What Are The Odds??

What's wrong with this picture...

It's one thing for a Democratic presidential candidate to dominate a Democratic city like Philadelphia, but check out this head-spinning figure: In 59 voting divisions in the city, Mitt Romney received not one vote. Zero. Zilch.

Most big cities are politically homogeneous, with 75 percent to 80 percent of voters identifying as Democrats. Cities are not only bursting with Democrats: They are easier to organize than rural areas where people live far apart from one another.

Was there not one contrary voter in those 59 divisions, where unofficial vote tallies had President Obama outscoring Romney by a combined 19,605 to 0?!?

Where's Jimmy "the Greek" Snyder (famed, but deceased, Las Vegas odds-maker) when we need him? Taking a leisurely (16+yrs)  dirt-nap! I would be interesting in knowing exactly what the odds would be against such a thing happening. The term "mathematically impossible" has been used by some, which is a vague, factually inconclusive statement. I'd like to see a mathematically verifiable number... like 1:1,000,000, or 1:1,000,000,000. "Where's the BEEF?"
My apologies to Wm. Shakespeare, but... "There's something rotten in Philadelphia!"
PA! If you're gonna f-around with the election numbers...

FGS, you could at least 

 make the numbers believable!

Whose Hand Is Really at the Helm of Our Ship of State?

I tend not to offhandedly discount any reports of "behind the scenes" manipulations of our national or global destinies.
There are families in the world with very strong sociopolitical bonds that go back centuries.
There are individuals in the world with enough money to "buy" anything - even those things that are supposedly without price.
There are those who, lacking personal money or family connections to power, ingratiate themselves to those who do have access to both.
There are secret, semi-secret, and not-so-secret societies with political ambitions and goals, among which are:
The Freemasons - The Freemasons (or simply "Masons") are probably the best known of the, nonetheless, "secret societies". They are considered a "secret society" because their ceremonies are closed to non-members, and therefore very little factual information is known outside of the fraternity. There have been suggestions that the Masons are also related to/in collusion with the Illuminati (the very existence of which is highly questionable), and the modern day remnants of the Knights Templar (also highly questionable).
The Bilderberg Group - Founded in 1954, the Bilderbergs operate under a similar veil of mystery, which has made it the subject of countless conspiracy theories and criticisms. Since it's founding, it has convened every year as an exclusive, invitation-only conference of various world leaders, captains of industry, and media moguls. It's membership amkeup is quite similar to...
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) - With a current membership of almost 4,700 various world leaders, captains of industry, celebrities, and media moguls, the CFR is more of what I consider a "semi-secret society". Most of us are familiar with the name, but very few of us really have any idea what they actually do, and what their goals may be beyond those stated (Angelina Jolie is a member, which makes me wonder just how seriously the CFR should be taken). The David Rockefeller Studies Program—CFR's think tank—is composed of more than eighty full-time and adjunct fellows who cover the major regions and significant issues shaping today's international agenda.
The Trilateral Commission - The Commission was originally created in 1973 (although there were rumors about it in the early 1960's) by David Rockefeller to bring together leaders within the private sector to discuss issues of global concern at a time when communication and cooperation between Europe, North America, and Asia were lacking (David Rockefeller seems to have his fingers in more than one international "pie").
The United Nations - We are all familiar with the U.N., whose apparent (but undocumented) goal seems to be world domination, and the creation of the fabled "One World Government". The U.N. is one of the "not-so-secret" societies, controlled (numerically) by international governments which are NOT full Democratic Republics (roughly 170 of 192 participants are not). We know who composes the U.N., and where they are headquartered

The "bottom line" is that if there are/were truly "secret societies", how would they be known to us? If they are known, then they are by definition not secret. What we actually have are "closed societies" within our common society. These are organizations (groups) of people with like interests who have chosen to have their membership restricted to certain individuals, and their rituals and objectives kept behind closed doors. There's nothing illegal about any of that... but, such attitudes do create an atmosphere of suspicion among the multitudes of outsiders. Suspicion of others isn't a criminal act either. A closed society (or social organization) can be found in your town without much effort. Some rituals of some churches, are known only to a select number of "worthies"within that church. Some social clubs have restrictions based upon the sex of prospective members. Some businesses actually get away with "sex discrimination" ("Curves" comes immediately to mind) - try that with a Gold's Gym. Fraternal organizations were originally for "Men Only",

fraternal: brotherhood; of or denoting an organization or order for people, esp. men, that have common interests or beliefs.

a restriction which has been (for the most-part) broken down by SCOTUS in the last half-century. Then we have Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. There's also the Billionaire's Club, whose primary membership requirement is stated in it's name (and no, I am not a member). Masonic Lodges have a well-deserved reputation for extreme protection of their rituals. It doesn't make them bad people, it just makes those who are curious more curious.

And the list goes on and on. There is a conspiracy theory for everybody, every organization, and every political inclination. The difficulty is in sorting out "the wheat from the chaff"... and there is a LOT more chaff than wheat. One of the most insidious organizations in the United States is not a "secret society", but rather, an appointed committee.

The Electoral College - which can negate the popular vote, thereby rendering the voting process worthless. The rationale for the EC was sound in the 18th century:

"There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections."

There was also the problem of inadequate means of effective and timely communication between delivering candidate (and party) positions to the general population at that time in our history. There were no telephones, TVs or other means of rapid mass communications - not even the Pony Express. Verifiable news traveled slowly, while rumors raced through the states. A populace that was mainly ignorant of the facts surrounding an election could - quite reasonably - be expected to make a totally uninformed decision that would not be beneficial to the country's well-being. However, there are no longer any "Negroes" or (involuntary) "slaves". Those terms have been replaced with "Black Americans" and "Democrats" (). IMHO, as times and technology have changed, so has the need for the EC. This antiquated vestige of the 18th century is no longer justified, as any group that can override the expressed will of the people in a free society is unjustified. (However... such an act would require a Constitutional Amendment, inasmuch as the EC is enshrined within our Constitution.) But, I digress...

Who - that did not have at least some shared interests - would want to belong to any of these closed societies? Probably not many folks, but the air of secrecy provides many people with a natural desire (one which we call curiosity) to "peek inside". I have accepted the fact that there may be "Kingmakers" in the world today - as was Richard Neville (7th Earl of Warwick) during the "Wars of the Roses". The fact that something is not commonplace does not mean that it doesn't exist. What can we do about secret societies? Nothing. Do they exist? Yes. Do some of them have unfathomable power? Perhaps. Will they be behind the impending Zombie Apocalypse? Yeah, right. Now, just TRY to not think about this!

Just What We Need - Another New Cabinet-level Position

There is an article online declaring that Obama - if he secures a second term - will appoint a Secretary of Business. "President Barack Obama signaled if he wins a second term he would appoint a Secretary of Business to oversee newly-consolidated government agencies, including the Small Business Administration."

Now, isn't that just what we need in these hard economic times? Yet another level of highly paid, government bureaucracy for our small (and large) business owners to have to wade through! Increased government supervision, more government regulations, and more potential pitfalls with which the business community must struggle .

Large corporations retain people whose job is to insure compliance where it is unavoidable, and to legally (in a technical sense) avoid compliance wherever they find loopholes. On the other hand, the small business owners - at the "Mom and Pop" level - cannot afford, and do not generally have, such people available on their staff.

The Obama administration has done nothing to benefit small business... absolutely nothing. Instead the government continues to generate more laws, rules and regulations for them to wade through (much like slogging through the Everglades while trying to avoid being bitten by anything that can end your life). Small business doesn't generate enough disposable income to support politicians at the level to which they have become accustomed, and in response, the government does nothing to assist or protect them.

We have enough "Secretaries" (and far too many overreaching Czars) of this and that already. Adding more does not benefit the American people, it is simply a payback for political support. The Cabinet includes the Vice President and the heads of 15 executive departments — the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs, as well as the Attorney General. Several of these positions - and their departments - could be eliminated, and nobody would even notice they were gone.

What has Agriculture done to earn its keep? It has allowed Monsanto to market genetically modified seeds... which KILL competing seeds in and around that farm, and (reportedly) taint the soil so that only Monsanto seeds will grow there.
Education? They come up with ideas such as "No Child Left Behind", without considering that there are some children who are "genetically wired" (or are simply unmotivated) to move forward with their peers. Every day we are dropping further behind in the areas of mathematics and science. What does the Department of Education do to correct this? Instead of demanding effective teaching, we lower the standards for a passing grade! This approach insures only that we are well on the way to a generation of "educated idiots". They worry too much about the "egos" of children, and too little about their internalization of the knowledge and tools they need to succeed in life. 
Energy? Established in 1977 to "reduce our dependency upon foreign oil", the DOE has yet once to fulfill its charter - in 35 years! Our dependence upon foreign oil has increased dramatically in those 35 years - even with outrageous prices at the pump! We have, in the Bakken:  "A conservative estimate of oil in place in the Bakken is 300 billion bbl, but it is locked in low permeability rock. Continental Resources Inc. places the quantity of recoverable oil in the US Bakken at as much as 24. billion bbl. It is projected, that at our current rate of consumption, we have 250-300 years of oil underground - more than all of the OPEC nations combined!" Yet our government won't permit us to fully tap this readily available resource. Instead they continue to import the majority of our oil needs, while wasting our tax dollars on political grants for "clean/alternative energy sources". Yet every attempt to meet the requirement for generating clean energy has failed (Solyndra being the best known).
Health and Human Services? I don't see where they have done anything except make acquiring those services more difficult. Get rid of the upper echelon, and make the Secretary (a typical do-nothing Cabinet-level position) a directorship outside of the Cabinet, and save us $53,000p/a on each Cabinet Secretary replaced.
Homeland Security? If the DHS truly cared about homeland security, our borders would be secure. I agree that we need a single point to which ALL security agencies are responsible. If for no other reason than to eliminate the "territoriality" and sense of "ownership" that these agencies appear to have, and are therefore reluctant to share with other security agencies. Such attitudes distort the all-important "big picture", and result in documented tragedies - such as 9/11/01 and 9/11/12. I would suggest we eliminate "Homeland Security" in its entirety, and have all security agencies report to the National Security Agency. That responsibility is certainly implied in the name.
Housing and Urban Development? I have no idea how that agency has benefited either the housing market or the development of urban resources. Housing costs continue to rise almost weekly, and urban blight is rampant.
Labor? The Department of Labor consists of 26 subordinate "Bureaus" and "Offices", including the Bureau of Labor Statistics - which houses the National Labor Review Board. The NLRB is supposed to contain five members, with no more than three of the same party. The NLRB is currently stacked with Democrat Union supporters, which doesn't exactly make it's decisions "impartial". No more than TWO members from the same party would require that a third party (or non-affiliated) representative be included as a tie-breaker.
Treasury? Secretary Tim Geithner - himself a tax dodger, should have gotten a "No Confidence" vote from the Senate. How can we be expected to have any faith in that kind of leadership?

How are these government "servants" compensated? Lavishly... as shown in the following "Executive (Pay) Schedule":
Level I (below) - Each of these "Departments" has multiple subordinate "Bureaus of" and "Offices of" and "Agencies" under it's control.
Level II - The term "Deputy Secretaries" (as used below) is correct, as this function is always one of multiples, when there should be only one "Deputy Secretary" (the person who takes charge when the boss is on vacation, takes a sick day, etc.) beneath THE "Secretary".
Level III - "Under Secretaries"? Okay... but double their responsibilities - thereby eliminating 50% of them - and reduce their pay by 30%.
Level IV - "Assistant Secretaries", etc. See Level 3 for recommendations. "Boards and commissions" should be unpaid (volunteer/appointed) service, with compensation only for travel expenses and the mid-day meal (not to exceed $25 per day) incurred.
Level V - See Level 3 for recommendations, plus reduce their pay by 40%. Members of boards, commissions should be unpaid (volunteer/ appointed) service, with compensation only for travel expenses and the mid-day meal (not to exceed $20 per day) incurred.
 

Executive Schedule
Level 1: Cabinet-level officials	$196,700
Level II: Deputy secretaries of departments, secretaries of military departments, & heads of major agencies	$177,000
Level III: Under secretaries of departments & heads of middle level agencies	$162,900
Level IV: Assistant secretaries & general counsels of departments, heads of minor agencies, members of certain boards & commissions	$153,200
Level V: Administrators, commissioners, directors, & members of boards, commissions, or units of agencies	$143,500

We MUST DEMAND that our government rein in it's spending, and get our deficit(s) under control! U.S. goods and services trade with China totaled $539 billion in 2011. Exports totaled $129 billion; Imports totaled $411 billion, for a deficit of 3.14:1. Put into dollars, that's a deficit of $282B in China's favor. Whoever in the USTR's Office of China Affairs, is responsible for managing the horrific formulation and implementation of U.S. trade policy for China, Hong Kong, Macao, Taiwan and Mongolia, should be FIRED! Our National Debt increases at the rate of approximately $162,500,000 per hour, 24 hours per day! That's $2,708,333.33 per minute or, $45,138.89 per second!

The Obama administration has increased our National Debt by almost $6T. We (as a nation) are in a money hole so deep, it will take several generations to recover - IF even then. Remember that on your way to the voting booth, and then cast your vote for AMERICA!

Whatever Happened To The TEA Party?

 I'll begin by answering my rhetorical question.  Nothing really "happened to" the TEA Party, but rather, things are happening with and for the TEA Party. And, let me clear up a couple of misconceptions about the TEA Party:

1. The "tea" in TEA Party should always be capitalized, because it is an acronym of Taxed Enough Already. The party was - initially, anyway - founded by fiscal conservatives, and their goal was to let the government know that no nation ever taxed it's way to prosperity.
2. The TEA Party has, of late, been relatively quiet in public (i.e. - no huge rallies covered and distorted by the lamestream media), but that does not mean they are no longer with us. The media only wants to report the negative side of the TEA Party, with accusations of racism, bigotry, and big money. Being unable to prove those unfounded claims, the media have chosen to ignore the TEA Party - that same TEA Party which has gained the recognition of conservatives in both houses of Congress as a show of force by "We the People". TEA Party leadership(s) work busily behind the scenes today. They have expanded their primary charter from strictly taxation issues, to most (if not all) conservative issues.

The mainly left-wing media are concerned that, with any nationally recognized name in their numbers, the TEA Party itself could become a political force with which to be reckoned. The "Rock Star", as opposed to the backup group.

We do need a strong third political party, but it will have to come from a coalition of lesser, scattered parties with highly divergent political philosophies. These are the larger existing 3rd parties (in no particular order):

1. The Green Party -- The informal US-affiliate of the leftist, environmentalist European Greens movement -- is one of the two largest third parties in the nation with 305,000 US registered.
2. The Libertarian Party -- with slightly over 312,000 registered Libertarians, the party bills itself as "America's largest third party" (and, along with the Greens, are definitely among the two largest third parties in the nation). The Libertarians are neither left nor right: they believe in total individual liberty (pro-drug legalization, pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-home schooling, pro-gun rights, etc.) and total economic freedom (anti-welfare, anti-government regulation of business, anti-minimum wage, anti-income tax, pro-free trade). The LP espouses a classical laissez faire ideology which, they argue, means "more freedom, less government and lower taxes."            They have something for everybody, so what's not to like about them? Perhaps a few too many "freedoms" for many voters. And, last but not least we have... 
3. The Constitution Party -- created in 1999 as a splinter group from the (now inconsequential) US Taxpayers Party. The 367,000 strong party is strongly pro-life, anti-gun control, anti-tax, anti-immigration, trade protectionist, "anti-New World Order," anti-United Nations, anti-gay rights, anti-welfare, and pro-school prayer. That's a party that I could get behind in 99% of their philosophy! Personally, I have a slight issue with "gay rights". I believe that gays, lesbians, transgenders, etc., should not have any special consideration beyond a fair and equal opportunity in the workplace. In fact, nobody deserves preferential consideration over anybody else when a job is truly based upon the job candidate's perceived qualifications (i.e. - how well do we think they can do the job, and how good a "fit" do they seem to be for our workplace culture?). I believe in the tradition of marriage as it has been practiced in Judeo-Christian beliefs for 2,000 years. "One man, one woman" is what insures the continuation of the human race. Same-sex alternatives to this arrangement are incapable of procreation without going outside the "relationship" in a parasitical and selfish way. (But, on the other hand, they would help to minimize the problem of overpopulation.) Further, I believe that school prayer should be permitted, but not compulsory. Simply the recognition of beliefs - something like a minute of silence for individual religious/moral/philosophical reflection/contemplation - at the beginning of the school day would be my suggestion (if anybody asked me). Religious education is the responsibility of the family and the church, not the taxpayer-funded public school system.

The combined strength of the three above "alternative parties", is currently (and roughly) 984,000±. This certainly isn't enough strength to form a viable Third Party at this time, but the numbers are large enough when combined to have a significant influence on any presidential election - IF they could all get behind a single candidate. (Notice that is a big "IF"). However, without a single, viable Third Party, "We the People" are at the mercy of the two party system. Many people blindly vote for a candidate with no real knowledge of what that candidate is about! But, he/she is a member of the party of their father and his father before him, so they get those votes. They don't know enough about the political process, nor do they care enough about it to do any research, so they vote the "straight party ticket". Occasionally, we are given crap choices from each the two parties, which leaves us in a philosophical and moral quandary - so we vote for the piece of crap that stinks the least. Or... we throw our vote away, by voting for a Third Party candidate that doesn't stand a chance of winning the popular vote, let alone the Electoral College vote (which is the one that really counts anyway). The big question in my mind is, "WHY do people vote like that?" If they aren't familiar with the issues, and their potential impact upon our country, WHY DO THEY VOTE AT ALL? And the answer to that question is, "Because they can."

There are lesser "alternative political parties" (3rd parties) that are barely worth mentioning, much less going into great detail about, so here's the very short list of those with any forward momentum at all:

1. America First Party -- Although the name sounds inviting to those with a strong sense of patriotism, this group is basically composed of ultra-conservative, "Religious Right" types. Similar in many ways to a Christian version of the Taliban.
2. American Party -- another tempting name, but the AP is a very small, very conservative, Christian splinter party formed after a break from the American Independent Party in 1972.
3. American Independent Party -- Governor George C. Wallace (D-AL), a notorious segregationist of the 1960s, founded the AIP and ran as the its first Presidential nominee in 1968. Running on a fiery populist, right-wing, anti-Washington, anti-racial integration, anti-communist platform, Wallace was basically a non-competitor.
4.  American Nazi Party -- Exactly what the name implies ... these are a bunch of uniformed, swastika-wearing neo-Nazis! This party is a combination of fascists, Aryan Nations-type folks, "White Power" racist skinheads and others on the ultra-radical political fringe. As a political party, the American Nazi Party has not fielded a Presidential candidate since Lincoln Rockwell ran as a write-in candidate in 1964 (he was murdered in 1967 by a disgruntled ANP member) -- nor any other candidate for other offices since the mid-1970s. Non-starters.

There are about two dozen other no-chance "political parties"... Google them if you are so inclined.

What really scares the media and is the primary reason why they are willing to go to the extremes of defending the GOP over and against the Tea Party? The media has much to lose if the two parties drift back to hard left and hard right, rather than where they currently reside at left-of-center and center-right. As it stands today, their party platforms are so similarly vague as to be almost indistinguishable from one another.
"American politics in the 21^st century has become little more than a battle of semantics and this is precisely why the media is able to control it. If, as the Tea Party wants, American politics gets back to issues rather than sound bites, the media will instantly lose the upper hand. The internet made the Tea Party a reality, not the media. The media knows this, and they don’t like the prospects of it and they will do everything in their power to keep it from happening. Don’t believe the hype: the Tea Party is far from over. There is too much yet to do."

A closing  prayer - 
Dear God,
Please save our nation from a recurrence of liberal, Marxist/Communist, Socialist-"Progressive", white-guilt voting in the upcoming election, and guide their spirits to VOTE FOR AMERICA, rather than a lying politician. Thanks a bunch... AMEN.

Is This Presidential Election The "Most Important" Election Ever?

Each presidential election is the "most important", at least the most important in the last four years. More consequential, is that it is the "most important" of the next four years, as the outcome determines the social, economic, international trade and assistance, and the legal direction our country will take. In the 2008 presidential election, Barack H. Obama was seen as "the Great Unifier" by many... and as "the Messiah" by some. He won the election, but neither of these expected "roles" were fulfilled. Overall, both groups have been bitterly disappointed. The impending presidential election presents us with two candidates - Obama, in hopes of a second term, and Mitt Romney who hopes to return our country to it's original path... that of a Democratic Republic, as opposed to a Socialist State. Neither candidate would have been my first choice, but I only have these two to choose from: a man whose inexperience has shone through like the Sun in August, and whose captaincy of our "Ship of State" has taken it severely off course, and his challenger - a man experienced (and successful) in both business and government, and one who is capable of making the needed course correction, but only if he gets bi-partisan support from the Congress.

As I see it, one of - if not THE - biggest stumbling blocks to any president's success in office is the Two Party System. Each party has their own agenda, and each will generally take a position diametrically opposed to that of the other party, completely ignoring what may be most beneficial for the nation as a whole in favor of showing party solidarity. Ideally, a strong - and I emphasize STRONG - Third Party would have it's own colloquial "dog in the fight". Something other than a purebred Dalmatian or Rottweiller, a mixed-breed watchdog that would be capable of forming a coalition with either party in order to keep our nation on course, and tipping the balance for or against certain legislation. Our national progress in the last 4 or 5 decades, has been stymied by legislators who have lost sight of their purpose in Congress - TO SERVE THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA! There is only one way to get the attention of those who govern us...

Biden Brings Barbarianism to Bear

I'm not a big fan of either of the two major party's offerings for president, so I might be a bit more objective than many folks. However, in my opinion, Biden conducted himself like a man having a mental meltdown. He came across as rude and overbearing, ignoring what was supposed to be Ryan's "exclusive" time to talk by interrupting and talking over him, mugging for the audience and making it quite obvious that his main purpose was to try to unnerve Ryan and throw him off-stride.

Biden and his histrionic stage theatrics

Biden had neither facts nor a record of successes behind him, so he chose to act like a barbarian and buffoon. By disrespecting his opponent he simultaneously disrespected his position as VP, and his political party. He acted like a man with histrionic personality disorder. This morning - if I were a registered Democrat - I would keep it a secret.

And, exactly WHERE was the "MODERATOR"? I have to agree with Sean Hannity's comment  - "Martha Raddatz is the worst moderator ever." He and some others believed she was too quick to cut off Ryan and to let Biden talk over him. Yes, there was that... but in at least one point in the debate, she openly argued with Ryan herself, and accused him of having refused to answer a question! Note the word used - refused. Not "failed to", or "overlooked", or "didn't"... but REFUSED. I watched, and I don't recall Ryan ever saying, "I refuse to answer that" - or did I just miss that? The moderator's job is to ask the questions, remain impartial, insure that decorum is maintained and that the debate rules regarding time and over-talking are followed. To give credit where it is due... Raddatz DID ask the questions, but she did absolutely NOTHING ELSE. She came across as a liberal harpy on a mission.

As I saw it, Biden came across as an ill-mannered rube, Raddatz was obviously "in the tank" for him, and Ryan was the victim of a left-wing tag team. Who put this farce of a debate on... PBS?

How Confused Can We Remain?

This morning I read an online article by Thomas Sowell that I found a bit confusing. (For those of you who may be unfamiliar with his name, Dr. Thomas Sowell is a black American economist, social theorist, political philosopher, and author. A National Humanities Medal winner, he advocates laissez-faire economics and writes from a conservative and libertarian perspective. He is a graduate of Columbia and Harvard Universities.) I generally find myself in complete agreement with Dr. Sowell's writings, so far be it from me to challenge the intellect of a graduate of those two prestigious universities. But... today's article left me wondering, "What did they do to Dr. Sowell, and where did they hide his body?"

The thrust of the article is (as I read it, anyway) if we want better government, we must pay the politicians more money. The figure he suggested was $1M per annum. Can you see my confusion now? The ones we currently have are severely overcompensated for their "service". We wouldn't be getting our money's worth if they were being paid minimum wage! They are totally irresponsible when it comes to managing our money. The universal attitude in D.C. should be, "Let's spend the taxpayers money as carefully as we would spend our own money." But, it isn't. It's more like, "We just won the lottery! Let's spend it like drunken sailors." We are far from getting our money's worth at yearly freshman's salary of $174,000! We don't need better "politicians" in office, we need better human beings there. Most human beings could live very nicely on half of $174,000 a year


The good Dr's rationale behind increasing the compensation of our nation's "leadership" is somewhat simplistic, in that he believes more money will entice a better, more responsible class of people into government service, and they will be more resistant to bribery. He completely overlooks the fact that, in any nation's government, the true compensation is in POWER and PRESTIGE. Who seeks public office? Those who see themselves as "the ruling class". Who can afford to seek public office? Those who either already have significant money of their own, or those who become indebted to others who have provided them with the money necessary to successfully campaign for office. "Joe The Plumber" doesn't have the money... neither does Bob the bus driver, or Carl the clerk.

A great part of the problem in our legal system, is that our laws are made by state and national legislatures, which are composed primarily of lawyers. Lawyers are practitioners of the law. Why would they want to make our laws simple and easy to understand, when to do so would work against their raison d'être? Why else do our laws provide greater protection to the criminal than to the criminals victim? Why did our Congress support election laws legalizing PACs (Political Action Committees), when those laws are nothing less than a workaround of previously existing election laws? Particularly "Super PACs". In the 2012 election campaign, most of the money given to Super PACs has come not from corporations, but from wealthy individuals. According to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, the top 100 individual super PAC donors in 2011–2012 made up just 3.7% of contributors, but they accounted for more than 80% of the total money raised. Do you believe that those big money donors are kept anonymous, or that your $5-$1,500 personal contribution is even noteworthy (much less appreciated)? If you answered "Yes" to either part of that question, you may now take a seat in the Fool's Section.

As for the monetary compensation of politicians, in one respect it's no different than the monetary rewards experienced by Wall Street investors... for them, there's no such thing as too much money! Those who serve in our government today are very different than our first round of Congressmen (Yes, Virginia, they were in fact all men). The first Congress received no pay, and they all had independent means of income. Most were farmers, some were lawyers, and almost all had common sense and believed in doing what was best for the country. Today most are lawyers, few display any common sense, and almost all are greedy. "Greedy", as I use the term herein, is not necessarily a desire for more money - which meets most people's definition of greed. There are many types of greed, demonstrated at various levels of society. Most educators have a greed for recognition and validation of their intellect. The clergy have an innate greed (referred to by them as "a calling") for the power and control found in molding the ethical and moral values of their flock. Lawyers... well, they're lawyers! Most of them are driven by a greed for recognition, wealth, and being the victor upon the stage they call "court". In some sense, anybody that truly desires to improve their circumstances beyond the "norm", has a greed of some kind driving them. And, there's really nothing wrong with that. Without greed there would be no progress in the world - we would still be living in caves and crude huts! However, it is the means they use to achieve their goals, that distinguishes between appropriate behaviors and inappropriate behaviors. Figuratively speaking, if they leave a "pile of bodies" (backstabbing, cheating, lying, and intentionally destroying the hopes and careers of others for the furtherance of their own personal goals)  in their wake, their actions would be considered inappropriate by most right-minded people (politics is the best example of people demonstrating those behaviors).

Pay our politicians more? NO WAY! They aren't working for "We the People". They are working to further their own agendas, and to hell with their constituents - the people who pay their salaries. Put them on a "piece-rate" - where they only get paid for the days the individual was there, and only for passing legislation that benefits the entire nation. Limit them to two terms, no retirement until they reach the prevailing Social Security retirement age (at which time they get no more in government retirement than 50% of their last federal paycheck), cut their staffing in half, and eliminate all perks that working-class people do not get (i.e. - free meals, free haircuts, etc). We need to refresh our Congress, and the government in general.

A Photo of The Pinnacle of Arrogance!

This is the man many so-called "Americans" want to see as President... AGAIN!

If this almost ever-present look of Mussolini-like arrogance is not enough to dissuade the 47% of our country that depend on him for their freebies, then nothing will.

It's difficult to believe that almost half the people living in the USA - not all of whom are Americans - are willing to destroy our once-great nation to insure they continue to get their own personal version of the infamous "30 pieces of silver". But... they ARE!

There is an old Chinese proverb that says, "If you give a man a fish you feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish you feed him for a lifetime." Our government is giving fish out on a daily basis - why would anyone be motivated to learning to fish, when they can take the proverbial fish from those who "fish" in the workplace?

The government has been passing out fish to those who choose not to learn the art of fishing, for decades. It began as a purely altruistic exercise in 1972, when the Social Security Amendments of 1972 established the Supplementary Security Income (SSI) program. This federally administered welfare program was undertaken to replace the state/federal programs of "aid for the aged, blind and disabled" populations, many of whom were undoubtedly in need of financial assistance. This new federal public assistance program removed the limitations of "aged, blind and disabled" - loopholes the size of the Grand Canyon were discovered by those unmotivated to support themselves, and the program was corrupted beyond belief. Generations of families turned welfare into the family business, milking the working taxpayers for all that they could get with virtually NO restrictions or requirements.
Then, on August 22, 1996, President William J. Clinton signed into law the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, ending welfare as it had been known until that time, and introducing Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF). The law tied welfare to work requirements - as it should have done all along - placing time limits on public assistance, and turned over benefits allocations to the states. The core concept of welfare reform was that recipients would be required to work, prepare for work, or at least look for a job as a condition of receiving aid.
In July of 2012 the Department of Health and Human Services announced the agency will issue waivers for the federal work requirement of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program - considered a central facet of welfare reform in 1996

As of several years ago, the details of these work requirements turned out to matter less than the general signal they sent, that no-strings welfare was over and even low-income single moms were supposed to work. As a result, the welfare rolls shrank so rapidly (roughly by half) that many states never faced the detailed work requirements (since they got credit for everyone who left welfare).

Am I the only one to notice the Grand Coincidence of the Obama administration eliminating the work requirement for welfare during an election year?

Health and Human Service’s rationale is not the recession, but the alleged need to find “new more effective ways to meet the goals of [the reformed welfare program], particularly helping parents successfully prepare for, find, and retain employment.” In short, job prep, counseling and training. That’s how HHS would loosen the statutory work requirements–by allowing “an extended training period for those pursuing a credential,” or “multi-year career pathways” or something ominously called “a comprehensive universal engagement system” (a system with which I am unfamiliar, but which definitely sounds like stay-on-the-dole-while-we-keep-you-busy-with-anything-other-than-actual-work system).

As a political gambit, this position just doesn't compute. Requiring that welfare recipients work is a political winner–proven, again and again. Welfare horror stories helped elect Ronald Reagan. A promise to “end welfare as we know it” elected President Clinton–every time Clinton got into trouble he’d just start running welfare reform ads.  And in 2008, Barack Obama didn’t dare suggest that he wanted to do what he has done today. Obama’s given his opponents a huge opportunity to raise the “welfare” issue, to associate him with the unpopular idea of subsidizing women who have children they can’t support, usually out of wedlock–even giving them free community college training that hard-working people who don’t go on welfare can’t get! The GOP doesn’t even have to move their heads into the 21st century by calling Obama the “food stamp President.” They can dust off their attacks on the old, hated AFDC program–the welfare part of the welfare state.
What’s the payoff for Obama ? When he took executive action to effectively impose the DREAM law that Congress wouldn’t pass, he was trying to mobilize a large, reliably Democratic constituency–Latinos. Cynical? Maybe... but rational. What does he get for this move, in exchange for possibly getting hammered by the Republicans (and by some endangered Democrats)? Who supports it? Well, community colleges surely support it–they’re a powerful lobby, and they’ll get lots of subsidized students-on-welfare. Unions support it–they want public aid recipients to stay on the dole, or in training, lest they join the work force and compete for jobs. They especially don’t want them performing public “workfare” tasks that well-compensated, pensioned Association of Federal, State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) workers might be performing.
But it doesn’t add up. The downside seems to emphatically outweigh the upside. There just aren’t a lot of voters–even union voters–fuming about the work requirements in the 1996 reform law. That’s why I suspect this wasn’t another Axelrod Special, but rather the action of committed anti-reform activists in HHS, who realized that this was their last best opportunity to undo those parts of the 1996 reform that they opposed in 1996. If they waited until closer to the election, it would be more likely to be noticed and attacked. If they waited until after the election–well, they might not win the election.
 Obama could turn the HHS rule into a big political plus if he dramatically ordered Secretary Sebelius to withdraw it, saying he wanted to encourage people to work, not go on the dole. But that’s not his style.
People - particularly people who get something for no expenditure of personal time or effort - tend to be quite selfish. It's not "love" that "makes the world go 'round" - it's greed! And in this particular case, it's not just "going 'round"... it circling the drain!

Eric Holder and Sgt. Schultz Share This...

"I know NUSSING!", cries Sgt. Schultz - of the old TV series "Hogan's Heroes" - whenever he is questioned about anything. Eric Holder utters the same phrase.

Much of the media has moved quickly to close the books on Attorney General Eric Holder’s role in the Fast and Furious scandal, based on this week’s report from the Justice Department’s Inspector General’s office, headed by Michael E. Horowitz. Operation Fast and Furious, for those who may not be familiar with it, was/is a DOJ program designed to coerce otherwise honest gun dealers into providing illegal firearms to Mexican drug cartels. The supporting idea was that the DOJ would then track the firearms, and DEA would make arrests. Well, our inept government LOST track of between 1,500 and 2,000 illegally sold firearms (depending upon whose statistics one believes) - at least one of which was used to kill a Border Patrol Agent in Arizona, and various others used to kill several thousand Mexicans in Mexico.

But for many others, the 471-page report is nothing more than an effort by an employee to exonerate his boss.

The inspector general's report identified "serious failures" on the part of the Justice Department, but cleared Attorney General Eric Holder of having any knowledge of the operation. EXCUSE ME?? Isn't it HIS JOB to know and control what his underlings are doing?? Maybe his "job" is simply to collect a paycheck from the taxpayers... as do many (most) of the unnecessary appointees of our present administration?

Testifying before a House committee Thursday, Inspector General Michael Horowitz said, "There needs to be supervision; there needs to be oversight," and such operations should be referred at the start to "the highest levels." And, it's the Attorney General's JOB to insure his people understand and follow the "Chain of Command" when implementing and/or enforcing new directives. Nothing of significance - such as Operation Fast and Furious - ever happens without blessings from the TOP. Someone below Holder must have drafted a proposal - which was reviewed by his/her immediate supervisor, and then forwarded through several higher levels of intermediate supervision - until it reached the DOJ's "head monkey", Eric Holder. Holder would then review the plan, and contact - probably in person or by phone, so there would be no written record of the discussion - his pal, and political "Rabbi" Barack H. Obama, for final approval of the operation. Upper-level management protects themselves by either not providing, or destroying any record that they were involved. No office copies, no signatures, no evidence.

Democrats defended Holder, suggesting he was wrongly pursued and consequently held in contempt of Congress.

"There can no longer be any doubt that gun walking was never authorized or approved of by the attorney general or senior department officials," Rep. Elijah  E. Cummings,D- Md., said.

"The attorney general has over and over again been put on for this gun-walking," Eleanor Holmes Norton Holmes, the District of Columbia's nonvoting delegate to the House, said. "The attorney general could not have approved this because he did not even know of gun-walking."

Justifying Congress' contempt vote,  Rep. Trey Gowdy, R- S.C., said,

"I hate to make the record clear, but he was never held in contempt of Congress because he sanctioned gun-walking . He was held in contempt of Congress because he thwarted our attempts to find out what you (the Inspector General) found out."

Further, the 471-page report suggests disciplinary action for the people most directly responsible for the gun-trafficking program... well, OF COURSE IT DOES! Somebody has to be held accountable for the criminal negligence and ineptness of the DOJ, and it "ain't gonna be" any of the people with the authority to grant final approval. It's going to be the people in the trenches - the lowest possible echelon of agents (with perhaps one or two first-line supervisors thrown in) - that  comprise the sacrificial lamb. The "uppers" have covered their tracks! Politics is a prime example of "the survival of the fittest". Not necessarily the "best and brightest", but those with the most acute political survival skills. If this whole thing doesn't stink, neither does skunk spray.

November isn't that far off. Remember this, and the myriad of other transgressions by the Obama Administration, when you go to the voting booth! Save the USA - vote for ANYBODY BUT OBAMA!

I'm Gil, and I approved this message. (The preceding message was paid for by NOBODY... DAMMIT!)