Civil strife: lay it at the doorsteps of Democrats

Oh, get off it, Fredd, you can't possibly back that kind of statement up.

Oh yes I can.  

We see this again and again: black young men with no jobs burning things to the ground.  Watts. LA.  Detroit.  Baltimore. Ferguson.  Oakland.  Why?  Because Freddy Grey was killed by the cops.  Because Michael Brown was shot by a white cop. Because Eric Garner was killed by Staten Island cops.

Or, at least that is what is said on the streets.

Baltimore is in flames right now because blacks are not happy about their lot in life.  And the cops are targeting them, since most crime in urban areas is committed by blacks. What happened to young urban blacks anyway?

They don't have fathers.  Their fathers have left because there is no incentive to stay, primarily because the women in the household have the government taking care of them.  No need for a man.  And who decided that the government should do this?  Republicans?  Yes, some weak knee Republicans thought this was a good idea.  But these dumb Republicans are in the vast minority.  It was Democrats in droves who proposed welfare payments, earned income tax credits, food stamps and all other manner of handouts to minorities in depressed neighborhoods, and they proposed them year in and year out, and lots of those programs passed.  And, of course, the recipients would subsequently vote Democratic.  Often for life, as well as their progeny.  This kind of legislation works great for Democrats, who are perpetually re-elected because of their support for the down trodden.

Once these down trodden got their welfare payments, no need to work, because the government was giving them money.  Not a lot, but enough to pay for cable TV, and a case or two of Miller and a bag of Cheetos.  

Now we have an entire culture of down trodden, dependent blacks who are not happy that they can't afford Ferraris and beach front condos on what they get from the government.  And jobs?  

That's another Democrat remedy gone awry.  Manufacturing jobs were once the road to the middle class for those who didn't obtain college degrees, but those are no longer around in any abundance.  What happened to those manufacturing jobs?  Democrats and labor unions (who are almost 99% Democrats) in action, that's what happened.  

Manufacturers seek to minimize costs in order to stay in business.  When the American corporate tax rate is 39%, the highest in the world, what kind of manufacturers are going to give away that kind of money to a greedy government, when there are many countries that charge little or no corporate tax to business concerns.  Unions demanded three times the minimum wage or they threatened a crippling strike on these businesses. These manufacturers took their business and jobs to where they were wanted.  American cities sure don't want them, not with the kind of punitive taxes and union wages they hammer these businesses with.  

Do Democrats understand that union thuggery in action and by  taxing businesses out of the country, it affects the formerly middle class workers the most? And these formerly middle class workers are now under class unemployed disgruntled rock throwers.

Thank you  Democrats.    

Mean girl Britt McHenry is typical of many 'lookers'

You really shouldn't be all that shocked to listen to this young woman insulting a towing company cashier.  This kind of attitude, while vile and vulgar, is rather typical of young, good looking people, both male and female.

These horrible people have been in our midst forever, since the dawn of time.  They have been raised to think this way; that since they are pretty from an early age, they are treated differently than the other kids.  They are told that they are truly special, and are treated like little kid royalty.

They become the popular girls and guys in grade school, middle school and high school.  They create cliques that exclude the average and below average looking kids.  They tell themselves that they are better, smarter and more entitled to the good things in life than the rest of the holy poly.  At this point in their lives, the rules don't apply to them.  They are the smart, beautiful people, and they can do as they please without consequence.

These types are the cheer leaders and beauty pageant participants.  Everyone praises them and showers them with affection.  And it continues throughout their lives, until the point where their looks are gone.

Once that happens, look out.  They subsequently become meaner than ever, and resentful that the lumps and bumps in life that left them alone in their pretty youth are now showing up at their doorstep.  And they are not prepared to handle these irritants in their lives, and they certainly don't like it.

This bimbo, Britt McHenry, is clearly one of these spoiled, nasty pieces of work.  Her car was towed from a Chinese restaurant because of unnamed circumstances, but I can speculate as to why her car was towed: she parked in a no-parking zone because in her mind, only lesser folk are not allowed to park in these spots.  These restrictions are only for the 'little people,' and her kind are exempt from these restrictions, you see.  

When she had to retrieve her car, she was absolutely furious that someone had the nerve to enforce the rules on her.  How dare they?  Don't they know who she is?  She's on TV.  She's good looking.  She went to college.  She has a brain.  And she's exempt from the rules.  Rules are for her lessers.

Don't we get that?

No.  We don't, Britt.  

And after a not-exactly heart felt apology (but not directly to the woman who was the brunt of her arrogance), she thinks things will go back to the way they were before.  Maybe.  Hopefully she will get the Brian Williams treatment and possibly end her days on the air.  

But her behavior is not all that atypical.

There are lots more Britt McHenrys out there, looking down their noses at you and me.  Unfortunately, these horrible people will be among us forever.  It is just the way things have always been.

Sad to say.

$15.00 an hour will not make you happy

There is a mini-movement afoot across the U.S. pushing for an almost doubling of the federally mandated minimum wage of $8.25/hour for full time employees.

This movement is primarily focused on the fast food industry, namely McDonald's.  These low skilled disgruntled workers main gripe is that they can't pay their bills on $8.25 per hour.  How can they possibly maintain their 55' luxury yacht payments, pay their beach front condo mortgages in St. Thomas and service the loans on their  Maseratis?  

These were of course rhetorical questions, easily answered by anyone:  they can't.  Anyone currently working for minimum wage just doesn't have the skills in the workplace demanded by employers, they flat out don't.  They are not able to provide any employer any value beyond flipping a burger, or mopping a floor.  These skills are easily obtained with 15 minutes of training, and can be mastered by the most simple minded among the population.

But earning more than a minimum wage requires more than the ability to swing a mop or handle a spatula.  Do these morons know that McDonald's turnover in employees per year is around 480%, and that level is acceptable to the McDonald's front office as a cost of doing business?  That means that a single station behind the counter that only flips burgers has 4.8 different low skilled workers per year on average handling that single spatula.  Or, for those who are really obtuse and feeble minded (typical incumbents of this position, frankly), this means that the average tenure of a burger flipper at McDonalds is something around less than 3 months before they move on to bigger and better things, or are terminated, or die.  

Their skills don't earn McDonalds any more than $8.25 per hour, and if they did, they would receive it.  Simple supply and demand.  If your work exceeds the value of what your employer is paying you, they will recognize such, and reward you accordingly so that you will continue earning them money.  

But that's not what these stupid burger flippers and mop swingers think.  They think that the franchise owners or McDonalds corporate folk have bags of money just sitting around in hallways doing nothing. And these same stupid burger flippers and mop swingers think that they should be allowed to dip into those bags of money, because that would only be fair. And once they get this arbitrary figure of $15/hour, they will be happy.

This is completely not the case.  They will not be happy, and here's why:

A McDonald's franchise and corporate margins are not all that much above 6% of  the total cost of operating a restaurant, maybe 8%, tops.  That is not a huge margin, and forcing labor rates arbitrarily to $15.00 an hour will likely drag those margins underwater at most locations.  No McDonalds can consistently turn a profit at those kind of labor rates given to completely unskilled doofs. 

All of this hooplah displayed by unskilled rabble waving signs and chanting stupid slogans will not result in any desirable outcome.  If the hooligans are successful in swaying some to jack up the minimum wage at these facilities, then that money has to come from somewhere.  And that usually comes at the expense of labor costs: the franchise owners or the corporate office will find a way to operate using less labor: you know, less burger flippers.  An automated burger machine costs much less in the long run than a retarded, unmotivated human doing the same job.  

In the long run, there will simply be less burger flipping jobs.  

This is always they way it goes.  Duh.  But there is no convincing the dummies out in front of McDonald's waving signs.  They want more.  

Don't we all?  But this is not the way to get more.  Getting more requires an employee providing more value to the employer, though hard work, education, improved skills, loyalty and hustle.  

This stupidity isn't going to accomplish anything.

Hillary Clinton has no baggage, folks. None whatsoever.

I suppose nobody except me remembers when the mainstream media (NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, CNN, Time magazine, the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Washington Post....you know, the Democrats) were shoveling dirt over Newt Gingrich's presidential aspirations in 2011, declaring he had just 'too much baggage.'  That baggage included his 'wither on the vine' comment about Social Security, getting paid for an autobiography and shutting down the government in 1995 (none of that is 'baggage' as far as I am concerned).

When discussing Hillary Clinton's presidential aspirations, has the MSM even ONCE mentioned the word 'baggage' when talking about Mrs. Clinton?  Even one lousy mention of 'baggage?'  No.  And we won't hear that word about her, even though this woman has more 'baggage' than Paris Hilton on a weekend jaunt to Marseilles.

And we are told she has an excellent chance to capture the White House in 2016.  How dumb are the U.S. voters, anyway?

Time for a Hitler analogy (which of course renders this opinion completely crazy and invalid): imagine if you can the theoretical scenario where Hitler had survived his Nazi defeat, and was allowed to go back to Munich to live out his life unmolested by folks seeking vengeance for his past sins (also known as 'baggage').

And Adolph goes back to Munich, gets bored swilling beer in the Hofbrauhaus with his old Putsch buddies and decides to run for the office of chancellor again, currently held by conservative Angela Merkel..  'Vote for Adolph, he's a nice guy!'  That slogan is then printed on every bill board, every bumper sticker and on the side of every bus.  

The German media, and particularly his opponent in the upcoming election, bring up the Holocaust, and the millions of people that Hitler had murdered.  "None of that has any validity, it's just a vast right wing conspiracy to besmirch the reputation of a truly nice guy."

"But Herr Fuhrer, we saw 188 thousand people enter Dachau, but nobody ever seems to have left."  'Nothing to see here,' scoffs Adolf.  "They got lost, and wandered away" dismissing the notion. "And besides, what difference, at this point, does it make?"  (old Schickelgruber sure can turn a phrase).

And so it goes during this hypothetical election campaign, Hitler and his election staff systematically deny that there is any 'baggage' associated with the lovable nice guy, Adolf Hitler.  Also imagine the media concluding "well, ladies and gentlemen.  There you have it.  Herr Hitler declares that he has no skeletons in his closet.  Now let's move on to what a nice guy he is...'

Are Americans that stupid that the will allow the media to ignore the following 'baggage' of Hillary Clinton:

• Vince Foster's suspcious death and Hillary's suspicious involvement
• Travelgate
• Rose Law Firm records
• Whitewater
• Cattle futures
• FBI files on republican adversaries found in the White House
• Failed takeover of health care system in 1993
• Heading up controlling hubby's 'Bimbo Eruptions'
• 'Vast right wing conspiracy'
• Clocking hubby with a lamp, resulting in bloodshed
• Continuously trashing those around her and general bad temper
• Russian 're-set' button
• "I ain't no ways tarred (tired), I've come too farrrr (far)"
• Benghazi
• Email and server scandal
• Lying about dodging bullets on visit to Kosovo
• Lying about being named after Sir Edmund Hillary (first to scale Mt. Everest, and who was previously unknown until his feat TWO YEARS after Hillary Clinton was born).

Now THAT'S baggage. Serious, serious BAD, AWFUL baggage. Just the Mt. Everest thing alone, about the least egregious piece of baggage Mrs. Clinton lugs around would have tanked any republican's reputation, such as Dan Quayle's 'baggage' consisting of 'potatoe'. 

Will people just blow all of this off, this huge volume of 'baggage' in the upcoming 2016 presidential election",  just like the citizens of Dachau ignored the thousands of Jews that entered the concentration camp in their little town, and believed what the Nazis told them about it: 'just a protective custody facility, for processing people involved in the justice system.'

I may not know the definition of "is" but I know baggage when I see it.  And Hillary has serious baggage.  Everybody knows it.  Will everybody ignore it?

Vielleicht, vielleicht auch nicht.

The mind of a liberal

I have often pondered why opponents of my political views, namely liberals, think the way they think.  I am only considering opponents within the U.S.  Of course there are opposing external viewpoints from my own that come from dictators, communists, fascists, and all form of tyrants and potentates, but I am only concerned here with those who oppose me at the ballot box.

My frame of political reasoning is primarily conservative; a small government that acts as a defender of individual rights, protects its citizens from foreign threats, promotes commerce, and fairly administers justice to those who would use unjust force in society.  And that would be all that I would want my ideal government to do, and nothing more.  Just the stuff that the U.S. Constitution empowered the government to do.  

My political opponents, the liberals, want almost the exact opposite from the government.  Liberals desire a large, all powerful government that controls with regulations, rewards and punishment any activity within the U.S. that can be gamed, or otherwise unfairly manipulated in order to profit or unfairly advance a participant's interests.  Liberals want a completely level playing field for everyone in every endeavor, regardless of circumstance. They desire as small a national defense posture as possible, and divert the vast resources needed for a strong defense  to social concerns instead. 

On the surface, most of the liberal position seems reasonable.  Who wants people gaming the system?  Nobody, right?  Who wants an un-level playing field?  That's just not right, is it?  Who wants to put up with pollution of our air and water?  Only idiots and rotten people, right?

But on most issues of how best to manage the limited resources of the U.S. citizen, these 'reasonable' positions start becoming impractical, and often are contradictory to other liberal philosophies.  On occasion, I conclude that many if not most liberals are just plain evil, when they vote in droves to take the money from one American by brute force from a ham-fisted federal government and give it away to other Americans who have not done anything to earn it.

But liberal behavior defined as simply being evil doesn't explain things so well.  I can't imagine that 150,000,000 Democrat voters cast their ballots the way they do because they are all evil.  The math just doesn't support the 'liberals are evil' theory, although the immorality of taking one man's resources away and giving them to another who did nothing to earn them is nothing short of evil in itself.

No, most liberals are not evil.  But why do they support political party that punishes some Americans at the expense of other Americans?  

The only answer I can come up with is that the liberal mind is one of a perfectionist: if something is not perfect, then take steps to make it so.  Most conservatives understand that nothing is perfect, and structure practical arguments to the issues of the day that make the best of an imperfect situation.

Not good enough for liberals, however.  As the old saying goes, the perfect is the enemy of the good.  Back in the early days of LBJ, Lyndon Johnson attended a single room classroom when he was four years old.  That little classroom in Stonewall, Texas was about as spartan as things got back in the day: 20 wooden desks, a chalk board, and a wood stove to heat the place in the winter.  That's it.  

And LBJ figured that people just didn't care enough about education to make little kids sit in those little shacks, so he did something about the situation.  He started the U.S. down the road to profligate spending by everybody that owned property in the form of property taxes to be committed to public education, and now nobody has to go to school in a one room classroom anymore.

Every citizen now has access to publicly funded mansion-like school properties that have lunchrooms, libraries, school nurses, school psychologists,  and enough administrators to populate an army battalion.  All at the mandated public expense.  

That little one room school was good.  But not perfect.  And LBJ made our education system perfect.  Right?  Wrong.  His goal was to perfect the outdated education system, by simply overwhelming the system with money.  Other people's money, of course, but we got to where we are today in our horrible public school system as a result of the good intentions of a one time little four year old boy sitting at a rickety old wooden desk in a stark, barren one room school house.  

And so it goes with all liberal causes.  A wheel chair bound lady can't get into a public facility to buy a jar of pickles because there are two steps to deal with.  Is this any way to treat our crippled folks?  No siree Bob.  Let's mandate that every public access facility across the Fruited Plains have wheel chair access.  And we as a nation spent perhaps a trillion dollars doing so, and now that lady can access that store and buy her jar of pickles.  

But why don't liberals, in doing their good deeds, ever consider the costs?  Money is no object in seeking perfection in most liberal minds.  

It should be an object, however, because money doesn't grow on trees.  This is something I haven't a clue as to why liberals don't consider the costs in achieving their perfect solutions to many problems, as well as solutions to problems that aren't even problems.

Maybe somebody will give me a hint one of these days as to why liberals think the way they do.