A Perspective on Issues of our Time July 28, 2014

By Bill Neinast

The next few words will make some turn purple with rage and frustration. They need, however, to face the facts.  Those facts are that Barack Obama is the second most outstanding president of our history.

Consider the daily news, for example.  The front page of newspapers distributed throughout the country will have a picture of the President standing out in a field three or four days every week.  He will be in the field in front of a carefully selected group of admirers hawking money for other class warriors.

Now doesn’t standing out in fields most days of the week make him an outstanding President?

Obama’s supporters, apologists, and assorted sycophants are now frothing at the  mouth to point out, “every president does it!”  

Unfortunately, that is true.  Bill Clinton, however, is the only one to have racked up more standing out occasions than Obama.  George W. Bush, Obama’s favorite scape goat, comes in substantially below our current outstanding President.

Here are the figures.  In the first six and a half months of this year, Obama has made 72 fund raising trips out of Washington, D.C.  In the comparable period for the second year of his second term, Bush made only 45 such trips.  For the first six months of 2011, Obama was out standing in the fields 86 times while Bush made only 31 appearances in the comparable period of his first term.

So what, the apologists will ask.  The President is in constant contact with his advisors and staff and can make decisions just as easily on Air Force One as he can in the Oval Office.

But can he?  There are more than the usual number of crises facing the nation today.  The immigrant flood, stagnant employment, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the Russian/Ukraine affair, Iran’s nuclear program, the VA mess, the creation of a Muslim Caliphate haven for terrorists in Syria/Iraq thats frightens even al Qaeda, and China’s expansion ambitions  are just a few of the serious domestic and foreign problems facing us today.

Obama’s answer to all is to go, stand out in the fields and excoriate Republicans for tying his hands and keeping him from taking care of these problems in his usual rapid fire method (in his own mind) of making decisions.

Until recently, Obama claimed it was all his predecessor’s fault.  Now it’s the Republican controlled House of Representatives that just refuses to cooperate and give him everything he wants

Blaming the House of Representatives for problems not being addressed, however, is built on quick sand.  Thursday, Alabama Representative Bradley Byrne called the President’s hand on this assertion.

Byrne asserts that the Democrat controlled Senate is the problem, not the House. He said, “some 300 House-passed bills – including at least 40 ‘job-creating’ measures – are languishing in the Senate. The House also has passed seven of 12 spending bills, while the Senate has not passed one.”

Maybe it would help if Obama took Senator Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, to the wood shed and told him to move some legislation and began excoriating the Democrat controlled Senate as the road block.

Then there is the excuse that the President can run the country as easily from Air Force One as from the Oval Office.  Really?  Is a conference by telephone or Skype as effective as one with everyone \sitting around a conference table and eye balling the body language and nuances of all participants?

Finally, Obama’s repeated claims that all the hard to solve problems were created by either George W. Bush or are the fault of Congress not bowing to his  “my way or the high way” approach.  His criticism that the Republicans will not compromise on anything sounds rather hollow when there is no indication that he ever held out an olive branch of compromise on his demands.

So here’s the perspective.

Obama could reverse the downward spiral of his approval rating if he would quit being such an outstanding president.  He should brush up on the history of two of his predecessors, Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan.

Johnson commented frequently that politics is the art of compromise, and he was a master of that art.  He got his civil rights legislation only with the support of the Republican members of Congress, not from his own Democrat colleagues.  Likewise, Ronald Reagan spent the end of many work days having a drink with Tip O’Neal, the Democrat Speaker of the House.

Imagine what might happen if Obama were to hang around the White House a bit more.  He could have breakfast every morning with his intelligence and security personnel.  Then, at mid day, have a long, leisurely lunch with the leaders of both parties in both houses of Congress to discuss the nation’s problems.

Maybe, just maybe, if he would get off his my way or the high way kick, and make initial requests a little larger than he really needed or wanted so he could offer to “compromise down” to the real desired base, there could be a break in the grid lock.

On second thought, maybe Obama should be referred to as a stand out instead of outstanding.  That should turn the purple faces back to normal.

  

Let's Upgrade to the Mexican Voter ID Law? Why are Democrats so opposed to this?

The Conundrum's of the American Socialists!

Reality Check!

I got this in an email from a friend, it likely did not occur, although after reading it you may decide to use it the next time some tattooed, multiple pierced, uninformed, low information voter pisses you off in a store or at a restaurant.  Keep in mind these are now the wards of the state that we pay for every day with our tax dollars, the save the world from the humans, occupy wall street socialists,  who can't make change without the cash register doing the math and who are the grown sons or daughters of the Woodstock era drug induced,  no morals, anything goes intellectual nincompoops who now run the country.  Like our current president and most of the House and Senate members and their staffs who they have elected to office in the last 20 years. 

The story goes . . . 

An senior citizen, the daughter of a WWII era vet, was checking out at the store, the young cashier suggested to the much older lady that she should bring her own grocery bags, because plastic bags are not good for the environment.
  

The woman apologized to the young girl and explained, "We didn't have this 'green thing' back in my earlier days."

The young clerk responded, "That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations."

The older lady pointed out the stupidity of tattooed & pierced persons statement,  --  "you are right, our generation didn't have the "green thing" in its day. No, back then:

"We returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. We recycled.  

"Grocery stores bagged our groceries in brown paper bags that we reused for numerous things. Most memorable besides household garbage bags was the use of brown paper bags as book covers for our school books. This was to ensure that public property (the books provided for our use by the school) were not defaced by our scribblings. Then we were able to personalize our books on the brown paper bags.  We recycled.

"We walked up stairs because we didn't have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks. We saved energy!

"Back then we washed the baby's diapers because we didn't have the throw away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy-gobbling machine burning thousands of watts of power. We used wind and solar power to dry our clothes.  We saved energy and used natural resources wisely.  

"Back then we had one TV, or radio, in the house -- not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief, not a screen the size of the state of Montana. 

"Back then, in our kitchens we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us. 

"Back then, when we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap. 

"Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn  gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. 

"Back then, we exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity.

"Back then, we drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. 

"Back then, we refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blade in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull.

"Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service in the family's $85,000 SUV or van. 

"Back then,  we had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 23,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest burger joint.

"And BTW Miss "intellectual nincompoop" our generation is the one that enabled the technological revolution, through innovation, hard work and risk taking that allowed you to survive today.  We did that by electing responsible individuals to congress, kept taxes low, enabled capitalism to proposer, lived our lives generally by the Bible, believed in God, the Greatness of US, the genius of the US Constitution and worked for a living rather than becoming a wards of the state."

I am just sayin, whether this happened or not, our generation needs to take these intellectual nincompoops to task each time they start their environmental and socialist psychobabble.  

Willie P

  

A Perspective on Issues of our Time July 16, 2014

A Perspective on Issues of our Time July 16, 2014

by Bill Neinast

The League of Nations was created after WWI to maintain world peace.  The organization was totally ineffective.  Within two decades Nazi Germany was running rough shod over Europe and Japan was rampaging throughout Asia.

The ever optimistic United States Department of State, however, began plans for a new world organization in 1939.  A draft of a “Declaration by the United Nations” was then drafted and signed by representatives of 26 Nations in January 1942.  By early 1945 it had been signed by 21 more nations.

This, however, did not establish the UN as known today.  The earlier United Nations was the name for the so-called allies in WWII and dealt with defeating the axis powers.  

The idea of "a general international organization to maintain peace and security” began to jell at the Dumbarton Oaks Conference in Washington, D.C., in the fall of 1944.  The conference produced proposals for the purposes of the United Nations organization, its membership and organs, as well as arrangements to maintain international peace and security and international economic and social cooperation

Then, on 11 February 1945, less than six months before the end of WWII, President Roosevelt, Prime Minister Churchill and Premier Joseph Stalin declared their resolve at their meeting in Yalta to establish a United Nations under the proposals from Dumbarton Oaks.

With this signal to proceed, representatives of 50 nations met in San Francisco on April 25, 1945, to draft a charter for the United Nations.  (A little appreciated fact is that Rotary International and Lions Club International were invited to participate in the conference.) Those 50 nations signed the Charter on Oct 15, 1945, and Poland signed on Oct 15.  When the Charter was ratified by the U.S., England, Russia, China, France and a majority of the other 46 signatories on Oct 24, 1945, the UN was officially formed.

The League of Nations that was created to maintain world peace dissolved itself on April 16, 1946, and peace keeping fell to the UN.

So how has the UN done in its role of peace keeper in the seven decades of its existence?

Not very good.  If war is defined as armed conflict between two or more groups armed with lethal weapons, the record is abysmal.  

I can remember 23 wars since 1945.  Here’s my list (not in any particular order) compiled in a few minutes from memory.  China (Mao/Chiang Kai-shek), Korea, Poland/Czechoslovakia/Russia, Vietnam, Nicaragua/Contras, Grenada, Falkland Islands, Panama (Noriega), Afghanistan (Russia), Afghanistan (NATO), Iraq/Kuwait. Iraq/Desert Storm, Iraq/NATO, Israel (Yom Kippur-Six Days War), Israel/Palestine (ongoing), Iran/Sha, Bosnia/Herzegovina, Cuba (Castro), Ukraine/Crimea, Libya, Egypt (Suez Canal), Egypt (Overthrow of Mubarak), and Syria.

Only a very liberal teacher would give that record a grade higher than “F.”  As hard as it is to believe, there are some of those liberal teachers out there.  They say the UN does so much other good things.  Among those goodie are maintaining refugee camps for those fleeing some of the conflicts mentioned above, a misnamed peace keeping force now and then to keep warring tribes separated, and passing reams of resolutions respecting women’s rights.

The most notable accomplishment of this model for peace may be that it furnishes well paid employment for bureaucrats from the 183 member nations and provides platforms in New York City for tyrants like Cuba’s Castro and Iran’s  Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to lambast us on our own soil.

Here, though, is the real kicker.  The U.S. is only one of 183 members, but it provides 22% of the U.N. budget.  That means 33 million dollars will be drained from our treasury this year.

Although 33 million is a piddling amount or chump change in our over all budget, it is a gross misapplication of funds for the product bought.  This is reminiscent of the reports or rumors of high priced hammers and toilet seats in the Pentagon budget.

Withdrawing from the U.N. and eliminating the need for that 33 million would put a tiny, tiny dent in the country’s 17 trillion dollar deficit.  Saving the equivalent amount for seven decades, however, would have a noticeable effect.

So here’s the perspective.

The U.N. is a government bureaucracy.  Like all bureaucracies, it is as permanent as the Egyptian Pyramids.  It may fade away like the League of Nations, but another will rise from the ashes.

The Christian Bible provides, "You will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not frightened, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end.” (Emphasis added--Matthew 24:6, New American Standard Bible) 

There will always be dreamers, however, who believe that just have everyone sit down together and they will work things out peacefully.

Well dream on and go tell that to the Israelis and Palestinians, the Shiites and Sunnis, and the Muslim Jihadists and the rest of the world.

Guilty As Charged!

The Workers’ Paradises No Longer Exist Nor did they ever Work - Socialism is NOT Sustainable! Nor will it ever be!

IN PERSPECTIVE - Where are all those Workers Paradices Promised by Socialist
by Bill Neinast

I have been in paradise.  The paradise was at the end of one of those slippery slopes mentioned in this column last week.

The year was 1984. My wife and I were on a tour of Russia and three other republics of the Soviet Union.  Collectively, they were known as the Workers’ Paradise.

This paradise was the vision of Karl Marx that he proclaimed in “Das Kapital” in 1867.  In this unrealistic dream, government would fade away as it claimed the wealth of the nation for everyone and redistributed it to everyone on a “fair” basis.  

Under this view, wealth would be distributed from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.  Marx refined this maxim in his 1875 “Critique of the Gotha Program,” believing that with the full development of socialism and unfettered productive forces, there will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs.

He did not, however, fully understand human nature.  He did not foresee that the government bureaucrats charged with dividing the wealth pie would quickly learn that they could cut their own slice just a bit larger than the others.  He also did not appreciate the fact that those with “ability” would resent having their slice of the pie the same size as those with “need.”

So the workers paradise grew from March, 1917, until my visit 67 years later.  

The paradise I saw 30 years ago was more depressing than inspiring.  The only smiles that I saw among the pedestrians were on tourists’ faces and some locals who appeared drunk.

There was a dearth of privately owned vehicles.  The few we saw parked on the streets did not have windshield wipers.  When we asked why there were no wipers, we were told that they were so scarce and expensive that they were a favorite target of thieves.  So owners kept the wipers locked inside until needed.  

The huge apartment complexes that were home for suburbanites were drab at best.  There were none of the bright colors, window boxes full of geraniums or petunias, and frilly window curtains seen in most of the rest of Europe.  Walls were cracking and entry halls were dirty and litter strewn.  There obviously was no pride of ownership in those buildings.

The buildings under construction were prefabricated at some far off site.  Entire sections complete with brick siding, windows, doors, etc. were stacked, waiting to be lifted into place.  We noticed that some in the stacked supply of sections already had cracked siding, missing windows, and other defects.

We were told that, in most cases, because of damaged, missing, or maligned sections found on the final phase of construction, there were substantial delays waiting for replacements.  This required reams of paper work sent through many channels back to the prefab factory to churn out more sections. 

That could explain why there was still a housing shortage in the cities 40 years after the destruction of WWII

Sidewalks were also prefabbed.  In many cases we stepped on rebar.  The concrete mixture back at the plant had been too thin or poured in too thin a coat.

We left that paradise thankful that we were going home to a capitalist country where the workers were exploited by dirty capitalists.  Oddly, however, when we hit the streets of New York, we saw workers everywhere smiling as they headed to their own bungalows, small as they might be, in the suburbs.

Ten years after leaving that paradise we visited another.  In 1994, just a few years after the Berlin Wall had fallen, we toured East Germany, Poland, and the Czech Republic.  Those countries had been Workers’ Paradises where they had to build walls to keep the happy workers from fleeing to the neighboring evil capitalist countries.

Previously, we had lived for five years in West Germany, one of the countries envied by the workers in the East.  We first arrived in Bremerhaven, Germany, in 1959, just 15 years after the last allied forces bombs had virtually destroyed most of the major cities.  We were amazed how difficult it was to find any evidence that the country had recently lain in ruins.

Not so in East Germany.  Fify nine years after the war, shell and bomb damage to buildings was still evident.  Some historic buildings had not yet been rebuilt.  The Trabat, which was East Germany’s answer to the West German Volkswagen was a joke.  It was a piece of junk that could barely hold four adults.

There were, however, some smiles on the streets, particularly among the better educated and budding entrepreneurs. I visited with one young man in a small grocery store that he had just acquired as a private business.  He said that times were still hard, but he could now anticipate a future with freedom and optimism.

So here’s the perspective.

The Workers’ Paradises I visited no longer exist. 

Actually, as envisioned by Marx, the paradises never existed.  Governments did not fade away as promised.  Just the opposite happened.  The bureaucrats who were supposed to usher government off the stage realized that if they were to continue to get larger slices of the pie, the government not only had to continue, it had to grow.  And grow it did, bigger and more repressive by the year.

Are we now on one of those slippery slopes to a workers’ paradise?  Some seem to be pushing in that direction.

The best example of one of those steps toward government omnipotence is the Affordable Care Act, the groundwork for the federal government becoming totally responsible for providing Americans their ‘right” to medical care.

How will that work?  Just look at the VA medical care system. 

Do we really want to go to workers’ paradise?

.

The best 7 minutes you can spend today!

Allen West on the myth about the separation of church and state!  Watch the video!

Here is the kind of leader America needs in the Oval Office!

God bless the United States of America!

Willie P

The Debt Ceiling Defined!

THE DEBT CEILING

* Democrats don't understand THE DEBT CEILING

* Republicans don't understand THE DEBT CEILING

* Liberals don't understand THE DEBT CEILING

* NO ONE understands THE DEBT CEILING

* SO, allow me to explain:

Let's say you come home from work and find there has been a sewer backup in your neighborhood.

Your home has sewage all the way up to your ceilings.

What do you think you should do --

1. raise the ceiling, or

2. pump out the shit?

Your choice is coming this November.

Where to move to if you really love Socialism!

My friends I am sick and tired of the liberal's vile rhetorical sputum about how great socialism is and the Democrat's focused and continued mission to move this country to full blown socialism.   To the liberals in America that I know, please tell me why, with one of your often referenced socialist utopia (Cuba), only 90 miles south of the southernmost point in the United States (that's Key West, Florida for you low information liberals who only wake up only occasionally to attack this blog), you don't just move to Cuba?

My questions is simple, if you don't like America why the hell would you continue to live here?

So for you whiners about America just leave!  There are many countries in the world who have adopted socialism.  But don't be surprised when your liberty and freedoms are severely restricted and you soon become a slave to the state once leave America.

If Cuba won't take you, or is full because all your friends beat you there, here is a list from Wikipedia of other countries for you to choose from.

The glorious success of socialism around the world.

Images from Cuba

The Cuban Family Sedan

 Advanced Transportation Systems

 The Cuban's Hero

 Average Day on the Street

 A Government Run Hospital in Cuba

As depressing as these images are, Cuban socialists are burdened with the signature socialist job market and pay scale.  Cuban citizens are the equivalent of indentured servants to the socialist Cuban government, except their is no hope for paying off your contract.    

Cuban economy (from Wikipedia)

"The Cuban state adheres to socialist principles in organizing its largely state-controlled planned economy. Most of the means of production are owned and run by the government and most of the labor force is employed by the state. Recent years have seen a trend toward more private sector employment. By 2006, public sector employment was 78% and private sector, mainly composed by personal property, 22%, compared to 91.8% to 8.2% in 1981.^[154] Any firm wishing to hire a Cuban must pay the Cuban government, which in turn will pay the employee in Cuban pesos.^[155] The average monthly wage as of July 2013 is 466 Cuban pesos, which are worth about US$19.^[156]"

While in the capitalist economy in the United States, as quoted by the US Government is:

"According to the Census ACS survey, the median household income for the United States was $51,371 in 2012,"

So my readers, you tell me, why would anyone want to live in a socialist country?

I'm Just Sayin!

Willie P

Sam Elliot on Government Response

Disclaimer - I honestly doubt if Sam Elliot said this,  I certainly admire his movies and I would be thrilled to know he is a conservative.  But regardless of whether he personally said this on not, this is funny . . . and accurate!

Class Warrior's Stupidity

Bill Neinast

IN PERSPECTIVE

What a difference a few centuries of freedom make.

A little over two centuries ago, some residents of the North American Continent believed that they had chafed too long under the yoke of an absent king. They considered themselves vassals or serfs beholden to a foreign master.

When they agreed among themselves that they could not endure having no say in the way they lived, they decided to cut all ties with the foreigner.  They saw this as a way to exercise basic rights that were being denied to them.  

That thought is immortalized in the first sentence of the second paragraph of their Declaration of Independence from foreign royalty as, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

These so called Founding Fathers then adopted an owners manual for a new type of government they called democracy. This government of the people, by the people, and for the people was to operate in strict accordance with the manual they called The Constitution of the United State of America.

Shortly after affixing their signatures to the Constitution, someone said, “Oooophs! we have told the President, the legislative bodies, and the courts how they are to balance and share the burdens of government, but we left something out.  We forgot that important element about our rights in the declaration of independence from the king.”

They quickly returned to the drafting table and expanded the list of what they called God given rights.  In ten amendments of the new Constitution, they listed all activities they could think of that should be considered sacred rights of individuals. 

Among those amendments, now called the Bill of Rights, the ninth may be the most important.  It provides, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

In other words, they said, “In case we have not thought of all the rights of the people, this document shall not be considered an exclusive listing.”

For about the first 150 years after the adoption of this blueprint for government, “rights” were treated as intended by the Founding Fathers.  Individuals were allowed to say what the pleased, worship as they pleased, print what they desired, etc. 

Note that there is no obligation under that old definition for anyone to provide the rights to anyone else.  Every one already had certain unalienable, God-given rights.  The obligation on the government, as the Founder Fathers understood it, was to protect those rights and prevent anyone or anything, including the government, from infringing them.

Sometime in the last century, however, the meaning of “right” and how rights were to be protected began to change and the list of rights began to grow.  Class warriors began to interpret the word to mean “have to have.”  In other words, if you have a “right” to something but cannot afford to acquire it on your own, someone else has to provide it for you.

That someone else quickly became the government.  The government could provide those rights because it had access to every one else’s money.

Take housing as an example.  The class warriors decided that everyone has a right to “decent” housing.  Much to their surprise, they learned that some individuals and families could not afford the decent housing that the warriors thought was their “right.” 

 

The result was the creation of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the passage of legislation like the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act. 

In implementing that legislation with taxpayer money, huge apartment and housing complexes were built around the country.  A number of the apartment complexes became gang, drug, and prostitution gulags, fell into disrepair and had to be demolished not to long after completion.

A more recent creation was the right to medical care or medical care insurance.  Do not worry if you cannot pay for enjoying this right.  Either your employer or others buying medical insurance will subsidize you.  If neither of those is sufficient, the government will take some other tax payers’ money and subsidize your premiums.

Finally, the most recent expansion of the list of rights is the Supreme Court’s decision in the law suit involving Hobby Lobby.  The only right the court talked about in that decision is the right to practice religion.  

The court simply said that if the owners of Hobby Lobby believe that their religion forbids abortion, they cannot be forced to provide the means to acquire contraceptives that result in abortion.  

Their female employees cannot be denied those contraceptives, but Hobby Lobby does not have to provide them.

For political purposes, the class warriors do not see it that way.  They are proclaiming long and loud that this is just another step in the war on women. Most of the press emanating from these sources is that the conservative majority on the Supreme Court has denied women working for Hobby Lobby their “rights” to abortions.  

There is not even a hint in the warriors’ arguments that the female employees can buy with their own money any of the four contraceptives objected to by Hobby Lobby.  The class warrior’s believe that would not be “right.”  The employees are “entitled” to that prescription and someone else should pay for it.

So here’s the perspective.

The Founding Fathers were concerned only with insuring that the government did not interfere with what they considered God given rights. 

Unfortunately, the country is looking down a steep slope from those lofty goals. Rights are being converted to entitlements that have to be provided by the government or someone other than the recipient.

Can we afford to slide down the slope?