Bump's Stump

The convention in Tampa is a mess. Why, Mr. Chairman, did you insult the conservatives in your party? Seating the TEA Party and Ron Paul folks in the balcony rafters was a terrible mistake. There really is a large number of American citizens that question why our federal government is involved in issues and enforcement of so many things specifically prohibited by the Constitution. Their voice is not going to be silenced by ignoring them.  Why does the Republican Party continue to direct Income Taxes to support so may stupid earmarks? Why do we need to keep so many of our military forces dispersed all over the world?  Why does our Federal Government refuse to enforce laws on the books - but does nothing to change them?  Do we really need a Federal Reserve to regulate our finances?  Why does the Federal Government force private medical insurance companies to sell the same policies to people with pre-existing special health problems?  Why does our Federal Government permit illeg

I've been watching the convention on TV. It's the dumbest spectacle man could devise. The making of a President is more than just stupid. It is the primary purpose of Presidential Conventions isn't it? The rah-rah-sis-boom-bah seems to be designed for people with very low intelligence. Why? The patriotic  Ron Paul supporters are seated in the rafters with the Tea Party. Again, why? Wake up folks! It's bad enough that we are subjected to years of phony debates, vicious rhetoric and smearing lies. Now, as we near the end of this truly UNDIGNIFIED election year, we show the world the shallowness of our non-principled Republican agenda. It's down right embarrassing. The only thing in our favor is that the opposition party is WORSE!

There is a growing focus on taxes. Most citizens agree that the federal government MUST collect taxes to pay the national bills. The recent conversations are generally about HOW the amount that a taxpayer pays is calculated. Some of our senior politicians believe our INCOME TAX is not fair nor reasonable. What they want to change is the method of calculation and at the same time they want to raise the amount. Their theory is that the (undefined) rich do not pay enough. On a percentage of earnings basis the middle class and the poor pay a much larger proportion of their earnings. I am curious about this. Is it true? According to the Manhatten Institute:  The richest 1 % of Americans earn 22% of ALL personal income and  pay 40% of ALL personal income taxes.   The richest 5% earns 37% of ALL personal income and pay 61% of ALL personal income taxes.   The richest 10% earns 48% of ALL personal income and pay 71% of ALL personal income taxes. And 50% of total middle class and poo

Just learned the GOP have seated Ron Paul & friends as far from the lecturn as possible. Really the nose-bleed section. Once again they prove that main stream Republicans are clueless. They refuse to acknowledge the conservative majority in their own party. Amazing stupidity - but not surprising. Ron Paul's domestic libertarian agenda needs to be considered even though his foreign agenda renders him un-electable. Yes, many of his ideas are simply not pragmatic. They would never work without considerable modification, yet he has many other ideas that need to be enacted. He generally articulates the libertarian-conservative view featuring a smaller, less invasive government. He supports the actual words of the Constitution, not the words bent and fractured by the legal establishment. And so forth. The GOP ignores the libertarian and conservative elements in the party AND THE REPUBLICANS CAN NOT BEAT THE OBAMA DISASTER WITHOUT THEM. Stupid.

Conservatives were crushed by Obama's meteoric rise to office. There were two very clear consequences. 1.  The Obama election illustrated that the Republican party was totally disconnected from the vast majority of American citizens. 2. That an attractive and spellbinding candidate with no history of accomplishment and no experience as an executive of anything can destroy our traditional American government once thought to be a powerful bastion of liberty. Liberal Progressives believe that conservatism's task is to resist the centralization and expansionist tendencies of our democratic government. They picture conservatives as the party of "no". Actually, that is indeed a major part of the conservative mission. Liberal Progressives like to picture this as indifference to inequality and misfortune. That is not true. The difference between the Liberal Progressives and Conservatives is that when voting on government issues the conservatives ask the question:

I stopped at the stop sign. High school kids all dressed like homeless deadbeats and carrying what looked like 40 pounds of books crossed the street in front of me.  Their heavy back packs sagged. Perhaps there was  more than books within? I couldn't help questioning if we, when we were their age,  look so ragged and ratty?  Yes, we suppose we did.  Remember the duck tails, engineers boots and cigarette packs rolled in the short sleeves t-shirts? That was the uniform of the day.  Oh yeah, Levis too. Any length was ok because we rolled the cuffs up as required. It was  important that the little red tag was on the right back pocket.  No tag - wrong brand.  It was a "brand" thing.   The girls wore cashmere sweaters, long skirts, saddle shoes and silk scarves or kleenex in their bras if needed. Off the school ground everybody smoked. The girls less openly. If you didn't smoke you were labeled a nerd and ignored.  Yeah, we looked different than they do today,  but just as

I'm puzzled. The coming election may be the most important during my lifetime. Of course that's been said about every election for over 200 years. So what? This time I really think it's true. Our  government has worked itself into a corner. It is no longer capable of the job assigned to it. For years we've spent more than we took in. We are now bankrupt and hopelessly in debt. I believe our troubles are all connected to the gradual decline of the American character. Yes, it sounds a bit foolish and academic, but it's not either. Years ago it was called "common sense". The founders of our government  designed a truly new and interesting way for government to function and at the same time protect individual citizens. Despite their outstanding successes over the last 200 years - in the long run they in failed to protect individual citizens from each other. We've reached a fork in the road and must either fix our government or try something else. Ame

Try this link. If it works like it should you will see several short common sense presentations. Trust me. It's worth the time to watch them. Dixon http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=56&load=7267

Our country is gradually slipping. The elements that guided the original crafters of our system are rapidly becoming extinct. I am worried about the nation-home our generation is leaving for our children. I know. I know. The same concern was shared by people that lived before Christ. Does that make it any the less true? Two fine examples: Honesty. Who among us hasn't fibbed on his income tax or something similar? Integrity . Did you tell a "white lie" today? Were you late to work because of traffic, or did you not leave home on time?  Perhaps my impression that "character" is less important today is wrong. If so, why are so many politicians caught in corruption? Why are so many people anxious to leave a job in the private sector that pays $120,000 per year, to get elected to a public office that pays $60,000 per year? How do Congressmen who earn $100,000 per year salary and $100,000 in various benefits per year, retire after serving one term in office -

A few weeks ago a mentally impaired guy walked into a theatre and shot 38 people. I believe that the death toll is now 11. Since the  attack there has been a predictable outcry to "ban all guns". For some reason (that puzzles me) there is a small but significant number of Americans who are flatly convinced that banning guns will eliminate people shooting one another. There is no reason to believe this. None. These people are wrong and it has been proven many times. I gives the criminal more power. I live in a suburb of Los Angeles and like several of my neighbors we raised a family in my home and neighborhood, I do not own a gun. My wife and believe I there is  a greater danger of an accidental injury to one of the kids than an armed intrusion at our house. Some 40+ years have gone by and we've not changed our mind. Now there are visiting grandchildren and great grand children. The same logic applies. So we rely on close proximity to our neighbors for protection. The