The Theory of Mediocrity

What Does Obama, Holder, and Banner Have in Common?

2013-05-20T06:08:00.000-07:00

They know nothing! They See Nothing! They Hear Nothing! They know Nothing!

These clowns (Obama and Holder) are our present day Sergeant Schultz. Is it possible these guys knew absolutely nothing about Fast Furious, Benghazi, the IRS, and the AP scandals?

If this is true, it proves my point that government is way too big. If it is false, then these guys need to go to jail. It is a sad state of affairs in Washington.

Benghazi, the IRS, ObamaCare, and AP Oh My!

2013-05-17T06:36:00.000-07:00

I have covered the Benghazi White House and administration cover up from the beginning. The talking points about the Benghazi terror attack were scrubbed 12 times to mislead Americans into believing that one, Benghazi was not a terror attack, and two, that al-Qaida died along with bin-Laden which was Obama’s campaign narrative. The Benghazi scandal failed to gain traction for 8 months, which incidentally followed another huge cover up which garnered little media attention even though it led the deaths of hundreds of Mexicans and U.S. Border Agent – Fast and Furious. Now it appears there is one scandal a week being revealed about the Obama administration’s handling of all types of affairs.

I touched briefly about the IRS scandal in my last post in which the IRS specifically targeted conservative organizations. The IRS not only broke the law by using bias in its audit process, they also failed to act in a timely matter when conservative groups sought tax-free exemption. All of this occurred during the 2012 election cycle and undoubtedly helped Obama win reelection.

We also learned this week that Kathleen Sebelius, the head of the Health and Human Services Department, was seeking help from healthcare providers to fund the implementation of ObamaCare. Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander has asked the Government Accountability Office to review the legality of Secretary Sebelius' unorthodox and ethically-suspect fundraising efforts. Alexander suspects the scheme "could violate Congress' power to direct policy through appropriations." And this isn't the first time Sebelius has been accused of violating the law by testing the boundaries of her official duties.

Finally, if all of this is not bad enough, it has also come to light the Department of Justice (DOJ) had secretly monitored the phone records of dozens of journalists at the Associated Press (AP). The DOJ suspected there was a leak in the White House who was providing information to the AP that related to National Security. This is really a massive expansion and abuse of the Patriot Act. First, the reporters were not the source of the leak. Secondly, a subpoena to the media must be "as narrowly drawn as possible" and "should be directed at relevant information regarding a limited subject matter and should cover a reasonably limited time period". Thirdly, news organizations normally are notified in advance that the government wants phone records and then they enter into negotiations over the desired information. In this case, however, the government, in its letter to the AP, cited an exemption to those rules.

Many of these scandals / cover ups are Nixonian in nature. Nixon’s paranoia got the best of him and it may do the same to Obama. Obama claims to have known nothing about Fast Furious, Benghazi, the IRS, ObamaCare funding, and the secret monitoring of journalists. If this is true, then Obama is a bad President who is not doing his job and proves that government is too big. If it is false, then Obama should be impeached like Nixon – he is a criminal doing anything possible to bring down his adversaries and win elections. After all, the above actions by this administration are far worse than what Nixon did.

Cheating, Lying and Breaking the Law to win Elections

2013-05-15T06:42:00.000-07:00

The media always talks about the way Republicans and conservatives try to intimidate minorities to win elections (like for instance requiring a picture ID to vote and purging voter lists of deceased individuals to curb voter fraud). This is nonsense! The minority voting rate and trend is growing much faster than other groups of people. One reason for this is due to new early voting and mail-in voting laws in most states which makes it more convenient to vote.

On the other hand, the media never covers how the liberal election machine works to steal elections. In 2008, it was uncovered how the liberal organization ACORN committed thousands of cases of fraud by illegally registering unqualified voters. The outcome was ACORN was forced to rebranded itself into a bunch of smaller entities – no one was prosecuted. During the 2008 election, at precincts in the Philadelphia area, the Black Panther Party had individuals with clubs guarding the outside of voting locations. What was the outcome – the DOJ never pursued any charges against these people.

In 2012, the election appeared as if it could be a close one. This was obviously a concern to the Obama administration and hence, they began to lie, cheat, and conduct illegal operations to win. We have already learned that the administration purposely misled the American public about the Benghazi attack. If the truth behind the attack come forward prior to the election Americans would have learned that al-Qaida is alive and well (this would contradict the Obama campaign narrative that al-Qaida died along with bin-Laden). Americans would have also learned the administration was negligent in the attack and not only denied the Libya embassy the more security they requested, they reduced it. Americans would have learned that Libyans who brought Ambassador Stevens to a hospital were not good Samaritans, but they were complicit in the attack and were setting up an ambush. And finally, if all this is not bad enough, most people forget that Obama went to war unilaterally in Libya and the weapons he supplied the revolutionists were used to attack our Embassy.

Just when I thought this administration could not stoop any lower, they have. Now we have learned the IRS specifically targeted non-profit conservative groups. Specifically, groups who had the following phrases in their names were illegally audited by the IRS: Patriots”, “9/12″, “We the People”, “Take Back the Country”, “Political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding government, educating on the constitution and bill of rights, social economic reform/movement”, "Issues include Government spending, Government debt, or taxes”, Education via advocacy/lobbying to “make America a better place to live.”, “Criticizing how the country is being run.” Obama says he is “outraged” by this and has “no tolerance” for this behavior. We’ll see, but I am sure this investigation will yield similar results as others conducted under Obama such as Fast and Furious and Benghazi where no one has been brought to justice. I am sure this investigation will be as slow as the implementation of ObamaCare, the closing of Guantanamo, and Obama’s “redline” with Syria. I mean are we really supposed to believe that this was carried out by low level IRS employees without the knowledge of higher ups and the Obama administration? If this is true, it only proves that government is too big. The same can be said about Benghazi, if Clinton or Obama was really not in the know – it proves government is too big. But, remember, Obama and this administration joked about using the IRS to audit adversaries and generated a website for Americans to “snitch” on their neighbors who disagree with the administrations ideas. Finally, the DOJ was illegally monitoring AP reporter's business and personal phone calls. Face it, Obama is just as paranoid as Nixon and would have done anything to protect his super ego – including breaking the law to win elections.

Remember, this is the same administration who openly accepted campaign contributions illegally from foreign sources. Where is the IRS investigation into this!

Hillary “What Does it Matter” Clinton (Part II)

2013-05-13T07:32:00.000-07:00

1. A small, armed US force in Tripoli was told it did not have the authority to deploy to Benghazi in the midst of the attack. Twice. Flight time between the two cities is less than an hour. Members of the would-be rescue contingent were "furious" over this obstruction. The witnesses said they did not know who ultimately gave the "stand down" orders, or why. If it was not the Commander-in-Chief calling the shots, why not, and where was he? Whistle-blower Mark Thompson, a career counter-terrorism official at State, said he called the White House to request the immediate deployment of a Foreign Emergency Support Team (FEST) to Benghazi. He was told it was "not the right time" to do so, then was cut out of the communications loop.

2. The US' security chief in Libya, Eric Nordstrom, averred that Secretary Clinton "absolutely" would have been briefed on his (and Stevens') repeated requests for an increased security presence in Libya. This claim undercut committee Democrats' nitpicking over whether Clinton's signature appeared on the memo denying those requests. Furthermore, the Benghazi compound was operating below the bare minimum global security standard for US diplomatic missions -- despite being in an exceedingly dangerous place, and having been subjected to previous attempted attacks. Only the Secretary of State has the authority to grant exemptions for minimum security requirements.

3. Nordstrom stated that elements of the lightly-armed Libyan militia group tasked with protecting the consulate were "certainly" complicit in the attacks. No US Marines were present at the time. Hicks estimated that at least 60 terrorists swarmed into the compound during the attack. Eight months later, zero arrests have been made. If the intent was to find the truth, then why haven’t any arrests been made?

4. It took the FBI nearly a week to arrive and control the crime scene. By this time the crime scene had been compromised. In fact, many U.S. media sites had compromised the site and removed evidence.

So why would the Obama administration and State Department cover up the Benghazi attack. There are several reasons:

1. The election was less than two months away.

2. Obama campaigned on the fact that al-Qaida died along with bin-Laden, and this attack would refute that claim.

3. The attack showed the negligence of the administration and State Department who continually not only denied increased security for the embassy, they decreased security. The Benghazi embassy was only one of 14 U.S. embassies around the globe that had a security rating of high or critical in all 6 state department classifications. And to make matters worse, the State Department planned on making the Libya Embassy a permanent outpost. So this only further questions light and reduced security at the embassy.

4. If the truth about the terrorist attack were to come to light, then Obama’s true intentions were premeditated from the get go – that he never intended to try to save those being attacked. If he sent in reinforcements, it would only admit the attack was not spontaneous over a YouTube video, but was in fact, a terror attack. Think about it, the decision to send reinforcements should have been an easy one to make. If they did not get to Benghazi in time, so be it. But at minimum reinforcements could have protected the crime scene.

I do not know if they will ever tie some of these disturbing events to the President or Clinton. But it is obvious from a circumstantial case that these two were not only complicit in the aftermath to cover up of the Benghazi attack, they were planning to cover up the incident from the onset.

Hillary ‘What Does it Matter” Clinton (Part I)

2013-05-10T06:28:00.000-07:00

In a testimony, before congress about the Benghazi Terror attack on the U.S. Embassy, Hillary Clinton emphatically stated “What does it matter” to questions inquiring into the who and why 4 Americans were killed including Ambassador Chris Stevens. So what did we learn from the Congressional oversight hearing with 3 Benghazi whistleblowers (Gregory Hicks – second in command at the Libya Embassy, Mark Thompson – A career State Department counter-terrorism specialist, and Eric Nordstrom – The Libya security chief)? We learned the death of four Americans due to a terror attack did not matter to Clinton, Obama, Democrats, and liberals alike. If it did matter than the following would have occurred:

1. There has been limited media attention and scrutiny about the attack on most major news stations. In fact, there was not one article about the Benghazi whistleblower hearing on Google or Yahoo news.

2. The administration and state department lied that the attack was due to a spontaneous protest that broke out because of an anti-Islamic video. The Benghazi whistleblower testimony uncovered once and for all this was not true and in fact, an email circulated the day after the attack saying the terrorist group Ansar Al-Sharia, which ties to al-Qaida, was responsible for the attack. Remember, Secretaries Clinton and Rice (the president's hand-selected messenger on Benghazi to the American people) repeatedly stated that the attack arose from "spontaneous protests" over an obscure YouTube video. This was never true. Hicks called the YouTube a "non-event" in Libya. He and others on the ground -- including Ambassador Stevens -- recognized the raid as a coordinated terrorist attack from the very beginning. Hicks testified that he personally told Secretary Clinton as much at 2 am on the night of the attack, along with her senior staff. Days later, Rice recited bogus talking points on five American television networks, and Clinton denounced the video while standing next to the flag-draped coffins of the fallen. Hicks said he never mentioned any "spontaneous demonstrations" related to a video in his phone call with Clinton. This raises some serious questions. How, why, and by whom did the administration's talking points get scrubbed and re-written? Why did the president refuse to identify the attack as terrorism in an interview with CBS News on September 12, and why did he allow Sec. Rice to disseminate patently false information on his behalf?

3. The administration and State Department also lied about the intent of the Libyan people who took Ambassador Stevens to a local hospital. The administration and State Department claimed this was the “goodwill” of the Libyan people trying to support and help Americans. The whistleblower hearings uncovered the hospital was run by the same terrorists who committed the assault on the embassy. And for this reason no one went to the hospital to recover Stevens’ body after the attack because they knew it could be a trap.

4. The US government did not seek permission from the Libyan government to fly any aircraft into Libyan airspace, aside from a drone. The witnesses testified that they believe the Libyan government would have complied with any such request. The fact that none was even made indicates that there was never a plan or intention to rush reinforcements to Benghazi. This renders the "would they have made it on time?" argument largely irrelevant. Another important point about the "they wouldn't have made it" defense: The assault lasted for eight hours and took place into two waves at two different compounds. How could anyone have known how long the fighting would last? How could they have anticipated that ex-Navy SEALs Woods and Doherty wouldn't have been able to stave off the enemy for a few more hours? Help was not on the way. It was never sent.

5. Gregory Hicks, was instructed not to speak with a Congressional investigator by Sec. Hillary Clinton's chief of staff, Cheryl Mills. Hicks said he'd "never" faced a similar demand at any point during his distinguished 22-year diplomatic career. When he refused to comply with this request, the State Department dispatched an attorney to act as a "minder," who insisted on sitting in on all of Hicks' discussions with members of Congress. In fact, Hicks was later demoted for not conforming to State Department threats, just weeks after his service was praised by both Obama and Clinton.

Obama’s Rocky Second Term Start (Part III)

2013-05-08T07:24:00.000-07:00

Terrorism has been a colossal failure by the Obama administration, especially over the past eight months. Here are some administration blunders:

Boston Bombings: Let’s review the missteps of this administration as well as local and federal authorities that could have prevented this terrorist attack. First, Russia warned the U.S. the elder Tsarnaev brother was suspected of being involved with radical Islamic forces in the Chechnya region of Russia. Secondly, once federal authorities began to treat the younger Tsarnaev brother as a U.S. criminal he lawyered up and shut up. Thirdly, it was recently uncovered that Saudi Arabia also sent a written letter to Homeland Security warning them that the elder Tsarnaev brother was a Jihadist. Fourthly, local authorities failed to question the elder Tsarnaev brother in the triple homicide in which one of the dead was Tsarnaev’s best friend. Fourthly, the United States granted the Tsarnaev brothers citizenship in 2009. And finally, the U.S. federal government provided the Tsarnaev brothers and family over 100 thousand dollars in welfare since 2009. Promoters of Jihad push for followers to collect welfare and use their time to plot terror activities while living off the wealth of others. To make matters worse, the elder Tsarnaev brother was collecting welfare when he was in Chechnya for six months. The bottom line is that there was enough activity for authorities to use the Patriot Act to check into the elder Tsarnaev brother’s life. A sure sign that federal authorities dropped the ball was when they posted pictures of the Tsarnaev brothers on TV looking for tips on how to identify who they were after the bombings. Even if federal authorities did like they said, checked into the elder Tsarnaev brother past and found no wrong doing – there still should have been a file on him and his picture should have been identified using facial recognition. This would have saved the life of the MIT police officer who was killed while authorities tried to identify the Tsarnaev brothers. The fact the government had no clue of the elder Tsarnaev brother’s identity only shows they did not investigate Tsarnaev at all – if they did there would be a record of such.

Benghazi: It has been nearly eight months since four Americans including Ambassador Stevens had been murdered. Yet, there have been no arrest in the attack despite the fact the entire act was filmed. First, the administration and State Department lied about the attack calling it a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Muslim film and claimed it was not a terrorist act. Secondly, it was uncovered that then Secretary of State Clinton lied under oath that she had no knowledge of persistent requests for more security at the Benghazi embassy. Now, the administration is trying to prevent government whistleblowers from testifying about the attack. To this day the number of people wounded in the attack and their identities had been withheld – why haven’t these people been allowed to testify? Also, the whistleblowers in this case would testify to the fact that lives would have been saved if Obama ordered in reinforcements from Europe. However, Obama was too busy going to Las Vegas on a campaign trip to make the call. This would also refute earlier testimony made under oath that there was nothing they (administration or State Department) could have done to help save American lives in that attack. Remember, this is the same Obama administration who claims to be the most transparent administration in history. And this is the same administration who rewards whistleblowers (and provides them legal counsel) in the private sector.

Guantanamo: Obama claims that he still intends to keep his promise and close Guantanamo Bay – a promise he said would have been completed over 3 years ago. This is one promise that Obama may eventually be able to keep – but it will be long after he is out of office. Since the Obama plan on terror is to take no prisoners of war, but instead is to kill them, eventually there will be no need for Guantanamo or for enhanced interrogation techniques (since there will be no more prisoners). I find it odd that this President and liberals feel it is a civil violation to conduct enhanced interrogation techniques on enemy combatants and to prevent them from having civilian trials, but it is okay to kill unarmed terrorists? How is that not a violation of their civil liberties? Besides, dead terrorists provide our intelligence community no information to thwart future attacks which makes this president’s strategy a very bad one.

Obama’s Rocky Second Term Start (Part II)

2013-05-06T06:02:00.000-07:00

ObamaCare: Implementation of the law is becoming a glaring issue for the administration. First, many states are refusing to expand its Medicaid payrolls (they can’t afford it) placing most of the onus on the federal government. Secondly, there is mass confusion over the meaning of many ObamaCare provisions, rules, procedures, mandates, and policies. Thirdly, ObamaCare is a highly flawed law and therefore, the administration is being forced to hand out thousands of waivers. In fact, many Democrats want to rewrite provisions of ObamaCare such as taxes on medical devices. Fourth, ObamaCare is not applied equally amongst people, corporations, organizations, and states. For instance, federal funding is not handed out to states equally on a per capita basis and organizations such as unions are exempt from luxury health insurance taxes. For this reason many people, corporations, states, and organizations are pushing back against the law. And what’s worse, healthcare and health insurance costs continue to spiral out of control. In other words, ObamaCare has done nothing to curb rising healthcare costs – the main objective behind ObamaCare.

Sequestration: In an attempt to win approval over his anti-sequestration beliefs, Obama deliberately forced flight delays around the country. Obama said FAA budget cuts of 5% (incidentally the FAA / TSA budget has soared by 50% over the past decade) are the reason for the flight delays. This ploy failed when House Republicans acted quickly to transfer funds to the FAA and the TSA. Remember, Obama promised chaos when the sequestration cuts became a reality and when chaos failed to happen immediately after the cuts became law, Obama acted like a child to force his will on the American people. Obama denies having any part in these delays, but it is hard to believe a 5% cut in funding resulting in a 30% drop in flight on time performance. This simply does not add up.

Budget: Obama finally introduced a budget, his first in four years. Despite raising taxes, Obama’s 2014 budget includes a record 3.77 trillion in spending and another 750 billion dollars added to our deficit, which is fast approaching 17 trillion dollars. Also, keep in mind, this budget takes into account that both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are over which Obama has claimed would lead to deficit reduction.

Syria: President Obama, who earlier said use of chemical weapons by Syria on its people would be a “red line” requiring action by the U.S., walked the stance back on this past week, saying he needs more information on the reported attacks before responding. Administration officials recently said intelligence analysts had "varying degrees of confidence" the embattled government of Syrian President Bashar Assad has gassed civilians with sarin. However, Obama said the administration is using all its resources to determine the facts about a weapon that he has said would be a "game changer" for U.S. policy in the war. Obama made so such caveats when he originally issued his “red line” stance. If Obama does not act (and his action does not necessarily has to be going to war with Syria – placing troops on the ground) it shows the rogue states of North Korea and Iran that Obama is soft and his stern words means very little.

Obama’s Rocky Second Term Start (Part I)

2013-05-03T06:38:00.000-07:00

To celebrate Obama’s first 100 days of his second term, let’s look at the liberal’s crowing achievements (low lights) thus far:

Gun Control: The Obama administration politicized the Newtown Connecticut massacre to push for gun control, which eventually failed. Obama predictably carried on like a baby when his ploy failed by berating and chastising Republicans for his failed policy. Obama insists that Americans should not judge Muslims for the actions of a few when it comes to terrorism. I agree, but the same can be said about gun control – it is hard to penalize the majority for the actions of few insane persons. Besides, the gun control legislation proposed by the Senate would not have prevented past or future gun violence since the Obama administration only prosecutes less than 1% of falsified gun permit applications (a violation of federal law). Therefore, until the federal government gets its act together and enforces federal laws, there is little chance any new laws will prevent future violence. Also, the proposed legislation did nothing to address mental illness which is the main culprit behind mass killings – not guns. Below is a good example of a gun violence cause that I found (it is sarcastic but it makes a point):

Disability is the Most Common U.S. Profession

2013-05-01T06:47:00.000-07:00

What is the most common profession in the U.S.? Is it teachers? No. Is it postal workers? No. The answer may not surprise many, but it is people on social security disability – 11 million strong and growing fast. This equates to 6% of the declining U.S. workforce. Do not get me wrong, I know many good people on social security disability who really cannot work. But there are many people abusing this entitlement. Fifty years ago, 0.65% of the workforce was on disability. And what’s even more troubling, people added to the disability payrolls today are outpacing jobs produced by the economy since 2009 by 19%. The disability payrolls are up 53% over the past 10 years. Applications for social security disability are up 24% since 2008. Today, social security disability accounts for about 16% of social security and Medicaid funding. It is alarming, but there are 1.65 people working in the private sector to every 1 person on some form of welfare assistance.

Part of what I said above is misleading because people on social security disability are not included in the U.S. workforce numbers. And this expansion of the disability payrolls helps to explain the drop in the U.S. workforce by 2% under president Obama. And this also works to artificially lower U.S. unemployment numbers. Fifty years ago, 89% of all eligible working age males were part of the workforce; today that number is 73%.

If we evaluate this issue a little closer it is apparent that there are millions of people associated with the disability system that are complicit with the alarming rate of expansion of the program. Applicants for social security disability need to be approved. It used to be hard to receive social security disability benefits, but it is much easier to qualify for these benefits today - meaning the government has really relaxed its standards to qualify for this entitlement. Today, nearly 80% of all applicants are accepted as opposed to fewer than 30% 50 years ago. Lawyers, who seek out so called injured people, are complicit to this issue. Many unethical lawyers would do anything to see their annual income rise at the expense of the taxpayers. Doctors are complicit to this issue. Today, there are more medical excuses for people not to work than ever before. Over the past 50 years hundreds of new syndromes and disorders have been identified and more and more people are being identified with these types of disorders – eating, drinking, substance, attention, personality, mental, and so forth.

Matt Rutledge, a research economist at Boston College’s Center for Retirement Research says “We see a lot of people applying for social security disability once their unemployment insurance expires”.

The problem with social security disability payrolls is they have become a permanent solution to many, not a temporary one. About 700,000 people drop off social security disability payrolls each year, but nearly half of these cases are because people have reached retirement age or have died.

A big liberal complaint about welfare assistance is it does not provide enough to help people in poverty. They say food stamp assistance only amounts to $1.75 per meal. I have heard them say “Let me see you live off $1.75 per meal!” My wife and I life on about $19 dollars per day for food and if food stamps only covered $10.50 per day (for 3 meals for both of us) then our out of pocket expense would $8.50 per day. Food stamp assistance is not meant to compensate families 100% for what they consume. If food stamps covered 100% of our meals than what is the incentive to work at all? The same goes for social security disability benefits. I qualify to collect $2,400 dollars a month of social security benefits – enough so I do not have to work. As I have written before, I am 100% certain I could qualify for these benefits (chronic neurological disorder) if I applied, but I would never expect my neighbors to pay my bills.

White House and Authorities Continue to Botch National Security (Part II)

2013-04-28T16:12:00.000-07:00

The Boston bombings may prove federal authority’s incompetence better than any other terrorism case. The Tsamaev brothers were no dummies, but there were many red flags that should have resulted in their capture and or imprisonment far before carrying out this horrific terrorist act.

First, the Department of Homeland Security admits that the Russian government warned them that the elder Tsamaev brother was associated with radical Islamic groups in the Chechnya region of Russia back in 2011. Homeland security claims to have investigated the claim and found no evidence and dropped the case after a request to the Russia government for more information failed. This report conflicts with Russian accounts which claim to have warned the U.S. about Tsamaev multiple times over the past two years. Tsamaev spent over 6 months in the Chechnya region in 2011 before returning back to the United States. And let’s not forget, the Chechnya region has the highest rate of terrorism (mostly radical Islam) activity in Russia.

Secondly, the older Tsamaev brother’s best friend and Mixed Martial Arts sparring partner was murdered (along with two others) on the tenth anniversary of 9-11. However, local authorities never questioned Tsamaev about the brutal murders where the victim’s throats were slashed ear to ear. It is hard to believe a Muslim friend of a victim murdered in that fashion on the anniversary of 9-11 is never questioned despite reports stating Tsamaev may have been the last to see his friend alive.

Thirdly, if all of this is not bad enough, the FBI posts pictures of the Tsamaev brothers two days after bombings hoping to get citizen tips to identify and capture them. One would think the federal government would have a picture of the elder Tsamaev brother on file after being notified by the Russian government about his link to radical Islam and the fact they supposedly did a background check on him. Even if authorities cleared his name, one would think there would still be a record of him and facial recognition software would have identified him days before the manhunt concluded (which resulted in the death of a MIT police officer).

Fourthly, the administration granted the Tsamaev brothers citizenship on 9-11 2009. Surely, Homeland Security must conduct background checks on individuals they are granting citizenship to, right?

The point is that this administration, along with federal and local authorities, had several opportunities to identify Tsamaev as a threat, but failed.

Yet, the administration and federal authorities claim the Tsamaev brothers acted alone and received no foreign help of any kind to carry out the bombings. The government must think American citizens are naïve to believe that a person identified as being complicit with radical Islam in Russia carried out a successful bombing act as a “lone wolf”. And to make matters worse, the administration is failing to treat the younger Tsamaev brother as an enemy combatant. After all, if the government and administration admit the Tsamaev brothers had foreign help then they would be seen as dropping the ball on national security.

White House and Authorities Continue to Botch National Security (Part I)

2013-04-25T20:12:00.000-07:00

Sure, federal and local authorities thwart far more terrorist attacks than what happen. But keep in mind that many attempted attacks are uncovered in their later stages because of vigilant citizens – not because authorities were in the know. Also, this is the digital era where there are cameras in the hands of every citizen, on every street corner, and in every home and business. It is hard to hide anything from the law without big brother watching especially with the Patriot Act.

One of the biggest errors made by the White House and authorities with regards to terrorism in the U.S. is political correctness. Officials are so afraid of offending Muslim Americans they fail to treat terrorists as enemy combatants, but they treat them as ordinary citizens. This creates a few problems. First, offenders are free from facing such consequences as the death penalty, life in Guantanamo, or enhanced interrogation techniques. Hence, the penalty does not equal the crime. Secondly, this methodology makes it extremely more difficult to obtain intelligence from captured terrorists who are allowed to lawyer up. Thirdly, it denies the fact these people are terrorists, but instead treats them as everyday common criminals. Officials are also afraid to profile Muslims, which could have prevented not only the Boston Bombings but the Fort Hood massacre. Because of these lax measures, for instance, no credible intelligence has been garnered from the “underwear bomber.” We know this because none of the people who trained the “underwear bomber” have ever been caught. The “underwear bomber” was trained to carry out a terroristic act which would have succeeded if not for his incompetence.

Authorities have still failed to make any arrests in the Benghazi terror attack – which incidentally killed more Americans than the Boston Bombings. The White House would love for this story to go away. But this is exactly what happens when our Commander in Chief tries to blame a terrorist attack on a video instead of as a calculated terrorist attack. He is afraid to call or label people, especially radical Muslims, terrorists. We have now learned that Clinton and the State Department are now complicit in the Benghazi cover up. Here is information from CBS on the latest report released on the incident:

The committees' Republicans conclude that Clinton approved security reductions at the consulate, pointing to evidence such as an April 2012 State Department cable bearing her signature. The cable was a formal request from then-U.S. Ambassador to Libya Gene Cretz for more security. In her testimony before Congress in January, Clinton said, "With specific security requests they didn't come to me. I had no knowledge of them." Clinton approved reductions in security levels prior to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack, contradicting Clinton’s testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Jan. 23.
The interim report also charges that White House and senior State Department officials attempted to protect the State Department from criticism by altering accurate talking points drafted by the intelligence community. For instance, the report says that, after a Sept. 15, 2012 meeting, administration officials removed references to the likely participation of Islamic extremists.
The report also contradicts administration claims that the talking points were changed to protect classified information. None of the email exchanges reviewed ever mentioned a concern about classified information, according to the report.

Medicine on the Decline Story

2013-04-24T06:22:00.000-07:00

Here is another story about medicine on the decline from a friend who read my blog http://thetheoryofmediocrity.blogspot.com/2013/04/why-medicine-is-on-decline.html

I was taking a small dose of medication for my thyroid prescribed by a doctor down here in Texas. When I moved to NH the medication ran out and nobody will give a prescription without seeing you. So I went to my annual physical with an internal medicine specialist ($) since the concern was about a thyroid growth. Well, I also had a small bump on my skin and the internal medicine specialist thought it looked like a cyst but I would need to see a dermatologist. She also recommended I have another ultrasound and see a thyroid specialist. So, I schedule the ultrasound at the local hospital ($$), then went to the thyroid specialist ($$$) to get the results. After about 10min with the Dr. he told me the ultrasound didn't show the growth and it was up to me if I wanted to continue taking the medication or not. From what I remember, this was about $300 for that conversation... and as you pointed out, that could have been communicated over the phone for free.

Next was the dermatologist. He confirmed it was a cyst and asked if it hurt or anything. I said no, and he asked if I wanted it removed. Again, I said no, I was fine with it, just wanted to make sure it wasn't something serious. He told me to just let him know if I wanted it removed in the future. About a year later, it had grown some more so I called to make an appointment with the same dermatologist and told the receptionist or nurse that I wanted to come in to have a cyst removed and he had seen me before. Keep in mind I'm missing work for all of these appointments. So, my appointment day comes, I see the doc, and he takes a look and says, "well, I can't do that here, you need to see a surgeon for that but I can recommend one." Apparently, he can remove topical moles and such but not something under the skin. He also goes on to tell me it won't be covered by insurance because it is considered elective. As you can imaging, I wasn't too pleased with any of it and decided I could live with the cyst even longer. Finally, I get the bill for about $250. That kinda put me over the edge so I called billing and told them the story. Why would they schedule me again if they couldn't remove it in the first place? They finally cancelled the charge.
It just seems to me we have lost common courtesy. It's all about the money and herding people through like cattle. I think the real problem is more about the lawsuits than the doctors themselves. If I try to look from their viewpoint, the internal medicine specialist doesn't want to say it is a cyst because it could be something else like cancer and then she gets sued. So to be safe, send the patient to a specialist. Same with the ultrasound and thyroid... no use taking a chance on that one. Need to order the test to CYA. What if a doctor did call or have a nurse call on their behalf to give a patient results? No real way to confirm the patient received the information... another lawsuit waiting to happen if something goes wrong.

Transport that same childhood doctor and have him practicing today I would be willing to bet he would have sent you to a specialist. The general practitioner would be sued if you had died but it he sent you to a specialist and maybe you died before you could even get an appointment (which could easily happen under Obama care) or he couldn't figure it out and then you died, everyone did their job's. But even then, with the lawyers, someone and everyone would probably still get sued.

2013 NFL Mock Draft

2013-04-22T06:04:00.000-07:00

Here is my projections for the first round NFL draft this Thursday:

Kansas City - Luke Joeckel (OT, Texas A&M)
Jacksonville - Dion Jordan (DE, California)
Oakland - Sharrif Floyd (DT, Florida)
Philadelphia - Geno Smith (QB, West Virginia)
Detroit - DeMarcus Millner (CB, Alabama)
Cleveland - Eric Fisher (OT, Central Michigan)
Arizona - Lane Johnson (OT, Oklahoma)
Buffalo - Ezekiel Anash (DE, BYU)
NY Jets - Barkevious Mingo (DE, LSU)
Tennessee - Chance Warmack (OG, Alabama)
San Diego - Jonathon Cooper (OG, North Carolina)
Miami - Tavon Austin (WR, West Virginia)

NY Jets - Desmond Trufant (CB, Washington)
Carolina - Star Lotulelei (DT, Utah)

New Orleans - Sylvester Williams (DT, North Carolina)

St. Louis - DJ Fluker (OT, Alabama)
Pittsburgh - Jarvis Jones (LB, Georgia)
Dallas - Kenny Vaccaro (S, Texas)
NY Giants – Tank Carradine (DE, Florida St.)
Chicago - Cordarrelle Patterson (WR, Tennessee)
Cincinnati – Alec Olgletree (LB, Georgia)
St. Louis (from Washington) - Alec Olgletree (LB, Georgia)
Minnesota - Sheldon Richardson (DT, Missouri)
Indianapolis - Xavier Rhodes (CB, Florida St.)
Minnesota - Manti Te’o (LB, Notre Dame)
Green Bay - Eddie Lacy (RB, Alabama)
Houston - Keenan Allen (WR, California)
Denver – Bjorn Werner (DE, Florida St.)
New England - Demantre Moore (DE, Texas A&M)
Atlanta - Datone Jones (DE, UCLA)
San Francisco - Jonathan Hawkins (DT, Ohio State)
Baltimore – Arthur Brown (LB, Kansas State)

Investment Versus Spending

2013-04-19T06:54:00.000-07:00

I disagree with liberals on a lot of things, but no topic do I disagree more vehemently than on investment and spending. As a former business owner and author on the subject, it is a fact liberals think backwards when confronted with fiscal problems. Liberals use the words investment and spending interchangeably as if they mean the same things. Spending is defined as to pay out money. Investment is defined as a property or possession acquired for future financial return or benefit. Sometimes liberals refer to spending as a stimulus which they conclude is an investment in the economy. Some liberals such as Nancy Pelosi insist unemployment compensation and other anti-poverty spending is an investment in the economy. In fact, New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand went on to say that 1 dollar spent on anti-poverty programs such as food stamps returns $1.71 to the economy! Really, a 71% return on anti-poverty investments! Maybe we too will get rich if we too invest in ant-poverty programs. This is in insane for several reasons.

First, and most importantly, federal government spending simply distributes wealth from one person to another. The government collects taxes on wealthier citizens and redistributes these funds to poorer citizens. If anything, this act should be deficit neutral. But we know this is not true because the federal government is actually 16 trillion dollars in debt. Hence, if anti-poverty spending is an investment, where is the benefit or financial return? In previous posts I have pointed out that fewer than 30 cents on the dollar make it to people who are registered to collect anti-poverty funding. This is not an investment.

Secondly, a big problem many liberals have with the wealthy is that they invest and save their money. Hence, liberals draw the misguided conclusion that this does nothing to help the economy because they are not purchasing good and services. When, in fact, this type of investment is best for the economy. Money saved in banks allows them to hand out loans. Investments in companies help them to expand and grow. And income earned through investments is taxed and provides the government with tax revenue. Quantitative easing programs initiated by the Federal Reserve (which is chartered to monitor the fiscal wellbeing of the economy), for example, buy investments to stimulate the economy. The Fed does not spend more money on anti-poverty programs to stimulate the economy.

Thirdly, for some reason most liberals I talk with favor government spending over charity spending. In fact, some do not think charity spending is an investment, but on the other hand are convinced government spending is an investment. Actually, the only difference between the two is that charity spending is more efficient than government spending by at least 20%; charities let people choose which anti-poverty programs they want to spend their money on; and charities do not operate at a loss.

Fourthly, if Gillibrand’s logic is correct than that would mean that 1 trillion dollars in state and federal spending on anti-poverty programs this past year should have generate an additional 710 billion dollars for the economy (nearly 5% of GDP). That is enough money for 45 million Americans (90% of those living in poverty) to live at the U.S. median income level and enough money to generate, at a minimum, 77 billion dollars for the government in tax revenue. Well, since the government is in debt and 50 million people live in poverty we can conclude anti-poverty spending is no investment.

So why then do many Americans believe what the Democrats preach about spending as being true? First, essentially anyone benefiting from these programs will side with the Democratic definition of spending. Secondly, and most importantly, Americans are routinely manipulated to think this way not only by the government, but by corporations. For instance, when we shop at a grocery store our receipt and checkout clerk will remind us that we saved a particular sum of money by shopping at their store. I routinely hear people talk about how much they saved when they purchased a new product. No matter how you look at it, when you buy something you are spending money even if you got it on sale. This is especially true if you are buying necessities or nonessential items such as food, clothing, energy, or electronics. You spend money on these items, but they are not an investment (although you can make money off real estate).

Liberals may have convinced many if we put 1 dollar in our right pocket, it will magically generate $1.71 in our left pocket. However, the reality and facts show stimulus spending is no investment since there is no future benefit. It may create or save some jobs, but at what cost – 1 million dollars per job? This is no benefit or financial return.

Why Medicine is on the Decline

2013-04-17T06:15:00.000-07:00

I hear how medicine has gotten so good over the years and this is the reason to explain why life expectancies are on the rise. This may be true, but it is no thanks to doctors. I have completely lost respect for the medical profession, especially doctors. I find them useless egomaniacs that are grossly overpaid. The reason medicine has improved is because technology has improved, not because doctors have improved. Advancements in drugs, imaging, and medical equipment come from scientists and engineers, not doctors. These advancements, such as in laser technology, have made certain types of surgery easier and less evasive. Yes, it takes skill to be a surgeon, but that does not mean the surgeon is making the medical profession better. Most doctors are mathematically illiterate, and therefore do not have the intellect to make technological advancements in medicine.

As a young child I got infectious boils. Our family doctor made routine house calls to check in on me. Since we did not have much money, the doctor arranged for me to be hospitalized so I could be studied easier. I was placed in solitude because he feared what I had was contagious. After two weeks and dozens of blood tests my doctor concluded my immune system was failing due to a gamma globulin deficiency. I was given gamma globulin shots weekly for several years and I never had an infectious boil again. I never realized at the time, or even dozens of years later until I looked it up, my doctor saved my life. This condition would have killed me. Gamma globulin deficiency is referred to the “silent killer” because the symptoms are vague, random, and hard to decipher. Specialists existed in these days, but not as they do today. Hence, my doctor faced this issue by himself and solved it. Today, you would never see this – a general practitioner solving a problem to save someone’s life. Instead, a general practitioner’s role is to refer people to specialists (and hopefully they choose the right specialist).

My wife and I have spent over $75,000 (including what insurance covers) on medical bills over the past 4 years. I was diagnosed with a rare neurological condition which was explained to me in three unique but conflicting ways (in other words the neurologist had no clue what was going on nor did they care). None of the 8 doctors I saw over the course of my diagnosis are losing any sleep over the fact that I am in constant pain. My wife’s condition has yet to be identified after seeing dozens of specialists. And judging by the fact that none of them have followed up with her; I know they are not losing any sleep over the fact she is suffering from chronic pain.

My father went to three different doctors for stomach pain and bloating over a two month period. He was prescribed Pepto-Bismol. A week later he was spitting up blood and the gastroenterologist saved his life by cauterizing the source of the bleeding. After nearly two weeks and dozens of tests by specialists he still was not diagnosed. After looking at his symptoms online (we had a hunch) I took his records and film to an oncologist at the University of Florida. After 5 minutes he accurately explained my father’s symptoms without ever seeing him. The doctor explained how my father had 8 tumors and the liver tumor was far too advanced to correct. He said he may live another 2 months – four weeks later he died.

My mother died of ovarian cancer. She had to have her tests performed twice before she was diagnosed because the oncologist lost her initial records.

ObamaCare is going to aid in the medical demise. My in-laws can no longer find specialists in their community who accept Medicare. They have to drive 3 hours one way to see a cardiologist who accepts Medicare. ObamaCare not only cuts Medicare, but it eliminates the doctor fix. In other words, doctors do not want to see Medicare patients because it does not pay enough.

Another troubling aspect of the medical profession is the United States has to outsource to find doctors. Just as U.S. companies have to hire foreigners for math and engineering jobs, the U.S. has to hire foreigners to be our doctors. I am not saying that foreigners are bad doctors, but in my experience there has been a serious communication barrier with most.

So why is it that the costs of technological gadgets go down over time, but it seems the cost of medical equipment is always on the rise. The fact is that the cost of medical equipment is going down however it is the cost for doctors, who do not care about you, is what is driving medical expenses up.

I am thankful for my childhood doctor; I will never find another like him. I have probably been to over 50 different doctors since, and none come close. If I had to rely on my current doctors to resolve my childhood issue, I am sure I would be dead. My childhood doctor would not let money come between him doing his job; he was proactive and not reactive to solve problems; and he sincerely cared about me. He certainly would have never set up a follow up appointment and say “I have no idea what is wrong with you” and charge my family 100 dollars. This is common today, patients get nickeled and dimed for information that could be communicated over the phone for free. It is all about money and not our health with doctors. Thank goodness there are good engineers out there that are supplying doctors with the equipment necessary to solve medical mysteries.

It’s Never Enough

2013-04-15T06:34:00.000-07:00

It does not matter how much wealth a person accumulates, it is never enough. It does not matter how much wealth a company, the government, or organizations collect, it is never enough. For this reason, the new taxes on the wealthy and those implemented to raise money for ObamaCare (Medical Devices, Health Savings Accounts, Investment Income, Medical Expense Deductions, and Medicare Payroll Increase) will never be enough. The federal debt stands at 16 trillion dollars and the true national debt when accounted for liabilities such as federal pensions and post retiree benefits (social security and Medicare) is 87 trillion dollars. This equates to a debt of around $275,000 for each person in the country. It does not matter if we tax the wealthy at a 100% rate, it will not make a dent in this debt. Yet, cutting government spending is a hard habit to break, because what people receive in entitlement benefits is never enough. The state and federal government actually collect enough revenue (nearly 1 trillion dollars) to pull all 50 million Americans living in poverty into the upper middle class. However, since less than 30 cents on the dollar makes an impact on poverty (government waste), the amount of money collected for anti-poverty programs is never enough.

If all of this is not bad enough, gender and ethnicity play its part in this greed. Since women are perceived as being discriminated against and treated unjustly, now they want the government to fund their contraception and abortions (Their role model – Sandra Fluke – was nominated at the Time person of the year). Yes, women are paid less than men (nearly 20% less, but this does not include child support and alimony payments for divorced or separated women). Minorities are also paid less. Is this pay discrepancy due to discrimination – Yes, but most agree it is less than 5%. Most discrepancies in pay are due to working few hours and working less skilled and lower paying jobs. Women and minorities take fewer risks than white men and therefore, only account for about 35% of company ownership (this trend is changing). Still, women and minorities fail to realize that the United States is the best place to live in the world and they take many of their freedoms for granted. Women and minorities receive more in entitlement and charitable contributions than white males and women live considerably longer than men. Take for instance the investment in breast cancer. Breast cancer (less than 1% of all cases effect men) is the third most common form of cancer, yet it receives more than twice the amount of funding than any other form of cancer. Prostate cancer is the second most prevalent form of cancer and it is nearly as deadly as breast cancer, but receives less than half the funding that breast cancer receives. Ovarian cancer funding dwarfs testicular cancer funding. Is this fair? Yes, because women made it happen. If I did not think it was fair I could raise money for other male causes – these are the freedoms we have in this country. Is it fair that women in the military do not have to fight on the front lines? I do not have a problem with it. I do not think this is a conspiracy against men, but at the same time I do not expect women should think they are being discriminated against because I think they should be responsible and held accountable for their own choices about promiscuity.

I was a poor white male, but I never felt I was discriminated against because wealthy females and minorities got better opportunities at college. Women and minorities garnered most of the scholarships and the few co-op positions that companies offered. I could not argue since my grades were not as good. However, I knew of no engineers working 20 to 30 hours a week while averaging 21 credit hours per semester as I was doing. I did not receive a single penny of assistance from my parents, but I received a PELL grant one year (after my freshman year my mother never got her taxes done in time for me to qualify for future grants). Was this fair? Yes, unfortunately that was my situation. In fact, I was so grateful I paid back my grant with interest. I would have never done this if I felt everyone else was being treated better than me. After all, I did not understand the individual struggles each woman and minority candidate who competed against me for compensation and jobs had to face. It was best for me to concentrate on my struggles and adversity and do what was necessary to overcome them and succeed. I realize that not everyone has the luxury to pay back grants, but people like Michelle and Barack should pay back any grants they received so another person can benefit. Instead, we all feel we were entitled at the time. Should wealthy people accept social security and Medicare benefits? No, but most do because they never seem to have enough money.

It does not matter whether we are poor, middle class, or wealthy we never seem to have enough money. It does not matter if it is the government, a company, or organization, they never seem to have enough wealth. We all want more, but it is not realistic.

Do Hispanics Want Amnesty?

2013-04-12T06:26:00.000-07:00

What is the reason Hispanics vote so heavily for Democrats? I really cannot say for sure, but I do know that the family values preached by conservatives are not working. Hispanics not only increased their electorate by 15% over 2008, but they voted for Democrats by larger margins (the first time they exceeded 70%). The one thing Obama did was sign an executive order that provided amnesty to illegal immigrants who met certain provisions. Is this what excited Hispanics to vote in record numbers and break for Obama overwhelmingly?

I was originally against amnesty of any kind. I was turned off by Hispanics protesting state immigration laws by burning the American Flag and reverting to violence. This said a good number of Hispanics did not really love the United States and certainly would not want to assimilate to American customs. I also thought granting amnesty without securing the Southern boarder would only encourage more Hispanics to enter illegally. However, my opinion has changed. After giving it more thought, even if the Democrats granted amnesty to all illegal immigrants, it would not be advantageous for them to accept it. Hence, this policy could backfire against Democrats.

So what has changed? ObamaCare is one reason! Liberals wanting healthcare reform argued that illegal immigrants would use the emergency rooms at hospitals to receive treatment for free. Hospitals cannot ethically reject treating people who do not have insurance. If Hispanics are granted amnesty they now would be responsible to buy health insurance or pay a fine. This is not going to be cheap (ObamaCare is driving up costs) and will be a big expense to immigrants struggling to get by.

Another financial implication Hispanics will have to consider is taxes. Even if their income is low and they do not earn enough to pay federal taxes, they will have to pay Medicare and Social Security taxes.

It is a big debate as to whether or not illegal aliens collect entitlements and how much. Liberals argue that only legal residents can collect welfare by law. That is true; however a Census report indicates 71% of illegal immigrants (mostly Hispanics) are able to collect welfare on behalf of their U.S. born children. The report also showed some disturbing numbers for both legal and illegal immigrants - they are more likely to collect welfare than other Americans (36% to 23%); they are more likely to be in poverty (23% to 14%); they are more likely to be uninsured (29% to 14%); and they are more likely to be uneducated (29% to 7%). Consider this; new immigrants are also subjected to a 5 year ban on federal entitlements – but of course there are exceptions.

So, if you are an illegal immigrant, why would you want to be granted amnesty and eventually become a legal citizen? They will face healthcare mandates; they will face higher taxes; and they will possibly face a 5 ban on federal entitlements. The Census report confirms legal and illegal immigrants are poorer, do not have insurance, are more likely to be dependent on welfare, and have no education. So what is the advantage of being a U.S. citizen? Economically, this could be a disaster for many illegal aliens.

Finally, the U.S. would be forced to implement a national ID card to enforce amnesty and illegal immigration policy. This is not something many Hispanics favor based on their objection to Arizona and other state immigration laws requiring citizens to carry proof of citizenship.

Currently, illegals can live without the prospect of being deported in many sanctuary states and cities. They can be paid under the table and not worry about taxes. They do not have to assimilate because U.S. companies and governments are already catering to this demographic (For instance, pick 1, for Espanol on all phone options). They do not have worry about healthcare. And in all likelihood, many illegals can collect entitlements now. Why then become a citizen?

Immigration has been a fiscal nightmare for many European nations since immigrants are the dominate users of entitlements. This may be the long term result of amnesty in the U.S. as well. If this happens, Democrats will be forced to enact austerity measures. The Census report indicated that 95% of legal and illegal immigrant households had at least one member earning some income. From this we can infer Hispanics want to work and will need good paying jobs, and maybe at this point in time, they will start to side with conservative economic principals.

Walmart Versus Big Government and Unions (Part II)

2013-04-10T06:27:00.000-07:00

One complaint about Walmart is employees must endure weird and non-consistent hours. As a test engineer for Texas Instruments my hours were not consistent or normal. Since test equipment is expensive, the company expected engineers to use the equipment 24/7. Complicating hours even more was the fact many of our customers and manufacturing facilities were overseas making “weird” times for meetings. Many jobs have “weird” hours that are not conducive for a family unit. Yes, engineers are paid well, but keep in mind most engineers work a minimum of 50 hours per week and the average is probably closer to 60.

Another complaint is Walmart products are mostly produced in China and the people who make them work in sweatshops. Assuming this is true, employees should then be grateful they work at Walmart in U.S. And let’s not forget that unrealistic union demands are the reason why manufacturing jobs are moving overseas.

Walmart has been called racist because 70% of its employees are women – meaning women are being subject to lower paying jobs. This makes little sense. Using this same logic we can say the federal government is racist because over 60% of all people receiving welfare benefits are minorities.

Liberals want the EPA to investigate Walmart for storing pesticides and herbicides in parking lots. They argue that this is a danger to food and water due to potential runoff when it rains. If this is a crime, then the manufacturers and the customers using these products are also guilty and need to be investigated by the EPA.

Another complaint about Walmart is the documented high crime rates in their parking lots. But crime rates are higher in parking lots across the country, especially at malls. Parking lots are harder to patrol, harder to light, and they have easier escape routes compared to inside places. My car was broken into twice and hit 3 times in my company parking lot.

If Walmart is evil then why is their pay and benefits comparable to other retail outlets such as Target? The free market determines salaries and benefits and as long as there is demand for workers to earn 10 to 12 dollars per hour companies will continue to offer these jobs. And let’s not forget, employees have choices in the United States – they can pick a job they like and have the opportunity to get an education to qualify them for higher paying jobs. But let’s face facts, many Americans are lazy and choose the easiest route. For instance, it is certainly much easier to earn a useless liberal arts degree than an engineering degree.

Another argument liberals make against Walmart is their employees cost the taxpayers over 2 billion dollars annually in entitlements. Let’s point out most Walmart employees requesting entitlements are new employees who have yet to earn healthcare benefits and part time workers by choice. But at the same time is it okay for union and government workers to earn unrealistic pensions that are approaching 20 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities (taxpayers are funding)? Is it okay for union workers to cost private sector companies billions in revenue (and the government tax revenue) because they go on strike? Is it fair that government workers are paid more than private sector workers for doing the same job? Still, Walmart pays far more in taxes and gives more to charity than their employees claim in federal subsidies.

Consider this; a union line worker for an automotive company has an 80% chance to accumulate more wealth over their lifetime than a non-union PhD. engineer who designs the safety systems for cars. Remember, an automotive line worker can start accumulating wealth at 18. On the other hand, a PhD graduate cannot start accumulating wealth until they are 26 and by that time they are more than likely over 100K in debt with school loans. In this scenario, I assume the average engineer works at least 50 hours a week. Hence, a union worker who puts in 50 hours per week will be paid time and half for 10 hours per week. This scenario also considers that the union worker will have considerably lower healthcare costs. Is this scenario fair? Does this promote education over dropping out of high school? Does this promote ingenuity? And for this reason, U.S. automotive companies have become less competitive losing market share to foreign companies. In the U.S., Honda can make a comparable car to any GM, Ford, or Chrysler car for at least 20% less cost. The point is unions have to realistic about worker benefits, pay, and compensation. If unions were being realistic than Boeing would not have been forced to move some of its operations from pro union to right to work states and Hostess would not have been forced out of business because of unrealistic demands.

The bottom line is that Walmart does far more for Americans than the federal government and unions combined.

Walmart Versus Big Government and Unions (Part I)

2013-04-08T06:06:00.000-07:00

Liberals hail big labor unions and the government as the savior to the poor and Walmart as the evil corporation keeping people in poverty. Let’s examine the reality of this flawed hypothesis.

Walmart made 15.7 billion dollars in profit last year (about $7100 per employee). Meanwhile, the federal government is over 16 trillion dollars in debt (about 51 thousand per person). Last year the federal debt was equivalent to 4,000 dollars per person. And this does not include billions in state debt or unfunded liabilities. Remember, the more revenue and profit Walmart collects, the more they pay in taxes, and the more capital and equity they have to expand and hire new employees. Does it make sense to pay higher benefits to Walmart employees, but employ fewer people?

Walmart paid 7.1 billion in taxes last year (about $3,300 per employee). On the other hand, union member dues are tax free and therefore, unions only have to pay taxes on their investments and what they pay employees. Union leaders live lavish lifestyles like corporate CEOs. Many large unions own billions in assets such as owning Lear Jet. Yet, the taxes they pay are far less than 500 dollars per member. In fact, all so called non-profits in the U.S. accounted for 1.7 trillion in revenues last year (about 12% of our national GDP and 3 times the size of Walmart) and pay little in taxes.

Walmart paid nearly 1 billion dollars in charitable contributions in 2011 (nearly $450 dollars per employee). Information is not readily available on union charitable contributions (for good reason, I do not think they give to charities).

Walmart paid about $3.50 per person on lobbying and campaign contributions this year (Romney and Obama nearly split evenly). Most large unions pay anywhere from $50 to $300 dollars per member on lobbying and campaign contributions (favors Democrats by over 20 to 1 margin).

State and federal governments will fund nearly 1 trillion dollars into anti-poverty programs in 2013 (6% of GDP). There are 50 million people living in poverty meaning this is equivalent to paying each person living in poverty $20,000 annually. The poverty rate for a family of 3 is just under 19,000 dollars hence a family of 3 living solely on welfare should receive nearly $60,000 annually – more than the U.S. annual income of $51,000. Therefore, there is ample tax revenue for state and local governments to wipe out poverty. However, since 50 million people still live in poverty we can assume the most a family of 3 living solely on welfare may collect is about 18,000 dollars annually. Therefore, at best, only 30% of government anti-poverty spending makes it to the people who need it. Think about it; if the government employed 100,000 people to administer theses hundreds of anti-poverty programs, and if we assume government overhead is 50%, then these employees would collect $350,000 annually. But we know employees are not earning $350,000 annually, this simply illustrates how inefficient and wasteful the government is. So the question is where does all this money go? This is similar to education conundrum. Each class in a public school receives about $250,000 annually, but less than 40 percent goes to teachers. Where does the remaining 60% go? Administrators, special curriculum, workers, overhead, and upgrades certainly cannot account for 60% of education costs? This is criminal.

Walmart pays the average associate employee about $24,000 annually which includes salary, store discounts, bonuses, profit sharing, 401K contributions, and healthcare premiums. This is more than a family of 3 would receive from anti-poverty programs.

Adversity and the Role of Government

2013-04-05T06:20:00.000-07:00

I have long believed what determines a person’s character is how they deal with adversity. Every person faces many adverse situations during their lives. The first step in dealing with adversity is acceptance or accountability. Unfortunately, most people live in denial and avoidance when facing adverse situations. Developing a strong character usually stems from good family values. However, in the face of technology, single parent families, daycare, and other factors, family values are not being reinforced. Hence, present day personal character is narcissistic and centered around irresponsible traits such as finding blame and fault and our President is the biggest proponent of using these unethical tactics. There are three types of adverse situations: those which our beyond our control; those that are self-inflicted; and those that are needlessly created.

An example of an adverse situation out of our control is people affected by Hurricane Sandy. A personal example is that I was diagnosed with a rare neurological disorder. Once I accepted the fact that life was going to be different I was able to move forward by adjusting my goals. This sounds simple, but it is not. The easiest way for me to find acceptance was to realize as bad as my situation may be, there are many more people who have worst disorders or face more adverse situations. I could feel sorry for myself and use this disorder as crutch to go on social security disability. This is not acceptable behavior, but it is a behavior our government endorses. However, I only think the government should intervene to help people who face adverse situations that are out of their control – such as Hurricane Sandy victims.

Unfortunately, when something bad happens, many people may feel sorry for themselves, go into denial and expect others to resolve their situation. A good example of a self-inflicted adverse situation is when a teenager gets pregnant. Once again the government feels compelled to intervene and reward the pregnant teenager with welfare or assistance to get an abortion. What does this teach the teenager? It teaches them nothing because they are bailed out from dealing with the adverse situation. Pre-retirement entitlements do not hold people accountable for facing adverse situations, especially self-inflicted ones. Should we reward people who cannot find work but dropped out of high school? This is a self-inflicted condition. By rewarding this behavior, we are promoting a weak character where it is acceptable to hold other people accountable to bail out someone else’s ignorance or incompetence. If there are not consequences for teenage pregnancy, dropping out of school, or any other self-inflicted action, then how will this self-destructive behavior get corrected in the future? It won’t!

All of this talk about the war on women and the war on minorities in our country just makes me sick. These are examples of needlessly created adverse situations. We live in the greatest country in the world and instead of accepting the fact that most of us are fortunate (even people that are less fortunate have the freedom to change that situation in the U.S.), we create adverse situations. We create unnecessary division and polarity. Would blacks prefer to live in Africa, would women or gays prefer to live in a Muslim dominated society, or would Hispanics prefer to live in Mexico or Latin America? Most of these areas are depressed; these regions are filled with bigotry; and most of these regions are not democracies and therefore civil liberties or due process laws are nonexistent. In America, if all things all equal, women and minorities would receive a job or get accepted into an educational institution over a white male. That is not a bad deal and it does not exist anywhere else in the world except in democracies. It is a travesty that we really think there is a war on women because health insurance does not cover contraception, Planned Parenthood is no longer funded, or abortion is not taxpayer funded. Since when is the onus of being responsible and accountable lie with our neighbors and the government. Equality does not mean rewarding for irresponsible behavior. If women can find this unrealistic fantasyland then they should live there.

I’ve accepted the fact that Americans want to have it all, but they do not want to earn it. They want it given to them – healthcare, education, housing, food, unemployment, disability, contraception, and abortion privileges at someone else’s expense. In America, there are now more takers than givers and eventually the system will break and the bill will have to be paid. This will be a rude awaking and we will finally see how people deal with adversity when their entitlements are cut. At this point, people will be outraged and probably protest instead of realizing how unrealistic the role of government was in dealing with adverse situations. Republicans are mad with Mitt Romney for saying the truth – that Americans want “free” stuff and as long as Democrats keep delivering freebies to people who create self-inflicted or made up adverse situations then they will continue to beat Republicans.

Corbett Is Right About Penn State

2013-04-03T06:33:00.000-07:00

Pennsylvania Governor, Tim Corbett, has filed a lawsuit against the NCAA to drop the sanctions they placed against Penn State University due to the egregious acts of former football coach Jerry Sandusky. Many are upset and angered by these actions from the governor and for many good reasons - it keeps this story in the headlines and prevents the university and victims from moving on and starting the healing process; or the fact that Corbett supported the sanctions last year as they were handed down; or this will cost the citizens of the state millions in litigation fees.

All of this is true, but anytime a person, organization, company, or government not only abuses its powers, but expands them, then someone has to stand up against these actions. It is the principle behind the precedent the NCAA has established that is the point behind the Corbett lawsuit. Corbett is not seeking any damages but just to overturn the decisions made by the NCAA to punish Penn State.

As a Penn State alumnus nobody would like this horrible story to be removed from the news headlines. But, if Penn State suffers more media scrutiny and embarrassment (even though they are not part of the lawsuit), it is justified to correct the NCAA’s power grab. I hope Sandusky and university officials complicit in the cover up get what they deserve from the criminal justice system. I am not defending these monsters. But nothing these people did has any bearing on punishing the Penn State football program, the entire university, or the community for the appalling actions of a select few. This makes no sense.

The NCAA levies penalties against programs that cheat and violate their bylaws. Each year thousands of student athletes and coaches are arrested and many for violent crimes. However, the NCAA leaves discipline in these matters to the school and the judicial system. Why does the NCAA turn a blind eye to these violations but at the same time decide to condemn Penn State? Simple, the NCAA made a “one time rule or exception” to their powers to punish Penn State. Sandusky abusing children did not help the football program to gain any advantage over its opponents, nor did it do anything to help the small businesses that rely on a full stadium for their survival. In fact, the Sandusky scandal did nothing to garner any advantage for the university.

If Penn State is complicit in this scandal then why is local law enforcement who failed to prosecute Sandusky in 1998 not complicit (they held a grand jury investigation). Why aren’t the guidance counselors at the high school who failed to report complaints from students not complicit in this cover up? What about the justice system which hands down lenient sentences to pedophiles, are they complicit to this scandal? Of course, but for some reason Penn State is the only scape goat in these horrific crimes. There are many reasons and plenty of blame to go around for child abuse in this country, but Penn State is not one of them.

For the same reason it makes no sense to punish an entire company for the acts of a few top tier managers (lowering its stock price affects thousands of innocent people), it makes little sense to punish Penn State as a whole and the community that relies on precious football revenues. Remember, universities rely on football revenues for not only sports, but academics.

And for all those people that think Penn State covered up this act to protect its football program are misguided. Penn State is the only Division I program to NEVER be sanctioned in ANY sport by the NCAA for cheating. Penn State University has put academics in front of athletics more than any institution in this country. Just as with any cover up, the people doing the cover up are protecting themselves, their livelihoods, their egos, and their jobs. Cover ups are narcissistic in nature. Protecting the university and the football program are secondary measures in minds of people committing this cover up.

My point is that the NCAA does not have the authority to place sanctions against any university for any criminal activity that does not advance or give the university or program an unfair advantage over other institutions. The NCAA cannot make up power grab rules and guidelines as they see fit. In fact, no governing body should garner this type of power. It is not fair or just and Corbett is right to fight this or any power grab by a governing body. Maybe this is more disgrace for Penn State, but we should not forget what happened to these children and at the same time we need to make sure the culprits are punished to the fullest extent of the law and not those innocent bystanders.

More Demonizing of Paterno

2013-04-01T07:24:00.000-07:00

Ever since the Paterno Report poked holes in the Freeh report (even Penn State sponsors such as Nike switch allegiances back to Paterno), the media has done little to clear the allegations they placed on Paterno. Now, CBS sports and Yahoo have found another way to demonize Paterno. They published the following about Joe Paterno correspondence with a former player about owing $12.99 in charges:

In this correspondence to a former player dated July 7, 1982, Paterno admonishes the player for not paying $12.99 in expenses incurred during Penn State road trips to Pitt and the 1982 Fiesta Bowl during the 1981 season. That '81 team finished 10-2, ranked No. 3 in AP, losing only to Miami and Alabama.

The outstanding charges -- according to Joe -- are for “phone calls, room service and miscellaneous charges.” No matter what you think of Paterno's legacy in light of the last couple of years, this letter obtained by CBSSports.com is a slice of Americana and Joe Paterno.

“Since you have finished up your eligibility,” Paterno wrote, “there is very little I can do to make you pay. But you will know and I will know that you owe the money, and when it comes to recommendations or use of our facilities, etc., I certainly feel that your cheating the University of money not due to you will have a bearing on our attitude.”

Joe Paterno was a man of principal. Let’s look at this from another perspective. The player that released this correspondence should be ashamed of himself. If he is unwilling to pay a 13 dollar bill, then what does this say about this person’s character? Does it say they are responsible and accountable for their actions? Does it say if they are unwilling to pay a 13 dollar bill then maybe they will try to finagle their way out of other more expensive bills? Maybe they will turn into a deadbeat who needs to be supported by fellow taxpayers.

To say Paterno was out of line or even imply he is cheap is outright wrong. Paterno gave his first 40 years of salary (out of 66 years) back to the university (over 5 million dollars). When Paterno was fired he was the second lowest paid head coach in the Big 10. He turned down the opportunity to coach the New England Patriots and become the first million dollar coach back in the 80s. Yes, Paterno may have been a man of principal and hold people accountable for their actions, but this does not make him cheap. This is the problem with our society today – we demonize the guy who is trying to hold people accountable for their actions.

The Freeh report portrayed Paterno as a man who put football and winning above the law. Paterno never had a NCAA violation against him for cheating in over 66 years. This is the same man who kicked their only long snapper off the team one season and replaced him with the undersized team manager. Paterno was a man of principal and that came before winning.

To make matters worse, all this demonizing of Paterno has come since he died and is no longer able to defend his name and reputation. I find this convenient.

Eminent Domain

2013-03-29T06:51:00.000-07:00

Eminent domain is becoming a hot topic in my community. The government has always had the right to confiscate lands under the Fifth Amendment, but in doing so they must provide “just” compensation. Per the constitution: “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”. Generally, the government seizes land to construct roads, railroads, utilities, etc. However, the U.S. Supreme Court case Kelo v. New London Connecticut in 2005 upheld the local government’s ruling that they could transfer ownership of a woman’s home to a privately owned pharmaceutical company which could potentially generate much more state tax revenue from the land. This ruling essentially made it easy for any local, state, or federal governments to seize land for any public issue.

In 2008, the “Telluride Land Grab” (Town of Telluride v. San Miguel Valley Corporation) case garnered a lot attention. This case upheld the exercise of eminent domain by the town of Telluride over property OUTSIDE the town limits – and thus, one would think, outside the jurisdiction of the town. … The upshot of the ruling is that ANY home rule entity (municipality) can exercise eminent domain ANYWHERE in the state (NOT bounded by geography). This ruling has further increased the power of local governments to seize property. The Colorado Supreme Court has negated the efforts of the legislature to impose at least some reasonable restrictions on the use of this power – which has destroyed many long-standing businesses and uprooted homeowners around the state.

In the past few months, the city of Thornton, Colorado approved a measure to allow the city to seize private property via eminent domain for transfer to private developers. They city hopes this measure would allow them to collect millions in more tax revenues. In Fort Collins, Colorado officials are threatening to use eminent domain to help a private developer acquire a Sears department store in the aging Foothills Mall. In Denver, the city council has authorized the use of eminent domain to seize homes and businesses for private development in the historic Five Points district. The vote puts 246 properties in the commercial corridor—including well-maintained Victorian homes dating back to the 1880s—under threat of condemnation for at least the next seven years.

In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled in Sackett v. EPA, that the EPA could not order the Sackett’s to stop building a home on their property to protect what the EPA determined to be on or around vital wetlands. In 2006, the town of Golden Colorado attempted to seize 65 acres of land outside its jurisdiction. The land was owned by a CBS new affiliate who wanted to build a transmitter on the land. Golden citizens objected because they feared it would ruin their views, home values, and yes they feared radiation poising. Would the town and its citizens object if the land was being used to build a wind farm? This is one problem with eminent domain is that there are conflicting cases. In some cases municipalities seize land to build infrastructure, but in other cases municipalities seize property to protect the environment. I do not think governments can have it both ways and the 2012 Supreme Court decision on Sackett v. EPA may have decided this hypocrisy.

A local town in our county wants to put a similar issue up for referendum. The town of Salida, Colorado wants the people to decide if the city has the right to do what the town of Telluride did in 2008 and what Golden attempted in 2006.

People affected by eminent domain have very few rights. They only have 30 days to petition the claim and in many cases, the government is only providing the land owners 80% of the assessed value of the property. Yes, the government is not giving people their “just” compensation, which incidentally are the values set by the local governments. Talk about hypocrisy.

The Bureaucratic States of America (Part II)

2013-03-27T07:47:00.000-07:00

If you think you are an expert on things outside of your expertise then you are a bureaucrat

If you borrow items and do not return them or return them in the same condition then you are a bureaucrat

If you do nothing to improve your profession then you are a bureaucrat

If you do not prioritize family above all else then you are a bureaucrat

If you hate instead of respect competition and adversaries then you are a bureaucrat

If you procrastinate then you are a bureaucrat

If you are inefficient then you are a bureaucrat

If you are a purposeful burden on any system then you are a bureaucrat

If you take more from a program then you put into it, then you are a bureaucrat

If you do not listen then you are bureaucrat

If you take credit for others successes then you are a bureaucrat

If you blame and find fault instead of taking responsibility or accountability then you are a bureaucrat

If you are not transparent about your actions then you are a bureaucrat

If you feel you must force your beliefs on others then you are a bureaucrat

If you cannot accept another person’s beliefs then you are a bureaucrat

If you use polarizing verbiage such as extremism, Nazism, or other inflammatory terminology then you are a bureaucrat

If you must use violence, slander, or disrespect to make a point then you are a bureaucrat

If you live solely by theory and assumptions and not practical applications then you are a bureaucrat

If you are two faced then you are a bureaucrat

If you think the best way to communicate to your next door neighbor is a text or email then you are a bureaucrat

If you are lazy then you are a bureaucrat

If you do not plan ahead then you are a bureaucrat

If you think quid pro quo or status quo are acceptable ways of conducting business then you are a bureaucrat

If you are a job creator then you are not a bureaucrat

If you find solutions that fair and applied equally then you are not a bureaucrat

If you work manufacturing jobs then you are not a bureaucrat

If you work multiple jobs then you are not a bureaucrat

If you own a business then you are not a bureaucrat

If you volunteer then you are not a bureaucrat

If you are a teacher, who teaches both sides of the story, then you are not a bureaucrat

If you are not a burden on society then you are not a bureaucrat

If you help others in need then you are not a bureaucrat

If you take risks and go outside the box then you are not a bureaucrat

As I point out, we are all guilty of being bureaucrats at some point in time. The question is, are we bureaucrats more than 50% of the time. Others will argue that many of my points have nothing to do with bureaucracy and maybe that is true. But things like procrastination leads to poor solutions which leads to bureaucracy. What does laziness or violence have to do with bureaucracy – if a person is lazy and refuses to work or resorts to violence then they are part of the problem and not part of the solution. Anything that can lead to bureaucracy is just as bad as being bureaucracy.

The Bureaucratic States of America (Part I)

2013-03-25T06:47:00.000-07:00

Most think my definition of bureaucracy is very broad and they may be right – but without question bureaucracy is what is killing this nation. I think everyone has or will act like a bureaucrat during their lives; it is a matter of to what degree. If you are a bureaucrat over 50% of the time then you are nothing more than a carbon emitting oxygen thieve.

If you are reactive and not proactive then you may be a bureaucrat – no strategic thinking

If you act differently once garnering a position of power then you may be a bureaucrat

If you are a lawyer than you may be a bureaucrat

If you create rules, mandates, legislation, laws, and regulations that are not applied equally amongst individuals, organizations, corporations, and the government than you are bureaucrat

If you create rules, mandates, legislation, laws, and regulations over areas that are not an expert then you are bureaucrat

If you create rules, mandates, legislation, laws, and regulations that complicate the issue then you are bureaucrat

If you are unable to compromise and think you are right 100% of the time then you are a bureaucrat

If you are middle management or work in areas such as quality control, auditing, and project management then you are a bureaucrat

If you add to the problem by creating barriers and are not part of the solution then you are a bureaucrat

If the product of your work is merely creating and overlooking documentation then you may be a bureaucrat

If you are politician then you are more than likely a bureaucrat

If you think you are entitled to something you have not earned then you think like a bureaucrat

If you make decisions that are best for you and not for the ALL then you are a bureaucrat

If you think it is your job to advocate for others then you are a bureaucrat

If you use abuse your position to spew your political beliefs then you are a bureaucrat

If you are the middle man in any process then you are a bureaucrat

If you live by thoughts and beliefs instead of data, science, and facts then you may be a bureaucrat

If you are not making a tangible product then you may be a bureaucrat

If you are responsible for spreading wealth from one place to another then you may be a bureaucrat

If you think gender, race, or religion is the answer to a political or business question then you may be a bureaucrat

If you discriminate against anyone for any reason then you are a bureaucrat

If you are doctor then you may be a bureaucrat

If you are not working to become a better person each day then you are a bureaucrat

If you cannot answer your own phone or make your own coffee then you are a bureaucrat

If you are narcissist then you are a bureaucrat

If you lack organization then you are a bureaucrat

If you think your time is more valuable than others then you are a bureaucrat

If you think you know the best way to spend other peoples’ wealth then you are a bureaucrat

If you live beyond your means then you are a bureaucrat

If you believe material objects are more important than life then you are a bureaucrat

If you lie, cheat, waste, or commit fraud then you a bureaucrat

If you are hypocritical then you are a bureaucrat