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.
Thursday, November 27, 2014
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)