Thoughts Aloud

Now that it has been revealed that the Obamunist himself was the very first ‘birther,’ the burning question seems to be, was he lying then, or is he lying now? It is the wrong question, of course, but I reckon the answer is: Yes! This two-bit hustler lied when he claimed he was born in Kenya, and he is lying when he now claims he was born in Hawaii. Personally, I think he is lying when he claims Obama Sr. was even his father.

I have studied this issue more thoroughly than I like to admit, and I have never believed he was born in Kenya. No narrative that attempts to place his mother in Kenya at the time of his birth ever made any common sense. This is especially true, when State Department immigration records show that his supposed father was in Hawaii at the time, and did not return to Kenya at all that year. Are we seriously being asked to believe that his 18-year-old mother traveled alone to Kenya at an advanced stage of pregnancy to meet his relatives?

Yet, she disappeared from Hawaii early in her pregnancy, and there is no convincing evidence that she ever returned before her child was at least a year old, and his supposed father had already left the State for Harvard. Within a couple of weeks of his birth, she was living in Seattle and enrolled in college there. The sham marriage to the Marxist Obama Sr. was arranged by her Marxist parents, probably more for the benefit of Senior’s immigration status, than to make an honest woman out of their wild, pregnant, Marxist, hippie daughter. There is no evidence that the marriage was ever consummated, or that they ever even dated. They certainly never lived together as man and wife, before or after his birth.

I have always suspected, since long before his election, that Obama was born in Canada, probably in a home for ‘wayward’ girls. I personally witnessed an interview of her best friend from high school on Mercer Island in Seattle, by a Chicago TV reporter back early in the campaign. She described her showing up unexpectedly in the middle of August with a newborn child, which surprised her, as she had never shown any interest in children or motherhood. Moreover, she didn’t seem to know how to take care of him. She laughed about Obaby messing his diaper and mama expressed revulsion and panicked, thrusting him to her to deal with it.

This does not describe the actions of an experienced world-traveling mom, capable of taking care of an infant on long trans-ocean flights. It is more consistent with an inexperienced kid, who had just checked out of a facility with nurses, rented a car, and drove to visit her old best friend, as the starting point in finding a place to live and get enrolled in college, because she was not interested in returning to Hawaii.

I am convinced that Obama’s birth was in fact registered in Hawaii, by her parents, as was perfectly legal and customary at the time, for children of legal residents giving birth outside the State; but he wasn’t actually born there. Neither hospital will claim that he was born in their facility. Doing so not only gave Obaby US citizenship, it also gave Senior a citizen son for immigration purposes. This would have been unnecessary had he been born in Washington State, which is why I suspect Canada.

The reason the Obama team had to forge a birth certificate, rather than just present his real Hawaii one, is that it probably reflects the off-shore birth, just as those for children born in Japan, et al to traveling Hawaii residents. This was not a nefarious action of her parents, it was a perfectly legal practice coded into Hawaii law. It only appears unseemly, because they must hide the truth of his out-of-country birth.

Nothing in today’s revelation changes my theory in the slightest. It does, however, explain all the references in the media over the years to his being ‘Kenya born,’ and his wife’s repeated reference to Kenya being his ‘home country.’ After all, that was the lie this low-life hustler was peddling for years, before he was chosen by the oligarchy to run for President.

BTW, I seriously doubt that Senior was even his biological father. There is much more evidence available to suggest it was her parents’ even closer black Marxist family friend, Frank Marshall Davis. All one needs do is view a picture of the three of them side by side, to come to such a conclusion. Davis, of course, was described in “Dreams” as Omarxist’s ‘mentor,’ who he called “Pops.” There are nude pictures of his mom on the internet, which were taken in Davis’ apartment, and he wrote in one of his books about his sexual exploits with a wild young Marxist white chick, who refused to use protection, because she would be proud to give birth to a black child.

All of this is just interesting details. Even if Ohustler had been born in Hawaii and Senior was his father, he is still not a Natural Born Citizen, because his father wasn’t. One thing is for sure… anyone who now believes a word the man says, is guilty of willful negligence. Nothing appears to be true about his version(s) of his past, and he will automatically lie, when the truth would sound better. He is so used to guilt-ridden white Progressives lapping it up, it just comes natural to the man to say what he thinks they want to hear. ◄Dave►

 

What we all knew from the beginning seems official now that Dr. Paul has ceased to seek convention delegates. Establishment candidate Mitt Romney has clinched the GOP presidential nomination. Now begins the really hard part. Trying to convince all of you that there is some actual difference between Romney and Obama other than the amount of melanin produced by their skin cells. For my part, I can’t see much difference at all. And, as for the melanin, as we all know, that is no more than skin deep and, thanks to human genome research, we also know that there is absolutely NO genetic difference between the two presumptive candidates. So, it would seem that the only obvious difference is actually no difference at all.

Yet, we will be asked again to believe the patent falsehood that something meaningful (like spending, the size of government or the amount of regulation) will actually be different depending on which of them you elect. (I say YOU because I would not vote for either of them if offered a large sum of money to do so. I am a committed Libertarian and will support Governor Johnson out of principle, irrespective of any realistic chance he has to win the election.)

My friends, I ask you to think back just a few short decades – say to the election of George I. In that election and in every one since, we have been assured that the future of the Republic hinged on our making the “correct” choice between column A and the other column A. And, our choices have swung regularly from A “left” to A “right” in both the presidential and congressional elections.

Yet, NOTHING meaningful has changed in all those years!!

Spending and debt have continued their upward spiral. Government grows like a hog being fattened for slaughter, and government regulations continue to intrude into every aspect of our personal and public lives.

My friends, this has been far too predictable, far too constant to be attributed to mere chance. And, if it cannot be attributed to chance, is there any rational explanation other than it being by design? I respond that there is not.

The simple truth is that we are now ruled by men and women whose addiction to power, prestige and the perquisites of office overrides any sense of ethics or decency they may once have possessed. And, because of this addiction, they are easily manipulated by powerful people behind the scenes who feed that addiction by pulling the strings that get them and keep them in office for protracted periods of time.

What is my point you ask? Simply this. If you continue to let yourselves be tricked by the lie that we have a two party system of government, with parties that are truly opposed to each other in matters of real policy, then things can only continue to get worse. We have already deteriorated to the point where our current president almost rules by decree, like a monarch or dictator, while our elected legislature acts like a bunch children who are afraid to make a decision for fear “daddy” might not approve.

I suspect there may soon come a day where many of you will begin to understand and will try to speak up. I fear that, by then, nobody in power will feel the need to listen.

The wolf is at the door NOW and time grows short. Will we all simply sit here and whine while the political and economic systems that have give us such a good life are destroyed?

For sure you can register your protest with a vote for Governor Johnson as Dave suggests, and I encourage you to do so. And, while that will surely encourage others to join us, it will not change the course our Republic is on. Indeed, in my opinion, at this point nothing will change our course. What all of us must do is prepare ourselves for the fall, be able to survive it, then lead in the rebuilding of our Republic. The same blueprint used in the initial founding will still be there and will be as good as it ever was. All that is currently missing is the will to do what we all know must be done.

Think about it.

Troy L Robinson

A devout Christian Fundamentalist on a site I frequent, who has been persistantly advocating that ‘real’ Christians cannot vote for Romney , because he considers Mormanism a cult and anyone who believes their tennants is ungodly, just approvingly posted a link to an evangelist’s write-in campaign… for Jesus? I suppose that is as an effective way of voting “None of the Above” as voting for Micky Mouse, or your sister, or your dog. The trouble is that they won’t be tabulating frivolous ballots for Jesus, so neither the voters nor the politicians will have the slightest clue as to how many Christians protested in this way.

At least those Americans who use the traditional method of voting “None of the Above,” by the simple expedient of not bothering to go to the polls, get a metric of how well their team did from the turn-out statistics. Of course, the politicians simply write these silent protests off as ‘voter apathy,’ when it is very often voter disgust. Even though the game is rigged, not participating accomplishes almost nothing. With half of us not voting, the ‘lessor of two evils’ is lucky to get 25% of eligible voters to hold their nose, yet they still claim a ‘mandate’ for their agenda.

For those so disgusted with the Incumbrepublocrat oligarchy’s two candidates this year, for whatever reason, allow me to suggest a much more effective protest vote. Whether you are a dispirited devout white Christian Republican, a black Christian Democrat, a Ron Paul supporter from either camp, or just a frustrated Tea Party Patriot, why not send the Incumbrepublocrats a real message they can’t ignore, by voting for Gary Johnson.

Since Governor Johnson is a real candidate for the Libertarian Party, his votes must be counted. Were he to achieve anywhere near the results Ross Perot had, the Incumbrepublocrats would get the message loud and clear. No, he is obviously not a Christian Fundamentalist, and I don’t even know what his personal views are on their burning social issues, because I really don’t care. These are not legitimate Federal issues.

I do know that he is a fiscal conservative and small-government Constitutionalist, who came out of the private sector as a successful businessman. His record as governor of New Mexico is arguably much better than Romney’s was in Massachusetts. At least he tells it like it is, and says what he believes, instead of what he thinks you wish to hear. He couldn’t possibly be any worse as President than the Incumbrepublocrat’s two choices.

Even if he doesn’t meet your criteria as someone you wish to vote for, think of it as a protest vote against the establishment oligarchy. Since he hasn’t a snowball’s chance in Hell of actually winning, you need not fear any principles he espouses that conflict with your own, or what he might do if elected. He won’t be; but he could sure stir the pot, and change the dynamics for 2016 considerably.

Christian spokesmen could make a big deal out of publicly advocating this protest vote for a legitimate Third-Party candidate, which would get a lot more media attention than a write-in campaign for Jesus ever could. In the end, all protesters will be able to claim more credit for Johnson’s results, than their camp probably will deserve; but it won’t matter. What matters is that the Incumbrepublocrats get a strong message of displeasure from a lot of voters, which they cannot easily ignore. ◄Dave►

 

Lately I have contributed very little to this space, mostly because there is really nothing new to report. However, a recent incident in California is worth the effort because of the graphic view it offers all of us into our own inevitable future.

For months, I have repeated the warning that the various phoney “wars” (on drugs, on terror, on illegal immigration, on firearms, etc.) are actually moving us toward becoming a police state. This, along with the move toward a Marxist dictatorship, which has greatly accelerated under the Obama administration, will have very predictable consequences. Predictable because history is replete with similar examples and they all end the same way.

The incident in question is only one of many such that are occurring with increasing frequency – far more than most of us realize because so few of them are so clearly documented.

What we have here is a film of a man being beaten, tasered and strangled to death. By police officers. It is not clear exactly what caused the police to initially detain the homeless man who quickly became their victim. The best I could figure is that he was unable or unwilling to identify himself to police (that is, he did not quickly show them his “papers”).

They chat for a while – not all of it clearly audible – then the man is commanded to surrender his backpack (so the police can look for something with “his name on it”), made to sit down, then is given a string of often conflicting commands as to how he should position his arms and legs. After several minutes of this, he jumps up and attempts to flee, pushing back at the officers in the process (please note that the man suffered from schizophrenia).

This film is just over 30 minutes long and is quite distressing to watch. Yet, watch it you must if you are to clearly understand what happens when ignorant thugs are given state-sanctioned power over life and death. This is a film of police state tactics at their finest. Something a 1930′s Nazi could view with pride and understanding.

Please make yourself watch it all. Among other things, please note the physical size of the man versus the initial 2 police (which later increased to about ½ dozen). Note the number of times the man tells the police that he can’t breathe. Note the number of times the man pleads for help. Note the people passing by, either too disinterested – or, more likely, too afraid of the police to intervene in any way. At about 28 minutes into the film, when the man is obviously near death, note the officers laughing.

Watch all of then then tell me this is the world you want to live in.

In the beginning, the government of our nation was OUR government. Through our own refusal to do our part to manage that government, it has now become a thing apart from us. What started as our servant has become our master. And still, so few of us even offer up a whimper in protest.

Come November, the “establishment” has us set up to once again choose between “nothing changes” and “more of the same”. And, whichever evil we choose, a few months later, we will once again act surprised that things continue to get worse. In our way, we are no different from the peoples in France and Greece who just voted to ignore their impending collapses and keep the party going for a few more months. It looks quite stupid when others do it – too bad we lack a national mirror.

I hope the film makes you as sick as it should.

Please remember that, a few years ago it was Ruby Ridge then the Branch Davidians. Today, it is various individuals who have committed no apparent crime. Tomorrow it will be YOU.

The film is at: http://reason.com/blog/2012/05/08/the-da-just-released-surveillance-footag

Troy L Robinson

For some time now I have been pondering the idea of making my own list of the 10 worst presidents in the “modern era” which, for me, starts in the late 1800′s with the advent of the progressive movement.

Let me tell you, this is no easy task as the last 100+ years have seen some of the worst presidents one can imagine. Or, looked at another way, perhaps the growth of power of the federal government and the concentration of power in the executive branch merely magnifies the effect of a bad president? I suspect a combination of both. While our federal government has grown by leaps and bounds, the people’s toleration for corruption has grown apace. I suppose corruption is like most any evil… one grows increasingly hardened to it much like hands that work hard grow callouses to help protect them from further harm. Except that, growing virtual callouses on our sense of ethics does nothing to protect us from further harm. Indeed, it has just the opposite effect.

In producing my list, I tried to consider both apparent or implied intent on the part of the presidents as well as measurable results. Following are my choices, from 10th (least worst) to 1st (worst of all), along with some of the major reasons for my placement:

Number 10: Herbert Hoover
→ Incompetent
→ Misguided attempts to “manage” the economy fueled the Great Depression, setting the stage for a resurgence of the Progressive movement

Number 9: George W Bush
→ Marginally Competent
→ War Monger
→ Expanded the Scope and Power of Government
→ Out of control Spending

Number 8: Bill Clinton
→ Corrupt
→ Dishonest in every respect
→ Violated the Constitution despite an oath to protect and defend it
→ Dishonored the Office of President

Number 7: Theodore Roosevelt
→ Started the Progressive movement
→ Allusions to Dictatorship
→ Expanded the Scope and Power of Government

Number 6: Richard Nixon
→ Violated the Constitution despite an oath to protect and defend it
→ Tolerated corruption among his close associates
→ Dishonored the Office of President
→ Misguided attempts to “manage” the economy set the stage for more power in the Progressive movement

Number 5: Jimmy Carter
→ Total incompetent
→ Socialist
→ Tolerated corruption among his close associates
→ Brought Dishonor to the entire Nation

Number 4: Lyndon Johnson
→ Violated the Constitution despite an oath to protect and defend it
→ War Monger
→ Socialist
→ Corrupt
→ Expanded the Scope and Power of Government
→ Out of control Spending

Number 3: Franklin Roosevelt
→ Violated the Constitution despite an oath to protect and defend it
→ Extreme expansion of the Scope and Power of Government
→ War Monger
→ Only his death prevented a Dictatorship (violated the 2 term tradition set by Washington)
→ Progressive & Socialist
→ Out of control Spending

Number 2: Woodrow Wilson
→ Extremely anti Constitution despite an oath to protect and defend it
→ Extremely racist
→ War Monger
→ Allusions to Dictatorship
→ Progressive & Socialist
→ Expanded the Scope and Power of Government

Number 1: Barack Obama
→ Extremely anti Constitution despite an oath to protect and defend it
→ Extremely racist
→ Probable Marxist
→ Openly stated desire for Dictatorship
→ Expanded the Scope and Power of Government
→ Out of control Spending
→ Most corrupt administration in the modern era
→ Dishonest in every respect
→ Probably ineligible to hold the office of President

As you can easily see, violations of the Constitution, Dictatorial Aspirations, Expansion of Government, War Mongering and Excessive Spending were very high on my list of negatives. I see these, whether taken individually or in combination as the root cause of the decline and impending fall of the United States of America.

While all of the men on my list (and others not on it) are obviously flawed in many ways, some of this must be expected. Without boundless ambition and a greatly inflated ego, what person would consent to do what is necessary to gain and execute the Office of President? Indeed, it is no secret that most of the modern Presidents who rank high in moral and ethical attributes were “accidental Presidents” – that is, Vice Presidents who inherited an office they most probably could never have been initially elected to.

At the end of the day, I think this says more about the electorate than the elected. Each and every person on the list above was known (or could have been known) to be exactly what they were and are before being elected. And, after achieving office and making clear what attributes they brought with them, most were re-elected (or probably will be) despite their negatives.

I will close by offering another list. This one attempts to rank the major elements of our Government, from least worst to most worst in terms of performance (sorry, I cannot bring myself to use the word “best” in any reference to our Government):

Number 4 (least worst): The Judicial

Number 3: The Executive

Number 2: The Legislative

Number 1 (most worst): The People

This leaves my at the same conclusion I always reach: A stupid, uninvolved, dependent electorate CANNOT be successfully self governing. I do not expect to be around for the eventual rebuilding of America but, I hope that those who inherit this task will finally figure out some way to fairly distinguish between the “Makers” and the “Takers”, between the “Responsible” and the “Irresponsible” and then take steps to ensure the voting franchise is extended only to those in the first groups. In the end, “universal suffrage” produces only universal suffering.

Think about it. And, please offer your comments on my list, what/who you would change and why.

Troy L Robinson

As our country continues its transition from liberty toward tyranny, we are going to have to face questions that have, traditionally, been alien to Americans. These questions will concern the extent of our loyalties, the demands for our obedience, and the extent to which we will honor these demands.

Like all Americans who have served in our military, upon induction I swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. And, I have always understood that this oath has no expiration date. By implication, this oath also requires me to support and defend the government of the United States of America. For years, I have accepted this implication. However, given the current direction of our government, I now amend my commitment to support, defend and obey the U.S. Government to be binding only to the extent that that same government acts is strict accordance with the Constitution, as written.

Stated differently, I have never sworn any oath nor do I acknowledge any loyalty to any arbitrary rule or to any “government”, legitimate or otherwise. Two basic principles are essential to the successful operation of a constitutional republic – as America was intended to be:
Read the rest of this entry »

Today, I repeat a question I have asked several times in past articles… what will it take to get the American people upset enough to demand action?

To this, I add a second question… why is our Congress, especially the GOP-controlled House of Representatives, so reluctant to investigate or challenge any of the clear violations of the constitution on the part of the Obama Administration?

Let us consider just two of the recent events that should have caused uproars:

Item 1

An article on WashingtonTimes.com (http://times247.com/articles/kuhner-obama-authorizes-himself-to-declare-martial-law) titled OBAMA AUTHORIZES HIMSELF TO DECLARE MARTIAL LAW. Quoting directly from the article:

“On March 16, the White House released an executive order, “National Defense Resources Preparedness.” The document is stunning in its audacity and a flagrant violation of the Constitution. It states that, in case of a war or national emergency, the federal government has the authority to take over almost every aspect of American society. Food, livestock, farming equipment, manufacturing, industry, energy, transportation, hospitals, health care facilities, water resources, defense and construction — all of it could fall under the full control of Mr. Obama. The order empowers the president to dispense these vast resources as he sees fit during a national crisis…”
Read the rest of this entry »

Before getting to the point of this article, please allow me to set up a bit of background:

First, Moral Hazard is a term I have borrowed from economics and whose definition I have modified slightly to mean “an unfortunate, unintended side effect of a well-meant action”.

Second, I need to pontificate about a truly dangerous trend in modern American life. That is that all of the games that currently seem to dominate our national attitude are based on the “win/lose” paradigm.

The games in question include politics, religion, sports and war.

What, you may well ask, is wrong with the “win/lose” paradigm? When it is used only in fun, there is nothing basically wrong with it. However, when we allow it to dominate our attitudes, it becomes ruinously divisive. And, as I write this, we are a nation more divided than at any time since our so-called “Civil War” (as if any war can be considered “civil”).
Read the rest of this entry »

Our Declaration of Independence reaffirms our universal right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Yet, there is more to it than that because these rights imply even more fundamental rights if they are to be real. Primary among these implied rights is the right to decide for ourselves how we will conduct our lives, assuming we do not harm others in the process.

At first thought, this seems simple enough. But, as we think more deeply, we must realize that, given the fact of human imperfection, the right to decide for ourselves must include the right to make poor or incorrect decisions. Stated differently, we have the right to be wrong.

This leads us into yet another line of thought, this concerning the proper role of government in our personal and private lives. I think we all agree that one proper role of government is to protect its citizens. But, does this include protecting them from themselves or is it limited to protecting them from malicious and intentional harm by others?

I contend that, if we truly do have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, supported by a fundamental right to decide for ourselves how we will conduct our lives, then government cannot possibly have any role in protecting us from ourselves – that is, from the effects of our own poor or incorrect decisions. Further, when government does attempt to protect us from ourselves, it can only do so by taking away fundamental rights and limiting personal liberty.
Read the rest of this entry »

I am over caring one whit what happens to the subhuman koranimals who inhabit Afghanistan – or any place else for that matter! Newt has it right:

 

 

 

So does Ron Paul… bring our kids home. All they have done for the women and children of these religious fanatics is totally unappreciated. There is nothing in that miserable tribal wasteland worth another drop of American blood, or another dime of our tax money. Let’s get out of the Taliban’s way, so these mindless fools get the government they so richly deserve.

Then, let’s figure out how to consign the mindless Apologist-in-Chief to the future he so richly deserves… what a reprehensible fool… ◄Dave►

 

 

In the ongoing exchange about the contraception/abortion mandate in Obamacare, most all of the participants seem to be totally “wrapped around the axle” over whether this means the end of separation of church and state, whether females have some natural right to contraception and abortion and, indeed, over whether reproduction is a form of “disease”. I suppose all these are all good items for discussion, although I will not inject my own opinions at this time. Instead, I wish to highlight an aspect of this issue that seems to be going unnoticed by all concerned…

All of the discussions (negotiations) on the government side of the issue seem to revolve around the decisions of a single person – Obama. We hear about what he is willing to do, what he is not willing to do, etc.

Are we not talking here about a healthcare law that was passed by the legislature? Where in our Constitution does it say that the executive may override the acts of the legislature at whim and without their consent (other than by veto before they become law)?
Read the rest of this entry »

In response to my article “Equality: Myth vs Reason”, BrockTownsend responded that homeschooling is a viable response to the sorry mess we call a public education system.

Naturally, Brock is absolutely right while being mostly wrong. Homeschooling is an option only for those families who possess the three critical attributes that determine virtually all success in raising children: means, ability and willingness. Families with these attributes will almost always raise their young to be good citizens whether they homeschool or not.

On a recent episode of Stossel, John Stossel opined that “Charter Schools” are another response to failing public schools. Again, absolutely right and mostly wrong. Charter Schools are not growing in number due to the resistance of both the progressive establishment and the education unions. And, getting a child into the ones that do exist requires at least ability and willingness on the part of the family because of the fierce competition to get into these schools.

A sad fact of modern American life is that far too many children are being born into “families” who lack most or all of the three critical attributes. As a result, the complete problem with our public education system is a combination of a dysfunctional system and dysfunctional students. This is proven by the fact that, however bad the system may be, a certain number of children emerge well educated despite it.

So, how do we improve the overall quality of the children being produced in this nation? That is the Ultimate Conundrum.
Read the rest of this entry »

Today I return to one of my favorite topics, that of Equality in America. In past articles, I have repeated the dictum that Equality is the opposite of Liberty (or, vice-versa if you prefer). However, this is actually true only in certain contexts of Equality. This is because, in present-day America, the notion of Equality actually presents itself in three different contexts. These are:

→ Equality Before The Law

→ Equality Of Opportunity

→ Equality Of Outcome

Let us examine each in more detail…
Read the rest of this entry »

What is a good libertarian (like yours truly) to think when two despicable organizations, both dedicated to controlling the lives of others, get into a urinating contest?

I refer, of course, to the current urinary battle between the Obama Administration and the Catholic Church. Who does one root for? Is it too much to hope that they ultimately destroy each other? Yeah, it probably is.

In all honesty, if forced to choose a side, it would be the church, not because I have any use for the organization, but because I have even less use for overreaching government.

But, it could be worse (and it has been) – the church and the government could once again merge and bring us a new dark age. Just imagine it: a flat Earth that is the center of the universe, a government mandate that we all attend the church services that we are directly taxed to fund. Oh happy day.

Where does this lust for the power to control others come from – especially in a world where so few exercise any self control?

Troy L Robinson

I cannot help but notice that the progressives and their media lackeys are inconsistent in the way they choose to express things.

For instance, a year or so ago, they were wailing about the “obscene profits” made by energy companies, in particular Exxon-Mobil. They consistently made their “case” by stating the profit in question in total dollars. Measured this way, the total (in the billions) was indeed impressive. However, when that same profit is restated as a percentage of return on equity, it turns out that the energy companies are really not all that profitable. The “obscene” profits turn out to reflect the size of the companies, in other words, the amount of dollars they are putting at risk in the conduct of their business. No bank or pharmaceutical company (for instance) could exist on the profit margins produced by the energy companies.

Now, the issue of the day is “tax fairness”. So, are the progressives consistent by measuring “fairness” by stating the issue in total dollars? No. Instead they use the nominal marginal tax rate, stated as a percentage. Stated such, we find that Mitt Robamany paid just less than 15% last year while “hard working people” might have paid as much as 35%. Clearly unfair – right? However, if we study the same issue using total dollar amounts, we find that Robamany paid over $3 million in income taxes while about 47% of workers paid $0. Clearly, Robamany (and other wealthy people) are each carrying the tax load for hundreds of people. But the progressives find nothing at all unfair about this because we all know that the wealthy need to be punished for their success.

Indeed, the basic mantra of the progressive movement is Reward Failure, Punish Success. How then can anyone be surprised that we are evolving into a nation of failures who are reduced to dependence on government?

PS: Please do not interpret anything said here as support for Robamany. What I support is truth.

Think about it.

Troy L Robinson

GOP presidential hopeful and former PA senator Rick Santorum recently upped the ante in the anti abortion discussion with the statement that he would urge his own daughter to carry to term, deliver and raise a child that resulted from her being raped. He said such a child should be considered “a gift from God”.

Please allow me to state Santorum’s position another way. He would urge his own daughter to carry to term, deliver and raise a child, half of whose DNA was that of a vicious animal who impregnated her during a vicious attack. Rather than live in fear that the child had inherited its father’s vicious tendencies, she should cherish the child as though it was the result of some manner of gift giving.

How could any rational being wish a continued state of hell on his own offspring? Most victims of violent rape never truly get over the experience. Would not the presence of the rapist’s spawn serve to intensify the victim’s ongoing agony? (Note that I use violent rape to differentiate from statutory rape which is often non-violent and consensual.)
Read the rest of this entry »

High technology is such a great thing. For instance, because we have an automated DVR attached to our DirecTV system, we can keep a backlog of recorded programs to watch when there in nothing worth watching in real time.

Last evening was just such a time – when the government used its regulating authority to intimidate all commercial broadcast TV networks to cover the so-called “State Of The Union” address.

I realize that our Constitution does task our President with reporting his/her view of the state of the nation to Congress each year. But, the Constitution says nothing about extorting commercial air time (obviously since such did not exist at the time the Constitution was written). Even more significant, it also says nothing about the report being delivered in person as part of a ceremony that has come to imitate an imperial progress.

Indeed, Thomas Jefferson delivered his annual reports by letter, with no ill effects aside from a missed opportunity for self-aggrandizement.

Were I constitutionally tasked with delivering a “State Of The Union” report, I could do so in one sentence: Disastrous and deteriorating! But, I digress.
Read the rest of this entry »

This is yet another pass at a subject I have blogged on before. It is the misuse of the so-called “clauses” in our Constitution.

In a number of writings, including some of the Federalist Papers, James Madison made abundantly clear, the fact that the powers of the new Federal Government were limited to those specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

However, especially since the rise of the progressive movement in the late 1800′s, there has been a growing (and successful) attempt to interpret the various clauses of the Constitution as granting the Federal Government whatever powers it deems necessary to “fulfill” the duties spelled out in the clauses. This is particularly true of the so-called General Welfare and Commerce clauses. This has had the effect of making the enumerated powers beside the point while granting the Federal Government unlimited powers.

Does any sane individual truly believe that this is what our Founders intended? Of course not. Why then are the so-called clauses there to begin with? My simple (and obviously correct) response is that the clauses attempt to establish the duties and responsibilities of government while the enumerated powers are the powers granted to the government to carry out those duties and responsibilities.
Read the rest of this entry »

The GOP primary “debates” have become such a sham that I did not bother to watch the most recent S.C. “debate”. However, I was pleased to see re-runs of Newt tearing into that CNN moron who opened the questioning with something totally beside the point of the debate, something totally personal and (should be) private, and worse yet, something said by an angry ex-wife.

While I still prefer Ron Paul, I do sympathize with Newt. You see, I too have an angry ex-wife. And, while she is not really a bad person, any conversation with her regarding me would likely suggest that I am the devil incarnate.

The public knows nothing of the Gingrich’s private lives in the days before the affair (and the divorce it seemed to lead to) anymore than nobody but my ex and I really know what went on between us before a similar outcome. How then can any rational person believe that a public discussion of such a thing could have any meaning? In my own case, I am not sure even I understand for sure what transpired or why.

Even more important, how can an unfortunate end to a relationship between two private individuals have any bearing on one’s qualification to hold office? I know that many will use the excuse that it speaks to character. I retort that, lacking details that will not (and should not) be made public, one can make no conclusion other than the obvious fact of an unfortunate outcome.
Read the rest of this entry »

I watched most of the debate circus last evening – with steam coming out my ears over yet another attempt to deny Ron Paul his fair share of debate time. Anyway, the constant theme of this debate, this primary, and no doubt the constant theme of the general election will be Job Creation and the race is on to see who can claim to be the best job creator.

Then, I glance at my ever-present copy of our Constitution and find not one word about job creation in the duties spelled out for the president. Nada. None. Zip.

So, why this constant wailing about job creation and, better yet, why do WTS eat this crap up?

Imagine your worst nightmare for a moment – I have been nominated by the Libertarian Party as its presidential candidate. By some even greater miracle, I have been invited to participate in a national debate, along with Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum. It comes my turn to field a question and that question is: “Mr. Robinson, how do you propose to create more jobs?”.
Read the rest of this entry »