This is a true story.
In 1990, a woman whistled at me where I was staying (there's a first time for everything, I guess). She was 30, I was 45. A bit uncomfortable, I just hustled off. Two days later, she whistled at me again. Again I just sped off.
A few days later I was walking down Maple Street. The woman, who was with her boyfriend of sorts at the time, was about a hundred feet behind me. I noticed she started gaining on me, so I sped up, hoping to leave her in the dust, as I was wary of her motives. But the faster I walked, the faster she walked. She caught up to me. Was she stalking me?
I spoke briefly with her, and let her know I was not comfortable with her chasing me like that, and I turned and left.
According to the rules that feminists would have us live by today, this was clearly a case of harrassment and stalking, and I should have filed a complaint with the authorities. But in 1990, the world had not yet become that insane.
That evening, As I was eating in the cafeteria, she came and sat beside me. I was about to get up, really miffed, when she said, "Please, wait - I want to talk with you." I sat down, and she simply said, "I m sorry if I made you uncomfortable, but the first time I saw you I was attracted to you, and I really didn't know how to show it, or get your attention. I just wanted to get to know you better."
We began spending time together, and we grew close. About a month later, in that same cafeteria, SHE proposed to ME, as she did not think I'd ever get around to it.
We have now been married for 26 glorious, fun-filled blissful years. Still very much in love, and inseparable. We remarried on our 10th Anniversary, and on our 25th I showed up at her work and publicly, on bended knee, proposed to her. See? I DID get around to it!
If we had lived by the rules the feminists are putting forth today, we would never have gotten to know each other; we would never have married, and would have missed out on a perfect life that even Hollywood could not have scripted better. In fact, by those rules, Robin (my wife) would have probably gone to jail, or in the very least, lost her job.
CONCLUSION: The "Battle of the Sexes" is supposed to be a fun, yet challenging game, not a "take no prisoners" war. We all are fumbling our way through this thing we call life, and we all have our own ways of trying to attract members of the opposite sex (or same sex, as the case may be). And if we are to survive as a race, we need to be tolerant of the methods used by others, and speak up clearly when we inadvertently attract the wrong people. Otherwise, we end up with a world of misery, like the one we have now begun to create, as people are beginning to fear the consequences of "the mating game".
/
Thursday, December 7, 2017
Wednesday, November 29, 2017
Sexual Misconduct - Drawing Clear Lines
The "Battle of the Sexes" has been raging since the first man found himself facing the first woman. And from the very beginning it has fallen upon the man to make the first move - it was always considered un-lady like for a woman to chase the man. But that appears to be changing rapidly in this age of "feminism" and "political correctness", when the mere act of letting someone know you are interested can get you in trouble.
Here's the problem - if a man makes a pass at a woman, and she likes it, that can lead to a beautiful relationship. But if the woman does not like it, she can now call it an "unwanted advance" and the man loses his job, and his reputation. In short, "unwanted advance" and "inappropriate behavior" are subjective - what is unwanted or inappropriate to one person might well be wanted or appropriate to another.
Not long ago, a man making the "wolf whistle" at a woman was considered to be giving her a compliment. Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, Bob Hope, Bing Crosby - yes, even Pat Boone - have all used the whistle to indicate they like what they see. But today, whistling at the wrong woman can be deemed harassment (even though it is not).
It seems the new rules in this Battle of the Sexes are, at the very least, confusing and only blur the lines. And the strange thing is, it is all so unnecessary.
There are only two real rules, and neither should be breached. If everone were to follow these two rules, there would be no issues, and we would easily be able to pick out the people who break them.
RULE #1: Every man has an OBLIGATION to pursue those he is attracted to, but with that obligation comes the OBLIGATION to stop when the other party makes it clear, in no uncertain terms, that he is to stop. He can make any pass, whistle or whatever, but if the other party says, "Stop - leave me alone", he must stop immediately. No harm, no foul.
RULE #2: When a man interacts with a woman in any personal sense, and that women wants him to stop at any point, she has an OBLIGATION to let the man know, in clear terms, that she wants him to stop. It is her obligation to inform him of the line or lines he may not cross.
If all persons were to adhere to these two simple rules, there would be no issues of harassment or sexual misconduct. ALL issues of harassment, sexual misconduct and even rape occur when a person violates one or both of those rules.
If a woman does not draw clear lines for the men she attracts, then the fault is hers if he goes too far. And if a woman draws clear lines, and a man crosses them, he is the one at fault. There is a responsibility on the part of both parties, and each must play by the rules if they are to prevent issues of misconduct.
/
Here's the problem - if a man makes a pass at a woman, and she likes it, that can lead to a beautiful relationship. But if the woman does not like it, she can now call it an "unwanted advance" and the man loses his job, and his reputation. In short, "unwanted advance" and "inappropriate behavior" are subjective - what is unwanted or inappropriate to one person might well be wanted or appropriate to another.
Not long ago, a man making the "wolf whistle" at a woman was considered to be giving her a compliment. Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, Bob Hope, Bing Crosby - yes, even Pat Boone - have all used the whistle to indicate they like what they see. But today, whistling at the wrong woman can be deemed harassment (even though it is not).
It seems the new rules in this Battle of the Sexes are, at the very least, confusing and only blur the lines. And the strange thing is, it is all so unnecessary.
There are only two real rules, and neither should be breached. If everone were to follow these two rules, there would be no issues, and we would easily be able to pick out the people who break them.
RULE #1: Every man has an OBLIGATION to pursue those he is attracted to, but with that obligation comes the OBLIGATION to stop when the other party makes it clear, in no uncertain terms, that he is to stop. He can make any pass, whistle or whatever, but if the other party says, "Stop - leave me alone", he must stop immediately. No harm, no foul.
RULE #2: When a man interacts with a woman in any personal sense, and that women wants him to stop at any point, she has an OBLIGATION to let the man know, in clear terms, that she wants him to stop. It is her obligation to inform him of the line or lines he may not cross.
If all persons were to adhere to these two simple rules, there would be no issues of harassment or sexual misconduct. ALL issues of harassment, sexual misconduct and even rape occur when a person violates one or both of those rules.
If a woman does not draw clear lines for the men she attracts, then the fault is hers if he goes too far. And if a woman draws clear lines, and a man crosses them, he is the one at fault. There is a responsibility on the part of both parties, and each must play by the rules if they are to prevent issues of misconduct.
/
Thursday, November 2, 2017
Sexual Harassment - What It Is, and Isn't
From various legal and dictionary definitions:
harassment - n. the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands. To annoy persistently. Sexual harassment refers to persistent and unwanted sexual advances. It is commonly understood as behavior that disturbs or upsets, and it is characteristically repetitive
For those with good English comprehension skills, the operative words are "persistent", "systematic", "continued" and "repetitive", all of which must be coupled with "unwanted".
That being said, harassment can only be claimed if the actions are unwanted, AND are of an ongoing, persistent or repetitive nature. Both parts - unwanted and repetitive - must be met in order for any act to be considered harassment.
But even that does not necessarily constitute harassment. In most instances, particularly for sexual harassment, in order for actions to constitute harassment, the harassed individual has an obligation to make it known to the perpetrator that the actions are unwanted. Simply being unwanted is not enough - it must be communicated as being unwanted. In other words, if you do not inform the perpetrator that his or her actions are unwanted, then that person may fairly assume that their actions are not unwanted, and they may continue to act improperly. By not informing the perpetrator, you are giving permission by silent acceptance.
After all, if you expect someone to play by the rules, you have an obligation to inform him or her as to what those rules are. A man hitting on a woman in a persistent manner is normal, and not harassment, as long as she has not openly and clearly objected. Men have been taught for generations (by women, no less) that women are often taught to "play hard to get".
So, sexual harassment consists of three separate parts, each being a requirement:
All too often, a person falsely believes that they can legitimately claim sexual harassment even though they never expressed their discomfort to the person harassing them. But if a person does not set the perp straight, then they have no complaint if the perp continues. He likely believes you are just playing hard to get.
This can be highlighted by the the bogus "sexual harassment" claim against Dustin Hoffman, where the complainant actually said she "liked it - until I didn't". In other words, she allowed it for awhile, and even liked it, implying consent, which would naturally result in such actions continuing. By "liking it" and not complaining, she gave permission. She later stopped "liking it" and claimed harassment. Nowhere does she claim to have told him his actions were no longer appreciated nor wanted, so he had no way of knowing. And if she had told him, and telling him resulted in him stopping, then there still is no harassment - he stopped when asked to do so. It is only sexual harassment when the perpetrator continues unwanted actions after being told to stop.
That accuser accepted sexually explicit conduct without complaint, and only later grew to dislike it. That is not harassment. That is simply a case of giving permission for advances, then changing your mind without bothering to tell the other party you've changed your mind.
We must also remain aware of human nature - I suspect that at least half of all claims of harassment are either a result of "sour grapes", or vengeance, or from not having stood up and telling the perpetrator to stop. We have all heard the stories about a woman who makes false claims against a man simply because she was scorned. Or because it will get them a huge settlement, or 15 minutes of fame. Certainly, not all claims are false. But many are, so we should not automatically assume they are true. Remember the hooker who claimed rape in the Duke University case? She was proved to be a liar and the boys - whose lives were ruined - were innocent.
The take-way: in order to be considered sexual harassment, first there must be solid evidence (the premise of innocent until proved guilty still applies), and second, the actions had to be repetitive, unwanted, and the perp was made aware the actions are unwanted. Any claim that does not meet this standard is bogus.
Ladies, if someone makes sexual overtures toward you and they are unwanted, document it as best as you can, if only by immediately telling everyone. And be sure to stand up for yourself - tell him you are not interested, will never be interested and to stop, or there will be unpleasant ramifications. Then if he persists, take legal action. In no case should you be too afraid to stand up for yourself at the time of the offense.
/
harassment - n. the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands. To annoy persistently. Sexual harassment refers to persistent and unwanted sexual advances. It is commonly understood as behavior that disturbs or upsets, and it is characteristically repetitive
For those with good English comprehension skills, the operative words are "persistent", "systematic", "continued" and "repetitive", all of which must be coupled with "unwanted".
That being said, harassment can only be claimed if the actions are unwanted, AND are of an ongoing, persistent or repetitive nature. Both parts - unwanted and repetitive - must be met in order for any act to be considered harassment.
But even that does not necessarily constitute harassment. In most instances, particularly for sexual harassment, in order for actions to constitute harassment, the harassed individual has an obligation to make it known to the perpetrator that the actions are unwanted. Simply being unwanted is not enough - it must be communicated as being unwanted. In other words, if you do not inform the perpetrator that his or her actions are unwanted, then that person may fairly assume that their actions are not unwanted, and they may continue to act improperly. By not informing the perpetrator, you are giving permission by silent acceptance.
After all, if you expect someone to play by the rules, you have an obligation to inform him or her as to what those rules are. A man hitting on a woman in a persistent manner is normal, and not harassment, as long as she has not openly and clearly objected. Men have been taught for generations (by women, no less) that women are often taught to "play hard to get".
So, sexual harassment consists of three separate parts, each being a requirement:
- repetive or systematic actions, coupled with
- being unwanted actions and
- the "victim" has made it clear to the perpetrator that such actions are unwanted
All too often, a person falsely believes that they can legitimately claim sexual harassment even though they never expressed their discomfort to the person harassing them. But if a person does not set the perp straight, then they have no complaint if the perp continues. He likely believes you are just playing hard to get.
This can be highlighted by the the bogus "sexual harassment" claim against Dustin Hoffman, where the complainant actually said she "liked it - until I didn't". In other words, she allowed it for awhile, and even liked it, implying consent, which would naturally result in such actions continuing. By "liking it" and not complaining, she gave permission. She later stopped "liking it" and claimed harassment. Nowhere does she claim to have told him his actions were no longer appreciated nor wanted, so he had no way of knowing. And if she had told him, and telling him resulted in him stopping, then there still is no harassment - he stopped when asked to do so. It is only sexual harassment when the perpetrator continues unwanted actions after being told to stop.
That accuser accepted sexually explicit conduct without complaint, and only later grew to dislike it. That is not harassment. That is simply a case of giving permission for advances, then changing your mind without bothering to tell the other party you've changed your mind.
We must also remain aware of human nature - I suspect that at least half of all claims of harassment are either a result of "sour grapes", or vengeance, or from not having stood up and telling the perpetrator to stop. We have all heard the stories about a woman who makes false claims against a man simply because she was scorned. Or because it will get them a huge settlement, or 15 minutes of fame. Certainly, not all claims are false. But many are, so we should not automatically assume they are true. Remember the hooker who claimed rape in the Duke University case? She was proved to be a liar and the boys - whose lives were ruined - were innocent.
The take-way: in order to be considered sexual harassment, first there must be solid evidence (the premise of innocent until proved guilty still applies), and second, the actions had to be repetitive, unwanted, and the perp was made aware the actions are unwanted. Any claim that does not meet this standard is bogus.
Ladies, if someone makes sexual overtures toward you and they are unwanted, document it as best as you can, if only by immediately telling everyone. And be sure to stand up for yourself - tell him you are not interested, will never be interested and to stop, or there will be unpleasant ramifications. Then if he persists, take legal action. In no case should you be too afraid to stand up for yourself at the time of the offense.
/
Tuesday, October 3, 2017
Las Vegas Massacre - Motive Found?
I smell something fishy about the Las Vegas massacre, and the possible reasons for it that the mainstream media is pushing. You may read this, and think "now, there's a conspiracy theory for ya", and you may be right. On the other hand, this theory does make more sense than most being floated.
Everyone knows that "Big & Rich" are a strongly conservative country group, with a strong, conservative following. The fact that the killer waited three days in a hotel to do his dirty deed, specifically against THESE people, indicates he had the ideology of those on the left. He did not simply want to kill people. He wanted to kill CONSERVATIVE people. Trump supporters. And driven by the anti-Trump hatred spewed by the media, Democrats and elitists.
But it may go even deeper than that.
That same ideology is strongly anti-gun. What if you were strongly anti-gun and strongly anti-conservative, and nearing the end of life and maybe crazy? What better way to go out in a blaze of glory than to kill a whole bunch of conservatives AND turn the country against guns to the point that Congress moves toward stricter gun controls. Pardon the pun, but you would be killing two birds with one stone.
Not sure? Think about this...
Anyone wanting to kill as many people as possible would not need 20 guns (and leave a bunch of them home). One rifle, with a lot of pre-loaded clips would do the job. So, why would he have a 23 rifles and literally thousands of rounds of ammo in his room when there was no possibility of using them all, and leaving 19 more at home? I'd say he was trying to make a statement.
The guy hated conservatives, and specifically targeted them, so he was a liberal. As such, he almost certainly was anti-gun, and would also want to get them banned.
The corrupt mainstream media would never mention these things, even if proved true. They are digging everywhere, trying hard to find ANY other motive, and coming up empty. All we hear is "No motive found".
Well, maybe they aren't looking at the obvious clues...
/
Everyone knows that "Big & Rich" are a strongly conservative country group, with a strong, conservative following. The fact that the killer waited three days in a hotel to do his dirty deed, specifically against THESE people, indicates he had the ideology of those on the left. He did not simply want to kill people. He wanted to kill CONSERVATIVE people. Trump supporters. And driven by the anti-Trump hatred spewed by the media, Democrats and elitists.
But it may go even deeper than that.
That same ideology is strongly anti-gun. What if you were strongly anti-gun and strongly anti-conservative, and nearing the end of life and maybe crazy? What better way to go out in a blaze of glory than to kill a whole bunch of conservatives AND turn the country against guns to the point that Congress moves toward stricter gun controls. Pardon the pun, but you would be killing two birds with one stone.
Not sure? Think about this...
Anyone wanting to kill as many people as possible would not need 20 guns (and leave a bunch of them home). One rifle, with a lot of pre-loaded clips would do the job. So, why would he have a 23 rifles and literally thousands of rounds of ammo in his room when there was no possibility of using them all, and leaving 19 more at home? I'd say he was trying to make a statement.
The guy hated conservatives, and specifically targeted them, so he was a liberal. As such, he almost certainly was anti-gun, and would also want to get them banned.
The corrupt mainstream media would never mention these things, even if proved true. They are digging everywhere, trying hard to find ANY other motive, and coming up empty. All we hear is "No motive found".
Well, maybe they aren't looking at the obvious clues...
/
Wednesday, September 20, 2017
Do Voter I.D. Laws Disenfranchise the Poor & Minorities?
"Voter I.D. laws disenfranchise the poor and minorities." That's what people on the left, and activist judges, often claim. They strongly oppose any voter I.D. requirements simply because they want to make it possible for non-citizens to vote. To make their case, they cite phony statistics that show millions of citizens do not have photo I.D. But is that even possible in today's America?
Here are 27 things you cannot do without photo I.D. :
1. Buy Alcohol
2. Buy Cigarettes
3. Opening a bank account
4. Apply for food stamps
5. Apply for welfare
6. Apply for Medicaid/Social Security
7. Apply for unemployment or a job
8. Rent/buy a house, apply for a mortgage
9. Drive/buy/rent a car
10. Get on an airplane
11. Get married
12. Purchase a gun
13. Adopt a pet
14. Rent a hotel room
15. Apply for a hunting license
16. Apply for a fishing license
17. Buy a cell phone
18. Visit a casino
19. Pick up a prescription
20. Get permit Hold a rally or protest
21. Blood donations
22. Buy an "M" rated video game
23. Purchase nail polish at CVS
24. Purchase certain cold medicines
25. Buy a lighter at CVS
26. Cash a check
27. See an "R" rated movie
Now, here is my challenge - if anyone can produce any American citizen who has never done ANY of these things, then I will concede that perhaps that person does not have a photo I.D. But I have to say, if any American citizen has never done any of those things, they simply are not even in any condition to vote! How do you even live if you cannot get a job, collect benefits or cash a check?
I do understand that even the most ridiculous things are possible, and some citizens may not have photo I.D., such as the unfortunate souls who have extremely limited mental capacity and are cared for by others. But they would not vote, anyway. For anyone to claim there are "millions" of citizens who have the capacity to vote but cannot because they have no photo I.D. is nothing short of a blatant lie.
As of 2013, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates that there are 242,470,820 adults living in the United States. For there to be even ONE million without proper I.D. would mean one person in every 243. When you consider, however, that at least 8 million of those are illegal immigrants, that brings it down to one CITIZEN in every 235. And that is ludicrous.
In Texas, where the fight is still raging, there are just over 17,000,000 adult citizens. The people fighting the voter I.D. law are stating that their (phony) statistics show 600,000 have no photo I.D. THAT'S ONE IN EVERY 28 ADULT CITIZENS! They are claiming that 8.5% of the adult citizens in Texas have never done any of the 27 things listed above. That is not only absurd, but impossible.
The next time some liberal progressive tries to tell you that voter I.D. laws "disenfranchise" minorities and the poor, you can now rebut them with REAL facts, and disembowel their phony statistics.
/
Here are 27 things you cannot do without photo I.D. :
1. Buy Alcohol
2. Buy Cigarettes
3. Opening a bank account
4. Apply for food stamps
5. Apply for welfare
6. Apply for Medicaid/Social Security
7. Apply for unemployment or a job
8. Rent/buy a house, apply for a mortgage
9. Drive/buy/rent a car
10. Get on an airplane
11. Get married
12. Purchase a gun
13. Adopt a pet
14. Rent a hotel room
15. Apply for a hunting license
16. Apply for a fishing license
17. Buy a cell phone
18. Visit a casino
19. Pick up a prescription
20. Get permit Hold a rally or protest
21. Blood donations
22. Buy an "M" rated video game
23. Purchase nail polish at CVS
24. Purchase certain cold medicines
25. Buy a lighter at CVS
26. Cash a check
27. See an "R" rated movie
Now, here is my challenge - if anyone can produce any American citizen who has never done ANY of these things, then I will concede that perhaps that person does not have a photo I.D. But I have to say, if any American citizen has never done any of those things, they simply are not even in any condition to vote! How do you even live if you cannot get a job, collect benefits or cash a check?
I do understand that even the most ridiculous things are possible, and some citizens may not have photo I.D., such as the unfortunate souls who have extremely limited mental capacity and are cared for by others. But they would not vote, anyway. For anyone to claim there are "millions" of citizens who have the capacity to vote but cannot because they have no photo I.D. is nothing short of a blatant lie.
As of 2013, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates that there are 242,470,820 adults living in the United States. For there to be even ONE million without proper I.D. would mean one person in every 243. When you consider, however, that at least 8 million of those are illegal immigrants, that brings it down to one CITIZEN in every 235. And that is ludicrous.
In Texas, where the fight is still raging, there are just over 17,000,000 adult citizens. The people fighting the voter I.D. law are stating that their (phony) statistics show 600,000 have no photo I.D. THAT'S ONE IN EVERY 28 ADULT CITIZENS! They are claiming that 8.5% of the adult citizens in Texas have never done any of the 27 things listed above. That is not only absurd, but impossible.
The next time some liberal progressive tries to tell you that voter I.D. laws "disenfranchise" minorities and the poor, you can now rebut them with REAL facts, and disembowel their phony statistics.
/
Wednesday, September 6, 2017
The True Motive for Destroying Confederate Symbols
Far-left radicals, anarchists and Antifa, along with altogether too many willing politicians and the mainstream media are all chomping at the bit to tear down our history by destroying all vestiges of the Confederacy. They erroneously claim it is because "they were traitors", or "on the wrong side of history." But is that really true?
Is someone on the "wrong side of history" simply because they lost? What would the history be had they won? If the Confederacy had won, Lincoln, Grant and other Northern leaders would be seen as traitors. And if losing a war puts you on the "wrong side", then Native Americans were on the "wrong side".
As far as being "traitors" is concerned, think about it a moment. If Lee, Davis and other Confederates were traitors because they rebelled against their government, then so, too, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and ALL our founding fathers, and ALL the colonials fighting under them were traitors to their government - the British Crown. Do those radicals propose we tear down anything reminding us of the Founders? If so, it would not simply be renaming our capital, or tearing down statues or removing their images from our money. It would mean we would have to destroy what they created - the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the United States, itself, as they were all created by traitors to the Crown, and therefore are not legitimate.
And I suspect that is what those radicals are really after, and they are using the "Overton Window" principle to bring it to fruition. Radicals win by pushing their radical agendas in small increments, an inch at a time. First they get you to accept that marijuana is no more dangerous than a beer. Once you accept that, it is easy to get us to decriminalize it. Check. Once decriminalized, and we get used to it, they push to actually legalize it for "medicinal" purposes. Check. Then, as we become even more accepting of that, they push to legalize for recreational purposes. Check. That's how the Overton Window works. And boy, how it works! By not nipping the erasure of our history in the bud, we are setting the stage for the next step in their radical agenda.
And the cowering morons who allow them to do it, and not put up any struggle, are accessories to such sedition and treason. Those radicals, and those who do not oppose them, become the new traitors, no better than the ones they are attempting to erase from history.
(Radicals do not limit their efforts to erasing our history and destroying the Republic. They use the same principle to push all of their radical agendas, including gender issues (in some places it has already progressed to the point you can be fined, or otherwise punished for using gender pronouns, like "he", "she" or "Ms"). They also use it to push God out of every facet of our lives, and to promote the stupidity of gender neutral bathrooms.)
Is someone on the "wrong side of history" simply because they lost? What would the history be had they won? If the Confederacy had won, Lincoln, Grant and other Northern leaders would be seen as traitors. And if losing a war puts you on the "wrong side", then Native Americans were on the "wrong side".
As far as being "traitors" is concerned, think about it a moment. If Lee, Davis and other Confederates were traitors because they rebelled against their government, then so, too, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and ALL our founding fathers, and ALL the colonials fighting under them were traitors to their government - the British Crown. Do those radicals propose we tear down anything reminding us of the Founders? If so, it would not simply be renaming our capital, or tearing down statues or removing their images from our money. It would mean we would have to destroy what they created - the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the United States, itself, as they were all created by traitors to the Crown, and therefore are not legitimate.
And I suspect that is what those radicals are really after, and they are using the "Overton Window" principle to bring it to fruition. Radicals win by pushing their radical agendas in small increments, an inch at a time. First they get you to accept that marijuana is no more dangerous than a beer. Once you accept that, it is easy to get us to decriminalize it. Check. Once decriminalized, and we get used to it, they push to actually legalize it for "medicinal" purposes. Check. Then, as we become even more accepting of that, they push to legalize for recreational purposes. Check. That's how the Overton Window works. And boy, how it works! By not nipping the erasure of our history in the bud, we are setting the stage for the next step in their radical agenda.
And the cowering morons who allow them to do it, and not put up any struggle, are accessories to such sedition and treason. Those radicals, and those who do not oppose them, become the new traitors, no better than the ones they are attempting to erase from history.
(Radicals do not limit their efforts to erasing our history and destroying the Republic. They use the same principle to push all of their radical agendas, including gender issues (in some places it has already progressed to the point you can be fined, or otherwise punished for using gender pronouns, like "he", "she" or "Ms"). They also use it to push God out of every facet of our lives, and to promote the stupidity of gender neutral bathrooms.)
Sunday, September 3, 2017
How To Deal With North Korea
When it comes to North Korea, one thing is absolutely certain - they will not stop until they either destroy America, or get destroyed themselves. Therefore, we are equally certain of one other thing - the longer they are allowed to proceed, the more casualties there will be. Right now, they can kill a few hundred thousand people in South Korea. In a year, that could be millions of people in America.
Since there is no "good" end to the situation, one is certainly better than the other. And with that in mind, here is my humble suggestion:
VERY secretly, arm bombers based in Japan and Guam with whatever bombs are necessary, and prepare our warships and subs to point their missiles at ONE taget: Punggye-ri, where the nuclear facilities are located. This is in far northeastern North Korea, as far from Pyongyang as it could be, for safety. And when everything is in place for a rapid, precise strike, we give Kim Jung-Un ONE HOUR to make a decision - in one hour his nuclear facilities WILL be destroyed. Period. And he has one hour to decide if he will stop pursuing nuclear weapons, or bomb Seoul. If he choooses the latter, our next target will be PyongYang and Kim Jung-un, and any place he might choose to hide. So, his only choice is whether he wants to die today, detroying his country in the process, or die peacefully, of old age.
We should also warn China and any other bad actor that any interference from them will result in losing ALL access to American markets, money and products, and any money we may owe them will be forfeited as reparations.
It is highly unlikely that China or Russia will want to go to war with America over that little puke in North Korea. And Iran will also take note of our resolve to de-fang those who threaten America.
/
Since there is no "good" end to the situation, one is certainly better than the other. And with that in mind, here is my humble suggestion:
VERY secretly, arm bombers based in Japan and Guam with whatever bombs are necessary, and prepare our warships and subs to point their missiles at ONE taget: Punggye-ri, where the nuclear facilities are located. This is in far northeastern North Korea, as far from Pyongyang as it could be, for safety. And when everything is in place for a rapid, precise strike, we give Kim Jung-Un ONE HOUR to make a decision - in one hour his nuclear facilities WILL be destroyed. Period. And he has one hour to decide if he will stop pursuing nuclear weapons, or bomb Seoul. If he choooses the latter, our next target will be PyongYang and Kim Jung-un, and any place he might choose to hide. So, his only choice is whether he wants to die today, detroying his country in the process, or die peacefully, of old age.
We should also warn China and any other bad actor that any interference from them will result in losing ALL access to American markets, money and products, and any money we may owe them will be forfeited as reparations.
It is highly unlikely that China or Russia will want to go to war with America over that little puke in North Korea. And Iran will also take note of our resolve to de-fang those who threaten America.
/
Saturday, August 12, 2017
Nuclear EMP - Death of a Continent?
Many people - even in Congress - are not fully aware of the consequences of an EMP (electro-magnetic pulse) that occurs when a nuclear weapon is exploded high in the atmosphere. And the same effect occurs when we are hit with a large solar flare, as happened in 1989 when a not-so-large flare hit eastern Canada and knocked out their grid.
In July 1962, the US carried out the Starfish Prime test, exploding a small 1.44 megaton bomb 250 miles above the mid-Pacific Ocean. This demonstrated that the effects of a high-altitude nuclear explosion were much larger than had been previously calculated. The detonation caused electrical damage in Hawaii, 898 miles away from the detonation point, knocking out about streetlights, setting off burglar alarms and damaging a microwave link. A large device detonated at 250 to 312 miles over Kansas would affect all of the continental U.S.
It does not take much for any country with a nuke to end a lot of human life in America. Their missile need not be accurate - just get it over us and detonate it in the atmosphere. The EMP that ensues can knock out the electrical grid, if not hardened (and most of it isn't). And it would not be a short-term power outage. It could last for several years, as we would not have the means (the power) to rebuild everything, transport the materials to the sites and get things running again.
Worse still, the large transformers are only manufactured in China and Brazil. Even if those countries wanted to help, it could take 6 months to 5 years to rebuild the grid. How many people would die in that time? No food. No banking. No way to earn a living. No way to travel to stores, even if there were goods available.
Transformers would be blown, on a large scale. Even car batteries would be destroyed. No power, no communications, no internet. No transporting goods, such as groceries. No large scale farming.
But it gets worse - America would be so weakened, brought to its knees. Our enemies (and the world is full of them) could just walk in and take over. Anyone bringing in food, for example, would be treated as lords. And if you have food, but your neighbor's kids are literally dying of starvation, your "best bud" neighbor will kill you and your family to get food for his own. It's survival of the fittest. Believe it!
Experts have estimated that a large-scale destruction of our power grid would likely result in the deaths of anywhere from 50% to 90% of America's population.
And all it would take is one nuke detonated high in the atmosphere...or one super flare from the sun, which occurs every 150 years or so. The last was in 1859 known as the Carrington Event. If that were to happen today, the entire planet, not just a continent, could go dark, with so much destruction to infrastructure it would take decades to repair the damage - if ever.
Friday, June 23, 2017
Are They Really After Equal Rights?
Feminism. Equal rights for this group or that. Special treatment for different classes of people. Unisex bathrooms.
It's getting crazy! And it is the intentional push by the mainstream media and the left to muddy the waters as much as possible, to cause so much confusion - and guilt - that it becomes easy for them to get their liberal agenda through, because confused people, riddled with the guilt imposed upon them, will throw their hands up and surrender.
The purpose of this post, however, is to make a single point that clears all the mud from the waters.
Let's start with the fact that feminists do not want equal rights - they want more rights. They want equal pay (fair enough) but refuse to accept that Daddy can get custody of the kids, and think women are entitled to special treatment, such as when they break the law and resist arrest, the police should not use physical force to subdue them, if necessary. And feminists do not want equality for all women - not one speaks out against the abuse that some nations impose on women, nor do they stand up for any conservative women. If the woman is not an American, and a liberal, feminists are not interested in protecting their rights. So, feminism is a farce - a creation by a far-left liberal to push a liberal agenda.
The same can be said for other groups that claim they only want "equal rights", when in fact, they want to be recognized and treated as special. Whether its "safe spaces", or a desire to erase history they do not like (i.e. taking down monuments, flags etc.) or stifling free speech that they disagree with, those groups are also pushing a false agenda. They want their free speech, but do not allow for it from others.
So here's a simple point: everyone, regardless of age, gender, religion, race - whatever - everyone should be treated equally. Not better. Not worse. If Martha Stewart goes to jail for lying, so should Hillary. If a Navy recruit goes to prison for a minor infraction of national security, then so should Eric Holder (Fast & Furious). If a man can be physically subdued for breaking the law, then the same should hold true for a woman. And if that is not acceptable, then NEITHER should be physically subdued for breaking the law. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Equality does not allow for exceptions.
Equality is not always nice - but it is always fair. It is why the statue of Justice wears a blindfold.
Each of us must make a choice - believe that either we are ALL equal, or none of us are. No special treatment due to your class, race, gender etc. Respect the rights of all people, or of none.
That said, equality is a figment of the imagination. It does not exist in nature, nor does fairness - any equality or fairness that exists must be imposed by the strong to protect the weak. Does anyone believe a child born deformed and mentally challenged could ever truly be equal with brainy, athletic people?
And one final point of fact - EQUAL is not synonymous with SAME. Males and females are not the same, and therefore can never be completely equal - at least not until men can experience child-birth, and women no longer have an extra rib. Ethnicities can be equal, but never the same.
Try not to miss the point - we are either equal or we are not. We can't have it both ways. Equality is not a part-time thing that applies over here, but not over there. If you think it is wrong to treat one person a certain way because of their gender, race, religion etc., then it is wrong to treat anyone that way. Always put the shoe on your own foot - would you like to be treated that way?
It's time we stopped letting the left muddy things up by telling us we all need to be not only equal, but the same. We only need to accept each other for who and what we are as individuals.
/
It's getting crazy! And it is the intentional push by the mainstream media and the left to muddy the waters as much as possible, to cause so much confusion - and guilt - that it becomes easy for them to get their liberal agenda through, because confused people, riddled with the guilt imposed upon them, will throw their hands up and surrender.
The purpose of this post, however, is to make a single point that clears all the mud from the waters.
Let's start with the fact that feminists do not want equal rights - they want more rights. They want equal pay (fair enough) but refuse to accept that Daddy can get custody of the kids, and think women are entitled to special treatment, such as when they break the law and resist arrest, the police should not use physical force to subdue them, if necessary. And feminists do not want equality for all women - not one speaks out against the abuse that some nations impose on women, nor do they stand up for any conservative women. If the woman is not an American, and a liberal, feminists are not interested in protecting their rights. So, feminism is a farce - a creation by a far-left liberal to push a liberal agenda.
The same can be said for other groups that claim they only want "equal rights", when in fact, they want to be recognized and treated as special. Whether its "safe spaces", or a desire to erase history they do not like (i.e. taking down monuments, flags etc.) or stifling free speech that they disagree with, those groups are also pushing a false agenda. They want their free speech, but do not allow for it from others.
So here's a simple point: everyone, regardless of age, gender, religion, race - whatever - everyone should be treated equally. Not better. Not worse. If Martha Stewart goes to jail for lying, so should Hillary. If a Navy recruit goes to prison for a minor infraction of national security, then so should Eric Holder (Fast & Furious). If a man can be physically subdued for breaking the law, then the same should hold true for a woman. And if that is not acceptable, then NEITHER should be physically subdued for breaking the law. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Equality does not allow for exceptions.
Equality is not always nice - but it is always fair. It is why the statue of Justice wears a blindfold.
Each of us must make a choice - believe that either we are ALL equal, or none of us are. No special treatment due to your class, race, gender etc. Respect the rights of all people, or of none.
That said, equality is a figment of the imagination. It does not exist in nature, nor does fairness - any equality or fairness that exists must be imposed by the strong to protect the weak. Does anyone believe a child born deformed and mentally challenged could ever truly be equal with brainy, athletic people?
And one final point of fact - EQUAL is not synonymous with SAME. Males and females are not the same, and therefore can never be completely equal - at least not until men can experience child-birth, and women no longer have an extra rib. Ethnicities can be equal, but never the same.
Try not to miss the point - we are either equal or we are not. We can't have it both ways. Equality is not a part-time thing that applies over here, but not over there. If you think it is wrong to treat one person a certain way because of their gender, race, religion etc., then it is wrong to treat anyone that way. Always put the shoe on your own foot - would you like to be treated that way?
It's time we stopped letting the left muddy things up by telling us we all need to be not only equal, but the same. We only need to accept each other for who and what we are as individuals.
/
Thursday, March 16, 2017
How to Hold Activist Judges Accountable
There have been countless complaints about the current state of our judicial system, with so many activist judges illegally legislating from the bench. And it has been impossible to fix it because judges are appointed for life, and the Constitution allows only one method of removal - for lack of "good behavior".
And while it would appear that illegally legislating from the bench is bad behavior, the courts have declared (again, illegally) that only "high crimes and misdemeanors" can constitute bad behavior. Such a declaration by the court is a case of the fox guarding the hen house.
To remove a judge, the judge must be impeached by a simple majority of the House, and a two-thirds majority of the senate.
This entire debacle is easily fixed - Congress, the only body with the authority to do so - should pass a law that clarifies what constitutes bad behavior of judges, and should include "legislating from the bench" as an impeachable offense.
Today, the difficult part would be getting the law passed through the Senate, and getting 60 votes for any impeachment. But thanks to Harry Reid, the "nuclear option" could be used, and only a simple majority would be required in the senate.
The law should state that a judge shall be reprimanded for a first offense. A second offense within three years would result in impeachment.
While this would not fix all the issues with rogue judges, it would certainly provide the People with a method for protecting themselves from them.
/
And while it would appear that illegally legislating from the bench is bad behavior, the courts have declared (again, illegally) that only "high crimes and misdemeanors" can constitute bad behavior. Such a declaration by the court is a case of the fox guarding the hen house.
To remove a judge, the judge must be impeached by a simple majority of the House, and a two-thirds majority of the senate.
This entire debacle is easily fixed - Congress, the only body with the authority to do so - should pass a law that clarifies what constitutes bad behavior of judges, and should include "legislating from the bench" as an impeachable offense.
Today, the difficult part would be getting the law passed through the Senate, and getting 60 votes for any impeachment. But thanks to Harry Reid, the "nuclear option" could be used, and only a simple majority would be required in the senate.
The law should state that a judge shall be reprimanded for a first offense. A second offense within three years would result in impeachment.
While this would not fix all the issues with rogue judges, it would certainly provide the People with a method for protecting themselves from them.
/
Tuesday, March 7, 2017
A Better, Affordable Health Care Plan
A REAL healthcare bill would include the following:
1) No mandates or credits (see below)
2) Ability to cobble together the health care each person wants or needs, even across state lines. Would create lower costs through competition
3) Price transparency, so people can shop for the least expensive service. Would create lower costs through competition
4) Tort reform - cap malpractice suits to a reasonable level, so providers would not be forced to push unnecessary tests & procedures just to cover their butts
4a) Eliminate class action suits for "bad drugs" approved by the FDA unless there is intent of wrongdoing. Would severely reduce cost for prescriptions
5) The government should increase the FICA contribution by employers and employees by 2.5%, and use those funds to provide catastrophic coverage to everyone in a household earning less than 250% of poverty level ($50/year from each, for each $10,000 of income)
6) Those whose household income is at or below poverty level would already have catastrophic coverage (see above) and medicaid for other health care costs. Since medicaid now only needs to cover non-catastrophic costs, the medicaid is less expensive, allowing states to provide more coverage for less
Whereas payroll deductions would provide catastrophic coverage for lower & middle income, and current medicaid would cover most of any balance for the poor, and whereas costs for health care and/or insurance costs have been significantly reduced, anyone earning over 250% of poverty level could well afford their own insurance. Hence, no mandates or credits are necessary.
1) No mandates or credits (see below)
2) Ability to cobble together the health care each person wants or needs, even across state lines. Would create lower costs through competition
3) Price transparency, so people can shop for the least expensive service. Would create lower costs through competition
4) Tort reform - cap malpractice suits to a reasonable level, so providers would not be forced to push unnecessary tests & procedures just to cover their butts
4a) Eliminate class action suits for "bad drugs" approved by the FDA unless there is intent of wrongdoing. Would severely reduce cost for prescriptions
5) The government should increase the FICA contribution by employers and employees by 2.5%, and use those funds to provide catastrophic coverage to everyone in a household earning less than 250% of poverty level ($50/year from each, for each $10,000 of income)
6) Those whose household income is at or below poverty level would already have catastrophic coverage (see above) and medicaid for other health care costs. Since medicaid now only needs to cover non-catastrophic costs, the medicaid is less expensive, allowing states to provide more coverage for less
Whereas payroll deductions would provide catastrophic coverage for lower & middle income, and current medicaid would cover most of any balance for the poor, and whereas costs for health care and/or insurance costs have been significantly reduced, anyone earning over 250% of poverty level could well afford their own insurance. Hence, no mandates or credits are necessary.
Wednesday, March 1, 2017
What President Trump Should Do With "Dreamers"
Immigration - particularly illegal immigration - has been a top concern of Americans for decades. Former president Obama issued an executive order called "The Dream Act" that allows those brought here illegally, as children, the right to stay, work and go to school.
To begin, I do not approve of rewarding those who break the law. On the other hand, I am a firm believer in second chances for those who earn them.
One question president Trump is wrestling with is what to do about the "Dreamers". Naturally, I have a suggestion.
First, any Dreamer who has been convicted of any crime should be deported - NOW. The rest would have the next seven years to prove their allegiance to our country and laws - if they break any crimnal laws, they get deported. But if they stay clean, learn English, work hard and show they are an asset, at the end of seven years they can be granted citizenship. They will have earned it.
One other option: they can serve in the United States military for a minimum of 4 years. Upon completion of four years of honorable active service, they may be granted citizenship.
I know a lot of hard right and hard left people will find fault with such a plan, but the truth remains that it is fair. And what is America if not fair?
/
To begin, I do not approve of rewarding those who break the law. On the other hand, I am a firm believer in second chances for those who earn them.
One question president Trump is wrestling with is what to do about the "Dreamers". Naturally, I have a suggestion.
First, any Dreamer who has been convicted of any crime should be deported - NOW. The rest would have the next seven years to prove their allegiance to our country and laws - if they break any crimnal laws, they get deported. But if they stay clean, learn English, work hard and show they are an asset, at the end of seven years they can be granted citizenship. They will have earned it.
One other option: they can serve in the United States military for a minimum of 4 years. Upon completion of four years of honorable active service, they may be granted citizenship.
I know a lot of hard right and hard left people will find fault with such a plan, but the truth remains that it is fair. And what is America if not fair?
/
Monday, February 27, 2017
Why the Stock Market is Important to Non-Investors
I was talking with a fellow at the coffee shop this morning and I happened to mention the economy has grown almost $3 trillion since Trump was elected, and the stock market keeps breaking record highs every day. I also mentioned that the media, including the "venerable" New York Times, has failed to mention any of it, as their agenda does not include giving Trump credit for anything.
He said, "So what. I don't invest in the markets, so it doesn't affect me."
Too many uninformed people believe that. They think the market growth only benefits those that play the markets. Not true. Not even close to true.
When people invest in the markets, they are "loaning" their money to businesses. With $3 trillion being pumped into businesses across the country, and even around the world, those businesses can hire more people (job creation), research, develop and produce more and newer products (consumer goods). This increase in production and hiring results in more taxes being paid into the United States Treasury, which helps fund Social Security, Medicare and many other programs.
The hiring also removes people from food stamps and welfare, saving taxpayers a bundle.
And, of course, as companies grow, the investors on Main Street receive a profit they can spend in their communities.
So the next time you hear someone complain that a growing stock market has no effect on him or her, you can set them straight.
/
He said, "So what. I don't invest in the markets, so it doesn't affect me."
Too many uninformed people believe that. They think the market growth only benefits those that play the markets. Not true. Not even close to true.
When people invest in the markets, they are "loaning" their money to businesses. With $3 trillion being pumped into businesses across the country, and even around the world, those businesses can hire more people (job creation), research, develop and produce more and newer products (consumer goods). This increase in production and hiring results in more taxes being paid into the United States Treasury, which helps fund Social Security, Medicare and many other programs.
The hiring also removes people from food stamps and welfare, saving taxpayers a bundle.
And, of course, as companies grow, the investors on Main Street receive a profit they can spend in their communities.
So the next time you hear someone complain that a growing stock market has no effect on him or her, you can set them straight.
/
Tuesday, February 21, 2017
The Real Truth Behind Health Care Costs
There are almost as many "health care replacement plans" as there are people in Congress. And not one of them attacks the real problem. The problem is not insurance - it's health care PRICING.
Health care lobbyists have succeeded in bullying our lawmakers into allowing "secret pricing" that can vary from place to place, and even person to person. Unlike any other product, where every consumer pays the same price in any given store, health care providers can charge almost anything they want, according to what they think they can get someone to pay.
As an example, when I scheduled a colonoscopy at Exeter NH hospital, I asked the cost. At first they did not even want to tell me the cost. When I threatened to go elsewhere, I was told it would cost "about $1500". When I told them I did not have insurance, the cost suddenly collapsed to $650. The way I see it, if I could get it for $650, then everyone should be charged the same.
As another example, I went to GoodRx.com to get pricing for a prescription. As you can see by this screenshot, the exact same prescription was a different price in several different pharmacies. And worse yet, the NON-DISCOUNT price was much higher. In other words, John Doe would pay up to $75, while I could get the same prescription for $26.85. Again, if one person pays $26.85, that should be the price for everyone, without having to get some "coupon".
Because of secret pricing, and variable pricing, health insurance is far more expensive than it needs to be, and deductibles are far greater than necessary.
The way I see it, the entire health care debacle could be easily solved and made affordable by government intervention to standardize pricing (after negotiating the best deal) and allowing people to shop around for the various parts of insurance they want, even across state lines. And if tort reform is included, that would bring costs down even more - we've all seen the thousands of "lawyer" ads suing for every drug ever created, driving up prices. And by setting caps on malpractice, doctors could charge less.
Every person who wants to see the best health care at the lowest costs should contact their representatives and senators and send them a link to this post, or, at the very least, demand they buck the lobbyistys and standardize health care costs for every drug, every service, every procedure.
Then perhaps we will finally have the best health care system in the world.
/
Health care lobbyists have succeeded in bullying our lawmakers into allowing "secret pricing" that can vary from place to place, and even person to person. Unlike any other product, where every consumer pays the same price in any given store, health care providers can charge almost anything they want, according to what they think they can get someone to pay.
As an example, when I scheduled a colonoscopy at Exeter NH hospital, I asked the cost. At first they did not even want to tell me the cost. When I threatened to go elsewhere, I was told it would cost "about $1500". When I told them I did not have insurance, the cost suddenly collapsed to $650. The way I see it, if I could get it for $650, then everyone should be charged the same.
As another example, I went to GoodRx.com to get pricing for a prescription. As you can see by this screenshot, the exact same prescription was a different price in several different pharmacies. And worse yet, the NON-DISCOUNT price was much higher. In other words, John Doe would pay up to $75, while I could get the same prescription for $26.85. Again, if one person pays $26.85, that should be the price for everyone, without having to get some "coupon".
Because of secret pricing, and variable pricing, health insurance is far more expensive than it needs to be, and deductibles are far greater than necessary.
The way I see it, the entire health care debacle could be easily solved and made affordable by government intervention to standardize pricing (after negotiating the best deal) and allowing people to shop around for the various parts of insurance they want, even across state lines. And if tort reform is included, that would bring costs down even more - we've all seen the thousands of "lawyer" ads suing for every drug ever created, driving up prices. And by setting caps on malpractice, doctors could charge less.
Every person who wants to see the best health care at the lowest costs should contact their representatives and senators and send them a link to this post, or, at the very least, demand they buck the lobbyistys and standardize health care costs for every drug, every service, every procedure.
Then perhaps we will finally have the best health care system in the world.
/
Monday, January 23, 2017
Should Trump Kill The Death Tax?
Word came down today that President Trump is looking to end the estate tax. Liberals, of course, say he is doing it to help the wealthy. And while it certainly does help the more affluent to actually keep what they worked so hard for, and already paid taxes on, President Trump understands there is a bigger issue here.
Consider this scenario as an example...
A man and his family spend their lives working hard to build up a profitable family farm worth $10 million. The man dies, and the family must pay the government $6 million in estate tax, on something that has already been taxed before. (This does not include any state "death tax" that would also be due). Many would say, "So what - the family still has $4 million". But they don't. Almost the entire $10 million value of the farm is in land, stock and equipment. There is little or no cash. In order to pay the taxes, the family is forced to sell the farm, and chances are the only ones able to buy it is some huge (and even wealthier) farming conglomerate. The family farm is gone. The family income is gone.
The fact is that most wealth passed on to heirs is in the form of non-cash assets. Such assets are not liquid, and often must be sold to pay the taxes. This destroys a lot of family businesses - and a lot of families.
Another fact that liberals do not want you to come face-to-face with: EVERY tax destructive. It eats up working capital, reducing production, growth and hiring. It takes away the ability to spend, reducing the ability to buy things that keep people working and the economy moving.
Certainly, taxes are necessary to fund the government, but the government, by Constitutional constraint, may only tax and spend for eight very specific purposes. Building treadmills for shrimp, and a huge number of other things our government wastes hundreds of billions a year on doing are not among the governments lawful purposes. If we get rid of the waste, the fraud and the spending that is not even lawful, there would be no need to destroy family inheritances with a death tax. In fact, all taxes could be reduced dramatically.
For example, there is no need, nor logical purpose, for giving other nations our own taxpayer money to help build THEIR countries when ours is in need. Sending $500 million to Mexico each year is a travesty - it is not our job to take care of Mexico. If you have to buy your friends, they are not friends worth having.
In short, the estate tax is unfair and even illegal, according to the original Constitution (before Wilson illegally instituted the Federal Reserve and used deceit to pass an amendment changing HOW taxes could be assessed).
And just as important - just because something helps the rich does not make it bad or wrong. What counts is justice, not who it helps most.
/
Consider this scenario as an example...
A man and his family spend their lives working hard to build up a profitable family farm worth $10 million. The man dies, and the family must pay the government $6 million in estate tax, on something that has already been taxed before. (This does not include any state "death tax" that would also be due). Many would say, "So what - the family still has $4 million". But they don't. Almost the entire $10 million value of the farm is in land, stock and equipment. There is little or no cash. In order to pay the taxes, the family is forced to sell the farm, and chances are the only ones able to buy it is some huge (and even wealthier) farming conglomerate. The family farm is gone. The family income is gone.
The fact is that most wealth passed on to heirs is in the form of non-cash assets. Such assets are not liquid, and often must be sold to pay the taxes. This destroys a lot of family businesses - and a lot of families.
Another fact that liberals do not want you to come face-to-face with: EVERY tax destructive. It eats up working capital, reducing production, growth and hiring. It takes away the ability to spend, reducing the ability to buy things that keep people working and the economy moving.
Certainly, taxes are necessary to fund the government, but the government, by Constitutional constraint, may only tax and spend for eight very specific purposes. Building treadmills for shrimp, and a huge number of other things our government wastes hundreds of billions a year on doing are not among the governments lawful purposes. If we get rid of the waste, the fraud and the spending that is not even lawful, there would be no need to destroy family inheritances with a death tax. In fact, all taxes could be reduced dramatically.
For example, there is no need, nor logical purpose, for giving other nations our own taxpayer money to help build THEIR countries when ours is in need. Sending $500 million to Mexico each year is a travesty - it is not our job to take care of Mexico. If you have to buy your friends, they are not friends worth having.
In short, the estate tax is unfair and even illegal, according to the original Constitution (before Wilson illegally instituted the Federal Reserve and used deceit to pass an amendment changing HOW taxes could be assessed).
And just as important - just because something helps the rich does not make it bad or wrong. What counts is justice, not who it helps most.
/
Helping Hillary Figure Out Why She Lost
Politico reports that Hillary Clinton is still trying to figure out why she lost the election. Frankly, if she does not know the answer to that, she has no business even running for office. However, for the sake of her sanity, and to help her get through this, I will make it as simple and clear as is humanly possible.
Hillary lost for three big reasons (there are other, smaller reasons discussed at the end)
The first reason: Hillary did not address the issues important to middle America - everyday people. She should learn and apply Maslov's hierchy of needs. If people are struggling just to put food on the table, you won't get far talking about gender issues
Second reason: she took important states for granted, and did not campaign there. States like Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio...
Third reason: most of Hillary's pressers and fund raisers were with the liberal elite, like all the Hollywood celebrities. Mainstream America saw that, and said, "She does not even recognize I exist. She lives in a bubble. How can she represent me?"
Those are the biggies. Lesser reasons - which had a minor effect - were the scandals - Benghazi, and her blaming it on a video no one ever saw; her deletion of 30,000 emails; and all her lies, beginning with the one about being under sniper fire on the tarmac, and ending with "there was no classified info in my emails", and "Donald Trump is mysogynist & racist" (the evidence proves otherwise).
But the main reasons she lost are the first three I have listed, showing arrogance, ignorance and detachment from the real people of middle America.
As a side note: #1 and #3 are the same reasons why the 16 other REPUBLICAN candidates lost to Trump.
/
Hillary lost for three big reasons (there are other, smaller reasons discussed at the end)
The first reason: Hillary did not address the issues important to middle America - everyday people. She should learn and apply Maslov's hierchy of needs. If people are struggling just to put food on the table, you won't get far talking about gender issues
Second reason: she took important states for granted, and did not campaign there. States like Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio...
Third reason: most of Hillary's pressers and fund raisers were with the liberal elite, like all the Hollywood celebrities. Mainstream America saw that, and said, "She does not even recognize I exist. She lives in a bubble. How can she represent me?"
Those are the biggies. Lesser reasons - which had a minor effect - were the scandals - Benghazi, and her blaming it on a video no one ever saw; her deletion of 30,000 emails; and all her lies, beginning with the one about being under sniper fire on the tarmac, and ending with "there was no classified info in my emails", and "Donald Trump is mysogynist & racist" (the evidence proves otherwise).
But the main reasons she lost are the first three I have listed, showing arrogance, ignorance and detachment from the real people of middle America.
As a side note: #1 and #3 are the same reasons why the 16 other REPUBLICAN candidates lost to Trump.
/
Saturday, January 14, 2017
Why The Popular Vote Does Not Matter - and Never Has
As we approach the inauguration of the 45th President of the United States, there has been a lot of people claiming he is not legitimate because he lost the "popular vote". Such people either have not read the Constitution, or do not understand it, because the Constitution makes it clear that the "popular vote" is only consequential on a state-by-state basis. It is not, and never has been a national vote.
To clarify, the residents of a state would vote for the candidate they want in office. The popular vote in that state determines only which candidate their own electors will vote for. This popular vote is not supposed to have any impact on a national scale other than the power of their electors in the Electoral College.
Take New Hampshire as an example, which has 4 electoral votes. The voters of New Hampshire cast their votes for the candidate of their choice. If, for example, the plurality of voters vote for the Democrat candidate, the state's four electors would cast their ballots for the Democrat. And the popular vote of NH will have no impact beyond that, and is not counted along with the votes of other states - at least not for purposes of electing the President.
In other words, there is not one, national popular vote count. Instead, there are 50 separate popular votes. They do not get added together for election purposes. NH votes go to the NH electors; and Florida votes go to Florida electors. One does not affect the other.
Now for the reason behind this.
The Founders determined rather quickly that if a President were elected by a popular vote on a national scale, one or two heavily populated states would forever control the entire country, and we would not have a government of, by and for the people. The people of Boston and Philadelphia would rule over all the states, particularly those in the south. They decided, for the sake of fairness, that there should be electors from each state, and the popular vote in each state, separately, would determine how their state votes. No state would have the power to affect how other states vote.
Right now, California has 55 electors because the state is so large. If their popular vote could be combined with other populous states like New York, 48 states would never be represented.
And that is why the popular vote does not, and never has determined an election. The Electoral college does that, on a state-by-state basis, giving each state a fair shot at helping to choose who sits in the Oval Office.
/
To clarify, the residents of a state would vote for the candidate they want in office. The popular vote in that state determines only which candidate their own electors will vote for. This popular vote is not supposed to have any impact on a national scale other than the power of their electors in the Electoral College.
Take New Hampshire as an example, which has 4 electoral votes. The voters of New Hampshire cast their votes for the candidate of their choice. If, for example, the plurality of voters vote for the Democrat candidate, the state's four electors would cast their ballots for the Democrat. And the popular vote of NH will have no impact beyond that, and is not counted along with the votes of other states - at least not for purposes of electing the President.
In other words, there is not one, national popular vote count. Instead, there are 50 separate popular votes. They do not get added together for election purposes. NH votes go to the NH electors; and Florida votes go to Florida electors. One does not affect the other.
Now for the reason behind this.
The Founders determined rather quickly that if a President were elected by a popular vote on a national scale, one or two heavily populated states would forever control the entire country, and we would not have a government of, by and for the people. The people of Boston and Philadelphia would rule over all the states, particularly those in the south. They decided, for the sake of fairness, that there should be electors from each state, and the popular vote in each state, separately, would determine how their state votes. No state would have the power to affect how other states vote.
Right now, California has 55 electors because the state is so large. If their popular vote could be combined with other populous states like New York, 48 states would never be represented.
And that is why the popular vote does not, and never has determined an election. The Electoral college does that, on a state-by-state basis, giving each state a fair shot at helping to choose who sits in the Oval Office.
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)