Help feed yourself? Can't argue

Don found this online: a war-era (1940) poster encouraging people to grow food:

In this era where governments are doing everything possible to shut down large and small farms (here and here, for just two small examples), which of course jeopardizes the food supply, this seems almost phenomenally wise.

A closer look at the fine print reveals the advice to "Grow vegetables and fruits if your soil is fertile and sunny" and "Can or preserve surplus perishables" and "Keep a flock of hens if your soil is not suitable for gardening."

Can't argue with these wise words. Everyone would do well to heed them ... despite government opposition to the basic human concept of feeding ourselves.

"The country's in the very best of hands"

Some things never change.

Take a gander at this song from this 1959 production of the musical "Lil Abner":



Here are the lyrics:

Them city folks and we-uns are pretty much alike,
Though they ain't used to living in the sticks.
We don't like stone or cement, but we is in agreement
When we gets down to talkin' politics:

The country's in the very best of hands,
the best of hands, the best of hands.

The Treasury says the national debt is climbing to the sky
And government expenditures have never been so high.
It makes a feller get a gleam of pride within his eye,
to see how our economy expands,
The country's in the very best of hands.

You ought to see the congress when it's drawing up a bill,
"Where as"'s and "to wit"'s are crowded in each codicil.
Such legal terminology would give your heart a thrill.
There's phrases there that no one understands.
The country's in the very best of hands.

The building boom, they say, is getting bigger every day.
And when I asked a feller "How could everybody pay?"
He come up with an answer that made everything okay,
"Supplies are getting bigger than demands."
The country's in the very best of hands.

Don't you believe them congressmen and senators are dumb.
When they run into problems that are tough to overcome,
They just declare a thing they calls a moratorium.
The upper and the lower house disbands.
The country's in the very best of hands.

The voters are connected to the nominee,
the nominee's connected to the treasury.
When they ain't connected to the treasury,
They sits around on their thigh bones.

They sits around in this place they got,
This big congressional parking lot.
Just sits around on their you know what.
Up there they call them their thigh bones.

Them bones, them bones gonna rise again,
Gonna exercise a franchise again,
Gonna tax us up to our eyes again,
If we gets them off of their thigh bones.

The farm bill should be 89 percent of parity,
Another feller recommends it should be 93.
But 80, 95 percent, who cares about degree?
It's parity that no one understands.
The country's in the very best of hands.

Them GOP's and Democrats each hates the other one.
They's always criticizing how the country should be run.
But neither tells the public what the other's gone and done.
As long as no one knows where no one stands,
The country's in the very best of hands.

They sits around in this place they're at,
Where folks in congress have always sat.
Just sits around on their excess fat,
Up there they call them their thigh bones.

They sits around 'til they start to snore,
Jumps up and hollers "I has the floor!"
Then sits right down where they sat before,
Up there they call them their thigh bones.

Them bones, them bones gonna rise again
So dignified and so wise again
While the budget doubles in size again,
If we gets them off of their thigh bones.

The money that they taxes us, that's known as revenues,
They compound up collaterals, subtracts the residues.
Don't worry 'bout the principle and interest that accrues,
They're shipping all that stuff to foreign lands,
The country's in the very best of hands.

The country's in the very best of hands? -- yeah right.

Yep. Some things never change.

Got $300? Start a blog!

Here's a news headline that was so startling I gasped when I read it:

Want To Start A Blog in Philadelphia? You’ll Need A $300 License For That!

It seems in the City of Brotherly Love, you need to fork over $300 merely for the privilege of opening a FREE account on any FREE blogger platform to share your thoughts or photos or expertise. And if you make the mistake of signing up for Google ads or something and thus "profiting," Philadelphia wants $300... even though most bloggers make about $10/year from Google ads.

So any mommy blogger who wants to upload cute pix of her toddler, or anyone who wants to share their adventures last summer, or anyone who wants to demonstrate how they fixed their cherished 1949 Ford 8N tractor... well, if you live in Philadelphia, be prepared to fork over a wad of cash for the privilege.

Look, if your blog is a business then of course you must pay taxes. But that's not what Philadelphia is requiring. It's requiring anyone "conducting commercial activity" [as in, signing up for Google ads] to buy a business privilege license that costs $300 for a lifetime, or $50 per year. Businesses must also pay taxes on any profit they make.

It leaves me sputtering, it really does.

Big Brother is back

I saw this article on Drudge yesterday: Feds: America Should Adopt ‘Plant-Based’ Diet.

It seems in an effort to "transform the food system," your benign friends at the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (which set guidelines as the basis for government food assistance programs, nutrition education efforts, and for making "decisions about national health objectives") want to track your every move and every calorie.

Specifically the opening paragraph reads: "The federal committee responsible for nutrition guidelines is calling for the adoption of “plant-based” diets, taxes on dessert, trained obesity “interventionists” at worksites, and electronic monitoring of how long Americans sit in front of the television."

In case you're in the mood for a little light reading, the Committee Report is here -- all 571 pages of it.

All together now: BIG BROTHER IS BACK.

Due to the "urgent" levels of obesity in America, the DGAC is calling for diet and weight management interventions by “trained interventionists” in "healthcare settings, community locations, and worksites."

Great... now your boss gets to weight you in every week.

If that's not bad enough, the DGAC also calls for "policy interventions to 'reduce unhealthy options,' limit access to high calorie foods in public buildings, 'limit the exposure' of advertisements for junk food, a soda tax, and taxing high sugar and salt items and dessert."

And they're going to do this by "the use of economic and taxing policies to encourage the production and consumption of healthy foods and to reduce unhealthy foods."

The Committee acknowledges the increase in screen time as a contributing factor toward obesity. And what's their solution? Is it to ban personal electronics or television? Of course not. There would be riots in the streets. Instead, they recommend “coaching or counseling sessions,” “peer-based social support,” and “electronic tracking and monitoring of the use of screen-based technologies” as a way to limit screen time.

This is getting creepy.

And of course we all need to eat less meat to “maximize environmental sustainability” out of concerns for climate change. Oh, and "'altering individual and population dietary choices and patterns' would be necessary to meet its sustainability goals."

All together now: BIG BROTHER IS BACK.

I wonder how many people understand these new regulations as just another aspect of taxation and control? I mean, is there anyone who honestly believes the government has our bests interests at heart when it proposes stuff like this??

I have a single, simple response to these kinds of guidelines. Ready?

NO.

Sorry, but I don't give out personal information

Here's a fascinating post a reader sent me on a website called The Organic Prepper (way cool website, by the way) on the subject of store clerks aggressively asking for personal information despite a cash transaction.

It seems the Organic Prepper went into a store to purchase some boxes (specifically, U-Haul moving boxes) for storage. What follows is the interaction with the clerk:

The gentleman behind the counter tallied it up and as I handed him a $20 bill, he said, “Your name?”

I looked at him, baffled.

He repeated himself, “What’s your name?”

I said, “Why do you ask?”

He said, “I need it to set up your account.”

I replied, “That’s okay, I don’t need an account. I’d just like to purchase these boxes.”

He said, “You have to have an account, that is how our computer system works.”

I said, “Are you telling me that I cannot purchase these boxes unless I give you my name?”

He sighed and stopped just short of rolling his eyes. “I just work here and that is the way we do things, ma’am.”

I told him, “I know it seems like I am being difficult, but I don’t give out personal information. I’m sorry, but I guess I will just have to buy my boxes elsewhere.”

The man behind the counter decided it was okay and he would go ahead and sell me the boxes, despite the limitations of his computer system. So then he asked me, “What is your phone number?”

“Really?” I asked. “Didn’t we just basically go through this? This is beginning to sound like that whole ‘Who’s on First’ riff. I’m not giving you my phone number.”

He couldn’t stop himself, I detected a slight eye-roll this time. I magnanimously let it go because I hoped to leave the store sometime during this particular day.

He proceeded through his nosy computer program and then said, “Now, I really do have to have an answer here – where are you moving to?”

What? Nope. No way.

I said, “None of your business. None of your computer’s business. Are you taking my money or not? Because either way, I am out that door in about 5 seconds. I’m very sorry to be your most difficult customer of the day, but what part of ‘I do not disclose personal information’ is not clear?”

Without another word, he handed me my change, looking incredibly uncomfortable. I left wondering, “When did the U-Haul guy become an agent of the de facto government?”

Please go read the entire post -- it's quite fascinating.

I found this eerily reminiscent of my cash purchases for certain shop supplies (bandsaw blades, sanding belts, etc.) where the clerks continuously attempt to get us to sign up for "rewards cards" despite our refusal.

Data-mining is everywhere.

Big Brother is watching

Don and I went into Coeur d'Alene this week to do a little Christmas shopping. Cd'A has a population of about 35,000 people, so I guess by urban standards it's considered a mid-sized city.

Don was driving, and as we stopped at an intersection, I couldn't help but notice the traffic cameras. Lots of them. Everywhere.

The more we paid attention, the more we saw. Most intersections had six.

We also saw what looked like little control units.

But strangest of all were these tall stand-alone devices that, at first glance, could be mistaken for street lights.

But they weren't lights. They were often near (not on, but near) large intersections. Anyone have a clue what these gizmos are?

It's a Brave New World out there, a world in which our every move is tracked and recorded... even in a small city like Coeur d'Alene.

Cash only

We found a new place to purchase some of the stuff we need for our woodcraft business -- table saw blades, sanding belts, etc. -- at a store with a long history and an excellent reputation.

There's just one little glitch: every time we shop there, they want us to sign up for a store card. Not a store credit card, but a card that keeps track of purchases and offers benefits at the end of every year.

And I mean they're persistent, almost aggressive about it. I hand the clerk a check for the amount of purchase, and right away he or she begins yammering about all the advantages of opening a store card: a points system, cash back, etc.

I tell them no. They offer additional advantages. I tell them NO again. They list additional advantages. Finally I tell them I'M NOT INTERESTED IN A STORE CARD, after which they usually just complete my transaction and give me my receipt.

You see, I'm certain the only "advantage" this (and every other) store offers through their store cards is simply to track their customers' purchases. Tracking everything we do in this country is becoming so egregious and universal, that to refuse to participate is shocking.

And here's the clincher: I'm quite certain that, since we usually pay with a check at this store, they're perfectly capable of logging what purchases we make, if they're that interested. All of our identifying information is printed right there on the check, after all (plus I hand them my driver's license for identification). But why should I make it any easier for them by getting a store card? All we're doing is buying sanding belts and saw blades. We're simply trying to make a living.

So, because we like the prices and quality of the supplies we're getting at this particular retailer, Don and I started a new policy: from now on, it's cash only.

I'm sure you've all heard how the Department of Homeland Security now looks with suspicion at people who make cash purchases. Well tough patooties. Last I checked, my fiat currency bills still say, "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private."

Who else is having this problem?

Fight or flight?

A reader named Heather sent an email as follows:

I wonder why more people - especially Christians, aren't considering fleeing the country. Personally, I don't have any hope in the future of this country, and I don't have any hope that we will be able to defend ourselves when push comes to shove with the government. Guns or no guns, they have bombs, tanks, and chemical means.

I often think of Hitler and the way he slowly took away freedoms. How some Jewish families left and for others, by the time they realized the need to leave, it was too late and they weren't allowed to. Should we leave before it's too late?

Would you consider addressing this on your blog? I'm really interested to know that other people think. I realize that our country has been the best in the world for so long but it isn't any more.

Heather raises an interesting point. I'm certain the notion of "flight" has occurred to a lot of people. But the big question remains, flight to... where?

I'm reminded of the slogan from the Canada Free Press: "Because without America there is no free world."

In many respects, America is the last frontier for liberty. This doesn't mean I haven't trolled Google Earth looking for uninhabited islands where we could be left in peace; but for the time being, we'll bide here because I can't think of anywhere else that's better for personal freedoms (despite our government's attempts to limit them).

Thoughts?

Political cartoon from 1934

Predicting future behavior

Here's a fascinating little news article I picked up last night on Drudge.

It seems a multinational security firm "has secretly developed software capable of tracking people's movements and predicting future behaviour by mining data from social networking websites."

Predicting their behavior. Ooooh, ominous. What's next? Will people be pre-emptively jailed for something they "might" do in the future?

Apparently this software (nicknamed "Riot") is designed to track and analyze data from Facebook, Twitter, Foursquare, and other social network sites. Unsurprisingly "the technology was shared with US government and industry as part of a joint research and development effort, in 2010, to help build a national security system capable of analysing 'trillions of entities' from cyberspace."

The article notes, "Using Riot it is possible to gain a picture of a person's life - their friends, the places they visit charted on a map - in little more than a few clicks of a button." No secrets in cyber-space.

Yeah, that's a "riot," all right. Needless to say, Google (which powers this blog) is hand-in-glove with this technology.

Quite awhile ago I had a faithful reader who rather abruptly announced she would no longer be commenting because she was withdrawing from ALL internet connectivity. Hmmmm. Maybe she had the right idea.

How to beat the system

I was going through some older (and unanswered) emails when I came across a humorous photo sent by a reader named Becky. It seems some folks in Döllstädt, central Germany were denied a permit to build a shelter for their horses (thus proving that government bureaucrats are idiots the world over). So they decided to build a table and chairs instead.

Clever!!

Tattletales

Reason #645 to homeschool your kids.

Apparently a Missouri lawmaker wants any parent who owns guns to notify their child's school. "The lawmaker says she hopes the already filed bill will bring awareness to schools and to parents about keeping their guns locked up," says the article.

Did this lawmaker just fall off the turnip truck? What good is a locked-up gun? How would keeping a locked-up gun have worked for that mother in George who shot the intruder five times? By definition, a locked-up gun is a useless piece of metal.

Anyway, back to the article:

"It's the next idea in a long list of proposed ideas for gun control, making it mandatory for parents to notify their child's school about their gun supply.

'I am not trying to take away the gun rights of any parents or any other citizens I believe in the second amendment,' says State Senator Maria Chappelle-Nadal."

[Ever heard of baby steps, Senator Chappelle-Nadal?]

As one commenter at the end of the article wrote, "Anti-gun whackos have smelled the blood of our children in the water and are in a feeding frenzy of gun banning! Out comes every stupid idea they can scrape from their heels to try to destroy a god given natural right to self defense. Terrified by guns they have forgotten the faces of our forefathers and the anti-gun sharks will rip our rights to shreds!"

Another comment: "Yet another reason to start homeschooling your kids or sending them to a private school. This does not solve the problem - it exposes and threatens good people. You really think criminals (e.g., people who have guns in the home for nefarious reasons) will actually report their guns to the school? Of course not."

The full text of the bill is here.

Thankfully the article concludes with: "This proposal is one of only a handful in Missouri's house and senate... the chances of any bills about the issue being passed is slim to none because of the political atmosphere between the lawmakers and the governor."

Simmering with resentment

I’m working on our taxes. It’s early to do taxes – usually I wait until the last possible minute to hand the paperwork over to our bookkeeper – but this year there are so many financial unknowns that I need to get everything done as soon as possible so we can start saving money to pay off our oppressors.

I made an appointment for February 6 to meet with our tax preparer, and it will take her about a week to figure out how much hush money we’ll need to fork over to our benevolent government. It might take us several months to save up in order to pay Uncle Sam. Since we’re self-employed (meaning, we don’t have withholdings from a monthly paycheck), the amount is likely to be huge. Enormous. Staggering. “I wouldn’t be surprised,” noted Don, “if we’re forced to pay an additional month’s worth of income on top of what we will already owe.”

It doesn’t matter that we would prefer our money to go elsewhere – our church, our daughter’s braces, paying extra on our mortgage. It doesn’t matter that WE earned our money, not the government. It doesn’t matter. We all need to bleed a lot more in order to provide Hope and Change to people who haven’t earned it.

Welcome to Amerika.

I talked with some friends recently and learned they’ve already had a $300 decrease in their monthly paycheck. This is a single-income family barely making ends meet – and now they’re forced to surrender a huge chunk of their hard-earned money to an out-of-control group of federal thugs who will do unspeakable things with it.

It’s no wonder this country is simmering with resentment. Anger. Fury.

You see, productive Americans are tired of supporting an entitlement class eating high on the hog while we’re buying beans, rice, and second-hand socks. We resent being told we MUST partake of a product we don’t want (socialized medicine) or face punitive punishment. We’re tired of being called domestic terrorists if we happened to agree with the Constitution and Bill of Rights. We’re tired of continued attempts by government goons to infringe on our right to bear arms.

And we’re TIRED OF HYPOCRITES like Dianne Feinstein who want to “fingerprint, photograph and investigate Americans who already have weapons.” You do this to criminals. YOU DON’T DO THIS TO LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS.

I’m in a position to see and hear a lot of this resentment, and I can testify it’s growing by leaps and bounds. It’s becoming louder and more bitter. It’s coming from people who are weary beyond belief, weary of intrusive and unconstitutional invasions into peoples’ private lives and personal incomes. And believe me when I say the last straw will be continued attempts to whittle away at our Second Amendment rights.

Our politicians are paying no heed whatsoever to this resentment. Surrounded by fawning sycophants, they dismiss any and all opposition as unimportant and juvenile. They choose to label anyone who feels stepped upon as tinfoil hat-wearers bitterly clinging to various important things.

And I’m here to tell them: PAY ATTENTION. We the People are getting fed up. You REALLY don’t want to wake a sleeping giant.

YOU REALLY DON’T.

Why California is a mess

My husband recently found an interesting article entitled California Revenue Declines Since Passage of Prop 30.

Prop 30, it seems, was a tax-the-rich scheme that passed November 6, 2012 and which applies retroactively back to January 1, 2012. After it passed, business people wasted no time. Within a month, California State Controller John Chiang reported “that the total revenue for the month of November declined by $806.8 million, which is 10.8 percent below budget… The State of California experienced a decline in its revenue as several of the high income earners have relocated to other states, and have also relocated their businesses out of state. This led to a decline in corporate and income tax revenues by more than $1 billion.” [Emphasis added.]

A DECLINE of a billion bucks. And this article was written back in early December. Doubtless the businesses that left so quickly were either those that were small and light on their feet, or who were already in the process of relocating to another state. I’m guessing that in the next few months, California can expect to see an even larger exodus of businesses whose owners who aren’t interested in having every spare cent of their money confiscated against their wishes and redistributed elsewhere.

Even more comically, California bureaucrats are guilty of counting their chickens before they hatched. “With the expected increase in revenue to be derived from the passing of Prop 30, state bureaucrats increased deficit spending beyond the state’s $6 billion annual tax increase. The Department of Developmental Services and the Department of Health Services increased its spending in November by over $1 billion in comparison to its spending last year.” [Emphasis added.]

In other words, government goons – doubtless rubbing their hands together in lascivious glee – went on a spending spree without first finding out if they had any money in their checking account. And now California is more in debt than ever before. Surprised?

So what happened? Why didn’t the tax increase result in increased taxes? In an article entitled What Proposition 30 Means for California’s Entrepreneurs, Ethan Anderson wrote, “Nothing terrifies investors or entrepreneurs as much as the concept of expropriation. When governments decide to expropriate legally obtained assets, entrepreneurs who worked tirelessly to build businesses and investors who risked scarce capital end up with little to nothing for their troubles.”

For purposes of definition, expropriation is “when a public agency… takes property for a purpose deemed to be in the public interest, even though the owner of the property may not be willing to sell it.” In other words, it’s state-sponsored theft. Company profits are being stolen in the name of “public interest.” The California government – apparently steeped in greed, welfare, mismanagement, and other vices – decided to “stick it” to the rich (y’know, those folks who EMPLOY people) by stealing their money.

If I lived in California, why should I start (or continue) a business when I know all my profits will be seized by the state? What’s the incentive to continue running my company? Answer: there is none. I’d leave and take my business, my profits, and my employment opportunities someplace where they’re more appreciated.

We can’t necessarily blame the voters for passing Prop 30. “As is the case with many propositions,” notes Anderson, “the voters may have been fooled by the governor and his allies who aggressively pitched it as a way to ‘save education in our state.’”

The trouble is, this proposition disproportionately affects many people who patently aren't rich. Again I quote Ethan Anderson: “California’s entrepreneurs are hit particularly hard by Prop 30. Why? Because entrepreneurs often invest their life savings and go for years with a low or zero salary. Most start-up ventures end up failing in the end. But in those rare cases when something of great value is created and a meaningful liquidity event takes place (usually in the form of an acquisition or IPO), nearly all the money earned from the undertaking hits at one time. Instead of the income being spread evenly over the life of the company (the average time to exit for venture-backed start-ups is 7 or 8 years), a single once-in-a-lifetime event occurs such that eight years of income shows up in the single year, making entrepreneurs highly vulnerable to the top marginal tax rate.”

Many entrepreneurs and businesses, unwilling to hand over all the hard-earned assets they worked their butts off to earn – especially since Prop 30 is retroactive for almost a year – simply choose to leave California. They migrate to other states which welcome them (and their employment prospects and tax revenues) with open arms. States where they aren't punished for being a business.

Now I ask you, what on earth would compel ANY business to move to California? And what kind of reverse impetus is the California government using to encourage businesses to LEAVE the state? Talk about screwy. A state which desperately needs money is doing whatever it can to drive away investors, employers, entrepreneurs, and businesses.

My husband pointed out how Prop 30 exemplifies three misconceptions politicians invariably fail to remember: (1) No business is obliged to remain in a state where taxes and expenses discourage success and decrease profits; (2) Government always makes the assumption that when it increases taxes, it will increase its revenues (which has been shown time and time and time and time again to be incorrect); and (3) Either government legislators are dumber than a box of rocks, or the concept of “sticking it” to rich people is more pleasurable than fiscal reality.

To modify Margaret Thatcher’s famous line, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. ” – I might add: “Or until you chase people WITH money out of the state.”

We lived in California for decades. We fled in 1993 – first to Oregon, later to Idaho – and have never regretted that decision. We left because California was too crowded, too expensive, too full of crime, and too high in taxes. Looks like not much has changed. California has one-eighth of the country’s population but one-third of the country’s welfare recipients. Something’s gotta give, and when it does it ain’t gonna be pretty.

I have no solution to this mess. I just wish my family wasn’t still there when the powder keg blows.

A picture is worth trillions of words

A reader sent this. For those who believe the soothing assurances that our economy is just peachy, perhaps they should view these schematics. It puts things in perspective.
__________________________

A $100 bill.

Ten thousand dollars ($10,000). Approximately one year of work for the average human on the earth.

A million dollars ($1,000,000). 92 years' worth of work for the average person on earth. Not a very big pile.

One hundred million dollars ($100,000,000). Fits nicely on an ISO/Military standard sized pallet.

One billion dollars ($1,000,000,000).

One trillion dollars ($1,000,000,000,000). When the U.S government speaks about a $1.7 trillion deficit -- this is the volumes of cash the U.S. Government borrowed in 2010 to run itself. Keep in mind it is double stacked pallets of $100 million dollars each, full of $100 dollar bills.

Comparison of $1,000,000,000,000 dollars to a standard-sized American football field and European football field. Say hello to the Boeing 747-400 transcontinental airliner that's hiding on the right. This was until recently the biggest passenger plane in the world.

Fifteen trillion dollars ($15,000,000,000,000) -- The U.S. national debt (credit bill) has just topped the $15 trillion two months before Christmas 2011. Miss Liberty seems rather worried as United States national debt passes 20% of the entire world's combined GDP (Gross Domestic Product). In 2011 the national debt will exceed 100% of GDP, and venture into the 100%+ debt-to-GDP ratio that the European PIIGS have (bankrupting nations).

$114.5 trillion dollars ($114,500,000,000,000) -- U.S. unfunded liabilities. To the right you can see the pillar of cold hard $100 bills that dwarfs the WTC & Empire State Building -- both at one point world's tallest buildings. If you look carefully you can see the Statue of Liberty. The 114.5 Trillion dollar super-skyscraper is the amount of money the U.S. Government knows it does not have to fully fund the Medicare, Medicare Prescription Drug Program, Social Security, Military and civil servant pensions. The unfunded liability is calculated on current tax and funding inputs, and future demographic shifts in US Population. (Note: On the image below, the size of the base of the money pile is half a trillion, not $1T as on 15T image above. The height is double. This was done to reflect the base of Empire State and WTC more closely.)

[Incidentally this picture was so tall I couldn't "screen capture" it on my computer, so I had to capture it in three parts and paste them together, hence the blue lines.]

__________________________

If anyone were to ask my husband and me why we prepare, this encapsulates it in a nutshell. Quite honestly, I don't know how we can avoid an economic collapse in this country... as these pictures illustrate.

Tyranny! Coming soon to a country near you.

My jaw dropped when I read this story about a father who was arrested, strip-searched, and hauled in for questioning after his four-year-old daughter drew a picture of a gun at school. Another version of the story is found here.

This took place in Canada. Perhaps some of my Canadian readers can offer some insight about why such a heavy-handed approach was taken?

Who's the real rat?

Just when you think things can't possibly get any loopier, they do.

Allow me a bit of history. Years ago when we lived in Oregon, when Older Daughter was just barely a toddler, we had a rat infestation. We had rats all over the house, in our basement, in our barn, in the chicken coop, in the shop, everywhere. Rats are BIG. And when you're watching your tiny toddler facing a rat, maternal instinct kicks in and you really, really want to make sure your kid isn't bitten.

We set traps and soon our problem was eradicated. If we were to have a repeat of that problem today, we would solve it in the same way.

So it's just durn lucky we don't live in Washington D.C. where it's the LAW that you cannot exterminate a rat. Please, spare me the lame jokes about politicians (because I agree with you), but the fact remains that rats are not endangered in any way. What they are is numerous, clever, filthy (their urine and droppings contaminate food), and vectors of disease.

The Wildlife Protection Act, passed unanimously in 2010, prohibits pest control operators from killing pests such as rats and mice. Instead -- get this -- the animals must be relocated. And more than that, pest control operators cannot break up rat families. Yes, you read that right. You can't leave Grampa Charlie Rat or Aunt Matilda Rat behind -- you have to round them all up and transport them together. (I'll leave you to speculate as to the impossible logistics of this feat.)

This is, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli notes, "a triumph of animal rights over human health."

What on earth does the Virginia Attorney General have to do with this law? Simple. The "relocated" rats are being transported across the river into Virginia, where they are released (in family groups, of course). "Actual experts in pest control will tell you, if you don’t move an animal about 25 miles, it will come back," Cuccinelli said. "So what’s the solution to that? Across the river."

Gene Harrington of the Fairfax-based National Pest Management Association called it a "stupid, stupid, ill-advised, ill-conceived law." Bingo, couldn't have said it any better myself.

So here we have an example of the entire population of Washington D.C. held captive by the bleeding-heart legislation of a few. And this, I think you'll agree, encapsulates the entire problem America is facing at the moment -- the entire population held captive by the bleeding-heart legislation of a few.

It is my sincerest wish that those doofuses who saw fit to pass this law will have their homes invaded by rats.

U.S. tax revenue understood

This came across my desk today. It was so clear and concise, I thought it was worth posting.
____________________

U.S. Tax Revenue Understood

U.S. Tax Revenue: $2,170,000,000,000 (trillion)

Federal Budget: $3,820,000,000,000 (trillion)

New Debt: $1,650,000,000,000 (trillion)

National Debt: $14,271,000,000,000 (trillion)

Recent budget cut: $38,500,000,000 (billion)

Now let's remove eight zeros and pretend it's a household budget.

Annual family income: $21,700

Money the family spent: $38,200

New debt on the credit card: $16,500

Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710

Total budget cuts: $385

NOW does it make sense?

Making a fetish out of debt

Now this is amazing.

I was reading a forum which was discussing whether or not the federal government will actually cut spending (as promised) by $1 trillion over the next decade. (Of course it won’t.) Most of the respondents on this forum understood the nature of government and realize that these sorts of promises are made from thin air and will never be made good.

But one person wrote the following, which had my jaw dropping in astonishment that anyone could believe this:

Thanks to the double dip-recession, we'll probably have years of chaos as the US sinks to third-world levels and the world economy tanks because tea-partiers make a fetish out of the debt.

Our credit has been downgraded. Mortgage rates will go up -- guess I won't be building that house. Stocks will plummet, so much for savings. Thank you tea partiers for ruining many people's futures!

Instead of taxing those who could very well pay and pumping money into the economy to get it started again, to get jobs, they've done just what their rich masters want. Sure. Shrink the government. Somalia doesn't need a government, why should we?

Tea partiers are making a FETISH out of debt??? And this is a BAD thing??? How can the demand that our nation live within its means be responsible for “ruining many peoples’ futures,” unless those people are unnecessary and/or unconstitutional government employees in the first place?? Funny, I thought the Tea Party was trying to SAVE peoples’ futures. How can shrinking the government to within constitutional limits be a bad thing??

Tea partiers merely want to return to our constitutional foundation. Our founders never intended that the government should provide for people from cradle to grave. The founders wanted a small, streamlined, limited government whose primary responsibility was the protection of our God-given rights. Yet the progressives among us think that's mean and we should all support each other by spreading the wealth and going into debt.

Now we’ve reached a point where anyone who wants those things – a limited government which protects our God-given rights – is viewed as a terrorist. Go figure.

We will never see eye to eye with people of this opinion. This is why I honestly believe the future options for our once-great nation will either be (a) division or (b) civil war. There is a huge segment of people in our nation who honestly applaud a larger and more intrusive government, and genuinely think a massive deficit is a good thing. Will they ever change their mind? No. Instead, they will blame America’s ills on the limitations of the Founding documents and insist that their way is the only way.

Go figure.

How a government stimulus plan works

This has been floating around the internet.
____________________________

Three contractors are bidding to fix a broken fence at the White House.

One is from Chicago, another is from Tennessee, and the third is from Minnesota.

All three go with a White House official to examine the fence. The Minnesota contractor takes out a tape measure and does some measuring, then works some figures with a pencil.

"Well," he says, "I figure the job will run about $900 -- $400 for materials, $400 for my crew and $100 profit for me."

The Tennessee contractor also does some measuring and figuring, then says, "I can do this job for $700: $300 for materials, $300 for my crew and $100 profit for me."

The Chicago contractor doesn't measure or figure, but leans over to the White House official and whispers, "$2,700."

The official, incredulous, says, "You didn't even measure like the other guys! How did you come up with such a high figure?"

The Chicago contractor whispers back, "$1,000 for me, $1,000 for you, and we hire the guy from Tennessee to fix the fence."

"Done!" replies the government official.

And that, my friends, is how the new stimulus plan will work.