Saturday, January 14, 2017

Why The Popular Vote Does Not Matter - and Never Has

As we approach the inauguration of the 45th President of the United States, there has been a lot of people claiming he is not legitimate because he lost the "popular vote". Such people either have not read the Constitution, or do not understand it, because the Constitution makes it clear that the "popular vote" is only consequential on a state-by-state basis. It is not, and never has been a national vote.

To clarify, the residents of a state would vote for the candidate they want in office. The popular vote in that state determines only which candidate their own electors will vote for. This popular vote is not supposed to have any impact on a national scale other than the power of their electors in the Electoral College.

Take New Hampshire as an example, which has 4 electoral votes. The voters of New Hampshire cast their votes for the candidate of their choice. If, for example, the plurality of voters vote for the Democrat candidate, the state's four electors would cast their ballots for the Democrat. And the popular vote of NH will have no impact beyond that, and is not counted along with the votes of other states - at least not for purposes of electing the President.

In other words, there is not one, national popular vote count. Instead, there are 50 separate popular votes. They do not get added together for election purposes. NH votes go to the NH electors; and Florida votes go to Florida electors. One does not affect the other.

Now for the reason behind this.

The Founders determined rather quickly that if a President were elected by a popular vote on a national scale, one or two heavily populated states would forever control the entire country, and we would not have a government of, by and for the people. The people of Boston and Philadelphia would rule over all the states, particularly those in the south. They decided, for the sake of fairness, that there should be electors from each state, and the popular vote in each state, separately, would determine how their state votes. No state would have the power to affect how other states vote.

Right now, California has 55 electors because the state is so large. If their popular vote could be combined with other populous states like New York, 48 states would never be represented.

And that is why the popular vote does not, and never has determined an election. The Electoral college does that, on a state-by-state basis, giving each state a fair shot at helping to choose who sits in the Oval Office.

/

Wednesday, December 14, 2016

Removing Some of the Fog Around Climate Change

Okay, so there is a debate as to "climate change". This article is not going to enter that portion of the debate that questions whether or not climate change is real, primarily because the climate has been constantly changing since the Earth was formed. Instead, this dissertation, if you will, shall revolve around the real issue - does it really matter?

Al Gore would say "certainly - it will destroy civilization". But that is not even close to being true, for the reasons brought forward here.

First, let us take the fear monger's claims that climate change will result in massive storms and weather phenomena the likes of which we have never seen.

Since the so-called "warming" stage that Gore hyped in his "documentray", there have been no hurricanes, tornadoes or other massive storms any greater than any in earlier history. In 1938 we saw the "Great New England Hurricane & Flood" which was one of the deadliest and most destructive tropical cyclones to impact New England, killing 682 people and destroying over 57,000 homes. In 1913 we experienced the "Great Lakes Storm" that battered and overturned ships on four of the five Great Lakes - thousands of square miles - and killing more than 250 people. And in 1900 (obviously before we had millions of petrol vehicles on the roads) we saw the Great Galveston Hurricane  that left up to 12,000 people dead - to the present day it is the deadliest single day event in U.S. history.

For the climate change bunch to claim the storms we see today can somehow be construed as being worse is sheer idiocy. For example, hurricane Katrina was only responsible for roughly 1200 dead, not the 12,000 that died in the 1900 blow.

As for the claim that global warming would somehow result in food shortages, that is absurd, according to history. Prior to the Little Ice Age that began in the 14th century (and lasted until the mid-1800's), the Earth was several degrees warmer than it is today, and had been in that "warm spell" from the 10th to 14th century. During the "warm" period, more land was arable and food was plentiful. Grapes grown for wine were produced as far north as England (today, it's only as far north as southern France). During the Little Ice Age (LIA), millions of people died of starvation and plague, as food became less plentiful, and rats moved in with the people. The "Black Death" is estimated to have killed up to 1/3 of the population of Europe and England.

And in a world where clean water is already becoming scarce, the melting of the fresh-water glaciers could be most helpful.

If global warming is not creating storms of unheard of proportions, or resulting in deserts with less arable land with the subsequent food shortages the climate change folks are ranting about, what is there left to worry about?

Well, skiing, for one. Snow could become scarce. And the folks at Toro would lose a fortune as snow blowers would not be so necessary.

Seriously, though, global warming would be somewhat detrimental to the elitists that choose to live so close to the coasts, in the event water levels rise. But despite the horror stories that (according to Gore) we would all be growing gills by now, sea levels have not risen appreciably - perhaps inches, but definitely not feet. I have seen no difference in the high-water mark at the beaches I have been frequenting for over 60 years.

Bear in mind, too, that ALL plant life breathes carbon dioxide, so it may not be a really good idea to cut production too much - after all, without plants breathing in carbon dioxide, there would be no oxygen for us - for that is what plants "exhale". Maybe the reason for the huge increase in asthma and other breathing difficulties is the result of paving over all the greenery, and cutting the rain forests.

In closing, I would add this: when the climate change bunch tell us that "99% of scientists agree...", that is both untrue and deceptive. Most scientists know absolutely nothing about climate. The only scientists we should consider listening to are actual CLIMATOLOGISTS, and only those whose income does not depend upon government grants or funding from those pushing climate change. And 99% do NOT agree - there are hundreds of climatologists that believe climate change is nothing more than a natural cycle, and than Man is not likely responsible.

/

Saturday, November 19, 2016

White Privilege? Hardly!

Among many minority (and liberal) communities and on campuses rank with uneducated kids (and professors) we keep hearing about "white privilege". So, let's take a look at that.

Certainly in times long since past, there certainly was white privilege. Today, however, the only real privilege is what people earn for themselves. While it is true that a greater percentage of minorities start out life with less, that is not because whites have privilege. It is because they are either  a) from single parent homes, b) not educated enough to get ahead, or c) have become too dependent upon the entitlements that the democrat politicians hand out in order to keep them voting Democrat.

I know - that sounds like so much Republican spin, but that does not change the facts. You don't have to like the truth, but that does not make it less true. In any case, none of the above is a result of white privilege.

Adults in those communities can work harder at creating and maintaining a solid family structure. Women, for example, can and should avoid getting involved with any man who is not "good father" material. The signs are obvious. And when a couple does commit to one another, work at keeping it. As for insufficient education, there are two avenues - educate yourself (libraries are free), or vote for politicians who agree to make school choice available to all, regardless of your neighborhood. And finally, don't look at welfare as a career. Work hard at trying to free yourself from the "welfare chains" that keep you in slavery.

I am white. I was born into poverty. I attended the public school in my district - no choice. Neither my family nor my teachers prepared me for making it in the real world. It comes as no surprise that I ended up living on the streets, homeless, hungry, cold. I spent long hours, even in snowstorms, going through trash looking for cans, scrap metal - anything that would buy me a meal. It was not unusual to earn as much as $3-4 a day! Imagine trying to live on $1000 a year! Take that "white privilege" Mr Kaepernick.

But I wanted something more. In fact, I did not simply WANT more. I would not settle for anything less than the best I could muster. And not having "privilege", I knew I had to scrape and claw, busting my butt to move forward. I made the decision to not sleep at night without having moved closer to my goals that day.

I spent the next 45 years of my life working hard, working smart. As I moved forward, I took night classes at the community college. It took a long time, but eventually I had earned three degrees, all the while still busting my hide on dirty, but profitable hard work.

And now I am independently wealthy.

And not because of any falsely perceived privilege.

On the other side, there are fine examples of minorities who managed to do the same, despite their meager beginnings. Sidney Poitier. J-Lo.And, I am sorry to say, many minorities who "have it all", yet scream about being "oppressed" by "white privilege". Yeah, sure - Kaepernick with his $12 million deal with the NFL, or Jay Z, Beyonce and many others. They have tons more privilege than most white people, but they cry about being oppressed. Everyone should be that oppressed!

The only privileges in America are either the privilege that comes from having money, and the privilege of having the opportunity to get that money. And everyone has that opportunity. But not everyone has the drive, ambition or fortitude to pursue it.

Privilege? We all have the privilege of being able to DECIDE for ourselves which chains we will accept, and which we will cast off. If you doubt that, just take a look at the life of Jackie Robinson, or Louis Armstrong.

/




Thursday, November 17, 2016

Liberal Thought - What It Is, and Is Not


Yes, I know - "liberal thought" might be an oxymoron. And that, in a nutshell, is the problem.

Liberals - particularly progressives - like to believe they are thinkers, but in reality they only mimic the talking points fed to them by the insidious "liberal leaders". And those liberal leaders are dangerous because they, themselves are not really liberals. People like George Soros use liberalism in order to gain more power for themselves.

Let's look at some of the issues of liberals.

WAR - Many liberals waste their entire lives trying to put an end to war. They see it as a "bad" thing, and believe that the world would be a better place without war. If by "a better place" they mean a planet barren of all life, they would be correct. If we end war, we begin to rush headlong into extinction.

If no wars had ever been fought on Earth, the planet would have reached its maximum capacity of human life at some point in the 15th century, as all those who were not killed would have had children, who in turn would have had children. By the mid 1400's, the number of humans on Earth would have completely consumed all other life on Earth, as food would have become scarce. The planet would have been stripped, the same way that locusts strip a field, leaving it barren. And then Mankind would perish from starvation and disease - a much worse fate than war.

War is not nice. Not pleasant. But what liberals simply do not comprehend, war is an absolute necessity, as mankind has no real predators to keep our numbers in check.

INCOME EQUALITY - Liberals believe that all people should not only be created equal, but should also remain equal regardless of whether or not they do anything to earn it. While it may sound nice that everyone has a good life, it is not only unrealistic, but unnatural, as well. Every living thing on the planet must compete for its survival. This is because no species can continue to survive if the weak are allowed to survive. A species is only as strong as its weakest link.

Liberals believe in leveling the playing field by weakening the strong, while conservatives believe in strengthening the weak. If a person simply cannot care for themselves, society has an obligation to care for them. But there is no obligation to care for those who simply do not WANT to provide for themselves.

If a person wants income equality, they need to earn it, just like the guy who has already succeeded. A slob sitting on the couch stuffing his face with Twinkies while playing video games has no right to the same income as someone who worked hard getting grades in college, then worked hard for years working his way up until he finally has security. To a conservative, "income equality" means you should have equal income only if you worked equally hard as the other guy, invested what he invested, and did all the stuff necessary to succeed. A hobo who does nothing is not entitled to a Bill Gates income. In fact, he is only entitled to what he, himself, earns.

IT TAKES A VILLAGE - This is liberal speak for letting the government raise your kids, which is the worst thing that could ever be conceived. Hitler tried this with his Youth Camps. While conservatives agree that the "village" should be supportive in parents' efforts in raising the kids, it is the responsibility of the parents. The village should only be a support structure. If John Doe sees Bob Jones' kid doing something wrong, he should notify John Doe.

GUN CONTROL - It does not matter to liberals that every study shows gun crime rates are  highest in areas that have the strictest gun controls. I say it does not matter to them because the facts do not fit their agenda, which has nothing to do with reducing crime and has everything to do with disarming the public. After all, it is much easier to control an unarmed population, and CONTROL is what it is all about for liberals. GUN control, BIRTH control, HEALTH control, INCOME control, ENVIRONMENTAL control, EDUCATION control, THOUGHT control. Liberals want to control every thing, and every one. That's why they do not like it when conservatives speak out. It's why the IRS targeted conservative groups. It's why ObamaCare was passed. It's why the Department of Education was created in 1972 (and education levels have dropped every year since). It's why Harry Reid thwarted the will of the People by not letting any House bill be brought to the Senate floor, and it is why Barak Obama kept doing end runs around Congress, and dictating policy and ignoring laws. It is why liberals push to get as many people on entitlements as possible.

LEGALIZATION OF DRUGS - this one is really simple - progressives want control, and a population that is hooked on drugs is easy to control. Those not hooked on drugs will be hooked on entitlements - a financial drug. If you get out of line, they can threaten to take away your drug or entitlement.

There are only three things that have kept liberal progressives from taking over America and creating a socialist/communist regime - Christianity, the Constitution and conservatives - the 3 C's. And if you are awake, you have seen liberals, with the help of liberal media and liberal institutions of "higher learning" attack all three, mercilessly. And that proves the point.

In all fairness, I should point out that it's not really the liberals so much as the nefarious leaders of progressivism. The puppet masters, like George Soros. The average liberal is, as described by the socialist Saul Alinsky, nothing more than a "useful idiot". The ignorant masses of "Wall Street Occupiers", "Black Lives Matter" and the drones that get brainwashed at Berkeley. Useful idiots. Even the powerful Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid - and, yes, even Barak Obama - fall into the category of "useful idiots. They all do the dirty work of the Puppet Masters."

I almost pity them, but for the fact that they are so hateful and destructive.

/

The Real Reason The Democrats Lost

No matter what pundits you listen to, one thing becomes very clear from the start - Democrats have no idea how they lost the election to Trump, or why. It simply does not seem logical or even possible.

But it did happen. Republicans hold all three parts of the legislative and executive power in Washington. They hold most state legislatures and Governorships. And Democrats need to learn the right lesson from this if they are to have any chance of making a comeback anytime soon.

Here is what really happened, and why...

Setting aside personalities, honesty issues and nasty campaigning, Democrats should simply look at the county-by-county vote. Republicans won over 96% of ALL counties across the country. The only counties they won are the population-rich metropolitan areas, primarily around New York and California. What message this sends is that Democrats are only reaching their fellow elitists with their message, and that message rings sour to the folks in 96% of the country.

Winning the coastal epicenters of the elites will win them the popular vote almost every time, simply due to the vast populations in those areas (which is why the Founders invented the Electoral College, so a few cities don't run everything). But that does not get you the electoral college. That is won county-by-county and state-by-state, and Democrats lost most of those because their message is one that elitists such as Hollywood celebrities and D.C politicians can relate to, but most ordinary Americans cannot. Basically, then, the Democrats lost because of Maslov's Hierarchy of Needs, depicted as a pyramid, where the first need is the wide base, and the highest need is the pinnacle.

Elitists living in the metro areas have much different needs than other Americans. According to Maslov's Hierarchy of Needs, every person is on one of six levels of need, and normally strive to rise to the top. Those six levels, in order, are:

Physiological needs (food & water, clothing, shelter, sex)
Safety needs (personal & financial security, health & well-being, safety net against adverse impacts like accidents, unemployment)
Love and belonging (friendship, intimacy, family)
Esteem (respect from others as well as self; recognition; fame etc)
Self-actualization (achieving success in many things, such as parenting, athletics, art, creating/building)
Self-transcendance  (giving to a higher goal outside oneself; altruism, charity, spirituality)

Individuals just trying to survive, physically, have little or no interest in the same things that appeal to those in the self-actualization stage, for example. Too busy surviving. But once their physiological needs have been secured, they move toward ensuring their safety needs. And once those needs are met, they give greater importance to love and belonging. And so it goes, until they hit the wall (personal limitations) or reach the top.

Liberal elitists like celebrities and politicians are at or near the pinnacle, and as such their "needs" are more idealistic, and do not translate well in the real world that most people have to live in. While they float idealistic ideas and policies that are altruistic, those things do not put food on the table for every day Americans.

And the real problem for liberal Democrats lies in the simple fact that they actually believe that most Americans want and need the same things they, themselves want.

They don't. They are not "there" yet, and most will never be there, because there is just so much room at the top (remember, it really is a pyramid - the vast majority of people are at stage one).

Until Democrats come to terms with the simple fact that the majority of Americans outside the elitist epicenters are not on their level and do not find value in what they want, Democrats will keep losing.

/

Wednesday, November 9, 2016

Trump Should Pardon Hillary

Think about it - if Donald Trump pardons Hillary Clinton, he would immediately set America on a road to unity, showing that he doesn't hold a grudge and is magnanimous. Democrats around the country would look at him with different eyes. Much of the hate and lines of division would begin to wane, and America can get back to America's business.

Certainly, I believe Hillary belongs in jail. But I would be more than willing to let her skate if it means putting an final end to all of this anger and hate. This is America - it's okay for us to show our Christian, forgiving roots. As the saying goes, "killing them with kindness."

Let's begin to heal - Trump's very first move should be to pardon Hillary - but to ALSO advise the Clintons that they may no longer use their crooked foundation to peddle influence and enrich themselves. That should be a condition of the pardon.

/

Saturday, October 22, 2016

EVERY Tax Is Paid By The Poor

I have had several people ask me to once again explain how taxing the rich, or businesses, results in taxing the poor. Others have flatly disagreed - they cannot see the larger picture. So, if you will bear with me for just a few minutes, perhaps I can clarify.

First, I can state emphatically that the rich do not pay any taxes - not ever. And the poor pay all the taxes - always. And that is precisely how the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Now for proof of the pudding.

Let us say Joe is poor, and Mark is rich. Joe eats a lot of Ramen soup because it's cheap. Mark's company makes the Ramen soup. Joe works for Mark.

The government increases Mark's taxes. They also increase the taxes on capital gains. This pleases Joe because he thinks Mark has too much wealth.

Since Mark's taxes have increased, and he is not in business to lose money, he must now raise the cost of the Ramen that Joe buys. That's business - as costs rise, so do prices. Suddenly, Joe is not so pleased because he is now paying Mark's taxes every time he buys Ramen.

Mark also reduces company benefits, and lays Joe off because the increase on capital gains has forced investors to stop investing in his company. Needless to say, Joe is REALLY unhappy now - and poorer than ever. And he blames Mark, even though it was the "Joe's" of the world who demanded Mark's taxes be raised.

But it is much worse than that - increased taxes on EVERY business and rich person has resulted in the prices of all products and services to increase. Joe is now paying more for gas, his lawn mower, milk, pizza, movies, tires, car - everything he buys is now more expensive, because businesses always pass off any increase in costs - including taxes - onto the customers and employees. They have to. And the end result is that his customers are paying his taxes for him, because taxes are an expense, and expenses are built into the price of products and services.

The only people who cannot pass these added costs onto others are the poor - there is no one below them to pass them to.

This is how it works. Every time.

Increasing taxes - regardless of who you tax - always harms the economy, increases unemployment,  decreases investments that make the economy grow, and makes the poor even poorer.

Even you, the working stiff, pass on your taxes to people below you. Yes, you do. In order to pay taxes, you must earn more money than if you did not have any taxes to pay. Your paycheck reflects that. As businesses increase prices because of higher taxes, those higher prices mean YOU pay higher sales taxes (when the price goes up on an item, so does the amount of tax - you pay 5 cents on a one dollar item, and 6 cents on that item when the price increases to $1.20). So, when you get hit with higher property taxes, higher sales taxes etc., you have to ask for a raise, or you fall into poverty. And where do you think your boss is going to get that money - he has no money tree. He will get it from his customers by way of higher prices (again), which results in even higher cost of goods, plus higher sales taxes on those higher prices. But you have effectively passed on your taxes to those below you.

Every penny of tax is passed down to those below. And it stops with the poor, because they cannot pass it down - they are already at the bottom. Who would they pass those costs onto?

When businesses are taxed more, or capital gains taxes are increased, the business must do one of three things if they are to stay in business. They must either increase the costs of their products/services, OR they must reduce company benefits and/or lay people off, OR a combination of the two. (A 3rd option is to move to Mexico or China, taking the jobs with them). Regardless which they choose, it will result in a sagging economy, higher unemployment, fewer people insured (lost benefits), and the poor getting poorer.

There can be no other result.

On the other hand, you get the opposite result when you LOWER taxes. The cost of business becomes less costly, so businesses can hire more people. They become more competitive, driving prices down. This means the poor would have jobs and income, and the items they buy will not be increasing in price.

Here is a tidbit for you - until the income tax was passed into law in 1913, virtually everything remained reasonably stable in prices for over 100 years. As soon as the income tax was passed, it caused all prices to rise. And ever since 1913, prices have steadily risen according to the rise in taxation.

Virtually all economic problems originate from taxation. The higher the taxes, the bigger the problems.

Democrat politicians, unfortunately, either do not understand simple economics and logic - or do not care, as they have an agenda. In either case, giving them power is a grave mistake.

/