Mike Rowse A voice from New Mexico

1Mar/170

Random thoughts and observations

it seems that we are experiencing a time in our country when liberal hypocrisy is being featured not only in their words but their actions as well. Don't get me wrong, liberal hypocrisy has always been on display but when you add the level of emotion that liberals are experiencing right now they tend to lose what little ability to think rationally that they may have had before. Many of you probably have not been aware of what is going on with the New York Knicks of the NBA. The Hall of Fame coach, Phil Jackson, was hired by the team to be the general manager and president of basketball operations. By all accounts he has done a terrible job. He is trying to get rid of their best player by humiliating him in public, he is hired a coach that does not like to run the offense that Phil made famous and requires him now to run that offense. He has done everything that he hated in a general manager when he was a coach. But I was listening to Stephen A Smith and a couple of other pundits and they opined that Phil is doing everything he can to get fired. Because if he's fired collects the remaining $24 million due him on his contract. If he quits, he doesn't get that money. It was an interesting observation and these commentators didn't seem to have a problem with it. But I have heard them opined before about corporate CEOs who are given a golden parachute. They have become outraged that someone who is not performing to expectations could be given tens of millions of dollars in severance pay. That's exactly what Phil is doing, protecting his "golden parachute". Once again it seems that when it comes to celebrities in the sports or movie world, those with liberal tendencies cut them a lot of slack and hold corporate executives to a different standard.

I was listening to a comedy channel on XM radio and the show that was on was basically a talk show. Touching a little bit on various topics including comedians but also political satire. The host said something about midgets. A guest berated him for using the word midget because that's not politically correct and is offensive to midgets. But Ralphie May, a well-known comedian, has a great take on midgets or rather the word midget. He says that the politically acceptable term of "little people" is too broad and not specific enough. If you say "little people", you could be talking about a kid or a short person. Maybe you are talking about a dwarf or a midget but how can you be sure? When you say "midget" everyone knows exactly what you are talking about. Plus midgets are grown people that said that the little kids table at Thanksgiving patient with the adults. The little people, the kids, said that the Broken down card table in the living room. I just thought it was a good point.

You really have to be biased and close minded or unbelievably ignorant to think that the mainstream media is treating Pres. Trump fairly and what stories they report. Earlier this week Pres. Trump held a meeting with the presidents of a number of traditionally black universities and colleges. He wanted to get their input on what needs to be done to help more minority children attend college, if they want to. He also discussed increasing the availability of financial aid for anyone wanting to attend trade schools as well. A picture of the group in the oval office was released. Instead of talking about the important things discussed in the meeting, the press picked up on the fact that Kelly Anne Conway was sitting on the couch with her legs folded underneath her. The media felt it was more important to point out that she was disrespecting the office rather than the discussion taking place between Pres. Trump and the university presidents. And once again the group that met with Pres. Trump was very complementary not only about his ideas but about the fact that he genuinely listen to them and understood their point of view. They are optimistic that not only does he really want to solve problems but he wants them included in the solution. This has happened in virtually every meeting Pres. Trump has held with anyone yet you do not hear that in the mainstream media.

On Tuesday of this week a representative from Congressman Steve Pearce's office was in Silver City to hold their monthly meeting at the Chamber of Commerce. This is a meeting that is generally used for constituents to request help or express opinions in a one-on-one format. Often it is veterans who need assistance in some way shape or form they come to speak to Congressman Pearce's representative. This week a group of people exercise their First Amendment right and formed a protest outside of the building. In some of the emails that were sent to me by the organizers it was inferred and stated in one case that they should force their way into the building and demand to be heard. First of all they would not have had to force their way in as Congressman Steve Pearce will listen to any of his constituents. Secondly the protesters occupied private property without seeking permission from the property owner. But what was really interesting was a conversation I heard later between a participant and one of his acquaintances that did not attend the protest. The nonparticipant was very excited by the turnout and believes that the progressives are regaining the momentum and will really change things back from the destructive actions of Pres. Trump. Just more proof that liberals live in a fantasy world.

28Feb/170

Do you know Leland Yee edition

many of you will not remember the name of the US Congressman, a Republican, but many of you will remember his story. I believe he represented the state of Minnesota but I'm not entirely sure. But he was shamed and forced to resign from his office after allegedly soliciting a gay prostitute in an airport bathroom by tapping his foot. There was never any evidence that he actually solicited prostitution and it was never said that he had met with a prostitute. But you will recall that it was all over the news. How many of you know former California State Sen. Leland Yee? Probably not many of you. Yee is in the news this week after being sentenced to prison for violating a number of laws.

Leland has been a fixture in Democratic politics in California since the late 80s. He started out on various boards for the city of San Francisco before rising through the ranks, becoming a state representative and eventually a State Senator. He was your typical Californian liberal Democrat championing various causes such as gun-control, sanctuary cities, environmental issues, and so on. In fact he was at the forefront of trying to ban guns in California. He was also considered to be something of an outsider in that he was not part of the politically corrupt machine that typifies Democrat politics in California. He was getting ready to run for statewide office and had a good chance of succeeding. He likely would have been a future candidate for governor of the state of California.

However in March 2014 federal investigators in the Department of Justice arrested him and charged him with a number of crimes. Keith Jackson, 51, a close associate of Yee was also arrested. The FBI had been investigating organized crime in San Francisco and found a connection between Mr. Yee, Mr. Jackson, and Raymond "shrimp boy" Chow, a notorious gang leader in Chinatown.

As it turns out Mr. Jackson facilitated contact between Raymond and his associates for Leland. Leland would then perform certain political favors in exchange for large campaign donations. He would make a number of calls to help out these associates with legislation or even contracts with state agencies, some of which were dummy contracts set up by the FBI to see whether or not Leland was really participating in a pay for play type scheme or influence peddling.

But the most damning allegation came when Leland facilitated the purchase and importation of illegal weapons into California for distribution to gang members. An undercover agent contacted Leland who said he could purchase guns from the Philippines. After receiving money he conducted the deal and also received campaign contributions for his future political aspirations. Given that Mr. Yee was such a gun control advocate the judge found that his crimes were particularly heinous.

After initially denying culpability, Mr. Yee saw the evidence against him and pled guilty to a number of counts. He was sentenced to five years in prison. But I would bet that most of you have heard nothing or very little about a Democrat politician from the great state of California being found guilty of corruption, influence peddling, and illegal arms smuggling. While not surprising that this story has not been picked up and blared across all of the national media outlets it is still disappointing to see real news being ignored while misleading stories, especially about our president, are being put out hourly by the same media outlets. Is it any wonder that more people are ignoring the traditional mainstream media outlets?

24Feb/170

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'.

31Jan/170

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
30Jan/170

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.

19Jan/170

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?

4Jan/170

Another politician gets really rich and other observations

so many of you are worried that Donald Trump will take actions as president that will enhance his business interests making him much richer. Based upon history, it's a valid concern and bears watching. We can argue that if Donald Trump creates business conditions that benefit everybody including himself that's different than a politician who lined his or her pockets while in office. Let me ask those of you who are screaming the loudest about this potential problem why aren't you criticizing Obama? When Obama entered office his net worth was about $1.5 million: as he gets sent to leave office his net worth is now $12.2 million. How does a man who makes $400,000 a year save $11 million in eight years? Mathematically, for you public school graduates, it is impossible. Yet it happened and not one word from you liberals. At least Bill and Hillary waited until they got out of office before making the majority of their money.

John Kerry gave a speech regarding the recent vote at the United Nations to condemn Israel and their settlements in the West Bank. It is unprecedented for the United States to betray the only democracy in the middle east and our biggest ally. But Kerry justified it in several ways, none of which were accurate or historically truthful. But probably the most egregious thing he said was that Israel has to make a choice; they can either be Jewish or Democratic but not both. Why not? They have more freedom than any other country in the region. They also allow Palestinians to come into Israel and work and live not to mention others that are Islamic or of Arabic descent. Which country in their region that is trying to attack them does the same thing? Iran is not going to allow Jews to live there in their country, neither is Palestine if they get to be state. That list goes on. So does the same principle that the secretary of state spouses applied to Islamic countries? I guess Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran and other countries in the region can be Islamic because they are not democratic. And isn't it ironic that the administration like Obama's is calling for America to open its borders to all sorts of refugees but wants Israel to respect the borders of Palestine and other countries?

When did it become necessary that we have chicken nuggets with a hamburger and fries for a meal?

I was reminded by a friend of a flight we took a number of years ago. We were flying out of Elko Nevada headed for Reno. This was a smaller plane, about 25 passengers and had two propeller driven engines. As we were waiting at the gate, the pilot came over the public address system and advised us that they were having a little problem with the left engine but he assured us, they would try and get it fixed before we took off. While I would hope so, what if they didn't get it fixed? Were we going to take off anyway? Why would you say that you would try to get it fixed, tell us you're going to get it fixed or we won't take off that would make me feel much better. And if you're not going to be able to fix it before we get in the air then you better open up the bar.

A restaurant named Café eight in Honolulu has put up a sign that says if you voted for Donald Trump we will not serve you because we don't want any Nazis in our establishment. While they shouldn't have the right to refuse service because of someone's belief system should they? We've seen other businesses forced to provide services to people with whom they disagree philosophically. Of course the difference here is that the liberals will agree with this restaurant and their position so it's okay to discriminate.

Ed Asner and a bunch of other left-wing act doors are really upset about the new minimum wage laws in California. A whole bunch of them have gotten together and asked for an exemption from the minimum wage laws that apply to all jobs in California, requiring businesses to pay a minimum wage of $15 per hour. According to Asner and his friends small theaters cannot afford to pay $15 an hour to act doors, set designers and builders, sound engineers, ticket sellers or anyone else that works for the small theaters. Asner claims it will put them out of business and ruling opportunities for the future stars of television and movies or Broadway. Asner says, correctly, that the small theaters or where a lot of future stars learn their trade and without the ability to exempt themselves from minimum wage laws those opportunities will disappear. I'm sure they still don't see the correlation between the small theaters and any other small business in California, but you and I do.

Do you remember when the media got all upset over president elect Trump going to dinner one night and not letting them know he was going or not allowing a pool reporter and photographer to accompany them and get pictures? NBC television made a huge deal out of it as did many other mainstream media news outlets. They began to worry that Donald Trump was going to shut them out of the process and not let them tell us what he is doing every minute of every day and of course this meant that he was going to be hiding a lot of big things too. Just to prove that they do not have principles to which they adhere consistently, Pres. Obama ditched the media on his last vacation to take his daughter to a water park. Did you hear anything about that and his lack of transparency? No of course not. In fact the New York Times even opined that it was understandable given the high level of scrutiny that Obama's family is under and their desire to have some privacy and normalcy.

20Dec/160

Now it’s the Russians?

in 2012 Mitt Romney was lambasted and ridiculed for his statement that Russia was the most real threat to the United States. Obama said in one of the debates that the 1980s would like it's foreign-policy back. Of course that grew big laughs and was picked up by the media to make fun of anyone who thought Russia was a threat to anyone in the world much less the United States.

Obama has spent the last eight years kowtowing to Russia: he did not help the rebels in Crimea as they fought against the Russian invasion nor did he help the Ukraine when it became clear that Russia was shooting down their cargo and passenger planes. He did not step up and complain to Russia when they were violating the United Nations sanctions against Iran. He has let Russia have their run in Syria and look what has happened there, most recently in Aleppo. when it was clear and documentable that Russia's agents hacked into the White House and the Pentagon computer systems you heard barely a peep out of Obama and the left.

Now however because somebody at the CIA says they have secondhand information that Russia might have been behind the release of emails that allegedly caused Hillary the election, Russia is the biggest threat we have in the world. Let's remember this there are not 17 intelligence agencies that claim Russia is behind the hacking of those computer systems. There is not one scintilla of documentable evidence that Russia was the responsible party. There is a statement by someone who said they have knowledge that it was Russia but there is nothing that you can point to, no paper trail, no computer trail nothing that would prove it or provide reasonable assumptions that it was Russia.

Despite the fact that Obama said on numerous occasions running up to and immediately after the election that Russia was not hacking into our systems and attempting to influence the outcome of our election, now he is 100% behind that allegation. In fact he made a big deal about telling us that he got top with Vladimir Putin and told the Russian president to, "knock it off". I'll bet Vladimir is shaking in his fur lined boots.

But it seems are responsible for Obama to start pushing back against Russian now and on this issue where we will get no international support because there is not anyone who can provide documentable evidence that it was Russia. That doesn't mean it wasn't Russia, it might very well have been in there certainly are people who believe it was most likely them. But this is way down the list of egregious things Russia has done in the last eight years. There is only one reason the left and Obama are speaking out, they are losing power and they do not like it. They have to delegitimize the presidency of Donald Trump and destabilize our government and our nation. It's typical behavior for a community organizer, get the citizens to rise up in "civil" disobedience.

Fortunately we have an incoming president who will not put up with it and will do what is right.

Filed under: Politics No Comments
20Dec/160

Tolerance, isn’t that what they preach?

yesterday the electoral college confirmed the election of Donald Trump. Right up to the time that members of the college were to vote opponents of Donald Trump or lobbying to have them change their votes. Isn't it ironic that more members of the college decided not to vote for Hillary Clinton than did members decide not to vote for Donald Trump?

But we're told by the left that we are to be accepting of the results of the election but as we know that's only if we lose. If they lose tolerance is the least important thing in their mind. We saw a number of stories regarding the efforts of many people on the left side of the aisle to influence electoral college members and try and get them to change their vote from Donald Trump.

I will not disagree with their right to say those things. What I will disagree with is the victory all and hatred and threats that they used. Certainly there were people on the right side of the aisle who asked elect towards to not vote for Barack Obama. We did not see a lot about that in the media at the time but it did happen. There were no reports that members of the electoral college were threatened or needed police escorts. However when the liberals lost the death threats were numerous and frequent. There were black members of the electoral college who were also Republican and voting for Donald Trump. They needed police escorts to go to their meeting.

We saw a number of protesters show up and try to disrupt the meetings when the vote was not going to go their way. They threatened the elect doors many of whom are required to vote that way by law in their state. So they were asking those people to violate the law and face fines or jail time for doing so. Some states require that if the electors is not going to vote the way the people of the state asked them to that that person is removed and an alternate is put in his or her place. We saw that with a couple of the electors who decided not to vote for Hillary.

In fact, moviemaker Michael Moore offered to pay the fines for anyone who took the risk and made the decision to not vote for Donald Trump. Now isn't that trying to influence an election by an outside force? I know it's not the same thing as the alleged influence of the Russians but it is offering money to public officials charged with voting for the president to change their vote and abrogate their duties. Isn't that illegal? At the very least, it's using money as free speech which is protected by the laws of this country, which the liberals don't like that particular Supreme Court case by the way.

Certainly the liberals speak of tolerance and acceptance but when it comes to practice they rarely practice what they preach. Supporters of Donald Trump were told to put a gun in their mouth, they were physically threatened, physically assaulted, and verbally abused. Some people said they would not participate as a member of the electoral college ever again because of the experience. Isn't it sad that the liberals can't practice what they preach, accept the results of the election and move forward?

16Dec/160

Liberalism v conservatism – Costco Edition

there has been a lot of analysis regarding the outcome of the last presidential election. But the one of the more interesting takes was to compare the states that were carried by Hillary Clinton and those that she lost. Many of the states where she had a solid victory have been run by the Democrat party for decades but are at the bottom of the economic prosperity scale. Many of those states are at the top of the list for the average amount of money spent per capita in government transfer payments; That is welfare, unemployment, HUD payments, etc.

I read the transcript of a radio interview regarding Costco, the big box store. They were comparing two stores that the company had built in the last couple of years; one just outside of Milwaukee and one just outside of Chicago. The cost to build the stores was about the same, $33 million. The population bases in both areas are very similar demographically, especially in the area of income. The sales at the two stores whether measured in the terms of total dollars or inventory moved are very comparable. So you would expect that profit at the two stores would be similar, wouldn't you? If you think that then you have not been paying attention.

Illinois is clearly one of the most liberal states in the nation especially in Chicago. It's where Obama learned his craft it's where they have some of the biggest problems as far as crime, poverty, urban blight, and so on. Wisconsin has been run by one of the best Republican governors, Scott Walker, and a Republican legislature for several years. Under Walker's governorship the state has turned around economically by lowering taxes and becoming much more friendly to business. They had increased jobs and economic activity. So how does that affect the profitability of two stores run by the same company with comparable sales?

In the Wisconsin store the profit on sales was $8 million last year. With the same sales volume and revenue the Chicago store returned $600,000 in profit. The only difference between the two environments in which the stores operate is the amount of taxes and regulation placed upon the store in the Chicago area. Not only are property taxes in Illinois the second highest in the nation but the regulatory fees and sales taxes and different kinds of taxes are high as well. For example the store has to pay a $50,000 a year roof inspection fee to the local government. Why do they need that? Businesses like that have their own maintenance departments and they plan for capital improvements and/or maintenance. The last thing a businessman like that wants is a building that is falling apart because it not only can hurt sales of people don't think the place is nice enough to shop him but the liability if someone should get hurt could be huge. We don't need to be paying government employees to inspect the roof every year and why would it cost $50,000 for them to do it?

Apparently the governor of Illinois tried to set up a meeting with the CEO of Costco with the intent to encourage him to build more stores in Illinois. The CEO declined the meeting. He said as long as Illinois continues to have high regulatory and tax costs many of which are redundant, ineffective and useless there is no reason for us to build more stores there. If we can make $8 million on the same investment somewhere else but only make 600,000 in your state why would we put our money there? The margin is way too thin and it would be too easy to lose money. But of course the liberals don't see it that way they're probably thinking $600,000 a year in profit is too much. And rather than let people get a job at new Costco stores the liberals would rather have them dependent upon welfare payments and then scare them at election time by saying Republicans will cut their welfare and make them homeless. That way the politicos can continue to get their payola and their cushy jobs.

Filed under: Politics No Comments