Defining Racism

DISCLAIMER: I am not an avid Trump supporter.  Ted Cruz is the candidate I would most like to see sworn in come January 2017.  However, if Donald Trump is the last man standing, I would vote for him over Hillary or Bernie, believing that choice is far better for America.

It is especially ironic how the definition of racism has become any disagreement with a person of color or different ethnicity.  If you disagree with Obama, racism has become the explanation given by the liberal progressive, i.e. democrat. Never would they consider that policy disagreement may be the root cause of the criticism.

Democrats running for national office have become very adept at labeling their opponents with names.  Remember how Sarah Palin was labeled as a stupid bimbo?  The label was a result of an effective impersonation by Tina Fey (and her uncanny resemblance) on a recurring Saturday Night Live skit. But democrats and liberal media replayed the skit often, and soon the democrat followers believed that Sarah was a dolt.

Now they are at it again, this time labeling Donald Trump as a racist.  The genesis was his speech given when announcing his candidacy. A sound byte, repeated thousands of times by the mainstream media and highlighted by democrat candidates, sounds like he is calling all Mexicans rapists and murderers.  He was not.  Reading his comments in context results in a far different message.

The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else's problems.

Thank you. It's true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. [pointing to hispanics in the crowd] They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

Trump's point was that Mexico is dumping their criminals on America.  Whether factually correct, or elegantly stated, the message is far different than what was reported by media and repeated by democrats. Yet, the label sticks.  Every time Trump mentions building a wall along the southern border, liberals shout racism. They no longer even refer to his remarks. They just call him a racist and it has stuck.

The irony is that democrats have a long legacy of racism.  A favorite quote from Dinesh D'Souza encapsulates the democrat party's history and hypocrisy.

“The Democrats want us to believe they're the party of equal rights and human rights and civil rights. The truth is the Democrats are the party of slavery, and Indian removal, of broken treaties and the Trail of Tears, they're the party of segregation and Jim Crow and lynching and the Ku Klux Klan, they're the party of Japanese internment, and opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fair Housing Bill of 1968.  This is their actual history so what they do is they try to cover it up.”

Instead of labeling others as racists based on out of context quotes or simple disagreement, racism should be defined as the overt favoritism for, or bias against, one race to another. Using that definition, the irony expands to most of the democrat party.  BlackLivesMatter intones that only blacks are targeted by police, a theory that cannot be backed up with fact.  La Raza (The Race) inherently operates to lift up one race over all others. National democrat candidates sell their soul to these groups and others, (NAACP, National Black Caucus), who precisely fit this definition of racism.

My initial response to any politician who calls his opponent a racist or compares them to Hitler, is they really don't have a good argument to make for themselves.  Unfortunately there is a large percentage of Americans who hear the name-calling and mentally hang the racist label around a candidate's neck. To my disappointment, it seems to work.

Kansas City E-Tax

One negative from my new job is that I work at an office in Kansas City, Missouri. The city levies an earnings tax on all people who work inside their city. Next Tuesday, the E-Tax comes up for a vote to renew it for 5 more years. Those in favor and against are spending vast sums to convince citizens to pass or defeat the tax.

The earnings tax really irritates me. Not just because it is a tax and all taxes are irritating. This one is special. The city claims that since everyone who works in the city uses public services such as fire, police and roads, it is fair to levy the tax on everybody.  No. It's not.

Residents of cities in Kansas and Missouri somehow manage to fund their public services without charging non-residents who work within their city limits.  Why can't Kansas City Missouri do the same? Simple. The city is run by democrats.  Has been for years. Democrats cannot spend wisely, and fritter away money on failed TIFs, unneeded street cars, multiple arenas, and entertainment districts that continue to require assistance to remain viable.

In short, the city needs an earnings tax to continue crony spending. Then, when the tax comes up for a vote, the city threatens citizens to lay off police and fire to offset the revenue loss. Wow. What a crock.  There is never a thought they could balance their budget by becoming thrifty, and spending the money like it was their own.

As a Kansas resident, the tax is even more irritating. I don't get to vote on whether it is renewed. Not only do I not get to vote on a tax that I pay, each day I see the pro-earnings tax advertising state that 50% of the revenue is paid by those not living in the city.  That's me! Talk about flaunting it.  Not only is taxation without representation unfair, it is also used to encourage residents of Kansas City to pass it!  Tax Kansans to pay half of the city's expenses!

Kansas City, St. Louis, Detroit, and other major cities are suffering under the failed leadership of democrat politicians.  Imagine what they could do for America if elected in 2016.

Permission to Vote

Dinesh D'Souza: “The Democrats want us to believe they're the party of equal rights and human rights and civil rights. The truth is the Democrats are the party of slavery, and Indian removal, of broken treaties and the Trail of Tears, they're the party of segregation and Jim Crow and lynching and the Ku Klux Klan, they're the party of Japanese internment, and opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fair Housing Bill of 1968.  This is their actual history so what they do is they try to cover it up.”

Rush Limbaugh: "I believe that liberalism, Democrat Party, whatever you want to call it, is the most destructive force in America, outside of weather calamities that are acts of God.  It is an organized force.  It has an active philosophy with a multiplicity of objectives, and together they are oriented and aimed at destroying and tearing down this country."

I believe both quotes are factual. I also believe that my vote or non-vote can help a democrat become president. 

As a conservative, Cruz is my choice to return America to traditional values. He has the ideology and intellect to become a president in the mold of Ronald Reagan.  I voted for Cruz in the Kansas caucus.  He has little chance of becoming president. The press and the republican party will destroy him.

I can vote for John Kasich,  Marco Rubio, or Donald Trump. I have given myself permission to vote for someone who does not share my ideology, because I cannot be part of electing a democrat president.  Refer to the quotes above.

Taking My Toys and Going Home

In 2008, an attractive candidate, Barack Obama, beat an old school republican, John McCain.  The margin of victory was comfortable for Obama, as almost all blacks, and many whites felt that by electing the first black president, racial animus in America would finally end.  During the first two years of his first term, Obama had majorities in both houses of congress.  During that time Obama was able to force through what is believed to be his legacy legislation, the affordable care act, Obamacare.

The mid-term elections of 2010 and 2014 punished Obama and democrats for the direction they were taking the country.  The democrats lost control of the house of representative, and lost seats and a filibuster-proof majority in the senate, and then in 2012, their senate majority.  The carnage continued down ballot to state houses and local governments.  The country sent a strong message - we don't like the new direction.  Most of the election winners won by promising to reverse what Obama and the democrats were doing.

Leading up to the election in 2012, Obama continued to be unpopular.  Obamacare was negatively impacting families that could not obtain crony-based waivers, the economy was struggling, and Obama's job approval was underwater.  Obama was ripe for defeat by Mitt  Romney.  Romney was a seen as a country club republican and out of touch with the middle class.  After a harsh campaign, Romney lost to Obama.

Analysis after the election found the reason Romney lost was not Obama's popularity.  Obama did not get as many votes in 2012 as he did in 2008.  If Romney had simply convinced the same number of people who voted for McCain in 2008 to vote for him in 2012, we would be nearing the end of president Romney's first term.

Why couldn't Romney pull as many votes as McCain?  Many conservative republicans felt that Romney was not conservative.  As ridiculous as it sounds, some evangelicals could not bring themselves to vote for a Mormon. It may be happening again.

I have heard conservative pundits, friends and family members say they cannot vote for certain republicans that may be nominated, and may even vote for Clinton or Sanders. Their attitude defies logic.  While I am sure they believe they are being high-minded and principled, in fact they are being petulant and childish.  Their actions are analogous to a child saying that since they aren't getting their way, they will take their toys and go home. The country's future could be at stake.

It is difficult to believe conservatives would allow a socialist to spend an addition 19 trillion dollars, or an inept former secretary of state to continue the policies of a failed presidency, just so they wouldn't have to hold their nose and vote for someone they feel isn't the best choice.  In this context, their choice can only be considered selfish and illogical.

After 8 years of progressive liberalism that has polarized the country, forced us into a recession that is frustratingly slow to recover, brought us gay marriage, Obamacare, open borders, increasing entitlements, and so many other negatives, the thought of another 4 years could be catastrophic.  Three supreme court justices may be nominated during this term, and tip the precarious balance toward activist unconstitutional rulings for the next generation.

The stakes are high. This is no time for childish behavior.

What Four Bucks will Buy You

Wednesday I purchased a couple of Powerball tickets for the first time ever.  The jackpot was at $1.5 billion, so I decided to waste $4.  My rational mind knew the tickets would return nothing.  It also knew the huge jackpot was a one in 260 million long shot.  My chances of being struck by lightening, crushed to death by a falling vending machine, or bitten by a shark in Kansas were greater than winning the Powerball.

I purchased the tickets around 5:00 PM, about 5 hours before the drawing.  For those 5 hours, my irrational mind took over and began to plan how I would spend the windfall.  I only had 5 hours to decide what I would do with such a large amount of money.  I figured after paying taxes and tithing, I would be left with around $600 million.

My first spend would be to give Joe Biden $100 million for his effort to cure cancer.  Knowing that Obama didn't pick Biden to lead the effort for his brains, spending other people's money is the only tool Biden has to accomplish anything.  Now I'm down to a half billion dollars.  That was quick.

My family came next.  I decided that I did not want to parse out a million here and a million there, but instead do one big thing that could benefit my entire family.  My plan was to buy 10 mansions along the southern coast to become the Bryant compound on Bryant beach.  Terri and I would live in one mansion, the big nice one, and my entire family, blood and extended, would have access to the other nine nice but smaller mansions.

Then I realized that living next door to my extended family might not be a great idea in the long term, so I increased my buy to 20 mansions and planned to tear down every other one.  That would give us all a little more elbow room.  20 mansions at $5 million each burns another $100 million, a small price to pay for the Bryant compound.  Down to $400 million in the bank.

Knowing you can't spend the rest of your life just sitting in your mansion staring out at the ocean (maybe you can), the compound will need an entertainment district.  Nothing too fancy, just a bowling alley, a movie theater, a KC-style BBQ joint, and a music bar.  If other entertainment is desired, we can just jet to the nearest coastal city with a tourist trap and night life.  So that's an entertainment district for $50 million, a Learjet for $25 million and a private runway for $25 million. Down to $300 million in the bank.

Next a car pool.  A dozen Hummers, a couple of Corvettes and a Lamborghini for the weekends should do.  That's less than a million bucks.  What a bargain.  We can jump straight to the annuity used to pay cleaning staff in perpetuity.  Say, one maid per mansion equipped with a lifetime supply of Swifters.  Another $20 million spent, with $279 million left.  Maybe it's time to be frugal and put the rest in the bank.  Don't want to be too flamboyant.

That's what $4 buys you.

Plan B

It has become apparent that, in addition to her unlikability, Hillary Clinton may add  indictments to her presidential resume before the election.  If she were ordinary, the indictment would have already been delivered based on her reckless handling of confidential and secret material as secretary of state. Since she is considered political royalty, the FBI is being especially cautious.  Good.  When the indictments come, I want them to be ironclad.  How can they not after learning that she asked a subordinate to strip away classification marking before faxing a heavily redacted document to her private unsecure email system.

The question that will remain is whether an unlikable democrat charged with one or more felonies is still electable.  She may be fine based on the unawareness of a typical democrat who just wants their fair share at America's teat. But I still has enough faith in the average citizen to hope that pending felonies will hurt her chances. It will become apparent that she is officially unelectable when we see the Plan B emerge from the democrat party.  I wonder what it will be?  Some scenarios are downright frightening.

1. Joe Biden or Elizabeth Warren enter the race, or more concerning, Joe enters and names Elizabeth as his VP.  Name recognition alone would propel them to the top of the polls. Polls don't elect, so the problem they will have is no organization or ground game unless Hillary donates hers.  I doubt she would.
2. Michelle enters the race and runs as her husbands third term. That could be hard to beat since she is liked more than Hillary or Barack.  Personality alone could be enough to make a strong run.
3. Barack cites a national emergency to ask that the constitution be superseded and allow him to run for term #3.  Hey, his job approval numbers aren't that much lower than they were in 2012.  He could theoretically do it again.  Roosevelt was elected 3 times, so there is precedence.
4. The worst case scenario could be that Biden, Clinton, Michelle or some other old wrinkled democrat add Barack as their VP.  Then, after the election, the old wrinkled democrat steps down for health reasons.

All four of these scenarios are unconstitutional, but what have we learned in the past two years?  The Constitution can be bent if it suits a progressive liberal purpose. I believe the least likely scenario is that Bernie Sanders gets the nomination.  The mainstream media constantly calls Donald Trump unelectable, or disastrous to the republican party, but fail to mention that Bernie is that and more to the democrats.

Bernie is a socialist.  Bernie would over-regulate, over-tax and over-control every aspect of the private sector.  Donors would abandon the democrat party if Bernie was the nominee.  It won't happen.

What will happen is Plan B. There is one in development.

Due Process

: a course of formal proceedings (as legal proceedings) carried out regularly and in accordance with established rules and principles —called also procedural due process

1. 
   
2. 
   :  a judicial requirement that enacted laws may not contain provisions that result in the unfair, arbitrary, or unreasonable treatment of an individual —called also substantive due process

We are losing our rights.  The best example is in current events, Barack Obama's over-reach in using executive orders to establish the gun control he cannot get using the legislative process.  Obama sounds reasonable.  He says he wants to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill or known terror suspects.  So do I.

But to understand the abuse Obama is now permitting, consider this.  

First, the right to bear arms is an enumerated constitutional right, specifically written into the 2nd amendment, and has been reviewed by the supreme court as applying to individual gun ownership.  It is not an un-enumerated right, such as the right to choose, or the right to privacy which are  implied by enumerated rights.  

Now, if I had a nephew-in-law who is completely nuts, (and I do), I could call the FBI and report that he should not be allowed to buy a gun.  That would be enough to put his name on a list and effectively strip him of his 2nd amendment constitutional rights.  This would be done without the due process normally required to apply a restriction or penalty.

No-fly lists are more egregious.  While I might have good reason to report my nephew-in-law to authorities, any name on a no-fly list is placed there arbitrarily by a government bureaucrat checking a box. The late senator Ted Kennedy was repeatedly added to no-fly lists due to his name connected to a known terrorist.  Since there is no legal process required to add a name to the list, a bureaucrat would effectively be empowered to restrict a constitution right to any citizen without due process.  This is a process ripe for abuse just as was exposed in the IRS practice of rejecting conservative groups for 401c status.

With the executive order, Obama has crossed another line by authorizing unfair, arbitrary, or unreasonable treatment of citizens without due process.  It won't stand, but will sound like he is doing something important.