Are The Scots Nuts?!

Take a good look at this asshole!

His name is Abdel Paset al-Megrahi.

He is the convicted terrorist-bomber responsible for the bombing of PanAm 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland on December 21, 1988, which killed 259 people on board the aircraft, which left Heathrow (London) headed for JFK (New York), and 11 on the ground in Lockerbie.

Because al-Megrahi is suffering from cancer, the Scottish Government in its infinite wisdom has decide to release him from confinement, to return to his home in Libya.

The son-of-a-bitch should be allowed only to rot to death in prison!

Why do I care?

But for the grace of God, and my failure to end a business meeting on time, I missed my flight from London to JFK on that day. Yes, I was scheduled to be on PA 103, and it is frightening as hell to think that I could have been one of the victims . . . innocent people blown out of the air by this asshole! And now, the Scots want to release him!

I now know why some men in Scotland wear kilts. They're pussies! If they gave a damn about the people on that flight and for their families, they would do the right thing, and keep al-Megrahi in jail . . . for ever!

Subsidies?

We often hear the phrase, 'some topics should not be discussed', and I suspect we hear this because of associated subject discomfort, and potential harm to a relationship.

Farm subsidies might be one of those topics.

I recently heard from a good friend, who is in a feud with a former classmate over farm subsidies, and the potential for these handouts to dry up, if the Obama administration plans go forward with the 9.7 billion dollar overhaul of the system.

My friend's ultra-conservative Republican classmate is a wealthy banker, who just happens to own farm land, which is handsomely subsidized by the government . . . U.S. taxpayers. He thinks the proposed Obama overhaul is a large step toward becoming a socialist nation. This can be a confusing subject. Couldn't one perceive farm subsidies, which the banker is enjoying, to be a form of socialism? Perhaps one could look at the subsidies as a form of welfare, something conservatives abhor. These same folks, with their fingers in the farm-subsidy cookie jar, bitch and complain openly about people on welfare. What's the difference? Oh, I know, they are the elitist types living in big homes, driving around in new cars and trucks, enjoying comfortable vacations, and pretending that they are 'poor' and 'entitled' to the help the taxpayers are providing, while looking down their noses and condemning the 'fat' and 'lazy' welfare recipients, because they don't work, and scam the government. Is there a difference? Yes, in perception, only!

This banker-farmer (farmer is a loosely used term) isn't alone. Billions (that's with a B) of taxpayer dollars are distributed annually to farmers in the form of subsidies.

These subsidies were initiated years ago (in the 1930s) to help farmers avoid poverty, and it probably worked then. But, today, the majority of the subsidies are enjoyed by large commercial farmers, whose annual incomes are greater than $200,000, and whose net worths are greater than $2-million. Sure, there are those farmers that need subsidies, and that's OK! But, the majority of the farmers could live quite nicely without taxpayer's handouts. But, when you challenge the reasonableness of the subsidy programs, farmers cry 'entitlement', and whine like unfed babies with dirty diapers. Is there a difference? What are they entitled to? They are entitled to an opportunity to succeed in their business, and if they don't they should find something else to do. But, they are not entitled to be proped up by taxpayers, anymore than banks, insurance companies, or any other entity that has failed to perform, and in some cases stolen from taxpayers.

If you're curious to learn more about these subsidies and to learn who is benefiting from these federal handouts, just fire up your computer; type 'farm subsidies' into the Google search window; when search options appear, click on 'EWG Farm Subsidy Database'; you can search by state, county, zip code, or name, to learn where your money is going.

Perhaps you'll learn like I did, about acquaintenances and family members who purport to be 'poor' and 'disadvantaged', while accepting millions of dollars from taxpayers who really do work for a living.

I suppose this post will piss off any farmers I know. Oh, well, that's life. If they're really entitled, they won't be pissed.

545 People Control Everything

Charlie Reese, a former columnist for the Orlando Sentinel newspaper, wrote a piece which I think is appropriate to contemplate, considering the current economic meltdown of the U.S.

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen (women), one president, and nine Supreme Court justices -- 545 human beings out of the nearly 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman (woman), or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he or she votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of the party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stands up and criticizes the President for creating deficits. The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the Speaker of the House? He (she) is the leader of the majority party. He (she) and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of nearly 300 million people cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.

When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it is because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it is because they want it in the red.

If the Army & Marines are in Iraq, it is because they want them in Iraq.

If they do not receive social security, but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble problems.

Do not these 545 people shift the blame to the bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take the power.

Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like 'the economy', 'inflation', or 'politics' that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses, provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up THEIR mess!

(I said I would attempt not to share controversial stuff with you, I didn't say that I would succeed in the attempt -- I failed in less that 48 hours. Oh well, I failed, so what. Thank you Kyle for sharing this article with me, so that I could share it with others.)