Wednesday, July 6, 2016

Dems, Why Do You Continue to Support Clinton?

The picture I posted on Facebook says it all. I've said it before; There isn't a policy of hers that I could ever support, that should be clear. But I just don't understand how a very large segment of our country could actually support her running for president. Do you not care about the rule of law? Do you not care about how this takes this country down a path where we will no longer be the beacon. We will be no different than those banana republics across the world. She doesn't have an honest bone in her body. Can you dems not see that, or is what is stated below true? You could care less that she is dishonest? I'm not asking you to support my candidate instead. I'm asking you to find someone, um, better.
Corruption and dishonesty have dogged her almost since the beginning of her time in government. Kicked off the Watergate committee for an utter lack of ethics by people from her own party, Whitewater, money made in cattle futures, Travelgate, and the list goes on. About the only time she didn't have scandal swirling around her was during her time in the Senate. But then again, she was inconsequential as the junior Senator from NY so not many paid her any mind.
Most of my friends here on Facebook are former military and each and everyone of you know the penalty for mishandling classified material, intentional or not. At best, a dishonable discharge, at worst, a long prison term. Gen (ret) Petraeus was forced to resign his position at the CIA over what were essentially his classified schedules.
There was a time when a dem candidate could be someone you could be proud of. I'm not taking about supporting them during an election, but in the aftermath, once the choice has been made. Very few people have real issues over whether or not Truman, Kennedy or even LBJ were Presidential. We can quibble over policy decisions, but I don't think any serious minded person on either side of the aisle would say the aforementioned individuals were not people of honor. When poll after poll shows that even those who identify as democrat don't believe she is an honest person that really should say something.

Tuesday, December 1, 2015

Four Kinds of Amnesty

Over the years there has been a long struggle to deal with 12 million plus illegal aliens. Back in 1986 Reagan made his biggest mistake of his Presidency. He granted amnesty to a couple million illegals with the promise of enforcing border security. That border security did not happen and now we are deal with millions more.

In this attached article there are four basic methods of dealing with this issue.

For those of you who followed this blog over the years probably know where I stand. For those who are unsure, option #3 is where I stand.

One the one end of the spectrum is amnesty with no questions asked and no pre-conditions. This where most progressives are at and apparently many business owners as evidenced by the Chamber of Commerce stance on Rubio' s gang of eight amnesty plan from a few years back.

On the other end is the round em up and ship em back. I know there are some out there who will not agree with me on this but I really don't think the Trump stance is doable. The logistics behind rounding up 12-20 million illegals would be daunting at best. And I know some of my progressive friends won't believe it but I do have some compassion. I think the human toll would be more than we might be prepared to pay.

That compassion and that they ARE here illegally causes me to bend towards option #3.

I think this option will cause self deportation. If the jobs aren't there they just won't stay.

I have heard the argument that the illegals do the jobs we won't do. I say BS to that. Growing up in the late 1970's I worked at many of the jobs now dominated by illegals. At 14 I picked strawberries and other summer fruits. Over the next few years I bused tables, cleaned up at construction sites, pulled weeds and mowed lawns, and washed dishes. With teenage unemployment over 20% and twice as high in some segments there wouldn't be a shortage of available employees. If businesses have trouble getting these teenagers to take these jobs, then they will HAVE to offer higher wages. No government intervention necessary. And we have to stop Molly-coodling these kids. No, washing dishes or pulling weeds is not below your station in life.

Building the "wall" is imperative. We must have border security. This might cause liberal heads to explode but folks from other countries do not have a right to come here without following the law. And to turn the tables a little, if these illegals voted conservative liberals would be demanding deportation and the wall. And before you liberals say that is the only reason most conservatives want the wall is because most illegals vote democrat I remind you the Chamber of Commerce supported the gang of eight amnesty bill. The Chamber of Commerce is a very conservative group.

Friday, September 18, 2015

Post Debate Thoughts

Didn't get to watch the debate live this time around, only able to catch several highlights so the synopsis will not be as through as the previous.

From all reports Carly knocked it out of the park. She had specifics, was well spoken, and did her best to steer clear of Trump. I will have to say that she needs to stop saying "I started out as a secretary..." It getting a little worn out. But I do like her. In any other state than California, she could have beaten Boxer. But then again, only California would have voted FOR Boxer.

Trump continues to defy logic. I completely understand why he has the attraction that he does. He is speaking for the MULTIPLE millions who have no voice, or who are being ignored by the elites in DC. This country voted the Republicans the House in 2010 and the Senate in 2014 (not to mention the huge shift in state level governments) and still not a damn thing is being done. He is the voice. Maybe it's not terribly artistic in delivery, but it still resonates. But his performance last night is probably his nadir. But I said that the last time. I really do have my troubles with him. We sent somebody who was "cool" to the White House 7 years ago and look how well that has turned out.

Tuesday, April 28, 2015

Progressives and "1984"

Way back when, a professor suggested we read the book "1984". He said this is what America would look like under Reagan and Republican government. His intention was to later debate the finer points of the book, compare thought processes, and to embarrass those of us who lean conservative.  I read the book. It was an extremely interesting book, although I could not for the life of me see why he felt Reagan was going to usher an era outlined in Orwell's book. If there was any sort of "danger" from Reagan it was Christian in nature. Reagan most certainly felt we were beginning to lose our moral compass. But he also knew that legislating morality was not possible. Nothing in Orwell's book mentioned religion, at least not in the form most of us understand it. Although the later debate was decidedly one-sided (I got smoked. 20 years my senior, he had the advantage), I think I did OK for someone who had barely cracked 20.

In the book, you were not allowed to have a divergent thought from the official (government) party line. The press was no longer the "forth estate", separate from the government. The press only reported what the government wanted them to report. Religion in the form we know it today was outlawed, you were to worship the state. If you stepped outside the lines determined by an all seeing, all knowing government, you were destroyed, financially, personally, and publically. A very small number of people were in charge and determined what the official policy was and how to merit punishment.  How close are we to that today?

In just the past couple of years, people have been destroyed for having a thought or action that a very limited number of people have determined are not worthy of respect. If you don't believe in global warming/cooling/climate change you are investigated and ostracized. If you try to point out that there has been absolutely no change in temperatures in more than 15 years or that nearly all the baseline data was fraudulent, you called heartless and want children to drink dirty water and breathe dirty air. If you don't support same sex marriage due to heart felt religious views you will have your business destroyed and in some cases, your life ruined.

Just this week, the state of Oregon has decided to utterly ruin the lives of a family.  The same sex marriage crowd and those in government who kow-tow to them weren't happy that a family business was closed. Nope, these people must be ground into the ground for all to see. The government of Oregon has decided to fine this couple $135,000.00 for not having the proper thoughts. The business isn't being fined (it doesn't exists), but the family will be expected to pay for this out of their personal funds. Anyone out there NOT think this was a message to all of those out there who don't support same sex marriage the same thing WILL happen to you. You will be destroyed if you do not follow the "proper" thought as determined by a small number of people. As an aside: Whatever happened to the philosophy of live and let live that supporters of same sex marriage said was all they wanted?
And I'm so tired of being called a racist because I think President Obama is a lousy President. I thought Carter sucked too, but no one ever accused me of hating southerners, or naval officers, or peanut farmers, or people from Georgia.

Do you notice a trend here? Although I'm fairly certain it was not Orwell's intention, he certainly does a great job of describing today's progressive.

Tuesday, April 8, 2014

Obama-Logic, Not Good

Could you imagine what would happen to the democrat party if people just used their brains instead of allowing their emotions to get the better of them at every turn?

Just today Barak the Magnificent signed an executive order regarding “equal” pay for women. He made it easier for women to sue their company for perceived gaps in pay based on gender and made it illegal for companies to fire workers for making salaries of coworkers public (I know that is not what was written but that is what will happen).

And of course he had to turn it political, threatening Republicans by saying “This is about Republicans seemingly opposing any efforts to even the playing field for working families.” See how he did that? Made it seem like we hate everything about people who have to work for a living. And it plays right to the emotions of people who for whatever reason choose not to think things through.

First of all it should be obvious that we Republicans don’t hate working folks. Good Grief, most of us ARE working folks. By Obama-logic only rich white people could ever possibly vote Republican. And the low information, emotion-driven voter buys into to this Obama-logic. All these people need to do is stop and think for less than 5 minutes to see how this logic really doesn’t make any sense.  How is it possible for Republicans to ever win an election if we are nothing but rich white people? Aren’t those the people who populate the 1% Occupy Whatever were going all kinds of nuts over a couple years back? If we are only 1% how on earth could we ever win an election?

 I have been a life-long Republican and have worked all my life. I have never been and probably will never be rich from a monetary perspective. But for some reason, because I vote Republican, I must be some sort of rich dude.

Secondly, if these folks would ever take a few minutes and use real logic instead of Obama-logic, they would see this whole discussion about the supposed gender gap in pay is nothing more than tricky use of statistics and smoke and mirrors.

I currently work in a well paying blue-collar field of which there are very few women. In my area of “expertise” there is only one woman out of more than 500 people. And interestingly enough she is paid the same as all of us guys, as long as she works the same about as us guys. I don’t know her very well so I can’t say whether she does or doesn’t. But she has the same opportunity as the rest of us. In other fields within the company (in my region) I can count on one had the number of females I have seen.


Before working on the railroad, I drove a truck. And while driving a truck doesn’t pay as well as railroading, it isn’t terrible, especially if you are willing to put in the time and the miles. Again, the number of female truck drivers is low. While more women drive trucks than work on the railroad, it certainly doesn’t reflect society at large (roughly 50/50 split). And women are paid the same. There isn’t a “males mileage pay” table and a “females mileage pay” table. A woman that puts in 1,500 miles a week is going to earn the same as a male.


Finally, before the above endeavors I was in the military (27+years). Decent pay, excellent benefits (especially for young families), good promotion opportunities. There are more women in the military than truck drivers or railroaders, but again, it doesn’t come close to reflecting society at large. Pay in the military is strictly based on your rank and your time in the service, NOTHING else.


The one common factor in all of these examples, other than decent pay and lack of female contributors, is education requirements. Other than a high school education, these jobs don’t require more to get your foot in the door. Fields that typically attract female employees such as retail and food service don’t come close those areas mentioned above.


Of course there is going to be a pay gap. If men go towards the jobs mentioned above (as well as longshoremen, other transportation jobs, construction, etc.) and women head towards retail and food service there is going to be a pay gap.


See how I used logic, not Obama-logic.

Wednesday, February 26, 2014

Gay Agenda VS. Religious Freedom

Most of you know that I currently work for a class one railroad. Because of this I spend some time in hotels during my travels. This afternoon I was watching the leading sports programming network. During the afternoon they have a series of shows that are opinion oriented. On each of these shows the Arizona law concerning the battle between religious freedom and "gay rights" was a topic of discussion because Arizona is scheduled to host the Super Bowl next year. To a person each of the hosts and their guests felt that the NFL should remove the Super Bowl if Arizona governor doesn't veto this bill. What I found most interesting about how each show presented the topic. Other than one host who briefly mentioned religion not one person mentioned this bill was designed to protect those who feel gay marriage goes firmly against their religious convictions. One show framed the discussion in a way that for someone who was low information made it seem like any business could discriminate for any reason.  I know reporters and the media have firmly planted themselves in th  leftist camp, but this was ridiculous. It seems the there is no low the left won't stoop to for the furtherance of their cause.

Please excuse the scrappy post. I'm doing this on my Kindle and can't even see what I'm typing.

Friday, January 3, 2014

Bill At His Best

Folks, this is an absolute must watch. In the video Bill Whittle explains in simple terms how political correctness got its start, and how it ties with the current administrations desire to drag this nation to the left.

Before you click on the video please truthfully answer a question (no peeking). How many of you think slavery was pretty much a white, european-based "activity"?

Now, go on a watch the video. please provide your reponse and reaction in the comments section.

Thanks for reading and watching

Tuesday, December 17, 2013


Updated the profile page a little. Just bringing things up to date a bit.

Miliary Ain't What it Used to Be

The Bastards!!

Today I found out that over the next 10 years I can expect to see a 10% decrease in my military retirement. In the recently passed (House of Reps) Ryan/Murray budget plan is going to reduce the cost of living adjustments for military retirees to CPI less 1% until I turn 62.

And it could very well be more than a 10% reduction as the decrease will be compounded over the years.

Stunning on two fronts here.

First: Ryan!! Good grief, what a heartbreaker. Two years ago when he was Romney's running mate I really though he had grassroots conservative chops. I think we all did. He said all the right things about smaller government and liberty. He was what the ticket needed (supposedly) to overcome the deserved RINO tag affixed to Romney. He was even looking like a viable candidate in 2016.

But it looks like that wasn't exactly true.

Secondly: Senator (D) Patty Murray. She is from my neck of the woods. She made sneaker footwear in the rarefied air of politics famous before that nutjob in Texas was even out of grade school. But as you may have noted, she is a democrat through and through. I would never vote for her in a million years. And I say this even with the full knowledge that she chairs the veterans committee in the Senate and has for a few years. As far as I can tell she has been a strong advocate for veterans, but generally speaking, I'm not a single issue voter.

But this budget deal screws us veterans. I know that a lot of folks out their view our retirement as some sort of pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. But as a retired E-8 (second highest enlisted rank) after 27.5 years, it not even close enough to live on, especially with a mortgage and two teenage boys. I feel that Sen Murray has really let us down

NOTE: while receiving about 70% of my pay sounds like a lot to those who did not serve, I'm actually bringing home about 65% each month what I made every two weeks. My actual take home retirement pay is now about 40% of what i was making while on active duty. While active duty I didn't pay for health and dental and paid very little to cover my family (it was once ALL free). My life insurance payments for $400,000 benefit was about $20.00 a month is now about $145.00. If I died while on active duty my wife would have received a monthly survivor benefit. To keep that now that I am retired we pay over $180.00 a month. One more thing to consider. Not all of us fall into great mid-level or higher government jobs. I worked retail and drove a truck for two years before I started working for the railroad. Don't get me wrong, having the retirement pay is nice and it does a great job of supplementing the work I have now. But to have 10% cut from my earnings over the next 10 years is going to hurt. Especially when I really do retire. That 10% loss will NOT be made up.

And while this new budget does ask the government civilian work force to start paying more into their retirement earnings, it grandfathers current civilians. Only new hires will be expected to pay more into their retirement accounts. This cut to military retirement pay will impact both current active duty AND retired military personnel.

Wednesday, November 27, 2013

Is California High Speed Rail Stuck At The Station

While it has become very obvious that my blogging has slowed to a crawl it doesn't mean that I haven't been out there keeping up to speed with all the goings on in the world.

One of my favorite targets has been the California High Speed Rail attempts to link Southern Cali with the Bay Area. You can get the details by reading my other posts on this subject. But a snapshot is this very expensive construction project started out with an estimate in the $10B range, nearly all taxpayer funded (no reputable private would touch this boondoogle with a ten foot pole AND HEAVY tax subsidies). Over the life of the project (hardly any actual construction) the estimates have increased 350% to $35B, still with little to no private money. And something else to consider, this money was to be used to build a small section of the entire project.

As mentioned, there has been some minor construction between two communities that have no need for, or the ability to afford the price of a ticket. Names escape me at the moment. Other than the lack of money for this project there have been other stumbling blocks. Right-A-Way acquisitions have proven troublesome. Some folks out there don't want to sell their lands for a railroad and lawyers are fighting eminent domain attempts.. Interestingly, while this project has been a gleam in some enviro- fascist eyes eco-nutjobs have also put up some road blocks. Apparently the is some sort of bird in the hills between the Bay Area and the San Joaquin Valley that would be in trouble if tracks and tunnels were built through this area.

Interesting side note on that last sentence. The media is practically stumbling over itself trying to shine a harsh light on the supposed rift between the conservative and old guard factions within the Republican party. But very little has ever been mentioned (this blog excepted) how different factions of the eco-nutjob movement are opposing each other on many supposed green earth projects. Solar projects in California and Arizona have been either shutdown or slowed to a crawl over habitat destruction concerns. Wind turbines are now killing birds and bats by the millions and some want them shut down.

As usual, I'm rambling.

Anyway, on the reason for this post. It seems that a California Superior Court Judge has ruled that the state of California cannot move forward with this project. It seems that California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) has not met the requirements to sell that bonds that are needed to fund the project. Mind you, this project was actually approved by the California public back in 2008. But also note that back then, the estimate was $10B, not the current $35B. Hence the reason for the ruling. The voter approved measure has a provision that requires that for funding to begin there must be money to complete the section of the project voted on. I might not be really good at math, but I'm smart enough to know that $10B approved can't cover the $35B needed.

As most of my readers are aware, I have been opposed to this project form the word go. I have real issues throwing good taxpayer money after bad projects. Some have pointed out that America has dived into huge public works projects in the past. The inter-state highway system and dam building come to mind. That was a different day and age though. These projects help build the USA. Goods and people move on the freeways, giving a boost to manufacturing and tourism. Power generation and the huge growth in agriculture has been a boon to the USA.

But what does the HSR have to offer other than rapid movement between LA and the Bay Area that really only the elites will be able to afford on a regular basis. And shouldn't that be the final arbiter of the worthiness of a public works project? If taxpayer money is going to be used for these kinds of projects shouldn't it give benefit to the most number of people. Dams and freeways met this very simple (and demanding) litmus test. The California HSR doesn't.