************************************************************************

Liberals have declared an ideological holy war with Conservatives and are taking no prisoners

************************************************************************

To understand President Obama’s defiance in his State of the Union speech the other day as well as his acquiescence to hecklers at the U.S. Supreme Court recently, one must realize the current Liberal mindset: ideological jihad.

They have beliefs, many of which have been around for decades, that they hold to be the solution for whatever problem that may or may not exist. Never mind the fact that many of their dearest-held policies were never enacted or those that were, to put it kindly, did not work out as hoped for. Liberals will explain both as the citizenry not being wise enough to accept their policies or failure of a policy resulting from the mistake of its users, or a vast right-wing conspiracy, or George W. Bush. In the Liberal mind, they are never wrong; just misunderstood or wrongly opposed for evil reasons.

 The Islamic militant or American Liberal seek the literal or figurative destruction of their perceived enemies

_________________________________________

Given their unshakable faith in their ideology, they will do anything to enact and defend it. This includes silencing opposition whether through government (IRS attack on conservative organizations; special prosecutors in Wisconsin abusing campaign laws) or court decisions (the cause to overturn the Citizens United case that affirmed corporations’ right to free speech).

If an alternative view cannot be suppressed, the speaker is demonized by them (see: Obama, President; MSNBC). In the Liberal’s mind, far greater an existential threat to this country than a foreign enemy is a U.S. Conservative or Republican. In battle with Republicans, no prisoners should be taken, much unlike re-sets with Vladimir Putin and concessions to the Iranian mullahs, amongst other seedy characters. They rationalize that the ends of vanquishing Conservatives and Republicans to save the country from their policies justifies the unseemly means Liberals use. And with their power eroding as they just lost control of congress and could lose the White House in 2016, Liberals will become even more fierce, if that’s possible.

This no quarter mindset could not have been better admitted than by the editorial board of the NY Times yesterday when they advised Mr. Obama to “resist his instinct to follow the false promise of compromise. Give-and-take is part of the legislative process, but trade-offs amounting to Republican legislative triumphs are unacceptable.” To today’s Liberal, the only compromise that is acceptable is if things are done their way. So much for bi-partisanship that they ostensibly want. This is in stark contrast to the Times board’s position after the 2000 Presidential election was decided when they reminded Republicans to think about half of the voters who voted for Al Gore.

Elections have consequences only when Democrats win is now a Liberal article of faith.

-I.M. Windee

************************************************************************

Neither ideology nor rhetoric, whether from the left or right, causes murder

************************************************************************

The stunning assassination of 2 on-duty New York City policemen yesterday could not have been more of an affront to civilized society. Even a foreign enemy wading ashore can be better understood and dealt with.

The already high tension between the New York City police and Mayor de Blasio increased geometrically as evidenced by a statement by Patrick Lynch, president of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, who laid the blame for the deaths of the officers squarely at the feet of the mayor. “That blood on the hands starts on the steps of City Hall, in the office of the mayor,” he said.

But as the facts are rolling out, this seems to be yet another case of a maniac with a gun.

Killers like James Holmes (alias “Batman”) or Charles Manson are motivated by insanity, evil or both; not public discourse

________________________________________

“I’m Putting Wings On Pigs Today,” the now-deceased suspect apparently wrote on an Instagram posting, where he also referenced the death of Eric Garner, a black man killed in a confrontation with police on Staten Island. “They Take 1 Of Ours, Let’s Take 2 of Theirs.”

According to court records from Georgia, the suspect had a history of both crime and mental illness. This individual would’ve done something similar if he had to use overcooked pasta as an excuse.

Which gets us to the causation of, and reaction to, such atrocities.

While many are blaming the anti-cop atmosphere that started in Mayor de Blasio’s campaign last year and intensified since the non-indictment of police officers who killed an unarmed black man, the truth of the matter is that maniacs like the one yesterday and those who walk into schools or movie theatres and murder are motivated by mental illness or just plain evil.

After the Oklahoma City bombing, President Clinton, in fierce combat with Republicans, tried to slickly accuse right-wing radio for causing an atmosphere that motivated Timothy McVeigh to commit the atrocity he did. While not properly called out on it by a media that was agog over the first Democrat President since 1981, his accusation got no traction with reasonable, thinking people (the current line-up of MSNBC shrills was not around then).

Wrong, too, is the suggestion that de Blasio and many of his Liberal cohorts were a cause of yesterday’s barbarity.

The real harm, though, that President Obama, Mayor de Blasio and others who have tried to paint a Jim Crow mentality of white policemen is that the jobs of police will become much harder resulting in possible deaths because of a poisoned relationship between civilians and police.

While professional agitators like Al Sharpton may never get this message, seeming adults like President Obama and Mayor de Blasio should take such lesson from this tragedy.

-I.M. Windee

A recent book about General Sherman’s March to the Sea revealed that it was minimally destructive regarding human life but had a high impact regarding Southern morale and its will to fight (“Through the Heart of Dixie”, Sarah Rubin) and provides a lesson for President Obama and all of our political leaders regarding this country’s enemies today.

As Sherman put it: “This [march] may not be war but rather Statesmanship.” A march through the South’s heartland, he continued, would show the Union’s power to prevail, “leaving only open the question of its willingness to use that power.”  So it appears the citizenry’s reluctance to prosecute a worthy war is not confined to our times but has a long, rich history.

 

Earlier this year, Mr. Obama said to West Point graduates that “…U.S. military action cannot be the only — or even primary — component of our leadership in every instance……Just because we have the best hammer does not mean that every problem is a nail.”

This displayed the President’s ignorance that metaphorical hammers can be even more effective, and less destructive, when used for display purposes than their original intent. Theodore Roosevelt summed it up best by saying “speak softly and carry a big stick.”

It is breathtaking to think how much more stable the world would be (and people still alive) had Mr. Obama accepted that its bad actors only respond, at this point in human (d)evolution, to the threat of force. Some nails need the threat of a hammer.

The President would do well to learn from Sherman who while offically a gruff warrior turned out to be a statesman of the first order.

-I.M. Windee

************************************************************************

Government using law enforcement to fund itself is a far larger problem than police brutality

************************************************************************

The grand jury’s decision to not indict Ferguson, Missouri police officer Darren Wilson for shooting unarmed Michael Brown has re-kindled the usual discussion about race-relations in this country. But a larger discomfort with the police powers of government brews not too far below.

From the militarization of police departments to forfeiture laws that federal, state and local governments use and abuse, people at all levels of society have learned both to question as well as fear government’s motivations. To wit, while many in urban settings fear being physically roughed up, those in suburbia have another fear: the assault on our wallets.

Does your local police take credit card?

___________________________________________________________

Peace officers, as police are technically called, have been corrupted by politicians and converted into revenue officers; taxmen by a different name and method, with guns and ticket books. This is due, in large part, to the gargantuan growth of government caused by politicians.

No thinking person can claim that when an officer hands out a citation for something as benign as a light being out or not using wind-shield wipers or lights when it is drizzling, it is not in their mind that they are feeding the system, with other people’s money, that supports them. I always like to joke that you know you’re in trouble when you are pulled over by a policeman and the first things he says is “Do you know how underfunded my pension is?” This is why some years back Planet Jersey passed a law outlawing ticket quotas for police, as if such culture could be outlawed. It would probably make Henry Ford’s and the politicians’ of a century ago eyes bulge for them to see what a government revenue (wealth transfer) source the automobile has become.

While not as egregious as unwarranted physical assault, the confiscation of people’s property under the guise of public safety to the political class and well-connected (read: government-worker unions and their members) is also an attack on personal liberty, albeit not as publicized as police brutality which is thankfully far rarer and not institutionalized like law enforcement revenue enhancement.

-I.M. Windee

************************************************************************

Medtronic chooses to reward its shareholders instead of U.S. politicians

************************************************************************

Recently, Medtronic, famous for its high-tech cardiac and spinal devices, announced that it would acquire Dublin-based Covidien, which makes surgical tools and other medical supplies, and that the combined company will be domiciled in Ireland, practicing what is known as a corporate tax inversion which minimizes taxes paid to the U.S. government.

While Medtronic is making a business case for the deal, promising to find hundreds of millions in annual cost savings by moving overseas, there is no doubt that taxes are a major reason for the move to Ireland.

Senator Carl Levin continues to be aghast that taxpayers adhere to the tax code he has helped write and don’t effectively support congressional re-election campaigns

______________________________________________________

America’s federal corporate tax rate is 35%, which when combined with state and local levies rises to an average of nearly 40%. Ireland, on the other hand, has a corporate tax rate of 12.5%.

These smart business decisions have resulted in public floggings by Sen. Carl Levin’s investigations subcommittee on companies that legally seek to minimize tax bills.

While Senator Levin and his spendthrift colleagues claim they want U.S. businesses to “invest in America,” the dirty little not-so-secret is that U.S. taxpayers, whether individual, corporate, dead people’s estates or otherwise, do not “invest in the America” but in the politicians who need copious amounts of other people’s money to use as largesse for their electorate to remain in office. As stated previously (“Congress Says “Do As We Say, Not As We Legislate”, September 27, 2012), Mr. Levin and congress has the power to change the laws they created and make it beneficial to pay taxes in this country.

And it is a great irony that Liberals of Mr. Levin’s ilk are obsessed with the idea of too much money in political campaigns. Here’s a thought experiment: if the purists really want to keep money out of politics, how about factoring in the pork-barrel spending that congress does and then goes home and boasts to their constituency as a reason to vote for them?

It is doubtful, though, that they’d want to go after their own “bridges to re-election.”

-I.M. Windee

************************************************************************

Is any deal for a U.S. P.O.W. above debate?

************************************************************************

Akin to President Clinton’s perjury impeachment that was not about sex despite what Liberals claim, so to is the latest subject-changing when it comes to the recent U.S.-Taliban POW swap. Despite what Liberals say, people on all sides of the aisle could well be questioning its merits not for political but substantive reasons.

And a corrosive by-product to come from this debate is the attempted silencing by Liberals of anyone who is questioning whether we gave away more than we should have.

Despite what the MSNBC mob shrills, most people questioning the deal, including Conservatives, are all for bringing home all troops, prisoners included (regardless if they decided to stray into enemy territory to get a pizza or they were disillusioned by their government). But can there be a cost that is too high?

 

Would Bin Laden for Bergahl have been a non-debatable deal?

______________________________________________________

So there is always room for debate as to whether a prisoner swap was a good or bad one.

Liberals are just trying to cover for yet another foreign policy mess that President Obama has committed.

And as to Mr. Obama’s defense that “This is what happens at the end of wars,” in Warsaw, Poland recently, one can only thank God that this man was not in the White House in 1861 or 1941 as he would have declared the war over right after Gettysburg or Normandy well before such wars had actually ended, if he even went to war at all.

One of the greatest American politicians of all-time who defeated the vaunted Clinton Machine must accept that he cannot always win under his terms when he’s on the world stage, which is probably why he shies away from it.

-I.M. Windee

************************************************************************

Mayor De Blasio is near the dreaded 1%; a Planet Jersey government worker deplores a tax that helped pay him

************************************************************************

Recently, New York City Mayor De Blasio released his 2013 tax returns which showed he was near the top 1% in terms of income. Yet surprisingly, he had an effective tax rate of 8.3% which is near the lowest marginal rate of 5%. For a die-hard Liberal who is constantly obsessed over income inequality and whether the rich are paying their fair share, one must ask if he is paying enough when others in the 1% are paying an effective tax rate at least in the lower double-digits and yet are being flogged at the stake of public opinion by Liberals like Mr. De Blasio.

New York City Mayor De Blasio: an aspiring One-percenter 

********************************************

Recently, at one of the town meetings that Governor Christie attends (and unofficially earns a medal of honor for enduring), retired New Jersey State Trooper Scott Packwood expressed his disenchantment with the realty transfer tax he had to pay when he sold his house.

Yet Trooper Packwood likely had a long, multi-year payroll paid by the New Jersey taxpayer. This was in part supported by the realty transfer tax. And the tax of $5,435 that he laments paying would’ve been on a home sales price of over $600,000. No slum by any standard.

Retired New Jersey State Trooper Scott Packwood does not like paying a tax that helped pay for his compensation

Let us assume that Trooper Packwood and his colleagues are worth everything they are paid and perhaps even more.

The grisly reality is that somebody’s got to pay for them and the politician/government-worker complex built up and the double-edge sword is that government workers are taxpayers too, until the self-serving politicians decide they can buy votes and give them an exemption from paying taxes.

-I.M. Windee