A simple Question 2.0

About four years, eleven months and two weeks ago I wrote a blog post called “A Simple Test.”  If you don’t remember it (and I’m sure you don’t ) remind yourself of it here:

https://p3bfco.wordpress.com/2008/11/07/a-simple-test/

I will ask you today an go to your sock drawer and get the notes you took back then.  Let’s compare them to what we have today.

Here are some of mine.
On November 7th 2008 I said “My electricity costs me $8.50 per kilowatt hour.  This is about $100 a month in winter.  More in summer with the air conditioner running.  But I’ll use the winter number.”

Today my electricity is $10.50 per kilowatt hour but my monthly connection fee has increased from $13.00 to $55.00. My lowest electric bill now is about $150.00 a month and I’m told it is about to go up again. Seems the current administration is squeezing our coal fired power plants.

Here’s more: “A loaf of bread is about a dollar and a quarter today and a gallon of milk is about $3.50.  Butter is $2.28 lb. Eggs are about $1.20 a dozen.”

Today a loaf of bread I about $2.25. A gallon of milk is $4.27, Butter is $1.88 and Eggs are $1.80. With the exception of butter, all the other things are higher.

Let’s look at some more notes from my sock drawer. “Gasoline in town yesterday was $2.10 gal.
Oil is running at $61.00 a barrel on the market this morning.”

Today gasoline is running about $3.96 and the price of oil is $86.00 a barrel.   Now here’s something curious, the last time gas was around and over four bucks, oil was running in the 140 range. All the liberals were blaming George Bush for cronyism and being in bed with big oil. Where are the finger pointers now? But I digress….

Here’s more from the 2008 post, “Now, on to other things…..
My local stores are well stocked.
I can get a doctor’s appointment on the day I call in.
I have a high quality (in patient) medical facility only a few miles away
The national unemployment rate is around 6%.
Inflation is being reported at about 5%.
Remember the Misery Index?  That is the unemployment rate plus the inflation rate.  Today the Misery Index is at 11%.
The current President has an approval rating under 30% and the current congress is at about 10%.”

Okay, Obamacare hasn’t kicked in yet (it won’t until after this election {wonder of wonders}) so I still can call my doctor and get an appointment for later today.
The stores are still stocked but I am noticing empty shelves more and more often.  Especially in the big box stores like Walmart.
The national Unemployment rate is 7.8% (that is if you forget to count California like they did with this last release {oops})
Inflation for 2012 is being reported as 4.8% (but here’s a new twist, they no longer count gasoline of food {well, who uses those things anyway.})
The misery index today conservatively measured is 12.6% A truer measure of the misery index is taking the percentage number of the unemployed and adding it to the Producer Price Index (a more accurate indication of inflation). Today’s PPI is 10.8%. The true (without government jinking the numbers to make the administration look good) unemployment, according to Gallop, is 9.7%. Today’s un-underemployed index is 17%. So… You can place a real misery index at somewhere between 20.5% and 27.8%.
The current president approval rating is 48% and Congress has gone from 11% to 21%.

Now…. How about you? Got that note from your sock drawer in your hand?
What is your energy costing you today?
What is your medical care costing you today?  AND…  How good is it?
Do you think you are better off than your parents?
Do you think your children will be better off then you?
How do you see the future?  Bright or bleak?

Now ask yourself…
“AM I BETTER OFF THEN I WAS FOUR YEARS AGO?”

I think the answer is obvious.
I’ll close this by saying, “I told you so.”

Advertisements

Out of Power they will get louder. And more obnoxious.

OK the liberals are mad and doing what they do best.  Whining, crying and out shouting everyone in the room.  They will talk over anyone trying to explain a conservative idea.  Why? They don’t want conservative ideas  explained.  When we do – they loose.

Here’s the latest rant.  The dems in control of Congress right now are going to set it up so the new congress will have to vote to raise the debt ceiling in order to keep the government from default.  When that happens they will be like a young child taunting through a fence saying things like, “SEE!!!!  I thought your were conservative!!  You are spending more money – you have added to the debt!!!”

Let’s put this in terms that even the left can understand. 

Here’s the scenario… 

You allow your son (call him Barry) to play with his friends (Harry and Nancy) in the back yard.  You see them going out the door with a ball and bat.  You tell him not to play ball in the back yard. You explain to them there is not enough room in the yard for that.  They ignore you.  As you expect, Barry hits the ball over the fence and breaks the neighbor’s window.  You punish Barry by taking away his ball and bat.  You tell his friends Harry and Nancy they can no longer play ball where they can cause damage.  You gain control of the back yard and stop further destruction.  

But the neighbor still has to be paid for the broken window.

On unemployment and the economy.

I was asked what I would do to reduce the unemployment rate in the country.  Before I answer that I would like to mention that the worst unemployment is in states that have been in control of the Democrats for a very long time.  The vast majority of states that have Republican governors AND Republican controlled Legislatures seem to be in much batter shape. – just an observation.

 Now – on to my answer on reducing the unemployment rate.

It seems to me that 90% of the time the solution to a problem starts with, “Get the government out of the way and…”

In this particular case we need to do certain things to restore our economy.  First, we need to stop the uncertainty in the financial and business arenas.  Things like a 1000 plus page health care bill and an 1800 page omnibus budget bill do not give confidence to people who are thinking about investing capital into a business.  I have an opportunity right now to start a business.  It would bring more tourism into the area and fill a demand that already exists.  Nothing big, maybe 3 jobs.  It will also require me risking capital and taking on some loans.  Personally, I will not stick my neck out, not with the current anti-business climate in Washington causing an unstable economy.  I can surely understand why no one else will either.  Most business are trying to survive the downturn and have little confidence that they will not get slammed again.

What do we need to get the economy moving?  Get the government out of the way and:

Eliminate 90% of the silly regulations that stifle business.  Did you know the paper containing regulations on raising and selling cabbage weighs over eight pounds?  Get the government out of banking and let the bankers (the people who know how to make money grow) do their job.  Repeal the Heath care bill and while your at it, get the government out of medicine.  Get the government out of the housing market, let it stabilize at the actual cash value level.  Then it can start to grow.  Defund Fanny and Freddy.  Sell the assets to private business.  Eliminate the EPA’s ability to regulate Co2 (while we are at it eliminate the EPA’s ability to regulate – period).

Another big slice of the solution?  Eliminate the confiscatory personal, business and corporate income tax and replace the whole thing with the Fair Tax.  When businesses don’t have to spend gazillions on accountants and tax lawyers to maintain their records, they will have more money to invest.  Business that went off shore to get a better tax break will come back.  Business from other countries will come here simply because the cost of doing business will be lower.  Now, this may cause some unemployment in Washington DC, particularly on K street where all the lobbyists are working to get the tax code rewritten in favor of their clients.  Frankly, I don’t see a down side there.

Finally once you get the government out of the way you re-energize the free enterprise system that allowed this tiny 13 state piss pot mini nation to become the most powerful economic engine in history.  We did it without the EPA, the DOE, the FDA, ATF, FTC, HHS or even the USDA.  We can do it again if we just “Get the government out of the way and…”

On immigration reform:

On immigration reform: 

Let me say first and foremost that I have no problem with LEGAL immigration.  My mother’s, mother’s parents came from Ireland and Germany, my father’s father from Poland.  Had not these families LEGALLY immigrated, my parents would have never met and I would not exist. 

Having said that, I am strongly opposed to ILLEGAL immigration.  People who have such little regard for our law that their very FIRST act in this country is to break it. 

We all know that the system is broken.  It rewards those who break the law while hindering those who try to do things right.  Simply stated, the system is upside down.  LEGAL work visas are nearly impossible to obtain while comparatively it is a relatively easy thing to simply walk across an unfenced and unguarded border.  In a world that is run by common sense rather than politicians seeking to get reelected, the reverse would be true.  Work visa’s would be easy to obtain by honest folks and ILLEGAL workers would have a hard time finding work. 

But….how to get there?  This will take a new and fresh approach on immigration.  We must make it easy for honest law abiding persons who want be here and work here while making it difficult for those who use our soft borders to break the law.  That is true immigration reform. 

A man smarter than me laid out a simple idea that seems to work in my mind.  Here it is in a nutshell….. With my personal modifications, I will spell it out in a simple four step process. 

1. CLOSE THE BORDER!!!!!  If you come home from vacation and find that a hose burst on the washing machine and water has flooded the basement, what do you do first?  TURN OFF THE WATER!!!  We need to build a fence, patrol the fence and stem the tide of illegal traffic of people, drugs and who knows what else is coming across into this country. 

2. Enforce the laws concerning hiring illegal workers.  Put the full force of the legal system behind it.  A company violates the law once they pay an outrageously hefty fine, second time – someone goes to jail.  No one will be willing to risk jail time to save a few bucks on labor.  Illegal hiring will dry up. 

3. Establish at legal points of entry as a means for LEGAL workers to come in.  Each person wishing to enter will have fingerprints taken, perhaps other biometric scans as well.  Each will be compared to a data base of prior offenders and, when cleared, (this can and should take less than a minute) will be issued a green card.  One thing, each individual will be asked to sign a card stating that should they violate ANY law they will be subject to immediate revocation of their visa and deported.  Each person holding a work visa will be required to renew that visa at regular intervals (perhaps semi annually). 

4. Open the outbound gates and let the stream of those who are here illegally get out so they can get in line to come back in legally.  Those 12 to 20 millions that the government says they can’t deport will gladly deport themselves so they can get in line to get the legal visa. 

This is immigration reform that works. Where did I get the original concept? From a book written by man that understands the world that works and the world that fails. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15D3ElV1Jzw 

As things go…

This is not mine and probably not new, but I did think it was worth posting.

Thanks to my friend Joe.

Over five thousand years ago, Moses said to the children of Israel “Pick up your shovel, mount your asses and camels, and I will lead you to the Promised Land.”

Nearly 75 years ago, Roosevelt said, “Lay down your shovels, sit on your asses, and light up a camel, this is the Promised Land.”

Now Obama has stolen your shovel, taxed your asses, raised the price of camels, and mortgaged the promised land!

The Two Dollar Project

Like many of us I was disappointed and angry Sunday night when the extreme left wing of the Democrat Party got their childhood dream passed through the US House of Representatives.  I was even more disgusted the next day as the left wing (aka main stream) media had a party all over my television.

I would not allow myself to feel defeated, I would not allow myself to give up and simply roll over and play dead.  But what could I do.  I am just one person with limited assets.

Yet I have to do SOMETHING!

I thought of the internet and what some people call Web 2.0.  The liberals have understood and have been using this media for a while we conservatives scratch out heads.  This time I am going to turn it around.  I have started a group on the social network Facebook and I have pledged to send Two Dollars to every Republican Candidate who is running against a person who voted for the bill.

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/group.php?gid=102684303100744

That’s right, if a congressman/woman voted to take away my healthcare choice, I am sending $2.00 to his/her opponent.  I can’t afford to do this all at once, but I can afford to do it between now and the November election.

“What good will that do?”,  you ask.  “What’s two bucks?”  Not much…. Until the social media and Web 2.0 kicks in. Right now I have about 15 people who have joined the pledge with me.  That’s 30 bucks.  What happens if this thing goes viral?  What would it do for a campaign if 150,000 people joined in on the pledge?  That would be $300,000 into each campaign for people to replace those who took our freedom.

THAT my friends, will make a difference.  We The People will have spoken and this time they will have no choice but to listen.

 How about joining with me in The Two Dollar Project on Facebook and use our combined will to THROW THE BUMS OUT!

A well written letter.

This post is for my military friends.  Others are invited to read but some of the jargon may not be understood.

FAIR WARNING: This is a conservative point to view and should not be read by easily offended liberals.

Here is a letter from a retired Navy Captain to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen.  I truly think he is on the mark here.

February 8, 2010

Admiral Mike Mullen, USN Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
9999 Joint Staff Pentagon Washington, D.C. 20318-9999

Dear Admiral Mullen:

This letter is in response to your shocking statement last week that you advocate homosexuals openly serving in the military services. I seriously question the wisdom of your position. As I have previously written by my Senator, Harry Reid, and my Congresswoman, Dina Titus, the position appears to be more a matter of Democratic party voter pandering than the solution to a valid military issue. Perhaps it was your willingness to support the Democratic agenda that earned you your present position as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

I am a retired Navy Captain. I enlisted in the Navy in  1948, and served as a Yeoman, Personnelman, Journalist, and Communications Technician, and, as a Petty Officer First Class, received a commission in 1955 through the Integration Program. In my more than 31 years of active duty, I commanded two ships, served as Executive Officer on two ships, commanded Coastal Squadron ONE (Swift Boats) in Vietnam, and was Chief Staff Officer on an Amphibious Squadron. I developed the first Human Affairs Council in a Pacific Fleet ship in 1972, and supervised human affairs activities on seven PHIBRON ships. I am a graduate of the School of Naval Justice, the Management Course at the Navy Postgraduate School, and the Senior Officer course at the Naval War College. After retirement I received a Juris Doctorate from the Hastings College of Law. Like you, I encountered homosexuals throughout my Navy career and in civilian life. Unlike you, I do not find they are more deserving than non-homosexuals or that they constitute a viable or necessary body of troops for the defense of our country.

My experience is Naval. I can’t speak for the Army, Air Force, or Marine Corps. Those services are generally based ashore with nearby civilian communities. In such communities, homosexuals may be able to find sexual gratification without interfering with military duties. But the best analogy to a ship at sea is a prison. There is no other outlet for sexual drives and I know of no prison in the United States that assigns males and females, or who intentionally assign known homosexuals, to the same cell. That is one of the differences between your position and mine.

During my enlisted service, homosexuals seemed to be a clumsy lot. They had a tendency to repeatedly fall headfirst down an engineroom ladder. Some were even known to trip on deck and “fall” overboard. The crew had a way of policing themselves to eliminate homosexual advances. Perhaps you are correct in your assumption that military personnel are more liberal today, but I would look very closely at prevalent attitudes before I closed the book on the issue.

It has been my experience that if sexual favors are available aboard ship, some enterprising sailor, petty officer, or officer will find a way to take advantage of the offer. There is usually a senior/junior relationship in such exchanges and the senior partner will reward the junior with preferential treatment, such as duty assignments, watches, leave, liberty, and advancement. Such preferential treatment can’t be hidden from other crewmembers and tends to destroy the chain of command, discipline and morale. If a Chief Petty Officer, for example, is having sexual relations with a non-rated sailor, it will have an adverse impact on those petty officers between the two in the chain of command. Because of your current assertions, I must assume that you were either lucky and didn’t have the problem during your shipboard assignments, or that you chose to ignore them!

That sexual misconduct in the Navy exists to this day is obvious. I recall that a lesbian ring was discovered on the USS NORTON SOUND back in the late 60’s or early 70’s. At about the same time my wife, now a retired Navy Commander, was Executive Officer at the WAVES Barracks, Great Lakes Naval Training Center. She was aware of many cases of homosexuality involving the WAVES assigned to the Barracks. I also recall that one of the cruisers returning from the First Gulf War reported 40% of the female crewmembers were pregnant after a six-month deployment. Just recently I read that the Commanding Officer and Command Master Chief were relieved from an Atlantic Fleet destroyer because of fraternization between several Chief Petty Officers and female members of the crew. Just the other day I heard news reports that a birth control pill previously reserved for use by women in combat had to be made available to all females in the military, clearly implying that intercourse was occurring in combat units and such conduct was known to unit commanders. Is there some reason you believe that homosexual activity would not also occur or is not occurring?

As you should be aware, the Uniform Code of Military Justice does not address homosexuality, per se. Article 125 provides that sodomy is a felony, to be punished as a court martial may direct. But the Article does not discriminate against homosexuals. Oral or anal sex between persons of the same sex (homosexuals) , opposite sex (heterosexuals) or with animals (bestiality) are all considered felonies. However, when the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy was established, it only applied to homosexual activities.

In all my years of service, I never encountered a Commanding Officer who “asked” a subordinate if he was a homosexual. I never knew of a sailor who was subjected to legal sanctions for homosexual conduct without corroborating evidence. A “confession” was not enough. Credible corroborating evidence had to exist and usually took the form of testimony of a participating party.

So the “policy” of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” makes no sense at all, except to create a means of ignoring the law. But the policy can only as effective as the individual’s discretion. As long as the homosexual was discreet, nothing would happen to him. He could be sanctioned only if he wanted to go public. However, by the same token, if a heterosexual indiscreetly advised his Commanding Officer that he had committed sodomy, he would be subject to the same sanctions.

In regard to heterosexual behavior, the UCMJ also proscribes common law marriage under the heading of Unlawful Cohabitation (with or without evidence of sexual intercourse) . It sanctions adultery and prostitution (for both the prostitute and the patron). In the case of an officer, merely “consorting with a notorious prostitute” constitutes an offense, again even without evidence of sexual intercourse. The problem is that common law marriage is legal in 11 states and the District of Columbia. I don’t believe that adultery is a criminal offense in any state today. And in my home state of Nevada, even prostitution is legal. I don’t recall you asking Congress to legalize heterosexual sodomy, adultery, prostitution, or common law marriage. There are many punitive articles in the UCMJ that have no relationship to the satisfactory performance of military duties, yet you single out homosexuals for preferred treatment. Again, I must ask “why?”.

The argument I hear most often expounded by the homophiles is that the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy deprives the military of outstanding young men and women who want nothing more than to defend their country and that they have the ability to operate a radar, or a gas turbine, or a gun as well as a heterosexual. That can’t be true. It isn’t the “policy”, it is Article 125 of the UCMJ that criminalizes homosexual behavior since it would be virtually impossible to practice homosexuality without committing sodomy. But, even if it were true, are homosexuals really worth the administrative problems they would create by their mere existence?

The Navy, today, does not willingly accept GED holders for enlistment. Minor criminal records are a bar to enlistment. Visible tattoos and piercings are not permitted. Are these aberrations more damning than sodomy? Personnel may be denied reenlistment if they fail to meet obesity standards. The young men and women denied naval service because of these exclusionary conditions may also want to defend their country and might also be able to satisfactorily operate a radar, or a gas turbine, or a gun. But you are only advocating the acceptance of homosexuals! Why is that, Admiral?

Is it your contention that cohabitors, adulterers, prostitutes, young men and women with tattoos, those with only GEDs, or the obese cannot serve as well as homosexuals? If so, what is your empirical evidence to support such an argument. If we can sanction heterosexual behavior, appearance, and alternative educations, why can’t we sanction homosexual sodomists?

If we get to pick and choose which laws we uphold, which laws are next on the line to ignore? Carnal Knowledge? I would think a service man or woman who has sex with a minor (Carnal Knowledge) could perform military duties as well, if not better, than a homosexual. At least we don’t have children in combat, or in the military at large, for them to accost. Their pedophilia would not impact on the performance of military duties.

If you are successful in your endeavors to have Congress modify the UCMJ, have you given any thought to the long-term repercussions? When I joined the Navy, absence from duty because of venereal disease, self-inflicted wounds, even severe sun burn, was considered “Sick Misconduct”. We were not paid for the periods we were absent from duty and our enlistments were extended on a day-for-day basis. Since AIDS/HIV is more prevalent in the homosexual community than in the heterosexual community, have you considered the consequences of a homosexual serviceman contracting AIDS or HIV? Will the homosexual with AIDS/HIV receive treatment from military sources? Will it be considered a service-connected disability justifying a medical discharge and retirement benefits? Will it result in Veterans Administration disability benefits? And have you considered the likelihood that some of the homosexuals will request sex change procedures? I know for a fact that a significant percentage of my Law School class was undergoing sex change therapy or surgery. It made using heads confusing for both genders. Sex change is an issue being considered in civilian prisons today and I’m not convinced that taxpayers, or military budgets, should be burdened with that expense. But, if you really want homosexuals, you should accept their baggage, as well and their bodies.

Do you also advocate same-sex marriage or “partnerships”? Will the homosexual’s partner be entitled to dependents’ benefits, including health care, BAQ, military base access, and commissary and exchange privileges? Will they be entitled to military housing? Would they be entitled to sex change procedures at government expense?

Would a homosexual openly serving on active duty in a same-sex marriage be prosecuted for adultery if he or she has a sexual relationship outside the marriage? Would a homosexual be prosecuted for prostitution? Perhaps, in such cases, even you would reinstate the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

I raise the last point because while serving as Executive Officer on USS CATAMOUNT (LSD-17) in 1967, one of the Radarmen was arrested by local police. While inventorying his personal effects a photograph of the sailor performing fellatio on another male was discovered. The police turned the photo over to the Shore Patrol, who forwarded it to me. During an investigation it was determined that five of the ship’s Radarmen were involved in a male prostitution ring. They declared that while in Radarman Class “A” School at Treasure Island, their instructors convinced them that they could augment their military pay by providing homosexual services to gays in San Francisco. They took advantage of the opportunity presented and continued such activity in San Diego. CATAMOUNT sailed absent several Radarmen and the Class “A” School lost several instructors. Are these otherwise competent Radarmen the type of sailors you want on your ships? I hope not!

Your advocacy of gay rights reminds me of a joke popular in the Australian Navy in the 1970’s. An officer with nearly 20 years service transferred from the Royal Navy to the Royal Australian Navy. When asked why, he stated that when he joined the Royal Navy, homosexuality was a crime and that homosexuals received severe punishment and discharge. After a few years he noticed that senior officers were closing their eyes to the problem. Eventually, it was made permissible. He decided to transfer before it became compulsory. I think you are leading us down that road to compulsion, Admiral!

I fully realize that I should not judge you or your procurement source. I have not walked the mile in your shoes. But, by the same token, you have not walked a mile in mine. I hope that you recognize that we are irreconcilably opposed on this issue, but I think I have given it more thought than you. In retrospect, I now realize that of all the officers I served with on active duty, Naval Academy graduates were the most tolerant of homosexuals. It may only be coincidence, but was there something in the curriculum that created such tolerance? I am aware that there have been numerous scandals regarding drug use, academic cheating, and heterosexual misconduct, but had never before given much thought to their acceptance of homosexual behavior, despite my awareness that there was a tendency toward an anal fixation.

I do hope that you conduct a thorough, in-depth evaluation of this issue, and hope you reach a realistic final determination. Assuming that your personal bias and the power of your office will result in your victory, I will watch retention statistics with a critical eye. Our sailors won’t have the option of transferring to the Australian Navy.

In keeping with the requirements of Navy Regulations, I submit this with all the respect your rank and position deserve.

With due respect;
Lawrence R. Jefferis Captain, U. S. Navy (Ret.)

My comment:

Remember it is not the homosexual attitude that is illegal.  It is the behavior.

When I was on active duty at my last command there was a PO3 who was drop dead gorgeous.  She had looks that could stop a train.  I would certainly would have wanted to have carnal knowledge with her but two things held me back.  One, I was happily married and was pretty sure that this behavior would not be condoned by my wife.  And, Two, this young lady was in my chain of command so I would be in violation of at least two articles of the UCMJ.  I was not convinced that a torrid affair, or even a night’s dalliance, was worth the twenty years I had spent building a career.  Therefore I kept my “behavior” in my pants.

Had I made a run at this young lady it would not be my lust on trial (I had that – as did every other heterosexual male in range), it would be my behavior.

Remember, homosexuals have lusts.  BUT the behavior is still illegal.

Don’t let them trap you into what the lusts are, it is an obfuscation.  Talk to them about the behavior and the UCMJ.

Rick

STOP SPENDING MY MONEY!!!!

Here is a note I sent to my State Legislators this morning.

Good morning,

 Here’s a place to look when making decisions on cutting funds.  How about cutting off the advertising budget for the South Dakota department of health?

 I am tired of and insulted by these TV commercials telling me that a “force field” will not keep out flu germs!!!  These ads are demeaning, insult our intelligence and a waste of our good money. 

To start with the H1N1 flue peaked in October and there has been no real flu outbreak this winter when compared to others. See the WSJ report on the subject:

 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703429304575095743102260012.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond

Tell the Department of Health to STOP SPENDING MY MONEY by killing the funds they use to talk down to me!!!

Have you quit beating your wife? Yes or no.

CBS did a prequel show prior to Obama’s State of the Union address.  To set this up they posted a page on the CBS news website with poll questions to consider.  Here’s the link:

 http://www.cbsnews.com/2718-504643_162-468.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody

How do you answer these questions?  The list is dripping with liberal bias.  Many can not be answered at all because the correct answer is not listed.  On others, if you do try to answer, the answer you give can and will be misconstrued to be a an endorsement of Obama’s policies. 

Let me see if I can illustrate what I mean by answering these questions:

#1. What do you think is the most important message in President Obama’s State of the Union address?

  • Health care

  • Economy

  • National security

Answer: None of the above.  The primary concern in government is corruption, over reaching, back room deals and the total disregard for the will of the people and the Constitution.  Since the liberals see no problem with the corruption as long as it forwards their agenda, it would not occur to them to add corruption to their list of answers.

 

#2.  Are you satisfied with President Obama’s strategy for Afghanistan?

  • Yes, I am satisfied

  • No, I am not satisfied

  • Don’t know/no opinion

Answer: I would answer No, I am not satisfied.  However, what does that mean?  Am I dissatisfied because he waited almost five months before making the wrong decision strategy?  Or am I a peacenik who wants all the troops out?  Obama spent two years bashing Bush on Afghanistan.  He kept asking where is Osama?  Well….. Mr. President, you have had a year….. Where is Osama?

 

#3. Are you satisfied with President Obama’s foreign policy strategy?

  • Yes, I am satisfied

  • No, I am not satisfied

  • Don’t know/no opinion

Answer: No, I am not satisfied.  BUT what does that mean? Does it mean I think he has not apologized and appeased enough?  Or, could it mean that I think he is a fool to not stand up for his own country in foreign lands?  How would the liberals interpret my answer?  Would they think I think as they do and we have not trashed America enough yet?

 

#4.  Have partisan politics increased or decreased under the Obama administration?

  • Increased

  • Decreased

  • No change

This one is the first real question.  The answer is increased.  There is no doubt and I believe no argument here.  The argument is who is doing the increasing.

 

#5.  How well has President Obama addressed the issue of climate change?

  • Well

  • Not well

  • Don’t know/no opinion

Answer: Here is one of those “beating your wife questions” the liberals are so famous for.  They, as the lawyers say, “assume facts not in evidence”.  Any answer to this question is wrong because the premise is wrong.  The entire Global Warming theory has been proven time and time again to be a fraud.  Even now there are stories about scientists skewing the numbers to get millions in grant money.

So How do I answer this?  If I answer Well I will be counted as one who believes in global warming and is behind the President.  If I answer Not well I will be counted as one who believes strongly in global warning and feels more needs to be done.

My answer is NOT WELL, because the President has NOT addressed the FRAUD of the Climate Change lobby.  He has not called his own agencies out and had them explain why they are doctoring the numbers.

 

#6.  Do you think we should have more high-speed railways in the U.S.?

  • Yes

  • No

  • Don’t know/no opinion

Another trick question. The question should read, “Do you think the taxpayers should pay for and pay to maintain more high-speed railways in the U.S.?”.

If I answer Yes, I am endorsing another debacle like AMTRAK. If I answer No, I appear to be against progress.  I will answer this way, If a private company wants to builds a high speed rail system, more power to them.  I do not want to pay for it.

 

#7. Do you think President Obama has brought the ‘change’ that his campaign slogan promised?

  • Yes

  • No

  • Don’t know/no opinion

Here we go again.  How do I answer this?  I would answer Yes.  But then the liberals would think I am behind the President and his policies.  If I answer No, then the liberals who made up this “poll” will think that I want more “change” and he is not moving fast enough.

Actually I think all the “change” he has brought is a detriment to liberty and freedom.  My concern is that he is not done “changing” us yet.

 

#8. Do you approve or disapprove of President Obama’s performance during his first year in office? 

  • Approve

  • Disapprove

  • Don’t know/no opinion

Ok here is another real question.  I disapprove, not because he has not done enough, but because he has done too much.

 

#9. Will we see a double-dip recession in 2010?

  • Yes

  • No

  • Don’t know/no opinion

Answer: Because of the fiscal policies of this AND the previous administrations, this is a real possibility.

 

#10. Do you think that dealing with the nation’s energy problem should be a top priority for the White House?

  • Yes

  • No

  • Don’t know/no opinion

Answer: Yes, but not the way he wants to do it.  I want more US energy, not less.  Cap & Tax will kill the energy industry in the US.  If his answer is Cap & Tax, then No…. I want it to be his last priority.

 

#11. In his first year in office, has President Obama accomplished more than you expected, as much as you expected, or less than you expected?

  • More than expected

  • As much as expected

  • Less than expected

  • Don’t know/no opinion

What the hell do I do with this one?  Any answer is wrong. More than expected means I endorse his policies, Less than expected means I want more of his policies and as much as expected means I think he is on the right track!!!!  This is the quintessential “have you quit beating your wife” question.  There is NO RIGHT ANSWER.

 

#12. Has President Obama paid more attention to the problems facing the middle-class or financial institutions?

  • Middle-class

  • Financial institutions

  • Both equally

  • Don’t know/no opinion 

Answer: I believe President Obama has paid more attention to President Obama than anything else in the last year. After that he has paid attention to his own progressive agenda at the peril of both the middle class AND financial institutions. There is no right answer.

 

#13. How well is President Obama doing in reducing the threat of terrorism?

  • Very/fairly well

  • Not too/not at all well

  • Don’t know/no opinion

Answer: Not too/not well at all.  This is a simple question.  Even the liberals can understand my answer here.  The same with this next one.

 

#14. Is the U.S safer from a terrorist attack under the Obama Administration, compared to President George W. Bush?

  • Yes, the U.S. is safer

  • No, the U.S. is not safer

  • Don’t know/no opinion

Answer: No, the U.S. is not safer.

 

#15. What is your biggest concern when it comes to comprehensive health care reform?

  • Costs

  • Government buraucracy (by the way they spelled bureaucracy wrong)

  • Quality of care

  • Effect on Medicare

How about… It’s not Constitutional?

 

#16. Would you be in favor of suspending work on comprehensive health care reform?

  • Continue work and try to pass health reform

  • Suspend work and begin looking for alternatives

  • Don’t know/no opinion

This question once again assumes I WANT the government meddling with my health choices.  The right answer is to stop working on this all together and leave it to the states where it belongs.

 

#17. Do you think the stimulus act has helped the economy?

  • Yes

  • No

  • Don’t know/no opinion

Answer: No.

 

#18. What has been President Obama’s biggest blunder of his first year in office?

  • Handling of health care reform

  • Waiting to make surge decision in Afghanistan

  • Handling of Wall Street

  • Beer Summit

  • Not focusing enough on jobs and unemployment

  • Other

Answer: From Mr. Obama’s point of view his biggest blunder is loosing the faith of the sheeple.  As to my opinion…. Well, you know my opinion.

 

#19. Should Ben Bernanke keep his post as Chairman of the Federal Reserve?

  • Yes

  • No

  • Don’t know/no opinion

Again, this assumes facts not in evidence.  It assumes that I favor the concept of a private company running our nation’s monetary system.  How about “The Federal Reserve System is unconstitutional and should be dissolved. Yes or No.”

 

Questions written by liberals can not, for the most part, be properly answered by those who are conservative.  As long as we allow them to set the question, we will never get a strait answer.

Just this one thing….

Last year during the South Dakota Legislative session I talked, emailed and otherwise communicated with several of our Legislators concerning a number of different topics.  Mostly to get them to vote against more nanny state legislation or to vote for reductions in the size and scope of government.  Here is what I kept hearing, “Rick, you know I am a conservative and work hard to keep the government in check, BUT on this one thing,  I think it is important that I support (insert pet issue here).

What’s wrong with this picture?  Let me put it in a way that simplifies the process.

Lets make up three fictitious State Congressmen, Call them Tom, Dick and Harry.  All are good men with a good understanding of what runaway government can do to a state.  All ran on a platform of fiscal and social conservatism and all of them truly believe they are.

Tom is a good guy with a big heart and loves children.  He thinks that children should be protected so he brings a bill to the Statehouse that mandates a child must wear a helmet while running.

Dick on the other hand has had it with his local tavern.  They have been caught and cited several times for selling alcohol to minors.  He has a bill that would ban all establishments within 1 mile of a school from serving alcoholic beverages.

Harry’s has a constituent with an ailment that is very painful but not life threatening.  She will recover in time but to ease her pain there is a treatment.  The treatment is very expensive and not covered by her insurance.  So Harry has a bill to force every insurance carrier in the state to pay for this kind of treatment. 

As is my habit, I go reading the bill list on the SD Legislature web site and I find these three bills.  I e-mail or call Tom, Dick and Harry in turn and ask them why they are supporting this kind of nanny state legislation.  You know what I get?  “Well Rick, you know I always vote the conservative line but, you see, on this one thing…….

Now, to add to the trouble, Tom, Dick and Harry are friends so they support each other on their pet issues.  What happens?  We have a legislature full of “conservatives” who have just passed three obtrusive and intrusive laws.

That’s what happened in South Dakota last year.

Now, we are only at Day 2 of the 2010 session and here come the special issues and bills “for our own good”.   All put forward by good people who are conservative ….except for this one thing.

PLEASE FOLKS, don’t let this happen again.