Jerry Welch

Candidates

2011-06-20T13:45:00.001-05:00

I'm tired of hearing candidates talk about "Taking America Back". Why? Because whenever you invoke nostalgia to one group, it brings back negative memories to another.

I'd like candidates show me what their vision of America is for the future with specifics. And don't be afraid to be bold; that's what it takes to be a leader. If enough people agree with you, you'll win election and lead our nation. If you're wanting to be chicken soup for everyone, you won't lead. You will merely occupy an elected office.

LEAD.

Freedom

2011-06-19T16:56:00.000-05:00

As Americans, we like to talk about freedom. We can vote, talk smack about our elected officials with impunity (unless you threaten violence, of course) but are we really free? Something happened to the definition of the word freedom in the last century. At one point, you could buy a piece of land and you and your family were the king of that land.

That America no longer exists.

In the original America, the individual was reponsible for their own fate. There was no medicare, no social security, no safety net. Americans were strong because they had to be.

Don't be fooled into thinking that the only cost of government safety nets is the multi-trillion dollar amount that my grandkids will have to pay. The largest cost is what made America great: Freedom.

You can already see it. Oh, it's small things right now, like pulling chocolate milk and other "undesireable foods" from school lunches and prohibiting parents from letting their kids bring their own lunch. See, once the government pays for something, it gets to tell you what to do. Government becomes the master, not the servant.

I'm not ready to be a servant.

BIBGIV

2010-07-06T12:31:00.002-05:00

What the heck is BIBGIV? It's how America should do war.

Brutal In Battle, Gracious In Victory.

Wars are not won when the army on the other side is defeated; it is won when the will for war has been crushed. Right now, the US is trying to "win the hearts" of people by tip-toeing instead of fighting and the rules of engagement are costing American lives. I do not apologize when I say that when we're at war, WE SHOULD ACT LIKE WE ARE AT WAR. We should crush everything that is thrown at us and, just as importantly, after the war, we do whatever we can to help build a new government that won't repeat the mistakes of the prior government.

This gives two impressions:

1) When the American military is heading your way, if you don't surrender, you will die.

2) Everyone will know that once hostilities are over, America will take the lead in helping rebuild the country.

And if, after hostilities have ended, we see a guerrilla style insurgency, we again go into aggressor mode and crush it. We have to make sure that the potential enemies of America see not just mercy, they must see our might.

For too long, we've tried to seek acclaim from our enemies while on the battlefield and, while we shouldn't directly target civilians, if those civilians are actively housing combatants, they should expect to pay that price.

The civilians say "We do it because they will kill us," but guess what? That's not our problem; this is your country. Take control of it or we'll do it for you. I'm tired of American soldiers dying for a political reason that never works. When was the last time you saw people from the left congratulate us when we risk our soldiers' lives in order to make it softer for the enemy? When was the last time the UN recognized it? Never. We are unnecessarily spilling American blood when it's not necessary. Does anyone think that we are making friends by showing weakness? Grow up. We are the remaining super-power and need to start acting like it, instead of "just another nation".

We're not. We're America.

Let's start acting like it.

Taxes

2010-03-20T11:26:00.001-05:00

Yeah, taxes. I'm going to make this short because I don't have a lot of time. Basically we pass the following Constitutional Amendment because I don't trust the government with taxes:

The IRS and all accompanying agencies shall be dissolved and a 12.5% federal sales tax shall take its place. This rate cannot be raised more than .5% in any twelve month period and can only be changed by a vote of 65% or greater in both Houses of Congress and must also be signed by the President.

A new flat income tax shall be imposed on all income made in the United States of America at a permanently fixed rate of 1% of gross personal income without exception or deduction. This flat income tax is not eligible for change under any circumstances.

This flat tax shall take place the calendar year following its passage and shall remain in effect unless and until changed by Constitutional amendment.

BTW, I'd also like to see something talking about earmarks but wouldn't want to turn this into the second coming of the 14th amendment. The bottom line is that federal spending should be limited to spending authorized by the tenth amendment. States can build bridges on non-interstate highways and build museums to Roy Orbison or whatever.

Social Security/Medicare Fix

2010-03-06T19:33:00.003-06:00

We have an unsustainable $38 TRILLION commitment with the current Social Security and Medicare plans. The problem with the current programs is that they cover everyone. Why not make Social Security/Medicare, et al like food stamps? You would have simple qualifications to qualify for Social Security/Medicare:

1) You must be 65 or older AND:
2) You can make no more than 25% above poverty level (about $18,200 for a family of two) OR:
3) Are disabled to the point it prohibits employment

Now, we have a sustainable designed to help the needy.

There has to be a transition to a fix this large, so if you are 50 or older, you would have two options:

1) Stay in the current system with current system payouts (which are quite weak)
2) Choose the 35-49 option.

35-49 Option:

You would receive what you have paid into Social Security in one lump sum. No interest gained, just what you have paid into the system. You can then invest in a 401K or some other option. These new retirement options would be named to you and would be transferred when switching jobs and would remain active even during times of unemployment (you would just not pay into them during that time). The bottom line is that personal investments tend to give much higher returns than the Social Security system; that's why rich people don't invest in government bonds other than as a diversification option. What about the few whose returns don't give back more? Easy; if they NEED it, Social Security is there.

If you are under 34, you will continue to pay into the system, but unless you are poor or disabled at 65, you would pay into a 401K instead of to the government. And since the Social Security/Medicare burden has been lightened, so will the taxes.

Taxes. Hmmm, that's my next post.

A Question of Torture

2009-06-29T10:14:00.006-05:00

I have no idea why I'm so riled up about this right now but on behalf of the 100,000+ people who will die in our next 9-11, you politicians need to get off your high horse and start protecting the people you supposedly serve.

We are tired of political expediency eroding basic protections while you use your office to advance your nepotism and line your pockets. After the next 9-11, a lot of finger pointing will be going on but the American people aren't stupid. If you can't put the survival of the American people at the top of your agenda, then you don't deserve the office you hold. You think that water boarding may constitute torture and run to bury your head beneath a judicial blanket, but Linus isn't even that naive.

You hypocrites! You ignore the law whenever it's convenient for you! Whether it's campaign donations or spending taxpayer dollars on your whores, you abuse the law as easily as you abandon the trust the people have given you, yet when it comes to our survival you quickly mount the high horse and hold your nose above us peons behind the banner of the law.

What will your answer be, after our next 9-11? What will you tell the families of the victims?

Again, if you can't pledge to do EVERYTHING to protect the lives of the people whom you serve or don't understand why you need to, then get out of the way and let someone else serve who can.

You're just in the way.

The Spirit: Worst Comic Book Movie EVER...

2009-01-03T23:21:00.008-06:00

Until The Spirit, Frank Miller was Hollywood's comic book golden boy. He could do no wrong. That reign has come to an end. Frank Miller, who both wrote and directed this...thing will be lucky if someone just starts screaming about 300 and Sin City. And someone needs to start screaming that really loud because I am still trying to wash this movie out of my memory.

I really don't want to make this a full review because that would entail having to remember it to make comments. My two teens, Justin and Cody were laughing all through the movie, it was that bad. And no, they weren't laughing at the funny parts. They were laughing AT THE MOVIE.

Why is it the worst comic book movie ever? Because it had all of the advantages but came out making Dolph Lundgren's Punisher look good. How can you fail with FRANK MILLER writing and directing? Production values were great, though the Sin City thing wore thin in places. Shots were original, the musical score was fantastic.

And yet it tanked.

BADLY.

I don't want to dwell on any scenes (not to spoil any scenes, because frankly, I don't care) because it is just that painful. But think about this; there is one scene about five minutes long showing a human head on a foot hopping around and everyone saying "That's just weird". "Yeah, that's just weird." "I know, but that's weird!"

After a serious moment when the Spirit is confronting his mortality, Justin said "Wow, is it going to get serious now?" The instant he asked that, the scene switched to a dinosaur head.

I'm serious! A TOY DINOSAUR HEAD!

It's like the movie itself is on drugs and has contaminated you. The Spirit tries to deny that, screaming at one point, "I'm not on drugs!"

Do not see this movie. Don't even give it the dignity of a download. Before you go to bed tonight, say an extra prayer of thankfulness if you haven't wasted your money on The Spirit.

Caroline Smith for Senate

2008-12-21T19:01:00.002-06:00

Let's say there is a woman named Caroline Smith who wants Hillary Clinton's senate seat. She has never run for any public office and, as far as I know, even held a real job. No, I don't count being on boards of charities. Those are like political appointments.. She did write a book about the Constitution, she's good with socialite parties and is a lawyer, though not licensed. She kind of let that go for several years though I hear she's going to pay her dues this year.

My point is, that if Caroline Smith had the same qualifications that Caroline Kennedy has, Caroline Smith would have no chance of getting this seat. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. I'm tired of hearing "Think of her DNA" as an excuse to vote for someone who doesn't even think enough of her state to vote in a regular election, much less represent that state by...voting.

So the same crowd who was hissing at Sarah Palin, who owned her own business for years, was a City Councilman, Mayor and then Governor of her state are giving us....Caroline Kennedy???

Oh, and I love the rumors about Chelsea Clinton who is like Caroline Kennedy but constitutionally too young for the position, even though some people don't quite care about a little thing like the Constitution.

C'mon, Democrats, show some backbone. If your principles allowed you to maul Sarah Palin, then those principles should not allow Caroline Kennedy to seriously ask the question.

There's Something Here...

2008-12-19T18:57:00.002-06:00

I've been watching several of Penn Jillette's YouTube posts and I've got to say, I admire the man. Sure, we disagree on several issues, but there's a respect there for differing opinion and you can't help but admire that. Any politician would be wise to adopt that stance, not making their campaign about hating the other guy/party but to present the issues.

No, that's not Pollyanna thinking.

The American people aren't stupid. We know when a politician is trying to play us. If they are on our side, we agree with the negative attacks against "the other guy/party" but any attacks directed against us are automatically defended. So far from actually moving anyone, they merely cement a person's beliefs.

Let's be honest; today's politicians are about polling before they respond. Why can't a politician stand on what they believe, what they know in their heart to be the right thing to do?

FEAR.

Fear that if they do, the opponent will twist their words to mean something they don't. We need politicians who can rise above party and run on ideology. If you want my vote, be honest with me and let me decide if I want to vote for you, not your polling group or marketing director.

Don't insult me. Lead me.

A Further Note

2008-12-13T17:32:00.005-06:00

The more I think about my last post, the more I am puzzled by the Left's logic when it comes to free speech. Think about it; when you break it down, religion is just one type of philosophy, but it is the only specifically named philosophy protected by the Constitution. For that to somehow mean that it has fewer protections than any other philosophy is illogical.

A teacher in school who promotes a secular philosophy is given all kinds of protections to promote their viewpoint. Okay, that's fine; they have freedom of speech. I get that. My question is how then can they be restricted just because the philosophy in question is religious? Teachers have the same freedom of speech that the secularist enjoys as well as the specifically stated freedom of religion.

The only answer I have ever heard is that by allowing religious viewpoints, it somehow possibly demeans a minority viewpoint that is not religious; that it violates a "right not to be offended". But this answer doesn't make sense. The Pro-Choice crowd is always screaming how their viewpoint is the majority, so why don't they advocate censoring the Pro-Choice viewpoint to avoid offending someone with a Pro-Life viewpoint?

And if it is a matter of a mythical "freedom not to be offended" then how come this right is only exercised against the freedom of religion? That is, why isn't it invoked with it comes to freedom of speech, or press, or assembly?

For too long the Left has taken the good intentions of the American people and tied them with their own noose. The American people don't mind allowing divergent viewpoints; in fact, we thrive on them. But to use that as a basis to censor the majority runs specifically counter to the American way of life. More on this later; I'm not through with this topic yet.

Federal Funding and Speech Rights

2008-12-08T07:51:00.004-06:00

I wonder how Planned Parenthood can officially support a political candidate while receiving tax dollars but somehow churches can't...

If the premise is that by receiving a tax exempt status you are somehow forfeiting your right to free speech then how can an organization who not only gets a tax exempt status but also federal funding get to endorse whomever they wish?

And how about teachers? Can someone tell me where they give up their freedom of speech? Granted, if you're a liberal teacher you can talk all day about whatever philosophy you want, but if a conservative teacher talks about a religious philosophy then it is somehow restricted?

And a student can't mention the name of Jesus in a public speech?

This is a great setup if you're liberal. You get to censor - at a local and federal level - speech with which you disagree. But like most liberal conveniences, there is always a dark side. Once it has been established that it is okay to censor speech that is inconvenient, how do you stop the Federal Government from expanding that power?

If free speech doesn't protect political speech, then it's useless and no citizen - liberal or conservative - has any political power.

Election Aftermatch

2008-12-06T19:46:00.005-06:00

This election didn't work out the way I wanted to, but there are still benefits of an Obama win. For instance, some people who have been disenfranchised from being a "full" American now say they feel like they belong for the first time. Whoopi Goldberg (who I am not a fan of except for her appearances on Star Trek) said that now she feels like she can unpack her bags and that's a good thing.

Never mind that the Democrat Party feeds black people a message of victimhood; if now they can now put themselves in step with every other American, then something good is happening.

Welcome to America.

One word of questioning hope; can you now consider yourselves full Americans, not just "African Americans"?

After the loss, I reflected on what I thought, the good and the bad. I asked myself if I really believed in "Country First" and if I meant what I said when I asked Democrats to call George Bush their President. If what you say is right, then it is right, which is why I will refer to Barack Obama as my President and I ask all Americans, including my conservative friends to do the same.

That doesn't mean I will silence myself in opposition; it just means that when I disagree with Mr. Obama I will be as respectful to him as I was when I opposed President Bush on an issue.

Hindsight is 20/20 but foresight is better.

Liberal vs. Conservative; It's Not What You Think

2008-11-28T19:21:00.006-06:00

The two sides of the political spectrum are not "liberal" and "conservative" but "liberal" and "libertarian". It's pretty simple once you think about it.

You have the Constitution as it was written. There are only two ways to go from the Constitution:

1) If you support giving government MORE power than it Constitutionally is delegated, you are a LIBERAL.

2) If you support giving government LESS power than it Constitutionally is delegated, you are a LIBERTARIAN.

Conservatism is, BY DEFINITION, a belief in the status quo of the Constitution. Whether a specific candidate who CLAIMS to be conservative actually IS, is the subject for another time.

The EXTREMES on those two directions are that LIBERALS turn into TOTALITARIANS and LIBERTARIANS turn into ANARCHISTS. Here's a small chart that explains it: [LINK]

BTW, these stances are possibly regardless of support of a specific claim. For instance, if abortion was literally a Constitutional Right, then the Conservative position would be a Pro-Choice one.

Welcome to America

2008-11-28T18:39:00.002-06:00

This year's election of Barack Obama was not welcomed by me. I supported Palin/McCain (yes, I stated that correctly). But the political aftershocks of Obama's election sprout some good fruit.

I'm not a big Whoopi Goldberg fan. Politics aside, she's not really that funny, though I loved her role in Star Trek: The Next Generation. But after the election, she said, "I've always been proud to be an American, now I feel like I can unpack my bags." For a lot of Americans, the statement was kind of a shock, especially after her insulting and disingenuous question to John McCain asking if she were supposed to be worried about becoming a slave.

Though Ms. Goldberg came from humble origins, she can afford to live where she wants (which apparently is a multi-million dollar mansion, nice digs for a slave if you can get them), but some blacks truly believe this because they've been told their entire life that they are victims. I truly hope that, if nothing else, this election removes that stigma of victimhood. After all, it's pretty good if you can be elected to the most powerful office on Earth.

So, you who feel you have been disenfranchised: Welcome to America. Let's sit down and talk about the rest...

Fun Topics to Debate: Time Travel

2008-11-28T17:56:00.004-06:00

I enjoy a serious political debate just as much as the next person, but every once in awhile I like taking on something more akin to science fiction. Today, I will argue against the popular belief that someone couldn't go to the past and kill their grandfather; or, if they did, they would cease to exist.

I believe that if time travel were possible, that I could not only go to the past and kill my grandfather, I would still live after doing so, because time is linear.

As such, my Time Theory is simple: Past Actions > Present Actions > Future Actions

Let's look at the famous example of a man going to the past to kill his grandfather, using my theory. If someone went to the past and killed their own grandfather, the grandfather would indeed be dead, but the grandson would still exist (more on this aspect later).

Basically, the action of killing the grandfather in the past takes precedence over even the birth of the grandson in the present or future. And the grandson would not disappear. Why? Because he exists in the past and therefore his existence in the past takes precedence over the future repercussions of his actions, even his non-birth.

Even if he were to return to the future, he still would not cease to exist. After all, why would he? His presence in the past proved his existence. Therefore, his moving forward in time would not negate that fact. His moving through time, in fact, guarantees his existence during any time period that he travels to!

The only problem would be that when he traveled to the future again, no one would know him, since in that Time/Space continuum he was never born, never met his friends, never got the job he had, never married his wife, etc.

TIME TRAVEL RULE #1: If you travel to the past, make sure you have a DVD of home movies showing your wedding, stuff at work and movies of all your friends. Why? Because you would paradoxically, but quite literally be a man (from a parallel universe that no longer exists anywhere but in his memory) without mother, father or even BIRTH.

End result?

Again, my Time/Space Theory: Past Actions > Current Actions > Future Actions

"Parallel Universe" is the description of a Time/Space continuum that no longer exists outside the memory of a person or persons. Time is linear. It cannot be used in any other context. Even if you believe in "anti-time" (effect and cause instead of cause and effect) it works.

The traditional view of parallel universes states that any time a divergent action is caused other than normally what happened in the past (Joe walked on the left side of the street instead of the right), then an alternate or "parallel universe" is created. That is not correct.

"Parallel universe" is simply the description of a Time/Space continuum that no longer exists outside the memory of a person or persons. It is human vanity to believe that one person manipulating an event in the past or present can create a copy of the entire universe.

Think about it: the proposition of this theory requires you to somehow believe that if you go to the past, changing one thing would literally create (down to the molecular level) another universe, with another exact set of STARS, PLANETS, PEOPLE, etc???

As any scientist knows, such creation would require a near beyond belief expenditure of energy and there is nothing in the "Parallel Universe" theory that explains :

1) Where this energy comes from
2) How it is expended and
3) Why / how it precisely duplicates the known universe with the exception of one event (and therefore, the resultant consequences)

"Ah," one of you says, "The energy that transported you to the past is what makes the change."

That adds even MORE problems:

1) There is not enough energy in such a transfer (There is not enough energy on Earth to duplicate the entire universe)

2) The energy transference is not linked directly to changing a past event. (i.e., the energy isn't related to the fact that Johnny walked on the left side of the street instead of the right and even IF it were, how would that cause said energy to duplicate the universe?)

"Parallel Universe" therefore can only be recognized as a term used to describe the memory of how the universe used to be, no more.

That all being said, I make no claims to be a physicist and would not be insulted if a physicist were to prove me wrong. Don't forget; comments are welcome.

Alan Colmes is Leaving

2008-11-24T16:41:00.002-06:00

I just found out that Alan Colmes is leaving the #1 rated "Hannity and Colmes" and on Hannity.com they have a poll asking who should replace him. I chose Susan Estrich because she has done a good job in the past. Also, she's not rabid; she can convey her viewpoints quite well. If not her, then perhaps Juan Williams of NPR. Another person I disagree with but can do so agreeably.

Good luck, Alan! I wish you the best in your future.

Blu-Ray

2008-11-24T02:20:00.002-06:00

I waited until the war was over to invest in high definition electronics. As a casualty of the VHS/Beta war and the Amiga/PC wars, I learned the hard way that the best format doesn't always win. So when HD finally gave up the ghost, I bought a 42" LCD screen and a Playstation 3 (a console and Blu-Ray player for the same price) and a cool Bose 3-2-1 system (worth every penny!).

So I started playing my normal DVD's in the system and compared it to the single Blu-Ray disk I owned at the time, Spider-Man 3. Wow. Okay, so my DVD's had gone the way of the dinosaur when I hadn't been watching.

The smart thing to do when building a collection is wait for crazy sales or buy them slowly. So I've been buying a Blu-Ray movie every payday and on a whim, I went to a local pawnshop that I knew had lots of movies. They have about thirty Blu-Ray movies but they're selling them 3/$20 so I bought three (I-Robot, 300 and Fifth Element).

Next paycheck I'm heading back. I can afford three a paycheck like that, but I'm not going to buy one just to buy it.

Politics and Religion

2008-11-23T12:21:00.004-06:00

Thanksgiving is almost here and that means that most of us will unite with friends and family over a large dinner, taking the day off to feast and have fun, being sure to stray from the dynamite topics of politics and religion.

But why?

Why do we silence the two most important subjects in our existence? Someone could possibly get angry, true but this is my point; if we only talk about these subjects with people who agree with us, then we become more excluded from discussion and more "extreme".

One of my favorite things to do is debate - not argue; arguments get you nowhere - and my favorite thing about debating is not "beating" someone; (there really is no such thing on the internet) it's the fact that I learn more about myself...what I truly believe...and why I believe it. Because people will be questioning and challenging my beliefs from viewpoints I could never conceive.

This is a good thing.

Look at my links to the right. Camille Paglia and I probably have nothing but human DNA in common, but she is my favorite blogger. She presents her case in such a professional manner that I can't help but love her columns. Again, I disagree with most of what she says, but Camille's my idol when it comes to blogs. She is my example of what blogging should be. She is my example of what political discourse should be.

So this Thursday, eat some Turkey and dressing, watch the football game (talk about serious arguments!) and see what you can politely discuss concerning your and everyone else's rights. You might be surprised at what you find out about yourself.

Welcome to Jerry Welch.com!

2007-06-17T10:35:00.004-05:00

Another voice in an ocean of opinion.