I’m thankful for…

Living in the greatest, freest, most developed, just and beautiful country in the history of mankind.

Thomas Sowell, Charles Krauthammer, Victor Davis Hanson and the myriad of other conservative commentators that provide insight, wit and inspiration during this time of political uncertainty.

For our brave soldiers fighting overseas. Their sacrifice does more than we can ever know. They deserve our respect, prayers and well wishes not just during the Holiday Season, but also year round.

General David Petraeus’ vision and leadership.

A successful and more peaceful Iraq.

Free speech, the very backbone of the American Dream.

My wonderful, hysterical and beautiful girlfriend.

My equally wonderful, hysterical, though less beautiful, group of friends.

Sports and their ability to entertain, torment, distract and excite us on a daily basis.

The Onion, for continually cracking me up with their smart, cutting-edge commentary that pushes the boundaries of political correctness further and further every year.

An expanding microbrewery industry that continues to produce delicious, unique beers while ensuring we aren’t stuck deciding between a Miller, Bud or Coors.

HDTV.

The History Channel. Without it, the study of past events may very well be a past event.

Maker’s Mark.

The NBA, the greatest form of sports entertainment on Earth.

Alfred Hitchcock and his ability to scare the hell out of and thrill you without cheap Hollywood tricks, supernatural villains or gratuitous blood and gore.

My very supportive and loving family.

Dwayne Wade.

Spell check.

My iPod. I, literally, don’t know what I would do without it.

The iTunes music store.

A revitalized Bay View.

The Drudge Report.

Fox News.

The Wall Street Journal.

Fantasy Basketball and Baseball.

Blue Diamond Wasabi & Soy Almonds.

My DVR. Again, something that I, literally, do not know what I would do without it.

Mashed potatoes and stuffing, the cornerstone of any Thanksgiving meal.

VH1 Classic for its airing or outstanding concert footage, top 100 shows and, of course, Pop-Up Video.

Jimmy John’s.

Netflix.

March Madness, the greatest sporting event ever.

Sushi.

Seinfeld, The Simpsons and The Sopranos reruns.

Hulu.com. If you’re not sure what it is, check it out.

The Brewers being relevant this season.

$1.66 gas.

New Glarus’ Apple Ale. Go get some…now!

Finally, you, my readers. Your support means more than you’ll ever know.

Happy Thanksgiving everybody!

-John

Obamanomics

So, it appears that President-elect Obama is already backing off one of his more controversial campaign promises.

In interviews given this week, Obama has shown a reluctance to discuss when or even if he will, as promised, raise taxes on the rich.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, wait a minute here. Wasn’t this one of the main policies of his campaign? Why is he doing this?

The reason is easy…it’s the economy stupid.

Due to the tough economic times that we’re currently facing, Obama is acknowledging it’s probably not the best time to be taxing the most productive members of society.

This development is both encouraging and terribly frustrating.

I give Obama credit in this display of flexibility. The tax increase was a vital element of his campaign and his willingness to alter this policy, this quickly, is a promising sign that he will not merely push his agenda, consequences be damned.

Yet, this development is also incredibly troubling to me as well. Why would candidate Obama make a policy, which by his own admission is bad for the economy, such a centerpiece of his campaign?

His answer? Fairness.

But what is fair? Isn’t fairness a purely subjective idea?

Clearly, Obama and I have different definitions of fairness. He believes that it’s fair to take from those who innovate, invest, work hard, succeed and produce to give to those that don’t, while I do not.

So isn’t it fair (pun intended) to say that a number of Obama’s ideas of fairness don’t jibe with most of mine or yours and mine or yours don’t jibe with most of Obama’s? In fact, I think it’s virtually impossible to find even two people on Earth that have the exact same opinions about what is fair and what isn’t.

So why would he base such a large portion of his economic policy on such an indefinable idea, this fairness that he’s so fond of?

No one knows this but him, but I believe this stance is just a byproduct of the old liberal viewpoint of merit and fairness versus productivity. Liberals would rather compensate employees based on their merit, rather than on the actual productivity of these employees. However, as you all know, this is not a viable way to expand an economy. It’s this very naïve view that shows that liberals fundamentally do not understand basic economics.

There are ample examples of the struggle of merit and fairness versus productivity in our everyday lives.

The first, executive pay. Liberals go on and on about how unfair it is that the corporate fat cats get rich on the backs of their poor, working class employees. But I ask which activity results in more productivity, the development and management of a multi-billion dollar merger or the assembly of automobiles? Clearly, the merger does. However, which job produces more merit? It’s fairly difficult to tell.

This further illustrates how difficult it is to compensate someone based on merit or fairness due to their subjective nature.

Here’s another example, the sick day referendum in the city of Milwaukee. Voters in Milwaukee overwhelmingly approved a city referendum that requires employers to provide nine, paid sick days to all employees. The liberal mindset believes that these businesses will now just suck up the losses from the reduced productivity, make less money and do what’s “fair” for their employees. We all know that that just doesn’t happen. Companies never just suck it up and make less money because they have an obligation to their employees and shareholders to be as profitable as possible. As a result, companies will just cut back on vacation time or personal days. Or, worse yet, they’ll just eliminate jobs.

On average, people work 250 days per year. Let’s say you’re a small business in Milwaukee that employs 28 people. These people are now entitled to a collective 252 days of paid, sick time. These 252 days of sick time are the equivalent of the total number of workdays for one employee in a calendar year. What do you think that employer is going to do, risk fewer profits or eliminate one worker? I think it’s clear that they’ll eliminate the worker and demand everyone else work harder. How many Milwaukeeans do you think voted themselves out of a job on November 4th?

Yet another example of this is minimum wage. Liberals love to scream about the evils of minimum wage, how no one can provide for their family working a minimum wage job and how the minimum wage needs to be raised.

They completely miss the point on this too. First, the number of people that try to support an entire family while working a single minimum wage job is so statistically insignificant that it’s foolish to discuss their impact on the economy as a whole. Second, the people that work minimum wage jobs are generally teenagers, the elderly, or part-time or seasonal workers that view these jobs as a way to supplement their overall incomes, not be their sole source of income.

The thing liberals don’t understand is that while they believe they’re assisting these people by raising their incomes, they’re really eliminating a great number of their jobs by demanding employers pay them more.

Listen, I do value fairness. I do not believe it’s right for employers to exploit or take advantage of their employees. However, fairness and merit should be secondary, not primary factors when determining compensation or tax burdens and they certainly shouldn’t be the centerpiece of the President of the United States’ economic policies.

That’s all for now folks. Until next time, take care and be well.

-John

The U.S.-Columbian Trade Agreement

When you think of Columbia, what comes to mind?

I’m sure for most of you, the words “cocaine”, “kidnapping”, “violence”, “corruption” and “Pablo Escobar” are close to the top. Looking at Columbia’s turbulent past, these words are rather appropriate.

Looking at Columbia’s present situation, however, the terms “ally”, “partner” and “democracy” are also appropriate.

Under the leadership of President Alvaro Uribe, Columbia is transforming from an incredibly violent, corrupt and dangerous hangout for gangsters and drug dealers to an economically vibrant and increasingly safe model of Latin American democracy. Democratic institutions and the rule of law are growing stronger and more inclusive. Unemployment and poverty are shrinking and at their lowest levels in over a decade and an expanding economy is creating good jobs for Colombians.

Additionally, Columbia is our staunchest ally in Latin America, sharing both political and economic interests. The Uribe government has strengthened Columbia’s trade relationship with the U.S., while rejecting the brutal socialism and anti-American policies of Chavez’s Venezuela, their neighbor to the east.

Because of these factors, it is imperative that Congress acts quickly to pass the US-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. President Bush signed this agreement two years ago, yet it languishes in legislative no-man’s land thanks to Congressional opposition. If Congress does not approve the trade pact this year, prospects of its passing would dim considerably since it would lose the cover of the rule that provides for an up-or-down, no-amendment vote.

The proposed U.S-Columbian Trade Agreement merely maintains the established Columbian trade preferences in this country. But, more importantly, it also begins to eliminate the high tariffs our goods face when entering Columbia (in some cases as high as 35%).

So in essence, this is a win-win for both countries. The U.S. will have access to more, competitively priced Columbian goods, while Columbian citizens and businesses will now be able to purchase American goods without paying exorbitant prices from the tariffs currently in place.

In a time of economic downturn, isn’t it wise to increase trade avenues?

In a time of political uncertainty around the world, doesn’t it make sense to assist a firm and unwavering ally?

Apparently, Congress doesn’t believe so. They are against this trade agreement for some rather questionable reasons; chief among them is the opposition of this agreement by American labor unions. Even though, this agreement would do nothing but help these unions by making their employers more competitive in the global marketplace.

Organized labor claims that they cannot support this agreement due to the human rights violations committed against Columbian union members and leadership.

I think this is an incredibly weak argument as Uribe as taken remarkable steps towards alleviating such violence. Since his election, murders of union members have gone from 256 in 2002, to just 26 in 2007. That’s a decrease of 90%. This 90% reduction in six years is unbelievable, yet apparently insufficient for Congressional Democrats who still claim Uribe “isn’t doing enough”.

This stance ignores the fact that the murder rate of unionists was less than one-eighth the murder rate of all Colombians. It also assumes that each union member was killed specifically for being a union member and nothing else, an incredibly giant leap of faith to make.

Additionally it ignores the government-funded program established by Uribe to specifically protect union workers. This program, while protecting 2,000 workers has a budget of $40 million. That’s $20,000 per worker. If someone thinks that insufficient, I would like to know what their employer spends on worker protection.

Blocking the free trade agreement, which seeks to advance development, does not seem like the best mechanism for defending Colombian trade unionists either.

Democrats also rolled out the same old, tired “environmental” concerns in their opposition to the agreement, but the Bush and Uribe administrations reworked the deal to give the Democrats the environmental restrictions they wanted.

We have a strong relationship with Columbia that started in 1991 when President George H.W. Bush established trade preferences for Columbia to help fight the war on drugs. Back then, Pablo Escobar’s influence made Columbia the drug, murder and kidnapping capital of the world and this move was designed to limit the power of the drug cartels, while strengthening the Columbian economy.

The U.S.-Columbian relationship grew stronger under President Clinton with his Plan Columbia program that further prosecuted the war on drugs. President George W. Bush has continued that program.

So we’ve had a close relationship with Columbia for nearly 20 years, over three administrations and now this Congress says, “enough is enough”? This really makes no sense.

Even liberal rags like the New York Times and the L.A. Times are in favor of this.

It is clear to me that Congressional Democrats, led by Speaker Pelosi and President-elect Obama are opposing this bill for frivolous political reasons. They’re doing it to reject anything that President Bush does.

I view this as incredibly embarrassing behavior by Congress because it is not only hurting us, but it’s hurting an ally that has made sensational strides at turning around a hellishly bad situation into a promising one in very little time.

Uribe is a strong, innovative and effective leader, one that deserves our respect and, more importantly, our support. We can start by passing the U.S.-Columbian Trade Agreement.

That’s all for now folks. Until next time, take care and be well.

-John

The Iranian Problem

We are not at the point of no return…but it’s getting perilously close.

In a routine update released on Wednesday, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that Iran has made 1,390 pounds of low-enriched uranium hexafluoride. This amount of uranium is enough to make one nuclear bomb.

Let me repeat that, Iran now has enough uranium to produce a nuclear bomb.

This is a frightening realization that the Iranian nuclear threat will be upon us far sooner than we feared.

This does not mean that they are ready to assemble a bomb, as two major steps that would precede such an event have yet to take place.

The first would be the eviction of IAEA inspectors. The processes of preparing uranium for a nuclear reactor that produces energy versus weaponry are vastly different and would be noticed by these inspectors rather quickly. The only fear with this, however, is that the Iranians have constructed secret nuclear facilities that are fully functional, something that is possible.

If they do not have these secret facilities, at least the expulsion of inspectors would alert the world to the nefarious activity in Iran. If world leaders possess enough will and fortitude to stand up to the Chinese and Russians (two staunch allies of Tehran) something could be done to stop the development of nuclear weapons. Forgive me if I’m a tad skeptical of that ever happening.

The second, and more difficult, step is the purification of the uranium to weapons-grade fuel. Once this fuel is enriched, it would have to be turned into a warhead design. This is step that Western intelligence agencies “doubt” that Iran has achieved.

They doubt that? That’s all we get, a doubt? We’re hanging our hopes of Iran not having the capabilities to produce a nuclear weapon in the near future on a doubt by intelligence agencies? Forgive me once again if I don’t exactly sleep soundly tonight.

So, what do we do about this?

Unfortunately, there aren’t many options.

I guess we can take the Iranians at their word and believe them when they say that the country with the third largest crude oil reserves in the world needs to develop nuclear technology for the sake of energy production.

I suppose we can also choose to believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny as well.

One obvious, dynamic move would be President Bush ordering an aerial attack on all Iranian nuclear facilities. This attack would echo the action taken by Israel in September of 2007 as they attack a suspected nuclear facility in Syria. This attack halted Syria’s nuclear activities and failed to incite a war or even intensify attacks on the Israeli people.

This type of response seems fairly unlikely as President Bush is consumed by the current economic situation and seems unwilling to make any political waves in his last 60 days in office.

I do know one person that may be hoping that he does carry out such an attack. That person is Barrack Obama.

If nothing is done in the next two months to stop the Iranian nuclear program, Obama may be saddled with a problem that dwarfs the current economic problems facing the country.

If I’m Obama, this is what I do:

I approach President Bush in secret and ask him to attack the Iranian nuclear facilities to effectively shut down it’s program.

I suspect Bush would go for it for numerous reasons:

• He knows that they’re developing nuclear weapons and that puts us at risk and I firmly believe that this man (Bush) wants what’s best for America.
• He knows that if Iran does develop a nuclear weapon(s), he will be blamed for allowing it to happen, rightly or wrongly.
• If Iran does develop said nuclear weapons, it will shift the balance of power in the Middle East significantly to Iran and seriously jeopardize all of the progress that has been made in Iraq and, as we all know, a successful Iraq is Bush’s last hope for a solid legacy.
• His loyal base of supporters will support this action and think even better of him.
• This will serve as payback for the Iranian’s support of the insurgency in Iraq.

I would preface this request by telling President Bush that, in public, I will denounce this action as more of the same unilateral actions that led this country to the mistakes made in Iraq.

Now, you may wonder why I would suggest that Obama take this approach and not just attack Iran on his own. Well, it would certainly not sit well with his base of supporters and, after all, he has another election to win.

This approach would allow action to be taken on Iran without Obama having to suffer the consequences from his base. Additionally, this would actually help President Bush’s political standing as much of his base have become less and less enamored with his administration after the past four years.

I don’t think the worldwide political fallout would be that serious either. With the price of oil extremely low and the current economic downturn ensuring it will probably stay that way for some time, there would be little effect economically.

Iran’s staunchest allies (Russia and China) would have a relatively weak response to the attack as well. Both are dealing with serious, domestic economic issues that require political action and resources. Furthermore, Russia lacks the credibility to criticize this action after their invasion of Georgia in August.

Plus, how many countries, no matter what their “official” response would be, would not be ecstatic that the threat of a nuclear Iran is erased? I doubt there would be even one that wouldn’t welcome this development.

So let’s see here…

We eliminate an extraordinarily dangerous situation from developing in the most tumultuous region of the globe? Check.

It helps both the current and future president politically? Check.

There will be little, if any, international outcry? Check.

I think I may be on to something here people.

I know some may scoff at this approach, claiming it to be a simplistic view of a complicated situation and that’s fine. To them I say; what else should we do?

I will patiently wait for a response.

That’s all for now folks. Until next time, take care and be well.

-John

Al Franken is contesting this ballot.

I can't take credit for this as Drudge beat me to it, but I couldn't help putting this up to show the absurdity going on in Minnesota.

The U.S.-Iraqi Status of Forces Agreement

Perhaps the most important foreign policy event of 2008 happened over the weekend with surprisingly very little fanfare.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's cabinet approved, by a 21-7 vote, a status of forces agreement with the U.S, effectively giving a hard deadline as to when U.S. troops will finally leave Iraq.

While the agreement still needs to pass the Iraqi Parliament with a simple 51% majority, it appears that this is a done deal.

Now, I have been extremely leery of establishing a timetable for our withdrawal from Iraq, however, I think this deal works our well for us, Iraq and the Middle East in general.

Not all of the details have been released, but here are the specifics we know:

• U.S. forces will withdraw from Iraq's populated areas by June 2009.
• All U.S. forces will be gone by 2011.
• US soldiers will not be immune to Iraqi law if they commit crimes on Iraqi territory.
• Agrees to a 10-year mandate for the U.S. to guarantee the security of Iraq, in exchange for the right to use Iraqi land, waters and skies to base and train troops and store military equipment.
• Pledges that the U.S. will protect Iraq from any war, coup or revolution.
• Commissions the building of 50 U.S. military bases in Iraq.
• Establishes long-term, American supervision of the Iraqi Ministry of Interior and Defense.
• Gives the U.S. the right to arrest or persecute any Iraqi working against its interests, within Iraq.
• Grants the U.S. control of Iraqi airspace.
• Does not rule out delaying the troop pullout if conditions on the ground warrant their presence beyond 2011.

As you can see, while we won’t be “waging a war” in Iraq we will still hold a significant presence there.

I know many people in this country want us to be completely finished in Iraq, but I think this presence is extremely necessary. There are many in the Middle East (the Iranian government, the Syrian Government, Al-Qaeda and Hamas, just to name a few) that have a vested interest in seeing the democratic advances made by Iraq fail. Our extended presence gives the Iraqis a security blanket while they continue to advance their already dramatic democratic strides.

This is so critical, because if we want democracy to have a real chance of spreading throughout the Middle East, Iraq must succeed. If Iraq does succeed and leads to other democratically run governments in the region, perhaps then we can really begin to talk about putting an end to global terrorism.

As important as supporting Iraq, the agreement also gives us an even stronger foothold in the Middle East, allowing us to:

• Closely monitor the nuclear activities conducted by Iran.
• Prevent a rogue group like Hamas or Al-Qaeda from filling a power vacuum should the Maliki government collapse.
• Put Syria on notice that if they continue their terrorist activity, we’ll be right there to take them out.
• Show the Iranian people that if they want to overthrow their oppressive government (which there is a movement to do) that we’ll be there to support them.
• Illustrate to the rest of the world that we are serious about ending global terrorism and will stop at nothing to ensure our success.
• Help negate the Chinese and Russian influence in the region.
• Ensure a legitimate and safe round of elections next year.

Predictably, Iran is irate over this agreement (another example of why this agreement is so important and beneficial). Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani (the official head of the Iranian state) called on the Maliki government to think twice before committing Iraq to an agreement that Iraqis considered "a pact of humiliation".

Maliki politely declined, continuing to prove that he is no “pawn of Iran” as his critics claimed. As if this was even in question after he ordered routs -- by the Iraq army -- of Shiite militias in Basra and Sadr City last spring.

Despite his critics inside and out of Iraq, Maliki is proving to be an effective leader that is not merely looking out for the interests of Sunnis, but rather Iraq as a whole. With the help of the U.S., he has managed to control the sectarian violence that was tearing the country apart for four years. Additionally, he brought together an incredibly divisive group of political leaders and convinced them to put their differences aside and work toward the greater good of Iraq.

With leaders like Maliki, diplomacy like the status of forces agreement and strong support from the U.S. government and military forces, Iraq appears to be headed for success…something that was literally unthinkable a mere 20 months ago.

That’s all for now folks. Until next time, take care and be well.

-John

Suggested Reading

Just a quick note about my "Suggested Reading" section of the blog. I did some investigating into why my blog is still viewed to be violating blogger's terms and it turns out that having multiple links in a blog can trigger this response. As a result, I'm reluctantly taking down the "Suggested Reading" portion for the time being. As soon as I figure this out, I will reinstate this portion.

Thanks and keep reading!

-John

Random Thoughts

• Why do the new Pizza Hut TV spots show people laughing and clapping when they learn that, what they thought was a high-end dinner, turns out to be a catered affair from “America’s Favorite Pizza”?

I don’t know about you, but I would be irate! Furthermore, I don’t buy that their meals could be confused with gourmet pasta. If so, why is Pizza Hut only charging $11.99 for three (yes, you read that correctly) pounds of this stuff?

• Another bogus ad campaign currently running is the dreck being peddled by MillerCoors, promoting the, literal, worst beer on the planet Miller Genuine Draft, or MGD for those who are in the know. These spots feature “hidden-camera” scenarios where people are facing moral dilemmas such as alerting a cashier when they are given too much change or returning a cell phone to someone that left it in a cab.

I have no concrete evidence of this, but I believe these commercials are completely bogus.

First, the bars shown in these commercials seem to be really nice establishments that are clean, roomy, well lit and filled with some fairly attractive people. However, in each there are massive, elaborate MGD displays behind the bar. Anyone that has been to a bar that touts MGD as their house brew has never encountered cleanliness, ample room to roam, quality lighting or remotely attractive people in said establishments. Never.

Secondly, the spots show people that do not take the moral high road and refuse to return the person’s cell phone or the excess change. Now, I have no doubt that there are dishonest people out there. However, I highly doubt that these people would be willing to appear as thieves and jerks on a national ad campaign. These people would have to sign release forms allowing MillerCoors to use their face in any promotional activity. Could you imagine the conversation?

MillerCoors rep: Excuse me sir, we’re shooting a commercial for MGD about genuinely good people choosing to drink a genuinely good beer like MGD. We happened to film you and would like your permission to use that footage in a commercial that will run all over the country.

Guy in the bar: Sounds great, what footage do you have?

MillerCoors rep: Well…we have you stealing money from this bar when the bartender gave you too much change.

Guy in the bar: So…I’m not one of the genuinely good people you’re referring to in the spot?

MillerCoors rep: Well…no, you’re not.

Guy in the bar: Where do I sign?!?!?!

Please.

I do think the “genuine” people are not actors, but I strongly suspect that the others are.

• I’m not a big energy drink guy, as I don’t really trust them. They just seem wildly unhealthy to me. But, in a desperate attempt to revive my workout regimen, I took the plunge and tried the “Russian” Java Monster flavor. Good God, they are delicious! It’s like drinking a white Russian with a shot of chocolate milk. If you’re in the need of a quick boost, I highly recommend them.

• While we’re on the topic of White Russians, I know they’re not the most masculine of drinks, but if you’re a fan of White or Blind (replace cream or milk with Bailey’s) Russians, use vanilla vodka instead of regular; they’re way better that way.

• I don’t know how I managed to live a complete 9,882 days on this Earth without a DVR.

• I’m sorry, but I simply detest college football. Now, I have nothing against the players or coaches, in fact I find the quality of the football quite good. However, I am so sick and tired of hearing fans, commentators, etc. needlessly debate who should be the number one team in the country, who should go to the BCS Championship game, who the best, one-loss team is and on and on and on.

There’s a simple way to figure all of this out…have a playoff already! I know, I know, that makes too much sense, but apparently not for the presidents of major football colleges and universities. These are the real people that block a playoff system in college football.

Why you ask? Money, of course. The bowl system is a gravy train and losing it would derail funds that pay for endless programs in these schools.

You know, I find it rather humorous to hear people talk about college football being such a pure example of sport, one that’s not tarnished by greed or money like the seedy NFL or NBA. Yet, it is that very greed and money that is preventing the national championship from truly being decided on the field rather than in a computer.

• I still find it impossible to find a sharper, more relevant or cutting edge source of humor than The Onion. About a month ago, they put out a 1783 edition of the paper. I was in tears reading it. Anyone that enjoys American history will find this hilarious.

That’s all for now folks. Until next time, take care and be well.

-John

Obama needs to take a look at Reagan’s playbook.

Two nights ago, I was watching a special on Ronald Reagan and couldn’t help but think about President-elect Obama and our impending crisis in Iran.

The show went into a discussion about the Kremlin’s preconceived notions about Reagan. Initially, the Kremlin and KGB thought Reagan was soft and that they could easily push him around.

I’ll pause here for your laughter.

There are a few things you have to remember about this time in history to understand their viewpoint. Reagan was very untested when it came to foreign policy, the U.S had just had five consecutive presidents (Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson and Kennedy) that the Soviets viewed as weak and the American economy was in a fairly feeble condition.

So, here comes this cowboy, this actor, this old man and he’s the one that’s going to push the Soviet Union around? He’s the one that’s going to tell Moscow the way it’s going to be? He’s the one that will bring the “Evil Empire” to its knees.

Viewed from this vantage point, I guess you can see the Soviets point.

However, there was one galvanizing moment when the Soviets knew that Reagan was different and they he wasn’t to be trifled with.

On August 3, 1981, the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) declared a strike. They wanted higher pay, better working conditions and a 32-hour workweek. Air traffic in the country virtually ceased as a result of the strike.

In response, President Reagan immediately called a press conference and stated the striking members of PATCO were in violation of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 and the law {5 U.S.C. (Supp. III 1956) 118p.} that banned governmental unions from striking and that they had 48 hours to return to work.

Only 1,500 or so of the nearly 13,000 striking PATCO members took Reagan at this word and returned to work.

On August 5, 1981, President Reagan fired the other 11,345 striking members of PATCO and banned them from working in any governmental agency for three years. Air traffic commenced as the Department of Transportation had been secretly training replacements.

All was well…except for those 11,345 that refused to heed the president’s warning.

This act did more than establish how Reagan would handle an economic and labor crisis. It also showed the Soviets that he meant business and would not be pushed around by anyone, no matter how advantageous their position seamed.

After this event, the Soviets became far more willing to listen to what Reagan said and for the first time, probably ever, became afraid of what might happen if they crossed the U.S.

So I know you’re probably wondering, “What the hell does this have to do with Obama and Iran?”

I would love to hear Obama, in a Lumberg-esque (Office Space) voice, say to GM, Ford and Chrysler “yeah…you know that $25 billion you wanted, yeah…that’s probably, um…not going to happen, but, hey, thanks for touching base with us and I really hope things work out for you guys.”

This wouldn’t be nearly as tough of a stance as Reagan’s was with PATCO, but it wouldn’t have to be. It would, however, send a clear message to Putin and Medvedev in Russia, Chavez in Venezuela, Il in North Korea and, most importantly, Ahmadinejad in Iran that while Obama is a pragmatic and thoughtful leader, he’s not going to be bullied by anyone, no matter how advantageous their position seems.

This may give them pause before they ratchet up the rhetoric or, worse yet, the advancement of, in Iran’s case, a nuclear weapon’s program.

Now, this is not going to happen as Obama is urging Congress to give the automakers $50 billion dollars in financial aid. Yes, you read that correctly, 50! That’s twice what they’re looking for!

Good God man, what is he thinking?!?!?!

Let me put this into a comparable scenario for all of you.

With the Holidays coming up, we’re all, for better or worse, going to see most of our families a great deal over the next month and a half. Undoubtedly, some, if not all, of us have, shall we say, a black sheep or two in the family. And without question, said black sheep will most likely have some money troubles this season.

In this scenario, you are the lucky family member they chose to hit up for some cash. This black sheep, however, has conveniently forgotten that they already borrowed a tidy sum of money from you last Christmas and haven’t paid you back.

So that leaves you with a few options:

a) You can politely decline and say that the current economic times have been tough on you too and that you don’t have anything to spare.
b) You can rudely decline by calling them a “deadbeat” and demand a payment from last year’s loan.
c) You can grudgingly agree to give them “some” money, not nearly as much as they ask and remind them about last year’s loan.
d) You can happily agree to help them out by forgiving last year’s loan and insisting on giving them twice what they asked.

Ok, quick show of hands…

Who chose a? Let’s see those hands.

Alright, a few of you.

How about b? Come on, come on, let’s get those hands up.

A few less than a, but still some support.

Ok, c?

Seems like c is the most popular answer thus far.

Alright how about d?

I don’t see any…nope, not a one.

Oh wait; there is one person that chose d.

Wanna guess who that one person was?

Yep, it’s Obama.

Just imagine this:

Obama, while digesting his ham, sipping on some eggnog and admiring the Christmas tree, just got pulled aside by his Uncle Otto. Uncle Otto claims that he’s had a tough year and that he just needs $3,000 to “get his head above water”.

Before Otto can explain how he got into this mess, Obama stops him and says, “you know Otto, don’t worry about it. I’m going to forget that you haven’t paid back a dime of the $3,000 you borrowed from me last Christmas and give you $6,000 right now. Would you prefer cash or a check?”

That’s, essentially, what just happened folks. The problem with this scenario is that he didn’t give Uncle Otto his own money …it was ours and we’re never gonna get it back. It doesn’t matter that, if by some unforeseen miracle, this money helps Detroit get out of their difficulties and pay it all back, we will never see that money again. The government will find some other way to spend it on something else, some other “crisis” that “we can’t let happen”.

Unfortunately for us, the best-case scenario is that we only lose our $50 billion. As unfair and frustrating of a development as that is, we can afford to lose that.

Equally unfortunate is the worst-case scenario where Iran views Obama as a weak leader and decides to push him around and continues their development of nuclear weapons.

That’s a scenario we cannot afford.

That's all for now folks. Until next time, take care and be well.

-John

Just Say No!

No, this is not a reference to Nancy Reagan’s message to children about drug use. It is, however, a message nonetheless; one that’s directed to President Bush, Congress and President-elect Obama.

Just say “no”… to more bailouts!

By now, you’ve all seen the headlines about the terrible condition of the Big 3 automakers:

General Motors: Market share reduced to barely 20% (in the 60’s it was over 50%), publicly acknowledged the likelihood that they may run out of cash by the end of next year’s first quarter, a 45% drop in sales in October and rumors that the stock price will soon hit zero.

Ford: Another quarter showing multi-billion dollar losses and a 30% drop in sales in October.

Chrysler: Just cut 25% of their salaried work force and experienced a 33% drop in sales during the month of September.

Here’s another thing they all have in common; they’re all going to Washington with their hats in hand, to try and squeeze another $25 billion out of Uncle Sam. I say “another” because they just got a $25 billion loan from Congress in September!

Hey Big 3, how’s that loan working out for you guys?

Crickets…tumbleweed rolling by…more crickets…still more crickets and some more tumbleweed just rolled on by.

Yeah, that’s what I thought! It did nothing! In fact, since they got that $25 billion, things have gotten worse.

So why in the world are we considering giving Detroit a taste of the $700 billion financial bailout package?

So, if we give them even more of our money, they’re suddenly going to figure everything out? If we give them more of our money, they’re suddenly going to produce quality cars that Americans want to buy? If we give them more of our money, they’ll suddenly be out from under the crippling benefit and pension packages negotiated with the UAW (United Auto Workers Union)?

Right…

By the way, wasn’t that $700 billion supposed to be reserved for the financial industry? I guess that’s another discussion for another time.

But back to my message: to everyone in the Government, please stop throwing good money after bad and stop granting these bailout packages to every Tom, Dick and GM that ask for them!

We’ve already bailed out the financial system and the airlines. If we commit even more tax dollars to Detroit, I’m telling you the floodgates will open. You’ll start to see any business that’s failing come to Congress, pleading for a bundle of cash right out of the taxpayer coffers.

First up, American Express. Next? Circuit City. After them? Starbucks. Behind them? The Newspaper industry.

This dangerous precedent of helping any company or industry that’s failing is leading us further and further down the road of a Soviet-style planned economy. And we all know how that worked out for the Soviets…

Listen, if Washington really wants to help these automakers, why don’t they just repeal some of the restrictions they placed upon them?

They can start by easing emission restrictions and mileage requirements. Due to these measures, automakers have to build hundreds of thousands of small cars that nobody wants to buy. If they were able to focus as much of their resources as they want to the production of SUV’s, you know, cars that actually turn a profit, they may actually be inching out of the red instead of spiraling downward into it.

To understand this point, just look at the numbers. Chrysler lost (yes, you’re reading that correctly, lost!) $412 per vehicle in 2007. GM? They lost $729 per vehicle made. But Ford takes the cake, losing a whopping $1,467 per vehicle in 2007.

Government restrictions are just the beginning, however. The real money crunch comes from the benefit and pension packages given to UAW workers. But don’t expect any help from Washington with this mess. With President-elect Obama’s stance on unions (the elimination of the secret ballot, giving labor the extreme upper hand in the workplace) and Congress’ ignorant stance on wages and executive compensation, these labor worries are probably just the beginning.

In fact, in a letter sent to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson asking the secretary to grant funds to Detroit, Henry Reid and Nancy Pelosi did not once mention the crippling effects unions have had on the automakers situation. They did, however, choose to mention that taxpayers would be spared by limiting “executive compensation”.

(Sign)

Yeah, that’s been the problem all these years. Auto executives have been making too much money. Well, problem solved! Well done Mr. Reid and Mrs. Pelosi! Happy days are here again Big 3!

Please! Is it too much to ask to have elected officials that have a small semblance of a clue when it comes to the economy?

Here’s an idea for the Big 3 automakers: instead of countless commercials touting 0% financing and deal after deal after deal, how about an ad campaign focusing on the quality of the cars they make? You know, instill a little confidence to the market.

Look, I don’t want to see these automakers fail. I don’t want to see upwards of 2.5 million jobs lost if all three companies close up shop.

At the same time, however, I am not about to back a plan that subsidizes yet another failed industry for the sake of saving jobs. That is not the role of government! Additionally, it is not the role of the taxpayers to bailout a group of people that have guided this once proud industry to the perilous fate they now face!

This policy of handouts has to stop at some point!

On a side note, you know, if the Big 3 go out of business, we’ll still be able to buy cars…good ones too. Incidentally, all those “foreign” Toyotas and Hondas on the road now are usually assembled right here in America, by American workers.

That’s all for now folks. Until next time, take care and be well.

-John

So, who’s it gonna be?

I’ve been asked this question at least a dozen times since Wednesday morning.

Who’s it gonna be? Who’s it gonna be? Who’s it gonna be?

My answer has been a sheepish, “I really don’t know”.

I wish I had more insight, but as you all know there’s so much that can happen in four years that it’s virtually impossible to guess the Republican nominee for 2012 with any certainty.

That doesn’t mean that I’m not about to do that, but this is just my way of covering my hide if my prediction is incorrect.

I do find this obsession with naming the next Republican nominee rather humorous. All I ever hear from people is how much they “hate the election” or “can’t wait for this election to be over”, yet less than 12 hours after figuring out that Obama beat McCain, people were already on the edge of their seats, ready for the next election to come. A little consistency would be nice, people!

Here is my list of the early front-runners for the GOP’s nomination in 2012, in no particular order:

• Mitt Romney- Former Governor of Massachusetts and Businessman- 61
• Bobby Jindal- Current Governor of Louisiana-37
• Mike Pence- Current Congressman of Indiana-49
• Sarah Palin-Current Governor of Alaska-44
• Tim Pawlenty-Current Governor of Minnesota-47
• Eric Cantor-Current Congressman of Virginia-45
• Paul Ryan-Current Congressman of Wisconsin-38
• Mike Huckabee-Former Governor of Arkansas and current contributor to Fox News-53
• Mitch Daniels-Current Governor of Indiana-59
• Charlie Crist-Current Governor of Florida-52

As I said, it’s virtually impossible to see what’s going to happen four years from now, but I would be fairly surprised if the 2012 Republican nominee for president isn’t on this list.

If I had to categorize these people into groups of strong, average and weak, I would probably go this way:

Strong
• Pawlenty
• Jindal
• Palin

Average
• Daniels
• Crist
• Pence
• Ryan

Weak
• Cantor
• Huckabee
• Romney

In regards to name recognition, devoted supporters and election experience, Palin clearly has the advantage over everyone. Conversely, she has more negatives then they all do. The visceral hatred for Palin that the Left demonstrated was shocking and that may be a liability for her as well. Jindal’s Indian ancestry shows the party’s diversity and his conservative beliefs, performance during Hurricane Gustav and overwhelming popularity are all pluses for the Louisiana Governor. Tim Pawlenty is another young Governor with a strong conservative voting record. His proximity to Iowa could be a huge factor for him during early campaigning (ask Rudy Giuliani, Barack Obama and John McCain what Iowa can do for a campaign), however, his tough stance on immigration, while popular amongst conservatives, could be costly with an ever expanding Hispanic voting block.

I think the rest of the candidates are either too inexperienced, unknown or ill equipped for the position.

So, if I had to pick a party ticket for the Republicans today, I would go Pawlenty as President and Jindal as VP.

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it…for now.

Now, as I said in my previous post, the message, not the messenger, is paramount for a conservative to regain the White House. Yes, we need an able messenger, but if they lack a true, conservative message that speaks, directly, to every person in this county than it doesn’t matter who is running.

That’s all for now folks. Until next time, take care and be well.

- John

How we get it back.

For two days now, we conservatives have been reading our movement’s obituary in publications like the New York Times, the New Republic and the Los Angeles Times.

Let me assure all of you that rumors of our demise have been greatly exaggerated.

While the current junior Senator from Illinois will be residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for the next four years and the Democrats have extended their majorities in both houses of Congress, the Conservative movement is far from dead.

We have two years people. Two years to get back to true conservative values, find a suitable candidate that will stick to those values and, most importantly, establish a real message.

The message is the key. No matter how vapid you may have found the “hope” and “change” themes of the Obama campaign, you have to admit they worked. Talk to anyone that voted for Obama and ask them why they support him. The words “hope” and “change” will be uttered in under nine seconds.

Now, I’m not suggesting we adapt an equally empty message to counter this “hope” and “change” rhetoric. (By the way, what the hell is Obama going to say when he runs for reelection? “Change” won’t make too much sense will it? Seriously, I haven’t a clue what he’s going to do. “Change” was every third word out of his mouth. I guess we should prepare ourselves to see a sea of “Hold” and “Persist” banners in Grant Park in 2012.)

But back to my original point, we need a real message. One that will not only resonate with voters, but one that will also adhere to real conservative values and dramatically distance ourselves from the policies and ideologies of liberal Democrats. It doesn’t have to be gimmicky or even catchy, it just has to speak directly to each person in America.

While we don’t know what President Obama’s priorities will be once his term starts, we can all agree that we’re going to see a much bigger government that has more influence on our lives.

That’s where we need to attack them. We need to show the electorate that the answers to their problems don’t reside inside the White House or the halls of Congress. They reside in their minds, their ideas and their hard work.

I would love to hear our candidate say the following when they announce their bid for the presidency:

“Since the beginning of 2009, we have heard President Obama and his cohorts in Congress tell us what government will do for us and how they will make our lives better. The results of this ideology have been incredibly detrimental to this nation’s most important and unique institution…the individual.

Ladies and gentlemen, when I am elected as the next President of the United States, I will not talk down to you and explain how government will fix all of your problems. I will not provide a laundry list of programs and policies that will sap you of your God-given right to determine the direction of your own life. I am not that arrogant and naïve to believe that us politicians have all of the answers.

Quite the contrary.

I will explain how government will get out of your way and step back to allow you to make the decisions that affect your life and the lives of your family. I will do my best to ensure that you are free to live your life as you see fit, that you earn a living in the manner in which you prefer and that you keep as much of your hard earned money as possible. Because, after all, there is no one more qualified, more able and more willing to help yourself than yourself.

Of course, we will be here if you need assistance. We will not be an administration that turns its back on our fellow citizens.

However, ladies and gentlemen, I can honestly say that I believe those times will be few and far between. I believe this because I have more faith in your intelligence, ingenuity and hard work when helping yourself than the combined “expertise”, programs and policies of every member of our vast bureaucracy trying to do the same.”

Ok, maybe I’m being naïve here, but who couldn’t get behind that message?

It’s positive, uplifting and it speaks to every single voter directly. It will help them believe in themselves and resurrect the good old “can-do” spirit of America.

The spirit that allowed us to turn 13 small colonies into the most powerful, global superpower the world has ever seen.

The spirit that allowed us to construct the strongest, most diverse and innovative economy in the world.

The spirit that has allowed us to build the most successful political model in the history of mankind.

That’s a winning message folks and one that I would love to see someone use to take back the White House.

That’s all for now folks. Until next time, take care and be well.

- John