verum planto vos solvo

An invitation to those considering voting for Obama. Consider this...

Imagine you sit on the board of a business. You and the other board members hire an a new CEO who by way of his words and demeanor inspires you to hire him. His lofty words actually make you feel good about his abilities, even though he's never run a business of any kind before. In fact, he's never held a leadership position in his life. But you feel this guy just might have that something special, so you hire him.

 Since the company wasn't doing well in the last quarter before he took the reins, you give him a little leeway.  Perhaps a lot of leeway. But hey, you're willing to try just about anything to right the ship - even if it means spending a lot a money that your company doesn't have. The debt you're incurring is quite high - more than the company has ever seen. But your new CEO tells you that its quite necessary. In fact, if you don't institute his company saving programs, the company may sink completely and every employee could lose their job. The company credit cards are maxing out but the new CEO insist that this is a tact that must be implemented to secure the future of the company. You wonder how you're ever going to pay off those cards. And you know that the next generation of owners will be responsible for it, long after you're gone. It will be quite a burden for them but hey - that's their problem, I suppose. Besides, if we can get this company back on solid footing - things may be better for them. You hope against hope.

After a few years, things get progressively worse. The new CEO blames the previous CEO. And while the new guy did walk into a bad situation - his way of dealing with the problem, has made it worse. Your employees are being let go. The company debt mounts. And the only response the CEO offers is to divert blame elsewhere. Instead of accepting responsibility, he employs tactics such as demonising any other employee who dares to question his authority and plans. He knows the board isn't happy with his performance and his contract is about to expire. In fact, the board has been interviewing prospective replacements. After a lengthy search, they settle on a guy who has an extensive background in business. His track record is actually quite good and he appears to be an outstanding citizen. Once, he even saved a winter business in Utah and didn't take any money for the job he did. He didn't really need the money though. He's done quite well for himself. Yep, the board members are taking a closer look at the new guy. Looks like he just might be what the company needs. He wants the company to stop spending money the company doesn't have. He wants to implement programs that will save money while saving popular employee benefits for current employees as well as future employees. And this guy has actually been in leadership positions before. Quite a pedigree to be sure.
But the current CEO isn't going away quietly. He knows he hasn't done very well the last few years and there's no way he can make the board members forget about that. Instead he decides to ruin the reputation of his prospective replacement - though that's proving harder than he thought. But he wont stop trying. After all, what choice does he have? He can't hope to keep his job based upon his past performance. Especially since he's already told the board that if he's re-hired, he'd like to continue employing the same business model he's already used.

Okay. You got me. I'm talking about the choice this November between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. But you already knew that. (I can't pull the wool over your eyes, can I?) But President Obama is hoping he can. Listen, I know some of you out there are so melded to your affection for this guy, that you can't imagine voting for anyone else. But this isn't a high school class President election we're talking about here. This is about the future and direction of the country. Clearly, the path of more debt and an ever growing federal government isn't working. Neither is ignoring the bubble that's going to burst when Medicare becomes insolvent in 8 to 10 years. Mr. Obama has no plans whatsoever to deal with this and similarly important problems. Expanding an entitlement state has never worked anywhere else in the world, unless your end goal is to bankrupt a nation. We have very serious problems to be addressed. And Mr. Obama has had his chance to deal with them. He has failed in every measurable way. You know it. I know it and I imagine the majority of voters will show their displeasure as well this November. The CEO needs to be replaced. Not because we hate him. Not because we don't like his wardrobe. But because he has failed to right a ship in turbulent waters. It's time for a new approach. It's time to admit an error in our judgement was made 4 years ago. It's time to consider if ideology is all that matters to you. Or are results important too. It's time to consider Mitt Romney.

Separation of church & state. Think you know what that means? Guess again.

If you ask most people where the phrase; separation of church and state comes from, they'll most likely tell you that its in the constitution. Wrong. Okay, it must be in the Declaration of Independence then, right? Wrong. Want another crack at it ? Magna Charta maybe. Uh, nope. And neither is it in your Avis rental car agreement. Liberals just love to quote that phrase - as though its some kind of mantra that brings you internal wisdom and peace. But like so many other things we weren't taught correctly - if at all, the origin of that phrase is not quite what we thought it was and not quite what we thought it meant.

Back when the constitution was crafted, the individual state constitutions laid down the law regarding church and state. Hard to believe but as late as 1833 ( almost 50 years after the drafting of the Constitution) certain states actually had religious requirements as to who could hold elected and public offices. North Carolina's constitution said that a person who denied the being of God or belief in the old and new testament, could not hold public office. Several states required an officeholder to be Protestant. The founding fathers were careful not to step on this right of states to choose their own religion. They even spelled it out in the federal agreement between the states, promising that Congress would never try to usurp their power by establishing it's own national religion. They also promised that the federal government would never pass a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. So, instead of separation of church and state, there is a clear protection of religious expression outlined in the U.S. Constitution. The separation is clearly between the states and the federal government. Don't get me wrong. I think having a state religion in any of our states is a bad idea, but the Constitution clearly leaves that up to the states, not the federal government.

The phrase separation of church and state is in fact, as liberals like to point out, from the pen of Thomas Jefferson. However, they conveniently leave out the all important context. In 1802, the Connecticut state religion was Congregationalism, and they petitioned the president for aid in religious disestablishment, which Jefferson himself had advocated as Governor of Virginia. The Danbury Baptists were disappointed when the president failed to intervene on the grounds that the federal government was strictly forbidden from interfering in state matters. Although Jefferson used the phrase "a wall of separation between church and state" in that letter to the Danbury Baptists, one must read the full text to grasp it meaning. The statement reads, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state". The "state" to which he referred is clearly Congress, which he called the 'legislature'. The First Amendment clearly prohibits Congress from getting involved in the establishment of a national religion for obvious reasons - Congress is prohibited from doing so because that right was reserved for the states alone.

It should be noted that the president did nothing to help the Baptists in their effort, because he did not believe the federal government had a role in this state right. If the federal government did have a role to play, then why was no action taken against the states which had a religious litmus tests even 50 years after the Constitution was established? Also wrongly reported is that Jefferson was an atheist. Not true. In fact he attended a religious service the very day he wrote the Danbury letter. Though he did not belong to a specific church, he was devoted to the idea that our rights come to us from God, not government or man. If that sounds familiar, its because he wrote something quite similar and placed it in the Declaration of Independence. Check it out - its pretty easy to spot. The separationists have so bastardized the the religious establishment clause that they now consider any hint of religion in any government sector to be a violation of the Constitution. As someone whose actually read the Constitution, it frustrates me when I hear that phrase attached to the Constitution because its just not there. However, it is in the old Soviet Union's constitution. How's that for irony?

How rich is rich? And can one of "them" really be a good President?

Have you noticed? Its open season on rich people. You know, those horrible filthy rich people who light their cancerous cigars with $100 bills and wipe themselves with the same - all while laughing at the homeless. And when they're not shopping on Rodeo Drive - they just love kicking puppies. Hardly the type of people you'd want to hold elected office, right? Well, before we start building the gallows from which to execute the wealthy, maybe we should find out exactly who these wealthy are.

First, let's define - "rich". How much money must someone make in a year before they qualify as rich. The average yearly salary in the U.S. is $43,460.00. Meaning half the people earn over that amount and half under that amount. If you earn $26,000. a year, the guy making that $43,460.00 might be rich to you - though I seriously doubt he thinks so. Is $90,000 a year rich? Hmmm. Probably not. Especially if you live in a place like New York City or almost anywhere in California. $90,000.00 a year in those places is like earning half that almost anywhere else in the U.S.  Surely $250,000.00 a year is rich. That must be the magic number because that's the number the President wants to raise taxes on - which will produce an extra $83 billion a year. Even $83 billion sounds like a lot until you realize that's about the amount of money the federal government spends in 9 days. Yes - NINE DAYS. Forget balancing the budget on the backs of the so-called rich.

A lot has be written about the wealth of Republican Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney. Yep, he's rich alright. To the tune of about $200 million or so. He's also quite philanthropic. Though the Mormon Church asks their members to tithe 10%, Romney gives far more, roughly 18% of his income to charity according to Forbes. And his beneficiaries are quite diverse - from "AIDS Action" to the Wright Brothers Museum. In 1995, he inherited millions from his father, former CEO of American Motors. Do you know what he did with all that dough? He gave it away. Every...last...dime.  If Mitt Romney is greedy, he's sure bad at it.The political left often decries that a rich man just can't identify with the average American and therefore shouldn't be President. Well, before you go logging on to that misguided logic - check out the all time richest U.S. Presidents.

Adjusted to 2012 dollars.  John Tyler was the 10th wealthiest with $51 million. FDR, the "New Deal" patriarch of the poor was worth $60 million. Not too shabby for a big government semi-Socialist.  The rest follow;
No. 8 - Herbert Hoover, $75 million.
No. 7 - LBJ, $98 million.
No. 6 - John Madison, $101 million.
No. 5 - Andrew Jackson, $119 million.
No. 4 - Teddy Roosevelt, $125 million
No. 3 - JFK, $125 million. (Though he lived off his Trust Fund his entire life.)
No. 2 - Thomas Jefferson, $212 million
No. 1 - George Washington, $525 million. He is the only president who is sometimes included in rankings of the 100 wealthiest Americans. Washington also achieved something Mr. Romney never will: In 1789, his salary was 2 percent of the total US budget.

Some pretty note worthy Presidents up there - no matter what party you support or ideology you embrace. Had John Kerry been elected in 2004, he would have popped in right after Washington. Had John Edwards been President, he'd be right after Teddy Roosevelt. Notice Ronald Reagan nor either Bush made the top ten list. They weren't even close.Washington was quite wealthy, yes. But while he could have enjoyed his wealth and lived quite profitably no matter what government was in place - he left his home and battled the British for 8 long years, only going home to Virginia a few times during the Revolution. He lived among the men he led. He was loved, respected and adored by those he asked much of. And yes,he was rich. It didn't seem to matter. At one point in the battle of Germantown, his uniform jacket endured 4 bullet holes, none touched him. He had 4 horses shot out from under him. Rather than stay warm and cozy on his Virginia plantation, he led the surprise attack on the Hessian's at Trenton in 1776 and in doing so - saved the Continental Army and the cause. And when his country needed him again, he reluctantly became the United States first President. That's right. He didn't really want the job. But his country needed him and he responded. After two terms, he left the Presidency for his Virginia farm. Napoleon said that Washington must be a great man to leave the Presidency and such power voluntarily. And as mentioned,Washington was rich. Perhaps it not the accumulated wealth that really matters. Perhaps its what one does in such a position of wealth. Perhaps wealth is a sign of personal success that might translate to Presidential success - or perhaps not. Either way, its the person that really matters. His, or her ability to lead, to promote the American message and ideal. To preserve and execute  the documents that must remain the foundation of our country. To uphold the truths that are eternal and to pass on those cherished truths to generations yet unborn. That is what ultimately matters. We used to call it "character". We used to require it of our leaders. Perhaps we need to again.

Sub note: Thanks to all of you who take the time to read my blog, whether you agree with my posts or not. According to Google, my blog posts have been downloaded and   read in Canada, Germany, The Netherlands, Belarus, Russia, United Kingdom, Ukraine, China, Brazil, Australia and of course the U.S. I think one of the guys in Russia might be Putin but ...probably not.





If only the rich paid more in taxes, all our problems would be solved. Right?

Damn rich people. If they only paid more in taxes, we wouldn't be in this financial mess we have. Right? Well, before we have the debate about who should pay more in taxes, lets define "rich".

President Obama's plan to save the country from financial ruin, calls for people earning over $250,000 to pay more in taxes. Great, right? Well, exactly who are these people? A great number of them are small businesses who pay tax at the individual rate. They may have gross revenues of $250,000 or even $800,000 but they have to pay their employees salary, benefits, insurance, utilities, rental space and every else thing involved with running their business out of that amount. Usually, the boss is the last person to get a check. It would not be unusual to have a business with say, $300,000 in annual revenue not turn a profit - it happens all the time, especially now a days. These are a large part of the newly discovered rich people the President wants to raise taxes on. You know, the actual job creators. And how do you think an increased tax burden will affect their decision making regarding expanding and/or hiring new employees?

Then there are the disgusting rich. These people usually earn  $1 million a year. Impressive, huh. Unfortunately for us there are only 235,413 people who fall into that category according to the IRS. The number of people earning over $10 million annually is 8274. For comparison, 97% of wage earners reported less than $200,000 a year. The average income is $54,283 - a drop of over 6% since 2008. There just doesn't seem to be enough "rich people" out there to bail us out of this mess.

However, the top 1% pay 28% of the tax burden. The top 20% pay 69%. A Tax Foundation survey found 56% of Americans think the amount of federal income tax they pay is too high. Those most likely to feel that way, according to the survey, include those making between $35,000 and $50,000. But here's the kicker - nearly 48% of Americans pay NO federal income taxes at all. We're at a tipping point where soon more people in America will not pay federal taxes, than those who do. And as you saw above, the rich can't bail us out.

Here's another bit of abstract thinking. If ALL the income from people earning over $250,000 a year were confiscated by the government - and I mean ALL of it, the money generated would only fund the federal government for 5 months. And it would still not reduce our $16 trillion national debt a penny. Plus we'd still run an annual deficit of $800 billion, which is twice what it was when Obama took office. And remember, thats if we took it all. Still think the rich are our problem?

Today 100 million Americans receives some sort of entitlement from the government - that's a third of us. And that does not include Social Security and Medicare payments. That is unbelievable. But the really scary part is, its unsustainable. No matter who tells you the problem is those rich people and their tax loopholes, they're dead wrong. The problem is a government who can't control it's purse strings and a population who has grown up with an entitlement mentality. If you want a sneak peak at our future, take a look at Europe. Like what you see?

No one would deny that a financial safety net needs to be in place for those less fortunate. But the idea that all our wants, needs and desires can be paid for by a bankrupt government who promised far too much than it could ever deliver - needs to end. We are out of money and even scarier, we're running out of time. The class warfare mentality may be great for liberal Democrats looking for re-election, but it will deny the reality of the situation and have future generations incur massive debt. (And your grand children thought you loved them) We are currently borrowing 40 cents of every dollar the feds spend. Most of that goes to China who buys our debt via treasury notes that we have to pay interest on. Hey liberals, what part of this are you not understanding? I know you hate the rich but come on. You can't raise the status and standard of living of the poor by dividing an ever dwindling money pie. Opportunity, upward mobility, hard work, drive, risk taking and most importantly - capitalism, have enabled all of us the ability (not the guarantee) of success. Redistribution of wealth has never brought the standard of living up for the lower classes. Never. Want proof? Since LBJ's Great Society program of the 1960's, trillions have been spent on social engineering the poor out of poor. Yet the poverty rate has risen from 14% in 1965 to now 17% under Barack Obama's tenure. 40 million more Americans receive welfare than before Mr. Obama took office. Ever notice how he never talks about spending less, always more - on nearly ... everything!
I am left to conclude that either he actually wanted more Americans to take advantage of entitlement programs or he is simply an incompetent fool in a job that is way over his head. Either way, the methods and philosophy has failed miserably and your kids are stuck with the tab. This brand of Hope & Change has failed. And unless we change the course, I'd stock up on canned goods and ammunition.


The War on Religion. And how the haters have it so wrong.

Have you ever heard how religion has been the cause of most of the World's problems, deaths and general mayhem? Yeah, me too. It makes for cute little bumper sticker-ish quotes, but whoever authors those witty and yes, hateful remarks - they must be real bad at math. So I will hold a little arithmetic course along with a basic World History class right here.
It is true that there are those who have used violence in the name of their religion. Witness the Crusades.  But if you have to go back 1000 years to make your point about hateful Christians, you may want to buy a new calendar. There of course was 911. This time hateful Muslims. And at various times extremists of nearly every religion have exploited faith for their own designs and purposes. Religion was not the problem. The exploitation by those masquerading as the devout faithful was. But I stray too far from my point. I promised you a math class, didn't I. Sharpen your number 2 pencils and get ready. Here we go.

Religion has been the cause of most of the world's violent deaths. WRONG. Oppressive regimes have been the cause of most of the World's violent deaths. WW I was not fought defending or promoting religious ideals. (40 million dead) Neither was WW II (another 40 million dead) which was brought about by a madman who professed no religious piety or beliefs. Hitler was raised by a skeptical father & a devout Catholic Mother but ceased to participate in the sacraments after childhood. He used religious rhetoric when it suited him, but was neither a man of faith nor were his conquests committed in pursuit of some religious ideals. The Japanese were told that the Emperor was God on Earth. But they fought for the most basic of reasons - Earthly raw materials to promote and advance their empire.  Both of these regimes believed in the power and complete obedience to the government. (The Fuhrer and the Imperial Emperor) They would have viewed God as competitor for people's allegiance.

The Khmer Rouge of Cambodia slaughtered millions for political ideology not religion. (Rent "The Killing Fields") African tribes wage war upon each other to this day for numerous reasons such as ethnicity not related to any religion. The Korean War in the 1950's, the Vietnam War in the 1960's were once again, wars brought on by brutal  powers, not religious warriors. The Nazi concentration camps, Soviet gulags and the Chinese Traitors prisons doled out pain in order to keep people loyal and fearful to the state - not any church. Even those who practice ethnic cleansing or genocide, do so almost entirely because of age old rifts between tribes, not religion.

Soviet missles were not placed in Cuba back in 1962 to ensure that the U.S. would convert - one way or another - to a specific worship. Nor was the Berlin Wall built to keep Eastern Europeans faithful to the Bible. Nazi Germany. Fascist Italy. Imperial Japan. Communist North Korea. Communist North Vietnam Communist Soviet Union. Communist China, dictators in Iraq, Cuba, Africa, Central America and Venezuela,  - none of these regimes used their military power for anything other than to promote a Godless ideology that dehumanizes the individual in deferrence to the state. The total human casualties both military and civilian for all the wars of the 20th century number near 240 million. I dare say the smallest fraction of that figure is due to religious intolerence and hatred.

If you hate war, then hate the regimes that oppose God and faith in nearly every form - or manipulate it for their own purposes. They are the enemy of peace. They are the intolerent ones who doom the innocent. I don't ask you to believe as I do. I don't require it. It offends me not if you worship differently - or not at all. But please get your facts straight. Millions have died to preserve your right to so. The least you could do in their honor is not re-write their sacrifices ...and their history.