White Privilege is not so simple, really.

Simplest Explanation of Privilege


This comic has picked one scenario which may or may not be the rule.  I do not think it is quite so simple as this scenario demonstrates.


This scenario does not account for the millions of immgrants coming to America with only their clothes on their backs and desire in their hearts.  They worked hard, made life better for them and their children, and passed along the secret to making life better.


That secret is no real secret at all.  Get educated.  Get employed, anywhere.  Get married.  Have children.  Do not commit crime.  Do those things in that order and your likelihood of living in poverty is about 3%.  Do those things out of order, skip one, or commit crimes, and live in poverty about 80% of the time.


Even if you're born into a family in poverty, you can learn this lesson, if only by observing your community, but certainly by going to school every day and paying attention.  Its not about privilege, its about setting expectations.

Feeling the Burn!

Feel the 'Bern'

Bernie Sanders is proposing many things if gets elected President.  Many things which will not be free.  Many things that will necessitate tax hikes.  Significant tax hikes.

Business healthcare premium tax — $6.3 trillion
Bernie thinks taxing businesses will raise enough money to pay for socialized medicine, er, free health care. Actually raising taxes will cause employers to lay off workers in an effort to reduce the tax burden.  So employees' savings on health care will not be enough to offset lost jobs.
Ending tax free status of employer health insurance — $3.1 trillion
Same logic as above.  I would propose removing the exempt employer status, and give raises to all employees to buy their own insurance.
Wall Street speculation tax — $3 trillion
What the heck is Wall Street speculation anyway?  If that means investments, then you can kiss Wall Street goodbye, in which case there will be no more speculation.  If people cannot expect a return, there will be no investment.
Individual healthcare premium tax — $2.1 trillion
More taxes on individuals following a decade of shrinking income.  Make sense to anyone?
Social Security tax hike — $1.2 trillion
This might make sense if Social Security was solvent, which it is not.  Raising teh eligibility age makes more sense, though this one may be negotiable for me.
Raising marginal income tax rates — $1.1 trillion
Raising tax rates on smaller income is a lose:lose proposition every time.
Corporate offshore income tax — $ 1 trillion
A better idea is a tax holiday which would repatriate the money being held overseas.
Capital gains tax hike — $920 billion
How is this different than the speculation tax above?  Oh, it piles on to that one.
Payroll tax hike — $319 billion
More taxes for working people?  Seriously?  See raising marginal income tax above.
Death tax hike — $243 billion
Nothing like double taxation to make a socialist feel good.  Tax me when I earn it, and tax my family when I die.
Scrapping tax deductions — $150 billion
Limit deductions.  Sounds like raise tax rates to me.
Energy tax — $135 billion
Al Gore would be proud, but until any form of energy is cheap enough to make people switch, they won't.  Green energy is not cost effective and therefore is not a good option.  Maybe one day it will be.
Carried interest tax — $15.6 billion
This earned interest is already taxable income.  So just say increased taxes again.

Liberals and socialists never learn that to get more of something you subsidize, and for less you tax it.  When you increase the tax rate you generally get less tax income due to the shrinking base being taxed.  Politicians never believe that a change in taxation results in changed behavior, yet it happens every time they change the tax rates.  But of course they know this is true because they are using the tax code to reward and/or punish various behaviors already.  They want their cake and to eat it too.

Liars lie, its what they do!

Hillary surprised by use of personal email account by staffer
For the good of country, this woman cannot be elected.  She cannot be trusted, and she lies, consistently lies, and then she lies to cover up her lies.  Oh yeah, and she's a liar too.

How can any reasonable person, using a personal email account for state business when it is expressly forbidden, be surprised that a staffer would be doing the same thing?

She has lied about the women her husband has been accused of sexually abusing, harassing and assaulting.  Link
She has lied about FBI files in her closet in the White House. Video
She has lied about Whitewater.Link
She has lied about cattle futures. Link
She has lied about travelgate. Link
She has lied about the Benghazi attack. Link
She has lied about her email server. Link
She has lied about the messages on the email server.
She has lied about what she said to families of the Benghazi victims, and she has accused them of lying about that.

If you search the web for "Hillary lies" you will get approximately 6.8 million hits.

Need more information about her lies?

This commentary was submitted by US Representative Tammy Duckworth in the Chicago Tribune. 

Reject fearmongers, welcome Syrian refugees

Note: Ms. Duckworth, I am copying your commentary with my own response included after each paragraph.  My responses begin with RS:. I encourage you to respond.  I encourage all who read it to respond.

This is a time for the United States to lead with strength, not fear.

  RS: One could argue our president is not leading at all, much less with strength.

In combat one should never let the enemy determine the battlefield or dictate the terms of war. I've experienced the mission challenges that emerge when our nation engages in armed conflict with an enemy it does not truly understand. Unfortunately, I am concerned we may be repeating past mistakes as we confront a barbaric new enemy — the Islamic State.

  RS: So you admit the enemy is not truly understood by us.  This is a problem since we should not ignore what we don;t understand.  Are you suggesting we vote to let them in without understanding who we are letting in.  Sounds like the process that gave us Obamacare.

As last week's terrorist attacks made clear, Islamic State is a deadly and determined adversary. However, despite its brutality, Islamic State is no match for the American military and would be destroyed in a conventional war.

  RS: But we're not fighting them in a conventional war.  Maybe we shoud be fighting them more conventionally instead of udner the rules of engagement, or lack thereof, we currently impose on our military.

They realize this too, which is why they are seeking to force the United States and our allies to fight on their terms by waging a bloody but sophisticated propaganda campaign that attempts to radicalize Sunni Muslims — wherever they live — against the West. This campaign relies in part on provoking an understandable but ultimately self-defeating reaction among horrified Westerners against all Muslims, which perpetuates a cycle of distrust and conflict.

 RS: There are not many people claiming all Muslims are terrorists.  There is a good argument for ISIS members being Muslim though.  It is not a valid argument to say I think all Muslims are evil or terrorists.

It would be a mistake to react as Islamic State wants us to, which is why the callous actions of many governors, including here in Illinois, are so disappointing. They are sending a signal that innocent victims fleeing the brutality of the Syrian civil war are not welcome in the United States, which plays right into our enemy's hands. It empowers and emboldens radicals who want nothing more than for us to conflate their twisted barbarism with the entire Muslim world, and to appear indifferent to human suffering as we turn inward. Ultimately, this poses a threat to our national security.

 RS: The governors are sending a signal to proceed with caution, and not simply open the doors to any and all who claim to be a refugee.  Can you not see how prudent it is to proceed with caution?  Your own words indicate as much.

It is not difficult to imagine a child we reject today fighting alongside Islamic State years from now. Abandoned in a dangerous and hopeless place, that child could turn into a fighter firing rocket-propelled grenades at American helicopters, just like the one who brought down my Black Hawk 11 years ago this month.

 RS: You do understand ISIS is training children to kill infidels?  The child we let in may be a trained would be killer.  And so could his mother.  Women have been using suicide bombs just in the last several days.

We are not powerless in that child's fate.

 RS: Correct, and we should not relinquish that power either.

When I was a child, I witnessed the refugee crisis borne out of people fleeing the Khmer Rouge and Pathet Lao in Southeast Asia. I remember families loading all they had into boats and risking everything on the South China Sea. I am proud the U.S. took in refugees during those years, and ever motivated by the knowledge that we could have done more.

 RS:  I agree,  but these are not those.  They were not people intent on killing infidels. 

I can only imagine choosing to carry my precious 1-year-old daughter, Abigail, as we flee halfway across a continent, and placing her in a rickety boat or rubber dinghy that may not survive the dangerous trip across the Mediterranean Sea, because that ordeal is still safer than staying home. That is exactly the choice parents are making in Syria today. These families are leaving everything behind in a desperate attempt to escape the horrific violence being perpetrated both by Islamic State and the brutal regime of Bashar Assad.

 RS:  Then let's make sure the USA remains the strongest and most secure country on Earth.

I certainly understand the concerns many have expressed after last week's brutal terrorist attacks, and the temptation to turn inward as a result. I also have no difficulty imagining a would-be terrorist seeking to enter our country by exploiting our humanitarian good intentions. But this is where a dose of reality is required: The current security screening process takes almost two years to complete and is particularly stringent for people from unstable regions like Syria. It involves biographic and biometric screenings, as well as vetting for connections to terrorist organizations by the FBI, the National Counterterrorism Center, and other agencies. I welcome efforts to improve security even further, which is why I am working in Congress and the Obama administration to develop a range of additional measures to strengthen the screening process.

 RS:  Our own FBI director claims we are unable to adequately screen these refugees under current circumstances.  Why should I beleive you or President Obama over the man who is to screen these people?  And the director is not alone in his thinking.

So let us reject the cynics and fearmongers who question our country's ability to conduct effective security screenings that balance safety and freedom. America must be resolute in the face of terror and never allow our enemies to scare us into retreating behind walls and abandoning our values. Even as we work to destroy Islamic State, we must feel compassion for its victims, because they include both those whose lives were shattered Friday night in Paris, as well as the millions of Syrians who have been displaced and are seeking refuge.

 RS:  Cynics and fearmongers exist on both sides of this debate.  Let's not give in to those.  Instead, let's use logic and reasoning to come to a proper process that leads to both security and compassion for refugees.  Let's understand that refugees are one thing, but terrorists are completedly different.  When you can tell the difference you are almost there.

By remaining steadfast and true to our values, the United States can lead the fight to crush Islamic State. This requires engagement, however, not retreat. In this fight, our compassion and values are required in addition to our military might. We must not yield the field of battle to our enemy. This is a time for the United States to lead with strength, not fear.

 RS:  Crushing ISIS requires we make some changes in strategy and policy, namely in terms of rules of engagement.  It is indeed a complex problem, which is why prudence is needed.

U.S. Rep. Tammy Duckworth represents Illinois' 8th Congressional District.

 RS:  Ms. Duckworth, please answer the following questions and share your answers publicly.  I think these questions should properly explain why openign the door to Syrian refugees should be done by first checking the peep hole.

1. Do you want to allow members of ISIS, who may be Syrian, into the USA?
2. Do you know these refugees are not traveling with documentation that can be trusted or verified since there is no source of truth for those documents?
3. If a Syrian member of ISIS wanted to come into the USA as a refugee, do you think he or she would self-identify as a terrorist?
4. Do you know that ISIS is training Muslim children to be terrorists and to kill?
5. Do you know that in the last couple of weeks Muslim women have killed using suicide bombs?
6. Do you think it wise to at least try to ensure terrorists do not try to pass as refugees?
7. Do you understand the FBI says they cannot screen these people to learn if they may be terrorists?
8. What would you do next? 
Remember, it only takes one!

College Is Not For Everyone

Students set to protest student loan debt


I am sick and tired of this nonsensical protest and debate over student debt and here is why.


Students are going to college of their own free will knowing the cost and knowing they are borrowing at lower than ever interest rates to pay for it.  They also know the job market is horrible, despite what President Obama says about the economy and job creation under his administration.


For decades every politician in Washington DC has told every teenager in America to go to college, get a good education and find a good job.  Consequently, more students than ever are entering college, and avoiding trade schools and community colleges.  Colleges are booming with students.  Enrollment is up all over the country.


If any of these students are enrolled in Econ 101 they'd be learning about the cost curve, supply and demand.  When demand goes up, price go up, until supply catches up, then price stabilizes.  When demand goes down and supply is up, prices drop.  As more students enroll at State U, costs go up.  Colleges meanwhile, are spending more money to increase capacity, and attract even more students.  Since the interest rate is low,  money is cheap.  As schools build more classrooms, dormitories and athletic complexes, the cost of higher education goes up and up. 


Now compound that activity with a lower than expected job market, and more students are entering schools and staying for post graduate courses than ever.  More students, more cost, fewer jobs.  People in the job market are not getting out as quickly either, and delaying retirement as cost of living increases and retirement savings are not quite what they hoped for.


It s a cycle that leads to higher costs.  What is the solution you ask?


Drop out of school or delay going to college if you're not there yet.  Check out community colleges or trade schools.  Avoid the typical four year college.  If this were to happen broadly, many schools would be forced to slow down the rate of building and lower costs.


There are also many trade jobs available to those willing to work and get their hands dirty.  Many trade jobs offer good salaries or wages, plus benefits.


Another thing people may not realize is that as more and more college graduates can't find full time employment in their chosen field of study, the value of a diploma decreases also.  More prospective employees means lower wages and salaries, not higher.


Stop expecting everyone else to pay for a college education that means less every year that we repeat hitting our heads agains the campus gates.

Divisive Liberals

I once heard someone say that republicans think democrats are wrong, but democrats think republicans are evil.  If that is true, and I see that in many, many cases, then divisiveness is the ultimate result.


Examples of this liberal think are as follows:

1. Liberals think that conservatives opposed to abortion hate women.
2. Liberals think that conservatives opposed to Obamacare hate grannies.
3. Liberal think that conservatives opposed to the welfare state hate the poor.
4. Liberals think conservatives who disagree with the global climate change thory hate clean air and polar bears.
5. Liberals think conservatives opposed to higher taxes hate the middle class.
6. Liberals think conservatives opposed to open borders hate immigrants.

Of course the only logic behind such assertions is that liberals think conservatives hate just about every demographic group there is.


Meanwhile the left leaning groups lean further left every election cycle.  We now have an avowed socialist running in the democrat presidential primary race.  And his opponents keep moving further left to keep up with him. 


Of course the result of all this leftward leaning while declaring the right hates you, only causes division among the citizens.  You can see it online on any social media platform, in the streets, and on TV and in movies. 


If you disagree, consider that only #BlackLivesMatter to large numbers of citizens who could not be considered conservative and never would vote republican.  You see rich versus poor, white versus black versus brown, christian versus muslim.


The fact that so many democrats are willing to overlook possibly illegal and definitely immoral, acts by Hillary Clinton, is proof of how much the party rank and file are buying into the division.  Many of the same people who wanted George W. Bush tried for war crimes, are so willing to accept Hillary's faults and explain them away as insignificant or old news.

Who Should be Able to Donate Money to Political Campaigns?

Media Lobbyists Financing Campaigns


Reading this article about lobbyists and super PACs raising money for presidential hopefuls got me thinking about campaign finance reform.  Here is my solution:

1. Only registered voters should be permitted to donate to political campaigns or to spend money advertising on behalf of a candidate or issue.  Corporations, labor unions and professional associations are not registered voters.  Groups like the AFL-CIO, NRA or Planned Parenthood are not voters and should not be allowed to donate money.  Only voters should have the right to donate.  If members of these groups believe strongly enough in a candidate or issue they can write their own check and donate.  This also eliminates the circumstances whereby an idividual member disagrees with the group leadership on issues and candidates and does not want to support them.
2. Some dollar limit should be imposed on individual voters' donations.  We could debate that amount forever.  I suggest $5000 per donor per candidate or issue.  This would eliminate the huge sums of money spent on mudslinging and negative attack ads.  Candidates would be forced to spend their money more wisely and efficiently.
3. Unrelated to campaign finance reform, but campaign reform nonetheless, is the negative advertising.  When I coached youth sports I had a rule for my assistant coaches when dealing with kids.  Before you could criticize a player, you had to compliment him.  I would revise that rule to apply to political campaigns as follows.  Before you attack your opponent, you must tell me something about yourself.  This will force candidates to spend time explaining why they should get your vote, instead of why the other candidate should not.  It will turn the campaign into one of the choice of the better candidate, instead of the lesser of two evils.