I am just sayin!
How old is Grandma?
(Read this to the end-- quite an eye opener.)
|
Monday, January 21, 2013
Gives you Something to Think About!
A friend forward this to me today. I believe it sheds a bit of light on why we have a topsy/turvy world.
I am just sayin!
I am just sayin!
Friday, January 18, 2013
When are you going to Retire?
I read a great article today while on the plane from Philadelphia to Houston in the United Hemispheres magazine on James Patterson, the former advertising guy turned prolific writer. While I haven't read any of his work he certainly is an intriguing guy, one quote in the interview stood out, he was asked in the interview when he was going to retire, his response "I don't like it when people ask me when I am going to retire. You don't retire from play, you retire from work. And I don't work."
Thursday, January 17, 2013
And we wonder why there are security leaks from "inside the beltway"?
If you are in the military in this country you must go through a rigorous security clearance process before you can be exposed to, work with, see or handle any classified information that could impact the security of the United States. It takes weeks and sometimes months for security professionals to check your character and background before a security clearance can be granted. Not everyone who is screened is granted a clearance, there are many reasons for denial of a clearance! As I understand the process if you happen to have prior illegal drug use, or perhaps have been engaged with former known terrorists you would be denied a security clearance.
Ironically, if you are elected to the office of President, Vice President, or one of the other 435 seats in Congress and/or Senate or you are appointed to a cabinet position you do not have to undergo a background check or security clearance investigation. Yet these folks have access to all levels of security information and there are more than a few instances where "loose lips" have cost American lives!
Wouldn't it seem reasonable that anyone running for a national office should be required to obtain a security clearance before they could even enter the race for a national office?
I would bet serious money that if this were the law we would see an significant improvement in the quality of applicants and leaders who run this country and a much needed improvement in the security and safety of this great Country!
Just a thought!
Ironically, if you are elected to the office of President, Vice President, or one of the other 435 seats in Congress and/or Senate or you are appointed to a cabinet position you do not have to undergo a background check or security clearance investigation. Yet these folks have access to all levels of security information and there are more than a few instances where "loose lips" have cost American lives!
Wouldn't it seem reasonable that anyone running for a national office should be required to obtain a security clearance before they could even enter the race for a national office?
I would bet serious money that if this were the law we would see an significant improvement in the quality of applicants and leaders who run this country and a much needed improvement in the security and safety of this great Country!
Just a thought!
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
An American Travesty - Killing the Geese who Lay the Golden Eggs
Watching this unfold is one of the most ludicrous of our governments actions over the last four years.
Perhaps some sanity will prevail when the pendulum swings away from Socialism back to the policies that made America great.
David Green, CEO and Founder of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
Perhaps some sanity will prevail when the pendulum swings away from Socialism back to the policies that made America great.
HOBBY LOBBY MAY CLOSE ITS DOORS
This could be the begining of a lot of Christian companies saying enough is enough.
"Life without God is like an unsharpened pencil - it has no point."
Hobby Lobby may be forced to abandon founding principles or go out of business--
Letter from Hobby Lobby Stores CEO
By David Green, the founder and CEO of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
When my family and I started our company 40 years ago, we were
working out of a garage on a $600 bank loan, assembling miniature
picture frames. Our first retail store wasn't much bigger than most
people's living rooms, but we had faith that we would succeed if we lived
and worked according to God's word. From there, Hobby Lobby has become
one of the nation's largest arts and crafts retailers, with more than
500 locations in 41 states. Our children grew up into fine
business leaders, and today we run Hobby Lobby together, as a family.
We're Christians, and we run our business on Christian principles. I've
always said that the first two goals of our business are (1) to run our
business in harmony with God's laws, and (2) to focus on people more
than money. And that's what we've tried to do. We close early so our
employees can see their families at night. We keep our stores closed on
Sundays, one of the week's biggest shopping days, so that our workers
and their families can enjoy a day of rest. We believe that it is by
God's grace that Hobby Lobby has endured, and he has blessed us and our
employees. We've not only added jobs in a weak economy, we've raised
wages for the past four years in a row. Our full-time employees start
at 80% above minimum wage.
But now, our government threatens to change all of that. A
new government healthcare mandate says that our family business
MUST provide what I believe are abortion-causing drugs as part of
our health insurance. Being Christians, we don't pay for drugs that
might cause abortions, which means that we don't cover
emergency contraception, the morning-after pill or the week-after pill.
We believe doing so might end a life after the moment of
conception, something that is contrary to our most important beliefs.
It goes against the Biblical principles on which we have run this company since
day one. If we refuse to comply, we could face $1.3 million PER DAY in
government fines.
Our government threatens to fine job creators in a bad economy.
Our government threatens to fine a company that's raised wages four
years running. Our government threatens to fine a family for running its
business according to its beliefs. It's not right. I know people will
say we ought to follow the rules; that it's the
same for everybody. But that's not true. The government has
exempted thousands of companies from this mandate, for reasons of
convenience or cost. But it won't exempt them for reasons of religious
belief.
So, Hobby Lobby and my family are forced to make a choice.
With great reluctance, we filed a lawsuit today, represented by the
Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, asking a federal court to stop this
mandate before it hurts our business. We don't like to go running
into court, but we no longer have a choice. We believe people are
more important than the bottom line and that honoring God is more
important than turning a profit.
My family has lived the American dream. We want to continue growing our
company and providing great jobs for thousands of employees, but the
government is going to make that much more difficult. The
government is forcing us to choose between following our faith
and following the law. I say that's a choice no American and no
American business should have to make.
The government cannot force you to follow laws that go against
your fundamental religious belief. They have exempted thousands of
companies but will not accept Christian organizations including the
Catholic church.
Since you will not see this covered in any of the liberal media,
pass this on to all your contacts.
Sincerely,
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
In Perspective - The Value of an Instilled Work Ethic
Bill Neinast
IN PERSPECTIVEA friend and colleague from Army active duty days and I continue our political discussions via the internet. Bob is way out there in the left field of Florida. So there is little agreement between us.
The current topic is about poverty in Texas, which was discussed in this space last week. The running debate now is about the causes of that property.
We agree on one aspect of this issue. We both believe that government is responsible for so many living under the poverty level. We disagree vehemently, however, on how the government is responsible.
Bob believes the poverty problem could be ameliorated if government got bigger and better at spreading producers’ wealth around. I believe that government is a primary cause of the poverty problem.
In the last 50 years, governments at all levels have become growing “things.” All growing things need continual sustenance. So it is with government politicians and bureaucrats. They need sustenance, i.e., more programs and more taxes to feed those programs.
This need for growth has resulted in a dependent society. There has to be a continuously expanding population expecting support from the government. So let’s create a housing program for the “poor” and not expect single parents to leave their children at home or with a care taker to go to work.
I remember in this regard my Aunt Waga Hueske. Her husband died in the early days of the Great Depression and just two months before their third child was born. She needed help and did get it from the government. That help, however, came in a much different form than it does today.
She had to nurse her newborn son early in morning then leave him and his two sisters with a neighbor while she walked two miles to the WPA sewing room. I do not recall what she and the other needy women sewed, but they were at the sewing machines for eight hours a day.
At noon, the neighbor carried her son to the sewing room for his noon meal. My aunt then trudged the two miles back home at 5:00 p.m. to resume caring for her three children.
That aunt could not read or write. After WWII eliminated the need for programs like the WPA, she began working as a housekeeper or cook for other families. When she died about 40 years ago, she was living the home that she had purchased.
Compare that with the government programs of today. Have a child but no husband, just go to the post office and pick up a government check. Have another child without a husband, just pick up a larger check. We are such a compassionate society that we cannot expect a mother to leave her children with a baby sitter if she does not want to.
Bob would argue that a situation like this is due, in part, to a lack of education. That is reflected in proposals pending in the Texas legislature. At least one of the bills is based on the belief that a poor education or lack of education is the cause of poverty.
I remember in that regard the Vietnamese refugees who moved here several years ago. They opened a restaurant in an old theater building. The parents stayed in the kitchen, the oldest son was the head waiter, and the two younger children bussed the tables and cleaned the floor. If there were no tables to clean, the children sat in a booth and did homework. Big brother helped with the studies when needed.
Can anyone believe that anyone in that family will ever expect or seek government aid?
At the same time, a war was occurring on the Texas coast. The factions were American shrimpers and Vietnamese refugees.
Some Vietnamese refugees moved in, bought junk boats, fixed them up, and began hard competition with the locals. They stayed on the water longer, processed their own catches, and sold their produce directly to the public without the need of middle men. The locals thought these hard working family businesses were unfair competition with their old ways of operating.
Then there was my Dad. He went bankrupt and lost his business, but recovered and started over. He left an estate subject to the estate tax. All this with only a grade school education.
These examples are strong arguments against the belief that if the government just spent more money on education, poverty would be ameliorated. They are, instead, examples that a work ethic, not education, is the path to self sufficiency.
So here’s the perspective.
Bob is going to disagree vehemently with this argument. As all liberals, he will argue that if someone does not want to work, the government should assure that he or she is supported with other worker’s money.
Various government programs have created a culture of dependency. Why bother to work if Big Daddy Government will take care or you.
This is not an argument that education is unimportant. It is an argument that an instilled work ethic can overcome any education deficiency.
IN PERSPECTIVEA friend and colleague from Army active duty days and I continue our political discussions via the internet. Bob is way out there in the left field of Florida. So there is little agreement between us.
The current topic is about poverty in Texas, which was discussed in this space last week. The running debate now is about the causes of that property.
We agree on one aspect of this issue. We both believe that government is responsible for so many living under the poverty level. We disagree vehemently, however, on how the government is responsible.
Bob believes the poverty problem could be ameliorated if government got bigger and better at spreading producers’ wealth around. I believe that government is a primary cause of the poverty problem.
In the last 50 years, governments at all levels have become growing “things.” All growing things need continual sustenance. So it is with government politicians and bureaucrats. They need sustenance, i.e., more programs and more taxes to feed those programs.
This need for growth has resulted in a dependent society. There has to be a continuously expanding population expecting support from the government. So let’s create a housing program for the “poor” and not expect single parents to leave their children at home or with a care taker to go to work.
I remember in this regard my Aunt Waga Hueske. Her husband died in the early days of the Great Depression and just two months before their third child was born. She needed help and did get it from the government. That help, however, came in a much different form than it does today.
She had to nurse her newborn son early in morning then leave him and his two sisters with a neighbor while she walked two miles to the WPA sewing room. I do not recall what she and the other needy women sewed, but they were at the sewing machines for eight hours a day.
At noon, the neighbor carried her son to the sewing room for his noon meal. My aunt then trudged the two miles back home at 5:00 p.m. to resume caring for her three children.
That aunt could not read or write. After WWII eliminated the need for programs like the WPA, she began working as a housekeeper or cook for other families. When she died about 40 years ago, she was living the home that she had purchased.
Compare that with the government programs of today. Have a child but no husband, just go to the post office and pick up a government check. Have another child without a husband, just pick up a larger check. We are such a compassionate society that we cannot expect a mother to leave her children with a baby sitter if she does not want to.
Bob would argue that a situation like this is due, in part, to a lack of education. That is reflected in proposals pending in the Texas legislature. At least one of the bills is based on the belief that a poor education or lack of education is the cause of poverty.
I remember in that regard the Vietnamese refugees who moved here several years ago. They opened a restaurant in an old theater building. The parents stayed in the kitchen, the oldest son was the head waiter, and the two younger children bussed the tables and cleaned the floor. If there were no tables to clean, the children sat in a booth and did homework. Big brother helped with the studies when needed.
Can anyone believe that anyone in that family will ever expect or seek government aid?
At the same time, a war was occurring on the Texas coast. The factions were American shrimpers and Vietnamese refugees.
Some Vietnamese refugees moved in, bought junk boats, fixed them up, and began hard competition with the locals. They stayed on the water longer, processed their own catches, and sold their produce directly to the public without the need of middle men. The locals thought these hard working family businesses were unfair competition with their old ways of operating.
Then there was my Dad. He went bankrupt and lost his business, but recovered and started over. He left an estate subject to the estate tax. All this with only a grade school education.
These examples are strong arguments against the belief that if the government just spent more money on education, poverty would be ameliorated. They are, instead, examples that a work ethic, not education, is the path to self sufficiency.
So here’s the perspective.
Bob is going to disagree vehemently with this argument. As all liberals, he will argue that if someone does not want to work, the government should assure that he or she is supported with other worker’s money.
Various government programs have created a culture of dependency. Why bother to work if Big Daddy Government will take care or you.
This is not an argument that education is unimportant. It is an argument that an instilled work ethic can overcome any education deficiency.
Monday, January 7, 2013
In Perspective - January 7, 2013 by Bill Neinast
IN PERSPECTIVENo guessing required. The wording says it all.
The banner headline in this newspaper on Dec 31 was, “Texas economy allows many to live in poverty.” Nothing more than a glance at those words telegraphs that the article was written from the far left field of the class warrior team.
The first part of the article castigates the cruel, greedy, upper crust Republicans for dumping a large part of the state’s population into poverty and abandoning them there. Consider, for example these two excerpts from the article.
First, the Republican role.“Politicians of all stripes decry the high poverty rate in Texas, but what differs is how to deal with it. Republicans [control every state department and agency]…. Perry’s oft repeated formula for economic growth is low taxes, few regulations and limited lawsuits….[H]e has promised to limit state spending to less than population growth plus inflation. To help the poor and unemployed he has proposed requiring drug testing as a condition for some people to receive welfare benefits to make sure they are employable.”
Next, the class warrior approach. “Democrats are pushing for state government to provide services they believe will help people move out of poverty, including restoring $5.4 billion cut from the public school budget and nearly $1 billion cut from higher education. Democrats also want the state to expand Medicaid to provide 1.5 million Texans with health insurance at a minimal cost to the state through 2020.”
The article emphasizes that Texas’ poverty rate has been rising for three years. 4.6 million Texans now live below the poverty line. “That’s 18.5 percent of the population, 3 percent higher than the nation as a whole.”
McAllen-Edinburg, El Paso, and other areas along the state’s southern border are identified as the areas with the highest rates of poverty. There is no discussion, however, why there are such areas of poverty in a state with one of the most robust, growing economies in the country. The state’s unemployment rate of 6.2% is two percentage points below the national average and is one of the lowest among the 50 states.
There is no discussion about the crying need for employees of all types in the Midland/Odessa area. The Permian Basin is jumping back and forth with North Dakota for having the lowest unemployment rate under 3% in the country.
Our son, Mark, is the North America Sales Manager for ESP, a GE subsidiary, in Midland. He reports that H-E-B has the lowest prices of any food chain in the area, but he hates to shop there because of the long lines at the check out counters. H-E-B’s response to requests to open more stores un the area is that they would consider more locations if they ever get enough employees to fill all the positions they have in their one store.
Also, in Midland, McDonald marquees advertise openings for employees with wages from $8.25 to $14.00 an hour. The local newspaper is full of help wanted ads from both the Permian Basin area and North Dakota.
Mark notes, also, the difficulty in keeping employees. If an employee becomes unhappy, he just quits because he knows there is another job waiting for him or her down the street. Or, after some have worked for a while, and saved a bit for a vacation, they quit, go for a jaunt, come back, and find a job at a competitor.
“But, but, but” the class warriors will sputter, those in poverty live in the Valley and the jobs are a few hundred miles north and west. So? Some of the vilified undocumented or illegal aliens walked hundreds of miles through hostile territory to leave their poverty behind and find employment where the jobs are.
Could it be that waiting for the state to renew the balance in one’s Lone Star card and then walking to the HEB for some choice steaks is easier than walking a hundred miles for a job?
The article under review also notes that “Most Democrats fiercely oppose the drug testing proposal. ‘To automatically assume that a single mother, a recently unemployed veteran, or a teacher who lost his or her job because of Governor Perry’s budget cuts is a drug user is shameful,’ state Rep. Martinez Fisher, D-San Antonio, said.”
In contrast, Mark reports that applicants for employment with his company are required to pass drug tests and, thereafter, are subject to random, unannounced drug tests. Failing a test results in immediate dismissal--zero tolerance.
Every Thursday afternoon, I volunteer at the front desk at Scott and White Hospital, Brenham. Every day when I am at that desk, at least one man or woman comes in for an employment drug test for a local company.
In the eyes of some, therefore, it is OK to require a drug test for employment but “shameful” to ask someone getting a hand out of tax money to do the same.
So here’s the perspective.
The article under review is strong evidence that one of the political parties in the country would be best known as the class warrior or the tax and spend party. That party’s philosophy is that every social problem can best be solved by the government filling the public trough with more tax money.
Thank goodness for the requirement for a balanced budget in the Texas Constitution.
The banner headline in this newspaper on Dec 31 was, “Texas economy allows many to live in poverty.” Nothing more than a glance at those words telegraphs that the article was written from the far left field of the class warrior team.
The first part of the article castigates the cruel, greedy, upper crust Republicans for dumping a large part of the state’s population into poverty and abandoning them there. Consider, for example these two excerpts from the article.
First, the Republican role.“Politicians of all stripes decry the high poverty rate in Texas, but what differs is how to deal with it. Republicans [control every state department and agency]…. Perry’s oft repeated formula for economic growth is low taxes, few regulations and limited lawsuits….[H]e has promised to limit state spending to less than population growth plus inflation. To help the poor and unemployed he has proposed requiring drug testing as a condition for some people to receive welfare benefits to make sure they are employable.”
Next, the class warrior approach. “Democrats are pushing for state government to provide services they believe will help people move out of poverty, including restoring $5.4 billion cut from the public school budget and nearly $1 billion cut from higher education. Democrats also want the state to expand Medicaid to provide 1.5 million Texans with health insurance at a minimal cost to the state through 2020.”
The article emphasizes that Texas’ poverty rate has been rising for three years. 4.6 million Texans now live below the poverty line. “That’s 18.5 percent of the population, 3 percent higher than the nation as a whole.”
McAllen-Edinburg, El Paso, and other areas along the state’s southern border are identified as the areas with the highest rates of poverty. There is no discussion, however, why there are such areas of poverty in a state with one of the most robust, growing economies in the country. The state’s unemployment rate of 6.2% is two percentage points below the national average and is one of the lowest among the 50 states.
There is no discussion about the crying need for employees of all types in the Midland/Odessa area. The Permian Basin is jumping back and forth with North Dakota for having the lowest unemployment rate under 3% in the country.
Our son, Mark, is the North America Sales Manager for ESP, a GE subsidiary, in Midland. He reports that H-E-B has the lowest prices of any food chain in the area, but he hates to shop there because of the long lines at the check out counters. H-E-B’s response to requests to open more stores un the area is that they would consider more locations if they ever get enough employees to fill all the positions they have in their one store.
Also, in Midland, McDonald marquees advertise openings for employees with wages from $8.25 to $14.00 an hour. The local newspaper is full of help wanted ads from both the Permian Basin area and North Dakota.
Mark notes, also, the difficulty in keeping employees. If an employee becomes unhappy, he just quits because he knows there is another job waiting for him or her down the street. Or, after some have worked for a while, and saved a bit for a vacation, they quit, go for a jaunt, come back, and find a job at a competitor.
“But, but, but” the class warriors will sputter, those in poverty live in the Valley and the jobs are a few hundred miles north and west. So? Some of the vilified undocumented or illegal aliens walked hundreds of miles through hostile territory to leave their poverty behind and find employment where the jobs are.
Could it be that waiting for the state to renew the balance in one’s Lone Star card and then walking to the HEB for some choice steaks is easier than walking a hundred miles for a job?
The article under review also notes that “Most Democrats fiercely oppose the drug testing proposal. ‘To automatically assume that a single mother, a recently unemployed veteran, or a teacher who lost his or her job because of Governor Perry’s budget cuts is a drug user is shameful,’ state Rep. Martinez Fisher, D-San Antonio, said.”
In contrast, Mark reports that applicants for employment with his company are required to pass drug tests and, thereafter, are subject to random, unannounced drug tests. Failing a test results in immediate dismissal--zero tolerance.
Every Thursday afternoon, I volunteer at the front desk at Scott and White Hospital, Brenham. Every day when I am at that desk, at least one man or woman comes in for an employment drug test for a local company.
In the eyes of some, therefore, it is OK to require a drug test for employment but “shameful” to ask someone getting a hand out of tax money to do the same.
So here’s the perspective.
The article under review is strong evidence that one of the political parties in the country would be best known as the class warrior or the tax and spend party. That party’s philosophy is that every social problem can best be solved by the government filling the public trough with more tax money.
Thank goodness for the requirement for a balanced budget in the Texas Constitution.
Bill Neinast
A good friend of mine, Bill Neinast, writes a weekly column for a local paper in Central Texas called Perspective. His articles challenge my thinking on a number of issues of the day. With his permission these columns will now appear on Marcus Lockard Online. Bill is a retired Army JAG officer living in Central Texas and is one of the most prolific and thoughtful writers I have ever read. He is also a great Texan and a great person. Enjoy his work!
Marc
Marc
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)