Minimum Wage Hurts the Poor

Earlier this week, I heard Bill O'Reilly going on about raising the minimum wage.  He says that the Republicans need to get on board with raising the minimum wage, but for adults only.  He says all adults should earn at least $10/hour because it's only fair.  He had a liberal and a Republican on the air with him for the discussion.  Of course, the Republican lady tried to give her opinion that Bill was wrong and why, but he wouldn't let her talk.

Well Mr. O'Reilly you are wrong!  Raising the minimum wage by nearly $3/hour will badly hurt everyone in America, but it will hurt the poor the most.  Here are some of the things that will happen if this stupid idea passes:

• Clerks at fast food restaurants and retail stores will receive about a 40% raise that will be passed along to the consumer, and that is inflationary
• Many of these low skill jobs will be automated -- the extra labor cost will be just enough to justify the capital investment in automation
• Fast food and retail establishments will begin to innovate and utilize more self-service.  What if McDonald's let you walk through a line that had burgers and fries in slots just like the ones you see behind the counter today?  You could walk through and pick up your food, go to a scanner to pay with a credit card, or go to a person with a cash register to pay cash.  Just like today, you could fill your own drink and throw away your trash.  The restaurant might be able to eliminate 40% of the labor to keep the costs the same.  Of course, 40% of the folks working there would lose their jobs.
• If the higher minimum wage only applies to folks age 21 and above, who do you think will get all of the low skill jobs?  Okay, we have identified who won't be hurt by the minimum wage laws with O'Reilly's idea of only raising wages for the adults.
• There will be another round of manufacturing and assembly jobs that will become cost effective to move out of the country with the 40% increase in wages and the 50%+ increase in benefits like health insurance
• With higher prices for goods manufactured here, we will be less competitive in the world market reducing demand and employment in this sector
• With the inflation occurring, we will buy fewer things, and that will lead to lower employment everywhere from mining to manufacturing to retail
• Everyone whose skills are worth less than $10/hour will be permanently unemployed

Real unemployment in this country is already well above 10%.  Of course, the government doesn't count people who have given up on finding a job in the unemployment numbers.  We already have a minimum wage of sorts in the social welfare subsidies the MessAPolitico has put in place.  There is a growing class of unskilled workers in America that have never worked and will never work in a legal enterprise.  The government transfer payments have made it impossible to make enough money to justify them ever leaving the house for a job that would cut off the government subsidies.  Couple that with the minimum wage driving all jobs these folks are qualified to do to low cost countries around the globe, and you have a whole class of permanently unemployed people.

The best way to eliminate unemployment in the USA would be to eliminate the minimum wage completely, end all welfare, and end the unemployment compensation.  I personally know a person who was unemployed for a couple of years.  He was asked to apply for some good jobs during that time, but they weren't jobs he wanted to do.  He just wasn't hungry enough to take something he didn't like.  Several months ago, his unemployment was coming to an end, and he suddenly found a job.  Imagine the luck.  He was unemployed for several years, but the imminent end to unemployment compensation helped give him the desire to find a job quickly.  I believe everyone would find a job to put food on the table and a roof over their heads if they had to do it themselves.

The MessAPolitico insists that it is only fair to give people a little assistance when they're down.  It's the compassionate thing to do.  Pretty soon the help from the MessAPolitico has ruined their lives completely.  They become wards of the state that truly can't live without liberal politicians.  Unfortunately, these folks don't have enough intellect to realize that they are voting for the assistance offered by the same politicians that made them unemployable and permanently impoverished.

Please join me in the upcoming primaries to oust the status quo, liberal RINO's from the Republican party.  You may feel that you could find a "blue dog" Democrat to vote for in the primaries to help move this country forward and get it back on track.  Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I think the Democrats are too far gone.  You can't find a "blue dog" left in Washington these days.  Either way, the problems will never be fixed unless we get the right selections made in the primaries.

Selective Religious Freedom

The Europeans that first arrived in North America on the Mayflower came here for religious freedom.  The Pilgrims were on a religious pilgrimage.  This was recognized by the founding fathers when they constructed the Constitution.  The Bill of Rights starts with the first amendment to the Constitution, and it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."  This guarantees us the freedom of religion, and the parts regarding freedom of speech and peaceable assembly are also key to our expressions of our religious beliefs and our worship.

Today, freedom of religion means freedom from religion more than freedom to practice religion as you see fit.  At least this is true if you are a Christian or a Jew.  Every Christian or Jew must be very careful that practicing their religion doesn't offend anyone from the atheist to the Muslim.  A radical Muslim has the right to wish death upon all non-Muslims or even members of another Muslim sect, but Christians are unreasonable for mentioning Jesus in mixed company.

It is true that I am able to attend the church of my choice on Sunday morning or any other day of the week.  I can own a bible and read it any time or place I want.  However, if practicing my religion involves discipleship or evangelism, that is not to be tolerated these days.  Political correctness has many of us referring to the birthday of Jesus as the Holiday season or winter vacation.  Too many people won't say Christmas anymore for fear of offending someone.  Religious people are regularly called "holy rollers" of "right-wing nut jobs."  Interestingly, I don't hear too many of the folks that say these things ridiculing Muslims.  Do Muslims have the religious freedom to believe or say or think anything they want, but the Christians only have the freedom to practice their religion in private?

Like most Christians, I don't think the government should force any particular religion upon anyone.  However, the government and the media seem to be infringing on that part of the first amendment that says Congress can't prohibit the free exercise of religion.  The law can't make Christianity or any other religion the state religion or ban a particular religion from being practiced.  At least this is true of religions that cause no harm to anyone.  Should a religion be allowed to be practiced that would harm others?  Is it within your religious freedoms to use bombs or Boeing 767 airliners to kill people that are of a different faith or that have no religious faith?  It is nonsensical to oppress Christians or Jews in an effort to appease the Muslims so that they will stop hating us and quit trying to murder us.

When my kids were in middle school, all of the students were loaded onto buses and taken to a large Islamic temple just north of Cincinnati.  They wanted all of these mainly Christian students to learn how the Muslims practice their religion.  This was not a private school.  It was a county school district that was funded by our tax dollars, and it was promoting a religion.  What would have happened had the class been visiting a Methodist or Catholic church?

Racial profiling has been used as an excuse to treat everyone "fairly."  There have been very few terrorist attacks committed by radical Christians or Jews or Buddhists or Hindus, yet it is politically incorrect to search all people with Islamic surnames without also searching everyone else equally.  If you only thoroughly search 20% of Christians or Jews, then you must not search more than 20% of Muslims.  You must also do this searching randomly.  These rules sound more and more like something the MessAPolitico would come up with for running the TSA.  Oh yeah, they did make up the rules.

I will say once again that the government is not very good at doing anything.  There are some things that must be done by the government.  Everything else should be done by the private sector, or we should do it for ourselves.  We could cure the budget issues instantly if the MessAPolitico would just stick to those things limited by the Constitution.  Please join me at the polls on primary election day and vote for freedom and for upholding the Constitution.

Was Mike Huckabee Out of Line?

Former Governor Huckabee said that the women he knew were offended by Democrats telling them that they couldn't survive without government.  Maybe the women he knows feel that way.  Maybe a lot of women feel that way.  It's a shame that he said something considered to be "politically incorrect."  Does he not have freedom of speech?  Isn't this something that needed to be said?  He's retired from politics, so he doesn't have to worry about re-election anymore.

The American people are tired of timid politicians that are afraid they're going to offend someone.  It's ironic that these politicians end up offending their base by saying things or not saying things in an effort to not offend those people most unlikely to vote for them.

The American people want politicians to get out of their pockets and out of their way.  We don't care about the political ambitions of these career politicians.  I predict that a political revolution is on its way in the next few elections.  It doesn't seem like the Republicans are going to all reap benefits from the problems and failures of Obamacare.  The rogue Republicans like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz can benefit from Washington's failures in general, but the American people seem to blame the state of our country on the political establishment, regardless of party.

Partisan infighting has left us with a dysfunctional government that creates ten new problems every time it tries to solve one problem.  Then, the finger pointing starts as each party blames all the bad things on the other party or big business or capitalism or rich people or you name it.  Their answer to each of these problems is another government program or a big government intrusion into our lives, our businesses, and our families.

If this MessAPolitico continues, we won't have any freedom left.  I absolutely don't understand why we need to ask permission from the government to start a business or to expand one.  The government tells us how the products we buy must be designed and made.  The government regulates how much interest a bank can charge you.  Of course, the government tells the bank how much to charge for the services they sell rather than letting the competition determine that.

Another irony is that government gets paid every time any kind of transaction occurs in the marketplace.  They don't produce anything involved in the transaction or provide any capital investment in the business, but these greedy politicians demand a cut of the profits.  They also get their cut of the sale price with retail transactions.  Doesn't this remind you of doing business in a neighborhood run by the mob?  If you buy a car, the government gets sales tax, licensing fees, tax on the insurance that they make you buy, and tax on the gasoline the car burns.  If you bought an electric car, you pay a utility tax on your electric bill.  The gasoline not only has a per gallon gasoline tax, but the corporate profits are taxed.  The profits of the gas station owner are also taxed.  Any workers in the gas station or at the oil company pay income taxes and payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare taxes).  Of course, the oil companies can't drill for oil in a lot of places, because the government decides that most places are off limits.

Help, I'm drowning in the MessAPolitico!  Somebody, please, get this MessAPolitico off of my back and out of my wallet!  Do you voters who elected Obama and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and all of these worthless RINO's in Washington have something against me?  If you're as dissatisfied as the polls say you are, then please join me in a revolt in the upcoming primaries.  Write your Representative and your Senators, and tell them how dissatisfied you are.  Tell them you are voting against them in the primary, because you want to elect someone that will uphold the Constitution and restore our freedom.

Democrat or Republican?

I started out pretty independent in my thinking in my 20's.  I always said that I would vote for the best person regardless of party affiliation.  In the first election after I was old enough to vote, I voted for a Libertarian candidate for governor.  At the time I didn't even know what a Libertarian was.  After the fiasco in 2000 when Al Gore, Jr. tried to steal the presidential election by requesting recounts only in counties where he expected to win, I was completely turned off to Democrats.  I said that I would never vote Democrat again, even if the candidate was my mother, and Al Gore's dirty pool was the reason.

I still feel that way about Democrats, even though I realize that Democrats aren't all like Al Gore.  Any Democrat that goes to Washington has to toe the party line.  He or she might be the so-called "blue dog" democrat that is conservative, but they are expected to vote with the rest of the party by the leadership.  If they don't, the support of the party will go to another candidate in the next election, and the chances of re-election will be minimized.

The problem today is that the Republicans are trying to go after the moderate and independent voters by mimicking the Democrats.  This strategy will never work because the average conservative or libertarian voter is disenchanted and frustrated.  More of us will stay home than the Republican candidate gains from the moderates and independents.

The leadership in the parties are playing partisan politics on each side.  Their games have nothing to do with what is good for the country.  All of us out here in the heartland know that the MessAPolitico is hurting the country and hurting us, but the same type of candidates get elected at every election.  In many cases, it's not just the same type of candidate, but it is the same exact candidate that has been in Washington for twenty or thirty years.  I think it is time for these career politicians to be forced to make a career change.

Unless you voted in the last election against the bum that won, don't complain about what they're doing.  If you stayed home, you have nobody to blame but yourself.  These politicians need to be reminded that they're representing us in Washington.  We hired them, and we can fire them.  Don't reward the MessAPolitico with another victory on election day.

In fact, the most important election day for this type of punishment is the primary.  Many people don't show up at the polls for the primary election.  They don't have time for such a meaningless endeavor.  If you're a conservative, and the Republicans elect the same old RINO in the primary, what are you going to do in the general election?  Do you vote for the Democrat, the Republicrat, or no one?  I urge everyone to pay special attention to the primaries this time.  It's time to kick out the MessAPolitico, and the best way to do that is in the primary.  It's time to purge the RINO's and the Republican leadership, but we certainly don't want to replace them with Democrats.  We need new conservative or libertarian leaning Republicans, especially those with Tea Party support.  These are the folks that will take our great country back to the principles that made it great.  Returning to the constitutional republic that the founding fathers set up is the only way to save America.  I hope it's not too late.

In Government We Don't Trust

I just looked at a twenty dollar bill, and across the back it says "In God We Trust."  It doesn't say "In Government We Trust," and we don't trust the government on the whole.  I know that there are quite a few people that don't trust big business either, but the trust in government is declining worldwide.  This is found to be a continuing trend in the Edelman Trust Barometer survey data.

Why would we trust our government to do anything right?  Why would we trust politicians to be squeaky clean and honest?  Recently, politicians have lied to us about many important things in our lives.  Can you keep your health insurance policy if you like it?  Can you keep your doctor if Obamacare drives him or her into early retirement?  Are your health insurance premiums declining?  Did he have sex with that woman?

Lies are one thing, but do you trust the government to be competent?  I don't think the government does many things very well?  Even when the government does something well, it doesn't get it done efficiently or inexpensively.  I would love to see our government go back to the federalism that was intended by the founding fathers.  With a federal government, the US government is supposed to govern foreign relations and national defense and various other functions that are of national interest and consequence.  Most functions were considered to be better handled by the state and local governments.  I would take that a little further.  I think private businesses will always provide better service and quality than any government agency.  In fact, we would be much better off taking care of ourselves than relying on government.

A big driver in reducing our trust in government seems to be the gridlock in Washington.  We elect politicians to go to Washington and solve problems, but they're far more interested in their own political futures.  Obamacare is a perfect example.  The people want more affordable health care that is available to everyone.  You would think that the Republicans and Democrats could get together and brainstorm solutions.  Then a bipartisan bill could be crafted that will reach the stated goals.  Instead, a totally partisan bill is written that gets no input from the party that isn't in the majority.  The bill passes without a single Republican vote.  Now serious problems have surfaced, but the bill can't be altered or re-written, because the Republicans controlling the House will only accept a complete repeal of the Obamacare bill.  That will never happen since the Democrats control the Senate and Presidency.  Now the Republicans have accepted that Obamacare is passed and signed and is law.  They are willing to let the American people suffer the consequences in hopes of re-gaining control of the Senate in 2014 and the Presidency in 2016 when the system collapses.

The American people don't give a rats ass about the Republicans' political aspirations or President Obama's legacy legislation.  They didn't elect the legislators to get partisan gridlock.  We want solutions to the problems we face that were created by prior MessAPolitical actions and the law of unintended consequences.  I hope the American people are starting to see the results of their prior votes.  I guess we can't blame the politicians for our problems, because we elected them.  It's time to vote for limited government, putting federalism back in place, and for freedom.  We need to re-institute the constitution.

Do You Vote for a Job or a Handout?

Lately the President has been talking about extending unemployment benefits again.  Of course, he also talks about how strong the economy is now; Obama says that it is fixed.  Now, we hear that another large number of Americans have given up looking for work.  Then, they tell us that the housing starts are still rising, and that produces jobs.  Okay, which way is it -- good or bad?

When will our free press in the USA go into a press conference and call the president on this dichotomy?  Everyone knows that a Republican would never be allowed to have it both ways.  Why does the press constantly allow the Democratic narrative that the Republicans are the party of "no?"  They say that the Republicans don't want poor people to have health care.  How many times have you heard that "Republicans don't have a plan to fix health care in America?"  I know I've heard it a lot, but it still makes no logical sense.  Why would anyone want to deny health care coverage to anyone at any economic level?  What would the Republicans have to gain by sending jobs overseas?  Why don't we hear more about how the Republican led House passes bills, but they aren't even brought up for a vote by the Democrat run Senate?

Now the President is saying that Republicans need to extend the unemployment benefits to Americans that are hurting instead of giving tax breaks to their rich buddies.  Why don't the Republicans just snap back with a retort like "hey Mr. President, why don't you stop crippling the economy with your policies and regulations and Obamacare so that they can find a job?"  We wouldn't need to extend unemployment benefits if the unemployed weren't unemployed!  DUH!

The Democrats are also bringing up a drastic increase of about $3/hour in the federal minimum wage.  They say that middle class folks can't get a raise that they really need.  This is being touted as helping the economy and helping the regular folks out there.  The unions are supporting this initiative.  Why would the union workers that make much higher wages care about the minimum wage?  It is because many of their contracts are indexed off of the minimum wage.  Yes, they get paid a differential above the prevailing minimum wage.  Isn't that interesting.  Are they about to cut off the head of the goose that lays the golden eggs?

Anyone with a basic knowledge of the law of demand knows that raising the price of anything, including labor, reduces the demand for it.  Raising the minimum wage doesn't get anyone a real raise.  There will be jobs that can't be moved overseas like fast food restaurants for example.  Those employees will get raises, but the customers will see prices rise.  That will reduce demand and cause some restaurants to close or at least they will need fewer workers.  The higher prices will be inflationary, and all of us will have reduced spending power.  On average, the collective increase in wages will be met with an equal inflation rate.  That means we will be at a stalemate at best.  Glenn Beck probably said it best in his book Arguing with Idiots.  I can't give you an exact quote, but his statement went something like this:  "the minimum wage makes everyone unemployable whose labor is worth less than minimum wage."

The fact of the matter is that Democrats don't care if you are unemployed and your life sucks.  They just know that they can do something like raising the minimum wage that kills jobs, and they will end up "smelling like a rose."  They can claim that they fought the Republicans on behalf of the little guy and won.  They can also blame any lost jobs on the evil rich guys that are taking your job away to line their pockets.  If you think I'm wrong about the MessAPolitico doing this and not caring, what is the alternative?  Either the MessAPolitico doesn't care about you, or they are ignorant of basic economics like I learned in high school and in college.  I don't know about you, but I don't think either choice is very good for the Democrats.

Does the President Preserve, Protect & Defend the Constitution?

To be precise, the oath of office actually says “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”  Maybe Barack Obama just doesn't have that much ability.  In fact, he seems to have a lot more ability at trampling the constitution.  That's pretty amazing for a former constitutional law professor.

Article I of the Constitution states that "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."  So, how can the president take a law that was passed by Congress and signed by him and adjust it, tweak it, or ignore it?  Are those laws just optional?  Are the fine points just suggested ways of implementation?

How do all of these executive branch agencies get to write endless regulations that govern how we conduct our affairs, our lives, and our business?  Why do the private businesses that want to build the Keystone XL pipeline need to ask permission from the government before starting the construction?  Can't they just buy the strip of land from Canada to the refineries along the gulf coast and start building the pipeline?  Why does a television station need to have permission from the FCC to broadcast their signal?  OK, there would be broadcast chaos without someone assigning frequencies and bandwidth, but there are a lot of places where the government regulates things that are none of their business.  In fact, the FCC sometimes seems to want to limit free speech where it is expedient.

The New York City government has decided that we don't need to buy soft drinks that are bigger than they think is good for you.  Now the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has decided what health insurance coverage you and I need.  The federal government has decided how energy efficient my car needs to be, even though I have plenty of incentive to improve efficiency since I'm paying for the gasoline.  Of course, our government is kind of funny when they mandate higher efficiency cars, but complain that gasoline tax collections are down.  The government tells tobacco companies to put a label on their products that tell us the product is bad for us.  Then the government collects a bunch of tax on cigarettes, making me wonder if they really want you to quit smoking.

Health insurance was originally offered by companies to entice workers to join their workforce.  It was a perk.  Back then, unemployment was low, and the employers were trying to get skilled people any way possible.  Now, suddenly the government has decided that your employer owes you health insurance.  They have also decided what coverage the company must provide.  The only reason employers have been dropping health coverage for their employees is the rapidly rising cost.  Why is the cost so high?  Could it be malpractice lawsuits?  Do you think all of those regulations of the health care and insurance industries might come into play?

Obama acts like a "two-bit" dictator when he signs his executive orders or one of his agencies writes a new regulation.  Congress refused to infringe upon our second amendment gun rights, so the EPA just closed down all of the lead smelting plants in the USA.  You can keep your gun, but where will you get ammunition?  Congress refused to pass Cap and Trade, so Obama sent the EPA after coal fired power plants.  Where does it end?

It's time for the Congressional MessAPolitico to challenge these actions in the Supreme Court.  I don't care if Bill Clinton or George W. Bush or anyone else has been doing this stuff for years.  It is simply unconstitutional, and it is destroying our great country.  I implore the Tea Party patriots in Congress to challenge the Obama administration in court.  If nothing else, it will keep them tied up fighting the lawsuits and slow down their progress.

Barack, Who's Your Daddy?

Have you seen the movie, Dreams from My Real Father?  This a movie that is a documentary about President Barack Obama and his family.  This movie presents the case that the president's father is not Barack Obama from Kenya, but instead is Frank Marshall Davis.  Mr. Davis was a propagandist for the Communist Party in the United States.  This is a movie that every American should view, especially those that voted for Barack Obama in any election.

The writer, Joel Gilbert, even shows side by side photographs of the President with his father, Barack Obama Sr., and Frank Marshall Davis.  You can judge for yourself, but I believe the President looks a lot more like Frank Marshall Davis than Barack Obama I.  This movie claims that our president spent a lot of time with Frank Marshall Davis in his youth and was indoctrinated with the Communist Party USA propaganda.  Barack Obama then went on to Occidental College in Los Angeles where he further developed his belief in the communist ideology.

Their are many oddities in the Barack Obama story that are presented in this movie.  Here's a synopsis of the story as I remember it from my viewing before the 2012 election.  The story goes that the president's grandfather was a CIA agent, and he was investigating communist activities in unions.  The family was living in the Seattle area and, to help preserve his cover, attended a communist/socialist church there.  After Barack's mother had finished high school, the family moved to Hawaii, and she was very unhappy about it.  (I'm not sure why a person would prefer Seattle to Hawaii.  This is the only part of the movie that wasn't believable!)  She became very rebellious while attending college in Hawaii.  Maybe all those sermons on Sunday mornings in Seattle had indoctrinated her too.

In any case, Barack's mother became enamored with Frank Marshall Davis.  Mr. Davis was somehow connected to jazz music as a musician or just a fan, and this was very seductive to Barack's mother, Ann Dunham.  She began spending a lot of time with him, and it is believed by writer Joel Gilbert that she became pregnant by Mr. Davis.

This was a great problem for the president's grandfather since Mr. Davis was an avowed communist.  Consequently, the president's grandfather recruited a family acquaintance, Barack Obama Sr., to be listed as the father of the soon to be born child.  Barack's supposed father was offered payment to return from Kenya for further studies in Hawaii to act as the father.  This story says that the so-called "birthers" that were trying to prove that Barack Obama II was not born in the USA were misguided in their efforts.  This movie says that our president was born in the USA, but the real story is that his father is a communist.  The big part about that is Frank Marshall Davis' role in shaping Barack Obama's view of capitalism and communism.

Could this explain the current MessAPolitico in the USA?  I don't know.  It's interesting that the media hasn't done anything to discredit this documentary.  In fact, I've never heard it even mentioned anywhere in the media.  Is that a media cover up?  Is the media afraid that you will find out about this movie.  I think you should spend a little time viewing the case presented and make your own decision.

Greedy: An Adjective to Describe Liberal Politicians

I heard Barack Obama saying today that the Republicans need to tax the rich that can afford it.  He said the Republicans need to extend unemployment benefits again instead of giving tax breaks to the rich.  What is Obama talking about?  The rich have certainly not gotten any tax cuts lately.  When the Bush tax breaks expired, there effectively were tax increases on the rich.  President Obama, if your economic policies were working, we wouldn't have high unemployment.  If unemployment was lower, we wouldn't need to extend unemployment benefits.

I work for a small business with about 15-20 employees.  All of us are either professionals or skilled workers.  Our biggest problem these days is finding people with the right skills to work on the manufacturing floor.  I'm sure that the success of our business has made the owner pretty well off.  He's certainly not a billionaire, but I'm quite sure he's a millionaire.  Does that make him bad or greedy?  I'm certainly glad he started the business that provides a good living to all of these employees and their families.  I'm able to do the type of work I know and enjoy doing.  He reinvests in the business and creates more jobs.  This business didn't exist 15 years ago, and now it is a vibrant enterprise.  We buy parts and materials from other businesses, engineer equipment using the parts, and assemble the equipment in our shop.  We provide engineering services to our customers to improve their productivity and equipment reliability.  There is a definite value that we deliver to our customers, and we charge a price that is less than or equal to that value, making the transaction good for the customer.  As long as we deliver more value than the cost of delivering it, there is a profit.  None of our customers complain that our owner is making too much profit.  If our customers didn't think they were getting a good deal, they wouldn't buy our products and services.

I started thinking about this today, when I noticed how taxes aren't paid in an exchange for goods or services of equal or greater value.  My wife will be working a little late tonight, and she said that we should take an hour of her salary and use it to buy a fast food dinner.  I had to correct her, because she doesn't really get to keep her entire hourly wage.  The state, federal, and local income taxes will take away around 25%-30% of her wage.  The government doesn't do anything for her except confiscate a pretty big and growing chunk of her paycheck.  Politicians take it away and give it to others that don't work.  We don't get anything in return, and these politicians don't even represent our interests.  Too many of these recipients of government payouts choose not to work.  They are unable to earn enough to make it worthwhile to find a job.  The MessAPolitico takes money from those of us that pay taxes and give it to people that vote for them.  They are greedy enough to demand money from us and give it away to increase their personal political power.

I'm personally very happy to work for a person that has been successful and would be considered rich by many people.  I'm glad he has been successful enough to give a bunch of us jobs.  I hope he continues to be profitable and continues growing the business.  I wish the MessAPolitico would quit taking away more and more of the capital available to grow this business.  I hope the MessAPolitico will stop regulating and squeezing these type of businesses that employ 80% of Americans.  If you would leave the American economy alone, you wouldn't need to extend unemployment benefits.  Stop the handouts, and folks would need to get a job to keep from starving.

Quality of Life Brought to You by the MessAPolitico

I was watching the news magazine Dateline NBC over the weekend.  One of their big stories was about how children raised in poverty are three times as likely to have asthma.  They showed an in depth view of two particular families with children suffering with frequent asthma attacks, and they showed that the asthma is generally initiated by triggers in the environment.  These kids both lived with their families in housing projects operated by the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), and both had the same environmental triggers:  cock roach infestation and mold.

It's a shame when little kids come into this world with parents that live in such conditions.  It's also a shame that the government provides this housing in the same way that everything is done by the MessAPolitico:  very poorly.  While the report mentioned the cock roaches several times, the focus was on the heavy mold in the bathroom that was caused by plumbing leaks in their apartments or their neighbors' apartments.  The conditions were really deplorable, with the shower walls and ceilings covered with green splotches.  I wouldn't have lived in those conditions for days, much less months or years.

The parents struggled and fought with NYCHA over many months trying to get the mold problem resolved.  Various bureaucrats gave them scheduled repair dates over a year away.  They complained in the media repeatedly, and various workers were sent in to clean up the mold with bleach and repaint.  However, the underlying cause of the problem was dampness from plumbing leaks, so the mold quickly returned.  Finally, after months and months, NYCHA sent over a plumber and fixed the leaks.  Then the mold was cleaned up and did not return.  Thankfully, the young girl told us that her asthma attacks had stopped, and she was doing much better after the mold was eliminated.

This entire story was intended to tug at your heart strings.  The point was that the federal budget cuts were reducing maintenance staff in the projects.  The children are suffering because of these cuts.  There was no thought that the parents had any responsibility in this.  Of course, I saw things a little differently.  Lester Holt described the families as hard working with both parents working.  He also described them as growing families.  Mr. Holt said that New York City was expensive, and these hardworking, growing families couldn't afford anything better.  They deserved to have a good place for the families to live.

There are several questions I would like to have answered that weren't addressed in the story:

• Were these families citizens of the United States?  Everyone mentioned in this report had a Hispanic name.  Most of them had a Hispanic accent as well.  I know it's not politically correct to ask this question.  In fact, it is considered racist in the media today.  I still want to know if my tax dollars are being used to support non-citizens.
• Since Mr. Holt said these were growing families, how many kids did they have?  Were they two parent families?  Only one parent of these kids was the focus of the report.  Liberals are always pushing birth control and abortion to limit the size of these families and stop out-of-wedlock births.  Why weren't these antidotes used to prevent these folks from having more kids than they can afford?
• If budget cuts were responsible for poor maintenance, was the maintenance a lot better before the cuts?  Let me guess, everything was wonderful in the projects under Bill Clinton and a Democratically controlled Congress.  Now everything has gone to pot, and the children are suffering with asthma so that rich people can have a tax cut.

Now I have several observations:

• If the government can't fix plumbing leaks in the projects, do we want them handling our health care?  Should we expect great service and great health care under government run insurance, or should we expect a giant MessAPolitico?
• If these people are legal immigrants to the United States, why would we let them in if they don't have the financial means to live here with no skills?
• If these folks can't afford the rent in NYC, why don't the move to a small town in the south or the Midwest?  If there was less demand for housing in NYC, the price would go down.
• If the people in the story are legal citizens that grew up in the NYC, the public schools must be failing them.  They weren't educated enough to get a job that pays for living in NYC.  Another example of the results when the MessAPolitico runs anything--in this case the schools.
• Wouldn't it be better if the MessAPolitico stopped creating excessive costs and regulations that drive good manufacturing jobs out of the country.  Then these people wouldn't need government assistance to live.  If they weren't locked into the publicly supported housing, they would just leave for greener pastures if the landlord didn't take care of maintenance.
• If you put your life in the hands of the MessAPolitico, you are destined to be disappointed.

Rand Paul: Freedom Crusader

Rand Paul is challenging the NSA with a class action lawsuit.  It's about time someone is making a constitutional challenge to this bloated government intruding in our lives.  We are protected against unreasonable search and seizure here in the United States by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.  Here is this succinct yet powerful amendment:

• The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The National Security Agency has, of course, been seizing and storing our telephone and Internet browsing records in case they decide they are needed at a later date.  This is particularly concerning.  Can these folks be trusted to be good stewards of our information?  Our government hasn't proven to be trustworthy of late.  According to the Fourth Amendment, we don't have to trust the government do the right thing.  In fact, our stuff is off limits unless they get a warrant after law enforcement shows probable cause that a crime was committed.

Do you think it would be alright for the police to search every house in a neighborhood because they think a robber might live in the area or, more to the point, they think there are a lot of robbers living in that neighborhood?  Most of us don't want the government snooping around in our stuff.  What if the government snooping showed that I write this blog?  They might decide to hassle me for messing with the MessAPolitico.  They might send the IRS to my house to audit my tax returns for the last few years.  Then, I would have to gather my receipts and spend a lot of time defending myself against this powerful government entity because of my political beliefs.  You can't go to a judge for a search warrant using evidence you expect to get during the search.

The MessAPolitico needs to stop wasting time monitoring every move of tens of millions of regular Americans, and concentrate on those people where they can demonstrate probably cause to justify the action.  Why waste so much energy, time, and money on this "shotgun" approach to national security?  It makes so much more sense to concentrate the efforts with more of a "rifle shot" technique where they start with a person that is likely to have committed a crime.  If they have the evidence to show the probable cause, then and only then should they track their telephone and Internet records.  This will likely reveal associates and websites that cater to associates of this criminal.  Then, the web of associations can be evaluated and investigated.

Thank you for fighting the MessAPolitico Senator Paul.  Hopefully, this is just a preview of a stream of lawsuits that fight the President as he legislates from the oval office through his executive agencies and their regulations.

Can the Republicans Ever Win the Presidency Again?

I'm wondering if we have seen our last Republican president.  From all I've seen, I believe Hillary Clinton will be the next president unless she decides not to run.  I don't really understand the mystique.  Is it because of her last name?  What has she ever done?  Well let's see, she brought us Benghazi.  As first lady, she spearheaded the failed effort for government run health care.  As Senator from New York, what legislation did she initiate?  What are her legislative accomplishments?  As Secretary of State, Hillary seemed to be nothing but a puppet for Barack Obama.  Did she get any big treaties signed or do anything to bring peace and stability to any country or region in the world?  Was nuclear proliferation slowed under Hillary's reign?  The "Arab Spring" happened while she was in power.  Was that good?

When you look at the crop of Democrats that are likely to oppose Hillary in the primary, maybe that explains how she wins the Democratic primary.  Of course, she definitely panders to the typical liberal groups like the feminists, the LGBT's, and the American Bar Association.  The mainstream media also loves everything about any Clinton.

How did we get to this point?  In the last two presidential elections, the Republican primaries featured a multitude of conservative candidates against a moderate.  The conservatives split the conservative base and left the moderate to win the primary.  Then, too many conservative voters in the Republican base decided to stay home.  McCain and Romney both seemed weak to me, and their performances in the debates were too weak to win.  The running mates were very inexperienced and not very presidential.

The media continues to provide undying support for any Democrat.  In the primaries, the media picks the Republican challenger.  Any Republican that appears to offer a serious challenge is crucified in the press and destroyed.

Now the Republicans are trying to win by "out Democrating" the Democrats.  This is just not a winning strategy.  The Republicans have joined the MessAPolitico in trying to win the votes of the moderates and some of the liberals.  It hasn't worked, and it won't ever work.  The Republicans have definitely lost more conservative base votes than they have gained liberal or moderate votes.

Is the answer to abandon the Republican party?  More and more Republican voters are supporting fiscally conservative Tea Party candidates or Libertarians.  Of course, I really don't see the difference between the Tea Party and the Libertarian Party.  Primarily, the difference is that the Tea Party has been vilified by the press.  So, where do we go from here?  It seems like the Republican party will not come back to a winning strategy that captures the base.  Maybe we need to make the switch now by recruiting Republicans to move over to the Libertarian party now.

Abortion: Murder that Protects an Unwed Mother from her Mistakes

For some reason, liberals generally all support abortion.  They suddenly want us to have freedom of choice, and their rhetoric says that conservatives want to take away a mothers right to choose.  They also say that we must provide young girls free contraceptives to prevent pregnancy, but to teach them abstinence is ignorant.  They, of course, know more about such things than we ignorant hick conservatives do.  The mother gets freedom of choice in what she does with her unborn child, but we aren't afforded freedom of religion or freedom of expression when our view differs with theirs.  Their government wants all of the children and teenagers attending government run schools that teach sex education and hand out all of the free contraceptives the kids need.  Do the liberals in Hollywood feel any guilt for producing movie after movie that glorifies the "one night stand" and pervasive extramarital sex?  They have shown us that all kids in high school or college are having sex, at least if they are the cool kids.  Is that why they are pro-abortion?  Is it Hollywood guilt for all of the profits they have made changing the culture of America?

Of course, the liberals would say that it's perfectly OK to kill an unborn child all the way up until it is passing through the birth canal.  However, once it is born, we must spend a lot of tax dollars feeding the child, providing it with housing and cable TV, and offering it a free liberal indoctrination -- I mean education -- all the way through graduate school.  Of course, the child and its parents also have the RIGHT to free health care.  Any parent that abuses or even spanks a child once it is born is subject to the wrath of the judicial system in America.  Isn't that taking away the mother's right to choose how she raises her child?

Let's face it, abortion is a way for a young woman or girl to have all of the fun and sex she wants without having to face the consequences.  If you mess up and get pregnant, no one needs to know.  You don't need to raise the child and forgo your own higher education.  You don't need to face the embarrassment of your error -- although I'm not sure it has much of a stigma these days.  All you need to do is knock off your unborn child before your belly begins to swell; kill the kid for you own selfish benefit.  Why should this young girl or her boyfriend be strapped with the inconvenience created by their mistake?

Imagine if a mother of a young child found out how inconvenient the child was after it was born.  She thought that having a baby would be fun, but after being awakened at all hours for early morning feedings, it wasn't as much fun.  Those babies can be pretty expensive too.  Sometimes they get sick or need to have their nasty diapers changed.  What if mom decided the kid was too inconvenient after it was born?  Shouldn't she have the right to murder the baby after it is born?  Maybe when the kid starts getting in trouble or is difficult to deal with during adolescence she should have the right to choose whether it lives or dies.  I'll bet kids threatened with murder would behave better and listen to their parents' commands.

Of course, these suggestions are ridiculous.  But, they're not any more ridiculous than killing the baby before it's born for the mother's convenience.  Abortion has been justified by the MessAPolitico.  They say the mother's right to choose murder should be protected under the law.  They will also tell you that the baby isn't a human life until it is fully born or maybe until it is viable outside the womb.  Give me a break.  Have you ever heard a mother say she has a fetus inside her that will come to life when it pops out?  I doubt that even a hardcore liberal abortionist pro-choice feminist would describe their unborn baby that way.

I doubt that abortion laws will ever be repealed in America.  I would be surprised if the MessAPolitico would do the right thing and even call it what it is -- murder.  Even the conservative politicians fear losing elections, and they prefer not to discuss abortion.  We can raise our children as we see fit though.  We can tell them that abortion is murder.  We can point out politicians that support the murder of unborn children to our sons and daughters.  A kid's parents can shape their beliefs and morals.  They have much more control than they sometimes realize.  I remember telling my young daughter that Bill Clinton supported killing unborn babies, and she was appalled.  That was a big issue with her all through college where she participated in anti-abortion rallies.  We are unlikely to end legal abortion in the United States, but we can simply educate our children to not use this freedom of choice.