Bosque Farms Centenarian Passes

Just last month, we celebrated Erlinda Garley Moya's 100th birthday. Tomorrow we have her funeral Mass.

Bosque Farms and Peralta have lost a strong lady. No — lost isn't the right word. As Deacon Eddie said at Mrs. Moya's Rosary this evening, we haven't lost her because we know where she is.

But she has left us — after 100 years, 1 month, and 2 days of a very full life. She will be missed.

How to Save on Taxes

Become an illegal alien!

Obama Actions on Jobs

President Barack Obama is "focused like a laser" on job creation, according to his supporters. So what has this focus accoumplshed?

1. Obama decided to delay (at least) the Keystone XL pipeline that would have brought Canadian oil to the US and created at least 20,000 jobs.
2. Obama's Agriculture Department has decided to delay (at least) drilling in Ohio's Utica shale that would have created more than 200,000 jobs.
3. Obama's Interior Department continues to stall deepwater drilling for oil, despite supposedly having lifted the moratorium (ban) it imposed, thus blocking restoration of the Gulf region's jobs and oil production.
4. "The President’s plan is to simply say ‘no’ to new energy production," House Natural Resources Committee chairman Doc Hastings, R-Wash, said to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar during a Congressional hearing.

If these are the results of his focus on jobs, can we please get him to focus on something else? Anything else? Please?

Both Sides of His Mouth

A prime example from the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto:

Two Former Enron Advisers in One!

• "There's obviously a relationship between tax rates and revenue. That relationship is not, however, one-for-one. In general, doubling the excise tax rate on a good or service won't double the amount of revenue collected, because the tax increase will reduce the quantity of the good or service transacted. And the relationship between the level of the tax and the amount of revenue collected may not even be positive: in some cases raising the tax rate actually reduces the amount of revenue the government collects."--from "Economics," by former Enron adviser Paul Krugman and Robin Wells (Mrs. Krugman), second edition, 2009

• "In Democrat-world, up is up and down is down. Raising taxes increases revenue. . . . But in Republican-world, down is up. The way to increase revenue is to cut taxes on corporations and the wealthy."--Krugman, New York Times, Nov. 18, 2011

Clearly, President Barack Obama and his supporters believe the second Paul Krugman, and not the first. But it was the first that won the economics prizes.

Veterans Day, 2011

In 2007, Kyle-Anne Shiver wrote an open letter of thanks to America's veterans that is a must read — especially today. Here's an excerpt:

And it is also true, that unless one has been in battle, one does not truly understand the depth of your passion for liberty. To families that have borne no soldiers, you are an enigma. To cowards, you are a shaming presence, a constant reminder of their weakness. To your parents, you represent both the mountaintop of pride, and the deepest valley of concern that mothers and fathers can ever know. And to most of us ordinary citizens, you are the unseen, under-appreciated protectors of all that we hold dear.

Military men and women really are different. Like their brothers and sisters in fields such as firefighting and law enforcement, they are the ones who run toward the fire and toward the firefight, not away. They are the sheepdogs, the ones who protect the sheep from the wolves — but whose presence makes the sheep uncomfortable. They're not all the same; they come in all types. But they share that difference. Sometimes you can see it in their eyes. Sometimes you can see the difference without being able to see who they are.

Even when you're not be able see the difference, the difference is still there. But whether you see the difference or not, whether you are aware of them or not, they are the ones who are there to be a deterrent — and, if necessary, a force for protection and rescue. They are the men and women who have secured and preserved our freedom. To them, along with Kyle-Anne Shiver, I say

You serve and fight for the greatest Nation in the history of civilization. There has never been a grievous wrong that good Americans have not sought to rectify. There has never been a just cause on which America has turned her back for long. You, our soldiers, have been and continue to be, the greatest force for freedom and human rights ever gathered. You have raised our flag around the world, not for domination, but to bring greater liberty and a better way of life. You are the reason America remains a beacon of hope to the entire world.

To all our veterans, and to all who serve, THANK YOU!

Supercommittee Democrats' Bait & Switch

There had supposedly been negotiations between the Democrats and the Republicans on the "supercommittee". The Republicans had made what appeared to be a good offer. The Democrats "had sounded amenable to the possible deal, but their position suddenly hardened after going back to their caucus." Translation: They got their orders, from whoever, and followed them.

A little more detail:

Sen. Pat Toomey had worked out a framework that he considered pro-growth and a reasonable first step toward fiscal restraint, while making a major concession to Democrats on revenue in the interests of getting a deal. Max Baucus especially had sounded open to it and a sub-group of the supercommittee had been discussing it seriously — but no more.

Apparently, the Democrats on the committee were ordered to "dump" the agreement.

Why do I say that? The Democrats claimed they wanted a "balanced" approach, one that included revenue increases as well as spending cuts. Their intransigence was there would be no deal at all without revenue increases. To get a deal, the Republicans gave the Democrats what they said they wanted. Revenue increases — half a trillion dollars over the ten year period. But, from the Democrats' perspective, there was one thing wrong: The Republican plan had revenue increases, but not tax rate increases, and what the Democrats really want is tax rate increases.

In short, the Republicans gave the Democrats what the Democrats said they wanted, but the Democrats lied.

I also saw on TV an analyst saying (approcimately)

The Democrats have always regarded the "supercommittee" as a scam — a means of conning the Republicans into accepting major tax increases.

We can only hope the Democrats don't get what they want.

UPDATE: Here's further confirmation. Once again, as in past years, their proposed "deal" is $1 in spending cuts for $1 in tax increases. Trouble is, the tax increases always take effect and the spending cuts always prove to be mirages.

All the supercommittee Democrats want is huge tax increases.

The "Christmas Tree Tax"

The Obama Administration announced the imposition of a new fee on the sale of every Christmas tree in the nation. The new levy was first announced in the Federal Register yesterday. It is being imposed to fund a public relations campaign to “enhance the image of Christmas trees and the Christmas tree industry in the United States.”

Opponents popped up immediately. One opponent said “The economy is barely growing and nine percent of the American people have no jobs. Is a new tax on Christmas trees the best President Obama can do? And, by the way, the American Christmas tree has a great image that doesn’t need any help from the government.”

But the Administration is adamant that the new levy is not a tax — it is a fee. The White House has sent out its spokesmen to push this assertion. In one instance, White House spokesman Matt Lehrich told ABC News that “I can tell you unequivocally that the Obama Administration is not taxing Christmas trees. What’s being talked about here is an industry group deciding to impose fees on itself to fund a promotional campaign, similar to how the dairy producers have created the ‘Got Milk?’ campaign.”

I guess it can't be a tax since it's being done by an executive department and not by Congressional legislation. But this White House statement is quite dishonest. If it were true, there would be no need for government involvement. And there would be no government involvement. If it were true, the industry groupd would implement the fee, and Christmas tree sellers — at worst — would have to choose between paying the fee or withdrawing from the organization. But this fee is mandatory. It is implemented by the government, to be used for projects managed by the government. And you can bet the first costs paid from the fee will be for the government bureaucrats to manage the program — in this case, the new federal Christmas Tree Promotion Board. That's not "an industry group deciding to impose fees on itself." Especially since a significant number of Christmas tree sellers don't want it and are pretty vocal about saying so.

The only bright spot in this story is that the White House has apparently wised up just a little. It has announced that implementation of the new tax/fee will be delayed, and its existence will be revisited. Since I'm feeling a bit cynical today, I'll guess that means they'll put it through at a time they think people won't notice till it's too late.

How the O-2s Really Got to Viet Nam

It may not be new, but it's new to me.

Just a week or so ago, I was sent a link to a Thailand Aviation article on a Navy observation unit — VO-67 — that used P-2 Orion anti-submarine aircraft in Viet Nam for jungle surveillance. The aircraft were modified versions of the P2V-5F aircraft, redesigneted as OP-2E. The occasion for the article was the unit being awarded a Presidential Unit Citation forty years later.

In that article, it talked about the cooperation between the Navy surveillance aircraft and a unit of Air Force FACs (Forward Air Controllers) flying O-2A aircraft, a military version of the civilian Cessna Skymaster.

The FACs flew every day and night (mostly night) to identify the latest changes in anti-aircraft emplacements for use in the flight planning for the larger P2V-5F/OP-2E aircraft.

By happenstance, just a few days later, an old Air Force friend (and F-4 Phantom pilot) sent me a story about the O-2 and included his own observations on the aircraft. They make a good story, and it's good history.

Continue reading -->

The Scariest Thing I've Seen

In line with the scary holiday just past, here is the absolutely scariest chart I have seen in months. No, years. Maybe decades.

It was bad enough after 2001. But the leaps beginning with the first Pelosi-Reid budget (2008) are really bad! This cannot continue!

Happy Halloween

The above image shamelessly cribbed from Classical Values. I just couldn't resist.

[late, too ... penalty flag thrown]

The 1%-er

Look at this

Is this more readable?

I am the 1%
Enterred the Army at 17
Worked through college with 3 jobs
Minimal loans - paid off in 4 years
Started companies, worked to the top of the ladder

Now, only 1% has served
Only THIS 1% never whines - we work, raise families,
Contribute to society EVERY single day.
And we defend your rights, too
Even if we would never agree with them

I am, a 1%-er

Bosque Farms Centenarian

There was a big party in Bosque Farms, New Mexico, yesterday. It was a celebration of the 100^th birthday of Erlinda Garley Moya — born here in 1911, before New Mexico was a state. People came from all the surrounding towns, and then some, to help celebrate.

A program of family pictures showed pieces of Erlinda's life. And she was serenaded by an excellent guitar-playing singer.

There was a nice write-up about Mrs Moya in the La Vida section of the Valencia County News-Bulletin yesterday. Unfortunately, that article has not been made available online — so it's been replicated here.

Obama Endorses the "Occupy" Movement

President Barack Obama has endorsed the "Occupy Wall Street" movement. He says "We're on the same side." He says the Occupiers are really just like the Tea Partiers.

Obama makes these statements despite the HUGE difference in behavior — and goals — between the two groups. And despite the fact that he ignored the Tea Parties when he wasn't insulting them and lying about them, while he endorsed the Occupiers. The Tea Parties leave their demonstration areas clean, while the occupiers trash the places they infest. The Tea Parties want smaller, less intrusive government while the occupiers see government as the answer to all their wishes. (Can you say lying hypocrite?) And yet, no matter how Obama wants to camouflage it, the occupiers are extreme leftists, far outside the mainstream of American politics.

Even so, Obame still endorses the "Occupy Wall Street" movement. . . just like his close friends the union bosses and Chicago Communist organizers, as well as Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela's dictator Hugo Chavez. Plus, of course, the CAIR Islamist pressure group. And that doesn't even count the endorsements by the Nazis, Communists, fascists, socialists

. . . and all the other left-wing extremists.

And the media — still in thrall to Obama — "reported" on the occupiers and their message — after conspiring with them to help them craft it.

Given the folks that are have endorsed and supported them, I think I'd rather be in the opposition.

"Occupy" Movement Spawns a New Affiliate

The Protesters of "Occupy Wall Street"

"The mere existence of our demonstration will bring about major changes in our society." "The mere existence of our demonstration will bring down this society." A lot of the "Occupy Wall Street" and similar protesters seem to believe one or the other of these statements, at least according to the statements they gave to the press. They are unanimous about being against the "greedy rich millionaires" (mostly bankers) they blame for the country's economic problems — the "1%". That's why they are calling themselves the "99%".

The protesters have gotten a lot of support. Millionaires George Soros, Michael Moore, and AlGore are backing them. So are some union leaders and a number of politicians including Barack Obama and his top political adviser. In fact, when the owner of the park they're occupying wanted them to leave for a while so it could be cleaned, he got leaned on by a bunch of Democratic Party politicians to let the protesters stay.

It's not just the political Left that is supporting these protesters. The media have also been taking up their cause.

Contemplate this: The Occupy Wall Street folks drew more broadcast network stories in the first nine days of coverage (with 24 stories) than the Tea Party drew in the first nine months (with 19 stories). [emphasis added]

Their biases also show in the stories' contents, as captured by a cartoonist here.

To me, the "Occupy Wall Street" protesters seem to be mostly unemployed folks taing on protesting as their "job". Some of them are being paid to be protesters. And there are some interesting claims about the places the money for that is coming from. With all that, and with the additional things the protesters say they want, here is what I think is a more accurate view I found of the percentages that matter.

And yet they have the nerve to pretend they are the 99%!

Albuquerque International Balloon Fiesta

It's amazing! It's spectacular! It gets tens of thousands of people to willingly join long lines of traffic at 4 a.m. And this year is its 40^th appearance. It is — as it has been for forty years — the world's largest hot air balloon event. It's the Albuquerque International Balloon Fiesta.

Mrs Critter and I were there for the first day of this year's fiesta. We were there for the special commemoration of the life and impact of Sid Cutter who owned New Mexico's first hot air balloon, co-founded the Albuquerque Aerostat Ascension Association — still the world's largest community ballooning organization, and co-founded the Albuquerque International Balloon Fiesta. We were there for the Mass Ascension, which launched 345 hot air balloons in one hour, and many more before and after that official hour. It was all amazing!

Want to see something of the Mass Ascension of the balloon fiesta's opening day? Look at the pictures here.

Voting & Driving in Saudi Arabia

Saudi King Abdullah has issued an edict allowing women in Saudi Arabia to vote for the first time. Meanwhile, a woman was sentenced to 10 lashes for driving a relative to the hospital.

Interestingly, it turns out there is no actual law against women driving in Saudi Arabia. But the Saudi courts sentence women for driving anyway.

This juxtaposition provides a clear example of cognitive dissonance. And it sets up others. Like this:

Best Debate Line

p>The best line to come out of the GOP presidential candidates' debate last night came near its end. And it came from one of the debate's "also rans" — former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson when he said

My next door neighbor's two dogs have produced more shovel-ready jobs than this current Administration.

Maybe it's too bad Johnson has almost no chance in the presidential race. He certainly makes the race more interesting.

Update: I have now heard the audio clip for myself, and have corrected the line as Gary Johnson gave it.

The Media Got It Wrong

The stock market took a dive yesterday morning. The headlines said it was because of worries over the financial situation in Europe.

BULL

The stock market's movement Monday morning was just a reflection of the futures market's movement Sunday afternoon. And that market took a dive immediately after the White House let out the information that President Barack Obama would be calling for $1.5 trillion in tax incraeses. I saw the graph showing that movement Sunday evening.

To put it as charitably as possible, the media got it wrong! The alternative choice is that the media deliberately lied to us.

Obama's "Stimulus Junior"

President Barack Obama gave his speech and introduced his "jobs bill" ten days ago. Two things were said at that time about how the bill's expenditures would be paid for: (1) that the White House would release the revenue details in the next week, possibly at the same time as the bill itself, and (2) that the "supercommittee" formed under the debt ceiling bill would be tasked to find the money.

It appears he has actually done both.

At least one Congressman has read the text of the bill Obama sent to the Congress (but which has apparently not yet been introduced by anyone). He noted in an interview that a late section of the bill requires the debt ceiling "supercommittee" to increase its revenue/savings target by the cost of this bill. Elsewhere in the bill are the $467 billion in tax increases Obama has proposed to pay for the $447 billion estimated cost of his jobs/stimulus bill. (This, too.) Thus, the bill's cost is apparently "paid for" twice. Does the Administration intend more spending than it has acknowledged, and is using this opportunity to raise the extra money they want? Or is this a recognition that its proposal to pay for this bill with tax increases that have already been rejected — by Democrats and Republicans alike — is not serious?

There are other things wrong with this bill, too. Among these are:

• Obama's bill creates at least two new federal bureaucracies, neither related (so far as I can determine) to job creation. This continues the Administration's pattern of using various bills and proposals to add to the bureaucracy and the national regulatory burden.
• Most, if not all, of the spending proposals are repetitions and continuations of the same old tired things Obama had in his failed 2009 stimulus bill. They didn't work then, and they almost certainly won't work this time, either. That must be why Obama and his followers are calling this a jobs bill instead of a stimulus bill. The Obama people still want to pretend the stimulus worked, but they know the American people know that's bunk — which is why they won't use the stimulus term.
• If spending on these proposals didn't help create jobs in 2009 and 2010, how are they going to create jobs now in 2011 at half the spending level?
• Pretty much all the spending proposals are recycled from Obama's failed 2009 stimulus bill. So this is a "green" bill. The Administration pretends that "green" and recycling are good things, but I doubt that recycling failure is worthwhile.
• Obama's bill raises taxes in a recession. Obama himself has said that's exactly the wrong thing to do. Obama and his people must know this. Therefore, either that statement or his current proposal is fraudulent and unserious.
• Obama's bill raises taxes on the very people he's calling on to hire people. Increasing their costs is the surest way to insure they won't create any new jobs.
• Obama's bill assumes, but apparently does not state, the expiration of the "Bush tax cuts" (required by the Democrats' previous intransigence). That expiration means a tax increase for everyone who pays taxes — as well as many who no longer do. That's a part of the tax increases Obama has been pushing for since before he became president. And that one alone — even without the additional tax increases Obama proposes — will be the largest tax increase in the history of the United States. Another massive job killer, again courtesy of Barack Obama.

Beyond all of this, there's something else we all should have noticed. Obama is proposing permanent taxes to pay for his extremely temporary stimulus. That is the bottom line. This is just another way — another attempt — for Obama to accomplish what he wants in raising taxes on "the rich". And as with Bill Clinton, it appears Obama's definition of "the rich" is "everyone with a job".

The original Obama stimulus was a total failure. His recycled "stimulus junior", if enacted, will be no better. At best.

Two final words on Obama's recycled "green" "stimulus junior":