Religious War

It has been over twelve years since the twin towers in New York fell victim to a terrorist attack.  We have had several terrorist attacks before and after the towers fell.    Islamic extremists are planning and committing these terrorist attacks.

The Middle East is in terrible shape.  We hear of the problems in Syria, Egypt, Iran, and Iraq.  We lost people in Benghazi, Libya a year ago and no one has been held accountable in any way. 

We are concerned with human rights, but choices seem to be dictators or Muslim Sharia law.  If we could replace the brutal dictators with democratic republics, it would be great, but Muslims seem to take over every time a dictator is eliminated. 

What are the objectives of the Muslim religion?  It is clear the objective is to convert everyone to Islam and observe Sharia law worldwide.   I know this is not a politically correct statement in a country where we advocate everyone should be free to practice the religion of their choosing.  The problem is assuming people of every religion agree with freedom of choice. 

The means used to achieve these Muslim objectives is where it gets fuzzy.  Most religions have missionaries and this is good.  We advocate separation of church and state and have taken it to an extreme that would appall our founding fathers.  The Muslims clearly do not agree with this as shown by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.  I heard people say the Muslim Brotherhood would never be a political party and could not win if they did put forward a political candidate.  How naive can someone be?  How did that work out in Egypt?

Jehad is defined as, “a holy war undertaken as a sacred duty by Muslims.”  How many Muslims feel this way?  When the Muslim religion leads to a civil war, people die.  This is obviously not just the action of a few extremists.  The Muslim leaders apparently condone and support these wars. 

When it comes to terrorist attacks, it become more personal to us.  We blame them on a few Islamic extremists, but right or wrong, these acts and extremists led us into wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

I have heard many times how 90% of Muslims are peace-loving people.  Maybe we should ask some of the people dying in the civil wars about this.  Maybe we should stop supplying weapons to fuel these wars. 

I have one other question.  I will pick on Lutherans since I happen to be a Lutheran.  If a small percentage of Lutherans were planning or committing terrorist acts in the name of their religion, I would expect other Lutherans to talk them out of committing any violent acts or turn them in to the authorities.  This does not seem to happen with Muslims in spite of how nice they act with non-Muslims.  Since I believe actions speak louder than words, I question if a greater percentage of Muslims and Muslim leaders are sympathetic with the terrorists and believe in Jihad.  I hope not, but the Muslim community and Muslim leaders must prove me wrong with actions and not just words. 

We need to face the fact that we are in a religious war.  We will be dealing with this war for decades.  Do you remember when President Bush predicting this war on terror would last for decades?  Until we recognize this war on terror is a religious war, we will continue to prolong the war. 

Fluorescent Light Bulbs

When I was a kid, we conserved energy.  Lights were turned off if no one was in the room.  We turned the lights off automatically when we left a room.  Often lights were turned off with people still in the room.  Standing looking in the refrigerator with the door open was a no-no as it wasted electricity. 

As the price of electricity became more affordable, we became more wasteful.  Once a few decades ago, I walked around our house to find three TVs in use.  This was not unusual, but when I saw all three were on the same program, it made an impression.  Why run three TVs when everyone could watch the same program together? Obviously, no one gave any consideration to the wasted electricity.  Today we have many items continually using electricity when not in use.

Are we so irresponsible that we need the federal government to regulate our electrical consumption?  I hope not, but it is happening.  Light bulbs are just one example. 

We have a large light fixture over our dining table in the great room area.  This table is used several times a day.  This fixture has three hanging cut glass shades.  I am not sure what a decorator would call it, but I call it a pool table light.   Each shade holds a 100W frosted globe bulb.  There is a dimmer on the wall switch. 

        These 100W decorator bulbs are no longer manufactured.  Since we will not be able to buy them in the future, we bought all that were available at one electrical supply house.  100W bulbs in general are being phased out.  Eventually, under present Environmental Protection Agency standards, we will not be able to buy any incandescent bulbs and will be forced to use only LED or compact fluorescent bulbs.

        One problem with the fluorescent bulbs is they have a fine powder that contains mercury.  Mercury is a heavy metal and dangerous.  How dangerous is another question.  Read the instructions on a fluorescent bulb package for if one is broken.  It is a little scary.  Some state Department of Environmental Protection agencies recommend bringing in a professional decontaminator if you break a fluorescent bulb inside. 

        Maybe you are lucky and never break one of these fluorescent bulbs inside, but how do you dispose of these dangerous items containing the heavy metal mercury.  The large majority is just thrown in the trash to contaminate our environment.  The best-case scenario is they make it all the way to a landfill without breaking, where they are crushed and may contaminate our ground water. 

        Can you recycle hazardous fluorescent bulbs?  If you want a good laugh, call your solid waste service and ask them about disposing of fluorescent bulbs.  If you have the time, space and resources, you can buy disposal boxes for around $100, which you can send to a recycler.  How often do you think that happens?  Most people don’t even know about this option. 

        This is our government attempting to control our lives.  It reminds me of the movie, Dumb and Dumber.  I often say Saturday Night Live doesn’t stand a chance compared to the nightly national news. 

Photo ID for Voting

   

        Does requiring photo identification for voting discriminate?  I think it might descriminate against the working class in this country.  Since they work 40 hours or more, it could be difficult for them to have time to go get a photo ID.

        Since working America might include more traditional families, independents, Republicans, conservatives, Constitutionalists, Libertarians, and whites, would requiring a photo ID discriminate against these groups?  This agreement and logic sounds a little ridiculous, but not much more ridiculous than any argument against requiring photo identification for voting.

        The argument that requiring photo identification disenfranchises poor, old, and minority groups is just as ridiculous.  This argument is just plain BS and clearly politically motivated.  If someone has time to vote, they have time to get photo identification.  Photo identification is required for many things like buying cigarettes, alcoholic beverages and admission to various activities.  Photo identification is required for many students and to get on an airplane. 

        I have worked as an Election Inspector in Wisconsin, and the state passed legislation requiring photo identification starting at the beginning of 2012.  This law has never been implemented due to the delaying actions of various Progressive judges.  I really have problem with judicial braches of government becoming legislatures.  

        The only requirement for an individual to vote that was registered to vote is to show up at the polling place, and state their name and address two times.  There is no check as to who they are, and unless an Election Inspector knows the individual personally, they could be anybody. 

The new law still did not require any photo identification to register to vote.  The only requirement for registering in Wisconsin is to show up with a printed document or statement of some sort with their name and address.   They then check the U.S. citizen box.  The only check the election official does is to check a felony list.  People can register at the voting location, and vote the same day.  There is no waiting period.

        The only thing requiring photo identification does is eliminate people not eligible to vote like illegal aliens.  Sorry, I need to say Undocumented Worker to be politically correct, but I never claimed to be politically correct.   

        There is a joke often told in Wisconsin that may actually have some basis in fact.  It goes like this.  There are both Republicans and Democrats in Milwaukee, but once they die, they all vote Democrat. 

Racism In Elections

I don’t agree with most of Hillary Clinton’s political positions.  Hillary describes herself as a “Modern Progressive”.   She must think adding the “Modern” makes Progressivism sound less socialist. 

I do agree with something she recently said in one of her pre-Presidential campaign speeches.  She said, “Anyone that does not think race plays a role in elections is not paying attention.”  I totally agree because if President Obama did not carry over 90% of the black vote in his last two elections, he loses by a landslide.  If over 90% of the white vote voted against Obama, he loses by an even greater landslide.  Since these are the facts, were these elections racist?  Some people will say pointing out these facts is politically incorrect or even racist.

Should blacks vote for blacks?  Should espainics vote for espainics?  Should whites vote for whites?  This is wrong, but is clearly happening with some minorities. 

After President Obama was elected, I heard many people say, “Isn’t it nice we have a black President.”  This political situation is very dangerous because the candidate’s character and positions now become irrelevant.  Personally, I could care if President Obama is white, black, yellow, green, or purple.  Who is he, what are his qualifications, and what does he stand for?  That is what should be important.  I really get mad when I hear people called racist because they disagree with him. 

Race is a touchy subject, as most honest discussions about race are considered politically incorrect.  This is interesting because minorities ask for open discussions, but often only want a one-sided discussion.  They sometimes seem to want to proclaim their positions and demands with no discussion. 

Everyone has prejudices based on their personal experiences.  This is normal and maybe even good.  It may be part of our life’s learning experiences.  A prejudice may not be racist.  We have to stop using race in politics.  We must concentrate on the real issues facing this country. 

Bureaucratic Earmarks

In March of 2010, Sean Hannity did a series of shows on what he called the 102 worst earmarks.  A couple of   my favorites were:

·       #50 - Studying the impact of global warming on wild flowers in a Colorado ghost town ($500,000)

·       #49 - Bridge built over railroad crossing so 168 Nebraska town residents don’t have to wait for the trains to pass ($7 million)

·       #29 - Replacing all signage on 5 miles of road in Rhode Island ($4,403,205)

·       #15 - Deer underpass in Wyoming ($1,239,693)

·       #10 - Investing in nation-wide wind power (but most of the money has gone to foreign companies) ($2 billion)

The grand total for the 102 earmarks was $4.9 billion. 

The interesting thing is that not one of these earmarks was a Congressional earmark.  They all were federal government expenditures made by the President and appointed bureaucrats. None of them had the approval and in most cases not even the knowledge of Congress. 

In the past I have written blogs opposing Congressional earmarks attached to bills.  The total dollar amount is small as a percentage of the total government spending, but we have to start somewhere.  My biggest concern with Congressional earmarks was that they were used to pay off and reward political supporters and donors.  Any moratorium on Congressional earmarks may serve no purpose if the executive branch of the government is allowed to make the same and even less desirable expenditures. 

        The bureaucratic earmarks or expenditures are even worse and used for the same questionable purposes in many cases.  The Constitution gives Congress the control of the budget and all money spent by the government.  What has happened?  Congress has not passed a budget in years, and the executive branch of government and unelected bureaucrats seem to have carte blanche approval to spend whatever for whatever.  Congress is the legislative branch of our government and should control the purse strings.  Are we letting Congress become irrelevant?  How have we let this happen?  We must take our government back from the political ruling elite.

Outlaw the Avenger

A Dodge Avenger injured, and killed people on California’s Venice Beach boardwalk. 

We must outlaw the Avenger. 

The federal government must take action. 

We must stop this from happening in the future. 

We must do something. 

If only one person’s death is prevented, it’s worth it. 

Does this sound familiar?  There is no mention of the cost or effectiveness to do this.  There is no thought or concern for the rights of the people that now own or use a Dodge Avenger, or would like to own or use an Avenger in the future.  As long as it doesn’t affect me personally, who cares about individual freedoms anyway? 

I did not mention the driver, any control the driver had over the car, or any responsibility the driver had for the car.  If we don’t like something or something scares us, a portion of the population just looks to big government as the solution. 

Some people will say the Constitution does not guarantee the right to own or drive a car anyway.  How could it?  There were no motorized vehicles when the Constitution was drafted.  They say times and technology have changed, so how could the Constitution guarantee any personal liberties like driving a car?  They say the Constitution must be outdated since it restricts their political agenda. 

Isn’t it amazing how stupid these arguments sound when we are talking about a weapon that is a car.   I would again like to quote Benjamin Franklin.  “They who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety.”

It's Complicated

          This seems to be a commonly used term recently.  What does it mean?  Some terms that could replace it are; I intentionally concealed things from you, I deceived you, I wasn’t honest with you, I covered up the facts, I lied to you, I lied about the cover-up.  Why would someone do this?  Are they just dishonest?  Do they put their personal interests above others?  Are they cheats or crooks?

        This type of behavior is becoming more and more prevalent in my opinion.  What has happened to being honest, a good work ethic, and Christian morality?  I think there is still a place for all of these in today’s society.

        I recently heard a Progressive say there has been fraud and corruption in government since the birth of this country.  I can’t say I disagree with that statement, but if that is true, what idiot would be in favor of big government?

        In the Customer Service chapter of my book, Business Fits: How to find the right business for you! I talk about never lying to a customer as one of the two most important points of good customer service.  The other one is giving the customer a prompt reply.  We can be honest in business and be successful. 

        My dad put a great deal of pride in his Word. He farmed the farm I was raised on for sixteen years.  He never had a written lease after the first year.  The next fifteen years were done on a handshake.  I wish we could do business like that today.  There are circumstances where we can with the right customer service.

         Some people think there are special circumstances that justify lying.  Some people expect and accept politicians lying?  Some people think all car salespeople lie and thus it is okay to lie to a car salesperson.  I give some great examples from when I was a new car dealer in my book, Business Fits.

I have four sons.  The youngest is named Adam.  Adam and his fiancé were parking in downtown Fort Collins, Colorado when Adam saw a bundle in the gutter.  When he picked it up he discovered it was $3,000 with an adding machine tape wrapped around it.  Adam briefly thought of keeping it, but turned it in to the police. 

        At the bed and breakfast one morning before Adam’s wedding, the boyfriend of his future mother-in-law was telling the story.  He concluded with, “Would you believe, the dumb kid turned it in to the police?”  He then pointed at me and said, “I blame you for that.”  I considered it a very nice compliment, although I’m not sure that’s how he meant it.

        The money was never claimed and Adam did later receive the money.  It was probably from some illegal activity.  I was very proud of my son.  Honesty is rewarded in many ways. 

        We can be honest and moral in business and we should accept nothing less from our elected officials and appointed bureaucrats.  If we don’t control and limit the power of the government we will eventually have a political elite ruling class.