonade at $1 per cup. What is your revenue? $10. Now, what is your profit? $0.

See how that works Mr. Geithner? Revenue does not equal profit. But let's not ignore the fact that Exxonmobil keeps setting profit records every quarter. What is the largest profit Exxonmobil has made? Approximately 10%. Why is a 10% profit so exorbitant?

But, that is neither here nor there because Exxonmobil will not be paying this tax. It will not be absorbing anything. This tax, just like every other cost, will be passed on to the consumer. So, yes Tim, you get your extra billions in tax revenue. But it provides no disincentive for oil and gas production and further taxes the consumer into the ground. I don't know where you got your economics degree, but that institution needs to be shut down immediately.

Housing Crisis Insured for the Forseeable Future

2009-03-04T17:32:00.002-06:00

If you live in a house you can afford and make your monthly mortgage payments on time, this article should make your blood boil. The idiocy and short-sightedness of our current administration is absolutely mind-boggling.

Administration Details Its Plan to Modify Home Loans

The idea here is to bail out people who bought more house than they could afford. How are they going to do this--by federally subsidizing loan modifications--with taxpayer dollars! If you're currently living in a house in which your mortgage payment consumes more than 31% of your gross monthly income, the bank is going to give you a new deal, subsidized by the government, to reduce your monthly mortgage payment.

Here's the quote from Treasury Secretary Geithner:

“Two weeks ago, the president laid out a clear path forward to helping up to nine million families restructure or refinance their mortgages to a payment that is affordable,” the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, said. “It is imperative that we continue to move with speed to help make housing more affordable and help arrest the damaging spiral in our housing markets, just as we work to stabilize our financial system, create jobs and help businesses thrive.”

WHAT!!! Housing has always been affordable...if you buy what you can afford! Surely what he meant to say was, "to help make the housing you've always wanted to own more affordable." Have we already forgotten what got us into this mess in the first place? Don't take my word for it--the NY Times saw this coming 10 years ago.

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

Our "consumerism" society has convinced people that if you want something, just buy it and the details will work themselves out. Our government is now telling those people they deserve to own their home and if they can't afford to pay for it, the government will step in a bail them out. Let me tell you a little secret--the government doesn't have any money to bail these people out. Every dime the government gets comes out of the pockets of Americans who pay taxes. I'm sick and tired of the wealth redistribution this administration is hell-bent on forcing upon us.

Here's a prediction you don't need a crystal ball for--these same people are going to default on their mortgages whether or not those loans are modified. The problem is not that the housing market has crashed...it's that these people couldn't afford their homes in the first place. Now, instead of these people simply losing their homes now to the foreclosure process, the government is going to throw $75 billion of our tax money at the problem only to watch the foreclosures happen anyway.

It's times like these that I'm thankful my parents taught me good, logical money management principles. I only wish Obama's and Geithner's parents had done the same for them.

Everyone is Racist, So It Seems

2009-02-27T16:03:00.003-06:00

It was a fear a lot of us had when we found out Barack Obama was going to be the democratic presidential candidate. The chatter started on conservative talk radio about how opposition to Obama would be considered racist just because he is half black (although he was fully black for purposes of his campaign). Anytime someone questioned his executive experience, that person was labeled racist and accused to trying to oppress Mr. Obama because of his race. Anytime some questioned his motives, the race card was played. Heck, even Obama himself played the race card in a couple of debates.

Then, several weeks ago, some dude at the Washington Post drew a cartoon lampooning the drafter of the stimulus bill, comparing such person to a chimpanzee.

People cried foul, especially Al Sharpton. How could such blatant racism exist in the media today, they asked. Nevermind the fact that President Obama did not draft the stimulus bill. Nancy Pelosi was the culprit, but it's hard to play the race card when the butt of the joke is white.

Now we have this:

Mayor who sent watermelon e-mail says he'll resign

For those of you who are opposed to clicking on the convenient links I provide you (free of charge), this article talks about a California mayor who has agreed to resign because he emailed a picture to a few of his friends that depicted the White House lawn covered with watermelons with the title: "No Easter egg hunt this year".

Apparently this was taken by some to be a racist shot at black people because they enjoy watermelon. What the heck! Are you some how less of a person because you enjoy watermelon? Are you not supposed to eat watermelon unless you're black? My wife and I eat 5-10 watermelons a year and last I checked, we're about as white as you can get.

I really don't understand this. If you call a black person the "n-word", that is racist. If you dress up in a white sheet and burn a cross on a black person's lawn, that is racist. If you draw attention to the fact that black people like watermelons...or BBQ...or collard greens...or whatever other normal foods they may enjoy, that is not racist. GET OVER IT!!!

We're All a Bunch of Cowards!

2009-02-18T14:25:00.003-06:00

Our new US Attorney General thinks we're all cowards for refusing to talk frankly about race relations in this country. What a freakin' moron!

I'm going to be really careful here to not generalize my comments to everyone (like Mr. Holder has done). Please understand that when I say "a lot of people", I don't mean everyone. And just to let you know, I'm not extremely comfortable with making this post because there are some people out there who will view it as racist. Since there's really nothing I can do to convince them otherwise, I guess I'll just have to live with the consequences. With that disclaimer and explanation, let's discuss this issue.

I'll be the first to admit that racism has not been extinguished in this country. However, I'll also vehemently disagree with anyone that says or thinks white people are the perpetrators of all racism or that black people are the recipients of all racism. If you remove the relatively small percentage of people who are still racist (typically those still clinging to the 1950s), there really isn't much of a problem. Even if you think there is a problem, I think it's probably safe to say that most white people are trying to let the issue go. However, there are some that refuse to let the issue die and keep throwing it back in our faces.

Here's a quote from Mr. Holder:

"It [racial matters] is an issue we have never been at ease with and, given our nation's history, this is in some ways understandable," Holder said. "If we are to make progress in this area, we must feel comfortable enough with one another and tolerant enough of each other to have frank conversations about the racial matters that continue to divide us."

Let's try out a hypothetical on this idea. Several of my neighbors are black, most of which I am friends with. What do you think would happen if I walked up to one of my black neighbors and said, "let's grab a cup of coffee and talk about why this country is so darn racist"? I don't think I really need to answer that question. No one wants to have that conversation, Mr. Holder, because it's pointless, not to mention extremely uncomfortable and potentially divisive, if it's not an issue for people.

Unfortunately there is nothing we can do to get people to quit being racist. People have their opinions, intelligent or not, and they are entitled to those opinions. The last thing anyone wants in this country is a "thought police." The black population of this country has been apologized to time and time again. There are federal and state laws in place to protect them from discrimination and even to give them an advantage over people of other races by mandating quotas (hiring, school admissions, etc.). There is not a single person still living that participated in the era of slavery and oppression that took place in this country, and I for one can tell you I do not like apologizing for things I didn't do and had no control over. Maybe the best thing to do is to just let it go. I won't ask you to apologize for things you didn't do and you don't ask me to apologize for things I didn't do. Fair enough? It's been 250 years since the end of slavery in this country...it's time to move on.

The Economic Double Standard

2009-02-09T12:49:00.001-06:00

For those of you looking for more proof of the Democrat double standard, take a look at this article. You don't need my commentary to explain this.

'Doom' talk scored as 'not presidential'

Democrats Want to Abolish the First Amendment

2009-02-06T12:54:00.002-06:00

If you think I'm joking, just read this article.

Another senator lines up behind 'Fairness Doctrine'

If you're like my wife and don't like to read things with lots of words, let me tell you what this is all about. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and other conservative talk show hosts dominate the radio airwaves, so Democrats want to silence them by forcing the broadcast owners to air more liberal shows.

Let's have a show of hands from everyone who has ever been forced to listen to conservative talk radio at gun point. Conservative talk radio dominates the airwaves because that's what people want to listen to. If they want a liberal viewpoint, they'll watch MSNBC, CNN, non-local ABC, NBC or CBS, or read the NY Times, Los Angeles Times, or a myriad of other papers around the country. It's not like people don't have plenty of choices.

Make no mistake about it--this is not about promoting diversity of opinions. This is about abolishing differences of opinions. The First Amendment says:

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

Someone please explain to me how forcing radio stations to replace or supplement conservative talk shows with liberal content would not amount to a law "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."

It is estimated that approximately 21 million people a week listen to Rush Limbaugh and approximately 14 million people a week listen to Sean Hannity. Just think how many more millions of ill-informed voters there would be if Limbaugh and Hannity were taken off the air. I'll be the first to tell you I don't care for the personality of either of them, but if I want to be made aware of news items that are not very complimentary of liberals, I have to listen to those shows because the main stream media ignores them.

If the Democrats get their way and this legislation is enacted, we will be well on our way to tyranny. If you don't believe me, go look at any other country with state-owned media and tell me how much freedom those countries have. We are headed in a very dangerous direction here and I sincerely hope people will wake up to what's going on.

Obama: The 7 Year Old Cry Baby Version

2009-02-06T12:14:00.002-06:00

We are less than 1 month into the Obama administration and he's already whining and crying about partisan politics and continues to contradict his campaign promises. The Senate is not rubber stamping his gigantic spending bill (which no one, other than partisan left wing hacks, believes will actually stimulate the economy), so he's pointing the finger at Senate republicans while saying, "I won...now you have to do everything I say without questioning anything." Mr. Obama, suck it up and let Congress do its job...which is to provide checks and balances on you!

Here is a quote from the President himself talking about how the Senate should rubber stamp his "stimulus" package:

"They [Americans] did not choose more of the same in November," Obama said Friday. "They did not send us to Washington to get stuck in partisan posturing, to try to score political points. They did not send us here to turn back to the same tried and failed approaches that were rejected because we saw the results. They sent us here to make change with the expectation that we would act."

Mr. Obama, I would like to take this opportunity to point out that it is not the Republicans holding up passage of your precious stimulus package. It's the Democrats. Excluding one of the Minnesota Senate seats because of the ongoing legal challenges between Al Franken and Norm Coleman, and not counting the 2 independents, Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders, who vote mostly with the Democrats, the Democrats hold a 56-41 majority. If this bill were put to a vote right now and everyone voted down party lines, the bill would pass. So, what's the problem, Mr. Obama? The problem is that there are some from your own party that see this bill for what it is...I gigantic mistake that will assure this country stays in debt for the next couple of decades.

Obama spent his entire campaign talking about how he was going to move this country away from an attitude of fear and toward an attitude of hope. However, all he can talk about is devastation and catastrophe if his bill is not rubber stamped by Congress. He talked about how he was going to bring accountability back to the White House and Washington, but he has proceeded to nominate tax cheats and criminals to the highest offices in the country, and continues to support them even after their criminal acts were discovered. He promised not to appoint lobbyists to offices and agencies that they formerly lobbied, but promptly made several exceptions to that rule. He's endangering this country by throwing America under the bus so he doesn't offend some Muslim militants. He's getting rid of everything President Bush did to make sure another 9/11 didn't happen. You don't have to like President Bush, but you can't legitimately argue that he didn't make this country safer. Obama is going to destroy that. He's going to close Gitmo, effectively sending some very dangerous terrorists back to their homes to plan more attacks on Americans. And if we ever catch them again, he's going to make sure they have the same constitutional rights you and I have and that those charged with protecting us cannot possibly do their jobs.

So, you know what President Obama? Quit whining and crying when you don't get your way. Quit pointing at Republicans saying, "I won. Nana-nana-boo-boo." Quit thumbing your nose at people who disagree with you. Quit doing everything you blasted President Bush and Republicans for the last 8 years. Try exercising some true leadership and not juvenile playground politics. America is not quite ready for tyranny or a dictatorship, so it looks like you just might have to learn to get along with Congress.

I'm At a Loss for Words

2009-02-04T10:34:00.002-06:00

Did you know that every month we go without an economic stimulus package, 500,000,000 Americans lose their jobs? All I can say is "wow!"

So Much for Responsible Government: Part 2

2009-02-03T10:36:00.003-06:00

This is getting a bit ridiculous. Since I posted So Much for Responsible Government just yesterday, 2 more Obama appointees have been caught in unethical and/or criminal dilemmas.

First, Chris Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, had to promise to refinance his Countrywide loans because of the sweetheart deals he got through his personal friend, the CEO. Wow, Mr. Dodd! How honorable of you to refinance now that mortgage rates are basically nothing! What a stand up guy!

Next, Obama's pick for chief performance officer (whatever the heck that is), Nancy Killefer, had to withdraw her nomination because she cheated on her taxes back in 2005.

This is getting completely out of hand. If I ever hear another liberal complain about how corrupt the republican party is, I think I may go postal on someone. In my humble, yet very serious personal opinion, I think all of this calls for an automatic IRS audit on any Obama nominee going forward. You should automatically be disqualified from high level government positions if you are a confirmed tax cheat. It seems like such a minimal standard to me, but apparently it's a much higher standard than I thought.

As a side note, it now makes a lot of sense to me why democrats are always wanting to raise taxes. It's not such a big deal to raise everyone else's taxes when you're not paying your own!

So Much for Responsible Government

2009-02-02T10:59:00.002-06:00

After complaining for 8 years about the level of corruption in Washington, Obama doesn't seem particularly bent on cleaning anything up. First, VP Joe Biden is a known plaigarist. He got caught plagiarizing in law school and again as a presidential candidate in 1988. But, apparently stealing someone else's words and ideas is not all that serious of an offense.

Second, Timothy Geithner, Obama's pick for Treasury Secretary, was caught not paying taxes. This is the guy that is going to head up and oversee the IRS and the nation's economy. You would think tax evasion might play a more prominent role in deciding on this pick, but clearly Obama didn't think it was that big a deal.

Now, Tom Daschle, former senator and Obama's pick for Secretary of Health and Human Services, has been caught cheating on his taxes to the tune of $128,000 plus interest over a three year period.

Both Geithner and Daschle have apologized and assured the public these were just mistakes, but it makes me wonder whether any of this would have ever been discovered if these men were not being appointed to high ranking cabinet positions. It's amazing how remorseful cheats and liars are when they get caught and it might mean they don't get a promotion.

I won't even go into all the corruption surrounding the Clintons including, but certainly not limited to, Whitewater, campaign contributions from foreign nations, conflicts of interest that should have prevented Hillary from being confirmed as Sec. of State, and stealing things from the White House upon departure. And these are just the examples related to Hillary!

At the very least, this calls for a moratorium on democrat whining about how corrupt the GOP is. The pot needs to shape up and come clean before continuing to call the kettle names.

The Double Standard Continues

2009-01-30T12:06:00.003-06:00

Remember over the past 8 years when the conservative majority would do some act or pass some piece of legislation that the liberals would say would have the effect of destroying our country? Anytime the conservatives would come back with something along the lines of "we feel this is the best thing for our country" the liberals would throw juvenile temper tantrums saying how the conservatives were calling liberals unpatriotic and un-American simply because they did not agree with the majority.

My, my...how times have changed. Now we have a liberal President (the most liberal in the history of the U.S.) and liberal majorities in both the House and Senate. I use liberal/conservative rather than Democrat/Republican on purpose. There's not necessarily always a correlation. See Arlen Specter for an example of a liberal Republican.

On top of being overrun by the liberals, we have a President who is trying to cure a $1 trillion deficit by adding at least another $1 trillion to it and probably $2 - 3 trillion when all is said and done. I won't go through the points of my earlier posts, but when that money includes earmarks for things like tax rebates to people who don't pay taxes, renovation of Washington D.C., contraceptives and STD prevention, none of which will do anything to stimulate the economy, naturally some intelligent people out there will have some objections. Those of us who are not in love with President Obama or think he knows everything and will be the savior of this nation, refuse to be a rubber stamp for Obama's ideas. That's what we saw in the House vote earlier this week when the House passed the stimulus package without a single GOP vote.

But now that liberals have the majority, they can't understand why conservatives won't just roll over and jump the aisle to side with the liberals. In fact, MoveOn.org is running an ad campaign in which they accuse conservatives of choosing to side with Rush Limbaugh over Obama, as if it's the conservatives who don't have minds of their own. As if it's the conservatives who are rubber stamping ideas these days.

But that's not all...I found this line in the article that I linked above:

Brad Woodhouse, the Democratic strategist who is overseeing the ad campaign, said: “The House Republicans put their Senate colleagues in the crosshairs because they decided to play politics rather than do the right thing.”

WHOA...now wait just a minute! Are you saying that if conservatives don't agree with you and your liberal buddies, conservatives are not doing the right thing? Is that somehow different from the liberal responses we received over the past 8 years? I was made to believe that criticism of the administration was the most patriotic thing one could do. Is that no longer the case?

The problem I have with all of this is that politics is based on opinion, not fact. As long as people inhabit the earth, there will be differences of opinion. If you think spending $4 trillion on top of the $1 trillion debt we already have will somehow pull us out of a recession, you're entitled to that opinion. Likewise, I'm entitled to think you're loony. That's the way this works, people. Quit getting offended when people disagree with you. You just make the best argument you can and if you can convince them, good for you. If you can't, there's nothing you can do about that. But, for crying out loud, let's stop the double standards.

Pelosi Is At It Again

2009-01-29T11:54:00.002-06:00

This is unbelievable! Nancy Pelosi couldn't explain to George Stephanopoulos why hundreds of millions of dollars spent on contraceptives would stimulate the economy, but wouldn't back down from supporting its inclusion in the "Let's sink America now" stimulus package Obama is trying to push through Congress. See my Dumb and Dumber post. So, now that it's been pointed out that $335 million has been reserved for STD prevention, she was given a second chance to explain how that earmark will stimulate the economy. Her response:

"I believe in prevention."

Well, good for you, Ms. Pelosi. However, I still haven't heard any explanation as to how this money will stimulate the economy.

I'm still waiting...

America is Once Again Worth Living In: What a Relief!

2009-01-27T16:59:00.003-06:00

Apparently making millions living in a fictional fantasy and having more rights and liberties than anywhere else in the world is not good enough to make America worth living in. We need to ability to kill babies whenever they are not convenient to us to make this country inhabitable.

The idiocy in Hollywood just continues to grow unabated. All in favor of cracking the borders on California's eastern side and pushing it into the Pacific Ocean, say "aye."

Ashley Judd: Breathless

Free Renovation Money

2009-01-27T16:54:00.002-06:00

Logic is dying a very quick, but very painful death these days. Check out this video. Apparently it's ok to spend $200 million renovating the Washington mall because the renovation efforts will create jobs and work for small businesses. By that logic, giving me money to add a second story to my garage so I can have a media room will also contribute to small businesses and will cost much less than $200 million. It will also cause more people to visit my house. As Michael Scott would say, "Win, win, win!"

Dumb and Dumber

2009-01-26T12:03:00.002-06:00

Let's play "Who is the biggest idiot?"

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi thinks spending hundreds of millions of dollars on contraception will help the economy. WHAT!?!

Ok, let's give her the benefit of the doubt and have one of our "unbiased, hard-nosed" media guys ask her to explain herself. Here's the exchange:

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?

PELOSI: No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.

Did anyone see an explanation in there about how exactly spending hundreds of millions of dollars on contraception will "reduce costs"? Since George Stephanoploulos didn't ask the obvious follow up questions, I'll ask them. Ms. Pelosi, how exactly does it reduce costs? Even if it did "reduce costs", will it reduce costs more than the hundreds of millions of dollars you're spending to reduce those costs? You know what this sounds like to me...it sounds like driving from Houston to Amarillo to save $0.03 a gallon on gasoline.

The idiocy of the liberals just keeps spewing forth. Great stuff for my blog--not so good for the country.

Here's the reference article if you want to read it.

PELOSI SAYS BIRTH CONTROL WILL HELP ECONOMY

He's Not Wasting Any Time Destroying This Country

2009-01-23T12:34:00.003-06:00

Ok, I've tried valiantly to be somewhat civilized in my criticism of Obama. But now the guy has gone too far and I'm furious. Take a look at this article from Fox News:

Obama to Lift Ban on Overseas Abortion Funding

In this first 4 days in office, Obama has signed executive orders that will effectively aid in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of innocent people. First, Obama is going to lift the gag rule that President Bush had in place. The effect of this action will be to free up federal dollars to fund international abortion clinics. It's bad enough that he supports the murder of innocent unborn children for the sake of convenience, but to force me to pay for it is way out of line.

And for all you out there who are thinking about making the argument that not all abortions are convenience abortions, do some research on that topic. The results of an October 2008 study show that 98% of US abortions are "personal choice" abortions.

Reasons given for having abortions in the United States

Second, on Tuesday, President Obama signed three executive orders that have the effect of making it very difficult for our intelligence agencies to protect us from future acts of terrorism. This is part of Obama's stance that for some unexplained reason, war criminals and people who want nothing more than to destroy America should have the same constitutional rights that American citizens have. That's why he wants to shut down Guantanamo Bay, not allow harsh interrogation tactics, and make it illegal to wiretap phones belonging to known terrorists.

I'm almost at a loss for words today. Because of this man, I have to fund the loss of millions of innocent, unborn lives. In addition, his decisions have removed numerous roadblocks that have made this country safe from acts of terrorism on our soil for the past 8 years. When we suffer another 9/11, the blood will be on his hands. My heart is very heavy and I'm angry at the complete disregard for human life this man is showing in his first week in office. My only hope at this point is that things won't get much worse.

Obama's Fiscal Double Standard

2009-01-22T15:33:00.002-06:00

Obama spent the bulk of his campaign blasting Bush (and by proxy, John McCain) over government spending that led to a $1 trillion national deficit. He made promises about bringing fiscal responsibility back to Washington and getting this country out of the hole. Of course, it was only AFTER he was elected that he informed his supporters that this fiscal salvation would take years and years to accomplish. Either way, he has not backed down from his promise to rescue this nation from the pits of eternal fiscal damnation.

So why is it that he has asked for nearly $800 billion for an economic stimulus package? This is absurd for two reasons. First, how do you correct a $1 trillion deficit by adding $800 billion to it? Second, where is the government going to get this money if we're so broke? We're going to have to borrow it from another country. How is it going to be paid back...by raising taxes. Best case scenario, this is not even a wash because the taxpayers will be paying interest on these so-called stimulus checks.

But, not only does he want to add $800 billion to the national deficit, he wants to inject trillions into the banks in order to make them financially viable again. Once again, how do you correct a huge deficit by piling more and more debt on top of it? Every time the government pumps money into the economy, the market experiences an artificial pop with nothing to sustain it. We will continue to see false bottoms in the market until the market works itself out. Hang on folks...it's going to be a bumpy ride!

Let's All Tighten Our Belts...Except Me -- Barack Obama

2009-01-22T15:25:00.002-06:00

On his first day in office, Obama placed a salary freeze on Washington government officials making more than $100,000. His exact quote was, "Families are tightening their belts, and so should Washington." This announcement came on the same day that Obama spent $170 million on his inauguration--4 times more than Bush spent on his second inauguration which the media blasted as excessive and tacky given the fact that we were at war at the time.

Does anyone else see the double standard here, or is it just me?

Turning Over a New Leaf

2009-01-20T12:06:00.003-06:00

For better or worse, we have a new president. As the new president takes office and tries to lead this country, he is going to make mistakes because he's not perfect (this may come as a shock to some of his supporters). Some mistakes will be minor and some will have a profound negative effect on our country. The point of this blog entry and many that will follow will not be to necessarily point out President Obama's mistakes (although it will), but to point out the absurd double standard in the media when it comes to reporting on those mistakes.

For 8 solid years, the media has salivated over the prospect of President Bush making a mistake and has never neglected an opportunity to use such mistakes to attempt to make the President look as incompetent and stupid as possible. In my mind, it is not fair to treat anyone like that, Democrat or Republican. But now that the media has set its own standard, let's see if they stick to that standard once "one of their own" is in office. We all already know the answer to this one.

To start, I'm sure everyone has read, seen or heard Obama flub the oath of office. No big deal...the man is front of millions and no doubt his nerves got the better of him. And that's what the media chalked it up to. However, just google the word "bushisms" and you'll find literally thousands of times (722,000 to be exact) the media or some other hater pointed out a mistake in speech by Bush. I couldn't find a single time that it was attributed to nerves or anything other than him being an incompetent, bumbling, incoherent cowboy.

This is but a minor example of the double standards we're about to endure through the media, but it's a start. Stay tuned for more.

Follow Up to Racism Post

2009-01-14T16:29:00.003-06:00

Nazi-named children taken from parents

I guess the State of New Jersey has a problem with how these parents named their kids. This is sure to result in a nasty fight.

Sounds Like a Blockbuster

2009-01-14T15:23:00.002-06:00

First gay superhero is oooh-perman

Just by a show of hands, and assuming this is not meant to be a comedy like The Incredibly Gay Duo of SNL fame, how many of you would go watch this? I can't think of many people outside the gay community that don't appreciate manliness, first and foremost, in their super heroes. I can't possibly imagine how they plan to make this concept interesting. I guess we'll see. Actually, I won't see because I don't have the slightest desire to see it. Someone else can fill me in on it.

Build Me a Bigger Machine!

2009-01-14T15:12:00.003-06:00

This is one of those stories that is both hilarious and sad all at once.

275-Pound Woman Says Hospital Told Her to Use Zoo MRI

At 5 feet tall and weighing in at 275 pounds, it is both hilarious and sad that this woman was embarrassed, not about weighing 4.6 pounds per inch in height (for reference, I weigh 2.5 pounds per inch in height), but about being given a recommendation to use an MRI at a zoo that would support her girth.

My favorite quote from this article comes at the very end:

“They should have machines that fit most everybody."

Ma'am, they do have machines that fit most everybody. You, however, are not most everybody. How about you focus on losing at least 75 to 100 pounds and see how many more things suddenly fit you. Geez!

The Gift of Tebow

2009-01-08T16:47:00.014-06:00

How often do we find elite athletes that are not only not felons, but actually virtuous and worthy of role-model status? Ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce you to Tim Tebow.

I'm not an SEC fan (except for the incredibly high level of college football you can find there), nor am I a fan of Florida. But I am definitely a fan of Tim Tebow and will be rooting him on tonight in the BCS National Championship Game. This guy is the ultimate example of how Christians should be focused on expanding God's kingdom and using our life successes to enhance the effort.

With a Heisman and National Championship trophy, as well as just about every individual honor he's ever been eligible for already filling his trophy case as a 21 year old junior, he doesn't hesitate to tell you it's not all about him. He recognizes that God has blessed him with immeasurable athletic ability and exercises the definition of humility. Whether he's winning the SEC, running over opposing linebackers, or bench pressing more than 400 lbs, he finds his true calling off the football field. In the photo above, he is seen preaching the gospel to prison inmates. In the photo at the top you can see he writes Phil. 4:13 on his eye black which says, "I can do all things through Christ who gives me strength." During the summer he returns to the Phillipines where his dad is a missionary and works with the locals. If there was ever someone to look up to and admire as a person and an athlete, it's Tim Tebow.

If you want to read a little more, check out this link on ESPN.com.

Good luck tonight, Tim!

Hate Crimes

2008-12-23T16:15:00.002-06:00

This is a topic that has puzzled me since it's inception. As a brief history lesson, hate crime legislation came about after the murder of Matthew Shepard. Matthew was gay and was beaten so severely during a robbery that he later died. There was very conflicting testimony at his trial and during subsequent interviews about whether the murder was motivated by the fact that he was gay, but the legislature had already made up its mind that this crime was motivated by hatred for gay people. So, a bill by the name of the Matthew Shepard Act was proposed in 2007 which would make it a federal offense to commit a crime against a gay person if the crime was motivated by a bias against gay people. The bill was passed by both the house and the senate, but was ultimately vetoed by President Bush. Later, Senator Ted Kennedy attempted to attach the bill as an amendment to a federal defense appropriations bill in order to force President Bush to sign the law or veto necessary defense expenditures. And liberals wonder why people think the left hates the military!

I have a couple of problems with this proposed legislation. First, the Constitution expressly reserves and gives police power to the states. All people, including gay people, deserve equal protection under the law, and that constitutional right is made applicable to the states through the conduit of the 14th Amendment. Therefore, there is absolutely no need for a federal statute making this specific act a crime. That should be reserved to the states.

Secondly, the states have addressed this. Every state in the union has a law that makes it a crime to kill a person. Why are these normal murder laws not sufficient to cover "hate crimes"? Is the murder of a gay any worse than the murder of a heterosexual? If your best friend was murdered in cold blood, would you be more angry to find out it was because he/she was gay as opposed to just a botched robbery attempt? Would the end result not be the same?

The only thing this proposed law would do is give gay people more protection under the law than straight people get. It clearly treats gay people differently than others. But the biggest problem with the proposed legislation is how broadly it is worded. "Hate crime" has been defined so as to include verbal abuse or insults. That means, anytime a pastor gets in the pulpit and preaches on what the Bible says about homosexuality and someone gets offended, the pastor could be charged with a hate crime. That would clearly be a violation of the pastor's freedoms of speech and religion. This is already happening in other countries. Pastors in several countries have already been imprisoned and/or fined for preaching the Bible on this topic.

Even more scary is the fact that it's already happening in the US as well. 11 people were arrested and charged with "hate crimes" in 2004 in Philadelphia for witnessing at a gay pride event! Apparently the legal term for this is "harassment by communication." If that's not a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment, I don't know what is.

Clearly this legislation is intended to open the door to creating more and more rights for homosexuals. However, in the process, it limits the freedoms of others. The current state criminal codes are sufficient to protect homosexuals just as much as they protect heterosexuals and, therefore, "hate crime" legislation is superfluous at best and dangerous at worst.

Intolerance: A One Way Street?

2008-12-18T14:56:00.002-06:00

I will probably never understand this concept, but it seems to me that the people who use the word "intolerance" the most, are the most intolerant people of all. I ran across this article today on the Drudge Report:

Obama defends choice of evangelical pastor

Obama has chosen Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration and the gays are furious. Never mind that Mr. Obama has the most liberal voting record of any current senator (including Ted Kennedy). Never mind that he has advocated for gay rights. Apparently all that means nothing to these people.

But, setting aside the absurdity of their protest, one clip from the article is particularly interesting:

The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights organization, said Warren's opposition to gay marriage is a sign of intolerance.

What exactly is the definition of "intolerance"? Dictionary.com defines it as an unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc. In that vein, I'll agree that any true Christian would be "intolerant" of the act of homosexuality (not to be confused with intolerance of homosexuals). The Bible calls homosexuality an abomination; not exactly an ambiguous term. However, are gays any less "intolerant" of Christians than Christians are of homosexuality?

There are all kinds of special interest groups, gays likely being the most vocal, who scream "INTOLERANCE" at the top of their lungs any time someone disagrees with their view point. But I wonder if they'll ever catch on to the fact that they're living a double standard. The fact of the matter is that the world is an extremely diverse place. We all have differences of opinion based on differences of background, culture, ideology, theology, etc. There is no way we are all going to agree on everything. So, either we learn to live with a certain level of "intolerance", or we continue to scream and shout in pursuit of something that will never happen.

Racist or Not Racist: You Decide

2008-12-17T10:49:00.003-06:00

FACT: You have one kid named JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell and another kid named Adolf Hitler Campbell.

QUESTION: Are you a racist?

Unfortunately, this question is based on a true story.

3-year-old Hitler can't get name on cake

The really strange thing about this article is this guy says he doesn't understand why people are so upset. If he thinks they're upset, just wait until his kids get old enough to understand what their names mean!

Protesters are Getting Dumber by the Minute

2008-12-15T11:08:00.003-06:00

My friend Mark sent me this article today and I couldn't pass up the opportunity to publish this stupidity. I also couldn't pass up the opportunity to put a different spin on my recent "passing gas" themes.

Greek police run out of tear gas as rioting continues for a seventh day

As some of you may know, protesters have been running wild in Greece for about a week now because a policeman shot and killed a 15 year old boy. These people have been burning banks and businesses to the ground, as well as numerous other acts of unnecessary violence. However, the protesting is not really the point of this post.

After firing 4,600 tear gas canisters at the protesters, the Greek police have asked Israel and Germany to send in more canisters. Apparently the canisters the Greek police were using were from the early 1980's. The following is a direct quote from one of the protesters:

“We found tear gas canister dated from 1981,” said one demonstrator, calling himself only GK. “The old chemicals make us sick, people have fainted and have trouble breathing,” he said.

Seriously?!? In the words of my friend, Mark:

"What do you think tear gas is supposed to do, smell like cherries and make everyone feel happy? Here’s a hint… Stop rioting. Stop throwing rocks and whatever else you guys are doing. Stay at home, or better yet, go to work. Productive members of society don’t have time for protests because they are too busy at work making money."

Amen, Mark!

That's a Painful Victory

2008-12-11T14:03:00.005-06:00

I got my verdict search update email today and the first case I pulled up was the following:

Premises Liability - Florida
Teen struck by baseball in batting cage awarded $1.16M

A teenager whose testicle was fractured when he was struck by a 60-mph baseball fired from a pitching machine at a batting cage was awarded $1.16 million. Lhyann Felipe, then 19, underwent surgery to repair his testicle. He claimed that a Sluggers of Miami employee asked him to kick balls toward the pitching machine area after a pitching cycle ended. Since the warning light was off, Felipe thought he was safe to walk throughout the cage. Plaintiff's counsel argued that Sluggers didn't have any written maintenance log, checklist, manuals or safety rules in place. Plus, Sluggers knew the machines sometimes pitched balls when the light wasn't on.

Felipe v. Sluggers of Miami Inc.

First of all, let me just say I never want to know what it's like to get hit in the testicles by a 60 mph fast ball. With that said, this news provokes a few questions from me.

1. How in the world did the young man's attorney keep a straight face while saying the word "testicle" probably a thousand times during the course of this trial?

2. How did the jury arrive at a valuation of $1.16 million for the young man's testicle? I did a quick search on eBay to try to find the true valuation, but had no luck.

3. If he had fractured the other testicle too, would he have won $2.32 million?

I guess some things will always remain a mystery.

A New Level of Absurdity

2008-12-09T13:05:00.002-06:00

I was perusing the Drudge Report today and came across the following article:

Calling in 'gay' to work is latest form of protest

Does anyone out there still not understand why the gay and lesbian community is not taken seriously? Let's break this down a little bit.

First, the protest is modeled after the work stoppages by supporters of illegal immigration we have seen over the past year. Am I missing something--I haven't heard anyone saying gays should be deported or should not be allowed to work. The article talks about doing this because gays are still not allowed to marry in some states. Last I checked, private employers cannot hand out marriage licenses. I'm simply at a loss for how skipping work has any relation to the cause.

Second, why do they think it is so important to demonstrate their spending power, and exactly how will skipping work bolster that point? The idea was dreamed up by some guy as a way to protest California's ban on gay marriages. Are they trying to say the prevention of gay marriages somehow discourages them from participating in the economy?

Finally, is anyone else disturbed by the fact that the gay teachers who are participating in this nonsense are going to use the day to "discuss ways to introduce gay issues to their students." I don't have any kids yet, but it's things like that that make me 99.999999999% certain my kid(s) will NEVER attend a public school.

Message to the gay and lesbian community...you're not helping yourself with stupid protests that make no sense in light of your cause. Next time, spend just a little bit of time thinking about what you want to accomplish and come up with an idea that makes the point. Geez!

The Economy: My Take

2008-12-07T18:21:00.005-06:00

Ok, here's my take on why the economy is in the state it's in. This is going to be a long one, so bear with me.

First of all, all markets cycle. The Dow Jones ran up to over 14,000 points before it came crashing down. If you look back at the 100 year history of the Dow Jones, you'll see that it has never, and will never sustain growth indefinitely without corrections. After a major run up, it must correct in order to charge itself for the next run up. So, after the run up from 7591.93 in mid-2002 to over 14,000 earlier this year, it was time for a downward correction.

Just in time for the needed correction, as one of the commenters to my last post astutely pointed out, there was something called "subprime lending" going on. This is where banks were making loans to people who couldn't possibly afford to pay such loans back. The greed that fueled the subprime lending mess is no different than the greed that fueled and sparked the dot com bust. In that case, people were pouring money into stocks of companies who had never seen a profit. When people finally started to figure out just how over-valued those companies were, it sparked a huge sell off (see Enron for further evidence of how this works).

But, before we place full and sole responsibility on the banks for causing this mess (and they do deserve a big portion of the blame), let's take a look at some other factors that were in play. In 1977 (Carter administration), Congress enacted the Community Reinvestment Act ("CRA") which "encouraged" banks to meet the credit needs of those living in the communities in which the banks took deposits. Click here for a good article explaining what happened. I put "encouraged" in parentheses because federal banking regulators could delay or prevent banks from merging, opening up new branches, and most other business-growth oriented tasks if it was found the banks were not making enough CRA loans. The reasoning behind the CRA was to prevent or discourage discriminatory practices in lending. Who else, besides me, thinks it's absurd that a bank would pass up a profitable lending opportunity simply because of race, ethnicity, etc? Banks typically pass on such "opportunities" because they are too risky.

So anyway, suddenly the world of home-ownership was opened up to millions of people who didn't have access to such large loans before,and for good reason. Banks began making the loans, but in order to protect themselves, would create loan terms that were not very favorable to the borrower, such as Adjustable Rate Mortgages ("ARM"). This allowed a borrower to borrow money at a low rate, only to see that rate fluctuate with the market. It also allowed the borrower to borrow a heck of a lot more money that he or she could afford. When the rates starting moving up, these people could no longer afford their mortgages and didn't have enough equity in their homes to refinance on more favorable terms.

Now with millions more potential homeowners out there, development and construction took off. Builders were selling homes quicker than they could build them. All the while, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were bundling these subprime loans into investment packages and selling them off to investors. With essentially no obstacles to the ability to borrow money, housing prices skyrocketed creating what you hear on the news every day--a housing bubble. Any time you hear the word bubble in connection with the world of finance, it usually indicates that something's value is severely overblown. (see also "tech-bubble").

What do bubbles do when the get too big--they burst. When millions of people began defaulting on 10s of billions of dollars in home loans, banks began going out of business because the homes securing those mortgages were not worth as much as the outstanding loan principals. Investors who bought the loan packages began going out of business because their investments were worthless. Companies (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) who made a large percentage of their money selling the loans found themselves without buyers, and therefore without a market in which to sell their crappy loans. So, in comes the government with $700 billion to rescue everyone...or at least the ones it wants to rescue. Can you explain to me why the government bailed out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but let Lehman Brothers go bankrupt? Hmmm....

So, now there are lots of businesses out there that can't borrow money because the banks don't have any money to lend. Some businesses, especially small businesses, rely on lines of credit in order to maintain payroll and keep inventory rolling through their businesses. Want to venture a guess as to what type of large expense a business will cut when it needs to shore up cash flow? That's right, payroll! So all of a sudden, thousands upon thousands of people start losing their jobs.

So, if you want my opinion on who or what is responsible for this financial crisis, here you go (in no particular order):

1. The federal government forced banks to make loans to subprime borrowers based on the mantra that everyone deserves to own a home, regardless of whether you can actually afford it.

2. Banks were somewhat forced to make bad loans, but let their own greed fuel the fire, causing an explosion no one can control.

3. People agreed to loans so large that even a 5th grader would know it wouldn't be paid back. If you make $400 a week, you should know you can't afford a $200,000 loan, even if the bank agrees to lend you that much.

4. Investors who allocated large percentages of their portfolios to buying these risky loans have gone belly up.

Who is left holding the bag with no hope of being "bailed out"? All of us who are responsible with credit and are paying off our mortgages on time. We continue with the same obligations we agreed to while those who were grossly irresponsible are either bailed out by the government or by the bankruptcy process. How's that for encouraging responsibility?

The Economy: Your Take

2008-12-02T09:57:00.002-06:00

I'm so tired of hearing people, who know absolutely nothing about economics, spout off about how President Bush has ruined our economy. I'm equally tired of no one asking these people to explain WHY they think President Bush is responsible. I'm opening this post up to the masses (or the 4 people who actually read this) to comment about what you think has caused our recent economic woes. Who do you think is to blame, and what needs to be done to fix it? I'll come back later with my take on things.

This is Getting Ridiculous!

2008-11-24T12:27:00.003-06:00

Ok, the earlier post was intended to be a break from my serious posts, but the criminal farting stories are getting out of hand.

Florida Boy Arrested for Gas Attack

I'm only going to say this one more time--farting is not a criminal offense! In fact, disrupting school classes, unless accomplished by some criminal act, is not in and of itself a criminal act. What ever happened to getting swats or detention for acting up in class? Holy cow!

I promise this is not going to become a blog about passing gas. I just had to get it out of my system (pun fully intended).

Battery? Seriously!?!

2008-11-21T11:49:00.003-06:00

Ok, this was just way too funny to not write about. I was playing around on the web and ran across this article from back in September of this year.

Man Farts on Cops

I clicked on the link thinking this is going to be hilarious, and it didn't disappoint. But strangely enough, a man farting on cops was not the funniest part. The funniest part was that in addition to charging him for drunk driving, they also charged him with battery of a police officer! WHAT???

Was it the fact that he moved his chair closer to them and raised his leg, or was it that he fanned it in their direction? Or, maybe it because his fart was especially odorous? I guess we'll never know.

The moral of this story--be very careful about who you fan your farts toward. While delivery provides the most humor, it can also get you in a lot of trouble!

Dumbest Protest Ever

2008-11-18T15:12:00.005-06:00

Let me go ahead and say this from the start--I am not against protesting. I think very few protests are effective as they are more akin to hissy fits and temper tantrums than anything else. But protesting is a free speech right. However, some protests go too far.

I ran across this headline yesterday on the Drudge Report. Take a moment to read it and then come back to this post.

PETA plans nude protests against Houma circus

Wow...where to start...

Let's start with the quote by one of the protesters that nudity is just one way that the organization attempts to draw attention to animal abuse. Let's see a show of hands from all the guys out there that have ever seen a naked woman and immediately thought about the horrors of animal abuse. I don't see any hands. That's because God did not wire men in such a way that the female body would trigger sympathy for circus animals. Women, I will let you comment if you think such tactics have a more focused effect on women. I kind of doubt that it does.

You know what would make this even more entertaining...if the National Organization for Women (NOW) would show up and protest against PETA for putting a naked woman in a cage. Of course, NOW would first have to interview the naked lady to make sure she voted for Obama before advocating for her rights. Then they could protest by putting a really fat, hairy, naked guy in a cage. Now that would be funny!

On one final note, I would like to point out the small blurb about the ACLU suing the City of Shreveport and 6 of its police officers for arresting these naked women at a similar demonstration. Apparently the idiot lawyers for the ACLU don't understand the concept that free speech is not without limits. I'll save my rants about the ACLU for other posts.

The moral of this post--make sure your protest activities have some relevance to what you're protesting. It really is that simple.

Windfall Profits Tax--Part 2

2008-11-10T07:48:00.006-06:00

In my last post, I explained what the Windfall Profits Tax is and how the oil industry is unfairly punished and demonized for being such successful market participants. In this post, I will explain who really reaps a windfall profit at the pump. I apologize for such a long post, but there's a lot that needs to be said, so bear with me.

I've done some internet research on how much profit ExxonMobil makes per gallon of gasoline, and it's somewhere between $0.05 and $0.08 per gallon. The trouble with calculating profit per gallon of gas is that a barrel of oil is used to produce more than just gasoline. The basic premise for this calculation is to convert barrels to gallons and then divide the total after-tax profit by the number of gallons produced. For purposes of this discussion, we'll just assume the higher number--Exxon makes $0.08 profit per gallon of gas. I will give the disclaimer now that Exxon made less than $0.08/gallon over the last 2 quarters when it set 2 new records for quarterly profit because the price of crude oil, which amounts to about 70% of the cost of production, has been MUCH higher over the last 2 quarters than a year ago. With crude coming back down, Exxon's profit margins should go back up a little.

So, moving on...

There are some per gallon numbers that are definitive and not in dispute--TAXES. The federal government takes $0.184 per gallon right off the top. On average, state governments take $0.22 per gallon off the top. The state of Texas charges a $0.20 tax per gallon. So, if you live in Texas, for every gallon of gas you pump into your vehicle, you pay $0.384 to the government. Click on this link if you want to see how much tax other states pay. These taxes don't include other fees such as environmental and underground storage fees.

The math from this point on is pretty simple. As a reward for pulling oil out of the ground, processing and refining it, shipping it to downstream retailers, and creating thousands of jobs for Americans, Exxon makes $0.08 per gallon in profit. As a reward for doing absolutely nothing, the government makes $0.384 per gallon in profit.

However, it doesn't stop there. Not only are liberals ok with the government making $0.30 more per gallon of gasoline than the companies responsible for all the work involved in getting it to the pump, some of them want to sit in their lofty positions and take pot shots at the oil companies. For your reading pleasure, I have posted a few quotes below:

"Arlen Specter says Congress should consider taxing the windfall profits being reaped by the oil companies, which I think is a no-brainer. These guys aren’t entrepreneurs — they are pirates."
— Geraldo Rivera on Fox’s Geraldo at Large.

"The estimates are that the six large U.S. [oil] companies will have a total of $135 billion in profits for the year 2006. Don’t consumers have a right to be angry?"
"The public looks at a total of $135 billion over the year, that’s larger than the gross domestic product of Israel, and says isn’t that an obscene amount?"
— Co-host Charles Gibson to ConocoPhillips Chairman James Mulva on ABC’s Good Morning America.

No, Mr. Gibson, the profit made by state and federal governments for doing absolutely nothing is what is obscene. And, while we're at it, how many people do you know use the gross domestic product of Israel as a benchmark for what is or is not a lot of money? Ridiculous!

But, this one is my favorite. For all the cracks people take a George W. Bush for being a stupid moron, why didn't this clip get more press?

For all the talk about oil companies and executives being so greedy, as explained by Maxine Waters, the federal government isn't happy with ONLY making $0.184/gallon. They want to run the whole show.

Now, I don't want this post to be misleading. Theoretically, state and federal governments use these tax dollars to build and maintain roads and transportation infrastructure. Of course, we all know some of this money gets diverted to pet projects (what we call "pork-barrel spending"). But, it's not like legislators are taking these dollars and sticking them in their collective pockets. However, they would like you to believe that oil company executives are doing that, when in fact, profits are used for a variety of purposes such as reinvesting in oil producing assets, maintaining refining infrastructure, creating new jobs, and rewarding investors who purchase stock in oil companies. If anyone should have a problem with oil company executives getting paid too much, it's the stockholders. So, I'm not sure how Big Oil's reinvestment of profits is any different from the government spending tax dollars on improving transportation infrastructure.

Let's do one more math exercise before I end this post. Let's assume you're paying $2.00 for a gallon of gas right now. If the oil company cuts it's profit per gallon in half, you pay $1.96/gallon. On a 20 gallon fill up, you save a whopping $0.80! Now, if both the state and federal government cut their profits in half, you pay $1.80/gallon and save $3.84.

I hope this all makes sense. In conclusion, oil companies make large profits because they work hard, take risks and go through a lot of trouble to produce a product everyone needs. Government makes large profits because it lies to people about oil companies being greedy. So, who is receiving a windfall profit on gas? I'll let you answer that one.

Windfall Profits Tax

2008-11-06T15:10:00.001-06:00

In the last 6-9 months we've heard a lot about a "windfall profits tax" that a lot of democrats want to impose on large oil companies. As the public was paying nearly $4 for a gallon of gas, a lot of people shouted their approval of sticking it to Big Oil (translate, ExxonMobil) for pillaging the wallets of the common "Joe" at the pump. But, have you ever thought about the effect an additional tax would have on the price at the pump?

First, let's clear up exactly what the windfall profits tax (WPT) is. It's not actually a tax on profit margins at all. It's an excise tax on the difference between the market price of crude oil and a base price created by federal statute. It was originally enacted in 1980 (passed during Jimmy Carter's administration, but didn't take effect until the next year) to steal (there's no nicer term for it) profits oil companies were making due to crude oil price increases caused by the OPEC oil embargo. That's right...the federal government thought it was deplorable that a company would pull oil out of the ground and actually try to sell it for market price, even though that high market price was not created by the oil companies. Anyway, the tax was repealed in 1988 during Ronald Reagan's administration because it produced only about 20% of the federal tax revenue that was anticipated, and because the tax only affected domestically produced crude oil, and therefore increased dependence on foreign oil exports.

No legislation has been introduced to revive the tax since 1988. However, according to a Wall Street Journal article, in 2007, 51 senators voted to impose a 25% WPT on any oil companies whose profits grew by more than 10% in a single year. Can you figure out which political party most of these votes came from without me telling you? I'll give you a hint--it's the party that has made a platform out of redistributing wealth. To quote Senate democrat Dick Durbin, "The oil companies need to know that there is a limit on how much profit they can take in this economy." If comments like that don't scare you, you need to wake up and shake the cobwebs out of your brain!

So, back to the question...what effect would a WPT have on what consumers pay at the pump? Based upon what you hear in the mainstream media, these oil companies would be forced to pay this tax for making too much money, which would have a deterrent effect causing the price of a gallon of gas to go down. WRONG! An additional tax is an additional expense that gets passed on to the consumer just like every other expense.

Let's look at a simpler example that everyone should be familiar with--the state sales tax. When you go to a store and buy a shirt for $7.99, you actually pay (in Texas) $8.65 ($7.99 + 8.25% sales tax). What you may not understand is that the great state of Texas imposes the sales tax on SELLERS, not BUYERS. It's the seller that passes the cost of that tax onto you, the consumer. See how that works?

Now, back to oil companies. Quiz Time: The federal government imposes a tax on oil companies. Who do you think is going to pay that tax? That's right! You are.

See how simple these things are when you apply a little logic. Now, next time you hear a congressman (or woman) spouting off about imposing a windfall profits tax on big oil to protect you, send them an email or give them a call to let them know you're not as big of an idiot as they think you are.

My Entry Into the Blogosphere

2008-11-05T10:24:00.000-06:00

Well, I'm finally taking the plunge. This election has made me realize that there are lots of things I want to say, most of which people probably either don't want to hear or don't care about, but that need to be said. I don't pretend to know everything, or even very much, but some things can be explained or refuted with simple logic. I'm realizing more and more every day that people are abandoning logic for emotion. I don't think most of these people are stupid; they just haven't had much logic presented to them. And since people are inherently lazy, they become convinced of the truth of whatever they are told most often or with the most repetition instead of thinking for themselves.

In that vein, this blog will be mostly devoted to explaining how I see things from a logical point of view. Most posts will be arguments against things that I see in the media or hear coming from the mouths of politicians that simply don't make sense when any degree of logic is applied. In an effort to make full disclosure of things in my life that may color how I view things, I am one of those evil "evangelical" Christians that people hate so much. Since I believe the Bible is the Word of God and constitutes a user's manual and road map for my life, obviously the truths of the Scriptures will influence how I think. So, now you know.

Posts will not come every day because I simply don't have time blog every day. But I'll try to maintain a steady supply of posts for your reading pleasure. My first substantive post will be coming soon!