Monthly Archives: June 2012

Turn That Frown Upside Down!

Posted by Tim on

Okay, I’ll bite and be the optimist. Someone has to be. After I heard the troubling news Thursday morning about the SCOTUS ruling on Obamacare I was shocked. I felt like I had been kicked in the stomach. Luckily I only felt that way for about, mmm… 5 seconds or so. I gave up feeling sorry for myself pretty quickly and made a conscious decision to change my perspective on this. Obamacare was upheld – how can this be a positive?

Well, in the most simple way, it brings back the Obamacare issue. Had the Supreme Court shot down the law, it would have been off the table for November’s presidential election. But since it was upheld, its back to its rightful place as the #2 issue in America, trailing only the vague “economy” in importance (no matter how intertwined the two are).

2010 was all about Obamacare. The Tea Party was all about Obamacare. People were fed up with the federal government and they let Democrats know it at the polls. 2010 marked landslide victories all across America for Republicans, conservatives, and the Tea Party. Had Obama been on the ballot in 2010 he would have lost miserably. Lucky for him, he had some time before America cast its vote on him. Some time to forget about the most controversial bill in recent history (if not all history). But his luck ran out. Due to Thursday’s ruling, Obamacare is at the front of people’s minds again, and they’re pissed off. Prepare for 2010 all over again.

Not only do we get to bring back the issue of Obamacare, but we get to talk about it in a more in depth manner. Parts of Obamacare have already been implemented, and its effects are being felt. Businesses are not hiring, are laying people off, or are just cutting benefits left and right – opting to pay penalties instead of provide insurance for their employees. Healthcare costs are already going up across the board. Obamacare hasn’t even been fully established and it is crystal clear that it is bad for Americans. 2012 is different because now we have evidence of what Obamacare will look like.


Furthermore, this SCOTUS ruling has pushed weary conservatives closer to Mitt Romney as they now view him as their only hope of repealing this awful legislation. His promise to start the repeal process on day 1 has calmed many people’s hearts. We’re waiting with our fingers crossed for election day this November. The Republican party is stronger and more unified because of Thursday’s ruling. Independents have joined forces with the Tea Party and conservatives nationwide and are working hard to kick Obama out of office.

While many people resent Justice John Roberts for his decision, I couldn’t help but try to take something away from it. This is a learning experience for me, and it should be for all Americans. Roberts stated late in his opinion that it isn’t the court’s job to fix politicians problems for the people. Its up to us to kick out bad politicians, and we ought to take elections more seriously because the Supreme Court isn’t going to bail us out. We made a mistake in electing Obama and we may need to face some hard realities to learn what is at stake in every election.

If nothing else, all the DC drama at least distracted us from 350 homes being burned up in the Colorado Springs wild fires. Wait, what? No one told you? Its important to keep perspective. While we’re all babbling on and on like morons about laws that we can’t really change for the time being, other people are running from their homes for safety. Right now someone is sleeping in a hotel knowing that their memories and possessions have just been burned to ashes. On last report only 10% of the fire was contained. Being an optimist is a lot easier when we’re only talking about politics. It could always be worse, and maybe that’s the lesson to take away from this.

Where We’re Going

Posted by Tim on

Today has been a busy day in Washington DC. Not only was Eric Holder officially held in Contempt of Congress for withholding documents related to the Fast and Furious scandal, but Obama’s signature healthcare legislation, the so-called “Affordable Care Act”, was upheld by the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision. For the time being, let’s put Holder aside and focus on the big one – Obamacare.

The entire law rested on whether an individual mandate was constitutional. Does the federal government have the power to punish someone for not buying a product or service – in this case health insurance. The argument was made that because Congress has power to regulate interstate commerce, that they also have the power to regulate that people buy health insurance. Fortunately, the Constitution does not give Congress the power to compel an individual to enter into a private contract with an insurance company. Congress can regulate insurance, but if someone doesn’t buy it – they cannot do anything. The individual mandate was struck down.

Here’s where it gets interesting. Instead of deeming the law unconstitutional, the law was upheld by changing a few words and a few definitions. Chief Justice John Roberts claimed that the mandate was in fact not a mandate, but a tax. In this case – Congress still has the power to tax whoever it choses. The problem with this is that it is in fact NOT a tax, nor was it ever presented as such. President Obama even went out of his way on multiple occasions to specifically say – this is not a tax. In the law its a mandate, in the court its a tax. Roberts overstepped his bounds by changing the very law he was judging. The law stands.

A lot of people are still confused about what this all means. In short it means that in 2014 every citizen must buy health insurance or face a penalty fee of roughly $700. You can buy your insurance on your own, from your employer, or you can just pay the penalty and forget about providing insurance for yourself. In the end, businesses across America will drop their health insurance because the penalties are cheaper than the insurance. People will be left to fend for themselves.

There are a number of cost exploders included in the bill – popular items such as 26 year olds being allowed on their parents insurance, and people not being turned down for coverage due to pre-existing conditions. As great as this may sound, these both force up costs of insurance. At the same time, Obamacare prevents insurance companies from raising their rates. If they can’t charge more, and they are forced to cover more people…. they go out of business. This was the plan all along.

With private insurance companies out of business, America’s healthcare system will become “single payer”. There will be one “insurance company” – the federal government. Every citizen will be on the same plan. No competition, utterly inefficient, and guess what is to come. As with every other single payer system in the world – rationing. Certain types of medicine and certain procedures will not be covered. Who decides what is covered and what isn’t? The infamous Death Panel - a small group of bureaucrats who decide which patients are worth keeping alive.

Scary, no doubt. This piece of legislation is the largest tax increase in American history. It severs any sense of State or individual sovereignty. The federal government will continue to grow larger and larger, delivering less of what it is obligated to (defense, secure borders) and more of what it should stay away from (government-run education, banks, energy, and healthcare). The history of government is tyranny. Every country has seen it. Government always grows and it’s end is always the same – it traps its citizens and treats them like subjects.

There is hope, however. Now more than ever, we need Mitt Romney. I hate relying on one person to turn around the fate of our country, but frankly – Mitt Romney needs to win in November. Along with Romney as our president, we’ll need a Republican controlled Senate. History shows us the path we are going down, and it isn’t a good one. I repeat – the history of government is tyranny. To keep a government from becoming tyrannical we need to shrink it and control it, so it doesn’t control us. The hope lies in delivering Wisconsin to Mitt Romney in November, as well as delivering an additional Republican Senator to Washington.

Pitbulls Are Not the Problem

Posted by Tim on

I’m a conservative, and I love my talk radio, but sometimes those guys can drive me nuts. I don’t mean with all of the negativity, or the political rhetoric – that’s why I listen to it. But sometimes these guys go off topic about something that they really know nothing about, and say things that completely contradict their so-called “conservatism”. Case in point – this afternoon local Milwaukee host Mark Belling went off on why pitbulls ought to be banned from the city.

This is an issue that I care about. Although I’m not a pitbull owner, I am a dog owner, and my breed is under attack almost as much as pitbulls. I own a 4 year old 95 lb rottweiler. She’s a lovable dog, has never shown aggression towards myself or anyone else, and yet is considered a dangerous dog because of her size and strength. Rotts and Pits tend to have stronger jaws than most other breeds and because of this people take advantage of the animals. People use these dogs as guard dogs, purposely mistreating them to make them aggressive and vicious.

Recently a man was walking his dog when a pitbull tried to attack his dog. He defended his dog but wound up with bad cuts to his arms and legs. The pitbull that attacked him was eventually shot by a police officer. This is a sad situation, and a horrible thing to happen to anyone, but we shouldn’t jump to conclusions. This man was walking in a ghetto-y part of Milwaukee. Chances are that the pitbull that attacked him was trained for fighting or guarding. The reason this dog attacked was because of the training (or lack of training, really) that it received – NOT because pitbull are inherently vicious.

Belling of course jumped on this incident and concluded that ALL pitbulls are vicious little monsters that cannot be trained. According to Belling, pitbulls should be banned from the city of Milwaukee, and if anyone wants to own one they should move to the country. What a horrible response! Needless to say, I’m really disappointed in the stance that he took. What conservative says that the government should decide what kinds of dogs people can and cannot own?

First, to assume that all pitbulls are bad dogs is the equivalent of assuming that all guns are evil. A dog is what its owner makes it. A great dog can be turned vicious if its owner is a moron, the same way a firearm can be turned into a deadly weapon if someone wants to rob a bank. Banning dogs is the same kind of idea of banning certain kinds of guns, based solely on the people who abuse them. There are many responsible pitbull owners who train their dogs and never have any incidents.

If someone claims that pitbulls should be banned based on the fact that most dog bites are from pitbulls, then I’d respond with statistics that show black people commit most violent crimes in Milwaukee. What kind of conclusion should I draw?? I won’t even say it – it’s insane! You can’t judge a dog by its breed any more than you can judge a person by the color of their skin.

Who is to say that banning these dogs would even solve the problem. The only people who would obey the laws would be people who weren’t the bad owners in the first place. Even if the pitbulls were eliminated from the city, idiots who like to fight dogs would just find a different breed to use – Rottweilers, Dobermans, Boxers, or whatever. Banning pitbulls won’t eliminate idiots from existing, and thats the real problem. What we should do is educate people about dogs, how to train them properly, and how to care for them.

Like so many other problems, this stems from broken homes and poor parenting. Kids don’t grow up in a loving household, and therefore they don’t know how to love and care for animals. The solution isn’t to attack the symptom by pushing good dog owners out of the city, or by euthanizing hundreds of good dogs. The solution is to have good homes, responsible parents, working schools, and strong communities. Government should work to help build strong families, which is the building block of a strong nation. Attacking these dogs is only attacking the victim.

Learning From the Swiss

Posted by Tim on

If you’ve been reading this blog for even a short time you’ve probably figured out that I’m a proud American and a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment – the right to keep and bear arms. In fact, in the last few years I’ve read more and more on the subject and am able to defeat even the most stubborn gun-ban enthusiast in a debate. Having this kind of knowledge comes in handy when trying to spread a little knowledge around. Knowing talking points is one thing, but being able to explain the history behind our Constitution and why certain things are the way they are is of utmost importance.

I find that it makes a gun nut like myself a lot less abrasive. Instead of being a whack-job, I’m an educated man with an interesting hobby – worthy of brain picking. I was at a gig one time and a friend who I hadn’t seen in a while showed up. He’s a fair minded conservative. He works hard, saves his money, and lives a responsible life. I mentioned that “gig money is gun money” (one of my favorite sayings) and he said that he had been wanting to purchase a handgun, but didn’t know anything about them. Well – here I am! I jumped at the opportunity to help him out.

This might sound extreme, and I’m not sure if I really believe it fully, but there is something to not only having the right to bear arms, but also exercising that right. All Americans ought to own at least 1 gun. (All conservatives ought to own no less than 10.) It would be an interesting world if every American home was armed. What criminal would break into a house if he knew that the owner was packing some heat? No one would! But since many Americans don’t, he’ll take the chance. Imagine if every American had a carry concealed license. Who would hold anyone up if they knew that every citizen was carrying a firearm? No one would!

Even from a national security point of view this would be a good idea. Switzerland is well known to be the “neutral” country in Europe. They don’t send troops anywhere. They don’t get involved in wars, revolutions, and uprisings. They just mind their own business. But how have they done it for so long without some other country coming in and trying to conquer them? Its simple. Military service is mandatory for all Swiss men, and they remain active until their 40s. Therefore, nearly every home in Switzerland has at least one gun in it, along with someone who is trained to use that gun. Trying to invade Switzerland would be like trying to invade a barracks of 8 million people.

Gun crime is low over there. Target and trap shooting are regular pastimes. The Swiss take great pride in their marksmanship. Crazy. Now, I’m not saying that America ought to be Switzerland. Its easy for a country the size of Connecticut to operate like that. 8 million versus 300 million. Writing laws and regulations for 8 million is a lot easier. But there are certain characteristics of the Swiss that are really unique and interesting. Perhaps we could learn a thing or two from them about gun rights and the 2nd Amendment.

When Reality Strikes You Hard

Posted by Tim on

In the wake of Scott Walker’s win in his recall election, Democrats are scrambling to come up with an excuse as to why they lost. Not only did Walker win, but he won by 7 points (53/46) and over 100,000 votes – a stronger victory than his original win in 2010. This shows that not only does Wisconsin want him as their governor, but that they like him even more after he implemented Act 10, the legislation limiting collective bargaining rights of public workers.

CNN was lucky enough to film a goofball on the streets crying (literally) about how “democracy is dead”. Of course, the fact that there have been 7 elections in the last 17 months disproves his hypothesis about the death of democracy. He went on to say that Walker outspent his opponent by $30 million. Again – when we look at third party expenditures, we see that Walker and his opponents spend about the same amount – each around $60 million since early 2011. A lot of money, no doubt, but not nearly as one-sided as the left would have it seem.

But as the facts start to come out, Democrats still refuse to accept the truth. Instead, (in an article found HERE) they point to the Republicans’ new strategy of “class warfare” – turning the middle class against itself. Non union workers are now turned against union workers and they’re anger is based solely in envy and fear. A ridiculous concept considering the entire 99% vs 1% movement (classic class warfare) was started by the left. The left attempting to explain away their sad loss by saying Republicans are using class warfare is laughable. The article goes on to say that instead of turning union against non union, they say we should be turning 99% against 1%! In one sentence condemn class warfare, and in the next use it yourself. Beautiful.

No, the truth of the matter is that Wisconsin and America are not leftists. In fact, the majority of Americans do not classify themselves as liberals, or even Democrats. When push comes to shove, more Americans call themselves conservatives than liberals. The media would have you believe otherwise. A near monopoly on newspapers, local and cable news, and public radio and television gives the impression that liberal ideas are the norm when in fact they are not. This election told the truth loud and clear – Wisconsin is just not a fan of liberal socialist policies.

But the truth about Scott Walker and elections isn’t enough. Shinning some light on this whole 99% thing could be useful as well. So let’s break it down real quick. The statistics that show a majority of the wealth clumped into the top tax bracket follows on certain brackets (via census). If you want a better picture of who “has all the money”, the IRS tells a very interesting story, due to the fact that it follows flesh and blood individuals, not abstract groups. IRS statistics show that most people in 1% are only there for a year! Not only that, but most people move through a number of different tax brackets throughout their life.

The idea that the 1% or even that “the rich” are an enduring class is simply not true. The same people who were rich and in the 1% 20 years ago are not the same people who are there today. And the people there today will most likely not be the same people there next year. Hating “the rich” is simply hating success. Anyone who is successful enough to get into the 1%, if even for a single year, needs to be punished and taxed endlessly until they fall from the 1%? Now that is class warfare!

I hear it all too often – the rich get richer and the poor get ______. Fill in the blank. That’s right – poorer. Again, its just simply not true. For this one we don’t even need to read off any statistics. Just look around and tell me that the poor today are worse off than they were 20 years ago. The “poor” as government defines them aren’t actually poor, they just don’t earn a lot of money. There are legitimately poor people, no doubt, but most “poor” people have air conditioning, cable TV, video games, cars, and cell phones. How is it that the poor are worse off today than they were 20 years ago?

Capitalism works because even the lowest earning group of people see a raise in their standard of living. The money made up top trickles down, products become cheaper to produce, and more people (including the “poor”) benefit. Those who believe in class warfare ought to take a look around and see how capitalism has raised more people out of poverty than all socialist government programs combined. Equality and prosperity are not the same thing, and forced equality will most certainly lead to a less prosperous society. History has proven it again and again.

Thoughts on 1 Timothy

Posted by Tim on

I just finished the book of 1 Timothy again. I really like both 1 and 2 Timothy, but I kind of wish it wasn’t so. I feel lame telling people that my favorite book of the Bible is 1 Timothy when my name is Timothy. I guess I was just named correctly. It could be worse; I could be named Amos. I’m sure I’d have to undergo horrible ridicule as a child – “Amos anus” and so forth. Always look on the bright side, right?

Putting aside what could have been, I found it rather comforting to learn what 1 Timothy was all about – Paul giving instructions to a young man who was looking to be a leader of the church. Timothy looked up to Paul, and Paul gave him excellent advice in the two letters he wrote – 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy.

While I’m no Bible thumper, and I’m hardly an expert in theology, I do enjoy reading this stuff and sharing what I learn. Although many people are much smarter than I am when it comes to religion, please bare with me as I share a few great verses I read recently. Maybe this is a repeat for you, maybe you’ve forgot it, or maybe you’ve never read it yourself. Take it or leave it.

“Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance; Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners – of whom I am the worst.“
1 Timothy 1:15

Paul says upfront – this is important. What he’s about to say needs to be taken seriously and literally. Jesus came to the world to save sinners. There are a number of ways to look at this. First, Paul doesn’t specify which sinners Jesus came to save; he just says “sinners”. Isn’t that ALL of us? We’re all sinners, and Jesus came to save everyone, not just people of a certain background or certain heritage.

Secondly, Paul wants Timothy to learn from Jesus. If we look back into Jesus’ time, he wasn’t hanging out with the kings of the land. He wasn’t hanging out with celebrities and rockstars. He was having dinner with the poor, the elderly, the sick. Too often today we think that to be a follower we need to push away people from our lives. Thats not what Jesus did. What we ought to do is reach out to the people who need Jesus most, even if they are seen as horrible people. Jesus had a number of personal conversations with prostitutes, did he not?

“For physical training is of some value, but godliness has value for all things, holding promise for both the present life and the life to come.“
1 Timothy 4:8

Did Paul seriously just smash the meaning of my life to pieces? I’ve spent so many hours on exercise and diet and all of that stuff – just to have Paul say it isn’t important? Well, no. Paul admits that there is value in training your body; keeping it healthy and so forth. What he’s saying is that we shouldn’t be short sighted and overlook the most important thing – training our hearts. We all die – our bodies will turn to dirt. Our souls, on the other hand, last forever.

“Do not rebuke an older man harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father. Treat younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity.”
1 Timothy 5:1

Isn’t this the key to having great relationships? Paul is telling Timothy that if he wants to be a leader he needs to be worthy of respect, and they only way you get respect is by giving it. Treat your elders well, and treat those younger than you as though they were your siblings; look after people. If we are to be leaders we need to look after those in our life the way a shepherd looks after his flock of sheep.

Meh. Just a few things I took away from that book. Its some really great reading, and I encourage everyone to pick up their Bibles soon and read it. Only a few chapters long – a half hour of reading should be enough to get through it, but I recommend more. Its good to sit and think about what is being said, and realize the deeper meaning.

Walker Wins Wisconsin… Again!

Posted by Tim on

History was written tonight here in my home state of Wisconsin. Scott Walker survived his recall election despite millions of union dollars being funneled into the badger state. His message was clear – “Here’s what we did, and these are the results. Let’s keep moving forward!” His opponent’s argument? Something along the lines of, “Scott Walker is mean.” Well – there’s the difference. Results and facts versus emotions. The statement was made tonight, however – while some laws may make some people mad, the majority of Wisconsinites stand behind Governor Walker.

The election has national implications as well. Leading up to election day, Scott Walker was receiving endorsements from major political players on the right – Bobby Jindal, Paul Ryan, Rick Santorum, and presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Meanwhile, his opponent, Tom Barrett, only received a Tweet from Barack Obama… a day before the election. Wow. Thats a slap in the face. Is it because Obama didn’t care, or just because he didn’t want to be associated with Barrett’s loss?

No matter the reasoning, Obama’s lack of leadership in the Wisconsin recall elections shows his true colors. He’s sent the message to Democrat senators and congressmen across America – you’re on your own. Obama is campaigning for himself and no one else. Mitt Romney on the other hand is working in numerous states, trying to help however he can. He knows that 2012 isn’t all about him. He needs to win, but also have a strong House and Senate to back him up. Obama – he’s just trying to save himself.

But back to Wisconsin – does this win for Walker, reflecting a push for fiscal sanity and conservative values, represent a national movement? While the Tea Party hasn’t been making a lot of noise recently, Scott Walker was in fact called the “Rockstar of the Tea Party” by Tom Barrett. Low and behold, Walker won the election easily. Now, not every state has a Scott Walker, but every state does have a Tea Party. Tea Party numbers are strong while Occupy Wallstreet numbers are dwindling. The mood of America is changing.

Wisconsin delegates were given to Barack Obama in 2008 – he won the state by 15%! But this Walker victory tells a different story. 2010 told a different story as well. Will 2012 tell a different story? Wisconsin is no longer a blue state – we’re a swing state, which means that we could just as easily end up going to Mitt Romney as Barack Obama. That’s the next chapter in the “Save America” saga. The stage is set, and the next battle is only a few months away in November.

Limbaugh and Diet?

Posted by Tim on

Well, I imagine this will be my last written blog post before Tuesday’s Recall elections here in Wisconsin. As I stated in weeks past, my personal life has been busy, leaving little time for blogging. I still read the comments, Tweet a lot, and I keep up to date on whats going on in the world. Syria is getting pretty crazy, ey?

I couldn’t help myself today. It was that timeslot – noon to 3pm. In Milwaukee that means one thing – Rush Limbaugh. If I have a radio near me, there’s a good chance I’ll be listening. I remember a few years back when Chris Matthews (Hardball – (P)MSNBC) demanded that any Republican politician come out and disagree with Limbaugh on something. No one did – thereby “proving” that Limbaugh was the de-facto leader of the Republican party. I occasionally challenge myself to try to do the same – disagree with Limbaugh on something.

Before I get ahead of myself, its important to note that I’m not the most loyal Limbaugh listener. I prefer listening to the local talk hosts over him, and even as far as nationally syndicated hosts go, he’s not my favorite. There may be more issues than this one that I disagree with him on; I just haven’t heard it.

Today Rush made some kind of comment about exercise. Oh boy. Seriously? He stated that exercise is not nearly as beneficial as “the left” claims it is. In fact, a recent study showed that exercise can actually hurt some people – 10% the study claimed. Give me a break! Wow, if I had only known that exercise isn’t good for you, I wouldn’t have been doing it so much.

Limbaugh used himself as an example of someone who is perfectly healthy – normal blood pressure, cholesterol, etc – without having to exercise. The doctors are shocked by how healthy he is! They even try to give him medication he doesn’t need, because they are sure he’ll need it soon. But Limbaugh knows better. He’s healthy without exercise, and its only those crazy leftists that will make wild claims about exercise being good for everyone.

Now, I don’t want to sound like a Limbaugh basher; we have enough of them circling him constantly in the liberal media. This is just a topic that I know more about than he does, and where I’d rather he just stay out of. Encouraging people to not exercise? Based on 1 study? Sorry, bud. I love ya, but you’re flat out wrong.

While there are certain populations (particularly overweight populations) who could actually suffer serious heart problems from exercise, for normal people exercise is beyond beneficial. I’m curious what this study classified as “exercise”. Was it P90X or walking slowly on a treadmill? If you try to get a fat person to do hard core aerobic exercise, then yeah – it’s going to strain their already weakened heart. But the fact of the matter is that their heart is weak because of lack of exercise in the first place.

Looking only at one point in time and not looking before and after – that’s what leftists do with economics. Rush – don’t do that. And please, don’t equate diet and exercise with the left. Many proud conservatives take pride in their health – its the one thing that the government hasn’t figured out how to tax and steal from us. Michelle Obama is not the poster child for diet. Diet is a great thing – Michelle is a hypocritical bafoon who knows about as much of the subject as you do. Who thought politics and exercise would ever mix?