I’ve recently been reading where Christians in Egypt have been having real problems with radical Muslims. Over 50 churches have been closed. Christian businesses have been targeted for attacks. Christian women and girls have been attacked and raped. Yesterday, a Christian protest was attacked by a Muslim mob.
This would appear to be another case of “Watch What You Wish For Because You Just Might Get It”. I remember during the uprising to overthrow Mubarak, that the Christians were out there side by side with the Muslims and I thought to myself that this could easily come back to bite them on the butt. Knowing that the Muslim Brotherhood was one of the driving forces behind the uprising and that Iran was helping fan the flames, it was clear that this could easily go sideways for the Christians. And sure enough it has.
This is yet another example of how the enemy of my enemy isn’t necessarily my friend. We have been taught this lesson many times. The Soviets in WWII and the mujahidin when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan are two examples that quickly pop to mind.
In Egypt the Christians were duped into believing that this was a general uprising without an islamic factor being involved. When in reality, it was a completely islamic uprising to remove a politically moderate leader. The Iranian backed Muslim Brotherhood wanted Mubarak gone for several reasons. First and foremost, he had suppressed them, knowing full well that they were. Next, he was somewhat friendly with the US, the “great satin”. And finally, he recognized Israel’s right to exist and had signed and kept a peace agreement with them. Each reason by itself sufficient to draw radical islam’s ire, but a trifecta of all three gave the islamists a massive case of reflux. So of course, when the opportunity to remove him presented itself, they were quick to take advantage.
Please don’t mistake my comments above as meaning I think Mubarak was a good guy. He wasn’t! He was a brutal dictator in many ways. But he kept a lid on Egypt. He kept the radical islamic faction in check and allowed his country to move forward in relative tranquility.
Now what do they have? They have a bunch of Iranian backed radical islamists running rampant in the country. They are targeting Christians for subjugation or termination, and if given a free hand, that’s exactly what they will do. And to think that our administration, a Democratic one, didn’t learn the lesson from Iran when we helped Khomeini over throw the Shah (Jimmie Carter, another Democratic administration). Good ol’ Barak Hussein Obama and his Keystone Kops administration helped replace an administration that was friendly towards the US with one that will soon be violently against anything western. (Am I seeing a pattern???)
Once again, if you don’t learn from history, it will be happy to teach you the lesson again!
Update: 8/3/12 http://www.theblaze.com/stories/if-you-dont-leave-you-will-all-die-christians-flee-egyptian-town-after-deadly-riot/
(The Blaze/AP) — When the angry mob was rampaging through town, storming her home and those of other Christians, the 70-year-old woman hid in her cow pen, pushing a rock against the door. There she cowered for hours, at one point passing out from tear gas being fired by police that seeped in.
When Sameeha Wehba emerged just before dawn, she found she was the only Christian left in this small Egyptian village just south of Cairo, the location of some of the country’s earliest pyramids.
Dahshour’s entire Christian community – as many as 100 families some estimate – fled to nearby towns in the violence earlier this week. The flock’s priest, cloaked in a white sheet to hide him, was taken out in a police van. At least 16 homes and properties of Christians were pillaged and some torched and a church damaged.
Saturday, August 4, 2012
Friday, July 20, 2012
What Liberals Call Fairness
OK, I’m having a little trouble getting a handle on the definition of “fairness” according to LibPos (Liberal/Progressives). It seems to be a moving target, depending on what topic they are on and who they are talking about.
Now as I understand it, if you are talking about fairness as it relates to a productive citizens taxes, it is only “fair” that they pay a bigger percentage of their income because they make more, while a less productive person will pay a smaller percentage merely because they make less. Others may actually receive money “back” when they never paid any taxes in the first place, all in the name of fairness. Even though there would appear to be nothing fair about this at all.
Just where exactly is the “fairness” in this?
A productive citizen will put more into the system than the less productive citizen will even if they pay the same “rate” just by the simple math it. Twenty percent of 100 is more than twenty percent of 10. To make the productive citizen pay a penalty for being productive is negative reinforcement. Pavlov proved a long time ago that negative reinforcement extinguishes behavior. A “graduated” tax schedule is, simply put, a negative reinforcement of productive behavior. Fortunately for the takers, many productive citizens believe they can out produce the negatives effects of the current confiscatory tax policies and thus they continue to produce.
This phenomenon has led the takers to believe they can keep taking more and more from the productive citizen cash cow and it will just keep providing. This is an error. The non-productive takers, if left to their own devices, will eventually confiscate from the producers to a point of diminishing returns and the producers will stop producing.
If you doubt my words, take a look at what’s happening in high tax areas around the world. Now that the takers are in control in France and they are looking to implement a near 100% tax on income over certain levels, the producers in France are exiting the country at an alarming rate. In California, where the LibPos have been in charge for decades, they have created a system where they are giving more away than they are taking in. They have been doing this for many years while increasing the taxes on the productive class to pay for their largess. It has reached a point where the productive citizens are looking for the exits as fast as they can. Texas alone is seeing an influx of over 300 California citizens per day. New York is seeing the same phenomenon for the same reasons. And yet the takers can’t seem to see that it is their own policies leading to their downfall.
So, when it comes to taxes, for LibPos, unfair is fair. If on the other hand, we are talking about health care, LibPos seem to feel that everyone should receive exactly the same treatment. No one (other than the LibPos themselves, who are making the rules) should be able to have any better or worse care than anyone else. If someone is able to afford a “Cadillac” health care plan they will be fined, excuse me, taxed, to punish them. Because in this case, they really do want people treated exactly the same, with the noticeable acceptation of the rule makers themselves.
This is in contrast with most Conservatives.
To a Conservative, fairness is getting what you earn. If you earn more, you should have more. If you choose to put in the effort and the grit and take the risks to be a high achiever, you should not be punished for doing so.
Many years ago, I made the choice that I wanted time with my family and didn’t want to dedicate my life to work. I willingly made the choice to forgo the possibility of possibly achieving large amounts of money because personal time was valuable to me. Others chose differently and created large fortunes. I do not begrudge them what they have earned. They made different choices that led to different returns. I am happy with my choice and see no reason the system should take more from them just because they earned more.
And YES they earned it, as opposed to what the LibPo in Chief might think. If his position were true, that the roads and all the other infrastructure the government puts in place is what made a business successful, then every business would be a success. Every business has access to the same infrastructure so they should all be successful. Right? Every business operates under the same government regulations. Clearly, if the LibPo in Chief were correct, every new business would be a success no matter what effort the business owner put in, or failed to put in.
LibPos then seem to have developed a rather free form definition of “fairness” that allows them to call it up to justify whatever logically contradictory positions they might choose.
The word “fairness” is one that is impossible to argue against, because it would seem to be un-American. However, when we allow the LibPos to control the language and let them use good words in such a cavalier manner, it makes it near impossible to publicly argue against them. Those who do not think in a clear and concise manner will be easily swayed by such slight of hand use of the language.
Conservatives need to point out these inconsistencies and call bull shit on the LibPos at every turn.
Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.
Now as I understand it, if you are talking about fairness as it relates to a productive citizens taxes, it is only “fair” that they pay a bigger percentage of their income because they make more, while a less productive person will pay a smaller percentage merely because they make less. Others may actually receive money “back” when they never paid any taxes in the first place, all in the name of fairness. Even though there would appear to be nothing fair about this at all.
Just where exactly is the “fairness” in this?
A productive citizen will put more into the system than the less productive citizen will even if they pay the same “rate” just by the simple math it. Twenty percent of 100 is more than twenty percent of 10. To make the productive citizen pay a penalty for being productive is negative reinforcement. Pavlov proved a long time ago that negative reinforcement extinguishes behavior. A “graduated” tax schedule is, simply put, a negative reinforcement of productive behavior. Fortunately for the takers, many productive citizens believe they can out produce the negatives effects of the current confiscatory tax policies and thus they continue to produce.
This phenomenon has led the takers to believe they can keep taking more and more from the productive citizen cash cow and it will just keep providing. This is an error. The non-productive takers, if left to their own devices, will eventually confiscate from the producers to a point of diminishing returns and the producers will stop producing.
If you doubt my words, take a look at what’s happening in high tax areas around the world. Now that the takers are in control in France and they are looking to implement a near 100% tax on income over certain levels, the producers in France are exiting the country at an alarming rate. In California, where the LibPos have been in charge for decades, they have created a system where they are giving more away than they are taking in. They have been doing this for many years while increasing the taxes on the productive class to pay for their largess. It has reached a point where the productive citizens are looking for the exits as fast as they can. Texas alone is seeing an influx of over 300 California citizens per day. New York is seeing the same phenomenon for the same reasons. And yet the takers can’t seem to see that it is their own policies leading to their downfall.
So, when it comes to taxes, for LibPos, unfair is fair. If on the other hand, we are talking about health care, LibPos seem to feel that everyone should receive exactly the same treatment. No one (other than the LibPos themselves, who are making the rules) should be able to have any better or worse care than anyone else. If someone is able to afford a “Cadillac” health care plan they will be fined, excuse me, taxed, to punish them. Because in this case, they really do want people treated exactly the same, with the noticeable acceptation of the rule makers themselves.
This is in contrast with most Conservatives.
To a Conservative, fairness is getting what you earn. If you earn more, you should have more. If you choose to put in the effort and the grit and take the risks to be a high achiever, you should not be punished for doing so.
Many years ago, I made the choice that I wanted time with my family and didn’t want to dedicate my life to work. I willingly made the choice to forgo the possibility of possibly achieving large amounts of money because personal time was valuable to me. Others chose differently and created large fortunes. I do not begrudge them what they have earned. They made different choices that led to different returns. I am happy with my choice and see no reason the system should take more from them just because they earned more.
And YES they earned it, as opposed to what the LibPo in Chief might think. If his position were true, that the roads and all the other infrastructure the government puts in place is what made a business successful, then every business would be a success. Every business has access to the same infrastructure so they should all be successful. Right? Every business operates under the same government regulations. Clearly, if the LibPo in Chief were correct, every new business would be a success no matter what effort the business owner put in, or failed to put in.
LibPos then seem to have developed a rather free form definition of “fairness” that allows them to call it up to justify whatever logically contradictory positions they might choose.
The word “fairness” is one that is impossible to argue against, because it would seem to be un-American. However, when we allow the LibPos to control the language and let them use good words in such a cavalier manner, it makes it near impossible to publicly argue against them. Those who do not think in a clear and concise manner will be easily swayed by such slight of hand use of the language.
Conservatives need to point out these inconsistencies and call bull shit on the LibPos at every turn.
Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Government Regulating Personal Behavior
Where does it end?
First we let the government define places where someone could smoke and where they couldn’t. Originally, it was businesses themselves who chose whether to be smoking or non-smoking. Which is just the way it should be. If a business doesn’t want people smoking in its establishment, so be it. They get to set the rules. It’s theirs. But then the government got involved and said you can only smoke in part of an establishment, then it progressed to not in the business at all. Now they are saying you can’t smoke in parks or at the beach. (Understand that I am an ex-smoker. I don’t believe in smoking. I believe it’s harmful to you. I don’t want my kids smoking. But I don’t see that it’s the governments place to say where you can or can’t do something, or where it will allow you to do or not do something in your own place of business or home.)
Next came motorcycle helmets. In the majority of places, governments demand that you are to wear a helmet if you are going to ride a motor cycle.
Then came seatbelts. I believe in seat belts, my wife and I trained ourselves to wear our seatbelts before it was the law, because we believe it is the wise thing to do. I do not believe the government should be able to mandate that you wear them. I believe it is OK to make the car companies put them in the cars for you to use. No, I take that back. I believe it’s OK for the government to make them an option you can choose, I don’t believe the government should force the car companies to put them in. If they are a good idea, and I believe they are, consumers would ask for them to be included and competition would most likely force all car companies to include them in order to keep up.
Then came salt, cholesterol, transfats (what the hell ever those are), sugar, and the list goes on and on and on. Now NY has proposed limiting the size of a drink you can order. And the health board or whatever it is called, is considering including milk drinks and coffee drinks it thinks you shouldn’t have.
OMG! Is there no end to this madness?
Now that the snowball has been rolled over the crest of the hill, will it ever stop getting bigger and bigger? Will they ever stop intruding in our lives?
What’s next in the Libpo’s (Liberal/Progressive) fevered brain that they want to force us to do, or stop doing? What if they conduct a study and find that people who have sex once and only once a day live longer, healthier lives requiring less late life care. Because of government run health care they will then want to set up sex stations where you and your partner are to come and complete your daily sex act under government supervision. If you don’t have your own partner, you will be required to have sex with a government assigned partner that day. If you fail to have sex one day, you will be fined, but they will call it a tax. The Non-F#$king tax.
This would be done under the reasoning that if you weren’t having sex, it would cost the government more to provide your health care so of course they are just recouping the cost that they will have to pay out later when you get sick more often because you failed to f#$k. They will have actuarial tables and everything to justify and quantify these fines/taxes.
Of course this is an absurd proposition. But in the 1950’s can you imagine how absurd it would have sounded and how they would have looked at you if you told them about all of the government restrictions there would be on smoking. Or that the government would make you tie yourself into a car. They would have looked at you the same way you were just looking at the metaphorical me as you read my speculation on forcing people to have sex once a day.
But we’ve all seen what crazy things the government has forced folks to do or not do for our own good. Because they know better than we do. Because they think they are the smartest kids in the room and thus should be able to tell the rest of us how to live by their rules.
Well I’m sorry (no, really I’m not), but I think the government ought to stay the hell out’ta my life. The only time the government ought to tell someone what they can or can’t do is if the individual’s actions will impact another’s life, liberty or property in a negative way through force or fraud.
If a bar owner wants to allow smoking in his/her establishment, it’s nobody’s business but their own. If people don’t want to go there because of the smoke, the business will not survive. They made a poor choice. Too bad. So sad. It was their choice and they made it. They don’t deserve to be bailed out by the government because of a poor choice on their part. Nor should they be kept from making the choice by the government because the government knows best.
Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.
First we let the government define places where someone could smoke and where they couldn’t. Originally, it was businesses themselves who chose whether to be smoking or non-smoking. Which is just the way it should be. If a business doesn’t want people smoking in its establishment, so be it. They get to set the rules. It’s theirs. But then the government got involved and said you can only smoke in part of an establishment, then it progressed to not in the business at all. Now they are saying you can’t smoke in parks or at the beach. (Understand that I am an ex-smoker. I don’t believe in smoking. I believe it’s harmful to you. I don’t want my kids smoking. But I don’t see that it’s the governments place to say where you can or can’t do something, or where it will allow you to do or not do something in your own place of business or home.)
Next came motorcycle helmets. In the majority of places, governments demand that you are to wear a helmet if you are going to ride a motor cycle.
Then came seatbelts. I believe in seat belts, my wife and I trained ourselves to wear our seatbelts before it was the law, because we believe it is the wise thing to do. I do not believe the government should be able to mandate that you wear them. I believe it is OK to make the car companies put them in the cars for you to use. No, I take that back. I believe it’s OK for the government to make them an option you can choose, I don’t believe the government should force the car companies to put them in. If they are a good idea, and I believe they are, consumers would ask for them to be included and competition would most likely force all car companies to include them in order to keep up.
Then came salt, cholesterol, transfats (what the hell ever those are), sugar, and the list goes on and on and on. Now NY has proposed limiting the size of a drink you can order. And the health board or whatever it is called, is considering including milk drinks and coffee drinks it thinks you shouldn’t have.
OMG! Is there no end to this madness?
Now that the snowball has been rolled over the crest of the hill, will it ever stop getting bigger and bigger? Will they ever stop intruding in our lives?
What’s next in the Libpo’s (Liberal/Progressive) fevered brain that they want to force us to do, or stop doing? What if they conduct a study and find that people who have sex once and only once a day live longer, healthier lives requiring less late life care. Because of government run health care they will then want to set up sex stations where you and your partner are to come and complete your daily sex act under government supervision. If you don’t have your own partner, you will be required to have sex with a government assigned partner that day. If you fail to have sex one day, you will be fined, but they will call it a tax. The Non-F#$king tax.
This would be done under the reasoning that if you weren’t having sex, it would cost the government more to provide your health care so of course they are just recouping the cost that they will have to pay out later when you get sick more often because you failed to f#$k. They will have actuarial tables and everything to justify and quantify these fines/taxes.
Of course this is an absurd proposition. But in the 1950’s can you imagine how absurd it would have sounded and how they would have looked at you if you told them about all of the government restrictions there would be on smoking. Or that the government would make you tie yourself into a car. They would have looked at you the same way you were just looking at the metaphorical me as you read my speculation on forcing people to have sex once a day.
But we’ve all seen what crazy things the government has forced folks to do or not do for our own good. Because they know better than we do. Because they think they are the smartest kids in the room and thus should be able to tell the rest of us how to live by their rules.
Well I’m sorry (no, really I’m not), but I think the government ought to stay the hell out’ta my life. The only time the government ought to tell someone what they can or can’t do is if the individual’s actions will impact another’s life, liberty or property in a negative way through force or fraud.
If a bar owner wants to allow smoking in his/her establishment, it’s nobody’s business but their own. If people don’t want to go there because of the smoke, the business will not survive. They made a poor choice. Too bad. So sad. It was their choice and they made it. They don’t deserve to be bailed out by the government because of a poor choice on their part. Nor should they be kept from making the choice by the government because the government knows best.
Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.
Monday, June 11, 2012
Why Government Employment Doesn't Spur The Economy
Recently the PotUS put forth the proposal that the way to pull the economy out of recession is to employ more government employees. Federal employees, state employees and local government employees is the answer to our economic woes according to our New Party PotUS.
Well, I have to agree that if all the various levels of government were to hire more people, more people would be working. For a short period of time anyway.
The problem as I see it is, LibPos (Liberal/Progressives) don’t seem to understand the economics of government employees.
For there to be an employee in the private sector, a business must produce a product, good or service that someone else is willing to give the company money for. They must be willing to give them enough money for this product/good/service to cover the cost of production, distribution and sales plus enough left over for the owner to pay the employees to do these tasks. Additionally, there must be enough left after all of these costs for the owner to meet his own basic levels of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. If the business doesn’t produce enough for the owner to meet the first two levels of the hierarchy for the owner and their family, there is no point in the owner keeping the doors open. Thus negatively affecting all of his employees also.
If the business wishes to increase its number of employees, it must sell enough of its product/good/service to meet all of the afore mentioned costs, plus enough extra to be able to pay for the new employee. (Understand that a $10 an hour employee will cost the company between $12.50 and $15 per hour when you add in things like taxes paid by the company, insurance, holiday pay, vacation pay, etc. etc. This does not include the hidden costs like the extra time it will take to do the extra paperwork, etc. that is required for each employee.)
Again, the business owner must generate this money above and beyond the monies required to run the business at its current level.
Now consider a government. Any government; Local, State, Federal, it makes no difference. How does a government generate its money?
It gets its money by taking it from its constituents. It does it through taxes. Be they personal taxes, consumption taxes or taxes on businesses, they are taking taxes from those who are out there being productive. Where private businesses must produce something and sell it to someone who wants it. A government just takes it from its citizenry by force through a byzantine tax structure that is nearly impossible to understand by the average citizen. (This is proven by the fact that there is a whole area of accounting dedicated to assisting individuals and business stay out of trouble with the various governmental agencies as they deal with the tax system.)
So for the government to hire a $10 an hour employee they must take enough money from those being taxed to cover the same $12.50 to $15 per hour that a business would. That means for every $10 per hour employee the government has they, there must be 3 to 5 $10 per hour employees and their employers in the private sector to take the money from. For the LibPos to fund another employee without having to borrow the money from another country they must have another 3 to 5 privately employed individuals to take the money from.
Only a Democratic LibPo would think that more government employees will help stimulate the economy.
The ONLY thing more government employees will do is either: A) Increase the country’s debt to foreign creditors which will require increased future taxes to pay off, or B) Require higher taxes now on those employees who are currently working in the private sector, thus reducing their expendable cash and therefore depressing the economy even further. The higher taxes route will also reduce cash in a company’s coffers that might be used to employ more people.
This is such a straight line correlation that you would think anyone with two synapses firing would be able to see. Clearly the LibPos who are currently in charge of the Senate and the White House can’t see what’s so obvious to those of us who are realists and understand cause and effect.
Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.
Well, I have to agree that if all the various levels of government were to hire more people, more people would be working. For a short period of time anyway.
The problem as I see it is, LibPos (Liberal/Progressives) don’t seem to understand the economics of government employees.
For there to be an employee in the private sector, a business must produce a product, good or service that someone else is willing to give the company money for. They must be willing to give them enough money for this product/good/service to cover the cost of production, distribution and sales plus enough left over for the owner to pay the employees to do these tasks. Additionally, there must be enough left after all of these costs for the owner to meet his own basic levels of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. If the business doesn’t produce enough for the owner to meet the first two levels of the hierarchy for the owner and their family, there is no point in the owner keeping the doors open. Thus negatively affecting all of his employees also.
If the business wishes to increase its number of employees, it must sell enough of its product/good/service to meet all of the afore mentioned costs, plus enough extra to be able to pay for the new employee. (Understand that a $10 an hour employee will cost the company between $12.50 and $15 per hour when you add in things like taxes paid by the company, insurance, holiday pay, vacation pay, etc. etc. This does not include the hidden costs like the extra time it will take to do the extra paperwork, etc. that is required for each employee.)
Again, the business owner must generate this money above and beyond the monies required to run the business at its current level.
Now consider a government. Any government; Local, State, Federal, it makes no difference. How does a government generate its money?
It gets its money by taking it from its constituents. It does it through taxes. Be they personal taxes, consumption taxes or taxes on businesses, they are taking taxes from those who are out there being productive. Where private businesses must produce something and sell it to someone who wants it. A government just takes it from its citizenry by force through a byzantine tax structure that is nearly impossible to understand by the average citizen. (This is proven by the fact that there is a whole area of accounting dedicated to assisting individuals and business stay out of trouble with the various governmental agencies as they deal with the tax system.)
So for the government to hire a $10 an hour employee they must take enough money from those being taxed to cover the same $12.50 to $15 per hour that a business would. That means for every $10 per hour employee the government has they, there must be 3 to 5 $10 per hour employees and their employers in the private sector to take the money from. For the LibPos to fund another employee without having to borrow the money from another country they must have another 3 to 5 privately employed individuals to take the money from.
Only a Democratic LibPo would think that more government employees will help stimulate the economy.
The ONLY thing more government employees will do is either: A) Increase the country’s debt to foreign creditors which will require increased future taxes to pay off, or B) Require higher taxes now on those employees who are currently working in the private sector, thus reducing their expendable cash and therefore depressing the economy even further. The higher taxes route will also reduce cash in a company’s coffers that might be used to employ more people.
This is such a straight line correlation that you would think anyone with two synapses firing would be able to see. Clearly the LibPos who are currently in charge of the Senate and the White House can’t see what’s so obvious to those of us who are realists and understand cause and effect.
Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.
Friday, June 1, 2012
Eric Holder And The (In)Justice Department
Just finished reading this headline in The Miami Herald “Feds to Florida: halt non-citizen voter purge”.
My initial reaction is “WHAT??? That can’t be right. The purpose of the Justice Department is to protect America and Americans. How could they possibly take steps to insure that American elections of American legislatures by Americans would be tainted by Non-Americans voting?”
Then it hit me. This Justice Department is headed by a first and foremost politician, Eric Holder, rather than a law enforcement person. His, and therefore the Departments, decisions seem to be made first from a political position which always trumps any legal considerations.
I’m not saying this based on readings of this current situation. Mr. Holder has a long and distinguished record of making politically based decisions. My first knowledge of his efforts (though I’m sure there are many preceding my awareness) revolve around his part in the pardoning of the unrepentant Puerto Rican terrorists in New York, just in time to bolster support for Hilary Clinton’s run to become the US Senator from New York.
My next knowledge of our fearless hero’s exploits comes when, after being installed by our current White House resident, he and his Justice Department fail to prosecute the Black Panthers on voter intimidation charges. The Black Panthers had basically accepted their guilt and all the Justice Department had to do was show up and they would have been convicted. But Holder chose not to follow through. No US Attorney showed up to court on the date required and the judge was forced to throw the case out.
The next time I recall hearing about our sterling Justice Department headed by Eric Holder, operating under the direction of our Democratic POTUS, they are refusing to protect our border against illegal immigration. Not only do they refuse to enforce our laws, Holder actively attempts to keep Arizona from passing and enforcing laws which mirror current US statutes. And if memory serves me correctly, they even filed an amicus brief on behalf of Mexico as they sued Arizona over its attempts to protect our borders. They have since taken steps to try and prevent other states from trying to protect themselves from this foreign invasion. (I use the term invasion purposely as I believe it is an attempt, by some, to take over our country as one can clearly read in materials from organizations such as La Raza and others.)
In a related matter, we hear where the Justice Department has run an out of control gun tracking program called “Fast and Furious” or something of the sort. In this program they were to have tracked weapons sold to known miscreants who were then taking them to Mexico to be used in the illegal drug trade. Of course Holder’s Keystone Cops organization let things run amuck, and to date, at least 3 weapons from this program have been involved in murders. One being a US Border Patrol agent.
Next came Holder and his (in)Justice Department’s efforts to squelch any and all voter ID legislation. Claiming it would intimidate minorities and act as a restriction to keep them from voting. Really? The need to prove that you are who you say you are when presenting yourself to vote on who will make the laws of the land is too burdensome and would keep voters from the polls? And thus we can’t ask for photo ID’s? We all know why this is taking place. They are against these laws because it would reduce the chance of shenanigans taking place on voting day. And historically, what party has taken advantage of these opportunities to affect the outcomes? I believe a close inspection of the facts would indicate that it would be Eric Holder’s and his boss’s party.
So it should have come as no surprise when I read the article in The Miami Herald. It was merely a case of more of the same. Of course they wouldn’t want illegals removed from the voting rolls. Who would illegals be most inclined to vote for? I don’t think it takes a Mensa member to figure that one out, it would be for the folks who are doing the most to protect them from justice.
Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.
It's World Wide Builderberger Weekend.......Everybody Celebrate!
My initial reaction is “WHAT??? That can’t be right. The purpose of the Justice Department is to protect America and Americans. How could they possibly take steps to insure that American elections of American legislatures by Americans would be tainted by Non-Americans voting?”
Then it hit me. This Justice Department is headed by a first and foremost politician, Eric Holder, rather than a law enforcement person. His, and therefore the Departments, decisions seem to be made first from a political position which always trumps any legal considerations.
I’m not saying this based on readings of this current situation. Mr. Holder has a long and distinguished record of making politically based decisions. My first knowledge of his efforts (though I’m sure there are many preceding my awareness) revolve around his part in the pardoning of the unrepentant Puerto Rican terrorists in New York, just in time to bolster support for Hilary Clinton’s run to become the US Senator from New York.
My next knowledge of our fearless hero’s exploits comes when, after being installed by our current White House resident, he and his Justice Department fail to prosecute the Black Panthers on voter intimidation charges. The Black Panthers had basically accepted their guilt and all the Justice Department had to do was show up and they would have been convicted. But Holder chose not to follow through. No US Attorney showed up to court on the date required and the judge was forced to throw the case out.
The next time I recall hearing about our sterling Justice Department headed by Eric Holder, operating under the direction of our Democratic POTUS, they are refusing to protect our border against illegal immigration. Not only do they refuse to enforce our laws, Holder actively attempts to keep Arizona from passing and enforcing laws which mirror current US statutes. And if memory serves me correctly, they even filed an amicus brief on behalf of Mexico as they sued Arizona over its attempts to protect our borders. They have since taken steps to try and prevent other states from trying to protect themselves from this foreign invasion. (I use the term invasion purposely as I believe it is an attempt, by some, to take over our country as one can clearly read in materials from organizations such as La Raza and others.)
In a related matter, we hear where the Justice Department has run an out of control gun tracking program called “Fast and Furious” or something of the sort. In this program they were to have tracked weapons sold to known miscreants who were then taking them to Mexico to be used in the illegal drug trade. Of course Holder’s Keystone Cops organization let things run amuck, and to date, at least 3 weapons from this program have been involved in murders. One being a US Border Patrol agent.
Next came Holder and his (in)Justice Department’s efforts to squelch any and all voter ID legislation. Claiming it would intimidate minorities and act as a restriction to keep them from voting. Really? The need to prove that you are who you say you are when presenting yourself to vote on who will make the laws of the land is too burdensome and would keep voters from the polls? And thus we can’t ask for photo ID’s? We all know why this is taking place. They are against these laws because it would reduce the chance of shenanigans taking place on voting day. And historically, what party has taken advantage of these opportunities to affect the outcomes? I believe a close inspection of the facts would indicate that it would be Eric Holder’s and his boss’s party.
So it should have come as no surprise when I read the article in The Miami Herald. It was merely a case of more of the same. Of course they wouldn’t want illegals removed from the voting rolls. Who would illegals be most inclined to vote for? I don’t think it takes a Mensa member to figure that one out, it would be for the folks who are doing the most to protect them from justice.
Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.
It's World Wide Builderberger Weekend.......Everybody Celebrate!
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Ignore Science....Tax The Rich
Tax the rich, seems to be the current theme of worldwide liberal/progressives (Libpos). I suppose if the truth be told it’s not exactly a new theme for them, but between the new French president and our own Incompetent in Chief, it seems to be gaining a lot of momentum. This seems to be gaining more and more favor as more and more of the populations become dependent on the government for their livelihood instead of their own productivity.
The indolent look at the productive and say “It’s not fair that they should have so much and I so little, let’s have the government take it from them and give it to me.” (Something that if they were to do it themselves it would be called robbery or theft but when they get the government to do it they call it a progressive tax rate. Progressive meaning different people pay different amounts, which to me would seem to be the epitome of unfair! By the nature of math, those who make more pay more by paying the same rate. Additionally, those who pay more, use fewer of the services they are paying for than those who pay less or even nothing. Where is the fairness in that?)
I’m sure to the Libpos this seems like a wonderful idea. Those nasty productive types getting lucky (if by lucky you mean work hard and make wise decisions) and having so much. They can be the ones to pay for all our giveaways that we buy votes with.
But there is a fly in the Libpo ointment.
What do people do when they feel they are being unfairly treated? The productive class figures out how to do something about it. And that is exactly what is happening, both here and abroad.
If you look at the States with the most long standing Libpo governments (read Democrat)you will find they tend to be the states with the highest progressive tax rates and the most generous state benefits. Unsurprisingly, these are the states with the largest percentage of people on the government dole. Equally unsurprising is the fact that these are the states that are in the most financial difficulty. California and New York top the list in this category.
So how then do the Libpos propose to deal with their financial issues brought on by punishing the productive and rewarding the unproductive? Will they see the error of their ways and do things to reward the productive and disincentivize (I think I just made up a word there) the indolent?
No, no, no, no, no, of course not. Why would they ever look to behavioral science where long ago Pavlov and Skinner proved that you will get what you reinforce and will extinguish what you don’t.
They of course choose to increase the taxes even further on the productive class so as to avoid reducing or possibly even increasing their rewards for the nonproductive.
Quite predictably, the productive class is finding a solution. They are leaving those states. Californians and New Yorkers are abandoning their draconian states for more favorable business climates. Ones where they are not excessively punished for being productive. I seem to remember reading somewhere that there are nearly 200 Californians a day moving to Texas alone. Similar moves are taking place from New York to Florida, and other more friendly climes.
On the national level, Libpos like Obama, Pelosi and Reid are looking to make similar tax hikes on the productive. The mere talk of it has caused many of the productive class to become expatriates. The most recent of which was one of the Facebook co-founders who gave up his US citizenship rather than submit to their oppressive taxes.
The newly elected French President Hollande ran on a platform, not of austerity but of taxing the rich at a rate of 100% over some set amount and increasing the size of the French government and what it would give away. To no ones’ surprise, other than the Libpos, as soon as Hollande won the presidency, the productive class in France started making their escape plans. Reports from around the globe are popping up of productive French citizens moving to less restraining environments.
When will these Libpos ever learn? I believe a quote from Ron White probably explains the attitude of the productive class as it relates to the Libpos, “I’m a pretty good dog, but if you expect me to stay on the porch, you got to pet me every once in a while.”
The indolent look at the productive and say “It’s not fair that they should have so much and I so little, let’s have the government take it from them and give it to me.” (Something that if they were to do it themselves it would be called robbery or theft but when they get the government to do it they call it a progressive tax rate. Progressive meaning different people pay different amounts, which to me would seem to be the epitome of unfair! By the nature of math, those who make more pay more by paying the same rate. Additionally, those who pay more, use fewer of the services they are paying for than those who pay less or even nothing. Where is the fairness in that?)
I’m sure to the Libpos this seems like a wonderful idea. Those nasty productive types getting lucky (if by lucky you mean work hard and make wise decisions) and having so much. They can be the ones to pay for all our giveaways that we buy votes with.
But there is a fly in the Libpo ointment.
What do people do when they feel they are being unfairly treated? The productive class figures out how to do something about it. And that is exactly what is happening, both here and abroad.
If you look at the States with the most long standing Libpo governments (read Democrat)you will find they tend to be the states with the highest progressive tax rates and the most generous state benefits. Unsurprisingly, these are the states with the largest percentage of people on the government dole. Equally unsurprising is the fact that these are the states that are in the most financial difficulty. California and New York top the list in this category.
So how then do the Libpos propose to deal with their financial issues brought on by punishing the productive and rewarding the unproductive? Will they see the error of their ways and do things to reward the productive and disincentivize (I think I just made up a word there) the indolent?
No, no, no, no, no, of course not. Why would they ever look to behavioral science where long ago Pavlov and Skinner proved that you will get what you reinforce and will extinguish what you don’t.
They of course choose to increase the taxes even further on the productive class so as to avoid reducing or possibly even increasing their rewards for the nonproductive.
Quite predictably, the productive class is finding a solution. They are leaving those states. Californians and New Yorkers are abandoning their draconian states for more favorable business climates. Ones where they are not excessively punished for being productive. I seem to remember reading somewhere that there are nearly 200 Californians a day moving to Texas alone. Similar moves are taking place from New York to Florida, and other more friendly climes.
On the national level, Libpos like Obama, Pelosi and Reid are looking to make similar tax hikes on the productive. The mere talk of it has caused many of the productive class to become expatriates. The most recent of which was one of the Facebook co-founders who gave up his US citizenship rather than submit to their oppressive taxes.
The newly elected French President Hollande ran on a platform, not of austerity but of taxing the rich at a rate of 100% over some set amount and increasing the size of the French government and what it would give away. To no ones’ surprise, other than the Libpos, as soon as Hollande won the presidency, the productive class in France started making their escape plans. Reports from around the globe are popping up of productive French citizens moving to less restraining environments.
When will these Libpos ever learn? I believe a quote from Ron White probably explains the attitude of the productive class as it relates to the Libpos, “I’m a pretty good dog, but if you expect me to stay on the porch, you got to pet me every once in a while.”
Monday, May 14, 2012
Evil Republicans For Gay Marriage
I was listening to Mark Bellingham (sp?) while out to lunch and he said something that got me to thinking. He said, and I paraphrase here, that to “legalize” a marriage between same sex couples is to say there is legally no difference between men and women. And I can see where he is coming from. To say that there is no difference between a man marrying a man or a woman marrying a woman than there is between a man and a woman marrying is to say that in the law’s eyes, there is no legal difference between men and women.
To remove that distinction in this instance removes it in all instances. You can’t say that a fish is a fish except when it’s a cow. A fish is a fish whether it’s in a lake or on your plate. In the legal sense to say that the fish is a fish in one instance but it’s a cow in another, that doesn’t work. Once you set the bar, the bar must remain the same in all instances. If not, the whole concept of impartiality of the law and the law being “blind” becomes null and void.
Let me say up front, I’ve done no research to back up what I’m going to say next, but I would bet that the majority of folks who favor gay marriage consider themselves to be liberal. (I myself neither favor nor oppose gay marriage. I believe that is up to the individuals involved and the state should not be involved in either the sanctioning or vilifying of any unions. As long as it doesn’t lead to someone losing life, liberty or property through force or fraud, it’s none of the government’s business. Oops, sorry for the mini libertarian rant.)
I doubt seriously that most of these supporters would like to see the logical extension of removing the legal differences between men and women. Wouldn’t this simple act, by definition, undo decades of laws the liberals have shepherded into being, either by legislation or through judicial fiat?
Think about it. If there are no legal differences between men and women, doesn’t that make Title IX superfluous? Schools could choose to have whatever sports they wished to support, regardless of the gender of folks participating. If a school chose to only have football, basketball and track, and only have the best participants on the field, there would be no legal ground for a liberal to stand on to complain that such a move discriminates against women. Since the law says men and women are equal in all ways.
If there is no legal difference between men and women, all talk of gender discrimination and the laws relating to it must go away. Since legally there are no differences.
Think of all the money businesses could save by only having to provide 1 restroom facility. No need to provide redundant facilities since there are no differences, right?
No need to have different sets of qualifying scores on physical fitness exams for such things as law enforcement, fire services, emergency services, the military. There are no legal differences. There is one and only one standard all must equally achieve.
The cosmic bunny hole that would be created by legalizing same sex marriages could be all consuming from a liberal perspective. A truly evil conservative might push for legalizing gay marriage merely for the havoc they could wreck upon the liberal agenda once the legal precedent was set that there was no difference between men and women.
Or so it would appear to an old farm boy.
To remove that distinction in this instance removes it in all instances. You can’t say that a fish is a fish except when it’s a cow. A fish is a fish whether it’s in a lake or on your plate. In the legal sense to say that the fish is a fish in one instance but it’s a cow in another, that doesn’t work. Once you set the bar, the bar must remain the same in all instances. If not, the whole concept of impartiality of the law and the law being “blind” becomes null and void.
Let me say up front, I’ve done no research to back up what I’m going to say next, but I would bet that the majority of folks who favor gay marriage consider themselves to be liberal. (I myself neither favor nor oppose gay marriage. I believe that is up to the individuals involved and the state should not be involved in either the sanctioning or vilifying of any unions. As long as it doesn’t lead to someone losing life, liberty or property through force or fraud, it’s none of the government’s business. Oops, sorry for the mini libertarian rant.)
I doubt seriously that most of these supporters would like to see the logical extension of removing the legal differences between men and women. Wouldn’t this simple act, by definition, undo decades of laws the liberals have shepherded into being, either by legislation or through judicial fiat?
Think about it. If there are no legal differences between men and women, doesn’t that make Title IX superfluous? Schools could choose to have whatever sports they wished to support, regardless of the gender of folks participating. If a school chose to only have football, basketball and track, and only have the best participants on the field, there would be no legal ground for a liberal to stand on to complain that such a move discriminates against women. Since the law says men and women are equal in all ways.
If there is no legal difference between men and women, all talk of gender discrimination and the laws relating to it must go away. Since legally there are no differences.
Think of all the money businesses could save by only having to provide 1 restroom facility. No need to provide redundant facilities since there are no differences, right?
No need to have different sets of qualifying scores on physical fitness exams for such things as law enforcement, fire services, emergency services, the military. There are no legal differences. There is one and only one standard all must equally achieve.
The cosmic bunny hole that would be created by legalizing same sex marriages could be all consuming from a liberal perspective. A truly evil conservative might push for legalizing gay marriage merely for the havoc they could wreck upon the liberal agenda once the legal precedent was set that there was no difference between men and women.
Or so it would appear to an old farm boy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)