One Spring Day...

I overheard a guy talking the other day on the phone to his wife or son…not sure. He was getting ready to build a deck. He was talking about how the lumber would be arriving the next day and that it was going to be delivered to the edge of their driveway.

The last thing he said to whomever was that he wants to have it moved into the garage until they could get it built so that the lumber wouldn’t get wet and so “some building inspector doesn’t drive by” and start snooping around.

I have nothing against building inspectors. I have nothing against building codes. What does bother me is that some guy, minding his own business, not hurting anybody, can’t have a pile of lumber sitting on his driveway without being afraid that some government bureaucrat is going to drive by and start asking questions…

Knock, knock, knock…POUND, POUND, POUND.

“Uh, yes…?”

“Hello. I am zee local Federal Building Code Complicance Coordinator for zheees sec-tor of Vest Des Moines. Vhile driving by, vee noticed that you seem to have a pile of lumber stacked in in your drivevay.”

“Uh, yeah. So?”

“Vell, vee seem to have a small problem. I’ve cross-referenced your name, address and phone number against zee Federal Building Code Compliance and Homeland Security Database and you don’t seem to have any Building Permission Authorization Permits pending. Are you avare of zis?

Uhhh…well, I guess, well, maybe I forgo…

Zis is just vhat I suspected! You vere planning on building an unauthorized, unapproved, free standing structure vithout zee approval of zee Federal Building Code Compliance Board! Vee have no other option zhan to confiscated zis lumber and report you to zee Federal Building Code Compliance Board Enforcement Agency. Vonce zheir done vith you, you von’t forget again.

This is crazy!

SILENCE! Under Article Tvelve of zee Federal Building Code Compliance, Security and Infrastructure Stabilization Act, you have zero right to speak! In fact, zee FBCCBEA is on its vay right now to come in and take a little look around. I have no doubt they vill find Rush Limbaugh presets on your radio, zee Drudge Report on your computer and a copy of zee Bill of Rights somewhere in zhis house!

Listen, Mister, I didn’t mean -

Silence, criminal! Zee Dear Leader, Barack Obama, has outlined a new federal program for people like you. If you like to build things so vell, vee have just zee right place for you. You like tropical islands? Vell, vee have just released all of the harmless, innocent terrorists from a little camp in Guantanamo Bay. Zhere is plenty of room for you zhere. Vee can use your strong back and construction skills to build zee new “Federal Building Code Compliance, Re-education and Security Detention Facility.” Ve’ll see how far your leetle Bill of Rights get you zhere.


Vonce ve’re done vith you, you’ll be more zhan ready to help build zee Dear Leader’s new Low Income Housing Casino and Resort. A very lovely place – right in zee heart of Detroit. Come along now!

Read more...

The Crystal Ball: Chet 2010

Editor's note:  This article is our best David Yepsen impression...with an IBC twist.
----

Pour another cup of coffee, it's time to talk campaign politics.  The Iowa Blog Cabin loves Chet Culver.  Not as a Governor, coach, substitute teacher, "big lug," Secretary of State, chief executive or rich frat boy.  Chet Culver is the Barney Fife of American governors.  He's lovable.  Remember Barney?  Always screwing stuff up, messing around, dropping his one bullet and needing Andy to step in and save the day.  This is Chet Culver. 

But who's going to be Andy?  This is the topic on top of my mind.  Obviously, Chester's running again.  The Dems are stuck with him.  I was reading the other day about his 42% approval rating...(only a 66% approval among Democrats!)...a good place for a Repubican to start.  But we can't read too much into it at this point.  There are still 42% of Iowans who think this guy is a good governor.

Let's talk names:  Doug Gross, Christopher Rants, Bob Vander Plaats, Rod Roberts, Steve King and Jeff Lamberti. 

Doug Gross won't run.  Although quite possibly the best candidate (politically), who could raise the most money, etc., he won't run for a single reason...he's chicken.  By chicken I mean, and this is just my gut from watching him, he's afraid of losing twice.  A guy loses once, no biggie.  You can still go on TV, be the "voice" of Republicans, get a lot of media attention, throw your weight around, etc., etc.  He likes this.  But, if he runs and loses AGAIN, this could diminish him as a media darling.  This fear will overcome any desire he has to run.

Christopher Rants...former Iowa House Speaker.  He's going to run.  And lose.  I think there's a lot of Republicans in Iowa who are ready for him to go away, not least of which - the entire editorial board of the IBC.  This party exhaustion will doom him from the start.

BVP.  How many times has this guy ran?  Six?  Seven?  I can't even remember at this point.  He's obviously running...and, just like the other 10 times he's ran, he'll lose.  But he'll crack some great jokes about his witty kids.

Rod Roberts.  Won't run.  Who cares...?

Steve King.  This is interesting.  I would like to see Culver and King go mano-a-mano.  I think it would be fun to watch.  King's my Congressman, and I love him.  But my suspicion is that he doesn't quite have the tact he needs to run successfully statewide - although I think he could certainly win the nomination if the landscape stays the same.  He has a propensity to say some things that blow peoples' hair back (most of which I completely agree with) - the kind of western Iowa plain-speaking that will turn off the eastern Iowa tea-sippers.  My prediction is he won't run at all.  He's got a nice cushy, safe seat in Congress - even after the Dems get done gerrymandering the districts in a couple years - and hardly needs to raise money. 

Which brings us to Jeff Lamberti.  I think he'll run.  I think he'll get the nomination.  I think he'll beat Culver.  There, I said it.  I was never a huge fan of Lamberti until he ran against Boswell a few years back.  If it hadn't been such a nasty year for Republicans, generally, he might very well have won.  At the very least he gave Boswell a run for his money.  As an observer, he seemed to run a very solid, well organized campaign.  He was able to raise money and genuinely compete with Boswell.  He'll be able to bring social and fiscal conservatives together and I think most importantly for this upcoming election - he seems very level headed.  A "steady hand" at the wheel, so to speak.  By the fall of 2010, people are going to be ready to have an adult back in the governor's office.

Obviously, there are a few other names floating around out there.  Somebody could easily become a blip on the radar (Vaudt, Northey, etc.).  But..Lamberti would be a very solid candidate.  Although the IBC is not endorsing Lamberti at this time, if he runs, he'll win.   

Read more...

Tea Parties

Here's an interesting little nugget.  A Google map of all the "Tea Parties" going on today.  Over 500.  Check it out:

2009 Tea Parties

Pretty impressive.  Of course, I'm sure these are just right-wing extremists.  Watch the media coverage...out of the hundreds of thousands of people participating, if there is one sign they can construe as racist, bigoted, homophobic or whatever, that'll be all we see.

Read more...

Don't Mess with Texas

Back in the early 1800s, when Texas was a backwater Mexican state, they opened the territory up to Americans for settling.  Pretty much the only requirment in those early days was that they promised to convert to Catholicism.  This opened the floodgates.  Masses of people left their homes throughout the south, abandoned the debt they owed and all of their obligations and left for Texas.  When they left for Texas, they would paint three letters on the homes they abandoned - GTT - Gone to Texas.  It was a sign to everybody - especially their creditors - they had left the country. 

I use to live in Texas and I can say first hand, it really is like another country.  Some people who've never been or lived there, don't understand it.  Some think it comes across as arrogant.  But I love it.  It's a lingering attitude from a time when, most states had an independent spirit.

Well, there's a House Concurrent Resolution going through the Texas legislature right now - HCR 50 - that reaffirms the 10th Amendment to the constitution.  Here's the video from Gov. Rick Perry's speech: 



Also, here's the 10th Amendment to the Constitution:  "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

And FYI, the fact you've read this now means Homeland Security and the "Janet Reno of the Obama administration," Secretary Janet Nepalitano considers you a right-wing extremist.

Read more...

Obama Apologizes to Descendents of Barbary Pirates

BREAKING NEWS!

Obama Apologizes to Descendents of Barbary Pirates
Obama stops in Tripoli to apologize to the descendents of Barbary pirates for “unfortunate American aggression.”

TRIPOLI, Libya - In an unexpected move, American President Barack H. Obama made a surprise stop in Tripoli, Libya to meet with Col. Khadafi and descendents of Barbary pirates.

Standing on the “shores of Tripoli,” Obama attempted to repair the damage caused by the two Barbary Wars of the early 19th century.

“This beach is a monument. A monument to what happens when the United States fails to see beyond the barrel of a gun and negotiate, in good faith, with international players. Unfortunately, Presidents Jefferson and Madison did not have the vision to engage in a multilateral dialogue and as a result started not only two wars, but also a long and damaging perception that the U.S. is at war with Islam,” Obama said to a cheering crowd of Libyans chanting “Death to America!”  “Today we unite in an effort to begin reversing that perception.”

The motivations and implications of President Obama’s apology weren’t immediately clear. Dr. Richard Shah, Professor Emeritus of North Africa Studies at the University of Southern Vermont commented, “This is a very important admission by an American president and a genuine effort to right the wrongs of past generations and acknowledge what the rest of the world has known for a long time.”

After Obama spoke in Tripoli, Amani Amatullah, a 20 year old woman and direct descendent of Hassan Bey, one of the leaders of the Barbary pirates, spoke with the permission of her 67 year old husband. “Allah be praised! Finally, the American infidels have admitted and apologized for their treachery and arrogance!” When asked if she accepted the President’s apology, she replied, “NEVER! We must continue the work of my descendents and wipe the American infidels from the earth. Unless, of course they are willing to pay us enough money and convert to Islam.”

The first Barbary War began in 1801 when the Barbary Pirates, who had been harassing American trading vessels for years after independence, demanded tribute in order to release the American ships and sailors they had captured and enslaved. The United States refused and war ensued. Obama’s trip marks the first time and American president has visited the site – long a bone of contention between the two nations.

Obama concluded, “When Thomas Jefferson met with the Ambassador from Tripoli he asked him – why are you capturing our sailors in this act of aggression? The ambassador replied, ‘It is written in the Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise.’ The muslim world laid out a path for peace over 200 years ago – we as Americans have been too arrogant to acknowledge it. Today marks a new era in our relationship.”

With that, Obama was hurried into his bullet proof car where he was whisked into a waiting armor plated helicopter and then on to his massive flying fortress jumbo jet to return to America.  The apology marks the latest in a series of apologies he has offered in his whirlwind tour. Great Britain, France, Czech Republic, all of Europe, Asia, Russia, Turkey and Iraq have each received apologies in the last two weeks.  The trip has been declared a success.

Read more...

Seven Angry Liberals

It’s been interesting to watch over the last few days the response to the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling on gay marriage. Conservatives, Republicans are generally outraged. Liberals, Democrats, Facebookians, Tweeters and other sheep in social media (excluding the IBC, of course) praise it as “equality,” and “acceptance” for an oppressed group that has been unjustly singled out for discrimination.

And of course the media…the whores in the local MSM media are riding this bus ‘til there’s nothing left. In-depth coverage such as the positive angle of gay marriage, the political angle, social angle, cultural angle, religious angle, legal angle and angles of angles are being explored ad hominem.  When all angles are exhausted, wait for the stories in a few months:  "Gay Marriage, [insert number] Months Later:  the Impact on Iowa," etc., etc.  How predictable.

But here at the Iowa Blog Cabin, we’re “noticers.” You don’t just get a seat on the editorial board by dropping the terms “social justice,” “equality,” and “human rights” enough times in a conversation.

Let’s be honest…marriage as an institution is not what it once was. Speaking generally about American society at large, marriage is not seen as a lifetime vow, rooted in Christian values, as it once was. For all intents and purposes, marriage today is little more than a legal structure that is used by lawyers to help decide who gets the couch when the couple breaks up. So, to me, I don’t see how gay people getting married is going to further destroy an institution that really isn’t taken serious my most people anyway.

That’s not to say I support gay marriage – I don’t. Primarily because I don’t agree with what society has done to the institution of marriage.

The real threat that last Friday’s ruling represents is an attack on the idea of self-government. The idea that people can decide the laws they want to govern their own culture and society. Last Friday’s ruling was a unanimous decision by seven un-elected individuals who are not accountable to the voters whatsoever. Now in some ways, this distance from the passions of the “mob” is very important for ensuring justice. But when the judiciary is used as a tool for shaping public policy and legislating, this is where it becomes dangerous.

Those who support the ruling make several arguments: One, this is no different than the civil rights movement of the 1960s and, two, this is exactly the kind of thing the court should be ruling on – the constitutionality of laws passed by the legislature.

To me, these points are quite similar in what they represent. First of all, much of the civil rights movement of the 1960 was in fact legislated – through Congress, state legislatures or through the executive branches – each is an institution that directly answers to the people. Additionally, the civil rights movement was an actual movement that, in many places, changed hearts, minds and the culture – by pointing out the genuine oppression and discrimination of an entire race of humanity. In other words, the culture changed, laws changed (although not always in that order) and voters living in these representative governments had a voice.

In Iowa, the voters had this opportunity – and through the legislature – passed a law defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Rather that working to convince Iowans that the law should be changed and creating an environment where gay marriage would be accepted, the gay rights movement worked through the courts to have gay marriage imposed on the people of Iowa. What happened on Friday can be described no other way.  This case and ruling had nothing to do with achieving justice.  It was, pure and simple, a liberal activist group achieving legislation through the courts that it could not achieve through democratic avenues.

Which brings us to the second argument: it is the role of the Iowa Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of laws and that, simply enough, they ruled Iowa’s marriage law unconstitutional because it violated the “equal protection” clause of Iowa’s constitution. This is what we get when judges, their liberal social agenda in mind, see the constitution as a “living document” and don’t look at what the intent was when the amendment was written. Although this case is regarding the state constitution, the exact argument can be made on the federal level.

Our society legislates, regulates, legalizes, criminalizes and defines behavior based on the society’s culture all of the time. Practically, that’s what the Constitution and Declaration of Independence were when they were written. Much of the basis was founded in the idea that the 13 colonies were analogous to 13 “children” of Great Britain. The 13 children had grown up and it was time for them to be independent. The culture of the 13 colonies had developed so that it was genuinely different from that of Great Britain and that the king and parliament no longer represented their interests.

If society doesn’t have the ability to legislate and codify cultural standards and norms it opens the door to a dangerous cultural relativism where, in the end, the rights of one person or a “micro-minority” out-weigh the rights of the entire majority culture. One tiny group or individual set the policy for what the vast majority must accept simply so that one person or group doesn’t have their “equal protection” violated.

This doesn’t mean that the micro-minority group must be oppressed or discriminated against, but simply that every conceivable lifestyle is not considered equal to that of the vast majority.  There is a difference between institutionalized racim of past generations and not letting gays get married.  Under the Iowa Supreme Court’s logic, explain to me why the polygamist is a criminal? Is his/her equal protection under the constitution not being violated? Why shouldn’t the errant Arkansas hillbilly be permitted to marry his/her cousin? When these comparable examples are brought up to a person who supports gay marriage, they are immediately dismissed as extreme and laughable. But why not? (The answer is as simple as who they tend to vote for…not Democrats.)

Things to think about, Iowa. My problems with gay marriage are many, but the most significant is the fact that the way it is implemented throughout the country is wholly undemocratic and destructive to our idea that we as a people are capable of governing ourselves and creating laws that define our culture.

But each coin has two sides. In the long run, this ruling may set the gay marriage agenda back – significantly. Many states already saw the writing on the wall and passed a constitutional amendment defining marriage. Many others have laws like Iowa had. In nearly every case where a gay marriage ban-type amendment has been brought to a vote, it has passed. Watch to see the number of amendments defining marriage in 2010 that are voted on. There will be a significant number of states that respond to the Iowa ruling by proposing and passing amendments outlining their specific desires.

Gay marriage advocates, right or wrong, could have gotten a lot further by working through the democratic process to attain their goals. By not, and having gay marriage laws imposed on the public, they ensure a much longer fight which will be much harder to legitimately reverse in the court system.

Read more...

Cap 'N' Trade

Looks like the Dear Leader's Cap and Tax or Cap and Trade or Cap and Bribe or whatever you want to call it took a pretty big hit in the Senate last night. Here's the article in the WSJ - "Cap and Tax Collapse."  One victory for the little guys.

Read more...

But, Do You Have a Logo?

Last summer, when floods devastated eastern Iowa, one of the first thing Iowa’s state government did was set up a commission – the “Rebuild Iowa Commission.”  The first thing this commission did? Pay to have a logo designed.

This month, the “Group of 20” most developed economies met…what is the first thing they did in preparation for this meeting? Developed a logo.

When our Dear Leader starts blowing all the money they just printed on all the "shovel ready" stimulus projects that are going to "create or save" zillions of jobs - what's going to be plastered on each of the "projects"?  A specially designed logo.

I’m reminded of that stand-up bit by Eddie Izzard – “Do you have a flag?” He basically is talking about how all of the empires through history were basically justified by the fact they have a flag and the conquered group didn't.

Great Britain lands in India, sticks its flag in the ground and declares, “We claim this land for Britain!” The Indians who are already living their say, “WHAT? You can't do that!  There are already 500,000,000 people living here!”

Unimpressed, the British reply, “BUT, do you have a FLAG?”

Confused and flagless, the Indians then find themselves part of the British Empire.  It's that simple. 

So it is with government bureaucracies and logos. Until a government agency, blue-ribbon commission or department develops an official logo, it is impossible for them to be a fully entrenched and permanent member of the bureaucracy. The latest example is Chet Culver’s “Iowa Infrastructure Investment Initiative.” Or, “I-Jobs.”  Clever. 

I-Jobs is basically Chet's attempt to be like the Dear Leader, borrow something like $750 million dollars, blow it on "infrastructure" projects and create bazillions of good paying union thug jobs employing all the illegal Mexicans willing to smuggle their way into Iowa.

(As a side, Chet Culver is lovable.  He may be a knuckle-dragging, butt-scratching, beer drinking, old substitute teacher unable to use three-syllable words who sweats a lot, but he's our governor, damnit.  The people have spoken.)

Anyway, all you have to do is throw together a PowerPoint, pay thousands to develop a logo and, SHAZAM!  You have a good idea. 

I remember an old political science professor I had once defined politics as simply, "the manipulation of symbols."  I guess the bureaucracy and it's love affair with the creation of logos is one more example of this.  A logo, like a flag, implies legitimacy and the idea that, "if they have a logo, something must be getting done, right?"  Uh, well, perhaps maybe, no.

That, or a cabal on the part of ad agencies to further tighten their grip on the logo industrial complex we are all slaves to.   

------
P.S. ~ Here's the clip of the Eddy Izzard "Do you have a Flag" stand-up sketch using, of all things, legos.
 

Read more...

Add to Favorites

The entire editorial board at the IBC does a lot of reading.  Well, here's a new Iowa Blog Cabin fave to add to your daily "must reads" - thebeanwalker.com.  It's a sort of Iowa version of the Drudge Report.  Good stuff. 

Read more...

Kali Ma!, Kali Ma!

I must admit, I watched the speech last night. But the whole time I watched, I couldn't help but feel like I've seen it before. But all evening, through the night and until this morning...I couldn't figure it out. I've been racking my brain.

Then it hit me...



Now watch a few seconds of this:



Now that's spooky.

Read more...

Hmm...

It took somewhere around 233 years for our nation to create the $1 trillion dollar deficit the Dear Leader "inherited."  He doubled it in less than 30 days in office.  That is the Democratic Party.

Read more...

The Diet Starts...Tomorrow

Yesterday I ate an entire large meat-lover’s pizza by myself. After a brief nap, I woke up and ate a GIGANTIC piece of that delicious Costco cake. The triple chocolate kind with that ridiculous layer of fudge in the middle. Later, I washed it all down by guzzling an entire two-liter of Pepsi. Then I burped.

Anne asked me what I was doing eating all that, and with a dramatic eye roll, I told her, “It’s okay. I’m going on a diet tomorrow. In fact, I’m going to sit down for a few hours and create a plan to cut my calorie intake in half.”

“You mean, half of what you should be eating, right?” she asked.

“No, of course not. Over the last several days, I’ve been eating around 10,000 calories per day. I’m going to create a plan that will help me cut this calorie intake in half.”

She shook her head. “That doesn’t make any sense. You were eating 3,000 calories and then started eating 10,000 calories…if you cut that in half, you’re still eating almost twice as much as you should be!”

“Oh, Anne. You’re naiveté is so cute. Technically, I guess, you’re correct. I was eating 3,000 calories. But I decided that was an artificially low number that unnecessarily forced me to sacrifice lifestyle and well being. I began eating 10,000 calories as, uh, um…a STIMULUS! A stimulus to make up for all of my past sacrifices. Now that I’ve been taking in all those calories, I understand it is unsustainable and that I must return to…caloric discipline. Therefore, I will create a plan to cut my calories in half.”

“You’re crazy,” she huffs. “When are you going to start cutting your calories in half?”

“Oh, I’m not going to cut my calories in half immediately. That would be much too painful. It’s going to be a process…I hope that once I begin the process – by drinking less water and eating fewer fruits and vegetables – I should be able to cut my calories in half in four years or so.  Yeah, that’s a good goal. Reduce my calorie intake by half to 5,000 calories per day in four years.  But, should times get tough and I feel the need to slip up, I'm considering purchasing calorie credits from those who are more disciplined than me.”

"Calorie credits?"

"Yeah, it's simple, really...If say, a couple years from now, I'm down to 6,500 calories per day (right on track) and a birthday party comes along, there's no need for me to sacrifice.  I'll purchase a "calorie credit" from a person who has eaten fewer calories, thus pulling my net calorie intake down, while still keeping the other person's diet on track.  It's a win-win, really." 

My diet starts tomorrow…or the next day.

Read more...

Friday's Rant: Homeowners, Bolsheviks and 47 More Months

Well, it’s been about one month. Only 47 to go - hopefully.

Earlier this week, the Dear Leader unveiled his bailout for homeowners - something like $275 billion. For years before our economic downturn hit, we were all hearing about the “housing bubble.” We heard about how ARM mortgages were going to come back to bite those who took them out. We heard news stories declaring that a reckoning was coming – the interest rates would reset and those who took ARM mortgages would find themselves in real trouble with monthly payments they couldn’t afford.

Listening to these warnings, responsible people lived within their means and purchased homes they could afford with fixed-rate mortgages. These people could have bought a bigger house with more square footage – if only they would have taken out an ARM – but they didn’t. Using common sense, they knew the potential consequences of an ARM and did the smart, responsible thing. What a bunch of suckers.

So now the disaster has hit. These ARMs have reset, payments dramatically increased and many of these irresponsible homeowner’s are in a world of hurt – with a dramatic rise in foreclosures all over the country.

What’s the Dear Leader’s response? Bail’em out. Who cares they made dumb choices? Who cares they can’t afford their house? Who cares they haven’t been making their payments? Who cares they were all warned? Let’s give them thousands of dollars each so that they can pay down the principal, refinance the mortgage, wait and see if they start making their payments. Mark it down – this will not work.  (For Barry's kids:  this is what we call "wealth redistribution")

What do the people who’ve been making their payments, living responsibly and paying their bills on time get? Nothing…except the satisfaction of continuing to make their payments and of course paying their taxes to bailout all these deadbeats.

So when a mob of responsible homeowners shake their lit torches and pitchforks and yell, “Why should I have to bailout those people who’ve made dumb decisions!?!” The response from the Dear Leader and his politburo is this:

"You see, all of these foreclosures hurt you, too. Even though you are paying your mortgage, living within your means, and acting responsibly, when a house on your street goes into foreclosure, it negatively impacts your home’s value, the property tax receipts to local government (of course) and the services it provides."

Got it. So it is in my best interest to make sure the deadbeat down the street stays in a house he can’t afford because it might mean that my value decrease if he can't. All the while, I’m expected to continue to live responsibly and within my means? Where’s the incentive for that? (hint: socialism always destroys incentive and individual initiative)

Now, I’m not so naïve to think that we live in a capitalist country where markets drive the value of an asset. Let’s be honest…those times ended at least 30 days ago. But humor me for a moment…

Apparently, over the last several years, housing prices and values have been artificially inflated. Obviously because of the fact that too many people were given more money than they could pay back – based on the deal they made. These people, with money to burn, drove up the housing market.

Here’s the deal. Let these people lose their homes. If the lender wants to work with them to renegotiate their loan, that’s fine. If we let the housing market find a bottom – it will. The market will reach a point where responsible buyers will swoop in and begin to purchase these foreclosed homes at what is seen as bargain prices (I KNOW this is the case because this is exactly how we got the Iowa Blog Cabin). This will likely set a floor on home prices – for everyone.

Thankfully, there are alternatives for those who can’t afford their homes – rent. Rent a house, a condo an apartment – whatever. Why is this not a reasonable alternative for someone who obviously can’t afford their mortgage? Home equity obviously can’t be the excuse.

Friends and neighbors, we all know this…if you reward bad behavior, you’re reinforcing and encouraging that same bad behavior. In fact, you’re removing the incentives for good behavior. That’s what the Dear Leader, his politburo and the Bolsheviks in Congress are doing with this mortgage bailout. As with most government solutions, it won’t solve anything, it will drive our nation deeper into debt, and have a serious impact on the confidence of those waiting to enter the market (e.g. people with money).

The one positive – it will further enrage those Americans who play by the rules, pay their taxes and go to work everyday – bringing nearer the day when they rise up and kick these incompetent children out of office.  We want that little fire to burn.

Breathe in, breathe out...this week's rant is over.

Read more...

Republiconia: A Not-So-Farfetched Tale

I was reading the "Democratic Underground" last night.  It's a site I don't recommend visiting if you're at all a thinking, rational, reasoned person.  Unless you're like me - and never cease to be amazed some of these peoples' literal insanity. 

Anyway, all of the posts on this site were, "We should ban Republicans," "I hate Republicans," "Republicans have ruined this country," "Republicans torture" and other brilliantly conceived arguments.  But there was one that captured my imagination.  It went something like this, "I wish we could take all the Republicans and confine them to three states - and then build a wall around those three states." 

It was the first - and only - thing on the entire site that I agreed with.  Imagine it:  three states made up of ONLY Republicans.  With a wall around it even!  Now, presumably, the author wanted a wall around the three states in order to keep the Republicans from getting OUT, thus contaminating their Democratic eden, but I'm cool with it.  You say to-may-to, I say to-mah-to. 

I remember when I lived in Lubbock, Texas.  That's kind of how it was.  If you think Texas is conservative, you've never been to west Texas.  Democrats don't even bother to run.  I remember one time I went to vote for the area's congressman - there were two Republicans and one Libertarian on the ballot.  No Dems.  Now, THAT'S what I'm talking about. 

I'm here to say, let's do it.  The Iowa Blog Cabin officially endorses the idea.  Give the Republicans three states and I'll help build the wall.  I'll even chip in to buy some razor wire to put along the top of it.  But what are the three states we should include?  I'm thinking we start with Oklahoma - not a single county in OK voted for Obama.  Then we'd head south and include Texas - although that would mean more miles of wall we'd have to build, fewer people would have to move.  Then, I'm thinking Louisiana.  Bobby Jindal and the boys are getting their poop in a group and have that state running pretty well.  Plus, we'd have New Orleans all to ourselves (remember, no Dems).  Let's name this enchanted land, "Republiconia."     

So we all get moved in, we get the wall built, razor wire set juuusst right and wait..for about a month - two months, max.  In the meantime, the 47 states that now make up the U.S. go on with their lives.  Every tax imaginable is raised - of course, only on "the rich."  Spending increases - Obama doubles the deficit - AGAIN.  Gay marriage is legalized, the military is disbanded, guns outlawed, christianity prohibited, prisoners released from their cells, the internal combustion engine is outlawed, union membership required, a two-child policy is implemented, smoking is banned, marajuana legalized and a vegan diet imposed.  But without the Republicans, most small businesses (outside of fair-trade coffee shops, Birkenstock outlets, organic farms and gay bars) collapse.  Larger companies collapse as most of their workers disappear.  The only people left to work are union members who only know how to install the muffler bearings on a 1987 Buick LeSabre.

The rest of the people left in the U.S. are those sucking off the welfare state (which, without the tax base made up of hard-working, entrepreneurial Republiconians, has almost instantly collapsed) artists, actors, animal-rights activists, Al Gore and college professors.  In an effort salvage the slumping economy, Obama implements a two-pronged strategy - 1) again raise the taxes on the rich, and 2) implement a $2 trillion stimulus.  The first prong instantly fails when he learns that there are not any more "rich" (those making $28,000 or more) left with any money - and George Soros just took off for Europe.  The second prong of the strategy hits a serious snag when Obama learns that there isn't enough "green friendly" recycled paper and ink to print the money.  He issues an executive order temporarily allowing logging because, "in order to avoid a national catastrophe, some trees must give their lives so we can print more money."

Massive inflation hits...and then it happens.  Desperate for hope and change, millions of Americans wait for enough wind to generate enough electricity to recharge the batteries in their electric powered "smart" cars.  Once they do, they drive south.  They quietly cruise at an average speed of 23 kph (you see, immediately after the Republicans left, the U.S. switched to the metric system - how European) right to the walls of Republiconia (there are no gates) - and they are pissed.

Peering over the wall - from the Republiconia side - is a retired George W. Bush.  He was on his way fishing and just happened to be walking along the wall.  "What's wrong, folks?" Bush asks the mob.

"You Republiconians screwed up our country soooo bad before you left - we haven't had a chance to fully and properly implement our Democratic utopian agenda!  We demand retribution!"  The American mob attempts to storm the wall and invade Republiconia.  But, they no longer have a military.  They no longer have firearms.  They even outlawed ladders (since they discriminated against people without legs).  The hapless Democrats, frustrated because of their inability to storm the Republiconian walls, give up and start to protest and complain - the only thing they were ever really good at. 

"HELL NO, WE WON'T GO!" They shout.  "These three states were TAKEN from us by evil, intolerant, close-minded, capitalist Republicans!  The Democrats who used to live in these states DEMAND to be allowed back into their native homeland!!  Now they've erected this wall to brutally separate us from our homeland!  We have rights!"

Just when it seemed the crisis would never end, Obama pulled up in his Escalade (the only one left in the U.S.) and saved the day.  "My dear Americans, we have found ourselves in a crisis that was not of our making.  We inherited this problem.  I have a plan. We will amend the constitution to allow me to be president forever.  We're not going to solve our problems today, tomorrow or maybe ever - but you have to trust me.  We're better off without the Republiconians and their economic prosperity, high standards of living, carbon burning engines, efficiency, private sector health insurance, general happiness and timely tax payments.  We will restructure America into agrarian commune and live off a new substance we've created called Soylent Green.  They're tasty little wafers - and they're green!"

That's all the mob needed to hear.  With bellies full of soylent green, they loaded into their smart cars and sheepishly headed towards Obama's agrarian communes and the change that awaited them...

The End...?

Read more...

Barry's Kids

I want a new TV, a new car, a new house (with a new kitchen), seven swans-a-swimming, a new driveway, a new garage, six lords-a-leaping, a trip to Mexico, a free college education for my kid, FIVE gooold rings, free food, four calling birds, more money, three french hens, a playstation 3, two turtle doves...and...and...and a parrrrtridge in a pear tree!

Here's the best part of the video below.  If you'll look up from your barf bag just long enough...you'll see the woman over Henrietta's right should lip the words..."I love you Barack."  Sick.



God bless us.  Everyone...these are typical Obama supporters.

Read more...

Stimulation

Anybody who’s read this blog more than once know how I feel about the Dear Leader. I’ve felt for several years now that he’s dangerously inexperienced – not to mention just plain wrong.

But I have to admit, for being the change we’ve been waiting for, he’s off to quite the sputtering start. I’m surprised by it, actually.

Whether it is foreign policy, domestic policy or, centerpiece of his first 100 days – the "stimulus" package, he appears out of step, lacking in leadership and desperate to gain some traction.

In foreign policy – Russia, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, India, Mexico, the Europeans – to name a few, have all started testing the Dear Leader’s resolve. His cabinet appointments have been tripping all over themselves bringing the messiah’s decision-making skills into question. Finally, the stimulus package has turned into a complete political debacle – and it’s all his fault.

He let Nancy Pelosi and the nut-jobs in congress write the bill, has put a ton his presidential prestige behind it and it’s sucked out most of his early momentum. To me, it’s not clear how he’s going to get it back.

In watching him through the campaign and the early weeks of his presidency it seems clear:  he delays taking a firm stand on anything until he absolutely has to.  That's the cause of the stimulus mess.  I highly doubt that if the Dear Leader and his economic team would have written the bill it would be as bad as it is now (he's too calculating for that).  But he let Pelosi write it - and now he stuck with it - and stuck defending most of the aspects of it.  He was trying to keep a leg on both sides of the fence for as long as he could and it's backfired.

The Dear Leader, no doubt, felt that the GOP would cave under the weight of his popularity, momentum and ability to communicate.  To their credit, the Republicans have done an excellent job in fighting this thing.  If it wasn't for three "moderate" Republicans, it wouldn't have passed at all (and it's not over yet).  The bill is a complete disaster.

So where does the Dear Leader go from here?  Although the stimulus - in some fashion - is likely to be implemented, I don't see how anybody can say he's "won" politically.  For the first time, the GOP has gotten the best of him.  They've done it not by attacking him directly - but by attacking Pelosi and Reed and a truly BAD bill he's forced to defend.  Until the Dear Leader's approval ratings start to drop (and they will), watch for this to serve as the GOP's template moving forward.

The rest of us will have to pay for this stimulus - in so many ways.  

Read more...

Your Apologetic Quick Hits

Obama "screwed up."  I expect this from the GOP - but we were promised change...dang it.

Bush was right.  "Again."

An Obama Meltdown?  Dear Leader, say it isn't so.     

Obama is 'watering down' "Buy American."  ...as long as the Europeans get paid.

Pelosi - "We're losing 500 million jobs each month."  Please note: this woman controls the U.S. House of Representatives.

Energy Sec. Steve Chu (no, I didn't sneeze) warns:  "no more agriculture in California."  Global warming to blame.

Read more...

Income Taxes are Not Optional

I know that there are a few Democrats that read the Iowa Blog Cabin - a guilty pleasure, no doubt. Regardless, after the last couple weeks, I thought it would be useful to remind Democrats, "independents" and Obama appointees - paying your taxes is not voluntary. You have to.

If for example, you make $300,000 in income - you have to report it to the IRS.  Even if it is an amount as paltry as $40,000 you still have to report it and pay taxes.

I bring this up only as a sort of public service announcement - an outstretched bipartisan hand.  I only want to help.  I only want to see the Dear Leader and his political picks be successful.
 

One pot-shot - Tom Daschle's new glasses are gay.  Only a FORMER senator from South Dakota with no plans of returning could get away with those.  I'd like to see him walk into a Sturgis bar during bike week sporting those specs.  We're talking game over.  Which reminds me - Could Tom be Sally Jesse Raphael's long-lost brother? 

Read more...

Gulp!

Watch this. Seriously. Watch this now. It will blow your mind. If it doesn't, please move to Cuba.

Read more...

STD Prevention is Economic Stimulus?

With answers like this, how could we ever doubt her...?

Read more...