Electoral College Vs Gross Popular Vote

Well, I've been laying low since the election, trying to maintain an even keel despite the fact that I believe we avoided the worst, most evil, candidate in my lifetime and quite possibly ever. Knowing full well that the president elect we have has plenty of warts himself. But to watch the radical left's continual harangue has been astounding.

Yes, I understand that Hillary won the popular vote by 2,833,220 votes according to  http://www.cnn.com/election/results/president . However, if you were to remove New York City, Los Angeles and Chicago, Donald Trump would have won the popular vote by 908,370 votes. So the question one should ask when considering the popular vote vs the electoral college vote is, should a limited number of high population centers choose the president for all of America? Or....is the electoral college system that allows every part of the country to have input the more appropriate system.

I personally believe that EVERY area of the country needs to have a voice that actually counts when we are choosing a singular person who is to lead us all. NOT just someone that those in the population centers wants.

Let's face it. While those in New York and California may believe they are smarter and know better than the rest of us, I vehemently disagree!

I've spent time in New York and even lived in Southern California for awhile, and each has things that are enviable. Food in NYC's case and weather in SoCal's. Neither one represents me and my beliefs.

If we were to go to a gross total total system, there would be NO representation of middle America. Those seeking the highest office need not apply if they don't parrot exactly what those on both coasts believed. There would be no need to ever campaign or even listen to folks in North Carolina or Iowa or Montana.

So while the gross vote count total seems on the surface to be the democratic way to determine the POTUS, I think we should remember, we are NOT a democracy. We are a Republic, and thus all should be represented. As they say, a democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep arguing over what's for dinner. If the US were to operate as a strict democracy, there would be about 6 or 7 states that were the wolves and the other 43 or 44 states would be the sheep. So don't fall for that crap argument by the left that we should only go off the popular vote total. They are trying to give you a fools choice that sounds reasonable but is far from it.

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.

Merry Christmas one and all!

The Election Of Donald Trump And The French Revolution

As I watch the liberal elites in Hollywood, academia, politics and the press lose their collective minds, an old adage comes to mind. "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

I look at the left trying to quell the popular uprising around Donald Trump and it makes me think of the French Revolution, with our "elite betters" playing the part of Marie Antoinette. "Let them eat cake" they have told those they wish to lord it over. Paying no attention to the concerns of the masses. The only things that matter to them are their desires for the way they want things to be and what will move their visions forward. If us unwashed heathens don't realize that their betters will decide what's best for us, well then we can just "eat cake".

They never saw the storm clouds on the horizon because they had become so comfortable in their little enclaves of power on the east and west coasts that they never bothered to look out the window. Why would they? They were in power and had been for as long as their goldfish memories could recall.

They had wielded their power over the masses, unabated, for so long, they had come to believe their own bullshit. Anyone failing to toe their line was clearly some sort of radical deviant. How could anyone possibly question anthropomorphic global warming? Even though they had jiggered the data at every turn and it was clear that those pushing it the hardest were amassing huge fortunes from forcing others to comply, all the while suppressing commerce. Since they were in control, what could the peons do?

With the liberals living in their echo chambers, they didn't recognize the thunder of the approaching storm for what it was. They continued to believe their own press releases.

While Hillary and Cain struggled to draw flies to their rallies, Trump and Pence played to packed houses. Yet the tame press tried to tell the country that it was just racists, sexists, homophobes, islamophobes, etc, etc at their rallies. Even though many were the same folks who voted for Obama, twice.

Well, thanks to the new media, the truth of what was happening got out. And despite the old power elites aligning against them, Trump and Pence were swept into power as those who were not being represented or even heard by the elites stood up and said, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!" (Thank you Network)

So on November 8th, the media, the elitists, academic leftists and the far left politicians got to play the role of the out of touch French Aristocracy while middle America played the role of the ignored and put upon French people. They figuratively beheaded the beast by sending Hillary to the showers, hopefully for good. And with any luck we've seen the end of the Clintons in American public life.

To those who are crying and moaning about how could the country have not seen how the elites have all the answers if we would just follow them, let me turn their own arrogant words back on them. Elections have consequences and your ways have been rejected.

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.

Anti Trump Protesters Need Geography Class

Here I am watching a protest march against President Elect Donald Trump. The protesters are chanting "Hey hey, ho ho, Donald Trump has got to go". And across the front line leading the march are folks holding flags.

The two flags I was able to identify were Mexico and the now defunct USSR. (There was a 3rd flag I could not identify.)

My first thought was, these folks could really use a geography class! I mean REALLY!

What kind of a mental defect marches in one country behind the flag of another country  chanting that the new duly elected leader of the country they are in has got to go?

Clearly THEY are confused. Why else would they be marching behind the banner of a country they were not in?

That being said, I do understand they are making a statement that they are not pleased with the outcome of the election. But do they honestly believe that they would be better off in Mexico or the old USSR?

I would love to have seen them try that crap in Khrushchev's or Stalin's USSR. They'd have been in a frozen gulag before the echoes of their chants died.

Or if they were to go to Mexico right now and try marching through the streets behind American flag chanting that the Mexican leader had to go and burning Mexican flags, I feel certain they would quickly be introduced to the joys of the Mexican penal system.

But no, here in America, these special little snowflakes are given a day off from their college classes to overcome their trauma. They are treated as if they actually were making some sort of worthwhile social statement. This as they vandalized property and disrupted commerce. All the while the leftist media gives them all the attention these little metrosexuals long for but have never done anything to merit.

And why does this male bovine feces take place? Because we have allowed the nation's college campuses to become festering cesspools of anti American thought. They push collectivist/globalist ideas to young skulls of mush and encourage them to be disruptive forces in society so they might have yet another swing at the piñata. Since their collectivist dreams failed in the USSR, Cuba, China, North Korea, Venezuela (need I go on?) they believe they should be given another chance. They believe those places just didn't do it right so they want to try it again here. With the university types in charge this time, since they are so much smarter than the filthy masses outside the ivy walls.

But that's a topic for another rant on another day.

Or so it would appear to an old farm boy.

Jill, Gary, Donald Or Hillary, Who Will Lead America?

Well, here we are, one day before the official day set aside for choosing the next POTUS.

What a cluster fuck!

We are presented with 4 options in most states. Jill Stein of the Green Party (whose true candidate should have been Bernie Sanders) is the statistically least likely to win. She is an avowed socialist/communist as are most members of the Green Party, as this has been the go to location for the admittedly far far left since the downfall of the USSR.

Next we have Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party. Understand, this is my natural home Party and that I am a registered Libertarian, but as nice a guy as Gary is, he's a flake. This should have been the LPs year to make a move up the ladder and challenge the big 2 and turn this country into a viable 3 Party system or maybe even replace one of the big 2. But alas and a lack, it was not to be. The LP chose Gary to be their standard barer and he proved to be woefully lacking in foreign policy and his stance on national sovereignty is disgraceful to a red blooded American. By nominating Gary I'm afraid the LP has doomed themselves to be, as the British might say, back benchers for the foreseeable future and I find that a shame when the 2 major parties put forth such flawed candidates. This is clearly an opportunity missed by the LP.

Then there is Donald Trump of the Republican Party. Donald is a loud mouthed, narcissistic billionaire with no background in politics. Much like H Ross Perot was back when he ran in '92. (Which by the way is the sole reason we have the whole foul legacy of the Clintons. Without Perot, GHW Bush would have easily defeated Clinton and they would have remained an Arkansas problem and not a national disgrace.) Donald has been the all powerful leader of an international corporation and a TV personality for decades. While he has only the passing knowledge of government that one gains from having to grease the wheels of government in order to do business, he doesn't have the relationships in government that those who have been there their entire adult lives.

So how in the hell did he become a major parties nominee?

Well, it's the establishment Republicans own fault that he is there. They were given the opportunity to fulfill the promises they made to the electorate when they were given the House and later the Senate and told to stop the country from falling off the cliff into socialism. But they failed to do so even though they had promised they would. Instead, once they got to DC they continued the cozy relationships between legislators and lobbyists and metaphorically said "screw you" to those who sent them there to do a job.

So this time round the work a day Republicans gave the establishment the one finger salute and chose a man who espoused a supportive position and at least had no history of turning on them. (When in fact he had no history at all.) Figuring he couldn't be any worse than the snakes who had betrayed them so many times before and he just MIGHT do what he said, and wouldn't that be a novel experience!

Then there is Hillary Rodham clinton the Democratic Party candidate. (Yes I meant to have the c in Clinton be lower case. Some of you may remember that she went by Hillary Rodham until Bill ran for president and it quickly became clear the US population didn't take to her feminist stance and she started using Clinton purely for political purposes.)

This woman is clearly the most corrupt person to run for POTUS in my lifetime and quite possibly ever. She has exposed US secrets through willfully setting up an email server contrary to directives and government regulations. She has sold the rights to something like 20% of US uranium to Russia after receiving financial benefits through the "Clinton Foundation". She was responsible for the overthrowing of the Libyan government so she would have something to point to as a foreign policy action (word is Obama was not really in favor of this action but went along to try and bolster her resume for the future White House run) then failed to provide adequate protection for our personnel serving in the lawless state left behind leading to the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and three others. She then fabricated and disseminated the hoax about the video being the cause of the attack and followed that up by lying to the relatives of those who died. She and her husband sold access to the presidency while Bill was POTUS by renting out the Lincoln bedroom and then continued their pay to play antics through the Clinton Foundation in the years since Bill left office. Their "charitable" foundation has been run as a slush fund for their personal use with less than 10% of funds taken in actually going to charitable giving. And to top it all off, she, in cahoots with the DNC, rigged the Democratic primary and was still barely able to beat self proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders.

So there are our 4 choices.

The first 2 are not truly viable candidates. The next 2, well, as a friend of mine said, with them you are playing Russian roulette. The difference is Hillary is a semi automatic, you know you're getting a bullet to the head, Donald is a revolver, there is an honest chance the cylinder will come up empty.

Chose wisely grasshopper.

Or so it seems to an old farm boy.

Trump vs Clinton or American Individualism vs World Collectivism

It seems to me that we are facing an election where we are about to decide whether this country is about the individual or the collective. This isn't a case of Republicans vs Democrats as they would like us to believe. No, the Republican Party stopped being independent from the Democrat party some time during the first Bush administration.  I think it was probably around the time GHW went back on his "no new taxes" pledge.

Since that time it seems as though the two name parties have been working in concert to keep their personal gravy train rolling along on its biscuit wheels. This train is paid for by the American tax payers, but for some reason they seem to hold allegiance to lobbyists instead of constituents. The lobbyists who help them spend millions of dollars to get and hold jobs that pay less than $200,000 per year.

Ya just need to ask yourself, why?

There is no logical reason why someone would knowingly spend more money to get a job than the job is worth. Unless they were getting something on the back end. And this is where the lobbyists come in. They are lining these folks' pockets and feathering their nests. All so the politicians will be beholden to them when legislation comes up concerning their little slice of the world.

So what does this have to do with this election and why is it different you might ask.

Well in my opinion, this election is different because Trump is holding out the possibility of changing the physics of Washington DC.

I say this because he is not beholding to any large benefactors, like Clinton is to Soros and Hollywood to name just a couple.

If you look at this election from that perspective, you can see why Paul Ryan and the others featured in Hillary's ad who say how they are against Trump, hold that position. He appears to be the bull in the China shop that is their own little honey pot.

While there is clearly nothing Christ like about Donald, he IS threatening to go into their temple and overturn the money changers' carts and run them out. I believe this is why the establishment politicians are so vehemently against him.

The odd part is, they could have easily seen this day coming and avoided it if they had only done what they told their constituents they were going to do. The Republicans have been given the majority in House for the past 6 years and the Senate for the past 4 years and they have continued to be complicit with the Democrats in working against the freedoms of individual American citizens and against the betterment of America as a whole.

They have done nothing to stop the flow of illegals across our southern boarder, or the expansion of the socialistic health care system that the Democrats put in place. (A system that was designed to fail in order to get people to see the implementation of a single payer system as a solution to the problem they created.) They have pushed group identity politics over the rights of the individual and they have actively supported the decline of American business through regressive tax policies. This is all in addition to their presiding over America's feckless policies relating to Islamic terrorism.

It is for these reasons I see Trump as the only choice for someone who believes in American traditional values. He represents quite possibly our last chance to return to our traditional roots. Ones where anyone can improve their station in life through their own grit and effort and not be hindered by the government, but rather helped by it.

Or.....we can vote for the most corrupt politician since Secretary of the Interior Albert Fall and the Teapot Dome scandal in 1922-23, (For those of you who may have not received a proper US Civics education, I suggest you look this up.) Hillary "What Difference Does It Make Now Anyway" Rodham Clinton.

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.

Trump Tape Vs Hillary's Hacked Emails

I've been silent for awhile now. I've wanted to write something but the flood of hype has been a veritable tsunami that has kept me from being able to narrow my focus enough to put together any cogent thoughts. As I pondered this, it dawned on me that this may well be the political class and the main stream media's plan. To keep things in so much turmoil that its near impossible to see the forest for the trees!

Let's take this past week.

My theory is that the Clintons and the MSM have known for some time that Wikileaks was holding some really damning evidence against her. So some lefty fellow traveler at Access Hollywood or what ever show it was that had the Trump video came to them with it months ago. A calculated decision was then made to hold this information until Wikileaks started to release their info. They would then release the Trump video, and with the complicity of the MSM, which Wikileaks has proven to be coordinating with the Clintons, they would gin up the social justice outrage so folks wouldn't notice the damning evidence coming out against Hillary.

If whoever had the Trump tape truly believed this was something that needed to be addressed, wouldn't they have brought this forth right after it was taped 11 years ago? I believe this just proves that Hollywood and the left saw Trumps comments as giving voice to the privilege that all famous (read that as famous liberal) people get to enjoy. Back then Donald was thought to be one of them, a famous star who would go to Clinton weddings, etc. so they didn't really have a reason to bring it up. But once he became a real threat to their anti sovereign America plans, he had to be stopped. So the question became, when can it best be deployed?

(Now in fairness, Wikileaks probably did some similar calculus with their information on the Clinton cabal. The difference as I see it is, I don't believe Assange is in cahoots with Trump or the republicans, but is motivated by a dislike of the Clintons and their RICO like behavior.)

They clearly decided to drop their bomb last Friday as Wikileaks began to release a series of devastating hacked emails showing that Hillary Clinton was guilty of malfeasance while Sec. State and complicity in acts that lead to the arming of ISIS to say nothing of the deaths in Benghazi. The leaks also show coordination of efforts between the Clinton campaign, the DNC and the MSM aimed at duping the electorate.

But what do we hear on the radio and see on the news? Why it's the media generated outrage about some offensive language by Trump 11 years ago. This outrage is being spun up by the same folks who were telling us it was not important where Bill Clinton chose to put his cigar in the Oval Office, and it was unimportant anyway because it was just sex and it was between Monica and Bill and none of our business because it didn't affect how he did his job as POTUS. Yet we are to believe words (and maybe some actions, we don't know) in an equivalent vein make this person unable to perform the same job. (This is also requiring us to overlook some amazingly similar behavior by the liberal lions JFK and RFK that the MSM was also in on the coverup of.)

All the while the MSM are telling us that Trumps support is tanking (which I'm sure it has taken a hit) as they fail to report that DT draws a Florida crowd of 30,000 while at the same basic time HC struggles to draw 1,000 in the same state.

I'm starting to wonder if we aren't approaching another "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN" moment. For the sovereignty of the US, I certainly hope so, or we are about to become the Socialist States of Soros.

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy!

The Minimum Wage Hoax Part Deux

I’d like to congratulate the economically challenged crowd for making me look smart, which is no small task, i might add. 

A short while ago I went on a rant about the ludicrousness of setting mandated minimum wages and how it has negative impacts on the low skilled job seeker. Well, today I read an article about the very ills I spoke of.

Here is a quote from the article:

"We're going to eliminate boring, repetitive, dangerous jobs, and we're going to free up people to do things that are higher value," said co-founder Alex Garden, a former Microsoft manager and president of mobile game maker Zynga Studios.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-09-hungry-startup-robots-slice-pizza.html#jCp

Now the article itself is written to show how this is such a good thing and how it is going to free up people for higher value activities. The problem being, if you are the low skill individual who’s only value to the enterprise is to evenly place pepperonis over the surface of the pizza, you and your associated cost to the company, have just been replaced by a one time cost of purchasing a robot. 

The company will not have to pay for the robot’s health insurance (other than a maintenance contract that I’m certain is less than an employee’s health insurance). Nor will it have to staff sufficiently to account for “no shows” or provide maternity leave, vacation, uniform allowance, etc., etc. 

The high cost of purchasing a robot became much more of a reasonable cost benefit to the company when the $15 an hour minimum wage crowd started gaining traction. Which I believe I predicted in the August 19th rant about “The Minimum Wage Hoax”.

I wonder if Bernie and Hillary will jump up and take credit for this unintended, but easily predictable, consequence?

No, I’d bet they will spin the yarn to talk about greedy business owners who are choosing machines over people so they don’t have to pay them a “living wage”. This of course being the incentive for the development of the robot that takes the job in the first place. 

The advent of the robot is merely the logical extension of increasing the cost of doing business through government regulation. For the businesses that can’t move their manufacturing to a country where costs are lower, the answer to unwarranted cost increases caused by government mandates is mechanization. 

Replace the low skilled individual who’s on going cost of employment has doubled or tripled with the one time cost of a machine. And if the business has more than one shift, this machine can replace 2 or 3 employees per day. If the business is a 7 day a week business, then even more employees are replaced and the cost of ownership has gone down even further. I doesn’t take a genius to see the cost benefit in this equation goes to the machines and the minimally skilled job seeker faces an even bleaker future.

So, once again, thank you “living wage” advocates for making me seem prescient.

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.

How The Left Sells Socialism

As I watch the world in general fall victim to weirdness at every turn I ask myself, 'what in the hell is going on?'

We see notable (not necessarily great) athletes refusing to stand and show respect for the flag because they say the country is suppressing people of color. Now they are doing this in a country where they are being paid millions of dollars to play a game they love to play, and would play in a vacant lot or a park for free if nobody paid them. This country has a President who is black as well as the last two Attorney Generals, the top law enforcement people in the nation. Many, many city mayors are black. Two sitting Supreme Court Justices are of color. I'm not seeing the country, and thus the flag, holding people of color down.

One could easily make the case that it is the minority communities these folks live in that are holding them back. I believe it was Charles Barkley who recently made this point. He called out the folks who deride black kids who work hard in school and do well. Telling these kids they aren't black enough and they are trying to be white if they try to learn and improve themselves.

I find it hard to hold much sympathy for folks who do not take advantage of opportunities placed before them and then cry because they don't have the things that others have. It isn't the system that holds them back, it's their circle they hang with.

Dr. Carson, Thomas Sowell, Ph. D., and Sheriff David Clarke are all men of color who took advantage of the opportunities that the nation offers to ALL of its citizens and rose to positions of power and influence. If they grew up in areas where the schools may not have had the best facilities or the best teachers, they still made the most of their opportunities, and look how the nation has rewarded their efforts.

They were not rewarded because of their color, just like Colin Kaepernick was not given a $100M contract because he was black. They were rewarded based on their proven abilities.

This country was developed as a meritocracy. That means you are rewarded on merit. What you do, not where you come from or who your parents were or weren't.

It is that meritocracy that allowed this country to develop and become the most wonderful country that history has ever recorded.

Have there been cases where this hasn't worked out perfectly? Of course there are. Certainly some individuals have started out a rung or two higher on the ladder than the rest of us, but merit will still be rewarded in the end. Our history is littered with people who were born to wealth but lost it all because they didn't continue to strive and develop. The same can be said for companies. When was the last time you saw a Studebaker or an AMC driving down the road?

So where do these ideas come from that cause folks to think that they are not being treated fairly and that they need to fight for "social justice"?

My hypothesis is that it comes from our educational system.

As my friend Mary Ruth says, this started many decades ago. Academics developed visions of utopian societies where everyone had everything they needed and then proceeded to dream up systems where by this could take place. Marks and Engles being two of the more influential in this category.

In their utopia, it was "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". In this system everybody produced and their product went into a central repository that all would draw upon to meet their needs. The problem being, this didn't account for human nature and the basic laws of behavioralism. People don't like to see their labor be taken without recompense and what is rewarded is repeated. Which is why these systems are always doomed to failure

This fact has never altered an academics views, and they have pushed these ideas, which are an easy sell to those who have less and want more, but are unwilling or unable to develop skills and abilities that would allow them to earn more in a meritocracy. It is these folks that the leftist academics have found as fertile ground from which they can develop their Social Justice Warriors. The Occupy crowd and the BLM folks who want to "redistribute" the wealth. Believing if they just had the wealth all would be fine, without the understanding of what it took to create the wealth. And yes I said create, it was not stolen from the poor, it was created. Low skilled individuals may have participated in the creation but they were paid for their efforts based on the market value of the skills they brought to the job. The higher the skill the higher the recompense.

It seems to me that it is only those who are unwilling to develop marketable skills or put in the requisite effort who are drawn to the social justice sales pitch. The person who goes to school and earns a degree in Graphic Novel Literature or Women's Studies will be easy pickings for SJW recruitment as they have NO marketable skills or knowledge, yet they feel the system OWES them because they fell victim to some professors sales pitch to study this worthless field of endeavor. In reality, the professor just needs to bilk them into studying this field to justify to the administration that they are needed on staff to meet the need to teach this crap. Which, by the way, seems to me to be a tacit recognition of the value of meritocracy. The leftist professor sells his value to the administration by saying look at all the people who want what I'm providing.

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.

Hillary Rodham (clinton), George Soros And The Global Agenda

Now I freely admit that I'm just a hick country boy who grew up on a farm and had to be bussed into town (population around 500, if you can call that a town) to go to school. But our school was a good school that taught us to think for ourselves and be responsible for our actions. And while I may have been born at night, it wasn't LAST night.

So it baffles me when I see people supporting a candidate who's single biggest contributor is a self confessed NAZI collaborator. A Jew who helped the NAZIs round up other Jews to be sent to concentration camps. After the war he amassed a multi billion dollar fortune through manipulating currencies and for the past several decades has used this fortune to push a socialist/globalist agenda. George Soros!

Through his Open Society Foundation he has funded many anti American groups that have lead to our current state of angst. He has funneled money to Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter and The American Institute For Social Justice to name just a few. Each of these organizations goals are to radically alter America and how it operates. He has a history of putting his money where he gets the behaviors he's looking for, and that is the breakdown of societies as we know them and the development of a one world government.

So when George Soros gives $30M to the candidate who is known for her pay to play ethics, what do you suppose he is looking to get in return?

We know Hellery will do anything, no matter how dastardly the act, to gain personal wealth and power. Do you have even the slightest doubt that she shares Soros' desire to end nations and have a One World Government? That she will merrily sell America and all her freedoms down the river if it gets her personal power and wealth is of no doubt.

So then my question is for those who support her. At least those who are not Occupy or BLM members.

Do you really want to see this country destroyed in the name of globalization? Do you want some centralized authority made up of non Americans deciding what we can and cannot do?

Soros wants a world without borders ruled by a centralized authority. That's the whole premise of the Open Society Foundation. He is backing Hellery because he believes she is his best hope at moving toward his goal. And if you have any question about whether that is a bad idea, may I give you a few examples of how badly wrong this type of system can go: USSR, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, need I go on?

So Hellery supporters, I implore you to stop and actually "think" about who you are supporting. Don't vote for her because she has a vagina. You certainly wouldn't do it if her name was Sarah! Use the brains you were given and do a little critical thinking before you pull that lever.

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.

Minimum Wage Depresses Employment And Increases Pressure On The Low Skilled Worker

In a supposedly free nation, where is the sense in a government mandated minimum wage?

Now understand, I don't employ anyone. I have NEVER had an employee, nor do I ever foresee having an employee. I am also retired, so I'm not earning a wage. So I don't really have a dog in this fight.

But to me, the concept of a minimum wage is ludicrous.

Logic says to me that some bureaucrat in Washington or your state's Capitol saying that no job will pay less than $X will only hurt the low skill wage earner in the end. Yes, I know it makes the bleeding hearts feel good to take someone else's money and spread it around so those "unfortunates" will look kindly upon them come election time. I believe, in the long run a minimum wage doesn't help the low skill individual, but rather it actually makes their lot worse.

I'm certainly not trained in economics, but I can look at the world dispassionately and without an eye to buying votes. It seems to me that setting a minimum wage distorts the entire economy.

For example, if I'm running a business, for me to continue running it, I must turn a profit, not just break even. A charity can break even because at the end of the day no one is trying to put food on their table. A business, on the other hand, must turn a profit or the owner starves. Even a "progressive" should be able to see where that sort of an arrangement is somewhat self limiting and certainly removes any incentive for hard work.

So with the agreed upon need for the owner of the enterprise to earn a profit, let's think through what a minimum wage actually does.

Let's say you, the business owner, have two jobs. One job requires skills that only 20 percent of the population posses and another job that 98 percent of the population posses the skills for. For you to entice the worker with the higher skill level to work for you and not your competitor down the street you must pay $20 an hour, while the other job virtually anyone could do, you can get someone to do for $5 an hour. So at the close of business each day, you must have earned $200 JUST to have paid your employees. That doesn't cover the cost of materials, overhead, or you, the owner's needed income to survive.

Now enters the well intended "progressive" who says now you must pay EVERYONE a minimum of $15 an hour. Well, that automatically raised your required daily profit from $200 to $280 just to cover wages. But it doesn't end there. No! The value of your $20 an hour employee just took a concomitant leap as well. Their relative skill value just went from $20 an hour to $60 per hour. In order to keep them satisfied and not jump to someone who will pay them this much, your minimum profit per day has now gone to $600. But that is complicated by the fact that now, your materials cost has also gone up because your suppliers must also pay their employees 300 percent more than before. So now, small business owner, what do you have to do to generate this profit in order to put food on your table? Increase your sales price or increase your volume of sales significantly, of course.

Just generally speaking,what happens with sales as prices go up? Why, it decreases. But to keep prices the same, you don't have the staff, so you must hire more people which requires you to sell even more product to pay for them.

Are you starting to see the problem her Mr/Ms Progressive?

Now let's look at it from the low skill wage earner's perspective. Mr/Ms low skill worker is told by their "progressive" benefactors that they are no longer earning $5 or $7.50 an hour but now all jobs will pay them at least $15 an hour! Huzah! Huzah! Happy days are here!

Accept they are not. For those who were working and earning $5.00 an hour, they must look at their fellow workers and think, if they truly understand what's about to happen, which 2 out of the 3 of us will probably be let go now that the cost of doing business has just increased dramatically?

For those lucky enough to retain there jobs, they will now face increased pressures to be more productive in order for the business to remain profitable and continue to employ them. But not only will they face on the job pressures, but EVERYTHING in their life is now facing the exact same pressures and most likely a corresponding increase in cost. Any gain they may have seen through the increase in earnings will be eaten up by the following increase in costs.....of EVERYTHING!

For those poor souls with limited skill set value and no current job, they are now facing a market where employers are being ever more cautious about if and when they bring on such an employee. They seek alternatives to accomplishing these low skill functions. If you doubt this, I suggest you look at how many migrant jobs were replaced through mechanization after Cezar Chavez organized the migrant workers in Southern California. Machines became a viable option to paying low skill workers to perform the tasks. A one time $100,000 purchase of a piece of equipment versus a continuing rising cost of low skill employees was an easy decision. You see it happening in the fast food industry right now with self serve kiosks to order your food.

Not only are the unemployed facing a more dire employment picture, but they have also been hit with an increase in their daily costs for virtually everything.

So looking at the chain of events that logically proceeds from raising the minimum wage is a net net negative for the low skilled wage earner. The "progressive" who is oh so concerned with "social justice" has in fact made life worse for those with few marketable skills. If they were truly concerned for these folks well being, they would encourage them to take advantage of the schooling and training opportunities available to all in this country. They wouldn't be fomenting social strife that leads to nothing but ill feelings where none should exist.

Or so it would appear to an old farm boy.

Questions For Hillary Supporters

If Hellery really believes that Obama's policies have been so successful and the economy is great, as she claims, why does she need to create lots of good high paying jobs?

If Hellery really has the answer to stopping businesses from going overseas why hasn't she shared it with Obama and we wouldn't have lost so many jobs these past 8 years.

If Hellery knows how to create good high paying jobs, why do we have to elect her before she starts to help America? Is she holding good jobs hostage?

Will Hellery let the country continue to suffer along without good jobs if she isn't elected or will she share this knowledge with the winner for the good of the country?

Considering Hellery's notoriously faulty memory, can we believe that she will remember how to create these jobs by the time she would get into office?

Since Hellery didn't review the emails herself but delegated it to her lawyers, I have to ask, were the lawyers have the proper security clearances to view emails sent to the US Sec. Of State?

If Hellery and Kane are really interested in a strong and safe United States, why do they meet with globalists like George Soros' son and take funds from organizations like the Open Boarders Foundation?

If we are to believe that Hellery's time as Secretary of State was successful and is thus a qualifier for her to become POTUS, how come our relationships around the world are so bad?

If the Obama administration and Hellery as Secretary of State have been so successful, why is there an ISIS?

How is it that so many people who know damaging information and appear to be ready to talk about the Clintons seem to die in curious fashions?

If Democratic policies are such good ideas, why is it everywhere they are instituted turns into a hell hole?

Why is it that only globalists or folks who ultimately want America to fail are against secure borders?

Why do Hellery, Obama and other globalists want us to take in large numbers of folks who don't believe in the founding concepts of our nation?

Just a few questions that have come to the old farm boy's mind.

Hard Left Yellow Journalism And Where You Are Led

My wife said to me, "I think Trump has gone to far this time." She was talking about the Khan kerfluffel.

I said, "What did he say, exactly?"

She said she didn't know specifically what he said but she read where he was disrespectful to Captain Khan and is Gold Star parents.

Well....... That pretty much sums it up doesn't it? That's the boat that the majority of Americans find themselves in. They haven't heard what was really said, only what the various "news" sources have told folks what they should think about this in particular, and so many other things generally.

Now from what I've been able to find, Trump honored Captain Khan. He said he was a hero. He even initially felt for the Khan's sacrifice. It was the personal attack that the father made against him that he responded to.

Now I must say, I don't think it was a wise move on Donald's part to respond in this case. We all know the majority of the media's feelings towards the right, so it was inevitable how they would report ANYTHING he said. But respond he did and the predictable response from the media followed, leaving the majority of Americans to think as my wife did.

This brings me to my main point this morning. The American press, at least the majority of it, is failing its responsibilities to the American people. They are supposed to be a fair reporter of the facts! Not a partisan for one side or the other.

Hell, it might be alright if they were partisan but evenly divided between the sides, but they are not. It's about 85% liberal and 15% conservative. So the majority of folks are being continuously bombarded with subliminally biased reporting. How could they not be affected, like my wife, in the way they think and feel about various topics. The simple choice to use positively or negatively charged adjectives can influence how folks think and feel about what they are told. Even if the bare facts are accurate, the media sways the way folks feel with their strategically placed colorful adjectives.

Then there is their choice of what to tell and what to leave out. Yes the Khans are the parents of a brave and patriotic son who died at the hands of 10th century level barbarian islamists. They are to be honored for their son's sacrifice!

What they have chosen NOT to tell you is that there is a long standing tie between the Khans and the Clintons and liberals. Mr. Khan is a lawyer who's business has a long relationship with Saudi Arabia and the Clinton Foundation. Nor have they chosen to report that the family business pulled down their website advertising their work to handle immigration to the US from the Middle East if you have enough money.

Yes, it would appear that Mr. Khan's outrage at The Donald may be more financially motivated than the liberal press might like you to notice. Since The Donald would like to put a hold on immigration until it's possible to properly vet people from regions known for anti western terrorism, this would certainly put a crimp in the Khan family cash flow. But I'm willing to bet you have and will not hear that on NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, etc. etc. Nor will they tell you about the Khan's doing business with the Clintons.

There is a long history of Yellow Journalism here in America. Our current folks are just doing it with more style and seem to be organized around one political ideology, rather than across the spectrum as was the case in the days of Hurst et.al.

Or so it seems to an old farm boy.

Unholy Alliance Between Neocons And Progressives

I've been thinking a lot about our border and why it has been so unregulated. I've come to the conclusion that it's "globalists" who are pulling the strings. Folks who don't really believe in countries anymore. Folks who want no borders to interfere with their plans.

So what are we talking about here?

I think there are 3 groups of globalists out there. The first, and most dangerous, are the neocons. These folks want the borders gone so they can do their business deals more efficiently. These are the business people who don't want a secure border so they can take advantage of the cheap labor flowing in illegally and keep their costs down and their profits up. They also want to be able to move manufacturing to places where labor is cheap and then be able to dump these cheaply produced goods on us without any hassles bringing the products to us. The folks who need the cheap products because they have manipulated the system to keep our wages low. These neocons are probably best identified by their connections to "Never Trump". Ben Sass and Mitt Romney immediately spring to mind.

The second group, which may be as dangerous but definitely is more insidious, are the progressives. Not your everyday, ordinary, lives next to you and irritates the bajebbers out of you with their social justice warrior crap progressives, but the politically powerful progressives. The Hillary Clinton, George Soros, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi kinda progressive. The kinda folks who believe they are smarter than the rest if us and we should just turn over all decision making to them. The folks who read Animal Farm and 1984 and saw them as primers and not as the cautionary tales that they were meant to be. And so, they believe there should be a One World Government ruling us all.

It seems to me, that it was this group that was behind the now defunct League of Nations and now the United Nations. I believe it was this same group that pushed for the European Union.

One could easily argue that these are all planned precursors designed to condition us to accept some all powerful amorphous governing body. One that would chose what type of car we drive and whether we could have a 20oz. soda or if we could eat trans-fats. One that would tell us what, if any, religion we could believe in outside of the government itself.

Such a group would need to insure a meek and compliant population in order to insure its success. It could be said that they have been working to accomplish this in the western world through the government education of the masses. The teaching of our youth to be dependent on the government and that the individual and his rights are inconsequential when weighed against the overall societal good.

In order for them to be able to pull this off, they need to have a populace that is unable to resist. So they have been pushing to disarm Americans. Their most recent efforts have been centered around encouraging internal strife so they can then argue that we need to be disarmed, again to protect us from our own poor judgements. To stop all these violent incidents. I have already heard some of these globalists cum progressives call for Australian like gun confiscation. For our own good, of course. And if they are successful in this, they can move forward with any of their unconstitutional acts they like without fear of reprisal.

Then there is the 3rd group. As Lenin and Stalin would say, "useful idiots".

These are the social justice warriors and black lives matter fools who are being manipulated by those in group 2 like George Soros and the Clinton Foundation. They are causing the disruptions that group 2 is hoping will lead to people giving up their freedoms for "security". And once that happens........you can figure out the rest.

If I'm correct, this whole border crisis has been manufactured by a coalition of groups 1 and 2 and abetted unwittingly by group 3. (Then again, most things done by group 3 are done so unwittingly!)

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy!

Hillary, The Fools Choice

I just read in Mail Online that her highness Hillary agrees that she shouldn't have used a personal server but doesn't believe she or any of her people were careless with secure information.

Well isn't that precious!

The FBI just got done outlining how she lied and carelessly in the extreme dealt with our national secrets. But she is right back lying and denying. And her supporters are ignoring!

What the hell is wrong with these people?

One of two things must be true. Either she is as the FBI says and totally unfit to be responsible for keeping our nations secrets, or, as she claims, she didn't have any secrets on her email. In which case, what the hell was she doing for 4 years? What could a Sec. of State possibly do for 4 years if they had NO secrets in their email? Clearly she would have NONE of the experience she claims and thus no more qualified than I am.

Since there are no other options that I can think of, my question to those who support her is, "WTF are you thinking? How could you possibly support someone who is either so totally incompetent or such a corrupt liar (the more likely of the 2)?"

To claim you are afraid of what Trump MIGHT do compared with what Hillary has proven she WILL do seems like a fools choice.

If you are that much against Trump, vote for Johnson. Then you can feel righteous about voting FOR an ethical person and against Trump. I know I would sleep a lot better at night knowing I hadn't supported someone who should be prosecuted under RICO statutes and had already left the cupboard door open on America's secrets.

Or so it would seem to an old country boy.

One Explanation Of The FBI Director's Actions

OK, so what could make a career FBI man, who everyone says is a straight shooter, not recommend sHrILLARY be indicted?

First, let's look at the known facts:

The Sec of State set up a private email server contrary to State Dept protocol.

She used this non secure email to conduct business.

There were a minimum of 100 classified secure or higher documents that went through this server that were so classified at the time.

The SoS claimed repeatedly that there were NO documents that were classified as secure at the time.

The POTUS endorses former SoS as the most qualified candidate for POTUS ever.

There was a clandestine meeting between the former POTUS, who is the husband of the current candidate for POTUS who is under investigation by the FBI, and the USAG. (Said USAG owes her career to this former POTUS as he nominated her to the federal bench in the first place.)

When clandestine meeting is made public USAG says she will take recommendation of head of FBI, who happens to report to her.

Current POTUS schedules a campaign event with former SoS before FBI makes recommendation.

FBI recommends no prosecution of former SoS despite massive amount of evidence.

So what then can explain this fact chain?

Understand that I have ZERO knowledge of what actually took place. But, being human, we look for explanations for what we don't understand, and we will make up stories that fit what we see. That is how many folk tales came into being.

So here is my theory on what happened.

I believe the POTUS told the USAG that sHrILLARY was NOT to be prosecuted. (He wouldn't have risked looking like a fool endorsing her if he believed she would be prosecuted.) Things were moving forward and the USAG was going to drop the case. Then the former POTUS, in an effort add a little insurance to the deal, clandestinely met with the USAG to apply a little pressure. Then the former SoS announces that the USAG will likely be kept on if she is elected. (What's a little bribery amongst friends, eh?) The USAG then goes to the FBI Director and says, you will go out and say you are NOT recommending this case for prosecution. The FBI Director is between a rock and a hard place. He can follow the evidence and probably lose his job or he can do what he's told and lose face. He is an honorable man by all accounts and try's to come up with a way he can do as he's told while still letting the evidence do its job.

So yesterday he goes in front of the press and lays out exactly how the former SoS was either a criminal or criminally incompetent and a habitual liar but doesn't recommend prosecution. Then refuses to take questions and exits the stage, leaving everyone to question what just happened. Insuring that this will be discussed ad nausium.

The FBI Director has done what he was told to do, not recommend prosecution, thus getting his boss off the hot seat of having to decide not to prosecute. While at the same time laying it out for the American people so they can clearly see how the former SoS is much more interested in what benefits her than the security of the nation and is more than happy to lie about it.

At least that's the way an old farm boy sees it.

sHrillary's Big Fix

OMG!

I just read in the New York Times that if sHrillary wins she wants to keep Lynch on as the Attorney General! Isn't that tantamount to jury tampering? That certainly seems like an inducement being offered to the AG not to indict her. "You don't indict me and you will get to keep your job when I'm elected."

In case you thought the fix wasn't in before, what with the POTUS endorsing her and saying she is the most qualified candidate ever, how could you possibly think it's not now! Add to that, "I never had sex with that woman" Bill's attempted secret chat with her on her plane last week and it would appear to me to be an open and shut case.

And yet she claims to be open and transparent. Simply unbelievable. Just take her 'voluntary' interview with the FBI. Voluntary my ass! If you are the subject of an FBI investigation, there ain't nothing voluntary about your questioning. If you didn't come in when they asked, you would be brought in in manacles. To claim it was her idea is just one more obfuscation.

Yet, her supporters blithely continue on as if she were Mother Teresa! Many will vote for here simply because she has a vagina and/or she offers more big government so that her acolytes don't have to think or produce. Totally ignoring the fact that you can only take from the producers for so long until the whole system collapses. (See Venezuela) But hey, that's the next generations problem. Why should they worry about it. Right?

If sHrillary isn't indicted, I and many, many more will have lost ALL faith in the justice system. It will be exhibit #1 that America has completed the two level justice system. The political elite vs the rest of us and I'm afraid that bad things will follow.

So to an old farm boy, it sure looks like the fix is in for sHrillary and the rest of us can just drop trough and bend over 'cause we all know what's coming next. (Kinda funny to think that the bull that's gonna be mounting us is actually a female, but in this new transgendered world, it only seems appropriate!)

The Irony Of Independence Day

Sitting here this morning thinking about how it's probably just as well that many, if not most, Americans are preparing to celebrate the 4th of July. Note I said 4th of July and NOT Independence Day.

240 years ago, our founding fathers risked their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor for this country to be free from a tyrannical government. And here we are, a relatively short time later with a significant portion of our population rushing pellmell to give these self same freedoms back to another tyrannical government.

Many of these folks blindly holding their personal freedoms out to the government have never made the first sacrifice for these freedoms they are so quick to offer up to the government. They have listened to a group of liberal teachers and politicians extolling the virtues of big government their entire lives. So no wonder they believe that more government is the answer! Never mind the fact that most of their problems can be traced back to an intrusive government in the first place.

Their educations were warped so as to not teach them the facts that it was our forefathers independence and self reliance that built this great nation of ours. Instead they were taught that it was the evils of capitalism and independence that caused all the problems in the world. That if we had only had an all powerful government to reign in these awful people, everything would be sunshine and roses and rainbows would shoot out of our butts.

Never mind the fact that virtually every time government is ceded to much power, history has shown us it doesn't end well for those being governed. But thanks to our government run "education" system, this fact has been conveniently glossed over.

The fact that literally hundreds of thousands of Americans have given their blood and honor so that these imbeciles could be free to blithely hand over these hard won freedoms to their "political betters" turns my stomach.

How so many Americans, to adjust the old Tareyton commercial, "would rather switch than fight" is appalling. In fact, many have shown that they will actually fight in order to give up their personal freedoms. But what can we expect when we turned the education system over to leftists. First it was the colleges, but it has filtered down to the public schools now. Our kids don't have a chance if we haven't been actively trying to counter this leftist crap in our homes.

The irony of this country coming to a halt to celebrate the day we declared our independence from the tyranny of King George at the same time we have sHrillary Clinton leading the polls to become POTUS is inescapable.

I guess it's fitting that most people think of the holiday as the "4th of July" and not "Independence Day".

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.

Why Do Minorities Still Listen To Liberals?

To quote a line from one of my favorite bands, Old Crow Medicine Show, "tell it to me, tell it to me, drink your corn liquor let the cocaine be" (the last part doesn't really apply but I like the line).

I'm confused and need someone to 'splain something to me.

Ya see, as an old farm boy, if I plant corn in a bottom and it gets flooded out every time I do it, it doesn't take me to many years to figure out maybe I ought a stop doing that. Or if I put cattle in a pasture and every tIme I do, they get through the fence, I can figure out that somethings wrong with the fence and I need to stop putting cattle in there till I get it fixed.

So here's my quandary. Why do minorities and "protected" groups keep supporting liberals?

My entire life, counting way to many decades now, these groups have listened to liberals/progressives tell them how they are being "discriminated"against. If only they put the liberals in office they will make everything right and rainbows and sunshine will come out their asses forever forward. And what has come of this when they do? I give you Detroit as example "A" and the list goes on and on from there. In virtually every case you can think of,things have demonstrably gotten worse, or stayed the same at best.

So why don't they try something different?

Yes, I know the left tells them if they elect conservatives they will be put in chains, or never get their wedding cake baked, or what ever other red herring the left can drag across their trail. But after chasing that laser dot for so long, even the dullest of dogs will eventually give it up as a lost cause. 

So why do these folks keep doing it?

The left call conservatives racists, and homophobes and bigots every time a conservative suggests that we are all people and everyone should be treated the same, no special treatment. But isn't that just what the liberals want? For everyone to be treated equally?

To view the evidence it would appear not. They want certain groups to be treated with special care. They seem to want equal outcome, not equal opportunity. But isn't that the real bigoted position. Isn't saying there must be quotas, X percentage of blacks or women of gays or whatever saying to that group, "you're really not capable of competing on an equal footing so you must be treated specially", because you aren't capable. Or worse, they told me because some folks of Scothish descent couldn't do something I needed to be given special advantages, and thus my accomplishments would always be viewed as less because everyone knew I'd been given a head start. I would be totally offended if someone were to handicap me that way. 

Now the left will come back and say things like, conservatives are just about the dollar and will never give women/blacks/gays/whoever a chance. Well that's illogical on the face of it. If conservatives are only interested in the dollar, then wouldn't they hire the best available in any circumstance? I mean that's how you get ahead, right? You put the best person in the job to get the best outcome.

Then the liberal will say, but this group or that can't compete so must be treated special. Again, the racism/bigotry of the left raises its head. 

What happens if a sports team gets beat 55-0? The team isn't given special dispensation and spotted 56 points the next time. They are expected to get better if they want a better result. Having somebody on the sidelines to pat your hand and say "that's ok sweetie we will change the rules" doesn't help them get better, it makes the whole worse.

In my mind, if these groups the left keeps pandering to REALLY wanted to improve their situations, the first thing they would do is stop thinking of themselves as a separate group. Rather they would not think of themselves as a group but just another equal member of the society. They need to stop listening to those who offer them excuses and look to those who offer them a path forward.

I mean, really, how much worse could it get than where the liberals have taken them? Why not try something different than what you already know doesn't work?

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.

Sent from my iPad

Kuntzmen's Hit Piece Disguised As Reporting

How in gods name can a supposed news outlet (The New York Daily News) allow a hit piece like Gersh Kuntzmen's anyplace other than on the op-ed page. And even then, to allow it without challenging some of the nonsense and out right lies is unforgivable.

Here is a quote I just cut from his article:

The recoil bruised my shoulder. The brass shell casings disoriented me as they flew past my face. The smell of sulfur and destruction made me sick. The explosions — loud like a bomb — gave me a temporary case of PTSD. For at least an hour after firing the gun just a few times, I was anxious and irritable.

Even in semi-automatic mode, it is very simple to squeeze off two dozen rounds before you even know what has happened. In fully automatic mode, it doesn’t take any imagination to see dozens of bodies falling in front of your barrel.

Now, I do not personally own an AR15, but I have fired one and I do own a weapon that fires the same ammo as your standard AR15. Trust me when I tell you, there is NO WAY that this weapon bruised his shoulder. The recoil from this ammo, .556/.223, is barely more than that of a .22LR. I have seen 12 year olds fire these weapons with no ill affects. For a grown man to claim to have bruised his shoulder firing this weapon strikes me as total bullshit!

Then he claims the brass "flew past my face". This weapon ejects from the right side of the frame. Unless he were firing it left handed (which he wasn't according to the picture in the article) there was no way the brass flew past his face. Though I have no doubt that this pussy was disoriented around anything testosterone producing.

He goes on to say "the smell of sulfur and destruction made me sick". The last I checked, there is no smell distinct to destruction, though to be honest, that was probably just a bad piece of writing and he did not mean to have destruction linked to "smell". The smell that affected him was most likely a mix of cordite and the shit in his pants.

He then says, "Even in semi-automatic mode, it is very simple to squeeze off two dozen rounds before you even know what has happened. In fully automatic mode, it doesn’t take any imagination to see dozens of bodies falling in front of your barrel."

I have no idea what he is talking about when he says "Even in semi-automatic mode". That's all there is on an AR15! There is no automatic mode! If he were firing a weapon in full auto mode it wasn't an AR15, most likely it would have been its cousin it was made to look like, the military M16. It is illegal to sell or own a fully automatic weapon without having a special license from the federal government, and these are not easy to come by.

He goes on to say you can squeeze off two dozen rounds before you even know what has happened. Again I say bullshit! I challenge you to right now, curve your index finger and pull it back 24 times and tell me you didn't realize what you were doing. Now imagine a little resistance on each pull.

I say Gersh Kuntzmen is an inveterate liar! He didn't go to learn or fairly report. He went to write a hit piece. I would even bet $100 (and if you knew what a cheap bastard I am you would realize this is a significant wager for me) that in his heart of hearts, if he were to tell the truth, he had fun firing the weapon.

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.

We Get The Government We Deserve

Well London, it's started. You voted a muslim in as your mayor recently and the inevitable creep towards sharia law has started. Sadiq Khan has been in office only a short time and he has already introduced a ban on sexy women in advertisements on public transportation. The snowball has been pushed over the edge of the hill and if it isn't stopped soon it will get so big with so much momentum it will be unstoppable. All of London will become a muslim ghetto under sharia law. No it won't happen next month or even next year, but it's on the way.

This is part of the world domination plan. Particularly in western cultures. They have stated they are going to destroy us from within. And this is how they accomplish it.

Here you see the first pieces of the plan coming together. Sadiq Khan says it's because he has daughters and doesn't believe they should be exposed to the scantily clad women. Sounds sort of reasonable. It's for the children, don't cha know. But it is the first step on the road to putting women in burkas.

When you have an uneducated electorate, and by that I mean an electorate that delves no deeper than the ads they see or the actor/musician endorsement they hear, you get situations like this. The London mayor unilaterally banning a type of advertisement. What will he ban next? Alcohol advertisements? And then what? Openly gay establishments, because his children shouldn't see such things? And so on and so on.

And once they have got you accepting these small encroachments on your liberties, they will just keep pushing the boundaries to see what they can get next, until they have taken control.

You think I'm being an alarmist? Look at the arc of social change that the "progressives" continue to use. Little by little they get what they are after by asking you to compromise. "Just move a little our way and we will be happy." But then they ask for a little more, and so on. Notice they are never willing to compromise in the opposite direction.

The "caliphate" is taking a page directly out of the progressive play book. They are demonstrating acts of horrific violence and then asking you to follow a Neville Chamberlain like approach to them and just compromise a little to appease them. And thus the inevitable slide into oblivion.

So if the electorate is so idiotic as to vote a person into office whose first allegiance is to their religion over their country, or to vote for someone whose only real selling point is they have a vagina, or their racial affiliation. Well..... We get the government we deserve.

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.

Response To Most Recent Shooting Shows Progressive Inconsistency

Here we go again. Another tragic shooting by a suspected radical islamist. This time in a gay club in Florida.

The injured victims aren't even all treated and the gun control loons are already squawking for guns to be outlawed.

Now if these folks making all of the noise were consistent I could have a little respect for them. They would still be wrong, but I would respect their opinion. But of course they are not.

If they were consistent they would ask that all doctors be outlawed because in 2014, in the US approximately 2668 lives per day were ended by a few abortion doctors. They would also want all those of islamic faith to be removed from the country due to the fact that the majority of mass killings recently have been committed by them.

So if these folks truly are interested in saving lives, their purported reason for wanting guns banned, wouldn't they be out there demanding all the abortion clinics be banned? They really would be saving thousands of lives every day if they did that. Wouldn't they be marching in the streets to have ALL muslims be rounded up and something be done with them? Destroyed maybe? That's what they want to be done with all guns when only a limited number of folks actually use guns to maliciously harm others.

But no, we can't blame all muslims for what a few do........Yet they are more than happy to blame all gun owners for what a few do.

So if I'm reading this correctly, liberals/progressives don't really give a shit about who gets killed. Or even how many. They just have issues with a particular means of someone's demise. "Oh, it's a shame that those people were killed by that knife wielding muslim lunatic in Oklahoma and that poor woman was beheaded." Not a word about licensing knives. The young couple who were bludgeoned to death in Tennessee was it? Nobody out looking to make bats illegal. Islamists blow up how many people at the Boston Marathon, nobody wants pressure cookers regulated. But let some folks get shot, their bodies aren't even cool and the gun control crowd is out there demanded action be taken against guns!

Wouldn't it make more sense to look for and eliminate the individuals who use the tools for malicious reasons than trying to ban the tools?

Inconsistency thy name is "progressive"!

Or so it seems to an old farm boy.

Feminists And Anarchists And Revolutionaries, Oh No!

Let me start out apologizing right up front. Usually I know exactly where I'm heading as I start to write these little screeds, but today, there seems to be several topics wrapped up in my head. By the time you read this there will be a title and that should give you a clue. So let's just see where this goes.

Over the past week I've been watching the protests (riots) against Trump and Milo Yiannopoulos take place. In both cases it appears that the object is to keep them from speaking or those who wish to hear them from hearing. This would seem to be the hallmark of someone who recognizes their position is unable to stand on its own merits in the marketplace of ideas and thus must keep the alternate ideas from receiving a fair hearing.

If these folks truly believed their position was the best for the most and that Milo and Donald were offering only "hate", I would think they would want as many people to hear the hate as possible. Then their ideas could be seen as vile and unworthy of support.

Additionally, they should organize an event of their own so they could detail the merits of their position. Sunlight being the best disinfectant, the more folks who hear both positions should allow for the false one to be overcome by the light.

Secret societies like the KKK didn't become marginalized and irrelevant by staying hidden, but rather by folks learning how repellant their precepts were/are.

Since Milo and Donald seem to be the ones pushing to pull the shades back and let the light in, one on the bullying tactics of the far left and the other on the cesspool of career politics, it would appear it is they who have the faith in their positions. Not those who are seeking to have their ideas locked away so none can hear. Kind of reminds me of the position the church took in regards to Copernicus and others back in the day.

So just who are these folks out there trying to control the thought and speech of others? (Speech which just happens to be protected by our founding documents. Freedom of speech wasn't protected to keep someone's "feelings" from being ruffled. It was protected so all sides could be heard and judged one against the other.)

To look at the crowds and their actions, it would appear to me that they are made up of revolutionaries and anarchists. Folks who do not believe in America.

I believe they tell us that themselves. If they came to America to become Americans, would they wave Mexican flags and hold signs that literally say "make America Mexico"?

While the anarchists are there to cause chaos. Destroying public and private property. Accosting those who support America.

Neither of these groups are interested in what is best for America. And if you went to school like I did, back in the day, you were taught how it was the anarchists who lit the fuse to start World War I by killing Arch Duke Somebody or other in the Balkens. They seem perfectly happy to do that again.

The third group making up these protests are the Social Justice Warrior crowd. Again, a minority of thought police bullies who are out to try and control your thought and speech with the willing compliance of the mainstream media, Hollywood and the self anointed "elite" liberals. They look to do this by trying to publicly shame people for thinking or speaking in non approved ways.

These are the special snowflakes and pearl clutchers who can't abide hearing something that might offend their delicate sensibilities. And thus demand that adults who speak with reason and fact be silenced and that they be offered "safe spaces" where they can receive "counseling" to recover from the trauma of seeing a name chalked on a sidewalk, or hearing about someone with a different idea. (Note they themselves would NEVER go to actually hear what someone else had to say, but only to disrupt the speaker so others could not hear.)

These are the folks who support Hillary and Bernie. They want America to have no borders and want to take from the earners and give to the indolent, because they themselves ARE the indolent, and God forbid they actually become productive members of society instead of propagating their ridiculous 3rd wave feminism or BLM thought.

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.

When Liberals Meet Facts

I just finished watching the debacle that took place in Chicago on May the 24th at DePaul University. An institute of "higher learning". A place where students are supposed to be taught about critical thinking and to consider alternate positions.

Well that certainly wasn't the case that night!

The DePaul University Young Republicans brought in Milo Yiannopoulos as a speaker. (For those of you who do not know Milo, he is a flamboyant gay white conservative male who routinely destroys 3rd wave feminism, social justice warriors and liberals in general through humor and fact.) This was a voluntary event so no special snowflakes were forced to endure Milo's unique brand of offensive (to the reality challenged) truths.

So what happened shortly after the event started?

A group of BLM protesters took over the stage, loudly blowing a whistle to interrupt the speakers and make it impossible to continue. They then forcibly took a microphone from the student who was interviewing Milo and ranted at the audience. One of the comments from the disrupters was, and here I paraphrase, 'stop the hate you racist bastard!' Without a hint of the irony in the screed.

Understand that in the last few days before Milo was to appear, DU demanded that the Young Republicans pay several thousand dollars for increased security before they would be allowed to hold their event. brietbart.com (who is Milo's employer) actually kicked in $1000 to help them defray the cost.

So what did security do as this unaffiliated group took over and refused to let the program go forward? ..... Absolutely NOTHING!!!

Neither DU, nor Chicago PD security personnel did one damn thing to protect the rights of several hundred folks who showed up to this event to here ideas that aren't approved by the liberal elites that hold sway at most modern universities. A job that the Young Republicans were forced to pay them thousands of dollars to do because DU expected that special snowflakes would take issue with Milo.

Now isn't that just doubly distressing. The fact that a university, a place that should be totally about experiencing different ideas, would allow a group to take over an event to keep ideas from being heard, coupled with their obstructionist attempts to keep the event from happening by forcing the YRs to pay an exorbitant fee for a non service. I seriously doubt that DU would require BLM to pay extra security if they were to hold an event and bring in an Angela Davis type of speaker. (To say nothing of the fact that if folks tried to disrupt the event, I would bet significant sums of money that they would not be treated with near the civility these folks were. The only violent acts, or threats of such, came from the disrupters.)

Once again, liberal factions turned to the only tactic they can, since fact and logic are against them. They try to stop the message from getting out. Here it was BLM, at Trump events its Bernie and far left activists who try and keep folks from the events or disrupt the events.

If their case were valid, they could hold a counter event and give their side, but they neither have the facts nor the faith in their position to let it stand on its own merits. They are afraid of the facts. It's like sunlight to fungus.

Sunday night I saw Alan Dershowitz, not exactly a conservative ... LoL, say how college campuses are one of the LEAST diverse places in America. It is near impossible to find conservative thought anywhere on a college campus these days.

Isn't it about time for there to be quotas for conservatives in every department on college campuses? The American population is nearly evenly split between liberal and conservative, shouldn't each department be near that also?

(I don't really advocate this but wouldn't it be fun to watch those who fought so hard for quotas turn themselves inside out as they were then forced to advocate against it?)

ISIS Needs A Dictionary

Well, the only thing I can figure is ISIS has a different dictionary than I do!

I just read where they are trying to build a terrorist force in the Sinai so they can 'destroy' Israel and 'liberate' Jerusalem.

Liberate? Really?

What is there about radical islam and radical islamists that would EVER bring someone to put any word relating to freedom in the same paragraph, much less sentence, with it or them? Other than 'liberating' psychotic misogynists and sadists from any semblance of civilized restraints, that is.

I mean really! Compare and contrast life in Israel vs life under ANY strict islamic rule. There is NO objective measure by which anything could be considered to be BETTER under islamic rule compared to life in Israel, or any developed society for that matter.

Under radically strict islamic rule would you:
     Be allowed to speak with your opposite sex neighbor on the street unattended - NO
     Freely paint/draw/sculpt any object or topic you liked - NO
     Dress in any fashion you chose if you are female - NO
     Drive a car if you are female - NO
     Change your religion - NO
     Have no religion - NO
     Freely travel with whom ever you wish, where ever you wish - NO
     Be homosexual/lesbian - NO
     Get an education if you are female - NO

Need I go on?

And the answer to each and every one of these questions if you live in Israel, or ANY advanced society, would be a resounding YES!

So just what are they looking to liberate Jerusalem from? The shackles of 15 centuries of social development so that they can return to the bliss of a near Stone Age misogynistic/sadistic state?

I'm sorry, but that would appear to be the opposite of 'liberation' to me.

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.

Dazed Purple And Confused

Wow! I must be soooo far out of touch I'm going to need a transfer ticket or two in order to reach modernity.

Had I heard of Prince? Of course I had. Could I have told you he was a little androgynous looking popular music personality? Yes, but that about ends my familiarity with him and his resume.

Because of this, I'm a bit bemused by the reaction to his death that I'm witnessing in the news. He seems to be getting as much play as Michael Jackson's passing. (Which affected me only marginally more than Prince's.)

Don't get me wrong. I morn the passing of these individuals. Much as I morn the loss of any good person's life who I did not directly know.

I guess where I'm confused is where people are brought to sobs and tears for someone they never knew or had personal contact with. It's like someone crying when the guy who installed the steering wheel on their car died.

Just because someone is in the news doesn't mean you know them and had a personal relationship with them. They aren't your Aunt Agnes. They didn't come over for your birthday or send you a card for Christmas. Why all the angst?

Is this a sorry outcome of the age we live in? A time where people conflate a virtual life with a real one? Is this the way we react in the new wussified society when "feelings" rule the day and there are damn few real adults left?

I'm starting to fear for the future and wonder if there will be enough real adults to protect and run the country so all these special little snowflakes can be free to "feel" and be sensitive!

Or so it seems to an old farm boy.

The Demise Of The American Two Party System?

So, just what is it that we are observing in the political landscape?

Are we currently seeing the demise of the two party system?

That’s what it would appear to be as neither party seems to be responsive to large portions of their bases. The Democrats have fostered this “government is the answer to all your problems” approach for so long that they have now engendered a whole segment of the population that is Socialist at best and Communist at worst. They now expect the government to provide them with food, shelter, their new iPhone, etc. at no cost to them. They believe this is possible because the left has run our “education” system for so long that few of the younger folks actually understand how economies and finance work

This can be seen in the outpouring of support for Bernie Sanders. Millions of young folks from 18 to 35 are supporting the Bern with the hope that he will take power and make others pay off the debts they have accrued and or the things they desire. 

Bernie, who never had a steady job outside of leaching off the general populace, is doing his part by promising to make the “rich” pay for all this. He would fit right in with the Castro brothers, accept he seems to be a bit more of a true believer than they are. He doesn’t seem to be living high off the hog, just modestly above the hoi paloy, but still off the sweat of someone else’s brow.

The Republicans are also paying the price for what they have been telling their base for years. Their difference is, they have told folks that when they go to Washington they will be fiscally responsible and make the government smaller and get out of the way of people, but when they get their, they become Democrats Lite. They grow government just like the Dems, just at a slightly slower pace.

Surprising to both parties’ establishments, their bases are revolting. (It turns out we aren’t quite as dumb as they thought.) The left because they want cradle to grave coddling where others pay for what they feel they are owed. The right because they have been promised they will get to stop supporting the cradle to gravers, but it just continues on apace. 

Are we about to see the start of a 3 party system?

I wouldn’t be a bit surprised to see the rise of a viable Communist/Socialist party and the growth of the Libertarian party to where they become viable political options. 

If this were to happen, I believe the remnants of the Republican and Democrat establishments would coalesce into the third leg of the stool that would be American politics. If this were to take place, it would then require coalitions between various groups in order to pass legislation. 

Having 3 viable parties would also seem to make the parties more responsive to their constituents since there are more alternatives they could choose from. It also would make it harder to draw the old dichotomies. Us good! Them evil! 

Hopefully then they would need to actually make their arguments based on their merits rather than demonizing the other side as evil bastards who want to steal my hard earned money or ones who want to poison the air and water.

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.