The impetus for today's argument is the senseless murders of NYC police officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu yesterday (12.20.2014), but it is something that has been building over the last couple of decades. The loss of life simply does not mean as much in our society it ought to, regardless of race, creed, religion, or any other marker that we care to create. People kill each other, and for the most part, do not expect to face any type of consequences, at least not anything that puts a crimp in their lifestyle.
We've been told #BlackLives matter, which they do (though not enough for any form of protest when any of the 2,245 blacks were killed by another black person in 2013, according to government statistics.) We've also had other camps weigh in and post that #WhiteLives matter, and so do #CopLives matter. Not nearly enough people, however, have focused on the fact that #AllLives matter.
It's been bandied about that the reason for this is that the 'gangsta' lifestyle is glorified in various media, which may play a part in it. Others have decried violent video games, and like-minded movies and television programs. These are certainly options, too, but not the main cause, in my opinion.
In the movie Tombstone, one of the great movies of the last 25 years, there is a scene that takes place down by the creek. Wyatt Earp (Kurt Russell) has just led a successful attack against "Curly" Bill Brocious, and his band of Cowboys. Following its conclusion, Doc Holliday (Val Kilmer) has a conversation with 'Turkey Creek' Jack Johnson (Buck Taylor), 'Texas' Jack Vermillion (Peter Sherayko), and McMasters (Michael Rooker) in which the thought is expressed that Earp is going after the Cowboys to gain revenge for attacks on his brothers and their families.
Holliday replied "Make no mistake, it's not revenge he's after, it's the reckoning." The use of reckoning in this instance would reflect the thought of judging someone or multiple persons for actions previously taken.
This is what is sadly lacking in our modern society. Criminals commit heinous crimes of all sort, and the immediate response by many groups is to defend the criminal, pointing to their upbringing and 'lack of opportunity' as the reason that they have committed their crimes. While I won't argue that the denigration of the nuclear family may lead some down the path of Evil, it cannot be used as a crutch for crimes committed against fellow citizens.
What it comes down to is there is no personal responsibility, no accountability for actions. It's time to fix that. The big problem with our legal system is activist judges who do not sentence criminals to the proper reckoning, especially violent criminals. I would favor a much more strict punishment scale:
Public execution for anyone who kills in cold blood (not self-defense, which is wholly supported), along with all rapists, and persons who abuse children sexually. The reason for the execution is not revenge, as Holliday noted, because no amount of punishment will bring a person back to life or restore a person's sense of self. Rather, it is to eliminate from the public persons who would commit such crimes, so they are not able to commit them once again. What has been seen time and again is criminals who are released from prison go back out in to society and commit more crimes. That is a losing proposition for the good people in our world.
The reason the executions should be made public is so that there is public notice of the consequences of a person's actions. When executions are done behind closed doors, there is not the same connection for the public, nor can we be as certain that there is not a nefarious purpose on the state's side with terminating another human life. It is an undertaking that should be taken with the most serious reservations, but at the time the decision is made, there should be no turning back.
Sunday, December 21, 2014
Monday, December 15, 2014
Stupid Is As Stupid Does, the MA Edition
The impetus for today's belated argument is the finding of an advisory commission in Massachusetts that suggests that top public officials in MA are 'underpaid'. Mind, this discovery was made despite the fact that MA is currently facing a budget deficit in the neighborhood of $400 million, which some of the elected officials who will see huge pay raises must account for.
The basis for this increase in public office holders' salary is the fact that 1,254 other state employees who earn more than the governor's current $151,800 (11th in the entire U.S. for governor pay), and quite simply, that's not enough. Plus, the governor's salary is only in the neighborhood of 8% of the salary of major corporation CEOs. This would be funny if it wasn't for the fact that nearly every single person who will benefit from the proposed pay raises is a (D) who has at one point in time or another espoused the belief that corporate CEOs are akin to the Devil, and should be denigrated at every available opportunity.
I would think that in light of our current budget crisis here in the Bay State, the proper move would not to be to hand out raises to those who are unworthy, but rather to hand out salary decreases to those 1%ers walking around on the public dole, most of whom have never worked an honest day in their lives (I apologize to the handful of public employees that earn above $152,000 who actually do something to help the general public.), and again, many who have decried how unfair it is that job producers and creators earn the salaries that they do.
The good news for the citizenry of MA is that outgoing (D) governor Deval Patrick has already stated that he will not sign the bill authorizing the pay increases until the (D) legislature agrees to the spending cuts he sent down to them, which they have thus far not agreed to. Incoming (R) governor Charlie Baker had this to say with regard to the ridiculous pay increases:
The basis for this increase in public office holders' salary is the fact that 1,254 other state employees who earn more than the governor's current $151,800 (11th in the entire U.S. for governor pay), and quite simply, that's not enough. Plus, the governor's salary is only in the neighborhood of 8% of the salary of major corporation CEOs. This would be funny if it wasn't for the fact that nearly every single person who will benefit from the proposed pay raises is a (D) who has at one point in time or another espoused the belief that corporate CEOs are akin to the Devil, and should be denigrated at every available opportunity.
I would think that in light of our current budget crisis here in the Bay State, the proper move would not to be to hand out raises to those who are unworthy, but rather to hand out salary decreases to those 1%ers walking around on the public dole, most of whom have never worked an honest day in their lives (I apologize to the handful of public employees that earn above $152,000 who actually do something to help the general public.), and again, many who have decried how unfair it is that job producers and creators earn the salaries that they do.
The good news for the citizenry of MA is that outgoing (D) governor Deval Patrick has already stated that he will not sign the bill authorizing the pay increases until the (D) legislature agrees to the spending cuts he sent down to them, which they have thus far not agreed to. Incoming (R) governor Charlie Baker had this to say with regard to the ridiculous pay increases:
The people of Massachusetts deserve a state government that is as thrifty as they are and now is not the time to award pay raises when a significant budget deficit is forcing cuts to many programs and services."It will be interesting to see how this battle over nearly unwarranted raises plays out in the remaining days of 2014.
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
Stupid Is As Stupid Does
The impetus for today's argument is a man so stupid, I feel horrible even linking to the story about him, but I will, to avoid the legal entanglements that would come about if I did not.
Our idiot's name is George Prior, and sitting back and looking at this from a totally unbiased, uninvolved point of view, it's quite clear that George is either seeking attention (+1 for him, if that's so, because I'm sure he'll make a boatload of cash from his venture) or it's a cry for help. I'm going to think as many positive thoughts about the man as I can, and assume it is the latter.
George's 'experiment' follows in the footsteps of Morgan Spurlock who gained international fame with his mockumentary SuperSize Me, in which he consumed nothing but McDonald's worst foods for 30 days and saw his health fall apart. Spurlock gained his 15 minutes' worth of fame, and millions of dollars, to boot, but his angle was eventually disproved by 54 year old science teacher John Cisna, who actually managed to lose 37 pounds while consuming nothing but McDonald's for the same period of time.
Fortunately for Prior's run at fame, I cannot conceive of a way that someone might prove that consuming 10 cans of Coke in a day is a benefit for their bodies. Of course, as Prior himself states "Everyone knows it wouldn't be healthy to drink ten cokes a day." Uh, yeah.
Of course, Prior decided to press on with this thought:
Secondly, who the heck has the time or body capacity to consume the amount of liquids that he seems to believe is the typical American day? Even consuming 10 cans of Coke seems like a bit of a stretch, unless you're trying to prove a 'point', as it means knocking back one can for every 1 hour and 48 minutes you are awake, assuming an 18-hour day. That's ridiculous.
Life is a series of choices, and for those who choose to drink 10 cans a Coke a day while eating the greasiest, fattest foods that McDonald's (or another fast food chain) has to offer, without exercising, I have some 'news' for you: your body is not going to be in good shape, regardless of what the exterior vessel may look like. If you want to be fit, it's important to consider not only what you eat/drink, but how the manner in which you exercise (here's a hint: just do it, whatever 'it' may be.) If you choose to lead a sedentary lifestyle while consuming terrible foods, your are not going to be as healthy as you may like, but that will be through your own choices, no one else's.
Our idiot's name is George Prior, and sitting back and looking at this from a totally unbiased, uninvolved point of view, it's quite clear that George is either seeking attention (+1 for him, if that's so, because I'm sure he'll make a boatload of cash from his venture) or it's a cry for help. I'm going to think as many positive thoughts about the man as I can, and assume it is the latter.
George's 'experiment' follows in the footsteps of Morgan Spurlock who gained international fame with his mockumentary SuperSize Me, in which he consumed nothing but McDonald's worst foods for 30 days and saw his health fall apart. Spurlock gained his 15 minutes' worth of fame, and millions of dollars, to boot, but his angle was eventually disproved by 54 year old science teacher John Cisna, who actually managed to lose 37 pounds while consuming nothing but McDonald's for the same period of time.
Fortunately for Prior's run at fame, I cannot conceive of a way that someone might prove that consuming 10 cans of Coke in a day is a benefit for their bodies. Of course, as Prior himself states "Everyone knows it wouldn't be healthy to drink ten cokes a day." Uh, yeah.
Of course, Prior decided to press on with this thought:
That's true, perhaps you're only drinking four Cokes, but if you add in the two glasses of orange juice, the two sweetened coffee drinks from Starbucks, the 16-ounce Odwalla drink, the two 'healthy' brand ice teas and the $9 fruit smoothie you waited 10 minutes in life for, you've made my 10 Cokes look like child's play.First of all, I spent the better part of a decade eating a pound of pasta (or more) a day, chasing it down with a half gallon of orange juice. The thought that OJ (or pasta, for that matter) is unhealthy is one that I was unable to prove in my years of 'trying' (the truth was I really like OJ, and pasta is quick, delicious, and nutritious.) It's fair to note, I did exercise (running, walking, or weightlifting) in one form or another five days a week during that stretch. My weight remained constant, and my blood pressure and pulse were excellent.
Secondly, who the heck has the time or body capacity to consume the amount of liquids that he seems to believe is the typical American day? Even consuming 10 cans of Coke seems like a bit of a stretch, unless you're trying to prove a 'point', as it means knocking back one can for every 1 hour and 48 minutes you are awake, assuming an 18-hour day. That's ridiculous.
Life is a series of choices, and for those who choose to drink 10 cans a Coke a day while eating the greasiest, fattest foods that McDonald's (or another fast food chain) has to offer, without exercising, I have some 'news' for you: your body is not going to be in good shape, regardless of what the exterior vessel may look like. If you want to be fit, it's important to consider not only what you eat/drink, but how the manner in which you exercise (here's a hint: just do it, whatever 'it' may be.) If you choose to lead a sedentary lifestyle while consuming terrible foods, your are not going to be as healthy as you may like, but that will be through your own choices, no one else's.
Thursday, November 27, 2014
Bernie Sanders' Ignorance
The impetus for today's argument comes from U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders' Twitter account. Two days ago he had this message for the American people. In this message, he attacked the Walton family, and their business, Wal-Mart ultimately because of their own success and living the American Dream.
His post was designed to do only one thing: inspire class warfare between the 'haves' and the 'have nots'. There is no other reason for him to make such a statement, especially in light of what else was going on around our nation on that day. As I have noted on other occasions, envy is a terrible sin, and while Senator Sanders certainly has nothing to be envious (he is in the upper portion of the 1%ers) of, he knows by stirring the pot, especially at this time of year, will draw his base to him.
To begin with, Senator Sanders' annual salary is no less than $174,000, paid courtesy of the U.S. citizenry. He also has access to a fully funded pension and health care program that no citizen could ever hope to acquire, again, and a host of other benefits, all paid for by the U.S. taxpayer.
Instead of being grateful for his good fortune in life, he chooses to attack those that have created jobs (over 2,000,000 worldwide) and opportunities for others. What has the *good* Senator done of late outside of create division amongst the populace? Surely he has not done anything about the ever-increasing unemployment numbers (the government released numbers are such blatant lies they're not really worth commenting on.), or the fact that our nation is under attack from outside (and sadly, internal) persons who are looking to destroy our nation just because. It's a real easy thing to sit back and cast stones at those that have succeeded instead of working to make others' lives better.
The *good* Senator also took the time to attack Wal-Mart because so many of their employees are on government welfare programs. If the Senator bothered to look at the mangled government statistics, he'd note that over 1/7 of our legal population is on some form of government welfare program or another. A major reason for this is because of the actions that Sanders and many of his belief system.
As I noted in a different context, jobs like Wal-Mart gigs are not intended to be a lifelong career. Each of us should aspire to do something beyond the simple phrase of "Your total is $123.56." Jobs, or at least the majority of jobs at places such as Wal-Mart are not intended to raise a family on. In reality, they're not designed to make even a single person rich. There simply isn't a reason to, because the jobs are for the most part replaceable. Employees who show aptitude and a desire to move on are presented with opportunities to do so. Why? Because it makes sense for companies, regardless of their name, to promote from within when there are deserving employees.
The other thought to consider is a two-fold one: part of the Wal-Mart model is to provide the lowest prices available to its customers. This in turn allows those who have less means afford more things (groceries, durable items, *luxury* items) than they otherwise would be able to. Instead of denigrating the Wal-Mart model, Senator Sanders should see how it could be applied to his chosen profession.
He should also be thankful that voters are easily confused, and his 1%er salary is guaranteed as long as he continues to rail against the 'evil' rich, while pretending like he is not one of them.
His post was designed to do only one thing: inspire class warfare between the 'haves' and the 'have nots'. There is no other reason for him to make such a statement, especially in light of what else was going on around our nation on that day. As I have noted on other occasions, envy is a terrible sin, and while Senator Sanders certainly has nothing to be envious (he is in the upper portion of the 1%ers) of, he knows by stirring the pot, especially at this time of year, will draw his base to him.
To begin with, Senator Sanders' annual salary is no less than $174,000, paid courtesy of the U.S. citizenry. He also has access to a fully funded pension and health care program that no citizen could ever hope to acquire, again, and a host of other benefits, all paid for by the U.S. taxpayer.
Instead of being grateful for his good fortune in life, he chooses to attack those that have created jobs (over 2,000,000 worldwide) and opportunities for others. What has the *good* Senator done of late outside of create division amongst the populace? Surely he has not done anything about the ever-increasing unemployment numbers (the government released numbers are such blatant lies they're not really worth commenting on.), or the fact that our nation is under attack from outside (and sadly, internal) persons who are looking to destroy our nation just because. It's a real easy thing to sit back and cast stones at those that have succeeded instead of working to make others' lives better.
The *good* Senator also took the time to attack Wal-Mart because so many of their employees are on government welfare programs. If the Senator bothered to look at the mangled government statistics, he'd note that over 1/7 of our legal population is on some form of government welfare program or another. A major reason for this is because of the actions that Sanders and many of his belief system.
As I noted in a different context, jobs like Wal-Mart gigs are not intended to be a lifelong career. Each of us should aspire to do something beyond the simple phrase of "Your total is $123.56." Jobs, or at least the majority of jobs at places such as Wal-Mart are not intended to raise a family on. In reality, they're not designed to make even a single person rich. There simply isn't a reason to, because the jobs are for the most part replaceable. Employees who show aptitude and a desire to move on are presented with opportunities to do so. Why? Because it makes sense for companies, regardless of their name, to promote from within when there are deserving employees.
The other thought to consider is a two-fold one: part of the Wal-Mart model is to provide the lowest prices available to its customers. This in turn allows those who have less means afford more things (groceries, durable items, *luxury* items) than they otherwise would be able to. Instead of denigrating the Wal-Mart model, Senator Sanders should see how it could be applied to his chosen profession.
He should also be thankful that voters are easily confused, and his 1%er salary is guaranteed as long as he continues to rail against the 'evil' rich, while pretending like he is not one of them.
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
History Repeats Itself In Furgeson
The impetus for today's argument is the stupidity that is currently going on in Ferguson, Missouri.
Before we delve too far in to this, it is time we revisit a scene from the not too distant past:
March 3, 1991. Yes, that's right, the night of the infamous Rodney King arrest/beating. The video evidence suggests fairly strongly that the LAPD may have gone overboard in their attempts to bring King into submission. Watching the video, there definitely appears to be one officer who is intent on striking King as many times as he could. Whether it was necessary for that many strikes, only the officers on the scene, and Rodney King would have known. That beating and arrest would eventually lead to the the LAPD officers being tried and acquitted by a jury trial for their alleged excessive use of force. A subsequent federal trial, for violations of Rodney King's civil rights led to the convictions of officers Stacey Koon and Laurence Powell, each of whom was sentenced to 30 months in federal detention.
In between those two trials, however, is what needs to be discussed. Within 62 minutes of the officers' initial not guilty, LA had erupted in riots that would eventually lead to the death of 54 innocent persons and the destruction or theft of over $1 Billion in property. Most of the deaths that occurred were minorities, specifically citizens of Korean and Latino ancestry, though there were exceptions. Reginald Denny was one of the major ones, because there was video footage of him in his tractor trailer, being pulled out by a group of black men who proceeded to beat him with a claw hammer and a cement cinder block, fracturing his skull in 91 places. There were no riots for Denny, though he did pick up the nickname Reginald Denty from news media and his daughter alike.
A more direct connection perhaps to the death of Michael Brown in Missouri is that of one Gil Collar at the University of Alabama in 2012. Collar, who was a white freshman, was shot dead by a campus police officer who happened to be black. Because the person who was killed was white, it allowed for the legal process to occur in a manner that should have occurred. Was it sad that the campus officer felt the need to shoot Collar dead? Of course it was, and is. Was the officer in fear for his personal safety? He believed he was, and based on the evidence, so do I. Collar acted in a manner far less aggressive than what it has been reported that Mike Brown did in his encounter with Darren Wilson, but nonetheless, he had forced the officer to retreat, and like Brown, he continued to charge at the officer who fired a fatal shot.
My question goes out to Michael Brown's mother who stated moments after Wilson was not indicted "Burn this bitch down!" and to President Obama who stated that he understood that some Americans would be 'deeply disappointed, even angered' that Wilson was charged. While we're at it, let's ask the 'Reverend' Al Sharpton exactly what the Hell it is he does to help promote racial unity in this nation (that last one's just a joke. There's no money or power with unity, just happiness for all. Sharpton is only interested in his own personal happiness and welfare.), and it's this: Where were you when Collar was shot dead? Better yet, where were you when Brendan Tevlin was brutally murdered by Ali Muhammad Brown as part of his nationwide spree of domestic violence?
Brown's mother (who should be charged for her role in helping to incite further rioting) at least can lay claim to being a person who is in grief over what she perceives to be a lack of accountability on the part of the grand jury. Where do Obama's opinions come from, and what end is he attempting to gain with his choice of words. Certainly it is not about unity, and if I was reading between the lines, I'd think that he was giving a nod and a wink to the violence that he knew would soon erupt on the streets of Ferguson. That, ladies and gentlemen, is not leadership. It is kowtowing to the dregs in the hope of gaining some political hand.
Back to Jackson, though, and why he doesn't feel the need to show up at the other incidents that I mentioned above: That's right, there's no money and no looting there, so there's nothing to get all up tight about, and that's the bullshit of this situation, and any other one like it. However, just as was the case in LA, so it is in Ferguson, or anywhere else an event like this might occur: Once looting and violent rioting begins, any claim of caring about the person who is deceased (whether the death is justified or not) loses credibility. At that point in time, persons that are involved are nothing more than privateers looking to cash in on a deteriorating situation.
There's no other way to parse it but to say it comes down to personal responsibility, something this nation is sadly lacking at this point in our history (it's been a steady downhill trajectory for at least the last 80 years on many fronts.) Every action, no matter how indefensible, is someone else's fault. It simply isn't true. Actions have consequences, some that are unintended, and others that may prove fatal. The lesson that should be learned is that when a police officer tells you to stop and get to the ground you listen. You know why? They've got the guns! They've got the authority to use their weapons in a legal manner if you put their life in peril, (and they should have that right.) Whether we agree with it or not, they are the people who are responsible for protecting not only the citizenry, but themselves.
Are mistakes made? Of course. Are their officers (of all color) who take advantage of their position in any number of ways? That goes without saying. Are there those that are pompous, pretentious, and in general tools? Yep. Still, the majority of officers of the law are in their jobs either because they truly care about the communities they live in or because they look forward to their pension after a relatively short time protecting the streets. Most are not bad people, though our individual experiences may cause us to see otherwise.
**Of course, if we all just listened to Chris Rock, then we'd have a lot less to worry about in our lives.
Before we delve too far in to this, it is time we revisit a scene from the not too distant past:
March 3, 1991. Yes, that's right, the night of the infamous Rodney King arrest/beating. The video evidence suggests fairly strongly that the LAPD may have gone overboard in their attempts to bring King into submission. Watching the video, there definitely appears to be one officer who is intent on striking King as many times as he could. Whether it was necessary for that many strikes, only the officers on the scene, and Rodney King would have known. That beating and arrest would eventually lead to the the LAPD officers being tried and acquitted by a jury trial for their alleged excessive use of force. A subsequent federal trial, for violations of Rodney King's civil rights led to the convictions of officers Stacey Koon and Laurence Powell, each of whom was sentenced to 30 months in federal detention.
In between those two trials, however, is what needs to be discussed. Within 62 minutes of the officers' initial not guilty, LA had erupted in riots that would eventually lead to the death of 54 innocent persons and the destruction or theft of over $1 Billion in property. Most of the deaths that occurred were minorities, specifically citizens of Korean and Latino ancestry, though there were exceptions. Reginald Denny was one of the major ones, because there was video footage of him in his tractor trailer, being pulled out by a group of black men who proceeded to beat him with a claw hammer and a cement cinder block, fracturing his skull in 91 places. There were no riots for Denny, though he did pick up the nickname Reginald Denty from news media and his daughter alike.
A more direct connection perhaps to the death of Michael Brown in Missouri is that of one Gil Collar at the University of Alabama in 2012. Collar, who was a white freshman, was shot dead by a campus police officer who happened to be black. Because the person who was killed was white, it allowed for the legal process to occur in a manner that should have occurred. Was it sad that the campus officer felt the need to shoot Collar dead? Of course it was, and is. Was the officer in fear for his personal safety? He believed he was, and based on the evidence, so do I. Collar acted in a manner far less aggressive than what it has been reported that Mike Brown did in his encounter with Darren Wilson, but nonetheless, he had forced the officer to retreat, and like Brown, he continued to charge at the officer who fired a fatal shot.
My question goes out to Michael Brown's mother who stated moments after Wilson was not indicted "Burn this bitch down!" and to President Obama who stated that he understood that some Americans would be 'deeply disappointed, even angered' that Wilson was charged. While we're at it, let's ask the 'Reverend' Al Sharpton exactly what the Hell it is he does to help promote racial unity in this nation (that last one's just a joke. There's no money or power with unity, just happiness for all. Sharpton is only interested in his own personal happiness and welfare.), and it's this: Where were you when Collar was shot dead? Better yet, where were you when Brendan Tevlin was brutally murdered by Ali Muhammad Brown as part of his nationwide spree of domestic violence?
Brown's mother (who should be charged for her role in helping to incite further rioting) at least can lay claim to being a person who is in grief over what she perceives to be a lack of accountability on the part of the grand jury. Where do Obama's opinions come from, and what end is he attempting to gain with his choice of words. Certainly it is not about unity, and if I was reading between the lines, I'd think that he was giving a nod and a wink to the violence that he knew would soon erupt on the streets of Ferguson. That, ladies and gentlemen, is not leadership. It is kowtowing to the dregs in the hope of gaining some political hand.
Back to Jackson, though, and why he doesn't feel the need to show up at the other incidents that I mentioned above: That's right, there's no money and no looting there, so there's nothing to get all up tight about, and that's the bullshit of this situation, and any other one like it. However, just as was the case in LA, so it is in Ferguson, or anywhere else an event like this might occur: Once looting and violent rioting begins, any claim of caring about the person who is deceased (whether the death is justified or not) loses credibility. At that point in time, persons that are involved are nothing more than privateers looking to cash in on a deteriorating situation.
There's no other way to parse it but to say it comes down to personal responsibility, something this nation is sadly lacking at this point in our history (it's been a steady downhill trajectory for at least the last 80 years on many fronts.) Every action, no matter how indefensible, is someone else's fault. It simply isn't true. Actions have consequences, some that are unintended, and others that may prove fatal. The lesson that should be learned is that when a police officer tells you to stop and get to the ground you listen. You know why? They've got the guns! They've got the authority to use their weapons in a legal manner if you put their life in peril, (and they should have that right.) Whether we agree with it or not, they are the people who are responsible for protecting not only the citizenry, but themselves.
Are mistakes made? Of course. Are their officers (of all color) who take advantage of their position in any number of ways? That goes without saying. Are there those that are pompous, pretentious, and in general tools? Yep. Still, the majority of officers of the law are in their jobs either because they truly care about the communities they live in or because they look forward to their pension after a relatively short time protecting the streets. Most are not bad people, though our individual experiences may cause us to see otherwise.
**Of course, if we all just listened to Chris Rock, then we'd have a lot less to worry about in our lives.
Monday, November 24, 2014
Perhaps Obama Is Trying to Get Himself Impeached...
The impetus for today's argument was going to be the President's unilateral decision from last Thursday whereby he decided that he was Emperor*, and he could magically allow 5 million** illegal aliens to stay in this country, no problem.*** That will still be the foundation and major argument throughout, but as I sat down to write, a new thought popped in to my head:
Back to the original impetus for today's post, though: Presidential authority, and how exactly laws are created in this country (or at the least, how they are supposed to be created.) Allegedly, upon exiting from the Continental Congress, Benjamin Franklin was asked what type of government had been designed for the new country, to which he answered "A Republic, if you can keep it." Whether or not the story is true, the sentiment remains the same: our Nation was founded not as a Tyranny, not as a Dictatorship, nor a Monarchy, not even a Democracy, as so many wrongly believe, but as a Republic. This is an important distinction, it truly is.
A Republican form of government, as set up by our forefathers, has a system of checks and balances, with powers spread out throughout the different branches of government. It is designed to be a representative form of government, meaning that while the citizenry is not entitled to make the decisions, it is within their powers to elect officials that will represent their opinions. The American public did just that the first Tuesday of November 2014, but our King decided that the citizens he ostensibly represents were too stupid for their own good. No, he must act on his own to set an agenda that is not only wrong, but illegal.
Now I understand that the Constitution can be a bit wordy, and perhaps reading the entire document seemed a bit onerous to our Golfer-in-Chief. That's fair enough, but the Internet is a wildly powerful, amazing resource. If our G-i-C had simply typed in the words "how does a bill become a law" he would have found these results. IF he had scrolled down to the 11th link (I can't believe it's that far down) he would have found this easy-to-watch video that clearly describes the entire process within 3 minutes.
The 2:45 mark fairly well sums it all up: "It's not easy to become a bill, is it?" This is something that Obama has not ever had to deal with, what with everything of import in his adult life simply being handed to him because of who he is, rather than on the basis of any real qualifications.
Now that the Emperor has made his move, it will be up to the Republicans to use whatever legal means they have to stop this assault on U.S. sovereignty, along with its Constitution. IF Obama had merely consulted Article 2, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution he would have found these words:
If that is your thought process, you are too blind to have read anything previous, so please, carry on. The most nefarious idea that could be thought of is that Obama is determined to destroy America, and this is yet another attempt by him to further bankrupt our economy. It's possible, but I'm still hopeful that he has not gone that far off the deep end. Rather, I choose to believe that his endgame is to ensure that there will be an increased pool of voters who owe their fortunes and their votes to candidates of Obama's and his minions choosing. In so doing, he would hope to swing Congressional districts, along with Senate seats, and Electoral College votes to the Democratic party. That is as nefarious as I hope he has become, but it is criminal nonetheless.
The time has come for impeachment, whether or not a conviction can be achieved, and whether or not it is something that Obama himself may hope occurs. It is the right thing to do, and given the repercussions if nothing happens, the time to act is now.
*I know someone who has been calling him "The Emperor Without Clothes" since he was first a candidate for President. It makes me chuckle to see it in print and popping up everywhere else now.
**5 million is such a low ball estimate it's almost not worth arguing, but it is important to note that within the last 2 years, it was acknowledged that the number ranged anywhere from 12-30 million. Am I really supposed to believe that 7-25 million illegals have been deported?
***You have to admire the man's moxie. After President Clinton saw his fortunes change during the 1994 Congressional election, he wisely decided to move towards the center, and work with the Republican-led Congress. Of course, Clinton still had the 1996 election to look forward to, while Obama's final day in office will be the 3rd week of January, 2017.
****For the record, Obama spending the rest of his term on a golf course would be the best thing he could for this country.
What if Obama is looking to be impeached?Granted, it's not a fully formed thought yet, but it is something to consider. Impeachment could easily be achieved in the House, but the conviction would never come from the Senate, there simply aren't enough votes there. The positive side for Obama would be that he could begin accusing his Republican detractors of being on a 'witch hunt', and that may rally his base to his side over the final two years of his term, which he desperately needs. Then again, the President spent most of his Saturday in a golfing foursome with former N.Y. Yankee Derek Jeter, so it's possible he just doesn't give a damn about anything right now.****
Back to the original impetus for today's post, though: Presidential authority, and how exactly laws are created in this country (or at the least, how they are supposed to be created.) Allegedly, upon exiting from the Continental Congress, Benjamin Franklin was asked what type of government had been designed for the new country, to which he answered "A Republic, if you can keep it." Whether or not the story is true, the sentiment remains the same: our Nation was founded not as a Tyranny, not as a Dictatorship, nor a Monarchy, not even a Democracy, as so many wrongly believe, but as a Republic. This is an important distinction, it truly is.
A Republican form of government, as set up by our forefathers, has a system of checks and balances, with powers spread out throughout the different branches of government. It is designed to be a representative form of government, meaning that while the citizenry is not entitled to make the decisions, it is within their powers to elect officials that will represent their opinions. The American public did just that the first Tuesday of November 2014, but our King decided that the citizens he ostensibly represents were too stupid for their own good. No, he must act on his own to set an agenda that is not only wrong, but illegal.
Now I understand that the Constitution can be a bit wordy, and perhaps reading the entire document seemed a bit onerous to our Golfer-in-Chief. That's fair enough, but the Internet is a wildly powerful, amazing resource. If our G-i-C had simply typed in the words "how does a bill become a law" he would have found these results. IF he had scrolled down to the 11th link (I can't believe it's that far down) he would have found this easy-to-watch video that clearly describes the entire process within 3 minutes.
The 2:45 mark fairly well sums it all up: "It's not easy to become a bill, is it?" This is something that Obama has not ever had to deal with, what with everything of import in his adult life simply being handed to him because of who he is, rather than on the basis of any real qualifications.
Now that the Emperor has made his move, it will be up to the Republicans to use whatever legal means they have to stop this assault on U.S. sovereignty, along with its Constitution. IF Obama had merely consulted Article 2, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution he would have found these words:
...he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed...Obama clearly missed the boat on that one. For a man convinced that he is always the smartest man in the room (perhaps he's often alone?), it doesn't seem like something that could have been done by accident, it must be with intent. Bearing that in mind, the question becomes what is the end game for this action. Are we to believe that Obama truly cares for all of these illegal aliens (a decent enough portion who have committed serious felonies) and their well-being?
If that is your thought process, you are too blind to have read anything previous, so please, carry on. The most nefarious idea that could be thought of is that Obama is determined to destroy America, and this is yet another attempt by him to further bankrupt our economy. It's possible, but I'm still hopeful that he has not gone that far off the deep end. Rather, I choose to believe that his endgame is to ensure that there will be an increased pool of voters who owe their fortunes and their votes to candidates of Obama's and his minions choosing. In so doing, he would hope to swing Congressional districts, along with Senate seats, and Electoral College votes to the Democratic party. That is as nefarious as I hope he has become, but it is criminal nonetheless.
The time has come for impeachment, whether or not a conviction can be achieved, and whether or not it is something that Obama himself may hope occurs. It is the right thing to do, and given the repercussions if nothing happens, the time to act is now.
*I know someone who has been calling him "The Emperor Without Clothes" since he was first a candidate for President. It makes me chuckle to see it in print and popping up everywhere else now.
**5 million is such a low ball estimate it's almost not worth arguing, but it is important to note that within the last 2 years, it was acknowledged that the number ranged anywhere from 12-30 million. Am I really supposed to believe that 7-25 million illegals have been deported?
***You have to admire the man's moxie. After President Clinton saw his fortunes change during the 1994 Congressional election, he wisely decided to move towards the center, and work with the Republican-led Congress. Of course, Clinton still had the 1996 election to look forward to, while Obama's final day in office will be the 3rd week of January, 2017.
****For the record, Obama spending the rest of his term on a golf course would be the best thing he could for this country.
Tuesday, November 18, 2014
On His Best Day, Obama Is Neville Chamberlain
The impetus for today's argument came as I was running through *leaders* in the modern era who have tremendously failed those that they were supposed to protect and serve. Chamberlain's antics during WWII as he continually kowtowed to Adolph Hitler while pompously declaring "peace for our time". History has properly placed Chamberlain in the lower echelons of national leaders. Obama in due course will find his way there, too, despite whatever he may think he will do.
Where to begin with the travesty that has befallen our nation over the last 6 years or so. Perhaps, in the words of Mr. Eko I will "begin at the beginning". Upon hisascensiontohisthrone election to the highest public office known in the world, Obama was supposed to be a man who was a "great uniter". He earned this reputation based on his life-long passion for doing whatever the heck it was he did in Chicago ("Community Organizing", according to his resum'e, whatever that may mean.), and by voting "present" more often than not. He achieved his Senate seat partly due to *his* people torpedoed Jack Ryan's campaign.
Chamberlain's major crime (and it was a wicked googily) was thinking that he could negotiate "peace in our time" with Adolph Hitler. Obviously, that was a colossal failure, and the world eventually paid the price, as it was drawn in to its second world war within a quarter of a century.
Still, the world was able to recover in no small part thanks to the strong leadership of Winston Churchill, and the backing of the United States (amongst other nations.)
Obama's misdeeds go far beyond what even Chamberlain did, for a couple of different reasons. First off, Chamberlain was determined to hold on to power. This is not a good thing, by any means, but it at least explains his reasoning behind his actions. Many of Obama's misdeeds have occurred well past his second inauguration, which demands the question of why would he go to such lengths to jeopardize not only his legacy, but the lives and liberty of the American public he allegedly represents.
A short list of recent activity includes his announcement that he fully intends to (illegally) grant amnesty to persons who have violated our national laws and willfully broke in to our country. These illegal aliens have secured many rights, some that actual U.S. citizens are unable to secure for themselves, all because of a lax national security policy being pushed by our Commander-in-Chief.
Another item on the recent short list would be the release of former U.S. Marine Andrew Tahmooressi who spent 214 days in a Mexican jail, because Obama was apparently too busy to pick up a phone and ask Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto to give Tahmooressi a helping hand. Instead, a coalition of private citizens, lawmakers, Dr. Alberto Pinzón Picaseño, and fortunately, the presiding judge in his case, Judge Victor Octavio Luna Escobedo, he was finally set free. Another in a series of sterling examples of Obama's disdain for our military service men and women.
I've spent many thousands of words describing my thoughts and opinions on the debacle that is Obamacare, but even I could never have envisioned the utter cajones that has gone on with the Jonathan Gruber mess. If that process hadn't completely screwed over our nation, I'd be laughing a lot more than I am right now.
However, the most egregious mistake that he has made (thusfar) in his tenure at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is the complete lack of seriousness he has given to the war that is being prosecuted on American soil, as well as that of many of our allies (Canada, England, and Israel, amongst others.)
Now I use the term "war", because while it may not be a legally binding, U.S. Congress-approved action, war is being made against the United States, and our very way of life. Much more maddening than Congress' inability to do anything of consequence regarding the topic (though one can hope that the November elections may change that a bit) is Obama's refusal to accept that anything needs to occur. He continues to treat each individual incident as if it were a 'lone wolf' type of deal, and often times does not bother to offer the slightest public words of encouragement to those who have lost loved ones. This is inexcusable.
The lone wolf argument loses credibility when multiple attacks, from the same base of people, happen on a world wide stage against select portions of the populace. By any definition of war, that is it what we are facing: persons who are looking to kill, injure, and destroy our citizenry, simply because they are American. If Obama does nothing else with his remaining time in office, it should be to secure the citizens that he is sworn to protect from enemies both within our borders, and those who make their way here for the sole purpose of wreaking havoc.
Of course, if the man follows through with any type of firm leadership on this issue, it will be the first time in 6 years that has occurred, so I'm not going to hold my breath. How I imagine the rest of his term playing out is exactly the same way the front part of it has gone: him with a pouty face complaining that if only all of the stupid people in this country would let him do exactly what he wanted to, he'd be happy at least.
I also figure he's good to shave another stroke or two off of golf score, to boot, which is something to brag on. Never has a more un-athletic man come in to office, but by the time he heads back to Illinois, he might just be good enough to make the celebrity golf tour. That's Change we can believe in.
Where to begin with the travesty that has befallen our nation over the last 6 years or so. Perhaps, in the words of Mr. Eko I will "begin at the beginning". Upon his
Chamberlain's major crime (and it was a wicked googily) was thinking that he could negotiate "peace in our time" with Adolph Hitler. Obviously, that was a colossal failure, and the world eventually paid the price, as it was drawn in to its second world war within a quarter of a century.
Still, the world was able to recover in no small part thanks to the strong leadership of Winston Churchill, and the backing of the United States (amongst other nations.)
Obama's misdeeds go far beyond what even Chamberlain did, for a couple of different reasons. First off, Chamberlain was determined to hold on to power. This is not a good thing, by any means, but it at least explains his reasoning behind his actions. Many of Obama's misdeeds have occurred well past his second inauguration, which demands the question of why would he go to such lengths to jeopardize not only his legacy, but the lives and liberty of the American public he allegedly represents.
A short list of recent activity includes his announcement that he fully intends to (illegally) grant amnesty to persons who have violated our national laws and willfully broke in to our country. These illegal aliens have secured many rights, some that actual U.S. citizens are unable to secure for themselves, all because of a lax national security policy being pushed by our Commander-in-Chief.
Another item on the recent short list would be the release of former U.S. Marine Andrew Tahmooressi who spent 214 days in a Mexican jail, because Obama was apparently too busy to pick up a phone and ask Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto to give Tahmooressi a helping hand. Instead, a coalition of private citizens, lawmakers, Dr. Alberto Pinzón Picaseño, and fortunately, the presiding judge in his case, Judge Victor Octavio Luna Escobedo, he was finally set free. Another in a series of sterling examples of Obama's disdain for our military service men and women.
I've spent many thousands of words describing my thoughts and opinions on the debacle that is Obamacare, but even I could never have envisioned the utter cajones that has gone on with the Jonathan Gruber mess. If that process hadn't completely screwed over our nation, I'd be laughing a lot more than I am right now.
However, the most egregious mistake that he has made (thusfar) in his tenure at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is the complete lack of seriousness he has given to the war that is being prosecuted on American soil, as well as that of many of our allies (Canada, England, and Israel, amongst others.)
Now I use the term "war", because while it may not be a legally binding, U.S. Congress-approved action, war is being made against the United States, and our very way of life. Much more maddening than Congress' inability to do anything of consequence regarding the topic (though one can hope that the November elections may change that a bit) is Obama's refusal to accept that anything needs to occur. He continues to treat each individual incident as if it were a 'lone wolf' type of deal, and often times does not bother to offer the slightest public words of encouragement to those who have lost loved ones. This is inexcusable.
The lone wolf argument loses credibility when multiple attacks, from the same base of people, happen on a world wide stage against select portions of the populace. By any definition of war, that is it what we are facing: persons who are looking to kill, injure, and destroy our citizenry, simply because they are American. If Obama does nothing else with his remaining time in office, it should be to secure the citizens that he is sworn to protect from enemies both within our borders, and those who make their way here for the sole purpose of wreaking havoc.
Of course, if the man follows through with any type of firm leadership on this issue, it will be the first time in 6 years that has occurred, so I'm not going to hold my breath. How I imagine the rest of his term playing out is exactly the same way the front part of it has gone: him with a pouty face complaining that if only all of the stupid people in this country would let him do exactly what he wanted to, he'd be happy at least.
I also figure he's good to shave another stroke or two off of golf score, to boot, which is something to brag on. Never has a more un-athletic man come in to office, but by the time he heads back to Illinois, he might just be good enough to make the celebrity golf tour. That's Change we can believe in.
Monday, November 3, 2014
MA Ballot Question #4
The last of the four ballot questions that will appear tomorrow (Tuesday, November 4th) is by far the most perplexing to me. Its summary is far too long for my tiny little blog, but this is how the question will appear:
A YES VOTE would entitle employees in Massachusetts to earn and use sick time according to certain conditions.
A NO VOTE would make no change in the laws regarding earned sick time.
I honestly don't know what to make of this law, which means my default vote is no. Anything that the government (and in particular, the government in MA) is telling me is a 'good' thing, is most likely a nefarious plot to steal my soul, or perhaps something even worse than that. If you haven't caught on to the theme yet, let me spell it out for you: never, ever, under any circumstances whatsoever, trust anyone in a position of power within the Commonwealth of MA, regardless of theirs or your own personal political leanings. Always, always go against the establishment.
I'm also having a hard time understanding exactly who needs this benefit. Until my current job working within the school system, any position I have had, my employer had a system for awarding sick time, usually along the line of a full week's worth of time per year (which is all the new law allows any one person to use.) There must be a special interest group that is interested in having this law passed, but I'm not certain who it is. Question #4 gets a no vote from me, and I highly recommend that all persons voting do likewise.
QUESTION 4: Law Proposed by Initiative Petition
Earned Sick Time for Employees
Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives on or before May 6, 2014?A YES VOTE would entitle employees in Massachusetts to earn and use sick time according to certain conditions.
A NO VOTE would make no change in the laws regarding earned sick time.
I honestly don't know what to make of this law, which means my default vote is no. Anything that the government (and in particular, the government in MA) is telling me is a 'good' thing, is most likely a nefarious plot to steal my soul, or perhaps something even worse than that. If you haven't caught on to the theme yet, let me spell it out for you: never, ever, under any circumstances whatsoever, trust anyone in a position of power within the Commonwealth of MA, regardless of theirs or your own personal political leanings. Always, always go against the establishment.
I'm also having a hard time understanding exactly who needs this benefit. Until my current job working within the school system, any position I have had, my employer had a system for awarding sick time, usually along the line of a full week's worth of time per year (which is all the new law allows any one person to use.) There must be a special interest group that is interested in having this law passed, but I'm not certain who it is. Question #4 gets a no vote from me, and I highly recommend that all persons voting do likewise.
MA Ballot Question #3
As noted in parts 1 & 2, this series of posts is due to our upcoming election. Voters in other states will have the Honor of determining what direction our Nation will head at the Federal level. In Massachusetts, those elections have already been determined (it will be an all Democrat delegation, once again.) The major excitement for MA voters, then, is the ballot questions that are available to us.
Question 3 reads thusly:
The proposed law would change the definition of “illegal gaming” under Massachusetts law to include wagering on the simulcasting of live greyhound races, as well as table games and slot machines at Commission-licensed casinos, and slot machines at other Commission-licensed gaming establishments. This would make those types of gaming subject to existing state laws providing criminal penalties for, or otherwise regulating or prohibiting, activities involving illegal gaming.
The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.
A YES VOTE would prohibit casinos, any gaming establishment with slot machines, and wagering on simulcast greyhound races.
A NO VOTE would make no change in the current laws regarding gaming.
This is yet another ballot question that if you think about it in a logical manner without actually reading the question will lead you to vote exactly the opposite way that you intend to. It is important, as always, to be careful with such questions.
The jobs that the ads discuss (anywhere from 3,000 - 10,000 jobs, depending on the ad) are a joke. There will be a negligent amount of long-term, middle class type jobs. The beneficiaries of this bill are the unions who will have short term project work to tide them over for an election cycle or two. The losers if this bill becomes law is nearly everyone else (excepting, of course, political big wigs and insiders who stand to make a killing off of the coming casinos.)
If this was 1989 instead of 2014, the ideas of casinos saving the economy might make sense. Back then, people had disposable income. Back then, Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun weren't but a twinkle in the eye of anyone. Now, however, Foxwoods is the largest casino in the United States (and 3rd largest in the world) and Moehgan Sun isn't that far behind. Despite that, they are a nearly combined $3.5 Billion in debt. I'm sure there's plenty of business reasons for the debt, but the fact remains, we have been in a national recession for going on 6 years, our unemployment rate (regardless of what goverment reports will state) is at least double digits, and people simply do not have the pocket money to consistently spend it at a casino.
Add to this the increased crime that casino cities and towns face, problematic traffic, and a general decline in the valuations of homes anywhere near a casino, and this ballot issue is a loser, too. Massachusetts should focus its attention on something it has long been good at: innovative technologies and advancing education. A YES vote lets the legislature and casino backers know the real values of our communities, while a no vote will further destroy what is already a fragile economy here in the Bay State.
Question 3 reads thusly:
QUESTION 3: Law Proposed by Initiative Petition
Expanding Prohibitions on Gaming
Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives on or before May 6, 2014?SUMMARY
This proposed law would (1) prohibit the Massachusetts Gaming Commission from issuing any license for a casino or other gaming establishment with table games and slot machines, or any license for a gaming establishment with slot machines; (2) prohibit any such casino or slots gaming under any such licenses that the Commission might have issued before the proposed law took effect; and (3) prohibit wagering on the simulcasting of live greyhound races.The proposed law would change the definition of “illegal gaming” under Massachusetts law to include wagering on the simulcasting of live greyhound races, as well as table games and slot machines at Commission-licensed casinos, and slot machines at other Commission-licensed gaming establishments. This would make those types of gaming subject to existing state laws providing criminal penalties for, or otherwise regulating or prohibiting, activities involving illegal gaming.
The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.
A YES VOTE would prohibit casinos, any gaming establishment with slot machines, and wagering on simulcast greyhound races.
A NO VOTE would make no change in the current laws regarding gaming.
This is yet another ballot question that if you think about it in a logical manner without actually reading the question will lead you to vote exactly the opposite way that you intend to. It is important, as always, to be careful with such questions.
The jobs that the ads discuss (anywhere from 3,000 - 10,000 jobs, depending on the ad) are a joke. There will be a negligent amount of long-term, middle class type jobs. The beneficiaries of this bill are the unions who will have short term project work to tide them over for an election cycle or two. The losers if this bill becomes law is nearly everyone else (excepting, of course, political big wigs and insiders who stand to make a killing off of the coming casinos.)
If this was 1989 instead of 2014, the ideas of casinos saving the economy might make sense. Back then, people had disposable income. Back then, Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun weren't but a twinkle in the eye of anyone. Now, however, Foxwoods is the largest casino in the United States (and 3rd largest in the world) and Moehgan Sun isn't that far behind. Despite that, they are a nearly combined $3.5 Billion in debt. I'm sure there's plenty of business reasons for the debt, but the fact remains, we have been in a national recession for going on 6 years, our unemployment rate (regardless of what goverment reports will state) is at least double digits, and people simply do not have the pocket money to consistently spend it at a casino.
Add to this the increased crime that casino cities and towns face, problematic traffic, and a general decline in the valuations of homes anywhere near a casino, and this ballot issue is a loser, too. Massachusetts should focus its attention on something it has long been good at: innovative technologies and advancing education. A YES vote lets the legislature and casino backers know the real values of our communities, while a no vote will further destroy what is already a fragile economy here in the Bay State.
MA Ballot Question #2
As noted in part 1, today's arguments are brought to us by tomorrow's (November 4th's) elections. Ballot question #2's summary is far too long to bother posting here, but this is the link if you care to read the diatribe.
A YES VOTE would expand the state’s beverage container deposit law to require deposits on containers for all non-alcoholic, non-carbonated drinks with certain exceptions, increase the associated handling fees, and make other changes to the law.
A NO VOTE would make no change in the laws regarding beverage container deposits.
This attempt at expanded 'recycling' is nothing more than a blatant cash grab by the MA legislature. The man (It's always a man) who most recently proposed this idea had to forcibly restrain himself from laughing when he admitted that he expected the state to see a boon from the unreturned bottles to the tune of millions of dollars. Again, if you want to give a politician extra money for nothing, and expect any good to come out of it, you're only one of two kind of people.
The down side of this question is that it gets mixed up with people who genuinely see it as a way to help build up our recycling programs (which are mandatory in many cities and towns across the Commonwealth) and to help preserve the environment. It's about neither, it's only about the money. It's almost always about the money.
A NO vote shows good common sense, and forces the legislature to create a new revenue stream to rob its citizens. A yes vote shows that your are stuck on ideology, or that you're a government worker. There is, unfortunately, no in between on this issue.
QUESTION 2: Law Proposed by Initiative Petition
Expanding the Beverage Container Deposit Law
Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives on or before May 6, 2014?A YES VOTE would expand the state’s beverage container deposit law to require deposits on containers for all non-alcoholic, non-carbonated drinks with certain exceptions, increase the associated handling fees, and make other changes to the law.
A NO VOTE would make no change in the laws regarding beverage container deposits.
This attempt at expanded 'recycling' is nothing more than a blatant cash grab by the MA legislature. The man (It's always a man) who most recently proposed this idea had to forcibly restrain himself from laughing when he admitted that he expected the state to see a boon from the unreturned bottles to the tune of millions of dollars. Again, if you want to give a politician extra money for nothing, and expect any good to come out of it, you're only one of two kind of people.
The down side of this question is that it gets mixed up with people who genuinely see it as a way to help build up our recycling programs (which are mandatory in many cities and towns across the Commonwealth) and to help preserve the environment. It's about neither, it's only about the money. It's almost always about the money.
A NO vote shows good common sense, and forces the legislature to create a new revenue stream to rob its citizens. A yes vote shows that your are stuck on ideology, or that you're a government worker. There is, unfortunately, no in between on this issue.
MA Ballot Question #1
The impetus for today's arguments is due to the fact that tomorrow (November 4th, 2014) our great nation will head to the polls to elect our *leaders*. In Massachusetts, that generally means looking at the ballot, chuckling, and then writing in the name of your best friend or closest relative. While it's true that Charlie Baker would appear to have the governorship in hand (unless he screws up in the next 24 hours), it's really a position that holds no power, unless he goes Obama and simply (illegally) issues executive orders for the next 4 years. Elsewise, it's going to be a real boring 4 years for Charlie as he watches the MA legislature (comprised of something like 943% Democrats) do whatever the Hell they want as they know they'll always get elected in this state. For Pete's sake, we kept electing Ted Kennedy and he murdered a woman! If the democrats had their way, they would have kept electing him even after he died, and continued to cast his vote for him in D.C.
However, I digress. The first question really is as straight forward as ballot questions come in MA, and it will look something like this when you get your ballot tomorrow:
A YES VOTE would eliminate the requirement that the state’s gas tax be adjusted annually based on the Consumer Price Index.
A NO VOTE would make no change in the laws regarding the gas tax.
Giving a politician money is like giving an arsonist a book of matches: sooner or later, you know they'll both burn through whatever you give them. As the law stands now, Democrats (and it is democrats, because they are like Communists in Cuba: they control everything.) don't even have to bother to go on record to reach in to our wallets and purses, they simply have to wait for the inflation numbers to be announced (and yes, I believe the government would rig the inflation numbers in order to increase our tax burden.) and then they get another pile of money each time someone heads to the pump. There is no accountability at all with how the law is currently written, only access to more cash at every turn.
A YES vote on question 1 would at the least force legislators to go on the record in favor of raising our taxes. In my opinion, this is one of the more onerous taxes on the books, there is absolutely no reason to allow this law to continue on as it is.
A no vote states very clearly that you are either a: a government employee or b: don't give a damn about anything. Do the right thing- vote yes and bring accountability back to tax hikes.
However, I digress. The first question really is as straight forward as ballot questions come in MA, and it will look something like this when you get your ballot tomorrow:
QUESTION 1: Law Proposed by Initiative Petition
Eliminating Gas Tax Indexing
Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives on or before May 6, 2014?SUMMARY
This proposed law would eliminate the requirement that the state’s gasoline tax, which was 24 cents per gallon as of September 2013, (1) be adjusted every year by the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index over the preceding year, but (2) not be adjusted below 21.5 cents per gallon.A YES VOTE would eliminate the requirement that the state’s gas tax be adjusted annually based on the Consumer Price Index.
A NO VOTE would make no change in the laws regarding the gas tax.
Giving a politician money is like giving an arsonist a book of matches: sooner or later, you know they'll both burn through whatever you give them. As the law stands now, Democrats (and it is democrats, because they are like Communists in Cuba: they control everything.) don't even have to bother to go on record to reach in to our wallets and purses, they simply have to wait for the inflation numbers to be announced (and yes, I believe the government would rig the inflation numbers in order to increase our tax burden.) and then they get another pile of money each time someone heads to the pump. There is no accountability at all with how the law is currently written, only access to more cash at every turn.
A YES vote on question 1 would at the least force legislators to go on the record in favor of raising our taxes. In my opinion, this is one of the more onerous taxes on the books, there is absolutely no reason to allow this law to continue on as it is.
A no vote states very clearly that you are either a: a government employee or b: don't give a damn about anything. Do the right thing- vote yes and bring accountability back to tax hikes.
Thursday, October 23, 2014
A First Amendment Lesson for the City of Houston
The impetus for this argument comes to us from the Great State of Texas, with particular interest focused on the city of Houston. It seems that local leaders there have forgotten about how this Great Nation was founded, and the thought and precision that went in to crafting our Constitution that gave us our Republic (not a democracy, as many would lead you to believe, but that's a conversation for a different day.)
The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads this way:
For those who have ignored all other sources of news over the last several months, Houston city officials subpoenaed "all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to HERO, the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession."
In a rather fortuitous turn of events, I am not one of the pastors who were served with these subpoenas, because I would have broke many of the 10 Commandments in my response, I'm certain.
Under no circumstances does a governmental authority have any business meddling with or in anything that has to do with a Church or the content of the pastor's message (unless her/his words were to discuss a potential insurrection against the U.S. of A.) It simply isn't part of the powers they possess, as our Founding Fathers (and unheralded Mothers) specifically exclude them from governmental control.
Mayor Parker herself stated "There's no question, the wording was overly broad." She then attempted to deflect blame back on those who had been wrongly subpoenaed by stating that "I also think there was some deliberate misinterpretation on the other side." Whether she is referencing church leaders who have (according to the same city officials who issued the overly broad subpoenas) gathered signatures that were deemed invalid by city officials, or if she was insinuating that church leaders and attentive citizens the nation over had misjudged her obviously unbiased, 100% above the boards attempts to suppress voters' desire to challenge a governmental policy (the HERO law. Governmental policymakers like to get cute when they come up with their acronyms.) in a legal manner.
Parker also stated that the purpose of the subpoenas was not bother with the question of "What did you preach on last Sunday?" If that's so, then why did the subpoenas request
Uh, what? What I gather from that is that city officials have been paying attention to the actions of our federal government and decided what's good for Washington is good for Houston, too.
Fortunately, many upright, intelligent citizens quickly responded to the government's overreach, however, the bigger problem is that in a world that can transmit news in a nano-second, this group of politicians still felt that they could outside the law.
The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads this way:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (emphasis added); or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Apparently the city of Houston never read those parts of the Constitution when they joined up with our Union back in 1845. Or perhaps those leaders did, but the notes they held on the rules they agreed to abide by have been lost. How else could the recent actions of the Houston authorities be explained?
For those who have ignored all other sources of news over the last several months, Houston city officials subpoenaed "all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to HERO, the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession."
In a rather fortuitous turn of events, I am not one of the pastors who were served with these subpoenas, because I would have broke many of the 10 Commandments in my response, I'm certain.
Under no circumstances does a governmental authority have any business meddling with or in anything that has to do with a Church or the content of the pastor's message (unless her/his words were to discuss a potential insurrection against the U.S. of A.) It simply isn't part of the powers they possess, as our Founding Fathers (and unheralded Mothers) specifically exclude them from governmental control.
Mayor Parker herself stated "There's no question, the wording was overly broad." She then attempted to deflect blame back on those who had been wrongly subpoenaed by stating that "I also think there was some deliberate misinterpretation on the other side." Whether she is referencing church leaders who have (according to the same city officials who issued the overly broad subpoenas) gathered signatures that were deemed invalid by city officials, or if she was insinuating that church leaders and attentive citizens the nation over had misjudged her obviously unbiased, 100% above the boards attempts to suppress voters' desire to challenge a governmental policy (the HERO law. Governmental policymakers like to get cute when they come up with their acronyms.) in a legal manner.
Parker also stated that the purpose of the subpoenas was not bother with the question of "What did you preach on last Sunday?" If that's so, then why did the subpoenas request
If what Mayor Parker and her cronies says is true, why would the subpoenas not simply request materials that are germane to their inquiry, specifically what instructions religious leaders may have given with regard to gathering signatures for the ballot initiative they were leading? Mayor Parker and city staffers have an answer for that, too: blame the 'pro-bono' lawyers who had been charged with drafting the subpoenas. Houston city attorney allegedly stated that the subpoenas were issued without the Mayor's or city offical's knowledge or consent.all speeches, presentations, or sermons related to HERO, the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession.
Uh, what? What I gather from that is that city officials have been paying attention to the actions of our federal government and decided what's good for Washington is good for Houston, too.
Fortunately, many upright, intelligent citizens quickly responded to the government's overreach, however, the bigger problem is that in a world that can transmit news in a nano-second, this group of politicians still felt that they could outside the law.
Saturday, October 18, 2014
Looking Back On Some ObamaCare Thoughts From 5 Years Ago (part 6)
If you missed part 1 of this review of thoughts on the Obamacare Crisis, you can click here. For part 2, click here, part 3 here, part 4 here, and part 5 here. For those that have already read through, please continue on below. As
stated in part one, these thoughts were from about 5 years ago,
and were originally published in a different place.
When we don't learn from history...
March 22, 2010 at 11:21pm
Let's
just pretend for a moment that I earn $1 million per year. Let's
further pretend that because I have some hefty spending habits, that my
yearly outlays are $1.2 million. This would put me at a -$200,000 per
year, which is a considerable amount of money. Fortunately for me,
because of who I am, my credit is good, so it's not really a problem for
me. Still, I'd really rather be putting money away for the future (mind you, not for anything important, just so I can develop more extravagant spending habits at a future date without piling up too much more debt.) I look at the situation in a very serious matter, note that my income is not going to increase for at least the next 10 years, and come up with a plan: I simply am not going to pay any bills for 4 out of the next 10 years. Not one red cent will leave my pocket. So at the end of that 10 year period of time, instead of looking at a $2 million deficit, I am showing a profit of $2.8 million. To say the least, I am rather pleased with myself (never mind those pesky bill collectors, I'll simply ignore their phone calls and shred any mailings I receive.)
Having put together that little nest egg, I formulate a new plan for the next 10 year period: I'm going to pay my bills all the time, every year (based on the same numbers from paragraph 1.) I'm going to do so with one proviso, however: I'm only going to pay 70 cents on every dollar I spend (the bill collectors will be thrilled just to get a steady influx of cash, after the previous decade's escapades, right?) So now my $1.2 million a year spending habit is only costing me $840,000 a year, which means I'm banking $160,000 a year, leaving me with another cool $1.6 million at the end of the 10 year cycle, which is less than I made in the first decade, but still, it's nothing to sneeze at. Overall I'm up $8.4 million over 20 years ($4 million in debt forgiveness I gave myself, plus $4.4 million in banked money.)
It's really a rather ludicrous plan, is it not? Yet, it is exactly that type of bizarre accounting that our federal government is using in order to make it seem like their health care takeover helps to lower our budget deficit. For the first decade the plan is in existence, they only pay out benefits for 6 of those years. In the second 10 years, they have draconian cuts planned for doctors and other medical professionals that not only are insane, but impossible to even hope that they may be realized, yet, they are included as 'savings' for purposes of making the bill look like money is being saved.
Another bizarre accounting trick that is planned is to offload 50% of the 32 million new persons who will receive 'quality' "health care" because of this bill on to the medicaid program. The very same program that is already essentially bankrupt (states cannot afford to pay their share as it is, and it is nearly impossible for anyone with medicaid to find a doctor that will take them on as a new patient.) is being asked to absorb an additional 16 million customers. Stealing Social Security money and legions of other scams are crammed in to the legislation that makes War & Peace look like a church tract (if you find anyone who claims to have read every word of the bill, they are a liar. There is no exception to this rule at all.) It's double speak to the infinite level.
Maybe health care needs reform of some sort, maybe it doesn't, I'm not here to judge that (today.) I also will not delve in to some more sinister and cynical thoughts such as what happens when you or your kids or your grand kids are deemed to be living unhealthy lifestyles. Read 1984, put it on warp speed, and that may just start to scratch the surface. If I was a parent, I'd be hugely concerned with this legislation that has 'passed'.
For today I'd just like to say that anyone who voted for this bill and claims that it will reduce our budget deficit is a LIAR. This legislation will do many things, nearly none of which are good for the citizenry, but make no mistake, one of them will not be to reduce our deficit. Then again, for a nation already saddled with $43 Trillion in debt, what's another 2 or 3 (or 20 or 30) Trillion more?
A couple of final notes before we close this for today: Massachusetts, the state in which I reside, was seen as the 'pilot' program for the type of nationalized health care bill that has made its way through the U.S. House. Before you simply dismiss my thoughts as those of a rambling, bumbling idiot, consider the following words from Treasurer Tim Cahill (former Democrat who turned Independent in order to challenge Governor Deval Patrick this year):
Well, we have what David Axelrod referred to as the pilot program. It started four years ago in Massachusetts — universal health care to mandate, to cover everyone in the state of Massachusetts. It wasn't going to cost us a whole lot of money, so they said and it was going to work.
We have a public exchange that was going to match up private insurance with people who couldn't get insurance, small businesses. It hasn't worked out the way they said it was going to work out. And it has increased cost in just in Massachusetts of about $4 billion over when this program was started in 2006.
And just today, the governor himself announced there's an extra $300 million hole in our health care line items. So, it is bankrupting the state and would have bankrupted our state if not for the federal government being overly generous with Medicaid reimbursements over these last four years. They've really propped the system up to keep it in place.
and also:
I haven't read all 2,000 pages, but there's exchanges which is not supposed to be a public option but is functioning as if it was a public option in Massachusetts, because most of our people who have been covered have been covered with heavy subsidiaries or free health care. It's really serving as a second Medicaid program, this public exchange.
So, we have regular Medicaid that's costing us over $10 billion a year. And then you have this connector that is matching people up and giving them coverage of which they're not paying anything for.
Much more from that interview here:
http://tinyurl.com/yhuhl4h
Or you might consider these words:
"There ain’t no rules around here — we’re trying to accomplish something. And therefore, when the deal goes down, all this talk about rules, we make ‘em up as we go along, and I’m here now 18 years...” -Alcee Hastings (D-FL)
or these:
Barney Frank (D-MA)- "There will be a public option, and it doesn't matter the size, because we will build on it going forward." (and they will, as they have with every public program since the beginning of time.)
There are very few chances to fix this mess before it becomes as ingrained as social security or any other ginormous, failing government program. Take all action that you can to help prevent this travesty.
Looking Back On Some ObamaCare Thoughts From 5 Years Ago (part 5)
If you missed part 1 of this review of thoughts on the Obamacare Crisis, you can click here. For part 2, click here, part 3 here, and part 4 here. For those that have already read through, please continue on below. As
stated in part one, these thoughts were from about 5 years ago,
and were originally published in a different place. This piece expands on the topic slightly.
January 16, 2010
While You Were Sleeping...
It's
been a few weeks since the U.S. Senate passed their version of health
care 'reform'. I'm sure you are aware that it went down now, but if you
missed it when it happened initially, fret not, it surely was not your
fault. Your U.S. Senator wanted to sneak this through when no one was
paying attention, so the three votes that were required were
scheduled during the week leading up to Christmas (including the final
vote, which was held around 1:30 a.m. Christmas Eve morning.) Now
regardless of religion, Christmas is still a pretty big deal in this
country, even during the middle of our worst economic crisis in the last
30 years, and make no mistake, the 60 Senators who cajoled and connived
to come to this diaphanous 'compromise' are aware of that. They knew
that they could pass this in the middle of the night, and there hope had
to be that by the time anyone knew what was going on, it would be too
late. Which may still be the case. The compromise between the house
and senate is not going nearly as quickly as the leadership team would
like it to, despite the fact that the democrat's leadership team has
excluded republicans for any part of the final bill.
One thing that the democrats would never have worried about was losing one of their votes in the Senate based on a special election in Massachusetts. The Commonwealth currently has 0 Congressmen/women that would identify themselves with an (R). We have not elected a U.S. Senator that was a Republican since the early 1970s. Ted Kennedy held his seat for the last 47 years of his life, and it was controlled by democrats since at least 1952, when his more famous brother, John, won the seat. Paul G. Kirk, a Kennedy family friend was appointed to take Kennedy's seat by Massachusetts' governor Deval Patrick.
This was not as easy a task as one might think, because five years ago, the legislature in MA was concerned about the consequences of Senator John Kerry defeating President Bush in the 2004 election. They did not want then-governor Mitt Romney (a republican) to be able to appoint a republican to fill out Kerry's term, so they passed a law that stated that when a seat was vacated, there had to be an election before the seat could be filled. The people had a right to vote was the logic used by the state legislature (which is in the neighborhood of 80 - 90% democrat.)
Fast forward to August of 2009, and Ted Kennedy dies, which creates a giant hole in the Dems plan to take control of every single facet of health care. Scheduling an election would take time (the law passed in 2004 required that at least 145 days pass before the seat could be filled), and there would be important votes that would require a 60th senator to make sure that the republicans would not filibuster the legislation. Not a problem in MA, the legislature simply reversed course and changed the rules. Again. They even took care to make sure that all their bases were covered. From the 2009 law:
(f) Upon failure to choose a senator in congress or upon a vacancy in that office, the governor shall make a temporary appointment to fill the vacancy; provided, however, that the person so appointed shall serve until the election and qualification of the person duly elected to fill the vacancy pursuant to subsection (a) or (c).
Now that provision shows just how politically savvy the democratic machine is in MA. We simply don't elect republicans in the Commonwealth, but just just in case we somehow managed to do that, the dems built in a stall, which may be the difference between health care 'reform' in its current iteration passing or sinking. Secretary of the State William Galvin has already stated that he would delay certifying the vote for at least 2 weeks (and some reports have it being held up until February 20th), which means that interim Senator Kirk (D) would still be the very much needed 60th vote should the negotiations be handled in a timely manner.
Still, through all of this, I see a glimmer of hope. For the democrats to have to pull out all the stops in order to win a special election in MA (our Shadow President©™ has recorded a video for YouTube, done a robo-calling to democratic/independent voters, and will stump for Coakley tomorrow {01.17.2010}...John Kerry has also taken up the torch for Coakley, and the DNC is allegedly in the middle of spending $4 - $5 million for her ad campaign), which will show people (at least those that are paying attention) exactly what health care reform is all about: controlling our lives. Already the legislation has been destroyed from the Utopian dream (their thoughts, not mine) in to just passing anything so that our Shadow President©™ can claim a 'victory' when he delivers his first State of the Union address (TBD.) Win or lose come Tuesday, the democrats will find themselves in a huge hole that they might not be able to recover from (and it's not that democrats are by nature more vile or evil than many republican politicians, it's simply that their brand of evilness endangers our nation on a much grander scale.)
Wow. That's a lot of rambling above. If you're still here, I'm impressed. A lot of what is written above may not make sense (and I'm not going back to edit), but they are a few of the thoughts that are currently running through my head.
The main point is this: on Tuesday, January 19th, 2010 I will get to cast a vote as a resident of MA that might actually change the course of our national history (not my single solitary vote, but combined with those who will vote in tandem with me.) To cast a vote that means anything in the state of Massachusetts is not an everyday occurrence, believe me. However, a more informed public, and a groundswell of voters who are concerned over what is going on in Washington, D.C. has turned this into a dead heat (polls that I would trust are all within the margin of error. There was one poll that showed Brown with as much as a 15 point lead, and one showing Coakley with the same lead. I discounted both of those.) For Lost fans, this is our Incident, our chance to set things right and force the politicians in Washington, D.C. to rethink how they are destroying our country. With one fell swoop, we could force everyone back to the table. Whether you believe that health care reform is needed (85% of those polled are quite happy with their current coverage) or you don't, I would hope that we could come to an agreement that what is being foisted upon us is not 'reform', it's politics as usual.
I'm hopeful that if it needs to be reformed, it would be done in a way that is not so politically motivated, that it would be considered, and that the consequences of soaking the American taxpayer for $2.25 TRILLION (conservative estimate) to negligibly 'improve' our health care system would be taken under advisement and not rushed through in order to beat an artificial political deadline (yes, Mr. Shadow President©™, Senator Reid (D-NV), and Speaker Pelosi (D-CA), I'm speaking to you and all of your subordinates. For what was supposed to be the most transparent and accessible government going, you've turned in to a joke. You have proven time and again that you will stop at nothing to ram through your socialistic, communistic ideals, even at the expense of their career. While I admire that sort of commitment, it is severely misguided. Their scheme will destroy this nation that we all cherish, and it will happen quickly (certainly much faster than Al Gore's prediction that 'global warming' will destroy Planet Earth.) It is an misguided attempt to take over an even greater portion of our lives than they currently have, and it is something that we must not allow.
For that reason alone, I urge all MA voters to go to the polls on Tuesday, January 19th, 2010 and cast a vote for Scott Brown. If you don't live in MA, but you know someone who does, please contact them and urge them to vote likewise. We are running out of chances to save our great nation, this may be our last, best shot.
One thing that the democrats would never have worried about was losing one of their votes in the Senate based on a special election in Massachusetts. The Commonwealth currently has 0 Congressmen/women that would identify themselves with an (R). We have not elected a U.S. Senator that was a Republican since the early 1970s. Ted Kennedy held his seat for the last 47 years of his life, and it was controlled by democrats since at least 1952, when his more famous brother, John, won the seat. Paul G. Kirk, a Kennedy family friend was appointed to take Kennedy's seat by Massachusetts' governor Deval Patrick.
This was not as easy a task as one might think, because five years ago, the legislature in MA was concerned about the consequences of Senator John Kerry defeating President Bush in the 2004 election. They did not want then-governor Mitt Romney (a republican) to be able to appoint a republican to fill out Kerry's term, so they passed a law that stated that when a seat was vacated, there had to be an election before the seat could be filled. The people had a right to vote was the logic used by the state legislature (which is in the neighborhood of 80 - 90% democrat.)
Fast forward to August of 2009, and Ted Kennedy dies, which creates a giant hole in the Dems plan to take control of every single facet of health care. Scheduling an election would take time (the law passed in 2004 required that at least 145 days pass before the seat could be filled), and there would be important votes that would require a 60th senator to make sure that the republicans would not filibuster the legislation. Not a problem in MA, the legislature simply reversed course and changed the rules. Again. They even took care to make sure that all their bases were covered. From the 2009 law:
(f) Upon failure to choose a senator in congress or upon a vacancy in that office, the governor shall make a temporary appointment to fill the vacancy; provided, however, that the person so appointed shall serve until the election and qualification of the person duly elected to fill the vacancy pursuant to subsection (a) or (c).
Now that provision shows just how politically savvy the democratic machine is in MA. We simply don't elect republicans in the Commonwealth, but just just in case we somehow managed to do that, the dems built in a stall, which may be the difference between health care 'reform' in its current iteration passing or sinking. Secretary of the State William Galvin has already stated that he would delay certifying the vote for at least 2 weeks (and some reports have it being held up until February 20th), which means that interim Senator Kirk (D) would still be the very much needed 60th vote should the negotiations be handled in a timely manner.
Still, through all of this, I see a glimmer of hope. For the democrats to have to pull out all the stops in order to win a special election in MA (our Shadow President©™ has recorded a video for YouTube, done a robo-calling to democratic/independent voters, and will stump for Coakley tomorrow {01.17.2010}...John Kerry has also taken up the torch for Coakley, and the DNC is allegedly in the middle of spending $4 - $5 million for her ad campaign), which will show people (at least those that are paying attention) exactly what health care reform is all about: controlling our lives. Already the legislation has been destroyed from the Utopian dream (their thoughts, not mine) in to just passing anything so that our Shadow President©™ can claim a 'victory' when he delivers his first State of the Union address (TBD.) Win or lose come Tuesday, the democrats will find themselves in a huge hole that they might not be able to recover from (and it's not that democrats are by nature more vile or evil than many republican politicians, it's simply that their brand of evilness endangers our nation on a much grander scale.)
Wow. That's a lot of rambling above. If you're still here, I'm impressed. A lot of what is written above may not make sense (and I'm not going back to edit), but they are a few of the thoughts that are currently running through my head.
The main point is this: on Tuesday, January 19th, 2010 I will get to cast a vote as a resident of MA that might actually change the course of our national history (not my single solitary vote, but combined with those who will vote in tandem with me.) To cast a vote that means anything in the state of Massachusetts is not an everyday occurrence, believe me. However, a more informed public, and a groundswell of voters who are concerned over what is going on in Washington, D.C. has turned this into a dead heat (polls that I would trust are all within the margin of error. There was one poll that showed Brown with as much as a 15 point lead, and one showing Coakley with the same lead. I discounted both of those.) For Lost fans, this is our Incident, our chance to set things right and force the politicians in Washington, D.C. to rethink how they are destroying our country. With one fell swoop, we could force everyone back to the table. Whether you believe that health care reform is needed (85% of those polled are quite happy with their current coverage) or you don't, I would hope that we could come to an agreement that what is being foisted upon us is not 'reform', it's politics as usual.
I'm hopeful that if it needs to be reformed, it would be done in a way that is not so politically motivated, that it would be considered, and that the consequences of soaking the American taxpayer for $2.25 TRILLION (conservative estimate) to negligibly 'improve' our health care system would be taken under advisement and not rushed through in order to beat an artificial political deadline (yes, Mr. Shadow President©™, Senator Reid (D-NV), and Speaker Pelosi (D-CA), I'm speaking to you and all of your subordinates. For what was supposed to be the most transparent and accessible government going, you've turned in to a joke. You have proven time and again that you will stop at nothing to ram through your socialistic, communistic ideals, even at the expense of their career. While I admire that sort of commitment, it is severely misguided. Their scheme will destroy this nation that we all cherish, and it will happen quickly (certainly much faster than Al Gore's prediction that 'global warming' will destroy Planet Earth.) It is an misguided attempt to take over an even greater portion of our lives than they currently have, and it is something that we must not allow.
For that reason alone, I urge all MA voters to go to the polls on Tuesday, January 19th, 2010 and cast a vote for Scott Brown. If you don't live in MA, but you know someone who does, please contact them and urge them to vote likewise. We are running out of chances to save our great nation, this may be our last, best shot.
Looking Back On Some ObamaCare Thoughts From 5 Years Ago (part 4)
If you missed part 1 of this review of thoughts on the Obamacare Crisis, you can click here.
Part 2, click here, and part 3 here. For those that have already read through, please continue on below. As
stated in part one, these thoughts were from a little over 5 years ago,
and were originally published in a different place.
November 24, 2009 ·
November 24, 2009 ·
Final Destination
In this moment that we currently live, democrats see an opportunity that they have dreamed about for generations to ram through "health care overhaul" at whatever the political cost. There are senators and congresspersons who are willing to lose their seats, because they understand the finality of this debate: if they are able to force through the government run health care takeover before anyone can stop them, they know that there will be no going back. If you don't believe me, go ahead, try and discuss social security reform and see how far that gets you.
The key aspect is that it is being proposed as "health care for all", but the problem with that stems from the fact that most Americans who are actual legal citizens of this country already are eligible for health care, whether they choose to participate or not mostly have the option of receiving health care. Some choose to not participate, but that is a personal decision (I for one choose to not have health insurance, though my company does make it available and foots the bill for approximate 60% of the cost of the policy), not something that government needs to involve itself in.
The other hook that has been pitched is that it will be "free" health care. Perhaps you had a grandmother like mine who advised that it is always right to assume that if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. She was also fond of pointing out that there was no such thing as a free lunch. Likewise, there is no such thing as free health care. Everything has a cost, and here our politicians are especially crafty. They rob from so many different groups and never intend to pay the money back, nor to use it for anything that really benefits our nation. It is simply a power grab, they do it because they can, and so that they can limit choices more than ever before.
Former Alaskan governor Sarah Palin has taken considerable flak ever since she went from political unknown to Senator John McCain's Vice Presidential candidate last year. Citizens should be thankful, however, for the fact that she stopped cold (temporarily, at least) the type of government control over end of life decisions that many of our European counterparts face.
Of course, what she did not do, nor has any other politician is to solve the issue of rationing of health care. Just this week there has been political trial balloons floated on pap smears and mammograms stating that they did not need to be done as often. On its face, this seems like an odd departure from what has been the standard operating procedure, which is to get tested early and often, to help prevent a possible life-threatening situation. If you are more cynical, you'll look for the sinister reason: less tests means less money spent, which means the politicians are that much closer to 'saving' the health care system without totally crippling our financial system (they will not actually save our health care system, and they will most definitely bankrupt our nation forever if they actually take over health care.)
For those of you who may think that the European socialistic system of medicine is the proper way to go about, I suggest you look into how long patients wait for routine and even specialized medical care. Another thought to consider is this: I have a friend who works for an international conglomerate, and some of his co-workers are located in England, one of the bastions for socialized medicine. Despite the enormous taxes that they pay for their "free" health care, these (and others that can afford it) take out separate private policies that guarantee that they will receive better care then there compatriots who have the public option only.
Which, to put it simply, means they have created a bigger system of haves and have nots then even we as Americans could conceive in the private market. Which means that the thought that our health care system will be improved is wrong. It will be decidedly worse for a majority of us (as a majority of us are not in the upper echelons of income earners), and those that are will have the same or better coverage, but will unfortunately pay more for the privilege. All so a couple of hundred politicians can publicly glad hand each other and pretend that they did the 'right' thing, while they meet in the back rooms to laugh at their citizenry, a citizenry that had the wool pulled over its eyes, and will now pay the cost for eternity. Or until the nation severs. Whichever comes first.
Other thoughts to not forget:
Senator Landieu (D-LA) "I will correct something. It's not $100 million, it's $300 million, and I'm proud of it and will keep fighting for it"...
this is the extra money that Louisiana and only Louisiana will receive in the Health Care take over bill...(the actual endowment comes on page 432 of the 2000+ page bill)...
Barney Frank (D-MA) -there will be a public option, and it doesn't matter the size, because we will build on it going forward (and they will, as they have with every public program since the beginning of time.)
Consider also what our Shadow President said back in July that he would go over the bill with any Congressperson who requested it line by line (read about Congressman Phil Roe's attempt to schedule a meeting with President at this link.)
Myself, I'm siding with Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) who stated that there would be a "holy war" if the bill that is currently up for debate passes. He also noted that while the American public is being sold an $849 Billion bill, that will actually cost $2.5 Trillion (clever accounting figures are used, and the period of time that the figures are gathered from are 2014 - 2024. There is also a plethora of stealing going on, as noted above, including $400 Billion or so from Medicare, which will force even more seniors into the government option.)
So concludes, for now, this long, rambling, occasionally incoherent I'm sure, rant against the public health care option. The option we have right now may not be perfect (and in reality, nothing ever is), but it is better by such a large magnitude in comparison to what is being offered that there is not a realistic comparison that I can conceive. More ranting and raving at a future date, promise.
Looking Back On Some ObamaCare Thoughts From 5 Years Ago (part 3)
If you missed part 1 of this review of thoughts on the Obamacare Crisis, you can click here.
If you missed part 2, click here. For those that have already read through, please continue on below. As
stated in part one, these thoughts were from a little over 5 years ago,
and were originally published in a different place.
It
has been a while since we've discussed the health care crisis (and
therefore, national crisis) that our Shadow President™®© and his cronies
have anxiously been waiting to dump on us, but comments that he made
just yesterday have forced us to once again take up the topic.
Before we move too far along, I think it is important that we get some vital background info here, and for that, I turn to the (mostly) delightful pages of Through the Looking Glass and our lovely friend, Humpty Dumpty who has the following exchange with Alice:
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less"
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can</I> make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master--that's all."
With Lewis Carroll's words still reverberating around around skulls, let's head straight to the transcript between our Shadow President™®© and George Stephanopoulous on ABC's This Week (transcript borrowed from The Wall Street Journal):
Under Max Baucus's Senate bill that Mr. Obama supports, everyone would be required to buy health insurance or else pay a penalty as high as $3,800 a year.
Mr. Stephanopoulos posed the obvious question about this kind of coercion when "the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don't [buy insurance]. . . . How is that not a tax?"
"Well, hold on a second, George," Mr. Obama replied. "Here's what's happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average—our families—in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I've said is that if you can't afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn't be punished for that. That's just piling on. If, on the other hand, we're giving tax credits, we've set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we've driven down the costs, we've done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you've just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that's . . ."
"That may be," Mr. Stephanopoulos responded, "but it's still a tax increase." (In fact, uncompensated care accounts for about only 2.2% of national health spending today, but that's another subject.)
Mr. Obama: "No. That's not true, George. The—for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore . . ." In other words, like parents talking to their children, this levy—don't call it a tax—is for your own good.
Mr. Stephanopoulos tried again: "But it may be fair, it may be good public policy—"
Mr. Obama: "No, but—but, George, you—you can't just make up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase."
"I don't think I'm making it up," Mr. Stephanopoulos said. He cited that dictionary's definition of "tax"—"a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes."
Mr. Obama: "George, the fact that you looked up Merriam's Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you're stretching a little bit right now. . . ."
Mr. Stephanopoulos: "I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase."
Mr. Obama: "My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I'm taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we're going to have an individual mandate or not, but . . ."
Mr. Stephanopoulos: "But you reject that it's a tax increase?"
Mr. Obama: "I absolutely reject that notion."
I honestly don't even know where to begin with The Shadow President's™®© ignorance, to say nothing of his arrogance. If George Stephanopoulos (a Democrat cheerleader if ever there was one) and Merriam-Webster aren't enough to convince him that his condescending attitude has lost grips with reality, I certainly wouldn't expect to be able to. He'd just call me a partisan and a racist, undoubtedly.
For those of us whom will have to pay for this travesty, however, I'm hopeful that this latest outburst from 'the messiah' shows how dedicated he is to the one and actual true goal of his Shadow Presidency®©™: to bring our nation wholly into an socialistic lifestyle. We've been teetering on the edge for decades now, but have always managed to beat it back at the last moment. IF The Shadow President™©® was even one-tenth as smart or half the Uniter that he claimed to be, and his supporters swore he was during last year's campaign, he could have had everything he wanted. Instead, in a rush to gain total control of every aspect of our lives, he has severely miscalculated. The American public, as lazy as we have become, still have enough time in our days to watch news and read news, even on accident, to know that we are being lied to. Maybe we don't know all the details, but there is definitely a sense in each of us, call it intuition if you must, that warns us when someone is being untruthful, when someone is looking to do us harm, when someone is looking to control us. We should always listen to that voice.
And make no mistake, control is exactly what this faux health care debate is all about. If you think for one moment that anyone in our government gives a damn about whether or not we have affordable health care, you are sadly mistaken. They simply don't. Politicians care about two things: a.) power and b.) staying in power. Over the years we have all heard and witnessed politicians making claims that even a two-year old with an 80 word vocabulary would know were patently false. This instance is no difference, except for the scope. This nationalization of health care will be the literal needle that breaks the camel's back. Past government programs, many of them started with far more utopian ideas than this one have come back to haunt and cripple our nation financially (again, think Social Security, medicare/medicaid, and pretty much any other government program that pops into your head.) None of them have been a benefit to us as a nation, and in fact, each of them holds our nation as hostage, because before anything else, those monies have to be paid out, and the receipts simply are matching the outlays, and it will only grow worse as we move forward.
Nationalized health care is a bad idea, it's failed nearly every single place where it's been tried (I would assume that Cuba, shockingly, can lay claim to the fact that in a small, contained population, it could work) and we'll discuss that more the next time we bring this topic up. For now, the important thing to remember is that we are being treated like children, and our Shadow President™®© presumes to know more than all of us, therefore we should all trust him with our money and our lives. Count me out.
September 21, 2009 ·
The Coming Crisis (Part 3)
Before we move too far along, I think it is important that we get some vital background info here, and for that, I turn to the (mostly) delightful pages of Through the Looking Glass and our lovely friend, Humpty Dumpty who has the following exchange with Alice:
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less"
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can</I> make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master--that's all."
With Lewis Carroll's words still reverberating around around skulls, let's head straight to the transcript between our Shadow President™®© and George Stephanopoulous on ABC's This Week (transcript borrowed from The Wall Street Journal):
Under Max Baucus's Senate bill that Mr. Obama supports, everyone would be required to buy health insurance or else pay a penalty as high as $3,800 a year.
Mr. Stephanopoulos posed the obvious question about this kind of coercion when "the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don't [buy insurance]. . . . How is that not a tax?"
"Well, hold on a second, George," Mr. Obama replied. "Here's what's happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average—our families—in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I've said is that if you can't afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn't be punished for that. That's just piling on. If, on the other hand, we're giving tax credits, we've set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we've driven down the costs, we've done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you've just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that's . . ."
"That may be," Mr. Stephanopoulos responded, "but it's still a tax increase." (In fact, uncompensated care accounts for about only 2.2% of national health spending today, but that's another subject.)
Mr. Obama: "No. That's not true, George. The—for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore . . ." In other words, like parents talking to their children, this levy—don't call it a tax—is for your own good.
Mr. Stephanopoulos tried again: "But it may be fair, it may be good public policy—"
Mr. Obama: "No, but—but, George, you—you can't just make up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase."
"I don't think I'm making it up," Mr. Stephanopoulos said. He cited that dictionary's definition of "tax"—"a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes."
Mr. Obama: "George, the fact that you looked up Merriam's Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you're stretching a little bit right now. . . ."
Mr. Stephanopoulos: "I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase."
Mr. Obama: "My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I'm taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we're going to have an individual mandate or not, but . . ."
Mr. Stephanopoulos: "But you reject that it's a tax increase?"
Mr. Obama: "I absolutely reject that notion."
I honestly don't even know where to begin with The Shadow President's™®© ignorance, to say nothing of his arrogance. If George Stephanopoulos (a Democrat cheerleader if ever there was one) and Merriam-Webster aren't enough to convince him that his condescending attitude has lost grips with reality, I certainly wouldn't expect to be able to. He'd just call me a partisan and a racist, undoubtedly.
For those of us whom will have to pay for this travesty, however, I'm hopeful that this latest outburst from 'the messiah' shows how dedicated he is to the one and actual true goal of his Shadow Presidency®©™: to bring our nation wholly into an socialistic lifestyle. We've been teetering on the edge for decades now, but have always managed to beat it back at the last moment. IF The Shadow President™©® was even one-tenth as smart or half the Uniter that he claimed to be, and his supporters swore he was during last year's campaign, he could have had everything he wanted. Instead, in a rush to gain total control of every aspect of our lives, he has severely miscalculated. The American public, as lazy as we have become, still have enough time in our days to watch news and read news, even on accident, to know that we are being lied to. Maybe we don't know all the details, but there is definitely a sense in each of us, call it intuition if you must, that warns us when someone is being untruthful, when someone is looking to do us harm, when someone is looking to control us. We should always listen to that voice.
And make no mistake, control is exactly what this faux health care debate is all about. If you think for one moment that anyone in our government gives a damn about whether or not we have affordable health care, you are sadly mistaken. They simply don't. Politicians care about two things: a.) power and b.) staying in power. Over the years we have all heard and witnessed politicians making claims that even a two-year old with an 80 word vocabulary would know were patently false. This instance is no difference, except for the scope. This nationalization of health care will be the literal needle that breaks the camel's back. Past government programs, many of them started with far more utopian ideas than this one have come back to haunt and cripple our nation financially (again, think Social Security, medicare/medicaid, and pretty much any other government program that pops into your head.) None of them have been a benefit to us as a nation, and in fact, each of them holds our nation as hostage, because before anything else, those monies have to be paid out, and the receipts simply are matching the outlays, and it will only grow worse as we move forward.
Nationalized health care is a bad idea, it's failed nearly every single place where it's been tried (I would assume that Cuba, shockingly, can lay claim to the fact that in a small, contained population, it could work) and we'll discuss that more the next time we bring this topic up. For now, the important thing to remember is that we are being treated like children, and our Shadow President™®© presumes to know more than all of us, therefore we should all trust him with our money and our lives. Count me out.
Looking Back on Some ObamaCare Thoughts From 5 Years Ago (part 2)
If you missed part 1 of this review of thoughts on the Obamacare Crisis, you can click here. For those that have already read through, please continue on below. As stated in part one, these thoughts were from a little over 5 years ago, and were originally published in a different place.
August 9th, 2009
The Coming Crisis (Part 2)
As is the case with nearly anything that is political, there are more lies and holes in this part of the argument than could possibly be counted, but let's start with the easiest one to refute: treatment. It is illegal under federal law (the actual name of the law is EMTALA -Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act) to refuse treatment to those who show up in a hospital and request it.
Treatment must be provided for anyone who asks for it, and also any ancillary services that would be available to the emergency department in order to determine if a medical emergency exists. Further, if an emergency situation is deemed to exist by the hospital staff, the hospital is obligated to provide further examination/treatment, or transfer the individual to another hospital for treatment, which is determined through the patient's level of stability.
I have many friends who work in all different sectors of the medical community, or have a spouse that does, and one of those happens to be a nurse at a highly prestigious hospital in the Boston area (one of the most highly regarded hospitals in the world, in fact) and one of her chief complaints is the fact that they are required by this law to treat even illegal aliens -which by law are persons that have no legal standing in this country. Yet they cannot be refused top of the line medical care, which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that this legislation is nothing but a superfluous grab for power and political capital by those who are pushing it forth (namely our Shadow President™©® and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi) who have so much invested in this politically, that they have no choice but to keep pushing forward legislation that anyone who has had an opportunity to take even a cursory glance at knows it is destined to destroy our country, and our medical standards, but we'll get into more detail about that in the next installment. For today, the important thing to remember is that this legislation is not necessary, because no one, under no circumstances, can be denied care/treatment. It is simply illegal, and in today's sue-happy world, hospitals are not going to take that chance (bonus fact for the day: hospitals pass this treatment cost along to health care providers, who of course pass it along to those who pay for their own insurance/receive it through to the tune of $90 Billion a year. Again, more on this tomorrow.)
Lastly, for those who read the last installment but did not feel like clicking on the link provided, here is the information that it contained:
"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov" (actual information from www.whitehouse.gov -the official administration website.)
That's right ladies and gentlemen, welcome to a world where you are being asked to spy on your friends, your family, and your co-workers for your government for having the audacity to dare exercise your 1st Amendment right and question something that has been put forth as gospel truth by this administration. Welcome to Communist China, or the USSR, or Orwell's 1984. This is what has become of America in just over 6 months.
Looking Back 5 Years on Some Obamacare Thoughts
With a new story coming every day about the travesty that is Obamacare, I thought I would take the time to look at some prognostications I made back when the argument was fresh. Feel free to comment with your thoughts and opinions. These articles were first published on a different space, in a different time, but they still feel relevant now:
You can check out this link for the info I'm talking about, if you prefer to not click on strange links, I'll make certain to post the info at the end of tomorrow's blog.
There has been a lot of talk in the news over the last several months about how we have to "save" healthcare and how this is the "most important" issue in our nation today, and that if something is not donenow NOW
we will never have this opportunity again. Never mind that 85% of
Americans are satisfied with their health care plans, or that the cost
of this health care scheme that is being forced on us would cost
conservatively $1 TRILLION in its first 10 years.
One trillion dollars. To put that in numbers that might be understood,
if you started at exactly year 0 (and I'll grant, there was no such
thing at the time, but in hindsight we are allowed to go back to that
time) and spent $1 million a day every day since then, you would have
spent $733,787,000,000 (including leap years, and extending through
12.31.2009), meaning that you would still have $266,213,000,000 or
nearly another 729 years of spending that $1 million a day to get what
the government is going to spend to "fix" health care in the next decade
-a system that by all reports is the best in the world and is enjoying
rave reviews.
Now, it is being pitched as an altruistic idea, one that is designed to bring Americans together in a show of unity (despite the fact that according to polls only 36% are in favor of this scheme, while 46% are opposed) to help create a sense of fairness. I believe the important question to ask yourself here was when was the last time that the government was looking out for you, in an honest and true manner? Whom amongst us expects that government, especially on the federal level, is looking to give any of us a fair shake? I do not, for one, and for once, I believe that I may not be alone.
A couple of important questions to consider before we cut this short for today (there will be more tomorrow and perhaps Saturday, unless the knocking on the door is the harbinger of doom...then adios!)
August 6, 2009
The Coming Crisis (part 1)
The
good news is, if you read the words that I'm about to post here, and
you don't like them, you can feel free to report me to the federal
government and agents will drop out of black helicopters and snatch me
up, wherever I may be, and I'll never be heard from again (I wish I
could say that opening was me being facetious, but alas, it is not.) You can check out this link for the info I'm talking about, if you prefer to not click on strange links, I'll make certain to post the info at the end of tomorrow's blog.
There has been a lot of talk in the news over the last several months about how we have to "save" healthcare and how this is the "most important" issue in our nation today, and that if something is not done
Now, it is being pitched as an altruistic idea, one that is designed to bring Americans together in a show of unity (despite the fact that according to polls only 36% are in favor of this scheme, while 46% are opposed) to help create a sense of fairness. I believe the important question to ask yourself here was when was the last time that the government was looking out for you, in an honest and true manner? Whom amongst us expects that government, especially on the federal level, is looking to give any of us a fair shake? I do not, for one, and for once, I believe that I may not be alone.
A couple of important questions to consider before we cut this short for today (there will be more tomorrow and perhaps Saturday, unless the knocking on the door is the harbinger of doom...then adios!)
- Are we going to trust our government, the very same government that has brought such stellar service to our men and women who have put their lives on the line to protect us to provide our citizenry with the same bangup service?
- Will our elected officials opt out of their high-priced golden coverage (provided, of course, at taxpayer expense) and join the public option that the rest of us plebians are expected to enjoy?
- Do we really want to hand over 1/7 of our nation's economy to the same "leaders" who have brought us the running debacles that are medicaid, medicare, and social security? Are we really that stupid?
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
Is Oklahoma the new U.S. Staging Ground for International Terror?
The impetus for today's argument is two-fold: first the horrific actions of Alton Nolen who beheaded Colleen Hufford, and also attacked and attempted to behead Traci Johnson, a co-worker who had filed harassment charges against Nolen, prompting Nolen's suspension from Vaughan Foods. The second event that occurred that made me consider what was going on in Oklahoma happened that same day, though I did not see reports about it until 2 days ago.
Last Friday, Jacob Mugambi Muriithi was arrested for threatening to behead a former co-worker. According to the the accuser, Murithi claimed to be working on behalf of ISIS, and responded to her question of why do ISIS members kill Christians by stating "this is just what we do."
If that doesn't send chills down the spine of any non-ISIS citizen, I'll just assume you're Chuck Norris, or maybe Raylan Givens.
The D.A. in Alton Nolen's case apparently is facing huge political pressure from people up above, because he claims that Alton's heinous crime was simply a byproduct of the fact he had lost his job at Vaughan Foods. When people make statements like that, I often wonder how it is that they are able to go so long without breathing. I also contemplate if it's the lack of oxygen that leads to such statements being made.
In Muriithi's case, Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater had the good sense to make this statement: “We take these threats very seriously." One can only hope that he makes good on that thought.
Part of the reason I didn't have as visceral of a reaction to the beheading of Colleen Hufford was in part due to intentional avoidance. I didn't want to consider the thought that beheadings were here, in America. I also didn't want to become someone who would be considered intolerant of others.
That was a mistake on my part. I fell in to the trap that many of our politicians have, trying to see the good in everyone, while assuming that there are no evil groups looking to destroy, maim, and kill Americans simply because they are Americans. I'm here now to see that I have seen the error of my ways.
An attack in Oklahoma, of all places, sends the message that there is no safety to be found. Constant vigilance is needed in every corner of our lands, because that is the reach of global terrorist groups, regardless of what they call themselves.
Perhaps we as Americans need to look to others for leadership on this isue. In Australia, where credible threats were received of ISIS agents being ordered to carry out a random beheading. In response, the Aussies marshaled 800 federal and state police officers and gathered up 15 persons (9 of whom were released, at least temporarily), and were able to identify the man that they believe to be the chief terrorist in their nation, Mohammed Ali Baryalei.
On the other hand, the American government struggles to decide what to do with ISIS fighters with American passports who are going back and forth to the Middle East. I'm not sure at what specific moment in time we lost our place as a world leader, but I do know we are no better than middle-of-the-pack in the moment.
Perhaps that is why terrorists feel so comfortable making their home within the confines of our borders- they're well aware that most times, we are all talk, and no action. Even our current strategy of 'bombing' ISIS agents in their strongholds is proving to be a flop, despite the fact that the U.S. military has the strength to obliterate every last member, wherever they may lie.
The time has come to recognize the fact that by whatever name we choose to call it, we are in a war for our civilization, for our culture, for our way of life. Those who would impose their will on us have made their desires known. It is past time for our governmental leaders to do the same.
Last Friday, Jacob Mugambi Muriithi was arrested for threatening to behead a former co-worker. According to the the accuser, Murithi claimed to be working on behalf of ISIS, and responded to her question of why do ISIS members kill Christians by stating "this is just what we do."
If that doesn't send chills down the spine of any non-ISIS citizen, I'll just assume you're Chuck Norris, or maybe Raylan Givens.
The D.A. in Alton Nolen's case apparently is facing huge political pressure from people up above, because he claims that Alton's heinous crime was simply a byproduct of the fact he had lost his job at Vaughan Foods. When people make statements like that, I often wonder how it is that they are able to go so long without breathing. I also contemplate if it's the lack of oxygen that leads to such statements being made.
In Muriithi's case, Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater had the good sense to make this statement: “We take these threats very seriously." One can only hope that he makes good on that thought.
Part of the reason I didn't have as visceral of a reaction to the beheading of Colleen Hufford was in part due to intentional avoidance. I didn't want to consider the thought that beheadings were here, in America. I also didn't want to become someone who would be considered intolerant of others.
That was a mistake on my part. I fell in to the trap that many of our politicians have, trying to see the good in everyone, while assuming that there are no evil groups looking to destroy, maim, and kill Americans simply because they are Americans. I'm here now to see that I have seen the error of my ways.
An attack in Oklahoma, of all places, sends the message that there is no safety to be found. Constant vigilance is needed in every corner of our lands, because that is the reach of global terrorist groups, regardless of what they call themselves.
Perhaps we as Americans need to look to others for leadership on this isue. In Australia, where credible threats were received of ISIS agents being ordered to carry out a random beheading. In response, the Aussies marshaled 800 federal and state police officers and gathered up 15 persons (9 of whom were released, at least temporarily), and were able to identify the man that they believe to be the chief terrorist in their nation, Mohammed Ali Baryalei.
On the other hand, the American government struggles to decide what to do with ISIS fighters with American passports who are going back and forth to the Middle East. I'm not sure at what specific moment in time we lost our place as a world leader, but I do know we are no better than middle-of-the-pack in the moment.
Perhaps that is why terrorists feel so comfortable making their home within the confines of our borders- they're well aware that most times, we are all talk, and no action. Even our current strategy of 'bombing' ISIS agents in their strongholds is proving to be a flop, despite the fact that the U.S. military has the strength to obliterate every last member, wherever they may lie.
The time has come to recognize the fact that by whatever name we choose to call it, we are in a war for our civilization, for our culture, for our way of life. Those who would impose their will on us have made their desires known. It is past time for our governmental leaders to do the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)