The Constitution – Just an Old Piece of Parchment?

Our Constitution has come under attack lately. What was one of our nation’s founding documents has been criticized by pundits on both the right and the left. It’s old, outdated, “just a piece of parchment.” It was written “by old white men from centuries ago” and doesn’t reflect our modern world. Critics say that we live in a different nation than the one that existed during the Founding Era, that the nation is more complicated and thus the Constitution is less relevant. Continue reading “The Constitution – Just an Old Piece of Parchment?”

An Open Letter to the Incoming Attorney General

Dear Senator Sessions:

First, I want to congratulate you on your selection as U.S. Attorney  General.  While I may disagree with some of your positions, I am glad that the United States will finally have an Attorney General who takes the law seriously, and champions equal justice under the law.
On November 8 and in years past, several states voted to legalize marijuana for recreational and/or medical use.  While I myself am not a user of this substance, I do have concerns that the Department of Justice will attempt to reverse the great strides our nation has made toward the ending of draconian laws and failed policies where drug use is concerned. Continue reading “An Open Letter to the Incoming Attorney General”

Yes Clinton won the popular vote, but…

  1. The purpose of the electoral college is to prevent majority tyranny – to keep the country from being controlled by just a few major cities with large populations.
  2. The Presidential campaigns were designed around the electoral college.  That’s why Donald Trump did not campaign in New York or California, or try to run up the score in Texas.
  3. Let’s also remember that while Clinton may have won the popular vote, she did so by running up the score in highly Socialist liberal Democrat areas such as California and New York City.  Below you will see an analysis of what I’m talking about.

Continue reading “Yes Clinton won the popular vote, but…”

A Better Voting Method



Our election system has a major problem.  Many of us are tired of the two party system, yet we wind up voting for a major party because we feel that a Libertarian candidate can’t win, or we feel that a vote for A is “really” a vote for B.  We have, at least at statewide and federal elections a system of voting called “first past the post”, in other words whoever gets the most votes wins.  This voting system in and of itself has structural flaws.

Continue reading “A Better Voting Method”

Conservative Revenge

The mainstream media and Democratic Party are so hopelessly disconnected from Middle America to the point that the only possible explanation is that we must be racist and bigoted, though they can’t back any of that up.  Van Jones on CNN even called the election a “whitelash.”  Umm, so please tell me how we are using divisive rhetoric!  Oh it must have been white racists, or we’re just uneducated rednecks.  We didn’t get a PhD in African-American Lesbian Dance Theory from Yale, therefore we’re somehow too stupid to elect a President.

Continue reading “Conservative Revenge”

Tuesday night should not be a surprise.

So evidently there are many people in complete and utter disbelief that Donald Trump was elected President, but really they shouldn’t be so surprised.  Why are the news networks, academics, and Washington insiders so surprised?  Because they live in echo chambers – they are primarily surrounded by people whose opinions mirror their own. Continue reading “Tuesday night should not be a surprise.”

Liberals just can’t handle reality

I really didn’t want to gloat.  Yes I was happy about Donald Trump’s election and there was nothing that I wanted more than to reach out a hand and work with those on the left, to show that we are all one nation and need to strive for unity.  Then I read a piece by humorist Garrison Keillor, of whom I used to be a big fan: 

Continue reading “Liberals just can’t handle reality”

Soak the rich? Or, How to Run the Country on $10 billion per day

I wrote this a while ago regarding Bernie Sanders, but it still applies to Crooked Hillary.
———–
Ok I’m seeing a lot of back and forth on this commentary, and I myself have been a bit reactionary with my comments as well.  Although I’m vehemently against Sen. Sanders’s economic policies, I can see why he has the appeal that he does.  I agree he’s a charismatic Washington outsider, he’s probably the most honest person in the race right now (though next to Clinton and Trump that’s not saying much).  I believe his heart is in the right place.  That said, it’s important to understand why his plans cannot possibly work.  The numbers just don’t add up.
Unfunded liabilities are the difference between the net present value of expected future government spending and the net present value of projected future tax revenue, particularly those associated with Social Security and Medicare.  At usdebtclock.org, federal unfunded liabilities are estimated at near $127 trillion, which is roughly $1.1 million per taxpayer and nearly double 2012’s total world output.  The United States Gross Domestic Product or GDP, is the measure of national income and output for a given country’s economy. In other words. The gross domestic product (GDP) is equal to the total expenditures for all final goods and services produced within the country in a stipulated period of time.  The US in 2016 has a GDP of about $16.77 trillion which according to the Congressional Budget Office will increase to about $28 trillion in this same 10 year period.  So the unfunded liabilities all by themselves are almost eight times the combined wealth for every person and business in the entire country.  To put another way, suppose your annual income is, say, $40,000 per year.  You have $320,000 of credit cards that are maxed out and you’re now out of work.  What do you think a bank will say when you go for another credit card or loan?  That is the exact situation we have.  You can talk about what’s “fair” or pull the heartstrings all you want, but the numbers don’t lie.  On top of all that, we have a $19 trillion dollar deficit to individuals and foreign nations, and Bernie Sanders is planning at least $18 trillion in new spending over a decade, according to a tally by The Wall Street Journal.  including $15 trillion for Health care, $1.2 trillion for Social Security, and $750 billion for “college affordability.” (Source: Gerald Friedman, UMass Amherst, Sanders Campaign, Social Security Administration):
The common refrain is “just make the rich pay their fair share.”  First, it’s morally not up to anyone to define what “rich” is, or dictate how much money people should be able to make or keep.  But even if we ignore that, it won’t work in the first place.  There are 3.8 million households in 2010 making $250,000 per year or more (roughly top 3-4%).  Suppose we were just to take every penny of their wealth above $250,000.  I don’t just mean a higher tax, I mean cap earnings at $250,000, everything else is forfeited to the government.  So what would happen if we tried to do that?  The mean salary of people in the top 3 percent is $402,476, so if we let them keep $250K, we’ll collect on average (402K-250K)=$152,000.  Multiply by 3.8 million households and we get $578 Billion.  Sounds impressive, but our budget in 2011 was $3.561 TRILLION!  So soaking everyone in the top 3% would generate about SIXTEEN PERCENT of ONE year’s budget, and that’s not even touching the federal deficit or the unfunded liabilities.
An Internet blogger named “Iowahawk” ran the numbers, and though this data is about five years old, the problem has if anything gotten worse.  If we took every cent of profit from each of the Fortune 500 companies, every cent of ad money spent on all 45 Super Bowls, the combined salaries of all players in the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, 100% of every penny earned over $250,000, end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, kill off all billionaires and near billionaires and take all their money, and end all foreign aid, it would net us (in 2010) $3.561 Trillion.  Sounds impressive, but the 2011 Federal budget was $3.603 trillion, and even the total tax revenue was “only” $2.303 trillion.  That’s barely one quarter of our national debt.  Of course once we’ve done this, we’ve killed nearly every cent of capital in the U.S., destroyed all jobs and since people can’t keep anything above $250,000, nobody has any incentive anymore to star businesses, invent, or innovate.
I’ll make this real simple:  How do you expect any of this to actually work?
  1. Raise taxes on the rich.
  2. ???????
  3. We create more jobs and growth.
Anyone feel like filling in #2?  Seriously, the blindly devoted Bernie supporters out there talking about how Sanders is “obviously” the best person for the job.  Maybe in many ways he’s better than Clinton or Trump, but it’s easy to talk about new spending and social programs and spreading the wealth, if it’s someone else’s wealth you’re spreading around.
And on top of that, Sanders wants to add MORE social programs. EVEN IF YOU WERE TO LIQUIDATE OUR ENTIRE ECONOMY AND THE GOVERNMENT WERE TO SEIZE EVERY CENT FROM EVERYONE, that would not even pay for what we have now! What part of that do people not understand? You can talk about “fair” and “inequality” all you want, but fairness doesn’t put money in our banks, only private industry does that.

Clinton Gave Uranium to Putin. And Trump’s the puppet?

Clinton Gave Uranium to Putin. And Trump’s the puppet?

AP090306017956

“As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation,” The Times reports.

Here’s the high-level summary. There are more details below.

Canadian company Uranium One owned uranium mines in the US and Kazakhstan.  Uranium One’s mines account for 20% of the uranium mined in the US. Uranium is used for nuclear weapons, and it’s considered a strategic asset to the US.  Russia’s state-owned atomic agency, Rosatom, bought a 17% stake in Uranium One in June 2009.  The Russian atomic agency decided it wanted to own 51% of Uranium One in June 2010. To take a majority stake in Uranium One, it needed approval from a special committee that included the State Department, which Hillary Clinton led at the time.  Investors in Uranium One gave money to the Clinton Foundation starting in 2005 and through 2011. On June 29, 2010, Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 to speak in Russia by an investment bank with ties to Russia’s government that had a buy rating on Uranium One’s stock.  In January 2013, despite assurances to the contrary, a subsidiary of Rosatom took over 100% of the company and delisted it from the Toronto Stock Exchange.  Clinton was required to disclose all of her foundation’s contributors before she became secretary of state, but the Clintons did not disclose millions of dollars donated by the chairman of Uranium One while the review of the deal was ongoing.  “Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million,” The Times reports. “Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.” 

Here are some key points from the Times report:

According to The Times, Uranium One’s involvement with the Clintons stretches back to 2005, when former President Bill Clinton accompanied Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra to Kazakhstan, where they met with authoritarian president Nursultan Nazarbayev. Going against American foreign policy at the time, Bill Clinton expressed support for Nazarbayev’s bid to lead an international elections monitoring group.  Soon after, Giustra’s company, UrAsia Energy (the predecessor to Uranium One) won stakes in three uranium mines controlled by Kazakhstan’s state-run uranium agency. Months after the deal, Giustra reportedly donated $31.3 million to Clinton’s foundation.  Clinton traveled to the ex-Soviet Central Asian state to sign an agreement with the government, admitting Kazakhstan into the Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative Procurement Consortium.   In June 2009 ARMZ, a subsidiary of Russia’s atomic energy agency Rosatom, finalized a deal for a 17% stake in Uranium One. In June 2010, the Russian government sought a 51% controlling stake in the company that would have to be approved by the American government.
Final say over the deal rested with the foreign investment committee, “including Mrs. Clinton — whose husband was collecting millions of dollars in donations from people associated with Uranium One,” The Times notes.      After the deal was approved in October 2010, Rosatom’s chief executive, Sergei Kiriyenko, said in an interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin: “Few could have imagined in the past that we would own 20% of US reserves.”

A source with knowledge of the Clintons’ fundraising pointed out to The Times that people donate because they hope that money will buy influence. The source said: “Why do you think they are doing it — because they love them?”  “Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown,” The Times concluded. “But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors.”