FAST AND FURIOUS IS NOT A DC LAW FIRM

Ever wonder just why Eric Holder would risk his entire career by simply not providing the documents ordered for him to turn over by law? I am providing a guest appearence today because it is so much better written than I could do and it is spot on. This is the topic that I planned to present but Ann Coulter saved me the effort.

Chuck

Most Americans don't care about whether Attorney General Eric Holder is hiding Fast and Furious documents because they don't understand the story.

Until someone can tell us otherwise, there is only one explanation for why President Obama's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives gave thousands of guns to Mexican drug dealers: It put guns in their hands to strengthen liberals' argument for gun control.

Precisely because this is such a jaw-dropping accusation -- criminality at the highest level of government to score a political point -- Republicans refuse to make it.

But the problem with Republican rectitude in discussing this scandal is that as soon as they start talking about subpoenas and dates and documents, TV channels change across America. They're never going to get answers unless they first explain to the American people why it matters.

Liberals have been dying to reinstate the so-called "assault weapons" ban, but they haven't been able to for political reasons. (For more information on this, see the 1994 congressional elections.)

A typically idiotic Democratic scheme, the "assault weapons" ban prohibited the sale of semiautomatics that are operationally indistinguishable from deer rifles, but which looked scary to liberal women.

First, the Democrats tried lying about how American guns were being found in the hands of Mexican drug dealers -- while demanding a renewal of the assault weapons ban.

Obama had barely unpacked at the White House, when he and high-level administration officials and Senate Democrats -- Holder, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Sen. Chuck Schumer -- started railing about how our lax gun control laws were putting guns in the hands of Mexican drug cartels.

In 2010, even Mexico's President Felipe Calderon demanded that the U.S. reinstate the assault weapons ban -- on the grounds that Mexican drug violence was directly linked to the law's repeal.

The claim was preposterous for many reasons, including the fact that the type and quantity of armaments being used by Mexican drug cartels can be obtained only from places such as North Korea, China, Russia, Venezuela and Guatemala.

The notion that most guns used by Mexican drug gangs came from the U.S. was a lie -- exposed on about 1 million gun blogs and on Fox News.

So, then the Obama administration did exactly what Democrats had been falsely accusing American gun sellers of doing: They put American guns in the hands of Mexican drug cartels.

The only explanation for Fast and Furious is that it was a program to prop up a losing gun control argument. The Waco and Ruby Ridge raids were monstrous, but they at least made sense as simple screw-ups: (1) ATF's budget was about to be cut and it needed some showy raids; and (2) law enforcement officials detest private gun ownership on principle.

There is no conceivable law enforcement objective to giving Mexican drug dealers thousands of untrackable guns. It's not even fun for the agents, like an armed raid on a private home. If there's some other explanation, Holder isn't telling.

Republicans refuse to state this clearly because they can't prove it. Instead, they just keep chattering about the documents that haven't been turned over and subpoenas that haven't been answered.

Did Democrats wait for a smoking gun to accuse Karl Rove of treason for revealing Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA agent? It turned out Rove didn't reveal it, and it wouldn't have been a crime if he had.

Did they wait for proof to accuse Sen. John McCain of committing adultery? They had none, and yet that story ran on the front page of The New York Times.

Did they have any evidence before accusing the entire Republican House leadership of complicity in Mark Foley's creepy emails to young male interns? See if you can guess. Take all the time you need. Feel free to call one of your "lifelines" if necessary.

Liberals just make wild-eyed accusations and demand Republicans prove themselves innocent. (Say, whatever happened to Karl Rove's trial for treason for outing Valerie Plame? Can somebody call Lawrence O'Donnell and check on that?)

If conservatives were our only source of information about 9/11, no one would care about that, either. Somehow they'd make it about Osama bin Laden not answering a subpoena.

This isn't just another government program gone bad -- a $300 ashtray, stimulus money fraud, Solyndra or Van Jones.

It isn't just a story about some government official refusing to testify.

It isn't even a story about an American dying as a result of a government program, as outrageous as that is. Yes, Brian Terry died at the hands of a Mexican using a Holder-provided American gun. Pat Tillman died. Ron Brown died. People sometimes die as a result of government screw-ups. Fast and Furious is worse.

Innocent people dying was the objective of Fast and Furious, not collateral damage.

It would be as if the Bush administration had implemented a covert operation to dump a dangerous abortifacient in Planned Parenthood clinics, resulting in hundreds of women dying -- just to give pro-lifers an argument about how dangerous abortion clinics are.

That's what Fast and Furious is about.

COPYRIGHT 2012 ANN COULTER

Divide and Conquer

It was only 50 years into the birth of our country that a French political thinker and historian, Alexis de Tocqueville, came to America to have a look around. He was astounded that this young country was already competing in world markets. He wrote in his book “Democracy in America” of the amazing work ethic and the shear drive to become independent of any political regime. Family and community came first. All that was asked of the government was to protect the sovereignty and stay out of the way.

Other than the Civil War, our federal government did mostly that. I realize detractors can cite many isolated instances where the Federal Government overstepped their bounds. However, it wasn’t until The New Deal and then The Great Society that true Socialism crept into our house. For the next 50 years or so, American individualism remained dominate over the socialist movement. However, those who had a bent on overpowering the individual freedoms granted in the Constitution were already hatching their plans in the late 1960’s.

Back then Richard Cloward and Francis Piven advocated a strategy of overloading the new welfare system in the U.S. in order to split, “Divide and Conquer”, America and control, through a powerful federal government, all aspects of our lives. Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorn among others continued to try to divide America by blowing up government buildings and offices and causing general havoc in the early 1970’s. The general consensus is that Barack Obama is the quintessential extension of these socialists given his direct association with them throughout the years.

Whatever the truth is, and we will never really know, it is blatantly apparent that the current president has affixed on his desk a reminder post-it note that reads, “Divide and Conquer”. He knows full well that creating a rift between Americans with a strong individual work ethic and those that feel that government owes them all the comforts of  living in America, will result in a week Constitution and an overthrow of the ideals brought forth by our Founders.

On this July 4^th, I am going to remember back to the country that Alexis what’s-his-name found when he visited us only 50 years into our greatness. I’m going to pray that we can find a way to come together once again and re-instill that individual determination to be the best country in the world - because we are all united as Americans.

Want to join me?

If you enjoy reading my blog, would you please share the link with others? I do some commercial writings and it always helps to have a successful blog under one's belt. Thanks.

 

True Colors

Ok . . .I know from the rather vile gloating from totally uninformed Obamacrates, that they think they are about to get free healthcare. They are sure that they can suck money from the “1%” to pay all their bills. “Gimme, gimme, gimme” is the mantra of this decade. And it is all wrapped up in a neat little package called “feelings” that Conservatives simply don’t have. Conservative politicians are heartless; Liberals have only the poor, the down-trodden and (this one always amuses me) the less fortunate people in their hearts. A vote for Obama will guarantee that every poor person will get a scoop of ice cream.

However, sometimes true colors bleed through to the surface. You need only look for that stain in the right place and you will find it through the thick fabric of deceit. Here is an example:

Last week, the Supreme Court handed down a ruling that most Americans (and several Senators) didn’t even know was part of Obamacare. They, in essence, told the administration and all the Congresspersons that so gleefully voted for the bill, that they could not simply forget about the poor, downtrodden and less fortunate in any state that opted out of the massive Medicaid expansion plans. Wow! Medicaid expansion! I’ll vote for that, right? Guess those libs really do care for the poor.

Hold up there, Kimo Sabe. Let’s take a little further look. Let’s consider the “or” in the mandate. Or . . . Obamacare will eliminate all of the federal funding for Medicaid to the offending State. Boy, that’ll show ‘em! In most states that adds up to billions of dollars yanked from the people who need it most. You guessed it; the poor, downtrodden and less fortunate.  Sorta leaves that thinking with your heart stuff out in left field.

Before my liberal friend’s heads explode on this one, let me say this. I think that the Medicaid program is a wonderful thing. As an insurance agent, I have spent many hours in the homes of families and individuals who benefit dearly from the program. It is a federal tax well spent. Of course it is administered poorly and the abuses are exponential. But, I have seen it work first-hand for very, very poor people who, through no fault of their own, receive a benefit that helps make their days go a little more smoothly. Maybe that is why I was so upset when I realized that The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was using the poor, downtrodden and less fortunate as a bargaining chip to curry votes.

But, I’m just saying.

THE HYPOCRITICAL OATH

This is just too easy. Barack Obama, President of the United States, whole-heartedly supports the completely failed War on Drugs. In fact, he even escalated swat raids on marijuana users, dealers and dispensaries. That would not be surprising if a sitting President had a strong conviction that illegal marijuana smoking and sales needed to be enforced because it somehow was the duty of the federal government to do so. Taking that conviction a step further, one would suppose that the Commander in Chief never “inhaled” himself. The hypocrisy would be overwhelming, wouldn’t it?

Well, just hold on there Tonto. We are not dealing with the usual, good-hearted President that stands up for his convictions. In fact, I am befuddled to understand just what Obama’s convictions really are.

Although I did more than just dabble in pot smoking in college and there-after for several years, I never learned of the phrase “Choom Gang” until just recently. Chooming is apparently slang for getting high. Ok, now I’m hip. I learned it from someone who was a regular pot-head in college. He smoked in his dorm, he smoked on the beach, and he smoked in vans with other choomers. He was even a pot-smoking, trend-setter. “Total Absorption” was one of his rules he made up for the world of choomer’s pot parties. TA as he called it was where, if you exhaled prematurely while smoking with the Choom Gang, you would miss a turn when the joint came back to you. In other words, this guy was a real leader (in the world of marijuana smoking). Who would have thought that he would someday become the leader of the free world?

So what’s the problem you ask? I’ll answer that question with another question. How would you feel if you were a parent of a child who was incarcerated for six months for getting busted smoking a joint with his buddies knowing that our own President was an early leader in the proper etiquette for blowing weed with his Choom Gang? When Obama took the Oath of Office, he knew full-well that his own hypocrisy of supporting having kids thrown in jail for something he did on a daily basis was staring him in the face.

I knew a few cops in my hometown back in the early 70’s that would get high with their friends when off duty and then go out and bust other people during the day for the same thing. Outrageous, nauseating, shocking and offensive; who are we talking about here, a couple of cops 40 years ago or our current President?

You decide.  

Just the Facts

The vilification of George Bush is complete. I’m sure the left will find more blame in some corner of their mind but I just wish everyone would take some personal responsibility and man-up to the fact that Bush has been gone for 3.5 years and is not coming back.

I was angry with G.W. almost out of the gate when he announced that he wanted to reach out to both sides of Congress and avoid vetoing any bills, even the outrageous spending bills that keeps left-leaning constituents voting liberal. Bush kept his promise. He vetoed only 12 bills in his entire presidential career. That is a 200 year record. He was signing every liberal spending bill like they were his Christmas cards. Of course, these non-vetoed spending bills made him look like the biggest spender in presidential history. And he was, up to that date. Of course, Obama has eclipsed that record in only in 3 years. They were not Bush’s bills! But he signed them anyway because he wanted everyone on both sides of the isle to shake his hand on State of the Union Day.

An easy way to start some liberal nail spitting is to use facts to defend George Bush. Facts have never been a friend of the liberal debater. But, here goes.

The day the Democrats took over the Government was not January 22^nd, 2009. It was actually January 3rd 2007 when they began ruling over the House of Representatives and the Senate at the very start of the 110th Congress. Up to that time, Bush's economic policies set a record of 52 straight months of job growth. The Dow Jones closed at 12,621.77. The Gross Domestic Product was at 3.5% and unemployment was at 4.6%!

On that same day, the House Financial Services Committee’s new chairman was a man named Barney Frank. Also, the Senate Banking Committee was taken over by Senator Chris Dodd. And those facts spell out the beginning of the end of our 52 months of job growth. In the next 15 months, 6 trillion dollars of toxic loans were dumped into the economy.  The fiasco of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac was in full swing and the economy was in full crisis.

Interestingly, George Bush, from 2001 on until the end of his presidency, warned Americans and asked Congress 17 times to stop the incredibly risky economic policies of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. He also fought so hard to control spending in his last year in office that the liberal Congress had to compromise on their radical spending bills. It was too little, too late. And when George W. Bush left office and Obama stepped up to the plate, it was “Game On!”.

They never looked back.

     

Respect For Liberal Democrats

In a rather dire warning to freedom-loving Americans, I recommend we begin to respect the deceit and slyness that is currently the norm in the Democratic Party and the Obama Administration specifically. They play the gotcha game very well and Conservatives usually bite on whatever maliciousness they deal out by stumbling all over themselves.

This past week, we have experienced a perfect example of Conservatives falling over the cliff and possibly setting themselves up to lose the election next fall. In the New Hampshire debates, George Stephanopoulos asked a question of Mitt Romney that, at the time, seemed to come out of left field. He asked Romney whether or not the Constitution allowed states to ban contraception. Romney came back with a statement that the idea of putting forward things that states might want to do that no state wants to do and asking me if I want to do it is kind of a silly thing. Well, apparently it was not so silly after all. No doubt that question was a result of a democratic agenda that really reared its ugly head this past week. Congressional Democrats could not get an actual committee together to put the spotlight on Sandra Fluke (a self-proclaimed, activist student from Georgetown University) probably because the issue was particularly ridiculous. She wants the government (us) to pay for her contraception as an entitlement for college coeds because they tend to have a lot of sex. Since Dems could not get a legitimate committee together, they simply had their own, complete with the mainstream media salivating on every word.

Then Conservatives began weighing in. Attacks against this “person of interest” (I don’t dare call her anything else) were all over the board. Rush Limbaugh bit the hardest. MSNBC lib’s eyes were practically popping out of their heads with glee.

And so . . . it worked. Mindless voters will now vote against any Republican because it appears that Republicans want to keep college age woman from having fun and to have some kind of control over woman’s reproductive rights. Never mind the real issues. This administration loses every debate on those. Just divert to inane topics that will stir up single-minded emotions into a frenzy. It’s the “Republicans want to kill old people” thing all over again.

Better keep buying that gold and silver and put your money into safer, Mexican banks. It may be a long four more years.

Jumping Into The Fray

I am making a change in my blog content today and for the future. I have tried to keep politics out of the subject matter in my first few entries. But, as you have probably noticed, I just can’t help myself. I have also been asked a few times to “put that in your blog” when I am spewing political rhetoric to friends. So I am jumping into the fray. I will try in this particular submission to convey where I tend to stand on various topics. Then future entries will deal with the topics of the day or week and include quotes and videos from other blogs that I follow to help me make my own decisions on the issues.

The following is just a brief synopsis of some of my views. They are not always liberal, not always conservative and certainly not in the middle.

The Constitution

It is probably the single most profoundly successful political document in history. Politicians need to keep their grubby little hands off. 

Abortion

I believe that life begins at conception. In a sense, we are “killing” or terminating a life when we abort a fetus. However, our ability to abort humans will always be a part of our lives and because of that we need some government controls to insure it is done safely. With respect to the life of the mother, she has every right to abort the baby if it will save her life. However, the use of abortion for birth control is always wrong.

Healthcare Reform

One of the last things we need the government in control of is healthcare. Just look at Medicare.  Lifting the amazingly burdensome, senseless regulations and instituting tort reform would bring insurance premiums tumbling down and immediately improve the quality of healthcare.

The United States Border

One of the two biggest disasters in the U.S. today

Teachers Unions

The other biggest disaster

Climate Change

Not too far into the future, governments, politicians and environmentalists will probably be pushing to control our every move because the earth is, once again, cooling off.

The War on Drugs

Just dumb

Gun Control

Read the Second Amendment. The reason for that amendment is just as valid today as it was on Dec.15, 1791.

The President

I’m definitely not an Obama fan. I have voted for many Republicans and a few Democrats. I would have voted for Bobby Kennedy if he had not been shot. I was very angry with G.W. for signing every liberal spending bill congress sent him. But now, we are just about to literally fall off the cliff and the administration wants to spend trillions more. WTF??

I would relish lots of comments. I’m sure there will be some vitriol included in the text. It’s expected and I have the delete button. But I will hesitate to use it.

And as always . . . . .I’m Just Saying

Learn 'em Good

OK – Let’s ruffle some feathers today. When I was a student in Northern Indiana in the 50’s and 60’s, we had our share of problems with teachers.  My 4^th grade teacher had a nervous breakdown. My 7^th grade history teacher would beat us over the head with her lesson book if we were not paying attention. Many of our teachers were deemed too tough on us by giving us reams of homework and forcing us to learn things that seemed over our heads or too unimportant at the time for us to worry about. But, on no occasion with any teacher in my entire K – 12 career, did I ever run into a teacher that was just plain too dumb. Being a stupid teacher seems to have become more commonplace in the 70’s and beyond. I remember a friend’s son bringing home a short paper he wrote in 8^th grade English to show his father. His grade was an F. But the teacher explained why with the following sentence. “This don’t make no sense!” Ironically, I read the paper and it was pretty well written for an 8^th grader and it made perfect sense. But, of course, that’s not the point here. That teacher teaches English!

Conventional theories tend to lay the blame directly on the teacher’s union for the problems in education today. That may be a little harsh. There are a large number of problems. The most glaring is the fact that we leave it up to government to educate our children. I realize that is a rather general statement, but do the math. How many really successful government businesses are there today? Yet we expect the Federal Government to properly educate our children. It ain’t going to happen.

However, I think we do need to look at the union when it comes to the diminishing quality of educators in America today. We have seen it in so many industries through the years. It is a natural effect of raising salaries, raising benefits and quite simply upsetting the balance of a company’s business model. Something has got to give. With the UAW, it resulted in a lower quality of automobiles. With the American Federation of Teachers, it has resulted in a lower quality of teachers educating our children.

Is it any wonder that private schools and even home schooling has a much higher success rate of educating young people than government, union backed teachers? I recently read that they are finding inaccuracies in resumes where applicants falsely state that they were home-schooled because they are embarrassed that they actually received a government-based education.

It’s sad, but inevitable. The government does not usually run a business based on profits or growth. They base their models on creating a businesses or bureaucracy that will result in votes. They do not need profits because they have Americans, through taxes, to support the business. It has been that way since Teddy Roosevelt, and maybe even before. It is just one of those things that will probably never go away. But should we be using our children’s education as a vote-buying tool or a means for protecting inept teachers from themselves?

But then again,

“I’m Just Saying”

That's Just Rude!

This is quickly becoming the decade of rudeness. I once drove across town to a Sears store to buy a lawn mower. I promptly asked for assistance from a man that was touted as the expert in all types of mowers. My first question was about the difference between the reasonably-priced mower and the over-priced one. As he was beginning his explanation, the phone next to the cash register rang and he excused himself and walked over to answer it. He then began to discuss chain saws to the person on the other end of the phone. After he walked past me to check to see if they had the model chain saw the person who called was seeking, he went back to the phone and continued his discussion with this person who - 1. Was probably sitting on the phone in his Barcalounger and boxers and 2. Did not drive across town to stand in the Sears store and wait until all phone queries were taken care of, as I apparently did.

That was about 10 years ago; before I-Phones, I-Pads and laptops. Today that sort of rudeness has taken on a level beyond my imagination when I was growing up. Where is it written that – No matter who you are with at any given time, the person on the phone is more important to talk to – or text, or email, or Facebook, or Twitter?

I arrived at a nice restaurant a few weeks back to see an old friend and do a little catching up. It had been five years since we had seen each other after he moved away. I thought we were equally excited to pick up where we left off and share the good and the bad. Even before we ordered drinks, his I-Phone blared the Indiana University fight song and he immediately began to read his latest text. After he chuckled, he started texting back. Not long after that, he told me what drink to order him, excused himself and went outside to make a call. I finished my first drink, ordered another and waited, and waited . . . and waited. I’m guessing thirty minutes later he came in and sat down. He explained that it was too noisy in the restaurant to talk on the phone before but now the place had cleared out a bit and he could hear better. How wonderful for him. We ordered dinner. The I.U. fight song again jolted me to attention. This time he looked scornfully at the text, said something nasty about his ex and began texting with authority. OK . . .you know where this one is going. When I left him walking to his car, he was reading his email on his I-Phone. I know nothing more about his life now than I did before our dinner; except that he is really pissed at his ex-wife.

I am aware that when I write these little rants, I should offer a solution or two to help with the problem. I really do not have an answer to this one. So I’m going to throw it out to the few people who are currently reading my blog and ask for help. What can we do or say to politely remind our friends that we took the time to be right there in front of them and would like to spend some quality time visiting them without sharing our visit with their ex-wife? I know. I think I just answered my own question.

As usual, if you do not want to "join" this Google Blog, you can email me with your thoughts at:
cdrake1@hotmail.com 


If you like what you read, would you please share the web address with friends? I am doing more writing commercially and it always looks good and helps to land jobs if you have a following.


http://www.drakedrivel.blogspot.com/


Thanks -

Just Suppose

Let’s role play; just for fun. Let’s say you are a good friend of mine. Let’s say I recently found out I have diabetes and lung cancer. Now, let’s say I need $650,000 worth of medical care to live past next year. Well, I have no money. So I call you up. I remind you that we are friends and tell you that I need help. If you would just cover 90% of my medical expenses for the next year, I will agree to pay you $200.00 a month for the next year. What’s that you say? You can’t afford to do that? You say you would go broke yourself if you do that? Well . . .wait just a minute, “friend”! Our federal government says because I live in America, the greatest nation on earth, I deserve to use your money for my medical expenses (even though it is a guaranteed loss to you since I’m already sick) What’s that? Why do I deserve it you ask? Because you have a lot more money than I do and that’s not fair. You are a lot more fortunate than I am so I deserve your money. Oh really? You don’t want to role play anymore? Well, just damn.

As ridiculous as that scenario sounds, that is exactly what the insurance companies in the United States are being asked to do. Like so many other bills that get passed in Washington by people who do not even understand the economics of running a paper route, the offer of goods and services through the use of supply and demand, doesn’t make sense to them when they have the power to plunder. Amazingly, they seem to be scratching their heads as to how the companies that were given millions or billions of dollars in the stimulus program are already going out of business. As they continue to demonize the concept of profits, they don’t understand that a business has to grow, or die. Breaking even is not an option. I sometimes feel that the bunch of idiots with their Ivy League degrees need to take 9^th grade econ. 101. It is all there.

Insurance companies are not the bad guys as so many progressives want to imply. All they do is make an offer for individuals to enter into a contract; this for that. If you agree with the terms of the contract, sign it and pay your premiums. If you do not agree, do not sign it and that’s that. Yes, premiums are very high. Gee, I wonder why that is. Is it because insurance companies are greedy and want you to die? Probably not. If an insurance company could charge the lowest premium in the country, they would be on cloud nine since they found a way to beat their competitors. Their sales would rocket up and they would grow. If you die, there’s no more growth for the insurance company. So what in the world (or in America) could it be? What about the strangling regulations handed down by an overzealous government? What about the horrendously exorbitant lawsuits which are encouraged because congress and the Administration will not even consider tort reform? Oh, and maybe it would be nice to allow all “national” insurance companies to do business in every state in the “Nation”. Nope, there are way too many lawyers in congress for that one.

OK, those are just three, but that is enough. Open up state borders to all insurance companies, cut the bureaucratic red tape significantly and implement tort reform (all three things would not hurt one citizen of the United States or cost a dime) and you would see health insurance premiums plummet. It would save individuals on their monthly bills, give business the ability to offer higher salaries through insurance savings and save countless lives by opening up new private funds for medical research and cheaper drugs.

But . . .

I’m Just Saying

Tell me what you think.

cdrake1@hotmail.com

I Never Liked Long Division

I don't watch State of the Union Addresses. They bore me and I have plenty of old "South Parks" to keep me entertained until I pass out in my recliner. However, I do pick up a snippet or two the next day just to make sure that Obama is still scamming the weak-minded. I was not let down. His Warren Buffett/Warren Buffett's Secretary scam was a beauty.

Here is the ruse. Obama is claiming that "It's just not fair"  that Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. He knows that is all he needs to say to help divide the providers from the providees even further. Class warfare is a term that we have come to dismiss as just another political catch phrase. I think "Divide and Conquer" is more appropriate to describe Obama's agenda to assist his total takeover of our economy. His diversionary tactics are working too well for our own good. There is more division of ideals in this country than I can remember. All the past presidents from both parties since I was born, talked of bringing Americans together in one, unified effort to make America strong. Somehow, I feel that he wants to divide us to weaken our resolve and make it easier to slide his Socialist programs through. What scares me the most is that it has been working up to this point.

The fact is, Warren Buffett pays the same exact tax rate as his secretary. All Americans use the same tax calculator in the back of the 1040 booklet. Nearly all of Buffett's taxes are capital gains which are taxed at 15%. Any capital gains that his secretary has would also be at 15%. Income taxes are paid based on income. And both Warren Buffett and his secretary would pay the same rate based on the income tax schedule.

On the brighter side, I think in spite of the abject failure of government schools to educate our children, America is beginning to catch on. I strongly believe Obama will be ousted in November. It will not be because the Republican candidate beats him with great oratory and charisma, but rather because we are listening more and liking what we hear less. Maybe you can divide us only so much. Then we come back together even stronger with a will and a purpose that defines who we are; Americans.

Just a note.

Not long ago, a close friend passed away. I am reaching the age now where that is not as rare an occurrence as it once was. This is different. This time my friend decided to hurry up the process and took his own life. I have experienced the death of friends and family in many forms. But suicide is a new one for me. Wrapping this one around my simple mind has been, to this date, unsuccessful. I feel somehow injured by the event. He didn't just take his life, he took himself away from friends and family and me. I have decided that the famous opening song to "Mash" is surely wrong. Suicide is not painless.

I don't want to spend a lot of time on this except to say, no matter how tough things are or seem to be, why not just wait and see? How much worse can tomorrow be than today? And tomorrow, if you are still here, you haven't hurt anyone; not even yourself.

Doing What Comes Natural

"You should write a blog." "Who  . . .me?" That's a typical conversation after several drinks with friends Usually, I have been talking too loud in a bar and expounding on something that I'm sure my friends need to know. I have no doubt that they feel that telling me to put it in a blog is their meager attempt to shut me up.

So . . .now I have a blog. It will not shut me up in a bar, but it does give me a chance to expound to a much larger audience. Maybe I should stay home, get drunk and do my expounding on YouTube. Then I would have the opportunity to talk loud too. At any rate, this is going to have to suffice for now.

Since I have a tendency to be a bit quirky, it's difficult to get a grasp on just who or what I am, or am not. So I thought I had better help by making a list.

1. I am not a brilliant Conservative thinker.
2. I am not a brain-dead Liberal
3. I love to burn fossil fuels.
4. I put catsup on everything.
5. I think everyone, except me, should own a gun.
6. I can't get mad at a panda.
7. I believe that on Dec. 21, 2012 the sun will come up in the East.
8. I have decided not to run for public office.
9. I rarely do illicit things anymore.
10. I do not care what other people think . . unless they are wrong.

So, there you have it; the 10 most important things to know about me.

I will actually write something of great importance very soon. If you hold your breath long enough, you will not be around to read it. I hate to commit to a regular day each week etc. That's for people who actually make money at this. Please sign up/join my blog. That way I will know if you exist. It will also let me know if this is at all worth the effort. If you wish, you may email me at cdrake1@hotmail.com and I will put you on the list of misfits who want to keep up with my musings. Then I will email you when I have posted another entry. Comments are always welcome.

I'm just saying.

Chuck