The Fountain of Youth

As evidenced by the hysterical writings of one Mark Lackey, I'm sure this will be the first of MANY hilarious experiences with my son. And so it begins...

After only a couple of days with our little man, Amanda and I had to run up to the store to get some paperwork so Amanda could pay her employees. Being that we're both brand new at this parenting thing and really wanted to get out of the house for a while, we loaded up Zachary and took off.

When we got to the store, the little man dropped a load in his diaper, so we laid him up on the counter to change him. I opened up the dirty diaper and was fishing around in the diaper bag for a fresh diaper when up sprung a fountain. He wet down an entire jewelry rack and a lot of the counter. I was laughing so hard that I physically could not continue the diaper changing process and Amanda had to take over.

Before any of you call the health commission, we did get the jewelry cleaned up and Lysol'd, so everything is good now. But the moral of the story is, never leave a baby's water hose unattended.

Zachary Has Arrived

Let me just say right off the bat--I have missed blogging the past several weeks. Life has just been entirely too crazy to sit down in front of the computer and try to weave my thoughts into a pattern coherent enough for people to read. Since it's been a while and A LOT has happened over the past couple of months, you'll have to excuse the length of this post.

As some of you may (or may not) know, Amanda and I have been interested in pursuing a child through adoption for some time. About 3 years ago we went to an orientation meeting at an agency in Dallas, but God never gave us peace about pursuing it further. We then went through the entire application and approval process with Depelchin, but quickly discovered that also was not God's calling on our lives. So we kind of gave up hope for a while.

In January of this year we felt the yearning again, so we requested some information from an agency that some of our friends have adopted through. It's called New Life Pregnancy Center and is located in Tomball, TX. If you click on the link, there is a bar at the bottom with photos of families. The couple to the far left are our friends Dave and Alicia. They're the ones who originally told us about New Life. I won't go into all the detail here, but our experience with New Life has been absolutely amazing. If you are considering adoption, please talk to us and we'll get you all the information we have about New Life.

In February we turned in our initial application and were told it would be June before we would do the next phase. June came and we interviewed with New Life and received the big application (30 pages or so). But every time we started working on it, we just got depressed and couldn't do anything. In September, we got a call from New Life saying there were 2 birth moms that looked to be a good match for us and we were asked to step on it and get our application done. One of these birth moms was due in November! We completed the entire process, including home study, in the next few weeks. How's that for motivation!

On Wednesday, October 14, we found out we had been chosen by a birth mom...and that she was due November 16! Words couldn't begin to come close to adequately describing the emotion we felt. I was having lunch with my mentor and friend, Rene Rivera, when I got the call from Amanda and it was so cool that he was there when I got the call because he had been praying through all of this with me for some time (thanks, Rene!).

Then the reality settled in that we had a month to prepare for this baby. While we were unbelievably excited, we didn't want to tell too many people because a birth mom can easily change her mind. Nothing is certain until you take that baby home. So in order to protect our emotions as much as we could, we chose not to tell many people.

We got to meet with our birth mom 4 times before the placement which was an absolute blessing. She is a wonderful young lady and we are so blessed to have gotten to know her. Unlike some adoptive parents, we will not have to candy-coat who she is with our son. We can tell him the full truth about her and not feel like we have to hide anything.

So we frantically spent the next month preparing our home for a baby. We knew it was going to be a boy, so that was good. We slowly started telling more people the more certain we got that this was actually going to happen. The due date came and went and we were told the doctors would induce on November 23 if the baby had not come by then. The wait was excruciating but worth it because we got to spend a lot of time praying for the birth mom and our son. Zachary Bradon Camp was born at 11:18 AM on November 23, 2009. He was 7 lbs, 4 ounces, 20 1/2" and perfectly healthy.

We gave him the name Zachary and the birth mom gave him the name Bradon. We chose Zachary because it means "the Lord remembers"--very fitting for our journey through this process.

On November 25, we went to the hospital and spent a couple of hours with the birth mom and her family. She placed Zachary in Amanda's arms and while crying told us how happy she was that we were going to provide a loving home for her son. We cried together for a while, said our goodbyes, and left the hospital.

I know I've said a lot, but I would also like the summarize this whole post and the whole experience. God is a great and graceful God. He is our Redeemer who has adopted us as His own and I have such a greater understanding of that now. Zachary will be a constant reminder that the Lord remembers.

More posts will be coming soon, but you have no idea how good it feels to be able to talk about this openly now. Here are some pictures of our new little man and a very happy new mom and dad!

More to Come Soon

Sorry for the delay in cranking out new posts but it's been a bit hectic lately in the lives of the Camps and not likely to calm down any time soon. Work has been a beast lately and restyle has been performing so well recently that it's almost more than we can handle.

We were able to find Bailey a new home which is great. We miss her, but we don't miss the havoc she brought to our lives. The couple that took her have a 5 year old weimeraner with an energy level that matches Bailey's. They go swimming in a pool and wrestle until they both pass out. It's the perfect match. And, it looks like Bailey will be trained to hunt which is really cool. The couple and their 15 year old soon will be moving to Beaumont soon and when that happens, Bailey will have 2 1/2 acres to run on and get her energy out. I couldn't have dreamed up a better scenario for her.

Some crazy life changes are headed our way that you'll hear more about in the coming weeks. Just pray that God will equip Amanda and me to handle these changes and that we would rely solely on Him for guidance, direction and wisdom.

Talk to you soon!

God's Grace from a Contrarian Point of View

A couple of weeks before we got the phone call saying we had been chosen by a birth mom, Amanda and I made the difficult decision to try to find our dog Bailey a new home. Many of you have kept track of our adventures with Bailey. If you haven't, check out my other posts and this will make a lot more sense to you. When this decision was made, we had absolutely no idea what was about to happen on the adoption front. Anyway, we contacted a brittany rescue organization (who shall remain nameless) to help us find a home for Bailey.

As it turns out, the birth mom that chose us was due November 16 giving us right at 1 month to prepare. That's when our world got turned upside down. Not only did we need to find Bailey a new home, but we needed to do so pretty much immediately. For those of you who know Bailey, you understand this. She's not mean but is very energetic and could easily hurt an infant without intending to.

So, I contacted the rescue organization to let them know we would be welcoming a baby into our home shortly and we needed to find Bailey a home very quickly. Seems reasonable, right? You would think the rescue organization would be happy for us and that they would put in some extra effort to help us find a home for Bailey, right? WRONG! I received an email from the person I was working with basically condemning me for choosing to adopt a baby if that meant we would no longer be able to care for Bailey. Here is a short excerpt from that email:

I am sorry you are in a position that sets Bailey up for losing on this one. There is tremendous responsibility that goes along with caring for and loving a dog... it does not end with the beginning of a new adventure no matter how "inconvenient" the dog becomes.

I just about blew a gasket! How dare this person spit upon our decision to care for and raise a child by elevating the value of our dog above a human!

I spent the next couple of days fuming and dreaming up everything I wanted to say to this person to set the record straight. I even typed out a vicious email in response and thankfully sought Amanda's advice on whether to send it before I actually sent it. During that time I cooled down and decided sending the email was not the Christ-like thing to do.

Also during this time, it dawned on me that I do something very similar to God all the time. Jesus offered me salvation through His death and resurrection and I accepted this free gift of mercy and grace. However, I continue to snub God through my sin. Though I continually spit upon the gift God has given me and the sacrifice of His Son to pay my debt, He still loves me and shows me grace. He doesn't sit up in heaven dreaming up ways to punish me for my less than graceful actions toward Him.

The rescue organization's attitude toward me was less than graceful, but it helped me have a deeper understanding of God's grace toward me. In that light, I'm kind of glad it happened. I love how God can take the good and the bad and teach us about His character.

And for those of you who are curious, I did send an email to the rescue organization politely telling them I no longer desired to work with them and that we would find Bailey a home ourselves. We did so in less than 2 weeks.

Capitalism and the Opinion Police

Recently rumors have been swirling about Rush Limbaugh joining a group of investors interested in buying the St. Louis Rams NFL franchise. Rush quickly confirmed his desire to take part ownership and also confirmed that he was to be a limited partner in the venture (no responsibilities in the day to day activities/decision-making). So it's not like he would be the face of the St. Louis Rams like Jerry Jones is the face of the Dallas Cowboys.

As soon as the rumors started, everyone from Chad Ochocinco to Sheila Jackson Lee to the head of the NFL Players Union began expressing their opinion that Rush should not be allowed to buy into an NFL franchise because he is a divisive personality who has made some racially motivated comments. Since when has a person's desire to invest in a private enterprise been subject to the approval of people who have absolutely no interest involved?

Most of the objections are coming from comments Rush made regarding Donovan McNabb during his brief tenure with ESPN. Most people have construed his comment as a stab against McNabb because he's one of a few black quarterbacks in the NFL. I don't have the exact quote, but the gist of it was that Rush felt McNabb was a very overrated QB who was being overly hyped by the media who only wanted to see a black QB succeed in the NFL. I heard the comment when it was made and it never crossed my mind that Rush meant McNabb was overrated because he was black. He genuinely thinks McNabb is overrated as an NFL QB and his comment was aimed more at a fawning media who, Rush felt, had over-committed to the desired success of McNabb rather than taking an unbiased stance. Rush said that he thought all the media hype focused on McNabb was because he was black.

Did you catch the difference there? Rush never said McNabb was not a good QB because he's black. Rush never said he hoped McNabb didn't succeed because he's black. What he said was he thought the media was overplaying the situation because McNabb is black. His comment was meant to slam the media, not McNabb. And if I remember correctly, after everyone blew up about this and ESPN even fired him over it, Rush repeatedly explained that he had nothing against McNabb personally and that McNabb himself was not at all responsible for all the hype. It was the media blowing everything out of proportion. And honestly, is anyone really going to debate that the media has a tendency to blow things out of proportion?

So recently I saw a headline that Rush has been dropped from the group of investors wishing to buy the Rams. My question is, when did it become the business of the general public to decide who is or is not worthy of buying into a private enterprise? What would happen if Michael Moore tried to buy into an NFL franchise? That guy hates capitalism even though he's made millions because of capitalism. Everyone involved in the NFL--owners, players, union reps, etc.--are capitalistic. They sign contracts and make business deals for the sole purpose of making more money. Since Moore is fundamentally against capitalism, would he be railroaded the same way Rush was? I doubt it. Is Michael Moore any less polarizing of a public figure than Rush is? No.

Or how about this scenario. Should people who think tobacco products are harmful and bad be prohibited from buying stock in Phillip Morris? Should loyal patrons of Lowe's Home Improvement stores be prohibited from buying stock in Home Depot? Of course not. Free speech is a two-edged sword giving people the right to have opinions even if others disagree with those opinions. I don't agree with a single thing Michael Moore, Barack Obama or Sheila Jackson Lee believe or say, but I wouldn't have the slightest problem if any of them, in their individual capacity, wanted to buy into a private venture. Why? Because that's their decision and my like or dislike of their values and opinions is wholly irrelevant.

I'm so sick and tired of tolerance of opinion being a one-way street. If Rush wants to buy the St. Louis Rams, he should be allowed to do so if he is able to offer the best deal to the current owners and the current owners want to sell it to him. Everyone who doesn't think Rush should own the Rams should shut up and try to outbid Rush to keep him from doing it. That's how capitalism works.

Reality Check: Money Does NOT Grow on Trees

We've all seen numbers like billion and trillion thrown around recently and unless you own a billion or trillion dollars, the reality of it probably doesn't set in. I saw a graphic not long ago that puts these numbers in perspective and I couldn't remember if I had posted it anywhere. In case I didn't, I'm doing it now.

Pagetutor.com, using Google Sketchup, created a graphic showing the progression from a $100 bill to $1 trillion. Eye opening to say the least. As a follow up, Pagetutor created a graphic showing the size of the US debt ($11 trillion when the graphic was created).

I tried posting the graphics themselves, but they are too big to fit on my blog, so you'll just have to click on the links to see them for yourselves.

Now that I've gotten your attention, let's get to work.

The US economy, measured in terms of gross domestic product, was worth about $14.4 trillion in 2008. GDP is a basic measure of a country's economic performance and is the market value of all final goods and services made within the borders of a nation in a year.

In July of this year, the US national debt was measured at $11.6 trillion. So, logically you might assume the US has a net worth of $2.8 trillion, except that you'd be wrong.

If you are alive and breathing, you are well aware of the debate over reforming the health care system. As most of you know, the US already has government run health care in place for certain portions of the population, namely Medicare and Medicaid. And everyone has heard that these programs are in the hole. What you may not know is by how much these programs are in the hole.

According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, the 2009 Social Security and Medicare Trustees Reports show the unfunded liability of Medicare has reached more than $89 trillion in today's dollars! The unfunded liability is the difference between the benefits that have been promised to current and future retirees and what will be collected in dedicated taxes and Medicare premiums. I wish Pagetutor.com had a graphic for this, but I couldn't find one. Just take the $11 trillion graphic above and multiply it by 8 in your mind.

The question is, if the government has run Medicare into the ground to the tune of $11 trillion in unfunded promises, should we trust the government with health care for all? I think the answer is pretty clear.

A Weekend to Remember

This past Saturday (Sept. 26) was one crazy weekend. Let's start from the beginning. We got up and took Bailey to the kennel because we were going to be gone all day. We left from there to go to a 5 hour seminar in Tomball. We got a 2 hour break in there, so we went and hung out with the Peschkes for a while and then headed to the church for the second annual High Altitude Olympics. Amanda and I competed in events where she poured water on my face (a slight modification of water boarding), I threw foam balls at her, and she led me around an obstacle course blind folded. At the end, there was a three way tie for first, so we competed with the Peschkes and Weenases in a newlywed style game for the gold and all the glory. After two rounds we were all tied so we went to sudden death and Amanda and I won because I knew her favorite book of the Bible was Leviticus (I love my wife)!

Solely by the grace of God, and with the help of a UH student who works for Amanda, I was able to get my hands on some tickets to the UH v. Texas Tech game that night. Because of the extended High Altitude Olympic finals, I got to the game about half way through the first quarter. Colin Sproule went with me.

For those of you who don't know or don't care to keep up with college sports, this game was unbelievably good. For about 20 minutes, Colin and I were standing next to Moses Malone, which was pretty cool. The Cougars were trailing by 5 points in the 4th quarter when they stopped Tech on a 4th and goal from the 1 yard line. With 5:37 to go in the game, the Cougars had to drive the ball 95 yards for the go ahead score. They did just that and the largest crowd in Robertson Stadium history erupted. When the game was finally over, the students rushed the field. What a game! Because it was a nationally televised game that didn't start until 8:15, I got home at 1:00 a.m.

Pretty good weekend if I do say so myself!

Bailey's Most Glorious Journey

Just thought I'd take a few minutes to update everyone on Bailey's new found unquenchable desire for freedom from the confines of our estate. On Saturday evening as Amanda and I were headed out the door to go to a friend's birthday party, Bailey saw her opportunity and bolted out of our gate and into the streets of our neighborhood. No big deal--she does this all the time. I got the car keys from Amanda and my neighbor from across the street (he's 14 years old and a very good sport!) and we set out to chase Bailey down. I will go ahead and tell you that at this point I'm wearing shorts, a t-shirt and am barefooted. Just remember the barefooted part.

Here is the route we took. I apologize that the maps start in the same spot in teh middle of the route. I couldn't figure out how to make it start in different places. You'll have to click and drag to the right to find the start (at our house on Dawson Road) and then click and drag each map to follow the route.


View Bailey's Journey in a larger map

The route started out normally and I usually catch up to her somewhere on Freestone because she has never left the neighborhood before. But this time was different. She got to the end of Freeport and made a brief stop at the house on the right corner where Freestone intersects with Kirby. When I saw her leaving, there was a large Boxer by the name of Oscar following her. I knew his name was Oscar because his entire family was chasing after him yelling, "Oscar, Oscar!!!" So I got back in the car and headed out onto Kirby while the rest of the entourage headed out there on foot. About 100 yards down Kirby, Bailey and Oscar hooked a left and ran out into an open field. I chased Bailey and Oscar through the open field (still barefooted) until I finally caught up with Oscar about 200 yards in. However, Bailey kept running until she nearly reached the houses in Southern Trails. At this point, Oscar's family had caught up and I told them I was looking for a new home for Bailey anyway and she had just made the job a lot easier. I had resigned myself to let her go.

So my neighbor and I walked back to the car (which I left in the middle of Kirby with the hazards on) through the open field (still barefooted, although it hurt a lot more now than it did at first!) and drove down Kirby to the mall to turn around. When I started driving back toward the neighborhood, there was Bailey standing near the road. So I sped down there, jumped the curb with the Murano (sorry Amanda, but I didn't want to leave it in the middle of the road again) and made another effort to lure Bailey into the back of the car--to no avail.

Bailey took off down the side of Kirby going toward the mall. But instead of staying in the grass, she zig-zagged her way back and forth across Kirby causing numerous cars to slam on the breaks to avoid hitting her. I really wish one of them had hit her because it would have cut this journey in half!

So, we chased her down Kirby where she crossed over to the right and took a brief dip in the pond. While she was enjoying her swim, the neighbor and I were parking at Goodyear so we could get out and chase her on foot. We nearly had her at Goodyear, but she took off around the parking lot going behind the mall. As I was going back to get the car, she started coming back toward us only to veer off to the right and start heading toward Dillards. We quickly got back in the car and continued our pursuit.

This is where it got a little scary. As she rounded the corner near Dillards, she was trotting behind the landscape bushes headed toward the front entrance of Dillards. And of course, like most big retail shops, Dillards has automatic doors. And it being a Saturday, numerous people were entering and exiting leaving the doors open for the most part. I decided then and there that if she ran inside Dillards (dripping wet since she recently went swimming in the pond) that I would take advantage of the fact that she had no collar or tags on and just leave. No one would ever know she belonged to me!

Thankfully she did not go into Dillards. I think she may be more of a Bass Pro Shops/Academy girl. But she did continue on her way. The neighbor and I were still following her in the car yelling at every person along the way to grab her if they got the chance. Finally we came to a back alley were the dumpsters are kept for the mall. Someone had left the gate open and we saw this as our chance to corner her. Unfortunately they had left the gate open on the other side which had the effect of funneling her into the mall! At least it's an outdoor mall so she was just walking alongside the people on the sidewalks.

Oh, I almost forgot to mention--as she was trotting down the corridor between the dumpsters and the mall, there was a guy standing near the restrooms. I called out to him to grab her if she came near. He looked at me, then down at Bailey who was standing right next to him sniffing him, then looked back at me as Bailey left. It was all I could do to not punch him in the gut when I walked past, still in pursuit of Bailey, and still barefooted.

We rounded the corner to the left where she was walking down the sidewalk in front of Barnes & Noble. There were some people sitting at a table outside and I called out to them to grab her if she came near and not let go of her. The guy reached over to pet her and grabbed her. I almost kissed him when I caught up.

So, I thanked him profusely, scooped Bailey up in my arms (40 pounds of wet dog) and walked back out to the car. I'm sure I looked perfectly normal walking barefooted with a wet dog in my arms through the mall. No embarrassment there at all. I put/threw Bailey into the back of the car and headed home. I marked this spot on the map with a volcano which is a pretty close indication of my blood pressure level at this point.

When we got home, I put Bailey in her crate, quickly took another shower and headed to the birthday party which we were now approximately 1 hour late for. The next day I found 7 or 8 splinters in the bottoms of my feet from the run through the field.

After all this, I can't say there wasn't anything good about it. Any sadness remaining in me about having to give Bailey up is now completely gone!

Bailey Needs a New Home

Over the past several months since I started this blog, many of you have grown accustomed to the occasional sprinkling in of Bailey stories to lighten the mood in here.  Well, it's with great sadness that I'm telling you we need to find a new home for Bailey.

I know what you're thinking--how can you give up a dog with such great entertainment value?  The honest answer is that it's going to be best for all involved to find her a new family. We simply don't have the time, energy, sanity, space or yard size to accommodate a dog with her energy level.  In the nearly two years we've had her, she has eaten or otherwise destroyed two pairs of eye glasses, several plants, several pairs of underwear, dozens of pens and clothes pins, my new wallet and I'm pretty sure she ate a $5 bill.  That's just a small random sampling of the havoc she has brought to our lives.  Happy and well-adjusted dogs who are content in their environments are not that destructive.

On top of that, she will do anything to escape from our back yard including digging under the fence and jumping over the fence.  She has been really creative in her escape tactics including moving plastic chairs to the fence so she can get over and getting a running start and catapulting off the grill.  And as you have probably seen from a previous video I posted, she has successfully jumped a six foot fence to escape the friendly confines of our back yard.

The only way we have found that even comes close to dissipating her energy build up is to attach her to the bicycle and let her drag us through the neighborhood on a dead sprint for a couple of miles.  She barks the whole way and scares the bejeezus out of everyone.  I think she nearly gave a jogger a heart attack the other night.

So, Amanda and I have decided that we would like to preserve what is left of our youthful sanity and accordingly have sent her information to a Brittany rescue to try to find her a new home.  You can view her profile here (she's the 4th one down under Texas):

Please feel free to forward this link to anyone you know who may be interested.  We think she would make a great hunting dog or even a great family dog if she had a large yard to play in and probably another dog or two to play with.  Sorry for the sad news, but it needed to be said.

Posted via email from camplogic's posterous

Go Coogs!!!

I need to take a moment to congratulate and brag on my alma mater, the University of Houston Cougars. For those of you oblivious to the college football world, UH defeated the #5 ranked Oklahoma State Cowboys this past weekend 45-35, in Stillwater. This is the first time UH has beaten a top 5 team since 1984 and they have achieved their first top 25 ranking since 1991 (currently ranked #21). This kind of play is a far cry from when I attended UH (1998-2002). The best record the Coogs achieved while I was there was 7-4 in 1999. In 2001, they went 0-11. So you can understand my excitement at seeing my beloved Cougars not only winning games, but beating really good teams.

Here is a little highlight video for your enjoyment.

Bailey v. Garden Hose

Sorry for the length of this video, but there weren't really any parts I wanted to cut out. Bailey drives us nuts all the time, but it's times like this that we really enjoy her.

Obama to Circumvent Normal Congressional Vote on Health Care Reform

Our lovable president got on national TV Wednesday night and waxed eloquent about how Congress was actually in agreement on about 80% of the ideas needed to pass health care reform and that the bickering needed to end so they could get something done. He talked about his grand ideas to provide affordable health insurance to all Americans without adding a penny to the deficit, despite the fact the Congressional Budget Office, using the numbers given to it by the White House, predicted a $220 billion increase in the deficit over the next 10 years as a direct result of Obama's health care plan.

The president made a noble request for bipartisanship to get this reform done "because something has to be done." And less than 48 hours after his speech on Wednesday night, he's laying the groundwork to use the budget reconciliation maneuver to circumvent a true congressional vote on the bill.

So much for listening to the people who turned out in 10s of thousands at town hall meetings in August to express their concern about this health care bill. We the people can state our opinions all we want, but our leadership simply doesn't care. According to a recent Gallup poll, 39% of the people polled said they would direct their representative to vote AGAINST Obama's health care plan as opposed to 37% who would direct their representative to vote for it. The other 24% had no opinion. 64% of the people said their vote in 2010 would be directly affected by how their representative votes on health care.

Despite all of this, Obama continues to ignore the citizens. In the article above talking about use of the reconciliation measure, Obama is quoted as saying, "there are a lot of politicians like that who, all they're thinking about is just, ‘How do I get reelected?’ and so they never actually get anything done." That quote was followed by this one from an administration official:

“I think getting something done is paramount here," a senior administration official said before Obama’s address to Congress. "We want to bring along everyone who’s willing to come with us, but the fact that not everyone is willing to come with us is not an excuse to fail in dealing with what is really a fundamental issue that has to be done."

There you have it. This administration has an agenda and they couldn't care less what you and I think. We need to "get something done" because we the people are apparently too stupid to decide what's best for us. We need some out of touch elitists in Washington to make those decisions for us.

In summary, our president thinks that a representative or senator who votes against health care reform because his or her constituents have requested him or her to do so is purely an act of selfish desire to get re-elected. Sounds like a classic Catch-22 to me--represent your constituents by voting against health care and be smeared by the president and his democrat buddies for playing partisan politics, or ignore the majority of your constituents and vote for health care, thereby ensuring you don't get re-elected.

Experimenting with Posterous

For those of you who don't know me very well, I'm always on the look out for new technologies, even if they aren't particularly useful for me.  Free technology is my Achilles heel.  Today I found a pretty cool free technology and am trying it out to see if it will be useful for me.

Posterous let's you post to your Facebook, Twitter, blog, etc by emailing content to certain email addresses.  You create an account and set up your linked accounts like your own blog and then use certain email addresses to post to your various linked accounts.  For instance, I'm posting this to my blog by emailing all the content to blog@posterous.com.

I'm still not sure how useful this will be, but I wanted to give it a shot.  Posterous has some other cool features that I'll be trying out in the near future.  I'll keep you updated on whether it's worth it or not.

Posted via email from camplogic's posterous

The Twitter Experience

As most of you have probably seen, I have a "Follow Me on Twitter" button on my blog. I've been using Twitter for several months now and I must say I'm really enjoying it. For those of you who don't know, Twitter is a micro-blogging, social networking medium. In other words, it's a replacement for (or supplement to) your Facebook status updates.

But what non-Twitter users don't really understand is that Twitter allows you to do so much more than simply update your status. By using a common language made up of hash tags, you can keep track of trending topics. You can also follow your favorite people just like you can friend them on Facebook.

As an example, I'm a UH Cougar alum and I follow Cougar Athletics religiously. Football season is inching closer and closer and I want to make sure I get breaking news updates on all things Cougar football. So, I follow @UHCougarSports and @campbellcoogs, 2 Twitter users who focus on Cougar sports in general and football in particular. But, I want to see if there are other people out there talking about Cougar football. So I use the hash tag system to search for #UH, #UHCougars, #UHfootball, etc. There I can find all the people discussing UH football in real time and can choose to follow those people if I so desire.

It's also great to use as an educational and networking tool for your occupation. If you're a small business owner, in marketing, sales, or whatever your profession, you can find people on Twitter doing the same thing and exchange ideas with them.

Finally, it's a good way to market your wares. Let's say you like to sell things on ebay. Create your listing in ebay for your item and then post a short description and link to your item on Twitter and use the #ebay hash tag. This lets people find your listing when they search Twitter using the #ebay hash tag. The same can be done for Craigs List entries or anything else you want to sell.

I hope this helps. I know there are lots of people out there on the fence about Twitter because they like Facebook and don't care for another social networking tool. Just remember that Twitter and Facebook can be used in completely different ways. Leave me a comment if you have any questions or have some other ideas for Twitter usage.

If you decide to sign up, you can follow me by clicking the button on my blog or going to www.twitter.com/TyCamp. Also, check out this Twitter guide book put out by @Mashable. It will tell you a lot more about how to use Twitter and get the most out of it.

Have You Changed Your Mind?

Ok, we're 8 1/2 months in to President Obama's first term which has given us plenty of time to observe what his policy ambitions are, how those ambitions may or may not differ from his campaign promises, how he intends to handle congress, whether any of his campaign promises are coming true or likely to come true, whether he can be trusted in general, and whether he is leading our country in the right direction.

Having had that time to review and reflect, would you change who you voted for in this past election? This is not aimed solely at those who voted for Obama. If you voted for McCain and wish you had voted for Obama or someone else, I'd like to know why. Likewise, if you voted for Obama but have changed your mind about him, I'd like to know your reasons for that too. All too often people get married to their choices even if they have come to realize they were bad choices. It's ok to change your mind as long as you have a good reason for it.

So, leave a comment and let me know what you think. I know most of my followers are conservatives and I certainly want to hear your opinions. But if you have any friends or family who voted for Obama, please send them the link to this post so I can see what they have to say, regardless of whether they have changed their mind or not. Once I get a good amount of comments, I'll create a new post summarizing my thoughts.

Thanks for helping me satisfy my curiosity!

Vacation Time

Well, the Mrs. and I are headed out on vacation tomorrow to the great state of North Carolina. I'll try to twitter some of the action for anyone who cares. In the meantime, I leave you with this article that provides a pretty good summary of Obama-style unity and bipartisanship. Enjoy and I'll be back soon.

A Brief History Of White House Thuggery

Simple Lesson in Economics

Let's say you win some kind of odd lottery and you have two options for payout:

(1) You can have 50 people pay you $1,000 a year for the next 10 years

or

(2) You can have 100 people pay you $750 a year for the next 10 years

Which one would you take? The answer is pretty simple, right? Apparently not for our government. They would rather take $1,000 a year from a few people than smaller amounts from a lot of people.

Can someone please point me to one time in history where a tax increase stimulated an economy? Just one. Saying a tax increase brings in more money for the government ignores everything except for the fact that you have an immediate, short-term, temporary increase in revenue.

Amanda and I own a small business. By small, I mean we have 5 employees. If our sales start to pick up and we have more and more customers coming in, we'll need to hire an additional person to keep up with the pace. Now, let's assume the government increases our taxes to help pay for something it wants to do. It also increases taxes on our 5 employees. Does the government get more money initially? Sure it does. It gets the difference between what we and our employees were paying collectively and what we're collectively paying now. The drawback is that with increased costs, we can't afford to hire anymore employees.

Wouldn't it make more sense to either decrease our taxes or leave them alone? In doing so, we could afford to hire an additional employee and the government would then be getting additional tax revenue from that new employee in addition to the same revenue it was getting before from us and our 5 other employees. If the government actually decreased our taxes, we might even be able to hire more than one new employee to try to grow our business rather than just keeping pace with current business. Extrapolate this across America, and it's easy to see why a broader tax base is a much better way to increase tax revenue than increasing taxes on existing tax payers.

The honest truth is, the democrats know all this, but they would rather punish the successful than require everyone to chip in. History shows that when you raise taxes on businesses and the wealthy, jobs suffer. When jobs suffer, people suffer. It really is a simple concept that gets largely ignored by our government. I, for one, am sick of it. Why should I seek to excel in my job if I'm only going to be punished by higher taxes? Socialism kills innovation and hard work. Just look at the former Soviet Union. In just a few more years, we might be able to say, "just look at post-2009 America."

The Great Hunter

So, as you've seen from one of my earlier posts, I recently stumbled onto a way to give Bailey a decent amount of exercise that fits my limited athletic ability. Yesterday morning I ventured back to the pond again thinking since it's 380 degrees outside, Bailey might enjoy a swim in the pond. To my surprise, she found something more exciting than swimming--hunting butterflies.

For those of you who don't know, Bailey is a Brittany. Brittanies are specifically bred for bird hunting and are pointers by nature. Bailey has never had any pointer or bird hunting training, but she certainly knows how to point. When she sees something she wants to hunt, she will freeze in place and watch for an opportunity to pounce. It's a very majestic sight.

Anyway, back to the story. As I'm pacing Bailey back and forth by the pond trying to get her to jump in, she sees something and freezes into the point position. I was able to get my phone out and take some pictures before she pounced on her prey--a tiny yellow butterfly/moth which she proceeded to chase around for the next 20 minutes or so. I'm so proud!

Title VII "Sex" Discrimination

Without getting into what I really think about all the extra-marital affairs going on in national politics right now, I wanted to bring a snipit from this article to everyone's attention.

Ethics Watchdog Files Complaint Against Ensign Over Affair-Related Activities

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington ("CREW") has filed a complaint against Senator Ensign because the lady he had an affair with and her husband were terminated from their positions in Senator Ensign's campaign organization. CREW thinks the terminations were possibly related to the affair. An affair is certainly no laughing matter, but here is a quote from the article and CREW that made me laugh:

CREW alleges in its complaint that Ensign may have terminated the Hamptons from their staff positions for reasons related to the affair, which began in December 2007 and ended in August 2008.

"If true, the senator likely engaged in discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII, and Senate Rule 42, which incorporates the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to Senate employees and prohibits discrimination based on sex," the group said in a press release Wednesday.

Someone needs to tell CREW's law school dropouts that Title VII's "sex" discrimination prohibition refers to gender, not whether one has had sex. And since the lady's husband was fired too, CREW is going to have an uphill battle trying to convince anyone the firings were related to gender.

Barney Frank Cracking Jokes Again...or Just on Crack?

My friend Mark passed this article on to me and I couldn't help but blog about it because either Barney Frank is joking or he's an even bigger idiot than I once thought (if that's possible).

Fannie, Freddie asked to relax condo loan rules

Fannie and Freddie got into a boat load of financial trouble because, at the insistence of Congress, they were insuring mortgages with little to no proof from homeowners that the mortgages could be paid off. This was all in the name of helping people achieve the American dream of home ownership even if they only had a snowball's chance in hell of ever paying off that obligation. These subprime borrowers began defaulting in droves causing Fannie and Freddie to go down with the ship.

So, in response to mistakes made in the past, Fannie and Freddie tightened up some of their mortgage insuring standards. For instance, we all remember the recent condo project collapses in places like Miami that sparked a lot of the housing market bust. Investors were paying ludicrous amounts of money to buy condos that had not even been built yet, much less occupied, with the hopes of flipping them for a quick buck. It worked for a while, but when the prices reached a certain level, no more buyers were available and these stupid investors were left holding the bag. This is called the "greater fool" theory of investing--you buy when prices are high and hope there is a greater fool than you willing to pay more than what you paid. There's my short lesson on supply and demand in case you weren't paying attention in high school and college economics.

So, Fannie and Freddie have decided not to insure loans to purchase condos if fewer than 70% of the units are sold, where more than 15% of the occupants are delinquent on their condo fees, or where a single person owns more than 10% of the units. It seems reasonable that these 3 factors could be an indication of lack of financial viability.

Apparently Barney Frank and his cohort Anthony Weiner were sleeping through the housing bust because they have fired off a letter to the CEOs of Fannie and Freddie complaining that the new standards are too prohibitive and might interfere with the housing market recovery.

It seems unlikely Barney would be using his Congressional letterhead to play a practical joke on Fannie and Freddie, so I have to assume he's serious. The article says Fannie and Freddie are preparing their response to lawmakers. I think my response to Barney would be, "get off the crack, idiot!" And for all the folks in Massachusetts who keep voting for this guy, you get off the crack too!

Adventures with Bailey

Amanda and I have had our dog Bailey for about a year and a half now and we are constantly searching for a way to get her enough exercise so she's not uncontrollably hyper all the time. So we've done some thinking and here are the ideas we've come up with so far and the results.

First, I would take her jogging, but since I can't sprint at 20 mph for 2+ miles, that didn't work.

Next we tried buying a bike attachment thinking we would leisurely pedal through the neighborhood with our beautiful dog in tow. It didn't quite turn out that way. The feeling of a bike pulling back against her instantly turned her into a sled dog and she would pull us around the neighborhood at break neck speed. It was the one dog Iditarod without the snow. I'm serious...she would run at a dead sprint pulling me on the bicycle for over a mile before I ever had to start pedaling. This tactic wears her out for a little while, but I was a little concerned her heart might explode some day.

Then, I made a fascinating discovery about our neighborhood. As I was taking her for a bike ride last night (or was she taking me for a bike ride...I'm not sure), I discovered a grass road along the outside of our neighborhood. So, we took off down the grass road and half a mile later arrived at a drainage ditch with a nice little pond on the other side. I took her down to the pond to get a drink and she jumped right in. Luckily I still had her on the short leash or I probably would have had to jump in after her. I decided that the next day I would take her back and take a long leash with me so she could swim.

So, this morning after a 2+ mile sprint in just over 10 minutes, here's Bailey cooling off in the pond. Don't worry...I eventually helped her get out.

Getting Older

I wanted to take a quick break from my political rants to talk about something else for a change. This past April I turned the ripe old age of 29. No, seriously, I am 29. I'm not one of those people who will stay 29 forever for fear of turning 30. I see nothing wrong with being 30 years old. It's just one more year.

But, I have to say, I'm starting to feel much older than my years. Life has a way of being exciting and exhausting all at the same time. About this time 2 years ago, Amanda opened up restyle and our lives have never been the same. Don't get me wrong, restyle has been an amazing adventure and something we feel strongly led by God to do, but it is a lot of work! Amanda has done an amazing job running the place and turning it into a successful business. But when you couple that with my 8:30 - 6:00 job plus a dog that no one can control, plus responsibilities and obligations at church, you have a recipe for disaster.

Slowly but surely over the past several years, I have seen my physical activity dwindle because it's more work than fun and there just aren't enough hours in the day for such frivolity. Now when I go out to the garage to work out, I do so with the knowledge that I'm going to be incredibly sore for the next 2-3 days. I also do it knowing full well that none of it will be easy or enjoyable.

I can remember the days that I could work out in the gym for more than an hour and never get sore. I could run the stands at the football stadium and be out of breath, but not barely clinging to life. I could play basketball in the driveway with my brothers for 5+ hours in 98 degree heat and be disappointed when we ran out of daylight. I could do all kinds of things that I either can't do anymore or can't do well anymore and it's a little depressing. I kind of thought this would hit around age 40, not 29.

So, anyway, I know this post kind of came out of nowhere, but it's just something I've been thinking about lately, so I thought I would share it with my loyal and avid followers. If you guys have any thoughts, send me a comment.

The Dictatorship Has Arrived

ABC to Air Infomercial for Obama's Health Care Reform While Excluding Opposition Voices

Looking back over history, what set of criteria is used to determine when a nation has become a dictatorship? Just to name a few, a head of state with no checks and balances, a state-run media, and the systematic and unapologetic silencing of voices of opposition.

Congratulations to all who voted for Obama...the USA is now a dictatorship by these standards. Soon we'll have presidential elections with only one person to vote for and armed men in uniforms making sure no one shows up at the voting locations to protest. Say goodbye to freedom and liberty.

Stay Tuned

I just wanted to apologize to my avid following of 5 readers for the lack of posts lately. I know there have been a lot of blog-worthy news items recently and I certainly plan to address some of them soon, but I simply have not had time. Between working my full time job, helping Amanda as much as I can with the marketing aspect of the store (follow restyle on twitter for special deals), and trying to train the possibly untrainable dog, life has been chaotic at best.

So, hang in there...more blog posts are on the way. In the meantime, please entertain yourself with this clip of our wonderful dog Bailey.

Teddy Roosevelt on Printing Money

I'm currently reading a biography of Teddy Roosevelt and it's been a very interesting read. TR was very much pro-big government even though he was a republican. There were very few things he did not feel the federal government was best equipped to handle. That's why I was shocked when I read a quote from TR that occurred in 1907. Let me set the back drop a little first.

Roosevelt was admittedly lost when it came to handling financial crises and therefore depended very heavily on advisers to handle the economy. In 1907, severe economic problems were caused by the lack of a consistent money supply. Everyone agreed the US needed a more flexible money system that would provide better liquidity during crises. Republicans wanted to put more control of the money supply into the hands of bankers and the corporate sector while Democrats wanted government to have all the control (no different than today).

Roosevelt didn't know what to do. He didn't trust corporate America, but also realized that he was inept to handle the situation. So, he turned to one of his advisers, Tom Watson, who urged TR to issue $50,000,000 in greenbacks--notes unsecured by gold or anything else except the government's promise to pay. This was Roosevelt's response:

It seems to me that the trouble about issuing greenbacks as you suggest is that it is like a man temporarily relieving himself by issuing notes of indebtedness. He can do it with safety if he exercises severe self-control; but a government will not permanently exercise such self-control. I have no doubt that $50,000,000 of greenbacks, if it was absolutely certain that no more would be issued, would achieve something of the purpose that you have in mind; but I also believe that most people would think that it foretold an indefinite issuance of greenbacks and that in consequence it would have a frightening effect.

102 years ago...how prophetic!

Climate Change Idiocy

Check out this article about how eating certain foods contributes to climate change. Are these people insane or what?

Here's the first paragraph of the article:

"GIVE up lamb roasts and save the planet. Government advisers are developing menus to combat climate change by cutting out “high carbon” food such as meat from sheep, whose burping poses a serious threat to the environment."

Seriously! If I promise not to eat lamb, will the lambs agree to stop burping? Is that how this works?

Fortunately these lunatics are in the UK, but given our panting over all things European, I'm sure we're not too far behind. And, given the fact that our government is already telling us what kinds of cars we should drive, what companies we should invest in and what kinds of lifestyles we should embrace, it's not too far fetched that it will also begin telling us what foods we can eat.

Time to Buy a Home in River Oaks

Amanda and I were driving around town this weekend when I heard a news clip on the radio that quoted Timothy Geithner as saying the financial companies are getting stronger because the credit markets are clearing up and getting stronger. All of a sudden a light bulb clicked on in my brain as I realized for the first time that I could afford a home in River Oaks and so can you. Here's how you do it.

Pull together all of your financial data--assets, liabilities, sources of income, etc. Take your liabilities and magically convert them to assets. If you need an example, refer to the episode of The Office where Michael Scott "declares" bankruptcy (if you don't get this, you really need to start watching The Office). Now, take your assets and increase their value ten-fold. For instance, I have a 1999 Toyota Camry with 220,000 miles on it and a giant dent on the passenger side. My most optimistic guess at its true resale value is about $1000, but that's not nearly good enough to buy me a River Oaks home. So, I'm just going to adjust my books so that it's value is $10,000. Next, I'll take my current home and multiply its value by 10 making it worth well over $1 million. Of course, I'm not considering the outstanding mortgage on it as a liability because I've already converted that liability to an asset. I'll do this little exercise with all my assets and liabilities. I think that should bring my new net worth to somewhere in the $2.5 million range, enough to buy a decent home in the River Oaks area...or at least on the outskirts of River Oaks.

Now, I can feel your skepticism for my plan and ordinarily you would be correct in thinking I'm out of my mind. However, what I have described above is no different than what the banks are doing with the federal government's permission. I've mentioned the mark to market accounting rules several times in other posts. What the federal government has done is tell the banks, "We know you have billions and billions of toxic "assets" on your books in the form of default credit swaps and subprime mortgages. We know that even though we call them "assets" they are really liabilities because if those subprime borrowers default on their loans, and we all know they will, not only do you not get paid back, but the home serving as collateral for that mortgage is worth less than the outstanding balance of the mortgage so that you lose money. But, we really need the American people to believe that our financial system is strong. So, next time you go to balance your books, consider your subprime debt holdings to be assets, and even though those assets have no value because no investor in his/her/its right mind would purchase those "assets" from you, give them a "value" of your choosing so you can claim quarterly gains when you report to shareholders."

So, when I take my little plan to the bank to get a mortgage to buy my new River Oaks home and the loan officer tells me I don't have enough money to buy my dream home, I will simply tell him or her that it's all a matter of perspective. If his bank gets to value its assets any way it pleases, thereby deceiving its investors regarding the true value of the bank, then I should be able to value my assets any way I please in order to get the bank to invest in my dream of owning a River Oaks home. That seems fair to me. What do you think?

Does Anyone Really Think This is a Good Idea?

During my daily reading of the Drudge Report, I ran across the following article published in the Wall Street Journal:

U.S. Eyes Bank Pay Overhaul

But it was the subtitle that really caught my attention:

"Administration in Early Talks on Ways to Curb Compensation Across Finance"

The Obama administration is proposing the regulation of compensation at all financial institutions even if those institutions did not accept bailout funds. WHAT!?! If that didn't make your jaw drop, read it again and let it soak in.

The administration's so-called "authority" for the ability to do this is that the Federal Reserve and SEC have the power to supervise financial institutions and that these supervisory powers would allow them to "curb banks' ability to pay employees in a way that would threaten the "safety and soundness" of the bank." Obama and Geithner are using public outrage over bonus payments at financial institutions to nationalize the financial system!

Let's take a look at one of the biggest culprits--AIG. AIG got in big trouble with credit default swaps. A credit default swap is an insurance policy protecting against a borrower defaulting on his/her loan. At the time AIG received it's $170 billion bailout from the federal government, it had $372.3 billion in exposure from its risky investment. The only way it would have to pay that is if every single borrower covered by these swaps defaulted on their loan obligations. Regardless, that is a huge amount of liability exposure by any standard. For more in depth reading about what exactly was going on with AIG, click here.

AIG is a very large company. If you take a look at its balance sheet for 2008, it had total equity (assets - liabilities) of $52.71 billion. Of course, that number is a joke because the administration decided to get rid of the mark to market accounting rules which allows companies like AIG to give value to their subprime "assets" when everyone knows they have no market, and thus, no value.

But, back to my point. Obama and Geithner are seizing on the public outrage over AIG paying out $165 million in retention payments (which the media falsely brainwashed people into believing were bonuses. See my earlier post on this issue.) in order to try to take over the financial system. Does anyone really believe that AIG's payment of $165 million in executive compensation is what made the company less "safe and sound"? In light of the $372 billion debt exposure, I don't think it's the $165 million in compensation payments that has the company in deep doo-doo.

So, here's what's going to happen. If the government regulates how much financial institutions can pay its employees (this is communism in case anyone was wondering), the true talent will not work at those institutions. They'll go wherever they can to make as much money as they can. In the absence of talent, the government will fill those positions with its own picks and thereby have complete control over the institutions. It's already happening in the auto industry.

In our once free-market society, there were three distinct groups of people who controlled how businesses were run. First is the consumer--you and me. If we don't like a particular company's product, we don't buy it. The second group of people, the company's board of directors, is tasked with the responsibility of hiring people and making corporate decisions that convince the consumer that the company has a product worth buying. If the board of directors fails at that task, the third group of people--the stock holders...also known as the OWNERS--vote to fire the board members and replace them with people who can do the job. There is no room for, nor need for government intervention. Markets always work themselves out.

So far Obama has taken over the auto industry and is well on his way to taking over the financial industry. What's next?

Gangster Government

I would strongly encourage everyone to read these two articles. All I will say in the way of commentary is that apparently Obama is not even going to hide his communistic intentions anymore. The American people need to wake up and see what's going on here.

Hedge Funds Outraged At Obama Bullying But Also Cowering In Fear

White House puts UAW ahead of property rights

Transparency At Its Finest!

President Obama, our beacon of hope in troubling times, amidst all his promises of transparency which the American people deserve, is refusing to release the photos of the fake Air Force One buzzing New York a couple of weeks ago. He'll release photos of Gitmo prisoners and memos that tell our enemies exactly what we will and will not do to them in order to get information to prevent future acts of terrorism, but he won't release photos of his staged act of terrorism that make him look unbelievably insensitive to the people of New York--photos that everyone knows exist!

In case you can't figure out why--one of the disclosures vilifies President Bush, the other vilifies President Obama. Thanks for the transparency, Mr. President!

Government Investor

What's the quickest way to stifle the creativity and ingenuity required to make a business successful? Place a large chunk of the ownership in the hands of an investor who takes no part in the day to day operations of the business. How can you make that scenario even worse? Let that ownership fall into the hands of the government.

Obama backs Chrysler bankruptcy as wise move

Obama thinks it's a good idea to send Chrysler into Chapter 11 bankruptcy and let the government use $8 billion of taxpayer money to take a large financial interest in Chrysler. I feel kind of like I'm being robbed at gunpoint here (metaphorically of course). I would never, in a million years, invest my hard earned money in American car companies who are so totally controlled by unions that they are no longer competitive with foreign car manufacturers. People can complain all they want about Americans who don't buy American-made products, but I for one will spend my money on better products that happen to be cheaper. However, I don't have a choice here. Obama is taking my hard earned money and forcing me to invest in Chrysler. Just like he forced me to invest in overseas abortions. Mark my words, this will come back to bite him.

But even more intriguing is this quote from the President himself:

"No one should be confused about what a bankruptcy process means," Obama said. "This is not a sign of weakness but rather one more step on a clearly chartered path to Chrysler's revival."

Now wait a minute here. This company cannot make enough money to pay its secured creditors off, so it's filing bankruptcy so it can screw its creditors out of money rightfully belonging to them AND it's taking on $8 billion in government aid...just to live to fight another day. Mr. Obama, I'm not exactly sure what your definition of "weakness" is, but I think we have a vastly different understanding of what that term means.

Finally, Obama is blasting some of Chrysler's secured creditors for not applauding the Chapter 11 filing. He says they were "holding out for the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer bailout." You bet they were because that was the only way they were going to get their loans paid back. Anyone who knows anything about the bankruptcy process knows that bankruptcy creditors get pennies on the dollar for their claims...even the secured creditors. If you invested a million dollars in a company expecting to get a million and a half back after interest on your investment only to find out the company is filing bankruptcy and you're only going to get about $300,000 back, wouldn't you hold out for a better deal?

Obama is setting a very dangerous precedent in allowing the federal government to take over private companies. If these companies couldn't survive on their own, what in the world makes him think they'll survive just because their getting government funding? Weak companies fail for a reason. The wisest course of action is to let them fail allowing stronger businesses to come to the forefront.

And finally, if you believe for a second that the Obama administration is going to take a hands-off approach in this deal, you are inexplicably naive. He even said in the article that Chrysler has failed because it hasn't moved quickly enough to adapt to the future. What he means is Chrysler hasn't adopted his meaning of future which places a hefty premium on fuel efficiency. Everyone appreciates fuel efficiency but history has proven people won't buy a piece of crap just because it gets 50 mpg. If the government forces Chrysler to make cars that no one wants, this "bail out" will mean absolutely nothing and he will have wasted another $8 billion in taxpayer dollars. But hey, he does excel at wasting taxpayer dollars. It's just going to be interesting to see how he blames this one on President Bush.

The Party of Transparency?!?

The party of transparency sure has been opaque since the democrats have taken over. President Obama campaigned vigorously on the platform that he would not hide things from the American people and his lap dogs in Congress panted their agreement during the whole process. They decried Bush's tactics of keeping national security items top secret and said the American people had the right to know what was going on. So where is all this alleged transparency? Let's take a look at just a few of major issues since the beginning of the year.

1. Democrats repeatedly met behind closed doors and prevented republican input on the gigantic stimulus bills that have passed since Obama took over. In fact, the $787 billion stimulus package was passed despite the democrats' refusal to post the plan online for the viewing public at least 48 hours prior to the vote, as they promised. Not a single member of congress had time to read the entire bill before voting on it. Doesn't seem very transparent to me.

2. President Obama recently decided to declassify top secret CIA memos outlining "enhanced interrogation techniques" under the auspices of transparency. However, former VP Dick Cheney immediately came out asking that the rest of the memos be declassified--you know, the ones that prove the techniques actually worked. Strangely, the parts of the released memos that discussed the effectiveness of the techniques were redacted due to the "normal editing process." Seriously! My guess is--and this is just a hunch--President Obama and the democrats were much more interested in villifying President Bush than being open and honest with the American people. Why else would they filter those memos for us? The former CIA director seems to agree with me, saying, “For the first time in my experience we’ve crossed the red line of properly protecting our national security in order to gain partisan political advantage.”

3. In an effort to convince the world that global warming is a fact rather than paranoid opinions at worst and paranoid theory at best, the democrats in the House are holding hearings this week on climate change. The democrats' star witness--Al Gore. Since the democrats were allowed to bring in a "star witness" it's only fair the republicans be allowed to do the same, right? Wrong! Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex) brought in a well-known global warming skeptic (Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher) from the UK to testify alongside Mr. Gore. However, as soon as Monckton's plane landed, he was informed his joint appearance invitation had been rescinded.

Mr. Obama...Democratic party...where is the transparency? What are you so scared of? How about you allow true public debate on the issues and quit hiding behind your power? If you're so interested in being so open and honest with the people, then quit lying to us and quit suppressing opposing viewpoints. As far as I can tell, there has been no constitutional amendment transforming our country into a dictatorship or tyranny. If your ideas really are best, then put them up against opposing ideas and prove it and stop being a bunch of cowards!

Don't Ask If You Don't Want the Answer

My lovely wife always tells me, "don't ever ask a question you don't want the answer to." Of course, 9 times out of 10 she's talking about women who ask their husbands/boyfriends "do you think I'm fat?". But I think it applies here as well. Perez Hilton asked Miss California if she thinks all states should legalize gay marriage. She said no and he promptly called her a "dumb bitch" with "half a brain". Hey idiot, don't ask questions evoking an opinion if you think there is only one right answer. What a moron!

Our New Moral Compass

President Obama says employing the waterboarding technique on terrorists who have slaughtered thousands of innocent Americans shows we [America] have "lost our moral bearings." Does anyone else find this statement vile, repugnant, revolting (insert any other adjectives you want) coming from this man's mouth? This is the man who:

1. Is in favor of killing unborn children out of convenience. If you think he's just in favor of abortion in rape, incest and protection of the mother cases, don't forget he also said he wouldn't want his daughter punished with a baby just because of a mistake. Those aren't my words, they're his.

2. Supports same-sex marriage.

3. Attended church services under Jeremiah Wright, who for 20 years spewed hatred of Americans in general and white people in particular.

4. Has close ties to Bill Ayers who is a terrorist and makes no apologies for it.

5. Has befriended Hugo Chavez whose regime is among the world's leaders in human righs abuse and who hates America as much as any other terrorist regime out there.

I would really like to know under what definition of "morality" President Obama is operating because I am completely at a loss.

Evil Protesters

Some democrats continue to insist that the American public is incredibly stupid. Democrats go out of their way to praise certain groups when they protest certain things (Cindy Sheehan protesting the war in Iraq, John Kerry throwing back his war medals, etc.), but blast other groups when they protest governmental over-stepping.

Schakowsky: Tea parties 'despicable'

Here's the quote from Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) with my emphasis in certain places:

"The ‘tea parties’ being held today by groups of right-wing activists, and fueled by FOX News Channel, are an effort to mislead the public about the Obama economic plan that cuts taxes for 95 percent of Americans and creates 3.5 million jobs," Schakowsky said in a statement.

"It’s despicable that right-wing Republicans would attempt to cheapen a significant, honorable moment of American history with a shameful political stunt," she added. "Not a single American household or business will be taxed at a higher rate this year. Made to look like a grassroots uprising, this is an Obama bashing party promoted by corporate interests, as well as Republican lobbyists and politicians.”

Ok, let's break this down a little bit. First, the creation of 3.5 million jobs through this economic stimulus has been thoroughly debunked. Obama never said his stimulus package would "create" 3.5 million jobs. He said it would "create or save" 3.5 million jobs. He hasn't explained how in the world he will be able to prove his plan has saved jobs, but then again, it is his job to be optimistic as vaguely as possible so there's always a way out when you're wrong.

Second, she says the Tea Parties were a cheap political stunt compared to the original Boston Tea Party. My question is, what is the difference? The original tea party was a protest against the British government overstepping its authority on the tax front. The recent tea party protests are in opposition to the way the federal government is currently spending money that it has not yet raised in tax revenue. Anyone with half a brain cell can see that this borrowing and spending madness will eventually result in vastly higher taxes. Hence all the signs begging the government not to tax our children.

Third, she says this was made to look like a grassroots uprising, but was really an Obama bashing party promoted by corporate interests. Really? Did she go out there and ask any of those protesters if they were (a) being paid to be there by some corporate interest, or (b) being forced to be there at gun point? Why is it grassroots if you're protesting conservatism, but chaotic anarchy if your protesting liberalism? Geez!

Finally, she says not a single American family will be taxed at a higher rate THIS YEAR. Did she think we wouldn't notice those last two words? Setting aside the fact that democrats want to eliminate the tax write off for mortgage interest, eliminate or reduce the tax deduction for charitable donations, and raise taxes on every single American by instituting the cap and trade taxes on energy companies, she tacitly admits that Americans will see increases in their income taxes shortly...just not this year...at least not directly.

So Ms. Schakowsky, why don't you do us all a favor and quit protesting the protesters, go back to your cozy office on Capitol Hill and rethink your wording so people with nominal intelligence can't see right through what you're saying.

Efficiently Offensive

Apparently President Obama is no longer satisfied in making single barbs at Christians and conservatives in his speeches. He has decided to become a little more efficient and start making multiple offensive remarks and gestures. Maybe that way he can cut down on the number of speeches he's required to give.

Georgetown Says It Covered Over Name of Jesus to Comply With White House Request

1. Obama goes to a Catholic school to give a speech and demands that the symbol for the name of Jesus be covered up. I'm not sure there is a universe of thought in which this makes sense. Maybe the next time he gives a speech in a Muslim community, he'll require them to remove all references to Mohammed and Allah. Let's see how that goes over.

2. After demanding the removal of the name of Jesus, he quotes Jesus completely out of context. He talks about the parable of the houses built on sand and rock and how the one built on sand will collapse, but the one built on a rock will withstand the storm. He then tells the audience that the financial system must be built on a rock in order to withstand storms like the one we're going through. Nice analogy, Mr. President, but I'm pretty sure Jesus was not at all concerned with the state of the US economy when he spoke that parable. In fact, I think He may have been referring to building our lives on the Rock of our salvation, Jesus Christ, whose name you had covered up so you could give your precious speech.

Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy

Apparently if you disagree with higher taxes and how the government is spending your tax dollars, you are anti-government and anti-CNN. I had no idea CNN's existence was so tied to higher taxes. Interesting...

Power Hungry

Obama Wants to Control the Banks

The current administration loves it when the public is outraged over how TARP recipients spend money. It somehow convinces the people that the government is the body best equipped to run private businesses. Now that there are some responsible banks trying to pay back that loan so they can operate as they see fit, Obama doesn't want the money back. Do I need to point out just how absurd and outrageously tyrannical that is?!? How would you feel if you mailed your final mortgage payment to the bank only to find out the bank has rejected it because they would rather have your house?

Just another piece of evidence that the Obama administration wants to move us away from capitalism which incidentally has made us the greatest economic nation in the world. It's very difficult to keep your thumb on people when they are allowed to operate under free will.

Bonus Hypocrisy

As I was making my daily perusal of the Drudge Report, I came across the following article that struck me as odd and somewhat infuriating.

Lawmakers Have Long Rewarded Their Aides With Bonuses

For those of you who don't want to read the linked article, it talks about how congressional offices gave bonuses to staffers at the end of last year that totaled $9.1 million. On average, staffers made 17% more in the 4th quarter of last year than they made in the other 3 quarters of 2008. And, of course, like any other government expenditure, these bonuses were paid with tax dollars.

So, maybe you're thinking, big deal. $9.1 million is nowhere near the $165 million AIG paid in bonuses to its employees. Besides, AIG got us into this huge economic mess and certainly its employees do not deserve bonuses. If that were all there was to the story, maybe you would be right in thinking that. However, let's talk about what is really going on here.

First, the so-called "bonuses" paid to AIG execs were not really bonuses, but rather salary. In exchange for not jumping ship when the government took over, these men and women agreed to work for $1/year in salary. I don't know many people who can afford to live on $1/year, so in order to provide some incentive to stay in light of the unparalleled salary cut, AIG promised "bonuses" to these executives that would be paid out in installments (otherwise known as retention payments). No matter who you blame for the AIG fiasco, no one can honestly assert that every executive in that company was responsible for AIG's demise. Some people needed to stay on in order to right the ship and not many people qualified to run that company were going to leave their current job security at another company to go to AIG. Therefore, I really don't see much wrong with paying these executives these "bonuses". The other alternative is to let AIG sink into bankruptcy and start over.

Despite the above explanation, for the sake of argument, let's call the AIG payments bonuses--which brings me to my second point. People are outraged over the AIG bonuses for 2 reasons: (1) the company is a complete and utter failure and people don't deserve bonus payments for running a company into the ground, and (2) the bonuses were paid with tax dollars and these people shouldn't be getting rich off of taxpayer money. Both of these are pretty good arguments with which I would agree.

So, let's take a closer look at these congressional staffer bonuses. Does anyone happen to know what congress' approval rating was for the year 2008? Take a look at this graph from polls conducted by Gallup:



For the calendar year 2008, congress' approval rating never got above 25% and ended the year right around 20%. Since then, it has shot up to a whopping 39%, the highest it's been in 4 years. Something to be proud of...hardly! So, with a 20% approval rating ending last year, why did these staffers deserve the taxpayer-funded bonuses they received? Besides the total amount of bonus money paid, and the fact that the AIG bonuses were not on top of salary like the bonuses paid to congressional staffers were, is there really any fundamental difference between the "bonuses" paid to AIG and the bonuses paid to congressional staffers? Am I really surprised at the level of hypocrisy going on in Congress?

Just to point out one fundamental difference between the bonuses, I haven't heard any members of Congress clamoring to tax congressional staffer bonuses at 90%.

One World Currency

If this isn't pointing to the end times, I don't know that we'll ever be convinced that it's coming, and coming soon.

China calls for new reserve currency

Most of Europe has already consolidated its currency into the Euro. If the other major currencies are folded in, we'll have a one world currency in no time.

What is really scary about this is we are currently indebted to China in the amount of $2 trillion and China is getting really nervous about the inflationary effect on its investment. With trillions being thrown around like monopoly money right now with no real plan to generate revenue sufficient to cover those debts, it is a real possibility that China would have enough leverage to move us in the direction of consolidating our currency with the rest of the world just to pay off our debts.

The Bible doesn't refer specifically to a one world currency, but Revelation 13:16-17 refers to the "mark of the beast" that will be required during the end times to buy and sell necessities for living. How easy would it be to replace all currency with this "mark" once all currencies have been consolidated into one?

I personally believe the church will be raptured prior to Antichrist taking over, and that current believers will not have to worry about making a choice between taking the mark of the beast and survival, but the purpose of this post is to point out that the Biblical prophecies concerning the end times are quickly becoming reality.

As always, comments are appreciated. Let me know what you think about this.

What Does One Trillion Dollars Look Like?

For all of you who, like me, can't wrap your minds around the concept of how much $1 trillion truly is, take a look at this website (click on the title). This is absolutely amazing and should be very, very scary considering how many trillions our government is throwing at our problems right now with only "hope" that it will correct things.

The Gigantic Idiot Just Keeps Talking

Tim Geithner seriously needs to shut his mouth. Every time he opens his trap, the Dow falls 200-300 points. It would probably help matters if he had ANY idea what the heck he was talking about. Here's the latest:

US Treasury secretary attacks oil, gas tax breaks

First, he says oil and gas companies shouldn't get tax breaks because their businesses contribute to global warming. Why is global warming still being touted as fact? Why is dissent to this crazy concept totally ignored? But, for the sake of argument, let's roll with the assumption. Are oil and gas companies the only ones contributing to global warming? How about their contributions of jobs and an enormous amount of taxes to our economy? I guess that doesn't really matter when we're fighting a phantom enemy.

Second, he makes the following statement:

"We don't believe it makes sense to significantly subsidize the production and use of sources of energy (like oil and gas) that are dramatically going to add to our climate change (problem). We don't think that's good economic policy and we think changing those incentives is good for the country," Geithner told the Senate Finance Committee at a hearing on the White House's proposed budget for the 2010 spending year.

Let's examine just how exactly this stance is good for the economy. I've talked about this in a previous post, but we'll take the quiz again. When oil companies are forced to pay higher taxes, who ends up paying for that? WE DO! Everyone who goes to fill up their car with gas, turn on their AC, or even turn on their lights or plug in their refrigerators will have to pay this tax. Not Exxonmobil, not Chevron, not Shell. We do. Does Geithner really not understand this concept? Is fighting "global warming" really more important right now than helping the American people out of this recession?

Finally, we get this unbelievable lack of economic and business logic from our fearless economic leader:

Geithner said the additional taxes "can be absorbed" by the oil and gas companies, given the billions of dollars they have earned from high energy prices.

"The impact of these subsidies are very small relative to revenues produced by U.S. oil and gas producers," he said.

To address this, let me explain this like Oscar explained a surplus to Michael on The Office: assume your mommy gives you $10 to start a lemonade stand. You spend all $10 on lemons, sugar, and cups. With all your supplies, you're able to sell 10 cups of lemonade at $1 per cup. What is your revenue? $10. Now, what is your profit? $0.

See how that works Mr. Geithner? Revenue does not equal profit. But let's not ignore the fact that Exxonmobil keeps setting profit records every quarter. What is the largest profit Exxonmobil has made? Approximately 10%. Why is a 10% profit so exorbitant?

But, that is neither here nor there because Exxonmobil will not be paying this tax. It will not be absorbing anything. This tax, just like every other cost, will be passed on to the consumer. So, yes Tim, you get your extra billions in tax revenue. But it provides no disincentive for oil and gas production and further taxes the consumer into the ground. I don't know where you got your economics degree, but that institution needs to be shut down immediately.

Housing Crisis Insured for the Forseeable Future

If you live in a house you can afford and make your monthly mortgage payments on time, this article should make your blood boil. The idiocy and short-sightedness of our current administration is absolutely mind-boggling.

Administration Details Its Plan to Modify Home Loans

The idea here is to bail out people who bought more house than they could afford. How are they going to do this--by federally subsidizing loan modifications--with taxpayer dollars! If you're currently living in a house in which your mortgage payment consumes more than 31% of your gross monthly income, the bank is going to give you a new deal, subsidized by the government, to reduce your monthly mortgage payment.

Here's the quote from Treasury Secretary Geithner:

“Two weeks ago, the president laid out a clear path forward to helping up to nine million families restructure or refinance their mortgages to a payment that is affordable,” the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, said. “It is imperative that we continue to move with speed to help make housing more affordable and help arrest the damaging spiral in our housing markets, just as we work to stabilize our financial system, create jobs and help businesses thrive.”

WHAT!!! Housing has always been affordable...if you buy what you can afford! Surely what he meant to say was, "to help make the housing you've always wanted to own more affordable." Have we already forgotten what got us into this mess in the first place? Don't take my word for it--the NY Times saw this coming 10 years ago.

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

Our "consumerism" society has convinced people that if you want something, just buy it and the details will work themselves out. Our government is now telling those people they deserve to own their home and if they can't afford to pay for it, the government will step in a bail them out. Let me tell you a little secret--the government doesn't have any money to bail these people out. Every dime the government gets comes out of the pockets of Americans who pay taxes. I'm sick and tired of the wealth redistribution this administration is hell-bent on forcing upon us.

Here's a prediction you don't need a crystal ball for--these same people are going to default on their mortgages whether or not those loans are modified. The problem is not that the housing market has crashed...it's that these people couldn't afford their homes in the first place. Now, instead of these people simply losing their homes now to the foreclosure process, the government is going to throw $75 billion of our tax money at the problem only to watch the foreclosures happen anyway.

It's times like these that I'm thankful my parents taught me good, logical money management principles. I only wish Obama's and Geithner's parents had done the same for them.