Robert A. Teegarden's Blog

December 4, 2012

Where’s the budget?

Filed under: Civics,Good Administration,Government,Obama,Uncategorized — by Robert @ 11:08 am

Forget the so-called “fiscal cliff.”  Forget sequestration.  Forget the media-attention-getting animosities of congressional debates.  Forget the political-correctness drivel oozing from the lips of the Pharoah.  How in the world can anyone consider a “plan” for the future without knowing the reality of today?  How in the world can you plan your time and your resources without knowing what’s in the bank?  Simply said, “You can’t.”  So the realquestion, Mr. Soetoro/Obama is, “Where’s the budget?”

Now we all know that the big BO will obfuscate, suborn, jive and shuffle his way out of this budget thing by noting that there is nothing in the
Constitution that requires him to provide one. Actually, he’s correct there (and that’s a first!).  Seemingly, then, he’s off the hook and off to the races with our credit card.  His behavior and that of his wife, let alone all his czars, remind me of a newly-minted adolescent, recently free from the bondage

of home, family, and parental guidance, free to explore the world at whim, and possessing a credit card for the first time.  But the problem is that the citizens of the US are the co-signers on that card.  He might wind up in Hawaii, living the life of Soetoro, but the rest of 


us will still be down on thefarm, slaving to pay off the debt incurred in his reckless pursuit of narcissistic dreams of power and pleasure.  Ain’t freedom wonderful?

But he cannot ignore six laws of the land which do apply:

  1. Budget and Accounting Act.
  2. Congressional Budget Act.
  3. Antideficiency Act.
  4. Impoundment Control Act.
  5. Government Performance and Results Act.
  6. Federal Credit Reform Act.

If BO doesn’t first provide a budget proposal to Congress, fire him.  If Congress (the Senate) doesn’t enact a budget, fire them.  If leadership cannot adhere to the will of the people, fire them.

A contemporary  comedian once noted that the most sacred document in any home is the checkbook.  It tells what you’ll do withten dollars and what
you’ll do for ten dollars.

Transparency demands that we have a budget.

Change demands that we have a budget, one in which we can all live.

Hope demands that we have a budget.

Let’s get with the program or throw the bums out.



November 2, 2012

New Jersey Wake Up: Sandy was a non-union Storm

Filed under: Government,Uncategorized — by Robert @ 10:51 am
Tags: , , ,

It’s absolutely stunning to find out that help was refused in New Jersey because they were non-union. Power company officials drove hundreds of miles on their dime to help their neighbors and they were turned away.  I’ve got news for the folks of New Jersey: Sandy was a non-union storm.  She didn’t pick and choose among those on the ground as to whose house should stand or fall. She struck.  But officials in New Jersey are particularly selective about the help that’s offered.  That’s kind of like watching your house burn to the ground because your neighbor’s water hose wasn’t union made.  This pales compared to stupidity.

This does speak to the power of unions and to the idiocy of continuing to allow these non-representative agencies control so much of our lives.

When you are in a position of public trust, such as air traffic controllers, municipal officials, teachers in government schools, fire officials, police, etc., unions should not be involved. Why?  The trust has to be extended to ALL the public, not just some of them.  When you insert a union in the mix, you insert yet another agency between the employees and the people they serve.  And union folks are not elected by the folks-at-large; they only represent certain of the public.  Remember, all these government employees are YOUR employees, not the union’s.  As a citizen you have the authority and should have the power to say “yea” or “nay” to more of them, the quality of their work, and the content of their curriculum.  It’s a government of the people, not the unions.

If the power company unions say “no” to honest offerings of assistance in a catastrophe, what in the world are they dictating to your kids in school?   Think about it.

September 28, 2012

Public schools become abortion mills

It has been reported in several sources that at least 13 New York City schools are now in the abortion business.  It seems that Planned Parenthood has its dream come true. They’ve gotten to kids as young as 13 and provided them with the means to kill their own offspring.  And they can do all this without their parents’ knowledge and/or permission.

Some New York City schools are providing their student-wards with morning-after contraceptives. This euphemistic descriptor really means that the pill provided destroys any possible human embryo within 72 hours of sexual intercourse.  Imagine that: 13 year olds having sex outside of marriage.  But the school condones this behavior.

If a parent sent aspirin to the school for a child to take during the day, the school would require a signed note from the parent and, in some cases, a signed note from the child’s physician. The school even needs a signed parental permission slip for a so-called field trip. It seems the school cannot act in loco parentis without a parent’s signature in these cases.  And, yet, these same children are being taught that it’s ok to commit murder on their unborn child and they don’t need to tell mom and pop.  How low you can go.

The school folks say it’s part of an integrated Health program.  Since abortion is considered by them to be part of a “health” regimen (it’s not very healthy for the unborn child) it’s natural to include the day-after pills.  All of this falls on the heels of a previous policy to distribute condoms to students; they say that parents can opt-out of this program by signing a form at the beginning of the year.  So, Johnny can’t participate because his parents said “no.” So Johnny asks Juan to get him a couple because Juan’s parents didn’t bother to read or sign the opt-out forms.

School nurses have been given cause to prove inoculations of contraceptive “medications” that last up to 90 days.  Parent permission?  No.  Doctor’s note.  No.  How in the world can a school board justify this Mengele-type experimentation with children?  Have these so-called “health professionals” checked for potential allergic reactions of their wards (students)?  Have they informed their wards of the potential long-term effects of these measures?  What if the suspected pregnancy is the result of rape?  Have they reported child abuse as is required by law?  Their policy seems to be “Don’t ask, don’t tell.”  But these are children’s lives.

Condoms and contraception are not the business of the government (union) schools.  Murder should not be part of their curriculum as well.

July 23, 2012

Penn State NCAA Penalties: Not Good Enough

Filed under: Education,Ends of Education,Sports — by Robert @ 10:19 am
Tags: , , ,

The NCAA’s so-called sanctions against Penn State for the Sandusky/Paterno et al criminality simply doesn’t go far enough, not by a long shot.  Here’s the premise of the NCAA’s statement about their sanctions:

“No price the NCAA can levy with repair the damage inflicted by Jerry Sandusky on his victims,” he said, referring to the former Penn State defensive coordinator convicted of 45 counts of child sex abuse last month.

The NCAA concerned itself with collateral damage from this situation, mostly to the future.  The damage control seems to concern itself with present players, potential players and possible future activities.  It’s’ hard to undo what has been done.  But the point is this: the Penn State “culture” abandoned right reason and common sense morality in favor of its reputation and win-loss record.

Yes, Sandusky has been found guilty in a court of law. But the court records and the independent research indicate a far deeper and more troubling culture of deceit and cover-up. The sanctions admit that this “culture” goes deeper and has a much longer history than that advertised in the Sandusky trial. It’s to that “culture” that I address the following.

Penn State sanctions

• $60 million fine
• Vacation of wins from 1998-2011 (112 wins)*
• Four-year postseason ban
• Players may transfer and play immediately at other schools
• Athletic department on probation for five years
* Joe Paterno record now 298-136-3; fifth on FBS all-time list

$60 million fine         The NCAA said the $60 million was equivalent to the average annual revenue of the football program. The NCAA ordered Penn State to pay the penalty funds into an endowment for “external programs preventing child sexual abuse or assisting victims and may not be used to fund such programs at the university.”

With two or three phone calls, Penn State will have donors lined up to cover those costs.  But how does this address the deeper, institutional and “cultural” roots of such a disaster.  This behavior didn’t happen over night.  Records indicate that this took time.  How many more victims are out there who haven’t come forward?  If there is an institutional mindset that protects child abuse, what other kinds of “lesser” abuses have or are taking place as we speak?  If the Penn State win-at-all-costs “culture” shields these things, what else is being protected?  No, the roots go deeper.

Vacation of wins from 1998-2011 (112 wins)          I suppose that this is really the meat of the NCAA’s authority in this situation; it’s the best they choose to do. But it doesn’t make sense.  So the records are adjusted to reflect what?  You didn’t play fair? You weren’t living up to the NCAA rules and regulations?  From the point of view of the victims, I’d say, “So what?”  Future scholarships for players are not given based on the track record of the school.  They’re given for present performance, period.  But the sense of history here does indicate the need to go deeper into the culture that allowed and protected this kind of abuse.

Four-year postseason ban    There’s big money in the post-season play-offs.  But this attacks only the pocket book, not the “culture” that gave rise to such heinous behavior.  Penn State could easily arrange its own post-season games, eliminating the potential loss.  But the beat goes on.

“There is incredible interest in what will happen to Penn State football,” Ray said at the news conference. “But the fundamental chapter of this horrific story should focus on the innocent children and and the powerful people who let them down.”

The Big Ten fully supports the NCAA’s actions, saying in a news release it is officially hereby condemning and censuring the school for “egregiously” failing on “many levels — morally, ethically and potentially criminally.”

Of course they would.  But this is like the politician saying, “It’s for the kids.”  What they’re really thinking about is their own football possibilities.

Players may transfer and play immediately at other schools        Now this makes sense.  Present and future students may transfer immediately to other schools IF they are wanted and IF they have room. This acknowledges some of that collateral damage.  But what does this do for the victims known and unknown?  How does this help the “culture” that seems engrained in this institution?

Athletic department on probation for five years                This basically says don’t mess up for another five years. If you do, then this suspension/probation turns into what?  Expulsion?  The five years should be institutionalized a bit deeper.

Joe Paterno record now 298-136-3; fifth on FBS all-time list       Like the vacating of the school’s record, this is an empty gesture.  Leave the dead to bury the dead.  One cannot deny past victories or losses; they are a matter of history.  But so is the history of the institutional culture that allows these crimes to be committed.

There are some noble gestures directed at children:

Penn State’s proceeds from Big Ten bowl revenues from the four years, amounting to an estimated $13 million, will be allocated “to established charitable organizations in Big Ten communities dedicated to the protection of children,” the conference said.

But these gestures are only that: gestures…

Penn State, in a statement released less than an hour after the sanctions were revealed, said it will accept them and that the “ruling holds the university accountable for the failure of those in power to protect children and insists that all areas of the university community are held to the same high standards of honesty and integrity.”

Individuals and institutions don’t “bounce back” from tragedy, nefarious or otherwise, until they’ve hit rock bottom.  Penn State is at rock bottom, whether or not they recognize it. Now that needs to be institutionalized so that they can start over.  $60 million in finds, an erasure of past victories, future post-season closures, and probation are not rock bottom.

Except for some minor hand-slapping, these rulings don’t go anywhere near holding “the university accountable.”  What the Penn State should have added is, “In accepting these sanctions and in order for us to eliminate the viral infections of the past and build on what is right, we will not compete in intercollegiate football for four years. There will be no football at Penn State for four years.”

July 20, 2012

Chip-Readers, Scanners and Stud­­ents­­­

On March 20,1933, the new leader of Germany (since January of that same year) established a concentration camp in the Bavarian town of Dachau, a camp for political prisoners—people who disagreed with his politics and that of the status quo.  In April of that same year, the new government of Germany entered into a relationship with the newly-named IBM company to use its developing technology to help identify and catalog the ethnic identification of the 41million residents of Prussia. The American parent company sent over 7,000,000 reichsmarks (about $1 million) to Berlin to build IBM’s first factory in Germany.  It’s estimated that over 60,000 German citizens were housed in Dachau by the end of April that same year.

Fast-forward about 70+ years and now we have Northside Independent School District in Texas planning to “track students” using technology “implanted” in their student identification cards.  They say it’s a trial.

Now these are not passive identification cards like your state driver’s license.  Swiping your driver’s license into an appropriate reader shares a lot of information about you.  But, at least, it requires a scanner then and there.  Not so these new student chips.  No, these so-called identification cards will include what are called RFID tags (Radio Frequency Identification System) somewhat like the GPS tags that are in most cell phones today.  With the appropriate scanner, not only can one identify your name, age, gender, nationality and any other data collected about you, but this chip allows the scanner to identify where you’re located.

The district says it’s all about student safety, but they readily admit that students can be counted more accurately (than their teachers?) at the beginning of the school day to help “offset cuts in state funding,” which is partly based on student attendance.  While they say it’s for safety, it’s more about money and, I believe, the loss of liberty.

The  district notes that this technology will also be for all special education students who ride district buses.

“We want to harness the power of (the) technology to make schools safer, know where our students are all the time in a school, and increase revenues,” district spokesman Pascual Gonzalez said. “Parents expect that we always know where their children are, and this technology will help us do that.” If student attendance is unknown to the professionals in this district now, having a machine count them doesn’t necessarily make kids safer.

The district also noted that the “chip readers on campuses and on school buses can detect a student’s location but can’t track them once they leave school property. Only authorized administrative officials will have access to the information.”  The problem here is that only the school’s scanners “can’t track” students once they leave school property.  Others can.  If only authorized administrative officials have access to the information, how are the teachers to know and/or confirm that students are present?  How does this make things safer?

Imagine a Tom Clancy type-novel where the bad gal gets a hold of a copy of Who’s Who in San Antonio.  It lists the richest families by name.  Our villainess cross references that data to the other data that she’s scans out there on these student identification cards and voila; she finds the exact location of her prey.  Far-fetched, you say?  The US military uses the very same technology to locate soldiers in the field.  It can be done.  It is being done.  If the school is providing a radio-frequency identification chip for their students, student safety might as well be thrown to the wind or the first drone to fly over.

Families weren’t asked if they wished to participate in this so-called pilot program. This isn’t a volunteer program. They’re getting the RFID-tagged cards.  And officials note that students could leave the card at home, which defeats the entire purpose for the system.  The school noted that the cards cost $15 each and, if lost, a student will have to pay for a new one. The article did not say whether parents were required to pay the initial purchase or not.  Nor did they say if a student were to leave their card at home whether they’d be taxed (penalized) for not carrying it.

Why these schools in this district? A district representative noted “the district picked schools with lower attendance rates and staff willing to pilot the tags.” It’s the “attendance rates” that are a problem, not student safety. They need more money.  I love the euphemism “pilot the tags.” Apparently the teachers are unable to motivate students to attend or to count the ones who do.  The problems experienced in this district have little to nothing to do with student safety. Do the teachers have to carry these tags as well?  Maybe that would help their budget problems in a much simpler way.  But if the teachers refuse to “pilot the tags” themselves, why should their students?

The RFID cards have been compared to security cameras. They’re really more like 24/7 drones with cameras.  I need to remind these citizens of the Fourth Amendment of their Constitution.  It says:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

It’s been noted in previous juris prudence that a child does not check their Constitutional rights at the school house door. Just because they attend a government/union school doesn’t mean that they must give up their right to be secure in their persons.  Being tracked electronically is not one of those reasonable exceptions to the rule.

The school district runs a terrible risk by mandating such a program.  They are putting their students at risk from outside sources. Whether the tracking is done by electronics or tattoos, it’s wrong.

July 5, 2012

Kids will Suffer for the Sins of their Parents… Again

Filed under: Uncategorized — by Robert @ 10:17 am
Tags: , , ,

Senate Bill 1476 in California, authored by Mark Leno (D), would redefine parenthood to be more than two parents. The bill gives no limits… two, three, fourteen, twenty-four parents.  Let’s see… If parenthood is redefined, then all the laws pertaining to it would also be defined, including marriage.  The effort to redefine parenthood (and by extension—marriage) confronts two major obstacles on its course: religious values and mother nature.

Religious objections to these revisionist tactics, the redefinition of marriage or parenthood, are rooted in natural law.  The long tradition to enshrine this most holy and sacred relationship called marriage is based on the simple premise of nature:  new life, new human life, comes from the union of one the sperm of one man and the egg of one woman. Period.  Even with technical or political interference, this is the only way it can happen. The natural by-product of the marriaImagege union is new life. This new life is the building-block of cultures and societies. That’s why it’s sacred. For the religious it is a gift from God.

Even if you want to leave God out of the question, new life can come about in no other way.  Life requires the union of the sperm of one man and the egg of one woman.  Another way of expressing this is one mother and one father. We can tinker with the science like Joseph Mengele or one may practice the artificial art of in vitro fertilization.  But the basic ingredients remain the same.  Mother Nature is pretty clear about maternity and paternity.

Two eggs cannot be fertilized by the same sperm (used in the singular). It simply can’t happen.  Likewise, two sperm cannot fertilize the same (single) egg. In the rare occasions that this might occur it usually results in a chromosomal abnormality or molar pregnancy, neither of which can exist outside of the womb.  In short, new life requires one father and one mother, no more and no less.

Other adults might be able to nurture life to some extent.  Support structures come in a variety of ways throughout one’s life.  But regardless of the multifarious ways in which people engage in relationships of any kind, life always begins the same way.  Changing partners, multiplying relationships, surrogate parenting, and legal definitions to the contrary cannot alter natural law.  Paternity belongs to the father and maternity belongs to the mother, one of each.

Mr. Leno wants to alter the definition because of the life experiences of some of his constituents. He notes that there are same-sex couples or blended families, surrogate births, same-sex parenthood and assisted reproduction procedures.  But you see, all of these are artificial—they’re man-made (or woman-made).  They require some outside interference by man/woman in the natural process called conception and birth.  And despite arguments to the contrary, they are the exceptions to the “rule” of one father and one mother.  It’s not my rule, it’s mother nature’s.

So, the question is, why tinker with a fundamental law of nature to accommodate man’s experimentation and tinkering?  Why try to make the exceptions into the rule?  Convenience?

Leon says that giving the courts the discretion to recognize multiple parents is both beneficial and “required” for a child’s well-being. Whenever a politician says it’s “for the children” you should see red flags immediately.  It’s not.  Children are being set up to suffer for the sins of their “parents” again.

Ellen Pontac, a Davis gay-rights activist, said government should accommodate changing times. “I just think that people should be able to create their own lives,” she said.  You see, it’s NOT for the kids; it causes children to become the slaves of decisions made by adults. Don’t saddle kids with those so-called “creations.”

Children today have a hard enough time without Mr. Leno redefining one’s parents.  It’s hard enough to get to know your own.

Choices have consequences.  But just because adults want to play with their own lives doesn’t mean that children should have to bear those consequences.  If these activities do lead to the courts, it’s up to the courts to determine what is best in the situation.  Redefining parenthood doesn’t help because it’ll never work.  Certain of the lifestyles described are known for their promiscuity and proliferation. How in the world does this bring stability into the life of a child?

At the end of the day, parenthood occurs in only one way.  Whether the parents stay together, separate, migrate, alternate, swap, swing or substitute, that’s their choice.  Not the child’s. They deserve better.

No, Mr. Leno, no.

June 29, 2012

A Silver Lining?

Filed under: Uncategorized — by Robert @ 8:31 pm
Tags: , , , , ,

­­Trying to rise above the disappointing display of our leadership in America, and pondering our future, I started to think about this Mandate v. Tax situation.  Obama is on record over a long period of time proclaiming to the heavens that this new healthcare law is NOT a tax. Image What was really revealing was Obama’s treatment of an interviewer who had the temerity and gall to produce a dictionary and read the definition of “tax.” The interviewer was insulted, demeaned and otherwise attacked for schooling the fellow sitting in the Whitehouse.

Then I pondered the inventive language of the Supreme Court’s decision.  It seems that we have a pattern here. Whenever there is a controversial subject, the court ignores both the Constitution and most dictionaries in favor of a new language that only they can parse.  It happened in Dred Scott (1859) where citizenship in America was defined to exclude any slaves or former slaves.  It happened in Roe v. Wade (1973) when the court rewrote the Bill of Rights to include yet another right, the right to privacy.  And hidden behind the curtains of this privacy was the mandated practice of infanticide for which all Americans are taxed.  It happened in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) when the highest court of the land, acknowledging the abolition of slavery with the 13th Amendment and that one’s status as a “citizen” was not a function of culture or color in the 14th Amendment, they still found the language to accept those same distinctions as lawful at the (southern) state level.  Now we have The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (2012 and more commonly called “Obamcare”).  The high court not only invented language that wasn’t there, they took the liberty to insert it into the law.  Even though Congress never said it was a tax, the Supreme Court said, “That’s ok. Maybe they didn’t know what they were doing.  It is. So it’s okay.”

There are a whole bunch of questions that immediately come to mind.  Like… what does a 3.8% investment TAX have to do with health care and patient protection? That’s another new tax coming your way.   If I went into a store that advertised a certain product for sale at $4.99 and upon arrival found that same item listed at $9.99, I believe they would call that “bait and switch.” Oh, I must have missed the small print that said, “Subject to a prior sale.”  Well, the store (Whitehouse) advertized a mandate, lied about it and sold a tax. How can you have a representative government when the representatives lie about it so much?  Shouldn’t it be thrown out because it is bait and switch?

If the IRS is the collection agent on this one, how are they going to assess premiums from the 50% of Americans who don’t pay taxes?  The new law says, buy insurance or pay a penalty tax. If folks don’t pay taxes in the first place, how will this collection agency make sure that everyone is being treated fairly?  Is everyone buying insurance or paying their “tax?” I couldn’t find it in the bill, but I’m wondering if this applies to members of Congress. Oh, I forgot; they have their own separate but equal health program. Where’s Plessy when you need him?

But then I started to wonder.  Hmmm… taxes are deductible in America.  The real mandate in this law is either have insurance or pay a tax.  So, aren’t they being treated equally?  Insurance or tax, your choice.  There’s nothing in the bill about the relative value of insurance premiums and the penalty tax.  So, it seems they are equal with regard to the mandate.

This means that individuals and businesses can deduct all the costs for insurance premiums from their tax liability.  Now this might just spark up further interest.

A post scriptum about what is Constitutional.  While our jurists are bound by the letter of the law and case histories, they are also bound by the spirit with which it was written.  Now we’ve witnessed the court dodge the letter of the law on several occasions and rest their gerrymandering  and contortions on the so-called “spirit.”   Whenever they do this either-or, scorched-earth policy of one or the other, they fail miserably to exercise justice in America.   American citizens (the “unum” in e pluribus unum) look for justice in our courts, honesty from our leaders and right-thinking by our lawmakers.

June 28, 2012

In Lieu of Flowers, please send your gift to my political campaign

Filed under: Uncategorized — by Robert @ 9:53 pm
Tags: , , , , , ,

Can you imagine your local politician requesting that any gifts you might give to another should be redirected to a political campaign?  Absurd?  Bizarre?  Well, it happened this past week.  This unprecedented and rather crass request borders on the absurd when you think about it.  In fact, I cannot imagine how this effort could raise any money at all.  Think about it.

When do you give gifts? At the birth of a newborn or a birthday, at a wedding, for Christmas, Hanukkah, at a Baptism, Bar/Bat Mitzvah, for a graduation,  as a house warming, for Baby Showers, for an Anniversary, and for the funeral of a family member, friend, or acquaintance.  These are times when gifts are given to another to mark an event that is special in their life and no one else’s.  Yet, our politician wants to include all these events into his political statement!  It’s almost as if our politician is saying, “These people are mine.  What’s theirs is mine. They ought to be thinking of me.”  Those arguments echo from a pretty shallow stage.  How low can you go?

It’s difficult to imagine the temerity of the soul that would suggest such a thing in the first place, let alone that anyone would take this offer seriously.  It’s almost a strange and nefarious joke.  Gifts are given because of a relationship, a relationship with the intended, the recipient/s.  Our politician inserts himself into those relationships and scolds, “Don’t forget me.” My God, how lonely and empty this person must be.  It’s as if he has no identity, no reality, without a political position.  Without this role he’s nothing.  Well, it’s all dust and unto dust you shall return.

I don’t believe there will be many in lieu birthday gifts. Imagine ten or twelve classmates around you at your sixth birthday.  You’re hoping mom and dad remembered your love of Tonka trucks or Barbi dolls. There you are in the middle of your friends ripping through the giftwrap that surrounds your present.   You tear off the ribbon, shread the balloon-decorated wrapping, open the box and discover a small card inside.  “Dearest Son/Daughter,” the note begins, “instead of that Tonka truck (or Barbie doll) we decided to donate those monies to the political campaign of Mr. B.S.” Gee, thanks mom/dad.  If it were a gift from your friends, you’d know that they did do the picking, it was their parents.  Now you’re going to have to find a whole new cadre of friends before next year’s party.  And since our candidate doesn’t believe in the sanctity of life anyway, these life-affirming events like birthdays will probably go by the wayside.  Our politician’s own daughters can’t wait for their in lieu donations coming up this year. I see a new custom is in the offing.  Instead of a birthday cake and blowing out the candles, they get to lick the stamp that forwards their contribution.  I can remember wanting to lick the spoon after mom made the icing for my cake.  Now the kids get to lick the stamp.

We noted that the advertisement didn’t include religious events like Christmas, Hanukkah, a Baptism, Bar/Bat Mitzvah or even Kwanza.  These were implied but not stated because our politician’s so-called “religious” associations are only of convenience and those he does frequent border on a cult whose purpose is destroy the former anyway.  So much for religious gifts.

Now imagine you’re the bride or groom, just starting out in life and you receive an in lieu wedding present.  What if you didn’t want to direct those funds to begin with?  What if you don’t agree?  What if you got too many?  At which of the government offices do you go to make an exchange?  Now that would be an interesting line to observe.  But because our candidate also doesn’t believe in the sanctity of marriage, the notion of a bridal registry doesn’t even make sense.  Maybe they could exchange their honeymoon plans and costs for a contribution instead.  That would be a fascinating.  Instead of a week on Pago Pago, we’re going to donate to…

Graduation gifts range from the simple and sublime to the ridiculous.  In lieu graduation gifts definitely fall in the latter category.  Instead of a new pen set, a summer trip to Europe, maybe even a new car, an in lieu gift arrives.  The new wave pre-school and Kindergarten graduations just don’t make any sense to begin with, let alone giving an in lieu gift to these kids. But to suggest such a gift to a high school or college graduate would seem to negate the work that was just celebrated in the graduation ceremony.  After all that studying and discovering that politics is one of the lowest forms of occupation and one fraught with duplicity, deceit and raw power,  someone gives you the political gift that supposedly “keeps on giving.”  What it gives they didn’t say.  Check your boots, buddy boy!

There could be a problem with gifts received by someone who didn’t register accordingly.  Maybe this won’t be a problem in the future because the Card Check program will obviate everyone’s political position and gifts will flow (or not) appropriate to those union tactics.

It would seem that anniversaries wouldn’t matter because of the tendency for married couples to cancel out each other’s political persuasion.  And it couldn’t happen in families where mom and pop see things similarly. Giving that gift would exercise unnecessary power over one’s other in a relationship that is supposed to be give and take.

Finally we come to funerals. “In lieu of flowers, contributions can be made to…” The shear number of people turning over in their graves would be tantamount to the Second Coming.  Oops, I forgot. That’s a religious reference and… wait a moment, here.  There’s a counter clause from the scriptures, isn’t there?  “Leave the dead to bury the dead,” but send your in lieu contribution to…

Haim G. Ginott’s quote from “Teacher and Child: A Book for Parents and Teachers” (Haim G. Ginott):

Filed under: Uncategorized — by Robert @ 12:47 pm
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Haim G. Ginott’s quote from “Teacher and Child: A Book for Parents and Teachers” (Haim G. Ginott):

Dear Teachers:

I am a survivor of a concentration camp. My eyes saw what no person should witness. Gas chambers built by learned engineers. Children poisoned by educated physicians. Infants killed by trained nurses. Women and babies shot and burned by high school and college graduates.

So I am suspicious of education. My request is: help your students become more human. Your efforts must never produce learned monsters, skilled psychopaths, or educated Eichmanns. Reading, writing, and arithmetic are important only if they serve to make our children more human.

Haim G. Ginott

Grounds for a Revolution

Filed under: Uncategorized — by Robert @ 12:28 pm
Tags: , , ,

“No taxation without representation” is a slogan originating during the 1750s and 1760s that summarized a primary grievance of the British colonists in the Thirteen Colonies, which was one of the major causes of the American Revolution.” (Wickipedia)

In other words, the citizens risked their lives, their fortunes and their honor because taxes were foisted on them without their having a say in the matter.  They didn’t like it.  Thomas Jefferson referred to this as a form of tyranny.  Their rights of representation were being trampled on by a monarch 3,000 miles away.  An entire war was fought and people lost their lives because they believed that the chicanery, duplicity and deceit of this monarch and his minions violated fundamental human freedoms.  It was taxation without representation. The folks had no voice in the matter.

A similar event occurred in 1935 with the passage of the Social Security Act.  The Whitehouse proclaimed from the rooftops that this is “not a tax.” This is an investment in a social insurance trust fund.  It was described as a great umbrella that would assist citizens in their old age.  But it wasn’t a tax.  Now we had representatives at this point in history. Congress and the courts were told over and over again that this wasn’t a tax; it’s an investment in your future.  As the saying goes, you know the rest of the story.  Because a trust fund was never established for each of those “investing” in social security, it was clearly defined as simply a tax.  And as a tax, then the officials in Washington can treat it as any other tax and we all knows what that means: spend it. And boy did they spend it… so much so that what was promoted as an “investment” became a giant Ponzi scheme.  And because the authors didn’t live up to their promises and intents, those investments-nee-taxes are now seen as an entitlement. But is it really? Just ask the folks whose money was invested how they view that.

But we had representatives.  And it seems at least some of them were duped right along with their constituents.  But at least they had representation. No revolution here.

Now we have yet another monarch only a few miles away who glaringly proclaimed his new health care bill “is not a tax.” In a rare challenging interview he defensively repeated that this new health bill “is not a tax.”  This is what he told our representatives.  Being dutiful, they wanted to examine the details and verify that this was the case.  But our representatives were told that they’ll have to examine the details only after the bill had passed. It seems there is no difference between one tyrant 3,000 miles away and 1,000 tyrants just three miles down the road.

And today, this sad day in America, we are told by the high court that even though the people were lied to about it being a tax, they are nevertheless obliged to pay this new tax exactly because it is a tax and levying taxes is within the job description of members of Congress.  The supreme court argument defies logic and common sense; it concludes that just because they didn’t call it a tax doesn’t mean it isn’t.  Forget how it’s described, forget how it’s written, forget how it was sold.  Just because you did call a justice an idiot doesn’t mean they aren’t.

So what do we have?  We have a tax bill that we were told wasn’t.  We have our duly-elected representatives being told to first pass the bill and then discover its content and meaning.

How about a bill doing away with Congressional representatives who don’t measure up to a particular set of standards.  But they have to pass it first and then find out its content and application.

Now if this is a tax, then all monies in this program will be treated as a tax.  That means they’re part of the general fund and can be used for ANYTHING.  If you’re sick about what’s happened with Social Security, you’re going to die over this so-called healthcare mandate/penalty/tax.

As I read it we have taxation without representation, pure and simple.  The history of this legislation is one lie built upon another.  Joseph Goebbels (creator of Hitler’s spin-zone) was right twice in his life: if you lie loud and long enough people will believe it.

It’s time for another revolution. Since voting alone doesn’t seem to do the trick, maybe we need to develop other tactics.

One if by land, two if by sea.

Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at