Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

…is a great emotionally charged statement that is made from an artificially contrived platform of moral equality.  At its face, it evokes feelings that something is wrong–unfair.  It suggests that someone is being cheated.  It’s a statement based on envy–one of the more powerful emotions.  It strikes at the heart of man’s nature–wanting what others have and often wanting it whether it is deserved or not.  The juvenile equivalent is one we may have heard many times before:  “Hey!  That’s not fair!”

What is the answer to this issue of income inequality?

First, one has to agree that there is a problem.  But is there really a problem?

One would have to suggest that in order for the rich to not get richer, there need to be:

  • Caps on wealth attainment
  • Caps on wealth retention

For instance, once a level of wealth is attained, say $1,000,000.00, the “person” could no longer obtain any more wealth.  He or she could no longer draw a paycheck, no longer receive interest or dividends on investments, not receive a financial gift, and would even have to turn-over the penny found on a sidewalk–that is, until the financial worth dropped below the cap.  Taken to a logical conclusion, any investment would be capped, suggesting that as they rose in value, the investment would have to be divested.  Stocks, gold, and silver–easily done.  A house or vehicle that appreciates, well, then what?  One could always take the Bolshevik approach seen in the story, Doctor Zhivago:  Confiscate the home and relegate the owner to an apartment commensurate with his or her needs.

This country (and any “free” country) will have a hard time asking entrepreneurs and investors to live according to such caps.  Such a country will have a harder time still with fostering and supporting a market that drives innovation, invention, and commercial enterprise.  Indeed, the potential for profit has made all of this possible–from Queen Isabella investing in Columbus’ journeys, to Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey creating social media environments that have been changing the world!

Oddly enough, wouldn’t it be those who are wealthy and in power who would define these caps?

Of course, that’s not really what they’re espousing.  Politicians like Bernie Sanders don’t want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs!  No!  He and others want to increase the output of the goose and ensure the golden eggs are harvested and used for their purpose.

Tax the wealthy more!  Take more of what they earn–and give it to others via social programs.

The conservative view–which I obviously hold to–is summed up in the adage “give a man a fish, he eats for a day; teach a man to fish and he eats for life”.  Or the cliché “hand-up, not a hand-out”.

The social and progressive rant about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer is recited in the media, ironically, by those of great wealth and means.  Their proposals to redistribute the wealth do little or nothing to alleviate the conditions that create poverty or trap individuals in it.

We have been told that the poor will be with us always (Jesus said it, not me!).  This doesn’t mean that we should do nothing to meet their needs or to alleviate their suffering, but it does mean that we will not eliminate poverty.  Ever!

We are also told to not envy or covet anything that is our neighbors (God said it, not me!).  If we can get past the sin of saying “I want what he has”, we could do far better as a society.

Here’s the fix:  Let’s applaud those who succeed and help those who struggle.

While we Americans subscribe to a philosophy that all men are created equal, that doesn’t mean that all men remain equal.  No man should think himself better than another (again, Biblical!), but we all have different gifts and talents.  We should be able to use these gifts and talents to the betterment of our lives without the government capping how much enjoyment we have.  After all, there are certain inalienable rights endowed on us by our creator–life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Having a government that no longer wants to acknowledge that Creator does not lessen these rights.

NOTE:  This is a post I started some time ago and simply never finished.  With a few edits, here it is, just in time for the tax reform debate and the perennial belly aching about only the rich being helped by it.)


Read Full Post »

In my day job, I’m an IT project manager.  It’s unheard of in the professional circles I’m in to launch any application without extensive testing.  You test the components individually, you test them together, and then you test it from end to end.  An example would be:

1.  The manufacturer of an aluminum wheel tests it for all applicable specifications

2.  The tire manufacturer tests the rubber and steel used in making tires.  Then they make the tires and test them

3.  SOMEONE puts the tire on the wheel and tests them together

4.  SOMEONE puts the tires and wheels on a vehicle and tests them together

glitchYou don’t want to buy untested wheels or tires.  So why would anyone want a Healthcare System that hasn’t been properly tested?  Shame on Kathleen Sebelius for letting HHS go forward with the system as they did.

Worse still, for this to be the President’s key initiative, how could HE not have been monitoring the launch?  It’s difficult to fathom that after the fracas with the House, he would simply let Oct 1st come and go without once asking for a status update!  Yet Secretary Sebelius says, and wants us to believe, that Obama didn’t know about the issues for days.

It is incompetent that she would let her boss, the President, be blindsided on this program!

It is incompetent that no-one in the White House said “Mr President, there’s an issue”.  Even in the TV shows, the President (actor) is portrayed getting news from CNN or similar new sources throughout the day.  Is the President that shielded?

If so, we no longer have a president—we have an emperor!  And he has no clothes!

But he has many loyal fools in his court who dare not tell him!




Not adequately tested…


Read Full Post »

Article:  “Maryland Attorney General:  I Had No ‘Moral Authority’ To Stop Underage Drinking At My Son’s Party

ganslerDoug Gansler, the AG in question, seems to confuse his “moral” authority with his “official” and “jurisdictional” authority.  As the party was in Delaware, he had no explicit authority based on his position as AG in a neighboring state.  However, he did have the moral authority to intervene.

Underage drinking was in progress.  Let’s be clear here—the law was being broken.  Yet he didn’t have the moral authority?

Had he walked in and found a child being sexually abused, would he say he had no moral authority to intervene?

So you say the difference is that it’s a child.

Someone is being harmed.

Use any excuse you will, moral authority is supposed to be that human sense of right and wrong that says we intervene when something wrong is occurring.

An AG who doesn’t understand moral authority has no business being the top law enforcement official anywhere!





Read Full Post »

President_Official_Portrait_HiResI’m not talking about the man—the name.

I’m asking you if you know who the president is.  You could answer with “Chief Executive” as some have.  In a sense, he is the CEO of the United States of America.  Per the Constitution, the branch of government he is over is the Executive branch.  No stretch here at all.

More and more Americans like to point out that he is also Commander-in-Chief.  True.  As per the Constitution:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.”

By virtue of Amendments and interpretation, he is also the commander-in-chief of the military branches that did not exist at the time the Constitution was written:  Air Force, Coast Guard, and Merchant Marine.  The Marine Corps is subordinate to the Navy and is included in the basic framework.

There are a number of other responsibilities and powers the president has—one can (and should) read the Constitution to get a clear picture of what the individual in this office can do and what limits are imposed.  A careful reading will show that the president has NO power or authority over a private citizen!  This American idea was intentional and is radically different from the European powers from which this nation sprang.  Indeed, if the president did have such power, we would be subjects.  But we are not.

All this to ask another question—again:  Who is the President, that we should have such respect for and alignment with?

He is just a man, fallible and limited in his knowledge as any human is.  He is a political standard-bearer for one ideology or another.  He is the chief executive of the government.  He is commander-in-chief of the military.  And he is a man who has no direct authority over me.

Yet, he is a man with an immense government at his disposal who can through influence, intimidation, or covert means, carry out actions around the world against Americans and foreigners alike and with total impunity.

In short, we have magnified the office to something it is not.  We have empowered the office through less than Constitutional measures.  And we have allowed the office to take upon itself powers that were not intended.

I understand what people mean when they suggest we need to have more respect for the president—but I refuse to yield my civilian right to dissent and opposition to his words, thoughts, and deeds in the name of him being the “Commander-in-Chief”.  I am no longer in the military and as such, I am no longer subject to his orders!

We threw off the yoke of tyranny when we declared our independence from England, King George III, and his institutions.  Let us not go back into that sort of bondage under a president!

MORE:  http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/

Read Full Post »


<Content Removed by Trebord>

Read Full Post »

It can be said that something can be learned from everything.  One needs only to look for the lesson.

The attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and its aftermath can teach us some important lessons we need to learn in the run-up to the November 6th elections:

Assuming that the latest news reports are true, the nature of the attack was known within a few hours.  It was clear that a terrorist cell was claiming responsibility and that the attack had nothing to do with an anti-Islam video.  The fact that it took nearly two weeks for the White House to acknowledge what it had known after only two hours is troubling.  It’s not as if Facebook and Twitter didn’t already have that information out there for the world to see—and it’s not as if holding back disclosure was going to make anyone else more or less safe.

So here’s what we should take away as key lessons:

1.  If President Obama claims to be briefed daily on intelligence matters, these briefings are woefully inefficient and ineffective.  Such a matter should have been a “red phone” topic no matter the time of day or when the last briefing had occurred.

2.  If President Obama knew this information, then his Administration (or “He”)  lied to the American public.  Not surprising that a politician would lie, just surprising that there might have been some delusion that the truth would not surface.

3.  If Vice President Biden knew this information—well, no point going there!

It’s a given for me that politicians lie.  In my lifetime, we’ve had some real doozies:  Richard Nixon—who resigned, Bill Clinton—who was impeached… now add to that Barack Obama who needs to be ousted from office.  Not because he lied on this point, but generally because of his ineffective leadership.

During his campaign, he vowed to reach across the aisle.  With a Democrat-controlled House and Senate, he did anything but reach across the aisle.  He points out Romney’s changes in views but famously reversed his own stand on Same-Sex Marriage in time to try to sway voters.  He’s allowed the death of a US diplomat in the field, has information on those responsible, and has only responded by criticizing a video which had nothing to do with the attack.  You would think that on the anniversary of 9/11, there would have been increased vigilance at posts around the Islamic world.

We have our lessons from abroad!  Now let’s go out and apply what we’ve learned to move America back to greatness!




September 12 — Barack Obama (in part)

“The United States condemns, in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We’re working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I’ve also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world.

And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people. Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths.

We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None.”

Full Transcript

September 13 — Jay Carney: (Obama’s Spokesman)

“The protests we’re seeing around the region are in reaction to this movie. They are not directly in reaction to any policy of the United States or the government of the United States or the people of the United States.”

September 14 — Jay Carney:

“We were not aware of any actionable intelligence indicating that an attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was planned or imminent.”


Read Full Post »

This is the first time ever that I have taken in the debates, both the presidential and vice-presidential.  Currently viewing tonight’s debate, I’m thoroughly disgusted with Candy Crowley’s performance.  And this is a performance.  She appears to be too full of her role in the debate, taking it upon herself to restate questions and press for further answers—but allowing President Obama an extra opportunity to respond to the question.  She has yet to give Romney such a chance and she’s absolutely wrong with regard to the timekeepers working to keep things on track.  Perhaps if she shuts up, the timekeeping WOULD work and the people there who are waiting to ask a question could actually get their questions out!

Unlike four years ago, I’ve kept fairly quiet during this race.  There is enough negativity going around without me adding to it.  But again, this debate has just sent me over the edge!  News personalities such as Lehrer, what’s her name, and now Crowley—they don’t belong in a moderator’s seat!

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »