Rules for the Refugee

Share via email

Years ago I had a relative that wanted to come and live with me for a while in order to get their life back on track.  Believing that family holds the first line of responsibility when it comes to providing assistance to those in need, I agreed.  However, the caveat that was part of the deal was that I established a set of rules that this particular relative had to adhere to or else no deal.  After all, the safety and security of my immediate family always comes first.  Upon reading the list I had written up my relative became outraged with the feeling that I was attempting to control their life.  My response was simple, “mi casa, mis reglas” which for those that don’t speak Spanish translates to “My house, my rules”. 

As a society we have a moral obligation to help those that are in genuine need of assistance.  However, we don’t have any obligation to surrender our sovereignty to those wishing to take advantage of our good graces.  In my relatives case they were free to live their life however they wished, just not under my roof.  The same things hold true with the refugee issue now being faced throughout Europe that is also threatening to converge at our own doorstep. 

Obama wants to bring some of those refugees here to the U.S. to prove that we are doing our part in this crisis, but what he isn’t doing, and Europe is regretting not doing, is establishing a list of ground rules beforehand.  Although I’m not voicing an opinion as to whether we should or shouldn’t allow any of them on our doorstep what I am doing is advocating a set of rules that should be enforced if we do.  By the way, these rules should be adopted by all countries and for any refugees regardless of point of origin, so don’t think I’m being prejudiced in my way of thinking.  These common sense rules are as follows: 

  • All refugees should be kept in a confined community.  It’s not meant to be a prison, but it is meant to keep all refugees in a controlled and centrally located environment.  We are responsible for sanctuary, not free reign. 
  • The soil of the refugee camp will be temporarily considered the soil of the country of origin and thus any child born into a refugee camp will be considered a citizen of their parent’s point of origin and NOT a birthright citizen of the host nation. 
  • Refugees are NOT citizens.  While every attempt should be made to provide for basic human needs, refugees have no rights beyond basic human rights.  In other words, we might feed and cloth you, but just because you’re here doesn’t guarantee you free phones, cable TV, welfare, education, or anything else beyond basic subsistence that we as host so choose to provide.
  • Everyone will be fingerprinted and background checked immediately upon entry.  PERIOD!
  • Anyone caught committing a crime, attempting to escape camp, or causing any sort of trouble (rioting, etc) will be immediately deported directly back to their point of origin regardless of potential safety concerns and will forever be banned from re-entry.  Here’s a hint, DON’T CAUSE TROUBLE OR ELSE!
  • As a refugee it is NOT our responsibility to accommodate your culture while you are here.  It IS however your responsibility to assimilate to your new surroundings.  In other words the term Sharia Law is just useless words here, but you better expect to understand our laws because you WILL be held accountable to them.
  • Refugee status is a TEMPORARY condition.  That means that at the first convenient/safe opportunity you will be returned home. 

Just because a country is willing to assist people from other countries out of harms way shouldn’t mean that they should subject their own citizens to harm while doing so.  The idea of allowing “guest” to roam free to riot and cause chaos in a host country isn’t based on compassion.  It’s based on the stupidity of not establishing and adhering to reasonable ground rules before becoming a host in the first place. 

 Just like my first responsibility is to my immediate family, all nations are responsible first and foremost to the safety and security of their own citizens.  When refugees become rioters it’s because you’ve naively accepted the basic human garbage of other nations.  That’s not to say that all refugees fit into that category and for those that do follow the rules they should expect to be treated with compassion and respect.  However, for what we’re currently seeing happening in Europe and elsewhere it’s time for some of the host countries involved to take care of their own citizens first by throwing out the trash. 

Share via email
Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Information on Ohio Issue 3

Share via email

Last night I was fortunate enough to have the opportunity to moderate a community forum Hosted by the Tea Party on the upcoming ballot initiative(s) for the legalization of marijuana in Ohio.  The three guest panelists were Butler County Sheriff Richard Jones and County Prosecutor Michael Gmoser, along with Dr. David Ellison who is a local physician that has done research on the chemical aspects of cannabis and its affect on the human body.  Here are some of the takeaways from that forum. 

First of all, some of the primary myths surrounding the legalization of marijuana were quickly dispelled by both Jones and Gmoser.  Although it is currently illegal to produce, distribute, or use, the reality is that anything less than 20 ounces of marijuana (which as we saw at the forum is a rather large bag) is considered a misdemeanor in Ohio and typically isn’t even prosecuted as a standalone charge.  So basically the whole idea that by legalizing marijuana we are going to somehow empty out our penal system by releasing all the minor miscreants of society is a complete falsehood.  In addition, Mr. Gmoser produced an eye opening datasheet of statistics derived from studies out of Colorado after it legalized pot to show what the net societal side affects are that have been realized to date (i.e. amount of taxes collected on its sale, changes in crime rates, changes in support program costs, etc.) 

The second takeaway from last night is that there is a definitive link to the beneficial medicinal properties of cannabis.  However, it was also pointed out that the elements within cannabis that provide proven medical benefits are completely unrelated to the substances that create the associated “high”.  In addition, the beneficial compounds can be easily separated from the euphoric ones and compressed into pill format.  So from a clinical standpoint there is a definite justification for legalization of certain parts of cannabis for medicinal purposes.  However, there is still no such justification for its recreational use. 

The third takeaway has to do with the way Issue 3 has been written (and on this point there appears to be somewhat universal agreement that it is bad).  Issue 3 puts no restriction whatsoever on the potency or form of distribution.  This means that the sky’s the limit on how powerful it can be genetically modified to become.  It also means that it can be infused into otherwise benign forms of ingestion (i.e. brownies and lollipops) which make it much more naively attractive for accidental consumption by children. 

There are actually two separate ballot issues that are somewhat related to vote on this fall.  The first, as is described above, is Issue 3 which legalizes marijuana, but at the same time creates a State controlled monopoly on its production and distribution.  Issue 3 is specifically designed to create 10 “Zones” (basically farms) that are the only ones permitted to produce legal marijuana in Ohio.  The second, Issue 2, is conversely meant to deny Ohio the right to setup such a monopoly in the first place.  

As a side note, the Secretary of State’s office recently issued subpoenas to the primary backing organization of Issue 3 (Responsible Ohio) regarding concerns related to irregularities in the collection and validation process of signatures on petitions to get Issue 3 placed on the ballot in the first place.  In addition, a lot of the rumors are that the primary financial backers of Issue 3 also happen to be the primary potential financial benefactors of its passage in current form (i.e. the owners of the 10 farms that would hold the monopoly).

Share via email
Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Earning the Title of “Mindless Moron”

Share via email

As certain as the sun rises in the East it’s a sure bet that the media is going to spend the day trumpeting the announcement that the economy has recovered simply because the unemployment rate has dipped all the way down to 5.1%.  Therefore, regardless of anything said to the contrary this number represents definitive proof that Obama has saved us all and is thus destined to go down as the greatest President since Betty White sliced her first loaf of bread.  In reality that narrative only works on “mindless morons” and I’ll be more than happy to explain why. 

The 5.1% figure that’s destined to pop up all over the media is a government measure known as the U3.  It is one of many various methods that the government uses to test the labor markets on a regular basis.  Why the media fell in love with this particular figure years ago still baffles me simply because it is the most useless statistic there is.  The U3 number basically measures who is applying for unemployment benefits at any given point in time.  However, as unemployment goes it doesn’t take into account those that have exhausted their benefits, those that don’t qualify to collect benefits (i.e. 1099 subcontractors), nor does it consider those that have recently attempted to enter the work force for the very first time (i.e. recent graduates) that still haven’t found fulltime employment.  Therefore, it is just as likely that this number gets lowered because people have exhausted their benefits as have actually found jobs. 

Personally, I have advocated for years that the far more meaningful statistic that should be used as the benchmark measure is the Labor Force Participation Rate.  The LFPR is a far more meaningful statistic that doesn’t play games.  It simply takes a measure of all able bodied persons between the ages of 16-64 (those who theoretically should be in the labor force) and compares how many actually are versus how many aren’t.  Unlike the U3, with the LFPR a higher number means a better economy.  The typical historical average of this statistic is in the 67-68% range since it views everyone the same regardless of whether or not they are justifiably out of the labor force (i.e. college students).  The average the month Obama took office was 65.7% (granted not a good number).  However, since he was sworn in that number has been on a slow decline all the way down to its current average of 62.6% which is the lowest it’s been since the Carter “malaise” era of 1978.  In other words in labor terms we currently have 3.1% less of a labor force now than on the day he was originally sworn in.  If that’s what the media wants to celebrate as good news then they truly are clueless. 

As I stated in my book numbers are amazing things.  Used properly they can unlock the secrets of the universe.  However, used improperly they can just as easily be used to promote a nefarious agenda.  The important thing isn’t to just blindly accept numbers as facts, but to understand their true meaning by asking challenging questions to those that attempt to use them.  Otherwise, all you’re doing is allowing yourself to fall prey to the simplest form of propaganda.  In other words, you’re earning the title “mindless moron”.

Share via email
Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Kentucky Clerk Case

Share via email

At the risk of feeling the wrath of my fellow Conservatives I have to state that the Kentucky clerk that is refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples is wrong.  I know the automatic comparison to this case is the infamous gay wedding cake case, but in reality the two couldn’t be more different.  In the wedding cake case what we were dealing with was a private business run by private citizens that in a free society have the right to run their business as they see fit.  Under no circumstances should the personal religious freedoms of PRIVATE Citizens be trampled on by a state level privilege that isn’t even technically a right (i.e. marriage).   Conversely, what we have in the clerk case is a PUBLIC employee whose sworn oath of office is to serve the people (all of the people) according to the prevailing laws of the land whether she agrees with those laws or not. 

Before anyone goes and offers me up to the hangman consider this.  Would you feel the same if a Muslim DMV clerk refused to issue drivers licenses to women because it violated their religious beliefs?  Would you feel the same if a Jewish clerk refused to issue a food service license to an eatery that was going to offer up sausage pizza because it wouldn’t fit in with their own kosher dietary beliefs?  When it comes to public servants executing the responsibilities of their office such viewpoints must be set aside.  If you can’t perform your duties based on the rules you’ve sworn to uphold then you need to step aside to in favor of those who can. 

As much as some might like to believe otherwise, what the clerk in Kentucky is doing isn’t related to God’s will simply because she’s not really preventing gay marriage anyway since those couples always have the option to apply for a license elsewhere.  What she’s really doing is bringing a spotlight down upon herself.  Meanwhile, she’s making true Christians look like overzealous nut jobs in much the same manner as we as Christians view the strict theological dictates of Sharia Law in the Islamic community.  In truth, as I stated in my book, government should be in the business of uniformly protecting the rights of its citizens, but it shouldn’t be in the business of legislating morality simply because in a free society everyone’s morals are free to be different as long as they don’t directly interfere with the rights of others.

We each have our own personal thoughts on the whole gay issue.  In a free society it’s OK to believe that homosexuality is a sin just as much as it is to believe it isn’t.  In the end such issues are best left up to God to sort out.  However, contrary to what anyone thinks we don’t have an obligation to accept anyone’s differences, but we do have an obligation to tolerate them whether we agree with them or not as long as they don’t directly interfere in our own lives.   To put this in simple terms, it’s OK for a clerk to believe that homosexuality is a sin.  However, it’s NOT OK to act on that belief by denying gays the same legal privileges as everyone else.

Share via email
Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

My Dog the Democrat

Share via email

We have a hound dog that we cage up at night so that her howling doesn’t keep the neighbors awake.  The way it works is quite simple.  All I need to do is put a treat in her cage and open up the back door and she’s more than thrilled to surrender her freedom for the mere promise of a tiny treat.  As I was going through this nightly ritual recently it suddenly dawned on me that what I’ve actually done is turn my hound dog into a Democrat. 

Yes, it’s true that my dog is more than willing to sacrifice the freedoms others have provided her with for the mere promise of the table scraps of her Master.  However, the more I thought about it the more I realized that her liberalization has actually gone much deeper than I had realized.  For example: 

  • She will gladly extract the hard earned handouts of others, but proves to be very hypocritical when it comes to sharing from her own bounty.
  • She has her own personal agenda and you can forget about having her explaining herself logically on any actions related to that agenda.
  • Just like most Democrats she also can’t do math.
  • Although she’ll provide you with a look that swears of innocence the ugly truth is that she has zero tolerance for sharing her environment with any creatures that are different than her.
  • She knows how to not only ask, but often demand handouts from others.  Yet no matter how much you provide her with it’s never enough.
  • When it comes to having common sense ideas she’s useless.
  • She’ll howl out slogans in public repeatedly, but can’t explain what a single one of them actually means.
  • Just like a Democrat when you tell her something she doesn’t understand you’ll get the confused tilted head look while at the same time she’ll accept whatever silly things you tell her without question.
  • Once she’s on the trail of something she wants she’s definitely a “one step forward” thinker who can’t seem to look past the end of her nose at the long term consequences of pursuing it no matter where that trail might take her.
  • She NEVER accepts responsibility for her own actions or bad choices.
  • And finally, she has roughly the same understanding of the U.S. Constitution as the average Democrat. 

There you have it!  No matter how much real education I’ve attempted to impart upon my K9 over the years there has always been others around to convince her that she deserves better no matter what the effort that she actually puts in to life on her own.  It’s never about what she’s earned, but only about what she wants that matters.  My dog never bothers to go through the exercise of thinking on her own anymore.  But then again why should she when she figures that the louder she howls the more attention she’ll get.  In reality, if left to fend for herself she’d surely starve with no sense of responsibility toward her own well being.  At this point I’ve given up all hope of ever retraining my stupid dog to become a self sufficient productive member of our little society.  I wonder if perhaps I can get the cat to listen. 

Share via email
Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Gay Cake Controversy

Share via email

My original assessment of the now infamous “gay wedding cake” controversy was that had I been the baker the only question I would have asked would have been what flavor icing did they prefer.  It’s a personal position I still stand behind simply because I’m not homophobic, plus from a logical standpoint for me to not bake their cake neither suddenly turns them into a straight couple nor does it prevent them from getting married.  Sounds logical enough, right?  Except then I did some deeper digging into this controversy and realized that the ruling has far greater implications than most people realize. 

Let’s start with some simple role reversal.  If a court can force a business owner to service someone against the owners personal religious beliefs then what’s to prevent a court from doing the same to the customer?  So for example, what’s to prevent a court from ordering a vegan to purchase a McDonalds Big Mac, or force an environmentalist to purchase Monsanto products?  After all, in a free market society the buyer and seller have equal standing under the law.  Therefore, forcing one side to commit to a transaction against their will or beliefs has equal bearing on the other side as well. 

For a second role reversal let’s now pretend that instead of a Christian baker and a cake it’s an Islamic restaurant and I want to order a BLT.  By this court’s own ruling doesn’t this mean that the cook now has to handle bacon on my behalf, but against their beliefs?  You may think the easy out is that bacon isn’t part of their menu and therefore this ruling doesn’t apply.  However, that’s actually irrelevant because not having bacon on the menu is itself a form of discrimination against those whose lifestyles include eating pork.  There are numerous news stories popping up where Christian ministers are now being threatened with arrest for refusing to perform gay weddings against their beliefs.  The pacifistic nature of most Christian churches makes them easy targets to pick on.  However, good luck getting your local Mosque to do the same! 

Once I started digging in on this particular wedding cake case I came across a fact that was both profoundly relevant as well as incredibly troubling that the media has conveniently left out of this story all together.  As it turns out the baker not only knew all along that this particular couple was gay, but that while knowing this the couple had been regular customers all along as well.  The bakers had gladly serviced their needs without hesitation all the way up to the point where their request violated the owner’s personal religious beliefs.  In other words, this particular case truly was about religious freedom and had nothing to do with discrimination at all. 

Furthermore, upon reading the list of all the various claims of damage that this couple supposedly “suffered” simply because they couldn’t get serviced by this particular bakery and that such suffering somehow equated to $135,000 in damages is ludicrous.  As it turns out the list of claims was not only highly suspect but by any logical reasoning downright fraudulent.  To say that not having a particular bakery bake a cake causes a person to suffer high blood pressure is like saying that eating a grape causes alcoholism.  Let’s get real! 

That brings me to my final point.  Regardless of what most people think marriage (whether gay or not) is NOT A RIGHT!  By technical definition it is a state level privilege.  Religion, however, IS A RIGHT with all the guarantees and protections of the Constitution behind it.  Therefore, with prior knowledge and consideration of all the facts behind the case there is no legal basis for the ruling to have come out the way it did other than through opinions and an attempt at political correctness on behalf of the judge.  Therefore, if there is anyone who should now be penalized it’s not the couple who own the bakery, but the judge himself for following his personal opinions instead of the law by allowing a privilege to usurp a right.

Share via email
Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

An Issue Where Everyone Got It Wrong

Share via email

Since the SCOTUS ruling last week on gay marriage I have been asked numerous times to write a commentary on the subject.  I have been hesitant to do so for the last several days for the simple reason that as it turns out ALL sides happen to be wrong in their argument on this issue.  By all sides I’m referring to the anti-gay marriage crowd, the pro-gay marriage crowd, AND the Supreme Court as well. 

Let’s start with that anti-gay marriage crowd.  This group is wrong for two reasons.  First, the primary basis for their argument is centered on the “moral” aspects of allowing gay marriage.  For those that read my book you already know that I am adamantly against the idea of legislating morality.  If you want to know why, I can sum it up in two words…Sharia Law.  The reality is that I don’t want some fundamentalist nut job from ANY persuasion dictating what my own personal moral standards should be.  I prefer to keep that concept confined to the dictates of my own faith and beliefs and prefer to allow others the same privilege. 

The second reason the anti-gay marriage crowd is wrong hearkens back to something Obama said before he was elected President that he actually got right (even though he didn’t understand why).  He had stated in an interview that he saw the Constitution as a document of negative rights.  In other words it talks more about what we can’t do than what we can.  In his interview he was complaining about it being that way, but in reality it’s what our Founders had intended.  The reason is simple.  In a “free” society we should automatically assume that we are free to do whatever we want up to the point where our government specifically legislates that we can’t (usually because it violates the rights and/or safety of others).  In other words, unless something is specifically restricted by ordinance we shouldn’t need to ask permission to do it. Since there is no specific reasoning behind NOT allowing gay marriage beyond the morality argument stated above we therefore shouldn’t be attempting to restrict people from acting accordingly. 

The pro-gay marriage crowd is also wrong.  The basis of their argument has been centered on the idea that it is their “right” to marry whomever they choose.  Once again they are WRONG!  The reality is that it’s NOBODY’s “right” to marry anyone.  That’s because by technical definition marriage isn’t a right at all, but rather a state level privilege.  If this confuses you think of it as being the equivalent of obtaining of a driver’s license or a concealed carry permit (CCW).  You must meet whatever the arbitrary requirements happen to be of the issuing state and adhere to their will and whim with regard to its issuance and maintenance, PERIOD! 

That brings us to the SCOTUS ruling and why they also got it wrong.  Since marriage by technical definition isn’t a right at all it doesn’t fall under the protection of the 14th Amendment as described in the affirmative majority opinion and therefore, just as Justice Antonin Scalia rightfully pointed out in the dissenting opinion the issue should have never been allowed to be adjudicated before the Supreme Court in the first place.  Instead, it is an issue that should have been remanded back to the individual state courts in hopes that they could have each retained their own version of the Wisdom of Solomon in coming up with the correct verdict.  

By ruling as SCOTUS did on this issue they have inadvertently opened up a proverbial Pandora’s Box that ultimately will anger both Conservatives and Liberals alike.  That’s because the verdict that was handed down not only usurped the technical definition of what constitutes a “right” in lieu of a privilege, but also because they have set a precedence that in essence says once a pseudo-right has been established by one state it automatically maintains by-proxy reciprocation to ALL states, thus destroying the concept of federalist governance and eviscerating the 10th Amendment accordingly. 

Think of it this way, if these new pseudo-rights are upheld over state statute as per the recent SCOTUS ruling that means more Conservative leaning states now have to accept not only gay marriage rights of more liberal leaning states, but also things like legalized marijuana as well.  Conversely, more Liberal leaning states now have to accept such things as more open gun laws along with Right-to-Work laws as well.  There was a reason our Forefathers were smart enough to setup a federalist system instead of a singular centralized government.  It was so that each of us would be free to seek out the laws of whatever state best meets our own personal needs without sacrificing our citizenship as a whole.  By not deferring to the individual states the SCOTUS just destroyed that very notion in a single ruling and the net results are that in the long run none of us will be better off for it.

Share via email
Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

In Memory of Words

Share via email

As the old saying goes “words have meaning”.  As we get ready to celebrate Memorial Day we need to realize that it is a special day we set aside once each year not just to remember those who sacrificed to their last full measure, but also to recognize the meaning behind WHY they did so.  If you ask anyone who has ever served in the military why they served the universal answer you’re pretty much guaranteed to receive back is “to defend your rights and protect your freedoms”. The one answer you’ll never hear back is “to guarantee you free stuff”. Many have willingly sacrificed for your right to speak freely. No veteran that I know of has ever sacrificed for your right to do it on a free Obamaphone. 

One thing that has always bothered me in political discussions is how easily people throw around words like “rights” and “freedoms” without having even the slightest comprehension of the true value of those words.  For example, we all have a “right” to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  However, to put it bluntly, you DO NOT have the “right” to ANYTHING that is a direct result of the forced seizure from others.  So for all the morons that keep saying people have a right to health care, you’re wrong.  You have the “freedom” to pursue quality health care, but you don’t have a “right” to get if for free.  In that same vein Sandra Fluke has the “freedom” to pursue all the contraception her lifestyle demands, but she doesn’t have a “right” to force others to pay for it. 

What our founders sought and others sacrificed so much for was a land not of guarantees, but a land of freedom and opportunity.  What no one ever likes to discuss is that with such great liberties also comes great responsibilities.  In other words, we each have a “right” to pursue our dreams and the “freedom” to make the decisions about how we do so.  However, we also have the freedom to experience the consequences of those decisions.  We DON’T have a right to force the burdens of our poor decision making onto others.  For example, if you’re a high school drop out don’t go blaming society because of your lack of meaningful job skills.  The first question I always ask during a minimum wage debate is why adults with families are trying to feed their families on minimum wage jobs in the first place.  Here’s a hint, if it’s all about a lack of available jobs in general why then don’t you ever see unemployed Dr’s?  The reality is that job opportunities are all about job skills and it’s the lack of job skills that keep adults in minimum wage jobs.  That’s why my next question is always “what are YOU doing to improve your situation?”  After all, you may have the “freedom” to whine about your circumstances, but you don’t have the “right” to force others to fix it for you. 

Words, like numbers are easy to manipulate.  That’s why they are so often used as political tools.  It’s not that politicians have become so adept at using them as much as we as a people have become too lazy to challenge their usage.  The problem is that by being so lazy we’ve also become insensitive into the true cost behind the value of certain words.  Some words are more sacred than others simply based on the sacrifices required both in obtaining and maintaining those words.  When they get thrown around in such an arbitrary fashion for mere political points both their meaning and thus the value of the sacrifice behind them gets diluted.  If we are willing to make a day so special that we blow off work and create large gatherings to feast in celebration shouldn’t we also take the time to understand what the sacrifices we are celebrating actually mean?  If it’s supposed to be a day of memory where we honor those who sacrificed so much shouldn’t we also honor the meaning behind the words that they sacrificed so much for?

Share via email
Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Inclusiveness is a two way street

Share via email

This weekend I sat through two commencement ceremonies.  Both had guest speakers whose theme happened to be the same.  With the riots in places like Ferguson and Baltimore both speakers told their audiences that we have an obligation to make an extra effort to be more inclusive of those that are different from ourselves.  OK, so I don’t have a problem with that.  However, where I do have a problem is that neither speaker bothered to preach the entire sermon. 

There is nothing in my past to indicate that I have ever purposefully discriminated against any demographic group whether they are Black, Hispanic, gay, female, non-Christian, or even the left-handed-red-heads for that matter. Yet coming from the demographic of that of a middle-aged straight White Christian male I’ve still got people lining up around the block on a daily basis to preach me a sermon of how I need to stop lumping people together in demographic groups for the sole purpose of evaluating their sins and weaknesses.  I couldn’t help but find the irony in a having a Black woman tell me the other day that all White people are racist by their very nature.  I wonder if she’ll ever figure out the hypocrisy of her own comment.  I’m told that I need to ignore the differences of others and while accepting people as they are so that we can all be equal.  However, in their preaching they always seem to forget the other side of that coin. 

What both speakers completely failed to address in their speeches is that discrimination actually comes in two flavors.  You can discriminate against someone through denigration which is what we’re constantly being preached on, but you can also discriminate through promotion.  For example, how many times did we hear Black voters claim they voted for Obama simply to see “one of their own” as President without realizing that it’s just as racist to vote FOR a candidate because he’s Black as it is to vote AGAINST him based solely on that same reason.  Meanwhile, if they were being honest the only real “one of their own” they should have cared about was the demographic of “fellow American”.  And no, that’s not meant to insinuate that I think Obama is actually from Kenya.  It’s meant to point out that since ALL of the candidates running at the time were American citizens ANY of those candidates should have qualified under the moniker of “one of their own”.  

By having an understanding of the realities on how to achieve the true fairness everyone seems to be demanding it is now my turn to do some preaching.  If we all want to seek the premise of fairness and equality for all we must accept the premise that it’s not OK to have groups that do damage (i.e. the KKK), but it’s also NOT OK to have groups that promote one demographic over others either.  Based on this new concept of what true fairness needs to be we must also accept that one of the most racist organizations on the planet has to be the NAACP for its promotion of “Black people and causes”.  The same thing holds true for other such demographic promoting groups (i.e. NOW, La Raza, CAIR, and LGBT) just to name a few.  

I’m more than willing to put forth the “extra effort” to be inclusive of those that are different than me.  However, I’m not willing to accept that equality can only come from me stepping aside while another group promotes themselves OVER me.  Either we’re all truly equal which means none of us denigrate or promote, or we’re all truly different.  However, there is no equality as long as any one group gets to enjoy the best of both worlds.  To put this in simple terms, if you don’t want to be treated differently then you also need to STOP promoting yourself as being different as well.  After all, “inclusiveness” can only work when it is a two way street.

Share via email
Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Greatest Common Denominator

Share via email

If you look at the latest list of the Forbes wealthiest you’ll see that topping the list, as usual, is Bill Gates with a current estimated net worth of approximately $79.2 Billion.  Now to the average person seeing a figure so big represents the idea that should good old Bill and his betrothed Melinda decided to they could go on a $79+ Billion spending spree.  Or if you think like the average liberal you’d probably believe that they should generously start handing out $1 Million checks to the next 79,200 people they meet on the street, right?  Wrong!  They couldn’t do either option even if they wanted to and here’s why. 

When most people see the figures of the wealthy what they don’t realize is that the numbers they are looking at are paper numbers.  In other words they aren’t real.  It’s simplistic math for simplistic minds.  If you own 100,000 shares of a stock worth $10/share then you are worth $1,000,000….except anyone with brains realizes that you aren’t.  This is where the “wealthy” narrative sounds good, but falls completely apart once math and logic are applied. 

Let’s take a quick peak using simple numbers of a fictitious Silicon Valley tech wunderkind (we’ll call her Gertrude) just to illustrate how far off that wealth number actually is.  The first and most obvious thing we see (just like is the case with Bill Gates) is that the vast majority of Gertrude’s “wealth” comes from the very stock of the company that she started.  It’s tied up there and has been since Gertrude offered up her company to public investment access via an IPO (think of what Facebook did just a few years ago).  For our example we’ll say that Gertrude now owns a total of 10,000,000 shares of her own company with an IPO price of $100/share giving her a net worth of $1 Billion…..on paper. 

As you can see the IPO created a lot of sudden wealth for Gertrude, but at the same time locked in her position.  Why?  Well because if she were to now suddenly try to go out and sell all her stock it would create a run on its perceived value since stocks are a direct product of the supply/demand curve and she would be creating a sudden surge on the supply side.  So just like what would happen with Bill Gates above she can’t just go out and sell it all and pocket the money and even if she could the depleted value after a run means she would probably only get to pocket about ½ the original value, right?  Once again, wrong!

 If sweet hard working Gertrude could sell it all (even at the depleted value) her net take wouldn’t be $1 Billion, or even the depleted $500 Million value.  That’s because the first to step forward to collect on her newfound cash flow would be the government.  Combined capital gains taxes along with the average state income taxes would quickly turn that $500 million into only about $333 million. That’s still a lot, right?  Well, we aren’t done yet.  For you see if Gertrude were to attempt spending any of that money she’d be hit by another average 8% sales tax against her potential buying power.  So basically the net useful value of our good friend Gertrude’s wealth before she’s even had a chance to spend a single dime on her own is all the way down to just over $300 million.

 The ugly truth is that the average “wealthy” person is actually only worth about 30% of what shows up on paper.  You might try to argue that’s still a lot, but then again the wealthy do a lot with what they have.  Roughly 45% of all federal incomes taxes come from just the top 1% of the income earners (that’s AFTER all the supposed loopholes and dodges have been applied).  Beyond simple taxes many of our institutions of culture and higher learning wouldn’t exist without the endowments of the wealthy.  Most people wouldn’t have jobs without the ingenuity that created both wealth for some, but also jobs and a better lifestyle for us the rest of us.  You may disagree with what the Walton’s pay their employees, but without Sam Walton’s efforts all those people’s pay would be $0.

 I wasn’t born wealthy.  Fortunately, I also wasn’t born stupid either.  If a wealthy person were to move in down the street from me I wouldn’t waste my time being jealous or demonize him.  As an intelligent adult I’d prefer instead spending my time learning from him so that I can catch up to his level rather than dragging him down to mine.  That’s because I’m smart enough to understand that for ANY society to succeed we must forego trying to pull everyone down to the least common denominator and instead we should all strive toward that greatest of common denominators called opportunity.

Share via email
Categories: Uncategorized | Leave a comment