Conservative Bastion
The only blog that can factually claim to shift the Bell Curve, along with the hearts & minds of America, to the right.
Monday, July 31, 2006
Hollywood MIA in War on Terrorism?

I saw Miami Vice and Pirates of the Caribbean this weekend. In short, let me just say I was reminded as to why I have drastically cut my movie attendance since 2002. The movies were so bad, that they got me to reflect on a much bigger issue.


Primarily, I like war movies. Black Hawk Down, Saving Private Ryan, Brave Heart, Gladiator (it’s kind of a war movie), and The Patriot are some of my favorites. My reflection made me wish there was a good war movie in the theaters that I could see. We are in a war after all – some say World War III or IV. I wondered about the War on Terrorism. I can’t even think of five non-documentary movies whose subject is the War on Terrorism. Here are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

United 93

Black Hawk Down (kind of)

World Trade Center (not out yet)

Syriana

The point is there have been almost no movies made on this generations Pearl Harbor. There are no movies about Iraq, none about the war in Afghanistan, and nothing about the war behind the scenes.

When I thought about this, it reminded me of Casa Blanca. When I first saw the movie (just last year) I was surprised to see that it was released in 1942. I have been used to Hollywood ignoring the War on Terrorism, that it was hard for me to think of a time that was any different. I thought Casa Blanca might have been a fluke, so I decided to look up all the WWII movies that were made from 1939-1945. This is the list I came up with:

Wings Over the Pacific (1943)
Wings for the Eagle (1942)
Winged Victory (1944)
Wing and a Prayer (1944)
Prelude to War (1943)
We've Never Been Licked (1943)
Went the Day Well? (1942)
We Dive at Dawn (1943)

Waterloo Bridge (1940)
Waterfront (1944)
Watch on the Rhine (1943)
War Dogs (1942)

Wake Island (1942)
Victory Through Air Power (1943)
Uncertain Glory (1944)
U-Boat Prisoner (1944)
Tunisian Victory (1944)
Too Young to Know (1945)
Tonight We Raid Calais (1943)
To the Shores of Tripoli (1942)
To Be or Not to Be (1942)
Till We Meet Again (1944)
This Man's Navy (1945)
This Land Is Mine (1943)
This Is the Army (1943)
This Above All (1942)
Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo (1944)
They Raid by Night (1942)
They Dare Not Love (1941)
The Wife Takes a Flyer (1942)
The White Cliffs of Dover (1944)
The Way to the Stars (1945)
The Way Ahead (1944)
The War Against Mrs. Hadley (1942)
The True Glory (1945)
The Tanks Are Coming (1941)
The Spy in Black (1939)
The Sullivans (1944)
The Strange Death of Adolf Hitler (1943)
The Story of Dr. Wassell (1944)
The Seventh Cross (1944)
The Rats of Tobruk (1944)
The Purple Heart (1944)
The Pied Piper (1942)
The North Star (1943)
The Navy Comes Through (1942)
The Moon Is Down (1943)
The Master Race (1944)
The Man I Married (1940)
The Lion Has Wings (1939)
The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp (1943)
Immortal Sergeant (1943)
The Hitler Gang (1944)
The Foreman Went to France (1942)
The Fighting Seabees (1944)
The Fighting Lady (1944)
The Eve of St. Mark (1944)
The Day Will Dawn (1942)
The Cross of Lorraine (1943)
Commandos Strike at Dawn (1942)
The Clock (1945)
The Big Blockade (1940 )

Texas to Bataan (1942)
Target Tokyo (1945)
Target Snafu (1944)
Target for Tonight (1941)
Swing Shift Maisie (1943)
Sundown (1941)
The First of the Few (1942)
Song of Russia (1944)
Somewhere I'll Find You (1942)
So Proudly We Hail! (1943)
So Ends Our Night (1941)
Since You Went Away (1944)
Ships with Wings (1942)
See Here, Private Hargrove (1944)
Secret Mission (1942)
Secret Agent of Japan (1942)
San Demetrio London (1943)
Salute to the Marines (1943)

Sahara (1943/I)
Saboteur (1942)
Reunion in France (1942)
Prisoner of Japan (1942)
Prelude to War (1943)
'Pimpernel' Smith (1941)
Pilot #5 (1943)
Pastor Hall (1940)

Paris Underground (1945)
Paris Calling (1941)
Paris After Dark (1943)
Our Russian Front (1942)
Roma, città aperta (1945)
One of Our Aircraft Is Missing (1942)

Objective, Burma! (1945)
Night Train to Munich (1940)
Night Plane from Chungking (1943)
Mrs. Miniver (1942)
Mr. Winkle Goes to War (1944)
Millions Like Us (1943)
Minesweeper (1943)
Marine Raiders (1944)

Manila Calling (1942 )
Lifeboat (1944)
Lady from Chungking (1942)
Ladies Courageous (1944)
Keep Your Powder Dry (1945)
International Squadron (1941)
In Which We Serve (1942)
Identity Unknown (1945)
I Wanted Wings (1941)
2,000 Women (1944)
Hotel Berlin (1945)
Hostages (1943)
Hitler's Madman (1943)
Hitler's Children (1943)
Hitler--Dead or Alive (1942)
Hitler - Beast of Berlin (1939)
Here Is Germany (1945)
Hangmen Also Die (1943)

Guadalcanal Diary (1943)
Great Day (1945)
God Is My Co-Pilot (1945)
Pride of the Marines (1945)
Foreign Correspondent (1940)
Flying Tigers (1942)
Flight Command (1940)
Five Graves to Cairo (1943)
First Comes Courage (1943)
Escape to Glory (1940)
Enemy of Women (1944)
Eagle Squadron (1942)
Dragon Seed (1944)
Dive Bomber (1941)
Destroyer (1943)
Destination Tokyo (1943)
Desperate Journey (1942)
Desert Victory (1943)
December 7th (1943)
Days of Glory (1944)
Dangerous Moonlight (1941)
Crash Dive (1943)
Counter-Espionage (1942)
Counter-Attack (1945)
Cottage to Let (1941)
Corvette K-225 (1943)

Corregidor (1943)
Convoy (1940)
Commandos Strike at Dawn (1942)
Coastal Command (1942)

China's Little Devils (1945)
China Sky (1945)
China Girl (1942)
China (1943)
Channel Incident (1940)

Casablanca (1942)
Captains of the Clouds (1942)

Burma Victory (1945)
Burma Convoy (1941)
Bombs Over Burma (1943)
Bombardier (1943)
Blood on the Sun (1945)
Black Dragons (1942)
Betrayal from the East (1945)

Bataan (1943)
Background to Danger (1943)
Back to Bataan (1945)
Atlantic Convoy (1942)
Assignment in Brittany (1943)
The North Star (1943)
Appointment in Berlin (1943)
Beyond the Line of Duty (1942)
Aerial Gunner (1943)
Sabotage Agent (1943)
Address Unknown (1944)
Action in the North Atlantic (1943)
Action in Arabia (1944)
A Yank in Libya (1942)
Wing and a Prayer (1944 )
A Walk in the Sun (1945)
Paramount Victory Short No. T2-1: A Letter from Bataan (1942 )
A Bell for Adano (1945)
49th Parallel (1941)

This list says it all. My count is 183 WWII movies while the war was still being waged. Admittedly, some of these movies are probably documentaries or only loosely tied to WWII, but the fact is that the media promoted awareness by focusing on the major world event of the time, a world war.

Today, Hollywood is ignoring the war, and by doing so, is doing a disservice to America. Some may say they are being as patriotic as they can be. If they were to make movies about the War on Terrorism, they would make America look bad and only make things worse. This is a possibility, but if Oliver Stone can make a 9/11 movie without injecting politics and conspiracies, anyone can do it.

StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Friday, July 28, 2006
Why They Hate the US: Ali bin Laden Sheik Mohamed III Sounds Off
Here at Conservative Bastion, we pride ourselves on our fair and balanced worldview and commentary. Today we have Ali bin Laden Sheik Mohamed III (his friends call him Mohamed) writing about the war on terrorism. We believe that fully informing our readers involves exposing you to multiple view points. He addresses the current Israel/Hezbollah issue, as well as a deep misunderstanding that he believes exists between the West and militant Islam.

Dear Americans,

Many of you are afraid of the current conflict between Israel and Hezbollah. A large number of you believe that it could turn into a large scale mid-east conflict with the US caught in the middle in Iraq. As scary as this may seem to you, it is very scary to Muslims. We do not want to fight the US, Israel, and whoever else decides to join the fight. Frankly, I know we would lose. Even if we were able to drive out you infidels, it would come at a high cost. Millions would die, and billions of dollars would be needed to rebuild. Everyone knows that, but only I know the solution.

The War on Terrorism stems from deep misunderstanding on the infidel side. What is the misunderstanding centered on? Women and sex. I knew that would increase your heathen attention span.

The West prides itself in allowing its women to behave in any way they see fit and the results have been disastrous. Rampant abortion, 30% of your children are born out of wedlock, half of your marriages end in divorce, and worst of all, the advent of feminists. These are just byproducts of Western “freedom”.

The root of the problem is the idea that women can make their own decisions. Most women subliminally acknowledge that they like men to make the decisions for them. Even American women admit this. It is human nature. It is the way Allah (and Mohammed is his prophet) intended it.

Enough talk. I know you infidels have unusually short attention spans. The following are juxtapositions between the Islamic world and the West.



These two are proof women can’t even eat without the guidance of a man. Women in the West, because of liberal ideas, value themselves less than Muslim women do. This has helped lead to obesity in the land of the infidels.



These are the Muslim equivalents. The one on the left is called the "Muslim Madonna" and the one on the right is Osama bin Laden's niece. No obesity here.



These pictures were taken during the "Cedar Revolution" in Lebanon. These women look good because they know their place and are therefore good natured.



These are pictures from a pro-abortion rally in the US. Not only are your women decisively uglier, but judging by the material written on their posters, they lack any sense of class, tact, and intelligence.



Here are a couple pictures of women taking care of the homes during the day in America. Oh that’s right, American women have jobs and ignore their homes.



Americans ignore their homes, but not good holy Muslims. They still care about their families because they have not been infiltrated by the heathen ideas...yet. On the left, the man is so generous, he decided to help his female companion (we call them wives, but you heathens don't even bother getting married anymore).



I like America, I really do. So the following picture is meant as a warning of what is coming your way if you do not repent from your heathen ways.

Don’t just assume this won’t happen to your country. Why do you think Europe has zero growth? Their women are so repulsive, that the men can not find it in themselves to impregnate them. I caution you American, you are just 20 years away from a similar situation.

I know what you infidels are thinking: "so where is the picture of a cleanly shaven Muslim woman?" You dirty infidels i ought to kill you. Just kidding, I love America, but Muslim women will not be exploited for their sexuality. Just trust me on this one, they take care of themselves. They do it because they still respect themseleves (unlike those French whores). Which brings me back to my original point.

These ideas are dangerous and contrary to Islam. Rightly or wrongly, many of my people believe that they threaten our way of life. Jihad, although I believe is misguided, tries its best push back the influence of the West so that we may retain our traditions and avoid the ugly women syndrome (UWS). So for the love of Allah (and Mohammed is his prophet) let us be.

StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Opposing Israel = Anti-Semitic?
Some people on the right have insinuated that people who oppose the ongoing Israeli action against Hezbollah are anti-Semitic. Conservatives should know better because they have to deal with this all the time.

When conservatives oppose illegal immigration, welfare, and English as the official language of the US they are labeled racists (even though language and race have nothing to do with each other). When they oppose gay marriage, they are bigots. When they oppose the ports deal, they are called xenophobes (which I agree with).

The point is, Republicans HATE being called bigots, racists, and xenophobes, so why would they do the same to those that oppose the prolonged Israeli action against Hezbollah? It would be just as easy to say that those who support Israel are racist against Arabs, but that would be foolish too.

As Americans, we can not get drawn into these petty debates over who is racist and who isn’t. If someone opposes Israel’s military action and can articulate why in a logical manner that is not racist, it must be debated with logic, not name calling.

Conservatives know that playing the race card is not an argument, but a cheap political trick to hush up the opposition. Not to mention, there are good arguments (not so much a good argument, but it reveals the mindset of those in the current situationon) why Israel should not continue their current action.

Some are already seeing through the smokescreen.

As you may have noticed, the right isn’t the only side throwing around the term “anti-Semitic”.

Democrat leader Howard Dean called the Iraqi prime minister an "anti-Semite" during an address before party loyalists on Wednesday, drawing a swift rebuke from Republicans. The Democratic National Committee chairman also called Republican Senate candidate Katherine Harris a "crook" and compared her to Stalin.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who addressed a joint session of Congress Wednesday, came under fire from Democrats for recent comments on the conflict in Lebanon between Israel and the terrorist group Hezbollah. Al-Maliki hasn't condemned Hezbollah, but he criticized the "Israeli aggression."

Howard Dean is unbelievable. I can only imagine what Maliki said to President Bush regarding the Democratic response to his visit to Washington.

“Don’t they get that I am walking a tightrope in Iraq? Don’t they understand that if I condemn Hezbollah and support Israel that my country would grow more unstable? Don’t they understand that this is just politics?”

It must be frustrating for him to have to be verbally and politically attacked by politicians from a country that he is trying to help (by stabilizing Iraq and allowing for US troops withdrawals).

StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
N' Sync Is So Gay...No Seriously
After years of name calling, N' Sync haters have officially been vindicated.
Lance Bass, a singer in the boy band *NSync, has revealed that he is gay and in a relationship with a former star of a U.S. reality television show, People magazine said on Wednesday.

Bass, 27, said he had kept his homosexuality a secret because he did not want to hurt *NSync's popularity and cripple the careers of his bandmates.

"The thing is, I'm not ashamed -- that's the one thing I want to say," Bass told People. "I don't think it's wrong, I'm not devastated going through this. I'm more liberated and happy than I've been my whole life."

Bass said he has a "very stable" relationship with actor Reichen Lehmkuhl, 32, who appeared on the reality TV show "Amazing Race."

One down, four to go.
StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Stupid Republicans
Stupid Republicans – Google the term and you will come up with nearly 20 million results. It is a very popular theme in politics today. The idea is that Republicans – the same party that has control of the White House, the House, the Senate, and a majority of the governor’s mansions – are idiots. (Isn’t it ironic that the “populist” Democrats are in the minority and hate the “uneducated masses”.)

As compelling, logical, and well thought-out as the “stupid Republican” argument may seem, I have a feeling Democrats wouldn’t be willing to put their money where their mouth is.

If Republicans are dumb (and Democrats are smart as implied by that statement) why not have a voting test? I know some people say it is unfair and unconstitutional, but who cares about the constitution? Constitution smonstitution.

Being a problem solver by nature (as opposed to a complainer), I decided to devise my own voting test. First I thought, one question test should solve this problem?

Can you read this? If you can, continue voting. If you can’t, you are in one of two categories, choose the option best for you.

  1. Immigration will be here to pick you up shortly
  2. Sorry, public schools do not offer refunds

Thank you for your time.

It is a great idea, but then I thought, what about all the idiots that are smart enough to read, but too stupid to make decisions like whom should be the next president? My mind wandered through some basic questions we could ask:

Who was our first president?

What country did the US win its independence from?

How many states are there?

Questions like these are elementary, but surprisingly some Americans don’t know the answers - too many in fact. However, the logistics of the test became an issue. When would voters take this test? How do we stop people from cheating? What about time? People don’t have all day to take a dumb test.

Then it hit me. Behold, the perfect test to weed out dumb voters.

StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Peace Activist Admits to Violent Fantasies
A good example of the tolerant left:

NOBEL peace laureate Betty Williams displayed a flash of her feisty Irish spirit yesterday,lashing out at US President George W.Bush during a speech to hundreds of schoolchildren.

Campaigning on the rights of young people at the Earth Dialogues forum, being held in Brisbane, Ms Williams spoke passionately about the deaths of innocent children during wartime, particularly in the Middle East, and lambasted Mr Bush.

"I have a very hard time with this word 'non-violence', because I don't believe that I am non-violent," said Ms Williams, 64.

"Right now, I would love to kill George Bush." Her young audience at the Brisbane City Hall clapped and cheered.

I hate to point out the obvious, but does she not realize that more children were killed under Saddam and that Iraq is better off in the long run as a free country? I never got the “moral” argument against the Iraq War. It is like saying, “the US can’t invade Germany because there would be too much collateral damage.” Well yes there will always be a lot of innocents killed in war, but if the pre-war situation is as bad as Iraq or Germany were, it is morally justified. Liberals would be much better off by opposing the war for based on strategy, Bush Amin "lies", and even conspiracy, but the moral argument is ridiculous.

StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Monday, July 24, 2006
Carlos Mencia Sounds Off
This proves American's are still crazy enough to win a war. Unfortunately, I think this video is probably a couple years old.

StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Big Brother Sighting in Virginia
Apparently, Virginia’s Big Brother affiliate has been enlightened with the ability to give medical advice to parents regarding their children’s illnesses. Good thing they are there to protect the dumb pawns from themselves.
StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Sunday, July 23, 2006
The Open-minded Fallacy

I was browsing Myspace profiles, minding my own business, when I had an epiphany. One of the profiles I stumbled upon said this under the “heroes” section (the part of the site where a person lists their heroes):

Originals, intellectuals, musicians, writers, Chuck Klosterman, Bono (mwuahahaha), other open-minded and loving people not afraid to be themselves

This is a typical heroes list for young liberals. Liberal logic dictates that the virtue of being “open-minded” trumps just about everything else. To a liberal, being open-minded is synonymous with being liberal. In other words, if you aren't liberal, you are not open-minded.

Ironically, this particular list of "heroes" does not reveal an open-minded person at all. It sounds much more like a list written by an elitist rather than a list of someone that loves diversity. Diversity of liberals is an odd thing though. They tend to focus on race and origin rather than mindset or philosophy when speaking of “diversity”. I digress…

Think about it this way, someone that is “open-minded” would not limit themselves to others that were “open-minded”. A true open-minded person can be anyone’s friend. Conservative, liberal, anti-abortion, pro-abortion, Democrat, Republican, religious, non-religious - it wouldn't matter. Someone that says they want "open-minded" friends may as well say they want like-minded friends. There is nothing wrong with that, but it certainly is not open-minded.

StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Saturday, July 22, 2006
Christmas in July
A gift from Israeli girls to Hezbollah.















StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Liberal Response RE: Wal-Mart
Greetings comrade. When I was asked to write the liberal response to the commentary that appeared on this site regarding Wal-Mart , I burst with joy. Wal-Mart is one of the best examples of how America and capitalism have failed. There is so much to rant about, I don’t know where to start. For purpose of length and interest, I will try to keep my arguments short and concise.

Underpaid Workers

One of the most explicit forms of unfairness that is harnessed by the beast (known to you as Wal-Mart), is the way it treats its workers. First of all, the idea that Wal-Mart has “workers” is another George Bush/neo con lie. As far as I’m concerned, Wal-Mart employees are modern day slaves with a corporate twist.

Not only do they get paid dirt, but they can’t even afford to live a decent life on their salary. The illogical and money grubbing conservative would say, “get a different job” or “go back to school.” I say, “lets force Wal-Mart to do things the way we want them to.”

Undercutting Mom and Pop Stores

Wal-Mart is the perfect example of rich oppression of the poor. Not only do they like to pick on their workers, they like to put other retailers out of business, namely mom and pop stores. Evil conservatives say this is how capitalism works. I say it is evil. A mom and pop store should be able to overcharge its customers, overpay its workers, provide a feeble selection of goods, and have a bad business model without fear of being outperformed by Wal-Mart.

Poor Quality Products

It is a wonder why anyone even shops at Wal-Mart. Everyone should get their clothes at nice stores like Express and Abercrombie. Who would want to buy the cheap crap they sell at Wal-Mart? I’ll tell you who: people that work at Wal-Mart! They are so underpaid, it is the only place they can shop! It goes beyond that though. Wal-Mart also sells furniture, electronics, and food, all of which are below my standards. I can’t understand why it is the biggest retailer in the world. Some recite conservative propaganda about poor people liking cheap prices, but that is racist. How? I’m not sure, but most arguments by conservatives are racist at their core.

Maybe if they paid their employees $25 an hour they could afford nice things, but they don’t, so they have to shop at Wal-Mart.

Profits over People

The overall theme of Wal-Mart is that money is more important than people. Wal-Mart defenders say they provide necessary goods and services for millions around the world for cheap prices, that without Wal-Mart, goods would be unavailable in secluded areas. They say Wal-Mart is the crux of capitalism making the economy, more efficient and forcing retailers all across the country to be more competitive, with a net gain to consumers.

Of course this is a load of lies (similar to how Bush lied about WMD). Wal-Mart is evil because they like profits and they sit in their big corporate chairs making money and smoking cigars. Smoking is bad and it hurts people too.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Wal-Mart sucks – kind of like how President Bush sucks. The difference is that Bush is out of office in a couple years and who knows how long we will be stuck with Wal-Mart.

The best defense of Wal-Mart is the idea that all people should be treated the same under the law. The extreme racists on the right, a.k.a. the Republican Party, say that Wal-Mart should be no different. As a capitalism-hating communist (as most my comrades are that believe in the cause against Wal-Mart), I almost fell for that one. I thought about it deeply and I figured that when the drafters of the 14th amendment wrote the equal protection clause, they didn’t know about the oppression of Wal-Mart. I’m sure if they were alive today, they would support legislation restricting their expansion .

Trust me on this one, the free market has made a mistake. I know that people have voted with their pocket books over the years and have made Wal-Mart into the largest corporation in the world, but they were wrong. That is why we must act now before Wal-Mart does any more damage to our freedom (kind of like how Bush puts people in prison without a trial). Think of me as an older brother. I know best.
StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Voting
Just some quick food for thought.

On Friday, the white house will be hosting American Idol finalists, including Taylor Hicks. Hicks, the latest American Idol, won with over 63 Million Votes. Dubya, who won with 2004 election with the most votes ever in a presidential election, had 59 Million votes. Says something about the collective mind of the American people, doesn't it?
StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Friday, July 21, 2006
Court Rules on Side of Wal-Mart
This week, a Maryland law requiring Wal-Mart to use 8% of its payroll for healthcare was struck down by a federal judge.

U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz decided that the Maryland Fair Share Health Care Fund Act would have hurt Wal-Mart by requiring it to track and allocate benefits for its Maryland employees in a different way from how it keeps track of employee benefits in other states. Motz wrote that the law "imposes legally cognizable injury upon Wal-Mart."

Motz cited the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which he said pre-empts "any and all state laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan."

"My finding that the act is pre-empted is in accordance with long established Supreme Court law that state laws which impose health or welfare mandates on employers are invalid under ERISA," Motz wrote in his 32-page opinion.

This is a relief for people that believe in capitalism. Liberals like to claim that consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want and not be bothered by the state. I guess that doesn't apply to Wal-Mart. After all, to liberals, Wal-Mart workers are exploited, while prostitutes and strippers are just people that work hard and are willing to put it all on the line to make a living.

To be fair and balanced, I will let one of my liberal friends respond to this in another post today.
StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Thursday, July 20, 2006
Unilateral Action in Iraq
Coalition war dead in Iraq according to CNN as of July 8th.

Australia – 2
Britain – 113
Bulgaria – 13
Denmark – 3
El Salvador – 2
Estonia – 2
Fiji – 1
Hungary – 1
Italy – 31
Kazakhstan – 1
Latvia – 1
Netherlands – 2
Poland – 17
Romania – 2
Slovakia – 3
Spain – 11
Thailand – 2
Ukraine – 18

I still don’t know how anyone claims we acted unilaterally in Iraq.
StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Stem Cell Funding Debate

Today, the President vetoed a bill that would have expanded the federal funding of stem cell research. It is the first time the President used his veto power in his six years in office. The veto broke the hearts of many who seem to believe that the only way to fund scientific research is through the federal government. Some are so hysterical, that they claim the president is outlawing stem cell research. This is not true.

If the politicians, celebrities, and liberals spent as much time at fund raisers for stem cell research as they did complaining about the President’s stance, they would have all the money they needed. In fact, let’s says that 60% of Americans favor stem cell research (as some have claimed during this debate). Let’s say half of those people, for some reason or another, decide they don’t want to give money privately to support the research. That leaves 30% of America (90 million people) that would fund it privately. If each of these people gave $25 a year for 10 years, there would be $22.5 billion (or $2.25 billion a year). I don’t know how much the proponents of this bill wanted, but certainly, if Americans really care about stem cell research, no one is stopping them from giving money on their own.

This issue is a microcosm of American politics. The fact is that if the Founding Fathers were alive today, they would oppose the federal funding of stem cell research. They wrote the constitution with the intent of forming minimalist government. Stem cell research is the perfect example of why they wanted this. There are tens of millions of Americans that believe this type of research is morally wrong. Yet the left (who claim to be against shoving moral values on others) insist that these people must pay taxes that fund stem cell research, regardless of their beliefs. Talk about making a mockery of the constitution (as was claimed in the flag burning amendment debate).

So if you want stem cell research funded, join a fund raising group and go door to door, make phone calls, whatever gets the job done. Don’t go to your congressman and expect him to coerce your neighbors to do your dirty work through taxes.



A good article on this subject.
StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Discrimination in the Work Place
Of all the forms of discrimination, sex and race is the most frowned upon in our society. There are various problems with laws protecting these types of discrimination.

*How is discrimination determined? If you think about, determining discrimination would be very subjective. Not unlike the FCC determining indecency...

*Even if discriminations is proved, what next? Would the “victim” want to work for that person?

*Some employers have legitimate reasons to “discriminate.” For instance, prison guards, firefighters, police officers, and construction workers (among others) are all physically oriented jobs in which strength and physical conditioning could mean the difference between life and death. From the female perspective, there are babysitters, elementary school teachers, Hooters servers , and F O X N E W S babes.

*Regarding race, if you run a restaurant (say Chinese or Mexican), you would be making a good decision to hire Chinese or Mexicans. This type of “discrimination” would not only promote the quality and authenticity of the food, but it would also help build a positive ambiance.

My point is this: I would much rather be turned away from my job for my race or gender as opposed to my physical appearance. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, check out the people that would at, Abercrombie and other similar stores. In other words, would you rather be called fat/ugly or (fill in your race and gender here).

StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Bush Foriegn Policy
It is popular belief to think the world hates America. Everyone knows it. After all, George Bush is our president. How do they know? I have no idea.

It is easy to see why many believe the US is loathed around the world. After all, large protests can make small segments of society look large. In the US, there were large protests against the Iraq War and, more recently, in favor of illegal immigration. These were both minority views at the time, yet thousands showed up to let their voice be heard. Is it so hard to believe that other countries could be the same? Don't forget, 49% of American voters did not vote for President Bush in '04. That represents millions of people, yet the President was re-eleceted. The point is, millions can hate the President, but that doesn't mean a majority hate him.

There are some polls that suggest a certain anti-American attitude among the worlds population, but a poll is not tangible – elections, on the other hand, are. Here is a list of pro-American and pro-Bush elections (off the top of my head) that have taken place recently.

Canada
Great Britain
Germany
Japan
Mexico
Australia
Denmark

Then there were the “Color Revolutions” in Georgia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan. All of which have contributed to the effort in Iraq (Georgia and the Ukraine with troops, and Kyrgyzstan with the use of military bases).

There is the idea (mentioned by Senator Dodd on FOXNEWS Sunday) that the Bush Administration has ignored the Middle East, which frankly, may be one of the dumbest things I have ever heard in my life.

There was that whole Iraq thing.

That Afghanistan thing.

The Lebanon thing (although it is on hold for now.)

And that little talked about Gaddafi thing.

With the mess between Hezbollah and Israel, many have made the point that the world hates Bush and that he has been a failure. The only problem with this view is that had it not been for President Bush, not only would Hezbollah and Hamas (among other terrorists) be backed by Syria and Iran, but by Afghanistan and Iraq as well. Not to mention the listed countries above that have elected governments that are friendly to George Bush and America.
StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Monday, July 17, 2006
Bush Drops an S-Bomb on Hezbollah
This discussion between Blair and Bush is VERY interesting. It shows that they really care about solving the problem between Israel and Lebanon and that they plan on doing so through diplomacy.

You can read the transcript here.
StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Sunday, July 16, 2006
Global Warming: Brokaw Reports and Decides

I am currently watching “Global Warming: What You Need To Know”, hosted by Tom Brokaw on the Discovery Channel. Since I am not a true believer in global warming, most of it is obnoxious nonsense. Talk of losing half of the worlds species, lots of rain, not enough rain, blah blah blah. I would like quote my favorite liberal mantra at this point: the world isn’t black and white, it is often shades of gray. For arguments sake, lets say global warming is happening, and that humans are causing it.

Short list of “grays”:

*If you want to lower carbon emissions, forget hybrids, nuclear power is the way to go. Coal plants emit far more CO2 each year than vehicles. In fact, “40% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions stem from the burning of fossil fuels for the purpose of electricity generation. Coal accounts for 93 percent of the emissions from the electric utility industry.”[1] By contrast, “20% of U.S carbon dioxide emissions comes from the burning of gasoline in internal-combustion engines of cars and light trucks (minivans, sport utility vehicles, pick-up trucks, and jeeps).”[2] In other words, the best way to fight global warming is through nuclear power, not hybrids.

*Are you scared of global warming? Maybe you should be, maybe not, but don’t look at the US. Certainly the US is responsible for 25% of CO2 emissions today, but China and India comprise close to 40% of the worlds population and have booming economies that are rapidly industrializing. Rather than rolling back Western lifestyle, the focus should be on developing China and India in ways that are conducive with battling global warming.

*One of the main arguments against global warming initiatives is that it will hurt the economy. The greenest of the green try to deny this (as some did in Brokaw’s documentary). If fighting global warming doesn’t hurt the economy, then why not regulate China and India in the Kyoto Protocol? The reason is it does hurt the economy.

*If the US wants to truly fight global warming, it has to find a zero emissions vehicle. If we could develop technology that could be applied to everyday vehicles as well as commercial trucking, the US would cut emissions by 1/3. In the mean time, hybrids are a waste of time, resources, and brain cells. Anyone who thinks hybrids help anything needs to reevaluate their position. The same people that argue for hybrids argue against ending the gas tax. They argue that cutting taxes would just encourage more driving, and this is true, but what do you think hybrids do?

I believe a lot of this environmental hysteria has more to do with socialism and a disdain for the West rather than a true belief in wanting to help the environment. You can see it every time you see an “environmentalist” making their point by pointing to “greedy” corporations.

P.S. I still don’t believe humans are causing global warming.

StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Friday, July 14, 2006
Smith Disappearance Linked to Bush's Quagmire in Iraq
Last night, I was pondering various world events as I watched Israel bomb Lebanon on Fox News. One of the stories I thought about was the one regarding George Smith. He is the man that disappeared on July 5th of last year while on a cruise between Greece and Turkey. The story has reentered the news cycle because his widow recently received a monetary settlement from the cruise liner.

This is just one aspect of the story though. To this day, no one knows what happened to George Smith. Part of the reason is that he disappeared in international waters, making it difficult (supposedly) for law enforcement officials to determine jurisdiction. We soon found out that this case fell under the jurisdiction of the FBI and they have been hounded for their effort in this case.

Some people have come up with excuses for the FBI. They say that the FBI can’t go on every cruise to baby-sit Americans, and that bad things will inevitably happen on these cruises. They say the best the FBI can do is investigate crimes like these once the ship gets to port.

I say that isn’t good enough and we all know who is to blame for this. George Bush. Many acknowledge that the reason we haven’t found Osama yet, is because Bush is preoccupied with Iraq. We all know the president isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed, so this means he (and every other person in the federal government) can only focus on one aspect of foreign policy. They have chosen Iraq and look where it has gotten us.

What's the connection? I'm glad you asked.

Bush would rather have FBI agents in Iraq going after “terrorists” (Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism…ever) and the so-called “villain”, Saddam Hussein (really about oil), rather than protecting Americans on cruise ships. This is another example of Bush’s malfeasance regarding foreign policy. If we had only not gone into Iraq…imagine it. North Korea would have never got nukes, Iran would have been nice to us, we would have caught Osama, France would still be our friends, Iraq would be a better place, and George Smith would still be alive.

Bush really does suck.
StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Nazi's in the Military

There is a news story floating around regarding the US military recruiting Nazi’s. Here is a good summary from CNN’s web site:
The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks racist activities in the United States, said thousands of hate group members are now in the armed forces, especially in the Army, increasing the threat of domestic terrorism."

There is mounting evidence that military recruiters and commanders, under intense pressure to meet manpower goals with the country at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, have relaxed standards designed to prohibit racist extremists from serving in the armed forces," the center's Chief Executive Richard Cohen told Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in a letter.
First off, let me say that I think Nazi’s infiltrating the US military is a bad thing. That being said, it does seems that this story is getting a little more coverage than a similar story about gangsters infiltrating the military .

It seems unlikely that there are “thousands” of Nazi’s in the US military. That aside, this story is interesting for another reason. THIS IS REVERSE MCCARTHYISM!

Yes, I said it. These people have a certain way of thinking that I completely disagree with, but that doesn’t mean we should blacklist them from the military. Should we kick all communists out of the military too? After all, the record of communism around the world is actually worse than Nazism. Not to mention, Lee Harvey Oswald was a communist that had been in the Marines (spare me the conspiracy crap). What about socialists? They are just a step down from communism. How far at the end of the spectrum do you have to be before you are ok for the military? Eco-terrorists comprise the
greatest domestic terrorist threat
in the US. How do we know whether the intentions of an environmentalist is violent or peaceful? Should we keep them all out too?

The point is that the military should exclude people based on their past actions and psychological analysis. If it can be determined that certain people have violent ambitions once they leave the military, then they should be weeded out regardless of ideology. A persons philosophy is an interesting question, and maybe it should be a consideration, but it can be hard to distinguish one way of thinking from another. Once you start ruling people out based on their thoughts, it will be hard to stay consistent.

Editors note: As someone who isn’t white, some may wonder why I don’t take a harder stance against white supremacists. Simply put, they are not a threat. They are an obscure group and do not speak for anyone except an extremely small minority. No one listens to them. They are lucky if they get 20 people to attend their “rallies.” I feel more of a threat from people who are against capitalism (a real threat to our freedoms, and a growing movement) than racists.
StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Bush Bombed India
Yesterday, India’s transit system was hit hard with a barrage of terrorist attacks. Eight blasts were reported on commuter trains in the countries largest city, Mumbai (formerly Bombay). So far, at least 200 are dead, and over 700 have been injured.

The main Islamic terrorist groups in India, as well as Pakistan, have denounced the attacks and denied involvement. Since we can usually trust terrorists, this raises a serious and possibly dangerous question. Did Dubya have anything to do with this?

Hold on now. Before you rule me out as a crazy person who should probably be in a mental hospital rather than talking about politics, let me connect some dots.

When I first learned that the Islamists denied responsibility, I immediately thought of Kevin Barrett, a professor at the University of Wisconsin that appeared on Hannity & Colmes earlier this week. He believes that the war or terrorism is a fraud and that the US government perpetrated the 9/11 attacks. Frankly, I’m convinced, and we aren’t the only ones.

Howard Dean has already admitted to fantasizing about this theory (who doesn’t?).

Don’t laugh. There are elected Senators that have already confirmed this. John Kerry had this to say not to long ago:
Kerry: And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not—

Schieffer: Yeah.

Kerry: --Iraqis should be doing that.
There you have it. Bush and his neo-con/Nazi ilk are conducting a war of terrorism, not a war on terrorism. What concerns me even more is the last part of what Kerry said.
Iraqis should be doing that.

I had to do a double take when I read this. Not only is George Bush terrorizing the world, but now he isn't letting Iraqi's terrorize their own people. The arrogance of Bush astounds me. He thinks he can go anywhere he wants and force his morals on others. WELL GEORGE, WHAT IF THEY DON'T WANT TO LIVE EXACTLY LIKE YOU!!! People like George see the world in black and white, and frankly, people like that are always wrong about everything.

We have done the world wrong America. Now we have the blood of 200 Indians on our hands. I wish we were a true democracy lie The Netherlands so we could smoke pot.

None of this should come as a surprise. After all, leader of the cause, Cindy Sheehan, called this one a while ago when she labeled Bush (rightfully so) the biggest terrorist in the world. She also knows this country is on the brink of hopelessness and expressed her views on a recent trip to Venezuela. She is a shining light in a period of great darkness.

Bush sucks…
StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
God a Fan of the Fair Tax?
Due to heavy rains a couple weeks back, the IRS building in downtown DC is experiencing some flooding, forcing it to close down for at least 30 days. As far as I'm concerned, it is a divine suggestion to switch to the Fair Tax.
StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Response to WSJ Op-Ed on Immigration

Yesterday the Wall Street Journal published an editorial making the case for a guest worker program. The article talks about the free movement of labor, Americas demand for more labor, the humane treatment of poor people, and the answer to reducing the burden economic of immigration.

The article made some good points, but all of these particular points are unsatisfactory, and here is why.

The idea that the free movement of labor should exist is very idealistic. No country in the world allows it, and it would be foolish to do so. If every laborer that wanted to migrate to America were allowed to, there would be chaos. Therefore, no matter what we do as a country, we will not have a truly free movement of labor.

The WSJ also says this:

Our own view is that a philosophy of "free markets and free people" includes flexible labor markets. At a fundamental level, this is a matter of freedom and human dignity. These migrants are freely contracting for their labor, which is a basic human right.

I do not know how the WSJ could actually believe this. This would make sense in the context of a single country, but that is not the topic at hand. We are talking about millions of people moving from one country to another. If they want a world without borders, they have a long way to go.

The WSJ also mentions that the demand for labor is there, and America needs immigration to meet this demand. This is a tough issue. On one hand, there are states like New Hampshire with virtually no illegal immigration presence that seem to be doing fine. Their houses are clean, the lawns are mowed, they have places to live and work.

I believe that immigrants come here because they can, not because of demand. In other words, America is absorbing these people rather than demanding them. There is a difference. Most any give big business could add an extra worker here or there, but it would not necessarily make them more efficient, and that is what America needs, efficiency.

America needs to let people in based on what we need. Last time I checked, we did not need more unskilled labor. In fact, last time I checked we had a math and science deficit. US immigration policy should target more engineers, scientists, and medical researchers, and less nannies, house cleaners, and construction workers.

The WSJ also plays the humanity card. The idea, it seems, is that we should let in poor people because it is morally right. If this was about morals, then we should be letting in far less people from Mexico and South America, and more people from Africa and Asia.

Asia is the most populated continent by far and had a disproportionately small immigration rate to the US. It is not fair to let someone in from Mexico, and turn someone away from the Philippines. After all, the Philippines is far worse off economically than Mexico. Africa, on the other hand, is in ruin. It is the only place on earth that is worse off when compared to 30 years ago. We should be letting people in from there by the millions. The point is that this is not about morals or being humane. This is about cheap and easily accessible labor or a desire for a change in demographics (depending on which party you belong to).

More from the WSJ:

The real claims that illegals make on public services are education, which can't be withheld because of a 1982 Supreme Court ruling (Plyer v. Doe), and health care, especially emergency rooms. Since denying urgent medical treatment is immoral, the answer again is to legalize cross-border labor flows and remove government obstacles to affordable health insurance. As for education, even illegals pay for public schools through the indirect property taxes they pay in rent. Overall, immigrants contribute far more to our economy than they extract in public benefits.

Essentially, immigration would be far less burdensome if we lived in a different world.

According to their one line argument regarding education, there should be no more burden on the education system in Arizona than in Montana due to illegals. Maybe the writers at the WSJ should send their kids to the schools in the southwest if they feel so confident about it.

My Plan:

As usual, I have all the answers. If the US wants a solid immigration policy, they have to keep three things in mind.

  1. border security
  2. labor needs
  3. financial burdens of new immigrants
  4. assimilation

Border security should be our main objective at this time. The idea that we have been fighting a war on drugs for 25 years and our borders still are not secure is unbelievable. The fact that we have been fighting a war on terror under the same circumstances is an outrage. Build a fence on both borders and monitor them 24/7 with the National Guard and high-tech surveillance. It keeps terrorists, the unwanted, and drugs out.

We cannot just let people in and hope they can do the jobs that we need. We have to let in people with specific skills we are looking for. This will probably mean letting in less people who are destined for poverty and letting in more doctors, scientists, etc. This makes some people mad. They cite the line, “give me your tired, poor and huddled masses”…as if that was in the constitution and we were bound by it. It is a poem, get over it.

The financial burden of immigration will cease to exist if we let in the right people. They will either be extremely hard working, or high educated. Either case will help them avoid poverty and welfare check lines.

For many people, the greatest fear of immigration is assimilation. Many believe that the US is going to turn into Mexico-lite. It is a legitimate fear that is easily fixed. Under my immigration policy, only limited amounts of immigrants from a given country will be allowed at a time. Since Mexico has had 20 years of unbridled illegal immigration, there would be no new immigrants from there for about 10 years. Limiting the number of immigrants would do a lot to help assimilate people. If new immigrants are allowed to live in neighborhoods where everyone speaks the old language and practices the old ways, it is much harder to adapt. The US government could even take a step of making immigrants sign contracts stating they will live in a given place for a given amount of time. Spreading immigrants out could help absorb more if we wanted to.

Problem solved.

StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Monday, July 10, 2006
World Cup Observations

A couple weeks back, I was watching “The Situation with Tucker Carlson”, and the topic was the World Cup. His guest was Max Kellerman, a daily guest that plays devil’s advocate for various issues. On this particular issue, Max was defending the fact that the rest of the world loves soccer, and thinks the US should too.

KELLERMAN: Tucker, the rest of the world wants Americans to like soccer not because they‘re against this country but because they actually believe it‘s entertaining and the reason they believe it‘s entertaining because in most of the rest of the world there‘s very, very little competition for the entertainment dollar, they don‘t have the NFL, the NBA, Major League Baseball in the rest of the world and so they actually think this stuff is entertaining.

CARLSON: You‘re totally right. These are countries that have the paint drying network. There‘s not a lot else going on. The problem I have with soccer. Look, there are people who play soccer and enjoy it, apparently even in this country. But the point is the argument for soccer is, the, hey, all the other kids are doing it argument. If I jump off a bridge would you follow me?

KELLERMAN: Tucker, we have basketball. Let me just quickly explain. Basketball is to soccer as human beings are to chimpanzees or the monkeys from which we descended. From whom we descended.

The thing is soccer is played on a 100-yard field. So you can only play it outdoors and it‘s a lot of running around, very little scoring. Basketball, they said who needs to be running up and down? We‘ll shorten the field, we‘ll take away the goalie so people can score. You know these opposable thumbs that separate us from most of the animal kingdom? Instead of saying we‘re not allowed to use them, we‘re saying you have to use them.

In every way, they have evolved soccer into something that‘s actually entertaining, it‘s the NBA, it‘s basketball and the finals are going on right now. Incidentally, the only reason there‘s a spike in soccer popularity right now is that every four years there‘s the World Cup. I think it‘s four years. Eight years, two years, I don‘t know. Every once in a while the World Cup comes around, everybody gets all excited, when that‘s over it will thankfully go away and we don‘t go to deal with it anymore.

It sounds over the top, and probably is, but it is true. Americans have so much more money, and as a result, they have more entertainment options.

There is another factor though. The reason soccer is so popular everywhere in the world is because anyone can play it. And you need is a round ball (not even a soccer ball really) and you can play. Popular sports in America like baseball, football, and basketball all require much more than one ball.

For instance, with American football, you actually need a football. You can’t substitute it for a volleyball or basketball. You also need to play on grass. Of course soccer is much better on grass too, but I would venture to say more people play soccer on a non-grass surface when compared with football. And that’s just playing for fun.

If you factor in school and professional teams, sports like baseball, football, and hockey are much harder to maintain because of all of the equipment involved. Hockey has the biggest disadvantage because not only does it need loads of equipment, but it needs either cooperative weather or an artificial ice rink.

The point is, people will say America will one day embrace soccer. I say it is the other way around. In 30 years, soccer will be second in popularity to basketball, and slowly maybe the rest of the world will embrace American football. As other countries get richer, they will have more options, and they will realize what they have been missing.

StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
The Moral Values Fallacy

Denouncing the merger of politics and moral values has become a popular rhetorical tool in America. While, separating religion and politics has always been a central belief in the US, it is not enough for some. Recently, there has been a push to upgrade the idea of a separation of religion and politics to the separation of morals and politics. This belief is most common among Democrats, and they often cite the “separation of church and state” as the basis for this set of beliefs. The problem is, morals and religion are two very different things.

Most people would agree that murder is morally wrong, but it is also a religious belief (see the Ten Commandments). On the other hand, belief in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior is a religious belief. The difference can be subtle at times, but it is usually pretty clear. When an idea transcends multiple religions (gay marriage, abortion, etc.) it is probably safe to say it is not a religious belief, rather, it is a moral that many people from many backgrounds agree with.

Many fail to realize that at its core, the moral values argument is a fallacy. Besides the few citizens that vote based on their racial identity, most voters in this country choose candidates and political parties based on ideas. Whether it be the environment, economics, foreign policy, welfare, gun rights, or abortion, parties and voters choose sides based on their sense of right and wrong. In other words, they vote based on their moral values.

Despite both major political parties aggressively trying to instate their moral values, only one party is usually associated with it. It is often said that Republicans are leading a crusade to push their moral values on America (or something like that).

Same-sex marriage is a good example of this one-sidedness. Keeping the laws the way they have been since the founding of the country is not shoving morals down others throats. If anything, changing laws that have been in place from the beginning of time would fit that category. Yet Democrats insist that it is the other way around. Ironically, the Democratic Party deserves most of the blame when it comes to morals in politics.

While Democrats claim to be against forcing values on others, they are responsible for creating the most invasive aspect of the government today – the welfare state. Currently, our national budget is around $2.6 trillion. The three biggest injections of moral values into our government ($1 trillion worth) are Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security.

Each one of these programs forces a value onto the citizens of this country that many do not agree with. Certain citizens may prefer to buy a TV, a car, or a house, but the government coerces taxpayers to pay for the healthcare and retirement of someone who is unwilling to pay for it themselves. When you see someone pay for their groceries with food stamps and buy $50 worth of lottery tickets with their own money, you’ll know what I’m talking about.

Regardless of whether one views welfare as productive or moral, there are other practical problems. These problems range from a creation of a sense of entitlement among welfare receivers, its coercive nature, the fact that it leads to apathy, and its wasteful nature, which hurts the overall economy. Coercion, however, is the key. Some people don’t want anything to do with welfare, so why make them be a part of it?

Unlike the abstract fears of global warming, evil corporations, NSA wiretaps, Janet Jackson’s breasts, and goblins, the fear of economic coercion (welfare) is real. The affects are not somewhere in the future that may or may not affect us; they are tangible and have been affecting us for 40 years. It is a moral value imposed on taxpayers by the government and those who claim to be against moral coercion. The fact that certain individuals lack the intellectual ability to understand this is disturbing, but that isn’t the problem. The argument is outright dishonest, and they know it.

StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!
Saturday, July 08, 2006
If I Ruled the World: Federal Spending

When I was surfing the internet a while back, I found a site that has a Federal budget simulation. It lets you adjust spending and taxes and tells you how big your deficit would be at the end of the year. It is interesting to see how much our government spends on various projects. Anyways, here is my budget if I had control of federal spending. My main principle is that if a state can do it and it doesn’t involve national security, let them do it.

Your New Budget


Budget Totals

Old budget: $2673 billion in spending

New budget: 1053.6 billion in spending

You have cut the deficit by $1619.4 billion.


Spending ($1053.6 billion: cut $1619.39 billion)


Military Spending ($446.11 billion)

Military spending will not change in my world, not because I think we NEED a large peace time military, but because we can. However, in my world, they wouldn’t just be sitting around playing cards all day, they would help secure the borders and ports.


Iraq and Afghanistan Operations ($111.85 billion)

No matter how much I would like to cut 111 billion off the budget, it is a bad idea. Spending in Iraq and Afghanistan will go down with time.


Military Retirement ($115.48 billion)

Can’t touch the retirement that military personnel earned.


International affairs ($18.59 billion: cut $12.99 billion)

I would keep everything here pretty much the same except for eliminating the federal funding of humanitarian aid. Americans give enough on their own; we don’t need the feds involved. Besides, many international problems have been made worse by “humanitarian aid” being stolen and used to prop up dictators.


General science, space, and technology ($19.17 billion: cut $4.79 billion)

My world deregulates space, which will end the near monopoly currently held by the US government. It also allows for cuts in science.


Non-Defense Energy Spending ($0.64 billion: cut $1.47 billion)

States can control their own energy, but just in case, there is still $640 million dollars to throw around if we need it.


Natural resources and environment ($10.45 billion: cut $20.7 billion)

This category is another example the feds grossly overstepping their territory. Things like natural resources, pollution control, and land management should be left up to the states.

For instance, Californians cares a lot more about protecting the environment than Texans. So rather than making them follow the same environmental laws, allow them to write their own.


Agriculture ($0 billion: cut $26.01 billion)

I believe social welfare is not defendable, but corporate welfare is worse.


Commerce and Housing Loan Programs ($-5.24 billion: cut $12.05 billion)

The postal service can be privatized and other spending on “advancing commerce” is not needed.

For some reason, the federal housing loan programs and the universal service fund bring in more money then they spend. Whatever the reason, that is why total spending for this category is negative.


Transportation ($21.2 billion: cut $49.46 billion)

Every state can construct and maintain their roads. Why federalize any of this? Federalizing transportation spending leads to cases of wasteful spending like the “bridge to nowhere”. There is still $21 billion worth of spending to spread around - just in case.


Community and regional development ($9.99 billion: cut $9.1 billion)

The feds don’t need to be involved in community, area, or regional development. Frankly, I would cut disaster insurance and relief if I could, but that may go too far.


Education ($0 billion: cut $64.06 billion)

Education is run locally, that’s one of the things that makes America great.


Training, labor and unemployment ($1.6 billion: cut $46.2 billion)

No federal unemployment compensation cuts $39 billion, cutting the federal funding of “training and employment” saves and additional $7 billion. The only programs that remain funded are “labor law, statistics, and other administration”.


Non-Medicare Health Spending ($40.24 billion: cut $213.07 billion)

Cut everything except Indian health, disease control, public health, bioterrorism (presumably defending against it), and food safety.


Medicare ($0 billion: cut $345.74 billion)

All welfare should be left up to the states. Some states love welfare, others don’t. The states that like lots of welfare should not be able to force their values on other states.


Civilian Retirement (Social Security excluded) ($33.57 billion: cut $38.45 billion)

Since my world has much less government, we can assume there will be a lot less federal workers, therefore, less retirement by federal employees.


Aid to Low-Income Families ($0 billion: cut $206.76 billion)

(see medicare)


General Family Support ($0 billion: cut $25.61 billion)

(see medicare)


Social security ($0 billion: cut $544.81 billion)

Two points:

  1. Retirement is no business of the governments. If a person wants to retire, they need to make the right decisions to do so.
  2. Even if you think the government should be involved, it should be a state issue. There is no reason for the feds to be involved. (Same goes for the disability portion of SS).

Administration of justice ($53.55 billion: increased $10.45 billion)

Everything pretty much stays the same in this section except that Border security gets doubled in my world. Increasing overall spending by $10.45 billion


General government administration ($9.31 billion: cut $8.43 billion)

This section represents spending by the legislative and executive offices, as well as the IRS and other random government crap. Since the federal government is cut by more than half in my world, I’m sure the legislature and executive branches could use a few cuts.

Also, since the IRS doesn’t exist in my world, the government could save an additional $7 billion dollars.


Net_interest_long ($211.08 billion)

Can you believe we pay $211 billion on interest on our national debt each year?


Undistributed offsetting receipts and allowance ($-43.99 billion)

I’m not even sure what this is, so I didn’t change it.


I know it’s a pipe dream, but it would be nice.

StumbleUpon Toolbar Stumble It!