The Religious Right or Religious Rights?

If you have been following the news, you may have seen the uproar over Indiana’s new Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Listening to celebrities like Miley Cyrus and Aston Kutcher you might get the idea that Indiana had just signed anti-gay and lesbian laws into effect. Well, that only shows how uninformed and off-the-wall celebrities can be.

While we might be able to overlook knee-jerk reaction by celebrities that have little knowledge of the real world, it is inexcusable for someone like Hillary Clinton to go off half-cocked. After all, it was her husband, Bill Clinton, who signed a federal RFRA law in 1993 after 97 of the 100 US Senators voted for it.

Here is the text of the Indiana law: A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

Nineteen other states have similar RFRA laws as well. So what makes Indiana’s law so onerous?

According to some wordsmiths, the language in the Indiana law gives broader powers to include corporations and businesses to practice their religious beliefs universally. They carry this idea to mean that businesses and chains can discriminate against the GLBT community through a religious exemption. Indiana’s Governor, Mike Pence says it isn’t so.

The Weekly Standard writes,  “Indiana's RFRA does not grant a license to discriminate. First of all, the state of Indiana, like 28 other states, has never prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation at public accommodations. Even without such laws in most states, discrimination doesn't commonly occur because the United States is a nation that is tolerant of gay people and intolerant of bigots. Mean-spirited actions by a business owner anywhere in the country would almost certainly be met with a major backlash.

“It is true that several local ordinances in Indiana prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but RFRA does not declare that those ordinances are invalid if someone requests a religious exemption. Again, RFRA simply establishes the balancing test courts must apply in religious freedom cases.”

Frankly, I can’t see why there is such a problem with people practicing their religious beliefs. After all, the First Amendment to the US constitution clearly states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; […].

But what happens when Muslims want to practice Sharia law? Should we allow stoning and forced amputations? Should a woman be stoned to death because she was raped? Should Wiccans be allowed to 'sacrifice' live animals? 

Well, the Indiana law, along with other RFRA laws, provides an out for these radical religious actions. The law allows the government to prohibit religious actions if it harms an individual or is a detriment to government interests.

As for discrimination, every state in the country, including Indiana, has laws against discrimination for any number of reasons including gender preference. I applaud Indiana for joining the ranks of nineteen other states and the US code in reinforcing the rights clearly spelled out in the first Amendment allowing every individual to practice their religious beliefs.

I have to wonder if Democrats had promoted this legislation, would there have been any demonstrations? Well, the answer is probably no since Bill Clinton and Democratic Senators already signed similar legislation, and not a peep was heard. I guess it’s only wrong when it’s Right.

Time Thieves

I’m sure you have, at one time, wished for a do-over on something that didn’t quite turn out to your satisfaction. I know I have … many times. In fact, there are major portions of my life I would like to relive again. It might be safe to say, those were a waste of time.

But what does that mean? Out of curiosity, I sat down with a calculator and went through some computations to get a perspective on wasted time. The results were an eye-opener.

According to the World Health Organization, the average life expectancy for a male living in North America is 77.2 years. The ladies do a little better at 81.2 years. To put that in more familiar format, men are allocated approximately 676,272 hours of life: Women get 711,312 hours to do whatever they do with their lives. (Some might say nagging men to death, since the men die earlier. But that could be a subject for another column.)

I’m sure we all strive to live life to the fullest, but do we really mean it? There is a large chunk of this life allotment that we have little choice in “wasting”. If you are like me, I like to get 8 hours sleep. That is a full 1/3 of my 676,272 life-hours – 255,198.5 hours – spent with my eyes closed doing nothing productive. We all spend 183,960 hours in childhood (assuming 21 years), much of which is tied up in school. If you are lucky enough to get a 40-hour a week job at age 21 and plan to retire at age 65, you will have spent 88,000 hours dong whatever someone else pays you to do. So, what do I do with my “free” 149,113.5 hours?

That is a hard question to put a firm number to. Much of life allotment has been and will likely continue to be spent on the freeway looking at brake lights in front of me? That too is probably not very avoidable.

How would I like to spend the rest of my “free” time? Given a preference, I would love to spend more time with my family, fishing, hunting, riding, or camping. Do I do it? Well, no. Somehow, I can’t seem to find the time to do much of what I would like to do. There is always something needing to be done around the house, “projects” that suck up a good bit of my time – whether finished or not – and then there is always time spent doing something for someone else.

You too? Now add time spent on the recent invention of “social network.” It used to be if we had something to say to a friend or relative, we would call on the phone. We might even meet them and discuss things over a beer or two. Now it’s texting, twitter, facebook, or any of the other computerized time thieves. For some reason many, increasingly more people seem to think they have to be in touch with their friends or family every waking hour of the day. If they aren’t tied up texting or tweeting, they are wearing out their thumbs playing on-line games.

Sound familiar? How many “spare” hours of your life, do you have to spend on things you don’t really enjoy doing?  If you were given the like amount of time in dollars, how would you spend them knowing that is all you will ever have? There are no credit cards to give us extra hours in our lives. The numbers of hours you get are all you will ever have.

Looking back on it, I have many regrets in the way I spent my life hours. When I was young, I viewed my life hours much like I would have if they were dollars. If I had a huge stash, it wouldn’t matter to waste a few … then a few more …. But of course, how many young people ever contemplate their life hours? The older I get, the more I think about it.

In the event reincarnation is real, though, I should probably make a note to my next-life self: Take good care of your life hours; there aren’t enough to waste on time thieves.

The Speech We Might Not Have Heard

I had the distinct pleasure today – no thanks to Emperor Obama – of listening to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu address a joint session of the American Congress. It is indeed a sad situation when a meeting of this importance has to be brokered by the Speaker of the House and not our top executive, Barack Hussein Obama.

After listening to Mr. Netanyahu speak, I soon realized why the President and Secretary of State were so against this meeting. It wasn’t because of the perceived “snub” or the timing of the speech with the Israeli elections. The reason for the Obama administration’s disapproval of the speech could only be that Israel has a legitimate dissent against the “bad, very bad” agreement brokered by the US with Iran over their nuclear program.

As a country, the US doesn’t have many real friends in the Middle East. We do business with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Oman, and a few others, but Israel is our one true friend in that part of the world. And no wonder; all of their neighbor countries are out to annihilate them. Israel’s worst enemy, though, is without doubt Iran. Iran and its radical Muslim rulers have stated on many occasions that ‘Israel has no right to exist.’

Of course, Hitler said the same about the people that now populate Israel. In an odd twist of history, it was actually Heinrich Himmler who surreptitiously contributed to the inflation of the Jewish population of British-controlled Palestine (now Israel) before WWII.

Is there anyone on this planet that doubts where the first Iranian target would be if and when Iran finally possess nuclear weapons capability? Well, it is clear to Bibi Netanyahu and the people of Israel what the answer to that question would be. The first rocket would land squarely in the heart of Tel Aviv.

The Obama administration has had Secretary of State John Kerry working overtime to get Iran to halt its nuclear program. A development that on one believes will not end in the development of nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, it seems the best Mr. Kerry could wring out of the Ayatollahs was a lame agreement that would give Iran about a year “breakout” period to having a bomb. Netanyahu made a strong case that the “breakout” period could be even considerably less under the agreement brokered by Kerry.

Despite the plea by Israel’s Prime Minister, Obama has no intention to go back to the negotiating table for a better, more secure, agreement. He wouldn’t even come in person to listen to Israel’s case.

But why would our president not even listen to the pleas of the Israeli people?

Muslims and Jews are like oil and water. They may never mix – even though they share the same origin – Abraham. Obama was raised a Muslim. No secret there. A large percentage of his administration are Muslims. Well, yes, there are even Jews in Obama’s administration. However – and this is a big however – there are purported to be documents that claim the Obama administration has strong ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Actions invariably speak louder than words. When Israel was being pummeled by rockets – made in Iran – from within the Palestinian territories and the Israelis finally retaliated, the Obama administration demanded Israel stop. Did they even bother to condemn the Palestinians? Obama likes to talk tough about the despicable horrors of ISIS/ISIL, but then attempts to justify their actions saying all they need is jobs. In a visit to India, Obama compared ISIS actions to that of the Christian Crusaders of the middle ages.

We must remember that Muslims are permitted to lie. According to the Quran, there are two forms of lying to non-believers that are permitted under certain circumstances, taqiyya and kitman.  These circumstances are typically those that advance the cause Islam – in some cases by gaining the trust of non-believers in order to draw out their vulnerability and defeat them. In other words, to Muslims, the end always justifies the means.

The United States may be Israel’s best friend, but it is clear that the Obama administration does not have Israel’s best interests at heart. This is very unfortunate because Israel will do whatever necessary to ensure its survival even if that means incinerating huge portions of Iran. “Never Again” is more than a mere slogan in Israel, it is a way of life.

Driving in The Broken Lane

How many miles do you drive in a month, in a year? If you are like me, you might say that’s none of my business. If some in our state legislature get their way, the miles you drive might be public record and taxed.

It’s no secret that California has some – okay, a lot of – bad roads. Many of the bridges we drive on every day are not just decrepit they are dangerous.

In a report published by Transportation for America, a Washington, DC coalition, California ranks 18^th in the nation for dangerous bridges. Of the state’s 24,542 bridges, 3,135 are considered structurally deficient. That means that every day in this state 82,647,465 vehicles are risking a drive on a dangerous bridge.

In Riverside County, 101 of our 1058 bridges are structurally deficient, but in San Bernardino County 195 of their 1366 bridges are on the bad list. The county with the worst bridges is San Francisco County where some 35.4 percent of the bridges are at risk. But they only have 116 bridges.

And that’s just the bridges. I’m sure I don’t have to tell you about the potholes, narrow and odd narrow-to-wide-to-narrow streets that give an extra dimension to the driving experience. Then of course, there is the traffic. It appears even bad roads don’t deter high volumes of traffic. Some days it seems there could not possibly be any cars left in driveways or parking lots. They all must be on the road where I’m driving.

Our legislators say they are running out of money to address the problems. They are telling us that the only funds available are from the tax applied to the fuel we use. They complain that energy efficient vehicles and lower fuel prices are not filling the state transportation kitty as fast as they can spend it. New sources of funding must be found before our bridges collapse and the roads turn to dust.

Several ideas are being floated in the legislature to solve the road maintenance deficit. One idea proposed by Assembly Speaker, Tony Atkins, D-San Diego is an annual road fee of about $52 per vehicle.

Another idea being floated is a mileage tax. Although there are scant details of how this would be implemented, there can be no doubt that you would have to report how many miles you drive in a given period.

The trouble with any of these ideas is that they place the burden of paying for roads squarely on the shoulders of Californians. But we aren’t the only drivers on many of the roads. Over-the-road trucking companies and out-of-state drivers would get a free ride.

And what about the toll roads that seem to be proliferating in the state? Will there come a time when the term “Freeway” will be obsolete? Are our legislators implying that the toll roads don’t pay for their own maintenance?

Germany has some of the nicest roads I have ever driven on. And it’s not just the major highways and Autobahn. Those small country roads that stretch from one small village to another are actually a delight to drive on.

Well, yes, I have been confronted with the ubiquitous construction and road maintenance obstacles in Germany. Those are unavoidable in any country. At least they are fixing the road so the users can drive safely at over 100 mph on them again.

How does Germany pay for these wonderful arteries? It all comes from the General revenue fund and tolls from the few toll roads that exist. The revenues from the German taxes on gasoline and motor vehicle registration accrue to the federation, yet they are not tied to highway maintenance or construction.

Fair enough, but I still see quite a number of trucks with Polish and Netherlands license plates on German roads. I suppose they get a free ride, but there may be just as many German trucks on the other country’s roads too.

From this example, it would seem that funding road maintenance and construction from the general fund would solve the problem and have us driving on smooth and safe roads. I see only two drawbacks with this method: one, getting a tax increase for the general fund would require a ballot; two, putting more money into the general fund is no guarantee it would be spent on roads and bridges. Once politicians get an extra buck, they always seem to find a new project to spend it and an additional 50 cents on.

Well, we are saving money on gas, but every time the public actually gets to save money, the government wants to grab that savings. Okay, a dollar saved, a dollar sent to tax. That’s a net gain of zero. But what happens when the fuel prices go back up – like they are trending now? Will the taxman adjust for the increase in prices? Dream on.

Consequences of Obama’s Amnesty Order

It’s no secret that our President, in his continuing disregard for the law, has ordered the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to not deport some 11.3 million illegal immigrants. There are some qualifications for these lawbreakers, but the bottom line is that they have been granted amnesty for their crime. What crime you say? Being in this country without proper documentation is a crime. The prescribed punishment for breaking the federal immigration law is deportation.

There are various estimates for the number of people in the country illegally that range from 11 million to 22 million. Since these people live mostly in the shadows, a true count is not possible. That would be the equivalent of deporting every man, woman, and child in a state the size of Ohio.

Our DHS admits the capacity to deport some 400,000 per year. Given the porosity of our borders, that would be like using a bucket to push back the Pacific tide.

The faux compassion of the liberal mindset has long demanded changes in our immigration laws to essentially open our borders and give anyone coming across the rights and benefits of citizens. Congress does not have any sense of urgency to make changes to immigration laws, especially any changes that will grant amnesty or open borders.

Even though Obama stated on numerous occasions that he had no legal authority to unilaterally make changes to the immigration law, on November 21, 2014 he issued two Memoranda that did just that.

As with most legal issues, the devil is in the details. Obama’s action is no exception. But do we know just what those details are?

Obama did address the nation to tell us just what he intended to do. He ordered DHS to not deport certain adults and children meeting a set of qualifications. The order was to take effect 120 days from the date of signing. What he didn’t tell us – at least I didn’t hear – is that he will give these people Social Security numbers! He has also encouraged states to issue drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. The only thing short of granting full citizenship is not issuing passports and naturalization papers.

Okay, just what are the consequences of this unprecedented amnesty action? For one, now that they will have a legal Social Security number they could be eligible for all the benefits afforded US citizens: Medicare, Social Security benefits, Disability. In addition, think of all the things that require our “universal registration number” (aka Social Security number). They will now qualify for those too.

Now here is the rub: Many of these illegal immigrants have been using forged Social Security numbers for years and paying into the system. Now the IRS wants to issue them a refund of what they paid in! From a system that claims it is going broke, the government will take nearly a billion dollars out to give to people who shouldn’t have been here in the first place and committed a fraud by using false documents, a second crime.

The true logic behind Mr. Obama’s feigned compassion, of course, is votes. That is the lifeblood of every politician. Illegal aliens have voted in every election; that is no revelation. Now, with Social Security numbers and drivers licenses, they can easily pass for citizens at any poll. Who will these new pseudo-citizens vote for? Take a guess!

Recently, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen in Texas ordered the government not to proceed with any portion of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, DAPA. The order effectively is a stay of implementation on Obama’s immigration action. By the time you read this, there will undoubtedly be considerable political and legal wrangling and fireworks over that order. I have no crystal ball to tell me where this might go, but it should prove interesting. If it goes to the Supreme Court, would that third branch of the government override the President’s order? What then?

In addition, the US House of Representatives voted to fund DHS, but withhold funds for implementation of Obama’s amnesty order. At this time, the bill is hanging in limbo in the Senate. Even if it emerges unscathed from the clutches of the Senate, there is virtually no chance of Obama signing it into law. DHS says it will have to shut down by the end of this month if not funded.

On the bright side, we have to suffer this nonsense for only a few weeks short of two more years. Hopefully, by November 2016 the people of this country will have wised up to the completely idiotic game the liberals are playing with the future of this once-great country. We can also hope that the damage Obama and his socialist horde have wrought upon us is reversible.

Goin’ To Pot

The other day I’m sitting in the doctor’s waiting room just wasting my time like I was being paid a premium for it, and this pimple-face kid -- well, maybe in his upper teens -- sits down beside me looking excited. Both of his legs are going to some sort of music only he can hear.

He turns to me and asks, “is this doctor dude mellow?”

“Mellow?” I ask. “What do you mean by mellow?”

“Like, can he get me a prescription?” He asks.

“He’s a doctor. That’s what doctors usually do when they find something wrong with you that they can treat.”

“Oh wow, dude, I got something bad!”

At this point, I am not too sure I should be sitting next to this kid. “Bad? How bad?”

“It’s my eyes, dude. They got like guacamole!”

Trying unsuccessfully not to laugh too loud, I said “guacamole? Do you mean Glaucoma?”

“Yeah, that’s it. I need a prescription for like some medical marijuana, dude.”

“Well in the first place, that problem should be seen by an optician. This is a family practice doctor. I doubt he would see you for Glaucoma. In the second place, they will usually give you eye drops for that.”

He sat there for a while with a miffed look on his face and said, “Bummer! Well, I have like Arthuritis too. You take pot for that don’t you?”

“I don’t. But if the doctor truly believes that would help, I suppose he might give you a prescription for that. Some doctors seem eager to issue prescriptions for marijuana to cure anything from hangnails to heart attacks. I don’t know how this doctor feels about it, though.”

“I been smoking the stuff for like a while now and got busted the other day. Dudes on the street said I should like get a medical marijuana card and be legal. They all like have one! Dudes said that gauca… what was it, like Glaucoma stuff was like a sure thing for a card.”

“So you’re what, eighteen, nineteen?”

“Nineteen, dude.”

“And you’re going to tell the doctor you have arthritis?”

“Yeah, dude. I gotta get that card.”

“That would be a real stretch of medical probabilities, but I suppose if this doctor doesn’t prescribe marijuana, another one will. I would wish you good luck, but for your own sake I hope he is more ethical than that.”

“Why dude? It won’t be long and weed will be like legal everywhere. It ain’t hurtin’ no one, and ain’t as bad as alcohol!”

“And how would you know? Have you seen any scientific studies that tell you that?”

“My friends all like do it, and there’s like nothing wrong with them.”

“Well, son, I have seen studies, and they all say that crap is bad for you. One study published in Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences (PNAS), researchers for the first time comprehensively describe existing abnormalities in brain function and structure of long-term marijuana users with multiple magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) techniques. Findings show chronic marijuana users have smaller brain volume in the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) a part of the brain commonly associated with addiction, but also increased brain connectivity.

“To put it another way, pot shrinks your brain. How many of your friends are rocket scientists?”

“Uhh?”

“Okay, here are some facts from Colorado, where pot has been legal since 2012: The majority of DUI arrests involve marijuana and 25 to 40 percent were for marijuana alone. In 2013, 48.4 percent of adult arrestees tested positive for marijuana, which is a 16 percent increase from 2008. From 2011 through 2013, there was a 57 percent increase of marijuana-related emergency room visits. Hospitalizations related to marijuana increased 82 percent since 2008. I won’t even bother to tell you the bad things that happen to school age kids, but believe me it ain’t pretty. It’s all in a report from the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area titled The Legalization of Marijuana in Colorado: The Impact.”

The kid had a blank look on his face. “Dude, those are just like… facts. Pot makes me feel good! I hear these dispensaries have like special blends of pot that will like blow your mind!”

About that time, he was called into the doctor’s office. I guess it is true about pot shrinking your brain, if this kid was any example. The sad part is these kids will be running the country before long.

Class Warfare or Class Welfare

It is no secret that the middle class in America is shrinking. The recent recession – if we can believe it is over – has left far too many people still struggling to make ends meet. In way too many instances, those that lost jobs that gave them not only a living wage but also left them money in their pockets to save or spend on enjoyment found jobs that pay far below the jobs they once held.

I’m no economist, but then, what do they know? Someone, I can’t remember who, once said, “if all economists were laid end to end, they would still point the wrong direction.” I look at this problem from a more practical viewpoint.

The term “class” as commonly used in this country today, refers to a category of the amount of wealth one has. The lower class being the poor, the upper class is the rich, and everything in between is the middle class. Economists like to assign degrees to each class, such as upper-middle and lower-middle, but does it really make much difference to you and me? We know if we are not rich and not poor, we must be somewhere in the middle.

With every price increase on items we need to survive that is not followed by a corresponding income increase, we lose ground and slip closer to the lower class. Because of the recession, a lot of people who were comfortably in the middle class are now knocking on the door of the poverty level.

Mr. Obama’s latest State of the Union speech was intended to give hope to those holding on by their fingernails to the middle-class status. He wants to raise the minimum wage, increase family tax credits, and give away free junior college. To pay for this he wants to increase taxes on the “rich”, end tax cuts on capital gains, and eliminate tax cuts on inheritances. It’s yet another wealth redistribution plan won’t work and has never worked.

Many economists call this class warfare. I call it class welfare. You take from those that have earned theirs and give to those that have not – the socialist utopia. Mr. Obama claims this will end the slide of the middle class. If that is his goal, he is going about it the wrong way.

Henry Ford created the middle class in America. He devised a method for manufacturing a large number of automobiles, reduced the price of his cars so everyone could buy one, added an enormous workforce, paid them high wages, reduced their hours, and grew his company. In the process, he created a ready market for his product by giving his workforce higher wages with extra money to save or spend and time to use the extra wages.

The middle class was formed due to Ford’s manufacturing strategy and ethic, not by some government program or presidential order.

The bottom line is that government can best reduce slippage of the middle class by allowing manufacturing to expand. They need to give manufacturers the ability to invest in larger, more modern plants, and in research and development. It is here that you find the good-paying jobs. The ones that won’t just stop the slide from middle-class, but bring everyone up from the depths of economic anxiety and solidly back into the middle class.

If Obama was truly interested in helping the middle class, he would kill the inheritance tax, eliminate corporate tax, and give tax incentives for manufacturing expansion and research. Instead, he mistakenly believes that class welfare and redistribution of wealth might somehow create a sustainable economic environment and bring more people into the middle class.

Well he is right about one aspect, there will be more middle-class people. But it will be populated by those formerly in the upper class. Obama’s way cannot and will not create a sustainable economic environment that can promote GDP growth or prosperity.