IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY... WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?

Of all the things that are bought and sold in this country, there is one that you and I have probably never purchased. Partly because, We won't find it on the shelves at WalMart, Kohls, Target, or any of the other places that working-class Americans usually shop. However, if you book a flight into Dulles Airport or National Airport you'll be in the general vicinity of this rare commodity. It's just a taxicab ride away from either airport. A left turn here, a couple of right turns there, and before you know it you'll be at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, an old - but very spacious - residence. Yes, the White House is auctioned off once every four years to the highest bidder.

I was in the car the other day, listening to the radio as I drove, when I heard a newscast that proclaimed (and I am paraphrasing, I'm sure - but I'll use quote marks nonetheless), "Michelle Bachman and Rick Santorum are lagging far behind Ron Paul in fundraising..." blah, blah, blah. It was then that I was struck by the thought, "What does 'fundraising' have to do with the character (or other qualifications) of candidates to occupy the Oval Office, and why should it have any impact upon the electoral process?" Based upon our last presidential election, and those of the past 150 years, neither character nor "other qualifications" have anything to do with being elected. It's all about the money!

The next question raised in my mind was, "Where does that money come from? Their personal bank accounts? I'm sure a bit does, but where does the bulk of it come from? Could it be from those $10, $20 or $100 donations 'the little people' in the 'fly-over states' make individually?"

Here's the way I see it... the office of POTUS is bought and paid for primarily by corporate, union and PAC money. These entities don't consider it a 'campaign contribution'... their money is basically gambled on the candidate(s), and considered invested when they are elected. Perhaps John and Jane Q. Public, did out-contribute the big money interests $20 at a time, but... the hundreds of thousands of individuals who constitute John and Jane Q. are not easily identifiable! Who is easily identifiable are those corporations, unions, and PACs that invested tens of thousands (or hundreds of thousands, or millions) of dollars to make - for example - Barack Hussein Obama president of these United States.

Politics is like WalMart, in that you don't get much for $20 these days, or the "Big Three" motor companies - you don't get much of a vehicle for $15,000 any more (thank the UAW for that). But, they have to make up those campaign investments somehow, don't they? Oh sure... the federal election law prohibits contributions from corporations and labor unions. This prohibition applies to any incorporated organization, profit or nonprofit, and far be it from me to even suggest that there is anything that is not completely honest and aboveboard in the election process. However, there is a limit of $2,500 per election to a Federal candidate or the candidate's campaign committee.

Now, let us just suppose that - hypothetically - this month, January of 2012, every one of the 1,000 employees of XYZ Corporation gets a $3,000 "performance bonus". There is an unwritten caveat (admonishment) attached to that "bonus" though: $2,500 of it must be contributed to the corporation's presidential candidate of choice, and the remaining $500 is the employees to do with as he or she chooses. That gives the corporation $2.5M of investment in the election of their candidate. Unions and PACs can do the same thing, and I'm fairly certain that they have much smarter (and more devious) people than I, finding loopholes and back-doors that allow them to do so without technically violating the FEC laws.

Poor John Q. Public (or his lovely wife, Jane - to be PC) who toils for a living stands no chance of ever being elected to anything of greater importance than perhaps president of his local Rotary Club or Elks Lodge. The Public family lacks the personal money, prestige and financial/political connections to run for a federal, or even state, political office. Personal qualifications be damned! If we weren't born into big money, or personally accumulated big money, our government will always be controlled by those who DO have big money... their own, or that of someone else; some shadowy figure waiting in the wings for that eventual return on his/her investment. Big money has bought and paid for our government! Government of the people, by big money, and for big money...

Am I possibly cynical? Without a doubt! Is that cynicism justified? Inasmuch as it is my personal opinion, it is fully justified - in my own mind anyway, and that's the only place I really have to justify anything.

The preceding is not meant to convince anybody of anything, it is simply offered as a personal viewpoint. I could be as wrong as wrong can be... and the sun may not rise in the east tomorrow morning.

If you believe otherwise, I have a bridge in New York City and some very wet land in Florida that I'd like to offer you... at fair market value, of course.

Iran Sentences 5 More To Death in Postelection Civil Turmoil

The sentencing of five more opposition leaders to death brings the total number given an order of supreme sacrifice by Islamic justice to eight. This is not surprising given the Islamic culture of the Arabic countries.

It began almost 3,800 years ago during the reign of Hammurabi, a little-known (outside of Biblical and Legal scholars) King of Babylon. A man of his time - a time of violence and upheaval - he instituted the "Code of Hammurabi", the earliest-known example of a ruler proclaiming publicly to his people an entire body of laws, arranged in orderly groups, so that all men might read and know what was required of them. The code was carved upon a black stone monument, eight feet high, and clearly intended to be reared in public view.

The code then regulates in clear and definite strokes the organization of society. The judge who blunders in a law case is to be expelled from his judgeship forever, and heavily fined. The witness who testifies falsely is to be slain. Indeed, all the heavier crimes are made punishable with death. Even if a man builds a house badly, and it falls and kills the owner, the builder is to be slain. If the owner's son was killed, then the builder's son is slain. We can see where the Hebrews learned their law of "an eye for an eye." These grim retaliatory punishments take no note of excuses or explanations, but only of the fact--with one striking exception. An accused person was allowed to cast himself into "the river," the Euphrates. Apparently the art of swimming was unknown; for if the current bore him to the shore alive he was declared innocent, if he drowned he was guilty. So we learn that faith in the justice of the ruling gods was already firmly, though somewhat childishly, established in the minds of men.

There were 282 of these "laws" established in the code, most of which call for a penalty of death if violated, which today's western culture views as outrageously cruel. But there was no "western world" known at that time. The Code of Hammurabi is the foundation of all law in the majority of middle eastern countries. Add to that Muslim sharia law, which is itself draconian in nature, and you have a recipe for extreme punishment for what westerners would consider relatively minor offenses.

During the period of unrest and civil disturbance following Iran's recent questionable election, the only fatalities were inflicted upon the opposition by the government security forces. Those prisoners identified as being members of the opposition were, for the most part, charged with civil disturbances and property crimes (vandalism), neither of which would warrant the death penalty in any civilized society. But sharia "law" is a law that punishes victims of crime as quickly as it punishes the criminal.

Where is the world's outrage against such extreme penalties for relatively minor violations of law? Where are the bleeding heart liberals? Where is the loud voice of the international press? Where is a statement deploring these Draconian punishments from the President of the United States? Why are these actions treated by most as a footnote rather than a headline? This is the 21st century, not the 16th century BC!

It's Been An Interesting Week...

"May you live in interesting times." That statement has been described as both an old Chinese blessing and an old Chinese curse. We may be wondering if anyone w0uld really want to live in uninteresting times, or we may be wondering if that utterance carries a more ominous, hidden meaning. There has been significant discussion over that short phrase, including attribution to that little corn inspector, Confucius.

In the first case the clear implication is that 'uninteresting times', of peace and tranquility, are more life-enhancing. The "hidden threat" theory implies that the wish is actually one of "May you experience much upheaval and trouble in your life."

While purporting to be a blessing, this is in fact a curse. It is widely reported as being of ancient Chinese origin, but is likely to be of recent and western origin, although it seems to be intended to sound Chinese, in the 'Confucious he say' mould.

The earliest citation that has yet come to light is U-Turn, a short story by Duncan Munro (one of the pen names of Eric Frank Russell), 1950:

"For centuries the Chinese used an ancient curse: 'May you live in interesting times!' It isn't a curse any more. It's a blessing."

It could be that Russell coined the phrase himself... or he may have heard it elsewhere. Nevertheless, we do live interesting times. Case in point:

1. Congress appears on the verge of some major law making, as the House yesterday passed legislation that would make it a crime to assault people because of their sexual orientation. Are we about to criminalize people's thoughts - and verbal expression of those thoughts - on one hand, while simultaneously creating a specially protected class within our "classless society"? What happened to "Equal Protection Under The Law"? I can't wait to hear the outcome of the first court challenge if this actually becomes law!

2. Barack Obama, speaking on the eve of a major gay-rights march, told gay supporters on Saturday he would fight for their causes and renewed a pledge to end restrictions on their service in the U.S. military. Obama, who was referring to the policy prohibiting openly gay people from serving in the U.S. military, was seeking to shore up his support among gays and lesbians who backed him strongly during last year's presidential campaign. These first two items sound more like payback for political support, than decisions that are morally, ethically, or legally correct.
Many gay activists are frustrated Obama has not moved more quickly to carry out promises, such as overturning the "don't ask, don't tell" policy and repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars the federal government from forcing states to recognize gay marriage (the laws governing marriage fall under the purview of "States Rights" inasmuch as the 10th Amendment to the Constitution does not specifically give that right to the federal government).

3. Obama had the class to admit that he didn't deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, but not enough class to refuse it... and the $1.4 million that goes along with it, for doing absolutely nothing!. On top of that, we get to pay for his round-trip flight to Norway to accept it!
He got it for his campaign promises! They should rename it the Nobel Appeasement Prize!

4. The White House is still pushing hard for amnesty for as many as 20,000,000 illegal immigrants (I can still call them "illegal", right? It won't be a "hate crime" until it becomes law... supposedly). Even with the threat that as many as 50,000 doctors will quit medicine, the socialists continue to push. With 50,000 fewer doctors, from whom does our Congress expect the 20,000,000 extra patients to get their medical care?

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that you have the right to never be offended, unhappy or just plain pissed off. The Constitution only guarantees opportunities... and then, only for those who are motivated enough to take advantage of those opportunities. Opportunity is the only thing one is entitled to for simply taking up space on this planet. Seeing that opportunity and taking advantage of it is up to the individual. It is not the responsibility of society to force feed it to them!