"They Were Born That Way?" So What?

Using the excuse, "I was born that way," is a non-scalable alibi.

My sons are all computer developers, they write code for different companies for the Internet. A common complaint of novice developers is when they write code that won't scale. Their code works when they try it on the test servers using 1000 hits or users, but when they launch it into cyberspace, the application crashes. They review the code, test it again, roll it out, and it bursts into flames as it crashes to the floor.

The problem usually lies in having the server execute individual operations rather than batching operations together. The server has no problems performing several thousand operations a second, so on the test server everything looks good. But when mounted in the real world on a popular site, it can be hit with hundreds of thousands or even millions of operations a second. When the server becomes so over-whelmed with unfinished tasks, it can't continue and it shuts down.

"I was born that way" is a good reason to continue to act the way we always have; it is positive procrastination justified. It really doesn't make any difference what the behavior is, it is not a justifiable reason to remain the way we are.

There is a reason for every person's condition, but there is no excuse for them to remain that way.

Let's just see if this scales to the real world?

• Alcoholics are born that way and shouldn't change.
• Kleptomaniacs are born that way and can't change.
• Homosexuals are born that way and shouldn't be expected to change.
• Pedophiles are born that way and can't be expected to change.
• Maniacal tyrant murders like Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussian, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot were born that way and we shouldn't expect them to treat us otherwise.
• Greedy, self-serving capitalists like the Koch brothers or George Soros were born that way have every right to manipulate governments to their advantage.

Humm . . . doesn't look like it fits all cases. Maybe if one-size fits all, it doesn't fit anyone?

Maybe, just maybe, we can become something different that the way we were born? Or maybe we can take what we are and become someone so much better.

What about Jennifer Bricker? Born with no legs, she was inspired by gymnast Dominique Moceanu and became a world-class tumbler. Watch her interview as she explains why being "born this way" never prevented her from being the best she could.

Gabe Adams, an 8 year-old boy, also born with no arms or legs, coined his own motto, "I can do anything with a smile". 

And finally, Nick Vujicic, no arms or legs either, is a motivational speaker, traveling around the world sharing hope and the dream that we can change ourselves to become what God wants us to be. He has even married the girl of his dreams and continues to strive to be a better person each day.

The thing they all have in common is supportive friends and family who never placed limits on them, never accepted that because they had disabilities, they couldn't do the things they wanted, and never gave up on them. This kind of support will enable anyone to overcome any short-comings or weaknesses they were "born with". Obesity, anorexia, anger management, un-natural attractions, low self-esteem, alcoholism, drug dependency, you name it, you can change it or manage it.

Most of these issues never leave us, just as Jennifer, Gabe and Nick will never be able to grow new arms and legs. But, our fears and limitations can be controlled, not coddled. We can let the elephant play quietly in the corner while we immerse ourselves in greater things.

Did these three become what they did because of their birth or in spite of it?  We will never know, but this much we do know, they learned to "do anything with a smile".

There is a reason for every person's condition, but there is no excuse for them to remain that way.

It's Not Capitalism, It's Cronyism

Many of you may have been wondering why the progressives have such a disdain for capitalism. It is maligned with such quips as:

• You didn't build that!
• Greedy Capitalist Pig.
• The Decade of Greed.
• Rich Republican donors.
• The Koch brothers are buying America.

In his movie, "Capitalism, A Love Story" Michael Moore ended with the quote, "Capitalism is an evil, and you cannot regulate evil. You have to eliminate it and replace it with something that is good for all people and that something is democracy." Actually he doesn't know what he is talking about. Capitalism is an economic system, Democracy is a form of government. We can't have an economic system with out a government and vice versa.

Capitalism, as espoused first by Adam Smith, is simply a system where the producer profits from their productivity and efforts. If I spend the time to gather resources, create a product or service someone else deems of value, and I sell it to them for more than the cost to produce, I realize a profit in the difference between my expenses and the sales price. 

• If I price the items for less that the cost to produce, I loose money and go out of business.
• If I price the items too high, someone else emerges to sell it for less, and I loose business.
• If I create items that no one wants or needs, no one purchases them and I go out of business.

Smith explained that these "natural laws" of business would keep capitalism in check and provide the greatest good for the society. Supply and demand as well as competition keep the playing field balanced.

Michael Moore and other elitists celebrities do this all the time with their work, but refuse to acknowledge they are capitalists. Mr Moore finances a movie or documentary such as "Capitalism, A Love Story". He hires others to help him film and distribute the product, sells it to the public, and then he keeps the difference between the cost of the film and the revenue generated, his profit. He profits handsomely from the very system he maligns. It grossed over $14 Million dollars.

So whether you are; 1) a sole proprietor who makes and sells products or services, 2) an employer who hires other people to help with the production and distribution of the products or services, or 3) an employee who works for a company to produce products or services where you are paid for your productivity, you are a capitalist.

There is a moral obligation with capitalism to share proportionally the profits with those who helped to create them; but competition from other companies selling at a lower price or hiring away employees for a better wage, keeps employers looking out for the welfare of those working for them.

So, what has gone wrong? It is not capitalism that has failed, it is the introduction of cronyism.

Cronyism is profiting from our relationships with others. It has nothing to do with our productivity or efforts. We are dependent on whether or not we make our benefactor happy. This is how Socialism, Communism, and Monarchys survive.

Cronyism was the name of the game in the Middle Ages in Europe. The kings were accepted by the people as the Divinely appointed rulers of the country. Kings owned everything, including the people. They divvied out property and power to the nobility, comprised mostly of those who helped them to gain power. As long as the nobility fulfilled the wishes of the king, they retained their property and power, regardless of their productivity. One false step could forfeit, for them and their posterity, any claim to the prestige they enjoyed and it would be given to another. "Game of Thrones" ring a bell?

It has often been at play in the politics of the Untied States. Every time there is a newly elected President, he brings with him a gaggle of supporters to whom he owes his office. In gratitude, he bestows appointments, offices, and powers to help him govern the country. There are justifiable reasons for bringing along your supporters. A new President often brings a new focus, new direction or new ideology to the country. It is important for his success to surround himself with those who share his vision. This is wise leadership. But when he rewards donors with positions they are neither qualified nor capable of handling, it is cronyism.

Today our country is rife with Cronyism and its companion, incompetence. A few examples to accentuate the point.

President Obama appointed the following people to positions in the government:

• Timothy Geithner - Nominated for Secretary of the Treasury failed to properly pay his taxes from 2001-2004. A 2006 audit by the IRS revealed the error, but Geithner didn't pay the back taxes until he was nominated for the Cabinet position. Was he really qualified to hold this position?
• Tom Daschle - Nominated for Secretary of Health and Human Services but it seemed the former Senate Majority Leader had problems doing his taxes. He used a donated car and driver for 2 years without reporting the "income" to Uncle Sam. Fortunately, he declined the appointment when this information was made public.
• The average government employee spend up to 1/2 of their day at work watching porn or facebooking. The greater their salary, the more time spent surfing.

In an article entitled, "From Bad to Worse: US Taxpayers Keep Losing Money on Solyndra", it tells the story of how a company that was in financial trouble received over $537 Million dollars for research and development. In less that 2 years, the company folded and only about $27 Million of the $500 Million was projected to be repaid to the American People. The public has no idea where the rest of the money went.

Speaking of energy companies, "Obama's Green Energy Bets Keep Coming Up Short", lists 19 energy companies with government loans and their status as of a year ago.

Over 10 Billion dollars of American Taxpayer's money that was risked and most of it lost. Again, where did the money go? The most popular way to thank donors and sponsors is to finance their failing companies so they can siphon off enough for retirement while the ship sinks.

That is the beauty of Cronyism. Welcome to America.

Photos courtesy of:

http://02varvara.wordpress.com/2012/11/10/

http://www.rpc.senate.gov/policy-papers/obamas-green-energy-bets-keep-coming-up-short_update

PC Police In The NFL, $11,000 For The "N" Word That Didn't Happen?

Colin Kaepernick is mad. $11,025 mad. It is bad enough to have a bad day and lead his San Francisco 49er's to a loss against the Chicago Bears. But to add insult to injury, one of the referees threw a red flag claiming that Kaepernick called Lamarr Houston a nigger. (Sorry, just reporting the truth.) This seems a little odd since few white men would want to call Houston names when he is 6' 3'' and weighs 300 pounds. That is asking for a thumping.

The whole issue was clouded as Kaepernick reported on Sunday, that Houston claimed Kaepernick did not say it, but starting Tuesday morning, after Houston was cited for the exact offence Monday night, he remembered that it was said on Sunday. Oh, the power of the PC Police over a big, black man in a small room with a single light bulb.

Whether either or both are lying is of really no consequence. Stupid things people do and say under tremendous stress are usually forgiven (unless you are Mel Gibson). San Francisco received a 15 yard penalty. Infraction noted, penalty paid.

Wrong.

Then next day, the NFL dropped a fine of  $11,025 on Kaepernick. So now it is not only rude and insensitive to use negative stereotypes of blacks and Native Americans, it is punishable by a fine, a big fine at that.

These publicity stunts by small, very small, offended groups of minorities, are gaining traction rather than being shown for the shallow, silly media grabs they really are. Any mature person would not be intimidated or put down by antiquated stereotypes that have long since lost their punch.

I was in a KFC in Las Vegas years ago when a clerk called me a "cracker" under her breath. Everyone in my group was incensed that she would stoop so low, but I laughed at her ignorance.

1. She didn't have the courage to say it spitefully to my face, 
2. She had no idea that my ancestors never owned slaves, 
3. Practice as I might, I never mastered the use of a whip. 
4. Actually, if she were being maligned by any other weak-minded, bigoted bully, I would be the first to step in and protect her.

The antics by the NBA to force the sale of the LA Clippers for some ignorant comments made by Donald Stirling, the self-imposed sale of the Atlanta Hawks by Bruce Levenson over an email he sent to his staff 2 years ago and the cacophony over the Washington Redskins are all part of this charade.

In the case of Stirling, the recording of his conversation without his permission and knowledge, compounded by releasing it to the public, should have brought criminal charges against his girl friend, according to California Law. For the past 30 years, no one was ignorant of the bigoted, self-promoting character of Stirling, so why now?

As for Levenson, I am sure he saw the hefty prices offered for the sale of the Clippers and decided that it was best cash out while fanaticism was hot. The Hawks are toward the bottom of the profitability chart, barely $7.3 million average over the last 5-year period, home game attendance numbers are falling and they only played 3 home playoff games last year where they did 6 the year before. Looks like a good time to get out.

I read the email he sent in 2012. It was a honest demographic study of the strengths and weaknesses of their fan base. Suggestions were made to increase profitability by discouraging the black market and push the white college crowd because they spend more than the typical black market. Sound business advice for increased profits. The owners need to decide if they want to promote the team to all of Atlanta or just to those who pay the most. That is not racism, it is financial prejudice.

As for the insanity surrounding the Washington Redskins, I just don't understand it. If someone named their team "David Mefford is a blithering idiot", I might be offended, but I would have to accept the truth of the statement. Since I don't have any copyright privilege for the name, I couldn't do any thing to force them to change it.

Isaiah spoke of our day when people would be an offender for a word:

Isaiah 29: 20-21. . . and all that watch for iniquity are cut off: That make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that repoveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought.

Professional sports, the Great American past time has now become the Great Progressive Target.



Bibliography:

The NBS's Most And Least Profitable Teams
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2013/01/23/the-nbas-most-and-least-profitable-teams/

Source: Ref say Coling Kaepernick used racial slur
http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/colin-kaepernick-49ers-refs-racial-slur-bears-loss-fine-092114?cmpid=paid:fscom:ad:outbrain:nfl

Lamarr Houston says Colin Kaepernick did us N-word
http://network.yardbarker.com/nfl/article_external/lamarr_houston_says_colin_kaepernick_did_use_n_word/17344925

Photo courtesy of:
http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/colin-kaepernick-49ers-refs-racial-slur-bears-loss-fine-092114?cmpid=paid:fscom:ad:outbrain:nfl

How to Tell a Conservative from a Progressive

I had an interesting discussion with my college-age grandson last night. It centered mainly on the 2 different ideologies in our country, how they differ, and is there any reconciliation. I asked him to explain to me his understanding of the difference between Conservatism and Progressivism.

His answer ran along the lines that Conservatives don't want change, preferring the status-quo or what worked in the past; while Progressives are for change, the change needed to fix what is wrong.

He was correct in explaining the definition of the terms according to Webster, but he did not understand the differences in their ideologies. Here is how I see the differences.

Conservatives believe:

1. The Individual is the backbone of society,
2. In the power and goodness of the Individual; that left to themselves, the Individual will try to better themselves and society,
3. That Individuals are best able to choose their destiny, what is best, and can collectively govern themselves successfully,
4. That Individuals should be rewarded for their productivity and value to the society.
5. That there are eternal truths and laws that never change, that obedience to these truths will always bring the same results.

Progressives believe:

1. The  Individual only exists to strengthen and promote the good of the Society,
2. That Individuals can not be trusted to choose what is right; that left to themselves, the Individual will lie, cheat, and steal from others and the Society,
3. That Society must monitor and regulate the Individual to prevent abuses, (corporations are now Individuals, as well,)
4. That Society should reward all individuals equally, regardless of their productivity or value to society.
5. That all truth is relative and changeable; that situations, circumstances, and desires dictate what is truth.

Using these definitions, we can see that Conservatives are generally found in:

1. The Republican, Tea Party, Libertarian and Independent political parties,
2. Countries where democracy exists, such as; The United States, Switzerland, Germany and maybe England, France, Spain and Italy.

While Progressives are generally found in:

1. The Democrat, Socialist and Communist political parties,
2. Socialist, Communist and other totalitarian governments, such as; Russia, China, Cuba, Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah, The Taliban, etc.

So, taking these things into consideration, we can see that it is fairly difficult to form any compromises with such extreme positions. 

1. Either the Individual is the backbone of society or they are the fodder that feeds society.
2. Individuals have innate goodness and can be trusted or they can never be trusted. If they can only be trusted some of the time, who decides when they can be trusted and when they can't?
3. If we have bee-watchers watching the bee-watcher, who is watching the bee-watcher, who is watching the . . . who will be left for the bee-watchers to watch?
4. If you reward everyone equally, regardless of their value or performance, won't the productive individuals loose their ambition to succeed and how can we ever motivate the under-productive to pull their own weight?
5. Without definable, unchanging truths, how can faith be established in laws or governments?

We also find Progressives slandering the Conservatives, labeling them as; greedy, selfish, stingy, and hoarders, while they applaud their idealistic goals of equal distribution of wealth, health and happiness. The Progressive motto, "the greatest good for the greatest number" sounds very great and good, but what about "the smallest group that is sacrificed for the good of the largest group"? Do they have a voice in the matter?

All people have an obligation to help those less fortunate than themselves, but Conservatives believe that is a choice for the Individual to make, not a mandate from the Government who will take what they think is needed to invest in a cause whether the Individual supports the cause or not.

Wait, who are "they"? In a Progressive Society, who governs, who decides, who controls the money and the people? 

Those who instigated the system. Individuals. 

But Progressives don't believe that Individuals can be trusted to make the right choices and it looks like they may be right. There has never been a Progressive/Socialistic/Communistic/Totalitarian government where the leaders have not stolen, conscripted, taxed, or taken everything they possibly can from the Society. Russia, China, Nazi Germany, Vietnam, Columbia, England, France or the United States of America, the story is all the same. Take as much as you can as fast as you can.

Every deposed dictator left office with hundreds of millions of dollars in their personal bank accounts. Who was the King of Graft?

The Palestinian Liberation Organization had been given billions of dollars to help them establish a homeland in the Middle East. When Yassar Arafat, the leader of the PLO, died, it was discovered that he had over $2 BILLION US DOLLARS socked away in Swiss bank accounts. His posterity is still fighting with the PLO over who has the rights to the money.

Leaders in our own country enter the Congress or other government service with modest incomes and retire as multi-millionaires, with millions more accumulated as they dance around the speaking circuits. Hillary Clinton stated that when she and her husband left the White House, they were so deep in debt they were paupers, but 14 years later, they have a net worth of over $80 MILLION dollars. Bill Clinton even received $500,000 for a speech he never gave.

Well, these are all just facts. You, the reader will need to determine whether our country will be better off with the Progressive path or the Conservative course. 

Choose wisely or someone else will choose it for you.

Photos courtesy: http://lonelyconservative.com/2013/12/saturday-funnies-137/

Maleficent, A Story of Redemption

"I want my villains to remain villains, I can't have them change and become good." So stated my 17 year old granddaughter as we drove to see Disney's "Maleficent" a few weeks ago. "It just really bothers me," she moaned.

I understood her point, having your images of right and wrong change, so that the icon of wrong is now right or what was right is now wrong, can be disconcerting, but I explained to her that I couldn't agree with her. Last night we took some other grandchildren to the show, and I still feel the same way, "Maleficent" is a wonderful story of redemption.

Maleficent, emotionally destroyed by the one she loved most, became so blinded by anger, she cursed an innocent child as retaliation against her father. But after 16 years of bathing in the unconditional love of the child she despised, Maleficent's heart softened. She felt compassion, repentance and ultimately true, unselfish love for Aurora.

As the Cold War wound down in the 1980's, I heard some critics say, "Who will the United States hate now?" I was wounded at the implication that we had to have an enemy, that people had to have a common foe to galvanize against. Why, I asked, couldn't we have common ambitions that were positive, edifying and uplifting? But it seems that is not the case.

The natural man loves to be superior. In order to be superior, someone else needs to be inferior. We create social orders, caste systems and pecking orders so that someone else is always less than us. Then to maintain the status quo, we teach the less capable they can never change, they can never rise above their station, for as long as they remain in their place, we maintain our place.

I once heard that there is a little bit of good in the worst of us and a little bit of bad in the best of us. 

The ultimate goal of our loving Heavenly Father is for all of us to return to live with him in happiness and joy. He even gave his Son, Jesus Christ, to atone for our mistakes and transgressions so we could ultimately overcome mortality.

No one is beyond the power of redemption.

• Not the jilted fairy who in anger evokes a curse she later regrets.
• Not the psychotic abuser who became so twisted that joy was found in the pain of others.
• Not the abused child who uses drugs or alcohol to dull the pain and finds themselves a homeless addict.
• Not the prostitute, drug dealer, rapist, liar, or thief.
• Not the greedy, the proud, the arrogant, or malicious.

The path back is different for each, just as the path to their situation was different. If Lucifer, the Devil himself, had a change of heart and truly wanted to repent of his transgressions, our Father and his Beloved Son would gladly embrace him and help him return.

Christ taught  the Nephites, "Nevertheless, ye shall not cast [others] out of your synagogues, or your places of worship, for unto such shall ye continue to minister; for ye know not but what they will return and repent."  

Rather than cementing our icons of good and evil on the people we meet, we should always be willing to extend the hand of faith and friendship to everyone, regardless of how far they have strayed; for we "know not but what they will return and repent," and then "how great shall be [our] joy with them in the kingdom of [our] Father".

James Carney, Propaganda in the Living Room

Washington Mom Magazine did a piece this month on  Claire Shipman, the wife of James Carney, Presidents Obama's Press Secretary. Claire is an amazing woman; a wife, mother of 2 children, a home maker, and a contributor to ABC News. I applaud her for being able to keep all the balls in the air and still be happy and beautiful.

There was one rather odd thing that emerged from the photo of Claire and her two children in their home. On the wall behind them are two posters. You don't have to look too hard to see that they are Soviet-Era propaganda posters.

The posters are rather innocuous. The one on the right shows a Soviet Soldier asking the question, "Have you enlisted in the Army?"

The one on the left  states, "Women! Learn production, replace workers who went to the front! The stronger the hinterland - the stronger the front!" 

The translation and photos are courtesy of Hunter Walker in his article in Business Insider

The thing that baffles me is "Why would the Face of the White House and President of the United States have these posters in their home?" Granted, both James Carney and Claire Shipman worked in Moscow in the early nineties representing different new services. I know lots of people with souvenirs from places they have worked and lived, but jee-whiz?

I just can't see Vladimir Putin 

with this poster in his den.

 Nor would I expect this photo neatly framed in all the Planned Parenthood Offices across the country.

It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.


Photos from:
http://www.markmallett.com/blog/is-a-fetus-a-person/
http://www.washingtonian.com/mom/features/balancing-act/
http://doingitdt.areavoices.com/2011/04/08/fargo-more-heart-than-water/uncle-sam-wants-you/

Benghazi Lies - Terrorists, Treachery, and Treason

There has been too much hoopla and mis-representation about how President Obama, Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice lied to the American people about the real cause for the attack in Benghazi. Rices's talking points, and new emails, that twisted the narrative of what happened that night of September 11, 2012, are for everyone, except Jim Carney, the Presidents Press Secretary, acknowledged as lies, mis-directing responsibility of the attacks onto an aspiring, political film maker. We supposed that the lies were to protect President Obama and his administration from a negative image of his foreign policy as he entered the home stretch in his bid for re-election against Mitt Romney, 2 months later in November.

Now it has come to light, with the release of a report from the Citizens' Commission on Benghazi, that there were many more lies that were much more serious that letting 4 Americans die at the hands of terrorists. Here is the link to the complete report.

Just in case you can't remember that well, here is a photo of Ambassador Christopher Stevens after he was killed, courtesy of an Al Qaeda terrorist and the internet. He and Glen Doherty were trapped in the Embassy the night of the attack. Doherty was killed in the compound and Stevens was found wounded in a Libyan hospital, but was killed and drug out into the street by the terrorists. (More photos from the night of the attack)

Here are photos of the 4 Americans who were killed that night. Woods and Smith left the comfort of a CIA safe house to go to the Embassy a mile away, but the attack there was over. They went back to the safe house to protect the other Americans hiding there, but it was attacked a few hours later and in the ensuing 4 hour battle, Woods and Smith were also killed.

The most terrible tragedy that occurred is that multiple mistakes were made that could have saved the lives of all 4 of these people, regardless of the reason for the attack.

• The Embassy security staff was reduced by Hillary Clinton's State Department office, from 16 to 4 people a few weeks before the attack.
• Woods and Smith wanted to leave the safe house immediately upon hearing of the attack at the Embassy, but were told to wait. They might have saved Stevens and Doherty
• Lt. Col. Gibson and his Special Forces Team heard of the attack on the Embassy and were on their way to board a C-130 cargo plane from Tripoli for Benghazi prior to the second attack on the safe house when he received a phone call from SOCAFRICA which said, "You can't go now, you don't have the authority to go now." And so they did not go.
• Hillary Clinton and Military Commanders said there were no available resources (planes) to send in time. President Obama could have boarded a commercial flight and been there, from Washington DC, in 14 hours. They could have scrambled jets from Andrews Air Force Base and been there before the second battle started, (F-22 Raptor, 5221 miles/1220 mph cruising speed = 4 hours 30 minutes). But we also had scores of jets within 30-60 minutes; in Italy, Turkey, Germany, Spain, England, all armed and ready to fight.
• F-16 fighters were available and according to the Commission's report, “Even if they were not armed, even if they were not loaded with munitions, simply flying a jet like that low and fast on afterburner over a scene like this, has, in the past, in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, had the salutary effect of absolutely scattering the attackers, who are taken by surprise and frightened out of their wits,”

In an article, What Assets Could US Military Use Against Syria Chemical Sites, by Michael Lipin, he discusses the positioning of US Bases and ships at the time of the Benghazi attack. This map was generated to show the US Military Assets available in the fall of 2012, capable of striking Syria. That little bump of land, below the back end of the destroyer, the USS Dwight D Eisenhower, in the Mediterranean, (15) is Benghazi. 

To quote Mr. Lipin, "Two U.S. navy battle groups capable of firing those missiles are on duty in the region."
"The USS Iwo Jima amphibious assault group is at sea as part of the U.S. 6th Fleet, whose area of responsibility includes the Mediterranean. Pike said that is where the group spends most of its time.The USS Eisenhower aircraft carrier group is on duty specifically in the Mediterranean. Pike said the two battle groups likely have about 500 Tomahawk cruise missiles between them." 
"The USS Eisenhower also has the ability to launch warplanes into Syria. Additional U.S. warplanes could be sent into Syria from a variety of air bases that United States shares with allies in Europe and the Gulf." (Bold text added)

Half of these planes would have flown past Benghazi on their way to Syria.

 The biggest mistake of all, was when the Libyan Rebellion began months before and we started to bomb the day lights out of Libya, Muammar Qaddafi offered to step down with only 2 conditions. 

1. Assurances that Libya would not fall into the hands of Al-Qaeda 
2. Legal protection for himself and his family

That was all he wanted. But we said, "No."

We then continued to provide support for the Libyan Rebels, by helping to broker a deal for guns to be purchased from Eastern Europe with a loan from the United Arab Emirates for about $1 billion. The guns were sent to Libya and the Transitional National Council, (the revolutionary government) which was staffed by the Muslim Brotherhood (Al-Qaeda supporters) and enforced by Al-Qaeda operatives. As the guns were sent into the country, NATO had such a tight blockade, that nothing went in or out without NATO (and US) approval. This meant, the United States was knowingly helping to supply guns and ammunition to Al-Qaeda, the same organization who declared war on us on September 11, 2011 and over 3000 of our young men and women had given their lives fighting to destroy for the past 11 years.

(It should also be noted that during this time, the uprising in Syria was gaining momentum and many of the weapons purchased were also shipped on to Syria to aid the Al-Qaeda-backed rebels.)

The US Constitution states in Section 3: "Treason against the United States, shall consists only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid or Comfort." Anyone who condoned, allowed, or ordered this gun transaction to occur is guilty of treason.

Then to move from ridiculous to incredulous, the TNC decided to sell half of the guns and munitions to Qaddafi supporters for $500 million. That's right, they sold guns to the very people they were fighting. Since they had the backing of NATO, the TNC was sure they could not lose; so this transaction allowed them to raise cash, prolong the war and liquidate more of their opponents before a new government was installed.

To summarize:

• Qaddafi offered to step down shortly after the Libyan Rebellion began which was months before the Benghazi attack.
• Tens of thousands of lives and damage would have been spared if the President Obama had agreed, but he said, "No."
• The Transitional National Council was staffed by the Muslim Brotherhood (Al-Qaeda supporters) and enforced by Al-Qaeda operatives.
• The rebellion and overthrow of Qaddafi were the goal of Al-Qaeda, supporting the ouster was supporting the agenda of Al-Qaeda.
• The US had brokered a deal for arms to be purchased and shipped to Libya to support the rebel fighters, knowing who they really were.
• The US and NATO allowed the guns and ammunition to pass through the blockade into the hands of the rebels.
• Providing aid to Al-Qaeda is treason.
• The rebels turned around and sold half the guns and ammunition to their enemies, Qaddafi supporters, raising cash and prolonging the war.
• The State Department, under the direction of Hillary Clinton, intentionally reduced the number of security personal at the Benghazi Embassy from 16 to 4, even though the anniversary of the 9-11 attacks were just a few weeks away.
• When the attack occurred, no one was mobilized to provide any aid or extraction for the Americans at the Embassy.
• Stevens and Doherty were completely abandoned by the United States Government.
• At least 2 different independent rescue missions were started, but told to "wait". The order to "stand down" was never given, but "wait" produces the same result.
• There WERE assets available to have evacuated the CIA safe house and possibly have saved the lives of Stevens and Doherty.
• Who abandoned our people, allowing them to be butchered and the debauchery published on the Internet?

Anyone who refuses to support investigations that get to the bottom of who was responsible so those people can be appropriately punished, is complicit or an accessory after the fact, in these horrible acts.

Bibliography:

Media Hits and Misses Covering Benghazi Press Conference

Committee Finds Major Problems with Benghazi

Declaration of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi

Did the U.S. help arm the Benghazi attackers?

How America Switched Sides in the War on Terror

Surreal: White House denies memo was about Benghazi attack

Report that CIA in Benghazi Told to Stand Down, Shot Down by Report that They Were Told to Stand Down

Benghazi Alert: Syrian Sideshow Hides New FOIA Report Obama White House Let Them Die

What Assets Could US Military Use Against Syrian Chemical Sites?

Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi Releases Interim Report

All photos are from the afore-mentioned articles.

PC Police - Another Notch in Their Gun

The Politically Correct (PC) Police have struck again.

Last month it was Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich who was fired because he contributed $1,000 to support California's Proposition 8 which restricted marriage to just a man and a woman.

Mozilla has a detailed non-discrimination policy and some people in the company feel that Eich's action violates that policy, so much so that he should be disqualified from running Mozilla.

Now to put this into perspective, we must consider the following facts.

• Brendan Eich started with Netscape/Mozilla in the early days of the Internet in 1995
• Eich is the creator of Javascript scripting language, that is still used to day by billions of web pages
• The contribution of $1,000 to support Proposition 8 happened in 2008, 6 years ago
• Barack Obama was also an avid supporter of Prop 8 back in 2008
• The story came to light in 2012 with a little bit of flak on Twitter
• He was promoted to CEO in March, 2014; resigned under pressure in April, 2014
• Eich helped create and successfully lead Mozilla in various capacities without any complaints for 18 years

The uproar that was created by the vehemently hateful persecutors of hate speech, produced an environment inside Mozilla where Eich stated that "under the present circumstances, I cannot be an effective leader." Therefore, after enduring all the wrong actions of politically correct zealots, Brendan Eich, a man who had done nothing wrong, nothing illegal or unethical, had to step down as CEO to protect the company he created and loved.

Now, the PC police struck again after Donald Sterling, owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, was recorded ranting on the phone to his girl friend that he didn't want her to be seen in public with blacks and she was to never bring any blacks to a Clippers Basketball game. In retaliation, the NBA has banned Sterling from attending any Clippers or NBA games, practices, business meeting, etc., AND they fined him $2.5 million dollars.

I need to be clear that Mr. Sterling has a long history of employee abuse, racists actions and inflammatory litigation, (See Ben Shapiro's article). He is not a nice man and I would never work for him nor invite him to my home for a barbecue. I do not condone his attitudes nor his actions. But as repugnant as he is (See Ann Coulter's article), Donald Sterling, like Brendan Eich, is still an American with the right of Freedom of Speech. He has the right to his own attitude and opinion, especially if others find it repulsive.

To put this into perspective, this is the same as if Warren Buffet had a fight on the phone with his wife forbidding her to associate with any lying, cheating, manipulating stock broker; then he was told by the Federal Exchange Commission that; he would be banned from buying stocks, bonds or Treasury notes, he could never attend a board meeting of any of his companies, and he had pay a $2.5 million dollar fine that would be given to organizations combating domestic violence.

Or, if Bill Gates had a fight with this wife in their bedroom where he prohibited her from ever using any browser other than Internet Explorer and then the Association of Internet Providers banned him for life from ever using the Internet, forced him to sell off Internet Explorer and fined him $2.5 million dollars.

It appears as though fornication, adultery, tax evasion, public lying of officials, and treasonous acts of elected officials are all condoned activities in the United States of America, but having racial views opposing the self-appointed PC police; requires confiscation of personal property, banning from public events, and destruction of your career. At this rate, it will not be long before the media and social pressure are the judge and jury of the future.

Donald Sterling has proven by his actions that he is racist, insensitive, greedy, and a first class jerk, but none of those things are illegal. As I understand the situation, he has broken no laws or violated any contracts in this matter. It was a private phone conversation with a close associate and he probably didn't know he was being recorded, which in California is illegal.

If the NBA wants to exercise authority over the Los Angeles Clippers and get rid of Donald Sterling, they need to choose reasons that are based on violations of law, agreements, or legal contracts; not emotional voodoo and hysterical hyperboles. The only way to beat a bigot is for everyone to stop associating with him until he chooses to change his actions. His players can quit and the fans can stop attending games, but the NBA has no bite behind their bark.

I will not be surprised to see Sterling fight this action and win.


Photos are from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich
http://www.totalprosports.com/2014/04/27/clippers-owner-donald-sterling-racist-recording-comment-girlfriend-audio/

Income Gender Inequity; Discrimination or Deception?

Victimization is on the rise. Calls of discrimination, racism, inequity, and persecution ring through the halls of Congress and reverberate across the country. Anyone who is misrepresented, opposed, or accused, now cheerfully claims that hate-spewing bigots are innocently attacking and maligning them. What a twisted day we live in.

While this problem is rampant in nearly every walk of life, I will only address one issue today, Income Gender Inequality.

Thomas Sowell published an interesting article in GOPUSA on this topic entitled, "Statistical Fraud". 

He sites the oft quoted statistic that women only receive 77% of the pay men receive for the same job. The point he makes is that the figure is skewed and unreliable because there are too many variables that have to be factored in to make the statistic reliable.

"It would certainly be discrimination if women were doing the same work as men, for the same number of hours, with the same amount of training and experience, as well as other things being the same, But study after study, over the past several decades, has shown repeatedly that those things are not the same. . ."

"Even where relevant statistics are available, careful judgment is required to pick samples of women and men who are truly comparable."

I am not so blind as to not admit that there are many instances where bigoted, chauvinistic males exert discriminatory control, pay less, denigrate and heap other forms of abuse over their women employees.  This behavior is not discrimination, but greed, contempt or sadism. There are also other examples where greedy, contemptuous, sadistic women exert the same type of control over males in the market place.

Mr Sowell expounds how difficult comparisons are to make and how the realities of life, along with our life choices, affect our incomes and career status much more than discrimination.

"For example, some women are mothers and some men are fathers. But does the fact that they are both parents make them comparable in the labor market? Actually the biggest disparity in incomes is between fathers and mothers. Nor is there anything mysterious about this, when you stop and think about it."

"How surprising is it that women with children do not earn as much as women who do not have children? If you don't think children take up a mother's time, you just haven't raised any children."

"How surprising is it that men with children earn more than men without children, just the opposite of the situation with women? Is it surprising that a man who has more mouths to feed is more likely to work longer hours? Or take on harder or more dangerous jobs, in order to earn more money?"

"More than 90 percent of the people who are killed on the job are men. There is no point pretending that there are no differences between what women do and what men do in the workplace, or that these differences don't affect income."

The real kicker is in his concluding paragraph, (remember, follow the money).

"If the 77 percent statistic was for real, employers would be paying 30 percent more than they had to, every time they hired a man to do a job that a woman could do just as well. Would employers be such fools with their own money? If you think employers don't care about paying 30 percent more than they have to, just go ask your boss for a 30 percent raise!"

So, again, as with Obamacare, Immigration, or Fast and Furious, etc., the President and his Party are trying to use manipulated statistics, lathered with disingenuous outrage, to fool the American People into accepting victimization and teach them to rely on the Federal Government to fix a national problem that doesn't exist.

Image from http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2014/03/31/payday-a-comparison-of-three-popular-payroll-systems/