It’s Independence Day

July 4, 2010
Fireworks at the Washington Monument

Photo by Andrew Blasko

After a long, long time between postings, I am back. I thought today would be a great day to bring this blog back, being Independence Day and all. There are celebrations going on all over the country as America celebrates its 234rd birthday, but not many are quite as good as the celebration in Washington, DC. As it should be. To watch fireworks go off around the monuments and the Capitol is an amazing site that I hope everyone gets to see at some point in their life. We are very spoiled here. DC is a hard city to live in, but on July 4th, there is no place I would rather be.

I’ve always enjoyed the 4th of July, first for the fireworks, then because of the struggle and bravery that came with signing the Declaration of Independence. We take it for granted today, but every signer of the Declaration was putting his life at risk by signing it. It was an act of treason to the British Crown. We declared our independence from Britain, but we hadn’t won it yet. We were free form the tyranny of King George III, but we still had to get all the British troops  and British rulers out of America. Taking on the most powerful army in the world was no easy task for a brand new country that lacked military prowess. Read the rest of this entry »


Michael Jackson – Conservative?

December 13, 2009

Let me start this out by letting everyone know that I enjoy Michael Jackson’s music. He is, without a doubt, the greatest entertainer of this, and many, many generations. Even though his music and performance style is contradictory to the style of music I generally prefer, I still am able to enjoy his music. I am not a Michael Jackson apologist though. I do not think that he was right to do most of the stuff he did and found him to be a generally weird individual that would have benefited from psychiatric evaluation. I also think that he was, in fact, a liberal, but only because of preconceived notions and he never really thought about it. I will show some examples of conservative themes in Michael’s songs.

In the song “Wanna Be Startin’ Something” from the iconic “Thriller” album had the line, “if you can’t feed a baby, don’t have a baby”. This is an undeniable conservative principle of self-responsibility. It is a simple common-sense solution that escapes liberals. They would tell you that it is alright to have a baby when you can’t afford to feed it because the government would help you take care of it. Creating a sense of entitlement and have them completely dependent on the government. Whenever conservatives in Washington try to stop this eternal loop of dependency, liberals cry foul charging Conservatives with not caring about children. Nothing could be further from the truth, but liberals never let the facts get in the way of a good campaign slogan. Conservatives believe that you should wait until you are financially and emotionally ready to have a child. It is better for the child and the parents. Apparently, so does Michael Jackson.

I don’t think anyone can deny the overarching conservative ideals set forth in Jackson’s “Man in the Mirror“. “Change starts with the man in the mirror” is about as conservative as it gets. Not relying on other people, or waiting for the endless bureaucracy of the federal government. If you want something to happen, do it yourself. The ultimate in personal responsibility. We saw this come to fruition with the Tax Day Tea Parties and the 9/12 march on Washington. These were citizens disgruntled with the way things were going on in Washington so they took it upon themselves to do something about it because “change starts with the man in the mirror”, it does not start with the failed ideals of the liberal movement.

Lastly, Michael Jackson shows his utter contempt with government in his song “They Don’t Care About Us“. In the song he describes how the government has failed to stop racism and brutality of African-Americans. Equality does not exist. The only way to stop the terrible chain is to change the hearts and minds of those who still harbor feelings of fear and resentment towards African-Americans. This must be done through human nature. Liberals tried to force the issue with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but you cannot change people’s hearts through legislation no matter how good-natured the legislation is. 45 years later, there still exists attitudes of racism and fear for people which, Jackson correctly asserts, that the government has failed to stop, simply because Government, no matter how well-intentioned it is, cannot change people’s minds or opinions, only people can.

Jackson understood that the government was there to provide necessary services, but could not be relied on to solve all the ills of the world. If the ils of the world were to be solved, the human race, working without the government, would be the key to change. Michael Jackson believed, as conservatives do, the empowering individuals is more powerful than laws and regulation that have only proved to beat down individuals under the guise of  “the greater good”. It’s been over 40 years since President  Lyndon B. Johnson declared “War on Poverty”. We’re still fighting and we will fight that war in perpetuity because liberals love it when people are dependent on the Government. They should take a lesson from Michael Jackson and explore personal responsibility.


August 6, 2009

For years, years, and years, (since the 60s) the left has been promoters of dissent. They would parrot phrases like “Dissent is patriotic” and “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. So why now, that the Left  is in charge is every protest by angry Americans are characterized as “astroturf”? Why is it when people disagree with them that they can’t be legit. Seemingly, the only reason people disagree is because they are being brought in by Big Corporations? Did I mention that corporations are inherently evil and greedy because that is the going public perception.

Why is the media propagating this assumption? It seems that  Jake Tapper is the only reporter with an ounce of integrity. Why is no one in the media questioning Obama? Obama is saying that if you like your insurance, you can keep them. How can Obama make that promise when he has had nothing to do with the bill being discussed? In fact, he’s not even familiar with the bill. Why doesn’t someone ask: “Mr. President, how can you say that?” I have never heard him defend his statements on Health Care reform. It seems people let it go because it sounds good. It does sound good, it just does not sound possible.

The left has called for an honest debate for a long time. Why do they hide behind labels as soon as one is presented? Is it because they don’t want a debate? Why did Obama originally tell Congress that he wanted to pass Health Care before recess, before Congress would have a chance to even read the bill? If the left wants a debate, let’s have one. If not, let’s not “astroturf” and say we want one when we don’t.

Coburn Takes a Look at Stimulus Waste

June 16, 2009

You hear that sucking sound? That’s the sound of your money literally going down the toilet in the name of the American Reform and Reinvestment Act. Sen. Tom Coburn, today, released a report on the 100 most wasteful stimulus projects. It’s truly frightening how quickly the government can waste our money in the name of an economic stimulus. Let’s dive right in to what they wasted money on.

The most wasteful project, according to Coburn, was a Water Tower in Perkins, OK. Not only did they already have some funds, they were planning to do it (so it did not create any jobs). However, taking the Stimulus money forced them to raise Utility Taxes by 60%. They had to do that because accepting the Stimulus money forced them to pay more for the project, it increased the amount of money that they needed to borrow and passed the buck to taxpayers…again. In IL they built a parking lot that none of the residents wanted (democracy in action!), and they also sneaked in the biggest earmark in the history of earmarks in a bill with “no earmarks“. Not to be outdone, WI was forced to fix 37 bridges that no one used instead of the dozens that needed repair that everyone used. These are just a few of the gems.

So what are the workers going to do when the tower in Perkins is finished? Will they be out of work? Will the government give them more money to build a new Water Tower just so people will have work to do? If I was a betting man, I would bet on the latter. Liberals will say that anything that gets a man work is a good thing. However, the government cannot create jobs. They only create jobs by taking money from someone else, or another program.

It’s the broken window analogy. If a shop owner sets aside money for painting, and a rock breaks his window, he would use the money he saved up for the paint to fix the window. A job was created for the window repair man at the expense of the painter. The government only has money that they take from taxes or save from cutting spending. Since they never cut spending (why would they do that), they tax it out of you. When they can’t get enough out of taxes, they borrow. Well, someday, the national debt will need to be paid.

There are many many many reasons why the Stimulus will not stimulate the economy. I will only mention the most obvious – it was written by politicians, not economists. Politicians know how to fundraise and gain votes. That’s it. They tried to stimulate the economy by creating an arbitrary amount of money, set arbitrary amounts for each state and had an artificial rush to pass it. “If we do nothing, it will only get worse.” Don’t you love fear-mongering? The left would never admit it, but it is fear-mongering. To pass a bill like this (WITHOUT reading it) is the antithesis of intelligence. But what can we expect from Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid?

School Choice is Not Just for the Rich

May 4, 2009

In the recently passed Omnibus Spending Bill, there was a lot of spending and little cutting. Not much cutting, but one important cut that affects the poorest families in Washington, DC. Why would liberals, who claim to be the party of the working poor and the party of social justice, be against a program that only helps the poorest kids in the worst schools? That’s a good question. Why Mr. President?

Obama recently stated that he, and Sec. Duncan would not look for “liberal” or “conservative” solutions, but solutions that worked. He said this before the Department of Education report came out saying that the program worked. So now there should be no excuse. Obama is stuck between a rock and a hard place now because he cannot endorse vouchers (even though he was educated via school vouchers and his own children attend private schools) because funds from the National Education Association (NEA) helped him get elected. It’s either that, or Obama doesn’t want the poor kids to touch his kids.

The problem is that it should not be a political battle. The victor should not be who gave the most money to Obama and the other dems. Let’s be clear, the NEA is not about helping kids. It is about keeping people employed. Whether they can do their job or not is irrelevant. They keep people employed so they can collect the dues and they can, in turn, donate those dues to democratic candidates. The viscious cycle continues. They don’t need to answer to me though. I was educated in a private school. I am not affected. I was never taught by a member of the NEA. Parents and children who know about this should tell this story. I am going to let them.

Reason TV put out a GREAT video on School Choice that tells the story much better than I ever could.

Todd Thurman

Obama Turns the American Dream into a Nightmare

May 3, 2009

We don’t want every single college grad with mathematical aptitude to become a derivatives trader. We want some of them to go into engineering, and we want some of them to be going into computer design

That is President Obama trying to tell college kids what to major in. What? you thought it was your choice to make? You must have been mistaken. You forgot that we live in America. You thought we had freedoms that no other country on earth has had before, or since. You sad, sad person. If you want the freedom to chose what you want to study, you need to go to France, or England. Obama is foolish enough to think that the promise of huge profits and a wealthy lifestyle (like his) are all thatpeople think about when they chose a major. After all, there is no one in the engineering field or the computer design field right? I guess I was ahead of the curve when I chose to major in Political Science. Surprisingly, there were other students in my class. I guess because, you know, people have different passions and they like to focus on their passions.

He also stated that Wall Street will have less of a role in the economy then they did in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. We all know how bad times were in the 80s and 90s. No one had jobs, no one was able to buy himes that they could afford, and there were so many people on welfare. What an awful time it was. Thankfully, Obama wants to make sure terrible times like that will never happen again. He wants to make sure good times like the 30s will always happen. The more government control over the private sector the better.

Every night, I dream of waking up in a world where everyone is equal. I makes me so happy that Obama is telling people what to do with their money, and taking the money that people worked hard to earn. A friend of mine is going to school to get his Master’s degree so he can open up his own business one day. He does not realize that the government is the one and only answer to all the economic problems that we will ever encounter. After all, who knows more about economics than Congressmen who have not opened up a math book in 30 years. In college, the only math class I took was math for non-math majors. I guess I am perfect candidate to run the economy. It can’t be any worse than it was in the 80s and 90s right? Those were such awful times.

Todd Thurman

The Swine Flu Epidemic. PANIC!!!

May 3, 2009

In the first victory of the Obama Office of Messaging, he correctly told people not to panic and remain calm. This did not stop several people from taking drastic steps to avoid something much more rare than the influenza virus, and with much less mortalities. Unfortunately, Joe Biden, in his usual flippant self, all but declared a national emergency when he told people to avoid tight spaces like airplanes and subways. A week after Obama tried to rest fears of “swine flu”, he has taken a different route. Well, like Rahm Emmanuel said: “never let a good crisis go to waste”. This is a good chance for Obama to appear like a leader, even though there is no real problem. When asked if the White House was overreacting, the answer was ‘of course not‘. How can they overreact to somerthing we know nothing about?

It’s not like the White House has never overreacted to a non-existent problem. It’s not like we devoted two years and hundreds of millions of dollars to the Y2K “problem”. The Y2K hysteria led people to become “Y2K Survivalists” and they lived their life off “the grid”. Instead of people living “off the grid” they are wearing surgical masks. It’s like SARS all over again. Obama needs to realize that, unlike when he was a State Senator, or a Junior Senator, his words have meaning. Even if Obama thinks his words as a State Senator had meaning (he was against the Iraq War as a State Senator, and he though tit carried as much weight as casting a vote in the US Senate against the Iraq War) they didn’t. They have a lot of weight behind them now. He is the leader of the free world. He needs to start acting like it. For such a good orator, he needs to understand that he can’t be so negative all the time.

When Roosevelt had his infamous “fireside chats” he reassured worried Americans that everything was going to be alright. Obama uses negative messages to get support for his worthless policies and complete unreadiness for the Office of the Presidency. Obama does this because he knows it is easier to control people with fear then it is with optimism. When the stimulus bill was in front of congress he said that the “time for talk was over” and that the economy would fail if the bill did not pass. He thought the bill was so important so he gave to his Moron-in-cheif Joe Biden to control. He also stated that Caterpillar would be able to hire people they laid off if the Stimulus passed. It passed, but Caterpillar was not able to hire people back because the Stimulus was not responsible. So now with Swine Flu, are we going to see legislation with tons of pork-barrel spending. How about a bill that gives every state 100 billion dollars to fight Swine flu. that way, by the time the sates get the money the epidemic will be erraticated. I wouldn’t put it passed Pelosi and her lackey Harry Reid.

Todd Thurman

No More Souters!

May 1, 2009

That was the rallying cry in 1992 after his vote in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case that sought to overturn Roe v. Wade. He was appointed by Bush (the first President Bush) but tended to vote more liberally. Bush tried to nominate a moderate to appeal to everyone, but he nominated a liberal and alienated his base (which he did a lot). So when it came time for him to nominate another Justice in 1991 (which ended up being Clarence Thomas) the rallying cry was “No More Souters”.

In the majority opinion for Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Souter wrote:

overruling the first was anything but a surrender to political pressure and an unjustified repudiation of the principle on which the Court staked its authority in the first instance. So to overrule under fire in the absence of the most compelling reason to reexamine a watershed decision would subvert the Court’s legitimacy beyond any serious question

So wait. When the Court rules in favor of abortion with no Constitutional authority to do so it is somehow, not giving in to political pressure? Read the opinion. There is nothing that says that a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy is in the constitution. All it says is that is protected by the right of privacy that was created in the Griswold v. Connecticut case. Aside from that, it is a history of abortion. The argument was that abortion has been happening since the beginning of time, so we should not limit ourselves. Well, Justice Harlan, you know what else has been going on since the beginning of time? Slavery. Does that mean it is OK? Of Course not. Does it only apply to Abortion? Polygamy has also been going on since the beginning of time. How DARE the Court deny my right to marry as many women as I want.

So now that Souter is retiring, I can only hope that Obama chooses a Justice that actually follows the Constitution, but seeing Obama’s record of implementing a far left agenda, that has about a zero percent of happening. IT is sad that this country will continue to be shaped by people who are not elected and have life terms. It has become nothing of what the founders intended it to be. The Court is FAR the “least dangerous branch“. I would go as far as saying that the Supreme Court is the most dangerous branch, but that honor currently goes to Nancy Pelosi and the disgraceful Congress. But just so I can go on record: No more Souters!

Business 1, Government 0

April 12, 2009

In another striking blow to liberals who assume that Government is the answer to all of life’s problems and businesses are inherently evil, Hyundai has introduced a deal on cars that is better than Car Salesman In Chief, Barack Obama’s deal on the terrible GM Cars. Hyundai’s deal is better on more than just one level though. Let’s say, for example, you lose your job, and after 3 months, you still don’t have one and you trade your car back to Hyundai (without damaging your credit) the loss is solely on Hyundai. If your GM car breaks down (very likely) and the Government steps in and covers your warranty, the loss is solely on you. That’s right kids. The Government cannot create  wealth or profit.

This is what is so hard to understand for a lot of people on the left (The Brookings Institute understands it well though and liberals should take note). The government does not create wealth. The only money that the government has is money that it takes from citizens via taxes. So the money that the government used to be the money that you had. The government takes no “hit”, as it were, just you. If you thought it took forever to get a warranty replacement before, just wait until the government takes control of it. If I were GM, I would sit on the 60 Days Obama gave them to reorganize. It is very doubtful to me that he would cut off ANY government aid and let them file for Chapter 11. It would make him look like a jackass for the months of fear-mongering he did saying that GM was too big to fail.

The Case for Bankruptcy – Contrary to what most people think, Bankruptcy (Chapter 11) does not mean that a company will cease to exist. It means that all of their debts will be forgiven and they would have to reorganize. They can get rid of management, renegotiate contracts and present their case to an arbitrator and they will decide if it is viable to keep the company going like that, or if it needs to be sold. Circuit City recently went out of business because the reorganization effort did not satisfy the judge and no one wanted to buy them because no one thought that they would be profitable. If anyone thinks that a business will be profitable, someone will buy it. GM and Chrysler defintely have the potential to be profitable and they would have been bought.

The ONLY thing that Government intervention does is keep the bad policies of the management in place, along with contracts that may, or may not be justified afloat with federal tax dollars. This creates a problem. With the government as the chief benefactor of funds, there is no way for GM to be profitable. The government cannot create wealth, it can only redistribute what is already in the monetary system. It becomes a net gain of zero because the worker is being paid by taxes instead of from the profits of a company that actually creates wealth.

Remeber in about 1999 when K-Mart went bankrupt? What happened? Nothing. They were bought by Sears, and now are more profitable then ever. Sears had a business plan and executed it. The government has no business plan. The governments plan is to ask people WHO HAVE ALREADY FAILED what the plan should be. That’s the governemt for you. As inefficient as ever.
Todd Thurman

Ron Paul’s Tax Credit Misnomer

March 12, 2009

What? Ron Paul not making any sense? Now I have heard everything. The video is from a recent appearance on Neil Cavuto’s show. The main argument of the segment was earmarks. Earmarks are indeed a problem with Members of Congress; they can’t help themselves with their pet projects. There is an old saying that goes “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Well, it is very true for earmarks. When legislation was passed, congress had no way to see how the oney they just appropriated was being spent, and often, it was not being spent the way they wanted it to be (shocking, I know). So they decided that the best way to have the money spent where they wanted to be was to put it into legislation and thus, earmarks were born. I am not talking about earmarks though.

No, I am talking about one little quote by Ron Paul at around the 2:00 mark. Where he says that he does not vote for appropriations bills, but he does vote for tax credits. That way he can get “more money back to the people”. Sounds nice. However, it is wrong. You see, if Dr. Paul votes for tax credits, he is voting for more government spending. According to Brookings and the Urban Study Center (neither is a friend to conservatives)

The press has widely reported that the difference between Senate and House stimulus bills is mostly about tax cuts (Senate) versus spending (House).  That’s wrong.  The main difference is about who runs the spending programs-the IRS or program agencies

The Heritage Foundation states:

This kind of credit is actually a spending program because it directs money to a targeted group based on political considerations. Economically, it is no different than if Congress passed a spending bill that simply sent checks in the same amount to the same people. The only difference is that it is run through the tax code.

The Tax Foundation, an organization dedicated to letting people have the most of their money as possible says this about Tax Credits:

While some might consider this a wise compromise, it is not the best solution for from an economic perspective. There is no way hold businesses harmless through tax credits from a minimum wage increase; nor is it equitable to provide tax credits to some businesses that employ minimum wage workers and not others. Targeted tax credits simply cannot accomplish the stated goals and they have a number of negative consequences for the overall economy.

So, it seems that everyone is in agreement that tax credits are spending under a different name. But somehow, Dr. Paul votes for tax credits and votes against spending. Things aren’t adding up here.

Todd Thurman