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/

The Key to Winning Elections; Money or Policy?

http://www.recallscottwalker.com/

The decisive re-election of Governor Scott Walker in Wisconsin during a recent re-call, highlighted a tragic flaw in the current election philosophy.  The Democrats continually harped that the reason they lost was they were out-spent by the Republicans, 7-1.  The national Presidential election has also resounded with this same concern; that the party who spends the most will be the party who wins the most.  Now, fundraising has become the primary occupation of electoral candidates.

Back in 2005, I wrote an article entitled, "Not Loud Enough or The Wrong Message", where Democrats were complaining they were losing elections because they were not able to clearly articulate their message.  I still believe today, as then, 

"The problem with the Democratic platform has nothing to do with clarity, definition or volume, it has everything to do with substance and character."

In Wisconsin, Governor Walker determined that several government employee unions were placing an undue burden on the State with their benefit packages; packages that included benefits the typical Wisconsin resident never saw and couldn't afford.  It was clear that eliminating or requiring the union members to pay for these premium perks themselves, would save millions of dollars and balance State budgets.  Walker was right, by cutting these freebies, the State was able to balance the budget.  

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/02/
how-much-respect-did-demonstrators-show.html

The union members were naturally upset.  They demonstrated, left their debris and hatred littering the State Capital, and finally petitioned for a re-call election to oust Walker.  But, in spite of their efforts, the Governor won re-election, not because of the money spent by either side, but because the majority of the people in Wisconsin didn't want to pay for the benefits of government union members.

The Presidential race is also showing signs of policy vs. the pocketbook.  In another article, "Obama Barely Beats Nobody" we saw how 2 different primary candidates who spent literally nothing on advertising, garnered 40% of the vote from Obama and in Tennessee, where Obama ran unopposed, he only won 60% of the vote.

Finally, a parting quote from "Not Loud Enough or The Wrong Message",

"Whether we like smaller or larger government, involvement in international affairs or prefer isolationism, most people want security in their homes, their jobs and in their community. The electrate has learned that policies change, storms arise and the world moves on. Because of this, they will always lean toward leaders they feel have character, integrity and the charisma to lead in a crisis regardless of the party."

Obama Barely Beats Nobody

President Obama has thrown his campaign to full swing, pulling out all the stops to regain the Presidency and it is a good thing he did.

On May 9, in West Virginia, he won a stiff primary battle against Keith Judd.  Obama took home 60% of the vote while Judd only held on to 40%.  Judd is a convicted felon serving time in a Texas Penitentiary.

Undeterred, 2 weeks later, President Obama beat John Wolfe in Arkansas by the same margin, 60% to 40%.  Wolfe is a Tennessee attorney who never ran an ad or made a speech in Arkansas at all.

And the same day in Tennessee, President Obama also won 60% to 40% over, . . . let's see who was it?  It was, it was . . ., a . . . Nobody.  That's right, with absolutely no opponents, Obama was only able to garner about 60% of the Democratic vote.

So, the man that Larry Flynt, owner and publisher of Hustler Magazine, gushed over and said , "President Obama as over-performed . . . he's done a marvelous job," can barely eek out a victory with his own party, even when there is no opposition.

Saddam Hussein and Vladimir Putin do much better than that.

There you have it, President Barack Obama, the only sitting United States President who barely beat nobody.

Photo from:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/frustrated-obama-sends-nation-rambling-75000word-e,18516/

The Gingrich Who Can't Handle Money

Poor Newt.
The old guy from the establishment, who thought he was anti-establishment.
The old guy who thought he was the only "true Conservative" in the campaign.
The old guy who couldn't remember who he was supposed to sleep with.
Now, he is the old guy who can't handle money.

After a hard-fought battle for the Republican Presidential Nomination, consisting mainly of flailing helplessly at shadows on the wall and ghosts from his past, Newt Gingrich finally tossed in the towel.  He will grudgingly be forced to support Romney as the Primary Pick, but not because he feels Romney is the right choice.  It is because it is the only way to get someone to bail him out of the mess he made. You see, Newt's campaign owes about $4,000,000.

Regardless of what he believes or says, the only "true Conservative" spends more than he makes.  Not only was his campaign spending more than it was taking in, he was hypocritically stating how he was the best choice for President so he could bring the Country back into balance.

Joel Siegel stated in his article in Good Morning America entitled, Newt Gingrich $4 Million in Debt: Staffers and Creditors Fume how much is owned and to whom.

Now, Romney and the Republican National Committee are suggesting that they may help to bail him out of this mess.  That would be a big mistake.  Newt, the size of the mess you make is not nearly as important how well you clean it up.

Julie Bykowicz in her article entitled ‘Newt Inc.’ Bankrupt as Campaign Operates on Shoestring, explains that while the campaign is upside down, Newt has amassed over $7,000,000 in assets before the campaign began from his consulting the past 10 years.  Therefore, the honorable and truly conservative action on his part would be to liquidate enough assets to pay back the debt that he created.

My advice to Mitt: Don't bail Newt out.  He is a big boy and has the means to fix his own mistakes.

Photo from Blue Herald

Very Funny Newt!

I just love it when comedians pretend to run for President. They really help us see the irony of the political process .

Orrin Hatch - Follow The Money

"Follow the money, always follow the money," was the best kept secret in Washington until "Deep Throat," the inside informant for what ultimately became known as Watergate, told Woodward and Bernstein in the movie, "All The Presidents Men." Following this advise, they eventually exposed illegal campaign activities and motivated the resignation of President Nixon.

On another note, I learned from a friend years ago, that the State Department has a policy that US dipolmats can only live in the country they are working for 3 years. At that time, the only options are re-assignment or retirement. It seems that after this time, their loyalties become clouded because of the depth of immersion they have experienced as part of their employment.

How do those 2 pieces of information correlate?

Point #1

Those who know me realize that I have felt Orrin Hatch, (R-UT) has been in Washington too long and needs to retire. He appears to have lost touch with the attitudes of his constituents here in Utah. He has also become so immersed in the culture of the Capital City, that all his closest friends seem to be Democrats, rather than Republicans. He claims this is so he can better influence the Senate and be more effective in working for us. I am afraid that he has scratched too many backs and owes too many favors, that it influences his choices more than him influencing the other members of the Upper House.

Point #2

After a little research, my son, Aaron, sent me a couple of interesting articles regarding Orrin Hatch and his money trail. This is an excerpt from his email.

Just browsing around today and came across this. It is pretty telling, 78% of Orrin Hatch’s campaign contributions are from out of state.

http://influenceexplorer.com/politician/orrin-g-hatch/e5aa63ec4a0746fbb9961b325ddb3627

He also is the only republican in the top 10 recipients from MPAA.

http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/motion-picture-assn-of-america/90b570b10c2b4483a1af69149521324a

So, Orrin Hatch receives 78% of his political contributions from people and companies that are outside the State of Utah. That leaves only 22% of his funding coming from his constituents. This begs 2 questions.

1. If he is that much more popular outside Utah than in, maybe he should leave Utah and represent them?

2. If he is receiving over 3/4 of his salary from people and companies outside Utah, where does his loyalties and allegiance lie, that is if he wants to keep his job? At least he says he wants to keep his job.

Regarding the MPAA or Motion Picture Association of America, these statistics are very interesting. Here is the list of the top 10 Congress people who have received contributions over the time the records were kept.

1. Max Baucus (D-NT) - $27,151

2. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) - $25,466

3. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) - $23,800

4. Howard Berman (D-CA) - $22,300

5. Harry Reid (D-NV) - $22,300

6. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) -$22,140

7. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) - $21,900

8. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) - 20,900

9. Jane Harman (D-CA) - $20,788

10. Gray Davis (D-CA) - $20,500

Now, if your remove those from California, which the MPAA should be giving money to, and consider those outside of California, Orrin is the 4th largest recipient of MPAA funds, ever. That is 4th place out of 485 Representatives and Senators in the entire Congress.

Normally I would consider 4th out of nearly 500 to be a commendable showing, but when it is being influenced to sponsor and support such bills as SOPA and PIPA, this puts Orrin Hatch on my naughty list. I already expounded my apprehension, no, it's not apprehension, it is simply fear of this legislation.

I have called his office and voiced my opinion about him as well as these bills. I was assured by a kind staffer, that he is not supporting PIPA in its present form and asked that it not be debated or voted on yet. Unfortunately, he was one of the original sponsors and didn't change his position until popular opinion overwhelmed his switchboard.

Too bad he didn't think to stop it before it was written, I might have supported him then.

Photo courtesy of Reddogreport.com

The Truth, The Whole Truth and Nothing But a Fabrication

First we had a President who didn't know the definition of "is" or the implications of a double negative. Followed by CEO's that run multi-billion dollar companies whose accounting skills don't go beyond calculating their stock bonuses, (General Motors, Chrysler, Bank of America, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc.).

Then we had members of Congress who can't do their own taxes, (Nancy Pelosi, Tom Daschle, etc., and obviously are too poor to hire someone to do it for them.) We even have the Secretary of the Treasury, (Timothy Geithner,) the head tax collector, who didn't learn how to do his own taxes until he was nominated to the post.

Now we are plagued with the Attorney General of the United States of America, (Eric Holder,) the man who makes everyone stand up and swear they are telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing by the truth, unable to separate truth from fantasy.

(I could say it is coincidental that they are all Democrats, but then I might be guilty of profiling.)

In regards to his testimony before Congress acknowledging when he first knew about Operation Fast and Furious, his recollection process reminds me of progressive Alzheimer's Disease. Every week, Mr. Holder is able to remember further back in time.

In May 2011, relating to the Operation which started in 2009, before Congress he said, "I'm not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks." But, a memo addressed to the Attorney General, July 5, 2010, explains Mr Holder was briefed on the program 10 months earlier. Oh, now he remembers.

In a speech Eric Holder gave to Mexican Authorities, April 2, 2009, he said. "Last week, our administration launched a major new effort to break the backs of the cartels. My department is committing 100 new ATF personnel to the Southwest border in the next 100 days to supplement our ongoing Project Gunrunner, DEA is adding 16 new positions on the border, as well as mobile enforcement teams, and the FBI is creating a new intelligence group focusing on kidnapping and extortion. DHS is making similar commitments, as Secretary Napolitano will detail." Oh, that's right, he did say that.

We now know that in 2009, the White House gave stimulus money to the Department of Justice to the tune of $10,000,000 to implement Project Gunrunner or Operation Fast and Furious. The exact wording is "10,000,000 shall be transferred to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, salaries and expenses for the ATF Project Gunrunner."

But his aids say that Mr. Holder didn't know the details of the project at that time, so he really didn't know what was happening. Let's see, the last time I asked for $10,000,000 for a project, I really didn't want to know any of the details, just in case I had to deny culpability later, right?

Well, now that his memory has been restored and the facts are on the table, Mr. Holder was asked a very pointed question by Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), in another Congressional Hearing last week. The question was,"Tell me, what’s the difference between lying and misleading Congress, in this context?"

“Well, if you want to have this legal conversation, it all has to do with your state of mind and whether or not you had the requisite intent to come up with something that can be considered perjury or a lie,” Holder said.

In other words, if you intended to lie, it is a lie; if you didn't have that intent, then it isn't a lie. Or, if you made a statement you thought was the truth, which later was proven to be based on a false premise, you didn't lie; you too, were deceived. I can agree entirely with Mr. Holder on his textbook answer.

His problem is, he knew about the program in April, 2009 and was briefed in written memos on it almost weekly, for 2 years. He even pontificated in public discourses his support for the program. For him to sit before Congress or the people of the United States in May, 2011, and say that he only knew of the program a few weeks before, is by definition, a lie. He knew the truth and chose not to say it.

For Mr. Eric Holder to retain his job after supporting this controversial program that killed 2 American Agents and hundreds of Mexican Nationals is hard to imagine. But for him to commit perjury, under oath, on multiple occasions, regarding his involvement in the program, and remain employed, is unfathomable. He should be fired or impeached immediately.

*Image courtesy of - http://thespeechatimeforchoosing.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/sarah-palin-calls-for-the-firing-of-the-employee-who-shouldve-never-been-hired/ This is also a great article on the history of Eric Holder and the pile of asinine judicial orders and bungles he has implemented.

All That Is Necessary For The Triumph of Evil, Is For Enough Good Men To Do Nothing

I was devastated to see the destruction that fell upon Penn State from the actions of one. Joe Paterno had sing-handedly taken a small college football team from oblivion to the National Championships and became the winningest college football coach in history. In contrast, Jerry Sandusky, formerly the assistant football coach at Penn State, by his persistence in perverted extra-curricular activities with young boys, destroyed that golden image and broke everyone around him.

Not only was the image of the Penn State tarnished, but several good men, including Paterno, have lost their jobs and probably their careers.

But as sad as this all is, the greater sorrow is that it all could have been averted. There was no need for this scenario to have spun out of control.

It is not enough to just be a good person; to be an example of honesty, decency and morality. Joe Paterno was all of these. He inspired tens of thousands of students to never settle for anything less than their best, to live the principles that would bring them happiness and joy throughout their lives.

We must also stand up against that which is wrong. The more evil it is, the faster and firmer our actions need to be.

According to reports surfacing from the investigation, there were many, many times over the past 15 years, school officials could and should have stepped forward. Each of those times, rather than confronting the problem, these good men chose to remain quiet, not rock the boat. A large splash in the pond 15 years ago would have been so much easier to deal with than the tsunami engulfing Penn State today.

One lie, always requires another. Inaction on any issue, invites more inaction. Turning a blind eye to evil results in tolerance of deviancy; whether we acknowledge it or not.

From government war rooms, to board rooms, to our bedrooms, we must expect moral behavior and stand for what is right.

Because, if we don't stand for the right, we'll find that we will fall for anything.

Post Script, January 24, 2012

Joe Paterno died this past weekend. It was a sad day for all of us. It is tragic that his departure was likely hastened by the unfortunate events of the past few months.

Good-bye, Joe. We will miss your fine example.

Photos Courtesy of

http://www.section247sportsblog.com/page/2/

A Link to - The Definitive Post On Why SOPA And Protect IP Are Bad, Bad Ideas

In the not too distant future.

The U. S. Attorney General, back-lit in a dim room, shrouded with an Inquisition style hooded robe, solemnly declares, "You have been accused to be in suspected violation of vaguely stated copyright laws, wherein you presumably allowed to be uploaded, 1 copyrighted file to the 327,246,135,753 existing files on one of your servers, without making herculean efforts and/or spending tens of thousands of dollars, (USD) to ferret out such malicious activity; thereby providing the possibility that one or more rogue internet user(s) might download said file, bypassing the obligation of paying just and due compensation to the legal and legitimate copyright holders, namely; unnamed recording and/or motion picture and/or digital archives; consequently, stealing, defrauding or interfering with the due process of collection of revenue for copyrighted materials, as outlined in Congressional Edicts, SOPA and PIPA, respectively.

As a result of this flagrant violation of the sovereign right of compensation as out-lined in Congressional Edicts, SOPA and PIPA, respectively, for recording and/or motion picture and/or digital archives, this Internet Service Provider, Your Name Here , (ISP) is hereby and un-equivocally ordered to cease and desist operations, services and compensation to all clients, customers, and/or consumers, until a complete review of the above named site and files, as well as all SOPA and PIPA compliant protocols to prevent such actions, are completed by a Senate sub-committee under the direction and over-sight of a combined Senate and House committee on the Implementation and Voluntary Compliance of Protocols to Prevent the Mis-Appropriation of Funds Legally and Lawfully Awarded to Unnamed Recording, and/or Motion Picture, and/or Digital Archives, For Works They Own, But Didn't Produce.

He stops and surveys the crowd, as 666 security guards, surround him and escort him from the room. . .

_______________________

The United States Congress is considering legislation that will give control of Internet Service Providers (ISP) sites to the Attorney General in an effort to control internet piracy of copyrighted material. With this authority, the Attorney General could legally, upon "suspicion" of piracy, shut down suspected offending sites and then begin an investigation. This could happen regardless of whether the ISP had any knowledge of the alleged infraction.

While I don't know all the ins and outs of the proposed laws, the page, The Definitive Post On Why SOPA And Protect IP Are Bad, Bad Ideas, does. In this article, Mike Masnick elequantly describes what is in the laws, why they won't achieve the desired result and why the recording industry needs to embrace new technology for greater profits rather than spending millions of dollars fighting the advancements.

The Definitive Post On Why SOPA And Protect IP Are Bad, Bad Ideas

By Mike Masnick

There's been plenty of talk (and a ton of posts here on Techdirt) discussing both SOPA (originally E-PARASITE) and PROTECT IP (aka PIPA), but it seemed like it would be useful to create a single, "definitive" post to highlight why both of these bills are extremely problematic and won't do much (if anything) to deal with the issues they're supposed to deal with, but will have massive unintended consequences. I also think it's important to highlight how PIPA is almost as bad as SOPA. Tragically, because SOPA was so bad, some in the entertainment industry have seen it as an opportunity to present PIPA as a "compromise." It is not. Both bills have tremendous problems, and they start with the fact that neither bill will help deal with the actual issues being raised. . . . (read the rest of the article)

You can also read the text of the bill here.

I urge you to contact your elected representatives and the bill's sponsors to express your feelings regarding this. Remember, Senator Hatch, (R-Utah), proposed in 2003, that all computers that had pirated software be remotely destroyed, until it was discovered that his own web-site was running an unlicensed application. I voted against him in 2006 and will again in 2012.

*The image above is from: http://act2.freepress.net/call/pipa_call/?akid=3086.9828048.Ssc8mA&rd=1&t=1

A Primer of Progressive Economics Policies

Recent articles have described the efforts world-wide to prevent the collapse of Greece and other EU member countries whose economies are sitting in the toilet. These are countries that have over spent their incomes, borrowed billions, are so far in debt that they can never repay, but, the only solutions seriously being considered are to give them more money. The only hurdle is,"Who is stupid enough to lend them more?"

It is interesting to look back a couple of years to the problems of the big 3 auto makers as the melt-down of the financial markets in the US occurred.

All 3 companies found themselves over-extended, under-productive and about to sink into the quagmire of insolvency. Nancy Pelosi, then Speaker of the House of Representatives, in prophetic ignorance declared that the auto industry was to big and important to be allowed to fail. (The real reason was that she owned too much stock in them.)

When the magical bailout buoy was offered by the White House, General Motors and Chrysler were the only ones who latched on. Ford said they could fix their problems by themselves.

I was very critical at that time of all 3 companies in an article entitled "Five Foxes in the Hen House", but especially at Ford for the outrageous compensation packages of their chief execs while their company tanked.

Now, 3 years later, Ford is reporting sales are up and they are operating back in the black. While GM and Chrysler are admitting that they will be lucky if they can pay back the American people 30 cents on the dollar.

Back in the 1960's, while Pres Lyndon Johnson was fighting his war on poverty by throwing more and more money at the problem, creating Medicaid, food stamps and inter-city projects, I would listen to my dad expound how it was not possible to spend yourself rich. The only bumper sticker he ever placed on his car said, "I fight poverty, I work!"

Back to today, the question still looms, do we throw more money at Greece or let then Pay the Piper? If we loan more money to Greece, where does it stop? With Greece, Italy, Spain, France, Ireland, England? The list goes on and on.

I ran across this poem that personifies the deluded interpretation of economics by Progressive Governments.

SMART
By Shel Silverstein from his book, “Where the Sidewalks Ends”

My dad gave me one dollar bill
'Cause I’m his smartest son,
And I swapped it for two shiny quarters
‘Cause two is more than one!

And then I took the quarters
And traded them to Lou
For three dimes – I guess he don’t know
That three is more than two!


Just then, along came old blind Bates
And just ‘cause he can’t see
He gave me four nickels for my three dimes,
And four is more than three!

And I took the nickels to Hiram Coombs
Down at the seed-feed store,
And the fool gave me five pennies for them,
And five is more than four!

And then I went and showed my dad,
And he got red in the cheeks
And closed his eyes and shook his head –
Too proud of me to speak!

Mad, Bad, Michelle Obama

The first lady appears to be losing her cool. Her temperature is rising and the rhetoric she is spewing out is heating up. There is an article entitled:

The Very Angry First Lady Michelle Obama

By Joseph Curl in the Washington times last Sunday.

Mr. Curl chronicles the rise of the wrath of the First Lady since the Democratic Convention in 2008 when she declared her real feelings.

“For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country.”

Now she is taking on the Republican Party with an oath to explain to this Country the dark and grisly future that will occur if the GOP is allowed to nurture their nefarious schemes.

For myself, I am turned off by those who only spout the negative. It is important to identify what is not working, but chastising the problem without proposing a solution, brands you as part of the problem. My good friend, Jeff Sermons, said, "I am always more willing to follow someone who is for something than someone who is against everything."

That said, what we need in this country are the following:

• An acknowledgement of man's limited power and an acceptance of the healing, cleansing power of the Divine.
• A re-establishment of work as a noble endeavor and a character building pursuit.
• Implementation of the natural consequence of the law of the harvest, doing your best should supply your needs.
• Debunk the theory of entitlements and replace it with individual responsibility for our personal situations.
• Gratitude for who we are, what we have, and the compassion to share with those in need.
• The enactment of laws favoring and encouraging the creation and perpetuation of small businesses.
• Honesty and integrity as paramount in our business and personal relationships.

As we implement these principles from the top to the bottom of our Nation, we will find a resurgence of hope, productivity and success.

Occupy Wall Street = Acorn and Other Disgusting Stuff

Occupy Wall Street, the movement hailed by the White House as the voice of the people rising up in rebellion, now has some serious questions to answer.

A news article by Jana Winter of Fox News entitled:

EXCLUSIVE: ACORN Playing Behind Scenes Role in 'Occupy' Movement

details how the Occupy movement has been organized and funded by Acorn.

Well, let's back up, since Acorn was officially disbanded in 2009, it is not really Acorn, but the New York Communities for Change, (NYCC) that is running Occupy Wall Street. It seems that this community activist group was started in 2009, as Acorn died, by the same people who ran Acorn.

Jana Winters article states:

"NYCC’s connection to ACORN isn’t a tenuous one: It works from the former ACORN offices in Brooklyn, uses old ACORN office stationery, employs much of the old ACORN staff and, according to several sources, engages in some of the old organization’s controversial techniques to raise money, interest and awareness for the protests.

Sources said NYCC has hired about 100 former ACORN-affiliated staff members from other cities – paying some of them $100 a day - to attend and support Occupy Wall Street. Dozens of New York homeless people recruited from shelters are also being paid to support the protests, at the rate of $10 an hour. . . "

Additional comments in the article from workers inside NYCC:

"Another source, who said she was hired from a homeless shelter, said she was first sent to the protests before being deployed to Central Islip, Long Island, to canvass for a campaign against home foreclosures.

“I went to the protests every day for two weeks and made $10 an hour. They made me carry NYCC signs and big orange banners that say NYCC in white letters. About 50 others were hired around my time to go to the protests. We went to protests in and around Zuccotti Park, then to the big Times Square protest,” she said.

“But now they have me canvassing on Long Island for money, so I get the money and then the money is being used for Occupy Wall Street—to pay for all of it, for supplies, food, transportation, salaries, for everything ... all that money is going to pay for the protests downtown and that’s just messed up. It’s just wrong.”

Additionally:

Sources said staff members also collected door-to-door for NYCC’s PCB campaign — which aims to test schools for deadly toxins —but then pooled that money together with cash raised for the teachers union and other campaigns to fund Occupy Wall Street.

So, NYCC has been supporting Occupy Wall Street by not only:

• Hiring protesters
• Hiring fundraisers and canvassers

But also illegally collecting money for:

• United Federation of Teachers
• PCB Testing in Schools
• Reducing home foreclosures
• And diverting the money to Occupy Wall Street.

Incidentally, the UFT has said, "The UFT is not involved in any NYCC fundraising on the PCB issue.”

Little wonder that the rag-tag occupiers in 2011 are reminiscent of the sit-in hippies of the 1960's and not the Tea Party demonstrations. While the hippies scavenged off the urban landscape for subsistence, the occupiers fraudulently collect funds to pay, feed and house their members. The Tea Party activists rallied, demonstrated, clean-up their messes and then went back to work.

The same community organizers (Acorn) that have been secretly sucking funds from the government to promote and maintain poverty and urban unrest for the past decade, are continuing their efforts under a different name, (NYCC), but with the same agenda.

It is no wonder that President Obama has given his backing to this movement. His only real job listing on his resume is that of a community organizer.

Warren Buffet, If You Want To Pay More Taxes, What's Stopping You?

I just found John Hayward's article in Human Events published 08-31-2011 entitled:

Warren Buffet May Owe A Billion Dollars In Back Taxes.

In the article he quotes Warren Buffett in a New York Times op-ed piece.

"OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched.

"While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors.

"These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places."

Bill Wilson of Americans for Limited Government also has an article today entitled:

Buffett’s Billion-Dollar Tax Hypocrisy

Here Mr. Wilson outlines the more than $1,005,000,000.00 ($1.005 Billion) Warren Buffett's companies owe the federal government in back taxes. Mind you, these figures come from Berkshire Hathaway's own accounts, not from the IRS or another sleuth tank. So while Warren Buffett pleads for the President to tax him more, he employees hundreds of accounts and lawyers and millions of dollars to keep him from doing so.

My advise to Mr. Buffett and other rich liberal leaning Hollywood types that have asked for a greater share of the tax burden, "Put your money where your mouth is."

If Warren Buffett wrote a check for $1,005,000,000.00, and add an additional $10,000,000.00, the IRS would not even bat an eye. They would accept it graciously. There is no law that says you can't pay more than you owe.

If they didn't feel the Federal Government knew the best way to use these additional funds, they always have the option to donate to worthwhile charities and foundations that will help the poor and destitute. Rather than being listed with the rest of the liberal bunch and known as the stingiest contributers to charities, they could go down as super philanthropists and be revered for centuries.

Is U.S. Ready For Second Black Leader?

Charles Hurt wrote an interesting article in the Washington Times entitled,

"Is U.S. Ready For Second Black Leader?"

In posing the question, Mr. Hurt reminded us how the Democratic Party and Liberal idealists have blatantly attacked both blacks and whites, labeling them racists merely because they disagreed with their own personal philosophies. From Clarence Thomas to Herman Cain, "pulling the race card" has been an acceptable method of operation to divert attention from their failed ideals.

While there are far too many ignorant, bigoted, narrow-minded sociopaths in this country that judge people by their appearance or the color of their skin, I have found that most of the population of the United States accepts people for what they do and who they are. We all have apprehension when we are introduced into a new environment such as moving to communities where the dominate religion is not our own or the majority of the people are a different color. This concern doesn't mean that we are racists. It is just the process of being stretched out of our comfort zone. After we have time to acclimatize, we learn to love and appreciate our new home and associations as much as the last place we lived.

In a recent article I wrote, Americans Are Not Racial Cowards, as a rebuttal to the comment by Attorney General Eric Holder where he said that,

. . . in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.

I identified who a racist is:

A racist is a person who identifies or defines people by their race, whether they discriminate against them or not. We will never be a nation without racial, sexual or economic boundaries until we ignore these boundaries.

In an effort to teach the truth of this concept I ended the article with the following analogy.

Four states, Utah, Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico, all meet at one common point. The sand, air or vegetation around this point is the same for miles in any direction. The only difference between these four States is in our minds, not in the dirt.

There is no better way to create unity in our country than for people to work shoulder to shoulder helping someone else. These situations can not be mandated by government. It is necessary for those confident in their own identity to cross artificial lines in the sand so others can follow. Mr Holder can and should step forward as a man, as the Attorney General, as an American, to fight for equal treatment under the law for all. Justice is blind to our differences, but smiles at our similarities. Only as we are blind to our differences will we begin to sense the symbiotic strength in our similarities.

I supported the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court because he believed in the principles I uphold in our Constitution. It had nothing to do with him being black and I was not disappointed.

I didn't support Barack Obama as President of the United States because I do not agree with his idea of changing our country into a Socialistic State, an idea that has never succeed in any country in the world, ever. It had nothing to do with him being black and I have been thoroughly embarrassed by him.

I would support Herman Cain if his ideals for this country center around hard work, sound fiscal practices and ethical political leadership whether he was black, white or green. I don't care if our President is White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Jewish, Mormon, Catholic, Protestant, Male or Female. As long as they are born and raised in this country, have a love of the constitution and the tenacity to defend it, I will throw my support and vote behind them.

If not, I will look for another candidate.

Also of interest, "Wanted, Real Leaders"

Putting Homosexuality into Perspective

There has been so much talk, so many accusations regarding homosexuality, that the basic principles and premises have be lost in the cloud of rhetoric.

On one hand, there are the religious fundamentalists, who, citing God as their resource, condemn not only the action, but all of the participants as well. This non-Christian attitude gives rise to bigotry, gay-bashing, acts of hate and violence and ultimately deprives the promoter of compassion, tolerance and charity, that pure love of Christ.

On the other hand, with the homosexual adherents, there flourishes whining cries of persecution, accusations of homophobia and the irrelevant shouts of the depravation of civil rights. More damaging than these is the promotion of sexual promiscuity and the de-valuation of the family.

Putting aside all the charges and counter-charges, there are a few simple principles that should put the issue into perspective.

1. There is, has been and always will be a difference between the act and the perpetrator. We can and should abhor actions that are wrong, destructive and damaging to mankind, but we always need to separate the revulsion for the act from the participant. When we become disgusted with the person, we alienate and ostracize them from society. Without a tie to society, there is seldom enough motivation for a constructive change to take place. In other words, condemning the person is a death sentence for reformation.

2. There is no such thing as a "hate crime." A crime is a crime, regardless of the state of mind of the criminal. What the two men beating Matthew Shepherd were thinking or what motivated them to act did not lessen or increase his pain, trauma and ultimate death. When a "God fearing Christian" makes derogatory remarks, spits or hits a gay person, it is no different than if they did the same thing to a white, Black, Asian or Jewish person. There is no justification or excuse for such behavior.

3. Relationships between people of the same sex are not only easier, but they are good. They provide common elements, attitudes and understandings that can help each of us to better cope and enjoy life. The problem arises in the misconception that sexual activity is a basic human need that can be satisfied with anyone or anything, in virtually any setting.

Sexual relationships outside the bonds of a heterosexual marriage, never brings the happiness and enduring satisfaction the participants are seeking. Sexual activity stimulates a hormonal change in us that bonds a man and woman together and facilitates a lifelong partnership in addition to perpetuating our species. It is an important element in making a heterosexual relationship endure. In any other setting, sex is destructive and dangerous.

4. Homosexuality is a choice, not chance. As discussed in #3, we by nature develop friendships and relationships with those of our own sex, but having a sexual relationship with them is a choice that is made, not a fate that is executed. There are those who have a predisposition or tendency to a same sex relationship, just as there are those who are predisposed to become adulterers, alcoholics, drug addicts, child molesters or any other negative behavior.

This in no way excuses one from submitting to attitudes and actions that will eventually bring pain, humiliation or death to you or others.

5. Too many times, those who do transgress the social mores, complain that they are not welcome in the company of those they offend. Of course we are not welcome if we promote concepts or attitudes that are contrary to a group. I raise the question, "Why do you care if the ‘opposition’ doesn’t accept you and why would you want to be accepted by those who oppose you?"

If an organization does not believe the same as you, how can you be offended by not being invited to attend? How many Jews have complained that they are excluded from Neo-Nazi groups or how many Blacks have sued the Klu Klux Klan for admission? The only justification for such action is seeking acknowledgement for a behavior they know is wrong, but want to continue.

For that, there is no protection under the law.

Protecting Cross Burning as an American Tradition

Several years ago, the Virginia State Supreme Court struck down a state law prohibiting cross-burning. As much as I personally feel that cross-burning is divisive, non-productive and a feeble way at best to express ones self, I have to agree with the Court. The right to free speech must always be protected in this country, “no matter how repugnant that speech might be.”

The Court stated, "While reasonable prohibitions upon time, place and manner of speech, and statutes of neutral application, may be enforced, government may not regulate speech based on hostility -- or favoritism -- towards the underlying message expressed."

To abide by the spirit of the Court’s decision, we must evaluate the real issue here, public safety. The reason that people in this country are opposed to cross-burning is that, all too often, someone or something gets hurt. Someone is burned, beaten or a home ends up being torched. So rather than trampling on the civil liberties of American Citizens, here is a very sensible, practical step that municipalities can enact for the public good and safety.

Require cross-burning permits, similar to those presently required by cities and counties across the country for open burning of weeds or trash. These permits would have be purchased 5 days prior to the event and provide the following information:

• Name of the sponsoring organization, including principle officer's addresses and phone numbers
• List the names and ages of all participants
• Location, time and length of the activity
• Provide a signed contractual agreement with the property owner(s) where the event will take place, agreeing to provide the venue, and guaranteeing that the following items are adhered to:
• If the cross exceeds 4 feet in height or the anticipated crowd could exceed 25, the sponsor or the property owner would have to provide a bond to cover any losses or damages incurred.
• Sponsors must provide a signed permit from the local Fire Chief, citing proof that adequate fire safety measures will be enacted, and detailing such measures, to protect property and participants.
• If the anticipated crowd could exceed 10, the sponsors would have to provide toilet facilities for the participants.
• If the anticipated crowd could exceed 25, the sponsor would have to provide proof that adequate security will be provided or the local police will provide security and bill the sponsor for any expenses incurred.
• Fire Chief must also inspect the venue 30 minute prior to the starting of the event to ensure that all the above measures were fulfilled. Violations that are not immediately corrected will require the cancellation of the event.
• If alcohol is served, the sponsor or vendors must provide the appropriate licenses and/or permits for the sale and/or distribution of alcoholic beverages as mandated by the current State and County laws.

The violation of any part of the cross-burning ordinance carries a penalty of up to 30 days in jail, payment of any damages and a fine of up to, but not to exceed the amount of damages, assessed to the sponsoring organization and any or all participants.

Americans Are Not Racial Cowards

In a speech to the Justice Department employees on February 18, 2009, as part of Black History Month, Attorney General Eric Holder stated:

"Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards."

I am afraid to say it, but Mr Holder is wrong. The issue is not that whites don't want to talk about race, it's that blacks won't stop talking about it. If you always look at the world as black or white, you never look at people as people.

A racist is a person who identifies or defines people by their race, whether they discriminate against them or not. We will never be a nation without racial, sexual or economic boundaries until we ignore these boundaries. We will never had any form of equality until we look past our differences and embrace our similarities.

Anyone who continues to classify people by race is racist. This would not only include Mr. Holder, but Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and a host of other white supremacists. The same yardstick should be used for any other divisive issues we face in our nation. Gay rights, religions persecutions, economic disparity all fit the mold. Those who continue to complain that they are part of a unique, oppressed group, are perpetuating their problem rather than solving it.

Four states, Utah, Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico, all meet at one common point. The sand, air and vegetation around this point is the same for miles in any direction. The only difference between these four States is in our minds, not in the dirt.

There is no better way to create unity in our country than for people to work shoulder to shoulder helping someone else. These situations can not be mandated by government. It is necessary for those confident in their own identity to cross artificial lines in the sand so others can follow. Mr Holder can and should step forward as a man, as the Attorney General, as an American, to fight for equal treatment under the law for all.

Justice is blind to our differences, but smiles at our similarities. Only as we are blind to our differences will we begin to sense the symbiotic strength in our similarities.

Taxes and Integrity

After Tom Daschle was thoroughly trounced in the 2004 Senatorial election in South Dakota, he has now been invited back to Washington by Obama to be the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The people of his state were fed up and through with him, but the President thinks that he still has some value.

Now the corker . . . Mister Former Senate Majority Leader has problems doing his taxes. He used a donated car and driver for 2 years without reporting the "income" to Uncle George, a . . I mean Uncle Sam. So, another of Obama's choices to lead our country has an integrity problem, or a math problem or something.

But the most disturbing problem is the reoccurring theme of members of the Democratic Party. Gary Hart, from the 1970's, appears to be the last Democrat with integrity. Everyone since then, when caught doing something wrong, did one of two things.

1. Told the country to shove it, i.e.; Barney Frank who took a male Congressional page to Europe for several weeks or Bill Clinton who had sex with Monica Lewinsky and then lied to a Grand Jury.
2. Immediately righted the wrong and went on as though nothing had happened, i.e.; the DNC returning campaign contributions from China or Sandy Berger, former National Security Adviser, returning the top secret papers he stole from the National Archives, well most of them.

The list of candidates using either remedy goes on and on.

Now Congress feels that because Geithner and Daschle have both received solid support from President Obama, they should be confirmed, because these are troubled times. President Bush strongly supported all his nominees as well. But what would have happened if Clarence Thomas, John Roberts or any of either of the Bush's nominees had a real tax infraction, or a real traffic ticket?

The reason we have troubled times is because of Tom Daschle, who as Senate Majority Leader in 1992, mandated the sub-prime lending practices that caused the world wide economic turmoil we face today.

It is usually proper to expect someone to clean up the mess they made. The problem with this situation is since they won't acknowledge that they really caused the mess, how will they ever figure out how to correct it?