I bet it cuts the roof of your mouth like Captain Crunch does.

(image courtesy of Lew Rockwell).

Kudos to Jon Stewart and The Daily Show for putting together such a brilliant piece that people will actually pay attention to and that will help them understand why our interventionist policy in the Middle East has failed and will continue to fail, as well as all of its consequences (‘blowback’).

Click here to watch.

(Note: if anyone knows how to embed flash videos into Word Press please let me know, although it doesn’t look like it can be done).

Indeed, not only did McCain tell Iowans he opposed ethanol subsidies, which contribute billions every year to Iowa’s economy, he didn’t hold back in bashing them.  Four years later he remained consistent in his opposition to ethanol subsidies and continued to bash them, saying in November of 2003 “ethanol does nothing to reduce fuel consumption, nothing to increase our energy independence, nothing to improve air quality.”

Flash forward to 2006 and this Presidential election.  McCain is running again and this time he actually wants to have a chance of at least doing decently in Iowa and as a result he commits one of the most absurd flip-flops in the history of American politics.

“I support ethanol and I think it is a vital, a vital alternative energy source not only because of our dependency on foreign oil but its greenhouse gas reduction effects,” McCain said in a speech in Iowa during August of last year.

So, McCain not only went from being passionately opposed to ethanol to supporting it, but to passionately supporting it and making himself out to be a ‘strong’ supporter of ethanol.  That’s a 180 degree turn for the “Straight Talk Express.”

Iowa loves ethanol.  McCain didn’t.  That won’t play there.  So the “Straight Talk Express” took a detour.

That’s what happened.

But it gets worse, much worse, because that all changed and McCain’s flip-flop went from being absurd to epic when in October of this year, during the CNBC/WSJ Republican debate, he stated “I still don’t support the subsidies. And I don’t think we need them. And I think we ought to have sugar cane-based ethanol into this country. And I don’t think that subsidies are the answer.”

What more can be said?  I could talk about how he claims he “still” opposes ethanol subsidies, as if he always did, ignoring his 2006 flip-flop.  I could stress just how epic this flip-flop is — the fact that he did a 180 on ethanol and then circled right back to where he was before.  That’s a full 360.  I could talk about why he did it:  The so-called “Straight Talk Express” took a detour for political gain by flip-flopping on ethanol and then when they realized there was no chance of them doing well in Iowa despite the flip-flop they got back on the main road, also for political gain.  They knew by doing so they had a better shot of winning over New Hampshire voters and recapturing that “maverick” magic that led them to their 2000 New Hampshire primary win.

But they won’t, and in the end, it’s just embarrassing.

Giuliani and Romney have gotten a lot of flack of their flip-flopping, and rightfully so, but they can’t hold a candle to John McCain’s epic ethanol flip-flop.

Hahaha!  This isn’t the first time someone has made a mistake like this and it won’t be the last.  Barack Obama has probably the worst name in political history and it will haunt him so bad for the rest of his political career, especially if he runs for President.

I mean, come on.  How could it get any worse?  Only if his name was Al Queda McGay would his name be worse.  His first name rhymes with Iraq, his middle name is Hussein and his last name rhymes with and is one letter off from being Osama.

Ouch.

I can’t to sound insensitive but this is stupid and it’s bullshit.  What’s the point?  It’s just annoying and meaningless.  What exactly do we get from closing all independent federal agencies?  Answer:  Nothing.  Gerald Ford was really old and it was his time to go, its as simple as that.

This just causes headache for everyone without real purposes.  Case & point:  I was expecting an important package tomorrow, now it’ll be delayed yet another day because Bush has closed all of the Post Offices AGAIN tomorrow.

Bush’s flawed policies are bad enough to have to put up with (his policies have managed to disagree with me on both my more Liberal and more Conservative views, which is incredible), but now it’s getting personal.

Screw you, Mr. President.  Gerald Ford, RIP.

What is surprising, though, and also very telling about why the 109th Congress was so bad, is the amount of backlash one of the first announced changes caused: A 5-day work week.

5 days a week!? Of work!? SURELY YOU JUST!

After Democratic leaders made the announcement that Congress will work five days a week instead of the only 3 days they currently work members of Congress, from both sides of the fence, flipped out.

Democrat Debbie Wasserman, for example, complained it would force her to reschedule her daughter’s Brownie troop meetings. Republican Jack Kingston said it would mean less time with his family and… get this… that it showed Democrats don’t care about families.

NEWSFLASH: MOST AMERICANS WORK 5-DAY WORK WEEKS! THAT IS COMMON! MOST AMERICAN FAMILIES ALSO HAVE TO JUGGLE FAMILY AND WORK SCHEDULES! THAT IS COMMON! HAVING TO RESCHEDULE A BROWNIE TROOP MEETING!? OH NO!

Congresswoman Wasserman, that’s nothing compared to the kind of schedule juggling most American families do, and Congressman Kingston, are you so dense and partisan that you cannot wrap your head around the idea that working 5-days a week will mean that Congress can do MORE for the American family… the same American family in which working 5-days a week is the norm.

This shows how out-of-touch most of Congress is and I suggest that if they’re unwilling to put in the kind of work week that the majority of Americans do maybe they should move on to another line of work will better suit their lifestyles — something most Americans don’t have the luxury of doing because they have a responsibility to their family.

I hate the current tax system and I’m not alone.  A poll conducted a couple months ago by Ipsos found that nearly 6 of 10 people say our tax system is unfair. This percentage has virtually been unchanged in the last two decades.

But why should it? Why should people think our tax system has become more fair? Afterall, throughout Bush the 1st’s “read my lips, no new taxes” pledge which he later broke by raising taxes, to President Clinton’s blend of tax increases with tax rebates for the working class, to Bush the 2nd’s slashing tax cuts mostly for the rich one thing has remained the same: It’s still income taxation.

Income taxation — a form of taxation which encourages people not to work.

Income taxation — a form of taxation which results in lower wages and being being taxed more for working more.

Income taxation — a form of taxation which actually penalizes people for working and doing their part to further the American dream.

Income taxation — a form of taxation which makes it virtually impossible for the majority of Americans to get ahead.

The problem isn’t the amount people are taxed or the tax brackets or even the tax code, but our current tax system all together. We need replacement, not reform.

An alternative to income taxation is needed. One that is fair. One that, unlike the Flat Tax, actually simplifies the tax code.

That alternative tax system does exist and it is one for shares a name with the fairness in taxation that the majority of Americans say they are not getting under the current system: The Fair Tax.

The Fair Tax is a national sales tax. The tax rate under most versions of this system is 23%. It would completely replace income taxation as the primary source of revenue for our government including personal, estate, gift, alternative minimum, capital gains, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment, and corporate taxes.

There are numerous benefits to replacing income taxation with a national sales tax. For one, the majority of Americans will not be taxed more under the Fair Tax system as most are either paying the same amount or more under the current system.
It will be a much simpler tax system. Not only would it simplify the tax code — it would essentially eliminate it. Since it’s a sales tax and therefore you’d pay the tax immediately when purchasing goods or services there would be no more complex, frustrating tax forms to fill out. No more W-2′s, W-7′s, 1040′s, 1040EZ’s, 1040EZ9005676… and yes, you guessed it, no more IRS (can I get a “woohoo!”?) as we would no longer need a central tax collection agency because the states would collect the national sales tax.

The Fair Tax will cause wages to rise and prices fall. It is also a more stable source of revenue than income taxation as it is consumption-based.

These benefits are just the tip of the iceberg.

Many argue that a national sales tax would be regressive (i.e. it would place more tax burden on the poor) as sales taxes generally are regressive. However, when you consider that the Fair Tax includes a rebate system which actually makes the effective rate progressive than this argument goes right out the window.

This rebate system would work by using the Department of Health & Human Service’s poverty level guideline (a well-accepted and long-used calculation which determines the needs of a family based on, among other things, family size — it includes food, shelter, clothing, medical care, transportation, etc. in its calculation) and multiplying the figure determined by the guideline by the tax rate. The result would be the size of the monthly rebate for each family.

For example, according to the 2006 guideline a two-adult household with 2 children will consume $26,400 a year. The rebate would therefore amount to $506 a month for a total of $6,022 a year.

The bottom line, our current tax system is one of the reasons that Americans are finding it so difficult to get ahead these days and that our next generation runs the risk of not having a standard of living as high as our current generation.

The Fair Tax isn’t perfect, I’ll be the first to admit that, but nothing is and it’s a hell of a lot better than what we’ve got.
—–

For more information on the Fair Tax visit: http://www.fairtax.org

Bistec con queso? Not at Geno's Steaks.

Late last week Geno's Steaks, one of Philadelphia's best-known cheesesteak joints, became part of the national immigration debate when restaurant owner Joseph Vento instituted an "English-only" ordering policy.

In other words, unless you order in English, you will be denied service.

The policy is accompanied by small signs which read "This Is AMERICA: WHEN ORDERING – SPEAK ENGLISH."

As expected, many have already pulled the 'race card,' accusing the policy of being "racist."

But not I. I, for one, am behind Mr. Vento 110% and respect and applaud him for standing up for what he believes in. Its his restaurant and he should be able to make that policy if he so chooses. If you don't like it, no one is forcing you to eat there.

It's also important to note that Vento said members of his staff are glad to help non-native speakers order in English.

Joseph Vento gets it: "They don't know how lucky they are. All we're asking them to do is learn the English language. We're out to help these people, but they've got to help themselves too."

Amen, Mr. Vento. Amen.

What may surprise many about Joseph Vento is that his grandparents struggled to learn English after immigrating from Sicily in the 1920. He understands exactly what I understand: It's not fair to the people who came here and learned English for people who came here illegally to get away with not, just like it's not fair that people who immigrate to this country legally have to go through so much crap to become an American while hundreds of illegals hop over the U.S.-Mexican border every day and we turn a blind eye.

It's no coincidence that some of the most vocal against illegal immigration, including Hispanics, are themselves immigrants. Only they came to this country legally.

The Congressional Black Caucus has (surprise, surprise) come out in opposition to stripping Representative William Jefferson (D-LA) of his seat on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, saying he deserves a "presumption of innocence."

As a refresher, Jefferson is currently involved in a bribery investigation. The FBI says Jefferson accepted $100,000 in cash and that they later found $90,000 of it stashed in his freezer.

Two people have already been convicted in the investigation.

Democratic Party leaders, including House Minority Leader Nancy "I'm a Crazy Liberal" Pelosi, have called on Jefferson to give up his seat on the Ways and Means Committee until the the situation is resolved. Jefferson refused, and as such Democratic leaders responsible for committee assignments voted to suspend him from the committee. However, Representative Melvin Watt (D-NC), Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, invoked a rule providing for a 5-day delay. As such, the decision has been postponed until next week.

At first, I had a difficult time deciding where I stood on this matter. On one hand, I am a firm believer of someone being innocent until proven guilty, but on the other hand I see how Jefferson being allowed to keep his seat (especially since I think he's guilty as sin) reflects badly on both the Democratic Party and Congress as a whole.

In the end, I don't think that it's a matter of him being innocent until proven guilty, it's a matter of what's best for his party and what's best for Congress and just because he's stripped of his seat doesn't mean he isn't being given a "presumption of innocence." I personally don't see why Jefferson doesn't just give up his seat for the time being. It would save himself the embarrassment of being forced from the seat and surely he understands how much keeping the seat during this investigation hurts his own party, whether he's innocent or guilty.

Congressman, do what's right by your party, and your country, and step down.

Despite my feelings that Jefferson keeping his seat only hurts the Democratic Party, Representative Watt seemingly disagrees. "It's about to blow up in their face" he predicts. He also thinks black voters might wonder why a "black member of Congress" would be stripped of his committee post with neither rule nor precedent to justify it.

Well, Gee Representative Watts, I don't know if they'll wonder that but I hope if they do they'd wonder the same thing if Jefferson was white and they won't wonder that just because Jefferson is black.

Representative Watt may be right that there isn't a rule nor precedent to justify Jefferson's stripping (although if Jefferson would just do what's right by his party and Congress and give his seat up he wouldn't need to be stripped of it), but I do take issue with those words: "black member of Congress."

This implies that black voters might think that Jefferson was stripped of his seat because and only because he was black. But, that's complete bullshit, and I hope that black voters would be smart enough to realize that it's not a race issue — he's not being stripped of his committee seat because he's black — he's being stripped of his committee seat because he's under investigation for committing a serious crime. It should and would be no different for a white man in Jefferson's shoes. I'm sick of the 'race card' being pulled every time a black man is accused of a crime or he's given some sort of punishment relating to that crime.

I would hope black voters would wonder the exact same thing Representative Watt points out if it was a white member of Congress. I'm tired of this looking at people based on race and Representative Watt's comments bring to light a theory that black voters might be upset about Jefferson's treatment for the sole reason that he also happens to be black. Dr. King dreamed of a day when we would all judge each other not by the color of our skin but on the content of our character, but sadly if people like Representative Watt still believe that black voters would pass judgement on an issue a certain way just because the person involved is black than Dr. King's dream is still a long way from becoming a reality.

This is an idea with a lot of promise, but I have some concerns about it working. So does Jim Harrington, director of the Texas Civil Rights Project, who called the idea "half-baked." I think he hit the nail on the head that right now it is, indeed, half-baked.

One of the biggest problems is that I don't believe someone would be able to report an illegal crossing fast enough for it to make a difference. It would likely only take a person seconds to be out of dodge of the camera and gone. By the time the person who spots the border hopper gets on the phone and reports it I can't help but think it would be too late.

I should note, though, that the live feed would also be available to law enforcement and the border patrol, so that makes it a little more feasible that someone spotted on camera crossing the border could be caught, but still unlikely.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't explore this idea which, as I said, has a lot of promise.

Perhaps an 'instant report' button could be placed on the webcam website so someone, at the click of the mouse, could report someone crossing. The problem with that, of course, is that with anyone having access anyone could just click the button to mess around. Of course, people can call the toll free number and report one to mess around too. Therefore, maybe certain people that could be trusted could be signed up to voluntarily watch the cameras and only these people would be given the 'instant report' option. People who could be trusted to only report real sightings.

It's not far fetched people would be willing to do this, afterall, we do have the Minutemen who patrol the border voluntarily. 

In the end, the idea is a long way from perfect, and I think spending $5 million dollars without working out these problems first is a mistake, but I'll at least give Governor Perry (or one of his advisers) credit for having an original idea regarding this issue — even if it's "half-baked" as it stands.