The judge in the Proposition 8 case is gay. Why is that a big deal? Because by every best guess from the government the gay community makes up less than 8 percent of the population. That is close to the exact same number of people in the United States who are deaf. Now, imagine for a moment if a deaf judge was responsible for deciding whether the deaf community would be allowed additional government benefits. He would have to remove himself from the trial because he would benefit from the outcome. The Prop 8 judge is no different.

I’m going to leave the whole “is being gay a birth defect or life choice” argument for another day. But having a judge who is gay deciding the outcome of what “rights” the gay community has is wrong. This is so wrong that is of little surprise the judge stayed his own decision, in effect passing the buck. He knew that his involvement in the case would kill it once the appeal made its way to the Supreme Court. But that doesn’t change the fact he believes he alone knows better than seven million California voters.

Like it or not, this country is founded on Christian beliefs. And those beliefs are that freedom and liberty are granted to us by God and not by man. Those liberties granted to us by God are absolute and this nation can only survive when we continue to fight for those freedoms granted to us by God. But that’s the catch; freedoms granted to us by God must be endorsed by God. Any “right” that endorses immoral behavior is not a freedom that is endorsed by God and therefore not protected by our constitution.

We as a nation, and as individual states, have on numerous occasion stated that we will not recognize any marriage that is outside that which God has prescribed as one man and one woman. We do that not only to protect our tax dollars from waste, but to protect our moral fabric. Anytime we allow immoral activity, the activity will only get worse. At some point Americans have to draw a line in the sand. There is a right and wrong.

Self-described Christians make up 85% of the population of the United States. Whether they are truly Christians is another blog entirely, but it shows why this judge’s actions are so much to the outside of what is really mainstream. Pop culture, leftist activism, green activism, homosexuality, and atheism are all insignificant minorities of the population. The problem arises when the rest of us buy into their garbage.

Could there be a slight chance Google may violate trade laws by offering a free product in an existing market against competitors that rely solely on the income from their products?

Let me explain:  When Google announced their Navigator, Tom Tom and Garmin stocks tanked; which is understandable.  But Google could be violating some "fair trade" law. 

Tom Tom and Garmin rely on the sale of the hardware and navigation software to stay in business.  Google plans on giving this thing away for free.  Google’s revenue source is totally unrelated to the navigation market.  By not charging for Google Navigator, Google could end up severely harming or destroying either Tom Tom, Magellan, or Garmin, if not all.

Google’s actions would be akin to Ford deciding to make its own tires and give them away for free to the owner of any automobile.  Goodyear would collapse because they rely on tire sales for their existence.  Ford makes money selling cars, not tires.

Google has made impressive inroads with Android, Chrome, and Google[Fill in the Blank].  Google can keep giving away these free software because it isn’t part of their revenue stream.  But what if that stream dries up? 

Let’s say, for the sake of discussion, Google manages to put Garmin, Magellan, and Tom Tom out of business.  What happens if Microsoft and Yahoo! actually do manage to create a legitimate ad service the greatly eats into Google’s revenue stream.  Where would Google make up the revenue?  Google can’t charge more for ads due to competition.  And odds are there is very little room left for overall market growth.  Google’s only choice would be to charge for the other services they currently offer for free.  And with no other competition, Google Navigator gets overpriced.

Don’t misunderstand me, competition is good.  But competition usually involves a company selling a better product or a cheaper equivalent product which causes the existing players to try harder to make money.  But no company can compete with free.  Google may be able to give away their product for free; the others can’t.
Garmin, Magellan, and Tom Tom may survive by improving their products so much customers may be willing to buy their products over the free Navigator. (Linux is free, yet >90% still pay for an OS.)  All three can match the live maps by offering a sync option and more memory.  And there is nothing stopping them from attaching a 3G radio in their devices and pulling a Kindle.  So, they do have a way to push Google back.

On Google’s side, there is no guarantee Android will even take off despite the hype.  And Google’s Navigator may follow the path of the AT&T Navigator in that customers may not want a GPS that quits working when there is no cell signal.  But entering a competition where you play by a different set of rules is unfair.  If Google wants to enter the navigation market, they should charge a premium for the service or allow it to remain in the third tier "hobby" category like Linux.

Otherwise, Google would appear to be on the fast track to some form of anti-trust suit if not for the donations to the political party currently residing in Washington.  However, given Google’s recently dissolved partnership with Navteq, I would not be surprised if there is some "proprietary" lawsuit in the future. (You can’t partner with KFC just to copy the secret recipe and sell your own chicken)

I may be wrong.  I just don’t know.

No, it’s not 1939.  It’s 2009.  The stimulus package, as the New Deal before it, has been a colossal failure.  Our foreign relationship with our allies are straining with Israel prepared to take matters in their own hands.  Unemployment was at 9.5% in July and will undoubtedly be higher in August.  And Obama is attacking the medical industry in a similar way Hitler, who incidentally was a leftist, attacked the Jews.

The campaign never ended on election day as the full force of the White House has come down on those who dare oppose Obama’s state-run healthcare plan.  The daily barrage of attacks on talk radio, Drudge, and the Republicans would make you think there is an election this November rather than the last one.  And now Obama wants the names of those opposing him (link).

But Obama’s biggest problem right now isn’t the GOP.  Despite what they may want to do, the Republicans simply do not have the votes to stop anything or get anything done.  If the Democrats want this healthcare takeover to occur, there isn’t anything the Republicans can do.  Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid do not need a single Republican vote in order to pass anything.  And a full Republican opposition would not stop it.

The real problem Obama has is the one that pushed a vote on this healthcare bill back to September: Obama doesn’t face reelection until 2012.  However, the entire House and one-third of the Senate face reelection in 16 months.  With recent polls showing the leaderless GOP with a 7-point lead in the generic ballot, survival may end up trumping party loyalty.

The Democrat  Party plan to take over Congress in 2006 by running a bunch of “blue-dog” Democrats in conservative districts has backfired.  The very “conservative” Democrats that gave Nancy Pelosi the House in 2006 with be the undoing of the Obama agenda in 2009.

The “blue-dogs” have to go home this August and their constituents hate this healthcare bill.  A recent poll showed opposition to the bill reached 53% while support for doing nothing is close to passing 50% itself.  For a political party that live on polls, those results are a near death sentence for this reform bill.  The recent booing and jeering of Democrats trying to show support of the bill shows how much the people do not want this.

In the end, the Democrats in the house and Senate will throw Obama under the bus the same way the GOP did Bush.  Obama’s approval numbers are hovering around 50% and tracking lower than Carter’s.  Despite all the rhetoric and all the promises, the Democrats will resort to the natural state for any congressman and that is one of survival. 

The threats of Rahm Emanuel mean nothing when your support at home is in the tank.

Hidden within the typical liberal BS of how there is no sex education or birth control pills are two sentences buried in the middle of the story:

Some single women may also be driven to seek abortions because under current laws unmarried mothers cannot get a “hukou” or household registration card for their child.

Without one it is extremely hard for Chinese citizens to get access to education, healthcare and other public services.

The reason abortions are high in China is the people must get permission to have children. Could that happen here?

Children are a burden on society. When you include the cost of birth, the cost of vaccinations, the cost of food and shelter, and the cost of education, it doesn’t take long to realize a lot of money is spent on a child before they are even old enough to pay taxes.

If the United States were to get government controlled healthcare, the government would essentially be responsible for all of the financial burden of children. From cradle to adulthood, the state would be responsible for the health, welfare, and education of children.

The two biggest draws on socialized healthcare are the only two groups not contributing: children and the elderly.

What happens if the state is short money? Washington isn’t going to directly execute old people; would the US government then require Americans get permission in order to have children?

This may not be as far fetched as it seems. Obama’s science czar is a proponent of population control through forced sterilizations. And given his job is unconstitutional in and of itself, I doubt the constitution would provide much of a barrier.

Once a population hands over control of its maintaining of life, it hands over control of its creation of life.

I don’t remember the Democrats saying that in July of 2001 when it hit 4.5%. I remember them asking for Bush’s head.

But that got me to thinking, how did former presidents did during their first few months? And how did they handle economic crisis?

See below chart:

What this shows is the unemployment rates for the duration of each presidency since Eisenhower. This data is from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The chart was made by me.

It may be a little hard to see, so I’ll put up separate ones for each president and make comments as I go along.

The blue line represents the unemployment rate. The red line represents the trend line for the duration of the presidency.

This ends at Kennedy’s assassination. Kennedy lowered taxes for all income levels, especially the rich.

This chart starts the month after Kennedy’s assassination. Johnson benefited from Kennedy’s tax cuts, but then he started the failed “War on Poverty”.

Nixon suffered from the reality that 3.5% unemployment is extremely difficult to keep. Having a Democrat Congress didn’t help. Tax rates went up and so did unemployment.

Nixon’s resignation killed motivation in the economy. The Cold War was in full swing and Ford’s presidency was over when it began.

The worst president of the late 20th century had an energy crisis, the giving away of the Panama Canal, and an economy in the tank. Despite the dip mid-term, unemployment still trended up throughout his presidency.

After winning a landslide election, Reagan had to fight a bitter Democrat Congress to get his tax cuts. The peak on this chart represents the passage of the tax cuts and their effect on the economy.

Bush said “No New Taxes”. He broke that promise and the economy suffered. As did his re-election chances.

The economy started trending better in the last eight months of the Bush administration and Clinton benefited. The Republicans took over the House in 1994 for the first time in 40 years and their lowered taxes kept the economy strong.

Bush came into office in the midst of the “.com” crash. Bush managed to get a tax cut passed, but any short term effect of the tax cut was offset by 9/11. The lower taxes had a long term effect and the economy did well. However, when Nancy Pelosi was sworn in the Democrats raised the minimum wage and the unemployment rate has been steadily climbing ever since. The only pause was for the election.

The rise in unemployment happened during Bush’s “Lame Duck” years and he signed everything the Democrats gave him as long as it didn’t adversely effect the War on Terrorism. So in effect, this recession is a Democrat Congress created recession. Despite 9/11, the War on Terrorism, and that sharp rise in unemployment at the end of his term, the unemployment rate still trended downward.

So this brings us to today. Unemployment is at 9.5% and there appears to be no drop coming soon. Every time the economy has suffered before, presidents responded with tax cuts. Not Obama. He responds with spending, spending and more spending. He keeps proposing more spending, but has not explained how he will afford it.

The annual deficit has exploded to $1.5 trillion, this year alone. The Chinese have even begun refusing to fund our debt. Obama is taking the wrong strategy. The only change in sight is the mid-term elections when the GOP could take over Congress.

Until then, we are just going to have to suck it up. Because I don’t expect to see that blue line going down anytime soon.

The elephant in the room no one is talking about is Bush’s tax cuts. Obama says he will let them expire. The only problem is after having them in effect for ten years everyone is used to them. The psycological effect of the expiration will be a tax increase when Obama promised none. That happens in 2010. Don’t expect anyone to really start hiring unless those cuts are made permanent.

I add that I am working under the assumption the she intends to run for president in 2012. Even though I have no evidence to support that assumption.

First, is the ethics complaints. As a public figure, she has to follow a large list of ethic rules. And while she has not violated any of them (15 complaints dismissed thus far), having to keep up with them is a hassle.

If she were to run for president while governor she would have to do it within the ethics rules of Alaska. Even if she managed to thread that needle with better precision than the current president, there would be a major increase in false complaints. And Alaska would have to spend money looking into each of them.

If she runs as a private citizen, as Reagan did, she is no longer subject to the ethics rules in Alaska. She could then eat at Waffle House without having to worry about someone finding an ethics issue with it. Saving her time and Alaska money.

Second, is the succession of power within Alaska. If Gov. Palin decided to run for president then every time she left Alaska she would have to transfer power to the Lieutenant Governor.

Given the amount of time she would be out of the state it makes sense to go ahead and give the reigns to the LG. Also, her Democrat opponents could use the Alaska legislature to bring her home by passing legislation that would require her personal attention; wasting her time and campaign money (flying home on Alaska dime could violate ethics rules).

Third, is the current power vacuum in the national Republican Party. If Palin could get in there and get her hands in it she could organize an effective counter to President Obama and the Democrats in Congress.

While in theory the Democrats are unstoppable it only takes one Senate Democrat to vote with the Republicans in order to stop things. If Palin can organize the GOP and begin preaching the values of Conservatism across the country some of the Democrats up for re-election may decide to vote for their jobs and not for their president.

It would also lay the groundwork for her being the only candidate in 2012. Remember, the Democrats will have no primary. That means the only way to ensure the GOP picks their own candidate is to have only one to begin with.

If Palin can start early and show the country she has the support needed to win it could prevent spoilers such as Huckabee from entering the fray. It would also limit the damage she would take by opponents in the primary giving the Democrats nothing to work with other than disgruntled McCain staffers.

Of course, this is assuming she didn’t decide she was done with politics and instead decided to go moose hunting.

Then again, I can’t think of anyone better equiped to deal with Chavez and Ahmadinejad than a woman who hunts an animal the size of a large car in subzero temperatures.

I do not sit with the worthless or associate with hypocrites. Psalm 26:4 (HCSB)

I have very few things that annoy me.  Slow drivers in the fast lane, people in the express checkout with 35 items, and people who make statements without knowing all the facts.  But the one thing that really grinds me is hypocrisy. 

It appears I’m not alone.  In the Holman Christian Standard Bible, Jesus speaks against hypocrites 19 different times.  In Matthew 15 verse 8, Jesus says about hypocrites: “These people honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me.”

So what does that have to do with Liberalism?  Simple, liberalism is the ultimate contradiction.  What they say and what they do are entirely two different things.

Liberals always claim to be open-minded.  They claim that the problem with America is the closed-minded Conservatives that don’t support in abortion or gay marriage.  Liberals claim that things would be better if everyone were as open to their ideals as they are.

The real problem is that is a lie.  Liberals are not open-minded at all.  A prime example of this is the uproar that occurred after Miss California spoke out against gay marriage.  The entire liberal movement went out and tried to destroy this young woman’s career because she dared to speak out against something they stood for(link).  The liberals claimed to be open-minded while trying to shut her up.

Another thing liberals are hypocrites on is the environment.  Books have been written on Al Gore’s hypocrisy when it comes to the environment.  This man wants us to drive around little puddle jumper automobiles while he flies around in a private jet(link) and keeps his house lit up like a Christmas tree(link).

They continue to believe man is causing the earth to warm regardless of all the evidence to the contrary.  Most of them happen to be former NASA scientists and professors at major universities(link).  So let me think, I’m supposed to take the word of a washed up politician over a man with a doctorate in climatology?  The IPCC puts out data that says the earth will warm and that’s all the data liberals need.  They claim conservative done look at the facts about science even when former members of the IPCC says the data is junk(link).

I could go on, but I’m afraid my computer doesn’t have that much memory on it.  If there is ever a group of people who speak out of both sides of their mouths, it’s liberalism.  The only solace I have is I know that at some point, everything they will do ultimately fails.  I mean, even the Europeans are starting to reject their ideas(link).