Predicable future for Government Motors (formerly General Motors)

Now that the Feds have given money to the automakers and said automakers have taken the money, market forces have officially been removed from the auto market. When an entity takes a large sum of money from the Government they are now at the behest of the Government. Who is the Government? A collection of politicians and bureaucrats. This means the following will happen:

1. Removal of the business leaders from the company and replace them with bureaucrats and friends of those in political power. First thing Obama did was remove the CEO. The new leaders may look like business leaders but they will not make a single business decision without first consulting the political leaders for a political decision.

2. The company will change type of cars they make. This won't happen in one fell swoop. The current models will still be there but we will start to see a series of cars that no one wants but the politicians think are politically correct. For instance you will begin to see "Green friendly" cars - that suck and no one will want - as they begin to phase out the previous un-PC car models.

3. Once the Government realizes that no one wants the crap the the company is now putting out they will begin to pass laws to "encourage" the purchase of their cars. This may include tax breaks for those who purchase them. They will also begin to pass laws to "discourage" the purchase of any car not manufactured by Government Motors. This may come in the form of higher taxes and extensive regulation on a Non-Government Motors car which would drive up the cost of the "competition". It should be noted that any new regulations will not be enforced when it comes to Government Motors.

4. Ten to Fifteen years from now we will learn that Government Motors cars pollute the environment more than anything today and that no one enjoys driving them (except for the pony-tailed guy in the rich part of town). We will also learn that the executives at Government Motors have been overpaid through continuing government "loans" in order to funnel money back to the re-election coffers of the Democrat Party.

True Beauty analogy

There was a new reality show on this season that I found interesting to watch and was kind of hooked on. It was called "True Beauty". The premise was to put these gorgeous people into situations that tested their "inner" beauty through a multitude of hidden cameras. It was only after each was removed from the show that they realized that every moment in the house was being taped and observed.

After thinking about that a little I walked around my house and wondered, 'what if there were cameras all over here watching me? How would that change how I treated people?'

Then a scripture from Ecclesiastes came to mind "For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil." Ecc 12:14

Our whole lives are being monitored and watched - by a benevolent God who loves us and wants the best for us. It I live my life knowing that the greatest watcher in the univerise is watching and judging my every deed, how will that affect my life?

How many liberal messages can we fit in one episode?

Law and Order SVU was on TV last night in the background while I was working on something for my Church's website. Usually I can pick out the heroes and villains on this show easily based on what either unrealistic right wing comments they say or believe or what passionate left wing comments they espouse.

Last night's episode was one for the ages. It included the following:

• An abusive rich, white, controlling husband (who is a second amendment zealot), his helpless victim wife who goes back to him and is eventually killed by him during a fight.
• Negative portrayal of a pharmacist for defending herself from being attacked by a woman who wanted RU-486. 1. Because anything pharmaceutical is bad. 2. She expressed pseudo pro-life concerns.
  
• Sympathy for a woman who murdered her husband in 1974 and had been on the lam for 30+ years after initially tricking the DA and escaping. What was the turning point for the hard-ass DA to go from wanting her persecuted for breaking the law to sympathizing with her and recommending probation? Because the reason the woman escaped from the DA in 1974 was to seek her constitutional duty of aborting her baby. OK, she should have said that in the first place.
  

Lessons from episode:

1. If you are pregnant with your abusive husbands baby, make sure you explain to the DA that all you want is an abortion when you escape custody. Your sentence will be lighter.
2. If you murder your husband in his sleep, explain that you were abused even though there is no physical evidence 30+ years later. This one is troubling because it marginalizes the women who are actually being abused and makes all women less believable.
3. Abusive husbands are typically pro second amendment and rich.

The reason I am writing this blog is to criticize the simplistic, left wing writing of this episode. The portrayal of the bad people with noble beliefs and the use of the holy grail of abortion being once again the way to speak to the rational side of the good guys.

As long as there's a pie...

As long as there is a pie, people will want their piece. This is the case, especially if there is a big fat pie and you don't have to pay for your piece. People just can't help themselves. When they see a frenzy to gobble up a pie, they themselves feel a duty to their ego to dive in too.

Look at our congress. Congressmen write legislation typically to send pet projects to their district. These are called pork barrel projects in reference to piglets suckling their mother. I thought today, if congresspeople are sending borrowed money back to their home districts and their constituents gleefully return the favor by voting for them then what incentive do they have to stop. As a matter of fact, I think, that if someone went to congress and promised not to waste tax payers money by sending home pork projects then that congressmen would not last very long in his seat. I think the majority of his constituents would cry 'where is our piece of the pie??'.

Thus our dilemma. America has been the richest nation in the history of the world (by far) for the last 25 years. However, as the receipts to the treasury rose and fell in a normal cyclical manner, the spending by our congresspeople has always gone up. Can someone say deficits/debt? Unfortunately both sides of the aisle have put people in power who can't help themselves and have spent, spent and spent. This has done nothing but put our future generations on the hook for trillions of dollars owed to other nations.

Now we are in 2009 and our new president seeks to spend our way out of a mess that was caused by spending, regulations and destructive banking requirements on loaning money. When he is done borrowing he is going to print more money (inflation????) because he and his colleagues just can't help themselves to just eating the pie. They have to borrow against future pies ... until everything collapses and there are no pies.

Liberal Mental Disorder: Picking wrong bad guys

Liberals claim that government will always perform a service better because they are not driven by profit.

OK. What does that mean? I claim the opposite is true. Let's try to look at government through the lens of a business that provides a service. The government can write a law that will require its "customers" to pay them a certain amount whether the "customers" get anything back or not. And let's not forget that government is not some building down the road. The government is full of people. People, whether in government or not, want what is best for themselves. At least the private sector businessman is required to provide something to his "customers" before he is rewarded with payment. Doesn't that make him more accountable? Doesn't that make him less inclined to be wasteful with every penny? Doesn't that force him to put a price on his service that does not exceed what his customers can pay (free market)?

Quite the opposite is true with the government guy. Because he is not driven by profit he is far less prudent with the money that comes except when it comes to providing his own needs and lining his own pockets. The mere fact that they have the power to make it illegal not to give them more of what the private sector has, when they demand it, is inherently corruptible.

Have you noticed that when people in government get rich solely from being in government, it is more publicly accepted than people who risk everything to provide a service to others and gets rich from it? Why is that? Why is it that Joe Senator, whose only major accomplishment was to get at least 51% of the people in his home state to vote for him instead of the other guy, can get away with amassing a personal fortune through the public trough and influence peddling and not have it seen as immoral?

While likewise, Joe Private Creator, a man who started with nothing and created an entity that is beneficial to the world that subsequently brings him riches is looked at as a pariah who must be punished by Joe Senator by taking a large portion of what Joe Private Creator has made made to be given to Joe Layabout to ensure Joe Layabout's vote every 6 years for Joe Senator?

In the long term we would all be better off if Joe Private Creator were able to keep more of his money to create more and invest more. Joe Layabout would be better off too as there would be more private ventures that would be seeking his employment. And to keep our roads and bridges safe and our police paid, Joe Senator and Joe Local Government would thus have more revenues coming in to fund their pet projects that help keep their talentless rear ends employed in the government.

{This blog is written with the understanding that government has had very good people, like Ronald Reagan, and the private sector has had very bad people, like Bernie Madoff}

God save the republic

Under the auspices of making the bad people think that we are not meanies.

Well Mr. Obama has been in office less than 48 hours and he has quickly handed the terrorists 2 early victories.

Victory #1:

Gitmo war crimes court halted at Obama request

By BEN FOX, Associated Press Writer Ben Fox, Associated Press Writer – Wed Jan 21, 5:18 pm ET

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba – The Guantanamo Bay war crimes court came to an abrupt halt Wednesday as military judges granted President Barack Obama's request to suspend proceedings while he reviews his predecessor's strategy for prosecuting terrorists.

The judges quickly agreed to a 120-day suspension of the cases of a Canadian accused of killing an American soldier in Afghanistan and five men charged in the Sept. 11 attacks. Similar orders are expected in other pending cases pending before the Guantanamo military commissions.

Full article

Put yourself in the mind of a terrorist. How would this make you feel? Would it bring you comfort or put fear in you? I guess Obama and his ilk believe that this sign of good will would have a positive affect on those who hate us anyway. Obama believes that if the terrorists believe they have someone in the white house that will be fair to them then they will be less likely to attack the country while he is in office. That is the naivate of this man and liberals in general. The terrorists hate free Judeo Christian nations and want us dead unless we convert to islam. What is so difficult to understand.

Victory #2:

Obama to close terror war black sites

Orders limit interrogations

Sara A. Carter and Eli Lake THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Thursday, January 22, 2009

President Obama on Thursday will order the closure of so-called black sites, where CIA and European security services have interrogated terrorist suspects, under executive orders dismantling much of the Bush administration's architecture for the war on terror, according to four individuals familiar with a draft executive order.

Mr. Obama will shutter "all permanent detention facilities overseas," the draft said, according to the individuals, who asked not to be named because the orders had not been signed. There are at least eight such prisons, according to published reports. The Bush administration never revealed the number or locations of the facilities, although several were said to be in Eastern Europe.

Full article


Oh my. Our enemy only understands and only respects the use of force. This is a huge victory for them. They have to feel re-energized. No question about it. Knowing that they will not be tortured into giving up plots against the U.S. has to be incredibly encouraging to them.


Up next on the Obama agenda is government takeover of the banking and health care systems, implementation of the "fairness doctrine" to make it difficult for dissenting voices to be heard, open the borders so un-assimilated anti-Americans can vote for Democrats ad infinitem, etc, etc...

While Obama is closing ... he is keeping open the so called "warrentless wiretaps", etc... So he is retaining powers that can be used against U. S. citizens.

God save our beloved republic.

Ze Verd Christmas is now hereby forbidden!

Ok. It is December and retailers and businesses want our money again. However these same retailers have again fallen for the myth that the majority of their customers are offended by the word Christmas but not by the more generic word Holiday. Or perhaps they feel safer lumping all of the big holidays into the word "Holiday" so when you do your Kwaanza and Hannakah shopping you will shop at their store. The irony is that 90% of their potential customers, even the athiests, are buying stuff to give as gifts on Christmas!

Every year it gets worse but this year I am seeing the effort to avoid mentioning the word Christmas at all cost, actually to a point where it doesn't make sense.

Here are some examples:

• I got something in the mail from St. Mary's Bank. If I open an account with them I will get a "free holiday DVD". However ALL of the DVDs I can choose from are Christmas DVDs! So St. Mary's Bank is calling a stack of Christmas DVDs, "holiday DVDs", so as to entice me to give them my business.
• I heard an eBay radio ad the other day in which Santa bellows "Happy Holidays America". OK, well what other holiday does Santa Clause come on besides Christmas? Has he ever been associated with Kwaanza or Hannakah? It's kind of like George Steinbrenner cheering "go organized teams!" from his owners booth so as not to offend fans of other teams or other sports.
• In a UPS ad, the driver talks about the job 'driver helper' as a way to "make extra cash for the holiday". He talks about the joy of bringing people their packages and how happy they are to see him. However, at the end of the spiel but he says "when December 25th hits... you did a good job and I'll see you next year." I guess saying "when holiday hits..." would sound kind of weird so I imagine the spinless marketeers at UPS probably said "well just say 'December 25th' since holiday doesn't fit so well."
  

Anyway, more observations may come but in honor of thought police around the world I say Merry December 25th and a Happy January 1st!