MSM easier on jihadists than Christians

The despicable terrorist act that Major Hasan committed was no doubt awful. Our prayers go out to the families that have lost their loved ones. Outside of his heinous act what is also disturbing is the media’s treatment of the role that his religion played. Let’s be honest with each other and understand that his religion did play a role in his decision to kill innocent soldiers. How could it have not played a role? In order to understand this point, let’s look at religion in another context.

Dr. George Tiller was murdered in May of 2009 by Scott Roeder, a crazy nut. The media had no problems talking about how Roeder’s radical actions and his radical beliefs played a role in his decision to murder Dr. George Tiller. In not so many words Roeder should be condemned for what he did and he should and will face the consequences of his actions in our legal system. Regardless of whether someone is for or against abortion does not give that someone the permission to take the life of another simply because they disagree. Roeder made a decision to end the life of a human being because he disagreed with Tiller’s actions. Roeder’s radical religious beliefs obviously played a role in his decision to end a life. How could Roeder’s radical beliefs not be an important part of his decision? Ponder this for a moment.

Now back to Major Hasan. His radical beliefs must have played a role in his decision to murder these soldiers. How does one thin He fundamentally hated the USA and in his own way declared jihad on American soldiers. Let’s stop tip toeing around the role radical religion played in this horrible terrorist attack.

When the FBI and the Army already had information that he was a radical, this

Obama squeezes the grocery clerks

“What’s good for grocery clerks is good for America,” proclaimed David Peterson in a Denver Post opinion piece on June 8. Peterson cleverly echoed a similar claim about General Motors from days gone by, but his well-intentioned article was lacking in reality. He says, “In countering recessions, there are but two antidotes: Either increase government spending or increase private employment and income. Either has the same effect: Because of more income, there is an increase in aggregate demand and as more factories and companies begin producing again, the feedback loop turns positive.”

His article goes on to say that companies that can afford to raise wages, such as Kroger, should do so because it will help the company in the long run. Peterson states too many companies are laying people off because of the short sightedness of the CEO’s. This view actually perpetuates a recession. While his article advocates private sector involvement versus government involvement, which I agree with, he fails to account for one of the reasons for the layoffs. Let me explain…

CEOs are by nature visionaries and forward thinkers. Their primary job is to protect the bottom line and create value for the shareholder. One of the main reasons there are negotiations on labor contracts and layoffs are because of the impending tax increase on all businesses by the Obama administration. Wait a minute, you say, the federal tax for the highest earners -- keep in mind this is true for S-corps, LLC’s, etc… as these are pass thru entities -- is ONLY going up by 4.6 percentage points from 35% to 39.6%. But do the real math. This is 13% more money out of your pocket in taxes. If you make $100 that you make, instead of the current $35 in taxes, you will now pay $39.60. That extra $4.60 is an increase of 13% on what you used to pay. Make sense?

So now in light of that, companies are realizing that they are going to have to do more with less. Companies’ available cash to pay employees, expenses, etc will go down because of these new taxes. This impending tax code is no incentive for companies to hire more people. Any smart business owner is working as fast as possible to protect the interest of the shareholders. Companies are laying off people preemptively before this tax increase comes down the pike. In an altruistic sense, it would be great if healthy companies paid more but these companies realize in a short time that they are going to be penalized by the government. In other words, the wage payer is getting punished by the wage earner. Wake up America!

As Lincoln so eloquently stated,"You cannot help the poor, by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak, by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity, by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up, by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man, by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage, by taking away men's initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently, by doing for them what they could and should, do for themselves."

Govt. car ads & other flagrant fouls

Watching the NBA finals, you couldn’t help but notice the new GM commercial. What has American business come to? We have a company that owes people and companies billions of dollars and is now in bankruptcy. The majority of this company is now owned by us the taxpayers. Does anyone find it ironic that of the billions of dollars owed to their creditors over 160 million is owed to ad agencies? I wonder what ad agency is now doing these commercials and getting paid while the other ones are likely never going to get paid. That’s right; it’s the White House doing these commercials with their own camera crew. My frustration does not lie in the fact that GM is in bankruptcy but the fact that this answer could have been arrived at much sooner. The government should not be in the business of running companies. When the government decides to run a business they always have constituencies to look after, which is the antithesis to capitalism. Remember the definition of capitalism according to Webster is, “an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.”

In this case, the union workers and retirees were taken care of at the expense of the bondholders (some of whom were other retirees). All though the government says that it does not want to have their hands in the day to day operations of GM, we all know that will not happen. The US government is going to have a seat on the board. This tells me that the government will definitely be giving direction to what cars will be made. If this is the case, we will soon have cars that none of us want.

My impression of this administration was that it was going to seek to be “fair”. Their actions with GM leave no impression of fairness. At the end of the day, the administration will seek to keep their constituents happy regardless of the business sense that these policies make. Just as sports reveal character, so does the current policy of the White House. I might add that this policy is lacking in character.

Insanity of higher CAFE standards

Here we are again, faced with another cramdown policy by the misguided but ever hard-charging President Obama . This time it’s raising fuel-economy standards. Instead of waiting until 2020 to increase the standards, now the President is saying 2016. I think he really wants all the car companies to go out of business. Now before you criticize me by saying I’m not a friend of the environment, let me say that I am a conservationist but at the same time I’m not in the business of making decisions rooted in untruth. Let’s take a look at what previous fuel standards have accomplished. Since 1975 we have had fuel efficiency standards, but they have done little to help reduce carbon emissions. In his book Spin Free Economics, Narmin Behravesh demonstrates the inefficiency of these standards. Here is an excerpt from his book:

“To begin with, they (fuel efficiency standards) don’t necessarily reduce total fuel consumption. In fact, more fuel efficient cars can, perversely, encourage more driving. Similarly, while the mpg per ton of cars has improved about 20 percent in the United States in the last two decades, average car weight has risen ( heavier vans and SUBs now account for half of all light-vehicle sales, compared with 20 percent in the 1980’s), so the mpg per vehicle has actually fallen about 10 percent.”

Wait a minute here; is Behravesh saying that fuel efficiency has decreased? That is exactly what he is saying. Is not the definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results? So if the goal is to decrease carbon emissions would it not make sense to do something different instead of the same thing over and over?

I’m not writing to propose an alternative to the fuel standards, but to show the ineptness of the government’s policy. But perhaps a solution to not only this problem but many others would be that of a consumption tax. Talk about fairness, this eliminates the IRS and you only pay for what you use. But I digress. The point is, insanity is not good policy.

Obama's harsh retribution

When the word retribution is talked about amongst friends, family, or co-workers, it does not have a positive connotation. According to Webster, retribution means something given or exacted in recompense. With all its harshness, this is the only word I can think of that does justice to what the Obama administration is doing by releasing very sensitive information from the CIA about interrogation techniques used on terrorists. I still have not heard a compelling reason as to why the Obama administration felt compelled to divulge this information.

To actually have the gumption to consider prosecuting former Bush administration officials is unprecedented. If this is such a forward looking administration why must they continue to look back on the “mistakes” of the past administration?

I wonder how Americans would feel if they knew these interrogation methods saved their lives from further attacks. Furthermore, what message does this send and what type of example does this set for future administrations?

But perhaps the most critical argument: how are people that are supposed to be working on keeping our country safe -- CIA agents, lawyers, etc. -- going to do their job effectively if they feel the constant threat of future retribution upon themselves?