Eric Holder: Greatest Hits

5471883786_3c9a98d120Attorney General Eric Holder has resigned and the blindfold of Lady Justice rests damp with tears of joy.  She is experiencing mixed emotions and a tentative reprieve from the abuse of power and misapplication of justice that has been the prevailing norm as the disgraceful rule of law over the past 6 years.  This administration will undoubtedly fill the post with another pillar of injustice but the interim provides for a reparative calm between the storms.

At the risk of opening old wounds, recounting the painful, buried past and repeatedly beating a dead moose,  I have compiled a succinct list of grievances against the Department of Justice under the reign of Holder and the current administration.  This will undoubtedly lead to much shaking of the head and mutterings of “unbelievable”.  The purpose being (along with the obligatory refrain that accompanies all tragedy, “Never Forget”) to shed light for those unaware and remind everyone that the United States was founded as a land of laws.  Those in power can violate those laws, creating a de facto regime, ruling without constraint and Americans are rather helpless to hold their leaders to account.  My educated guess is that all administrations have bent and/or broken laws in order to implement an agenda: Lincoln famously suspended due process during the Civil War and FDR had Americans of Japanese descent placed in detainment camps.

The Department of Justice under Eric Holder has not operated in circumstances requiring such decisions.  The source of his lawlessness has been the repeated attempts to cover improper behavior and impose social justice a.k.a. equality of outcome.  Americans have been at the mercy of a leader who views our society as a wasteland of racism, inequality and corporate power.  Now he has resigned; good riddance.

Each segment contains a brief synopsis and commentary.  Click any heading for more information


– Members of the New Black Panther Party dressed in pseudo-military uniforms carrying batons and intimidating people who were attempting to vote.  I understand that it is the prerogative of any DA to decide which cases to prosecute but… men with weapons outside a polling place… hypothetically, what if they had been wearing white hoods?


– You, me, everybody… except whomever Holder doesn’t think a coward


– He doesn’t read information, doesn’t find out, doesn’t investigate.  Either absurdly incompetent or intentionally deceptive.  As with Kennedy and the missing 18 minutes from Watergate, you can make up your own mind?


– The notion of “innocent until proven guilty” is compromised when the Department of Justice supports the protesters calling for a conviction of of George Zimmerman.  Despite this help he was acquitted.


– from  

Eric Holder allowed that election to take place with over 4,000,000 ineligible voters on the rolls.  The left-leaning Pew Foundation issued a report showing that voter rolls around the country were polluted with dead and ineligible voters.  Holder is obliged to enforce federal laws which require states to remove these ineligible voters from the rolls before a federal election.

Instead, Holder has a philosophical objection to these laws and he refuses to enforce them.  Failure to remove ineligible voters allows people to vote multiple times in multiple states.  It allows dead voters to remain on the rolls to be voted by family members or others who know they have died.  Felons who have not been removed from the rolls will also be allowed to cast illegal ballots.  Since Holder alone has power to prosecute federal election crimes, we cannot count on him to do anything about voter fraud in federal elections.

Consider Meloweese Richardson in Cincinnati, Ohio.  Richardson admitted on camera to news reporters that she voted multiple times for President Obama in 2012 and 2008.  She voted in the names of people who spent time at her house as well as family members.  She was unapologetic.


In Cronkite We Trust


The News

“That’s the way it is.”

This was the regular sign off of the legendary Walter Cronkite.  With these six words he left the audience confident in the accuracy of the information presented and in the veracity of Cronkite himself, doing the presenting.  Events and opinion singularized by this one source who delivered “the news”.  Bias was almost a non-factor as Cronkite was essentially unimpeachable.  The unfailing purveyor of the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Well, God bless the 24 hour news cycle, right????  Television, the internet, blogs, Twitter et al. make the news an omnipresent force, no longer relegated to the evening hours surrounding family supper.  The breadth and depth of events in the United States alone requires the media to make decisions regarding which stories they will cover and how to disseminate those stories.  Pundits must choose the controversy to criticize and activists, the cause to champion.  There are always deserving stories that go overlooked and information that is disproportionately overblown (see NFL abuse stories, everywhere, all the time).  Such is the nature of news and opinion journalism that reflects the various agendas of those making the decisions.  This is the nature of bias.

If the powers that be choose to cover a story there is an inference by the receiving party (the audience, the public, the family watching the news or the guy surfing the net) that it is an important story, a story that deserves our attention.  What should accompany this inference is the critical line of thinking that asks: What makes this important? Why is this worthy of my attention?  Also, being that time is a limited commodity, if one story is chosen, another must be left out.  Which stories weren’t covered and what makes one more valuable than another?  A repetitious warning label ought to be applied to the news programs of the dominant media outlets:


An exercise:

Think back to elementary school to the moment when the teacher called your name, having caught you in the compromised position of passing a note, telling a secret, laughing during a lesson etc.  Now, try and remember how the recollection of this story may have changed as you were forced to explain your actions to your parents.  In the replay, there are most likely no outright lies as those are too easily exposed.  However, the events are altered in such a way as to make your actions seem less disruptive to the learning environment and make the teacher seem just a little meaner and more goblinesque.  (For those unaware of this scenario, picture explaining the loss of your pocket protector to your ever doting parents)

A similar motive lies behind the spin and bias of the media.  Events are described in such a way as to support the overall world view of a particular news network.  Unfavorable aspects of a story are downplayed while favorable elements are repeated over and over again.  Are they terrorists or freedom fighters?  Is a billion dollars an enormous fortune or a drop in the bucket?  Is it cold outside or unseasonably cool allowing you to flaunt that new jacket?

As you read, listen and watch always remember that everyone has an opinion and that there is no such thing as entirely objective journalism.  Discover which sources do the best job in presenting facts as facts, checking opinion at the door.  Ask yourself where does each network sit on the ideological spectrum and then go a step further and determine how that perspective relates to your own beliefs.

As an aid in this endeavor, I have provided examples of different media outlets and the perspective and bias they bring to their brand of journalism.  Bear in mind that the degree to which bias affects reporting will vary dramatically.  For example, Fox News is a right-of-center, conservative outlet.  MSNBC is a left-wing news source, further left-of-center than FOX is right-of-center :


Conservative – Fox News

Liberal – ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC


Conservative – Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Mike Rosen

Liberal – Thom Hartmann, Randi Rhodes, Ed Schultz


Conservative – Wall St. Journal, editorial pages; National Review Magazine

Liberal – New York Times, Time, Newsweek, Washington Post

***Here are two articles on a similar topic.  Different sources with different ideological perspectives.  Find where the writers sit by recognizing different phrases for the same thing and the tone of each article.  Then determine how this compares to your own beliefs.



The Cost-Effective Gender

young business woman

Researching details regarding the ostensible discrepancy in pay between men and women, (the causes, supposed causes, discrimination or life choices that may or may not exist) is an undertaking in the mold of brushing one’s cat.  You may be able to smooth things out but the excess fluff just keeps on coming.  For every source claiming undeniable discrimination in the workplace, a mirror explanation provides evidence that such discrimination is a myth.  There are in-depth examples of differing views on this issue.  It is interesting to note that the same stats regarding employment numbers and pay exist for both sides and that it is the interpretation of those stats that result in one opinion or another.  Both articles use info from the Bureau of Labor Statistics..

Progressive sources such as Think Progress unwaveringly see pay discrimination in almost every field.  Flying in the face of identical education and job title, women are still making less than their male counterparts.  While some of the discrepancy can be explained due to career breaks to raise families, the progressive side, despite any specific convincing evidence, still sees discrimination as a pivotal factor.  “There is still more than 40 percent of it that remains unexplained, the part that COULD be chalked up to discrimination.”  Discrimination can be tough to prove but nevertheless, the onus is on the accuser.  It is not enough to claim that discrimination cannot be disproven and is a de facto reality.  This is a trademark tactic of such  progressive outlets: make noncommittal and unspecific accusations against a group without pointing to the guilty individuals who make up that group.  (See the accusations of racism against republicans)

“The interest I have to believe a thing is no proof that such a thing exists.”-Voltaire

The Wall Street Journal (conservative on its editorial pages) proposes the opposite.  The frequently cited “77 cents to every dollar” that women make is a pervasive myth that fails to take very gender specific differences into account when looking at disparity of income.  According to the WSJ “every “full-time” worker, as the BLS notes, is not the same: Men were almost twice as likely as women to work more than 40 hours a week, and women almost twice as likely to work only 35 to 39 hours per week. Once that is taken into consideration, the pay gap begins to shrink. Women who worked a 40-hour week earned 88% of male earnings.”  Also considered are consecutive years working, taking not time off for family.  “Single women who have never married earned 96% of men’s earnings in 2012.”  This finding virtually eradicates any pay discrepancy, though admittedly, not completely and I found no other explanation for the remaining 4%, which does leave for the possibility for limited yet unproven discrimination.

Bias Alert:

The myth exposers are undoubtedly in support of business and in favor of free-market based solutions to issues regarding employee pay and requirements placed upon businesses.  Their bias is based on a vision of limited government when it comes to interference in business practices.  However, on this issue, this side possesses a desire to deal with the evidence and argue head-on about the specious claims of discrimination as a driver of the discrepancies in pay between the genders.

The progressive side of this “controversy” seeks to push an agenda, not merely expose an injustice and right a wrong.  There is a deep desire to promote the cause of social justice, using the argument of pay discrepancy as a tool to that end.  The progressive view places more demands onto employers while emphasizing unjustifiable rights for workers.  It reinforces the narrative that only further involvement by government can enforce the social justice so desperately needed in our unjust society.

Proponents of social justice view both employment and having a family as rights regardless of potentially conflicting goals or demands placed upon others.  Supposedly, people have the “right” to work, take paid-time off from work in order to have children and return to work without suffering repercussions for the absence.  These “rights” support the chosen family lifestyle of employees at the expense of the business and employer.  This is exactly why they cannot be rights.

Maternity leave, health benefits and 401k plans are wonderful incentives to offer employees.  They may even be essential in order to keep up with the competition in a given field.  Regardless, these options are based upon an agreement between the employer and employee.  No person ever has a right to compel action from another, in this case the time and pay of the employer.  That is slavery, not fair trade.

The proponents of social justice also possess a trait that the conservative position does not:  a belief in the ubiquitous discrimination of our society and a desire to keep it alive.  The objective is to vilify the supposed enemies of a differing ideology in order to create perpetual victims, who will cast votes based upon fear and the promise of social justice by a benevolent and all powerful state.  Ergo, there exists no fear to instill without the underlying discrimination.

The ulterior motivations are evidenced by: discounting the progress made by women in education and the workplace.  Unwarranted claims of racism against those with opposing views that conveniently avoid recognition of the progress made by minorities and women (and the failed social programs designed to help those in poverty).   And the focus of discrimination in the USA while mounting no criticism of gender discrimination in the middle east.

The evidence presents a compelling case for the argument based in common sense that no matter what big government types try to do, there will be naturally created differences between the genders.  I see reasons to be proud and optimistic for the future.  The USA has struggled and seen a remarkable increase in the opportunities gained by women, in a relatively short amount of time, considering the status of women in general for the entirety of human history.  This nation has been a beacon of hope for the downtrodden of either gender.  It continues to expand on the promise that work, ambition and skill will lead to success.  Content of character is the driving force in finding good friends, partners and employees…of either gender.

A final thought:

If, for whatever reason, men are paid more than women for the same work in the same career field while possessing identical credentials and education, businesses could save a remarkable amount of money in the short run by hiring only women.  However, if this were true, unemployment for women would plummet, offering a free market solution to the issue of pay inequality.  As demand increases to hire females, the supply will decrease inversely increasing the requisite salary to hire a woman.  Therefore, if allowed to self correct, the market could adjust any remaining inequality.

Life, Liberty… or Islam


Incompatible with the principles of the United States

Once again the world is focused on the Middle East, that section of the world that knows perpetual war, fear and violence.  The actors, a group known as IS or ISIS or ISIL (all the same bunch of characters) have managed to accomplish what few in history ever could: the widespread agreement of the UN and all nations of the western world; albeit this concordance is the universal condemnation of ISIS as a terrorist organization.  Nothing brings people closer than the fear of a common enemy.

ISIS has pledged the destruction and triumph over the western world (that’s us).  They will bring death to the infidels living in these sacrilegious lands (that’s us too).  This group is radical enough to have been disavowed by those other wild and crazy guys of the region, al-Qaeda.  Despite the difference in deranged radical-ness, both groups have been driven by the same cause, justified by the same source.  As with the attacks on September 11, 2001, the validation for human rights violations like decapitating journalists on video and massacring unarmed naked soldiers has been universally proclaimed as punishing the enemy.   These actions are all rooted in one source: the religion of Islam.

Now, this is where sensitive, and much more public, fatwa-fearing writers make the allowance that not all Muslims want to attack the USA.  And this is undoubtedly true.  With over one billion Muslims in the world it stands to reason that they are not all fanatical jihadists who wish to see the United States wiped off the map.  These Muslims should believe in the religion they choose and be permitted to peacefully exercise traditions and impose its precepts onto willing believers.

However, what my limited knowledge of Islam, but my less limited knowledge of world events has led me to conclude is that Islam, as practiced in the world today, is completely incompatible with the basic tenets of the United States.  Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not standards found in the theocracies of the Islamic world.  It is a religion that, when brought to the forefront of society as a basis for governmental rule, leads to the subjugation of “non-believers”, violence and domination of one group over another.

Islamic countries operate under systems of government as directed by Islam.  The courts make  rulings, pass judgments and declare sentences based upon interpretations of the Quran and Sharia Law, the moral code and religious law of the religion.  The religion dominates the affairs of state and the results leave much to be desired in the realm of either life, liberty or pursuing happiness.

If tasked to find a code representing the antithesis of the US Constitution, Sharia Law would be a great example.  Let’s consider some of the highlights of this “moral” code:

– Women are subordinate to men.  Testimony by women is worth half that of men.  Women must cover their bodies.  In Saudi Arabia women have been protesting because it is illegal for them to drive a car.

– Homosexuality is a sin punishable by death

– Wives and daughters are regularly murdered in so-called honor-killings, in many cases because of the shame they bring to the family after having been raped.

– The use of physical abuse is permitted to husbands

– Stoning is a punishment for adultery

There are differing interpretations of the Quran and Sharia Law and defenders of Islam are quick to state that those enacting brutal punishments and waging jihad are incorrectly interpreting the text.  So what???  When brutality rules in the countries governed by this religion, moderation is not the rule, it is the exception that proves it.  And these voices of moderation have been outweighed by the cries of terror heard around the world by the victims suffering at the hands of radicals acting in the name of Islam.  They have been outweighed because of the overall deafening silence of moderate Muslims.  The voice that is only be heard in the reactive editorials written by the apologists of terrorism.

Where are the mass demonstrations in the European cities of the world?  Just a few weeks ago they gathered to protest the genocidal actions of Israel.  Where are those same groups now that ISIS is slaughtering Christians and Yazidis and threatening the western world in which these moderate Muslims live?  When the lunatics from the Westboro Baptist church were protesting military funerals claiming that God hated homosexuals, what did the moderate, ordinary citizens and Christians do?  They blocked those loonies, protested their hate and made it so the military families could bury their dead in peace.  They stood up and declared “Those people do not speak for us!!!”  Where are those groups, on any kind of mass scale in any part of the world?  There are significant Muslim populations in Paris and London.  Mohammed is now the most common male name in Oslo, Norway.  These Muslims live in countries where they need not fear retribution by the state for speaking out against their radical counterparts.  (whether they need to fear members of their own community is another matter)  They could form groups that say publicly that ISIS, Hamas or al-Qaeda do not represent their beliefs.  But they don’t, at least not on a wide scale.  As mentioned, there are some who speak out that violence is not allowed under Islam.  But then again, this is not encouraging when it is understood that the religion permits, under some interpretations, devout Muslims to deceive the infidel in order to further the cause of the religion. (see Taqiyya)

Swastikas are a sign of auspiciousness in Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism but they do not widely adorn the public communique of those religions because of the irreparable harm that symbol has caused.  When your crackhead brother robs and murders two people then comes-a-knockin’ at your door, you shake your head and close it in his face.  Doesn’t matter if you’re family.  If it did matter, maybe the crack-brother shoulda thoughta that before he acted crazy.  In order for Islam to gain any credibility, there must be a demonstrable, vocal, public populace that shouts, “THE CRAZIES ARE NOT WITH US!!”  But that cannot happen because the ideology, the religion, has always been one of violence, despite claims to the contrary.  I watch as journalists are beheaded in the name of Islam.  Should I believe the “moderate” Muslim editorial writer claiming that THAT it is not the real Islam and disregard my lying eyes?

Islam is not a religion of peace because actions make the religion, not the inherent goodness within.  Those who enforce its tenets, those who lead its countries, those who speak to the world on its behalf are not men of peace.  Their countries are not amicable democracies or bastions of equal rights.  Calls for tolerance only mask the violent reality.

The desire for diversity and compulsive multiculturalism have weakened western leaders, forcing them to be wary of calling out the violence due to fear of being called a racist Islamophobe.  This is why media outlets downplay the violence in muslim communities like Rotherham, England where 1400 children were abused over the course of 16 years by Muslim men and the authorities did nothing.

Violence must be recognized and confronted in order to protect those who cannot protect themselves.  The liberty of the United States must not be used as a weapon against us, as Islamists use the graciousness of our society.  Our country allows for the free exercise of religion and has made great progress to accept and respect people from all walks off life.  However, it has left us open to exploitation; the drive to impose multiculturalism has gone an’ jumped the shark.  Calling violence violence is now discriminatory and believing terrorists (also a discriminatory label) who say they want to kill us in the name of Islam is engaging in Islamophobia.  We may not offend the perpetually offended who condemn the United States but not the violent actors seeking to destroy it.  Up is no longer up; A is not A.

NO MORE!  Call violence what it is and recognize that the ideology and the underlying religion are driving these merciless demons.  Oust leaders who become cowardly accommodators to any group denouncing the United States as violent yet granting a pass to the Islamic world.  ISIS is a threat unlike any we have ever seen.  This is according to the Obama appointed Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel.  This group hates everything about our blasphemous way of life.  In other words, they hate our lives, our liberty and our pursuit of happiness  They will kill you, your children, your parents, your dog.   But, if it helps you sleep, at least you will know that it’s not the religion that’s violent…

A great source of information can be found here

Please watch this exchange from UCSD with a Muslim student and David Horowitz of the Freedom Center…

The Craze to Raise the Minimum Wage


“Just a living wage sir…”


Income inequality is the present purported plight of the working class.  It will be, and remain at the forefront of political debate while candidates run for office in 2014.  This oft-touted issue will continue percolating as the Presidential election cycle begins to ramp up.  Robust rhetoric will be espoused by polemic politicians.  As occurs with many complex issues, the eyes of the electorate will transform into a glossy haze of confusion and disconnection as each side explains about the malevolent motives of the other.  

Income inequality, as a grave social injustice, and the ostensible cure raising the minimum wage, are issues that deserve close attention.  Understanding the reality of an economic situation guides an informed voter to the polls.  Less than savory politicians will use the circumstances surrounding the minimum wage debate as a wedge issue, attempting to sow doubt, divide the population and, through fear and ignorance, secure enough votes to win an election.  They will attempt to exploit low information voters, telling tales of underpaid workers and evil corporations.  In turn, sympathetically misguided voters will be ruled by the blind compassion that augments economic illiteracy.  Only by understanding this issue can voters dissect the intentionally misleading arguments made by politicians who promise to “DO SOMETHING” when elected, even if the “something” is to make a tough economic situation even worse.

Simply put: Do those working for the minimum wage “deserve” to be paid a higher wage?

Instinctively, the answer is a resounding “YES!!”.  The very term minimum wage just sounds insufficient, regardless of the actual dollar amount.  When most Americans hear that someone is paid the minimum anything, the bells of prosperity and the desire for a better life chime and echo in their hearts.  It is at this point that the gates of compassion swing shut and proclaim CASE CLOSED.

However, as informed citizens, we know that there remain a few questions to be answered before our inquisitive political brains will rest easy.  So, let’s start at the start:

How many folks make the minimum wage?

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, not very many.  “[In 2012] 1.566 million hourly workers earned the federal minimum of $7.25 an hour; nearly two million more earned less than that because they fell under one of several exemptions (tipped employees, full-time students, certain disabled workers and others), for a total of 3.55 million hourly workers at or below the federal minimum.  That group represents 4.7% of the nation’s 75.3 million hourly-paid workers and 2.8% of all workers.”  

All the rage to raise the minimum wage would see pay increase for less than 3% of all workers.

Who makes the minimum wage?

–  The majority of people making the minimum wage are not supporting families on this limited income.  50.6% of them are ages 16 to 24; 24% are teenagers.  64% are part time workers.  The average income for a family of a minimum wage worker is above $50,000/yr.  

Who else benefits from a higher minimum wage?

–  In short, unions.  Some labor agreements, such as those concerning the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, contain stipulations that wages be indexed to the minimum wage.  When the minimum wage is increased there will either be a percentage or flat rate increase for workers under such agreements.  

For example: if a union worker makes $30/hr and the minimum wage is increased by 20%, that worker will also see a raise of 20% to $36/hr.  Not a life of sheer luxury but certainly well above the minimum wage.  

These agreements explain why many of the protesters in favor of the wage hike are not in fact workers of the retail or fast food locations that they are protesting.  They are planted by organized union efforts.  More info can be found here.  

How does a business pay hourly employees?

– Any business must recover all of its costs, which include payroll for employees.  Therefore, a business cannot afford to pay any employee more than the value that that employee brings to the business.  The compulsive pay rate that is any minimum wage prevents workers from accepting jobs at any rate of pay, potentially eliminating jobs in the process.  A government mandated minimum wage creates an arbitrary, artificial pay scale not based upon value but upon fairness…but to whom?

The reality is that economics does not deal in what is fair, only in what is.  When businesses are forced to raise wages, prices will increase for everyone (due to the necessary recovery of all costs by a business), including for the minimum wage workers.  This “solution” only serves to kick the proverbial can down the road until another pay increase is demanded, also in the name of fairness.  But again for whom?  Not consumers, not business and not to a robust economy that creates wealth and jobs for a society.

Ignoble protests are occurring outside of McDonald’s and Burger King restaurants in major cities.   People self-righteously engage in “peaceful civil disobedience” in order to obtain a higher minimum wage.  The terms “fairness” and “living wage” are used to justify the necessity of a pay increase.  These are seductive, malicious terms used to persuade the naive into the cause of social justice while economic ruin lies in wait.  

Everyone would like to be paid more and everyone’s mother knows that her children are worth ten times more than what they are paid.  However, in order for a business to stay in business, it can only pay according to the skills brought and the value added by an employee.  That is business.  And that is fair.

* SOURCE: More information can be found here