Archive for the ‘Dictatorial Government’ Category

EPA AND DOE RULES HARM THE ENVIRONMENT

July 21, 2015

For years now, I have been ranting about the rules, regulations, edicts and other mandates made by the government (3 administrations) that do more harm than good for the environment, human dignity or mankind in general. Now it is beyond nervous laughter. It’s serious.

There is a very wide gap between reasoned conservation and ludicrous power wielding. Yet, the ignorant enthusiasm of environmentalists and government know-naughts allows them to jump that chasm with closed eyes.

Forests throughout the West burn violently each year sending almost as much pollution into the air as the fleets of jets and limos headed for an Al Gore spearheaded global warming convention. The fires kill wildlife, cause some to flee their natural habitat and make some furry creatures invade residential areas or regions where there is no food to sustain life. Beyond the immediate, it takes decades for the devastated territories to regain their life sustaining camouflage and nourishment. Why? Simply because a few misguided individuals believe that thinning trees and clearing a forest floor disrupts nature and harms the natural ecosystem.

Thus, brush clearing is prohibited in many areas. Thank you to the EPA and the dunderheads who lobby for untenable environmental controls.

Water conservation activists campaigned heartily for low flow shower heads and low volume toilets to save the valued and limited supply. Yeah, that’s working well. In order to get the shampoo out of your hair, you now have to stand and let the water gently trickle across your scalp for about a day and a half. Then after rinsing, according to the instructions on the shampoo bottle, you must repeat.

And the toilets today. Low volume = double flush. That means about one and a half times the water it used to take. Additionally, after the second flush and fill you have to use a brush and clean the bowl. That may mean an additional flush to clean the brush. Low volume toilets are working well, too.

Singer, Sheryl Crow, once suggested at a global warming affair that a “one square” restriction be imposed for every porcelain throne event. She failed to grasp the concept of water needed to clean the crap off your hands after using the one square. Eh, that can be written off as an unintended consequence. Save a tree, lose an agricultural field.

So now, according to The Hill.com, the Department of Energy (DOE) is proposing a 3.1 gallon limit on each dishwasher load. The link above illustrates the results of ignorant government bureaucrats setting unreachable goals and mandating their compliance.

I don’t care if you cause sparks to fly and wires melt at every wind driven or solar powered electrical generating station in the nation to super-heat the water for your dishwasher. After killing the bacteria you need to rinse it away or consume it in the future.

Advertisements

MANDATORY VOTING

March 21, 2015

On Mar. 18, 2015, Obama proposed that it might be transformative if everybody was mandated to vote. (Anything, anything, that changes the structure of this great nation that he seems to dislike is a good thing in his mind.) He said it should be easier to vote, not harder. That pesky Constitution of ours might make mandatory voting a problem. But that doesn’t really seem to be a hurdle for him.

Yes, it would be great if more people took the time to absorb the information necessary to make a cognizant choice at the polls. However, the majority of people today are so self-absorbed that they don’t read the news or follow what happens in the political world. Reading is a real struggle for over 40% of high school graduates. And, how can they pay attention to informative programs when Triple-Headed Magnetic Robots from the Planet Zoom-Zoom is available on YouTube or the latest celebrity is trending on Facebook?

Obama wants them to vote because they are easily influenced. If party “D” tells them everybody will get free stuff and that party “R” is racist, bias, mean-spirited, wants to burn their churches and demean the women, then party “D” has captured a voter. That’s what he wants, nothing else.

He said, “Disproportionately, Americans who skip the polls on Election Day are younger, lower-income and more likely to be immigrants or minorities”. He speaks not, necessarily, about legal immigrants. He seems interested just in the low-income, low-information, low-motivation population who can be commanded by a few sound bites endlessly memed over twitter.

By contrast, I suggest that we make it a bit harder for people to vote since the ignorance of some can have a devastating effect on us all. Perhaps a civics test to acquire a voter registration card is in order. Definitely, proof of citizenship should be enforced.

Why should our elections be decided by those who only want to take money and benefits from various government agencies?  Right now they outnumber those whose performance and tax contributions fund the government. It is one reason for the continued deficit that is driving us toward the bankruptcy of Greece and struggles of Italy with spending at 115% of GDP.  Why should our elections be influenced by foreigners who may return to their home country once the election outcome is announced?

The money that goes into elections is simply to manipulate the pliable minds of the uninformed, thus undecided. Making voting mandatory will not reduce the billions spent on elections, it could well increase it. The need to make some people accept lies and to dominate the mush minds of many can be costly. The greatest marketing tool known is saturation, because there is an implied credibility with repetition.

Once again, Obama has it all wrong!

COURTS AND IDIOTS

March 7, 2015

Both of Obama’s signature Marxist moves, Obamacare and Amnesty-for-All, are due to face some strong headwinds this year. Court challenges will stall them for a time. Public opinion on the other hand, not so much.

A February Rasmussen Report shows that across a broad realm of Gruber’s finest, 26% believe that the president should have the ability to ignore adverse court decisions if he wants to. That figure is 43% among a self-defined Democrat subset. Another oblivious 15% cannot comprehend the consequences and are vulnerable to vote for elite legal disobedience. These blind and ignorant fools are willing to empower a tyrant!

Many of these idiots will be drawn to the polls with cigarettes and candy. As long as public schools turn out uneducated bobbleheads, it will only get worse. The promise of more free stuff will cause them to vote Democrat until they realize, if they ever do, that fair and equal really means subpar and indentured.

Get out the bailing buckets, folks. This ship is sinking fast.

THE CONSTITUTION V. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

January 3, 2015

There are ways for government to benefit the citizens.  The U.S. Constitution delineates those ways.  There are also ways to build a government that controls the citizens.  Governing via the teachings of Karl Marx is one such way.

We, of the current retiree generation, had the opportunity to see government work in ways that provided conditions rewarding education, hard work and personal responsibility. We are now seeing the very opposite. We, as everybody should, are seeing a government that remarkably defeats those conditions.

The continuing under-education of our children and grand children is evident when the large picture is viewed. Where the United States was once touted as being #3 across the three important academic categories of Math, Science and Reading, and striving to become #1 in all three, today’s picture is quite different. Math/Science/Reading These charts show our current rankings. Math/Science/Reading 2010 shows the standings as of 2009. There was a brief comeback in 2009 and the U.S. was rated #19. We now rank #26 across the three academic disciplines and the downward spiral continues.

The growing government involvement in education over the past 5 decades indicates enlightenment through public education is not promising for future generations. Today’s and future students will know all about how man has changed the environment, but won’t know how to remedy the change. They will know how to put a condom on a cucumber and where to go for an abortion at 11 years old if the condom fails in real life. They won’t, however, be able to count back the correct change if the power goes out at your local fast food restaurant.

Hard work – forget about it. Those born in the 1980s and later are taught that success is axiomatic with attempt. If you say you tried, you get a good grade in school, pass the class and advance. Translating that ethic to the workplace is not possible and many choose to take unemployment insurance, Welfare, WIC, SNAP and EBT payments as entitlement for trying.  The government encourages it.

With the collapse of the aerospace program in the mid-1970s, laid-off, highly educated engineers took jobs in retail and fast food industries to support their families and pay the bills until jobs in their professions again became available. Some even became “trash men”.  Any job was worth working. Welfare was a last resort. Pride and ethic caused them to continue striving.

A strong central government with tyrannical leaders is not the right direction for the longevity of this nation or our people. We need to re-read the Constitution, reading it for its intended content and meaning, not for how it can be interpolated to fit a Marxist/socialist agenda. Let us once again allow individuals and states the responsibility for achieving self respect, self improvement and economic betterment and return the government to governing.

I wish you a great new year and hope more informed and reasoned voting is possible in the coming elections.

TOO MUCH POWER, TOO LITTLE CONSTITUTION

December 15, 2014

Whether you agree with or disagree with the broadening power the federal government is assuming almost daily, you must think to the future. The nuclear option the Senate now employs works well when it is used for something with which you agree. It will, however, work against your ideals just as quickly.

You might favor the ballsy overreaching executive orders of this president, but what happens when the next president, with whom you disagree, uses the same usurped authority? What prohibits the next president from unfairly endowing himself or herself with greater jurisdiction and seizing more of your rights, privileges and property by executive order?

Future Attorneys General might also selectively enforce laws duly voted on and passed by congress. They could just as likely forgive favored associations, politicians or political party injustices resulting in precedent for ongoing defaulting or disregarding the law.

What happens when the president, with his or her party controlling both houses of Congress, nominates agenda bound, partisan, politically driven “wing” radicals to the Supreme Court…for life? Might they garner favor of the president with servant like submission of their rulings?  Perhaps they, too, might rule unchecked and defiantly out of contempt when there is a change in the dominant party or chief executive?

The founders created a government with three co-equal branches to assure there would be slow and deliberative debate before implementing new laws, regulations, taxes, etc.  They foresaw local and regional justices having the opportunity to settle matters before a panel of nine ruled with an irrevocable decision.

Two legislative branches exist for the sole purpose of protracted and reasoned debate when consensus cannot be reached immediately. Bills are meant to be passed back and forth between the two houses, massaged and amended as necessary until agreement is reached. They are then forwarded to the president for final signature. The process is intentionally slow to avoid irreconcilable mistakes (aka unintended consequences).

In their proposal, the chief executive has the power of line item veto to correct any misgivings of bills reaching him or her for signature. Recommending amendments to bills before affixing his or her signature making them law is also an option accorded to the chief executive. They did not want the executive or legislative or the judicial branch to have unlimited, excessive or undue influence over the others or the citizenry.

The average lifespan of democracies, historically, is about 200 years. Given that our Constitution was ratified in 1788, our republic now covers 226 years. As a nation, we are in the throes of death. Radical adjustments must be made soon to save what we have or we have to prepare to accept the consequences of inaction.