Saturday, December 31, 2011

2011 Screwyness

Nyan Cat


Going to the Store

Gravy Rainbow

Thursday, December 29, 2011

Time Does Not Dissolve Old Crimes

Hey Newt! Listen up you turd!

So yeah. You have broken the law for 25 years and established a place in the community. It cannot be reasonable to tear you from the fabric of the society, right?
Newt. That is not breaking the law 25 years ago but continuosly breaking the law for 25 years, or 9,131 days of breaking the law.

For some, time heals old unpunished crimes, but for others, the crime penetrates just as deep as if it was yesterday or 60 years ago.

There is a 99 year old man divorcing his wife over an affair she had in the 1940's. Her silence is as good as a lie.

Say what you will, how can he not forgive her after such a long time? I say, how can she decide to hide such dishonesty for such a long time?

Is it so hard to be honest? You need to remember the threads of your lies, but an honest person just needs to remember what has happened, but failure to do so, other will remember for you.

Live the truth. We will remember.

Live the lie. Who are you?

Do you like your Internet?

Again, do you like your Internet?

Do you want to see your favorite political site disappear?

The great thing about "Drinking with Bob" is that he gets all angry for me.


Sunday, December 18, 2011

Defiance With A Christmas Tree

After being threatened for the lighting of a Christmas tree, plans are in place to light three more. For all of the forced secularism and attacks Christians see on their customs and holidays in the US you must be wondering what state, what city is this happening in.

This is not happening in the US. This is an international crisis. South Korea has lit a tower structure that looks like a Christmas tree along the Korean border. North Korea is claiming it is psychological warfare.


The response is going to be more psychological warfare. South Korea plans to light three more Christmas trees on December 23rd.

I doubt that North Korea really considers this psychological warfare. It has got to be light envy; they just do not want to admit it. This is what a night time satellite photo looks like:

In fact, things are so bad in North Korea that light is not their biggest problem. Food is a problem. People are resorting to cannibalism.

Friday, December 16, 2011

They Still Miss The Point

It is hard to believe that this video was found at, "... an American non-profit, progressive or liberal public policy advocacy group and political action committee ..."

The many points raised in this video describe the horrific conditions that women live with in Muslim nations. This highlights the modern ideals we hope could become part of the culture of the Middle East with the introduction of Democracy:

  • Education for Women
  • Stop Mutilation of Women
  • Stop Honor Killings
  • Stop Pedophilic Marriage
  • Financial Freedom for Women

So it may seem that the American Liberal/Progressive point of view may be coming around to supporting what the Conservatives felt was so wrong, right? I don't know. This is the caption that MoveOn put to the video:
Did you catch that shocking statistic? “Women are half the world’s population, yet they do two-thirds of the world’s work, earn one-tenth of the world’s income, and own less than one per cent of the world’s property.” (Source: World Bank) Let’s change that!
Yes MoveOn, and I caught this; You are reframing the horrific Muslim culture as an argument to support the ideals of the OccupyWallStreet movement. MoveOn is shocked by the lack of land ownership but genital mutilation is not so shocking. Given a choice, most people would choose to keep their genitals instead of owning property.

I hope that people will share this video with their friends. To improve humanity we have recognize and identify where it has gone wrong and correct it.

The video does start off its solution strong with the signs:
if she can stay in school, fight custom and tradition, and refuse to be married to a strange and older man
if she can pursue an education and get a job
she would not change only her own fate
she would change the fate of her community
perhaps her entire nation
Unfortunately after this the solution tries to fine tune the idea to all that is needed is an education. Education is not enough. Back when America had slavery, if a slave was educated it would not make them free. Likewise, education will not free women while Sharia keeps them down. Laws, customs, and traditions need to change.

I fear that with the Muslim Brotherhood becoming part of the political establishments in the aftermath of the Middle East revolutions, this problem will only get worse.

Just in case MoveOn realizes their callousness about the plight of women described in the video, here is a screen capture for posterity:

Thursday, December 15, 2011

Living In La-La Land

Guess what is going on in New Haven, Connecticut. Go ahead, guess. Here is a hint. It deals with illegal immigrants and could influence something happening in 2012.

No, it is not about the upcoming apocalypse predicted by the Mayans. It is giving illegal immigrants the right to vote. Seriously. Mayor John DeStefano wants to give immigrants regardless of status the right to vote.

He does worry that this legislation might not pass because there was some difficulty in getting legislation passed to give illegal immigrants in-state tuition rates.

What could be more fair than letting illegal immigrants vote? How about letting the dead recall the governor? "So what! The dead can vote in Chicago," you may say. How about letting fictional characters recall the governor? That is even more fair. Let the nonexistent have a political voice too!

This is happening in Wisconsin for approving signatures for the petition of the recall of Gov. Walker. As long as Mickey Mouse has properly dated and has given a Wisconsin address, it will count. That is bad news for Adolf Hitler because his signature did not count in a previous recall petition because he gave his address as being in Germany.

Imagine that. Hitler's petition signature did not count because he said he was from Germany. Maybe he should move to New Haven where he will be more welcome.

Friday, December 9, 2011

Government Creates CO2 Monster

Have you heard of Lake Monoun or Lake Nyos in Cameroon? Respectively in 1984 and 1986 each lake exploded. Lake Monoun killed 37 people and Lake Nyos killed 1700 people. It was not the explosion that killed them but the cloud from the explosion that killed them. What was this cloud made of? Carbon dioxide (CO2).

In truth, CO2 was the cause of the explosion. Where did this CO2 come from? Man? No. It was magma fairly close to the surface of the bottom of the lakes. Magma liquefies rock and releases CO2. The CO2 rises through the ground and sits at the bottom of the lake. A large concentration of CO2 can be released by "an event" like an underwater rock slide. This is a massive explosion of CO2 into the air that stays down on the ground since it is heavier than the surrounding air. It spreads and disperses seeking low lands down into valleys where villages are located suffocating the people that live there.

So what could go wrong when the government decides to concentrate a large quantity of CO2 underground? The Midwest Geological Sequestration Consortium (MGSC) is pumping highly concentrated CO2 from the Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) Ethanol Production Facility in Decatur, Illinois into the Mt. Simon Sandstone. Over the next 3 years they plan to pump it with 1 million metric tons of CO2 at a depth of 7000 feet. The project should only cost about $84.3 million.

7000 feet sounds fairly safe, right? The natural disasters in Cameroon have the magma that caused the CO2 release into the lake at 3 to 6 miles, or  15,840 to 31,680 feet, below a lake.

Why are they doing this? Here's a quote from Chuck McConnell, Office of Fossil Energy’s Chief Operating Officer:
This injection test project by MGSC, as well as those undertaken by other FE regional partnerships, are helping confirm the great potential and viability of permanent geologic storage as an important option in climate change mitigation strategies.
Viability? I think Cameroon shows us the viability.

By the way, they are planning on doing this across the Midwest from Indiana to New Jersey.

Renewable Energy Shortage

Green energy solutions are supposed to save us from our dependency on fossil fuels. The current administration is doing what it can to block the use of America's resources and nuclear energy.

A 2000 paper about "Peak Oil" predicts when world production of fossil fuels will reach a peak and start to fall forcing us to change our usage. This paper predicts that there will still be production 2050, but I am unclear if this production is based off of what is available or what we are willing to produce. This is an issue because America has untapped petroleum reserves that could last us 60 years and natural gas that could last us 160 years. The paper does not take "shale oil" into account. America may have over 200 years worth of "shale oil." Unfortunately most of these resources are blocked.

The bottom line is with world production we will still have fuel in 2050. If the U.S. would change its energy development policies the U.S. could be self sufficient for over 200 years.

Fortunately the government wants to save us from this depletion of fossil fuels. Electric cars and wind turbines are being touted as savior technologies. So these technologies are being built, installed, and promoted. It feels as if we are a step away from having a choice of traditional cars and energy sources taken away.

So here is the punchline. We need to build these products. These green technologies require Lithium. So as we head towards a fossil fuel calamity more than 200 years down the road, how far down the road is a Lithium calamity? 15 years. The products that are supposed to save us from fossil fuel will be dead 185 years before it.

However, there is always solar energy, as long as the government does not get involved! Solyndra *cough* *cough*

UPDATE: Jan 12th
Either I completely misread one of the source articles, or the source article was changed without notation, but the Lithium shortage is in 5 years, not 15.

Being Poor Pays Off

This video is a reminder about what the 53% are complaining about. Only 53% of Americans seem to be doing "their fair share." Blaming 1% of the population to score political points is pure lunacy. If 53% cannot hold up 47% of the people why do you think 1% can?

On Again, Off Again, American Values?

What did you think of the President's speech in Osawatomie, Kansas? If you want to know what I think, just roll over the highlited areas of the speech posted below. You can see the original posting of the speech here.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, everybody. Please, please have a seat. Thank you so much. Thank you. Good afternoon, everybody.

AUDIENCE: Good afternoon.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I want to start by thanking a few folks who've joined us today. We've got the mayor of Osawatomie, Phil Dudley is here. (Applause.) We have your superintendent Gary French in the house. (Applause.) And we have the principal of Osawatomie High, Doug Chisam. (Applause.) And I have brought your former governor, who is doing now an outstanding job as Secretary of Health and Human Services -- Kathleen Sebelius is in the house. (Applause.) We love Kathleen.

Well, it is great to be back in the state of Tex -- (laughter) -- state of Kansas. I was giving Bill Self a hard time, he was here a while back. As many of you know, I have roots here. (Applause.) I'm sure you're all familiar with the Obamas of Osawatomie. (Laughter.) Actually, I like to say that I got my name from my father, but I got my accent -- and my values -- from my mother. (Applause.) She was born in Wichita. (Applause.) Her mother grew up in Augusta. Her father was from El Dorado. So my Kansas roots run deep.

My grandparents served during World War II. He was a soldier in Patton's Army; she was a worker on a bomber assembly line. And together, they shared the optimism of a nation that triumphed over the Great Depression and over fascism. They believed in an America where hard work paid off, and responsibility was rewarded, and anyone could make it if they tried -- no matter who you were, no matter where you came from, no matter how you started out. Good. I hope the President believes in those values too. (Applause.)

And these values gave rise to the largest middle class and the strongest economy that the world has ever known. It was here in America that the most productive workers, the most innovative companies turned out the best products on Earth. And you know what? Every American shared in that pride and in that success -- from those in the executive suites to those in middle management to those on the factory floor. (Applause.) So you could have some confidence that if you gave it your all, you'd take enough home to raise your family and send your kids to school and have your health care covered, put a little away for retirement.

Today, we're still home to the world's most productive workers. Well, not really. The Unions do allow workers to be lazy. We're still home to the world's most innovative companies. But for most Americans, the basic bargain that made this country great has eroded. Long before the recession hit, hard work stopped paying off for too many people. What are you talking about!? In the 80's we pulled out of a recession. In the 90's we had an economic slow down that turned into a roaring economy. Jubs were plenty! Fast food companies were paying above minimum wage begging for workers! Fewer and fewer of the folks who contributed to the success of our economy actually benefited from that success. Again, what!? Look how many people are carrying phones and computers in their pockets! Most American's have air-conditioning and heat! Sharing in success is not getting rich but being able to enrich your life! Those at the very top grew wealthier from their incomes and their investments -- wealthier than ever before. But everybody else struggled with costs that were growing and paychecks that weren't -- and too many families found themselves racking up more and more debt just to keep up. People are living beyond their means. They are going broke from buying houses, cars, and other items on credit. People are not going broke from buying food.

Now, for many years, credit cards and home equity loans papered over this harsh reality. But in 2008, the house of cards collapsed. We all know the story by now: Mortgages sold to people who couldn't afford them, or even sometimes understand them. Did you just call your constituents stupid? Banks and investors allowed to keep packaging the risk and selling it off. Huge bets -- and huge bonuses -- made with other people's money on the line. Regulators who were supposed to warn us about the dangers of all this, but looked the other way or didn't have the authority to look at all. WRONG! We were warned in 2005 and congress ignored the warnings. [link][link][link]

It was wrong. It combined the breathtaking greed of a few with irresponsibility all across the system. No. The government meddled in the housing market requiring banks to give these bad mortgages. The banks had to save themselves from the government trying to make them slit their own throats. And it plunged our economy and the world into a crisis from which we're still fighting to recover. It claimed the jobs and the homes and the basic security of millions of people -- innocent, hardworking Americans who had met their responsibilities but were still left holding the bag.They were not innocent. They willfully went to the bank and got a mortgage they could not afford. They did NOT meet their responsibility which is why they were forclosed on and why we had a crash!

And ever since, there's been a raging debate over the best way to restore growth and prosperity, restore balance, restore fairness. Throughout the country, it's sparked protests and political movements -- from the tea party to the people who've been occupying the streets of New York and other cities. It's left Washington in a near-constant state of gridlock. It's been the topic of heated and sometimes colorful discussion among the men and women running for president. (Laughter.)

But, Osawatomie, this is not just another political debate. This is the defining issue of our time. This is a make-or-break moment for the middle class, and for all those who are fighting to get into the middle class. Because what's at stake is whether this will be a country where working people can earn enough to raise a family, build a modest savings, own a home, secure their retirement.

Now, in the midst of this debate, there are some who seem to be suffering from a kind of collective amnesia. After all that's happened, after the worst economic crisis, the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, they want to return to the same practices that got us into this mess. Do you realize that this is you and your party that want to continue the policies that caused the collapse? In fact, they want to go back to the same policies that stacked the deck against middle-class Americans for way too many years. And their philosophy is simple: We are better off when everybody is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules. Really? I have never heard someone say that.

I am here to say they are wrong. (Applause.) I'm here in Kansas to reaffirm my deep conviction that we're greater together than we are on our own. Are you talking about collectivism? I believe that this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, Sounds like capitalism. Good. when everyone does their fair share, What is that? when everyone plays by the same rules. Do you mean congress men and women will have to follow the laws they pass? Probably not. (Applause.) These aren't Democratic values or Republican values. These aren't 1 percent values or 99 percent values. They're American values. And we have to reclaim them. (Applause.)

You see, this isn't the first time America has faced this choice. At the turn of the last century, when a nation of farmers was transitioning to become the world's industrial giant, we had to decide: Would we settle for a country where most of the new railroads and factories were being controlled by a few giant monopolies that kept prices high and wages low? Would we allow our citizens and even our children to work ungodly hours in conditions that were unsafe and unsanitary? Would we restrict education to the privileged few? Because there were people who thought massive inequality and exploitation of people was just the price you pay for progress.You just made all of that up. Farmers? The industrial revolution was in the 18th and 19th centuries, not the 20th century. [link] There was no great moment in history where we saw these changes happening all at once requiring a decision. It all happened gradually and was handled as needed.

Theodore Roosevelt disagreed. He was the Republican son of a wealthy family. He praised what the titans of industry had done to create jobs and grow the economy. He believed then what we know Do you Mr. President? is true today, that the free market is the greatest force for economic progress in human history. It's led to a prosperity and a standard of living unmatched by the rest of the world.

But Roosevelt also knew that the free market has never been a free license to take whatever you can from whomever you can. (Applause.) He understood the free market only works when there are rules of the road that ensure competition is fair and open and honest. And so he busted up monopolies, forcing those companies to compete for consumers with better services and better prices. And today, they still must. He fought to make sure businesses couldn't profit by exploiting children or selling food or medicine that wasn't safe. And today, they still can't.

And in 1910, Teddy Roosevelt came here to Osawatomie and he laid out his vision for what he called a New Nationalism. “Our country,” he said, “…means nothing unless it means the triumph of a real democracy…of an economic system under which each man shall be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best that there is in him.” (Applause.)

Now, for this, Roosevelt was called a radical. He was called a socialist -- (laughter) -- even a communist. But today, we are a richer nation and a stronger democracy because of what he fought for in his last campaign: an eight-hour work day and a minimum wage for women -- (applause) -- insurance for the unemployed and for the elderly, and those with disabilities; political reform and a progressive income tax. (Applause.)

Today, over 100 years later, our economy has gone through another transformation. Over the last few decades, huge advances in technology have allowed businesses to do more with less, and it's made it easier for them to set up shop and hire workers anywhere they want in the world. And many of you know firsthand the painful disruptions this has caused for a lot of Americans. When there is progress we will lose old technology jobs and get new technology jobs. People had to get a different job. So what!

Factories where people thought they would retire suddenly picked up and went overseas, where workers were cheaper. Steel mills that needed 100 -- or 1,000 employees are now able to do the same work with 100 employees, so layoffs too often became permanent, not just a temporary part of the business cycle. And these changes didn't just affect blue-collar workers. If you were a bank teller or a phone operator or a travel agent, you saw many in your profession replaced by ATMs and the Internet. We also saw an insane explosion of new markets and jobs!

Today, even higher-skilled jobs, like accountants and middle management can be outsourced to countries like China or India. And if you're somebody whose job can be done cheaper by a computer or someone in another country, you don't have a lot of leverage with your employer when it comes to asking for better wages or better benefits, especially since fewer Americans today are part of a union.

Now, just as there was in Teddy Roosevelt's time, there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let's respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. “The market will take care of everything,” they tell us. If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes -- especially for the wealthy -- our economy will grow stronger. Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn't trickle down, well, that's the price of liberty. Somehow I don't think "they" have ever said this. "They" argue that failure will not happen.

Now, it's a simple theory. And we have to admit, it's one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That's in America's DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. (Laughter.) But here's the problem: It doesn't work. It has never worked. In the beginning of your speech you gave this system credit for the rise of the middle-class! (Applause.) It didn't work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It's not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the ‘50s and ‘60s. And it didn't work when we tried it during the last decade. (Applause.) I mean, understand, it's not as if we haven't tried this theory.

Remember in those years, in 2001 and 2003, Congress passed two of the most expensive tax cuts for the wealthy in history. And what did it get us? The slowest job growth in half a century. Massive deficits that have made it much harder to pay for the investments that built this country and provided the basic security that helped millions of Americans reach and stay in the middle class -- things like education and infrastructure, science and technology, Medicare and Social Security. Are you kidding me!? We just had the technology-internet bubble burst! Then we got attacked and went to war! Is your world view so narrow that you think tax cuts caused this problem!?

Remember that in those same years, thanks to some of the same folks who are now running Congress, we had weak regulation, we had little oversight, and what did it get us? Insurance companies that jacked up people's premiums with impunity and denied care to patients who were sick, mortgage lenders that tricked families into buying homes they couldn't afford, a financial sector where irresponsibility and lack of basic oversight nearly destroyed our entire economy. I'm going to have to ask you to start citing your sources. Problems keep coming about from the government meddling.

We simply cannot return to this brand of “you're on your own” economics if we're serious about rebuilding the middle class in this country. (Applause.) We know that it doesn't result in a strong economy. It results in an economy that invests too little in its people and in its future. We know it doesn't result in a prosperity that trickles down. It results in a prosperity that's enjoyed by fewer and fewer of our citizens.

Look at the statistics. In the last few decades, the average income of the top 1 percent has gone up by more than 250 percent to $1.2 million per year. I'm not talking about millionaires, people who have a million dollars. I'm saying people who make a million dollars every single year. For the top one hundredth of 1 percent, the average income is now $27 million per year. The typical CEO who used to earn about 30 times more than his or her worker now earns 110 times more. And yet, over the last decade the incomes of most Americans have actually fallen by about 6 percent. You want to compare decades of one group with one decade of another group that only covers an economic depression? How about comparing apples to apples, not oranges.

Now, this kind of inequality -- a level that we haven't seen since the Great Depression -- hurts us all. When middle-class families can no longer afford to buy the goods and services that businesses are selling, when people are slipping out of the middle class, it drags down the entire economy from top to bottom. America was built on the idea of broad-based prosperity, of strong consumers all across the country. That's why a CEO like Henry Ford made it his mission to pay his workers enough so that they could buy the cars he made. It's also why a recent study Please cite. showed that countries with less inequality tend to have stronger and steadier economic growth over the long run.

Inequality also distorts our democracy. It gives an outsized voice to the few who can afford high-priced lobbyists and unlimited campaign contributions, and it runs the risk of selling out our democracy to the highest bidder. (Applause.) It leaves everyone else rightly suspicious that the system in Washington is rigged against them, that our elected representatives aren't looking out for the interests of most Americans.

But there's an even more fundamental issue at stake. This kind of gaping inequality gives lie to the promise that's at the very heart of America: that this is a place where you can make it if you try. We tell people -- we tell our kids -- that in this country, even if you're born with nothing, work hard and you can get into the middle class. We tell them that your children will have a chance to do even better than you do. That's why immigrants from around the world historically have flocked to our shores.

And yet, over the last few decades, the rungs on the ladder of opportunity have grown farther and farther apart, and the middle class has shrunk. You know, a few years after World War II, a child who was born into poverty had a slightly better than 50-50 chance of becoming middle class as an adult. By 1980, that chance had fallen to around 40 percent. And if the trend of rising inequality over the last few decades continues, it's estimated that a child born today will only have a one-in-three chance of making it to the middle class -- 33 percent.

It's heartbreaking enough that there are millions of working families in this country who are now forced to take their children to food banks for a decent meal. But the idea that those children might not have a chance to climb out of that situation and back into the middle class, no matter how hard they work? That's inexcusable. It is wrong.You're correct that it is wrong. The assumption is definitely wrong. They will have a chance to work and get into the middle-class. (Applause.) It flies in the face of everything that we stand for. (Applause.)

Now, fortunately, that's not a future that we have to accept, because there's another view about how we build a strong middle class in this country -- a view that's truer to our history, a vision that's been embraced in the past by people of both parties for more than 200 years.

It's not a view that we should somehow turn back technology or put up walls around America. It's not a view that says we should punish profit or success or pretend that government knows how to fix all of society's problems. It is a view that says in America we are greater together -- when everyone engages in fair play and everybody gets a fair shot and everybody does their fair share.What does this mean? If you do nothing, you get nothing, or it should be that way. But there is welfare so that people do not have to do "their fair share." (Applause.)

So what does that mean for restoring middle-class security in today's economy? Well, it starts by making sure that everyone in America gets a fair shot at success. The truth is we'll never be able to compete with other countries when it comes to who's best at letting their businesses pay the lowest wages, who's best at busting unions, who's best at letting companies pollute as much as they want. That's a race to the bottom that we can't win, and we shouldn't want to win that race. (Applause.) Those countries don't have a strong middle class. They don't have our standard of living.Please cite.

The race we want to win, the race we can win is a race to the top -- the race for good jobs that pay well and offer middle-class security. Businesses will create those jobs in countries with the highest-skilled, highest-educated workers, the most advanced transportation and communication, the strongest commitment to research and technology.

The world is shifting to an innovation economy and nobody does innovation better than America.The world is shifting towards innovation? It has always favored innovation. This is not new! Nobody does it better. (Applause.) No one has better colleges. Nobody has better universities. Nobody has a greater diversity of talent and ingenuity. No one's workers or entrepreneurs are more driven or more daring. The things that have always been our strengths match up perfectly with the demands of the moment.

But we need to meet the moment. We've got to up our game. We need to remember that we can only do that together. It starts by making education a national mission -- a national mission. (Applause.) Government and businesses, parents and citizens. In this economy, a higher education is the surest route to the middle class. The unemployment rate for Americans with a college degree or more is about half the national average. And their incomes are twice as high as those who don't have a high school diploma. Which means we shouldn't be laying off good teachers right now -- we should be hiring them. (Applause.) We shouldn't be expecting less of our schools –- we should be demanding more. (Applause.) We shouldn't be making it harder to afford college -- we should be a country where everyone has a chance to go and doesn't rack up $100,000 of debt just because they went.It is possible. The problem is when a student doesn't work and go to school, or don't take a little bit longer to get the degree as they pay for it. (Applause.)

In today's innovation economy, we also need a world-class commitment to science and research, the next generation of high-tech manufacturing. Our factories and our workers shouldn't be idle. We should be giving people the chance to get new skills and training at community colleges so they can learn how to make wind turbines and semiconductors and high-powered batteries. And by the way, if we don't have an economy that's built on bubbles and financial speculation, our best and brightest won't all gravitate towards careers in banking and finance. (Applause.) Because if we want an economy that's built to last, we need more of those young people in science and engineering. (Applause.) This country should not be known for bad debt and phony profits. We should be known for creating and selling products all around the world that are stamped with three proud words: Made in America. (Applause.)

Today, manufacturers and other companies are setting up shop in the places with the best infrastructure to ship their products, move their workers, communicate with the rest of the world.Didn't you claim that business was being done in countries where labor was cheap and they pollute? And that's why the over 1 million construction workers who lost their jobs when the housing market collapsed, they shouldn't be sitting at home with nothing to do. They should be rebuilding our roads and our bridges, laying down faster railroads and broadband, modernizing our schools -- (applause) -- all the things other countries are already doing to attract good jobs and businesses to their shores.

Yes, business, and not government, will always be the primary generator of good jobs with incomes that lift people into the middle class and keep them there. But as a nation, we've always come together, through our government, to help create the conditions where both workers and businesses can succeed.True. Like voting out Carter and voting in Reagan. (Applause.) And historically, that hasn't been a partisan idea. Franklin Roosevelt worked with Democrats and Republicans to give veterans of World War II -- including my grandfather, Stanley Dunham -- the chance to go to college on the G.I. Bill. It was a Republican President, Dwight Eisenhower, a proud son of Kansas -- (applause) -- who started the Interstate Highway System, and doubled down on science and research to stay ahead of the Soviets.

Of course, those productive investments cost money. They're not free. And so we've also paid for these investments by asking everybody to do their fair share.What do you mean by this!? Look, if we had unlimited resources, no one would ever have to pay any taxes and we would never have to cut any spending.What? Where is this logic coming from? Unlimited resources means no taxes and we could spend with no income coming in for lack of taxes? Seriously? But we don't have unlimited resources. And so we have to set priorities. If we want a strong middle class, then our tax code must reflect our values. We have to make choices.We will come November 2012.

Today that choice is very clear. To reduce our deficit, I've already signed nearly $1 trillion of spending cuts into law and I've proposed trillions more, including reforms that would lower the cost of Medicare and Medicaid. (Applause.)

But in order to structurally close the deficit, get our fiscal house in order, we have to decide what our priorities are. Now, most immediately, short term, we need to extend a payroll tax cut that's set to expire at the end of this month. (Applause.) If we don't do that, 160 million Americans, including most of the people here, will see their taxes go up by an average of $1,000 starting in January and it would badly weaken our recovery. That's the short term.That is the problem. When tax cuts are temporary, or need to be voted on year after year, it makes businesses feel uncertain about the future. It makes it impossible to make a business plan longer than a year. You are forcing businesses to look short term. Tax cuts or hikes need to be permanent so businesses can plan.

In the long term, we have to rethink our tax system more fundamentally. We have to ask ourselves: Do we want to make the investments we need in things like education and research and high-tech manufacturing -- all those things that helped make us an economic superpower?No we do not. We are seeing what the government is doing to education and we want it stopped! Research and manufacturing is done by private business! Didn't you just scrap our space exploration in favor of private enterprise handling it? Or do we want to keep in place the tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans in our country?There is no tax break for the wealthiest Americans. As long as there is a progressive tax system there is no tax break. The wealthy will stil be paying more per dollar than other people. Because we can't afford to do both. That is not politics. That's just math. (Laughter and applause.)

Now, so far, most of my Republican friends in Washington have refused under any circumstance to ask the wealthiest Americans to go to the same tax rate they were paying when Bill Clinton was president. So let's just do a trip down memory lane here.

Keep in mind, when President Clinton first proposed these tax increases, folks in Congress predicted they would kill jobs and lead to another recession. Instead, our economy created nearly 23 million jobs and we eliminated the deficit. (Applause.) Today, the wealthiest Americans are paying the lowest taxes in over half a century. This isn't like in the early ‘50s, when the top tax rate was over 90 percent. This isn't even like the early ‘80s, when the top tax rate was about 70 percent. Under President Clinton, the top rate was only about 39 percent. Today, thanks to loopholes and shelters, a quarter of all millionaires now pay lower tax rates than millions of you, millions of middle-class families. Then get rid of them! Simplify the tax code! Some billionaires have a tax rate as low as 1 percent. One percent.Data does not exactly support that claim. [link]

That is the height of unfairness. It is wrong.If you mean your fact is wrong, then yes. It is wrong. (Applause.) It's wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker, maybe earns $50,000 a year, should pay a higher tax rate than somebody raking in $50 million. (Applause.) It's wrong for Warren Buffett's secretary to pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. (Applause.) And by the way, Warren Buffett agrees with me. (Laughter.) So do most Americans -- Democrats, independents and Republicans. And I know that many of our wealthiest citizens would agree to contribute a little more if it meant reducing the deficit and strengthening the economy that made their success possible.If these wealthy citizens would agree to it, why aren't they doing it already? There is a spot on the tax form that allows them to pay more! You just said that the wealthy are using loopholes to pay less. They obviously have a problem with paying more! You just told us that!

This isn't about class warfare.Of course it is! This is about the nation's welfare. It's about making choices that benefit not just the people who've done fantastically well over the last few decades, but that benefits the middle class, and those fighting to get into the middle class, and the economy as a whole.

Finally, a strong middle class can only exist in an economy where everyone plays by the same rules, from Wall Street to Main Street.I see you conveniently left out the government. (Applause.) As infuriating as it was for all of us, we rescued our major banks from collapse, not only because a full-blown financial meltdown would have sent us into a second Depression, but because we need a strong, healthy financial sector in this country.

But part of the deal was that we wouldn't go back to business as usual. And that's why last year we put in place new rules of the road that refocus the financial sector on what should be their core purpose: getting capital to the entrepreneurs with the best ideas, and financing millions of families who want to buy a homeYou just said "we wouldn't go back to business as usual." This is business as usual. This is why we are in this bad economy! You are repeating the problem! or send their kids to college.

Now, we're not all the way there yet, and the banks are fighting us every inch of the way.Of course they are! The government forced them to give bad loans and too many people thought it was the banks doing! Why would they want to do it again? But already, some of these reforms are being implemented.

If you're a big bank or risky financial institution, you now have to write out a “living will” that details exactly how you'll pay the bills if you fail, so that taxpayers are never again on the hook for Wall Street's mistakes. (Applause.) There are also limits on the size of banks and new abilities for regulators to dismantle a firm that is going under. The new law bans banks from making risky bets with their customers' deposits, and it takes away big bonuses and paydays from failed CEOs, while giving shareholders a say on executive salaries.Totally unAmerican. The government dictating pay or giving others the power to set someone elses pay. Why can't voters decide Congress' salaries and yours?

This is the law that we passed. We are in the process of implementing it now. All of this is being put in place as we speak. Now, unless you're a financial institution whose business model is built on breaking the law, cheating consumers and making risky bets that could damage the entire economy, you should have nothing to fear from these new rules.

Some of you may know, my grandmother worked as a banker for most of her life -- worked her way up, started as a secretary, ended up being a vice president of a bank. And I know from her, and I know from all the people that I've come in contact with, that the vast majority of bankers and financial service professionals, they want to do right by their customers. They want to have rules in place that don't put them at a disadvantage for doing the right thing. And yet, Republicans in Congress are fighting as hard as they can to make sure that these rules aren't enforced.The government is dictating salaries of non-government employees! Of course they are fightinh it. It is a dangerous premis to set!

I'll give you a specific example. For the first time in history, the reforms that we passed put in place a consumer watchdog who is charged with protecting everyday Americans from being taken advantage of by mortgage lenders or payday lenders or debt collectors.Does this now mean that all of our dealing with a bank go through government inspection? The government will have a say in all of our private economic decisions? And the man we nominated for the post, Richard Cordray, is a former attorney general of Ohio who has the support of most attorney generals, both Democrat and Republican, throughout the country. Nobody claims he's not qualified.

But the Republicans in the Senate refuse to confirm him for the job; they refuse to let him do his job. Why? Does anybody here think that the problem that led to our financial crisis was too much oversight of mortgage lenders or debt collectors?No, but it was government policy and regulations. Strike those bad policies instead of heaping another government agency on top of the problem.


THE PRESIDENT: Of course not. Every day we go without a consumer watchdog is another day when a student, or a senior citizen, or a member of our Armed Forces -- because they are very vulnerable to some of this stuff -- could be tricked into a loan that they can't afford -- something that happens all the time.Banks do not want to give bad loans! They never did! It is a bad business model to lend money you won't get back! Get rid of the government policy to get more people into homes! And the fact is that financial institutions have plenty of lobbyists looking out for their interests. Consumers deserve to have someone whose job it is to look out for them. (Applause.) And I intend to make sure they do. (Applause.) And I want you to hear me, Kansas: I will veto any effort to delay or defund or dismantle the new rules that we put in place. (Applause.)

We shouldn't be weakening oversight and accountability. We should be strengthening oversight and accountability.I'm getting some mixed signals here. You gave them bailout money, but you believe in accountability. Hmmmm. I'll give you another example. Too often, we've seen Wall Street firms violating major anti-fraud laws because the penalties are too weak and there's no price for being a repeat offender. No more. I'll be calling for legislation that makes those penalties count so that firms don't see punishment for breaking the law as just the price of doing business. (Applause.)

The fact is this crisis has left a huge deficit of trust between Main Street and Wall Street. And major banks that were rescued by the taxpayers have an obligation to go the extra mile in helping to close that deficit of trust. At minimum, they should be remedying past mortgage abuses that led to the financial crisis.How can they when you are pushing them to do the same lending practises again? They should be working to keep responsible homeowners in their home.If the homeowner is responsible then they made their payments. They won't get kicked out. What "work" do they need to do? We're going to keep pushing them to provide more time for unemployed homeowners to look for work without having to worry about immediately losing their house.

The big banks should increase access to refinancing opportunities to borrowers who haven't yet benefited from historically low interest rates. And the big banks should recognize that precisely because these steps are in the interest of middle-class families and the broader economy, it will also be in the banks' own long-term financial interest. What will be good for consumers over the long term will be good for the banks. (Applause.)

Investing in things like education that give everybody a chance to succeed.Giving more money to schools does not change the fact it is still a government school. A tax code that makes sure everybody pays their fair share.Like a flat tax? And laws that make sure everybody follows the rules.Aren't the rules actually laws? So laws to make you follow the law? That's what will transform our economy. That's what will grow our middle class again. In the end, rebuilding this economy based on fair play, a fair shot, and a fair share will require all of us to see that we have a stake in each other's success. And it will require all of us to take some responsibility.

It will require parents to get more involved in their children's education. It will require students to study harder. (Applause.) It will require some workers to start studying all over again. It will require greater responsibility from homeowners not to take out mortgages they can't afford.Finally said something smart obvious and correct. They need to remember that if something seems too good to be true, it probably is.

It will require those of us in public service to make government more efficient and more effective, more consumer-friendly, more responsive to people's needs. That's why we're cutting programs that we don't need to pay for those we do. (Applause.) That's why we've made hundreds of regulatory reforms that will save businesses billions of dollars. That's why we're not just throwing money at education, we're challenging schools to come up with the most innovative reforms and the best results.

And it will require American business leaders to understand that their obligations don't just end with their shareholders. Andy Grove, the legendary former CEO of Intel, put it best. He said, “There is another obligation I feel personally, given that everything I've achieved in my career, and a lot of what Intel has achieved…were made possible by a climate of democracy, an economic climate and investment climate provided by the United States.”

This broader obligation can take many forms. At a time when the cost of hiring workers in China is rising rapidly, it should mean more CEOs deciding that it's time to bring jobs back to the United States -- (applause) -- not just because it's good for business, but because it's good for the country that made their business and their personal success possible. (Applause.)

I think about the Big Three auto companies who, during recent negotiations, agreed to create more jobs and cars here in America, and then decided to give bonuses not just to their executives, but to all their employees, so that everyone was invested in the company's success. (Applause.)

I think about a company based in Warroad, Minnesota. It's called Marvin Windows and Doors. During the recession, Marvin's competitors closed dozens of plants, let hundreds of workers go. But Marvin's did not lay off a single one of their 4,000 or so employees -- not one. In fact, they've only laid off workers once in over a hundred years. Mr. Marvin's grandfather even kept his eight employees during the Great Depression.

Now, at Marvin's when times get tough, the workers agree to give up some perks and some pay, and so do the owners.Didn't you complain earlier about wages have gotten lower. Now you are praising lowering wages? As one owner said, “You can't grow if you're cutting your lifeblood -- and that's the skills and experience your workforce delivers.” (Applause.) For the CEO of Marvin's, it's about the community. He said, “These are people we went to school with. We go to church with them. We see them in the same restaurants. Indeed, a lot of us have married local girls and boys. We could be anywhere, but we are in Warroad.”

That's how America was built. That's why we're the greatest nation on Earth. That's what our greatest companies understand. Our success has never just been about survival of the fittest. It's about building a nation where we're all better off. We pull together. We pitch in. We do our part. We believe that hard work will pay off, that responsibility will be rewarded, and that our children will inherit a nation where those values live on.What? Didn't you start off your speech claiming this, then in the middle you claimed this did not work? That the system failed? And now you believe in it again? (Applause.)

And it is that belief that rallied thousands of Americans to Osawatomie -- (applause) -- maybe even some of your ancestors -- on a rain-soaked day more than a century ago. By train, by wagon, on buggy, bicycle, on foot, they came to hear the vision of a man who loved this country and was determined to perfect it.

“We are all Americans,” Teddy Roosevelt told them that day. “Our common interests are as broad as the continent.” In the final years of his life, Roosevelt took that same message all across this country, from tiny Osawatomie to the heart of New York City, believing that no matter where he went, no matter who he was talking to, everybody would benefit from a country in which everyone gets a fair chance. (Applause.)

And well into our third century as a nation, we have grown and we've changed in many ways since Roosevelt's time. The world is faster and the playing field is larger and the challenges are more complex. But what hasn't changed -- what can never change -- are the values that got us this far. We still have a stake in each other's success. We still believe that this should be a place where you can make it if you try. And we still believe, in the words of the man who called for a New Nationalism all those years ago, “The fundamental rule of our national life,” he said, “the rule which underlies all others -- is that, on the whole, and in the long run, we shall go up or down together.” And I believe America is on the way up. (Applause.)

Thank you. God bless you. God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Big Funny Dummy

While I was gone for Thanksgiving I recorded a biography about Jeff Dunham.

He can make terrorists funny.

Tuesday, November 22, 2011


Reflecting back I am thankful that George Bush won the 2000 election. I just cannot imagine Al Gore handling 9/11 and pursuing terrorists. How could he ever pursue a real threat when he is so scared of the weather?

Spending time with the family. See you in a week.

Happy Thanksgiving!

You Must Be Kidding

In an elementary school a girl kissed a boy. What is a teacher to do?

Call child welfare then the cops. Teacher thought this was a sex crime.

Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day; teach a man to fish, you can take away his fish for yourself.

A professional fisherman whom has a license to catch tuna, just in case he accidentally caught one while going after his commercial catch, caught a tuna. He reported the catch to fishery regulators. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Office of Law Enforcement ( NOAA ) showed up and confiscated the tuna.

It seems that since the tuna got caught in his nets, accidentally, that is illegal. He had to use a rod.

The tuna is going to be sold by the agency. If the fisherman is considered not guilty he will get the money, otherwise, guess where the money goes.

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Free(k) Speech

The First Amendment is great. Free speech. The ability to speak out against what you believe is wrong.

I am sick of the OccupyWallStreet event. It is a great exercise of free speech, and they truly get to do it for free. Events, protests, and other public gatherings require a permit from the city/county/state. Sometimes permits cost money. Some of the Occupy movements have not received a permit for their protest. Due to this flaunting of proper procedure the Richmond Tea Party is asking for their money back after paying for their event.

If the Tea Party gets their money back, I will have to admit that the OccupyWallStreet movement made free speech free.

There is of course the whole argument of "free." Free speech is paid for by the blood of patriots. However, many of us have been lucky enough to serve our country without having to shed our blood, but we still paid for it with years of service. Most people have not even done that.

There is one thing that the OccupyWallStreet movement does not realize about free speech: you have the right to say what you want, not the right to force people to listen. The human microphone is a really neat concept since it gets around electronic amplification ordinances, but it is so cultish. The Occupy crowd looks like a Jonestown waiting to happen, if they had a leader to lead them.

And as I mention Jonestown, I must protest the bad name it has given Kool-Aid. Truth be told, Jones was cheap and used Flavor-Aid, a cheap Kool-Aid rip-off.
I need to reiterate, you have the right to speak but not the right to make me listen.

Hence, here are free speech advocates forcing free-listening by speaking at events in which they are not invited speakers.

We understand you want to send a message. If we want to hear it we will go to the protests, watch your videos, and read your blogs. However, some people are going to events to hear something else.

If you believe free speech gives you the right to make us listen to you, we might take up the belief that our freedom of speech gives us the right to silence you. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.