Posts
This is a rant. This is not the normal, well thought out, poetic prose, that Abigail and Dolley readers usually get. This is a tantrum! You see, I am involved in International Trade, I have an Economics Degree, I am a Customs House Broker, I am also an avid reader and history buff - as such, I am well qualified to loose my freaking mind over the latest debacle by the Union Organizer and Chief.
Would somebody PLEASE give Barack Hussein Obama a blessed history book? On the road to quickly becoming the worst President ever, Obama sets a punitive tariff on imported Chinese tires! Can somebody please tell this idiot that the Great Depression was only begun after the Smoot Hawley tariffs were put into place? For those of you who don't know what that was, it was a protectionist tariff designed to increase the costs of imported goods and "protect" our industries. (If you are so inclined I can send you a link that will show they are still on the books and reserved for countries we have embargoes against. Thus, if you want to bring in a blanket from North Korea, even though it is illegal, you would pay the duty on the Smoot Hawley rate which is around 50%)
Protectionism DOES NOT work, in fact it always has the opposite effect and sent the world into the Great Depression. Right now in history, our fragile economy has been allowed to operate for a few months without more HELP from the government, and is showing signs of hope. Obama crushes the new shoot with a giant foot. (This has to be on purpose.... No way do they not know what this will do.)
Over the weekend, our second largest trading partner is slapped with a punitive (not Constitutionally authorized) 35% punitive tariff on Chinese tires. The Chinese of course are furious and will retaliate.
I don't even technically know what it is being called because CUSTOMS has not issued any directives to the industry to tell us what it is or how we are supposed to implement the latest from the Idiot and Chief!
The kicker in this whole thing, is normal channels are not being followed.
Typically what happens, is someone in the industry being "hurt" files a motion in court. A a case is opened by the ITC (International Trade Commission) and the industry is asked for input during an investigation period. Comments from concerned parties are entertained and an investigation is launched. There is a process, there is an acceptable way of doing this kind of thing, but of course these rules don't apply to King Barack Obama. This due process allows people to prepare for possible cost increases in their product and to adjust prices to their customers. This allows importers to budget their costs and adjust their forecasts. This due process allows time for computer programs to be changed to accommodate the new laws, rates, and case numbers. This due process prevents special interests from getting a hold of a person in power and having them willey nilley screw up trade relations with another country as political payback or favor granting.
Who knew that one day the Presidency would be bought and paid for by Special Interests? Who knew that one day the President would be at the beck and call of the Unions? Who knew that the Unions would one day OWN the President of the United States and be free direct policy on trade, fire CEO's and take over industries, direct stimulus, health care, and energy policy. If you doubt me, research it! Go to Youtube and type in SEIU and Obama. Do some homework, you will find I am right.
The pisser of the whole thing? YOU get screwed. That's right folks, take it from an economics major, I don't remember much, but I sure do remember the empirical FACTUAL evidence that the only people that benefit from a situation like this are the unions and the consumers pay the price.
So bend over America as you change that flat tire on the side of the road. Barack Obama has a jack and he knows exactly where to put it.
Sep 14, 2009
Silence - How the Main Stream Media are Failing the Country and Themselves
Abigail and Dolley readers, ssshhhhhh! Listen closely - do you hear the crickets chirping? Yes, that is the main stream media's coverage on such pivotal and critical topics such as Van Jones, NEA resignation, Acorn and to a large extent the Tea Party protests across the country yesterday. Why? Why does the main stream media ignore or bury these stories? To the detriment of their circulation, ratings, and thus their bottom lines they are marching along to the beat of the politico and headed straight for the cliff of obscurity and financial ruin.
The main stream media did not properly vet candidate Obama. There is absolutely no way even liberals can deny that had Obama been a conservative his radical past and associates would have been exposed. The main stream media is not researching and vetting the bills before Congress and the bills passed by Congress. The stimulus package is so riddled with corruption and waste every politician who had a hand in it should hang their head in shame.
The corrupt and criminal behavior of members of Congress and their associates is allowed to continue with average Americans knowing little about the criminal investigations into among a few Rangel and Conyers. That Barney Frank was associated with a male prostitute ring is largely ignored and the vitriolic hatred and despot behavior of this powerful Congressman is left unchallenged. The Pelosi earmarks for a mouse and for tax breaks for American Samoa (where her husband has major financial interests), calling the CIA liars, and the hypocrisy of her comments and statements about protesters is astonishing. Diane Feinstein's corrupt maneuverings on behalf of her husband's interests with the FDIC have gone completely unreported.
I will leave the double standard out of it because honestly, it is more important for the main stream media to begin doing their jobs than it is to blame them for what they have not done in the past. A free and fair press was one of the checks and balances that the Founding Fathers believed in. A break down of this component of our Republic is detrimental to the press from an economic stand point but more importantly from the free functioning of our Country.
The main stream media did not properly vet candidate Obama. There is absolutely no way even liberals can deny that had Obama been a conservative his radical past and associates would have been exposed. The main stream media is not researching and vetting the bills before Congress and the bills passed by Congress. The stimulus package is so riddled with corruption and waste every politician who had a hand in it should hang their head in shame.
The corrupt and criminal behavior of members of Congress and their associates is allowed to continue with average Americans knowing little about the criminal investigations into among a few Rangel and Conyers. That Barney Frank was associated with a male prostitute ring is largely ignored and the vitriolic hatred and despot behavior of this powerful Congressman is left unchallenged. The Pelosi earmarks for a mouse and for tax breaks for American Samoa (where her husband has major financial interests), calling the CIA liars, and the hypocrisy of her comments and statements about protesters is astonishing. Diane Feinstein's corrupt maneuverings on behalf of her husband's interests with the FDIC have gone completely unreported.
I will leave the double standard out of it because honestly, it is more important for the main stream media to begin doing their jobs than it is to blame them for what they have not done in the past. A free and fair press was one of the checks and balances that the Founding Fathers believed in. A break down of this component of our Republic is detrimental to the press from an economic stand point but more importantly from the free functioning of our Country.
Sep 8, 2009
Critical Thinking, Logic, and Brutal Self Examination
I am a thinker. I am a writer. I am a passionate lover of God, Country, and Family. I have an economics degree and have been in the business world for 20 years. I am an unabashed free trader and capitalist.
But then I must also consider: Am I a hypocrite? Am I so consumed with the superiority of my views that I refuse to consider the opinions of others? Am I hateful and offensive in my passion?
I must confess, that I have done some intense soul searching in those areas of late. For I am truly fallible and understand that in all manner of life, I must constantly self evaluate and pray that the Lord will convict me when there is too much Dolley and not enough Jesus. The Lord will most certainly, decisively and quickly set me straight in those areas.
What started me down this road, though, were posts from several friends on one of the social networking sites that said, if you believe this, take me off your "Friends" list and another that intimated that all Republicans were liars and hypocrites. I must confess I was taken aback by their stance, and while, perhaps not specifically directed toward me, sent me down the road none the less. Technically, I no longer consider myself a Republican, but accepted the broad stroke to include people of the Conservative persuasion.
The gist of the posts concerned the President's address to school children and the storm surrounding it. I was forced to ask myself, would I be holding the same position were the President someone that held my world view. The painful answer was, no, probably not. Upon reaching that somewhat discomforting conclusion, I continued to investigate the issue. I have come to the conclusion, in the Tradition of Audacity of Logic, that while I may not have objected to another President that shared my world view addressing school children, it is wrong from a Constitutional stand point. Thus, no President or political leader should be conducting this activity.
This was my response to the all Republicans are liars post:
I read the text on Monday and I thought the address was fine. Perhaps geared more appropriately to troubled children than to my sheltered middle class kid. My son is not even aware you CAN drop out of school and does not have a clue about AIDS. ....
The President is a temporary public servant. He is not a King, or a Father Figure - he is by definition the head of his political party, the CEO of the Country, and the Commander and Chief. We have allowed the expansion of the role of the Federal Government to overshadow too many areas of our lives - they are not even Constitutionally empowered to participate in Education.
The enumerated powers and the 10th Amendment limit the scope and the preview of their authority, yet we continue today to allow the ever encroaching specter of the Federal bureaucracy into our lives. The Founding Fathers understood this and instituted a system of checks and balances that is in large part ignored by us. We are becoming a nation that looks to the government to solve our problems, motivate our children, and take care of us from the cradle to the grave. Thus, from that mind set and logical set of reasons, we opted to have our son participate in other activities during the speech. Contextually, I did not object to the message, I do not, however, agree with the worldview from which it came - but I am honest about that."
But then I must also consider: Am I a hypocrite? Am I so consumed with the superiority of my views that I refuse to consider the opinions of others? Am I hateful and offensive in my passion?
I must confess, that I have done some intense soul searching in those areas of late. For I am truly fallible and understand that in all manner of life, I must constantly self evaluate and pray that the Lord will convict me when there is too much Dolley and not enough Jesus. The Lord will most certainly, decisively and quickly set me straight in those areas.
What started me down this road, though, were posts from several friends on one of the social networking sites that said, if you believe this, take me off your "Friends" list and another that intimated that all Republicans were liars and hypocrites. I must confess I was taken aback by their stance, and while, perhaps not specifically directed toward me, sent me down the road none the less. Technically, I no longer consider myself a Republican, but accepted the broad stroke to include people of the Conservative persuasion.
The gist of the posts concerned the President's address to school children and the storm surrounding it. I was forced to ask myself, would I be holding the same position were the President someone that held my world view. The painful answer was, no, probably not. Upon reaching that somewhat discomforting conclusion, I continued to investigate the issue. I have come to the conclusion, in the Tradition of Audacity of Logic, that while I may not have objected to another President that shared my world view addressing school children, it is wrong from a Constitutional stand point. Thus, no President or political leader should be conducting this activity.
This was my response to the all Republicans are liars post:
I read the text on Monday and I thought the address was fine. Perhaps geared more appropriately to troubled children than to my sheltered middle class kid. My son is not even aware you CAN drop out of school and does not have a clue about AIDS. ....
The President is a temporary public servant. He is not a King, or a Father Figure - he is by definition the head of his political party, the CEO of the Country, and the Commander and Chief. We have allowed the expansion of the role of the Federal Government to overshadow too many areas of our lives - they are not even Constitutionally empowered to participate in Education.
The enumerated powers and the 10th Amendment limit the scope and the preview of their authority, yet we continue today to allow the ever encroaching specter of the Federal bureaucracy into our lives. The Founding Fathers understood this and instituted a system of checks and balances that is in large part ignored by us. We are becoming a nation that looks to the government to solve our problems, motivate our children, and take care of us from the cradle to the grave. Thus, from that mind set and logical set of reasons, we opted to have our son participate in other activities during the speech. Contextually, I did not object to the message, I do not, however, agree with the worldview from which it came - but I am honest about that."
Sep 4, 2009
Death - Puppies, Kittens, and Children Should be Destroyed!
What a title, huh? Ludicrous, isn't it? Who is against puppies, kittens, and children? Who for that matter is against education and environment? I mean what kind of monster are you anyway? Who in their right mind can possibly object to the President speaking to school kids about staying in school and doing their best? What could possibly be wrong with treating the earth with respect and promoting clean energy solutions? Clearly, if you object to such wholesome and fundamentally sound principals you are not worthy of consideration and are indeed worthy of my disdain and ridicule. Most folks leave it at that and go blindly about their business, never stopping to consider more than the 15 second, scoffing talking head coming through their TV screen. They mutter on their way to the government mandated low water toilet,(that doesn't flush the first time), that the Right Wing Nut Jobs are at it again.
In the Spirit and Audacity of Logic, let us examine in depth what could possibly create such sentiments and determine if the thinkers are indeed worthy of your disdain or if perhaps, they may actually know what they are talking about.
For the sake of brevity, for this post, I will concentrate on the logic behind the position of objecting to President Obama addressing the Nation's school children next week.
1. Protocol for an address of this nature is not being observed. Instead of going through the established channels the DOE went directly to school principals. Why?
2. The lesson plan published on the DOE initially had school children writing a letter to themselves on how they were going to help the President. That has since been retracted and spun in such a manner that the students will now write a letter to themselves about how they are going to achieve their own goals, but the hasty spin and retraction speak loudly to initial intent. Does it bother you that children are being recruited to help ANY President? What if it was George W Bush?
3. The President would not initially release the material of the address until pressured and will only now release the contents the day before. Why?
4. Teachers are encourage to print portions of the President's address in bold signs and hang them in the classroom - innocuous right? Not so, when you consider that the 15-18 year olds will be potential voters in the next Presidential election. Is High School an appropriate place to try and win voters?
5. Why address ALL the school children in America on their first day or school? Don't teachers and administrators have enough to do that first day without trying to gather all the children together for another speech by the President? What does this say about the priorities and character of the President?
6. Why not release it on the web and let parents watch it with their children? Why circumvent the parents in this process?
Regardless of your political beliefs and leanings, what do you disagree with on the above? If you do, which point and why?
There are a myriad of other reasons that parents may object to this based on their political beliefs, their concern over the direction of the country under this administration, and the narcissistic totalitarianism feel such a move brings to mind - but this blog is intended to move beyond political affiliations and look at the heart and the logic of the issues.
Further, I hope this blog can serve to unite us as "We the People". Only then can we begin to concentrate on the things that bind us together like love of country, family, freedom, and the pursuit of the American dream. By educating ourselves and engaging in critical thinking perhaps we can recognize opportunities and dangers to our Republic and our way of life before they have disappeared into the all consuming organism we now call the Federal Government.
In the Spirit and Audacity of Logic, let us examine in depth what could possibly create such sentiments and determine if the thinkers are indeed worthy of your disdain or if perhaps, they may actually know what they are talking about.
For the sake of brevity, for this post, I will concentrate on the logic behind the position of objecting to President Obama addressing the Nation's school children next week.
1. Protocol for an address of this nature is not being observed. Instead of going through the established channels the DOE went directly to school principals. Why?
2. The lesson plan published on the DOE initially had school children writing a letter to themselves on how they were going to help the President. That has since been retracted and spun in such a manner that the students will now write a letter to themselves about how they are going to achieve their own goals, but the hasty spin and retraction speak loudly to initial intent. Does it bother you that children are being recruited to help ANY President? What if it was George W Bush?
3. The President would not initially release the material of the address until pressured and will only now release the contents the day before. Why?
4. Teachers are encourage to print portions of the President's address in bold signs and hang them in the classroom - innocuous right? Not so, when you consider that the 15-18 year olds will be potential voters in the next Presidential election. Is High School an appropriate place to try and win voters?
5. Why address ALL the school children in America on their first day or school? Don't teachers and administrators have enough to do that first day without trying to gather all the children together for another speech by the President? What does this say about the priorities and character of the President?
6. Why not release it on the web and let parents watch it with their children? Why circumvent the parents in this process?
Regardless of your political beliefs and leanings, what do you disagree with on the above? If you do, which point and why?
There are a myriad of other reasons that parents may object to this based on their political beliefs, their concern over the direction of the country under this administration, and the narcissistic totalitarianism feel such a move brings to mind - but this blog is intended to move beyond political affiliations and look at the heart and the logic of the issues.
Further, I hope this blog can serve to unite us as "We the People". Only then can we begin to concentrate on the things that bind us together like love of country, family, freedom, and the pursuit of the American dream. By educating ourselves and engaging in critical thinking perhaps we can recognize opportunities and dangers to our Republic and our way of life before they have disappeared into the all consuming organism we now call the Federal Government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)