Some political humor . . .

Some chuckles for the politically jaded . . .

Experience influences politics/ideologies.

Let me state the obvious . . . our past experiences affect our present political and social views. My ruminations for the day involve which of those experiences actually have an impact and how much. I doubt there would be a scientific process that could answer those questions with any certainty.

For any readers of this blog post (if you exist) the following is a non-comprehensive list of past factors in my 40 years that got me to this point. In light of my other posts these factoids might make you go “I knew it!”, “You’ve got to be kidding!”, “No wonder his posts are so weird”, or “Wow, why isn’t this guy running for President!?!”. (chuckles allowed here)

Christian. (first and foremost)

Born in Oklahoma.

Moved to the Carolinas then Malaysia before the age of 2.

Father of two sons.

Raised a missionary/preacher’s kid.

Lived in Malaysia and the Philippines for most of my childhood – a total of around 14 years.

Graduated from high school in the a suburb of Manila, P.I.

Took classes from/at 5 different colleges/universities to get my B.S in Info Systems.

Was a demolition man . . . uh, a combat engineer in the U.S. Army for around a decade.

Played basketball and volleyball in high school. Played soccer in college.

Now trying for a Master’s degree.

Lived in Germany for 3 years.

Married for 18+ years now.

Baptist since birth but have been in many different denomination’s services – Anglican, Catholic, Presb., Church of Christ, . . .

Used to benchpress around 300 pounds and now weigh about that much. haha kidding . . . a bit.

Was the only white boy in a town of many thousands for a few years. (yep, a true minority)

Most of my grandparents were Democrats.

Have been in Mosques, Buddhist/Shinto temples, Hindu temples, Jewish Synagogues, LDS tabernacles . . . and many more.

Homeowner.

I’ve been so poor I had to skip some meals more than a few times and actually lived in my car for a few weeks once.

Currently a registered Republican.

Worked as a roofer, network engineer, landscaper, server admin, dishwasher, grocery stocker, combat engineer, phone support tech, operations/training NCO . . . the list goes on.

Have a sister and two brothers.

Been in 17 or 18 different countries and lived (3 or more months consecutive) in 5 countries and 5 states.

Not an exhaustive list by any means but there you have it – I have a rather “mixed up” past. I wonder what a shrink would think?

??? I agree with Barak Hussein Obama ???

All I can say is WOW. I agree with Senator Obama on a political/social/economic/historical issue for the first time since . . . ever.

America’s favorite Hussein was in a meeting last week with a Reno newspaper editorial staff and said something shockingly accurate:

“Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not, and a way that Bill Clinton did not. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.”

Of course since I agreed with Obama on this statement the other Democrat candidates did not. Sens. Edwards and Clinton made it clear that they did not agree that President Reagan had a huge positive impact on our great country. Obama had it right and Clinton and Edwards are in denial.

Well, it didn’t take long for Senator Obama to see the “error of his ways” in saying anything positive about a Republican President and negative about a Democrat one. He “clarified” today that he didn’t say he liked Ronald Reagan’s policies.

Oh well, it was a nice honest sentiment until clarified and/or retracted. Back to business as usual now.

The Iraq War . . . legal or not?

A coworker and I had an interesting discussion today on Operation Iraqi Freedom. I believe the Iraq War is justified – my coworker believes the opposite. This argument isn’t likely to be “won” by either side as we obviously do not agree on what provocations/actions justify any military action.

Saddam’s past actions (WMD use and programs, refusal of inspections followed by expulsion of inspectors, mass murders, military invasions of Kuwait and Iran, etc.) and ongoing actions (firing on allied aircraft in no-fly zones, support for terrorism by harboring known terrorists and payments to families of palestinian suicide bombers, continued obstruction of UN inspections, continued civilian murders, etc.) were more than enough to warrant his removal from power. Saddam’s potential for causing more and larger problems in the region and elsewhere was unmatched. Thank God the Israelis took out his nuke plants back in 1981 or the Gulf War in 1991 could have been the world’s second nuclear war. Don’t for a second think that Saddam would have had any qualms about firing a nuclear scud at Israel, Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait if he had the resources. Whatever your thoughts on the Gulf War or the Iraq War, we are all much better off without that megalomaniac alive and in charge of any military assets and huge oil reserves.

***** Your agreement with the above statements is not required for the rest of this post . . . so read on. *****

Interestingly, today’s discussion morphed into a discussion on what actions are required by the President and Congress to constitute a “legal” or Constitutionally supported war. Note: I will not claim to be anything more than an occasional reader of Constitutional law issues. That said, here’s my take:

The President can authorize military action as Commander in Chief. Congress retains the Constitutional power “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water” (Article I, Sec 8, Clause 11). There . . . clear as mud!

Some critical historical points to understand:

1. Congress has declared war only 5 times – with one being after all-out military hostilities were already underway. The last war declaration was issued for World War II.

2. Every major military operation (Just Cause / Panama probably being the smallest) has been approved by Congress. Are you listening? This includes both Afghanistan and the Iraq War.

So . . . if you believe that military action requires a formal declaration of war by the Congress to be legal, the majority of all US military operations have been “illegal”. However, if you actually read the part of our Constitution that covers this, you’ll see that there are other methods for Congress to approve of a military action or war without a declaration of war.

So what the heck are “Letters of Marque and Reprisal” anyway? Letters of Marque and Reprisal are Congressional mandates to allow military / paramilitary operations against other powers (rogue foreign military units, privateers, pirates . . . terrorists?) without necessarily declaring war on a nation’s government.

Okay, we should all be thoroughly confused now. Don’t worry, so are the Constitutional law “experts”. Without all the degrees and pedigrees I can sum it all up . . . maybe.

It boils down to this:

1. Congress gave its approval for action against Saddam’s Iraq in 1998. The Iraq Liberation Act, signed into law by President Clinton, stated “It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.” Clinton used this act as a green light for the Operation Desert Fox 4-day Iraq bombing campaign in December 1998. Obviously Saddam didn’t abdicate his throne in terror and none of those bombs killed him (though we hit at least one of his many palaces) – so our problem remained.

2. Congress approved of military action against Saddam’s Iraq again in October 2002. The “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002″ (which referred back to the Iraq Liberation Act) authorized the United States to “use military force to “defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.”

Symantics game aside, Congress gave approval to Presidents Clinton and G.W.Bush to get rid of Saddam and his regime. The Constitutional law gurus of the future will have to determine if Congress used the correct symantics in doing so.

Recount brigades are on the march.

Hillery takes the New Hampshire Dem primary and many Obama supporters are crying foul. The usual suspects are brought up; Diebold voting machines, nefarious vote switching public servants, etc. Whatever the true reason for Obama’s loss, the screams of “recount” can be heard in the blogosphere.

I agree that any vote tally that falls within the state law designated auto-recount difference should happen immediately. That is, afterall, what the law is there for. If the count falls outside this percentage or number difference and there is no credible report of vote tampering . . . leave it alone!

I do understand the theory that if you recount enough you might get the results you want. However, that’s bad math and bad politics. Have the recount if it is needed and take the recount results as gospel. Done! Do not drag our “best in the world” electoral process through the mud by demanding repeated recounts. FL in 2000 was a nightmare and even though President Bush won each and every recount, Gore-ites still scream that he won. Give us a break from your insanity already!

Critical lesson #1 for all armchair politicos like myself: Don’t believe exit polls!!! Wait for the final tally.

Hey, at least this NH primary recount tussel isn’t really a battle-royale yet and it’s not between parties just candidates. I hope this primary is close for both parties until the end. Should be amusing.

Taxes and more taxes.

Governments – from city through state to Federal – all must have revenue to pay for services. I get that; I think we all get that. How they get that money, how much they take, and what we are paying for is where everything collides in a giant, confusing, wasteful wreck. Jesus said, “Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” in response to a question on whether the commoner should pay taxes or not . . . but how much is really “caesar’s”?

The problem stems from the fact that government bureaucracies are in the business of staying in business and growing. To do so they so “graciously” offer more and more services to more and more people – WITH OUR MONEY.

Though what services are provided by our governments is a great topic for discussion, I’ll save that one for another day. HOW we are taxed is my annoyance of the day.

What is the logic behind taking tax dollars from what a person makes instead of what he consumes? Answer: so you don’t notice it as much. The Federal government and many states skim our paychecks even before we see them. Interestingly, to have the authority to tax our incomes directly, our representatives in D.C. had to slap together an amendment to the Constitution almost 150 years after it was written. Obviously our founding fathers didn’t intend for this to happen but that’s “water under the bridge” now.

- taxes; then and now -

In the first year of the Federal income tax – 1913 (married couples, filing jointly) – the top rate was 7% on income over $500,000. That sure wasn’t much in light of what we’ve had to pay since that time.

Being in the business of “staying in business and growing”, our crooks . . . uh, representatives . . . in Washington, D.C have grown this top tax rate to as high as 92% (incomes over $400k) in 1952/53. Imagine that you are very successful business man in the decade following your honorable service in WWII and you earn $400,001 in 1952. That year and the following, your actual net (take home) earnings – after the D.C vultures take their cut – is a grand total of $32,000. How’s that for incentive to make more money?

Though much lower now, these taxes still generate a staggering amount of money for our D.C. friends. During the Carter administration if you did very well for yourself and earned $200,000 a year you ended up with $60,000. President Reagan ended his 8 years at a 38.5% on a top income bracket of only $90,000. President G.W.Bush has done even more to drop our income taxes – now around 35% for the top earners ($350k and up).

What very few of our current crop of presidential candidates mention is that these most recent tax breaks will expire in a couple of years if they aren’t made permanent. Whatever your political leanings, you and I both know that a Democrat controlled House will NOT help continue those tax breaks and will probably actively work for the opposite – a hefty increase. Couple that with a new President (of either party) with a tax-and-spend mentality (for the good of the people of course!) and the tax pain will undoubtably increase.

- a solution -

Some administrations have raised the income tax rates, others have lowered them but none have done what really needs to be done – abolish income taxes and fund the Fed with a consumption tax. If we purchase a good or service we pay taxes on it. The exception would be for subsistence food items as they shouldn’t be taxed.

Why not let the American taxpayer determine how much they pay in taxes by what they decide to buy? It makes all the sense in the world for you and I the taxpayer but that would put the power back into our hands and take it away from Washington. I doubt a majority of our elected officials will support this change but pressure from you and me could sway a few.

A national consumption tax would be a great solution to our income tax mess. It would would have a positive impact on savings and investment (not taxed), ease the tax compliance nightmare, increase economic growth, provide more incentives for international business to locate in the U.S., and return to us an incentive to earn more instead of avoiding the next tax bracket. It might also make our elected officials more responsive to our input – input by way of our spending.

I don’t claim to be an economics expert (though I did pass a few Econ courses in my time) but how could getting rid of federal income taxes and the IRS be a BAD thing???

 

“hello world” . . . Belated beginnings.

“hello world”; an interesting – and quite fitting – default blog entry title for all new accounts on this hosting site. It becomes the salutation on my first weblog entry available to the public and brings back mixed memories of my past computer programming courses.

My intent for this blog is to post my thoughts, rants, and musings on my world . . . and anything else I deem fit at the time. If discussions of all things political, technological, religious, educational, military, musical, or entertainment-oriented are not to your liking – stop right here and hit your bookmark to enlightening websites like “basket-weaving-extravaganza.com” or “the_hermit_experience.net”.

I will attempt to post thoughtful points on current issues but will not promise hugely enlightening epiphanies for those who spend time here. My political, religious, nationalistic views – or lack thereof – will become apparent as I post here.

Your comments, rants, approvals, and/or disapprovals are welcome if you care to post them. I have only a couple of requests for you if you leave a comment: (1) keep the profanity to a PG-13 rating or lower (I heard quite enough in the Army) and (2) if you disagree with me, tell me why I’m wrong and you are right – don’t just berate me. If I deem your comments to warrant a reply, I’ll attempt to address your issue in a future post.

Consider yourself invited . . . and warned.