Let's Discuss The TSA

Unlike many people, I am not opposed to the TSA or their mission, as stated on their website. I see their value and necessity in the world we live in. I know several other countries that have similar programs and have for years. The reason the TSA and its foreign cousins are necessary is because crime, specifically terrorism, needs to be deterred.

US Citizens as well as our legal foreign tourists deserve to feel safe traveling within or from the US. If TSA follows their charter effectively, our skies become safer. People will feel more secure. I, for one, understand their primary mission and support it. It is more than just a good idea on paper. If you research similar programs in Germany, the UK, Israel, and other civilized countries, the deterrent is effective.

You can look at TSA's site and see some of the potential attacks they have stopped. They deserve your applause in doing so. Just to throw one such instance out to you, I will remind everybody of Jose Padilla. Google him. Don't worry, I'll address the story later. But TSA stopped Jose from committing a terrorist attack on a flight out of ORD (Chicago O'Hare).

Then, just today (23 JAN 12), TSA assisted the FBI in arresting another potential terrorist who was allegedly planning an attack. Jamshid Muhtorov was attempting to board a plane, at ORD, with the allegation of providing support to the Islamic Jihad Union, part of the Al Q'aeda umbrella.

TSA has an important role.

Conversely, there are thousands of stories on TSA corruption. There are several examples of the organization over-stepping its authority. They claim they do so in the name of "security". Many of their policies do not make much sense.

The US Army certified me in Anti-Terrorism and Force Protection (AT/FP). Every Soldier has to attend regular classes and briefings. However, I was certified to conduct that training, give those briefings, and advise commanders on how to best implement their plans to protect our Soldiers and their families. I was working in an intelligence position at the time and had access to information that further enabled my capabilities. So, I know a thing or two about the TSA's job.

First of all, TSA is a union job in most places. You can tell how influential unions are in a given area by the attitude and work ethic of TSA at the airport. For example, TSA in Atlanta is a lot less professional and civil than in Tucson or San Antonio. Texas and Arizona are both Right to Work states.

Let me give you an example of TSA in Atlanta. While traveling from Atlanta to Arizona returning from a post-deployment leave, TSA in Atlanta gave me a bit of an attitude. They looked at my ID card with a level of disdain. My carry-on went through additional checks. Being a Soldier, I was used to this illogical treatment already. In the process, my Kindle DX was thrown by a TSA thug, and broken. I had taken it out of my carry-on and placed it in its own bin, per the policy in that airport.

I will state here that policies on things like e-book readers vary from airport to airport. In Tucson and Peoria, the TSA people look at me strange when I pull my Kindle out, telling me "it's not necessary with e-book readers, sir". I'd rather not take the chance. It requires a few second to take it out and to put it away after the screening. This varying policy makes little sense to me. It should be uniform and published.

As my carry-on was brought to be screened, the TSA thug said "this is his Kindle" and threw it ten feet to the bin where my shoes and belt rested. The screen was cracked. I filed a damage claim. It took almost a year before I got a check to reimburse me. Even that was a bureaucratic mess of red tape.

If that security checkpoint were in Iraq and my Soldiers were running it, the Soldier responsible would have gotten in some trouble. The person whose items were damaged would have received a check for more than the value of the item within a month. I know about the hundreds of dollars handed out to repair doors we had to kick down in the process of our missions in Iraq.

A recent story came out regarding a husband and wife team in Miami. The couple work for TSA. They were stealing items such as laptop computers, tablet PCs (such as the iPad), iPods, digital cameras, and other high value items. Now, TSA as well as the airlines will suggest you have such items in your carry-on to reduce the propensity for damages incurred from baggage handlers. Yet you have this couple stealing from carry-on bags at the security checkpoints. This couple had been doing this for over a year. I am willing to bet they aren't the only ones.

I am not sure the airport. I am not sure if either of the couple was the thief. However, radio personality and author of The Fair Tax, Neal Boortz, relates his story quite often. Neal was returning home from a vacation. If I remember correctly, he took a trip, with his wife, to the Bahamas. Neal had knee replacement surgery some time ago. So his knee set off the metal detector. They took him off to a glass booth for a strip search. While he was being searched, he watched a TSA thug steal his laptop and digital camera, right before his eyes. He attempted to complain and was dismissed. The TSA refused to listen to him. They even claimed that he thug he described wasn't even working that day.

The reason I contrast the TSA with the military is that their job is similar. Military personnel are trained to do the same types of security screenings and searches. Military recruits go through a similar screening process before being hired. TSA requires a background check. It is a cursory check of national and local crime databases. It is not all that in-depth. It is not enough to qualify for a Secret clearance.

I bring up the background check for a reason. The unionized TSA workers are less likely to be fired, fined, or face administrative or Non-Judicial Punishment than a Soldier is. The union, as part of its benefits, provides legal counsel. In places where unions have influence, the bureaucracy doesn't want to face the union lawyers. If  the union were dissolved and TSA agents faced similar legal recourse to the military, such corruption and transgressions would become more rare.

In addition, that background check also enables TSA agents to receive unclassified threat briefings. They evidently get some such briefings. But they do not tailor their policies and measures by them on a regular basis. It seems that they aren't privy to regular updates and briefings. Given their charter and mission, they should receive one DAILY. Just like platoon leaders in the military, their shift leaders should receive a Secret-level briefing at least once a week. I am willing to bet that they don't.

In my research, I found no positions within the TSA for intelligence analysts. It appears they rely on ICE, FBI, and other LEOs intelligence personnel to inform them. The problem is that those agencies will only do so when they need TSA's assistance. Otherwise, they are stuck with the rather vague briefs that come out of the Department of Homeland Security. They need their own intelligence branch that will coordinate with local, state, and federal Law Enforcement Organizations (LEOs) as well as other intelligence activities in order to keep the agents properly informed. They do not need their own collectors. They just need analysts who understand the data and the briefings already done by the FBI, DIA, and other agencies. The analysts also need to be able to conduct their own OSINT.

Instead, the TSA just enacts what are called RAMPs, which are random measures used during more increased threat levels employed at seemingly random times in order to increase deterrence. They make sense if used properly and effectively. However, when they enact these RAMPs, they target those who are least likely to actually be a threat. It is like when they selected military and federal workers for their "random screenings". The CATO institute has their own study on this process. If you consider this, you can guess it is out of laziness and only serves to demonstrate a false sense of security instead of working as a true deterrent.

On anther trip I took, while still in uniform, I had a discussion with such a shift leader while I was getting dressed. Just after clearing the checkpoint, I received word my flight was delayed by at least an hour. That shift leader was taking his union-mandated break at about that time. I spent 20 minutes in his secure break room with him giving him an unclassified brief and opening his eyes to reality. He was surprised how little he and his agents were informed, and how much they were misinformed.

The subject of Jose Padilla came up. I was discussing profiling. If you notice, I said nothing about racial profiling. Jose had changed his name when he converted to Islam. So, his race had little to do with his affiliation to an Islamic terrorist organization. It had nothing to do with race. The profiling also has little to do with religion. Despite what some people will lead you to believe, most Muslims are not too fond of those terrorists who claim to act in the name of  their religion.

Let me interrupt you with a little known fact about "Jihad". While Jihad is one of the 5 pillars of Islam, it is not what most think. First of all, the pillar refers to the internal struggle to be good and resist temptation. It is not about waging war on "non-believers". The second part of the fact about "Jihad" is that "Great Jihad" (the external war against evildoers) is not all black and white. By the Q'uran, only G-d knows if such a war is just, sanctified, and a true Jihad. So, those who act in the name of Jihad risk their eternal soul in doing so. They won't know if they acted properly until they are judged by G-d.

Keeping that in mind, you can still see that there are those of a demographic that support terrorism. Those people can be of any race. However, there is a distinct and noticeable profile such people fit. TSA does not use that profile under the misconception that it violates the 14th Amendment and is racist.

To keep from giving off the perception of being "racist", for years, Soldiers traveling on leave or official orders were automatically "randomly selected" for "additional screening". The whole idea was to use fellow federal workers to project a deterrent, that didn't deter anything, and false sense of security. Meanwhile, you have those who fit the profile walking onto planes with just the routine checks.

Then you have TSA giving young ladies trouble for the decorations embroidered on their purses. Your average, law-abiding female NRA member American does NOT fit the profile.

To top it off, you have TSA acting as though the US Constitution does not apply to them. Well, their boss, our country's chief executive, believes the same. So does the Secretary of  Homeland Security. Article 1 Section 6 of the US Constitution prohibits TSA from delaying or detaining a member of congress from traveling to perform his/her duties, unless indicted for treason. Yet, today, at 10am local time, Senator Rand Paul was detained and delayed by TSA. "The Right Scoop" has this article that includes Sen Rand Paul's statement on the ordeal. The detention by TSA caused Rand from making a speech at the March For Life Rally in Washington, DC.

Senator Paul released this OP-ED in the Washington Times on January 24th. Then later, he appeared on Sean Hannity's TV show to tell more of the story. It appears Senator Paul shares my proposal that TSA agents attend regular security briefs and base their policies and actions upon facts, actual threat streams, and a little common sense. This demonstrates that TSA needs its own intelligence analysts, at least one at each airport, who can do the work and keep the agents properly informed.

So, the TSA clearly, under somebody's poor direction, oversteps its charter, mandate, and the US Constitution. Perhaps the union needs to go away. The TSA agents I have dealt with in Tucson, Peoria, and San Antonio have been highly professional, courteous, friendly, and a tribute, in my personal experience. Perhaps TSA needs to have a form of the UCMJ governing their conduct. Perhaps they need to fall under the DoD. I don't have the all the answers. I do know that they DO serve an important role. I do know I am happy we have such an organization. I also know that they need better leadership, direction, and education.

Free Market Charity

Several people have heard me say some fairly harsh things regarding food and housing subsidies and other government "welfare" programs. Of course, the more Marxist leaning "progressives" will label me as "cold-hearten", "lacking compassion", "racist" or other complete untruths.

Those people who have read my writings, heard some of my social or political commentaries, of know me in general would say that I'm a rather conservative guy. Now, there are a few issues that, if I discussed them, would make some conservatives skin crawl. I may even get some death threats from the Westboro Baptist Church and other groups for those views. (To be honest, death threats from WBC would just get filed into my "Death Threats From Left-Wing Extremists" file and be reported to the FBI. WBC has been called, by the left, an extreme right-wing group. If they did their  research, they'd find the Phelps family is mostly registered and active Democrats. They are hardly conservatives.) However, on most issues I lean rather right of center.

So this article just may raise a few eyebrows.

Am I against government subsidies to a large sector of the "poor"? Yes I am. In fact. I am rather against government run subsidies in general. I have several reasons for my views.

My first reason is one of simple human nature. People deprived of incentive to perform, produce, succeed, or excel will not put forth an attempt to do so. Why work if I don't have to? Now, incentives come in all sorts of flavors. Some people are motivated by higher needs such as religious views, ethics, and morals. However, most people are motivated by basic needs. I, for one, have a habit of not cooking dinner unless I am actually hungry. Yes, there are days I forget to eat, or just couldn't be bothered to stop what I was doing to get food.

That same principle applies to most people. It may not be along the lines of not wanting to get off the couch to cook. It could be not bothering to do laundry because you still have clothes hanging in the closet. Yes, I got somebody's number with that one.

When it comes to working and earning, why would somebody want to if all of their basic needs are met if they don't? A single parent of four, unemployed, and on EBT and FHA has more disposable income than a family of five (two parents, three kids) with a household income of $60k before taxes. That is just the wrong answer. Being idle and lazy is rewarded more than working.

Basic needs are a great incentive to do. If you had to hunt or farm in order to feed your family, you would. If you had to build your own house to have a place to live, you would. If the only incentive was survival, you'd do what it takes to survive. It is basic human instinct.

Now that I have angered even more people who are preparing to send me comments and hate mail saying "You evil, heartless bastard!", allow me to enlighten my dear readers further.

I do a lot of charity work. I am currently in two volunteer elected offices for one NPO. My Fiancee sits as a volunteer member on the board of another. I support private charities and NPOs. I find their work to be far more effective in assisting people in need than any government program. In doing so, I also have choice in where my efforts and money are used.

Most conservatives agree with this concept. Conservatives proportionately give more in charitable donations and do more charity/relief work than Liberals. Let me try to explain why, at least from my personal perspective.

First of all, charity is a moral concept. Most religions teach of its virtue. It is one of the five pillars of Islam. Most Christian churches run charity drives. They are supported by Christ's teachings. Jewish teachings preach about charity and giving to those in need. A Druid church (religious organization) I know also teaches about the virtues of charity and helping our fellow humans. By and large, conservatives are people with religious or spiritual convictions. It is generally accepted that it is right to do good things for those less fortunate.

However, for a virtue to be a virtue, it must be freely chosen. If you do a charitable act from your own choice, you did a good thing. If you refuse to, you may get some flack, but nobody will begrudge that it was your choice.

When the government takes your taxes and disperses them, it does so against your will. It takes that money with the force of law. If you break the law, they can take it at gunpoint (and toss you in jail). That is not choice. That lacks virtue. That is not charity. It is, theft, on a moral level. Because you worked for that money, you gave up a portion of your time on Earth, your life, to earn it. We have a term for working to the benefit of others under the force of law or at gunpoint:  indentured servitude. That can be simplified to a single word:  slavery. Conservatives abhor slavery.


Let's say we have $100 we have decided to designate for feeding poor American family we know.

If we give that money to the government to put into EBT or some other government run program, here is what happens. It goes into a fund. Out of that $100 comes the salaries of the 20+ bureaucrats that have to designate the use for those funds and screen multiple families to decide which one they will give aid. Then some pet government project that has little to do with feeding a family takes it's bit, because, you know, some politician earmarked funds for his pet project. By the time that $100 has gone though the government filters, you are lucky to have $30 left. To top it off, they may not give that $30 to that family we know. Some family of non-citizens may get it instead.

On the extreme other side, we can do what somebody I know did. There was a young married couple. The husband's paycheck came up short for a couple of months in a row. The remaining pay went to other necessities like rent and utilities. Not much was left for food. So, this person took the couple shopping. the couple also did not want to take advantage and buy things like prime rib and crab legs. They picked out healthy, cost-effective food. Most of it was staples with a couple of inexpensive comfort items.

One could argue that there may have been another family in more need than the one we designated, but were unaware of. That's where the NPOs step in.

For years, I gave to NPOs through a system called CFC. CFC, or Combined Federal Campaign, is a program through which federal employees (I was active duty Army) give to NPOs directly from their paychecks. I did stop going through CFC over the last 7 years of my career. CFC did, however, grant me the data and education I needed in regards to the NPOs I chose to support.

All NPOs have an overhead. However, their overhead varies depending on several factors including advertising budget, paid administration, paid workers, volunteer ratio, and other things. However, they must, by law, publish their dispersal figures annually. So, if you want to feed poor families, you find one with a lower overhead and administration ratio. I purposely stayed away from those with an overhead and administrative percentage over 20%. In the end, I think the highest one I was donating to had an 8% rate.

What does that mean? Let's suppose a local food bank has a (high) overhead percentage of 20%. It means we give them $100. They take $20 to use towards paying people to do social work, paying rent, and screening aid recipients. The other $80 goes to some family in need. It could be our chosen family. It could be another local family who is more in need. An added beauty of a food bank is that we also have the option of buying food and donating ALL of it to the bank. So that $100 worth of food goes to those in need.




Most NPOs don't give their aid for free, at least not under most circumstances. If the NPO is religious in nature, the beneficiaries may have to endure a bit of preaching. Other NPOs offer counseling, budget classes, employment seminars, and the like. Some of these other things the beneficiaries must endure are from conditions the NPO contractually made with some "evil capitalist" business that funds the charity. I don't see how having to sit through a class on how to write a better resume or fill out a job application are bad for the beneficiaries, anyway. And, while the beneficiaries may have different religious views, I don't see how a little preaching on the benefits of living a more moral life can be harmful either. You have a brain. You have a choice to take the advice or not. It doesn't hurt to listen.

I have yet to see prime rib and crab legs at a food bank. Then again, I live in Arizona, not Maine. In Maine, I could see lobster being dropped off. I have seen items like turkeys, hams, and briskets dropped off around holiday times. I did not see the cash donations used to buy Monster and Red Bull. I have seen EBT cards used to purchase those items.

The people I have seen go to local food banks for food are happy for what they receive. They do not act as though they are owed this food. They do not act as though they are entitled to it. In fact, that couple I discussed earlier also went to a food bank. After the husband's pay problems were corrected, they went and purchased food to replace what they "borrowed". They didn't have to. But they did. How many families on EBT do you hear talking about getting a job so they can pay the government back for the money the American Tax Payers lent them? In fact, I am willing to bet you'd be met with malicious comments if you even suggested it.

We live in the best country in the world. The majority of our poor would be considered rather well off in most 3rd World countries. Can we do better? Yes. People deserve a hand up. They deserve that incentive to NOT GIVE UP. They need the encouragement to prosper and achieve on their own merits. Government "entitlements" don't do that. They foster a mentality of complacency, apathy, and laziness.

The most greatest faculty human being have is called Reason. Reason allows us to take in data and make choices. Those choices are our greatest power. Being able to choose what charities you give to, what morals you support, what programs you think work best, is the very power that makes NPOs a better choice than government subsidies. It is an INDIVIDUAL right. Conservatives love to exercise their individual rights.

Taxes and federal revenues dispersed into government subsidies reduce and deny that individual right to choose. They deny the inalienable rights to life (do productive things with your time), liberty (freedom to choose your own life's course), and the pursuit of happiness (keep, lose, or give away the property you earned by your own merits and effort).

My choice? I'd rather see $80 of my $100 go to those who need it and will appreciate it than $30 of that $100 go to those who believe I owe it to them. It is, after all, MY MONEY.

Hey! Give Me My Cream Filling!

Read The November 2012 Update On This Article! 

I tend to eat fairly healthy these days. I do, on occasion, break my diet and go for baked goods, sweets, and red meat. For me, though, red meat is a necessity as it provides Vitamin D3. My diet is mostly vegetables, unprocessed grains, and fish, though.

So those who know me may find it a bit ironic that I am writing about junk food that I tend to avoid. In fact, I am writing about something that I considered, in my adult life, to be a rare treat and not regular regimen. However, Hostess held a rather iconic place in modern society.

Even though I usually don't partake, I have always found comfort in staring at the temptation of Snowballs, Cupcakes, Ding Dongs, and Ho Hos in the grocery store. My mouth would water a little bit. Then I would grab some rather high cocoa content chocolate, usually a bar that would last me a month.

Hostess emerged from Bankruptcy protections granted in 2004, in 2009. In 2009, real estate costs, increased fuel costs, and higher supply costs (sugar and flour mostly) brought the company to seek protections and repay creditors. When those protections expired, Hostess found itself still over $700 Million in debt. That is after their $2.2 Billion in annual sales. The Wall Street Journal provides a good story from last month in the provided link.

This time around, Hostess is seeking Chapter 11 protections and may or may not be seeking restructuring.

But what led to this?

The 2004 Bankruptcy case obviously was not enough. Since 2009, when the protections expired, several things have taken place that threw up trade and production obstacles in Hostess's way. First, taxes and regulatory fees on sugar increased. When you produce lots of baked goods stuffed with a sugary cream, that is a hard cost to suddenly accrue. You could say that the experts should have planned ahead and budgeted for the increase in supply costs. However, who would have expected that a bill such as Obamacare would seek to regulate the supply costs of baked goods?

Transportation costs, including both the delivery of supplies and the communication of products to wholesalers and retailers nearly doubled. That is sure to have not helped.

However, labor costs brought about by making concessions to unions are what killed Hostess. That is right, labor unions stole our creamed filling. How?

Let's look at transportation costs. Dock workers, truck drivers, and mechanics employed by Hostess and their suppliers are mostly Teamsters members. Unions raise their membership dues, negotiate contracts to increase wages and benefits, then include the higher prices of their union dues as part of the necessity of raising those labor costs. If Hostess were allowed to hire outside of unions in non-Right-To-Work states, those transportation laborers could actually have gotten the same benefits plus a higher wage to keep for themselves. How? By not having to pay the union dues. If the difference was split, Hostess would have saved that difference. The other half would have been in workers' pockets. It would have been better for both. But the union would have screamed for the administrators not getting their "fair share". Oh, Hostess also paid directly to the union, not to just the laborers.

Not to target the Teamsters, other labor unions are involved. They just happened to be the first example I had at the tips of my fingers. Teamsters, despite their history with mob connections, are probably one of the least corrupt unions out there. But common sense is common sense. Math is math. The numbers are numbers. A is A.

SEIU had its part to play as well. SEIU drives up medical costs, education costs, and other "employee services" costs.

The list goes on. 80% of Hostess workers belong to one union or another.

The largest is the Bakery & Confectionary Union with its Industry International Pension Fund to which Hostess owes over $940 Million in pension funds Hostess is contractually obligated to provide to the union. The link provided provides more information on Hostess's filing, announced January 11, 2012 in the Wall Street Journal.

This is despite being based in Irving, Texas. Texas is a Right to Work state. Maintaining mandatory contractual agreements with labor unions though not mandatory by state law is most likely the final nail in Hostess's cream-filled coffin.  

Unions did grant some concessions to their contracts in order to keep some jobs. However, despite those concessions, Hostess tried to be the "good guy" and still pay their laborers above market value. 80% of their employees remain union workers. The conceded salaries/wages from the unions did nothing to alleviate union-contracted pensions and health care costs. As Obamacare phases in heading towards its full implementation in 2014, that portion of "labor costs" will increase, not only for hostess, but their suppliers and their clients (retailers). The company cannot afford the current requirements. Even if they make it through this bankruptcy case, labor contracts and health care costs forced upon them by Obamacare will just topple them again.

Though I will miss seeing those Snowballs, Cupcakes, and loaves of Wonder bread on the shelves, I am die-hard against any form of bailout or subsidy. They wouldn't qualify, anyway, because Hostess isn't some overpriced and inefficient "green energy" company. They are famous for producing items that the First Lady opposes:  junk food. She thinks we should not be allowed the option to choose what we eat. However, DC elitists wanted a posh IHOP and voted to grant a $756k+ subsidy to build a franchise. On that note, a government bailout for Hostess could happen, but I wouldn't count on it.

That "equal protections and entitlements" myth will continue, regardless. Even if deemed "too big to fail", Hostess won't get a bailout unless our inept Congress decides to bend to the President's mandate to raise the debt ceiling yet again. Free Market Capitalism dictates that they fall due to their failures to run efficiently. Allowing this to happen will send a hard lesson to the nation, serving as a warning to the dangers of too much government regulation and socialist labor union intervention.

The good news is that you now have one less choice on the shelves granting an incentive to ween your kids off of Wonder bread and towards a whole-grain alternative, if they'll eat it.

Atlas is shrugging. This time because he wanted his cream filling.

A Layman's View on Government Subsidies

Our economy cannot afford to absorb this theft and fraud. If we stay just within the "public" sector, that portion our taxes attribute, the federal spending deficit is at the point of extreme irresponsibility. The government wants more money to spend, by increasing revenue (acquired from taxation). If you gave your kid a $10 a week allowance and you watched him spend it on $15 worth of lottery tickets each week, would you give him a raise in allowance? I wouldn't. I'd cut his allowance and tell him to learn to live within his means.


Our government, both the executive and legislative branches, spend, without a budget mind you, whatever revenue it accrues plus whatever it can borrow (with no repayment plans). How do you cure that? You cut them off. You tell them to spend on necessities (Defense, Diplomacy, Veterans' Benefits, Debt, and Operating Expenses). Then you tell them to cut out the crappy spending:  subsidies of unproductive individuals and businesses.

Recently, 20 year old Christine Roussell published an OP-ED article in "The College Conservative" that documented cases of subsidy abuse she witnessed while working at Walmart. Now, people will try to argue that "welfare" isn't a "subsidy". I refer them to their closest dictionary of acceptable English words in order to clarify the definition. If you look at the "c" option under the primary definition of "a gift or grant of money", you will notice that includes grants of money to private citizens. That means subsidies for sustenance, commonly called "welfare".

Miss Rousselle's "My Time At Walmart" drew a lot of media attention, and thousands of comments both in support of her article and chastising her. After her unexpected 15 minutes of flash fame, she published a follow-up in response to contentious editorials, blogs, and comments that attempted more to attack the author than rationally discuss the issue and her observations.

Among the comments on the articles, I have noticed several people attacking those who support "welfare" reform with arguments that the government needs to start with reforming subsidies of "big-business" and "leave the poor, hungry people alone".

The above leads to my following thoughts.

Our country is founded upon the ideal of equal opportunity to succeed and prosper. It is not founded upon an ideal of equality of results. That means that every person, every business, every organization has an equal opportunity to succeed or fail on its own merits or faults. The "Inalienable Rights" enumerated in the Declaration of Independence and reaffirmed in Lincoln's Gettysburg Address are "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". Anybody who has done their responsibility to self-educate has taken the time to read the Federalist Papers. It should be more than obvious that the government has no right or authority to decide who succeeds. That is to be left to individual efforts, successes, and failures.

The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution further backs this ideal in stating that all law-abiding adult citizens of the United States have equal protections under the law. No laws can be passed that do not apply equally across the states and the individuals.

So, my current view comes down to one simple question:  How do subsidies to companies deemed "too big to fail" and subsides to those "unwilling to prosper" apply equally among the states and individuals?

They don't.

Giving bailout money to General Motors and subsidizing production of the failed vehicle, the Chevy Volt, does not apply equally among the states or the people. Most people won't purchase one. They are not produced in all 50 states. In fact, the production is moving to China. If you combine all other cars either manufactured in the US or produced by US-based companies, these subsidies were for a vast minority. This was not for the common good of the country. It was for one company and the labor union they employ.

On the concept of food subsidies to the poor, it follows the same concept. It does not lend to the overall prosperity of the country. Among those receiving the subsidies, "welfare", you have those who won't work. They don't think they have to. Their necessities are all taken care of by the "nanny state". It serves as an incentive to not work, produce, succeed, or prosper. It inhibits the "Pursuit of Happiness" by killing the very spirit of excellence our country was founded upon.

Here is one student-journalist's account of how she qualified for EBT. 

Those subsidies do not go to all citizens equally. You have to qualify for them. If everybody received the same stipend, I would be more accepting of the program. However, if everybody received this money, it would defeat the whole system in the first place as it would be more prudent to just let people keep what they earned. It is a proven fact that free market capitalism and the laws of supply and demand work, while socialism is an experiment that has proven to fail time and again. Look at the 70 year history of the USSR. Take a look at Greece and the rest of the EU today. Socialism fails.

Now, I agree with giving aid (food subsidies) to two demographics: The "deserving poor" and the "working poor". Those in between should be left in the cold until they get off their butts and do something for themselves.

Who are the "deserving poor"? Well, among them are the elderly who are no longer capable of working, for one reason or another. Some of these had their life savings stolen from them. Others out-lived their expectations and had their money run out. Other "deserving poor" include people who were disabled to a point of no longer being capable of working. being disabled is not a qualifier in and of itself. if you think the disabled are incapable of producing, succeeding, and prospering on their own merits, tell it to this guy. I'm sure Nick has a few words for you if you think disabilities equal an inability to exceed.

The "working poor" are those who have fallen on hard times. If somebody is giving it their all, busting their butt, producing, and trying to make it, I think they deserve a shot in the arm to bolster that chance. However, it should be temporary. If they are working while taking vocational classes to better themselves in the long-run, I am even more for that temporary assistance.

However, the other demographic of those not working, not producing, not trying but want their government check, they need an incentive. That incentive should be self-preservation. Survival is the greatest incentive for any living creature. "I'm a starving artist". Really? What paintings have you produced? Let me see your art. If it sucks, you may want to find another career. You are failing.

Advocates of the "nanny state" are now hating me for bashing the "undeserving poor" that are living off of my hard earned money. Don't worry, kids, I'm about to discuss the other side.

Let's discuss another subsidy:  Solyndra. That was a whole bunch of OUR money wasted. It led to over 1,000 people added to the unemployment statistics. How many of them ended up on welfare to top it off? Why was this company chosen by the government to succeed? (It failed, mind you). Where in the US Constitution does it state that the federal government is authorized to engage in venture capitalism with OUR money? I'll give you a huge hint, it isn't in there. For a great commentary on the current status of the Solyndra debacle and its effect on taxpayers, watch this video from PJTV.

Now, I will give a small argument towards Solyndra. They were bucking for a government/defense contract. But the horse was put before the cart. They should have developed and produced the products before getting that subsidy. Yes, it still would have been a "subsidy" because it would have gone to the greater benefit of defending our country. However, they will never fulfill that contract.

Another such misuse of tax money fraudulently claimed to be for "defense" was the DoD being forced to purchase biofuels from Solazyne. If the government followed the free market laws of supply and demand, that contract would have gone to something a lot more cost-effective. DoD assets such as tanks and jets could have purchased fuels that cost $4-$7 a gallon instead of $16-$26 a gallon. How many of you go to the gas station, buy 5 gallons of gasoline, hand the cashier a $100 bill, and tell them to keep the change? Well, the government just decided to do that for you. It is all a subsidy to one company chosen by our government under the guise of a "green defense initiative". The next question to ask is how many legislators and executive branch workers own stock in this company? I don't have those figures. However, I am willing to bet that there are multiple elected and appointed government officials who do.

Then you have $765+k in a federal subsidy to build an IHOP franchise for the DC elite. For a wonderful list of government subsidies and other ridiculous programs funded with our tax dollars, Read This!

That is not a law equally applied across the states or individuals either. The ethical questions are glaring. However, the adherence to the 14th Amendment is nonexistent. We are not all benefiting from this subsidy. In fact, it is easily argued that most people are suffering under the tyranny of it.

I will also posit that these subsidies of both corporations and lazy people are socialist attempts to destroy upward mobility and create a class system in our country. Without them, there is no class system. You can work towards success and prosperity or not. You can increase your wealth or you can lose it, squander it. You have the freedom to succeed or fail, on your own merits and efforts. Then these subsidies interfere, destroying the Pursuit of Happiness.

They are incentives for the poor to stay poor. Why work if somebody is paying you not to work and taking care of your necessities? Where is the incentive to prosper? They are incentives to crowd out free market competition. Why attempt a business endeavor based upon your great idea if the government is already choosing to back your less efficient competition? The incentives to succeed and prosper on your own merits (or fail on your own faults) are reduced or destroyed.

And it all comes down to government officials picking and choosing who they will subsidize and not applying the laws equally among the states or the individual citizens. In either case, "corporate welfare" and "poverty welfare" are BOTH wrong.The government does not supply subsides to all companies, large and small, corporate or sole-proprietor, equally. I see that as a violation of the 14th Amendment.

As far as "poverty welfare" is concerned, leave it to the states as their responsibility, and leave it to private charities and NPOs/NPCs. Remember, it is only charity if it is freely given. If it is taken by force (be it a gun or a "law"), it is theft.

How To Make Up Your Own Mind (Decision 2012)

Now that I am no longer in the active military, I can openly say that I am a libertarian-leaning conservative. I think those who have seen my article and comments over the past six months or so have pretty much figured that out.

Those who have read my previous articles can probably also surmise that I am opposed to Obama's reelection to a second term. I could take the time here to explain how Obama has corrupted our country and greatly overstepped his Constitutional authority. I could also spend my time trying to convince you that he has done so not out of incompetence and inexperience but out of direst design and desire. However, I won't. I will leave those seeds planted for your own research and consideration, for the time being.

In one of my previous articles, I also explained how Ron Paul and his supporters dissuaded me against voting for Dr. Paul. As days go by, those reasons are confirmed more an more. I am now at the point that my analysis and reason predict that Ron Paul would be just as if not more dangerous in the Oval Office than our current president. My mind will not be changed on the subject. Attempting to do so, you will undoubtedly just serve to prove my assessments correct. Do not bother.

I am still largely undecided on whom I will vote for. I will say that one of the candidates has stepped ahead of the field, in my view. However, the race is far from over and I still have more than a month to make up my mind before my state's primary.

Bachman has pulled herself from the race, narrowing the field. Huntsman's abysmal showing in Iowa has probably signaled the end of his campaign. However, there are still 49 primaries to go. However slim, he does still stand a chance. It is laughable that Herman Cain did almost as well, though no longer in the race.

That leaves the other candidates. I could go over what I perceive as the merits and faults of each. I may as the Arizona Primary comes closer. I state all of the above, however, to press some key points. The first point is that these are my decisions, my observations, and my evaluations. I have made informed and conscious choices.

Choice!

Our country is built upon certain key concepts including the founding principles of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". Liberty is contingent upon Choice. Choice equates to Free Will. Free Will is a power. It is a divine authority. It is also a responsibility. In political decisions, casting a vote just to toe a party line or go with what is "popular" is to give up that choice to another person. To tell somebody how they must vote, like trade unions so often do, is to steal that choice. That is just as great a sin as murder in my view. So, don't let somebody else do that to you. Do not do it to yourself.

Now is the time to start making up your mind. Even if Obama is your guy, you owe it to yourself to look at your other options. It is irresponsible to not do so.

I am going to take a page right out of Obama's "How to Convince Your Family" playbook on this. Obama took it from Ailinsky. Ailinsky took it from a Libertarian thinker named Robert A Heinlein. Heinlein too it from Voltaire and other political philosophers. Here it is:

Who Do You Plan To Vote For, and Do They Have Your Best Interests At Heart?

Don't worry about your neighbor. He has to do the same thing. He will most likely do so out of self-interests.

I do not care to hear your answers. I will not try to convince you in this article or in its comments section. I want you to ask yourself that question, and write down your own answer. I want you to read it to yourself. Then I want you to think about it.

If you are not sure who that person is, don't worry. The rest of this still applies and may help you to make up your mind.

Next, I want you to write out what you want out of somebody in that office. Prioritize that list. Just try it. Don't write "so and so will do this". Nope, that will come later. Just write down the issues or attributes, the subjects most important to YOU.

Next, across the top, write out EVERY candidate's name. Yes, that means even if they are NOT in your party. Go ahead, indulge me and increase your own power of choice in the process.

Now you have to get to work. That means it is research time.

You need to research each candidate's record on each issue. What HAVE they done.
Next, you need to research what each promises to do on each issue. Use their words, not some pundit's. There are debates and ads out there that contain that information.

If one of them brings up some other issue, adjudicate it with yours. It may be the same thing with different terminology. It may be something you haven't thought of. You may find this important to you. You may not care. Check out what the issue is to be sure.

Now, the next step is the really painful one. Pull out your copy of the US Constitution. Yes, that old thing. That old document is OUR contract with those we CHOOSE to put in office. It says what they are allowed to do and not allowed to do, by office.

Now you get to go scratch off every issue you listed that is NOT in the authority of that office. After doing that, you need to THINK CRITICALLY and ask "how is this person going to accomplish this when they don't have the authority to do it?" (People failed to do this with Obama. The answer has overwhelmingly become "he doesn't care about the US Constitution").

You'll not that this system, called an ACH (Analysis of Comparative Hypothesis) works for any elected office, be it legislator, sheriff, President, or Governor.

It is highly unlikely that any single candidate will cover everything the way you like. However, one should emerge as the best choice. That is the one you should make.

In your data, you can use opinions of experts, coworkers, neighbors, and the news media. Make sure you do your own fact checking. The Main Stream Media is biased. You can argue CNN versus Fox versus MSDNC. However, they are ALL biased. They have already picked for you and will try to convince you they are correct. Look at some of the atypical news sources such as the blogosphere. Some articles out there are rather unbiased. Some are biased, but not in the direction of the MSM. You have to sift through the opinion and extract the facts. Another source of facts are congressional voting records and public records of executive policies. Even those few with no previous "public record" have data on their previous decisions and policies in company and corporate sites.

I will state the Rasmussen, Heritage, Goldwater, Hillsdale, and a few other watch-dog, analysis groups have done an amount of that work for you. I still double check the data because I am not the most trusting soul in the world. They are mostly accurate and not overly biased (based upon records of personal fact checking).

Now I will put out one large bit of caution to you. If you are "Pro-Life" or "Anti-Abortion", you need to rethink how important that issue is to you. Here's the common sense, factual, drop-dead reason why:

Abortion will most likely not be outlawed in my lifetime, and probably not in yours either. Thanks to Roe v Wade, it will take a Constitutional Amendment to do so. As easy as that sounds, research the process. You will need over 2/3 of both houses of congress to be on your side. You will have to hope some other issue they feel more important won't lead them to compromise and cross that political line to the other side. Then you have to wonder about if the majority of the governors of the states will back the amendment. the issue is so volatile that most elected officials won't touch such an amendment. If they do, they risk alienating key voters and constituents, whether they are for or against. Abstainment is the option of choice. And the office of the President can't do anything about it. It is not a Presidential issue. It is a legislative one. Any views I have one way or the other don't change those facts. As soon as you check out the process for amending the Constitution,and look at that dose of reality, you'll see how futile it is. And yes, you can thank the SCOTUS that decided/ruled on Roe v Wade for this reality.

The same could be said of several other issues.

If you fail to critically think about all your options, all the candidates, you shoot yourself in the foot. If vote, blindly, for somebody "just because...", you shoot the whole country in the foot. If you fail to vote, you have no right to complain. You chose not to care enough. Suck it up, princess. You let somebody else chose your bed. You are stuck with it until the next election comes around.

The only thing worse than not voting, is voting blindly. I know several who voted for Obama in 2008 "just because...". Now they regret not having done their diligence. Guess what? The facts were out there. those of us who DID the diligence, well, we told you so. Now is the time to gather your data, think for yourself, and make up your OWN mind.

The race is on. Time is ticking. Get cracking. It isn't as though your future and the futures of your kids are at stake. Oh wait, They are.

How Federal Agencies Control Your Life

I will admit that a certain amount of executive branch regulation is for the public good. For example, if a mattress manufacturer was filling its products with fiberglass and ceramic shards, it could prove to be bad for Americans.

However, some of these agencies are determined to take away your freedom of choice by limiting or completely removing your options.

For a quick primer in the 10 worst laws and non-legislated executive regulations, see this article by the Heritage Foundation.

First, let's take the wonderful NLRB. Members are appointed by the Chief Executive (That means the POTUS) with congressional approval, normally. They openly support unions. Once upon a time, labor unions served a purpose. That time has long since passed and they have become the very monster they were allegedly designed to prevent. These days, unions decide who gets to work and who doesn't. They also charge those who wish to work fees in order to even be eligible. What do they do with those funds? First they line their pockets. Next they lobby. They lobby the NLRB to enact regulations against companies that do not employ union members. They lobby Congress to earmark government spending into companies that hire ONLY union members. They assist in picking and choosing what companies are able to produce what products and at what prices. They drive up production costs of union employers. The non-union employers can provide more net pay to non-union workers while keeping capital costs down, therefore product prices lower. So, these unions get the NLRB to seek fines and regulatory restrictions against those non-union employers, causing production and capital costs to rise. Higher capital costs mean higher capital gains tax bills. This makes the non-union employers have to charge more for the products in order pay those higher bills, fees, taxes. This drives those companies out of business. So, the NLRB kills free trade and reduces the variety of products available.

http://www.pjtv.com/s/G42DEMI 

Either that, or the companies seek labor and manufacturing capital outside of the US.

And let us not forget that the NLRB also sides with Teachers' Unions, but not in the interests of bettering education or eliminating comprachico indoctrination. In fact, they help further the comprachico's goals to brainwash your kids while failing to teach them basic skills like grammar, math, thinking, and reading:  http://townhall.com/columnists/kyleolson/2011/12/21/teachers_union_president_deems_education_too_complex_for_taxpaying_rubes

Next we have the lovely FDA. Untested drugs loosed onto the public could lead to bad things. However, the FDA doesn't just review testing and approve products. It would be nice if that is all they did. However, they force pharmaceutical companies to go through exhaustive and costly testing above what is necessary. After that testing is complete, the FDA does its own testing, charging the companies to do so. Why? So they can regulate what is put on the market and what choices you have available. All the testing also drives up the per pill cost for the medications. A pill that costs  $.30 in materials and labor can carry up to $10 in regulatory fees and "research costs" resulting from all of the testing. The release to the public of safe and necessary drugs also requires years and years before being available, at the cost of the health of those who could most benefit.

Thus the FDA drives up health care costs. Yes, those very costs that the government passed Obamacare under the claim it is meant to reduce. It doesn't reduce those costs. In fact, elements of the Obamacare law grant the FDA further powers to restrict production, choice, availability, and costs of drugs.

Under current FDA regulations, Aspirin would never make it onto store shelves and would likely cost $12 a pill by prescription (if it even got beyond the regulations to be made available).

The US Dept of Agriculture has even passed regulations that make it illegal for a Dairy Farmer to serve his own milk to his own family. Under recent regulations, that dairy farmer has to sell his milk to a processing plant and buy it back at increased prices in order to feed it to his family. Isn't it wonderful that a government agency can tell you that you do not have a choice to eat the food you grow? Those "victory gardens" planted during WWII would be regulated, taxed, fined, and restricted under current regulations. In other words, the USDA is trying to force you to have to buy food from the businesses that lobby them and bribe them.

Now let's move onto the greatest fiend in the executive branch bureaucracy, the EPA.

Who wants clean air, water, land, etc? I do. Everybody does.

But at what cost?

First of all, we have these "clean energy/green energy" bulbs. How good for the environment are they? They contain toxins that "Edison" bulbs do not. Sure, they use less electricity to produce candle-watt power. But if one breaks, you have to spend a mint to clean up the mess. If one burns out, what will the average American do? Toss it in the trash. From there, it goes into a landfill and poisons the land. So, it may reduce the amount of coal burned to keep your lights on. However, it poisons the land that will be the next low-rent housing project 5 years from now. Also, these things cost a LOT more at the retailer. Well, the EPA passed regulations and lobbied Congress to pass a bill outlawing incandescent bulbs. That means you lost the choice to purchase the types of bulbs you may want, and be forced to sit in the dark or buy the poison-bulbs. Thankfully, congress told the EPA to take a flying leap on this one.

http://videos2view.net/smackdown.htm

The EPA also restricts US petroleum and natural gas companies from producing and refining domestic resources. They make us dependent upon foreign supplies. This drives up prices at the pump.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/m-the_epas_unconscionable_war_on_fracking.html

The EPA restricts and regulates coal mining, making it almost ten times its non-regulated price.

The EPA pushed for federal spending into such great products as the Prius and the Volt. The replacement cost on a Prius battery can be as high as $6000. And there is no means of disposing of the batteries without poisoning the air, land, or water. Why? Allegedly to decrease carbon emissions and gasoline consumption. However, those emissions over 5 years use of a regular car are nowhere near as toxic as a single battery. And those lovely Volts? Have you read up on them? They tend to burst into flames. Those fumes are far more toxic than the emissions of a standard gasoline engine. You have the same issues with the batteries you do with the Prius. Now you get to add the public safety hazard of cars bursting into flames. And the NLRB conspired with the EPA on the Volt. How? American Auto-Workers Union being given stock in GM during the government buy-out ("stimulus") ring any bells?

Here's even more headaches about the Chevy Volt. Sticker price to a buyer: $41,000. Cost to Taxpayers? $250,000 so far. http://reddogreport.com/2011/12/each-chevy-volt-costs-taxpayers-250000/#.TvH9_LpjZd0.twitter

And let us not forget how they intend to inflate your electric bills, heating costs, transportation overhead, etc. :  http://townhall.com/tipsheet/erikajohnsen/2011/12/22/the_epa_to_oil_and_coalfired_plants_cut_down_or_shut_down

I can go for days on the EPA. They are the single most intrusive regulatory agency in the executive branch. http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2011/dec/15/epa-and-phony-environmental-movement/

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/amyoliver/2011/12/24/green_technologythat_pollutes_the_planet

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/12/26/obamas-green-jobs-program-infused-with-politics-at-every-level/

Now let us look at the DOJ. Here we have Eric Holder trying to Unconstitutionally regulate state polling laws. We have Eric Holder bringing suits against states for enacting laws to support federal laws that he happens not to like. Then we have Eric Holder attempting to take away our Constitutionally guaranteed 2nd Amendment rights. How? He broke the law and supplied invading foreign criminals and their terrorist allies with weapons. His programs failed and caused a negligent fallout of US BP agents, US Citizens, and Mexican Nationals to be murdered. He then complains that the investigation is "racist". Why? He wants to join that fallout with the left-wing fanatic's assassination attempt against Gabby Giffords (D-AZ, but 2nd Amendment supporter).  http://townhall.com/columnists/chriswcox/2011/12/20/obama_administration_endangered_lives_to_justify_gun_control
http://biggovernment.com/jcadams/2011/12/22/confessions-of-perjury-inside-doj/

The list goes on and on and on.

US Dept of Education telling you what you can and cannot teach your kids. They support truancy laws against parents who choose to home school. Abraham Lincoln was home schooled. He became a lawyer and then President of the US. The comprachicos in the government schools were nowhere near as insipid in their indoctrination programs in the early 1800s. They want to force you to have to pay for certain books if you do home school, in places they haven't been able to take away the home school choice completely.

And let us not forget what happens when the Dept of Indoctrination (Education) links up with the NLRB, Dept of Health and Human Services, and the First "Lady". We get substandard and overpriced "free lunches" "for the kids" that do nothing but line the pockets of another union known to be a bastion of the socialist agenda:  http://townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/2011/12/21/michelle_obamas_unsavory_school_lunch_flop 

The IRS is given the power to enact regulations, fines, and fees that carry the weight of law, without actually being law. They try to tell you what charities you can give to. They try to tell you what you can invest in. They try to restrict how much you can expand your business capital in order to produce more (and employ more people). http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/danieljmitchell/2011/12/20/federal_court_ignores_constitution_gives_more_power_to_irs

Now for the truly scary part of all of this. These agencies enact regulations either directly or through executive orders that have the weight of law. They do so WITHOUT representative legislation. That means they do things that have the powers of laws without YOU having an elected official voicing your rights or wishes in congress. This is not what the framers of the US Constitution had in mind. In fact, the Federalist Papers were highly against such actions. 

So, they drive up prices, restrict production, and eliminate your freedom of choice. Why? All in the name of controlling you because they believe they know what is best for you more than YOU do.

I would love to extend a personal "Thank You!" to all of the journalists that wrote the articles I linked into this essay. You guys are nothing less than awesome.

Who gets my GOP nod?

If you are reading this, you have some reason for wondering who I plan to vote for in the AZ GOP primary. Well, if you are looking for an answer and a reason, you will be disappointed. This article is more about where I stand in my personal vetting process.

Following the race, I liked a few candidates right out of the gate. I liked Cain, Gingrich, Perry, and Paul. However, the race was early on, and I made a concerted effort to remain open-minded. Why? I want to give my nod to the one person who fits a short list of criteria:

1. Can beat the socialist Herr Ruler who is currently a massive disgrace to that esteemed office.
2. Will cut economy & employment killing taxes, something VITAL to restoring the US economy.
3. Will work with congress to actually pass a proper and balanced budget ON TIME!
4. Strong on National Security, Veterans' Benefits, Keeping military paid, fed, equipped, trained, and ready
5. Pays attention to intelligence, prepared to act instead of REACT, including good foreign/international relations in trade, diplomacy, as well as military action when needed.
6. Get rid of executive branch regulations (they are NOT laws, but are treated like them) that drive up capital costs and restrict the very freedoms our Constitution guarantees. These include EPA and FDA regulations, etc.
7. Repeal Obamacare. It is designed to destroy the medical INDUSTRY and make it a state-controlled NATIONAL SOCIALIST activity.

2, 3, 6, &7 combine to reduce unemployment, increase US Prosperity, and increase free-market capitalism.
4&5 include securing our borders against invaders (illegal aliens).

I have yet to make up my mind. Cain dropped out of the race. He was a champion of tax reform and probably the best on the list to turn around the economy. That leaves me even more undecided.

Newt's debate answers continue to impress me. They should. he has a vast knowledge of history and can relate lessons from the past to today. We call that ability "wisdom". I will admit, some of the allegations coming out of the housing crisis do concern me. So, he has far from clinched my nod.

Bachman turned me off early in the race. I am a huge supporter of the First Amendment, especially the Freedom of Religion clauses. She tends to push her religion as "correct" and shove it down my throat. She's backed off on that quite a bit. I am not "Pro-Life". I am anti-abortion as a means of birth control. I do find it disgusting that people can just procreate irresponsibly and not have to face the consequences. However, I will say that I am a man. If the kid didn't come from my sperm, I have no right to tell the woman what to choose. I just have the right to NOT agree with her choice. But if an 18 year old college student is drugged and raped at a frat party, she didn't choose anything in the resulting pregnancy. So, she has the right to terminate if so wishes. There ARE other options I'd prefer she chose. However, like not agreeing with somebody's spoken words, I do respect her right to make the choice in that situation.

One huge not on this is that I STRONGLY believe that US Taxpayers should not suffer that woman's choice, be it through welfare programs OR Planned Parenthood. Let them pay for their own decisions like I have to pay for mine. (THAT is equality).

The power of choice is very important to me in all walks of life. I also believe that one's choice is also the choice to accept the consequences, good or bad, and to be accountable and responsible for them.

But Bachman has given some answers and statements that I do agree with, recently.

I can go on an on. Perry impresses me with his immigration stand. I live in Arizona. We have a serious illegal immigration problem here. It is not a "victimless crime". We have people getting killed by illegals here. We have sex-slaves being smuggled who are criminally abused and forced into addiction.

In last night's debate, even Mitt "Mittens" Romney gave a few answers I liked. His track record in Massachusetts still leaves me highly skeptical of him. I don't need to rehash Romneycare, tax hikes, 2nd Amendment violations, or Court Appointments. They are all over the net.

Even Huntsman and Santorum haven't completely lost me. I just don't think either has the pull to beat Obama. However, if any of the above get the nod, I am comfortable with them as POTUS. Each has strengths this country is in dire need of in a leader right now.

And here comes the kicker. No, I have not yet mentioned former Libertarian Ron Paul .

If you look at some of my statements, you'll see quite a bit of a "Libertarian Lean" in my views. I am conservative, yes. I also am a card-carrying libertarian. "So what about Paul"?

Ron Paul might be a doctor, but he is ignorant on key things I find important.

The jury was out on him until the last few days. Let me tell you what ended any chance Paul had in getting my nod.

First, when I stated I wanted the candidates own words and actions on issues to make up my mind, and not campaigning by "supporters" I started getting harassed by Ron Paul's goons. I am sure this blog is going to bring more of them out of the woodwork. All they will do is add nails to the coffin containing Ron Paul's credibility with me. It is being down a run at the top of the 9th and putting in your 3rd string bench warmers and nose pickers to try to win the game.

Paul's supporters started harassing me right after I told them that doing so will turn me off of their candidate. I guess they, like their candid-dunce, are just to moronic to listen.

To top it off, they argued things that I already know to be untrue. They tried to state that Active Military support Ron Paul more than any other candidate. Ok, that's nice. However, I recently retired. I have HUNDREDS of friends who are still active duty. NONE of them admitted to supporting Ron Paul. So, my own experience is against their claims.

They presented numbers. That's nice. They overlooked federal laws such as the UCMJ in regards to political activity done by US Service Members. They CANNOT campaign while representing the military. If they say "I'm SPC Snuffy of the US Army and I support..." they are subject to a Court Martial.

Can they make campaign contributions? Yes, anonymously. If those contributions are less than $200, they do not have to state their employer. Paul's faithful minions try to say all contributions need to contain both employer and SS#. That one right there killed their argument. The Privacy Act of 1974 makes it illegal for campaigns to ask for that information. If they are collecting that data and using it to track military donors, they have broken federal law.

To top it off, Military Officers are prohibited from publicly claiming support for any candidate. Only enlisted members can do so, and under conditions that they make sure they STRONGLY evade doing so "as a Soldier".

Not quitting after being told several times to stop harassing me, they started sending me videos of alleged US Service members endorsing Paul. Not only is it illegal for them to do so, most of those on the videos have facial hair and haircuts that are grossly out of regulation. I saw more violations of AR 670-1 in those adds than I saw in all of the "Occupy" videos. If these actors are Active Duty military, I am a Hare Krishna. I also want to have a chat with their NCOs about enforcing the regulations and standards.

All of that wasn't enough to put me off. The resurgence of anti-Semitic comments Ron Paul has made (and continues to make) throughout his career puts me off further. In case you haven't noticed, I have strong religious beliefs that, for all intents and purposes, are Jewish in nature. I converted in 1991. My beliefs have evolved and are mine. But I hold most Jewish tenets close to my heart. So, for all intents and purposes, Ron Paul is prejudiced against my religion.

http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/game-over-scans-of-over-50-ron-paul.html

Of course, Dr. Paul had a perfect excuse lined up when confronted about the articles published by his paper and in his name. "I didn't read them and I didn't know. It was the editors' jobs." However, when you look for the editor's name, you find Dr. Paul listed as the editor. Perhaps he forgot he authorized the pieces. If that is the case, he's senile and should not be in office. However, let's give him the benefit of  the doubt and assume that somebody did the actual editing and approval for him. In that case, he is using the same defense that AG Eric Holder attempted to use in his Fast and Furious defense. "I didn't know" does not work for something that needed his signature for approval. That level of incompetence and negligence is not something that we need in the White House. We have that with Obama, Holder, Napolitano, etc, etc, etc. That is the type of dangerous administration we would rather vote OUT of office. 


Below is a record of the final nail in the coffin of Ron Paul's chances of getting my vote. It comes from the last Iowa GOP Primary debate. If you take the almost 20 minutes to watch the video in the link, you'll see where I saw the following statements that just destroyed any credibility Paul ever had (time hacks are approximate):

00:35 Paul grossly dodges the question. All candidates do this. But, it was a start to his fall.

02:00 He claims he will "cut the budget". What he doesn't say is his intended agenda to cut military spending and taking care of veterans as part of these cuts. His proposed cuts to defense spending will gut our military more than Carter did in the '70s. We all know how that turned out, right? Can I remind you of the failed rescue attempt into Iran? It failed because of lack of funding leading to an inability to properly maintain equipment.

03:00 Paul starts making up his own definitions. Government and Defense contractors are PRIVATE businesses that sign business contracts with the USGOV as a client. They are still private-sector jobs. If they weren't, they'd have to hire through USAJOBS.gov instead of private recruitment sites. Paul also ignored the key economic variable in macro-economics known as the "G" variable. This is government spending into the private sector economy for goods and services industries (in our country, these are owned by citizens) that the government is not capable of producing/providing to itself. Of course, he had to say his favorite word "bwubbwel". every time he says that, I want to hand him a bottle of liquid dish soap mixed with propylene glycol and tell him to go play in the back yard.

05:00 He tap dances his answer attempting to dodge and answer simultaneously. Here he proved he is anything but a martial artist. In any case, he was asked about "earmarks". He stated he votes against them. Then he says they are essential to take care of his constituents. Then he says they are necessary to keep the funds where they belong. Then he says they are evil. Then he says they shouldn't exist. then he defends adding them and voting for them if they go back to his state. Then he says "earmarks bad, if me president they no longer exist bcause me in backyard chasing bwubbwes" (paraphrased snark). Nice job begging the question with circular logic there. I liken this to Kant's failed attempt to argue against reason, values, and ethics.

07:30 He gives an answer that I interpreted as simply "As president, I won't be a leader. I'll let everybody roll over me because I want people to see me as their FAVORITE Weird Uncle who is chasing bwubbwes in the backyard". We need a strong leader. We had a socialist tyrant in charge for the last 3 years. we don't need Carter 2.0.

08:30 "Congress shouldn't have the power to subpena or impeach bad judges." He's been a US Representative for how long? Has he bothered to read the US Constitution? Guess what, THAT POWER IS IN THERE!


10:00 His answer can be boiled down to  the following: "I don't pay attention to intelligence. I will bow to what the UN claims on everything." He also slammed concerns over Iran as being "another Iraq". I hate to tell the ignorant buffoon, but I know the Intel leading up to Iraq. Iraq was NOT a bad move, at all. It was a smart one. The poor decision was pulling out too soon.

11:00 He referred to OIF as "useless". He is ignorant of the intelligence gathered prior to and during OIF. He has no clue about what happened over there. He claimed over 1,000,000 Iraqis were killed at US hands. That is blatantly false. His statement here boiled down to a personal insult against all the US Service Members who served, fought, and bled over there. It is a GRAVE insult to those fallen heroes who died over there. At this point he lost me completely. He insulted the heroic memories of my brothers and sisters in arms.

12:50 Paul demonstrates a lack of strategic and tactical analysis on Arabian/Persian Gulf states. He fails to understand that Iran's closing of the Strait of Hormuz does not affect just the US. It affects all of Europe. It affects our allies in Turkey, Jordan and Israel. It will harm developing African countries. It will destabilize the region causing global ripples.

14:30 I have to give some serious credit here to Rep. Michelle Bachman (MN-6) at this point. She calls Paul out on his statements and nails why Paul's statements are so disturbing. Her summary of the international relations and strategic nightmare such a policy creates is nothing less than a wonderful revelation of the extreme madness in Ron Paul.

15:15 Paul again shows his myopic views on the international scale. He makes a claim that terrorism hasn't touched "Switzerland or Sweden". Has he even bothered to watch the news over the past 20 years? How about the past 6 months? Rep. Paul then admitted he doesn't read intelligence reports and analysis. He countered Bachman's mention of an International Atomic Energy Agency report on Iran's nuclear program. His rebuttal "It wasn't a UN report". There you go again, Paul, saying you bend your knee to the "One World Order" and claim you will give the UN sovereignty over OUR Country.


http://patdollard.com/2011/12/ron-paul-%E2%80%9Ci-wouldn%E2%80%99t-have-risked-american-lives%E2%80%9D-to-end-the-holocaust/

Ron Paul's Iowa Debate Dec 15, 2011 Highlight Reel

I didn't get the exact time of the remark, but Rep. Ron Paul also made a statement about his having been drafted in 1962. For me, this explains his dislike of our heroic service members. He is still butt-sore that, in the 60s, our military drafted him. Well, we haven't used the Selective Service to draft people into service since 1973. All the people currently in the military voluntarily signed their contracts with the USGOV. They deserve the benefits and pay they have earned, and more. So, here we are, 50 years and numerous changes in military recruitment, manning, and structure later, and he holds it against those who forced him to serve. Maybe he should turn his aggression towards Kennedy, who was POTUS at the time, and not towards GWB. GWB asked for volunteers who went bravely into the breach and fought a tough and heroic war to rid the world of a genocidal tyrant. And Saddam's political party was the Ba'ath Party. The Ba'ath party is a party rooted in National Socialism. They supported Hamas and Al Q'aeda. I am PROUD to have served four (4) tours in Iraq supporting that effort. Paul insults that pride.

Ron Paul, the OIF veteran, Soldier Hard, has a Message for you:
"Shame on Ya'll"

To go along with Paul's disdain for the military, he backs traitors ( make that alleged traitors) such as PFC Manning. Manning was one of my AIT students. He was a dirtbag then. I didn't know nor did I care his sexual orientation at the time. What mattered was he failed to follow orders and security protocols while he was in school. And what did he do after graduating and going off to do real MI work? He violated laws and orders put in place to safeguard US Intelligence assets and Diplomatic missions. He (allegedly) sold those classified documents to WikiLeaks, for money, and all but shut-down several intelligence and diplomatic missions. Now, Ron Paul is all about diplomacy over military action, supposedly. Considering his ignorance on international events, I doubt it. A true diplomacy over military advocate should be even more on top of world events than a warmonger. But I digress. Paul has time and again made statements that he sees this traitor (alleged) as a "hero". http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/12/20/ron-paul-bradley-manning-soldier-who-stole-secret-us-docs-and-handed-them-to-wikileaks-is-a-hero-and-patriot/  If that is the type of person Ron Paul sees as a Hero, he is not the sort of person who should be Commander-in-Chief of the military AND head Diplomat for the US. (Yes, boys and girls, the POTUS is a higher ranking diplomat than the Secretary of State who he appoints). I'll  bet Mr. Bwubbwes secretly praises Benedict Arnold as a hero.

Somebody give him a bottle of "bwubbwes" and a wand. let him and his cronies go play in the backyard. He doesn't belong in the Oval Office.

My jury is still out on the rest of the candidates.

Other readings on Ron Paul's racism and downright insane views on National Security and National Defense:

http://townhall.com/columnists/mattbarber/2011/12/29/ron_paul_is_dangerous

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2011/12/20/why_ron_paul_can_never_be_president_in_12_quotes

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/20/from-the-mail-bag-ron-paul-is-that-you/

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/company-ron-paul-keeps_613474.html?page=1 

http://thecollegeconservative.com/2011/12/28/the-arc-of-crisis-today-why-ron-paul-cant-be-president/

http://townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/2011/12/21/ron_pauls_naive_promises 

http://pjmedia.com/ronradosh/2011/12/20/ron-pauls-dangerous-campaign/

This "Religion is Offensive" Claptrap is OUTRAGEOUS!

By "Outrageous" I mean it in its most literal sense. I am outraged. Any SENSIBLE person (with a glimmer of REASON) should be.

It is an affront to our constitutional rights.

It is tearing at the moral fabric of our country.

It is ripping at the very basic construction of the foundations of our great nation.

It needs to stop, NOW!

New Jersey threatened to suspend a HS student in charge of a “holiday assembly” because he violated the “no Jesus, no Christmas, no SANTA!” rules. After student wrote an OP-ED published by Huff-Po, they backpedaled. Of course, this happened only because the Huffington Post stopped being a "progressive" rag filled with socialism propaganda for about five minutes and actually did the right (as in correct) thing and printed the kid's editorial.

Fort Worth, Texas socialist indoctrination centers, I mean, public schools district, not only eliminated any “blatant” religious references like Christmas, Jesus, Yule, Hanukkah, Menorah, Dreidel, Holly King, etc. But they removed ALL replicas of Frosty, Rudolph, and Santa first claiming “religious undertones”, then “too distracting”.

A California school has followed suit.

And I have heard rumors of the same in Denver.

I love Jan Brewer. I don’t always agree with her, and her voice can get on your nerves. But I love her. Over the past couple of years she has issued an executive order that, in Arizona, it is a Christmas Tree if on public property. She also has announced that Druids are more than free to have “Yule Trees”. She welcomes Jewish children to have dreidels and menorahs in schools as well. See, she gets it.

What is “it”?

“It” is the religion clause of the First Amendment.

First, Congress nor any state government (or duly elected official) may impose a state religion. That means, that the government cannot declare any faith or sect thereof to be the “one true faith” of the people. Sorry, kids, but we are NOT a “Christian” nation. Our Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and the Declaration are very clear in recognizing there is at least one deity. There are several names for it. End of discussion. But they will not tell you that you must worship that deity in any certain way, faith, or creed. Call him “YHVH”, “Jesus”, “Odin”, “Jehovah”, or “Bob”. You are even free to not believe. No laws can force you.

The second part of that clause is that the right to worship “shall not be infringed”. That means THEY CANNOT STOP YOU! If your kid wants to say a few words to Taranis or Thor in between lessons at school, he has the right to. If the government school says “no”, they are in violation. (Private schools are a different story. You have a contract with them.) If you daughter wants to sing “Aleinu Shalom” and hug her friends in peace at recess, she has the RIGHT to do so. The government schools cannot legally stop her. If Abu Ali wants to genuflect in the city park at noon… yeah, we have to let him.

So, Jan gets it. The people want a nice, big, lit-up, bedazzled, beautiful CHRISTMAS TREE in front of the AZ capitol. They have one. I am more than sure she would allow Druids to place, with a permit, a Yule tree next to it. I am sure she’d allow a public menorah in the square.

In the opinion of this fringe-Jewish-sect convert, it’s a blessed CHRISTMAS TREE. Let the Christians have their celebration, PLEASE! It’s pretty. It’s nice. It’s about peace, and love, and being kind. I don’t get the problems with it. Let the kids have Santa! Santa is based on Tomte, a Scandinavian demigod who gives gifts and joy to kids. He is based upon the Celtic “Holly King” who does the same as well as brings warmth and joy to the season of ice.

He is Saint Nicholas, the Catholic patron Saint of children and charity. “St. Nicholas, who was said to live in Myra (Turkey) in about 300 A.D. Born an only child of a wealthy family, he was orphaned at an early age when both parents died of the plague. He grew up in a monastery and at the age of 17 became one of the youngest priests ever. Many stories are told of his generosity as he gave his wealth away in the form of gifts to those in need, especially children. Some years later Nicholas became a bishop–hence the bishop’s hat or miter, long flowing gown, white beard and red cape.” ( http://www.earthwitchery.com/santa.html )

Santa represents love, charity, and joy to children, especially those “underprivileged” or sick. There is a version of him in almost every religion.

There is a serious problem in today’s society when we give up symbols and celebrations of joy, charity, warmth, love, and kindness because it may “offend” some unmitigated douche-canoe.

To you Christians, Merry Christmas. I hope your Advent is filled with joy, love, and warmth. I hope you enjoy every second of it. You deserve to. Even more, you are ENTITLED to and and have a CONSTITUTIONAL Right to.

Even Chuck Norris, yes THAT Chuck Norris has noticed this has gone too far:  http://townhall.com/columnists/chucknorris/2011/12/20/feds_war_on_religion_part_1_of_2

Others joining the outrage:

http://chicksontheright.com/2011/12/08/santa-and-poinsettias-forbidden-at-school/

http://chicksontheright.com/2011/12/08/governor-chafee-there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-holiday-tree/


http://www.boortz.com/videos/news/boortz-rant-santa-in-schools/vFRZ9/

http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2011/dec/08/war-christmas-explained/

http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2011/dec/06/political-correctness-run-amok/

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1291106762001/merry-christmas-phrase-banned-by-school-board/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/06/ban-on-school-christmas-c_n_751839.html

http://kfyo.com/christmas-decorations-banned-from-school-buses/

A Little Common Sense

The latest numbers are out. The unemployment rate has dropped to 8.6%, the lowest it has been in over two years. That sounds like great news and a point in favor for Keynesian Economics. But it is a coat of white-wash I am about to rain all over.

Here are the reasons for the drop in unemployment numbers. First of all, there were a large number of seasonal hires in retail, private portage (UPS and FEDEX), and hospitality jobs. 90% of those "new hires" will be let go by January 15th. So, expect a sharp jump in unemployment in the report at the end of January.

The second big reason is a change in the labor force. Some people idyllically delude themselves to believe that the labor force is every adult over 18. That is so far from reality it is disgusting. The labor force (or "work force") are people who are employed or seeking employment. If you have a married couple and momma gets knocked up, then decides to be a stay-at-home mom for the next 4 years until junior hits school age, well, momma is no longer part of the labor force. If you get a war veteran whose injuries have debilitated to the point he can no longer work, he is not part of the work force. If a federal contractor says "screw this" and decides to quit and go use his Post-9/11 GI bill full time, he is no longer part of the "work force". Because of the pension, even military retirees who are actually seeking employment are not calculated into the "work force". Well, let me give you the reality here. The work force/labor force shrank by 315,000+ people in the past month. That means more than 315k said "screw it, I give up" and stopped working or seeking employment.

Let's do some simple math. Let's keep this easy. Let's say the labor force is 100 people. Unemployment was around 9% for October. So, that would mean 91 people were employed and 9 were looking for a job. Then 31 people say "screw this". So now you have only 69 people in the labor force. 8.6% of them are now unemployed.  8.6% of 69 people is 5.9. You can't have 9/10 a person, so let's say 6. So you now have 63 people employed instead of 91. You now have 37 people not working, not producing, not paying taxes, etc.

If we had a truly "fair" system that employed a flat income tax (and that were the only payroll tax), then we can see even more dismal news here. Let's be nice and "fair" and say each of these working laborers earned the same amount at, let's say $5k a month. $60k a year is middle class, you know. Let's say the tax is a flat 10%. So, before this mass exodus from the work force, the government collected 10% of the $5k made by 91 people. $5k times 91 people is $455k of gross income to pull from. 10% of that is $45,500 for the month in federal tax revenue. That's a salary for a GS-5 level bureaucrat for a year (to pay one gov't worker). Now, those 31 people leave, the unemployment rate drops. We all jump "hooray, the economy is picking up". I look at you like you are an idiot. Why? Well, now you have 63 people earning that $5k. So only $315k in gross income is generated. Now revenue on that (tax) is only $31,500. That's a $14k loss.

Now let's take that a few steps further. First, the gov't isn't going to fire that GS-5 for lack of funds. It's going to borrow that $14k increasing the federal deficit (which is already over $15TRILLION). Also, the net income for those working drops from $410k to $283,500. That's a $126k drop in money being spent. Look at the logic here. That means $126k less is going to be spent on food, rent, real estate, gas, cars, toys, movies, cell phones, airfare, music, etc, etc, etc. You would think that it meant more job openings due to 31 people leaving the force, right? Nope. It is a 28% drop in productivity. That means 28% of businesses end up having to cut productivity or flat out close up shop. Demand for those services will drop a bit due to reduced income, sure. But there will be about a 1/4 drop in supply. That drives prices up for products produced by those still in business. So your $1 loaf of bread is now $1.25. You have less money to buy it. Those who are still working see their $4 per gallon of gas go up to $5. Heck, you think "take the bus" instead? Well, the bus ticket goes from $1.50 each way ($3 total) go to $3.80 each work day.

As you can see, this leads to inflation combined with a depressed or "malaise" economy. This is BAD news.

Oh, yeah, then the gov't needs to  pay its bills. So what do they do? If they cut social subsidies ("welfare") and education, everybody will scream. If they cut regulation programs (so-called "green" programs), "progressives" will scream. So, the gov't isn't going to cut their pork. Hell, no. Keynesians will INCREASE TAXES to cover at least part of their bills. So, that flat 10% gets bumped to 15% or 20%. Watch the spiral. That means that those few still working are taking home even LESS. Demand will drop a little. But necessities will stay relatively constant. So supply drops again. Prices go up again.

On the surface, this drop in unemployment looks good. But, when the underlying reasons behind it are examined, you can see that this is VERY bad news.

Now let me depress you further with another dose of reality.

Congress passed TEMPORARY cuts to payroll taxes. Big deal. They are temporary. However, they intend to let the Capital Gains cuts ("Bush Tax Cuts") expire. The temporary payroll tax cuts will expire before those. So, they produce no incentive to hire more people. It just means they get a short little break for those they already employ. It will affect NOTHING in the marketplace. Why can I say this? Well, they also passed a 3% surtax on people making over $1Million. I'll bet the "99%" idiots are happy about that. They shouldn't be. It means that they now have less capital with which to hire anybody. That 3% raise actually means they will be paying MORE than they will save from the payroll tax cuts.

Now let me rain more on your parade. 75% of those $1million a year earners are private business owners. That means they are NOT corporate employees. They are Doctors, Lawyers (I could care less about them), Restaurant owners, shop owners, software designers, etc, etc, etc. They own the local qwik-e-marts. They own your local bookstore or movie theater. They own your local cab company. They own your favorite "mom and pop" coffee house or nightclub. They own your local game store. They own the company that picks up your trash and recyclables.

So, 75% of them are now seeing up to a 75% marginal effective tax rate. Yes, 75%. They pay business taxes, regulatory fees, payroll taxes, income tax, sales taxes on their supplies and insurance, property taxes, etc, etc, etc. By the time they are added up with that 3% surtax and increases in other "hidden taxes", they face a 75% effective marginal tax rate in 2012.

How many of you would take an $8 an hour job just to take home $2 an hour? Say you work 8 hours in a day, 5 days a week. So, standard 40 hour work week. Would you work 40 hours, promised $320 a week before taxes only to see an $80 paycheck? Remember, it's costing you $3 to $5 a day just to get to work (travel expenses). At $3 a day that's $15 a week just to get TO work. So, now you have $65 a week for food, rent, utilities, internet. Would you work for that?

So what incentive remains for those 75 out of 100 millionaires to bother keeping their businesses going? Here's a hint:  THERE ISN'T ONE! So, expect them to start cutting productivity (reducing supply yet again, therefore prices go up). Also, prices will go up to offset those taxes. (A 3% increased tax becomes about a 5% increase in a price tag on items produced or services rendered). It is more cost effective to go to part-time or just quit the business. That means all those employees are now out of work. So, nobody on a payroll means payroll tax cuts go all the way to NOTHING being paid, because, well, nobody is employed.

If you study the past 100 years, you will find that the "theory" of Keynesian Economics has proven itself invalid. Yet our current administration (both sides of the aisle, mind you) are using a system they MUST know to be incorrect. And who suffers? We do. We have 315k+ people say "fuck it" and quit trying to work. We will soon have employers saying "fuck this" and not producing or employing because they cannot afford to do so.

I do not see the sense in these policies. They are not reasonable or logical. They are stupid. And they sugar coat it all when presenting it to the dumb masses in the public who just take cursory numbers from the news as gospel. If you don't bother to THINK and ask "Why?" you get deluded by the white-wash. I just rained on it. So, I guess Tom Sawyer will be hiring idiots to try to paint his fence for him again, though he'll have no capital with which to do so. And I'll be here to rain all over it again.

And I won't be the only one doing the rain dance:

http://allpatriotsmedia.com/ 

http://www.redcounty.com/content/brilliant-look-how-obama-gingrich-jobs-gap-widening

http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/

http://www.therightsphere.com/2011/12/unemployment-drops-to-8-6-how-numbers-lie/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/nfp-prints-120k-below-expectations-125k-unemployment-rate-drops-86 

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2011/12/employment-summary-part-time-workers.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CalculatedRisk+%28Calculated+Risk%29 

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm 

http://www.clearancejobs.com/defense-news/471/federal-workers-don-t-see-rewards-for-innovation-high-performance 

http://jackchambless.blogspot.com/2011/12/tenacity-of-hope.html