Happy HanuRamaKwanzMas (and Diwali)!

It’s that time of year again.  I try to be as inclusive as possible. That’s why I wish everyone I know a Happy HanuRamaKwanzMas (and Diwali).

If I’ve left anyone out, I wish them inner peace, joy and happiness. I hope that works.

It’s getting harder every year to appease everyone.  I don’t know why we bother. Certainly we don’t want to offend anyone but the bar on that keeps dropping.

I know about vampires and crosses, but I’m unsure if seeing Christmas trees, menorahs, Halloween decorations, or Santa Claus is as painful for some folks.  Apparently it is. 

Why? Because these are associated with some belief system other than their own. Or, more likely, a non-belief system they profess.

Or maybe they’re simply looking for an excuse to be offended. 

I say that because in my experience Jews aren’t offended by Christmas trees any more than Christians are by the lighting of the menorah. I can’t speak for Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists but I suspect Christmas trees and menorahs don’t bother them much, either. 

For the life of me, I honestly can’t imagine who is offended by Halloween – witches, maybe? Yes, Halloween is technically All Hallows Eve, and some Catholics celebrate that.  For most everybody else it’s an excuse to dress up and go door to door trick or treating for candy.  Yet some schools have cancelled Halloween parties because, if you dig deep enough, beyond the familiar witches, ghosts, goblins and carved pumpkins, it has its roots in All Hallows Eve.

  

Get a life, folks. If you want to start down that road, the Christmas tree has its roots in pagan customs dating back to Old Testament times.  In fact, for a long time it was banned by Christian church leaders for that reason. It has more historical links to the Winter Solstice than celebrating the birth of Jesus, which, BTW, probably didn’t happen anywhere near December 25^th. 

Like Saint Nick the Christmas tree doesn’t have much to do with the religious aspects of Jesus’ birth any more than the Easter Bunny has to do with His resurrection.    

So are Christians today offended by a Christmas tree because of its pagan origins? Are they upset that they celebrate Christmas at the wrong time of year? I don’t think so.      

Listen, if we start ruling out holidays just because they have some religious overlap, we’ll end up with no holidays at all.  And nobody wants that, except maybe Jehovah’s Witnesses who don’t celebrate any holidays or even birthdays, perhaps so they have more time to knock on your door.

Most other people like holidays and special days, regardless of who or what these celebrate. Hindus have lots of gods and lots of celebrations. Catholics probably hold the record, though, since given the number of Saints’ days, Holy Days, and “feasts of the” this or that, you can hardly throw a dart at a calendar without hitting one of their holy events. 

What’s really weird to me – and trust me it takes a lot to weird me out – is the Elf on the Shelf stuff this time of year.  Apparently an Elf on the Shelf which supposedly moves around a house while children sleep – and which I find more than just a tad creepy – isn’t nearly as offensive to some as a Christmas tree in the town square. Go figure. 

Often, it seems that there’s a fairly concerted effort to strip anything with even a remote connection to a religion from American life, whether that’s in schools, in holiday events, and especially on public land, because of the possibility someone, somewhere might be offended.    

Proponents of this secularization point to the First Amendment as justification. 

Here’s the actual text of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Since Civics is no longer taught in most schools, and most of the population isn’t really aware of what’s in the Bill of Rights as a result, this is a reminder of what the founders actually wrote.  

Note that religion is the first order of business.

The “make no law respecting an establishment of religion” is often called “The Establishment Cause.” It’s been interpreted – or misinterpreted – to mean that religious celebrations and symbols should never appear on public property – whether that’s on public land, in public schools, or in government buildings – because that would imply government endorsement of a religion.   

That’s not what the founders intended. The language very carefully states the “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”  What that actually means is that Congress can’t make a law installing Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, Shinto, Buddhism, Pan-Theism, Wicca or whatever as the “official” religion of the country.  

For context, remember that persecution under “state religions” is why many of our earliest settlers came to America in the first place. 

However, the next part is equally important: “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …” Together, the intention is even clearer – Congress cannot make a law to establish a state religion, nor can it make a law prohibiting anyone from exercising their religion.

That’s the opposite of what many of the Old World state religions tried to do – either by law or brute force – through requiring Jews to convert, burning Protestants as heretics, seizing property of Catholics, or levying special taxes on Christians and Jews at various times.

It’s that second part – “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …” – that so often is overlooked in today’s climate of cultural intolerance.    

Are there any limitations to our freedom to exercise our religion?  Certainly. 

Whatever your faith is it doesn’t allow you to physically harm others or justify breaking laws without consequences.  You can’t stone to death an adulterous neighbor. You can’t get a picture ID license or passport without revealing your face. You can’t have multiple wives at the same time, or marry children, even if your faith says it’s okay. 

And if you’re a county clerk where same-sex marriage is legal, you can’t legally refuse to issue marriage certificates to same-sex couples because it goes against your beliefs. 

While we have the right to worship or not as we please there’s nothing in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that allows anyone to force their beliefs – or lack of beliefs – on anybody else.  In short, our rights to worship or the “free exercise” of our faith, within the law, cannot be prevented, even if that offends someone else for whatever reason.   

Think about that for a second.  Americans are granted freedom of religion; not freedom from exposure to religion or religious symbols. In our free society, restricting the rights of one group to appease another isn’t a right.       

Now we are faced with increasingly vocal minorities aggressively intolerant of any other views or beliefs than their own. These people are willing to use whatever power they can muster – civil suits and court rulings if possible, and by sheer intimidation if necessary – to restrict the rights of others to express their views or practice their beliefs.

Timid politicians and bureaucrats are folding like cheap suits in response. 

Cancelling Halloween parties and parades, renaming a Christmas tree a “holiday” tree, and removing the 10 Commandments from public spaces are all attempts to appease the intolerant. Under the banner of “inclusiveness” they seek to limit expressions of the faith of others, especially in public.  So they are equally intolerant of publicly displayed symbols associated with Christianity as they are of those related to Judaism or any other faith.   

As to the 10 Commandments, I am baffled that something written thousands of years ago to establish rules for a nomadic people could actually offend anyone today. 

Outside of worshipping God instead of idols and keeping the Sabbath, there’s not a lot of religious content there.  Most major belief systems and cultures have very similar guidelines:  don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t commit adultery, don’t be envious or greedy, treat everyone as you would be treated, etc.  The 10 Commandments show up near courts not because states endorse monotheism, but because – like the Code of Hammurabi – these were historic progenitors of modern law.   

So who is actually offended?  Murderers? Thieves?  Idolaters? Those who covet their neighbor’s wife? People who don’t honor their mother and father? Come on.       

These symbols and celebrations have harmed no one.  Apparently they’ve offended someone.  And because someone simply claimed to be offended, we have these results.

Much of this banning of religious symbols and pseudo-religious celebrations has been caused by people who claim to be atheists. I don’t doubt their sincerity in not believing in a higher power.  That’s their right and I respect it.  They have the protected right to believe or not believe whatever they want. No one is forcing them to believe in God, Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Confucius, Krishna, Satan, Gaia, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or the Grand Wazoo. 

But their right to disbelieve doesn’t trump our right to believe and celebrate whatever.  By making everyone else bend to their will, they are effectively doing exactly what’s known as the Establishment Clause was designed to prevent: creating a state religion – Atheism. 

So I guess to be completely inclusive, I’ll have to now say: Happy HanuRamaKwanzMas and Diwali and None of the Above (or below)!

Enjoy your holiday – whatever that is or isn’t.  It’s your right.    

Underestimating the anger …

It’s rare when the Republican and Democrat parties, and the media, are all in the same boat. 

All three are blind to the anger of American public right now.

They’re baffled by the number of Americans in favor of a temporary halt in allowing Muslims to come here, including the Syrian refugees. They can’t understand why so many “war-weary” Americans want to use military force – yes, even boots on the ground, which almost guarantees U.S. casualties – to annihilate ISIS.  They can’t grasp that a majority of Americans think we’re at war with Islamic terrorists, if not fundamentalist Islam itself, and the solution is to kill all of these terrorists wherever they are, by any means necessary, regardless of the cost.    

They think they understand why some Americans feel so strongly about limiting illegal immigration – because illegals might be taking some jobs from citizens. But they don’t understand why an increasing number of Americans wouldn’t mind deporting all illegal immigrants and building a wall to keep others from coming in.  And they particularly can’t comprehend how such a large number of Americans want to deny citizenship to children born here by illegals.   

The media and politicians in general can’t fathom the animosity toward them from so many people; the lack of trust the public has in them, in Congress, in the President, and even in the Supreme Court. They keep hoping this is just a temporary phase the public’s going through before the unruly rabble comes to its senses again and starts behaving more rationally.

Then there’s Trump – they don’t understand his support at all.  Everything above is reflected in what Trump routinely espouses. And his popularity is rising.  They simply don’t get it. 

They keep predicting he’ll fail. Yet he doesn’t. They amplify every politically incorrect thing he says thinking this is it; he’s gone too far. But the more they do, the more politically incorrect he is, the more he rises in the polls.

They say now that if even if he wins the nomination, he can’t be elected. I say they’ve been wrong about him so far. What’s to say they’re not wrong about that, too?   

Trump scares them, as he should.  He scares me at times, too.  

He’s a symptom of the anger the public has about so many things – political correctness, political timidity in the face of real danger, political corruption, and business as usual. Trump speaks his mind and tells the truth as he sees it. Trump could be wrong – and many times he is – but he always lets you know where he stands. And he doesn’t back down.   

This appeals to many people and alarms others.      

More and more I see the country divided philosophically between two groups:  the “why can’t we all get along?” group; and the “we’ve had enough of this shit” group. 

And the “we’ve had enough of this shit” group is growing. Trump’s their standard bearer. 

I see evidence of this in social media all the time. 

The “why can’t we all get along?” types routinely post comparisons between Nazi Germany and the persecution of Jews to those who would crack down on undocumented (illegal) immigrants, and potential Islamic terrorists; Trump = Hitler. Since Trump leads just about every Republican poll, Republicans = Nazis. Trump’s followers are modern-day Brown Shirts.  

They like to repost stories from Huff Post and Media Matters portraying Trump, and by association Republicans and the right, as engaging in a war on women, a war on children, a war on the poor, a war on the middle class, a war on teachers, a war on the disabled, a war on illegal immigrants, a war on peaceful Muslims, and if possible a war on puppies and kittens. 

For a group generally opposed to war, they talk about it a lot. 

They also post “Like if you’re opposed to cancer” or “Like if you support compassion” stuff and heart-tugging pictures of women and children refugees trying to escape Syria.  Lately there’s been a spate of supposed quotes from Jesus supporting the view that He would never, ever turn His back on helping the poor, the disadvantaged and the persecuted.

Their point of view is reminiscent of the late 60s/early 70s peace and love movements.  If they’re old enough, they probably had the “Make Love not War” posters in their dorm room. I suspect their Prius is plastered with “Coexist” and Obama bumper stickers. 

The “why can’t we all get along?” crowd tries to shame their “we’ve had enough of this shit” opposition. Their catch phrase is like Obama’s: That’s not who we are as Americans. 

The “we’ve had enough of this shit” crowd isn’t buying it. At all.

If anything the “why can’t we all get along?” crowd is making the “we’ve had enough of this shit” group even more strident.  And I’ll say this for the “we’ve had enough of this shit” group: they’re better at sarcasm and have a wicked mastery of irony.

So the image of peaceful Jesus and his message of compassion was swiftly met with an image of Jesus using whips to drive the money lenders from the temple.  Any post about Islam as a “religion of peace” is almost certain to be countered by pictures of ISIS slaughtering captured soldiers, beheading journalists, or committing other atrocities, or with passages from the Quran approving of killing infidels, along with a note:  So much for your religion of peace. 

The pictures of pitiful women and children refugees  leads to counter posts showing mainly bearded military-aged men in peak physical shape trying to overcome a border crossing in Europe somewhere.  Then they add:  See many “widows and children” here? 

They’ll post pictures of Jihadi John with the caption Muslim extremist, across from a picture of Mother Theresa captioned Christian extremist; underneath both they’ll add:  See the difference? 

They also post stats on how many illegal immigrants here have committed violent crimes, how many are receiving benefits, how many are caught and sent back only to return, and how many illegal immigrants have had their children here so those children can become naturalized citizens. 

They are quick to point out every time a white criminal’s picture makes the news, and how silent the media is when the criminal is black – noting that the description is of a “white male” while the description of a black criminal rarely if ever mentions race. 

When a cop shoots a black person, it’s police targeting blacks; when a black person shoots a cop it’s just gun violence.  And they openly wonder why one rogue cop shooting an armed black teen in Chicago makes national news and spawns mass demonstrations, while killing sprees among black gangs in Chicago are largely ignored. 

I’ve often written about “tipping points” – when some event or series of events trigger an overreaction.  The progressive movement and the “why can’t we all get along?” group may have pushed too hard, too fast and created a tinderbox. 

When ordinary folks see harmless traditions under attack – whether that’s by having Halloween parades cancelled, Christmas trees renamed Holiday Trees and Thanksgiving replaced by Harvest Festival celebrations because these are deemed politically incorrect – it bothers them. They have no wish to hurt anyone’s feelings, but fail to see how any of these do. 

It’s the same when there are attempts to remove “In God We Trust” from our currency, banning school-age athletes from praying at sporting events or penalizing them for pointing skyward, or school principals forbidding the Pledge of Allegiance in their classrooms.

There’s a collective sense of “why?” 

However, none of these alone are enough to trigger the anger that exists now. But they contribute to it.  When both major political parties have failed them, because each is held captive by their respective extreme elements, the pressure builds.  Add to that perceived one-sided media coverage, a government apparently out of control, a President who breaks laws, a Congress that refuses to challenge the President, bureaucrats that can’t be held accountable for their misdeeds, and a Supreme Court that seems to bend to political pressure.

And when political correctness appears to trump commonsense – such as refusing to identify the Islamic terrorists as what they are, and ignoring the dangers from unrestricted immigration – a large part of the population joins the “we’ve had enough of this shit” group.    

That’s what we are experiencing now.

Trump is merely the symptom; the anger runs much deeper. To underestimate it or hope it goes away on its own is a mistake. 

Could it propel Trump into the White House?  I doubt it; he may win some primaries but he won’t get the golden ticket. He also can’t succeed as a third-party candidate, but he can destroy the Republican Party in the process. Maybe it’s time for that anyway.   

I think when it’s time to vote the independents – those in the middle 60% of the voters – will vote against someone rather than for Trump, or they’ll stay at home altogether.    

But the anger won’t go away.       

Poo-poo head …

I suspect Donald Trump in kindergarten called more than one kid a poo-poo head. I’ll bet he also called his teacher that as well, to their face, to see what he could get away with.  

He didn’t know what it meant, and it doesn’t make sense, but his tendency to say things just to get attention had to start somewhere.

And he’s still doing it.

He’s said he’d build a wall on our southern border and Mexico would pay for it. He’s said that Mexico is sending us their murderers and rapists as illegal immigrants. He’s said he would prevent certain children born here from automatically gaining U.S. citizenship. More recently he said we should ban all Muslims from entering the country. 

He constantly says things that make no sense or would clearly violate our Constitution and laws. Maybe he really believes he can do these things, which would make him as crazy as a shit-house rat. However, I think he does it for the attention; it’s just more reality-TV show biz. 

His supporters eat it up.  No matter how outrageous and looney-tune his claims, no matter how nasty and personal his attacks, such as mocking that physically disabled reporter, or his “Look at that face …” comment about Carly Fiorina,  they are still with him all the way.

In fact, the more obnoxious he is the greater his popularity.  Every time he goes way over the line, his poll numbers actually go up. He gets rewarded for incredibly bad behavior. 

So he keeps doing it.  And he keeps upping the rhetoric. 

Teachers would call it “testing behavior”: seeing how far he can push something before he gets punished. But he’s running for President of the United States, not class clown. 

In general, I believe the rabid Trump supporters who cheer every nutso thing he says – regardless of how embarrassingly wrong, bigoted, or ignorant of the facts  that may be – frankly scare the bejesus out of many of us. They often come across as a mob of prejudiced, know-nothings that in an earlier age would be burning witches at the stake, or crosses in the yards of Jews and blacks; they are looking for someone to reinforce their darkest thoughts and Trump delivers.      

I also have both Republican and Democrat friends who are now ardent Trump supporters despite all this, and who don’t fit the standard Trump profile of low education, low information voters.  To be completely honest, there are times when I think I could vote for him, too.

Mainly what those friends and I have in common is complete disgust with the political establishment and the way the country is being run. We no longer trust our government to protect us, defend American values, or even honor the Constitution and laws of this land.

We perceive that politicians in both parties are more focused on dividing us into ever smaller single-issue segments to get or stay in power than addressing our collective concerns. And we see government getting bigger and bigger, more intrusive, more wasteful with our money, and with increasing numbers of bureaucrats who can’t or won’t be held accountable for their misdeeds.   

We’ve had it up to here with political correctness, the fawning media coverage of Democrats in general and Obama in particular, and the progressive agenda to put government in charge of every aspect of our lives.  We’re saddened to see that our allies no longer trust us and our adversaries no longer fear us. We worry that the timidity of our current leaders is putting us all in danger.   

In our hearts I think we want a revolution but we’re not sure how to make that happen, or even who we can count on to lead it. Maybe that’s why we’re looking outside the box. 

We want someone to stand up and set things right. Electing Trump is the closest thing we have to a lawful revolution.  Yet giving Trump the Republican nomination, or having Trump run a third-party campaign, virtually insures a landslide victory for Democrats next November.

As it is, Trump is the best thing the Democrats could have wished for. 

Right now Trump is getting press and support for all the wrong reasons.

Unfortunately there’s no one who can really stop him except himself. Cruz is Trump-lite. Carson can’t hold up in the long run.  Jeb is probably best qualified but seems a bit too wonky. Kasich is too whiney. 

So that leaves Rubio.  Or as Trump would call him: poo-poo head. 

Why so serious?

A long-time friend once gave me grief for being so serious on this blog when in real life – person to person – I made him laugh more often than not. 

I’ll let you in on a secret:  I think I write better when I feel passionate about something. When something pisses me off I’m on a tear. It could be politicians that treat the public like children. It could be the media withholding important facts.

Or it could be handicap parking abusers. Yank my chain and I’ll fire back.    

Sometimes I write just because I need to work something out. It’s a way to exercise my thinking, to explore in a different way something puzzling me, or because some quirk of human behavior has drawn my attention. Most often it’s because something – some bullshit – is being foisted on all of us as “the truth” when it’s anything but. 

I hate being lied to. I hate it even more when some smug talking head spews propaganda as fact. My ultimate hatred is for those who think we’re all too stupid to know the difference. 

A perfect example came up the other day. 

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, that wizened old crone still on the Supreme Court, attacked the Second Amendment right to bear arms as inapplicable today.  She claimed it was written when many states had no armed forces to protect their citizens; it merely encouraged the growth of armed militias to fill the void. Because that need changed over time, according to her there really wasn’t an unfettered right for ordinary citizens to “keep and bear arms” (own guns) anymore.  

This is the type of stuff that makes me nuts.  What a crock of bullshit.

The real backstory behind that part of the Second Amendment so loathed by the left – in the context of the time it was written, not long after the American Revolution – is quite different.  It was intended to protect the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms should they ever need to confront a tyrannical government again. 

Which is what many people think we’re moving toward – a tyrannical government that increasingly rides roughshod over the rights of the citizens. 

Of course, the idea that someday there might be armed resistance to heavy-handed government control scares the crap out of the far left.  As well it should. 

Why else do you think the left is so obsessed with “domestic terrorists” and banning certain types of weapons?  Why are politicians on the left now trying to claw back military gear provided to local law enforcement agencies? They’re worried.

And that’s precisely why the right to keep and bear arms was written into the Second Amendment – to keep government from overstepping its bounds.    

Another example was when Bernie Sanders said climate change caused terrorism.  As someone else online noted, it’s hard to decide what’s more disturbing: that he said something so stupid, or that the audience didn’t immediately break out in uproarious laughter. 

The other night Obama linked the jihad-inspired terrorist shootings in San Bernardino with the need for serious gun control legislation.  Now I’ve come to expect Obama to be a shameless whore when it comes to advancing his agenda, but this was a new low. 

Rather than comfort and assure a public trying to come to grips with the worst terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11, Obama took the opportunity to take a shot at Republicans who he said were “even” opposed to keeping guns out of the hands of people on the no-fly list. 

As if people on the no-fly list were responsible for killing 14 people, which, he failed to add intentionally I’m sure, these two weren’t.  Small detail, huh? 

What’s worse, Obama knows full well that the no-fly list is a joke; however, he thinks most people don’t know that, and he’s probably right.  In reality, the no-fly list has little to do with stopping terrorists. The two San Bernardino terrorist murderers weren’t on the no-fly list, nor were any of the other more recent perpetrators of Islamic terrorism here such as the Tsarnaev brothers.

However, I was, once. 

One time I wasn’t allowed to check in online. I could check in for my wife online and print her boarding pass at home, but I had to get my boarding pass at the airport.  I was told then I was apparently on some no-fly list by mistake. Sorry for the inconvenience.   

But that’s why Republicans resist using the no-fly list as something meaningful. Because your name shows up on a no-fly list doesn’t mean a thing. I’m proof.

It’s about as substantive as the TSA agents who let investigators pass through their screenings with packed items clearly resembling bombs or guns almost 95% of the time. 

Yet the same type of crack TSA agents pulled my carry-on bag offline for hand check because they thought my boxed shaving soap might be a yogurt I was trying to smuggle onto the plane. Maybe that's what put me briefly on the no-fly list: possible yogurt-armed hijacker.    

Loretta Lynch also hit my piss-off button this past week when she said she would prosecute speech that “edges toward violence” against Muslims.  Later she said she was “not sure” what ideology drove the San Bernardino terrorists to massacre 14 innocent people.  

Double bullshit.    

First you can’t have someone running the DOJ who would prosecute anyone for exercising their right to free speech. I know all the fans of political correctness applaud her desire to make saying something “hurtful” a prosecutable offense, but this is insane. Something that “edges toward violence” against Muslims is not even close to meeting the standard for restricting free speech. 

As a lawyer she should know that, especially as the Attorney General of the United States. 

Then there’s the waffling on what ideology the shooters were following.  This after it was shown that one of them tweeted her allegiance to the ISIS leader as they were about to slaughter 14 innocent people at an office holiday party.  

Okay, Sherlock, they were radical Muslims, armed to the teeth with weapons they had modified for auto fire and to accept high-capacity magazine, made pipe bombs using an Al Qaeda and ISIS design, were in contact with other Muslim terrorists, trashed their computer hard drive and phones to hide evidence, and along the way tweeted allegiance to ISIS before they started shooting.    

Got a clue?  And Loretta Lynch is still “not sure” why they did it? 

So what makes someone say something so demonstrably out of line with the law?  Or to so consciously avoid the facts? 

Well consider the Obama Administration narrative that there’s no such thing as a Muslim terrorist – there are Muslims and there are terrorists, but there are no Muslim terrorists.  It’s wrong to blame an entire group of people for the actions of a few.    

Unless of course it’s a solitary white abortion-obsessed lunatic who shoots up a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado.  Then he represents all gun owners. 

Sometimes the bullshit gets flung so much that it’s almost overwhelming.

I wish I could make jokes about all this.  Honestly I do. 

But bullshit is bullshit.  And I’ll keep calling it out.      

Islamic + terrorists = Islamic terrorists …

It’s really that simple. 

This week two people dressed in tactical gear and with long rifles and handguns killed 14 innocent people, and wounded many more, at a holiday party.  After law enforcement officers surrounded their getaway car and killed them in a shootout pipe bombs were also found in that car. In a search of the assailants’ house authorities found what they described as a bomb factory with more IEDs, thousands of rounds of ammo, and a booby-trap bomb that fortunately didn’t go off.   

The two were identified as an American-born devout Muslim male and the Muslim wife he met online and brought to this country from Saudi Arabia on a “fiancé visa.”  The two have been linked to people on the FBI’s terror watch list.

That, in a nutshell, is what happened. 

On the same day this occurred, and after much of the information above was released, Obama told the American people they had nothing to fear from a Paris-style attack by terrorists.  He said that while ISIS or ISIL remains dangerous as Al Qaeda “was” (his word), we had “hardened” our defenses to prevent them from initiating attacks here.

He quickly shifted to the need to address gun violence in America.  Democrats followed – with Clinton and Sanders swiftly tweeting out the need to end gun violence. Obama’s spokespuppet then went on air to talk about the need for “commonsense” gun laws to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have guns.    

Meanwhile, Republican candidates tweeted their prayers for the families of those killed or wounded. Trump tweeted his appreciation for law enforcement as well. Liberal trolls online instantly mocked those Republicans for sending prayers rather than passing substantive gun controls.  The next day, the New York Daily News ran a cover headlined “God isn’t fixing this” with pictures of those same Republicans and screenshots of their tweets.

Here are a few interesting facts. Two of the guns used by these murderers were purchased legally; police aren’t sure where the others came from. The assailants also used high-capacity magazines with their assault-style rifles and had more at home.  All of this happened in California, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the entire country, where most assault-style rifles, and all high-capacity magazines, are banned.   

California gun laws didn’t stop any of this from happening.

Another fact: well before this slaughter happened one of the killers’ neighbors was ready to alert authorities of their suspicious behavior, including a half dozen Middle-Eastern-looking men coming and going, which made neighbors wonder what they were doing.  He didn’t because he was afraid he’d be accused of racial profiling. It’s quite possible had he not worried so much about political correctness this terrible tragedy could have been avoided.   

Now we know that the two killers were radicalized Islamic terrorists who had planned this out carefully – most likely in conjunction with other radical Islamists. Based on the amount of weapons, ammo, bomb-making components and completed IEDs found on their premises, they were actively preparing for even more attacks, perhaps by others.

So despite what Obama and his minions may say, this was not simply workplace violence or gun violence. There are Islamic terrorists here.  They have just completed a smaller scale Paris-style massacre of innocents here. Whether the killers were directed by ISIS, Al Qaeda or acted entirely on their own is irrelevant; 14 people are dead, many more wounded, most likely because someone was afraid to be accused of racial profiling,  

This is where our culture of political correctness has proven deadly. We need to start calling out who is committing murders with no thought to political correctness. 

In this case, it’s a pair of Islamic terrorists. 

Obama, are you listening?  

Republicans or Democrats – does it matter?

Some things are so plainly obvious it’s hard to imagine another interpretation. 

For one, the Republican establishment is inept. It’s proven it has no clue how to pick a candidate for President, much less how to govern this country. The Republican Party is eating itself, torn between go-along-get-along types protecting the status quo and radicals bent on burning it down. There’s no middle ground; no room for compromise – not that compromise is the right answer. 

The Democrats have a better grasp of how to wield and maintain power, mainly by playing to the public’s desire for free stuff, but are equally inept at governing the country.

Democrats win all the legislative battles for two reasons: they never break ranks while Republicans always do; next, however awful the Democrat ideas, Republicans have no ideas. And by sticking together, Democrats can make those awful ideas a reality.  

For some unknown reason, Republicans can’t understand that. 

The Republican establishment favors the rich – the so-called donor class.  So does the Democrat establishment but hides it better. Both political establishments have been corrupted by big money, whether that’s from big corporations, big unions, big banks or Wall-Street types. 

Both claim to represent the working class; in reality neither gives a tinker’s damn about the working class.  The same goes for the poor.  Both are eager to spend money we don’t have to reward their donors and supporters and blame the other for out of control spending. 

The head of the RNC – Reince Priebus – is clueless.  The head of the DNC – Debbie Wasserman-Schultz – is a lunatic; you don’t need to be a psychiatrist to figure that out. 

By now it appears Hillary will be the Democrat nominee for President.  She’s a liar and weasel with absolutely no record of achievement in any government job she’s had, whether that’s as U.S. Senator or Secretary of State.  No one can name a single thing she’s done except to be born a woman. That's her signature achievement.  

On the Republican side it’s anybody’s guess.

Trump is entertaining but can you really imagine him as President?  Carson’s the smartest guy in the race but too low key – plus it’s hard to take someone seriously who believes the Earth is only about 6000 years old.  Cruz panders too much to the pro-lifers, religious right, and xenophobes.  Rubio’s interesting but too in bed with the establishment and donor class, as is Jeb, in an election cycle probably focused on punishing the political establishment.    

Who is left?  Who cares?  And does it really make a difference?  Neither Republicans nor Democrats know what they are doing.  That’s also obvious.     

The last two Presidents prove my point. 

George W. Bush gets credit for bringing the country together after 9/11.  But he also got us into ill-advised and ill-planned wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that cost a trillion dollars for essentially nothing in return except to increase sectarian tensions in the region. Obama managed to make that worse by prematurely pulling out our troops and then vacillating on what we would do in the region, which opened the door to ISIS. 

In the end, George W. Bush was naïve to think the Middle East longed for democracy and wasted our blood and treasure to find that out; Obama’s lead-from-behind policies have made the U.S. appear weak in a world that only respects power and force.  

The naiveté of one and the arrogance of the other helped to advance Iran’s and Russia’s interests and prestige in the Middle East at our expense. 

Let’s turn to the economy. 

Both parties conspired to artificially increase home ownership. Both parties agreed the best way to do that was to allow more low-income people to qualify for mortgages. Bush was on board with this.  With his support Congress passed laws and Federal agencies enacted regulations that eased banking rules and lowered standards for loan qualifications.  This all led to the subprime lending crisis largely responsible for wrecking the economy.  

When the bottom fell out – as it was certain to do – Bush initiated the first of the financial bail outs.  Obama took over from there and squandered more than a trillion dollars bailing out GM and Chrysler, the banks and Wall-Street firms, keeping state and municipal employees from layoffs and expanding the public sector, and on shovel-ready jobs that never materialized. 

All of that money went down the tubes to try to rectify a wholly predictable disaster created and fostered by both parties.  For nothing. 

Many economists now believe the economy would have recovered faster and our national debt wouldn’t be as high if Bush and Obama had simply not intervened in the housing market, the banking industry, and bailed out GM and Chrysler which went through bankruptcy anyway.

What about healthcare? 

Bush managed to pass a costly prescription drug benefit we couldn’t possibly pay for. Obama went on to pass ObamaCare – which essentially destroyed the world’s most efficient healthcare system – and is proving to be a bottomless money pit.

It’s as Lewis Black once said:  The Republicans say “I’ve got a really shitty idea.” Then the Democrats say:  “Oh yeah?  Well I can make it even shittier!”

Don’t get me wrong. I liked George W. Bush and his family personally, but he wasn’t a very good President.  He respected the office and brought dignity back to the White House after the Clintons turned it into a kind of hillbilly whorehouse full of Jerry Springer wannabes. And for that he and Laura deserve credit.  However, in hindsight, he’ll be remembered more for his errors.   

I don’t like Obama and his family at all.  Obama’s not a very good President either.  In fact, by almost any measure he’s an awful President – where Bush at times came off as a shoot-first cowboy, Obama comes off as all hat and no cattle.   

For the life of me, I cannot understand why so many people still believe Obama will be remembered as one of our greatest Presidents, ever.  The best he’ll be remembered for is being the first black U.S. President.  Beyond that I’m at a loss to see his “greatness.” He didn’t rescue the economy, he’s piled up debt, he’s put more people on food stamps and disability, his ObamaCare isn’t working, he’s diminished our power and prestige around the world, he’s emboldened our adversaries, jeopardized our national security, and enacted policies that cut real household income dramatically. 

In any other universe he’d be run out of town.    

But I’m falling into the trap of ignoring the obvious. Truth is, nobody cares.  

The next election, despite what you may think, will not be a battle between Republicans and Democrats, or between liberals and conservatives. 

It will be among supporters of the status quo, nominally Republicans or Democrats, but essentially the same, much like vanilla and French vanilla ice cream. 

There are no revolutionaries in this battle.  Nobody is offering big, bold ideas to change the trajectory of the economy, the way government works, or how we defend ourselves against the barbarians at our gates or those already here. Nobody wants to take the risk of alienating anyone.

Well, except for Trump. But he’s a sideshow. He gets a lot of press by saying outlandish things.  The media love to give him the spotlight because – as the leader in the Republican polls – by association he makes all Republicans look like bigoted, obnoxious blowhards. Trump’s the best weapon anyone could ask for to turn off potential moderate and independent voters, which, for the record, make up the largest part of the voting public.

People support Trump because they hate the way the Republican and Democrat establishments are running the country.  They’re also fed up with political correctness.

It’s antiestablishmentarianism.  The population doesn’t want anarchy, but it wants serious, thoughtful change to a corrupt system.

I don’t see anyone running right now who is willing to pick up the challenge. 

Crybullies …

We should have expected this. 

All those precious little snowflakes – protected against every little hurt by adoring parents – are now in college and they’re having trouble adjusting. Apparently not everybody else recognizes how fragile they are and how easily their feelings can be hurt.

College was supposed to be a special place for these snowflakes. After they were ferried to all their lacrosse, soccer, swimming and other classes, and did their humanitarian projects to buff up their college apps, college was sure to welcome them with open, caring arms.  They expected a continuation of life with Mommy and Daddy – a place where everyone obsessed over them and their wishes; a place where never was heard a discouraging word.   

But they encountered mean people; people who disagreed with them.  So they did what always worked with Mommy and Daddy – they threw a tantrum. 

And just like Mommy and Daddy, college administrators bent to their wishes. College administrators made special provisions for these precious snowflakes so they wouldn’t have to hear hurtful words, see things that offended them, or made them think troubling thoughts. 

The snowflakes would now have the freedom to say or do whatever they liked, shut down anyone they didn’t like, and prevent others from violating their safe spaces.  And the college would back them up no matter what – whether that meant firing instructors, cancelling commencement speakers or events, or anything else they demanded for whatever real or perceived reason.     

Now the snowflakes are in charge.  Watch what you say or do or they’ll come after you. Freedom of speech is now entirely in their hands; they’ll decide what anyone can say or do.  And woe unto anyone who dares violate their safe spaces, which seem to be expanding all the time.   

Recently a college Yoga class instructor found that her classes were not being offered again because Yoga originated in India which some students thought had a history of repression of other cultures. So forget about stretching and meditation – that’s colonialism.   

A professor at another school who told students that it was okay to dress up at Halloween was figuratively dragged over the coals for being culturally and racially insensitive. 

One college’s administrative staff that staged a group photo dressed in sombreros and serapes to promote a Mexican food night on campus was forced to issue a heartfelt apology to the entire student body for disrespecting students of Mexican heritage. 

It’s bad enough that we all have to deal with the “black lives matter” morons who discover racism at every turn.  Now we have to deal with a “privileged, wealthy snowflakes matter” movement, too.  They both have much in common – manufactured outrage over minor events, an appalling disregard for facts,  intolerance of other points of view, and a “me-me” attitude that their feelings are far more important than anyone else’s rights.    

One difference is that the black lives matter folks aren’t worried about what happens next. Protesting is their full-time job; they’re at it all hours of the day or night, seven days a week.  That doesn’t leave a lot of other time for gainful employment, even if they were interested.  

Which they aren’t -- until minimum wage is raised to at least $15 an hour.        

But the snowflakes … ah, that’s a different matter. They’ve been brought up to believe the world is just waiting to fulfill their every desire. They fully expect after graduation to land a high-paying job, have great life-work balance, and plenty of time to produce their own family of precious snowflakes. Their parents have fed them this delusion all their lives.

Reality is really going to suck for many of them.  A major in Feminine Dance Theory or French Poets of the 16^th Century won’t bring big bucks in the job market.  They’ll encounter people who tell jokes and say things that offend them.  And Mommy and Daddy – and indulgent college administrators – are not always going to be there to kiss away all the boo-boos.     

In short they’ll have to deal with real life outside the cocoon on their college campus they’ve managed to construct through intimidation. The world outside their campus doesn’t give a rat’s ass about their feelings, and couldn’t care less about respecting their “safe place.”   

I can’t wait for these pampered pansies to get out in the real world, in real jobs, where their feelings are their problem and no one else’s concern.  I can’t wait for them to tell their coworkers and their boss the rules for their personal safe place, and what will and will not be permitted in it. I’d also like to be there the first time they try throwing a tantrum at work to get their way. 

Then again, none of those things might happen. They might never get a real job in the real world.  Maybe they’ll just stay on their parents’ couch after they graduate. 

That can be their safe place. 

“Immigration without assimilation is invasion.”

Bobby Jindal – the son of immigrants himself – recently said that. 

To be honest, that crystalizes the entire immigration debate. Especially over Obama's decision to allow 10,000 Syrian refugees to come to America

Many European countries have allowed unfettered immigration by groups that have absolutely no intention of assimilating into their new home. These immigrants will never learn the host country’s language, or adapt to its customs and laws or its culture. 

Instead, they will try to establish their own enclave, separate and distinct from the rest of that society. They’ll eagerly accept the generosity of the host, but insist that they are not bound by the rules that govern others in that nation. 

By Jindal’s astute description they are no longer immigrants – they are invaders.   

Does anyone really believe the hordes of “Syrian refugees” won’t fit that description?  Does anyone actually think what’s happened with Muslim enclaves in London, Belgium, Paris, and even in our own country won’t happen with these people as well? 

Look, I understand that we are a nation of immigrants.  I also know that many immigrant waves first clustered together here to bridge their transition into our society.  The Jews, the Irish, the Poles, the Swedes, the Italians and the Cubans all did that.  Over time, however, the overwhelming majority assimilated into the American experiment by learning our language, our laws and customs, and our culture, and becoming a part of American society.  They never gave up their heritage – they didn’t have to – but they adapted to fit in. 

There will always be places in America where people still speak Yiddish, German, Polish, Italian, Spanish or Hindi at home or among themselves. That’s part of who they are.   

On Calle Ocho in the Little Havana part of downtown Miami, for example, most of the store signs are in Spanish and English; that’s not required but simply makes good business sense – the shopkeepers don’t want to rule anyone out. Most of the people there are Cuban immigrants or the descendants of Cuban immigrants, yet are fiercely patriotic about the America in which they live.

Much of that is because many Cubans came here to escape Castro. America was a safe haven for them, and they never forgot that we opened our doors to them.  So when they arrived they were thankful for the opportunities and freedom America offered.  Today’s descendants of those Cubans may speak Spanish among themselves, but are also proud to speak English and be a vital, law-abiding part of American society.

I don’t see that happening with the proposed new wave of Muslim refugees.   

If recent history is any guide, the Syrian refugees will segregate themselves wherever they land and will not even try to assimilate.  That’s what they’ve been doing in Europe for years; I can’t imagine they’ll act any different if they come here. 

The Muslim enclaves In Europe have become hotbeds of hostility toward local law enforcement and major recruiting areas for would-be jihadists. Expect the same here, only now there won’t be an ocean between us and them, and once here, they’ll have the same freedom to move about the country every American enjoys.  So if they want to travel to, say, Times Square on New Year’s Eve, or Boston on July 4^th, there’s nothing to stop them and no one will be tracking them. 

Now, Obama and his spokespuppets say the majority of Syrian refugees we would be welcoming to America are widows and mothers with children. 

However, almost all the footage shown by the mainstream media of the Syrian refugees doesn’t support that.  It seems to me that the vast majority of Syrian refugees appear to be young males in their late teens to mid-30s. Most look pretty damn fit and well-clothed for having fled a war-torn country on foot and travelling across multiple countries.

In fact, they look like men who should be wearing a uniform and defending their land and families back home.  I don’t see a lot of guys who would flunk a military physical.  Nor do I see a lot of widows or mothers with kids in their midst. 

Next, the Obama administration says anyone opposed to dropping 10,000 of these supposedly destitute refugees into our towns and cities with no advance notice is heartless and cruel, and acting contrary to American values.

I think there’s one American value that trumps all others – keeping Americans safe.  We may be the most compassionate and generous nation in the world, but let’s not be stupid. 

These people have no desire to assimilate.  That makes them invaders. 

If Obama forces us to open our doors to these invaders he will have cemented his role as the only American President to commit treason.   

Downplaying the threat of Islamic terrorists

As expected the official line from Obama and Democrats is that the terrorist attacks in Paris were done by a mere handful of extremists acting on their own perverted interpretation of Islam. And we should not overreact to the actions of a few misguided individuals.

Soon we’ll also hear again that Islam is a “religion of peace.”  The bigger threat is global warming, not Islamic terrorism, they’ll add.  Wait for it.  

While the rest of the civilized world is still reeling from ISIS bringing down a Russian airliner killing hundreds of innocent people, and terrorists in Paris killing 129 more, Obama and his administration keep downplaying the threat here.

I do not understand why. I’m a reasonably intelligent guy. I follow the news.  Maybe it’s naiveté on my part, but I always presume our government officials do the same. 

After all the barbarity inflicted on innocents across the globe by ISIS, the Taliban and their affiliates like Boko Haram, how can anyone conclude these groups aren’t a threat to us? They’ve proven in France, Spain, the UK and elsewhere they have the means to strike anywhere. They recently claimed their next target is D.C.-- and Obama still won’t acknowledge the threat or why they’re doing this?  

The threat is real and much bigger than ISIS.  It is based on Islamic theology.  The terror attacks are being done exclusively by Muslims – not Christians, Jews, Hindus or any other faith. 

It’s all Muslims, all the time, of all nationalities, and upon all nationalities. That’s intentional.   

The only mystery is why Obama refuses to acknowledge that Western Civilization as a whole – us included – and other faiths are under attack by well-funded, well-organized radical Islamists who want to kill us all to fulfill an apocalyptic vision.

Hell, he can’t even call them radical Islamists. 

Obama knows what’s driving the Islamic terrorists and what their grand plan is.  Yet he continues to act as if ignoring all this will make it go away on its own. That’s his “plan.”

Even after the Europeans determined that at least one of the recent Paris terrorists migrated through Greece on a Syrian passport, he still wants to proceed with allowing 10,000 Syrian “refugees” to settle in this country.  Smart, right? 

Then again, he also blamed the slaughter of our diplomats in Benghazi on a video, claimed that suicide bombers arose from lack of employment opportunities, and referred to ISIS as the “JV.” On the same day that terrorists attacked Paris, he was on earlier to proclaim that ISIS was now “contained” and was actually weakening.

I guess that was comforting to the families of the 129 people killed – and over 200 wounded – in Paris later that same day. Nothing to worry about.  Obama says so.   

In simplest terms, the world is experiencing an Islamic Crusade, using today’s weaponry and technology coupled with levels of barbarity on a scale rarely seen in modern times.  Radical Islamists want to make the entire world their holy land and roll the clock back a few centuries.    

And we’re not just dealing with a mere handful of bad actors; we are confronted by tens of thousands of well-armed fighters and untold numbers of sleeper cells hiding among us, all admired and supported by millions of Muslims around the world. 

That’s right – they have broad support among millions of Muslims worldwide. Remember the Muslims dancing in the streets after 9/11?  It wasn’t just in the Middle East. Remember the jubilation among the Iranians – the same people we are now helping to build nuclear weapons?

Their hatred of us – and anyone else who doesn’t accept their version of 7^th Century Islam – goes way beyond our support of Israel, a stupid movie, lack of job opportunities, or global warming. They despise our core values and our tolerance of other religions, cultures, and beliefs. 

The radical Islamists’ belief system accepts slavery, pedophilia, rape, slaughter of innocents, and destruction of whatever they consider idolatry – whether that’s ancient temples or monuments from past civilizations. We don’t and that offends them. 

Do all Muslims believe as they do? No.

But enough of them do to put the wind behind the sails of these barbarians. Not just Middle Eastern Muslims, but Asian Muslims, African Muslims, European Muslims, and yes, American Muslims. Muslims from everywhere are flocking to enlist in this jihad or providing financial and other support for the cause wherever they are and however they can.     

Including murdering innocent people here and abroad. 

Make no mistake; millions of Muslims around the globe applaud what the radical Islamists are doing. To pretend it makes a difference that there are more “good Muslims” than “bad Muslims” to marginalize what’s happening is as stupid as thinking because there were more “good Germans” than “bad Germans” Europeans had nothing to fear from Hitler and the Nazis.

We know how that turned out.   

Obama keeps saying the terrorists have strayed from the “true” teachings of Islam – a religion of peace. As he was raised a Muslim, had a Muslim father, spent time in a Muslim country as a child where he attended Muslim schools, he knows that’s simply not true.

In fact, it’s utter bullshit. 

The terrorists’ Islam is not a new interpretation; if anything it’s the most traditional, essentially unchanged from the 7^th Century.  So Islamic terrorists today are just returning to Islam’s roots – a war against all other belief systems, where one either converts to Islam or dies.         

Unlike many other faiths, the original goal of Islam was conquest and subjugation of any and all non-believers.  Peace would only happen after an apocalyptic battle between the faithful and the infidels concluded and Mohammed returned victorious to rule the Earth. Then there would be peace because all the infidels would either be converted to Islam or dead. 

So all the barbarous acts we see have but one purpose: to draw all the nonbelievers into a massive, final war for all the marbles. The radical Islamists want us all to be so appalled and horrified by their atrocities that we can’t resist an all-out war with them. When that happens they expect all the other Muslims in the world to rally to their righteous cause.    

And they’ll win, fulfill the prophecy, and Islam will triumph. 

Obama knows this is their grand plan. It’s not a secret.   

It’s us or them.  Those are the table stakes.  So why does Obama keep soft-pedaling the threat?  He knows the attacks will continue and why they will likely escalate in ferocity. He knows precisely who the terrorists are and the common link they share. He knows the only real answer is to wipe out today’s terrorists and intimidate any would-be future terrorists. 

Yet he doesn’t seem to connect the dots.  Or maybe he simply puts his campaign promises and his “legacy” above the security and safety of all of us, and his role as leader of the free world. 

I’m starting to believe that’s the case. 

There’s also a growing realization even among his own party and the media that he has no plan to handle the threats.  He is increasingly peevish when asked for specifics.

It’s finally becoming obvious to all – including many of his supporters – that he is woefully incompetent, not just in managing domestic issues where he’s traditionally gotten a pass, but especially on the world stage where the United States must lead by example. He seems incapable, intellectually and emotionally, to deal with the barbarians at our doors. 

To defeat ISIS and their ilk, we cannot do it alone.  We need other countries to join with us, including moderate Muslim countries, but they won’t do that unless we show leadership.  If we aren’t in the fight full force, we can’t expect anyone else to join us. That means American boots on the ground, casualties, and unleashing the full weight of the American military to kill the terrorists wherever they are.   

We can’t fight that war at arm’s length and with zero collateral damage – which seems to be driving our current rules of engagement, according to military experts.  And also why we aren’t having any success.  We need a leader ready and willing to acknowledge that the threats are real and our very existence depends on killing – not negotiating with or accommodating --  the radical Islamists wherever they are using any means at our disposal.

Obama’s not that guy.   

Blue-state economics …

Here in Pennsylvania we have an interesting situation:  a newly-elected liberal Democrat governor and a more conservative Republican-dominated legislature. 

Make no mistake – this has become a solid blue Democrat state in recent years.  However, outside of the two major metros anchoring the eastern and western parts of the state, the rest of the state is pretty conservative.  Democrat strategist James Carville once derided Pennsylvania as Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Appalachia in between.

The “in between” often votes in Republicans as state legislators; the big cities and many of their  suburbs reliably vote in Democrats. 

In statewide and national elections the density of votes cast in the Philly and Pittsburgh metros – legal or bogus – increasingly outweighs the rest of the state. Sometimes the votes from these areas exceed the number of registered voters on the books but no matter.   

Voting in other parts may be different but in Philly inhabitants of vacant lots and cemeteries routinely cast ballots, and overwhelmingly for Democrats.  If you’re a Democrat and die here you want to be buried in Philly; that way you can remain politically active for years to come.   

But back to our current situation. 

Our new governor wants to hike taxes to pay for his campaign promises of more spending on education (read: bailing out the Philly schools); expanding social programs even more (read: more free stuff), repairing infrastructure (read: union jobs); and pumping more into state pensions (read: paying off public sector employees).  Oh, and he also promised to reduce property taxes. 

He’s a typical tax and spend liberal.  Practically everything he’s proposed is targeted to reward unions, public sector employees, fiscally mismanaged cities and townships, top-heavy failing school systems, and people who would rather vote for a living than work for a living.    

To pay for all this, he wants a 5% severance tax on natural gas and oil drilling, a hike of another buck on every pack of cigarettes, an increase in the personal income tax from 3.07% to 3.7%, and an increase in the 6% state sales tax to 6.6% for every place outside of Philly and Pittsburgh (Philly and Pittsburgh already have higher sales taxes) while also including more things – like professional services – subject to the sales tax. Republicans in the legislature have balked.   

Consequently we haven’t had a state budget for months.   

Republicans wanted to privatize the state-store system and get out of the liquor business – an extremely popular idea among just about everybody except the union that represents the state store workers.  Republicans also wanted to reform our out-of-control public sector pension program. They also wanted to prevent a severance tax on oil and gas drilling – one of the few growth industries for the state.

So here we are.  The governor has vetoed all the Republican plans.  The Republicans have rejected all the governor’s plans. 

But now there’s a breakthrough. The governor is putting aside the severance tax and the Republicans have tentatively agreed to increase the state sales tax to 7.25%.

Wait a minute.  The governor was asking for a sales tax increase to 6.6%.  Yet the Republicans agreed to a sales tax of 7.25%?  And that’s a good deal? 

They are still negotiating, so nothing’s final. But this alone should give you some idea of how blue-state economics work. Once the posturing is done, our taxes still go up.  

We’re all screwed.  At least, all of us who still work for a living. 

And in a blue state, that number gets smaller and smaller all the time.       

Ban the box …

This has been gaining momentum. 

Politicians want to eliminate the box on job applications that ask whether the applicant has a criminal conviction.  Obama has told Federal agencies to eliminate that check box; several states and many big cities like Philly also want to see it disappear.

Supporters of “ban the box” legislation claim it’s prejudicial. They believe a criminal record shouldn’t automatically disqualify someone from a job. 

Well of course it’s prejudicial. It does discriminate against people with a criminal conviction. 

There’s a remarkably simple solution:  don’t commit a crime in the first place. The probability of being convicted for a crime you didn’t commit is very small. Problem solved. 

We all see where “ban the box” is going. It’s right there with Obama’s decision to start releasing prisoners he feels shouldn’t still be doing time. It also follows the movement to overturn state laws that deprive convicted felons from the right to vote. 

Why is this suddenly such a big deal?  Speaking frankly, it has to do with race and politics 

We have a Presidential election coming up next year.  Democrats are worried about turning out their black base, especially since it’s likely their candidate will be a rich white woman with somewhat dicey credentials when it comes to black issues.   

Democrats need blacks that turned out for Obama to come out for Hillary.  Obama got upwards of 95% of the black vote when he ran; Hillary is a horse of a different color. She’s not black nor does she have the charisma Obama displayed on the campaign trail.   

In addition to worrying about his legacy, Obama has been criticized by black leaders for not doing enough for blacks even though blacks voted for him in overwhelming numbers. He hasn’t helped blacks with jobs.  He hasn’t done much about systemic black poverty. 

To connect the dots, consider this: Blacks are disproportionately represented in our prisons, accounting for almost 40% of prisoners while less than 14% of the general population.

With such a high percentage of blacks of all ages in the penal system – on probation, on parole, or still incarcerated – “ban the box” and restoring felons’ rights to vote have a lot of appeal to the black community. These also have great appeal to liberals who think our criminal justice system is inherently unfair – letting rich bankers and swindlers off the hook while doling out draconian sentences for “victimless” crimes like drug use and possession.   

Now, it’s actually pretty hard to get convicted of a crime anymore, especially a felony and especially if someone is a first-time offender. Prosecutors routinely try to plead-down cases wherever possible particularly in big cities to save time and clear their caseloads.

Felony possession charges get knocked down to misdemeanors all the time except in the most grievous cases. First-timers often get off with a warning or probation at worst.  In Philly, they don’t even get that -- there’s simply a fine for possession of small amounts of pot.  

Instead of trying to combat crime – or preventing crime – liberal politicians now want to do the opposite:  minimize the consequences of committing a crime.  In doing so, they are attempting to make criminal conduct an acceptable thing.  They are taking away one of the few remaining reasons not to commit a crime in the first place:  a criminal record. 

“Banning the box” is being presented as a way to give people who’ve made a mistake a second chance.  Well, there are mistakes – like driving without your headlights on.  But committing a home invasion is not a mistake.  Nor is embezzlement, arson, burglary, assault with a deadly weapon, attempted murder, or rape.  Nor is dealing heroin.  

These are felonies for good reason. When someone is convicted of a felony, it means a judge and possibly a jury have weighed the facts and determined based on the evidence that someone committed a serious crime, not just a mistake.   

As far as “second chances,” the reality is many people with criminal records have already had a second chance.  And a third chance.  And maybe a fourth chance.  Many started as a juvenile delinquent – excuse me, what Loretta Lynch and our Justice Department now call a “justice-involved youth” – and worked their way up to the big leagues. 

And now we shouldn’t hold any of that against them. 

This is insane.  And dangerous.  Would you hire a bookkeeper with a criminal record for embezzlement?  Would you hire a locksmith with a burglary conviction?  Would you allow someone with a criminal assault record to work at a nursing home? 

Apparently Obama and big-city politicians don’t see a problem with any of that. They think you shouldn’t either.

Soon you may not be able to ask about any prior convictions upfront. You will be allowed to ask in follow-up interviews, but even then, without a background check, how will you know?         

There’s an old adage among criminals that “if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.” In our new progressive world it may not matter as much.   

Creative destruction …

Innovation creates new opportunities. But it also often destroys whatever it replaces. 

This happens all the time in technology. 

DVDs made VHS tapes and players obsolete. Apple iTunes and music sharing changed how music is sold.  Online video streaming now threatens on-demand cable-TV services.  More homes are getting rid of their landlines for phone service, opting instead for Internet-based VoIP or cell phone service.

Since the rise of personal computers we’ve gone from file storage on tape cassettes (C64), to hard drives, to floppy disks, to Zip disks, to CDs, to DVDs, to USB thumb drives, and now to the cloud.  Each transition has left some manufacturers in the dust. Each transition also dramatically lowered the cost per MB stored for consumers.  

It also happens outside technology, although technology can accelerate trends.  

Newspapers took a hit from radio and then TV and now the Web. Local newspapers’ influence and profitability have waned as their circulation dropped dramatically and advertisers fled. Local print newspapers are becoming a curious anachronism, and most of their owners have yet to figure out how to make money in a digital world where most content is free.  As a result, print journalists are losing their jobs, as are pressmen, circulation managers and others tied to a business model that has failed to adapt to a changing world.

Walmart’s use of supply-chain technology allowed it to buy market share through consistently lower prices. In turn, Walmart’s lower prices and one-stop-shopping convenience have driven many small-town mom & pop stores out of business.  So, for a while, did big-box retailers.  Now online-only retailers such as Amazon are taking an increasing share of every retail sales dollar. Brick and mortar stores – including Walmart and the big-box chains – that long relied on location and low prices alone, are trying to catch up with their own hybrids of physical and online selling. 

The winners of all these changes are usually consumers. The losers are the less adaptable. 

The free market is a marvelous driver of this creative destruction. There always seems to be someone working on a new way to do something better, faster and cheaper. When they succeed consumers usually benefit, but someone else may suffer. 

It’s the purest form of economic Darwinism. It’s not the survival of the fittest, but the survival of the most adaptable to change. 

That’s not to say all creative destruction is immediately a zero-sum game. Yet in the longer term it usually is.  Someone wins; someone ultimately loses.

If you are a business on the losing end, it sucks.  If you’re a business on the winning end, it’s great – for a while, because sooner or later someone else will have the next great idea to replace the one you’re hitched to. When that next big idea hits pay dirt, you and your employees better have a backup plan or you’re all toast. You’ll be the last blacksmith in a town with no horses.   

Remember Blockbuster? CDNow? Dial-up modems?  FAX software? 8-track tapes?  Bag phones? Sony Walkman? Cassette-tape holders and CD/DVD racks?     

All gone.  All replaced with something better, faster and cheaper, or made unnecessary. 

And with their demise came job losses.

So creative destruction cuts both ways.  But it can’t be stopped. Change is inevitable, and change is often accelerated by competitive pressure and the rising cost of labor, resulting in the increased use of automation and robotics by manufacturers to cut costs, for example. 

Other times creative destruction fundamentally changes an entire industry.  In some cases, it eliminates whole classes of workers whose skills are no longer required.

Years ago there was an entire industry of highly skilled workers who manually manipulated images and artwork through such techniques as airbrushing and dot etching.  There was another industry of typesetters.  Yet another industry existed to produce “proofs” shown to a client for approval before pieces were printed.

They are all gone for the most part, replaced by graphic-design desktop software that allows designers to electronically adjust images, pour in and manipulate type, generate color PDFs for clients to approve in real time, and to produce final, print-ready files for printing.  Also gone are the people who once created “mechanicals,” drew “comps,” and operated stat cameras, as well.   

Now the same graphic-design software is cutting into the income for agencies and freelancers as more companies set up their own in-house design groups.  Change happens.   

On a separate front, the rise of the Internet and related tools means fewer commercial printers are still in business because more brochures and magazines are purely electronic as PDFs or web pages. That means fewer press operators, fewer bindery workers, and fewer print sales jobs, too. Businesses save by not printing; printers and their employees lose.   

It’s unfortunate when creative destruction costs jobs. But what’s the alternative?

Do workers have a right to jobs for which there is no longer a need?  Do businesses have an obligation to maintain workers who are not required?  Should government intervene to prevent creative destruction from harming workers? 

Progressives on the left – like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren – would say yes to all three of those questions.  After all, it’s not the workers’ fault their jobs disappeared.

But is “fault” even a relevant factor on issues like these?  Is the bigger issue not preparing for inevitable change? Whistling past the graveyard, in other words …

As much as creative destruction from innovation can be dramatically disruptive to the status quo, it rarely occurs with no warning. There are always pretty clear signs change is coming.

Amazon didn’t appear suddenly out of nowhere. Nor did Walmart.  Nor did personal computers.  Nor did online news media, desktop graphic-design software or digital printing.   Nor did FedEx, e-mail or any number of other innovations. 

There were always clues these would eventually change the way we work. 

Creative destruction only sneaks up on those who choose to ignore the signs, or think somehow they won’t be affected. 

And those who ignore its inevitability are destined to suffer the consequences.