Monday, March 9, 2015

Ashley Furniture, Selma, Alabama And Free Enterprise or Political “Assistance?”

The CEO of Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. thought “I knew I couldn’t compete,” as described in a front page article in the Wall Street Journal (“U. S. Furniture Survivor Tries to go Global,” Friday, March 6, 2015). Products from South Korea and Taiwan were cheaper and of better quality than those made by his company. Immediately he went to his Congressman desperately seeking help.  Republican Steve Gunderson, his representative from western Wisconsin, said, “You need to prepare to compete.” Further, he told Ron Wanek, also founder in 1970 of the privately-held family firm, not to expect any government help. Ashley, then with thirty-five employees, was and still is located in Arcadia, Wisconsin, with a population of 3,000; 45 years later, it is now the largest manufacturer and retailer of furniture in the U. S. with nearly $4 billion in revenues.

“In Selma, Struggle and Hope” (page A3 of the same paper) the 50th anniversary of “Bloody Sunday,” the violent civil-rights clash that helped usher in the 1965 Voting Rights Act” is lauded. With a population just over 20,000, Selma is one of the poorest cities in America and 80% black. Its black state senator, Hank Sanders is quoted as saying, “Selma has been left out of the very progress that it helped create.” President Obama will go to Selma to celebrate its past (and doubtless, ignore its bleak future). The Journal article features Jerria Martin, Selma resident and civic leader, who is executive director of Selma’s 21st Century Youth Leadership. According to its website, “The mission of the 21st Century Youth Leadership Movement is to inspire, assist, organize, and develop young people of all ages to be skilled community focused leaders, resiliently and creatively empowering themselves and their communities.” Among other goals it is focused on training young people to create a community garden; beautiful perhaps but nothing to help the financial future of Selma’s youth. Ms. Martin earned a master’s degree from Princeton Theological Seminary and wanted to use the skills she learned there for “transformative change.” State Senator Hank Sanders, a Democrat,  received degrees from Talladega College and Harvard Law School. Wikipedia writes:  “Hank has helped found or build many [non-profit, at least partially government-funded] organizations.” His wife, Faya Rose Toure, also a lawyer and an activist, wants the anniversary to reconnect youth with the past civil rights struggle, and the “long hand of slavery and segregation that is still affecting consciousness today.”

And there you have it.  On one hand, free enterprise thrives in a tiny Wisconsin town; Ashley employs 13,000 private sector workers in the United States. On the other hand is upwards of 50 years of public sector “assistance” and White House encouragement in a poverty-stricken, majority-black, Alabama city. For his part, the President of the United States has encouraged more community activism and government dependency instead of growth in the private sector. President Obama, through his takeover of the student-lending process, has enabled college students (both graduates and dropouts) to borrow over one trillion dollars from the U. S. taxpayer (funneled by the U. S. Department of Education). If these debtors, around 50,000 Americans, go to work in non-profit organizations or government entities, their loans can be forgiven in ten years. If they go to work for for-profit companies it will take twice as long for the government to forgive the loans. Since they can restrict their payments to ten percent of their wages, it pays them to work in low-pay non-profits.

These two articles present a sad commentary of the stark contrast of the two municipalities. Are there lessons to be learned? Does government “help” encourage more Selmas and the maintenance of poverty I wonder? Then I wonder, is this kind of government for the benefit of the United States of America?  Or for the Democratic Party? Further, what if Selma had been told it couldn’t compete, and that there was no government assistance available?  Would the leaders have stepped up and started for-profit companies and thrived? The CEO of Ashley was told he’d get no assistance. He had a free choice. Perhaps give up, sell out or think of how to compete. No doubt luck had something to do with the difference. Mr. Wanek “has long been inspired by the hardy stock of rural Minnesota and Wisconsin.” But are the workers in Selma not hardy stock? Do they work less hard? Wanek was a leader, being president of the graduating class of 36 in his hick town high school, but “didn’t stand out.” Clearly there are leaders in Selma, but perhaps the Democrats in power don’t trust the private sector enough to steer these  leaders toward the profit-seeking, prosperity-building private sector.

There are vital lessons to be learned in analyzing the two entities, if anyone cares.  But, then, there must be action if such lessons learned are to be fruitful.

Wednesday, March 4, 2015


From the New York Times, Sunday, March 1, 2015: Historysource by Michael Beschloss

Discussing the bond between Lyndon Baines Johnson and Harry S. Truman...

"In the mid-1960s, Truman was by no means the popular cult figure -- embodying plain speaking, decisiveness, honesty, common sense and a modest lifestyle -- that he became after his death."



Tuesday, March 3, 2015


Democrat-labeled "distressed homeowners" who borrow and can't make mortgage payments are about to get some more forgiveness courtesy of his feel-sorry-for Mel Watt, head of his Federal Housing Finance Agency. Arbitrary NEW RULES force extension of loan terms, forgiving principal or -- this is critical -- stopping sales of foreclosed property to investors.  Investors are a despised class to the Obama administration since they compete with the federal government's giveaways of tax payer monies to get Democrats elected. In this case investors who might take the property away from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to lessen taxpayer risk can't.  Only obviously-Democrat advocacy housing activists get in first. Or people who will live in the houses (and vote for Democrats.) The far-left Center for American Progress lobbied for it, as did the New Jersey Community Capital non-profit which buys foreclosures.

CRONY "CAPITALISM" is not capitalism.

President Obama's arbitrary, illegal action to grant to ILLEGAL ALIENS Social Security cards and numbers, among other goodies, will give them UNEARNED INCOME SUBSIDIES immediately without them ever working. YOU will be paying for their Democrat Party windfalls.  For whom will these newly-fat cats vote in the next and every subsequent election?  DEMOCRATS. Using your money.

And I thought bribery was illegal.  No matter nothing is illegal for the President of the Democrats.


Republicans: Kiss Choice

The Messrs. Reinhold Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, and Karl Christian Rove, Republican political consultant, can sure raise the money, but they can’t turn a phrase. In the Wall Street Journal’s “How Senate Republicans Can Close the Sale,” by Karl Rove, Opinion, October 2, 2014, he discussed 11 Republican principles that Priebus presented in a speech at George Washington University. They included, "we should leave the next generation opportunity, not debt" and “our country should value the traditions of family, life, religious liberty and hard work;” 23 words all together. Remember K. I. S. S.? It is an acronym for “Keep it Simple, Stupid,” which is a principle that systems work more effectively if they are kept simple and understandable. For example, “choice” is one word while Priebus’s and Rove’s philosophy is 23. That one simple word – choice – encompasses Republican principles better than any other.  Yet it is virtually owned by the Democratic Party which puzzlingly offers actually only one “choice” and that only to women. It is time that Republicans seize that word – choice – and present it to the nation as the embodiment of their philosophy. Republicans want to offer many choices to everyone, Democrats want to control.  That is the dividing line between left and right.

Why can’t all Americans choose the schools their kids go to? Why can’t we choose to keep our long-time family doctor? Why can’t we choose not to join a union? Why can’t we choose to have an adjustable-rate mortgage, if it fits our budget? Why can’t we choose the crib we want, a crib won’t hurt our baby, only our neglect will. Why can’t I choose to take a drug that might save my life? Why can’t I choose whom to hire and whom to fire in my business? Why can’t I choose not to wear a helmet when I ride my motorcycle?  (This is a 55-year old gripe of mine!) I think I can make  better choices for me than some political appointee sitting in Washington, D.C. can.
Myriad governmental institutions limit the choices of the American public. They include the Federal Trade Commission, its Division of Advertising Practices and Fair Information Practice Principles, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission among countless other U. S. government agencies, commissions, divisions and so on. They substitute their choices for ours.
Obviously, there are circumstances when the knowledge of elite experts in a field is needed for something dangerous that I can’t begin to understand. But is using the word “natural” to sell corn flakes something really so dangerous it needs an expert to stop me from choosing whether to believe it or not? Really?
Why will the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) prohibit me from being able to be one of 75,000 students to choose Corinthian Colleges, Inc. to get an education, or its 15,000 employees from choosing to work there if the government forces it out of business but doesn’t protect me from choosing or working for Harvard or the University of Washington? The CFPB says Corinthian deceived, bullied, misled and was predatory to students.  But what if I am a bartender with a B. A. from Yale and owe $100,000 in student loans, that’s OK?
Why can’t I choose to buy Bucky Balls, those magic magnetic magnetized balls? Because the Consumer Product Safety Commission banned them in its first stop-sale order in 11 years. Kids might eat them. What about pennies, nickels or quarters?
Sure, I might get hurt or cheated but it will be my choice; anyway, I think we’re smart enough to know. After all, practically all the information ever known to humanity is available to anyone on a little cell phone. But it seems politicians primarily of the Democratic persuasion don’t think we’re smart enough so they invent governmental institutions and pass laws to protect us from ourselves. Or do they?  Over a million U. S. government employees belong to unions, which contribute vastly more to the Democratic Party than to any other. So for whose benefit really is it to have thousands of union members make decisions for me?
Politicians can say anything true or false, benign or dangerous, and it is protected. The Supreme Court decisions on the First Amendment make core political speech more important than other forms of individual expression. I’d argue that political lying can be severely dangerous to individuals and the country.
The question is, should We the People be able choose for ourselves or should a few politicians, unelected political appointees and union members choose for us?  Who is more capable of looking out and deciding for us, we ourselves or politicians? Republicans, advocates of free enterprise, believe we ourselves generally are capable to choose for ourselves while Democrats, advocates of a large, powerful government, believe that generally their elite political appointees or hires are capable and they should make our choices for us.
Mr. Priebus and Mr. Rove, which do you think more powerful? "[W]e should leave the next generation opportunity, not debt" and “our country should value the traditions of family, life, religious liberty and hard work;” 23 words, or “Republicans offer Choice” one word?” Choosing or obeying?

“We the People” is democracy, free enterprise, and choice.  That is the Republican Principle.

Monday, March 2, 2015



From the New York Times, Sunday, March 1, 2015, page 2: "Our problem is that we have too many good jobs."

A quote from Leonard M. Siegel, an environmental activist who was recently elected to the City Council of Mountain View, California. "Silicon Valley"  He just hates the taxes Google pays...or maybe he loves the cash but hates the 1%ers who bring it.  It causes housing prices to skyrocket and traffic gridlock.  I don't know what Siegel does for a living (possibly works for a government-funded non-profit environmental activist lobby group, but I don't know.)  Sounds like the Idiot Savant socialist in Seattle's City Council.


Thursday, February 26, 2015

Political Language makes lies sound truthful.....

“Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. ”

NYT: 2/9/15

More than a dozen New York City buildings inspectors and clerks have been charged with exploiting their positions as gateways to the city’s booming real estate industry to obtain hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes, law enforcement officials announced on Tuesday.
In return for bribes of home mortgage payments, sport-utility vehicles and a luxury cruise, among other payments, city buildings inspectors cleared complaints and stop-work orders on properties and expedited inspections, according to the Manhattan district attorney’s office. Some inspectors were charged with trying to evict tenants under false pretenses in exchange for cash from a Brooklyn property manager.
City investigators stepped in before any tenants were illegally evicted.
Sixteen city employees are accused in bribery schemes — 11 of them from the Department of Buildings and five from the Department of Housing Preservation and Development. Prosecutors also charged dozens of property managers and owners, expediters and other construction workers with making payments to bypass the proper inspection channels.

Monday, February 16, 2015

The problem of the Republican Party

The crux of Republicans' problem is that the Democrats act as one.  The media supports whatever the Obama administration, working through its lead spokespaper, the New York Times, tells them to say or write. Most of the other Democrats fall in behind.  Any outlier is ignored.  NOT SO with Republicans. The radical viewpoints of nominal Republicans (now that the Tea Party has been vanquished by the far-left) are announced repeatedly and loudly as the word of the entire evil Republican Party. We all know that truth is nothing the LiberalProgressiveDemocrats care about, winning is everything! Since "religion," along with anything homosexual, pervertsexual or any other sexual and abortion are gigantic trigger words, they are used relentlessly against any Republican who even thinks of them and are identified as belonging to the Republican Party as a whole.  It is lucky -- certainly not strategy, of which there is little -- that Republicans win even one election.

Thursday, February 12, 2015

Diversity is in the Eye of the Beholder

Bill Gates, a founder of Microsoft and Craig McCaw, essentially the creator of AT&T Wireless both graduated from The Lakeside School, Seattle, the preeminent private school in the Pacific Northwest, from where I graduated in 1960.  I just received the Fall/Winter 2014 Lakeside Magazine entitled “The art of politics.”  Page 5 presents the letter from the school Head, Bernie Noe.  He wrote …”[D]iscussions about politics…[by] students at Lakeside offer viewpoints across the political…spectrum.”  That would mean diversity of political thought. In the section “Political Thinking” in a Q & A Carl Engelhardt, Middle School history department head, said “I wouldn’t say [Lakeside has] a liberal bias, I would say that Republicans and conservatives are underrepresented in education.” Underrepresented! Then he continues, “If by liberal you mean most of our faculty vote Democratic, that’s decidedly true.”  Well then. 

In the magazine a number of political operatives are featured.  One section, “What working in the Political Field is really like,” featured Lakeside graduates, four Democrats all winners in local elections; and two Republicans, one who was asked about his guilty plea for Driving Under the Influence and a second who had run and lost in three campaigns and won none. Is that a fair presentation?

In “The View From D. C.” the stories of seven Lakeside alumni working for politicians or political parties all were Democrats. Republicans zero. “The Lobbying Life” article headlined three political lobbyists who are liberals and one, reaching way back to the class of 1965, was once assistant to a Republican governor of Washington

The “Inside Lakeside” section presented the “Global Community Theme 2014” – “Hot to Learn About Climate Change.” One would think that an educational institution would present both sides, for and against. No! It was taken for granted in the full page describing the theme that climate change is a scientific truth.  There was nowhere any possibility of discussing whether in fact climate change is happening. Clearly, “climate change” has a connotation of catastrophe, naturally caused by human activity and greed. Interesting, a “Lakeside parent,” a lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report in 2013, will be a guest speaker. Recommended books include “The Cartoon Introduction to Climate Change” by former Lakeside teacher, Yoram Bauman, about which its review from Kirkus states: “Having established a tone of moderation, invoking scientific method rather than ideology, Bauman and Klein nonetheless reinforce the realities of global warming, fossil fuels and greenhouse gases as potentially catastrophic.” On the book’s back cover, John Michael Wallace, Professor Emeritus, Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington, and co-author of Atmospheric Science: An Introductory Survey, writes the book is “Gently persuasive.”  Is there any argument that climate change is not caused by humans?  Not at Lakeside.

Yet Lakeside celebrates its diversity.  Forty-five percent of its admitted students are “students of color.” But is the color of one’s body truly define diversity? To Lakeside School and by far the preponderance of educators and educational facilities it is.  As Carl Engelhardt went on, “In the public-school world, the teachers unions are probably the second largest donors to the Democratic Party.” But what is the private-school world’s excuse?

One political viewpoint does not diversity deliver.

Tuesday, February 10, 2015

There is No “We” Nor Any “Core Values”

There is No “We” Nor Any “Core Values”

I hate to break it to you readers, writers, pundits and politicians, but there are no “we” or “core values” of the United States of America. However these two concepts are used indiscriminately as if there were such things. For example, by President Obama defending his latest scheme, “And in this moment we must do what other generations have done...” [part of his recent remarks on the American Graduation Initiative at Macomb Community College, Warren, Michigan.] People say “we” need to do this and “we” need to do that.  But there is no “we;” while their definition seems to be all Americans.  But all Americans don’t believe in the same things, so “we” cannot do what “other generations have done.” At the macro level there seems to be at least four factions of “we:” Republicans, Tea Party conservatives, Democrats, and progressive Democrats as significant political entities. In other words, when “we” must perform some action in order to make the country better, which we is it?                                

The editorial staff of the Wall Street Journal writes about the “West’s commitment to its core values…”[January 8, 2015 Opinion piece Islamist Terror in Paris.] As for core values, where do I begin? What are our America’s core values? They seem to revolve around “rights” as defined by some faction.  Not long ago abortion was considered immoral and was illegal. Genetically, humans desire survival of their seed and expansion of the species but forty-two years ago seven people – a majority of the Supreme Court justices – decided that abortion was a fundamental right of American women. Is abortion now a core value of the United States? It inarguably is a core foundation of liberal and Democrat ideology. Yet “right to Life” is supported by roughly half of Americans, according to some polls. So what is the core value? 

Not so many years ago homosexuality was considered an abomination against nature. The American Psychiatric Association only dropped homosexuality as a psychiatric diagnosis in 1973. Fifteen years ago two thirds of the nation believed homosexual behavior was not morally acceptable. Today’s society's rethinking of sexual orientation still has one-third of society disagreeing and this population is now targeted as prejudicial homophobes. So is homosexuality a core value?

While the Declaration of Independence stated that a self-evident truth is “all men are created equal” yet many of those drafting and signing that monumental document owned slaves.  It finally took a charismatic black man and the assassination of a president to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  There were advances along the way including six hundred thousand people killed in the Civil War and the passage in 1920 of the Nineteenth Amendment guaranteeing women’s right to vote. Equality in theory has been granted, but many argue vociferously that there is no equality for so-called African Americans, including lately the view that policemen target African American youths for death. So just what are American core values? Abortion, homosexuality, equality in theory or in practice?

What about criminal justice? Our Constitution provides for “the right to a speedy and public trial” by an impartial jury with other details. But it doesn’t require perfection in outcome, which, of course is impossible with human beings. But many Americans are demanding perfection in judgment and compensation for imperfection. Which is a core value?

The rule of law was once hailed as a foundational core value of American democracy. But it is under fire. A number of bills passed out of Congress and signed into law include the Defense of Marriage Act, federal drug laws including marijuana, and numerous laws  concerning undocumented immigrants, for example. All of these laws have been ignored, unenforced, or unilaterally altered arbitrarily by the president of the United States and his attorney general, both of whom are constitutionally obligated to enforce such laws. Is the rule of law still a core value as many believe? Or is taking into account a person’s circumstances, background and purported skin color in order to soften written laws depending on one’s feelings – “social justice” to many – now a core value?            

Other core value arguments revolve around social justice versus incarceration for crimes committed; free speech versus political correctness; capital punishment or not; the definition and use of “torture;”  

Commerce and its control was part of the reason for a schism between the colonies and Great Britain.  There should be little doubt that improvement in commerce was a core value of the founders, most having been successfully engaged in it.  Today, however, only around a quarter of Americans consider large corporations beneficial to this country. Many on the left seem to distrust business and the leaders thereof. They feel rigorous, close control of business is necessary and that to do so a large number of government employees are necessary. Though polls indicate government is thought beneficial. Interesting though, polls show three-quarters of Americans believe small businesses and technology companies are positive. Individual entrepreneurs who became leaders of corporations industrialized the United States and brought the greatest innovation and prosperity to more people than ever known in the world.  This has also brought millions of human beings on the planet out of abject poverty and up to a higher standard of living.

Business people such as the Carnegies, Harrimans, Mellons, Morgans, Rockefellers, Stanfords, and Vanderbilts of two centuries ago, the Edisons, Fords, Gateses, Jobses, Sarnoffs and Watsons of the last century and myriad others already in this new century has made the world a better place.  Yet the Roosevelt, Taft and Wilson Progressives labeled them Robber Barons; unregulated they were, but while accumulating and ostentatiously spending vast wealth, they also created the greatest country in the world. No doubt regulations were necessary, but perhaps for their own survival the Robber Barons would have changed. This incessant criticism of business has brought However today, the Progressives continue the disparagement of business and aggrandizement of government – lead by themselves, of course.

This has brought another tension of core values. Is free enterprise and successful prosperous business a core value or is more equality of wealth and wages a core value? Is society and our economy better served by the central control by Ivy League elites or the unplanned and raucous chaos of distributed “free enterprise?” Does business reward only the few, the 1%?

“Luck of the draw,”  more fairness and equality (what is the end goal? Where does it stop) – or perfection?

Profits are believed………….. PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans think the U.S. economy benefits when big businesses or small businesses make a profit, although, by 84% to 64%, more consider small-business profits helpful. Relatively few believe profits made by either type of business are harmful to the economy. None of these views have changed appreciably in nearly three years.

Big business is not wildly popular in America, particularly relative to small business. However, despite recent efforts to draw national attention to the perceived economic pitfalls of corporate wealth, nearly two-thirds of Americans still believe the profits big businesses make are more helpful than harmful to the nation's economy.
Importantly, the public's views on this are virtually unchanged from January 2010, spanning the emergence of the Occupy Wall Street movement. To the extent there is public concern about corporate profits being harmful, it is greater among nonwhites, college nongraduates, those in households earning less than $24,000 per year, and -- potentially important for the future -- adults under age 30, although even among these groups it is the minority view.

Friday, January 9, 2015



What does Elizabeth Warren (the latest poster child of the Progressive Movement) mean by "fairness" and "equality?"  At a recent WashingtonD.C., forum hosted by the AFL-CIO, Elitist Senator Lizzie Warren who has always worked in government jobs and, in fact, lied about being an Indian, with a tear in her eye began:  “If you are young and starting out life with tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt locked into high interest rates by Congress..."  Well, no. Her beloved President Obama unilaterally took possession of the United States Student Loan Industry, so the $1,300,000,000,000 owed by the students locked into high interest rates are mostly courtesy of the Democratic Party. Why is that so? Fairness and equality to her and her LiberalProgressiveDemocratic fellow partiers mean everyone gets a college education.  No matter prior achievement, IQ, work ethic, or ambition the U. S. government will "loan" you the money. If your extracurricular activities, such as in the local tavern or frat house, means you take five or six years, or you drop out half way, what has the nation accomplished for society as a whole? And the money is owed by the kids.

Analog to the obvious upcoming student loan fiasco, many believe that the Democrats forced U. S. banks into loaning money to people not making enough money to pay their mortgages back. That in the name of "fairness" and "equality" subprime loans became the norm, with the government-sponsored entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac wildly jumping aboard. Underwriting, what's that? Soon came the inevitable crash, when many of those loans defaulted and property values dropped causing more default.  (Just this year -- six years later, President Obama appointed unemployed Democrat politician Mel Watt as head of  Federal Housing Administration; Immediately going against his rational predecessor, he immediately relaxed new mortgage loan requirements back to subprime specifications.

President Obama, in a clear anti-free enterprise, anti-private sector, pro-Democratic Party, big-fat government move, ordered that most student loans need not be repaid IF the students (graduates or not, I am not sure) work in the government sector or for non-profits (the bulk of which are Democrat-leaning) for ten years.  If the students lower their goals and go to work for the for-profit, private sector they have to work twice as long -- twenty (20) years -- to be forgiven.  And so as not to tax, so to speak, the former students they need only pay 10% of their income to service their government student loans (which will typically not pay the interest accruing, thus increasing what they owe). This arbitrary and unilateral action incents workers to obtain lower-paying jobs, -- in non-profits, for example -- to allow them to pay less. And speaking of "tax," yestthe real taxpayers, the so-called 5% who pay       % of all income taxes will pay off by forgiving allt those student loans...TRILLION

 Like our healthcare system, our housing/financial system, among many. many others, our educational system has been ruined by "fairness" and "equality" coming along with piles of free  government money and its central control by Ivy League elites.  Until the country and its voters clearly understand that central control of most anything by politicians leads to disaster.  And that freedom to act, freedom to innovate, freedom to be unfair by "We the People" brings higher standards of living for all.  Our "poor people" excluding the mentally ill or substance abusers, live better than most everyone else IN THE WORLD.   That has been brought about by the "Robber Barons" of  the Rockefellers, Morgans, Carnegies two centuries ago, the Fords, Sarnoffs and  Olsons, Gateses and Jobses of the last century and myriad others already in this new centur

Thursday, January 8, 2015



Political Correctness is nothing more than an attempt to muzzle the free speech of people with views different from those of the LiberalProgressiveDemocrats (LPDs). Verboten to LPDs -- even explicitly through "speech codes" forbidden in many college campuses in the U. S. -- are so-called trigger warning words: "Coarse" content, "insensitive" words or concepts that “trigger” traumatic or "anxious" thoughts of discrimination, or other “violations” including "dishonoring" feminism, gender identity, sexual orientation or activity (including the word "rape"), class, race, religion or national origin or other concerns. Are the American people and especially college students so frail of mind that they would be damaged by hearing...words?  My parents drummed into me: Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me." (IT OVERWHELMS ME THAT, ON ONE HAND, WOMEN ARE POWERFUL, INDEPENDENT AND AS GOOD AS MEN.  ON THE OTHER HAND, THEY ARE TOo WEAK TO READ or heAR THE WORDs "VIOLATE" or "rape" SINCE they MIGHT CAUSE DISTRESS. DISTRESS, DISCOMFORT, STRESS, HURT FEELINGS, DISRESPECT, AND ON AND ON ARE EMOTIONS TOO POWERFUL FOR WOMEN TO BE ABLE TO cope with AND SO EVERY WORD THAT MIGHT "TRIGGER" SUCH AN OPPRESSIVE EMOTION NEEDS TO BE BANNED FROM THE VOCABULARY OF EVERY AMERICAN.)

How is political correctness different from the desire of Muslims to suppress free discussion of Islam or even mentioning the word "Muhammad?" Is the difference the violence of a certain relatively few extremists? I would argue that the killers in Paris January 7, 2015, were insane, however it is defined. It seems probable that they were driven by Muslim ideology as interpreted by the likes of ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boco Haram,Yemen-based Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and other like-minded and -acting murderous fanatics.

How are the Kouachi Brothers and Hamid Mourad, the Paris killers, different from Ismaaiyl Brinsley, the killer of the two policemen in New York?  He was also surely insane, yet probably driven by
ideology, in this case Progressive ideology, and was explicitly energized by violent demonstrators including the Trayvon Martin Organizing Committee (TMOC) "Dead Cops Chant" -- "What do we want? Dead Cops. When  do we want it? Now!" Unfortunately, these activities were inadvertantly yet implicitly encouraged -- by not being roundly denounced -- by New York mayor del Blasio (his most recent name), Al Sharpton, U. S. Attorney General Eric Holder and President Obama. But is "I can't breathe" political correctness? Is Islamic radicalism of the very few similar to political correctness of the Progressives? Think about it.

How can it all end?  Human beings rarely give up power voluntarily.  Both Muslim crazies and Progressive Americans have significant and growing power.  Although Republicans won control of both Houses of Congress in the November 2014 election, that didn't seem to diminish the thirst for power of Progressives.  Check President Obama's threats of the veto pen and executive orders. ISIS and Boco Haram continue making military gains and enslaving and demanding ideological compliance with Islam and Shariah Law of their captured peoples. Or they are beheaded. Similar ideological compliance with Progressive dogma is demanded by Progressives but, of course, in America the consequences of failing to do so are not so severe.  Except sometimes. Check the "Dead Cops Chant."

#Je Suis Charlie

Wednesday, December 24, 2014


This is the end of 2014 one of the most dangerous years in American History.  The country is divided into the so-called Progressive Left and the Conservative Right.  The bottom line of the conflict is power.  Raw power over the lives of Americans and the world, since America is the strongest world power ever known to such world.  The Left believes it's a negative power and the Right, positive.  Whoever is reading this has been forced into one side or the other.

The Civil War divided our country for the same reason: POWER.  Then it was the southern states which needed or thought they needed slaves to enable commerce and prosperity in our country and the other states who believed or at least argued that slavery itself was horribly wrong and against the freedom promised to Americans by the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.

Around 600,000 mostly young American men died in the bloody, dirty civil war that came.

Some wars are "worth it." That one was.  But the divide continued.  Some believe that it continues today.

The question for 2015 is: How will this divide play out?  The Left expresses disdain or worse for the Constitution. At its core it believes that unfairness as they define it monetarily exists because of capitalism.  The Right argues that capitalism and free enterprise, while not perfect, has allowed billions of human beings to be brought out of hand-to-mouth poverty, and our country to possess the highest prosperity, the most freedom of speech and action than ever experienced by human beings.

The divide is strictly about POWER, every argument is simply a constituent part of the desire for power.

Few, if any, of those in power voluntarily give up their power.  The question for 2015 to me includes the possibility that the Left if further taken from power by elections will renounce such elections as being invalid because of white entitlement and that rich white men nearly 150 years ago invented this political and economic system to benefit themselves.





Notable & Quotable

Harvard Law Prof. Jeannie Suk on students too sensitive to discuss the law of sexual violence.

Harvard Law Prof. Jeannie Suk writing at, Dec. 15:
Students seem more anxious about classroom discussion, and about approaching the law of sexual violence in particular, than they have ever been in my eight years as a law professor. Student organizations representing women’s interests now routinely advise students that they should not feel pressured to attend or participate in class sessions that focus on the law of sexual violence, and which might therefore be traumatic. These organizations also ask criminal-law teachers to warn their classes that the rape-law unit might “trigger” traumatic memories. Individual students often ask teachers not to include the law of rape on exams for fear that the material would cause them to perform less well. One teacher I know was recently asked by a student not to use the word “violate” in class—as in “Does this conduct violate the law?”—because the word was triggering. Some students have even suggested that rape law should not be taught because of its potential to cause distress.
*                         *                         *                        *                    *                            *
To add to this ALL LAW STUDENTS are too shaken up by the events of Ferguson and Staton Island, where law breakers died at the hands of sworn policemen, to be able to take their end of term or mid-term examinations.  Too shaken up.   So some law schools delay such examinations for fear of...   

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Federal Government Policies Encourage Short-Termism

The Wall Street Journal

OPINION (Published December 10, 2014, page A16)

Federal Government Policies Encourage Short-Termism

Never before has the incentive been so stark to make short-term business decisions at the expense of the long term.

Wall Street Journal Dec. 1, 2014

That “‘Shareholder Value’ Is Hurting Workers” (Politics & Ideas, Dec. 10) there should be no doubt, as William Galston writes. To any rational observer, the abundant money showered on the world by the Federal Reserve at near-zero interest rates is too appealing to private equity and hedge-fund operators. They easily borrow massive amounts of it and buy some or all of the equity in companies, and force the directors and managements to do what they think right for short-term payoffs. Included is slashing employment for “efficiency”—hurting workers but bringing greater profits. Some of those additional profits are used to pay fees and expenses of the new investor/owners and make dividend distributions or buy back outstanding company stock. That money paid or “returned” to the investment funds creates billions of dollars of performance fees for the partners of the investment funds.
The outlooks of the companies become shorter and shorter as the fund managers seek more of those performance fees for their own enrichment. While company managers and directors must always balance the long term against the short term, never before has the incentive been so stark to make short-term decisions at the expense of the long term.
The ultimate enabler of this practice is the government. If it really wanted corporations to make longer-term decisions—hiring and training more employees for the future—it would raise interest rates, rein in the money supply and tax the incentive compensation for private-equity managers at ordinary rates. Also long-term capital gains should be taxed according to holding periods, with a lower tax the longer the holding period.
Theodore M. Wight

The piece that this Letter was discussing:

‘Shareholder Value’ Is Hurting Workers

Financiers fixated on the short-term are forcing CEOs into decisions that are bad for the country.

Dec. 10, 2014

Buried in the positive employment report for last month was a small fact that points to a larger reality: Between November 2013 and November 2014, the U.S. labor force grew by 0.7%. If that strikes you as a small number, you’re right. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the labor force grew annually by 1.7% during the 1960s, 2.6% during the 1970s, 1.6% during the 1980s and 1.2% during the 1990s, before slowing to 0.7% during the first decade of the 21st century. Between now and 2022, the rate of increase is expected to slow still further, to only 0.5% annually.
The surge of women into the paid labor force peaked in the late 1990s, and baby boomers—all of whom were in their prime working years in 2000—are leaving the labor force in droves. Youthful immigrants are replenishing the workforce from below, but not nearly fast enough to counterbalance the aging of the native-born population.
When Bill Clinton left office, every baby boomer was in what is considered to be the prime working-age category, between 25 and 54. By the end of 2018, none of them will be. By 2021, more than half of the boomers will be over age 65, participating in Medicare and—in most cases—Social Security.
In 1992, 100 workers supported 92 nonworkers—mainly the young, the elderly and those with disabilities. By 2012, 100 workers were supporting 102 nonworkers, a number that is projected to rise to 107 by 2022.
These dry statistics have real-world consequences. For example, just about everyone believes that we need to accelerate the pace of economic growth and sustain that higher level. This is harder to do when the expansion of the labor force—a major source of economic growth—slows to a crawl. It means that during the next decade, growth will depend more on increased capital investment, faster technological innovation and improvements in the quality of the workforce, than during the past generation. And that means that firms will have to change the way they think.
Few investments will produce high returns as fast as shareholders (especially activist investors) have come to demand. That is why businesses are hoarding so much capital—and using a record-high share of their earnings to buy back their own stock. And businesses have become more reluctant to invest in training their rank-and-file workers, in part out of fear that valuable workers will move and take their human capital with them, and in part in the belief that workforce training is the responsibility of the education system.
An article by Nelson Schwartz in the Dec. 7 New York Times offers a vivid example of what is driving current business behavior. In the name of “unlocking value,” Relational Investors, a firm that manages pension funds, forced the Timken Corp. to split into two firms, one making steel, the other bearings. In the aftermath, the new bearing company slashed its pension-fund contributions to near zero and cut capital investment in half, while quadrupling the share of cash flow dedicated to share buybacks. In place of an integrated, low-debt firm whose stable but less-profitable bearing lines could help cushion swings in the more-profitable but more-volatile steel business, the split left two firms that will be pressured to assume as much as $1 billion in new debt.
High leverage may make sense in some sectors, but not in industries whose competitiveness depends on large investments and longtime horizons. Timken survived the deep recession of the 1980s, which drove many American manufacturers out of business, only because it made massive investments in state-of-the-art production facilities that meant, says Mr. Schwartz, “lower profits in the short term and less capital to return to shareholders.” Because of this patient approach, Timken was able to dominate the global market in specialized steel while providing good wages to workers and contributing to schools and public institutions in its hometown of Canton, Ohio.
It is often argued that managements, such as Timken’s once was, are violating their fiduciary responsibility to “maximize shareholder value.” But Washington Post economics writer Steven Pearlstein argues that there is no such duty, and UCLA law professor Stephen Bainbridge, past chairman of the Federalist Society’s corporate-group executive committee, backs him up. In practice, Mr. Bainbridge has written, courts “generally will not substitute their judgment for that of the board of directors [and] directors who consider nonshareholder interests in making corporate decisions . . . will be insulated from liability.”
The Timken episode has nothing to do with legal fiduciary responsibility. It is a microcosm of the struggle between a financial sector fixated on short-term returns and corporate managements who are trying to run profitable businesses while sharing some of the gains with their workers and communities.

If we continue down this road, we won’t have the long-term investments in workers and innovation that we need to sustain a higher rate of growth. And that would be bad news for the country.

Friday, December 12, 2014

Terrible Heartless TORTURE

There you go again, LiberalProgressiveDemocrats, "Let's get back at the Republicans for Benghazi,"
But nothing happened wayyyyyyy back in Bushtime then other than some Killers-of-Americans got water poured on them and other "threatening" non-dangerous stuff done to get them to squeal on their cohorts.  If they were corporate people LiberalProgressiveDemocrats would characterize it as "whistleblowing." And they certainly blew the whistle on Osama (whose name was changed because of its confusion with Obama I suppose) or Usama bin Laden who got his just rewards thanks to Lou Pancetta's prodding of the President of the United States.

So now the so-called rational Republicans are arguing with the Left about whether anyone was hurt, about whether there was any information divulged (really, Usama!), that there were NO Republicans on the Democratic Senate's "investigatory" body and that it cost taxpayers $50,000,000  and other emotional considerations.  The Republicans are once again on the prototypical defense and losing the "narrative" thrown out by the Left and its media supporters.  Let's turn away from President Obama's losing administration, and it is a loss to America; let's cloud America's mind of the Republican victory in November -- and lurch to..."torture."  With the RACE CARD just in back -- it all is working. The spotlight is now on police departments and the Bush-Cheney administration, not a clueless president.

America has now forgotten what a indecisive president Obama is, how mismanaged the U. S. is now -- three Veterans Administration hospitals are over budget by billions and construction has stopped.  Dead.  The projects were 1) mismanaged 2) unbudgeted 3) under construction with no plans and 4) insane.  The ultimate "manager" is President Barack Obama.  Where in the popular media of the New York and Seattle Times and the other stringees or ABCBSNBCPBS are these insane outrages discussed?  NOWHERE.  Why?  Their president Barack Obama's lack of capability and incompetency would to front and center.  So: nothing.

Let's pivot to sworn police officers killing every unarmed black kid they can find and now how cold -hearted Republicans torture innocent Muslims just for the thrill of it. (I never understand why it is acceptable for the president to arbitrarily kill by drone those he thinks "guilty" along with scores of completely innocent people, including many kids.)


(Republicans won in November's mid-term election because even the Far-left media couldn't obfuscate the brilliantly-publicized beheadings of Americans by ISIS, the blame for which ultimately came down on the Obama administration.)

Saturday, December 6, 2014

Human-Caused Climate Change perspective

4.5 billion years ago give or take a half a billion (4,500,000,000) the earth started to be.

4.1 million years ago give or take the first humans became present in the world.

215 years ago give or take forty or so years the Industrial Revolution began.

45 years ago give or take what was first called "global cooling" was noticed.

0 years ago is today.


Forty-five years ago came the first Malthusian Alarm bells of what was dubbed Global Cooling, then after the cooling warmed, it became Global Warming, then after warming cooled, the name was changed into the all-purpose and unarguable Climate Change. That we humans have "caused" climate change is a non-debatable given by so-called environmental activists, and of course "science" itself agrees as do all "reputable" (meaning believers) scientists.

For about 3,099,955 years human activity had no influence on the climate.  Apparently Mother Nature -- as we named "natural forces" -- did.

Then 3,099,785 years after humans came aboard they they started the Industrial Revolution.  Took'em quite a time.

From that dark moment -- dark, at least to billionaire environmental activists -- humans began destroying the world.  "The power of mankind is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to survive it..." Oh wait, that was not a billionaire environmentalist saying that, it was a reverend, Thomas Robert Malthus, who lived right around the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution.  He actually said that the power of population -- not dirty air -- would be greater than the earth could provide subsistence for man.

In 1800 the world population was about one billion.  "Science" knew then that populations would die off in the near future for lack of enough food.  And sure enough, by 2014 the population was 7 billion and hadn't died off.  Why?  The resourcefulness of humans.

But now science is serious, then, it must have been kidding.

Democrats want us to believe -- and many of you do believe -- that in 45 years or even 215 years out of 4, 100,000, that's .005% of the time humans have been human, they have killed the environment, or soon will.

But what about human ingenuity?  Nah, that apparently doesn't count any more!


Friday, December 5, 2014


After a Missouri grand jury declined to indict sworn police officer Darren Wilson for the shooting death of African American Michael Brown, a New York grand jury decided not to indict an NYPD officer, Daniel Pantaleo, who was primarily involved in the death of Eric Garner, a very large black petty criminal suffering from asthma and a heart condition on Staton Island.  A number of police officers physically "took him down" after he refused to be arrested for suspicion of selling illegal cigarettes.

The liberal media became outraged, especially after Al Sharpton began his denunciation of police officers in general for killing many black teenagers. Mothers are afraid for their black kids going out of the house. Kids can't walk streets or drive cars without being hassled by the police. Rampant racism by predominantly white state and local police departments is hinted at or blatantly advertised in headlines and television news features all around the country. After the media and Sharpton, later joined by Jesse Jackson, Sr., began, the president of the United States and his attorney general, Eric Holder, along with the mayor of New York City piled on blaming racism "for centuries." They add poor training and rules and a lack of police officers mirroring the racial makeup of each jurisdiction. President Obama announced a Justice Department investigation of both incidents. They didn't like the grand jury decisions and apparently felt the white officers were guilty or, at a minimum, should be tried by a jury of his peers regardless of local and state laws.

Begging the question of states rights, double jeopardy and process of the Rule of Law, I wonder.

Is all this commotion nothing more than a pivot to their default-argument race card by the LiberalProgressiveDemocrats?  Is this a brilliant political maneuver by David Plouffe and/or David Axelrod, former senior advisors to President Obama? And have they been visiting or communicating with the White House? Or was it Valerie Jarrett? With approval ratings in the tank, a Republican rout of Democrats in Congress in the recent mid-term elections, and disruption all around the world from a lower respect for the United States from its unsure and equivocal at best, confused at worst, president, President President Obama and his comrades need to change the subject.  

"Never let a good crisis go to waste" and they aren't! 

It is breathtaking how the country is suddenly fixated on race, specifically the supposed random killings of innocent black teens by monster policemen.  The abject failures of Obamacare, American foreign policy and the U. S. economy to grow and Obama's scraping at the the bottom drippings in the pan for a legacy are now all out the window.  Obama's legacy will eclipse that of Abraham Lincoln and Lyndon Johnson.  The first true-African American president, who arguably has done nothing for black Americans -- still with unemployment double the national figures, poverty right up there and his support for teachers unions against black parents' freedom to choose better schools -- will go down in history as the racial savior of America!

Thursday, December 4, 2014


New Medicare Rules Aim to Reduce Abuse (Wall Street Journal, December 4, 2014, page A6,) []

You need to read articles such as this to understand how confused, incomprehensible and unresponsive our Progressive-directed federal government really is.

I remember that a few years ago there were around 175,000 (one-hundred seventy-five thousand) pages of Medicare rules and regulations, and that at any particular time anyone -- anyone -- touching it could be found in violation of something.  Physicians, providers, institutions, patients, advisers, consultants, anyone except politicians apparently.

This article states that last year "Medicare issued $45.8 billion in IMPROPER PAYMENTS (forty-five billion, eight-hundred million dollars, $45,800,000,000)! THIRTEEN PERCENT OF ITS TOTAL SPENDING! (13%!) That calculates to $261,714 per page of laws, rules and regulations every year that is "improper."

Medicare cuts checks first, asks questions later. If something seems awry, the feds "undertake lengthy, expensive audits and claims reviews" then go after the possible perpetrator.  Mostly doctors, it seems, because they do the expensive billing.

President Barack (Obamacare) Obama newly dictated a "significant shift in how the government tackles waste in Medicare..." One rational human being might think that would consist of a review at the heart of the 175,000 pages to see why the greedy physicians cheat the system and how they get do it. BUT NO! The president's brilliant idea is TO ADD MORE PAGES OF RULES AND REGULATIONS (since he can't pass laws!)

NOW, apparently the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) can revoke the ability to bill of any doctor, medical equipment seller or any one else.  He, she or it must demonstrate a pattern -- and I am sure that term is exquisitely defined down to the placement of each dot and cross of each "t". If that "pattern" of billing is "inappropriate" as someone perhaps arbitrarily decides, or much more likely there had been article or feature in the media highlighting something some reporter deemed "inappropriate" then PRESTOCHANGO the targeted person or company will not get paid or able to bill Medicare. The Journal article then calls Medicare/Medicaid "a bureaucracy that historically has been slow to move and susceptible at times to POLITICAL PRESSURE." (Those capital letters were my doing.) No duh!

CSM can make such a revocation in the clear-cut case of suspected abuse, and I must say that is an arbitrary arbitrariness. If I work at CMS and I don't like some doctor (maybe he cheated with my wife) or company (it makes a profit), I can say I suspect something and I can bankrupt the provider. Does that seem "clear-cut?" It sounds like a clear-cut unconstitutional process. The person is guilty if only suspected.  SUSPECTED? GUILTY?

In the Obama administration assertions and suspecting is tantamount to guilty with the typical media coverage.  Banks, for example, have paid out tens of billions of dollars in fines with never being able to go to court. That seems to be the Progressive view of "fair."

Another contradictory issue.  The Obama administration is generally attempting to prohibit the use of criminal records in credit and hiring decisions.  But here in his CMS-land, providers cannot get into the MedicareMedicaid program if "they have had certain felony convictions." Contradictory or hypocritical, you decide.

The entire healthcare industry -- America's largest -- is the most expensive in the universe because of so much micromanagement of it by the government.  Providers must devote gigantic sums to get round the burdensome and incomprehensible rules in order to stay in business.

TRUST is at the core.  LiberalProgressiveDemocrats do not trust "We the People" and capitalism, so barriers must be erected to stop honest, hard-working healthcare workers from cheating.  As with every group of human beings, using the bell-shaped curve, some percentage of that group can be dishonest, but by far the greatest number never will be.  Democrats regulate as if all Americans are crooks.  It is unnecessary and expensive.

Thursday, November 27, 2014

We need to put more effort into closing our racial divides

We need to put more effort into closing our racial divides

Developments out of Ferguson, Mo., signal a need to understand and work on the country’s race problem.
This Thanksgiving opinion piece in the Seattle Times bears reading.  You will agree if you are of the Progressive persuasion and disagree if of the conservative persuasion.  My comments are as follows:
Interesting my three rational, carefully thought-out, non-inflammatory opinion posts in response seem to have disappeared from the Seattle Times.  So much for a "discussion" about "closing our racial divides" in the Seattle Times.

Wednesday, November 19, 2014


                            SCORCHED EARTH

Republicans won the November 4, 2014, election in obtaining majorities in both houses of the United States Congress.

Will this begin an end to the nasty partisan hatred and divide in this country?  It will only happen if the three political leaders, President Barack Obama, John Boehner, Speaker of the U. S. House of Representatives and, and Mitch McConnell, incoming Senate Majority Leader can actually put aside their personal and ideological differences and work together for the benefit of the American People.

Won't happen.

First out: Boehner warned President Obama not to draft and sign a presidential executive order on immigration, asking for him to await the seating of the next Congress and for it to then take up the issue.

President Obama immediately stated, "No!" That the Republican-led House did not vote on reform during this present session, after the Senate passed a bill, so Republicans can't be trusted to take it up in 2015.  Besides the president knows what the American people need and want while Republicans do not.

The president has a little over two years left in office and, according to many, was dealt a major loss to his plans and policies by the election.  While he bitterly renounces that view, the question is, what will President Obama do against an opposition obstructionist Republican-led Congress?

Given everything I have heard and read about the president, his background, upbringing and personality (including "his" books) I believe he lives his life in his mind - a typical narcissist - and further, perhaps believes that the Tea Party, conservatives and Republicans exist only to block what he knows is the best for America and Americans. Some Democrats are partially in that category too. With much of the power in this country seemingly lined up against him, with his political power weakened and with little possibility of the enemy allowing anything of his to get through Congress and signed into law, what can he do?

Degrade and Destroy?

It is very possible that, in his mind, the Republican-led opposition needs to be degraded and destroyed and, along with that he might also believe that the American people have been completely misled and misguided.  Capitalism is wrong for people, since only the rich make out well. Christianity is part and parcel of Capitalism and needs to be degraded. Finally, the U. S. Constitution is out of date, racist and elitist. The people themselves have proven to be easy suckers for Capitalism/Christianity's propaganda and they need to be put into and understand their place. To obey what's right for them.


The "earth" of America needs to be degraded and destroyed.  Scorched Earth.

Saturday, November 15, 2014

Republicans: Choose CHOICE

I just noticed that my last post was exactly one year ago.  Since then much has happened.  The President of the Democrats, Barack Obama has sunk in popularity and with the tendency of the people to follow, many Americans think little of him.  That unpopularity sunk many Democrats in the recent (November 4, 2014) election.  I never thought in a million years that would ever happen.  Republicans will take control of the U. S. Senate and the House of Representatives in January.  Will they self-destruct in their leaders' and leading lights' ideology and ego competition?

Here is some advice to them:

Republicans: Choose CHOICE

The election of 2014 is over.  The triumphant Republican Party now has about a year before the campaign of 2016 will begin.  For that, the party needs a cogent, simple yet punchy theme to present to voters, something the Democratic Party has excelled in. I propose: Choice.  After all, what is the overarching difference between Republicans and Democrats?  Republicans trust “We the People” to make beneficial decisions for themselves.  Democrats do not seem to trust “We the People” to make good decisions, but prefer detailed laws and regulations created and administered by their hand-picked elites to decide for us. That difference translates into Republicans enabling “We the People” to have CHOICE, while Democrats routinely take choice from us and give it to their bureaucrats who choose for us. Why can’t the American people choose what school to send their children to?  What doctors to go to? What to have covered in their health insurance policies? What kind of a mortgage to buy a house with? To join a union and pay dues or not? What safety equipment they want in their cars? What crib to buy? To wear a helmet on a motorcycle or not? What to use to heat their homes, run their cars, or wash their clothes in?  And those are just some things that quickly come to mind.
Obviously, there are circumstances when elite experts’ knowledge is needed in a field that we can’t begin to understand about something that could really harm us. But is using the  word “natural” to sell corn flakes something so very dangerous that it needs an expert to stop me from choosing whether to believe it or not? Really? Do we actually want to eliminate personal discretion from our lives? The human element of judgment?  Do we need an instant replay of each action we take in our lives with the final decision being made by officials in Washington, D. C.? This is the tension between trust and distrust; imprecise human acumen and the precision of computing machines and video cameras; freedom and equality; choosing and obeying. Sure, I might get hurt or cheated but it will be my choice; anyway, I think most of us are smart enough to know. After all, practically all the information ever known to humanity is available to most anyone on a little smart phone. Perhaps the government’s role should be to figure out how we get informed, not “protecting” us as consumers from ourselves. Massive bureaucratic institutions are invented primarily by Democrats when in power to limit the human prerogative of choice. Don’t they think we are smart or honest enough? This seems to be an appropriate time to mention Dr. Jonathan H. Gruber, a prototypical Democratic Harvard Ph. D. elite and one of the key architects of the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”). He was quoted as saying “…[C]all it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever...” That seems to answer my question.
This is a national dialogue that has never been clearly advanced, explained or argued by our political parties.  We the People haven’t even been told what the difference is between choosing or obeying. Framed that way, would voters choose to decide things for themselves or submit to the  dictates of an ivory-tower aristocracy? Republicans need to ask.
Remember, the United States Constitution called for a government distributed among the people: The states each with their own government and a small central government, itself divided into three branches, one of which was even bifurcated.   That structure is still supported by Republicans while the Democrats want a powerful, expensive centralized government which would preempt the decision-making of the people to stop them from making ignorant opinions. Republicans trust the masses of human beings – democracy –  while Democrats seem only to trust our formally educated Ph. D. superiors.

Historically the Democratic Party has expropriated the word “choice” but mostly related only to abortion. One choice.  The Republican Party should seize “choice” by explaining how they encourage it widely in our lives, how it represents democracy and what our government was founded on.