Saw this on Say Anything, via Neal’s Nuze.

“Stimulus” Spending Has Created 50 Jobs In New Hampsire At A Cost Of $8.32 Million/Job

And all of the jobs are temporary bureaucrat positions that will cease to exist once the “stimulus” funds are depleted. At least, New Hampshire residents had better hope that’s the case, or else the jobs will just continue and their tax bills will go up to continue the funding for them.

Oh, and by the way, did I mention that only 34 of the jobs are actually full time? What a bargain!

More than $400 million in federal stimulus money has come to New Hampshire this year, and more is on the way.

The Office of Legislative Budget Assistant reported last week that $413.6 million made its way to the state under a list of programs that involve education, highways, environmental, health and human services, energy and law enforcement. …

So far, a total of 50 jobs have been created by the funding, 34 of them full time. The OES will be headed by a director whom Gov. John Lynch has not yet appointed. All five OES jobs are described as full-time temporary positions that will go out of existence in September 2011, the end of the federal fiscal year.

You and I are to believe that the great panacea known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is failing because people are keeping too much of their personal property. That is the line from the Democratic chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Rep. Jim Oberstar, looter from Minnesota, says that the stimulus failed because the tax cuts were too big:

Oberstar defended the $27 billion in the stimulus for highway and bridge projects as the right amount to help the economy during the next year. However, he said that more transit money in the stimulus would have been helpful to an economic recovery over the next three years, rather than the nearly $300 billion in tax cuts.

“Not many people realize they got a tax cut,” Oberstar said. “I have not received a single e-mail, phone call, snail mail, personal comment from anybody since we enacted this bill, since the end of February, saying, ‘I got my tax’ or ‘Thanks for the tax cut’ or ‘I hardly noticed it’ or anything.

“But I have had people saying, ‘I’m back at work because of the funding in the surface transportation program.’ ”

I wonder how many phone calls he has received saying they were against the stimulus, or prior to passing the stimulus, asking him to vote against it.

You want to really stimulate the government? I wrote a three step plan to do that, without looting the American tax payer. Here’s step one: Enact the Fairtax.

Do that and watch the jobs come back to America. Steps two and three are all gravy after that.

The Obama Administration, according to Reuters, is considering taking over properties and allowing the owners to live there, paying rent to the government rather than payments to the bank:

Under one idea being discussed, delinquent homeowners would surrender ownership of their homes but would continue to live in the property for several years, the sources told Reuters.

Officials are also considering whether the government should make mortgage payments on behalf of borrowers who cannot keep up with their home loans, tapping an unused portion of a $50 billion housing aid kitty.

As part of this plan, jobless borrowers might receive a housing stipend along with regular unemployment benefits, the sources said.

Why am I still paying my mortgage? Honestly, what am I really doing, sacrificing things like satellite television and the latest digital surround sound technology, Nintendo Wiis and Playstation 3s. I should just be out, buying whatever I want and letting the government pick up the rest. It seems to be working out for wo many other folks. After all, right now, I am paying my bills, then giving a bit of my property to others so they can make ends meet.

The government isn’t a charity! It was never meant to be paying people’s bills or meeting their daily needs! It was meant to protect the rights of the people, not provide housing or vouchers for cars!

The Constitution, that relic from better days in America, has been forgotten. Rather than freeing people to excel, it is being used to enslave a class of producers. Those producers will leave and the looters will be left to feed off of you. But there just won’t be enough to go around, and they will look more and more to the government.

This is how nations fail. Look again at the Tytler cycle.

The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.

We are standing on the Bridge to Dependence. People simply don’t care what their government is doing. They are too busy with other things like work, their kids, American Idol, iPhone apps and professional sports. I’m not denigrating any of those things, but they take a back seat if you lose your freedoms guaranteed to you by the Constitution.

America is marching towards bondage. Those who can escape will and those who can’t will find themselves looking to a government behemoth to provide for them. It won’t. It will demand more from them, for the common good.

This is a repeat of an article I wrote in July 2007. I didn’t have as many readers back then, and with the health care debate gearing up, I thought it would be a good time to have it on the blog again. Feel free to retweet or Stumble. Thanks.

“I…believe that every American has the right to affordable health care. I believe that the millions of Americans who can’t take their children to a doctor when they get sick have that right.- Barack Obama¹

He’s right. Every American does have a right to affordable health care. Every American has a right to a lot of things.

The problem is the Democrat’s definition of what a right means.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that men were born with certain “inalienable rights.” An inalienable right is yours. You are born with it. They “are fundamental, are not awarded by human power, and cannot be surrendered.”²

Jefferson continues: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…” Notice the wording. It was deliberate. “That to secure these rights…” He did not right that “Governments are instituted among Men to provide these rights.”

Let me put it in context. The Bill of Rights gives you a right to a free press, yet you still pay for a newspaper and Fox News. It gives you a right to choose your own religion, but you have to buy your own Bible. You have a right to bear arms, but have to buy your own gun. According to the Second Amendment, I have a right to a SIG SAUER P229, “the handgun of choice for the FBI, the DEA and the Secret Service…”³ But, I don’t have the right to have the government force someone else to pay. It means the government cannot prevent my acquisition of that beautiful weapon.

The federal government does play a role when it comes to rights, but only one. They are there to protect them.

The Democratic candidates for president all think it is the government’s responsibility to provide each citizen with affordable health care. It is not. It is the government’s responsibility to keep your right to affordable health care secure. It is there to make sure nothing impedes your quest, and if something does, to utterly destroy it, then get out of your way as you go about your annual checkup.

They are not there to provide affordable health care by seizing the property of one to pay for another’s abortion or gastric bypass. They are not there to compel doctors to provide services at a rate lower than they want to charge. They are not there to tell you what treatments you can try and which ones you can’t. Americans need to understand that. Once you allow government into your examination room, you will lose all choice in your treatment.

In Great Britain, there are drugs the National Health Service will not provide, even though they are safe and effective.⁴ Some simply cost too much. If you are fat or smoke, you may not be given health care when you need it:

“Certain hospitals in the UK who have imposed a ban on smokers and the obese from receiving particular treatments have been defended for their action by the Health Secretary. Patricia Hewitt says it is a perfectly legitimate clinical decision for primary care trusts (PCT) to set a collective policy to deny operations to certain patients.⁵

Do you think it will be different here?

In Canada, you might not get treatment if you are old. The government doesn’t have a problem with that either.

“[Dr.] Nesdoly’s position may be justified by a 2005 Statistics Canada Community Health Survey, which found that 95.2 per cent of people over 65 already have a family doctor, compared to 75.7 per cent for those between 20 to 34. And the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons does not restrict a doctor’s right to reject a person based on age.”⁶

You can’t really choose another doctor there either. There just aren’t any. Canada is expected to have a shortage of more than 2,800 physicians by 2010.⁷ Why would you expect the results to be any different here?

As with most anything, more government involvement in health care is the opposite of effective. The government has only one role when it comes to health care: protect our right to choose the best health care available. They are not here to provide health care to me simply because I have a right to it.

If that is the case, I want my government to provide my Sig Sauer P229…with a full magazine, of course.

—————————————————–

¹ http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
² http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_rights
³ http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_SIG,,00.html
⁴ http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/ukdrugswont.html

⁵ http://www.news-medical.net/?id=24508
⁶ http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060317/doctor_age_060317/20060317?hub=CTVNewsAt11
⁷ Ibid.

It has been a while since I have read a more devastating article than the one written by Liz Cheney and published in the Wall Street Journal. Apparently tired of the inability of our president to tout the greatness of American and his embracing the liberal version of the history of the Cold War, Cheney unloads with both barrels:

It is irresponsible for an American president to go to Moscow and tell a room full of young Russians less than the truth about how the Cold War ended. One wonders whether this was just an attempt to push “reset” — or maybe to curry favor. Perhaps, most concerning of all, Mr. Obama believes what he said.

Mr. Obama’s method for pushing reset around the world is becoming clearer with each foreign trip. He proclaims moral equivalence between the U.S. and our adversaries, he readily accepts a false historical narrative, and he refuses to stand up against anti-American lies.

She’s on the money. Obama has gone around the world lowering the position of America and raising up the level of our enemies. Cheney details how:

In Cairo, he asserted there was some sort of equivalence between American support for the 1953 coup in Iran and the evil that the Iranian mullahs have done in the world since 1979. On an earlier trip to Mexico City, the president listened to an extended anti-American screed by Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega and then let the lies stand by responding only with, “I’m grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for the things that occurred when I was 3 months old.”

Asked at a NATO meeting in France in April whether he believed in American exceptionalism, the president said, “I believe in American Exceptionalism just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” In other words, not so much.

Our president’s actions and statements make a person wonder whether he considers America to be better than any other country in the world, Iran and North Korea included. I find it hard to believe he would ever vocalize that belief, if he holds it.

Cheney finally shows more insight in foreign policy in two paragraphs than this administration has shown in six months. She explains how President Harry Truman understood the nature of the enemy, whoever they are:

In April, 1950, Truman signed National Security Council report 68 (NSC-68). One of the foundational documents of America’s Cold War strategy, NSC-68 explains the danger of disarming America in the hope of appeasing our enemies. “No people in history,” it reads, “have preserved their freedom who thought that by not being strong enough to protect themselves they might prove inoffensive to their enemies.”

Peace through strength. It isn’t just a catchy phrase, but the best way to ensure the security of a nation’s people. Obama clearly fails to grasp that idea. Cheney does, and because of her insight, makes herself and attractive and powerful candidate for the GOP. Let’s hope they have enough backbone to support her.

The left has their collective panties in a wad over a New York Times revelation that Vice President Dick Cheney ordered the CIA to keep a program on the down low.

The program, it turns out, had a really nefarious agenda, one that should be plastered all across the headlines and caused hands to be wrung from coast to coast. Dick Cheney wanted the CIA to, dear God it hurts me to write this…he wanted them to find, then capture or kill terrorist leaders.

I know, it’s horrendous. What’s worse is, it was intended to happen at close range to minimize collateral damage and it never really got off the ground. We should be ashamed:

A secret Central Intelligence Agency initiative terminated by Director Leon Panetta was an attempt to carry out a 2001 presidential authorization to capture or kill al Qaeda operatives, according to former intelligence officials familiar with the matter.

…

According to current and former government officials, the agency spent money on planning and possibly some training. It was acting on a 2001 presidential legal pronouncement, known as a finding, which authorized the CIA to pursue such efforts. The initiative hadn’t become fully operational at the time Mr. Panetta ended it.

Imagine the gall of the Bush Administration, trying to kill the enemy and not telling the Congress. You know, this is exactly what was needed, an international version of The Boondock Saints. Too bad they didn’t follow up on it more.

Jonathan Tobin writes in Commentary:

While this particular dog certainly won’t hunt, the Times and its cohorts on the Left must hope that the accumulated weight of accusations will ultimately lead to the appointment of special prosecutors to settle these partisan scores. The real villain here isn’t Cheney or others thinking about stopping al Qaeda; it is a partisan press that seeks to criminalize the efforts of those who were trying to protect us from our enemies.

Agreed. The press won’t focus on the fact that the program was a good one, but that it was kept secret. They will play up the rogue vice president aspect and try to further damage the right even though the AP says “Congress has a right to know everything the CIA does, but the president can by law limit those told about covert operations to just the top four members of the House and Senate from the two parties and the senior members of the intelligence committees” and “Panetta told the committees there was no indication that there was anything illegal or inappropriate about the effort itself.”

Anything they can do to get the focus off the failures of this president and back on the efforts of the last to kill those who would harm us.

My column at the American Issues Project is live now. I wrote on the common misconception that we need a second stimulus:

Funny how there is never enough time in government to do things right the first time, but there is always time to do them over.

Well here’s a news flash for you: the last stimulus was the second stimulus. President George W. Bush signed the first stimulus into law in February 2008:

President Bush on Wednesday signed a multibillion-dollar economic rescue package on Wednesday that means $300 to $1,200 rebates for many American households.

Bush called the measure “a booster shot for our economy” to stave off a recession.

Several dozen members of Congress, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, stood on the stage behind Bush as he signed the bill.

Back then, the experts said “the $168 billion package Bush signed will help prevent the current downturn from ballooning into a crisis.”

Now we have spent that, plus another trillion, and the “experts” want more. Only if a “three strikes” clause is part of the deal.

Read the rest here.

The flag flew at half mast all day in honor of Chandy Clanton, who died while practicing for the air show.

The family and I camped out near this beautiful orange biplane.

The show started with three daredevils jumping out of a perfectly good C-130.

The United States Navy was represented at the show also, with a booth you see here, plus three Navy SEALs who performed some impressive maneuvers while skydiving. One gentleman stunned the crowd with how fast he appraoched the ground, only to land softly on target. Very impressive display.

The United States Army landed two helicopters, including the Blackhawk you see above. One of the uniformed soldiers near the aircraft said it was the one that ferried Saddam Hussien to his execution, hence the skull and crossbones on the seat he supposedly sat in. Great story, but I never saw the seat in question. It’s tough to get kids out of that thing. In fact, I’m fairly sure they took a couple with them back to base!

Here’s the other helicopter, the AH-64D Apache Longbow, flown by Sean Defenbaugh of Tarkio. I hope I spelled that right. His dad was principal of my high school and I know from experience he can swing a paddle. So, if I didn’t spell it right, I’m REALLY sorry.

One of the highlights for me was the display put on by the pilot of the A-10 Warthog. I love the Warthog. I just love the tough, no-nonsense attitude of it. Anyway, here’s one of the fly-bys I was able to capture with my little point and shoot Olympus:

Like always, there were plenty of historic aircraft there, like the one below. It’s not a Zero, but a replica created for the movie, “Tora, Tora, Tora.”

Another classic airplane at the show was the P-51 Mustang:

However, my favorite photo from the show had nothing to do with aircraft or skydiving or stunts. I caught it at lunch and think it’s terrific.

She was a little less than pleased with me.

The B-2 Stealth did a fly by also, but sadly, I didn’t get any really good photos of it. If you have any you would like to post here, send me an email and I will post them with credit to you.

Next year the show will be in St. Joseph, but then the best little air show in the world comes back to Tarkio.

Despite the tragic accident of a female stunt pilot today, the Wing Nuts Flying Circus airshow in Tarkio is still on.

Hopefully you can make it to town. If not, I’ll have photos as they happen on my Facebook page. Then, later in the evening, I’ll post photos and videos here on the blog.

Here’s my post from last year’s air show. Not bad for a town of under 2,000.

I have been doing a lot of thinking about the blog and how I can improve it. While I have my own ideas, I really need your input.

Please take the time to answer the poll below, and then leave a comment building on your answer. I really value what you want from this blog and hope I can make it even better than it already is in the future.

Thanks for your time.

Not too long ago, I wrote a post called “Bush Blunders, Media Thunders – Obama Stumbles, Media Mumbles,” where I talked about the obvious double standard between the way the media covers President Bush’s missteps and the way they don’t cover Obama’s.

Just recently, I wrote about Obama referring to Prime Minister Putin as “President.” Had Bush done that, it would have been the insult of the century to President Medvedev. Obama, meh. His own people even spelled his name wrong, for crying out loud!

A Freeper named Zakeet asks, “What if Bush had…”

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent “Austrian language,” would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current on their income taxes, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to “Cinco de Cuatro” in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the Fifth of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

If George W. Bush had misspelled the word advice would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potato as “proof” of what a dunce he is?

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on “Earth Day”, would you have concluded he’s a hypocrite?

If George W. Bush’s administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually “get” what happened on 9-11?

There is so much more there. It’s a great read.

I’m late to this party, but that never stopped me before.

I am in the middle of renovating a larger house in order to move the tribe from this small homestead to a larger crib. After we get the new house livable, I plan on selling the old acreage, probably to some Mennonites that go to church across the street. I’m guessing they are the only ones who will be interested in the place. But who knows…

Anyway, it used to be fairly simple to sell your home, but if the Democrats and enviro-Marxists have their way, it will be a whole lot more difficult. Jimmie Bise, Jr wrote an outstanding post at the American Issues Project blog about Section 304 of the cap and trade bill, also known as “Building Energy Performance Labeling Program”

Here’s what the Democrats have planned for you. The program requires that states label their buildings so that we can all know how efficient every building (that includes residential and non-residential buildings) is and it requires that the information be made public. To that end, the bill suggests a number of circumstances under which the states could inspect a building, including:

(A) preparation, and public disclosure of the label through filing with tax and title records at the time of–

(i) a building audit conducted with support from Federal or State funds;

(ii) a building energy-efficiency retrofit conducted in response to such an audit;

(iii) a final inspection of major renovations or additions made to a building in accordance with a building permit issued by a local government entity;

(iv) a sale that is recorded for title and tax purposes consistent with paragraph (8);

(v) a new lien recorded on the property for more than a set percentage of the assessed value of the property, if that lien reflects public financial assistance for energy-related improvements to that building; or

(vi) a change in ownership or operation of the building for purposes of utility billing; or

(B) other appropriate means.

Pay close attention to (iii), (iv), and (vi) because those hit you right where you live. What that’s saying is the state will be empowered to inspect your home if you want to 1) renovate your house in any way that requires a building permit, 2) sell your house, or 3) change the name of the person responsible for any utility bill.

That’s the double whammy for me. I’m planning to renovate and sell in the next few years. The statist Democrats feel the world is in such peril from global warming they need to be involved in my little five and a half acres of land in order to lower the carbon emissions of whatever power plant I get electricity from.

Or could it be something a little more nefarious?

This is exactly the kind of government the Founders designed the Constitution to prevent. While the bill has not passed the Senate, I have said before there is nothing stopping the Democrats. They have 60 Senators, plus how many so-called Republicans ready to vote for this monstrosity. ANd when they go into the compromise, they can add whatever they want.

Think about that and consider that there were some Democrats who voted against the bill because it didn’t go far enough!

The question then becomes whether the states will tolerate it? Will the people tolerate it? Or will they continue across the Bridge to Dependence?

Today’s website of the day is RFC Radio: Radio for Conservatives.

RFC Radio has grown quite a bit in just a few months and hosts quite a bit of great talent. If you haven’t listened to it yet, give it a show right now.

A stunt pilot was practicing for the Wingnuts Flying Circus Air Show in Tarkio, Missouri when they crashed. It is unknown if the crash was due to mechanical failure or pilot error. The name of the pilot is being withheld until next of kin is notified.

I urge everyone reading this to offer prayers to the pilot and their family.

UPDATE:

The flag at the airport flies at half mast. The airshow will go on as scheduled.

UPDATE 2:

A friend of mine who was there when it happened said he overheard people say it was believed the pilot passed out from the G-forces. That’s all hearsay, so take it with a block of salt. But she was doing some stunts when it happened so it’s not outrageous to believe that could happen.

When he was asked if the Congressmen would be actually reading the health care bill before they voted on it, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer had an unusual response:

If every member pledged to not vote for it if they hadn’t read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes,” Hoyer told CNSNews.com at his regular weekly news conference.

Hoyer was responding to a question from CNSNews.com on whether he supported a pledge that asks members of the Congress to read the entire bill before voting on it and also make the full text of the bill available to the public for 72 hours before a vote.

In fact, Hoyer found the idea of the pledge humorous, laughing as he responded to the question. “I’m laughing because a) I don’t know how long this bill is going to be, but it’s going to be a very long bill,” he said.

I think Thomas Jefferson would probably punch this boob right in his smug face. Is this really the best we can do?

Hardly. In fact, there is something the Republicans could do that would be a win-win. They could get every Republican member of Congress, all the Congressmen and all the Senators, to support the Read the Bills Act. Created by Downsize DC, here’s what it does according to their website:

• Each bill, and every amendment, must be read in its entirety before a quorum in both the House and Senate.
• Every member of the House and Senate must sign a sworn affidavit, under penalty of perjury, that he or she has attentively either personally read, or heard read, the complete bill to be voted on.
• Every old law coming up for renewal under the sunset provisions must also be read according to the same rules that apply to new bills.
• Every bill to be voted on must be published on the Internet at least 7 days before a vote, and Congress must give public notice of the date when a vote will be held on that bill.
• Passage of a bill that does not abide by these provisions will render the measure null and void, and establish grounds for the law to be challenged in court.
• Congress cannot waive these requirements.

Honestly, this isn’t too much to ask, is it? That the people voting on the bill actually understand what they are voting on beforehand.

Here’s where the win-win comes in. The American people are tired of these things going through without anyone reading them. If the Republicans were to make this issue their baby, they would be supported by the people. The Democrats would take a serious hit opposing this.

So the Republicans get a little bit of credibility back in the limited government arena while the Democrats take heat from the people.

Plus, if they are actually successful, we the people get better government:

The effects of these provisions will be profound . . .

• Congress will have to slow down. This means the pace of government growth will also slow.
• Bills will shrink, be less complicated, and contain fewer subjects, so that Congress will be able to endure hearing them read.
• Fewer bad proposals will be passed due to “log-rolling.”
• No more secret clauses will be inserted into bills at the last moment.
• Government should shrink as old laws reach their sunset date, and have to be read for the first time before they can be renewed.

If they had any sense, the GOP would be all over this. So, based on what I have seen recently, don’t count on it. Still, maybe a phone call is in order to your favorite Republican. Tell them about the Read the Bills Act. Maybe someone will see the potential and act on it.

Update:

Props to Jason over at Jason A. Clark.com for recognizing the importance of this bill and writing his own fantastic post about it.