Mike Rowse A voice from New Mexico


Why? Just why?

I was reading an article about the Niagara Falls. The gist of the article is that the water is eroding the falls, which will eventually become rapids. Now, probably not in our life times but in a generation or two, it could happen. Sounds to me like nature is doing what nature does. But government agencies on both sides of the border are taking a look at how they can stop the erosion to preserve the falls. Why? I'm confused, but then again, it's liberals running the show.

Why are they trying to save Niagara Falls? Is there an environmental reason for doing so? Is there a Snail Darter that would die if the falls disappeared? Maybe a habitat for a rare frog that's only found at the base of the falls. I don't think so. It appears to me that the efforts to save the falls is solely because they want people to be able to come and view the wonder of Niagara Falls. Why would that be? Do they make a lot of money off of park fees and taxes collected from businesses that make their living off of the tourists coming to see the falls? What is one of the undeniable truths of life? Follow the money. I'm betting that's the case here.

But isn't that in direct conflict with what the environmental leftists are doing elsewhere in our country? Of course it is. Think about our own national forest right here in SW New Mexico. The people in charge of the wilderness have decided that we humans are destroying the forest by visiting nature, so they've closed many roads and trails to public access. It's hard to keep up with all the rules but in some places where they allowed roads to remain open, they put in rules that said you cannot drive or park off of the established road or trail. So if you want to get out and hike and there isn't a parking area, you park on the road blocking access for everyone else.

I've even seen cease and desist orders telling private groups, such as hiking or trail riding groups (horses not machines) that they cannot voluntarily maintain trails; clearing trees, rocks or repairing damage done by rain or flowing water. Can't interfere with nature now can we? Except that the Forest Service does all the time, putting out naturally started fires and not allowing grazing or limited logging activities that have been shown to improve the health of the forest. So essentially they are keeping us out in order to let nature run its course without interference from humans; or limited interference at best.

And why? Because we are told that there isn't enough money being collected in the form of usage fees or taxes from ancillary businesses to be able to maintain the forest or facilities. So there you go, follow the money or lack thereof. Shouldn't they be spending money to maintain access to the forest for those of us that own it? The American people would be 'us'.


Liberal Hypocrisy – George Clooney edition

George Clooney is one heck of an actor; that doesn't mean that he's super smart, super knowledgeable, or that he's more insightful or aware of world events than anyone else. He's just a very successful actor. But that doesn't stop him from expressing his opinion on a number of topics, especially political or world events. Don't get me wrong, he has every right to do so and should; good for him. But isn't it amazing how so many leftists hang on his every word (or many celebrities for that matter)? Despite hating the rich in general, leftists adore celebrities despite many of them being super rich.

Clooney and his wife, Amal, have been very critical of President Trump's attempt to place a temporary ban on immigration from 7 countries identified by the Obama administration as supporting terrorism against the United States. It doesn't seem to matter that Amal is a human rights lawyer and can easily read the law and should know that any president has the right and obligation to do what Trump did. But they've called Trump racist for trying to institute a temporary halt to immigration; just like every other uninformed or lying liberal.

But now it seems that the Clooney duo may be having a change of heart. Amal is pregnant with twins. She and George have regularly traveled to some of the countries on the list, Iraq and The Sudan for example. Amal has traveled to those locations in the course of her work and George in his humanitarian efforts. Both of them should be lauded for that work and their willingness to go to those countries. But now that she's pregnant, they don't think it's a good idea for her to travel 'dangerous countries' and put their future children in harm's way. Sounds like a good decision to me but why the change in opinion? Maybe because it's their future family that's in danger and not our families? Maybe it hits close to home now?

That's usually what liberals practice; it's OK to bring potentially dangerous people into our neighborhoods and put our children at risk but never, ever put themselves or their families at risk. And I wonder, do they support the Planned Parenthood view (aka the liberal view) of unborn children? That until the child is born, it's not a viable human being with rights? If so, then what are they worried about? If Amal is attacked and they lose the unborn babies, what's the big deal, these weren't 'viable' human beings according to the leftist view.

Now of course, not everyone in those countries is a bad person intent upon harming Westerners in general or the Clooney's in particular but why take the chance? They don't have an ability to screen out people who might want to do them harm so why take a chance by putting themselves in a dangerous situation? Kind of the same thing that we want to do for our families...


Liberals just don’t learn

I was in a local establishment earlier this week having an adult beverage. A chair away from me two people were having a conversation about the threatening stance that America has taken against countries and groups around the world since Donald Trump has become president. These gentlemen opined that we have taken a very threatening stance with Pres. Trump saying that we will wipe out terrorist groups like Isis and that we will not help countries that provide them with support; also that we have threatened Iran because they have, as a gentleman put it in quotation marks, violated glorious leader's agreement with them. The general tone of their conversation was that both men did not like the position that America is taking against our enemies.

I would that that if I followed these men out and looked at the vehicles they drove I would see at least one of them sporting a bumper sticker that said "war is not the answer". Doesn't that depend upon what the question is? I would bet that if I said what is the one thing that you never want America to enter into with another country to this person, their response or answer would be "war". So war is the answer if you ask the right question.

Back to the point that these gentlemen were making, that being that we cannot threaten military action against anyone because that never solves the problem. I really showed a tremendous amount of self-restraint not asking them about Nazi Germany or Japan. Clearly the use of military force solved the problem that was created by the aggression of those two countries. I would like to have also pointed out that just about every country we have defeated in a war is now our ally. Even though they started the war and we finished it we help to rebuild their country and their economy. We have provided military security for many of those country since World War II. Certainly the threat of military action against them did not deter their aggressive behavior in Europe and the Pacific theater but when we actually follow through with the use of military force, their aggression stopped.

Let's also not forget that we threatened Cuba and Russia with military action should Russia continue to put offensive nuclear missiles in Cuba. Because in the past we had followed through with our promised threat of using military force Russia backed off and a potential nuclear war was averted. Now of course I'm sure that these gentlemen would have been offended by my pointing out of history and probably would have some lame argument against my facts.

My other question for you liberals who believe that we are taking too much of an aggressive stance against terrorism and countries that want to do us harm is this: why does anyone take advantage of someone else? Whether that be an individual against an individual or a country against a country or anything in between. Certainly the aggressor believes that they have something to gain by intimidating the other person or country. But the real reason they choose to be aggressive towards that other entity is because they believe that entity to be inferior to them in some way. Whatever it is that person or country has that the aggressor wants, the aggressor believes they can get it by intimidation, by threats, or by action. You do not see a bully, whether it's a person or a country, picking on someone that they perceived to be their equal or their better.

I wonder why it is so hard for liberals to understand that? They use fear all the time to gain an advantage over their political opponents. They tell minorities of all types that conservatives want to enslave them or keep them in poverty or infringe upon their rights. Whenever they are speaking out about political topics more often than not they are talking about how bad a conservative plan would be for the "little guy". Rarely do they talk about their plans or their policies that would ostensibly help the average American. They use the ignorance of the average voter to their advantage. They also know that most conservatives will not speak up and call them on their BS. Because of the conservative stands up to a liberal they called a bigot or a racist and even if it may be the furthest thing from the truth, once a person has been labeled a racist by the left they will always be considered a racist by some.

The simple fact is this, we must not only promise to use military force or other strong actions to defeat our enemies, which means stopping them from engaging in behavior that is detrimental or threatening to us, but we must be prepared to use it. Throughout history you can find a number of examples of an aggressor taking advantage of the weaker party and a strong response stopping aggression. It is one of the undeniable truths of life.

Filed under: Philosophy No Comments

Random observations; bigotry issue

I think what we're watching right now in the reaction from the left to Donald Trump's presidency and his actions is probably the biggest temper tantrum in history. And the left is pulling out all the stops of their old tactics like calling Trump racist, inexperienced, bumbling, stupid, and so on. Of course the media is helping them that in this endeavor.

What's quite interesting to me is that so many Americans say they do not trust the media; in fact it's probably a big reason Donald Trump got elected because people believe the media was shilling for Hillary Clinton and the establishment in Washington DC. And as both sides of the aisle that distrusts the media although the right side of the aisle tends to have more people distrusting the media and that distrust runs deep. The same can be said regarding their opinions about the political establishment in both parties and our elected officials. But despite this deep distrust of the media and the belief that the media is biased, so many people still believe them when they start screaming think it or racist. You had to know that this is what it was going to look like when Donald Trump got elected, the establishment on both sides of the aisle along with their friends in the media we can do everything they could to delegitimize his presidency and make him look incompetent. They are going to fight tooth and nail to ruling him and make him any effective because he is taking power away from them. It is more incumbent upon us, the average citizen, to not only look a little deeper into the stories we are being told to see if there are accurate but also to hold our politicians accountable. Use those critical thinking skills you might have been taught in school if you are over 30 before you believe what is being reported in any media source.

So we are being told by the politicians in Congress that repeal of Obama care may not happen for a year or more. You know when they say it's not going to happen this year they will kick the can again next year. Part of Donald Trump's plan is to return the insurance market back to the control of the consumer in yes that involves dealing with private insurance companies. Without getting too lost in the details, allowing more competition along with putting the consumer into the equation as the decision-maker will help to bring costs down and get health insurers to react to what people may want. The market can dictate what companies offer you we have seen that over and over throughout history. But I was listening to one individual say we cannot let the health insurance companies have control of the market again. He was saying that they are very inefficient and incapable of doing things well. But if you go back to 20 years ago even 30 years ago most of us were fairly happy with our options regarding our health insurance. And if those companies were so bad at what they did how is it that they got to be so bad, so profitable and so rich. Not to mention that the doctors, hospitals and medical clinics all got rich as well. Was it perfect? Of course not. But some tweaking can make it better and more accessible to the consumer. And it can still be profitable for the insurance companies.

Speaking of kicking the can, Republicans are now saying apparently that they cannot implement the tax reform programs that Donald Trump promised to deliver during the campaign. The first of all we have not heard a Republican say that. We have only been told by the media that an anonymous source that this discussion occurred in the meeting between Congressional Republicans and Donald Trump in Philadelphia. Part of the reason they want to delay cutting taxes is that they do not have enough money to pay for the items in their budget. Once again they have it backwards. What they should be doing is figuring out roughly how much revenue they will receive and then creating a budget that stays within that revenue amount. Even with record tax revenues being collected over the last two years they have not been able to balance the budget because they cannot say no to people. What is also interesting is that so many of the people in Congress right now ran on a platform that included cutting taxes or balancing the budget. Yet none of them have done it. Another perfect example of saying what they think we want to hear and then doing what they're going to do anyway. Again part of the reason that Donald Trump got elected because we are tired of being lied to by career politicians.

I've seen some people post on Facebook or opine on the news programs that Donald Trump complained during the campaign about Pres. Obama's use of executive orders. Obama used them as if he was a reigning monarch. Of course now some work saying that Donald Trump is doing the same exact thing, which he is using executive orders but the way he is using them is more legal and appropriate that what Pres. Obama did. As an example let's look at how both of them dealt with immigration into the United States. Pres. Obama tried to get immigration measures passed through Congress to allow more people in with less screening. His efforts failed miserably including among the members of his own party. So in response Pres. Obama issued an executive order enacting the policies that he could not get passed through Congress. That is the sign of a monarch, or tyrant. Pres. Trump's executive order on immigration however is clarifying how to enforce laws that are already on the books. Current law gives the president of the United States the authority to ban or limit immigration from certain countries if immigrants from that country a threat to the United States and its citizens. So Trump's executive orders are not creating law but clarifying how to handle and enforce existing law.

Of course the media is talking about Trump's ban on immigration from those seven countries and saying it is racist. Once again when you look at the facts that's wrong. But will talk about the specifics of the executive order in another post. But why is it that they scream racism when Islam is not a race? Why is it racist if no one from that country can enter the United States including Christians, atheists, agnostics or people of any race whether they are Arabic or not? This is all about trying to create anger among the electorate and destroy the ability of Donald Trump to govern effectively. It is about power not policy. Because none of these people calling Pres. Trump racist were calling Pres. Obama racist when he did the same thing in 2011. See? That's how you use critical thinking skills.

Filed under: Politics No Comments

So you’re butt hurt about the temporary ban on immigration from certain countries…

I was not paying much attention over the weekend but understand that after Pres. Trump signed an order halting immigration from certain countries, the liberals went berserk once again. I guess there have been protests at airports, I've seen Facebook posts, and hurt a little bit on the radio over the weekend about the opinions of those who oppose Pres. Trump's actions. Once again, the left is using tactics that are tantamount to lying but are designed to create fear in the low information voter and get them to support the liberals agenda even though they probably wouldn't agree with it if they knew all the facts. It is also been another glaring example of the liberals hypocrisy and how they don't support principles but they support people with out thinking about what those people really stand for or want to accomplish.

So let's get a few facts straight; in 2011 or 2012 Pres. Obama received a recommendation from the Central intelligence agency regarding unfettered immigration from Syria and a couple of other Middle Eastern countries. The CIA and other intelligence agencies said it was an absolute certainty that terrorists were being allowed in along with legitimate refugees. Pres. Obama ordered the State Department to suspend all immigration from those countries for a period of six months. That was done and while there were some actions taken to try and screen future refugees, it certainly did not meet the standard recommended by the CIA and others. At the time that Obama instituted this temporary ban, there were no calls of racism or bigotry because of his actions. The left did not say a word about how many people would be left in those war-torn and terrorist areas and would probably die because they would not be allowed to immigrate to the United States. Yet when Pres. Trump does the same thing for a much shorter period of time and with a much shorter list of countries, the left calls him all of those names and more.

We have also heard the comparisons of Pres. Trump's policy to the Holocaust. The left wing nut jobs claim that what Pres. Trump is doing is tantamount to creating camps similar to Auschwitz and the other concentration camps Nazi Germany used to control Jews and other undesirables, ultimately putting them to death. They make comparisons as to how Hitler created fear among the population in Germany creating the circumstances that allowed him to build these concentration camps and carry out his plan. What I don't hear from Pres. Trump is the same rhetoric as to how anyone is subhuman, the cause of all problems in the world, or any of the other descriptions that Adolf Hitler used when talking about Jews and other undesirables. In fact, Trump has said specifically that it is not all citizens of Islamic countries or all Muslims in America. And let me ask you this, where is he building these camps? I haven't seen any construction and I'm certain that the media would be all over it if it was there. And where are the squads of jackbooted thugs running rampant in our neighborhoods grabbing people who are Islamic or even look Islamic? Where are the calls to create registrations and require members of the Islam religion to register with the federal government or any other entity for that matter? It isn't happening.

We have seen terrorist attacks carried out in this and other countries by people who have pretended to be refugees and have utilized the systems put in place to enter a foreign country and commit atrocities. Doesn't it make sense to try and screen out as many people that might be threats to our children, to our loved ones, to our fellow citizens? No system is perfect and we will not be able to keep all of the bad people out but the harder we make it for them to get in the less likely it is that we will have more terrorist attacks on our soil. Just look at what is happening in Germany, Sweden, Greece and other European countries that allowed tens of thousands of refugees in without any sort of screening. They are regretting that action and are taking more severe steps to rectify the problems that resulted then we would as a country. Yet, once again the left wing is silent because the majority of governments in those countries are socialist and far be it for a liberal to criticize a socialist government for anything.

But let me ask you this, how many of you own property that you rent to others? Are you a landlord of anyway or have you ever rented from someone? If your landlord and you want to rent your home or apartment or whatever it may be, you put an ad in the paper or advertised in some way. When someone answers the ad do you just give them the keys and say the rent is $600 a month due on the first have a good time? Or do you ask them to fill out an application and check their references or rental history? Of course you do and if you have been a tenant you know you have to fill out an application giving the potential landlord some information that helps them verify you will be a good tenant, that is you'll pay the rent on time and will destroy their property.

And let's take it a little closer to home. How many of you have locks on the exterior doors to your home or apartment? How many of you have burglar alarms or other security systems to help protect your property and your loved ones? Why do you have those? Why aren't you letting just anyone who wants to come into your home enter and do whatever they like. Certainly if you had that type of open invitation you would get people who would come in and sit down and watch TV and not do any harm to you, your family, or your property. But there would be people who would come in and harm you or still your stuff. They would abuse your generosity. And when you invite guests to come to your home you expect them to behave in a certain manner that is acceptable to you. Maybe you don't want them to drink and get rowdy or to do drugs in your home. Maybe you want them to be respectful of your personal beliefs as well as your property. And there is nothing wrong with that.

But you see these are the same exact things we are trying to do with our immigration policy. We are just trying to make sure, as sure as we possibly can within reason, that the people we are inviting into our country will not do us harm and will assimilate to our core values and expectations of behavior in our society. You don't do that by just opening the door and letting everyone in that wants to come in.

Pres. Trump span on immigration from specific countries is limited to those that are known to have the highest concentration of terrorist groups and are the most active in trying to send terrorists to other countries. I believe the band lists nine total countries but does not list 46 other countries whose societies and government are based upon Islamic religion. Yet to listen to them liberal media and the protesters, you might believe that he is banned all Muslims from entering this country. That is absolutely untrue. But hey, what's a liberal to do these days when they aren't in control? They will scream and cry loudly.


What did you think was going to happen?

I just don't know how many times we are going to have to tell liberals they don't understand economics or business before they will begin to listen. This whole living minimum wage debate or demand is asinine. We have seen it implemented in California, Seattle and Tacoma, Santa Fe, and several other places. Every time it has been implemented it has hurt the people it was designed to help. Whether those people lost their jobs or had their hours cut back or the things they have to buy got more expensive, it happened. Yet the left wing continues to call for increased wages for entry-level and low skilled workers.

Many of us have also warned the left that at some point it will become more cost-effective to replace human beings in those positions with machines. McDonald's is going to launch a vending machine that will dispense the big Mac. The automated cheeseburger machine will offer three sizes: traditional, the Mac Junior, and the grand Mac. For a short period of time, to introduce the concept, the sandwiches will be free. The concept is that the machine is loaded with the ingredients and puts the sandwich together when a person orders. Now you don't need a cook and a clerk but you just need someone to load the machine. At least one position is eliminated.

Wendy's announced that they are installing self serving kiosks in a large number of its locations this year. That will replace cashiers and some of the other kitchen help with computers and automated machines because it is now less expensive than hiring real people.

McDonald's in Europe are already installing the first of 7000 touch screen cashiers that will be installed in almost every restaurant in Europe. The president of McDonald's Europe, Steve Easterbrook, said not only is the expense ratio better but the average interaction between the customer and "clerk" is reduced significantly. This is not only more efficient but in today's immediate gratification world, the customer is happier as well.

21-year-old Joe Surkitz, a college student in London, said that he is trying to work his way through college and had applied at McDonald's for a part-time job. Now there are fewer positions available for human beings and it's likely you won't get the job he needs.

If liberals understood business and economics they would get the idea that at some point the cost of hiring human labor exceeds that of the automated machines. Machines tend to make fewer mistakes, tend to call in sick less often, and are much more efficient. But entry-level jobs that are often paid lower wages can give human beings experience that allows them to advance in their careers and get other higher-paying jobs. You might say that someone will have to build and/or fix those machines but if the people in Europe have their way it will be robots doing that job also. And even if humans can do it at a reasonable price, that means that someone will have to get specialized training before they can be hired.

And quite simply very few people remain at the low end of the minimum wage scale and for a few months because they now have been trained and have more valuable skills for the employer. Often after a probationary period people get a raise. It's not much but it is the first step of increasing their income.

Filed under: Philosophy No Comments

Democrats Hold a Forum: white people are the problem

I would bet that even the most dedicated political junkie did not realize that the Democrat party held a forum for the candidates desirous of becoming the chair of the party to express their views. The forum was held Monday night and was supposedly geared to discuss what went wrong in 2016 and how to get their party back on track. What became evident quickly is that it was the problem caused by white people. Specifically, consultants or consulting firms that are either white or owned by white people.

As the current chair of the South Carolina Democratic Party, Jamie Harrison, put it, "we have to stop, particularly with the consultants. You cannot come to the DNC and get a contract and the only minority face you have is the person answering the phone." Fox news consultant Jehmu Greene, said, "minority consultants need to get the same resources that the white consultants have gotten. The DNC did in his poor, pathetic job attracting minorities she said. Really? While they got fewer votes from minority groups than they normally do they still got the overwhelming majority of votes from those constituencies. Maybe they should be looking at how their policies affected those groups and why they finally woke up to realize it was the Democrats who have been in charge for the last 50 years.

Sally Boynton Brown, who happens to be white and director of Idaho's Democratic Party opined that the Democratic Party needs to provide training that focuses in part on teaching Americans how to be sensitive in how to shut their mouths if they are white.

Each of the candidates said that the Democratic Party must embrace completely and unapologetically the Black Lives Matter movement. Sally Boynton Brown said that she was saddened that they were even having this conversation about BLM. She felt it was her position to sit down and listen without speaking, to tell other people to shut up and then to tell them what she heard from the activists.

If you really believe that when people are the problem than where you running for the chair of the DNC? Shouldn't you let the minority have that position simply because of the color of their skin? After all you agree that the color of your skin is the real problem.


I’m going to like Sean Spicer’s press briefings!


if you have not seen one of Sean Spicer's press briefings, it is the new "must see" television. There is nothing like seeing establishment types uncomfortable and angry because they are not in control and things are done differently than they would like. Let me say this so that everyone understands, the press briefings are done at the discretion of the president of the United States and he should have the ability to set the format, determine who is allowed to attend, and other factors regarding conducting the press briefing. Here is a little factoid for you, press briefings have not been conducted every day, in fact I think it wasn't until later in Ronald Reagan's term or maybe the first George Bush's term that press briefings became daily events. And really, why do we need daily press briefings? Unless there is something significant going on, such as Benghazi or the 911 attacks, what do we really need to know every day that we can find somewhere else?

But back to the point, it has apparently been a tradition for the Associated Press to be called upon to ask the first question of the day or of the new administration. Sean Spicer went to the New York Post for the first question upsetting the Associated Press reporter and others. Apparently the New York Post is considered a second tier news source by their peers. To make matters worse, Spicer also recognized and allowed Christian broadcasting network reporter to ask a question. That is unheard of, because not only is the CBN considered a minor news outlet by CNN, the major television networks and major newspapers, but they are, oh my God, Christian!

So I believe it was the Associated Press representative who asked the question of Sean Spicer that has never been asked in the history of press conferences: part of his question was, "are you going to lie to us are you going to tell the truth?". Can you believe that question? Isn't anyone given the benefit of the doubt these days? I was never asked of any of Obama's press secretary even though every one of them was caught lying to the press on multiple occasions. They lied about fast and furious, targeting of conservative groups by the IRS, Benghazi.

I thought Spicer's response to that question in particular gave us an insight as to how these things are going to go in the future. He went right back at the reporters asking them if they were going to tell the facts themselves were not. He pointed out that they have incorrectly reported about the audience that watched the inauguration of Donald Trump. There was a bit of back-and-forth with the reporter saying that Spicer had misrepresented the number of people attending the inauguration, but Spicer pointed out correctly that he said it was the most watched or most viewed inauguration which includes people watching that were not in attendance. He correctly pointed out that the Associated Press fomented that fact, something that some people might call "alternative fax." I would call it outright lying.

While we are at it, Kelly Anne Conway, is being castigated for her use of the term alternative fax. As she explained, alternative fax our data that are gathered from different sources who may have interpreted the underlying data differently. This is exactly what many in the mainstream media did when reporting upon Sean Spicer's comments about the inauguration. Spicer very clearly said that it was the most viewed most watched inauguration in history. He never broke that down into attendance at the inauguration but the press reported that was what he meant. There probably were not as many people at the inauguration as they were when Obama was inaugurated either time but that is not what Sean Spicer was talking about. So that's an alternative fact. however, when you deliberately or knowingly omit or misrepresent information, that to me is not an alternative fact but that is lying.

I for one am glad that we will have a press secretary in the president who will challenge the press to report things accurately. Both Sean Spicer and Donald Trump have said that they will make mistakes and when they do the prescient report upon their mistakes but report accurately. Likewise, the prescient report on positive news about Trump and his policies accurately.

Filed under: Philosophy No Comments

Are we better off because Obama was President?

in Obama's tribute to himself, also known as his farewell speech, he had a laundry list of the ways he made our lives better as president. Everything that he touched turned to gold and event did not perform the way it was intended it's because the Republicans fought him tooth and nail every step of the way. Never mind that he got almost everything he wanted whether it was through Congress or by executive action, the notable exceptions being most of his budgets which even the Democrats wouldn't support, never mind that the Republicans did not put up any kind of fight on most legislation. So if something didn't go as planned it was because, like Obama care, it was a piece of crap that could never work.

But are we truly better off now, especially economically, then we were when Pres. Obama took office? Let's look at a few facts that might help you answer that question truthfully.

When Glorious Leader took office our deficit was just over $10 trillion. While we will not have the final numbers for a while it is very clear that our deficit exceeds $20 trillion now. This is despite the fact that they have collected record amounts of revenue through taxes. that means the average amount of debt per person in the United States increased from $31,000 to $62,000 per citizen during his tenure. To be sure Congress helped with that but he is the captain of the ship.

The work force participation rate dropped from just over 65% down to 62%. There are more Americans of working age who are not working now than at any time in our history. The homeownership rate dropped from 67.3% down to 63.5%, again the biggest drop in history during any presidents tenure.

The median household income in America dropped from almost $58,000 per year to just over $54,000 per year. And about that health insurance promise he made the average family used to pay about $12,000 a year for their health insurance; now that cost is over $18,000 a year which means most people can't afford it and are now going without insurance, that is working families, the nonworking poor have theirs paid for by the rest of us.

The number of people receiving food stamps jumped from 32 million in 2008 242.6 million this year. And the number of people living in poverty in the United States rose from 38 to 45 million. Since the advent of the "great Society" program by Lyndon Johnson and the Democrats, the program designed to eliminate poverty in America, we have never seen a jump in the number of people living below the poverty level like we saw under Obama's tenure.

Many of you will say that the rich got richer and you hate them for it. While that is the wrong place to vent your anger, why do you think so many rich people support the Democrats? Because they are the ones that have enacted the policies allowing the rich to increase their wealth significantly. But I don't think we've seen anything like the increase in wealth for the top 1 to 2% in America at the expense of the middle class like we have seen over the last eight years. Obama is correct, he is the best at what he did, enacting policies that hurt more middle-class American families than any other president in history. That is his legacy.

Filed under: Philosophy No Comments

Back with some random thoughts and observations

it was unintentional but we have not posted for a while for a lot of reasons. But we are back after having some time to drive around Southwest New Mexico contemplate what I was hearing on the radio and come up with some observations and of course opinions.

I listened to a good portion of Obama's final press conference (Yahoo!) And it is very clear that he lives in a fantasy world. All of his comments about how great the economy is how much better America is because of him being president and all that egotistical bull crap that he likes to spout about himself. One thing that was very clear is that the press representatives in the room idolize him and never asked him tough questions about the deficit, the increase in terrorism, or any of the reality that we live with every day. But one thing struck me more than everything else about his statements; that was his claim that race relations in America are so much better now than when he took office. Of course he said there is some work to do but things are so much better and he is so hopeful because among our young people they are much more tolerant and understanding and less likely to judge people based upon the color of their skin or some other demographic characteristic. What a load of crap. How many times have we seen college students hold a rally to keep white people from entering certain areas? How many safe zones do we have in college campuses where you cannot say the word Trump or other words that might be offensive to their little ears? There are places where white kids are not allowed so that black kids or those practicing the Islamic religion can go to be by themselves, heaven forbid that one of the excluded groups enters their safe space, that person is likely to be verbally assaulted if not physically assaulted. We can go on with the examples of the tolerance that our young people are showing in the acceptance of others, damn I need a sarcasm font. We are raising some of the most intolerant kids because of what they are being taught in college and for president Obama to say anything else means he is totally ignorant or is a liar. Hell, he might even be both.

Mark Lamont Hill is a professor at some school teaching race history or tolerance or something like that. He's probably one of those people responsible for safe places where black kids can go and not be exposed to white people. But he's making news because of what he said about comedian and television host, Steve Harvey. Harvey is an activist in addition to his professional gigs. He often talks about issues facing black communities. He was invited to meet with Donald Trump this week and like other black activists who have met with Mr. Trump, he came away believing that the president elect is serious about addressing the issues facing many of our inner city citizens. Mr. Hill is not impressed with Steve Harvey, Jim Brown, Ray Lewis, or any of the other black activists who have met with Donald Trump. Mr. Hill says that Steve Harvey is a "mediocre Negro". He states that Harvey is not really an activist for his race, especially because he is successful and is thus not a good example of what black people face in this world. In fact he doesn't like any of the successful black people talking about race issues that face the average black person in America, according to Mr. Hill. Never mind that many of these successful black Americans came from impoverished backgrounds; never mind that they overcame many of the obstacles that Mr. Hill claims to be an expert on, never mind that their experiences could serve as a shining example for everyone, not just black youth. But can you imagine if a conservative or a white person used the phrase "mediocre Negro"? There would because for that person to be strung up from the nearest tree, for them to lose everything that they had ever built or gained or earned, and for them to be banished from public life forever. Maybe Mr. Hill should get out in the real world and try to understand that you do not have to be a professor to be a leader in any movement, that practical experience can make you a leader in your community.

I have a new definition for Metro sexual: gay in the streets, straight in the sheets.

I listened to portions of the four confirmation hearings being conducted by the Senate this week. Nikki Haley is the nominee for ambassador to the United Nations. One of the Senators, and I did not catch his name as I came in to the hearing midstream, was asking how ambassadors select Haley thought the United States should deal with the United Nations. The gist of the overly long question was did Nikki Haley believe that the United States should pull out of the United Nations altogether? Mrs. Haley said that there were certainly grave concerns about the integrity and efficacy of the United Nations as currently formed. She also expressed concerns about the fact that the United States pays approximately one quarter of the operating budget for the United Nations, yet that the body continually works against the best interest of the United States and its allies. I thought it was interesting to note that we are still the primary funding nation for the United Nations. When Obama took office he said that the United States cannot be the sole leader of the world that we must take our "rightful place" alongside the other nations of the world rather than out front. So wouldn't that mean that every nation that is a member of the United Nations should be paying their fair share of the operating costs? Yet not one nation even comes close to supporting the United Nations monetarily compared to what the United States pays. Shouldn't Russia, England, France, or Germany be paying as much as we are?

I was listening to some of the Democrats in the Senate question Dr. Tom Price, president elect Trump's nominee for health and human services director, and they were talking about the repeal of Obamacare. One of the Senators asked if the plan that would be put forth to replace Obama care would insure or guarantee that all Americans would have insurance coverage. She opined that any replacement for the current affordable care act would leave so many Americans out in the cold without access to healthcare. First of all, there is no problem with anyone having access to healthcare. It is typical of the liberals to skew the argument to make it seem like people are going to die if the current plan is scrapped. The simple fact is that Obama care and any other similar program is not about healthcare but paying for healthcare. That aside, if making sure that all Americans have coverage is a goal for the Democrats then why do so many Americans not have coverage now? How is it that the affordable care act that they authored and shoved down our throats took health insurance away from so many American people but yet they demand that any replacement cover everyone? There must be some kind of device that removes all principles, ability to detect hypocrisy, or somebody's ability to tell the truth when they enter Congress.

So if Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden of Eden because they ate the forbidden fruit of knowledge, was it God's goal or wish that man remain ignorant and half naked?

If Jesus is the Lamb of God, did Mary have a little lamb? A friend tells me I'm going straight to HE double toothpicks for that one.

Have you ever noticed that the symbol doctors use for their profession is a snake on a stick? How did they come up with that? If you saw someone coming at you with a snake wrapped around a stick how would you react? Would you be all happy and saying, gave the doctors here? Or would you be like get the hell away from you with that snake on a stick you crazy moron? Shouldn't a snake wrapped around a stick be the symbol for lawyers?