Fidel Castro, who ruled Cuba for over a half century, died Friday, November 25, 2016 at the age of ninety.Leaders around the globe responded to his passing. Two of the most egregiously ignorant statements came from President Barack Obama, and Prime Minister Trudeau of Canada.
Withholding any outright condemnation of Castro, Obama said history would ultimately judge the man.Trudeau praised the dead communist's leadership abilities. Those two statements painfully reveal the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the two leaders.
To say that history will be the judge of Fidel Castro indicates either a lack of moral values or crippling naivete.
One does not have to wait for history to evaluate Fidel Castro. Anyone with an ounce of of morality and intelligence can readily make a determination as to the character of Castro.
He ruled like a tyrant. Under his dictatorship, there were no free elections, no freedom of speech, all means of communication--radio, television, newspapers, the internet--were all controlled and censored by Castro. Protests against the government were outlawed, political dissidents were arrested, imprisoned, tortured and often killed. Cubans caught fleeing the island were either shot on the spot or imprisoned. Over the years tens of thousands of Cubans fled the island. Thousands more died trying. For an individual to risk life and limb is clear testament to the cruelty and poverty-level living conditions under the communist regime.
While Fidel and his cronies lived in affluence, comfort and security, the citizens of Cuba lived in poverty, hunger the constant companion of many.Much of Castro's wealth was derived from granting safe haven to drug lords.
You don't need history to make a judgement of this man. His deeds provide ample evidence. Fidel Castro was an immoral human being who used force against his own people to retain power. Anyone who initiates the use of force against others and denies them their basic human rights is, by definition, an immoral individual.
That others refuse to condemn him betray their own ignorance and moral weakness. You don't have to wait for history to Judge Fidel Castro. All you need are moral values.
Tuesday, November 29, 2016
Thursday, November 17, 2016
REASON VS. PURPOSE
Most of us have heard or may have even used the phrase "Everything happens for a reason."
Usually the line is recited in reaction to a negative event like an auto accident, serious illness or a sudden financial setback.
On one level the phrase certainly is true. Everything does happen for a reason. If I'm sitting in my car at a redlight and my car gets rear ended by another driver, there was clearly a reason for the accident. The driver may have been drunk, distracted by a cellphone, or the car may have had bad breaks. If I slip on ice and incur a concussion, the reason may have been snow covering the ice.
The point is, everything happens for a reason. But that is really not the intent or meaning behind the phrase "Everything happens for a reason." Here is where semantics comes into play. What people really mean to say is "Everything happens for a purpose." That is to say, there is some ulterior motive or plan behind every occurrence. It doesn't happen haphazardly. It implies that a higher power is manipulating events to create a specific outcome.There is a wizard hiding behind the curtain who manipulates every aspect of our lives, like a chess player moving pieces around the board to produce a certain outcome.
Herein lies the emotional struggle for people who are dealing with a crisis in their lives, particularly if it involves the death of a loved one. I recall several years ago speaking with a friend who had a two year old nephew that was killed in an auto accident.Needless to say she was distraught over the untimely death.But not only was she distraught,she was also angry and confused. Why? Because she didn't view the accident as a random event. Rather, she saw it as a deliberately staged event by a higher power for purposes unknown. She raged against God, baffled as to why He would allow an innocent child to die such a brutal death at such a young age. "Why would God want to take the life of such a beautiful child?" she railed. "Why? It doesn't make sense!"
She was right. It doesn't make any sense if you're searching for a purpose, a meaning to the death. The reason for the accident was a drunk driver who ran a stoplight. If you accept it at face value, yes, you're deeply shocked and saddened, and perhaps angry with the drunk driver. But there it ends. No confusion. The facts of the accident are clear and indisputable.
It is only when you believe a higher power pulls our strings as if we were mere puppets that the bewilderment grows and seethes in the heart and mind.
Things happen simply because things happen. There is a reason behind why they happen, but there is no blueprint or grand design behind why random events occur as they do. It is like the flip of a coin. It can only come up heads or tails. Why? Because those are the only two possibilities. There is no specific reason why one side comes up over the other.
It is only when one eliminates the supernatural from one's belief system that you can truly come to grips with reality and gain a fuller understanding of life's vicissitudes.
Things happen. It is the unbendable law of the universe.
Usually the line is recited in reaction to a negative event like an auto accident, serious illness or a sudden financial setback.
On one level the phrase certainly is true. Everything does happen for a reason. If I'm sitting in my car at a redlight and my car gets rear ended by another driver, there was clearly a reason for the accident. The driver may have been drunk, distracted by a cellphone, or the car may have had bad breaks. If I slip on ice and incur a concussion, the reason may have been snow covering the ice.
The point is, everything happens for a reason. But that is really not the intent or meaning behind the phrase "Everything happens for a reason." Here is where semantics comes into play. What people really mean to say is "Everything happens for a purpose." That is to say, there is some ulterior motive or plan behind every occurrence. It doesn't happen haphazardly. It implies that a higher power is manipulating events to create a specific outcome.There is a wizard hiding behind the curtain who manipulates every aspect of our lives, like a chess player moving pieces around the board to produce a certain outcome.
Herein lies the emotional struggle for people who are dealing with a crisis in their lives, particularly if it involves the death of a loved one. I recall several years ago speaking with a friend who had a two year old nephew that was killed in an auto accident.Needless to say she was distraught over the untimely death.But not only was she distraught,she was also angry and confused. Why? Because she didn't view the accident as a random event. Rather, she saw it as a deliberately staged event by a higher power for purposes unknown. She raged against God, baffled as to why He would allow an innocent child to die such a brutal death at such a young age. "Why would God want to take the life of such a beautiful child?" she railed. "Why? It doesn't make sense!"
She was right. It doesn't make any sense if you're searching for a purpose, a meaning to the death. The reason for the accident was a drunk driver who ran a stoplight. If you accept it at face value, yes, you're deeply shocked and saddened, and perhaps angry with the drunk driver. But there it ends. No confusion. The facts of the accident are clear and indisputable.
It is only when you believe a higher power pulls our strings as if we were mere puppets that the bewilderment grows and seethes in the heart and mind.
Things happen simply because things happen. There is a reason behind why they happen, but there is no blueprint or grand design behind why random events occur as they do. It is like the flip of a coin. It can only come up heads or tails. Why? Because those are the only two possibilities. There is no specific reason why one side comes up over the other.
It is only when one eliminates the supernatural from one's belief system that you can truly come to grips with reality and gain a fuller understanding of life's vicissitudes.
Things happen. It is the unbendable law of the universe.
Tuesday, August 16, 2016
INCOME INEQUALITY AND THE FOOLS FIGHTING IT
This is "Elvis Week:" at his Graceland mansion in Memphis, but it isn't only Elvis fans gathering there. Members of Black Lives Matter have demonstrated this week, threatening to shut down the festivities. They are protesting a police shooting of a black man, and they are also protesting income inequality. One can assume they chose Graceland because it represents the millions of dollars earned by Elvis and his estate.
For years leftists have railed against so-called income inequality, thereby revealing their gross ignorance of the subject. Yes, incomes are unequal, but there are valid reasons for it. The primary factors that determine wage levels are skills (or lack of), experience, level of education, degree of difficulty of a job, demand for applicants, and an employer's ability to pay at a certain wage level.
In common sense terms, who would argue that a heart surgeon and a cashier at McDonalds should earn the same pay? But let's suppose for the sake of argument that a law was enacted that mandated equal pay for all workers. First, let us say that this law demands that the surgeon and the fast food cashier both earn 15 dollars an hour.What would be the consequences? That should be obvious. At some point in time we would run out of surgeons because no rational person would go through the required education and expense, and years of training if the end reward is 15 bucks an hour.
Now we will reverse the perspective. Let us suppose a top surgeon can earn 500 thousand dollars a year. This time we will assume the law mandates that all workers earn that five hundred grand, including the McDonalds cashier. How long do you think McDonalds or any other fast food operation would remain in business? And at those wage rates, what do you think a hamburger, fries and Coke would cost?
Wages are at the levels they are at for a reason. Should a busboy earn as much as a police officer or firefighter? Should the CEO of a corporation that employs 50,000 people, and a bus driver earn equal pay?
There is yet one more example of income disparity.The average salary for a player in the NBA is around 4 million dollars, while the average pay of a Chicago public school teacher is around 60,000 dollars.There would be little argument that a teacher is far more important to our society than a guy dribbling a ball up and down a wood floor. So why the outrageous income disparity?
Simple. The basketball player is involved in a business that generates hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue from ticket sales, radio and TV contracts, merchandising, etc..
A teacher's income, on the other hand, is derived from taxing the citizens.To make a teacher's salary equivalent to an NBA player, real estate and income taxes would have to be raised to such astronomical levels that no one could afford to own property or run a business. The system would collapse. Therein lies the final factor in terms of salary levels: The employer's ability to pay.
Ultimately if a system of income equality were to be established, it begs three vital questions: Who decides the pay rate? What criteria is used to make that determination? What gives that person or persons the right to determine what all workers should earn?
Like all socialist theories, the idea of income equality is rife with contradictions and reveals complete ignorance of economic laws.
For years leftists have railed against so-called income inequality, thereby revealing their gross ignorance of the subject. Yes, incomes are unequal, but there are valid reasons for it. The primary factors that determine wage levels are skills (or lack of), experience, level of education, degree of difficulty of a job, demand for applicants, and an employer's ability to pay at a certain wage level.
In common sense terms, who would argue that a heart surgeon and a cashier at McDonalds should earn the same pay? But let's suppose for the sake of argument that a law was enacted that mandated equal pay for all workers. First, let us say that this law demands that the surgeon and the fast food cashier both earn 15 dollars an hour.What would be the consequences? That should be obvious. At some point in time we would run out of surgeons because no rational person would go through the required education and expense, and years of training if the end reward is 15 bucks an hour.
Now we will reverse the perspective. Let us suppose a top surgeon can earn 500 thousand dollars a year. This time we will assume the law mandates that all workers earn that five hundred grand, including the McDonalds cashier. How long do you think McDonalds or any other fast food operation would remain in business? And at those wage rates, what do you think a hamburger, fries and Coke would cost?
Wages are at the levels they are at for a reason. Should a busboy earn as much as a police officer or firefighter? Should the CEO of a corporation that employs 50,000 people, and a bus driver earn equal pay?
There is yet one more example of income disparity.The average salary for a player in the NBA is around 4 million dollars, while the average pay of a Chicago public school teacher is around 60,000 dollars.There would be little argument that a teacher is far more important to our society than a guy dribbling a ball up and down a wood floor. So why the outrageous income disparity?
Simple. The basketball player is involved in a business that generates hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue from ticket sales, radio and TV contracts, merchandising, etc..
A teacher's income, on the other hand, is derived from taxing the citizens.To make a teacher's salary equivalent to an NBA player, real estate and income taxes would have to be raised to such astronomical levels that no one could afford to own property or run a business. The system would collapse. Therein lies the final factor in terms of salary levels: The employer's ability to pay.
Ultimately if a system of income equality were to be established, it begs three vital questions: Who decides the pay rate? What criteria is used to make that determination? What gives that person or persons the right to determine what all workers should earn?
Like all socialist theories, the idea of income equality is rife with contradictions and reveals complete ignorance of economic laws.
Thursday, June 30, 2016
THE FAILURE OF GUN PROHIBITION
The recent massacre at the Pulse Club in Orlando, Florida has brought out the demand for stricter gun control laws. Such a reaction is expected, but it does not mean it is the proper solution to the problem. Those calling for greater gun controls fall into two camps: One camp is demanding tighter regulations regarding background checks and who should be allowed to purchase weapons. The second camp wants a complete prohibition of all gun sales. Period. Either approach is doomed to failure.
History tells us that prohibition never succeeds. For example, heroin has been prohibited
for the past hundred years, yet we keep hearing about the heroin epidemic infecting this country and that millions of Americans are regular heroin users. How can that be possible when the drug is illegal and prohibited? Likewise, back in the 1920's, the Feds initiated alcohol prohibition.How well did that work? As we know millions of Americans continued to drink, speakeasys flourished, bootleggers grew rich, and mafioso like Al Capone grew powerful, influential and rich.
Why do we think a prohibition on guns would be any more successful than the banning of alcohol and drugs? Let us not forget we have been fighting this "war on drugs" since Nixon was president in the early seventies. Over forty years later we are still fighting it. To emphasize this point we need only to look over at France. They have some of the most restrictive gun laws on the planet earth, yet in 2015 and 2016 they were victims of two vicious and bloody terrorist attacks in which dozens of innocent people were gunned down.
Even if there was a complete and total ban on all guns, this wouldn't solve the problem because it is estimated that there are already 70 to 100 million weapons in the US.
Denying citizens their constitutional rights is never the proper solution. Someone once said those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. And one more point to remember. Those who seek to commit immoral acts pay no heed to the laws that restrict law abiding citizens, and will always find a way to achieve their ends.
History tells us that prohibition never succeeds. For example, heroin has been prohibited
for the past hundred years, yet we keep hearing about the heroin epidemic infecting this country and that millions of Americans are regular heroin users. How can that be possible when the drug is illegal and prohibited? Likewise, back in the 1920's, the Feds initiated alcohol prohibition.How well did that work? As we know millions of Americans continued to drink, speakeasys flourished, bootleggers grew rich, and mafioso like Al Capone grew powerful, influential and rich.
Why do we think a prohibition on guns would be any more successful than the banning of alcohol and drugs? Let us not forget we have been fighting this "war on drugs" since Nixon was president in the early seventies. Over forty years later we are still fighting it. To emphasize this point we need only to look over at France. They have some of the most restrictive gun laws on the planet earth, yet in 2015 and 2016 they were victims of two vicious and bloody terrorist attacks in which dozens of innocent people were gunned down.
Even if there was a complete and total ban on all guns, this wouldn't solve the problem because it is estimated that there are already 70 to 100 million weapons in the US.
Denying citizens their constitutional rights is never the proper solution. Someone once said those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. And one more point to remember. Those who seek to commit immoral acts pay no heed to the laws that restrict law abiding citizens, and will always find a way to achieve their ends.
Friday, May 20, 2016
SPACE ALIENS AND DEMOCRATS
In 1947 in Roswell, New Mexico, the first sightings of flying saucers and space aliens were reported. It must also be noted that the following people were born in 1947:
Hillary Rodham
William Clinton
Al Gore Jr.
John Kerry
Nancy Pelosi
Joe Biden
Charles Schumer
Coincidence??? It must also be noted that every one of those Democrats are in favor of bringing more aliens into this country. Just saying...
Hillary Rodham
William Clinton
Al Gore Jr.
John Kerry
Nancy Pelosi
Joe Biden
Charles Schumer
Coincidence??? It must also be noted that every one of those Democrats are in favor of bringing more aliens into this country. Just saying...
Tuesday, May 17, 2016
TSA; THE SLOWDOWN AGENCY
Have you traveled by plane recently? The TSA suggests you arrive at the airport 2 hours prior to departure to give you adequate time to go through the airport security check line. But if you were to follow the TSA advice in recent weeks you would have missed your flight. It is now taking 2 to 3 hours to get through the security lines. This past week hundreds of passengers at Ohare Airport missed their flights because of security delays, and dozens of flights were delayed while waiting for passengers to process. Nationwide, some 4500 passengers have missed their flights over the past 2 months because of long check lines.
So what's going on? In the past 5 years, airline passengers and flights have markedly increased, and the number of TSA employees has decreased by almost 5 thousand. In addition 1200 to 1500 employees are lost monthly due to attrition. The Reason Foundation has estimated that since 9/11, people are collectively spending 300 million extra hours per year at airports because of screening delays. Reason analysts say this translates to 8 billion dollars a year in hidden costs to the economy.
To date, the TSA has received 70 billion dollars of our tax money, and for what? Seventy thousand passengers have filed complaints against the TSA for stolen or damaged property, and 500 agents have been fired for stealing.
After 9/11, airport security was taken away from the private sector and given to the Feds, who then created the TSA. Its purpose was to provide us with better protection from terrorism than the private sector could provide. And like virtually everything else the government touches, the service has turned into a crap fest. It is incompetent, inefficient and is bleeding the American taxpayers dry.
The next time you are stuck in a 2 hour line at the airport, ask yourself why a government agency is preferable to private sector efficiency.
So what's going on? In the past 5 years, airline passengers and flights have markedly increased, and the number of TSA employees has decreased by almost 5 thousand. In addition 1200 to 1500 employees are lost monthly due to attrition. The Reason Foundation has estimated that since 9/11, people are collectively spending 300 million extra hours per year at airports because of screening delays. Reason analysts say this translates to 8 billion dollars a year in hidden costs to the economy.
To date, the TSA has received 70 billion dollars of our tax money, and for what? Seventy thousand passengers have filed complaints against the TSA for stolen or damaged property, and 500 agents have been fired for stealing.
After 9/11, airport security was taken away from the private sector and given to the Feds, who then created the TSA. Its purpose was to provide us with better protection from terrorism than the private sector could provide. And like virtually everything else the government touches, the service has turned into a crap fest. It is incompetent, inefficient and is bleeding the American taxpayers dry.
The next time you are stuck in a 2 hour line at the airport, ask yourself why a government agency is preferable to private sector efficiency.
Tuesday, May 10, 2016
THE DENNIS HASTERT PUZZLE
Former Congressman and Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert--an admitted pedophile--was recently sentenced to 15 months in prison. Some people protested it was way too light of a sentence. I say it was too harsh of a sentence.
Some of you must be thinking: Conrad, are you serious? Too harsh a sentence? The man molested young boys. How can you say 15 months is too harsh a sentence?
This is where the Dennis Hastert conundrum comes into play. Many people mistakenly believe Hastert received the prison sentence for the molestation charges. He did not. He was found guilty of violating Federal banking regulations. Banking laws state that any bank transaction, either deposits or withdrawals of ten thousand dollars or more must be reported to the Feds. Over the years, Hastert had been sending money to one of his victims as hush money. To avoid disclosing these payoffs, Hastert made withdrawals of seven to nine thousand dollars so as not to hit the ten grand threshold. Eventually red flags went up, the Feds investigated, and Hastert was charged and convicted of violating the regulations.
I would be the first to agree that had Hastert been tried and found guilty of molestation, he should have spent the rest of his life behind bars. But because of the statute of limitations, he could no longer be charged with those crimes. Hence, the Feds got him on repeated banking violations. This is what is highly objectionable on a number of levels.
First, let us focus on the actual charges against the former Congressman, while temporarily putting aside his actions as a pedophile. As I noted, Federal regulations state that any bank deposit or withdrawal in excess of ten grand must be reported to the government. Yet these are legitimate accounts in legitimate banks regarding honestly earned money. What right does the government have to spy on our private legal transactions? The rationale for these regulations is to stop money laundering, primarily from the drug trade. But I contend that I, as a law abiding citizen, have every right to handle my honestly earned money in any way I see fit without Big Brother watching my every move and counting my every last dollar. If I wish to give my only son a sum of ten thousand dollars, what the hell business it it of the Government? Why should every honest citizen be treated like a criminal?
There is one final aspect to the Hastert case that has been made painfully clear. Violations against the government take priority over violations against the safety and security of private citizens. We have two glaring examples.
The first and most recent glaring example is the Dennis Hastert affair. He is accused of two crimes: sexual abuse of minors, and violating Federal regulations. Which one of these crimes was he ultimately charged with and convicted of? The crime against the Federal Government. The sex crimes could not go forward because of the statute of limitations.
Another example goes back almost 90 years. It involved Al Capone. In the 1920's Capone was the biggest, most notorious and powerful organized crime boss in the country. He was responsible for countless murders and assaults, as well as extortion, prostitution, drug dealing, bribing elected officials and bootlegging.Ultimately he ended up in prison, but nor for any of the above charges. Despite the blood on his hands, Capone went to prison for tax evasion--a crime against the government. Apparently his murderous crime spree was not as big and important a crime as cheating the government out of its money.
Fast forward to 2016 and watch Dennis Hastert go to prison for a crime against the government, not for molesting young boys. It seems that the statute of limitation applies only to citizens victimized by crime, but not the Feds, who always receive their pound of flesh, no matter how long it takes.
A free people cannot endure as long as government rules and regulations take precedent over the safety and security of every citizen.
Some of you must be thinking: Conrad, are you serious? Too harsh a sentence? The man molested young boys. How can you say 15 months is too harsh a sentence?
This is where the Dennis Hastert conundrum comes into play. Many people mistakenly believe Hastert received the prison sentence for the molestation charges. He did not. He was found guilty of violating Federal banking regulations. Banking laws state that any bank transaction, either deposits or withdrawals of ten thousand dollars or more must be reported to the Feds. Over the years, Hastert had been sending money to one of his victims as hush money. To avoid disclosing these payoffs, Hastert made withdrawals of seven to nine thousand dollars so as not to hit the ten grand threshold. Eventually red flags went up, the Feds investigated, and Hastert was charged and convicted of violating the regulations.
I would be the first to agree that had Hastert been tried and found guilty of molestation, he should have spent the rest of his life behind bars. But because of the statute of limitations, he could no longer be charged with those crimes. Hence, the Feds got him on repeated banking violations. This is what is highly objectionable on a number of levels.
First, let us focus on the actual charges against the former Congressman, while temporarily putting aside his actions as a pedophile. As I noted, Federal regulations state that any bank deposit or withdrawal in excess of ten grand must be reported to the government. Yet these are legitimate accounts in legitimate banks regarding honestly earned money. What right does the government have to spy on our private legal transactions? The rationale for these regulations is to stop money laundering, primarily from the drug trade. But I contend that I, as a law abiding citizen, have every right to handle my honestly earned money in any way I see fit without Big Brother watching my every move and counting my every last dollar. If I wish to give my only son a sum of ten thousand dollars, what the hell business it it of the Government? Why should every honest citizen be treated like a criminal?
There is one final aspect to the Hastert case that has been made painfully clear. Violations against the government take priority over violations against the safety and security of private citizens. We have two glaring examples.
The first and most recent glaring example is the Dennis Hastert affair. He is accused of two crimes: sexual abuse of minors, and violating Federal regulations. Which one of these crimes was he ultimately charged with and convicted of? The crime against the Federal Government. The sex crimes could not go forward because of the statute of limitations.
Another example goes back almost 90 years. It involved Al Capone. In the 1920's Capone was the biggest, most notorious and powerful organized crime boss in the country. He was responsible for countless murders and assaults, as well as extortion, prostitution, drug dealing, bribing elected officials and bootlegging.Ultimately he ended up in prison, but nor for any of the above charges. Despite the blood on his hands, Capone went to prison for tax evasion--a crime against the government. Apparently his murderous crime spree was not as big and important a crime as cheating the government out of its money.
Fast forward to 2016 and watch Dennis Hastert go to prison for a crime against the government, not for molesting young boys. It seems that the statute of limitation applies only to citizens victimized by crime, but not the Feds, who always receive their pound of flesh, no matter how long it takes.
A free people cannot endure as long as government rules and regulations take precedent over the safety and security of every citizen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)