Should CEO’s Tell Employees How To Vote?

There have been numerous instances this year of leaders of companies forcing their employees to show up at political rallies or making it clear which candidate they prefer – just recently the CEO of Westgate Resorts wrote an email informing his employees that their jobs were on the line if Obama got re-elected.  Of course, David Siegel has no way of knowing which way his employees voted but made it clear in his email that Obama’s policies have damaged his company’s bottom line and that he’d rather retire than lead a company through four more years of Obama’s leadership.

I don’t think it’s wrong that corporate leaders make it known which way they are voting and why certain candidates would be better for their company than others, its covered under free speech. I think it’s important that employees know how the political climate will effect their jobs just as it is important that they know based on their own research how different candidates will affect them on all issues of importance. There are more and more instances of these emails popping up this election based on a clear cost employers will have to pay for the Affordable Care Act (sometimes dubbed Obamacare). In an email Lacks Enterprises CEO sent to employees, it was noted that employee salaries would not be as high under an Obama administration. After being questioned whether Obama’s bailing out of the auto industry helped his business, he responded that his company did not benefit from the auto bailout.

On the other hand, as a note to the employees of these companies whose leadership is sending out these emails, many CEOs would be classified under the group of people that would be taxed at a higher rate than if Romney is elected. Anyone making more than $250,000 would not be extended a continuation of the Bush-era tax cuts under Obama, and that would certainly affect small business owners and those Obama considers rich. Every day we are inundated with suggestions to vote one way or the other, be it commentary by the media or signs across the street. CEOs certainly can voice their opinions as well but if such is the case employees should have the same opportunities to have their voice heard, unfortunately this is not the case as it is rare that a entry level employee would email his/her entire company with a political view.

So, in short, yes – employers should be able to make political suggestions. On the other hand employees should have that same right.

Romney Not Fit To Lead

The President of the United States, a position once known as the leader of the free world, is a title whose bearer must take seriously. While I do not believe Obama has the qualifications to make a great President I certainly have no doubt that Romney wouldn’t utterly ruin our country.

Romney has proven himself to be a servant of Wall Street and has no interest in peace – whether it be in the Middle East or in Asia. He is an adamant supporter of the notion that half of Americans are lazy good for nothing parasites, who have no use and should not be given a second thought.

I am a supporter of a free market economy yet instead of writing off these folks they can and will be the most important part of our economic recovery in the future. Instead on ignoring the 47% Romney should have presented his economic theories as to why his approach would help lower income earners instead of deciding to pander to billionaires in a $50,000 per plate dinner hosted by a lecher by the name of Marc Leder. Romney, who pretends to be only choice for those who believe in God, certainly does not exhibit any inhibitions from spending time with folks like Leder and casino magnate Sheldon Anderson.

Leder’s Sun Capital is a near copy of Bain Capital, both companies who have derived extensive profits by outsourcing jobs and manufacturing to China. While I see the macroeconomic sense in this, I also see the hypocrisy in every word uttered by Romney regarding our trade relations with China. As someone who made billions from the practice of outsourcing I find it disgusting that Romney attacks Obama over this macroeconomic trend which has more to deal with a shift towards wage equilibrium in a global trade economy rather than a personal decision by Obama.

In fact, the very act of saving the American auto industry (something Obama supported) saved millions of jobs while Romney would have let them flounder and be replaced by Japanese and Korean competitors.

I would find it incredibly difficult to vote for someone like Mitt Romney, it would go against logic and ethics to vote for a porcelain politician who happens to also be elitist.

You Didn’t Build That and Corporations Are People

Two phrases that epitomize each candidate, and we are burdened with having to vote for one of them. On one side we have someone who punishes small business owners in favor of government programs and on the other side you have a candidate who is so narrow minded that he says that corporations are people in front of perspective voters. Both are not true – yes people did build their small businesses and many of these businesses are the product of hard work and determination that were not helped, but hindered by government on their way to success. Corporations are not people, although they may be treated like people in court and are of course comprised of a variety of people.

On the other hand, the widespread use of these phrases to demonize each candidate is one of the results of a shallow-minded media both liberal and conservative – a serious campaign should forget about focusing on a few words spoken by the other candidate sometimes out of context and instead focus on what their candidates plan is for restoring our economy and reducing the federal deficit. Unfortunately neither candidate can commit to a solid plan that would do just that, the only candidate that for candidacy with a plan to reduce the deficit was Ron Paul through elimination of foreign government aid and reduction of large portions of national spending. Obama is planning on letting the Bush tax cuts expire for those making more than $250,000 per year, and Romney is planning on reducing taxes further on higher tax bracket Americans. Romney has not committed to reducing the size of government but has vowed to increase defense spending. From my estimation under a Romney presidency we will see further involvement in the Middle East which will also increase federal debt.

I support neither candidate for President, and yes I built this article.

No I Don’t Believe

Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, and probably every politician that runs for presidency in my lifetime – no I will not believe in you or what you promise during your presidential campaign. I’ve heard enough lies in my lifetime to know that both of you are lying through the roof to get votes and will do whatever you fancy once you reach office. Forget about the real change, and forget about fixing the economy – each of you has your own agenda that is diametrically opposed to mine. Both of you will continue to hasten the deterioration of our freedoms, rights, and privacy. Both of you will be involved in undeclared unconstitutional wars that kill thousands if not millions of civilians and American troops. Both of you are for the status quo. One of you will destroy the economy a bit more and drive us deeper into debt, but from a general standpoint both of you are the same.


Mitt Romneys Views on Foreign Policy are Dangerous and Self-Fufilling

Mitt Romney views the rest of the world as an enemy – today he used Memorial Day to attack Barack Obama for proposed spending cuts on the military. Our military is gigantic, and has been spread over the entire world like a small cup of butter over an entire pizza. To continue to exert force on countries around the world at the expense of American lives and our safety (people don’t like it when their civilian family members get killed by drones) we will need a gigantic army, perhaps even bigger than the one we currently have. However, our military has transformed into one that can deal with small issues around the world and third world opponents (such as ones who deploy IEDs, drive technicals, and use AK-47‘s. We have gained nothing from taking over Afghanistan and Iraq except for the enmity of their people – even our puppet President Karzai is fed up with the unnecessary deaths of civilians in Afghanistan.

In the 2008 election Romney claimed he wanted to “double Guantanamo“, even after the prisoner abuse photos were released. He is someone who cannot think beyond “enemy”, and as a bully in his college years he has retained the attitude which has been apparent in his incivility during the presidential debates of 2008 and 2012. I will give Obama credit for being a more civil person than Romney and would likely get along better with him if we happened to grow up together. While I disagree with Obama on his stance on gun control, healthcare, and other social issues, I can’t say that I disagree on his 2008 election promises to get our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Romney, on the other hand, is what people like to call a “hawk”. He would remain in all occupied countries and start a fight with Iran, who at this point is not a threat to the United States.

Sure, he would increase the size of the military, but unfortunately his leadership style would plunge us into war with more countries and further destroy America by driving it further into debt. I’m having a hard deciding whether I’m going to vote this season given that Romney was one of my least favorite candidates ever to run – not to mention his diametric opposition to Ron Paul and the cause of liberty.

The primaries are not officially over, and the election is certainly not going to be given to two candidates who are both puppets. My vote will be going towards Ron Paul this election year even if I have to scribble the name on the ballot. Things have got to change.

Obama Seen as Loser at Summit of Americas

The Summit of Americas held in Columbia had a bad start for Obama – his secret service agents had to be sent back home after misconduct including but not limited to interactions with prostitutes and heavy drinking before his arrival. At the summit, much of the time was spent discussing why Cuba should not be barred from participation – a few countries skipped the summit out of protest and the US and Canada were the only countries who opposed Cuba’s participation. It seems like the US is having a diminishing influence on Latin countries as China now exceeds the US in trade volume with Brazil, Chile, and Peru. Drug legalization was also a major topic at the summit, as many of the countries supported the end of the war on drugs which they see as being the reason for powerful criminal syndicates in their countries. Argentina’s claim to the Falklands was also a heated topic, where the United States supported Britain’s claim to the islands and the Latin countries supported Argentina’s. The only redeeming quality of the summit was that Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez skipped out in order to tend to his medical needs in Cuba.

War With Iran – Ill Advised

The state of the union is troubling, to say the least. Last night Obama gave a speech full of promises and plans to bring America forward, one particular topic may bring America backwards and to its knees economically. The hint of another war in the Middle East should frighten anyone, but the economic implications of sending hundreds of thousands of troops back into Iran after leaving Iraq and Afghanistan would mean less domestic recovery and a deeper debt to other countries. Deeper government debt would be passed on to none other than you, the taxpayer. James Madison once wrote the following:

“Of all the enemies of true liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded…War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes. …No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”

Unfortunately the political winds seem to be pointing towards a war with Iran, perhaps because it makes the Republican candidates (excluding Ron Paul) and President Obama seem stronger – to me it makes them weak. Iran does not have nuclear capability, and if it were to become a nuclear power Israel has more than enough nuclear stockpiles to prevent Iran from ever using them.

I’ve had enough of this warmongering, it is not morally justified. I feel it is my duty to inform others that a war with Iran is not a war for America, and will not benefit America – It will further weaken America’s standing in the world and be another nail in our national deficit coffin.

There is only one candidate who has spoken for his opposition for this war, or what others call an “option on the table”, and that candidate is Ron Paul. Avoid war hawks, or risk paying $5.00 for gas and not being able to take a restroom break without being watched.

Don’t Vote out of Spite

I’m astonished by the number of people I run into who are planning on voting for someone they don’t really like in order for someone else not to win. They might have a favorite candidate in mind, but they are not voting for him because they are afraid he isn’t going to be able to beat their most hated candidate be him from the Republican party or the incumbent Barack Obama. This kind of mentality should not plague the Republican primary, since it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If everyone has this mentality then sure enough, they will get what they are predicting will be the case. This mentality has been constantly enforced by the entire spectrum of the mainstream news media, but has been challenged by smaller online news websites. Take a look at Ron Paul or Rick Santorum, both of these candidates were shunned by the media but it turns out Ron Paul (who is not mentioned as a ‘top-tier’ candidate) has been getting the second most number of votes throughout the primaries (as of today 22.4%, behind Romney’s 34.4%) comfortably beating Gingrich’s 10.7% standing. Santorum was able to take Iowa by surprise, and currently has 14.4% of the primary votes so far. Looking at the statistics the real top-tier candidates have been Romney, Paul and Santorum (not Gingrich). Take a looks at news articles covering the election, and you will find Romney and Gingrich disproportionally mentioned all over – this is probably because Obama is their favorite and in my opinion Obama will beat either of these candidates based on their overly hawkish attitude on foreign policy and their backgrounds which make them out of touch with most Americans. If one of the candidates above is your favorite then by all means vote for them, but don’t vote for someone because the media tells you they can’t win.

Who I’d Prefer Be President Given The Matchup

While my plan is to vote for Ron Paul whether or not he wins the primary (via write-in), below are my preferences of who will win given the match-up. What are yours?

Barack Obama – Ron Paul
Barack Obama – Herman Cain
Barack Obama – Mitt Romney
Barack Obama – Jon Huntsman
Barack Obama – Newt Gingrich
Barack Obama – Michele Bachmann
Barack Obama – Rick Perry
Barack Obama – Rick Santorum

Deceitful Ads Reflect Deceitful Presidential Hopefuls for 2012

Both Mitt Romney and Rick Perry aired misleading and deceitful ads recently, continuing a long tradition of running campaigns on blaming the “other guy” while not working on good solutions. Mitt Romney aired an ad showing Obama saying “If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.”, which was actually Obama quoting the McCain campaign! Perry took Obama out of context and used a sound byte “We’ve been a little bit lazy I think over the last couple of decades” to counter in such a way to indicate the statement was referring to the American people. The truth is that statement was referring to the government, in reference to their ability to attract foreign investment.

I’m not saying Obama is a beacon of light in terms of political honesty, but am pointing out that it is quite clear that at least two Republican contenders are trying to win regardless of moral cost. I think this will continue when they are elected, and what they said was the truth about their plan before the election will be different or have secret caveats when they do in fact become president. That is why I will not vote for either of these candidates in the primary, and I would suggest you think a moment about what kind of candidates would stand behind this type of strategy.

Louisiana Sets Dangerous Precedent – You Can’t Buy or Sell with Cash

cash not accepted

cash not accepted

“Those who buy or sell second hand goods are prohibited from using cash” – That’s the new law in Louisiana, House bill 195. This is outrageous since most people don’t carry checks around and shouldn’t need to be tracked on whatever they purchase. This is also a hit on retailers since all credit and debit cards come with a hefty fee that goes to the financial institutions which have been so vital in ruining our economy and way of life. States should not have the ability to place laws on the use of the official currency of the United States, and is usurping the rights of citizens in doing so.

If this type of law becomes prevalent, it would seem that living in other countries would afford more transactional freedoms then the United States. All of this of course is done under the guise of protection, similar to the other outrageous laws enacted in the past – the patriot act (I intentionally lower cased “patriot” because the as Benjamin Franklin put it: “Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither”). From the TSA stopping passengers for carrying silver on domestic flights, NYPD arresting people legitimately closing their bank accounts, to Presidential assassination without trial for American citizens, American freedom is becoming a ghost of the past and those who serve return home to a country less free.

Washington Retreats on Missile Defense


In exchange for Russia’s help in securing Afghanistan and Iraq, Obama today formally called off former President George W. Bush’s plans to build a missile defense shield based in Eastern Europe, much to the dismay of Ukraine and much of NATO. Last night Obama gave personal calls to leaders of both the Czech Republic and Poland, informing them of his decision. According to former Czech prime minister Mirek Topolanek: “This is not good news for the Czech state, for Czech freedom and independence.”

What does the US have to gain by not building the system? Well, for one it improves US-Russia relations and opens up for more cooperation in securing Afghanistan and Iraq. It is extremely ironic that during the Cold War the United States helped the Taliban resist the soviets and now is encouraging the soviets to help defend against the Taliban.

According to top Republicans including Jon Kyl the number two Republican Senator the decision is dangerous and brash, and John McCain who ran against Obama in the 2008 elections calls the decision “disappointing” and may encourage a “resurgent Russia.”

According to McCain [1]:

“I am disappointed with the Administration’s decision to cancel plans to develop missile defenses in Eastern Europe.  This decision calls into question the security and diplomatic commitments the United States has made to Poland and the Czech Republic, and has the potential to undermine perceived American leadership in Eastern Europe.  Given the strong and enduring relationships we have forged with the region’s nations since the end of the Cold War, we should not, I believe, take steps backward in strengthening these ties.  Yet I fear the Administration’s decision will do just that, and at a time when Eastern European nations are increasingly wary of renewed Russian adventurism.

“Given the serious and growing threats posed by Iran’s missile and nuclear programs, now is the time when we should look to strengthen our defenses, and those of our allies.  Missile defense in Europe has been a key component of this approach.  I believe the decision to abandon it unilaterally is seriously misguided.”

Ron Paul, the man popularly known as “Mr. No” in the House of Representatives, had the following to say about the US defense budget in December 2003 [3]:

“As the Pentagon’s budget soars to $400 billion, 17% of American children live in poverty. For what the US will spend on Missile Defense in one year we could: put over a million children through Head Start OR provide healthcare for over 3.5 million children OR create over 100,000 units of affordable housing OR hire over 160,000 elementary school teachers.”

The decision is most likely putting many in Europe on the alert, and causing many of them to rethink their dependence on US military power for their safety. Is this another “please-all” stratagem of Obama or a well thought out strategic maneuver? Along with the announcement the White House released on their website a three phased plan of missile defense [2]:

The White House also released a fact sheet on U.S. Missile Defense Policy, outlining the President’s approach.  An excerpt:

While further advances of technology or future changes in the threat could modify the details or timing of later phases, current plans call for the following:
  • Phase One (in the 2011 timeframe) – Deploy current and proven missile defense systems available in the next two years, including the sea-based Aegis Weapon System, the SM-3 interceptor (Block IA), and sensors such as the forward-based Army Navy/Transportable Radar Surveillance system (AN/TPY-2), to address regional ballistic missile threats to Europe and our deployed personnel and their families;
  • Phase Two (in the 2015 timeframe) – After appropriate testing, deploy a more capable version of the SM-3 interceptor (Block IB) in both sea- and land-based configurations, and more advanced sensors, to expand the defended area against short- and medium-range missile threats;
  • Phase Three (in the 2018 timeframe) –  After development and testing are complete, deploy the more advanced SM-3 Block IIA variant currently under development, to counter short-, medium-, and intermediate-range missile threats; and
  • Phase Four (in the 2020 timeframe) – After development and testing are complete, deploy the SM-3 Block IIB to help better cope with medium- and intermediate-range missiles and the potential future ICBM threat to the United States.