Category Archives: pollsters

It is long overdue

Posted on by

The current field of potential candidates who have “thrown their hats in the ring” by announcing their campaign to become President of the U.S.A. offers some interesting possibilities. We as usual have a cast of characters from the establishment, but we also have new choices. We have one that is a renowned surgeon, one that is the former head of a large corporation and one that is what would be called a tycoon. This post only concerns the Republican field of contenders.

The questions to ask oneself is this concerning the establishment politicians are these. Have they made it this far because they are career politicians? Have they made it this far because of the system?
For the one’s currently holding elected Constitution offices these are the questions to ask. Do you represent and serve the electorate or the political party? Do you serve the people’s or the money and the agenda associated with the money? Are you fulfilling your oath to uphold the Constitution? Were you elected on character or did the political party buy you the Constitutional office that you now occupy?
For the ones not holding a current Constitutional office? Will you represent the people or the political party? This question answers itself, just after your name will be your political party affiliation.

For the three outsiders, never holding public office before, did you make it to where you are because of, or in spite of the system?

Just the possibility that an outsider could actually win the nomination process and then actually get elected to the office of the President of the United States of America set me to thinking. This event would “shake the political landscape to its core”. Washington D.C. and politics would be changed for evermore.

Then I got to thinking how else could Washington D.C. be changed? Then I starting thinking of ways to shrink the government, getting government out of the personal lives of Americans and saving money and in the process saving America.

First thing an immediate government hiring freeze, no new employees and vacant positions would remain vacant. No one fired YET!!!!!!.

Now the FUN begins and the SHAKEUP starts.
Each newly elected President names his cabinet and his staff.
Political appointees, political hacks, political operatives and bureaucrats get to D.C. and never leave, that would change because they would find no employment and would be forced to return home.
1. No more damned Tsars, they all go and no more appointed.
2. The White House chef, no more overpaid cook. The president is the Commander-in Chief of the Military. Pull the White House cook staff from the ranks of the military. If the food they prepare is good enough for the rank and file it should be good enough for the Commander, the same food eat what they eat. They are already being paid by for the tax payers. Why pay two people to do one job? Already saving money.
3. Personal assistants, really, if you need assistance with everyday activities you belong in a long-term nursing facility not in the White House, this goes for you and your family. Walk your own dog. Saving more money.

Some thought on Cabinet members.
Secretary of Defense. No more bureaucrats, find a retired Sergeant Major, First Sergeant or preferably a Platoon Sergeant or even a private. They understand the plight of the everyday soldier and most excel in the common sense arena.
Secretary of State. As above any one of those could get the job done, their way of negotiating is I win you lose.
Secretary of the Treasury. Find the wife of any Military service member, they understand the value of a dollar. As matter of fact this would be a good choice to appoint in any money handling or budgetary office.
Secretary of Health and Human Services. No more bureaucrats, find a competent real life doctor, a skilled doctor not one who does plastic surgery, one who actually saves lives and values life.
Secretary of Transportation. Find a Fleet Manager of a large trucking company they understand the roads and could even help with logistics.
Home Land Security. Since we are stuck with this department we may as well have a qualified Secretary. Choose from one of the Sheriffs around the country, one comes to mind. Border Patrol and ICE need good leadership as well. Again choose from the sheriffs, two more good candidates come to mind.
The rest of the cabinet should be filled in the same manner, the person holding the post should at least have experience in that field. Politicians have political experience, and since most are career politicians that is all the experience they have political and no real-world experience.
Education goes back to the States.
Some departments simply go away, especially those that are redundant.

The Surgeon General should come from the ranks of the military and especially consider a Flight Surgeon.

The one heading up the V.A. should be one that has needed the V.A.

The political landscape in America is long overdue for a shakeup and finally the swamp should be drained, or clean out the septic tank which ever expression you prefer.

I do not wish to hear “but they have no experience”.
No one said that about BHO and look at where we are now both domestically and foreign. You were happy letting a liberal with no experience run things, why not give a conservative the same opportunity?
Nor do I want to hear “but they don’t have a college education”.
Look at where we are now with all the geniuses we have at present running things. Going to and graduating college does not make you smart the same as sitting in a garage does not make you a car. The difference between a box of rocks and what the so-called geniuses in Washington D.C. have between their ears is the box.

Yes, It is long overdue. The politicians seek to do a comprehensive reform of the immigration laws, I say it is time to comprehensively reform American politics. At this point I am so fed up with the so-called conservative republicans who in all actuality are no more than progressive liberals I am to the point of supporting and seeking a third option. A true conservative who wants to restore America to greatness, the status before social liberalism and political correctness.

Feeding the Monsters

Posted on by

There are certainly many Monsters roaming America and the planet, and feeding them will certainly keep them alive and well. Throughout history Monsters have been associated with Evil, and Evil has been associated with Monsters.

One prime example of a Monster historically documented was Hitler, and no one can deny that Hitler was Evil. Hitler was even called Monstrously Evil. Hitler was ultimately destroyed along with Nazism. The Monster and the Evil he created were defeated and destroyed. There have been many other men and women throughout history who were Monsters and certainly Evil. Without fail each and every one of them were associated with fear, oppression and broken promises. Most rose to power feeding on fear, oppression and promising to make things better for the middle class, while others were born into power. Monsters create other Monsters and Evil creates more Evil, each feeding off of the other.

The problem with Monsters is that all of them do not always appear in life as they appear in fairy tales and in the movies, if they did they would be easy to recognize. Monsters are one of life’s great deceptions. Monsters may not look or appear as Monsters but they are incapable of hiding their inner Monstrous tendencies eventually they are exposed for what they are. The problem with Evil is that Evil does not always appear as Evil. Evil can and most often appears as good or necessary. Evil is another of life’s great deceptions. There is the notion that evil can be used for good, as far-fetched as that seems.

Monsters and the Evils that they create can only exist in darkness and secrecy. To be rid of them they must be exposed to the light and truth.

The question one should be asking, at least the one I was asking myself, is why would someone intentionally continue to feed the Monster and allow the Evil it creates to continue. The Monster and the Evil that I am referring to is ISIL/ISIS/The Islamic State. Given the military might of this nation, why does the Islamic State, as they now refer to themselves, continue to exist? The Monster and the Evil it does survives and thrives.

Last week Delta Force was successful in eliminating one of the Islamic State’s top thugs. In the same week the Islamic State was able to successfully attack two towns, Ramadi in Iraq and Palmyra in Syria. Our military under the brilliant leadership of BHO focuses on taking out one man while IS focuses on taking and occupying two towns in two different countries. IS is able to recruit from nearly every country in the world the dead man will soon be replaced. The two towns will cost more than one man to retake.

Multi-million dollar aircraft and priceless pilots are being sent out to bomb trucks in the desert. This same tactic was used in Viet Nam with disastrous results.

This why I say the Monster is still being fed. IS is still being resupplied with world-class military equipment. The defenders of Ramadi dropped their weapons and abandoned their equipment to include tanks in the face of IS fighters. That plus what they picked in the Palmyra offensive should give U.S. airpower more and new targets. As long as the Iraqi forces cut-and-run IS should have a never-ending supply of equipment and airpower should have a never-ending supply of targets. How many times have American combat aircraft and bombers flown missions only to destroy American equipment?

The spokesmouth for BHO said the Iraqi forces that dropped their weapons and abandoned their equipment in the face of an IS attack were not trained by the U.S. This brings up two questions.
First, who trained them? The ones who were trained should be training. The U.S. should have trained the trainers.
Second, if they were not trained by the U.S. then why the hell were the using American equipment?

The U.S. Military Academies are still open, aren’t they? Why have not great military commanders leaders like Patton, Bradley, Eisenhower, MacArthur, Nimitz, Halsey, Puller and the rest come out of West Point, VMI, Annapolis and the rest. Or have they and they have been side-lined or fired? Is someone afraid one of them might go full Patton on IS?

Keeping IS alive and well could be just as intended, never actually intending to defeat them gives one and enemy and war, even if limited, for life.

If BHO is un-willing to use the massive military might against IS, who is he planning to un-leash it on? Is there another Monster and great Evils in some ones future? Training for something. Ukraine? JADE HELM?

Coexistence part 2 Guns

Posted on by

Can the people who are pro-gun and the people who are anti-gun coexist? The answer is YES. People “coexist” each and every day with differing points of view. The reason they can do this is because they make a choice to exercise their right to own a gun or not.
as for me, I am in the pro-gun “camp”. Owning and carrying concealed weapons is my right and I choose to exercise that right. There is however a high level of responsibility that accompanies the exercise of this right as with exercising any right. A responsibility that I willingly accept.

My responsibilities as a gun owner and a concealed weapons permit holder.
I am responsible to know and understand my weapon its capabilities as well as its limitations. Not only must I know my firearm, I must know the ammunition that is associated with a particular firearm.
I am responsible to secure my weapon and ammunition to prevent unauthorized use. I would do this even if there was no law, much the same as I would never drink from a toilet. Just like the law making a person secure weapons and ammunition, someone somewhere thought it was a good idea to post a sign behind a toilet telling the user it was unsafe to drink.
I am responsible to know and understand firearms safety and how to safely handle a firearm.
I am responsible to know and understand the laws of my state concerning firearms and concealed carry.
When traveling I am responsible to know the laws of the states concerning firearms and concealed carry that I will or could possibly travel through as well as the laws concerning firearms and concealed carry of the state that I intended to visit for a spell. In some cases it gets even more involved than that, sometimes the local laws must be known and understood.
My list of responsibilities goes on and own, if you have got the picture by now you are definitely not in the same camp I am in, you are in the anti-gun camp.

Do those in the anti-gun camp have responsibilities? Yes, they do. As a matter of fact those in the anti-gun camp have many of the same responsibilities as those in the pro-gun camp, though hey do differ from the above list. The first and foremost is the protection, safety and well-being of yourself and your family, and this list goes on and on.

As to the matter of self-defense, just because a person is anti-gun does not necessarily mean that they are against self-defense. They may just choose to defend themselves when required to do so in a different manner. Whether it be a knife, a bat, a stick or just calling for help from someone with a gun.

There are many reasons that could land a person in the anti-gun camp, religious reasons, strong moral convictions and again the list could be long. Below are just some of my own observations.
One thing that I have noticed for so many in the anti-gun camp is that some people have a fear and/or misunderstanding of firearms. This instance of fear was addressed in a previous post, titled The problem is the reason. Another reason is the total lack of respect of a firearm. Education is another reason, it seems that “fear” in the main educating point concerning firearms by the anti-gun culture, teaching about firearms was also addressed in a previous post, titled Teach them young teach them correctly. Another reason is the lack of exposure. How many in the anti-gun camp have ever been to a public firing range? The answer is relatively few.

To make an informed statement about firearms or any other subject it is my opinion that one must educate themselves and not rely on others who are just speaking to be heard. You know, the ones who do not even have a proper understanding of the subject and use data skewered towards their position whether the data is true or not, most often not. The truth matters not to these people, just the furtherance of their agenda.

After you have educated yourself and have had at least some exposure you can make an informed statement and possibly argue your point based on fact not propaganda. If after education and exposure you still remain in the anti-gun camp I will support your choice and decision, even though I disagree.
But, if you refuse to educate yourself or even be exposed to firearms, religious and moral convictions excluded, then you are not in the anti-gun camp, you are in the gun-control camp and you will be addressed shortly.

Do I believe that everyone should own a firearm? Absolutely not, there are some who should never be trusted to have a firearm and there are those who have lost that right by engaging in criminal activity. Much the same as there are some politicians holding a Constitutional office that should never be trusted to hold office any office especially if it gives or bestows upon them power over another.

Now to address the most heinous group of all, those in the gun control camp. I call you the most heinous group for this, you are not about gun-control you are about rights control and deprivation. You seek to use the power and force of government to deny or deprive me my right to own firearms. You use each tragic event where a firearm was used to further restrict my rights concerning firearms, and you have a powerful ally in the media. You report on tragedy but fail to report the lawful use of firearms to protect life and limb. You focus on criminal activity and neglect lawful activity. You are fools if you think you can reduce the swords into plowshares and still exist. Two quick points for you.
First, it was men using firearms that won America’s independence from a tyrannical king. If it were not for the use of firearms to gain independence, America would still be under the control of the British Throne. Is that where you would be? Living under tyranny. The King of England sought to keep America subjugated with firearms. The Colonials used firearms to win Independence.
Second, it was Americans that used firearms to save the world in two World Wars. Tyrants and Dictators sought to overrun and rule the world using firearms. The good and righteous saved the world using firearms.

Now, you in the anti-gun and gun-control camps think that I have just made your case for you and will attempt to use my words against me. You are wrong and nothing could be farther from the truth. I have instead made my point and case for owning firearms clearer.
Think on this. Prior to the advent of firearms Kings and other evil tyrants used any means and weapons available to subjugate other countries and indeed their populations, whether it was the jaw bone of an ass or a rock. Good and righteous men using the same weapons freed themselves from tyranny and oppression.

Firearms are not the problem. The problem is evil and tyranny. As long as there is evil and tyranny in the world, and it has existed since Adam and Eve were removed from the Garden of Eden. Good and righteous men and women will use the same weapons to defend themselves and to throw off the yoke of tyranny and oppression as the tyrants of the world use to place them under tyranny and oppression. The evil tyrants use at this moment firearms in an attempt to place the yoke of tyranny and oppression around the necks of entire countries and the populations, some times even entire continents. The good and righteous at this moment will use firearms to prevent the placement of the yoke around their necks and in some cases to remove the same yoke.

For those not in the pro-gun camp think on this. It was the good and righteous through the use of firearms that made it possible for you to say and in some cases do or attempt to do stupid things.

There are only two ways to bring people to agree with your opinion or position, Reason and Force.
To the anti-gun camp I will attempt to get you to remove your tent from the campground you presently occupy and place it in the pro-gun camp. But the difference is that I will only attempt to use reason, never force. If I am unsuccessful in my attempt to convince you to move to my camp through reason you should remain in your camp if you remain anti-gun. If you are only anti-gun and remain as such but do not seek to limit the rights of others you are welcome to move to the pro-gun camp, because it is about more than being pro-gun it is about the preservation of rights. All of them. But if you are really gun-control which equates to rights control or elimination you should really be in the gun-control campground, where you belong.
To the gun-control camp, come out of the closet and state you true intention, which is to attempt to restrict or eliminate my rights. I see you for what you really are, you may as well admit it. You failed to bring me to you camp through reason, now you attempt to use the force of government to make me move. You will use government in an attempt to deny me the right self-defense.

Can the pro-gun camps and the gun-control camps coexist? Absolutely not, in my opinion. I am about freedom and liberty and the freedom to exercise my rights. They in my opinion are about tyranny and oppression by limiting or eliminating rights.

Do you really think that you still have the bill of rights or any rights at all because the government has your best interests at heart?

Look at other countries around the world, I mean really look with your eyes open. Take special note of the countries who deny the population a means to defend themselves, if it is not the government it is the terrorists who have placed the yoke of tyranny and oppression around the necks of the population. At present they have no recourse but to wear the yoke. But soon some brave soul may find and take up the jawbone of an ass or a rock and begin the process of removing the yoke. But how many will die before the same weapons that were used to place the yoke are used to remove the yoke.

Are you really sure that you only want to trust the government with weapons?

The coming of the Fourth Reich?

Posted on by

The world has already witnessed three Reichs. A Reich is no more than a government, which is best defined as to put in order, set straight. The First Reich was the Holy Roman Empire and is regarded as the First German Empire. The Second Reich was the German Empire from 1871 through 1919. The Third Reich was the German Fascist State under the Nazis from 1933 through 1945.
Is the fourth unfolding? The Fourth Reich will not be about Germany, it will not even be in Europe.

The Third Reich came into existence for several reasons and to correct the failures of the previous two. The first reason was to protect national identity and establish it as the master identity, master race. The government under the leadership of Adolf Hitler and with the aid of his “henchmen” set about a campaign of propaganda, lies and fear-mongering to convince the “master race” that they were “victims” and oppressed in their home country by foreigners, “inferior races” and “inferior people” or “groups of Peoples”. Once the hatred of those deemed by the government, Reich, as “inferior” was established separation and segregation began. The next thing needed for the execution of the plan to protect the “master race” was enforcement. What had begun as the “Brown Shirts” that would later graduate and elevate to the level of the “Black Shirts”, the SS. Full implementation of the plan to protect the “master race” would require the occurrence of a “triggering event”, the “Enabling Act”. The “Enabling Act” was established in the Constitution of the Weimar Republic and would be triggered and set in motion by an event seen and deemed by the government as a threat to national security. The Enabling Act would remove all legislative processes and powers from the Legislature and placed them in the hands of the Führer and the Cabinet, aka bureaucrats. The triggering event was a fire at the Reichstag, which was not only a threat to national security but a direct attack on the government. Once the Father Land was secured, why not spread the Reich to the neighboring countries that had high populations of the “master race”, through annexation. The annexation of neighboring countries not only brought more of the “master race” but it also brought excess baggage, large numbers of “inferiors”. Elimination of all opposition and those seen and deemed as “inferior” began. Round-up and Containment of “inferiors” in “Ghettos” lead to the establishment of “concentration camps”.

As to the establishment of a Fourth Reich, what would it entail? What would be required of a Constitutional Republic to let itself deteriorate to the state of such a Reich.
First, a leader using “charisma” just like Hitler used in the establishment of the Third Reich to establish the Fourth. One that could give speeches to a “targeted audience” to stir up feelings and emotions, especially the “you are victims approach”. One that would use any opportunity or event to stir-up discontent, and use the administration to do the same. A leader who could use rhetoric to divide the population into ever smaller groups, and then give targeted speeches to the targeted audience to elicit a targeted response. A leader would be needed that would capitalize on the over-reach of those that previously held his office, and be willing to engage in even more over-reach. A leader would be needed that was willing to use the Cabinet to punish anyone who is seen as opposition.
Second, a completely obedient Legislative branch of government to abdicate its responsibility to the “charismatic” leader, the current administration, cabinet and bureaucrats. A legislature that would voluntarily give more and more power to the leader, but at the same time complain about the power grab of the leader. A Legislature would be needed that would appoint “radicals” to cabinet level and judicial positions. A Legislature that would in a moment of insanity pass legislation that would give the leader ultimate power in the event of a triggering event.
Third, a completely obedient press, one which totally abdicated the principles of “freedom of the press”. A Press that protects the Leader and his minions while attacking any opposition.
Fifth, a population that blindly believes what they are told. A population or a segment of the population that has become completely dependent on government for their existence. A population that willingly allows itself to be divided and “pitted” against the remainder of the population. A segment of the population that is constantly told that they are victims of the remaining population. A population that willingly trades, no gives up, something for value for something little value and at times for things of no value. A population or a segment of the population that will not stay informed, or think for themselves. A segment of the population that has totally abdicated the principles of self-determination and self-reliance, totally government dependent.

Will the Fourth Reich be different from the previous three? Yes, definitely.
One distinguishing characteristic about the Holy Roman Empire was that a conquered people were expected to assimilate and become citizens of the Empire with the rights and protections afforded with citizenship.
The Fourth Reich will have no expectations of assimilation nor will it be demanded of any new citizen in order to garner the privileges or benefits of assimilation into the population. The Fourth Reich will be a direct contradiction of the First Reich in the matter of assimilation. As a matter of fact non-assimilation will be rewarded. The new citizens will become hyphenated citizens, with their origin first and the new country last. Amazingly some of the population that had existed before will be encouraged to do the same, become hyphenated, a form of division. The government will even ensure that some segments of the population will be and remain hyphenated on government forms. The Press will even be complicit in this hyphenation. The Cabinet will even be complicit in this, branches of the cabinet will ensure that one segment is afforded special protections. The Legislature will even be a part in passing legislation that offers protections for one against another. This will all be one-sided.
The distinguishing characteristic of the Third Reich was to establish a master race.
The Fourth Reich will not attempt to establish a “master race”, as a matter of fact the exact opposite will be the goal. The country that will be the Home of the Fourth Reich does not believe in the principles of a master race. In this country there is a dominate population and by dominate I do not mean superior, I mean the majority population. The Fourth Reich will instead seek to relegate the majority population irrelevant. This will be accomplished by allowing illegal immigration and forced relocation. The establishment of Ghettos will not be needed, instead the idea of social engineering will be used. It will be the intent of the government to remain in power. The best way to accomplish this task would be to disperse the non-assimilating citizenry into areas that are seen as opposition by the government and giving them the right to vote. By knowing that the non-assimilating will vote a particular way and by social engineering and strategic relocation it is easy to relegate the majority to a minority.
One other characteristic of the Third Reich was National Pride. National Pride will be discouraged in the Fourth Reich. The Leader will assure this by constantly denying the exceptionalism of the country. Not only will the leader do this in his own country, to a targeted audience, he will make these announcements around the world and anytime he addresses the world. He will use any unfortunate yet isolated event to make his case that government interventions are the solution. He will interject himself into local events especially if that event serves to further his agenda, even if it causes more trouble and deepens the divides. He will seek to eliminate any resemblance of national pride. The symbols usually associated will begin to disappear as the government begins telling the population that the symbols of nationalism are the cause of evil in the world. The lie will be repeated over and over and the uninformed of the population begin to believe the lies and propaganda, soon the population will demand the removal of national symbols as they are signs of oppression. The leader would claim that the country is a country of immigrants, therefore all immigrants should be welcomed. The leader would begin the education, no indoctrination, of the citizens first in public schools with a curriculum that would be common in all schools around the country. Later education in colleges would be provided free of charge, but only if the student was to meet specific requirements. The government would set the requirements. The people of the Fourth Reich would soon learn that there is nothing that is free, but it will have to be learned the hard way.
There are many tactics employed in the previous three that would be of great use to a tyrannical despotic ruler. One tactic and tool a tyrannical despotic ruler could use was a Nationalized Police Force, sort of like the Gestapo. Another would be a “secret police force”, where one citizen would spy on another citizen and report back on any activity the government thought to be anti-what ever the case may be that day. The most useful tool would be a “national registry”, where all citizens are required to produce their “papers” at the request of some bureaucrat or nationalized police.
The national registry could be established in many ways, but the easiest is mandatory voting. If everyone that is eligible to vote has to vote, everyone must register. But, even this draconian measure would only net a portion of the population. It would only be a partial list, registry, as only those eligible to vote would be registered, but this would be a huge start. But how to finish the registry? That would be easy in a tyrannical despotic empire. All that would be required is for some bureaucrat in an agency that oversees travel to come up with a requirement for in-country travel papers, an in-country passport. That would only require a triggering event, such as a terrorist attack, even if it were staged. It would then be required for safety and security. The government would say they are only looking for suspected terrorists, and the terrorists would not have an in-country passport. If you are not in possession of one you must be a terrorist.

The Fourth Reich is coming, of that you can be sure. Maybe it is already in existence, though yet early in its founding. When it is fully formed for the world to see it will be given a more sanitized name than the Fourth Reich. There is probably some bureaucrat sitting in an office in the Department of Slogans that is busy working on a sanitized name, while another bureaucrat in the Department of Scams is busy working out the final details of it implementation. The whole thing will come under the control of the Department of Misery, formerly known as the Department of Fairness and Equality.

Like I stated earlier it will not be in Germany, and not in Europe. Where will it be you ask? To that I say stay informed.

Is it Time?

Posted on by

Is it time for a new breed of public servant? Yes it is. What America is in need of is elected leaders who understand that they hold Constitutional offices and not political offices, at all levels. America needs elected leaders that will operate within the limits and confines of the Constitution and perform the duties of the branch they serve in as stated in the Constitution.

Is it time for a new political party? One that honestly represents conservatism? The GOP says no, absolutely not. The Dem’s do not care if one springs up and puts forth a serious challenge. Why is it that the Dem’s do not care and the GOP starts foaming at the mouth when the three party system idea surfaces? If there was a third national political party the Dem’s would see little migration to the new party. The GOP on the other hand would see mass migration to the new party. But, why is that? The biggest reason is principles. Principles that are run on and the same principles are demonstrated in the execution of the office. The Democrats are Progressive Liberals and they run on progressive principles as progressive liberals and they act as progressive liberals when elected. The Republicans are conservatives and run on conservative principles, but sadly many do not demonstrate conservative principles in the execution of their office when elected, they act as progressives. The Conservative voters will vote for a conservative, even if it means voting for a third-party. Liberal progressive voters will vote for a liberal progressive, and that means a democrat. The GOP loses. Why? The candidate representing the GOP is not a conservative. The GOP has lost its way, both parties have lost their way, but it only costs the GOP.

There is one glaring thing that I have noticed about all of the scandals caused by and surrounding BHO and his administration and it speaks volumes about America. There are no more Americans demanding answers and accountability than there were at the beginning of the scandals, none. This alone makes no sense. The sheer numbers of scandals and failures should swell the numbers demanding answers and accountability, sadly this has not happened. Worse, I fear the numbers will not swell, no more will demand answers and accountability tomorrow than today. On the other hand the numbers of those who either will not or refuse to demand answers or hold anyone accountable will swell. This is best demonstrated by two groups of people. The first group is the young adults. Most do not even know where Benghazi is on a map, never heard of the BLM standoff at Bunkerville. The list goes on and on, most are not even aware of current events and have little recollection of yesterday much less yesteryear. The problem with the young adults is that they are a “me” generation, if it does not affect me it is not my problem. The second group is the “New Americans” the ones who will be granted “executive amnesty” and the ones arriving here from the Middle East as refugees. The “new Americans” called dreamers broke the law by coming here illegally and will be allowed to remain here, illegally. The refugees will most certainly be granted privileges they do not deserve. The second group illegals and refugees will most definitely not demand answers or accountability. They most certainly will join with the progressives, by doing so they will be rewarded.
True enough the scandals are far removed from the lives of everyday America and have little effect on the individual, that is until it finally does effect you. But they do effect you whether you see it or not.

Progressives, at least to me, seem to be confused about Rights and Choices. Progressives are a complete contradiction. Progressives espouse that we as Americans must be tolerant of others, at times to the point of denying our identity. Yet progressives are the most intolerant of all, to the point of attaching labels to anyone with a different view. Progressives claim to be pro-choice yet, progressives attempt to limit or eliminate choice, and do in fact deny rights and choice to others. Progressives even believe it is their right to limit or eliminate rights and choices. This may come from the progressives tendency to voluntarily give their rights even if it means giving up free choice, sacrificing Liberty for Security. No only are they happy do this they actually expect, no demand, that all Americans do the same. Progressives believe that all rights are bestowed upon them by government, if that were true government could deny rights on a whim.
Progressives have a “herd mentality”, simply following the leader no matter where they are led, even if it means going over a cliff. Free thinking is not part of their “scheme”, they just plod along, all on the same path to the same destination. Adopted for no other purpose than garnering votes. Progressives give no thought to what dangers await them on the path much less what lies at the end. Progressives live and exist on the principle of hope. Progressives hope that the utopia they so desperately seek is at the end of the path. Progressives hope that total destruction is not what waits for them at the end of their path. Masses moving together just like the Lemmings during mass migration with no idea what lies ahead and with little care, just playing follow the leader. Hoping for the best.
Progressives have no hard and fast set of principles, they are constantly evolving, constantly broadening. I find it hard to believe that anyone that has no hard and fast set of principles could ever be trusted. I find it especially hard to believe that this type of person could be elected or appointed to any position in government. The un-trustworthy being trusted to govern.
Groups that feel that they are discriminated against or have been disenfranchised only have to keep voting for progressives, because it has been proven time and time again a progressive will evolve and perhaps adopt that group into its fold.
You will notice in the above paragraph the only term used was Progressive, this was intentional. The why is simple, there are many progressives that call themselves republicans. Actually progressive is liberal and liberal is associated with the left, meaning democrats. If you wish to attach labels, start with yourself and label yourself correctly. Identity politics. Pandering politicians.

This part of this post is not to start an argument over which is or was better the Articles of Confederation or the U.S. Constitution, if it does so be it, though I do like the phrase Free and Independent States mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. The Articles of Confederation was replaced by the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence is where the phrase Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are found, not in the Constitution.
The U.S. Constitution is so short as in the numbers of pages for a reason. The Constitution spells out the duties of the three branches of government and is a limit on government power. The Constitution was not designed to limit the power of the people, as a matter of fact it starts with these words “We the People”. The Constitution even guarantees a republican form of government. It even guarantees the powers not granted to the government or prohibited to the states would remain with the states and the people respectively.
Our rights do not come from government, they instead come from the Creator of the universe. The U.S. Constitution with the Bill of Rights goes hand in hand with the Declaration of Independence. The Articles of Confederation and the Declaration of Arms should also be considered as a part of the founding documents. Yes even the Federalist Papers. Several key words and phrases from the Declaration of Independence. The first is Self-Evident meaning without need of proof or explanation. The second is Unalienable Rights, Un means Not, Alienable means Capable of being alienated or transferred to a new owner, meaning they “Your Rights” can not be transferred to a new owner. Certain when used in the context of the structured sentence in the Declaration of Independence does not limit the Rights to a list it means Fixed or Indisputable.
The Declaration of Independence is about the people not the government, it expressly states the conditions that the people would not and could not live or exist under. The Constitution is an agreement by the people concerning the type government under which they were willing to be governed.

The Constitution, the first three articles deal with the three branches, independent branches, of government. No where in the Constitution does it allow for a fourth branch of government. Each of the three has specific duties and responsibilities. Each was designed to keep the others in check, under control.
The one that I wish to discuss is the first listed, and it is listed first for a reason. The first is the most important. The Legislative Branch is responsible to introduce or propose legislation that is wholesome and good. The Constitution states that ALL legislation begins with the legislative branch. No other branch was granted legislative powers.
Yet, we in America find ourselves ruled and governed by the fourth branch of government which was not addressed in the Constitution, government agencies. The government agencies have no legislative authority. The government agencies rule over us, not govern us, by rules and decrees. The government agencies are headed by hacks who see he agenda of the president and the political party as their marching orders. As mentioned in a previous post, these vile government bureaucrats are the worst as they switch sides with each successive administration.
The legislative branch has abdicated their duties and responsibilities to the Executive branch and the government agencies and their bureaucratic heads.
There is even perhaps a fifth branch of government. That would be the special interest groups, along with lobbyists and political donors. All three branches, no all four branches, of government seem to pander to the fifth branch with special appointments and privileges. This issue was directly addressed in the Declaration of Independence.

Back to the question of is it time for a third national political party. The answer is both yes and no. The reason America is in such a mess now is that there was at one time a third political party. Ironically it was started by a liberal progressive masquerading as a republican. None other than Theodore Roosevelt, with his “bull moose party”. Though it only lasted a short time the damage was done. The bull moose party succeeded in dividing the republicans. The republicans never reunited.
No, we do not need a third political party. It will only divide the republicans, when I say republicans I mean conservatives, further. As a matter of fact America does not need either of the other political parties, rather than representing the agenda of the political party the ones elected to govern should be representing the values and principles of either a republican or a democrat. That would be difficult for a democrat or a republican who is also a progressive, as progressives have no firm or fixed set of principles and thus is not likely to have any values.

The people elect men and women to Constitutional office to govern the country. Notice the usage of the word govern, I did not say rule. I also did not say fly around the country giving political speeches. If you are flying around the country you are campaigning not doing the job you were entrusted with. Do what you were entrusted to do. You were not elected to campaign, do that on your time and dime not the country’s time or dime.

The results of the election of last November were no accident. The republicans were swept into office for no other reason than the conservatives came out to vote. Why? They turned out in force because the republicans, some of them anyway, started sounding like conservatives and would at last represent conservative values and principles. Again sadly, time has proven that most not all have proven themselves to be progressives and some of those have proven themselves to be progressive liberals masquerading as conservatives. This will be remembered and many conservatives will stay home next election.
As for me, I will not stay home on election day and never will as long as I can move and get around. What I will do is look at the ballot and vote for the one who represents conservative values and principles. If none are listed and there is a space for a write-in I will use that space to cast a vote for one who represents conservative value and principles. If there is not one it gets skipped and move to the next section, no voting for the lesser of the evils, evil is evil. There are those who will say, not voting for a republican is the same as voting for a democrat. To those I say a better candidate should have been put forth. After all the only difference between a progressive republican and a progressive democrat is the R or D behind the name. Neither can be trusted.

As for the current field of GOP hopefuls, give me a break. Some are so progressive they could switch political parties and no one would even notice. Others will get through the political party, they would be too hard to control. For those is it the candidate or the political party? Guess. The progressives should label themselves as such and be honest for a change.

The more things change the more things actually remain the same

Posted on by

Here is some “food for thought”. Government is all about power and control with an interest in its continued existence and growth. Did the “political landscape” in Washington, D.C. really change all that much after the elections of this past November? A few new “congress critters” moved into the capital building and a few political appointees departed the administration. There was no line of moving company trucks lining the highways out of D.C. With few exceptions none of the defeated and vanquished left D.C. Lobbyist Boulevard provided a large part of new staffers and the majority of the former staffers took up residence on Lobbyist Boulevard, exchanging offices and waiting for the next election. Even the politicians engage in this activity, changing offices but remaining in town. This happens with each election, staying on scene to continue pushing an agenda, shameful and unethical activity but not necessarily criminal. Maybe this would be an idea for a new law, lose an election pack up and leave, go back and live with the constituents you ignored or screwed over for so long. Wave good-bye to the money and power. Would there be any congress critter be brave enough to introduce such legislation? Would be one brave enough to co-sponsor such legislation? Would such legislation ever come to vote on the floor of either legislative body? Would any president be brave enough to sign the legislation into law if it were to appear on his or her desk? The answer would be NO in each case. Government has no plans to do to themselves what the seem to do with what their impedes their agenda, comprehensive reform.

Making small effective changes is not the policy of government. The policy of government is to institute large ineffective changes, without regard to cause of harm. Pushing the agenda and fulfilling political party objectives.

This post is not about the politicians and their staffers, it is about those that remain forever in government, Bureaucrats. These are the people in the various governmental agencies, the alphabet agencies, BLM, IRS, BATFE, DOE, EPA and all the others. These same individuals remain in government employment regardless of performance. They are not elected they are appointed or hired and have no legislative authority yet they enact rules and regulations that the population of the country must live and exist under. Like the politicians the agencies always leave themselves an “out”.

Think about this, the same IRS that targeted opposition party groups will still exist under the next administration and the political party agenda. The same ATF that seeks to ban one kind of rifle ammunition will still exist no matter who is president. The same EPA that seeks to ban lead bullets based on being a toxic substance will still exist. The agencies will still exist with the same bureaucrats occupying the office space. There will be some department head changes and the secretaries of each department will be changed, but the bureaucrats will remain.

What bothers me most about bureaucrats, not all but the vast majority, is the apparent lack of personal traits and core values, morals, honor and ethics. There was a time when government employees were called civil servants or public servants and that was how the job was viewed. It should be an honor to serve the public, but the public must be served honorably. The bureaucrats of today and even yesterday at the very least are self-serving or at the very worst are serving your master, and your master is government and the political agenda of whoever is at the helm. You no longer serve the public or public trust. You do what is necessary to save your job and rely on government employee unions to prevent firing for inefficiency or breaking the public trust. You will not quit in protest of destructive polices, you just go with the flow. The rules you place on us are the agenda of the current political party in power.

This part is for the ones who finally leave and then write your memoirs. I would not read your book for the following reason. You did not speak up or out while you held your government job. You waited until you separated yourself from the administration to say anything. You did nothing to jeopardize your precious job and would not offend the master.

What will be the next excuse?

Posted on by

The justification of terrorism by Radical Islamic terrorists by the liberal progressives is a new bench mark in stupidity. The Islamic terrorists have no plan or intent to find work or start a business, they already have a job and are in business, and that job is terrorism, and are in the business of jihad, Islamic holy war. As for opportunity, the Islamic Terrorists engage is terrorism at every opportunity. BHO and his minions are so intent on being politically correct and avoiding offending the Muslim world that they will not call the Islamic Terrorists for what they are, Islamic Terrorists. BHO upped the ante when he said the Muslims have grievances. When a group or a person expresses grievances they are in essence trying to prove legitimacy. Is BHO suggesting that the Islamic terrorists are legitimate? The Radical Islamic Terrorists have no desire to improve their lives or the lives of anyone taken hostage or for that matter improving life in their occupied territories. Their only intention is to rob, rape, murder and pillage. The Islamic State has but one goal to re-establish the Caliphate with Baghdad as the capital just as it was before, sort of taking up where they left off.

The policies of BHO are quite similar to those of LBJ and that is frightening. Like LBJ, BHO is running the war from the White House, BHO may even selecting and approving targets personally, just as LBJ did. LBJ as president caused the loss of the Viet Nam war. By the time Nixon became president the anti-war protests were destroying this country. Nixon had to find a way out of that war, Kissinger and the Paris Peace Accords. The U.S. abandoned South Viet Nam and it fell to the Communist North.

BHO has no intention of defeating the Islamic State. The U.S. government is still seeking to arm and train the “moderate Muslims” in Syria that are fighting the Assad government forces. The moderate Muslims, if they can be called that, are at times likely to join with ISIS if they share the same ends. If ISIS is attacking Assad’s forces what will the “moderate rebels” do? Will they just observe? Or will they join with ISIS? I submit they will join ISIS, another instance of the enemy of my enemy. If BHO wanted to defeat ISIS he would be arming the Kurds directly instead of going through the Iraqi government and form an alliance with Assad. But no, he is instead arming the moderates in Syria, who may be a wolf in sheep’s clothing, or apt to switch sides at the drop of a hat. It seems a bit asinine to arm and train a likely and potential enemy. As I have written before it is extremely difficult to engage and defeat an opposing army that are using the same weapons and training, not to mention the enormous cost in life. It would be like shadow boxing, fighting ones own self.

If the intention is not to defeat ISIS, what is the intention? BHO may well be going back to a cold-war tactic, Containment. What would containment do? If ISIS were to be driven back and contained in Syria, ISIS would be the problem of Assad and his ally Russia. To drive ISIS back into Syria and contain them there they must first be driven from Iraq and where ever else they have set up operations. This can not be accomplished by pin-prick airstrikes. To accomplish this there will need to be a relentless air campaign not seen since WW 2, and then that will not be enough. Men and women in ground combat units will need to engage ISIS. Short of this action the Islamic State must be contained where they are at present.

There is one more glaring similarity between LBJ and BHO, BHO is now attempting the same thing in the war with the Islamic State aka Radical Islamic Terrorists, that LBJ did in Viet Nam, dis-ownership of the war. LBJ wanted to give ownership of the to South Viet Nam, he called it the “Viet Namization of the war”. BHO seems to want to hand the war off to the Arab nations, it will probably get some catchy name.

Not only does BHO not call Islamic extremists for what they are he also refuses to give the proper identity to the victims. The Jews murdered in Paris at the Jewish deli were not “just some folks” They were Jews and they were singled out for murder based on Religion. Just what “folks” does BHO think that would be shopping at a Jewish deli, they sure would not be Moslems. The Coptic Christians that were beheaded in Libya were not jus Egyptian citizens, they were Christians and that is why they were beheaded. These crimes against Jews and Christians were not because they had an unfortunate encounter with Radical Islam, they were singled out and killed because of their religion and for no other reason.

Since BHO felt the need to address the events in Ferguson, MO telling the world that America has its share of racial and ethnic problems, let me interject this about moderates. The protests in Ferguson and in other parts of America were at the onset to address grievances or supposed grievances. How many of the protesters percentage wise were there to address their grievances and how many of the protesters percentage wise were there to cause chaos, mayhem and destruction. The ones who were there to address grievances could be labeled as moderates. When the violence and destruction erupted how many of the “moderates” disengaged? Did they all become “radicals” and participate in the chaos, mayhem and destruction? The moderates joined the radicals and became as one, pack mentality. There were no protests to express grievances about the destruction. There was only more protests that erupted into chaos, mayhem and destruction, the cycle repeated itself and the moderates joined with the radicals. There was no news footage of the moderates disengaging. I ask the same questions about “moderate Muslims”, at what point will they become united as one?

If the lack of jobs and opportunity are the root cause of radical extremism, I ask why are not the unemployed and those denied opportunity here in America not acting as the Radical Islamists? The answer is that they are placated by government in the form of social welfare programs. Sort of bought off to prevent bad behavior. Which brings this up. Will the government placate terrorists with social welfare programs known as tribute payments. The same as the Muslim nations along the African coast did at the beginnings of America. Surely America has not regressed to the point of entertaining the notion of paying tribute to avoid attacks.

Excuses are used to justify an act, such as it was done because _________ (fill in the blank). So I ask, what excuse will be offered by BHO and his administration for the next Islamic attack on another because of religion? Do these people have a gold fish bowl full of excuses, reach in and grab one and make it fit the narrative or position? It is true that America is not at war with Islam, but it sure seems hat Islam is at war with the non-Islamic rest of the world.

At the National Prayer Breakfast BHO slammed Christianity for the Crusades. BHO did not state the truth, that the Crusades were the result of Muslim aggression and domination and the Crusades were the Christians addressing legitimate grievances. He instead blamed Christianity for the Crusades.

A government out of control

Posted on by

There are many who say that America has lost her way, gone off track. There are also many who say that America is heading towards economic failure and societal breakdown. I say there is nothing wrong with America, she has not lost her way, instead she is being dragged off-track. Economic failure and societal breakdown are both real possibilities, and the order of occurrence is not important one will lead to the other.
If the current pace continues America will reach a tipping point, a point of no return. America at present has an administration that is hell-bent on continuing with the failed policies of LBJ. The “great society” which started in the 1960’s has done more to destroy society than it could ever have helped. The liberal progressives will not admit that the great society was and is a total and abject failure, rather they claim that more should have and could have been done. There is at present more people on government assistance than at any time in American history. The policy of government is to throw more and more money at a problem, when it should be to sit back and find the cause. Eliminate the cause and you eliminate the problem. Government instead wants to eliminate the problem leaving the cause in place. Leaving the cause in place will only insure the problem will resurface. This may well be the intent, a never-ending problem allowing government to come to the rescue again and again. This leads to government dependence, which is the intent of liberal progressives. Here is an example of fixing the problem but leaving the cause in place. A car has a flat tire because a nail is in the tire. Adding air cures the flat tire for a while, but it will slowly lose air and soon will be flat once again. True you solved the flat tire problem for a while and you can continue adding air at intervals to prevent it from continually going flat. Had you removed the nail and patched the tire you could move onto other things rather than dedicating so much energy and time to repeating one thing. The nail caused the tire to go flat not the lack of air. Eliminate the cause the problem is solved.
Now we have the “great society” part 2 or whatever number it is, two free years at a community college and the newest catch phrase “middle class economics”. No one much mentions the “war on poverty” any more. I would like to point out that nothing is free not even freedom, someone somewhere paid for it. America is the home of the free because of the brave. The “free” two years must be paid by someone somewhere.
Middle class economics is just the latest game of smoke and mirrors. It may look like a break for the middle class but it is intended to break the middle class. Hide and watch on this one, you will see.

At last check America is some 18 trillion dollars in debt. Not to mention there is a deficit. There are even rumors of unfunded liabilities. Debt is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as you can pay off your debt. Deficits on the other hand are a bad thing, you do not have enough money on hand to pay the bills. You may have enough to pay the interest but the principal never goes down and you spend a lifetime in debt. A shrinking deficit is still a deficit and is not a good thing, no matter how it is candy coated, short of funds is short of funds even if you are one cent short you are still short and you over-spent. Deficits are always bad. Borrowing more money to cover the deficit is about as stupid as it gets. If you do not have it now you will not have it later plus you now have to pay back what you were short. The problem with robbing Peter to pay Paul is that sooner or later Peter is going to want his money back.
The unfunded liabilities are down the road a piece but they will show up sooner than expected. It is on a collision course with the debt can.

I am no financial genius by any stretch of the imagination, but I do understand how money works. More than that, being somewhat mechanically inclined I understand how things work. I am also smart enough to know that if I am barely making ends meet I must make adjustments in spending. I also know that if I am not financially secure I can not help my neighbor if he or she experiences hard times. In other words I must help myself first before I can help others.
Which brings me to this point, if America is facing a deficit, meaning that there is not enough money to pay the bills, why the hell are billions of dollars being given, yes given to foreign countries. Some of the countries and governments receiving money from America could care less if America were to dry up and blow away. Are they being given money to keep them from attacking America or her interests. A form of appeasement, peace in exchange for money. They will not attack as long as they receive money. In other words they would not bite the hand that feeds them, sort of like a dog. What happens when the money runs out and it will eventually. A hungry dog will bite the hell out of anyone even its owner. Surely America is not paying a “tribute” to prevent attacks. It has been done before. It took military action to bring that to a halt, the money did not run out, they demanded more, and enough was enough. Check the words to the Marine Corps Hymn.
Could this also be the reason that BHO avoids the use of radical Islam, or is it something deeper. al-Qaeda are no longer called terrorists, they are now armed insurgents. Was Benghazi another appeasement? Just another stop on the apology tour.
Foreign governments and countries are not only being given billions of dollars they are being given arms, ammunition, equipment and training while limits are being placed on American citizens as to what weapons they can possess and limits on magazine size. Are we being set up for a take over.

The American government has become a government of political correctness, not using word or language which could offend political sensibilities. But what would one expect from a Politician, a person engaged in party politics as a profession, a person primarily interested in political office for selfish or other usually short-sighted reasons.

What is wrong in America?

Posted on by

Just take a look around and you can see the evidence of the deterioration of the American “fabric”, all brought to you in the name of and made possible by “political correctness”, divisiveness and in some cases downright laziness.

Doing or acting in the name of political correctness is not now or was it the intention in the founding of America, doing and acting correctly was. Doing the right thing is harder than doing the wrong or incorrect thing, and political correctness is the wrong thing. Political correctness are just as evil as the practice of appeasement, in fact they are one and the same. To be politically correct means to sacrifice correctness, morals. Ignoring or denying ones principles to gain political favor. This is what liberals call an “evolution of opinion”. What it should be called is sitting on the fence to see which the wind blows, being all things to all people. Politicians use political correctness to gain votes and remain in power. Citizens use political correctness to avoid be labeled with a words ending in “ist” or “ism”.
Political correctness by definition, Is conforming to the belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities should be eliminated. In other words, Political correctness is bringing about the death of freedom of speech. The intention of the first amendment protecting free speech was not to protect safe speech but was intended to protect controversial speech. Making threats is not free speech, nor is inflammatory speech especially if it incites violence. Name-calling and race-baiting are not free speech either, they are tactics used by liberals when they can not possibly win their argument any other way, though they lose anyway, exposing them for what they are. There is an old saying, the bit dog hollers first.
Appeasement by definition, To buy off by concessions usually at the sacrifice of principles. (Pacify, Conciliate). Notice the word buy, when something can be bought, the same is for sale. That which is not for sale can not be bought.
If a person is willing to sacrifice their own principles to gain favor or to appease another, what else or who else will they sacrifice?

The American citizenry has allowed themselves to be divided along Racial, Political, Social, Economic and a myriad of other lines and in some cases have divided themselves. Some in American society have come to view themselves as victims. News for those, you can only be a victim if someone has committed a crime against you. If you are poor you are not a victim, and being wealthy does not make one a villain.

One of the bigger examples, but not the biggest examples, of what is wrong in America is laziness of some of the citizenry. The laziness in America stems from the education, no the indoctrination that government can solve each and every problem or difficulty encountered and has fostered a culture of government dependence. Self-determination and self-reliance have become a thing of the past and the indoctrination of government dependence continues. Hand-outs have become common place and welcome and a hand-up is rare and rejected.

The biggest example of what is wrong in America is that “voids” are created. Whenever something is removed it is generally replaced with something else, filling a void.
When God and Prayer were removed from Schools a void was created the void was quickly filled with “godlessness”. Look at the results of that liberal achievement in an attempt to appease the atheists. The atheists were not required to participate in prayer, they could choose to be excluded. The atheists have no God to pray to. The atheists could have continued excluding themselves from that morning activity in the home-room class, but that was not good enough. The atheists were appeased and God was kicked out of school. This was not the beginning of America’s downfall but I would argue that it sped up the process. Since that time God and the symbols of Christianity have slowly been disappearing from all aspects of daily life, especially near government buildings and property. Next came the end of the recital of the Pledge of Allegiance another move to appease a small group. Today voids continue to be created and they must be filled with something.

When God was kicked out of school that was not the end of the demands for appeasement, it was only the beginning. The proverbial camel had gotten his nose in the tent.

Once again the proverbial camel has stuck his nose in the tent, once the nose gets in the rest of the camel follows. In other words if you give an inch they will take a yard, or even a mile.
Soon the Supreme Court will weigh in on Marriage, same-sex marriage. Marriage is not a Constitutional issue and is not addressed once in the Constitution. But a panel of 9 will decide for a population of over 300,00,000. A marriage license is from the state not the Federals. Tax breaks come from the Federals. Is that what this is about Taxes?
I am not here to judge homosexual activity, that is not my place or my intent. This is just one of the latest tents where the camel has gotten his nose in.
America has arrived at this point which concludes a journey(or does it?) that began innocently enough. It began when an issue of next-of-kin arose. The simplest solution to appease this issue was to have domestic-partnerships, civil unions between same-sex couples. When this started I said “this will not end until the ultimate objective is reached”. States had ballot referendums and issues of same-sex marriage were voted on by the people and banned in the states. Since that time Judges have ruled against the will of the people, and stricken down the bans on same-sex marriage.
Now we have a new camel with his nose in the tent, we now have the medicinal marijuana camel and his nose is in the tent. It is not about medicinal marijuana, it is about recreational use and it will not stop there.

Enjoy it while you can consumers and retailers alike

Posted on by

I have enjoyed the falling gas prices of recent as have some retailers I have been doing commerce with, much to the chagrin of Wall Street and the investors. More on Wall Street and the investors later. But for now.

Good news with the falling gas prices I now find myself with more disposable income. This is how this works for me. First I have had no significant pay raises in quite some time, therefore even though I have a job I live on a fixed income. My pay is split into the following. First I cover the basic necessities food, clothing and shelter. Second are the utilities. Third is gas costs to get my butt to work, figured by actual miles driven and fuel mileage. Fourth is to save 10% of what is left. Why 10% you ask, because I know and have known that even though I am required to pay into Social Security I will not get a monthly check, the money will run out. Fifth give to the Church. Sixth what ever is left is disposable, meaning it is spent in the local area in an attempt to keep the employed, employed. If what I want to buy is not available in the local area, then I must shop outside, either way someone has a job. Consequently the less the third costs me the more of number 6 I have, the more number three costs the less of number 6 I have.
More good news. The falling gas prices have allowed me to take the boat out more often. Going fishing more often has meant more trips to the bait store and the gas station. The owner of the bait store has had more business, selling shrimp. The owner of the gas station has been selling more gas. The owner of the shrimp boat has been going out more often and catching shrimp, if no one is fishing he can not sell his shrimp that are to small for restaurants. The fuel for the shrimp boat costs less, the shrimp he sells costs less, the owner of the bait store sells shrimp for less because they cost him less, I go fishing more often and buy more shrimp and gas. All of this is because fuel prices have come down. Yes, economics are this simple.
I understand supply and demand. If the supply is low and demand is high prices go up. If the supply is high and demand is low prices come down. I also understand that supply can be manipulated to effect price. I also understand this if production and transportation costs are low so are prices, and that the opposite is true.

Items 1, 4 and 5 are not negotiable and will be done. Item 2 fluctuates with the season. Item 3 is a must, if my butt does not get to work none of them happen. Item 6 is dependent on all before.
The only one that I have even the slightest control over is second, the utilities, but only to a certain extent. I can control how much electricity I use but I can not control the cost.

Bad news my power company will be raising the rates for electricity this month. My electric bill will be increasing thereby effecting my disposable income. New regulations from the feds.
More bad news, the new republican controlled congress is considering raising the gas tax. This too will affect my disposable income.
Even more bad news, for the owner of the gas station, I will be buying less gas. To the owner of the bait store, I will be stopping by less often for shrimp. To the owner of the shrimp boat, the owner of the bait store will be needing less shrimp. We all will likely be needing less fuel.

The federal government once again has it all backwards. In an attempt to take more from the American people, they will in all probability end up with less. The federal government should be finding a way to lessen the burden on business. Business will get people back to work not the federal government. If more people were working, more people would be going to work and buying gas to get there. Stop taking and use what you have already taken, but use it wisely. Tell America where all of the money in the Highway Trust Fund went. While you are at it tell America where all the money you took from us went. The only money you seem to have enough of is welfare money, never hear that it is used up, must not be many on welfare. Since there must be a surplus of welfare money use it to fill up the other accounts. Surely you have not done the opposite. Have you?

Now to Wall Street and the investors. Frankly, I do not give a rat’s butt about your worries and concerns about the falling gas prices. The only reason that Wall Street has been doing so good is that the feds have been pumping money into your stock market. Directly or Indirectly. With the feds holding the interest rate at or near zero the investments have been flowing to Wall Street. Where else is there to invest with any real possibility of a descent return? Do not worry yourself too much I am quite sure your friends in Congress will bail you out once again. Just for grins and giggles disclose how much money really is in the stock market. You are not driving the Economy. The only thing you are driving is America to the poor house with the aid of Congress, Politicians and the Fed.