The coming oligopoly

The National Labor Relations Board just decided to hold franchisors accountable for employee procedures in each of its franchisees' locations. This is big. The idea that a franchisee in Florida may now be impacted by another in California, even if indirectly, is so far outside the bounds of a free and accountable society that it borders on comedy.

Decisions like this lead to the inevitable corporitization of America where big business is the only business allowed to operate. Consider how few choices you have when you examine how many brands are now owned by fewer and fewer companies. As horizontal mergers continue under the argument for "economies of scale", America will be hemmed into an oligopolistic society rather nicely, where big business pays for favors and politicians deliver. Well done America.

"Business groups countered that the decision was meant as a favor to labor groups, who have targeted retailers such as Walmart and franchise restaurants such as McDonald’s for unionization. Unions have run into obstacles because under the franchise model they have to organize on a store-by-store basis. The new standard could make it easier for unions to get a seat at the table by unionizing at the corporate parent level, according to David French, a vice president at the National Retail Federation."

http://freebeacon.com/issues/bye-bye-ronald/

Circular logic and government programs

Of the many reasons I like Rand Paul, one is his pragmatic approach to budgeting. In business, you budget from the bottom up: what do I absolutely have to do to stay open. Everything else is discretionary. Find the fraud, waste, and abuse. Like Rand says, "Not one more penny to countries who burn our flag."

If businesses budgeted and spent like the government, they wouldn't stay open, much less thrive. Too often people justify the existence of a program simply because they don't know what they'd do without it, but that's just because they've never been forced to justify it. Circular logic.

#StandWithRand

Have you read the Constitution?

Have you read the Constitution? Rand Paul has. Conventional wisdom and constitutional scholars want you to believe that you have to be a lawyer to understand it. They don't want you to read it. They want to be the one to tell you what it means. They want you to trust them. And when you do, they've got you.

The elites want you to confine yourself within a box, to bind your mind with chains, and to conscript yourself, by your own choice, to the advancement of their ideals--not your own.

They want to put you in a cage, restricted by the bars of their big words and advanced degrees. They feed you just enough freedom, in tiny bites, to keep your appetite under control. What you don't realize is that by now you're only hungry when they turn on the light, your conditioned response to their machinations. Like a dam operator releasing water as the pressure builds, they maintain the barrier between you and true understanding.

They don't want you to read the Constitution. Your self awareness is their critical vulnerability and the biggest threat to their straining clutch upon power.

The truth is that the Constitution is easy to understand, simple to read, in common English. So, have you read the Constitution? Rand Paul has. He wants us to read it and understand, but the opportunity is short.  Free your mind; nurture your critical ability to keep yourself informed. The time to act is now.

Rand against the machine

This much I've come to realize, that those on the left  must think the same thing about us that we think about them, that they say the same things about our news sources that we say about theirs, that this is a war of ideology and not gerrymandered statistics, and that the leader of this country will be decided by the 40% or less of the electorate who sit in the "middle" and change their minds everyday. The people on the "right" like me will never vote for chains, and the people on the left are just stupid.

Rand is the only candidate with depth on either side, and if we knew the reason that he didn't show up at the Koch brothers', it probly is because he doesn't want the money. Better to lose and be right, than to win and be a slave to the money.

This contest will come down to Trump vs Paul because Paul will beat all the others on issues. To beat Trump, he's going to have to demonstrate passion because Trump is dialed in on the oppressed America that is sick of us looking like pansies.

Seattle CEO learns the hard way about minimum wage

I remember when this guy went public with his plan to pay everyone in his company a minimum of $70k, and I knew of no way to pull it off. I applaud him for his heart and for the courage to try it. Private enterprise enables you to use your capital in any way you choose, but apparently he didn't include his partner, and brother, in the decision making.

As a small business owner, I know that personnel costs are the greatest expense. You can't increase your expenses exponentially without totally changing your structure. You either have to dramatically lower costs elsewhere to pay for it, or you have to substantially increase your gross profits through higher sales or lower variable costs.

The bottom line is that personnel costs hold dramatic influence over the sustainability of a company. You can't wake up one day deciding you're going to be a philanthropist and triple the incomes of your lowest paid employees without negative consequences.

Apparently, if you do, you can be a short term hero, three months in this instance, but are destined to be a long term goat living in your garage, lol. Lesson learned.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/08/01/seattle-ceo-who-set-firm-minimum-wage-to-70g-rents-house-to-make-ends-meet/

Paying taxes is not charitable work

How compassionate is it really to pay your taxes and never lift a finger to help someone in need. Just shrug your shoulders, it's the government's job. You've got the same number of people in poverty now that you had before welfare, but you have more people skilled at manipulating numbers.

Bottom line: My church and civic organizations are faster and more efficient than government programs.

Using scripture to back tax plans is wonky. Jesus said to get out there and help people. That means donate money to a soup kitchen and better yet, go and serve at one.

Donating someone else's money to the people you consider in need isn't going to get anyone to heaven, so if paying your taxes clears your conscious, then keep voting. Just remember that the devil knows more scripture than the average self proclaiming Christian.

Israel is the key

How can a group of countries pursue a deal on the Middle East without including our most important ally in the Middle East? From the youngest days that I began taking an interest in this world and the foreign policies of the US, I have always believed that Israel is the most important country in the Middle East, and I will continue to believe such.

Israel provides balance and a welcome change from religious extremism. Perfect example: when was the last time a Jewish person, strapped with an explosive belt, entered a crowded market and detonated himself along with hundreds of others? It doesn't happen.

Israel has one of the most advanced intelligence services in the world. If Israel tells you that its neighbor is up to something, the neighbor might just be up to no good, so why not take note? Further, they have one of the most advanced military capabilities in the world. Ever hear of the Six Day War?

All this being said, why is the US taking the lead, in concert with other non-Middle Eastern countries, to negotiate with Iran? Israel has all the knowledge and the capabilities, and what are we doing? Tying its hands. Cajoling it to stand by and wait. Well, here we are with hardly anything to show for it but a broken leg of John Kerry.

No thanks, I'll just be here standing with Israel.

Uber driver arrested for working!

This is what it has come to, people. Arrested for making a living. The driver did not assault anyone or otherwise hurt anyone. His competitor called the police, and the police, as agents of the competition, arrested the driver. Keep it classy, America.

http://www.wjhg.com/news/regional/headlines/Police-Arrest-Uber-Driver-Under-Key-West-Ordinance--314951191.html?device=phone&c=y

Lone Survivor

So, I just finished Lone Survivor again. Can barely describe how that movie makes me feel. While in a different service, we served together. While I never saw action such as theirs, I understand it.

What hits me harder than the movie itself is the pictures of the actual men who died during the operation after the ending. Real people with real families. Babies and little boys and girls who will never see their fathers again. And there was my classmate, Mike McGreevy. The way he's looking at his baby in that picture, and all that child has is his picture now.

But Mike was a fighter, and he believed in what he did. We all did. Still do. Perspective is really heavy. I never saw Mike McGreevy when he wasn't smiling, and he picked me up a time or two when I needed it. Just a massive ball of positive energy, he was.

I'm not posting this so people will feel sorry for me. I'm posting this because we need to remember what these gents sacrificed. I'm ok, but they're never coming back. Let's not forget it.

Life is not a choice.

This is a 24 week old infant. You can see that he is surviving on his own.

Democrats think you have a right to kill this child.

Let me ask you this, if someone walked up and killed the baby in her arms rights now, would it be a crime? The answer is yes.

Why is it any different inside a womb at the exact same point of development??

Photo courtesy Representative Steve Stockman.

One day, we can all be criminals....

How do you convince someone that the incremental encroachments upon our way of life actually can result in total loss of liberty sometime in the future?  Even with all the regulations and laws, 99.9% of the "law abiding" populace will never end up in jail for anything they say or do.  This belief does not acknowledge loss of property as an actual punishment.  Like civil asset forfeiture, the EPA seizing your land, eminent domain, government fines, $130,000 fines for refusal to bake a cake, etc.

Property is an inalienable right just like life and liberty, but we do not treat it as such.  Most people will never be attacked by the bureaucracy; therefore, the problem does not really "exist".  To them anyway.  Ask the person who lost their life savings attempting to defend himself against regulations not even made by elected officials.

Think you are free of government influence?  Read this article by David Montgomery, and I think you may reconsider.  Here is a small excerpt:

What Makes a Criminal?

Merriam-Webster defines crime as “activity that is against the law.” Law is defined as a “set of rules made by the government.” Thus a criminal is someone who breaks government rules.

The law as a whole is an ever-expanding collection of rules that politicians (“lawmakers”) decree and occasionally repeal. Laws are as moral as the politicians who make them.

Simply put, laws are the rules politicians make up, and criminals are people who break them.

It floored me to realize: Anne Frank was, in fact, a criminal. She was a fugitive of the law.

We can express outrage at the designation since Anne did nothing wrong. And we can debate which rules of any particular regime are tolerable or repugnant. But our opinions don’t change the fact that “criminal” is a government-defined standard imposed on us, the governed.

A law-abiding citizen was obligated to turn Anne into the police. To assist her was a crime. In America the Fugitive Slave Law obligated law-abiding citizens to turn in runaway slaves, and assisting them was punishable by 6 months in jail and a $28,000 fine (in today’s dollars).

In early colonial America masturbation, blasphemy, and homosexuality werecrimes punishable by death. Virtually any act you can think of has been criminalized by one regime or another. Being a law-abiding citizen only means you comply with whatever rules politicians have imposed on you.

Throughout history we observe only a slight overlap between the endless supply of laws governments impose on people and the handful of acts we all agree are morally wrong: theft, assault, rape, murder.

https://bananas.liberty.me/youre-a-criminal-in-a-mass-surveillance-world-how-to-not-get-caught/

Illegal immigration and the safety of your children

To the average, disinterested American and to the Democrat, those who enter the country illegally are a non-issue.  The average American does not care because he or she believes it will never affect him or her, and the Democrat knows there is a high likelihood that the illegal individual, once naturalized via amnesty, will register to vote Democrat.  Democrats essentially buy votes indirectly by turning a blind eye to a very real problem.  What if you are not the average American and you become a crime statistic?



When you have a porous border, when you require no identification to receive benefits, when you do not check for citizen status when registering to vote, and when you make no serious effort to deport those illegal immigrants convicted of actual crimes, as a country, you surrendered your ability to maintain any accountability over whatever programs you have in place.  Want food stamps even though you should not be here?  Here you go.  Want a driver's license and a voter's registration card even though you should not be here?  Sure, no problem.  Convicted of a crime? Just do not do it again.  How fair is it to the rest of us for an administration to refuse to enforce existing laws simply for the benefit of a political agenda?  Not very.



The President demonstrates a refusal to enforce laws that he does not approve.  Deport someone who committed a crime?  No.  Deport illegals?  No.  What other parts of his job is he not doing while not telling us of his inaction?  Can you really trust this person to track terrorist threats when he refuses to secure a border?  If you look up the definition of "not secure", I am fairly certain that you will discover that, as it pertains to the border, anyone might come and go with little threat of getting caught.  It was this exact type of vulnerability that enabled terrorists to board planes with box cutters and change our national security landscape forever.  Have we yet forgotten that terrorists research weak areas in security, exploit those weak areas, and set up these types of monumental acts to gain notoriety?



For one, I am entirely sick of the incompetence sitting inside the White House at this very moment.  I am completely disgusted by a political establishment that refuses to address a serious issue simply because it benefits directly from inaction.  I am totally fed up with anyone who makes excuses for anyone crossing the border ILLEGALLY.  In short, if these statements describe you, you are a consummate idiot.  

"According to a recent study released from the Center for Immigration Studies, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) released 30,558 criminally-convicted illegal immigrants, with a total of 79,059 convictions altogether, in 2014.

Furthermore, the CIS report shows that among the 904,000 illegal immigrants who have ignored orders to leave the U.S., approximately 167,527 of these are convicted criminal immigrants.

Likewise, CIS’s April 2015 statistics indicate ICE has only arrested 11,983 at-large convicted criminal immigrants—despite the fact 168,000 criminal immigrants were identified.

The concern is that these convicted criminal immigrants will commit crimes upon being released, as in Sanchez’s case.

“The long-term ramifications are continued crime inflicted upon U.S. citizens,” Marguerite Telford, director of communications at CIS, said in an interview with The Daily Signal in June. “So the [Obama] administration’s catch and release policy means these criminal aliens are free to commit additional crimes.”

How Unusual Is Francisco Sanchez Case?

Illegal means not legal. Look it up.

I'm starting to sound like a Trump backer, but I'm not. Yet. What I am is a supporter of pragmatic and practical plans. More than that even, I like COMMON SENSE!!

Why are American citizens concerned at all about helping ILLEGAL aliens and preventing their deportation? Makes no sense. Everybody here knows we give federal benefits away for free, and do you not realize that ILLEGALS collect them too? What is it about the word "ILLEGAL" that you just do not get. I-L-L-E-G-A-L. Look it up. It means NOT LEGAL.

For crying out loud. Our citizens act like illiterate dropouts with zero intelligence.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/06/trump-on-criminal-illegals-both-sides-need-to-grow-up-and-put-americas-interests-first/

Rubio the wind vane

If you haven't noticed with Rubio, he sometimes changes his opinion based on polls weeks after the fact.

Take for instance the immigration reform that he co-authored. After realizing that it was extremely unpopular with the base, what did he do? He opposed it, lol.

And now this. MSM wants me to speak out against Trump? Oh ok.

He is such an insincere and immature politician, and he literally looks like a little boy in the midst of all this. Really, I can't wait to see him versus Trump in a debate because it's going to be good. Rubio is no David against Goliath. He's the Philistine himself.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/03/marco-rubio-jumps-in-with-msm-donald-trump-offensive-divisive-unserious/

Late term abortion or just plain euthanasia?

If a baby can live on its own, why would you not just deliver it and let someone adopt it? Why would you intentionally kill it just to kill it?

Late term abortion kills babies who can live on their own, and for what reason? Because the child was conceived under duress? Maybe so, but the child is capable of living on its own at the point of late term abortion.

At the point that a baby can breathe and survive outside of the womb, does it matter that the baby is a product of a rape or of incest? Remember, the baby can survive outside the womb. We aren't talking about a three week old fetus. We're talking about nine months gestation.

At eight to nine months gestation, the skin of the mother's belly is the only thing preventing the child from breathing and surviving on its own. Important time left for the baby to develop, nevertheless, a successful delivery can be obtained. Yet you want the right to kill it?

Democrats feel that it is an essential right to be able to kill a seven pound baby in the womb even though it could be delivered and allowed to live. I don't care who you are, that's called euthanasia. And I don't see what rape or incest has to do with any of it.

If rape or incest are factors, get the abortion before viability. At a certain point, scientifically, that baby is autonomous, even if it resides inside the womb. When you can take that baby out, and it breathes and survives on its own, rape and incest are irrelevant. If you don't want the horrible memory of it, give the baby up for adoption. The breathing and surviving baby has a right to life.

And let's not make this a women's rights issue. For crying out loud, large percentages of women agree that abortion at any stage is wrong, let alone the eighth or ninth month. Are women's rights only women's rights when left wing women approve of the position? Abortion is the same type of political issue as everything else in that people of both genders, of all races and of all persuasions find themselves on both sides of the issue.

No one can claim to speak for their entire gender or race. Those kind of absolutes are weak attempts to shutdown opposition without logical debate.

Be mature. You think you should be able to kill a seven pound baby in the womb, but it isn't because you are a woman. It is because you refuse to accept the fact that once your baby reaches the point that it can breathe in its own, you really ought not be trying to find ways to smother it. Don't hide behind your gender.

http://truthuncensored.net/every-dem-senator-voted-for-late-term-abortion-up-to-nine-months-of-pregnancy/#sthash.ysNWxAIt.fFFczbvF.dpbs

The attack on your freedom has begun...

I find myself wondering if we aren't part of a shrinking minority, those motivated by freedom, not conformity. With each day as progressives erode individual freedom in favor of the collective, are we losing our ability to function independently?

Think about the major communication platforms of the day like Google and Facebook. Regardless of whether or not you like the Confederate flag, this week, Google, Amazon, eBay, and other platforms told you that you could no longer buy it. It's one thing to encourage people NOT to buy it, but it's entirely different to tell someone they are NOT ALLOWED to buy it.

In fifty years, how will we communicate and by whose standards will we be judged? While progressives use these platforms to coalesce, they actually control them too. The money is in the masses, not the silent minority. The herd mentality substantially benefits the corporatists who profit from the plans, organization, and movement, so who will stand against it? Who will champion the opposition?

Remember these facts as you use whatever medium that you choose, and ask yourself, what happens when they silence you?

What did Facebook do with that rainbow profile?

http://unclesamsmisguidedchildren.com/what-did-facebook-do-with-that-rainbow-profile-track-it/

I have many friends

I have many friends.  My friends happen to look very different from one another, yet I still call them friends.  Some look just like me, others not so much, but to me they are all the same.

After the shooting in Charleston, for me, it is important to state how I feel about it if for nothing else than to let those who were targeted, apparently due to color, know that I have their backs.

I have friends who happen to be black, brown, yellow, red, etc.  I have some friends who are deformed even, mentally slow, autistic, among other things.  Sometimes my friends don't comb their hair, brush their teeth, or even shower--I think those friends in particular are disgusting, but I treat them the same even if I don't stand next to them.

I refuse to accept those who seek to suppress or oppress others, and the actions of suppression and oppression transcend appearance.  Right now in America, there are groups of people from different backgrounds, ethnicities, colors, religions, and others who seek to force their will upon others.  I experienced it in school, and I see it today.  It will never change.  Unless you change.

Racism, fanaticism, fascism, etc. start with individuals.  Yes, they congregate together, in person or online, but ultimately the problem is with them, individually.  They have a problem with hatred that sometimes goes beyond freedom of association, and this is when it crosses over into society and becomes  problematic.  Freedom of association allows us to dictate with whom we shall be friends, but it does not allow us to force our will upon others.

Respect is just a word until it goes into practice.  I may not like you, but I will not hurt you.  I may disagree with you, but I will not threaten you.  I may believe you to be my enemy, but I will not seek to destroy you.  I will respect you.  I will defend you.

In my world, I will defend the oppressed and speak up for the vulnerable.  I will not allow those who seek to oppress to subvert others to their will.  I will fight for them, and I will aid them.  I belong to the underdog.

To those who were shot and killed yesterday because they happened to be black, I am very sorry for what happened to you by a person who did it because of skin color.  He shares my skin color, but I do not support him.  He was an idiot, and you bore the consequences of his hatred.  As a Christian, I know where you are today because God guaranteed you a place in heaven for dying while spreading His message, even to your killer up to the point of your own murder.  I have no doubt that you died righteously doing what we know was right to spread His Word, albeit to death at the hands of a criminal.

As a person who is white, I will not tolerate a message of hatred against anyone who happens to be of another race, and as a person who is Christian, I will not tolerate messages of hate against those of other religions even.  God calls us to spread His message, not his judgement.  God says that vengeance is His and His alone.  Let me spread the Word, Let Him pass the judgement.

People who look different from me, you have my friendship.  If I ever see you in a crowd of oppressors, I will seek you out.  I will not let you stand alone even if it costs me my own life or reputation.  God said, No greater love has a man than this, that he would lay down his life for another.

Racism starts with you.  It ends with you too.  Do not believe that you cannot conquer those who seek to oppress, and pay attention to your actions as well as your words.  If you do not, then who will?  We can do this.

The Cliffs of Insanity part 1

It seems like every time I talk about government overreach, one of my left wing friends wants to make out like I'm overreacting. I do not understand the entire viewpoint that sees the present yet is unable to fathom unpleasant possibilities in the future. So many people live in the present and think that the way they live will never change. Perhaps not, but how do they know?

How many countries or governments have lasted forever? If there is even one country or government, I would like to know because I do not think one exists. In all our nationalistic furor as Americans, we thump our chests and scream in defiance if someone else even suggests that we might fail, but what assurance does that confidence provide? The fact that you think we can last forever does not count for much when your time on earth is limited enough as it is. To speak for generations to come as well as for circumstances not experienced is borderline ludicrous. If no other country or government has lasted forever, what exactly are the odds that the USA will be the first?

People will read that I say we (USA) cannot last forever and say it is unpatriotic or that I am being like a Chicken Little. If I state that I will die one day, am I then being suicidal, or am I simply being realistic? My feelings for the USA are irrelevant if I say that one day it will fail in that all governments fail. I have heard people respond that failure is impossible in that the people (we)  have nowhere to go. Collapses of nations rarely involve mass exodus of their people. In fact, the people reorganize and form a new government. Let's be realistic.

If you believe that the USA will live forever, perhaps you are right, and it would be best for you to stop reading now because everything else written will only be more maddening than the previous few paragraphs combined. If you believe that history repeats itself, then your position is factually accurate and supported by thousands of years of historical documentation. I agree with you. There is nothing new in this world, and the collapse of governments is unavoidable.

By looking at this current government as temporary, why are we so willing to cede our authority over to it? Do we believe that the authority given to it will be magnanimously returned to us before impending doom? Our Founding Fathers knew more than we do now of the temporary nature of government because they experienced its failure first hand; therefore, they incorporated restrictions upon its power into the founding documents. They knew that we needed to be equipped to fight the government of the future, so they wished to prevent it from restricting our speech, ability to carry arms, etc. Even today though, those among us who believe in the eternity of nations seek to hamstring the very rights needed to preserve freedom against bureaucracy. In believing in the forever nature of our country, they presume the best will and intentions possible. They project upon the government and its actors--the politicians--the qualities they want to see instead of the shortcomings they actually experience. They believe in the essential goodness of people in spite of the fact that politicians and government rarely have high levels of satisfaction with the products they provide. One look at current statistics is all that is needed to realize that people are not happy with their government even as they hope to give it more power.

Regarding Trade Promotion Authority

This is my idea about trade: leave me alone and let me do what works. I get contacted by Chinese manufacturers all the time, Spanish and Italian less so. If I want to buy from them, let me. That's all the trade deal needed.

People, as citizens of countries, have been trading with each other for thousands of years, government not always playing a role. Indian Tea Company, Christopher Columbus was looking for the West Indies, China has always been a favorite, etc. We don't need a President to teach us how to transact.

This trade deal is locked behind closed doors and done in secret as if it were the NSA collecting our phone records. It's a trade deal, not the schematics of a stealth fighter. Government has become too meddlesome in things it knows nothing about, and if we, as free men and women, need a head of state to negotiate our deals, then I know we're wrong.

Politicians trick people into believing that these trade deals are for a better tomorrow, as if government's actions are how we live our daily lives and as of government inaction would cause a meltdown. This is how it sucks the misinformed people down into the funnel, and once they create sufficient crowd effects to win the election, they've accomplished their mission.

American hypocrisy

Americans. Happy to spend millions in Walmart every year on Chinese junk, thus providing thousands of jobs to Chinese people while outsourcing American manufacturing jobs, because they "save money". Righteously indignant when Walt Disney does the same with only 350 jobs. Well played America. Well played.

Pensions for politicians

Deep Thought: What if pensions of politicians were limited to the average compensation of their constituents? Further, if their household income exceeded that of the average family, they would forfeit the pension. Thank you Mr Politician, we appreciate your service, now get to work and do what the rest of us do.

Body Cams for Politicians!

IDEA FOR THE DAY: Body cams for politicians. Streamed live, 30 minutes off-camera break every week for a conjugal visit. 10 minutes for bathroom break 5 times per day. Ladies and gentlemen, that elected politician belongs to us. Let's make sure he's doing his job.

A government of the people?

We learned in school that our government was of the people, for the people, and by the people, but is it?

When you voted for your congressman or senator, had you met the person? Have you met the person yet? When have you ever seen an elected representative in a grocery store, at your church, in your school, or at your workplace? I bet for most people, they never have met an elected representative, and for those who have, were you allowed to carry on an extended conversation where you could share your political beliefs and ideology? More likely than not, your questions were either scripted or at least reviewed prior to you being able to actually ask the question.

Ever been to a townhall event? Were all your questions answered, and did you feel as if the politician knew you were present? Did you find yourself wondering how the people asking the questions were chosen and how they picked the questions in the first place?

How do politicians get elected? Ever asked yourself that question? Who paid for their commercials, and if all you know is what you see in a political ad, how do you know you are not simply voting for the best marketing agent?

Where does the money come from? Have you ever made a political donation, and if so how much was it? You probably donated less than a $100, and do you think everybody else did also? Of course they did not. So where did the millions of dollars come from that paid for all the television and print ads?

Political Action Committees (PACs) donate millions of dollars to candidates every election, and have you ever met a member of one of them? How do you know if they share your views? Do you realize that every PAC has highly paid staff members whose main goal is elect a candidate friendly to their agenda? What if the true PAC agenda is not the same as yours? What if the name of the PAC is simply chosen to make you think it supports your interests?

It is time for Americans to wake up. There isn't a politician alive who shops in the same supermarket as you. They receive six figure salaries with medical care much  better than what you will ever receive. They drive nice cars, live in nice homes in Washington DC, and eat at fancy restaurants. They don't wash their own clothes, shop at Walmart for underwear, go to Payless for shoes, or cut their own fingernails. These politicians live in DC, and come back to your district to show face every once in a while because they have to do so. But you never see them, and you don't even wonder  about how strange that might be, for a person who votes in your behalf, who affects so much of your life, for you to never even meet the person one time.

You aren't represented by a neighbor because once elected, they experience more of DC than they do of your hometown. Basically, your elected representative is a resident of DC. Your interests are being represented by a person who doesn't even live near you anymore, and his or her perspectives are built based upon scripted questions posed at phony townhall meetings where everyone cannot even ask a question and only certain people can actually speak.

Back in DC, high paid lobbyists fund your Congressperson's extracurricular activities by taking them to social engagements, vacations, dinners, ballgames, etc. When have you done any of those things? You can't even walk into your representative's office for a meeting, and if you did, you would have limited time and could only talk about the agreed upon topics.

Before you get to thinking that your elected representative actually shares your interests, think about all these points. Our government is most certainly not for the people. It is for the lifestyle of those who have been elected, and they will do whatever it takes to keep themselves in power.

Government is a result of society

Looking for the inherent problem with government? It is society itself. People cannot live together without pushing someone to the top, and the person at the top is never perfect, fails to make good choices, and eventually disenfranchises those beneath him.

When you look around at the people in our community, who do you see receiving the favors, running the town, and dealing out preferential treatment? Is it a surprise to know they are people of power, money, relationships, and influence?

If the people at the top have all the money and receive all the favors and preferential treatment, what is left for everyone else, and how do we live? And by that, I mean how does the middle class live?

Every lobbyist in every state Capitol and in Washington DC is an actual person, are they not? They eat, breathe, walk, talk, and exist the same as we do. They have human parents, live in homes, and drive cars. Yet, in spite of all their apparent similarities with you and me, they have more access to our elected officials than we do!! When were you last treated to a high power lunch in exchange for your vote for a slimy Congressperson?

We know how corrupt they are; we joke about it; and we commiserate about it. We don't ever do anything about it though. Most people reelect the same silver tongued Devils year after year and complain about it just the same.

We are our own worst enemies in that every chance we have to do something, we send the rascals right back to the Capitol to do the same things all over again. We demand corrupt leadership. And we get it.

True Leadership

True leadership is borne of fortitude, strength, and willpower. Reagan was this type, without a teleprompter, with a backbone of iron. There is not an Obama alive capable of such a speech as this, be it Barack, Michelle, or one of his kids. They lack ability, conviction, and forethought. They lack judgement, passion, and principle.

Under Barack Obama, we've taken many steps backward while hope has dwindled and opportunity declined. Obama won't be here forever, but hard working, principled Americans will be. And we will come back swinging. In one flush, Obama will be gone, and his smell will dissipate. At that time, we will rebuild what he broke. Because that's what we do.

Selfishness and the collective

We are told that it takes a village. Takes a village to what? To raise our kids? To live our lives? To make a living? In the mind of a collectivist, the answer is all of the above.

The collectivist believes that each person depends upon the works of the collective to live his or her daily life, that each individual has an impact upon his or her neighbor. In collectivist thought, each person has a responsibility to look out for his or her neighbor.

Hundreds of years ago when our forefathers stepped foot on our country, while it was the land of plenty, they still had to work for everything. Fast forward to today, and the land of plenty busts at the seams. One no longer need to sweat or blister to eat good food, live in a nice home, drive a decent car, own an advanced cell phone, etc. Our society places all these technological developments and more into the hands of consumers through tools such as credit and government programs.

In the beginning, in the wilderness, self sufficiency and self reliance were two qualities that equated to survival, yet time advanced to the point that one no longer needed to depend upon himself or herself to survive or even to have nice things. Most, if not all, amenities are now attainable even to average people, so lack of scarcity in society may be our own downfall.

Advance more changes in society governing politically correct thinking, and it ought no longer surprise anyone to find why we are where we are today. A prevailing wisdom is that selfishness is wrong and that when one thinks of oneself first, that person ought to be ashamed. Selfishness now equates to being miserly. By making people feel guilty for thinking of themselves, collectivists hammer home the thought that society is more important than the individuals who make up the community. The problem with their logic is that self sufficiency gets hammered at the expense of easy living. In a land with no scarcity, how important can it be to do anything oneself? You don't have to work, just let the collective provide it.

If people stop working for themselves, for whom will they work to support and to whom will they turn for the things they want to buy? In the collective, everybody works and everybody receives, right?

The idea that collectives are the best way to exist undercuts the idea that many people crave independence and that subjugation to the collective means forfeiture of total independence. The next question asked ought to be about how much independence must get forfeited? Well, that depends upon those in charge of the collective in that they make the rules.

Little hope for America

This is why there's no hope for America. As long as there exists an active element seeking to force others' burdens upon uninvolved parties, our freedoms will forever be infringed upon.

So much concern for a three month old infant, yet callous disregard for a 20 week fetus with every chance of surviving a premature birth only to be exterminated before fruition.

Mashable: America's 12-week maternity policy has nothing to do with families. http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIw1YvxryA

Self interest

The collective demonizes the self in order to seize individual rights. It calls you selfish for wanting to excel while hoping we believe it. Self interest drives the human to wake up, to get dressed, to walk, to avoid catastrophe, yet the people actually believe that self centered behavior is evil.

It is the greatest obfuscation of our time when we convince ourselves that we are somehow less important than the state in that we are somehow capable, and expected, to take care of others before ourselves. You don't even accomplish that by electing politicians. They do it--out of self interest. So wins the politician.

Christianity, Charity, and Government

It always befuddles me to listen to a Christian chastise me when I state that the government has no responsibility to assist the poor. It is as if the person thinks I'm no Christian at all or better yet that the person thinks himself a better one.

When did I ever state that there is no responsibility to assist the poor at all? I never said such a thing. In fact, I think individuals hold the entire responsibility for serving the indigent and that government usurped that responsibility when the populace grew lazy.

I think Christians who have a progovernment stance ought to consider the foundation of their own argument. Jesus Christ stated that we need to give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to give to God what belongs to God. When did Jesus ever tell a beggar to go ask the king for food? Any of the thousands he fed with a few loaves?

If you consider yourself a Christian, don't be lazy. Don't stop helping the poor at the ballot box as that is far from your duty. You are called to serve, not to appoint others to do the dirty work for you--not to pay taxes and consider it done.

We need to wake up. It is not the job of government to serve the needs of the population. It is the job of Christians, so gird up and do it.