Shock and Amazement

Of all of the possible news outlets, I can't believe that I'm going to The Daily Show to properly explain the whole AIG bonus situation. But, surprisingly enough, they got it pretty close. Perhaps their best investigative reporting ever.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
The Notorious AIG - Scorn in the USA
comedycentral.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

Facebook friends, look here.

The part at 3:14 is important. As is the fact that congress knew about the bonuses and even allowed for them in the bill.

The guy at the top is always an easy target. Think before you accuse. Don't just go on a witch hunt. Sadly, that's what it looks like people are doing. Even though it isn't really helping them out (or solving anything), people just want to watch someone burn. Preferably, someone they are jealous of.

The more you knooooooow!

I've found out how our government figures stuff out! It makes perfect sense!



The kazoo just kills me.

I have a new hero.

Daniel Hannan, ladies and gentlemen:



Can we bring him here to talk to our government?

I keep having to remind myself that most people believe this stuff.

Gaining an understanding of how nature behaves on its own before understanding how humans affect it? Brilliant!

Obama is a liar. Plain and simple.

"We are going to ban all earmarks."
~President Barack H. Obama, about the spending bill

In reality, the bill contains about 9,000 earmarks, totalling about $7.8 billion. Thanks, Barry.

I'm having trouble expressing my frustration. So, I'll let Glenn Beck do it for me.

First, a little info for those of you who think that we can just raise taxes on the rich to solve our problems:



Fantastic. Now about the bill at hand and the pork within:



So not only has Obama allowed earmarks in this bill, but he is actually directly responsible for requesting some of it. But it's ok. He's having his name removed from it.

*sigh*

The War on Charity

I have learned to never underestimate President Obama's ability to piss me the hell off.

In his continued campaign of class warfare, he may be claiming another innocent casualty: non-profit organizations. He has proposed a reduction in tax deductions for charitable giving for the ever-maligned "wealthy." It's the latest in a stream of attempts to penalize the successful that the public just seems to love. But usually, it's not so apparent how these measures will actually negatively affect many of us beneath them - a negative trickle-down effect. Things like increased taxes and restrictions on large corporations may sound like justice to those of us who are less fortunate. But we don't realize that when the wealthy have less money and freedom, they have a harder time doing things like hiring people and expanding.

This time, it's different. We are being told point-blank just why this is a bad idea. When this takes effect, we know exactly how it will have a negative impact. If the wealthy, who are the ones who are able to give the most, get less reward for giving, when the reward is one of the biggest reasons they give in the first place, what do you think will happen to charitable donations? Amazingly, some people still think that it's a good idea.

But seriously, reducing deductions for charitable giving? That's his idea? There are so many other ways he could have tried to get more taxes out of the wealthy. And we're getting mixed signals here. He's also been talking about eliminating tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas, which I have discussed earlier. So we're led to believe that he's increasing taxes for certain activities because they are bad and he wants people to stop. So, does Obama think that wealthy people giving money to charity is a bad thing? Apparently, he does. Why else would he be punishing them?

Seriously, folks. It's a pretty simple concept that has been proven over and over: the more you tax an activity, the less of it you get.

Here's a helpful article that does a good job of representing both sides. It also has some good comments from educated people, which you don't find very often on the internet.

Obama's Plan to Reduce Charitable Deductions for the Wealthy Draws Criticism

I just want to point out a few things from the article. First is this absolutely outrageous comment from Obama on why he's doing such a terrible thing:

"The plan is an effort to 'rebalance the tax code so that the wealthiest pay more,' the document says."

For those of us who know that communism is bad (a sliding tax scale is one of the tennants of communism), realize that the wealthy are already paying more and understand what the word "balance" means, this is one of the dumbest statements ever.

Here's a little lesson for Obama on the concept of balance. When one group of people is paying more than other groups, that is the opposite of balance. Balance would mean that everyone pays the same.

The tax code is already way out of balance, anyway. If you didn't already know that, just read this: The Top 50% pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes (The top 1% pay more than a third: 34.27%)

Here's another point for those who enjoy sticking it to the rich: the only rich people being punished by this measure are those who give to charity. Those scumbags who give nothing are getting away scot free (in this case, anyway). This is just a horrible, horrible idea.

And to those of you who like this whole class warfare thing, answer this: have any of you benefitted one dime because of what has been taken from the wealthy? Anyone? Has your life improved because they can't fly their private jets as much or can't go on lavish retreats? I'll tell you whose lives have NOT improved: the companies who would be getting more income and the workers who would be getting more tips if they could take more retreats and upgrade more offices.

This whole thing is an attack on one of the main principles that I hold that keep me a conservative: non-profits, especially Christian-based, are way better for the people than government programs. Why? One main reason, really. What do the poor (like all of us) need the most? They need Jesus. And they aren't going to get that from government. That isn't allowed.

"Unless the LORD builds the house,
its builders labor in vain.
Unless the LORD watches over the city,
the watchmen stand guard in vain."

Time to party like it's 1773

As you may have guessed, I am not too happy with our government right now. Turns out that I am not alone. In response, people all over the country have been organizing protests that hearken back to the Boston Tea Party. This Sunday, I will be attending the Cincinnati Tea Party.

If you are interested, check out the website: www.cincinnatiteaparty.org

Hope to see you there!

It's a child AND it's making choices

Most of you know that I am vehemently pro-life/anti-choice. But, like most views on important matters that I have held, there were times when I was not so sure. I've had a lot of discussions/arguments and have heard a lot of good points on both sides. I even thought that I had come up with definitive answers for why abortion is always wrong.

That was until I saw my child for the first time on the ultrasound. Now, I know what you're probably thinking. This is going to be another one of those ultra-emotional type arguments you hear from expectant parents just gushing over what a miracle their little unborn baby is. Though, I did feel a little of that. But this is a conclusion that I would come to after seeing any child in the womb.

What I am talking about was actually something that didn't occur to me until we were driving home from the doctor's office. It was actually almost purely cerebral. One of the main talking points you hear from the pro-choice side is how the unborn child is really just a part of the woman's body. This does seem to have some merit on the surface, since it is inside the boundaries of the woman's body and is actually directly connected to it. But what I saw there seemed to be in contradiction to that idea.

What I saw was a little child who was making a lot of movement. Now that probably doesn't sound too profound, since there are all sorts of internal parts of the body that move without the person consciously commanding them to. But the difference here is that the child was moving completely independently of any control from Stephanie's brain or any other part of her, conscious or unconscious. There was no message being sent from Stephanie's brain or any hormones from any glands making that little kid dance the fanciful jig that we saw it dance. Since it was in control of itself, it must be a seperate being. And since its DNA is human, then it must be a seperate human being.

Period.

The Lord giveth, the Lord taketh away.

Things have been hectic lately, to say the least. Some of you knew that my cousin, Hannah, was expecting to deliver her first child about now. They were hoping that the child would come before they moved, but hadn't yet as of a couple days ago. So, on Thursday, they did a cesarean, and little Adison (or Addison?) Louise Wessel was presented to the world for the first time. All 9 lbs. 15 oz. of her. Hannah's probably glad they did the cesarean. And baby and mother are doing fine, so that's pretty sweet.

Things were not so happy yesterday. My paternal grandmother passed away at 11:30am. She had some condition since about a year ago that caused muscles around her eyes to weaken, and they looked droopy and it was hard for her to keep them open. They put her on meds that seemed to be working until early last week. The flap that closed her wind-pipe when she swallowed stopped working, so she couldn't really swallow very well. They took her to the hospital, but still didn't think that it was too serious. Then it moved downward and her lungs stopped working. She didn't last long after that. It was pretty sudden. Sure, she was 88, but didn't seem anywhere near death. The funeral will be this week. Prayers would be appreciated, especially for my grandfather. The two of them were as close as any married couple I've known.

But I'll end here on a lighter note with some news that many of you may know, but some do not. Sorry if we haven't been able to tell you in person, but here goes.

STEPHANIE IS PREGNANT!!!

There. She's about 12 weeks along and the due date is September 14. We're very excited, obviously. She had her first doctor's appointment last week and they did the first ultrasound. I was surprised how expressive and full of movement the baby was. And it seems to already have my dance moves. Steph even had the doctor make sure that there was only one. I had her make sure that there was no tail. Both of us were pleased. We also got to hear AND see the heart beating.

Wanna see? Here you go:


Blessed be the name of the Lord.