L.G.B.T.Q. Rights Now

Conservatives on the Supreme Court may punt on a long-awaited L.G.B.T.Q. civil rights issue. The stalling tactic will alternatively put pressure on Congress to legislate basic rights of many with alternative life styles.

Job discrimination against gay and transgender workers is technically legal in many places in the US. Several states have already addressed this issue ahead of federal law enactment. The question at the Supreme Court is whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act applies to millions of lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender workers. Does it protect these groups from job discrimination based upon sexual orientation?

Former Justice Anthony Kennedy was a great supporter of gay and lesbian rights and wrote the majority opinions in all four of the court’s major gay rights decisions. His retirement will make this effort to liberally interpret Title VII “an uphill battle.”

Ironically Justice Gorsuch could be a supporter of a liberal interpretation as he is “an avowed believer in textualism, meaning that he considers the words Congress enacted rather than evidence drawn from other sources.” He indicated that Title VII may bar employment discrimination based upon sexual orientation and transgender status. But, he says it’s a close call. And he added that legislation by Congress to end the aforementioned discrimination may be a more appropriate way to end unfair practices, rather than action by the Court.

Specifically Title VII outlawed discrimination based upon race, religion, national origin and “sex.” “The question for the judges [is] how broadly to read that last term.” Does it apply to whether a person is male or female only, or does it also relate to a person’s sexual preferences. Clearly, Title VII prohibits job discriminating against women. But if a man is married to another man should a company be able to fire him? Surely not.

The Trump administration chimed in by indicating, “it was up to Congress and not the courts to change the law [as it is now being enforced].”

Everyone knows that passing the buck to Congress at this time in history will extend discriminatory practices indefinitely given the vitriol that exists between the political parties. Yet the opposition appears to be resigned to the fact that a basic civil right is being denied to individuals for an inappropriate reason.

The simple thing to do is have the Court broadly and liberally interpret the law now because it is what society demands, and not delay the affirmation of job quality for all. We cannot depend upon Congress to effectively do its job on this matter at this time.

Warren Is The Last Socialist Standing

The three-ring Democratic presidential circus is about to end. Sanders is too frail to be the next president, so he’s out. Biden has not been able to explain away collusion with his son and the Ukraine government, either because he’s lying or can’t remember what happened. That leaves Dems with Elizabeth Warren, the screaming, radical, progressive darling of liberal America. By the way she just got caught in another lie, something about being fired when she was a teacher because she was pregnant. Will the drama queen drive us bonkers from the White House?

I’m not saying you’d be out of your mind to vote for Warren, but really you would be if the traditions, history and the strength of America are important to you. I suggest all those enamored with this candidate take the time to consider carefully her outrageous and inane proposals.

Warren wants a one-payer health care system and the end of private insurance. That means that every American will pay nothing for insurance or for seeing a doctor or checking into a hospital (this does not take into account increased taxation to pay for it all). It’s a ridiculously expensive proposal even if those with private health insurance could keep theirs. But what will it cost to pay for 350 million people to have unlimited medical care? If every American needs an average of $10,000 of health services each year, it would cost 350 million times $10,000 or $3.5 trillion annually.

The situation becomes even direr if you consider that there would be no limit on the value of services any individual might incur. And, how about the ability of doctors and hospitals to handle this unbridled demand for care? They would be overrun on a daily basis. Conclusion: This type of health care would bankrupt the country, so it’s a dumb idea.

Warren also wants to forgive $2 trillion or so of student debt. Even as president, would she even have the authority to do this? And who’s going to pay for it? I’ll bet you know where Warren’s looking. It’s the wealthy, stupid.

Why should individuals who ran up their debt by taking courses that don’t help them find high paying jobs (that would have helped these individuals pay back their loans), have their debt assumed by others (US tax payers)? If you examine this closely you will discover that middle class individuals, not needy people will be the biggest beneficiaries of this entitlement.

What responsibility do colleges with billion dollar endowments have in this affair? They are the ones jacking up tuitions. Apparently none as far as Warren is concerned. Conclusion: Stupid proposal, although needy students should be given relief.

The issue is one of fairness. High earners should pay high taxes, but there’s a point where excessive taxation is bad for the country. Consumption will decrease as well as overall purchases and consumer confidence. The government will essentially be establishing a maximum level of income for all Americans, a level that discourages exceptionalism and the capitalistic spirit.

But even more disconcerting is that the justification of higher taxes for successful people is “that they don’t pay their fair share.” Hasn’t the government established “fair taxation?” Of course it has, it’s the current tax tables. When you consider the outsized percentage of taxes paid by the 1% versus the rest of the country, this tired philosophy of political progressives is misleading and detrimental to our financial well-being.

Furthermore the proposal to reach back and tax Americans for wealth that they accumulated over the years is the height of financial insanity. Money earned through hard work, entrepreneurship and creativity should be protected not attacked. The death tax is already eating into the money earned in years past.

Elizabeth Warren is a menace trying to spread her populist and socialistic dogma on our eternal capitalistic society. As most of the world aspires to become more like the US, Warren wants to take us backwards. She wants everybody to earn the same income, not because she’s a true socialist, but because she thinks she can dupe Americans into believing in a new system that has been disastrous for those who practiced it historically, while stealing the presidency. She refuses to accept that America is the greatest country in the world in large part because of our capitalistic instincts.

Finally, I have not torpedoed several other Warren tax boondoggles. They are equally destructive as the ones mentioned earlier and should be disregarded and denigrated by all Americans.


Lying Politicians

The whole purpose of political campaigns, debates, interviews and rallies is to give voters an opportunity to hear from the candidates. The more data a voter accumulates about the contenders, the more informed the voter will be to elect someone who will represent his or her interests and concerns.

When the contenders lie about their experiences or their true feelings about important issues, the more difficult it becomes to make good decisions in the voting booth. Exasperating the experience is the press when its reporting is biased towards one political party or another.

For sure voters in 2020 will receive more information than ever before in history. There are newspapers, periodicals, magazines, news releases, cable TV, social media and so many other sources from which voters can gather data before they decide.

The problem is the information received may be tainted or inaccurate in an effort to sway voters one way or the other. Trump calls this fake news. Or, the “facts” provided are wrong because the outlet reporting them did not vet its sources and/or what it was told.

So that’s the rub. There’s plenty of information to sink your teeth into, but voters really don’t know who’s lying and who’s telling the truth. The real problems occur, and voters get confused, when two politicians stand up in front of the media with the same set of facts and express entirely different perspectives.

The Ukraine affair is a perfect example. Trump said he legitimately spoke with the Ukraine president about alleged political corruption perpetrated by Joe and Hunter Biden. Trump was so sure that his inquiries didn’t cross the line that he declassified and made public a transcript of the conversation.

Our president said it was in his purview to follow up on possible crimes of corruption by either of the Bidens, or any American for that matter. Was Trump investigating because he believed Biden did something illegal, or because Biden was expected to be his rival in 2020? If it were the latter, it would be fair to say Trump was attempting to interfere in the US election with the help of a foreign government. But how can anyone judge what’s in the heart of another person? In other words, is Trump lying about his motive for attacking the Bidens?

Democrats are dead sure that Trump was trying to rig the election and are preparing impeachment papers at this moment.

The backlash has been that Republicans and Democrats spent nearly a week calling each other liars. Trump says Adam Schiff, the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, is a liar and even suggested that Schiff helped the whistleblower document his accusations against Trump. Schiff says he will prove the president and Rudy Guiliani are guilty of trying to influence the 2020 election in their conversations with the Ukraines. Who is a voter to believe? The opposing forces have the same “facts” and completely different viewpoints. The Democrats are about to upset the stability of our government, so they better be sure they are providing accurate information.

I don’t have an answer to the previous question and would recommend that voters read the documents involved and then consider what each side is proclaiming. Past lies by anyone erodes the confidence of what they are saying presently. The president certainly has a problem in this arena, as does Schiff.

The veracity of all the people involved in the Ukraine affair is in question. At least Trump provided a document that purportedly gives us the essence of what he discussed with the Ukraine leader. Democrats are trying so hard to find an impeachable offense that they are stretching the truth from my vantage point.

Bad Presidential Choices

During the next 13 months, voters must decide who they trust to govern the US. The choices are Donald Trump, with all his shortcomings, or one of group of radical progressive politicians.

It’s not going to be an easy decision unless you despise President Trump and don’t believe he is qualified to hold his office any longer. On the other hand, there are about ten very liberal Democratic candidates that are anxious to redistribute personal wealth, over tax the most successful among us and bestow any number of very expensive entitlements on certain Americans and illegal aliens.

A quick response is that we’d all be better off with Trump because we know what he wants to do. You may abhor the man, but if ending illegal and unbridled immigration, preventing Iran and North Korea from developing a deployable nuclear weapon, protecting Israel, fighting terrorism, controlling China and Russia and renegotiating fair trade agreements are important to you, Trump is your best bet.

Frankly the crazy progressives have no idea how they would pay for the outrageous things they are promising their incredibly naïve and gullible followers. The proposals include: one payer universal health care, free college tuition, forgiveness of student debt, open borders, elimination of immigration officials, free pre-kindergarten, restitution for unfair actions against social groups and so much more.

There is great downside affiliated to reelecting Trump. One of the most unappealing things includes the continuation of investigations of every conceivable action by the administration. If Trump is elected without regaining the House of Representatives, our government will be in suspended animation for four years. Correspondingly, if Democrats win the White House and do not gain control of the Senate, government stagnation will similarly occur.

Some really horrendous issues to consider if Democrats win in 2020 aside from an expected gigantic tax increase for both middle and upper class Americans are as follows:

  • The reinstatement of the Iran nuclear treaty that would jeopardize Israel, Saudi Arabia and all of the Middle East. Additionally it would assure that Iran would have a nuclear weapon in less than decade.
  • A stock market crash reflecting over spending by the federal government and higher taxes to pay for new entitlements.
  • Greater problems with North Korea, Russia and China resulting from harsh legislation that would emanate from an ultra liberal Congress.
  • A poor economic environment as the current bull market ends in response to decreasing business activity and lower consumer confidence. The point is that Trump’s policies foster high employment, lower taxes and more spending by consumers.

The thought of a constant barrage of inane tweets by Trump along with self-aggrandizing blather and exaggeration is depressing. But putting up with the president’s bad hair, bad attitude, bad relations with his opponents and bad character may not be such a great price to pay considering what Democrats will do to our country, our security and our financial stability.