Lynching Race


Jim Rockford, well-known television private detective, sits with his female client at his favorite taco stand.  A mother and her daughter have died violently in separate incidents within six months of each other.  They both died in the same jurisdiction in which only two autopsy surgeons manage the medical examiner’s office.  Rockford’s patron, a newspaper reporter, suspects corruption at the office for several reasons but needs Rockford’s investigative skills to help her discover the truth.

 Jim Rockford: well known fictional detective

Rockford muses to his customer, “What’s the chance both autopsies were done by the same surgeon – 50/50?” “No”, she says.  “It’s 50/50 that he does the mother.  It’s only 25% probable that he does both mother and daughter.” Rockford straightens with the insight this provides.  “Right!” he says.


With the nomination of Ms. Loretta Lynch, Mr. Obama has apparently confined his choices of candidates for Attorney General (AG) to certain offices within the Department of Justice (DOJ).  Out of the 10,592 employees of the Executive Office of US Attorneys and US Attorneys (DOJ), 58% are female and 14.3% are black.   Employing the Rockford Understanding, these statistics can be used to compute the probabilities associated with picking two Attorneys General (AGs) from this DOJ pool, or any subset thereof (e.g., only US District Attorneys), that is chosen without consideration of either gender or race.  The underlying presumption of such computations is that talent is not confined by, or to, either race or gender.  Our president should have also abided by this presumption.


It should be obvious to the most casual observer that Mr. Obama’s selection of Mr. Holder, followed by his selection of Ms. Lynch, is a case so rare that it would, under unbiased circumstances, occur less often than 5 times in every 1,000 similar scenarios.  The only selections more rare would have been for our president to have chosen two black men from these offices of the DOJ as his AGs. If the president’s plan was to further certify his concern for minorities, then he could have easily chosen more probable cases and still have been viewed as a man for women and for blacks.  For example, compared to the rare event associated with the demographics of his actual picks, it would have been 50 times more likely that two non-black women would have been selected, and more than 10 times more likely that, having chosen Mr. Holder, he would have then selected a non-black, in race and gender neutral searches within these portions of the DOJ.

WHAT RACISM IS . . . .  

The essence of racism is the unjustifiable assignment of characteristics to humans on the basis of their . . . .  errrr . . . . . . ahhhhhhh . . . . . skin color.

What is now abundantly clear is that being black is no bar to either incompetent or unethical behavior as AG.  Further, one may now correctly claim that all of America’s black AGs have been held in contempt by Congress, while none of America’s non-black AGs has ever been held in contempt by Congress. In addition, being black has not prevented Mr. Holder from displaying an inappropriate personal ethnic and cultural agenda during his six years as a Cabinet Member in this administration. Thus, beyond the establishment of a black legacy of AGs, Mr. Obama’s preference for higher quantities of epidermal melanin in his Department of Justice (DOJ) Cabinet Members does not seem to qualify one in any exceptional way to be a competent, much less ethical or impartial, AG.  Then again, neither does being white, brown, red, yellow, etc., – a message the emotionally oversensitive, along with our president, will probably have missed up to this point.


Mr. Obama’s improbable nomination of Loretta Lynch for AG generates a curiosity regarding Barack’s racial corruption.  This interest is closely related to, and as benign as, questioning the nepotistic corruption of a president who nominated his brother for AG.

  Loretta Lynch: less well known Attorney General

There is certainly nothing wrong with being a brother (no pun intended).  However, in the absence of other curricula vitae, one might legitimately examine what qualifications a sibling might possess in order to be a good AG. Similarly, there is nothing wrong with being black; and there is nothing wrong with being simultaneously black and female.  However, in the absence of other curricula vitae, one might legitimately examine what qualifications representatives of two national minorities might possess to be good AGs.


Why, then, would our black president express his apparent preference for black AGs? Practical people will understand that any president would want to ensure that his secrets are kept, his policies are followed, and his opinions are supported by any nominee for whom he seeks Senate approval.  However, this only begs the question whether Mr. Obama believes that he must rely on skin pigmentation similar to his own in order to acquire and hold such allegiances. Alternatively, Mr. Obama may have wished that his black AG foster further discussion on race in America, under his presumption that blacks have more credibility in these discussions.  Unfortunately, he knew the results of this tactic long before he selected his second black AG.


First, of course, no president should employ selection criteria relative to their Cabinet-level nominees that consider anything other than leadership, ability, and ethical standards.  This excludes race and gender as such standards. Second, Congress, in its constitutionally ordained Advice and Consent role, should ensure that candidates who are incompetent, agenda driven, or ethically challenged are not approved for appointment. It’s unlikely that we’ll get highly qualified nominees for AG from a president who is as unable and as unwilling to select competence and ethical behavior over race or gender as this chief executive is.  Nevertheless, hope springs enternal that Loretta will be better than Eric.  Perhaps, she can learn from recent history. We should all be buoyed, however, by the nincompoop-in-chief’s reaction to Bibi’s lecture to him during the Prime Minister’s speech before Congress this morning. Obama apparently can be shamed as evidenced by his immature reaction to pull his “JV” executive branch team members from the audience today.  Perhaps such shame will motivate the president to do a better job at negotiating Iran’s nuclear capabilities.  Perhaps such common sense criticism should have been whispered in BO’s ear before he indulged in nation building within Libya, believed the propaganda about ObamaCare being a “big fucking deal”, or thought that another $8 trillion in national debt was acceptable. ` `


The Quest For Social Justice

The Left, that political philosophy whose noble goal is social justice through government, is weakening in America.  This is not only because its outcomes are so often counterproductive or trivial.  It’s also because its announced policies are sometimes so hilarious that no one, except the most intellectual and thereby the least practical, can take them seriously.  In truth, even Leftists are beginning to notice their own peculiarities.

Now come The Wall Street Journal and the Daily Beast to report that:

“ . . . . administrators, faculty, and staff members at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York (CUNY) will no longer use these (‘Mr.’, ‘Mrs.’ , ‘Ms.’, ‘Miss.’) gendered salutations in exchanges with students.

Under a new university policy, CUNY staffers are instructed to omit [these terms] from ‘all types of correspondence’ with students and prospective students, . . . . . . . including ‘address and salutation, mailing labels, bills or invoices, and any other forms or reports.’”

CUNY, in a response to those who called seeking clarification for this incredulity were told that its basis lies in national law, specifically Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972 (as extended and amended in 1988, 1994, 2002, 2006), which now states, among other things, that:

“No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

This spectacular piece of lawmaking gives us female football players at the expense of men’s soccer teams at some high schools and colleges.  It eliminates all athletic programs at coed colleges whose enrollment is mostly female.  It bestows the blessings of 15 males on the 34-member women’s fencing team at Cornell.

On the other hand, CUNY’s ruling now eliminates the gender-based term ‘Ms.’, coined by Ms. Gloria Steinmen, from approved campus communication.  This might be deemed a victory for those who remember an American society in which ‘Mr.’ and ‘Mrs.’ conveyed respect.

Nevertheless, Hallelujah!

The shackles of student gender and marital identification at CUNY have been broken upon the altar of politically correct speech!



The obvious extrapolation of CUNY reasoning is to eliminate gender biases from dormitories, fraternities, sororities, bathrooms, and toilets at educational institutions receiving federal funding.  After that, there will the curriculum adjustment that proscribes any association of the term ‘penis’ to men and the term ‘vulva’ to women.  At this pinnacle of political correctness and intimate obedience to federal law, the fullest use of Title IX in regulating speech may be realized.

No doubt, gender non-conformists will be well pleased and well accommodated under CUNY’s new policy.  This class is, of course, a huge proportion of the American population.  However, even if the gender- and sex-confused were only a small part of our society, CUNY policies are well worth implementing everywhere, eh?

Maybe Bruce Jenner can now proudly enroll again in the university of his choice and repeat his athletic accomplishments as a woman.

Earrings?  Make Up?  Say it ain't so!

At that point, the Utopia that the Left envisions should be here.  If it isn’t, then it will be because there won’t be any from the Left who have the courage to claim their membership in such a perfectly embarrassing and petty society.

I’m An Okie From Muskogee!

Muskogee, Oklahoma

Mr. Terence D. Walker, a 21 year-old black man, was unjustifiably and brutally executed on Saturday, 17 January, 2015, by white police officer Chancey McMillin in this small, eastern Oklahoma town.

The entire incident was documented by Officer McMillin’s body camerapursuant to the deepest desires of our president (Obama) and his Attorney General (Holder).  Both Obama and Holder are convinced, along with their closest advisor in these matters, His Excellency, Most Right Reverend, Al Sharpton, that the most important aspect of the annual toll of 8,000 black deaths in America is the cruel and unwarranted homicides of innocent black men at the hands of white police officers who kill blacks solely because these white, supremacist, privileged, racist policemen hate Negroes.

To the great credit of these three contrarian leaders (Obama, Holder, Sharpton), they believe this despite ample evidence, truth, and logic that does not support their opinion.  However, to justify their emotional conclusions beyond reasonable doubt, the president recently launched a campaign to spend $263 million in order to equip 50,000 additional white police officers, most of whom operate in black neighborhoods, with body cameras.

Truly, there are none as heroic as those who will spend public funds in the quest to rationalize their grossly misguided thinking.

The payoff has come sooner than expected in the town that once was the object of affection for singer / songwriter Merle Haggard.  If Sharpton is as consistent with his principles and as effective with his protests as he was in Ferguson, Missouri, then there won’t be much left of this sleepy, little, Oklahoma backwater after the pillaging and looting next week.

Hallelujah and Amen!


Thanks to the video from Officer McMillin’s point of view, there is ample justification now for Sharpton’s oft-expressed concerns.

Officer McMillin was one of several policemen dispatched to the Old AgencyBaptist Church on a report of a man disrupting pending marital services, carrying a gun, and issuing threats.  The threats included those directed at his ex-girlfriend (who was attending this wedding) such as “I have a bullet with your name on it.”.

So insensitive is the Muskogee police department, largely composed of white men (all of whom have distant relatives who were members of the Ku Klux Klan), that neither the dispatcher nor Officer McMillin understood that such gun rituals and death threats are common expressions of love and affection from the congregation during the liturgy of most black marriage ceremonies.

First, therefore, Officer McMillin, and his fellow officers, should not have answered this call.  Obviously, no lives were at risk; no public welfare was at stake; and, clearly, a pussy white person called this in just to harass Negroes.  This was all, in fact, “normal” black behavior.

It is just as “normal” as 40 shootings per summer weekend among black perpetrators and their black victims in Chicago and just as “normal” as non-police blacks killing each other at the abovementioned rate of 8,000 per year in America.  In short, these are the cases about which we avoid talking, much less about which we avoid doing anything. We prefer to focus instead on the white policeman killing black man cases, of which there may be no unjustifiable incidents.


Nevertheless, this white policeman, and his brothers, stupidly responded and quickly identified Walker as the alleged perpetrator described in the complaint.  As shown in the video, Officer McMillin approached Walker and asked that he, and his nearby associate, remove their hands from their pockets.

This alone was a clear violation of the soon-to-be-ratified constitutional right of descendants of former slaves in America to have their hands in their pockets at any time, as specified in the proposed “Reparations Amendment”.  This amendment was adamantly promoted by the Reverend Martin Luther King, while he hypocritically expressed his hope that his children would not be judged by the color of their skin, but instead solely by the content of their character.

Further, Officer McMillin made another crucial mistake at this point. Under the ‘Eric Garner Doctrine’ regarding white policemen ganging up on innocent black men, the policemen should have immediately called for the required back up of the local Black Sensitivity Training Squad and (just to be fair and balanced) the Left White Justice Patrol.  Both are easily reached by calling the NAACP, SCLC, or National Urban League and asking for the Tawana Brawley Central Office of Black Victimization.

Second, unfortunately, Officer McMillin failed to take the time to make Walker aware of his pending constitutional rights and to call for the required social support back up.  This failure alone would lead, of course, inevitably to Walker’s unjustified death at the hands of this police officer, who clearly believes, at this point in the video, in his white supremacy and privilege.


Instead, again as shown in the video, Officer McMillin rudely and roughly asked Walker to turn around and place his hands behind his back.  At this point, Walker, well within his rights, went into full “stiffen up” Eric Garner mode, responding to Officer McMillin’s question, “Do you have anything that will stick, stab, poke or hurt me?” with the perfectly legal black lie “No!” and “Why you shakin’ for?” with the well-known, innocent, black man response “Because! . . . .”.

Within two seconds, Officer McMillin feels the handgun Walker is carrying.  In turn, Walker feels Officer McMillin feel the weapon and does what any innocent black man would do under the circumstances.  He bolts.

A short foot chase ensues, during which the handgun Walker was carrying falls out of his clothing onto the asphalt street.  In plain view now, Officer McMillin recognizes the object on the ground as a weapon; and he sees Walker bend to pick it up.

Clearly, at this juncture, the “Michael Brown Doctrine” regarding impending bodily harm is invoked.  However, instead of waiting for Sharpton to appear in order to excuse Walker’s lie about the wedding handgun, to explain Walker’s fear, to justify Walker’s flight to avoid arrest, and to approve Walker’s rearming himself after dropping his weapon, Officer McMillin immediately and ruthlessly proceeds to fire his weapon five times, striking Walker three times.  This caused the death of this unfortunate, innocent, beautiful, black boy, whom everyone knows meant no harm with his (later discovered) fully loaded firearm, prevarication, and attempted innocent retrieval of his personal property that fell from his clothes while he was fleeing the police.

Third, consequently, while the failure of the Sharpton to appear in a timely manner to defuse this incident may be deemed a contributing cause in the death of Walker, this can be rectified by placing Al in charge of the Grand Jury commissioned to investigate this incident with the object of charging Officer McMillin with crimes for which the minimum punishment is death by simultaneous drawing, quartering, burning at the stake, firing squad, and electrocution.

Further, Oklahoma law requires burying while alive anyone who survives these punishments especially after being convicted of the kind of black oppression this video documents.

In the presence of this video, there can be little doubt about the virtue of Walker, now just another victim of white, racist, police, homicidal rage.  Also, in the presence of this video, there can be little speculation about either the unjustified racism or the barbaric brutality of Officer McMillin.

Officer McMillin has expressed no remorse for his participation in the extra-judicial assassination of Walker.  Instead, while shedding false tears, he wondered “Why did he (Walker) have to do that?”  One cannot be more callous than that.

Somebody ought to be ‘lynched’ in Muskogee, Oklahoma; there is no question about that.  We can only hope that our hero, Sharpton, will show up to witness these proceedings and to comment upon them.

The Four Fingers

The first finger is about your significant other, the rest are about you.

A friend of mine, from San Diego, is a widower.  Recently, three of us shared a vacation with him in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.  Despite the fact that he lost his wife nearly ten years ago, he spoke often and lovingly of her while we were together.

His fond memories frequently seem rooted in his admiration of her creative ability to keep their relationship affectionate and peaceful.  In this vein, one of her techniques was to teach him about “The Four Fingers”:

The first finger (fore finger) stands for “You’re right.”

The second finger (middle finger) stands for “I’m wrong.”

The third finger (ring finger) stands for “I’m sorry.”

The fourth finger (pinky finger) stands for “How can I make it better for you next time, Honey?”

One might assume that the lover who discovers that he or she is incorrect on any disputed matter recites “The Four Fingers” to the other.  This misses the point.

Arguments between those who profess the significance of the other in their life are regularly the habitual rancor between two debaters, each of whom is convinced that they are correct to the extent that nothing will persuade them otherwise.  Reciting “The Four Fingers” to one’s cohort in such cases sends the message that the relationship is more important than winning.


Initially, reciting “The Four Fingers” to one’s partner is done explicitly and seriously.  Doing so associates the attached philosophy to the significant shift this represents in many relationships.  Certainly, sincerity should always be the foundation upon which this message is conveyed.

However, the magic associated with this message is that, once incorporated within the bond two people share, it only becomes necessary to wave the four fingers in the direction of one’s lover to cause both to smile with the understanding of an inside joke whose significant ramifications are often life changing.

The One Thing Government Should Provide

Barack Obama’s policies and governing style have been soundly rejected after last night’s elections.  Even Salon admits to a “shellacking”.  At the same time, Salon makes its standard dire (and stupid) predictions about what Republicans will now do to end the American utopia, as their editorial board envisions it.

Thom Tillis speaking to Collectivists

Such electoral turnovers are the easily predicted consequence when a president is chosen predicated upon his skin color and not upon the content of his character.  Thus, race is once again proven no indicator of leadership ability, intellectual capacity, or administrative competence.  Further, we now know that a resume of neighborhood organizing, teaching, and legislating at the State and federal level hardly qualifies one for the highest executive position in the land.

On the other hand, to the extent Salon’s predictions imply that Republican control of Congress is no panacea for what ails our country, they are correct.  Republicans and Democrats have both promoted sufficient numbers of self-serving and idiotic politicians to national office during the past eighty years to install a huge system by which many votes can, and are, purchased from the beneficiaries of the national dole.

Our national government now disburses all it collects, and two-thirds of all it spends, on those who claim to be unfortunate.  Few who go to Washington DC seem either courageous enough or smart enough to recognize this.


However, Thom Tillis, who took a seat away from incumbent Kay Hagan (no Democrat has been reelected to a congressional senate seat from North Carolina in 60 years), said this in his victory speech:

“. . . America is made great when we let Americans [not government] make America great, . . . ”  

“. . .  we [must] stop accepting this idea that people want to be provided for by government.  The problem with that is that the only way government can provide you with something is by taking it away from somebody else.”  

“There’s only one thing government can give you that doesn’t come at the expense of anyone else, and that’s Freedom.” 


I wonder how many others Senator Tillis will find in Washington DC who agree with these sentiments?  If there are enough, then there may be hope for America yet.

Race Baiters Aren’t Protesting Antonio Smith

Antonio Smith (pictured) was shot at least four times in a Chicago suburb this past Wednesday afternoon.  One bullet pierced his heart.

number one bro

He was a 9 year old fourth grader who left his apartment after a dispute with his mother.  He died near the border between two south-side Chicago gangs.

On this same day, an additional seven people were shot in Chicago, apparently all black, including a 17 year old boy who was the victim of a drive-by shooting.

Because all the perpetrators of the foregoing are known, or presumed to be, black, Al Sharpton will be unable to appear on their behalf to incite rioting or looting.  Also, Brittney Cooper will be unable write an article for Salon justifying black outrage over the death of Antonio Smith.  Finally, Chauncey DeVega will be unable to concoct ten more reasons to justify his view that white racism plays a role in . . . . . well . . . . .  everything.


Salon, three days after Antonio Smith’s death at the hands of unknown assailants, but more than two weeks after Michael Brown’s death in Ferguson, Missouri, at the hands of a white police officer, has 41 articles on its front page, of which 12 have the following titles:

·        Death in the suburbs: Why Ferguson’s tragedy is America’s story

·        White privilege: An insidious virus that’s eating America from within

·        Michael Brown, senseless death and the weight of history

·        How do you explain racism to your black son?

·        Ferguson is about net neutrality, too

·        Russell Brand absolutely demolishes Fox News over Ferguson coverage

·        Grand jury hearing evidence in Michael Brown case is 75 percent white

·        Dinesh D’Souza compares Ferguson protesters to ISIS

·        Researchers: Police likely provoke protestors — not the other way around

·        Ted Nugent on Ferguson: “Smear on”

·        Alabama teacher allegedly told students to re-enact the killings of Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin

·        Ferguson and Gaza: The definitive study of how they are and are not similar

There is not one word from Salon about Antonio Smith.


Perhaps Al Sharpton has a legitimate excuse for missing the Antonio Smith case.  He is polishing his eulogy for Michael Brown, whose funeral will be on Monday, two days hence.

At this time, it is unknown what occupies Ms. Cooper’s or Mr. DeVega’s time to the extent where they cannot comment about Antonio Smith, or any other black-on-black death in Chicago, or elsewhere.


Despite all those (more notorious than the author) who seek credibility and (further) fame by agonizing over Michael Brown’s death alone, it might be time to seek credibility (but not noteriety) by agonizing over both his and Antonio Smith’s deaths.

In fact, it might be time to object to all unjustified deaths.

Salon vs Open Salon

Open Salon may again be more worthy of respect than its parent – Salon.

Today, Salon is full of the suicide of a famous comic.  This may be a saving grace, because, were it not for the distraction of the death of the famous, Salon may have populated its front page with more articles such as this one.

Michael Brown Memorial - Scott Olson/Getty

Written by Ms. Brittney Cooper (Instructor in Women’s and Gender Studies and Africana Studies at Rutgers University), the headline of the article proclaims a defence of the black rage of those in Ferguson, Missouri, who are protesting the killing of Michael Brown, a black, 6’ 4”, 300-pound, teenage boy.  He was shot to death by a local, on duty, policeperson.


The police version of this story is that Brown, after being approached by police in a car, attempted to reach into the police vehicle in order to seize the weapon of the police officer who eventually shot him.  Part of the ensuing fight took place inside the vehicle; and the police allege that at least one shot was fired inside the car during this initial confrontation.

The police story is, at the least, incomplete and, at the most, nonsense.  The unarmed victim was shot multiple times, mostly outside the police car.  His body lay uncovered for several hours during the subsequent investigation on the pavement where he died.


The outraged black version of this story is that Brown, while walking with a friend in the street, was approached by police in a car and told to walk on the adjacent sidewalk.  When the boys indicated that they would be home in one minute, and thereby out of the street at that time, one or more policemen exited the vehicle.

The boys ran.  During this foot chase, a white policeman shot Michael Brown.  The victim then raised his hands, while still standing, to surrender.  The policeman who shot him then fired several more times until Michael Brown fell.  Thereafter, this same officer shot the victim at least one more time as Michael lay on the ground.

The outraged black story is, at the least, inaccurate and incomplete.  At the most, it is the fiction derived from witnesses under peer pressure to depict the specific victimization of Michael Brown in the best possible light in order to support a community narrative of general victimization.  It’s neither likely that the police would claim a fight took place inside the police car unless they had solid evidence nor is it likely that the police would use deadly force against an unarmed citizen who had been fully cooperative.


Neither version of this story is relevant to the point, however.  The point is that Ms. Cooper, along with Al Sharpton, are ignoring all black shootings this past weekend, including 26 in Chicago, in favor of placing their sentiments, if not their bodies, in Ferguson, MO, where only one shooting of a black occurred this past Saturday.

Statistically, in every 100 shootings involving black victims in America, 94 will be perpetrated by blacks.  The remaining six will be perpetrated by non-blacks, of whom most will be Hispanic, fewer will be Caucasian, and practically none will be police officers, much less white police officers.  Yet, as common as it is for a black to shoot a black, Ms. Cooper and Mr. Sharpton will neither write, nor speak, about such “black-on-black” incidents.  Instead, they will pounce on the rare case where a black is shot by a (allegedly) white policeman.

Such suspicious activity begs a a review of Ms. Cooper’s titles at Salon.  This yields the result that almost all contain the words “white”, “black”, or “racial” in their names.

A reading of several of her two dozen contributions seems to confirm that her perspective on the world is informed almost solely by race.  She writes about events where she believes the outcomes are determined by race.  She writes about people whom she believes are racial antagonists of blacks or protagonists of white racism.

What escapes Ms. Cooper is that the unjustified homicide of an African American is as tragic whether shot by a black, white, man, woman, Catholic, Mormon, lawyer, doctor, or police officer.  Thus, she fails to write about the most common manner in which blacks become victims (by being attacked by other blacks) in favor of writing only about blacks becoming victims at the hands of whites.

This makes Ms. Cooper a racist.  Based on what inspires her to write, the only black deaths important to her are the statistically rare ones in which the perpetrator is white.

It’s not only nearly 16 times more probable that a black will be victimized by a black than a non-black, but it’s also true that blacks are the perpetrators in 53% of all shootings in America, while forming only 13% of the American population.  Yet, Ms. Cooper writes:

“But the answer . . . isn’t preaching to black people about “black-on-black” crime without full acknowledgment that most crime is intraracial (sic).”

Clearly, Ms. Cooper is correct in her claim that crimes against blacks are mostly “intraracial” (sic).  Such crime, at least with respect to weaponized murder, both attempted and realized, is predominantly “black-on-black”.  Theredfore, why does she only write on the victimization of blacks when the perpetrators are allegedly white?

Again, according to the foregoing, this is also irrelevant.  The black victim is just as dead no matter who did the shooting – a distinction either lost on, or unimportant to, Ms. Cooper.


The comparative absence of articles such as Ms. Cooper’s on Open Salon is a credit to those who write here.  The child is once again more intelligent than the parent.

In addition, it’s nice that Al Sharpton condemned the looting and rioting in Ferguson, Missouri over the past two days.  On the other hand, Ms. Cooper approved the looting.

Unfortunately, both claim that blacks must “fight back”.

Against what?

Michael Brown Protest - Scott Olson/Getty

The best summation here might be to observe that there is a clear racial component to homicidal violence perpetrated against blacks.  Unfortunately, neither Ms. Cooper, nor Mr. Sharpton, nor Salon can deduce, or recognize, what it is.


OK, I’ll Take ObamaCare

Well, I don’t know about anybody else.  All I know is that I belong to no organized political party.  I’m a registered Republican.

Will Rogers -- Famous Liberal Democrat

Nevertheless, I have deduced at least one thing out of this entire mess regarding ObamaCare.  I’ll take it as long as we balance the federal budget this year, and for the 29 years thereafter.

In fact, if we balance the national budget for the next 30 years, then who would care if the Socialists / Democrats / Progressives / Liberals want a program to send federal agents onto the streets to throw $100 bills at homeless people?  We can only hope that Congress, as our only organized criminal class capable of buying support this way, wouldn’t vote for that kind of nonsense; but it’s likely no one ever lost money underestimating their intelligence.

Mark Twain - Famous Non-Progressive Liberal

Of course, I wouldn’t support such legislation.  However, I, for one, would accept the concept of free money to the homeless knowing that balanced budgets for the next 30 years would eliminate our $17 trillion debt and that there wouldn’t be another debt ceiling vote in Congress.

Unfortunately, the reality is that, during the most recent five years, our federal government has collected only $2.2 trillion annually, while spending $3.6 trillion annually.  The resulting regular occurrence of a $1.4 trillion deficit has taken a manageable $10 trillion national debt five years ago to one that portends immediate bankruptcy today if our creditors conclude that American wealth won’t soon catch up to the printing presses at the Mint.

In case you haven’t received the memo, that is about what this government shutdown and big partisan debate is.

The coincidence that our national government annually spends on social entitlement welfare programs almost exactly what it collects yearly from all sources leads to a simple perspective: We borrow every discretionary dollar that we spend. 

From this point of view, the solution to balancing the budget through spending reductions seems clearly to lie on a line segment defined by the following two endpoints:

  1. cut $1.4 trillion (64%) out of all ($2.2 trillion) non-discretionary funding
  2. cut all ($1.4 trillion) discretionary funding

Most of us might be happy with almost anything in between.

For those who believe that we can squeeze more out of those undeservedly rich, greedy bastards without them continuing to insist on more access, influence, and attention to their interests by government in exchange, psychological counseling (now ‘free’ under ObamaCare) might be in order.  On the other hand, we could broaden the tax base, simplify the Tax Code, and attempt to raise additional, significant (relative to our annual deficits), revenues from more Americans, on top of what ObamaCare will now collect from us.


What America Should Do About Syria

“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.  That would change my calculus,”   

“That would change my equation. . . . . . We’re monitoring that situation very carefully.  We have put together a range of contingency plans.”  

Those who have unceasingly praised our President in the past now seem to understand his failing.  He is a man suffering from chronic verbal diarrhea, which is seldom, if ever, expelled by the force of either information or intelligence.

The predicate event for such insight arises from the impossibility of reconciling the explicit and implicit meanings of the presidential remarks, quoted above, and a recent series of retrenchments explaining, revisions of, and retreats from, his initial, inexactly defined, position regarding (his view of) America’s motivation to impose military force upon Syria’s civil war.  However, further thought among his many new critics may well generate other questions – such as why a Nobel Peace Prize recipient is one of the few on Earth now recommending violence as a solution to Syrian atrocities.

Truly, Barack Obama is the President most likely to prove the wisdom of Calvin Coolidge about keeping silent, especially in the absence of teleprompters.

One does not need the postnatal history of the quoted remarks to find the unintended humor and sad foolishness of a man whose apparent allusions to mathematical (e.g., “calculus”, “equation”) precision invite the immediate comparison to his metric of “a whole bunch of chemical weapons” in the same thought.  This alone betrays the kind of mind that believed (apparently as a matter of subjective faith and not of objective, rational thought) that it was sensible to claim that entrepreneurs did not build their own businesses, that health insurance rates would decrease under the mandates of the horribly misnamed Affordable Care Act, and that adding $7 trillion (thus far) to a $10 trillion national debt implies neither a budget nor a debt crisis.

The President may deny today that the “red lines” are his, preferring instead to claim that those behaviors to which he was referring have long been established by treaty as outside accepted international norms.  However, note that his initial remarks emphasized how the Syrian behavior would change HIS calculus and HIS equation and that it would cross a red line for (the royal) US.  Also, he is incorrect in any claim, implied or otherwise, that Syria has signed any treaty, or is obligated by any law, that prohibits the use of poisonous gas against its own people during civil war.

The first thing that we must do about Syria is never elect again an individual as shallow in thought, as poorly informed, or as inexperienced in leadership as the incumbent egocentric is.


Those who have experienced combat will generally agree that successful results are most often produced under the maxim of “Go big or stay home.” There is no practical or effective way to fight with any objectives other than the annihilation of all opposing forces, the unconditional surrender of the vanquished, and the re-indoctrination of all survivors.

The kinds of diplomatic failure that lead to the engagement of our military should always have the seven “D”s in mind before we commit our troops and treasury to combat:

  • Defeat the opposing military forces (as quickly as possible).
  • Decimate the opposing civilian population.
  • Detain all prisoners of war (until well after hostilities cease).
  • Disarm all survivors.
  • Destroy the ability of the vanquished to make war.
  • Disband the political groups that made war.
  • Depart the conquered country
    • only after a government friendly to the conquerors has been established, and
    • only after what was broken has been fixed.

Further, each commitment to use military force should require, and demand, significant sacrifice from the civilian population which supplies the military force.

Our inexperienced BHO does not, and probably can not, understand such things.  He has no combat experience.  In fact, he has no military experience.

He’s not alone.  His predecessors, draft dodger WJC and malingerer GWB, also did not understand the circumstances under which our military forces should be engaged.  On the other hand, their predecessor, GHWB, a WWII combat veteran, did.

The ending to successful combat

 The “Highway of Death” brought to you 22 years ago by
our most recent competent Command-in-Chief

Hence, the second thing we should do about Syria is never elect again an individual as inexperienced as Barack Obama is to be Commander-in-Chief.


Listening to the arguments from this administration regarding America’s involvement in Syria reminds us what today’s Liberals often fail to understand about government.  They, who believe that the solution to every social problem is the monosyllabic cry for MORE! government, cannot understand why moral outrage should not, and can not, be the basis of government intervention – in this case, the use of military force to punish and correct the behavior of the Syrian government in gassing its own citizens.

Today’s Liberals often fail to understand the prohibition of the First Amendment against our government making laws designed to regulate our morality.  Therefore, we should not be surprised to hear their exhortations to use government to regulate the moral behavior of others.

Thus, when Secretary Kerry agrees that the atrocities of the Syrian government are things for which it needs to be held “morally accountable”, he uncovers instead a powerful argument against any American involvment in the matter.  Moral arbitration is not what our governments, especially our national government, are designed to do, should be asked to do, or, in fact, are allowed to do.

Hence, the third thing we should do about Syria is to not interfere.


The chief source of our difficulties in the Middle East is our unquestioning support of Israel.  (Will it do any good here to claim that I am neither anti-Zionist nor anti-Semitic?)  However, many benefits may accrue for America, and for the world, if Israel is made to feel vulnerable.

Remaining out of the Syrian civil war is just what may be needed to make Israel believe that their security is no longer guaranteed by America.  An Israel, so softened, may thereby become disposed towards justice for the Palestinians and a peace that grants a long promised, viable, Palestinian State. The mechanism by which Israel will become a more humble nation in these circumstances will undoubtedly also lower the frustration and rage among the Arabs that surround the Jewish State, eventually.

A major hypocrisy in the attention now focused upon Syria is that the lawlessness of Israel with regard to its oppression of the indigenous population of Palestine has been, and is, largely ignored by America.  There are plenty of international norms being violated daily by Israel in Palestine; but this President hasn’t yet consulted Congress about lobbing cruise missiles into Tel Aviv or West Jerusalem.

Thus, the fourth thing we should do about Syria is to not interfere.


The repetitive nature of the recommendations of this essay is intentional.

Thanks for your time and attention!

Salon – “. . . just for the fun of it . . . .”

 Picture courtesy of London Daily Mail.  Victim on left.  His girlfriend since 2008 on right.

Chris Lane and his girl friend since 2008

Salon is the hypersensitive defender of all things it deems unjust because of racial discrimination.  Thus, it was the endless source of commentary on the ‘unjust’ initial failure to arrest George Zimmerman all the way to the ‘unjust’ final failure of a jury to find him guilty of something.

Salon has many similarly-minded supporters on OS.  However, to the credit of OS authors, few seem to be willing to comment on the racial aspects surrounding the recent death of Chris Lane.  This would make the children more intelligent than their parents, since the progenitor of OS seems unaware of a potential hypocrisy in trying to stifle discussion regarding the homicidal events in Duncan, Oklahoma.


Every retelling of how justice was subverted in the tragic case of Trayvon Martin’s death is marked by at least one significant consistency: there is never, ever, a mention of the attack by Trayvon upon George.  Why is this?

The answer is simple.  One cannot reasonably argue that Zimmerman killed Martin without cause while also mentioning the fact that Martin was beating the living daylights out of Zimmerman at the time this heartbreaking death occurred.

Of course, this is an intellectual dishonesty that is obvious even to the most casual observer.  Nevertheless, Salon is so comfortably ensconced among the emotional and the unthinking that it believes that it can continue to foist such deceit upon its weak minded readers.


Salon apparently cannot be shamed on this topic; and it hasrecently published an opinion by its political reporter decrying any comparison between the case in Sanford, Florida, in which a ‘white’ killed a ‘black’ and the case in Duncan, Oklahoma, where three ‘blacks’ are alleged to have killed a ‘white’.

Of course, this article does not mention a single word about the attack by Martin on Zimmerman.  No sir . . . . No way . . . . No how . . . .

The sarcastic question that this article begs is, “Who in their right mind would ever believe that when blacks kill a white comparisons could be made to a white killing a black?”

To be fair, what little credit this article is due stems from its recognition that the deaths of Chris Lane and Trayvon Martin are both “tragic” and “senseless”.

Wow. . . . Really?

Salon still betrays its racial investment in this discussion by pointing out that one of the three boys who has been accused of killing Chris Lane is probably white, and (apparently thereby) faces “lesser charges”.  It omits all reference to the facts alleged in the killing of Chris Lane, which are, in brief, that:

·      the boys chose Chris Lane, at random, as their target when they saw him jogging by the yard in which they were “playing”,

·      their primary motivation for killing someone whom they did not know, and with whom they had never interacted, was to indulge in the thrill “ . . . just for the fun of it . . .”

·      they, with obvious premeditation, retrieved the murder weapon, climbed into a car, drove to catch up with their victim, shot Chris Lane in the back, and immediately left the scene of the crime, and

·      prior to shooting Chris Lane, in what may have been a practice run, these three homicidal maniacs shot a mule.


You know, maybe Salon is correct.  There isn’t any comparison that can be drawn between the killing of Trayvon Martin and Chris Lane.

Nevertheless, Salon’s duplicity is astounding in trying to stifle an opposing viewpoint to the propaganda they so voluminously and vacuously published regarding their racial perspective on the George Zimmerman shooting and subsequent trial.  Further, what Salon fails, utterly, to understand is the concept of prosecutorial discretion, which should obviously have been maintained in the George Zimmerman case.

Race hustlers, whom Salon approved from the president on down, pressured the County in which Trayvon was killed to send a man to trial who did not pick the decedent at random, did not kill the decedent without a brutal interaction beforehand, did not premeditate the killing, and didn’t practice killing in advance of the homicide.  Those who think and believe as the Salon article suggests deserve what they are reaping from those who are now asking to whom the president will eventually compare himself among the accused principals in Duncan, Oklahoma.

If Salon wishes to comment substantively on the racial aspects of the killings in Sanford, Florida and Duncan, Oklahoma then it might consider two statistics from the national BJS crime report.  First, blacks comprise 13% of the American population while accounting for 53% of its homicidal perpetrators (table htus8008to1, cells D27 and E27).  Second, black victims of gun violence are the targets of black perpetrators 94% of the time.

There’s a racial component to gun violence in America, alright.  It’s just not what Salon believes, much less understands.

The Trouble With Marriage Equality

female - lesbian wedding

male-gay wedding The debate about what is euphemistically called “marriage equality” is stunning in many ways.



In its most common and intellectually shallow form, the current argument of those who contend that marriage should be gender neutral is that it is a “right”.  Among the many concepts that these claimants obviously don’t grasp is the notion that anytime a government issues a license to sanction or to allow an activity, then a restricted privilege, not an unrestricted right, is involved. In fact, civil marriage is a secular and temporal benefit that has never been granted to everyone.

At times, some local ordinances proscribed interracial marriage.  At times, some States forbade marriages where one or both applicants were infected with certain diseases.  National statutes, enacted long before DOMA, have made marriages involving more than one wife or more than one husband illegal.  Moreover, we don’t confer marriage upon men and their gerbils, or women and their horses, no matter how committed the human grooms and brides may be to their rodent or equine pets.

Distinctions may be drawn that humans may own their pets or plants but cannot own each other.  Humans may possess estates whereas all other members of the plant and animal kingdoms cannot. These differences may stop the argument that marriage is a civil right from proceeding across the entire taxonomic classification system.

However, they do not address the direct motivation for the current claims that marriage should be genderless among humans.  Moreover, they overlook two significant impediments to national interference in the concept of marriage.



Marriage licenses are primarily issued today for the purpose of documenting a relationship entitled to receive various governmental benefits: welfare, tax, privileged communication, and a plethora of others.  Consequently, the attempts to pervert this institution by same-sex partners are, in reality, not fundamentally provoked by reference either to any high-minded ideas of human equality, or to the inalienable rights endowed by the Creator, or to equal protection under the law.

Indeed, they are driven primarily by considerations such as Ms. Windsor’s complaint about paying estate tax, when she would not have been required to do so in the same situation had she been married to a man.  They are underwritten by same-sex partners who want survivor benefits from Social Security, hospital visitation rights under HIPAA, protection from being forced to testify against their partners in certain court cases, and favorable income tax treatment under the national Tax Code and any State tax codes that might apply.

This debate is fueled by worldly, trivial considerations associated with the gender discrimination of the current legal definition of marriage relative to the award of benefits by government.  Hence, when one hears about “marital rights”, both civil and otherwise, then what one sees is the cart that follows the horse of base human materialistic desire.



The gender-based definition of marriage is enshrined nationally in nearly 1,100 federal statutes, along with their associated interpretive rules, regulations, and court judgments or opinions.  Consider what might have been had the Congresses, Presidents, and Supreme Courts over the past 80 years understood, and adhered to, the Constitution.

For example, the General Welfare clause was inserted by the Framers to ensure that our national government always acted for the benefit of the nation as a whole and never in the specific interest of one sector, State, or individual. Had this interpretation been retained, Social Security would not have been enacted, nor would Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, national unemployment, housing subsidies, nor a host of other welfare programs, all of which provide national entitlement benefits to a limited number of individuals who qualify for them on the bases of their indigence, age, infirmity, employment, family size, and/or marital status.

In the absence of such national charity, specifically as such benefits are increased for couples deemed to be married, part of the motivation to have the national government recognize a same-sex union vanishes.  In fact, there go nearly one-half of the sources of the complaints regarding “marital equality” at the national level.

Similarly, the Framers inserted the Capitation clause with the vision that the national government would raise revenue by taxing the States in proportion to their populations.  Had such a system been retained, no direct taxes would have been laid upon individuals, their incomes, or their estates by the national government.

In the absence of such national taxation on individuals, specifically as such taxes are decreased for couples deemed to be married, part of the motivation to have the national government recognize a same-sex union vanishes.  In fact, there go nearly the other half of the sources of complaints regarding “marital equality” at the national level.



Debate about the definition of marriage beyond the shallow end of the intellectual pool is always tied to the moral imperatives found within oneself or such books as the Bible, Quran, or Torah.  Consequently, when Congress legislates in this area, directly or indirectly, it (probably) crosses the First Amendment line that prohibits it from making any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

This would also be true for legislation Congress passes that seeks to define, outlaw, or regulate in similar areas such as abortion, assisted suicide, (perhaps) euthanasia, unassisted suicide, etc.,.  In these cases, there is no great public interest at stake, outside of the aforementioned, congressionally-created, welfare, tax, and other public policy programs that generally should have been avoided to preserve the federal relationship the Framers envisioned between the national government and those of the States.

Unlike murder, kidnapping, or false imprisonment, where, for example, the inalienable rights are involved, congressional legislation of our morality, absent such significant public welfare, is either equivalent to a specification of religious (spiritual or moral) belief or an interference with the practice thereof.  All laws may have a moral component; however, the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses foreclose the possibility that Congress has any power to legislate on the basis of moral, spiritual, or religious conviction either primarily or alone.



Obviously, government is neither wise enough nor humble enough to restrain itself from overreaching.  This is because government is composed of the same type of humans who wish to be declared married to their same-sex partners. Each wants to extend its power over, and influence within, our society and culture.  Each wishes to garner a majority in electoral support. Each likely believes that its advocacy was, or is, undertaken with the best of intentions.

However, our national government violated the liberty that the Founders had in mind when they drafted our Constitution by incorporating a definition of marriage into the body of our national laws.  Same-sex couples offended the sensibilities of many who wished to restrict the definition of marriage to its cultural norm for the purpose of distributing welfare and entitlement benefits.

There is little doubt that both the government and the electorate will tolerate alternative lifestyles in America.  This isn’t the fountainhead of the debate. Indeed, tolerating alternate lifestyles is one thing; but paying for them is quite another.

A right response to a left invitation – Socialism 2a

Socialism 203

The image above of the title page of a paper written by Barak Hussein Obama is both complete and accurate.  It is offered here as a test for prejudice.

Minds are like parachutes.  They both work best when open.

As always, I am grateful to those who originally expressed an interest in this series.  I doubt that I am living up to anyone’s expectations.  I know that I am not meeting my own.  It was unwise to have obligated myself in this way.

My claim will always be that I did not come to OS to change minds.  If that is the applied metric to determine my success here, then I am clearly an abject failure.  However, it is always my intention to improve the quality of political discourse in this country.

Hence, it is with great appreciation that I read the responses and participate in the discussions that have occurred since the first installment was written.  To this end, this second installment is also designed to solicit your thoughts.


Socialism 202


THUS FAR . . .

American Socialists are Stupid 

As we learned last time, in the foggy land of American Socialist philosophy, those with common sense need not worry much about whether they will eventually be able to change Progressive minds.  This is because checkbook arithmetic is infinitely more powerful than the most ardent or persuasive American Socialist/Progressive.  The only substantive question is whether advocates for the American model of social welfare will stop supporting our current entitlement programs before or after our country is financially broken.  That question, in fact, may already be moot.

The total annual collection by our national government in each of the previous three fiscal years has equaled what our national government outlaid solely on such social entitlements.  For each of these years, this amount has been approximately $2.2 trillion dollars.

From this perspective, every dollar our government in Washington DC spent outside of funding this welfare state was borrowed.  The average amount of such annual borrowing for the last three fiscal years has been approximately $1.4 trillion.  In other words, America borrows about $0.39 of every dollar it spends at the national level.

These facts alone make spending 61% of a $3.6 trillion total annual budget on social entitlements unsustainable.  This is the conclusion of even the most casual observers who are not blinded by socialist ideology; and this was the point made by the first installment in this series.

While the Senate has not passed a budget for 1,046 days (as this is being written), the budgets passed by the House for the past three fiscal years have all allotted, and we have spent, approximately, $800 billion annually for the Department of Defense.  This is the largest sub-budget after our entitlement program spending.

That’s correct.  We spend $3 on entitlement welfare in America for every $1 we spend on defending our country.  To many, this represents an unacceptable order of priorities.

Don’t misread the implied meaning of the previous paragraph.  We haven’t fought a justified war since WWII.  However, the stupidity of our nation building, combat diplomacy, foreign policies is exceeded only by the stupidity of the policies underlying our homegrown brand of social welfare.

As an example of how dim-witted our entitlement programs are, consider the social contract invoked when a single mother in America receives welfare benefits in order to care for her children.  In most cases, she will lose those benefits if she becomes employed, or if she marries a man who is employed. Further, her benefits often increase if she has more children.

We might applaud the opportunity our brand of social entitlement welfare gives this mother to stay home with her children.  On the other hand, little additional thought is required to horrify most taxpayers when they realize that the incentives being provided by public expenditures under these social programs are for single, unemployed mothers to remain single and unemployed, and to become baby factories.

American Socialists are Stupider 

American entitlement welfare programs are rife with such notorious contracts.  Take the case of entitlements offered if one is involuntarily terminated from employment within most jurisdictions in this country. Unemployment benefits paid by the national government and by most State governments in America are acquired if the applicant generally can simply show three things:

  1. He became unemployed involuntarily.
  2. He was not terminated “for cause”.
  3. He remains unemployed.

That’s it.  In most American jurisdictions, your unemployment benefits are acquired, and continue within the allowed benefit period, so long as one remains unemployed under these conditions.

We may argue about whether such benefits are “sufficient”.  However, I find it amazing how many in this condition are able to dump their cars and attendant gas, insurance, maintenance, registration, and license costs, along with installment purchase or lease payments, to make ends meet.

They move back into the homes of their parents or in-laws.  They don’t have to pay for childcare.  Their incomes may become so low, and their assets so depleted, that they qualify for food stamps, subsidized housing, Medicaid, WIC, and host of other programs that leave many recipients wondering if they aren’t better off not working.

Again, a bargain is struck between government as welfare-provider and citizen as welfare-receiver in these cases under which the beneficiary is practically discouraged from seeking employment, while receiving benefits simply intended to tide him over between jobs.  In fact, while unemployment benefits may end, subsidized housing, food stamps, Medicaid, and a host of other social welfare benefits eventually attendant to his unemployment seldom have a date certain under which an unemployed beneficiary can no longer qualify to receive them – unless, of course, he dies.

American Socialists are the Stupidest

It is well beyond most American Socialist minds to contemplate that there may be a different manner by which to render government aid in such circumstances.  To them, the only solution, ever, is to cry for more government, more taxes, and more benefits for those who find themselves among the unfortunate.  To them, these terrible social contracts, made between governments and the beneficiaries of such entitlement programs, are simply an unfortunate, unavoidable, byproduct of the Socialist imperative for government to take care of those who seem unable to provide for themselves.

Bullshit . . . .


  “I, a Socialist, think we should strive toward a Socialist society, all the way to Communism.”

“If you understood what Communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your knees that one day we would become Communist.”

Jane Fonda


Nordic Socialists are Smart 

One result of the discussion after the first installment in this series was the disclosure that Swedish Socialists are smarter than American Socialists are. For example, in Sweden, before one can receive the first Kroner of unemployment benefits, an applicant must prove that they are working at least three hours per day.

That’s correct.  One must be working in order to collect unemployment benefits in Sweden.

Now, I don’t know what this “work” entails.  Since every third job in Sweden is a government job, it may be that it’s easy to obtain part-time public work to satisfy this requirement.  Alternatively, simply claiming you work three hours per day looking for work may also be work, so to speak.  Perhaps, working on your Uncle Swen’s farm milking cows for room and board is work that qualifies.  Who knows?

What’s important here is that one must be gainfully employed in order to collect unemployment benefits in Sweden.  Let’s pause here for a second to understand exactly what this does to motivate the Nordic unemployed to quickly find other work after being involuntarily terminated from their previous job.

Nordic Socialists are Smarter 

However, it gets even better under the Nordic unemployment benefit model.  Beyond this, a potential Swedish unemployment beneficiary is practically obligated to accept work that is offered; and he must be registered as a job seeker for public work.  He must also promise, in writing, to be:

• actively seeking additional work,
• prepared to travel long distances to work at a job that is offered, and
• able to relocate, and willing to be retrained, to work at a job that is offered.

In addition, the unemployment benefit associated with these conditions is reduced in the event the job from which the beneficiary was terminated was less than full-time.

These conditions almost make it worthwhile to honor a job instead of taking a risk that one would have to shovel out Uncle Swen’s cow stalls for the rest of one’s working career or risk being installed in a boring, part-time, government job just to keep collecting the unemployment checks.

Nordic Socialists are the Smartest 

The foregoing describes the ‘basic’ unemployment benefit in Sweden.  In addition, a supplementary benefit exists.

This supplementary benefit is funded as an insurance policy by private enterprises approved by the Swedish national government.   Generally, a new worker will not even be able to join an unemployment benefit group that offers this supplementary benefit until he has worked for at least four weeks, for at least 17 hours per week.  At that point, his application may be submitted and may be evaluated for five additional weeks before it is granted.   Once granted, the employee will still not qualify for unemployment benefits under this supplementary part until he:

• qualifies under the ‘basic’ conditions mentioned above,
• has been a member of the unemployment insurance group for at least 12 months,
• has worked at least six continuous months, for at least 80 hours per month, prior to making the supplementary unemployment claim.

This implies that most new workers won’t be able to even obtain a supplementary unemployment for more than 14 or 15 months after they initially begin to work and, even then, not unless their work is more than half-time, approximately.  Further, this supplementary unemployment benefit is something for which the beneficiary pays directly into his own insurance account.  It is not the Ponzi scheme derived benefit from general tax revenues for which everyone (who is employed) in America pays.  Moreover, in Sweden, but not in America, this supplementary component of unemployment benefits is also based on the beneficiary’s past employment record as well as his compensation therefor.


Socialism 201


I Wrote All of That to Write This . . . .

Entitlement welfare doesn’t have to be as stupid as it is in America.  The better debate to have would be one that centers on how to provide such welfare without the multiple and significant disincentives within it.  The better debate to have would be the one that centers on how to provide such welfare in more cost-effective ways.  The better debate to have would be the one that centers on what welfare our national government should supply, what welfare our State governments should supply, what welfare our County and City governments should supply, and, most importantly, what welfare should not be supplied by governments, at any level.

Within the context of our current national fiscal condition, today’s entitlement debate, to the extent it exists, is tantamount to fiddling while Rome burns.  We argue about how we are going to tinker with existing programs, when the underlying policies promoted by the foundational statutes incorporate the problems that insure that no rule, nor regulation, reform will work.

Further, within the context of the financial crisis of our national government, for those of you who care about the environment or technology, the EPA’s FY12 budgeted amount of $9 billion and NASA’s FY12 budgeted amount of $18 billion are, effectively, rounding errors.  As mentioned above, the most specific and highest constitutional duty of our national government is funded only a third as much as the possibly unconstitutional duty our governments have assumed to redistribute wealth from the fortunate few to the unfortunate few.

To maintain the social welfare state, in whatever form, is expensive.  It’s the most expensive thing our national government currently funds and is ever likely to fund, bar none and by far.

We try to maintain this welfare state with an overall tax burden of 23.6% of GDP.  In Sweden, they maintain their ‘universalist’ welfare state with an overall tax burden of 51.1% of GDP.

In America, governmental spending at all levels exceeds 25% of GDP. Approximately 14.1% of our workforce is employed in the public sector.  In Sweden, public spending is about 56.6% of GDP.  More than a third of Sweden’s work force is employed in the public sector.

The big difference between America and Sweden is that America is in serious financial trouble.  Sweden isn’t.


“A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel.”

Barry Goldwater


The first graphic in this post is an image of the front cover of a paper written by Barak Hussein Obama, senior, regarding Kenyan socialism, after he was separated from junior’s mother.

Baptists Against Smoking!

The government wants you to quit smoking.  What enumerated power is that?

Sensible liberal thought, the open-minded consideration of government policy that is supposed to balance liberty and equality, seems abundantly absent these days.  One of the reasons for this appears to be that liberal perceptions of equality are now often reduced to simplistic notions that all citizens should enjoy the same outcomes.

Couple this utopian concept with the socialist philosophy that it is the duty of government to force the Nirvana of equal outcomes for all; and one quickly understands why socialist and liberal ideals often merge these days in marriages made in Hell.  Liberty is not only forgotten in, but also is antithetical to, these relationships.

Such thinking allows our national government, under the guise of majority rule, to determine what it believes is best for all us, whether or not our founding values or our national interests are at stake and whether or not such authority has been granted under the enumerated powers of Congress.  Further, the motivation to regulate in almost any area for these reasons is so strong that both common sense and logic are often trampled in the process.

No Choice!


To use one of Barbara Joann’s examples, we are not threatened if one of us smokes.  Neither our country nor our culture will be substantially harmed if someone lights up.  That’s been proven trillions of times.

Smoking doesn’t violate anybody’s inalienable or constitutional rights.  In fact, one might argue that smokers have their unique and insane ways of appreciating a product of nature, pursuing happiness, peacefully assembling, and speaking.

Smokers may bother others; that is true.  If they bother you, then accommodate the smoker’s needs, or ask the smoker to accommodate your needs, or suck it up in the name of humanity.  Such techniques have worked billions of times.  There was, and remains, little reason to get the government, or its police forces, involved.


Similarly, our country isn’t threatened if 100 million of its citizens smoke. Unless, of course, in the pursuit of the Socialist Nirvana, we pledge the resources of all citizens to take care of the health consequences of this apparently insane smoking minority who cause their expensive nicotine delivery systems to successively disappear in a series of small fires.

This is insult added to injury.  The government, through other, similarly motivated, social welfare concerns, subsidizes smoking.  In providing healthcare for those afflicted with smoking related diseases, the government protects smokers from personally having to absorb the consequences of their choices to smoke.  Instead, it makes us all liable for the poor choices of these few.

No matter how poor or how rich you are, no matter what your lifestyle, no matter what your life choices, Liberal simpletons, married to envious Socialists, believe that we should all enjoy the same “free” healthcare at some point.  They believe we should all live to the same age, have the same quality of life, and the same access to healthcare, thereby relieving us all from much of the personal responsibility of having to provide for ourselves in these areas.  Lest we believe that all this is free, let’s contemplate for just a second on how expensive it has become to try to achieve these objectives.


In the presence of ‘one government policy fits all’, if a certain type of business is forced to expel smokers, then all similar businesses must abide by the same rule.  Thus, liberty is limited to the extent that bar owners, for example, can no longer choose whether to allow smoking in their establishments to suit the tastes of their clients.  Their clients also lose the choice to go to bars that prohibit smoking indoors or to those that allow it; because all similar bars, per governmental policy, are the same when it comes to smoking.  In this way, we don’t get happier and more free; we get sadder and less free.


One thing leads to another as we march to Utopia.  Since taxpayer money is at stake for social welfare programs like Medicare and Medicaid, rationales are developed to put labels on cigarette packages.  Government makes rules about where one can smoke and what one can smoke and what cigarette manufacturers may include in their products and what they must not include in their products.  Lots of bureaucracy is created and lots of money is spent enforcing the rules and regulations that follow.

None of this makes any real sense.  For instance, labels don’t impart information that both smokers and non-smokers don’t already know intuitively.  Smoking is simply not good for one’s health; it never has been; and it never will be.

Smoking is unhealthful no matter what one smokes and no matter where one smokes.  Consequently, we have a large, expensive burearcracy regulating what is unquestionably bad for us.

Way to go guys!


Would it have been so terrible had the government allowed us to keep the money it took from us for Medicare, Social Security, and unemployment insurance?

We could have invested such assets for our own emergency funds, retirement plans, private insurance premiums, or irresponsible spending.

Would it have been so wrong for our government to leave us all responsible for our own outcomes?

Who the hell knows. . . . . or much cares . . . . at this point.  What is done is done and the inertia of national government, good or bad, makes changing it practically impossible outside the context of an impending apocalypse these days.


Whatever, . . . . I nevertheless appreciated the ironic humor of the foregoing when I recently read the following on the career page of Baptist Health, the entity that manages several of the Baptist-sponsored hospitals still in operation:

ATTENTION APPLICANTS: Please note that as of January 1, 2011, all Baptist Health facilities will be tobacco free. For the protection of our patients, visitors and co-workers, no tobacco products will be allowed on any Baptist Health campus, including buildings, common areas and parking lots. We thank you for your cooperation. 

Uhhhhhhhhhhhh  ohhhhhhhhhhhh. . . . Here we have a set of church sponsored institutions denying access, on all of  its campuses, to what many believe is a medical therapy for many illnesses.  Further, since many Baptist Conventions oppose smoking, as well as dancing and drinking, this clearly has religious overtones.


It’s NOT a debate about access to contraception

In the recent, and apparently endless, dustup over a rule promulgated under the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act (‘ACA’, or more accurately, ‘ObamaCare’), it is surprising how many near-sighted tree experts exist and how few far-sighted forest rangers there are.

Look at the forest . . . .

. . .  not at the trees

Had such rulemaking mandated that religiously affiliated institutions be required to provide insurance to their employees to cover injuries specifically resulting from dancing or illnesses specifically caused by drinking, then Baptists would likely be upset. Had such rulemaking required that medical doctors be consulted every time a child fell ill, then Christian Scientists would probably be upset.

Baptist Dancing

In these cases, it would not have mattered whether most Baptists danced and drank, or whether most Baptists favored dancing and drinking.  Nor would it have mattered whether most Christian Scientists consulted medical doctors when their children fell ill or favored consulting doctors when their children fell ill.  What matters is that the national government is perceived to be crossing the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment by requiring an allegiance to a medical practice opposed by a religion.

Pump Shoe

However, the point to be made can be supported without a First Amendment reference. Let’s contemplate policies under Obama’s health care reform that will subsidize podiatric treatment for injuries to women sustained only while wearing flats, thereby excluding injuries to women sustained while wearing heels.  Given the passions already associated with government funding of abortions, perhaps we are lucky that such fashion lines haven’t yet been crossed by HHS rulings.

The 50,000-foot view of the forest understands the following:

  • The national government’s industrious rulemaking engine generates only one policy for the nation no matter where you live, no matter what you believe, no matter what you want, and no matter who you are.
  • When national legislation, no matter how well intended, entwines local institutions in an intimate, pervasive, financial relationship with the national government, without which funding such institutions cannot survive, then these institutions become mere outlets of the foregoing voluminous, monolithic, policymaking machine.

Hence, it seems ill informed and myopic to cast the current situation as Catholics imposing their will on others, or as a renewed debate about access to contraception or abortion, or as a debate about the aspects of feminism, women’s health, or wherever examining the tree bark of the consequences leads.  The only real debate here is whether government is too big, generally, or too big under ObamaCare, particularly.

Trust me; health insurance companies saw this coming.  They raised their rates in anticipation of this day.  Sure enough, the incumbent socialist-in-chief, who believes that he knows what is best for all of us, is now demanding that non-governmental entities supply something for which they cannot charge.

Fortunately, for the shareholders, and unfortunately, for the premium payers, these health insurance companies beat the socialism of the ACA to the punch.  However, you can bet that more mandates are coming from those in Washington DC who believe that they know best.

Be careful for what you ask of our government.

Imagine Shame

Imagine for a moment a world in which one might choose the type of healthcare insurance one wanted. The train wreck of Obamacare Employers would be free to provide, in whole, in part, or not at all, what healthcare insurance they wished as a perquisite to their employees. Employees would be free to choose from their employer’s plans, or choose their own plans, or choose to self-insure. Employers might choose to supply high-deductible ‘catastrophic’ coverage, low-deductible ‘maintenance’ coverage, less expensive coverage to their non-smoking employees, coverage that excluded well-baby care, or coverage that includes, or excludes, a combination of any number of these and other variants.  Christian Scientist, Baptist, and Catholic employers (whether churches, hospitals, schools, or simply adherents) might choose plans that excluded coverage of most illnesses, or of those symptoms and diseases commonly associated with drinking and dancing, or of abortions, contraceptives, and sexual prophylactics, respectively. Imagine a healthcare market that supplies the many kinds of healthcare coverage for which there might be a demand created by both employers and employees at mutually agreed prices.  Consider the liberty attendant to the risk of not buying health insurance. At one time, not long ago, this situation existed in America.  Such was the freedom associated with our healthcare insurance choices, as they were untrammeled by our national government.  Kiss this vision goodbye.  As long predicted, we are all about to choke on ObamaCare. Shame on any who believed in the hope and change advertised by Affordable Care Act (ACA).  Someday they will understand the well-worn cliché that nothing is as expensive as that which the government seeks to provide free. We truly deserve the government we elect. Shame on the Catholic bishops and organizations who solicited and promoted the passage of this law and who hypocritically whine about the rules and regulations now being promulgated under it.  Shame on this president who was well advised not to allow HHS to issue its ruling in the form it did on 20 January and who now believes that an accounting trick will resolve the First Amendment issues that it provokes.  Shame on Jacob Lew (the president’s most recent chief of staff) who claimed, during the course of multiple interviews, that the president had not changed his mind on this rule but that the president was simply now disclosing additional details about its implementation. Mostly, shame on us for not understanding that, when we allow legislation like the ACA to pass Congress, we bypass the institutions that mediate between our national government and ourselves.  These institutions exist not only to meet our needs in efficient ways, but also to provide us freedom and independence from the type of coercion HHS’s recent rulemaking represents. Rendering such institutions useless by binding them in an intimate, pervasive, financial relationship with our national government simply means they eventually become mere outlets for the giant, monolithic, policymaking machine of that government. Now, let’s take one final trip down memory lane.  The primary promise of ObamaCare, according to our president in New Hampshire as late as August 11, 2009, was:

“If you like your health care plan, . . .

. . . you can keep your health care plan.”

Romney – No Job Creator

Folks, All I know is what the good people at OS tell me is wrong with America.  Mitt Romney ain’t no job creator.  Well, so be it.

San Luis Regional Detention Center (SLRDC) - Main Entrance
Main Entrance – San Luis Regional Detention Center

Now, as y’all know, yesterday, bein’ the first Saturday of the month an’ all, t’was time for our little group, the ‘Board of Directors’, to meet.  We generally have solutions for most of the world’s problems.  However, we is sworn to secrecy. As I walked into Lon’s Restaurant last evening, most of the guys were already there. “Uncle!” “Hey!” I looked around the table.  The six of us have known one another for decades. We all had worked hard; we all had been fortunate; but our total combined net worth was probably slightly north of one tenth of Mitt Romney’s estimated $250 million – unless one of us is sandbaggin’. “What’s up?”  I asked. “We wuz jest discussin’ the social value of our investments.”  George said. “Yeah, right . . . .” “No joke.”  George said. “Well, George, you know why I invest.  I jest wanna pay my bills, take some trips, enjoy life, help the children, spoil the grandchildren, be selfish, and still have money when I die.” “No, really . . . .  Paul wanted to know if any of us wuz still job creators.” “What do ya mean?  We’re all retired.  We all sold, or shut down, our businesses.  How in the hell are we goin’ to be job creators when we don’ hire no one no mo?” I found my seat.  The waiter came over; and I ordered a sarsaparilla. “Well, Uncle, tell us again about those municipal bonds you bought last year for that there San Luis community center.” I am just fat enough that I can appear to strut, even while seated. “Boys, I jest got lucky with dat deal.  Dat issue had a 5% coupon; and I bought what dey had lef’ at a small discount, so my yield is actually a little higher than a snake’s belly.” Paul chimes in, “‘Course, da interest paid on dem bonds is tax-free at da federal and State level as well, so you bettah off dan Romney on dat score and yo net return may be better dan wat you might git on taxable commercial paper at 9%.” “‘True dat!”  I sez. “Remind me, Uncle, what dey doin’ in San Luis?” “Well, as y’all know, San Luis is about 20 miles south of Yuma, right on top of our border with ol’ Mexico.  Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the United States Marshall Service need a detention facility there because of all the illegal activity in those parts; and they have shared a 548-bed confinement center in San Luis since the city invested in buildin’ it in 2007.” Scott asks, “This is one that was shown on Frontline recently?  It houses both men and women?” “Yep; and they wanted to add another 368 beds a couple of years ago because they done run out of space.  That there addition was completed in November of last year and those bonds I bought were issued by the City of San Luis to pay fer it.” Rich looks puzzled.  “What does the City of San Luis have to do with all this federal shit?” “Well, the City of San Luis owns the damn place.  It’s not a GSA building.  They lease it out to a private service, which is under contract to provide detention services for federal prisoners.  In return, this here private service charges us taxpayers based upon the facility’s occupancy; and parts of those there payments are returned to the City of San Luis to pay off the bonds issued to fund construction.” “Ahhhhhhhhh.”  Rich said “Yeah.”  I continued.  “So, this one-horse town of San Luis gets an infusion of about $500,000 a year into its budget as a result of this operation.” “Well, you know why we are interested in this investment, right?” “No. . . I cain’t figger that out.” “It’s because you’re a JOB CREATOR, Uncle.” “Huh?” “Yeah, just think about it.  Your money helped build a place that requires guards, maintenance men, and administrators, right?” “Sure . . . . and, now that I think about it, all private employees!” “In addition, your money was used to pay for materials and labor to build the place, right?” “Absolutely . . . .” “meaning . . . . all those people who worked in the mines to produce the copper for the plumbing and the electrical, the iron used for the steel for the structure, and the limestone for the concrete, . . .” “I guess. . . . “ “ . . . along with all those who refined those raw materials into the products that were used during the course of construction, AND all those who put the damn place together, . . .” “Yep, those too . . .” “ . . . were all paid, at least in part last year, to do what they did to finish the addition onto the prison with your money . . . .” “Damn right!”  I said, sitting up straight.  “So, I AM a job creator, eh?  Funny, I don’t feel like one.  I didn’t have no payrolls.  I didn’t have to hoist my ass early out of bed each morning to go to work.  I didn’t have to make no biznis-type decisions.” “Yeah, you be one of those ‘1%’ rich boys who ain’t doin’ nuttin’ for da po’ folk in our society . . . .” My drink comes and the conversation wanders off onto what our poor incumbent President inherited.  Triple A bond rating . . . . that kind of stuff. Finally, Paul sees me staring out of the window. “What’s wrong, Uncle?” “Hell, I was just wonderin’ what it would be like to run fer president.”  I said.

What Mitt Romney Will Face this Year

Fortunately, not all Liberals are Socialists or Progressives.  Fortunately, not all Liberals are this stupid.

Nevertheless, one must bless Representative Waters’ poor, pea pickin’ heart, and those who voted for her.  Maybe they are all confined to just one place on this planet.

Now, just skip over the propaganda in this piece and concentrate upon the reality of what is being said in this video.

One of the Best Signs at Church

Stained glass window depicting Saint Luke

Not too long ago, I was late for Mass.  While this isn’t unusual, on this day, for some reason, the parking lot was exceptionally full.  Consequently, the car was installed in an area different from where it is normally; and entry was made through the main doors, instead of one of the side doors. The main entrance consists of a set of double doors flanked on each side with stained glass windows three feet wide and six feet tall.  Many likely have wondered at both the beauty and innocence in play here. These stained glass windows are unprotected on the outside by either metal screens, thick plastic, or tempered glass as is normally the case.  Hence, an errant baseball from the parking lot could easily make its entrance into the church through one of these works of art. On the other hand, this uninhibited exterior lets these stained glass windows brightly radiate outward early in the morning by virtue of the architecture and alignment of the vestibule they terminate.  During the day, and especially in the evening, these windows cast their bright colors on the carpet and walls inside this area illuminating it in airy and slow moving ways. The Mass had begun.  We confessed our faults.  We made our way through the liturgy of the Word. After the departure of Father Kenn a couple of years ago, we had been assigned two priests from Africa whose accents were so thick that it is a struggle to understand their speech.  Nevertheless, several things are clear: These priests are exceptionally intelligent and enthusiastic about their ministry.  They work hard.  They are both greatly infused with the Holy Spirit; and their behavior seemingly conforms closely to the message left of us by Jesus in the New Testament. Be that as it may, since their arrival, I had been less enthusiastic about going to church.  This was my failing, not theirs. Thus, as the sermon started, other thoughts penetrated; and, as usual, I started drifting away, only half hearing what Father Robert was saying. “Some of you may have noticed that one of our stained glass windows was broken.  A poor boy came into our church through the window last night and was caught by the police.  Let us all keep him in our prayers.  He might not have had the best of intentions; but he deserves our wishes for his rapid recovery.” What?  Did I miss something?  What was Father Robert talking about?  A stained glass window was broken?  It could only be one of the ones near the main doors.  All of the others were too narrow, or too high, for human access.  Why hadn’t I noticed anything as I came in? Suddenly, the Mass could not end soon enough.  Why hadn’t Father Robert asked for extra donations to replace what was beautiful, and therefore expensive?  The liturgy of the Eucharist seemed to take forever. When the Mass ended, I purposely waited to fall in behind the crowd that seemed unconcerned about the window.  I wanted some time alone and unhurried with the scene of the crime.  It all seemed surreal, as if I had only dreamed what Father Robert had said. When the vestibule was gained, sure enough, it was noticeably darker, a fact unnoticed upon entry.  A plywood sheet covered the aperture where the stained glass window had been, confirming, to some degree, a connection to reality.  The plywood had been neatly cut to fit the frame.  It had been neatly installed. Father Robert stood in his normal place, next to this window, shaking hands with those who exited through the main doors, but not talking about the window or the events associated with its breakage.  There was no glass on the floor. All had been meticulously cleaned.  All shards had been removed from the frame.  This must have taken much time in the middle of the night. There was no collection plate, or box, appealing for extra funds. In an absent-minded way, I shook Father Robert’s hand and greeted him. However, my attention was elsewhere, specifically, behind him.  The main doors were open for passage.  I was forced out. Outside, reality still seemed remote.  An urge to confirm it presented itself a few steps down the broad concrete walkway.  I turned back to look.  Departing parishoners swerved to walk around me. Sure enough, there was the neatly cut plywood covering the place where that window had been.  The window was gone because some boy, possibly on drugs, had thought that there was something on the other side worth stealing and fencing to fund his next high. However, in the middle of the plywood, neatly stapled to it, was a sheet of copy paper.  Its message was smartly printed in large black font, seemingly just composed in Word and just produced from the computer printer.  It was immediately the sole object of the universe for me.  I could not squint my myopic eyes fast enough to read its message:


Facts and Logic – Political Discourse In America