For everyone who complains about the price of gas, first step back and put things in perspective -

Do you realize what a gallon of Starbucks coffee costs? Hmmm, about $32 a gallon for the house blend.

Let's see now; if one drinks a whole gallon of coffee, you still would not be able to push a 2 ton car and four riders 20 miles in 20 minutes.

On reflection, it's amazing that you can do so with $4 of gasoline, the price you pay for one cup of latte mocha grande.

http://www.gop.gov/web/guest/press_releases/documents?p_p_id=56_INSTANCE_M2Tk&p_p_action=0&p_p_state=normal&p_p_col_id=column-3&p_p_col_pos=0&p_p_col_count=1&_56_INSTANCE_M2Tk_groupId=1&_56_INSTANCE_M2Tk_articleId=1647&_56_INSTANCE_M2Tk_version=1.0

House Republicans Unveil Energy Plan, Real Solutions for American Families
Putnam: “Washington is broken, and it is no more apparent than on soaring energy and gas prices under the Democratic Congress”

May 21, 2007

At a news conference on the steps of the U.S. Capitol today, House Republicans unveiled our plan to deliver real energy solutions and lower gas prices for Americans facing pain at the pump. Congressman Adam Putnam (R-FL), Chairman of the House Republican Conference, issued the following statement:

“Washington is broken, and it is no more apparent than on soaring energy and gas prices under the Democrat Congress.

“More than two years ago, Speaker Pelosi promised a ‘commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices.’ Since Democrats took control of Congress, gas prices have risen more than 60 percent and Americans are paying a hefty Pelosi Premium at the pump. This is not the change Democrats promised Americans, and it is the not the change Americans deserve.

“The American people are hurting from a slowing economy, the housing crunch and rising costs of living. They are tired of waiting for the long-promised ‘commonsense plan’ to lower gas prices. They are impatient with a Democrat energy policy that is chock full of job-killing tax hikes, burdensome regulation and no new American energy.

“Today, House Republicans unveiled an energy plan that offers meaningful solutions for American families. Through this agenda, we will increase production of American-made energy – including next-generation oil, natural gas, clean-coal, renewable and alternative energies – while protecting our nation’s natural resources. We will cut red tape and increase energy supplies by spurring the construction of new refineries and nuclear power plants, as many European nations are doing. And we will make America more energy efficient by offering significant conservation tax breaks to Americans who invest in green technologies for their home, car or business.

“The American people have had it with skyrocketing gas prices and a Democrat Congress that offers no meaningful solutions. Our House Republican plan provides real solutions to produce American-made energy, help lower gas prices and make us more energy independent. That is the change America deserves.”

This sounds fine as far as it goes, but why don't you write up a bill and introduce it!

Stop talking about it, get off your asses, and DO something!

The more the GOP leadership diddles around like this, all talk and no action, the more people start looking for REAL leaders.

 A Call to Arms for Conservatives
Norman, a frequent poster in TH has invited all to participate in a grassroots effort to come up with an alternative to McCain:

My TH blog, The Blogatorium, has a new mission: To serve as a forum for disenchanted conservatives who cannot in good conscience support John McCain, and want to use their vote wisely and effectively in November.

This endeavor is predicated on the following assumptions:

1. That the GOP has abandoned conservatism, and that conservatives are consequently under no moral, ethical, or other obligation to support the so-called "lesser of two evils."

2. That no true conservative would willingly and enthusiastically support John McCain.

3. That the basic tenets of conservatism are accurately reflected in the "three-legs" model (social, fiscal, and national security), and that a true conservative will embrace all three.

4. That conservatives may, however, differ on the application of each "leg," particularly with respect to questions of faith, and should respect each others' right to do so.

5. That with unprecedented turmoil in both major parties, there has never been a better time to galvanize and mobilize conservative support for a viable, third-party candidate.

6. That compromise is often necessary in politics, but that there comes a time when compromise becomes counterproductive and even suicidal.

7. That the GOP, in making an abusive and manipulative “case” for John McCain, is asking conservatives to put party over principle and to help the GOP destroy the conservative movement.

8. That, in consequence of the aforementioned, a forum should exist wherein conservatives may discuss, debate, and compare the various third-party candidates.

9. That conservatives should, as much as possible, throw their support to ONE third-party candidate, en masse, in order to facilitate a strong showing in November, and future election victories.

Go to: http://blogatorium.blogtownhall.com/

After reading comments all over concerning the Fair Tax, it appears that the main objection to it is that retail items will cost an additional 30% due the the Fair Tax.
It is true that the 23% inclusive tax translate to 30% of the sales price, I won't naysay that to make it seem less.
What people have difficulty with is understanding that the base price after the Fair Tax is enacted will fall by approximately 23% (different items will be more or less, but on average 23%), therefore the final price will be virtually the same as it was before the Fair Tax.

That 23% is in the form of embedded taxes, and as such, it is hard to see just how much of the final price of an item contains that 23%. Most products reaching the market go through numerous steps of production, transportation, handling, packaging, and at each step they are taxed in one way or another. People don't see the many corporate, capital gains, and payroll taxes involved in products. The Fair Tax eliminates all taxes in these steps along the way to market.

To make it as simple as possible, I shall give an instance where a product is taxed just once, but that can be extrapolated to more complex production and marketing scenarios.

Consider a truck farmer, raising vegetables on his small acreage. No employees, just him and his wife. He starts the seeds, cultivates, and picks the produce, then sells it at his roadside stand. Let's say his gross sales is $22,000. Only once does he pay Federal tax, on Forms 1014, SE, and Schedule C. After he subtracts the cost of seed, fertilizer, tractor expense, property tax, local tax, etc. ($8,000), his net profit is $14,000, and he pays about 14% in taxes; thus his after-tax income is $12,040.

Let's say that the Fair Tax is enacted at the end of that year. In the next year, he and his wife raise the same amount of produce. To calculate how much he should sell that produce for, he looks at what his end of the year income will be under the Fair Tax. If he keeps his prices too high relative to other produce stands in the area, he won't sell. His expenses are going to be lower than the previous year, as the seed and fertilzer companies will no longer be paying corporate and payroll taxes, and to compete with other similar companies, will drop their prices. As he is buying wholesale from them, he won't be paying the Fair Tax on those items.

Let's say his expenses will be $1,000 less, or $7,000. He adds that figure to the $12,040 in income he had the previous year ($19,040), then subtracts the amount of prebate he'll receive - $3,841 ($15,199). That $15,199 is the price he can sell all his produce for and still have the same income as previously. This represents a drop in price for his customers to 69% from the previous year, but as he is a retailer, they will pay 30% on top of that in Fair Tax. They end up paying 90 cents on the dollar of last year.

In other words, he has the same net income selling a head of cauliflower for 69 cents and tacking on 21 cents in Fair Tax, as he did the previous year, selling that head of cauliflower for $1.00.

Even if you think that his costs of production won't fall in price, the necessary gross sales for him is then$16,199, which is 73.6% of the previous year, and with the Fair Tax added to that, his customers will be paying 96 cents for the same item they paid a dollar for the previous year.

I might remind everyone that Earth Hour this year is on March 29th, at 8 PM in your local time zone.

Join together and demonstrate your opposition to the envirowhackos' agenda by turning on every electrical appliance and light that you can! Together we can make a difference to promote global warming (I'm sick of being cold all the time), and stimulate the economy by employing more coal miners and oil riggers.

I'll be doing my part by turning on all 14 lights in my house, cranking up the stereo, turn the TV on, run a fan, and idle my car with the dome and headlights on.

Flick a switch and stick it to Gore and Company.

Blogger James McGovern talked about (http://duckdown.blogspot.com/2007/07/are-bloggers-self-centered.html) how bloggers could change the world if they focused on others instead of themselves: “If every blogger reading my blog instead of choosing to exercise their right to remain silent instead decided to spend just five minutes talking about poverty to one or two other individuals, poverty would be eliminated.”

Uh-huh. Let's see now, talking about poverty to a sufficient number of people will eliminate it.

Hmmmm, must be some magical thing.....umm, still don't understand how that works.....Let's try this:

"If every blogger reading my blog instead of choosing to exercise their right to remain silent instead decided to spend just five minutes talking about liberals to one or two other individuals, liberals would be eliminated."

Okay, is it working? Anybody notice fewer liberals around?

The reasons for how we got there are irrelevant to anyone other than future historians. It's done; so live with it, live in the present and plan for the future.

There are four primary reasons why we are in Iraq, and why we need to remain there for years to come.

First, our forces provide a magnet for the killing fields we have set up - Jihadist aggression is aimed from all over the world at the US forces there; they are the lure. Now that we have been there for four and a half years, our troops know the lay of the land so that they have the battlefield advantage over jihadists, and therefore can more efficiently kill them.

Second, we provide a bulwark against Iranian and Jihadist hegemony in the region. Given Ahmadinejad's visions of both a new Persian Empire and the coming of the 12th Imam, if we withdraw from Iraq, Iran in concert with Syria and Shiite elements in Iraq, will extend a Jihadist hegemony from the border of Israel to Afghanistan. At that time, Mahmoud will make good his promise to wipe Israel off the map. That would not be difficult: once Iraq is compromised, it is a straight road for a million Iranian soldiers to travel on to the Israeli border. Seizing control of Mecca is his next step, and at that time, we will be in no position to protect Saudi Arabia. Jordan, Egypt, Turkey and the Moslem nations of the former USSR will capitulate and sign non-aggression pacts with Mahmoud out of self-preservation. All of this will follow if we abandon our keystone position in Iraq.

Third, Iraq provides us with a military base of operations. Maintaining a free and clear airspace over Iraq deters aggression by Syria and Iran against Israel and their pro-Western neighbors. We may be able to maintain a similar posture using WACS based in Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Diego Garcia, planes on aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, and missiles on submarines, but a ground base in Iraq is much closer to the theater of operations, and more reliable.

Fourth, we present an alternative to people all over the Middle East, an alternative to Jihadism. Granted, some people who were formerly neutral are inspired by our presence to turn to Jihadism, but a similar number is inspired by our steadfastness there. Moslems do not respect cowards, those who flee the battlefield, and our withdrawal would be seen as surrender. All those who respect our troops there now will turn on a dime against us in the other countries where we maintain a small presence, and terrorist attacks will increase, not only against us, but against our Moslem allies (Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Egypt, Turkey, et al).
In short, mass chaos, the rise of a pan-Moslem Jihadist empire, and the destruction of Israel will ensue if we "get the troops out."

If there is anyone who does not see this happening upon our premature withdrawal, I would be pleased to hear his or her argument.

I have yet to hear anyone, in the government or elsewhere, propound an alternative solution to Roe v. Wade. While I am personally opposed to the killing of the unborn, my libertarian sensibilities require me to observe that the US Constitution is silent on the matter - a ruling no one in the SCOTUS ventured when it was originally debated.

The Constitution is a document that prescribes and proscribes what the Federal Government may or may not do, not a body of statutory law concerning individual conduct with a few exceptions. The creation and enforcement of criminal statutes are the province of individual States, while individual conduct that falls under the purview of the Federal Government in the course of its prescribed responsibilities remain the exceptions: treason, insurrection, counterfeiting, smuggling, illegal immigration. Those five criminal activities are offenses that concern the country as a whole, so naturally are Federal offenses. All others, in accordance with the forgotten 10th Amendment, are the province of the States: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The red herring put forth in Roe v. Wade, the right to privacy, is an improper interpretation; the right to privacy is meant to restrain the government from interfering in the non-criminal, private acts and possessions of individuals. If the Federal Goverment or a State government, by legislative action, determines that an action by an individual is a criminal act, the right to privacy concerning that action is void - it is no longer in the private sphere, but in the public sphere, as it has a deleterious effect upon other individuals. If an individual State determines that xyz is a criminal act, the SCOTUS may not disable that legislative action under the rubric of individual privacy, unless that criminalization is in conflict with the rights of individuals enumerated in the US Constitution.

For instance, if a State criminalizes the practice of a certain religion, the SCOTUS may step forth and strike down that law, as it interferes with the 1st Amendment. Or, if a State creates a law that individuals must open to inspection their private bank accounts to State investigators without a warrant, then the SCOTUS may strike that down as it is in conflict with the 4th Amendment, and the general right to privacy. However, if a State determines that an action taken by an individual upon another individual causes harm, and such criminalization does not interfere with an individual's rights, the SCOTUS should be silent upon that law.

Therefore, a proper reading of the US Constitution allows individual States to prohibit or allow abortion without comment by the SCOTUS - simply, it's none of their business.

For many people, where they are on the political spectrum is both simple and complex. They will say "I'm a Republican (or Democrat), 'cause my Daddy was," and that's the end of the story. However, if you probe their political views, they come to a realization that they don't agree completely with their party affiliation, and qualify their answer with those differences - "Well I'm a Democrat, but I think small business owners should be able to set aside part of their money for retirement and not pay into Social Security, and I think people should have guns in their houses without the government intruding on that right," - for example.
If one points out that those views are at odds with that of the Democratic Party, they may hedge and say that they are more of a centrist, a nebulous population with no real meaning other than the vast amount of people who are not radical to the left or right.
For many people, there are no alternatives to this linear thinking - Left to Right on a scale of some sorts. While they know that things in the political arena are more complicated than that, they have no real way of placing themselves - until now.
There is a fourfold map now in circulation that more accurately defines the differences between the major parties, and is capable of assigning a respondent a place in the political spectrum. Take a simple, 10 question quiz and see where you are in the spectrum at http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html
You may be surprised about yourself, but more likely feel empowered to know where you stand in the political universe.

There is the problem of what to do with the millions of illegal aliens that the administration refuse to deport, and the problem of how to get the government's nose out of people's private business affairs.
Happily, the Fair Tax takes care of both problems with one fell swoop.
Imagine a world where the IRS is no longer looking over your shoulder checking to see what you earn, how you earn it, how you spend it, who you deal with in your business.
Fantasy you say?
No, the Fair Tax (HR 25, S 1025)  abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax  administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities. Further, it provides a "prebate" to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level.
That last provision is the key to pressure illegal aliens to voluntarily deport, at least some of them. To obtain the prebate, one needs to have a valid social security number, and a valid, corresponding address. Therefore, illegal aliens will be paying taxes on all they consume, but will not get a prebate. And it's not an insubstantial amount; an individual illegal will spend $2,348 more per year for just basic necessities than someone with a valid SSN. An illegal couple with two children would spend $6,297 more per year on basic necessities.
Though that economic burden may not affect some illegals, I think it would compel many to rethink their decision to stay here.

For further information, see: http://www.fairtax.org
To calculate how much you would benefit when the Fair Tax is initiated, go to:
 http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/FairTaxCalculator.xls

To talk about economic matters, it is imperative to first define terms. So many people in the blogosphere and elsewhere are confused as to what certain words mean, and debate is thereby derailed and otherwise confused.
First, there are four main types of economic systems in the world: free market capitalism, mercantilism, fascism, and socialism. The first three are subtypes of capitalism, which itself is largely misunderstood.
Capitalism is the process whereby labor, resources, and monetary capital are combined to produce products and/or services, and render a profit.
Profit is created wealth, that is, wealth most commonly in the form of money which did not exist prior to the production of goods or services.
Labor is rather self-defining, the application of human time and energy that creates something hitherto non-existent.
Resources are material things on which labor is exerted to produce a good or service. Resources may be naturally occurring, such as iron ore - labor is applied to it to produce steel. Manufactured goods may be resources as well, such as computers; labor applied at a keyboard produces a writer's book, for instance.
Monetary capital is money which is used to fund the purchase of resources and labor to produce a good that is then sold or traded.

Free market capitalism is a system wherein individuals and corporations voluntarily produce goods and services without interference by a government other than the enforcement of law to prohibit theft and fraud. A free market depends on a strict application of the rule of law, so that property is safeguarded, and no one is coerced to buy or sell any good or service. Ownership of one's person, property, and ideas is primary to a free market, and if that ownership is compromised, then the whole system fails.
A free market is based on the voluntary exchange of labor, goods, services or money between interested parties, and is by nature equitable, as each party sees an advantage to himself in conducting the transaction.

Mercantilism is a capitalist system where certain goods and services are encouraged or discouraged by governments at the behest of producers who are influential in government. They lobby to promote their own products, and discourage competitors. The government may see particular producers and their products as beneficial to the country, its people, or to the government itself, and for that reason accedes to the demands of the producers. The government's actions may take the form of tariffs on competitive foreign goods, taxes on competitors, abolition of certain goods and services, licensing of particular services, subsidies to certain producers, and regulations defining or controlling the quality of goods.

Fascism is the government control and regulation of privately owned and operated industry and services for the perceived benefit of the government. This differs from mercantilism in that control and regulation is applied equally to all industry, without favoritism to particular producers, though historically, there have always been certain producers who had more influence in fascist governments with the result of  differentially promoting themselves.

Socialism is the system where government owns the labor, resources, and capital, and theoretically does not derive a profit from the production process. People are assigned jobs according to the government's estimation of the best use of their particular talents and abilities, without consideration of their aspirations. The lack of a profit means that no new wealth is created, thereby precluding expansion of production facilities. In addition, with no profit motive, individuals are in effect discouraged from invention and innovation, though the government may encourage said invention and innovation by appealing to national pride and other moral inducements. In practice, there may be rewards such as better housing, opportunities for the individual to change jobs, and other material inducements, though these are seen, rightly so, as capitalist distortions of true socialism. Furthermore, if profits are made, the government frequently siphons them off to be used for non-productive ends; this has the result of impoverishing the country.

Like many people I come across, you can't put me in a neat category, though I do have some solid convictions and ways of thinking that may seem stubborn and gelled.

I am an atheist, but not a ranting, antireligionist. People like the late Madeline Murray O'Hair got under my skin just as much as I imagine she affected religionists.

I see great value in religion for most people, both as a source of social stability and a moral compass. I just don't buy the supernatural belief aspect, but I do attend a Lutheran church weekly. An atheist attending church? What's up with that?

Well, my community is small and integrated, and if you want to get along and keep in contact with others, church is a great place to do so.

Second, I enjoy the Sunday School discussions; though they don't know I'm an atheist, I do a good job as a devil's advocate in discussions of morality, behavior, history, sociology, and philosophy in general.

Third, though my immediate family does not attend this church, there are many distant cousins of mine there, and people I've known all my life, so it imparts a sense of being at home to me.

My ancestors and theirs came to this spot more than 200 years ago; ten of my direct ancestors fought in the Revolution, so my roots are here.

I take pride in my ancestors helping create this great nation, and those who followed to protect it. My great-grandfather's brother was killed at Spotsylvania in the Civil War, my grandfather fought in the trenches in WWI, both my parents were in WWII (my mother an airplane mechanic in the Marines, my father in the Army on Enewitok and Okinawa ), and I served 6 years in the Army as well.

The people who settled in these parts, and those who came later, were strongly individualistic, both in their religion and the way they lived; that ethos was passed down to me.

In my college days, I was a Yippie, an anarchist you could say. I read and reread Ayn Rand, and absorbed the individualist, rational anarchism of her writings. Later, as I went out in the real world, I gravitated back to the Republican Party like my parents, recognizing that some modicum of government was necessary. At that time, Reagan had just been elected, and I thought I saw a bright new future for our nation with his ideals and ideas seeming to come into focus.

Since the 94 Congress, however, I became disillusioned with the GOP, seeing them devolve into little more than a moderate branch of the Democrats.

It was then, when talk radio came to the fore, that I discovered Jim Quinn and Neal Boortz, and realized that there was a whole world out there of libertarians hitherto unknown to me. And of course the Internet, where ideas that were not allowed in the driveby media could flourish.


You can't pigeonhole me into paleolibertarian or neolibertarian, or any other, though I could say that I am a social conservative in some matters, and a strong foreign defense hawk.

As I said earlier, religion is of great value to a lot of people, and to go about denouncing all religionists as crazy or ignorant is just stupid. Most people will always believe in some supernatural entities, and as long as those entities don't tell them to go out and terrorize others, I'm comfortable with their beliefs.

As an individualist, I don't care what you do in your private life: smoke dope, drink yourself into oblivion, shack up with three women and call them your wives, drain a swamp on your own property, teach your children God is a deer who lives on Mt. Ararat, doesn't matter to me; as long as you do no harm to others in what you do.

Robert Heinlein said somewhere in his books that sin is inflicting harm on another without reason. That's a good definition. Lest that be misunderstood as meaning that you can't harm or kill someone in self-defense, read it again - "WITHOUT REASON". He doesn't mean without an excuse, or justification, but without rational thought. Harming someone in defense of yourself or others is entirely rational, therefore self-defense is not only permitted, it is prescribed.

Given that, it is entirely rational for our sovereign nation to wage war on Radical Islam, as their stated intent is to kill, convert, or enslave those who are not Muslim. As they will not be persuaded otherwise, so it is our duty, in protecting ourselves, to kill them before they kill us. Plain and simple.


I'll post more of my views and thoughts as time goes on, as events and popular topics of discussion arise.

I have found a need to expand on some things I've posted in Townhall.com and other's blogs, so this will serve me well.
Feel free to comment, but beware I do review comments, so spam, unctuous tirades, and general unpleasantness will be deleted forthwith.
Tally Ho!