Dr. Ben Carson - What is Racism?

By Grant Davies

As most of the well-read and informed readers of this blog know, Dr. Ben Carson is a recently retired brain surgeon at Johns Hopkins Medical Center. He became well known to the general public when he made a speech at the National Prayer Breakfast earlier this year. President Obama was in attendance and Dr. Carson's remarks were interpreted by some as a political move rather than an expression of his own heartfelt opinions on many matters.

I am a skeptical person so I think that many things are not what they first appear to be.  However I think that it's possible that Dr. Carson meant every word he said without even considering the personal political advantage he might get from uttering them at that event. But even if the remarks were - as some believe - politically calculated, I still think he meant them. To me he seems to be an ultra smart and truly caring person when it comes to the problems the country faces. You can see the speech here if you missed it. We featured it in an earlier post.

What happened next was a matter of some dismay to me. Within hours people started saying things like, "Ben Carson for President!" I think it's sad that we reflexively make such comments whenever we come across a new personality who agrees with our philosophy. Sometimes it's done just because someone eloquently rebuts our political rivals. There are too many other things to consider when choosing a leader.

It's possible that Dr. Carson has aspirations and it's possible that he would make a fine President. But politics is a crazy business. At this point we have no idea if he is competent in all the other areas that matter.

So let's just take a deep breath and learn something about the man before we begin some fantasy of a new political savior for our deeply troubled society. Saviors of that type do not exist in reality. It will take all of us to change our country into the type of society that fulfills the potential the founders gave us. Many of us will have to change our minds about the role that government should play in a free society if we are to make those changes.

The video below is a short interview with the doctor by a reporter who is obviously trying to corner him into saying something controversial. It features an interesting exchange about preferences and racism in general.
To my mind, Dr. Carson gives one of the best definitions of racism I have heard. It is also a reflection of my views on the subject.

So maybe we can learn something more about him on our way to evaluating whether he is a realistic future candidate or just someone we admire for his personal traits and his intellect. We must keep in mind that according to Carson's definition, if we supported him because he is black, we would be racists.

If he did get to the White House, I think he would do better than most who have gotten there. After all, this isn't brain surgery.

Christie, a Landslide or a Rock Slide?

By Grant Davies

I do my best to post most often about ideas and concepts, leaving events and people for my weaker moments.
But today an event will take place in NJ and the person it involves will in all likelihood be running for the GOP nomination for President in 2016.

The event is the NJ gubernatorial election and the person is Chris Christie, a morbidly obese Democrat pretending to be a Republican who likes to shout at people between ice cream cones. (Okay, those were snarky personal attacks lacking intellectual substance, but like I said, I have my weak moments.)

But here's the ideas and concepts part: when he wins ( it's almost certain) he will immediately be touted as the front runner for the '16 nomination. Both Dems and GOPers alike will fall in love with him, with the mainstream media leading the cheers. Oh sure, they will still make fun of him, but more like the lovable old fool they secretly admire. Perhaps like goofy Joe Biden, for instance.

But their reasons are different. The Dems love him because he is one of them, but more importantly, they know he can be demolished in the general election. So no matter if they are right or wrong, they get a big government advocate afterwards.

The GOPers will love him because they are stupid. They love how he screams at unionists so they assume he is one of them. He's not. GOPers always fall in love with people they perceive to be against Dems, even if his philosophy isn't much different. If he wins the nomination, the GOP will have the final nail in the coffin and will become the Whigs of the 21st century. They might be already.

So the concept I'm talking about is the final demise of a useless political party and the beginning of a re-alignment of political ideology in this country. The DEM party will split into two opposing factions. (Liberals and Classical liberals.) The far left wing will collapse from its own failures and incompetence in governing. As it turns out, the only thing they are competent at is getting elected by distracting the weak minded voters in the mushy middle and promising other peoples' stuff to the envious and lazy. It works most of the time.

When the Dems lose the GOP, they lose their foil. Just as Hitler needed the Jews and Obama needs evil "rich people" and greedy health insurance companies, the Dems need the GOP. Without them they are finished as well.

So there is hope, America! Most people will revert to being politically sensible and vote for people who manage money competently and otherwise leave all of us alone socially. Who knows what name they will go by? It really doesn't matter a whole lot. IMO, it won't be an existing so called "third" political party.

One last thing, I'm probably wrong about all of the above, as I usually am. But I just thought you were really anxious to know what I thought about today's election in NJ.

PS  If any of the "old line" GOP favorites win the nomination the situation will be exactly the same, minus the fat jokes.

The Whigs are Grasping for a Lifeline

The Whig Party is foundering in the water helplessly. They are reaching for anything that looks like a lifeline.

Sorry GOP, it's too late.

Gary Johnson - The Other Guy

People who read this blog regularly know that I'm not a supporter of either of the two political parties that have a stranglehold on American politics.  My problem with Republicans is that they are too much like Democrats. And my problem with Democrats is that they are too much like Democrats.

It's also no secret that I think that the Obama Presidency has been a nightmare for our liberties and our country.  By comparison, I expect a Romney Presidency to be only a bad dream.

One more term for Obama and his ideology may very well put the country into an unrecoverable slide into the historically familiar condition of top down rule of the elitists over a second class of subservient drones. It's not a stretch to say that a return to a "bread and circuses" world, not unlike that of the Roman Empire, is almost a certainty. We're very nearly there already.

With almost half of the population being a net recipient of government "largess" while the rest pay for it, we are perilously close to the tipping point. At 51%, it's game over folks. The majority of voters will never vote against cash in their own pocket, no matter who else's pocket it comes out of. So it's for certain that I oppose the re-election of Barack Obama and the "progressive" agenda.

Does that mean I support Mitt Romney? Hardly. Anyone who thinks Romney will "save America" merely by being elected over the worst President in history is suffering from a delusion shared with Democrats and Independents who thought everything would be better with GWB in retirement. Oh, it's good that Bush and the neo-cons are out of power, but things are hardly better. In fact they are worse. It's rather like favoring plague over small pox.

So, do I recommend voting for the above named "third choice", Gary Johnson? Well, maybe..it depends on where you live. Huh?

I live in a city I call, Unfortunately, Illinois. My town is not worse than most, but my state is. And one of the reasons that Illinois is in a hot race for "worst in the nation" is that it's run by crooked people, mostly Democrats. But Republicans have shown that they are plenty crooked too whenever they get a chance to run things. The point is, Illinois is going for Obama. Probably in a big way. It's a blue state and people vote with their political tribe no matter what. The feeling here seems to be, "They're all crooks, I'll vote for my band of crooks."

So here's the deal for me: if the polls show (I hate polls, BTW) that Romney is within realistic striking distance of Obama, I'm going to do what I have never advocated before, vote for Romney in order to dismiss Obama and the progressives.

But, that "ain't gonna happen." So I'm going to do what I've always done, vote for what I want. And I want to be free again, or at least more free than I am now. So I'm going to vote for Gary Johnson. I agree with 95% of what he is running on, and right now I can't think of the 5% I disagree with.

I advocate that you do the same, depending upon where you live. If you live in a state that's "safe" for Romney, or "safe" for Obama, and you value your freedom and that of your children and grandchildren, you should vote for Johnson as well. If you live in a battleground state, well, you have the short term fate of the country in your hands. If you want to live in France, please move there, don't bring the Euro-misery here.

From my perspective, the ideal outcome for this election would be for Obama to be dismissed, Romney to be elected, (because a third party candidate will not be elected) and Johnson to get a huge number of popular votes. That will push both parties to take the freedom movement of smaller government seriously in the elections of the future. And time has almost expired on the greatest experiment in political history.

Here is a video of Gary Johnson on the Daily Show. Jon Stewart is pretty funny in this spot and you can get an adequate feel for what Johnson is trying to accomplish.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Portland Citizens Take Themselves for a Ride

Here's an idea. I propose that our local government pass a law that forces some businesses to charge a lot more for their services than their competitors, and do a worse job at the services they provide.

No, not a law that causes that to happen as a side effect. Instead, a law that does so purposely and openly, and plainly explains that the purpose is to favor some competitors over others.

And if you happen to be in one of those businesses who sells a coupon that offers a competitive price and faster service, the fines would be so large that to pay them would put you out of business.

Why do that? Well, it's because certain businesses promise us political support and/or money. You think a law like that is preposterous? You don't like the idea? Tough.

So let's stop the charade, I don't propose a law like that, I merely report it to you as fact. Such a law is being enforced in Portland Oregon against limousine and sedan services who compete with taxi cabs. As a news story in the Weekly Standard has it:

"The Portland city council two years ago put in place regulations that force limousine and sedan services to charge a $50 minimum for rides to and from the airport, and at least 35 percent more than taxis for trips to any other destination. And these transportation companies cannot pick up customers until at least an hour after the customer calls for a ride.

And it gets worse. Daily deal companies such as Groupon and LivingSocial partner with local businesses looking for new customers and offer limited-time specials that allow people to buy goods and services at a discounted price. 

But when two companies offered their chauffeur services at a cut-rate through Groupon in separate months last year, Portland responded each time by assessing fines on every Groupon sold: a total of $635,500 for Towncar.com and $259,500 for Fiesta Limousine. The firms refunded their would-be customers rather than risk going bankrupt."

 The article includes a link to a Huffington Post story that quotes the "surprisingly frank rationale" the Portland officials give for this tyranny. You can read much more about this here, if you have the stomach for it.


But before you direct your anger toward the arrogant imbeciles who made and enforce this law, always remember, the voters put these people in office. And they keep them there.

How Fat Loudmouths Get Into Trouble

Well, sometimes I do.

No, I'm not referring to myself, or even that rich leftist slob who makes anti-american movies. I'm talking about the boor who sits behind a microphone and insults his political opponents day after day instead of sitting behind a keyboard and doing the same thing, like I do. It seems that Rush has become more than a little rash lately in his rant against the entitlement society.

Putting aside about a hundred million bucks and fifteen million followers a week, the differences between "El Rushbo" and me are more about what issues we address and the medium we use to address them and less about popularity. After all, both of us try to illuminate our issues with passion and still be entertaining while doing it.

But enough about the comparisons between me and the other fat commentator. It's not fair to Rush. How could the poor guy hope to shine while standing next to the Bhagwan of bloggers?

This commentary is about how we go wrong and what the consequences are. Rush screws up and he loses listeners and advertising sponsors. I screw up and I might lose both of my readers and all of my advertisers. (Oh, I got lost in my fantasy and forgot I don't have any.)

For my part, I do my best to stick more to ideas and concepts and less to people and events. But I fail miserably on a regular basis. Let's just admit that it's way more fun to poke at others with an extra long stick than to try to get people interested in why economics and government policy matter.

The problem for commentators who are trying to make a point: if you are going to criticize positions you disagree with by using people in the news, you better keep it general or you might drown in your own vitriolic juices. Rush broke that rule. But then again, he got famous by breaking the rules.

Rush personalized the attack, and he did it with crude, obnoxious and possibly sexist language. It looked like he was personally attacking the morals of a woman he didn't even know because she was lobbying the government for free stuff. It looked that way because it was that way.

If he had kept the rant general, rather than personal, it wouldn't have caused a blip on the radio radar. He says more outrageous stuff than that about his general targets on every broadcast and no one bats an ear. But if you walk the edge of the cliff to get ratings often enough, eventually you fall off the edge.

The difference between the girl he targeted and an "Occupy" person is merely a matter of who bathes, has an actual place of residence, and the audience addressed, than the substance of what their message is. At least on this issue, they both want "free" stuff from the pockets of the taxpayers so they can use their own dough to buy the things they want.

The girl isn't a slut, she's just a mooch, at least on this issue. I dare say that some of her other issues (and since it seems she is a semi-full time activist, she has many) are excellent, at least in my opinion. According to Wikipedia, her biggest issue is: "she worked on issues that involved domestic violence and human trafficking."  These are huge issues and input and activism from all sides is desirable. I think that they are very important, even if I don't have enough information to agree or disagree with her approach.

As far as the Limbaugh controversy is concerned, like most things today, it's political. The network news shows know a winning issue when they see one. Here's how I see the reason for their 24/7 coverage of this brouhaha:

Obama = defends the lady's honor = good .
Rush = misogynist = anti birth control = bad = conservative = Republican = GOP Presidential candidates.

It is (like most things) obvious to me. But then again, most things seem obvious to me. And that's one of the things that gets fat loudmouths into trouble.

Bad Lip Reading

Some comic relief is needed during this campaign season so I ripped off the idea of posting these videos from our friends over at The Humble Libertarian. If you rely on lip reading to understand what the candidates are saying, you end up with the same understanding that the rest of us have.

Let's start with Ron Paul since most people think (correctly) that I favor him for next President of the US.

Enjoy.








Newt was left out because his was as silly as, well, as silly as his campaign is.

Why Write a New Speech When You Can Just Use the Old One?

I wouldn't usually regurgitate a GOP talking point, or for that matter one of their videos, but in the spirit of taking my cues from our esteemed President, I'm posting a video that compares last night's State of the Union address (really just a campaign speech on the taxpayers' dime) with the one he gave last year. And actually the year before that as well. The wording is almost the same in most of the cases, and in a few, it's exact. I hope he got a discount from his speech writer.

If it's good enough for the country to have regurgitated speeches, it's good enough for the readers of this blog to have regurgitated political gotchas.

To tell the truth, I didn't watch the speech because I knew it would be like all the rest. And the thought of it just made me want to regurgitate puke.

A Real Interview With Difficult Questions

Just a few minutes long, it actually lets you learn some things about the candidate and his positions.

An Open Letter to Dr. Ron Paul

Dear Dr. Paul,

I am a supporter and I have done all that I possibly can to promote your candidacy on my website and in personal discussions with friends. I've done that despite breaking my own goal of making the site about concepts and ideas rather than politics or people. I think it's that important because I think it may be too late if the country gets even one more term of Obama/Bush governance. And I want my freedom back.

Having said that, what the heck are your advisers doing to earn their money? Last night, the incompetents at ABC news finally gave you an opening that you should have made for yourself long ago. They asked you the ONE question in last night's debate that, if answered correctly and passionately, could ignite your campaign like no other single thing.

They asked you (I paraphrase) about how you could envision something different for the country if you were elected.  About what might happen to us if we elect you to the White House. It was the equivalent of teeing up a political golf ball for you.  AND YOU WHIFFED!

The time for telling the country what is wrong and what caused the problems is over. Not everyone "gets" it, but most of them never will, no matter how many times you repeat it. So it's time to change lanes, hit the accelerator and work on the "vision thing." Not your vision, but theirs.

Not the vision that your supporters have in their imagination. They "get" it. They have formulated it from what you say at the rallies and on the college campuses. You are preaching to the choir with them. It's the vision of the non-political types you need to inspire, those who don't have the time or the inclination to follow politics or economics because they are caught up in the struggle to live their everyday lives. They escape into sports or entertainment when they need a break from that. They need something to focus on in this election.

I didn't major in business or marketing in college.  In fact I didn't even go, but I know the difference between a feature and a benefit. You have been talking about features.  It's time to close the deal by emphasizing benefits. People buy cars or houses because they can envision themselves in them and "feel" how their life will improve if they sign on the dotted line.

People want to know how their lives will be better, or at least how they can expect them to be better after a few years of a Paul presidency.

Will they be more free? How can you say it so they can see themselves "out from under?"
Will they be more likely to get a job? They need to see themselves working again because of your policies.
Will they have a more predictable life?
Will they be able to plan again instead of merely survive the recession? Make them believe it because it's true, but not just because you say it.
Will the value of their houses begin to slowly rise again? Why?
Will they be safer from terrorists because you are president? Why?
They think Obama is an appeaser, you need to tell them the difference between his approach and yours and allow them to envision why they will be safer with your approach.
Will their crushing health-care expenses begin to get better? Tell them how and why. Convince them to envision why they will have better lives with your approach, not just why the current system or Obama-care is unacceptable.

These things seem obvious to me, but if they are to your advisers, it's not apparent, and I've seen every debate. I'm not a political consultant and this advice is free. But unlike most free things, it's worth something. At least I think so. So get the people you pay to polish up the concept and prepare you for tonight's debate. Or kick them out and do it yourself.

Your campaign needs to learn from two very different, but successful candidates. Barack Obama and Ronald Reagan. They both sold hope. And the people were buying.

Now Obama sells resentment. And the "hope product" the people bought is being returned to the store. You need to sell them a product that actually delivers what his failed to.

You have been scolding the people for a long time, and they deserved it. But the "Dutch Uncle" message is old now, they need an inspirational pep talk now. It's past time to give it.

Tonight is the time to start.  It may be too late already, but you'll never get too far past your current support level with the old game plan. If it's too late for your candidacy, it's probably too late for the country. That is why I'm risking being so presumptuous as to tell a future President what to do.

Start now.  There isn't a moment to waste. The ball is on the tee and it's begging to be hit right down the fairway.

God bless you for your efforts no matter whether you take my advice or not.

Yours for liberty,
Grant Davies
American citizen

PS ---   Pick your son Rand as your VP. Do it soon. People want continuity when they sign on to a vision. They have their antenna up for what they perceive as cynical choices for geographic electoral advantage. You are 76, they want to know that they will still be free if you cannot continue. So pick Rand. It's bold and it will work. (He's going to be President someday anyway, might as well get him started now.)

One Year Out From the Election of Our Lives

Making predictions about elections is a fool's errand, but I'm just fool enough to do it anyway. And there is very little downside to doing so because no one expects you to be right and whatever you predict is forgotten almost as fast as it hits the page. So you can brag to people who don't care if you turn out to be correct and no one will remember if you are wrong. So here goes;

The mid-term elections of 2010 were only the opening battles in the political war for the future of the teetering republic. The people who wanted to reject Obama-care and what they see as socialism (or the direct path toward it) won pretty handily in those elections. But for them, it is only the beginning. And for those who favor ever larger and more intrusive government, it may have just been a temporary setback on the way to what they see as a more "fair" society.

From my perspective, the coming election is probably the last chance freedom loving people have before the point of no return is reached. Unless there is a repudiation of Obama and his followers next November, Obama-care will remain, the debt crisis (an actual crisis, not to be confused with alleged global warming and other manufactured bugaboos) will lead to the destruction of the currency and most other issues will shrink to insignificance. By my reckoning, the tipping point will have been reached.

Many may think that assessment is over the top. Clearly, I do not. So where do we stand with just a tad less than a year before we get to the fateful election of 2012?

The Republican party, by default the last chance to stop the descent, is currently in shambles. Deservedly so. They have been partners with the Democrats in the decline. Differing only on details and scope, but never on the philosophy that government exists to fix societal problems, they share the blame. (There are a few exceptions, such as Ron Paul, Gary Johnson and a handful of newly elected Tea Party favorites.)

So far, none of the current crop of Presidential candidates on the Republican side have inspired a majority of those who will ultimately choose the candidate to rally behind them. In my opinion, if they nominate Mitt Romney or his ilk, even if he is ultimately elected, the Republican Party is finished. And if so, I say good riddance. That opinion will not endear me to Republicans but most of them aren't in love with people like me anyway, so, oh well.

So here are the choices. Since Obama is not getting a primary challenge, it's him against one of the following:
Romney, Gingrich or Paul.


Santorum and Huntsman never were a factor. Gary Johnson, a legitimate candidate, was never allowed by the media to be considered so he never was a factor either. Michelle Bachmann's star was burnt out in only a few short weeks, and only shone at all because she wasn't Romney. Rick Perry led the opinion polls for the briefest of moments and also because he wasn't Romney. His popularity has been on a slide that coincides almost exactly with the amount that is known about him. The more people know, the less they want him to be President.

Which leaves Herman Cain. He has already started to fade, and despite what the talking heads and political know-it-alls say, it's not because of the allegations that he made some ladies uncomfortable. It's because of the "Rick Perry syndrome", the more people see of him the more they know Cain is not ready for the biggest job in the world.

Cain continuously displays a lack of knowledge about important topics and has already used up his allotment of forgivable gaffes and backtracks. His 9-9-9 plan is a non-starter among Democrats and Republicans in legislative reality and was only useful as a debate tactic. His use of it to answer any question, no matter how unrelated, has worn itself out.

For Cain, the questions will only get tougher as the process advances and his lack of depth on the issues will only become more apparent. Only dreamers think he wouldn't be thrashed by Obama in debates and in the general election. Even the hapless Republicans aren't suicidal enough to nominate him. And that was before he all but announced yesterday that he is actually running for VP or even a cabinet position.

Therefore I make the following prediction, something only a fool like me would do with a year left before the big choice is made. Romney will not be the nominee. He has an excellent chance to win in New Hampshire early, but that will be the high water mark of his candidacy. Most Republicans don't want him as the nominee, he is too much like Obama.

That means it's between Gingrich and Paul. And it's not the worse choice for Republicans to have. It will be a clear choice between being comfortable with a change of captains for the foundering ship of state (from Obama to Gingrich in the hope that we can get free from the reef which will surely sink us otherwise) or the choice to take the uncomfortable but necessary option of returning to a constitutional course that leads to a completely different way of governing ourselves than the current generation has ever known.  And make no mistake, the Paul choice is uncomfortable for most people.

It's usually human nature to take the comfortable option. But it's my hope that, as a nation, we still have the ability to step out of our comfort zone and do what we must do to regain our liberty. Whatever people choose, now is not the time for comfort, so if they pick Gingrich, I hope it's not for that reason.

So even as I make these predictions, I don't know what the American people will choose to do, either with the Gingrich/Paul choice or the Obama/Republican candidate choice. But I do know that we have reached decision time, not just on candidates, but on the whole governing philosophy we will move forward with. And no matter what we choose, things will never be the same as they are now.

In that regard, Obama was finally right about something when he talked about change coming. One year from now things are going to change, in the election of our lives.

He's Not My First Choice, But He's Not the Worst Choice

Image courtesy of Ragwater Cat 

A few days ago, I posted a short piece addressing whether presidential aspirant Herman Cain was as able as he is likable. I expressed that I liked the guy's style but held back on any commentary on the substance of his proposals, promising that I would do that in this piece.


His main policy initiative is what he calls his "9-9-9" plan. Essentially it proposes a substantive change in the tax code. Simply, it is a 9% flat tax across all income levels, a 9% corporate tax rate and a 9% national sales tax. On the surface, sans a lot of details, it sounds pretty good on several different levels. 


Putting aside the notion that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for a new President to make such a proposal become law in a country with so many special interests working around the clock to see to it that it never happens, let's talk about some of the things about it that sound good before I tell you why I think it's not so good.


The first good thing is he is on the right path if he thinks that the country needs a new tax system. The one we have now has so many problems, is so huge, so complicated, and so non-tax related that it has simply become a national nightmare to all but government power mongers and the beneficiaries of their favors.


The second good thing is that any plan that simplifies the code by removing deductions (sometimes called loopholes) and flattening the rate will bring clarity to people and businesses so we can begin to get back to the basics and remove some of the uncertainties that cause paralysis in the economy.


The third good thing is that it addresses the double (and sometimes more) taxation that we all end up paying one way or the other. And, in theory, there may be other good things about it as well.


So what could be wrong with it? Well, as it turns out the problem is as old as a bible story. The problem for Adam and Eve was that their son Abel was too trusting of his brother Cain. He ended up getting murdered because of it. And I'm afraid that we will end up getting murdered in a tax sense by politicians who the modern day Cain trusts too much to leave his tax plan alone if he ever ends up getting it enacted.


Herman Cain's plan which adds a national sales tax to an income tax is just too trusting that future politicians won't just hike one or the other (or both) of them the second they get the chance. I guarantee it will happen, it's as certain as the taxes themselves. Then all of us become like a modern day Abel, that is to say, dead. 


It all amounts to just tinkering with the system and like a lot of proposals, it sounds good on paper but it's not worth the paper it's written on. What we need is a new tax system, not more layers on top of the one we have now.


I like Herman Cain on several levels even though he supported the imbecilic TARP law which bailed out the banks and other crony capitalists. And according to a new Rasmussen poll just released it seems a lot of other folks do too since it shows him within 5 points of Obama if the election were held today. But there are no perfect candidates and Cain has his share of baggage from my perspective.


I'm not too big on polls in general and the above one is no exception. Nor is the one which came out today (9-28-11) showing Ron Paul actually leading Obama by 51% to 49%. There are too many variables. In my mind they are like snapping a picture without a flashbulb.


When it comes to tax systems, I like the flat tax best, and when it comes to early preferences for Presidential replacements, I like Ron Paul the best. But since there are no perfect candidates, when it comes to Herman Cain, he's not my first choice, but he's not the worst choice. (That would be Barack Obama.)


The video below explains very well why I prefer a Flat Tax to any other system currently being floated. 



To read a great analysis on Cain and his plan please visit International Liberty and see what Dan Mitchell thinks.

He is Likable, but Is Cain Able?

I don't think that we should pick a President because of his "Likability" factor. We already tried that with the executive failure that we have serving in that capacity right now.

I never liked him (Obama) personally very much because I thought he was a phony, and I still do. (Very similar to Billy Bob Lewinsky who is still the biggest phony out there.)  But plenty of people did like Obama personally even if they think they made a big mistake by voting for him. And many still do. I keep reading comments, even from his detractors, that he is a nice guy and so on. Fair enough, different strokes for different folks and all that stuff.

Having said that, on a purely social level, there is one Presidential candidate that I find very likable. Herman Cain is a long-shot to be the nominee of the Republican Party to say the least. But in my personal poll (where I only poll myself) even if he isn't my first or even second choice, he wins the likability vote one to nothing.

The guy comes off as entertaining, refreshingly candid, upbeat and as someone who has enough wisdom to take his task, but not himself, too seriously. He smiles a lot, which makes me smile. It's a much needed commodity in these tense times.

Cain is a straight talker for sure. Just yesterday he called Obama out for his "Bullshit" ideas and said in no uncertain terms that he is a liar when he says "It's not a matter of class warfare but math." He also dressed down a Hollywood actor for jumping on the "Tea Party people are racists" bandwagon by saying, "C'mon man, this is real life." And he did all of that with a smile on his face. Good stuff from my perspective.

He also has some good ideas even if they aren't my first choice of all the ideas out there. And he seems to have caught on with a great many people who could influence the outcome of the upcoming election when he won the Florida Straw Poll by a wide margin over the media's darling boys.

So I thought I'd put a few videos up for those of you smart enough to focus your weekend energy on football and golf instead of politics. The last part of the first video is worth waiting for. A great Saturday Night Live skit brings some good laughs and the great question: "Can the Pizza Man deliver?"





Editor's note: Later this week we will examine Cain's major policy proposal (his "9-9-9 plan") to see if it will make good policy or not.

Warren Buffett Can't Count

I know it's hard to believe that the "Sage of Omaha" is mathematically challenged, particularly when many people have an image of him sitting at his kitchen table late at night poring over the giant stack of financial records of some huge corporation so he can decide whether he should spend a few billion to buy its stock or just write a check to the government to pay his "guilt tax."

We'll get to his math problem in a moment, but for now let's give him some well deserved credit for one correct calculation he made.

He correctly figured out a few years ago that people could spend their money more intelligently than the government could spend it. He had no use for his excess dough personally. After all, after twenty million or so, what could he spend it on that he didn't already have? The fun is in acquiring the money anyway.

So he knew he wasn't going to give it to the government to waste or pass around to their friends and he was too lazy or disinterested to pore over the books of charities to see which ones were more worthy than the others, so he passed it all along to Bill Gates to give away. I guess he figured that Bill Gates could spend it more wisely than the government even if he himself couldn't. He was correct about that.

I'm still puzzled about a few things though. If Buffett really thinks, as he claims, that he doesn't pay enough in taxes, why did he hire all those CPAs to find all the loopholes that allowed him to pay at the lower rate? I mean, couldn't he just have bought a copy of Turbo Tax, loaded it onto his laptop, entered what he earned, skipped all the deductions and paid the figure that appeared on the "Amount you owe" line at the bottom of the page? I'm confident that he wouldn't get a letter from the IRS threatening him for not taking all his rightful deductions.

The other way he could have paid more taxes was to just pony up the money that Berkshire Hathaway admits they owe from tax years 2002-2004.  Instead his company has been fighting with the IRS ever since then to avoid doing that. Toss in the taxes they are quibbling over concerning "issues" with tax years 2005-2009 and he could make some headway towards his goal. Remind me again why so many people think he is so bright.

Which brings us to his "fuzzy math" problem.

According to one paper Buffett recently said that "he paid only $6.9 million in taxes last year -- just 17.4 percent of his earnings, compared to an income tax rate of about 36 percent paid by his employees." (Perhaps they used Turbo Tax software.) With that admission he went to the top of the Barack Obama admiration list and got a chance to get everlasting fame as the only dope ever to get a tax named after him as his life's legacy.

Regardless, it seems he can't do the math because he didn't take into account that he already paid taxes on the money he used to invest with. The corporate rate is 35% on that money and he paid 15% in capital gains taxes when he earned a profit on those already taxed funds. So his rate is north of 40% in total depending on the calculations of what money goes where.

I'm not an accountant or tax expert so I'm sure someone will challenge the numbers just cited with their own facts and figures but I do know a few things for certain. One is that the same money shouldn't be taxed twice and the second is that we shouldn't need accountants and tax experts to pay our taxes.

Buffett may not know how to count, but Barack Obama does. At least he knows what he can count on. Buffett is a willing recruit in Obama's class war and it's one of the few things the President can count on.

Be sure to watch the new video on the right by Michael Tanner on the Buffett Tax.

Racists and Sons of Bitches - Barack Obama's Change We Can Believe In

"I love you, you old son-of-a-bitch."

When I sat down to write this article on Labor Day it was ahead of the curve. The campaign event that the "hope and change" President appeared at had just concluded and the news that the union thug Jimmy Hoffa* had just declared war on so called Tea Partiers and called for "Taking the son-of-a-bitches out" had just been broken on the Internet.

I knew I had to write fast because everyone with a keypad would soon be turning out articles full of righteous indignation about what the moron said and I hate to be just another of those who jump on the same old news story bandwagon. I always want to be the first one on the bandwagon even though I have never seen an actual bandwagon or even know precisely what it is.

But after being sidetracked by a much more important activity yesterday, a golf game with the eldest of the two bash brothers, I lost that chance. Now the stories are everywhere, and I mean everywhere. However, having already written the catchy title above, I need to put something out in order to have a sense of completion.

So here is my main bitch about being called a son-of-a-bitch. It's not the name calling, I have no particular problem with that. In fact I do it myself all the time, like the above example when I accurately called the Teamsters President a moron. I call people like him even worse things in private conversations all the time.

My bitch is about the son-of-a-bitch who is the American President and the bastards he works with. (Gee, isn't this fun?) That particular son-of-a-bitch told us Tea Bagger son-of-a-bitches that he would be a President of Civility and stop all the name calling and charged rhetoric. He told us that it was a change we could believe in.

In the last few weeks I have been told to go to hell by one of his son-of-a-bitches in congress and told that I wanted to hang black people from trees by another of his son-of-a-bitches in congress because I am a son-of-a-bitch Tea Bagger. All of those things happened without a word from the "change" President. In fact, he has not only remained silent about these events but has so far specifically refused to condemn them.

I'm not shocked and I can't imagine you are either. In fact, our country has a long history of name calling and refusals by Presidents to condemn it when it is targeted against their political opponents. I love history even if I don't like all of the sons-of-bitches in it. The supporters of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson called each other's candidates a lot of horrible things without so much as a peep from those great leaders, so history is on Obama's side.

So I dare any of the lefties who (don't) read this blog to call me out for bad language and disrespectfulness of others with whom I disagree. They wouldn't dare, would they? They wouldn't have the audacity to do so.

They would? Well, I'll be a son-of-a-bitch.......


  * not to be confused with his father the union/mob thug of the same name who was murdered by his gangster co-workers.

Ron Paul, a Truly Dangerous Man

"Paul is dangerous to the status quo. And that's a reason not to ignore him." So said John Kass, a columnist at the Chicago Tribune, in a piece which appeared in yesterday's Sunday paper.

Many of you who don't get the Tribune missed his comments. But since his column is one of the few things in the "Trib" worth reading, no one could be blamed for not subscribing to it. I often wonder why we do.

The article is worth your time for a few reasons, but the most compelling of them is that Kass goes where most journalists refuse to go. He actually covers a story that only is a story because of the purposeful manner by which it is being ignored by the vast majority of the media. Heck, even lefty comedians pretending to be journalists (John Stewart) have noticed the "ignoramuses" cover-up attempts.

It's amazing that "journalists" who see stories in almost everything that isn't important, can resist the temptation to write about a trend that definitely is a story. I suspect it's because they find it unsettling to their worldview. After paying so much lip service to "change" that wasn't, they seem terrified at the prospect of actual change.

And "statusquoers" at both ends of the political spectrum have good reasons to be afraid. If Ron Paul or someone like him gets elected, they will lose the power they have, to ideas, instead of merely to other people. And power lost to ideas is decidedly more difficult to regain. Just look how many hundreds of years it took to destroy the constitution and the ideas behind it.

To have it back (as it was written) would end their power to meddle in even the most minute details of our lives for the rest of their lives. So the stakes are high, and the political poker game may be down to the last bet. In ignoring Ron Paul and his ideas they are trying to put on their best poker face.

It's a helluva way to go "all in." But it may be their best strategy.

Be sure to read Kass' column, it can be found here.