Archives for April 2011

My “pets”

Leading academics have decreed that animals should no longer be called critters, beasts, or pets.

From now on, they are to be referred to as “companion animals.”  People are no longer owners, but “human carers.”

Oh, and wildlife isn’t wild anymore — it’s now called “free living.”

Where exactly are these academics leading?

I don’t need anyone to tell me; I know my place when it comes to the animals living in my home.

I am not their “owner.”

I am their servant.



Good cop, bad cop

The police have a thankless, nearly impossible job. They keep the peace and protect the general public from dangerous criminal elements.

Los Angeles County Sheriff’s homicide detective Kevin Lloyd is a good cop.

While flipping through a collection of pictures displaying gang member tattoos, he recognized the scene of an unsolved homicide he had investigated.

Rivera 13 gang member Anthony Garcia boasted of his involvement in the murder of liquor store employee John Juarez in a tattoo displayed prominently on his chest. Lloyd’s alert observation led to Garcia’s arrest and conviction on charges of first degree murder.

Garcia faces a sentence of up to 65 years in prison, thanks to Lloyd’s excellent detective work.

He’s a good cop.

Derek Colling is a bad cop.  The Las Vegas patrolman physically assaulted homeowner Mitchell Crooks for videotaping the arrest of multiple burglary suspects.  Crooks made the mistake of initially denying he stood in his own driveway while he filmed the arrest.

For the record, nothing unusual was happening while Crooks filmed the arrests.  No police brutality came into the picture until Colling attacked Crooks, who was merely tested out his new video camera.

We should be encouraged to cooperate with the police, not to be afraid of them.


The redistribution of wealth

The United States of America originally formed as a republic of democratically elected representatives. However, Congress obviously no longer serves our best interests.

Government officials now only serve themselves, in order to be reelected or keep their public sector job.  Apparently, virtually every Democrat (and most Republicans) willingly accepts the status quo.

While the TEA (acronym meaning Taxed Enough Already) party advocates nobly suggest we prevent our country from becoming socialist, I’m afraid to be the bearer of bad news.

I offer four examples of socialism that already occur under our existing form of government.

Three of these examples I know for a fact to be true, having personally verified them.  The fourth example is an anecdote I heard on the radio and cannot confirm, but I have no reason to disbelieve the story knowing the first three examples are factual.

  1. When the BP oil spill occurred in the Gulf of Mexico, President Barack Obama ordered the international corporation to not pay dividends that had been declared, posted and were ready to be distributed to its shareholders.  Even though the company had cash to pay both the dividends and the demanded extortion of $20 billion dollars into the slush fund to be managed by the president’s cronies, they were ordered not to pay.  Obama’s unprecedented act of hubris personally cost my 98 year old grandmother a whopping $17,000.   The majority of her small retirement income comes from BP stock dividends from stock my grandfather earned after spending his entire career with American Oil/Amoco that BP bought after his retirement.
  2. The next example involves a young woman with a child.  For a short period of time, she was a single mother.  The child’s biological father died prematurely in an accident after working part time and contributing into the system for only a year or two.  He might have paid a few thousand dollars into the Social Security system at most.   The mother has remarried; she and the child are by no means destitute.  They would have never been in danger of suffering in poverty if “the system” had not began to provide benefits.  The mother’s family had resources to provide for her and the child.  The deceased father’s family also were very supportive.  Nevertheless, Social Security still sends an “entitlement” check to the child for around $500 every month.  She will continue to receive checks until she reaches the age of 18.   According to my rough calculations, the child will draw over $100,000 from Social Security than the government took from the father before he died.   Money is being drained from Social Security the recipients never paid into the system.
  3. Our third case of government abuse is a variation on the second example, arguably worse except for the fact the family really needed the money.  A while back, my church helped a refugee family resettle from another country as they fled from religious persecution.   The father, mother, and older children all found jobs and began working, but they struggled.  Someone in the church figured out that the grandmother who didn’t speak English and never worked in the U.S. a day in her life could receive a check from Social Security.  In their case, as with the young mother, I felt the “exception” was a drop in the bucket.  But there are two drops of which I’m personally familiar with the details.  The bucket is only so big.  If the government didn’t confiscate wealth, would we continue to support people like these refugees through our support of privately managed social programs?  I can only speak for myself, but my answer is “yes.”
  4. A caller to a radio talk show claimed to be a CPA who’d recently prepared his brother’s taxes.  The brother paid a grand total of $100 in federal taxes and allegedly received a tax “refund” of $1500.  How can you get back more than you pay?  The answer is that government takes it from somebody else who earned the money, but they don’t get a refund.  They probably get a bill to pay more taxes.

These are insidious true stories of government redistribution of wealth at work.  Some examples of abuse and waste are more egregious than others.

However, we can’t afford to ignore any of these examples.  The U.S. is becoming bankrupt — take note of yesterday’s Standard and Poor’s announcement of the downgrade of our national debt.  If the clowns currently in office can’t figure this out pretty quick, we’re going to need to make even more drastic changes when we finally do try to fix things.

We may have to scrap the whole system and start over by reverting to reliance on the document forming the foundation of this great nation: the Constitution.


Paying for tax cuts

President Obama recently admitted, “I said, ‘You want to repeal health care? Go at it. We’ll have that debate. You’re not going to be able to do that by nickel-and-diming me in the budget. You think we’re stupid?'”

No, but he thinks we are.

Government spending on social issues has escalated recklessly out of control.  The clever use of the euphemism “paying for tax cuts” is used in lieu of describing what is actually necessary, a massive reduction in government spending.

It’s a well-established technique.  Repackage the unpleasant truth in flowery language to win support from gullible people.

Nobody is against or “anti” anything anymore.

When anti-abortion activists declared their movement to be “pro-life”, those opposed could not say they were “pro-abortion.”  So they are “pro-choice”, or cast their position as in favor of a woman’s reproductive rights.

How can anyone oppose choice?  Well, the baby might object.

Of course, a man’s reproductive rights begin and end at intercourse.  Once the woman is pregnant, it is only her choice whether or not to have the baby.

If she chooses to have the baby, she can have the courts order the biological father to financially support her child even if she refuses to marry the father (in the rare case he’s willing.)

Courts have even ruled that if a man is not the father but pays support for an extended period of time due to a mistake, he isn’t off the hook until the child reaches eighteen.

Most often, his interest in the child ended with his sperm donation, and the “deadbeat” Dad will do anything to shirk his responsibility.  That why biological parenthood and marriage can form a winning combination.  If the unwed mother wishes to abort the child, the father cannot prevent her.  If she insists on raising the baby, he’s responsible for child support.  Which person could be more accurately described as having been “screwed” by modern society for having unprotected premarital sex, the male or the female?

Let’s return to this idea of “paying for tax cuts” — the joke is to suggest the government pays for anything.  It doesn’t create anything.  It just takes away.

Yet we the people are the government.

We’ve only got ourselves to blame for electing clowns like Lindsey Graham, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, or Olympia Snowe.   The Washington elitist crowd from a mindset that our collective personal income is actually the total of government revenue.

We are allowed to keep a portion they generously distribute according to our needs (and voting habits.)

Now I can help vote Saxby Chambliss out of office if his votes don’t reflect my wishes.  But I find myself powerless to do anything about Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi.  I am at the mercy of the citizenry of Nevada and California, respectively.

The government must “pay” for tax cuts by a reduction in government spending — specifically at the federal level.

It’s quite simple.  There is a certain amount of money the government is entitled to request from its taxpayers in order to ” establish justice and ensure domestic tranquility” through fair taxation, responsibilities prescribed by the preamble of the Constitution.

In return, we’re supposed to get fair representation. Today for our Congress, we have a circus comprised only of clown acts.

Tax money is specifically intended to “provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty” of its citizens.

Instead, what the government does today is create domestic discord and economic strife through the use of “progressive” tax rates to ensure fair redistribution of our collective economic wealth, pitting the rest of us against “the evil rich.”

They employ incomprehensible tax laws that President Obama himself could not begin to explain.  That’s why he hired a boatload of new IRS auditors.

There is also the application of antiquated social laws (the drug wars) to manipulate the masses and raise government revenue by punishing selected private citizens for otherwise victimless crimes.

Tough problem; simple solution: cut spending AND raise taxes.

Support a fair, flat, or consumption tax.

Legalize and tax marijuana.  End the stupid, expensive and futile war on drugs.  The only ones currently turning a profit are the criminals.

Reform these massive social programs so that seniors depending on them can rest assured.  Protect their retirement.  The rest of us who are still willing to work can create our own safety net by acquiring wealth and then keeping it to dispense as we choose.

The deadbeats that don’t want to work can depend on social programs, which will explode with income once the government stops stealing most of what we earn.  Allow the American individual decide how to spend his income.

If we need to raise revenue in addition to spending cuts, end the senseless assault on victimless crime.  Rather than raising money by giving otherwise law abiding citizens a criminal record for using illegal drugs versus legal ones such as alcohol, tobacco or prescription drugs.

Just tax the dope smoker and leave him alone.