Titles are clicky

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

The fallacies inherent in the current economic responce

Libertarians tell you why bigger government,
huge stimulus plans,
and Keynesian economics will only make the recession worse,
even if you stamp your tiny little feet and wish really, really hard.

Spend the seven minutes to inform yourself on this disaster that our ruling class is repeating.

It won’t hurt.

Honest.

Please share this video with anyone you know that has at least half-a-brain.

Detroit 3 Automakers - Union Wages - swiped from Greg Mix

Amazing!!!
Absolutely amazing.

Now here is some real smart Pelosi/Clinton Demonomics...
And this is an example of what middle America will pay for ! ! !
Unions ? ? ?

According to Forbes,
the labor cost per hour (wages and benefits) for UAW workers:
Ford - $70.51 ($141,020 per year)
GM - $73.26 ($146,520 per year)
Chrysler - $75.86 ($151,720 per year)
Toyota, Honda, Nissan (in U.S. ) - $48.00 ($96,000 per year)

According to AAUP and IES,
the average annual compensation for a college professor in 2006 was $92,973
(average salary nationally of $73,207 + 27% benefits).

Bottom Line:
The average UAW worker with a high school degree earns 57.6% more compensation than the average university professor with a Ph.D.,
and 52.6% more than the average worker at Toyota , Honda or Nissan.

Many industry analysts say the Detroit Three must be on par with Toyota and Honda to survive. This year's contract, they say, must be "transformational" in reducing pension and health care costs. What would "transformational" mean? One way to think about "transformational" would mean that UAW workers, most with a high school diploma, would have to accept compensation equal to that of the average university professor with a PhD.

Then there's the "Job Bank."
When a D3 (Detroit 3 carmaker)
lays an employee off, that employee continues to receive all benefits - medical, retirement, etc., etc., PLUS an hourly wage of $31/hour.
____________________

Here's a typical story....
Ken Pool is making good money. On weekdays, he shows up at 7 a.m. at Ford Motor Co.'s Michigan Truck Plant in Wayne, signs in, and then starts working -- on a crossword puzzle. Pool hates the monotony, but the pay is good: more than $31 an hour, plus benefits. "We just go in and play crossword puzzles, watch videos that someone brings in or read the newspaper," he says. "Otherwise, I just sit."

Pool is one of more than 12,000 American autoworkers who, instead of installing windshields or bending sheet metal, spend their days counting the hours in a jobs bank set up by Detroit automakers as demanded by the United Auto Workers Union - UAW - as part of an extraordinary job security agreement.
____________________

Now the D3 wants Joe Taxpayer to pick up this tab in a $25 Billion bailout package - soon to be increased to $45 Billion if Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton have their way.

The "Big 3" want this money, but not to build better autos.

No.

They want it to pay the tab for Medical and Retirement benefits for RETIRED auto workers.
Not ONE PENNY would be used to make them more competitive, or to improve the quality of their cars.

We ALL have problems paying for our Medical Insurance, but the Democrat leaders in Congress now want us to pay the Medical Insurance premiums of folks who have RETIRED from Ford, GM and Chrysler.
Not a good deal for us. How about Chapter 11 – and getting rid of these ridiculous union contracts?

Monday, December 15, 2008

Barney Frank on 60 Minutes

This gives a bit more dimension to the Massachusetts representative, but I still think he suffers from unthinking attacks of philanthropic zeal. Is this really the best Boston can do?

A scenario regarding gun control - stolen from Frances West

It is now closer to reality than you think.


You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.

Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers;
at least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way.

With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun.

You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it.

In the darkness, you make out two shadows.

One holds something that looks like a crowbar.

When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire.
The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.

As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.
In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless.

Yours was never registered.

Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died.

They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.

When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry; authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter. "What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.

"Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing.
"Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."

The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper.
Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times. But the next day's headline says it all:

"Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die."

The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters.

As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.

Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win.

The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time.

The District Attorney uses this to alledge that you were lying in wait for the burglars.
A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man.

It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.

The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened.

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England, killed one burglar and wounded a second.

In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.

How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903.

This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns. Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead. The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane , Scotland , Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearm still owned by private citizens.
During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released. Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."

All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars. When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities.

Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply. Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens
How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed. Kinda like cars.

Sound familiar?

WAKE UP AMERICA , THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION

"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
-Samuel Adams

Saturday, December 13, 2008

Which is the most corrupt set of cretins in power over us? - blatantly swiped from American Thinker

Parties of Corruption

Randall Hoven

Which party is more corrupt? Maybe you've seen lists. The National Taxpayer's Union has a pretty good list http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=343. The NTU's gripe, though, is not which party is more corrupt, but that Congressmen who are convicted felons continue to collect their very generous congressional pensions.

The NTU's list is of "Members of Congress Who Were Convicted of or Pled Guilty to Major Offenses, 1992-1999." NTU staffers had to compile the list from Washington Post archives and Congressional Quarterly Yearly Almanacs. (It takes real work to compile an apples-to-apples, fair list.) Here is that list:

  • Nick Mavroules (D-MA). Tax evasion, accepting illegal gratuity, 1992.
  • Albert Bustamante (D-TX). Racketeering, 1993.
  • Carroll Hubbard (D-KY). Fraud and corruption, 1994.
  • Carl Perkins (D-KY). Fraud, 1994.
  • Charlie Rose (D-NC). Agreed to pay fine for financial disclosure irregularities, 1994.
  • Larry Smith (D-FL). Tax evasion, 1994.
  • Dave Durenberger (R-MN). Financial disclosure misdemeanor, 1995.
  • Walter Fauntroy (D-DC Delegate). Financial disclosure misdemeanor, 1995.
  • Gerald Kleczka (D-WI). Convicted of DWI, 1987. Arrested for DWI, 1990 and 1995.
  • Mel Reynolds (D-IL). Sexual misconduct, 1995.
  • Walter Tucker (D-CA). Extortion, 1995.
  • Charles Wilson (D-TX). Agreed to pay fine to Federal Election Commission, 1995.
  • Joe Kolter (D-PA). Fraud and conspiracy, 1996.
  • Dan Rostenkowski (D-IL). Mail fraud, 1996.
  • Wes Cooley (R-OR). Lying about war record in official voter pamphlet, 1997.
  • Jay Kim (R-CA). Campaign finance violations, 1998.
  • Mary Rose Oakar (D-OH). Financial disclosure irregularities, 1998.
  • Austin J. Murphy (D-PA). Voter fraud, 1999.

By my count: 15 Democrats, 3 Republicans. Since then, we can add James Traficant (D-OH) and Randall Cunningham (R-CA). Call the score 16 to 4, Democrats leading.

That would make Democrats 4 times (or 300%) more corrupt than Republicans.

Friday, December 12, 2008

A Little Gun History Lesson - merrily stolen from Greg

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.
From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents,
unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control.
From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians,
unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938.
From 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others,
unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated

China established gun control in 1935.
From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents,
unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964.
From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians,
unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970.
From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians,
unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956.
From 1975 to 1977, one million ' educated ' people,
unable to defend themselves,
were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people who
were rounded up and exterminated
in the 20th Century because of gun control:

56 million.

____________________

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia
were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms
to be destroyed by their own government,
a program costing Australia taxpayers
more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 203.2 percent

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.

Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in,
the criminals did not,
and criminals still possess their guns!

It will never happen here? I bet the Aussies said that too!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a
steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms,
his has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months,
since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults on the ELDERLY.
Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased,
after such monumental effort and expense was expended in
successfully ridding Australian society of guns.
The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won't see this data on the US evening news,
or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and
gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control,
please remind him of this history lesson:

With Guns...........We Are 'Citizens'.
Without Them........We Are 'Subjects'.

___________________

During W.W.II the Japanese decided not to invade America
because they knew most Americans were ARMED !

Note:
Admiral Yamamoto,
who crafted the attack on Pearl Harbor,
had attended Harvard 1919-1921
& was Naval Attaché to the U. S. 1925-28.
Most of our Navy was destroyed at Pearl Harbor
& our Army had been deprived of funding
& was ill prepared to defend the country.

It was reported that when asked why
Japan did not follow up the Pearl Harbor attack with an
invasion of the U. S. Mainland,
his reply was that he had lived in the U.S.
& knew that almost all households had guns.

If you value your freedom,
please spread this anti-gun control message to all your friends!

The world is a dangerous place,
not because of those who do evil,

but because of those who look on and do nothing.

Wednesday, December 10, 2008