Thoughts Aloud

Archive for January, 2012

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 »

I heard on the radio today that several of the GOP presidential candidates are running on “values platforms” in South Carolina in a race to see which one can pound his bible the loudest. For reasons I cannot fully explain, this puzzles me. Allow me to attempt to explain…

Gingrich, Perry and Santorum all three have long worn their Christianity on their sleeves, on billboards, indeed, anywhere and in any way they can advertise their holiness. OK, if that is what they really believe and what they really stand for, fine with me. After all, it is still an almost free country. So, why am I puzzled? Simple. I expect people who are that holy to be above reproach. Yet, all this public display of near sainthood seems to have no affect on their actual conduct. I refer particularly to two recent Romney pile-ons that were both taken so far out of context that the result could only be called dishonesty (lying if you like your accusations straight up.)

The first was when Romney said he liked being able to fire service providers who were not providing adequate service. Clearly, what he meant is that the likes the choices available in a free market. Yet, the pseudo-saints were the first to “spin” this statement to make it sound like Romney simply enjoys making people lose their jobs.
Read the rest of this entry »

Commenting elsewhere in a discussion among typical conservative culture warriors, lamenting the state of our culture regarding the abortion and gay marriage issues, I offered the following, which is probably worth memorializing here:

If I may be permitted to comment on these issues from a political perspective, I would like to point out three intertwined faulty premises, underlying all of these morality controversies in our national body politic.

• The first is collectivism – the faulty premise that the needs and wellbeing of this amorphous thing we call ‘society,’ trumps those of its individual members.
• The second is altruism – the faulty premise that looking out for oneself is bad, and sacrificing oneself for others is good.
• The third is democracy – the faulty premise that a majority has the moral right to impose their will upon a minority.

Mixed together, this is one toxic brew, which has been used to poison the minds of most sheeple in America, whichever side of the Incumbrepublocrat duopoly they find themselves on. One cannot assert the primacy of the collective, without trammeling the rights of its individual constituents. Then, if the model for governing that collective, is either the Robin Hood of the Left or the Good Samaritan of the Right, the individual citizen is regarded as merely a vassal.
Read the rest of this entry »

There is increasing chatter in the media RE the long-talked-about, never-going-to-happen balanced budget amendment.

I have long been against all this noise because I think it is nothing but a distraction and a cheap attempt by congress to act like something it is not. Besides, until we actually return to running our government per the terms of our Constitution, what possible point could there be in amending it further?

Having said all that, what if we really did insist on a balanced budget amendment along with an even greater insistence that our Constitution be obeyed? How might such an amendment be constructed such that it would actually have meaning? Most of the proposals I read are little more than nonsense proposals with holes so large that congress would not be the least hampered in its continued fiscal insanity.

However, as you should expect for one as opinionated as myself, I have a partial solution. The problem with the “standard” proposals which are based on the “standard” budgeting process is that they are all forward looking, hence subject to the most outrageous estimates of the future (such as economic growth causing increased tax revenues). My simple proposal is a backward looking process. Rather than grossly overestimate future revenues then plan our spending based on that nonsense, we look at each year’s ACTUAL revenues then base the next year’s spending on that. I suggest that the amendment simply state that any year’s spending is absolutely limited to 90% of the previous year’s actual revenue. Sharper minds than mine can figure out how to obtain a reasonably accurate, tamper-proof figure for the previous-year revenue.

Of course, we would still be stuck with the problem that no rule is any better than the integrity of the enforcers. A problem made worse by the fact that most of WTS do not understand that WE are the only effective enforcers.

It is so very frustrating to see all that might be done, if only the citizens of this failing nation would take the responsibilities of citizenship seriously.

Think about it.

Troy L Robinson

I find myself with little comment to offer as we all watch the worldwide political circus, waiting for shoes to start dropping, yet compelled to say something.

The center ring of our circus is the GOP race for the presidential nomination, eventually to be replaced by the general election which promises even more all-star performances.

In ring 1 we have the European Union, desperately trying to find a way to avoid the inevitable collapse of socialism,

While in ring 3 we have Iran… well, being Iran.

Once again, I will try to gather my fading analytical skills and prognosticate.

→ In the United States, the selection of a GOP candidate is beside the point because Obama is going to stay in power. A sitting president, especially one who is half way toward being a dictator, simply has too many options for manipulating world events to favor his continuation in office. For sure, Jimmy Carter blew his big chance for manipulation with the Iran hostage crisis – but, while Carter was an incompetent, he was not essentially evil. That is not the case in the current situation.

→ In the European Union, they will “kick the can” down the road as long as possible. Yet, this is not an endless road. At the end of this road, the only option seems to be a wiping clean of the financial slate, an action usually accomplished by a general war.
Read the rest of this entry »