Preachin' to the Choir

While I know that my readers are exceptionally intelligent individuals for whom the next few lines will be somewhat redundant because I know you already understand and agree with what I'm going to say, what we in West Texas call "preachin' to the choir", I feel the need to talk about some basic economic principles that neither the government or most people seem to understand these days.  So friends, bear with me for a bit while I get this out of my system.

Basic concepts of economics:

1.  People create businesses to make money.  Profit is the driving force for all businesses.

2.  Profit drives incentive.  When a business makes money, it is driven to provide it's good or service in a better manner.  Having profit to invest in the business allows for innovation in product design that create a better version of the product and innovation in production methods that can reduce the consumer cost of a product.  It also allows the business  to grow to produce more of the good or service provided.

3.  When businesses grow because of profit, they hire employees to assist them in continuing the cycle of investment, production, sale and profit.  If conditions require, businesses contract reducing employees as a variable cost to be controlled.

4.  As businesses grow, they need more and more highly skilled employees to produce and market a better product.  In order to attract the best talent, businesses offer "benefits".

Given these economic truths, other truths become apparent:

1.  Profit is good.  Without profit businesses don't stay in business.  No business, no employees,
2.  The largest cost to any business is payroll.  Simply put, people cost money.
2.  No one has a "right" to a job.  Businesses hire employees as they need them.  When the need no long exists, the employee is released.
3.  Employer provided benefits are just that BENEFITS.  The employee does not have any "right" to them.  Should the employer choose to withdraw any or all benefits from the workplace due to profit loss they may do so.


Government intervention in business ALWAYS hurts the EMPLOYEE more than the business.

1.  Taxes reduce profit.  Without profit, businesses do not hire or provide benefits to those employees that they retain, or they lay off employees.
2.  Excessive regulations on workplace "safety" stifle innovation and cost the business profit resuling in fewer employees.
3.  Government mandates for the amount and quality of any 'benefit" results in higher costs and lower profits for the company.  Lower profits result in fewer employees.

Simply to recap, businesses are in business to MAKE MONEY, not to provide jobs or benefits.

To anyone who understand these basic concepts of economics and business, it is not surprising that some of America's largest corporations are reporting how much it is going to cost to implement the new mandates included in the health care reform law.

It should come as no surprise when these companies drop the health care and prescription drug benefit that they have provided their employees.

It should also come as no surprise if they cut their existing employees to make up for the cost if they decide to continue to provide benefits.

Don't even get me started on Unions!

OK, I'm finished preaching now.  I do hope that the members of my choir will carry the good news to those still suffering in darkness, and maybe someday the rest of the congregation will understand that every time the government HELPS us, WE are the ones who PAY for it, one way or another.

Credit where credit is due...

In order to be fair with our President, I feel it is important to give him credit when he does something worthy of it. So, today I want to thank him for dealing with the most important issue... of the 1980's.

The White House announced last week that it had negotiated a new nuclear arms reduction agreement with Russia that would reduce each countries nuclear stockpile to no more than 1,550 warheads. This is a significant step towards the President's goal of eliminating nuclear weapons from the world.

In the 1980's with the specter of "Mutually Assured Destruction" hanging over the head of every world citizen and with the irresponsible cowboy Ronald Reagan holding the reins of power in the United States, a group of concerned activists got together to stop the world from exploding.

The movement eventually held massive rallies in Washington, the United Nations and around the world demanding action. In 1982 they petitioned the governments of the United States and the Soviet Union to "adopt a mutual freeze on the testing, production, and deployment of nuclear weapons and of missiles, and new aircraft designed primarily to deliver nuclear weapons".

Popular musicians of the time waxed poetic. Sting hoped that the "Russians love their children too." The punk group Violent Femmes talked of "Hallowed Ground": "Everyone's trying to decide, where to go when there's no place to hide. I follow the bombs as they're coming down.  This must have been hallowed ground."  The pop group INXS chanted  "Annhilate, Atomic fate, Mediate, Clear the State, Activate, now Radiate, a Perfect State, Food on Plate, at 98, We All Rotate, Gravitate, the Earth's Own Weight, Don't Suffocate, on Your Own Hate. . ." It went on and on.

Amidst all of this, I can almost visualize a young, idealistic Barry Obama in his second year at Columbia University, swept up in the message, the music and the madness, wearing a t-shirt that proclaimed "You can't hug your kids with nuclear arms", cursing Ronald Reagen and dreaming someday that it would all just go away, if only the right person were elected President.

Well today, he takes the first step to fulfill his dream.

Of course, someone should tell him a couple of inconvenient facts:

1. It is estimated that of the 2,200 nuclear weapons the Russians are currently allowed by the START II agreement, LESS THAN HALF (1,100) are actually operational. So effectively, the Russians give up NOTHING while we give up 700 perfectly usable weapons.

2. Do I actually have to mention that the North Koreans and the Iranians are hyperventilating at the opportunity to strike a blow at the United States using nuclear or at least atomic weapons.

So here's to you Mr. President. You have set us on the path of being a paper tiger. A toothless power, unable to respond to provocations and attacks from people bent on our destruction. Congratulations!

Honestly, is my sarcasm a bit thick?

Hate Inspired

People have been asking me when I plan to write something about the "Obamacare" bill that passed on Sunday. Let me be short and sweet: As an American I am disgusted by it! I unfortunately am not the most informed or clear on what all the new laws are so I won't try to discuss it in depth. For a short summary from the Heritage Foundation, please read http://dailycaller.com/2010/03/23/what-america-will-look-like-if-the-white-house-gets-its-way/.

Today I think it is more important to discuss today's news conference held by Speaker Pelosi in which she attempts to blame the Republicans/Tea Party/Conservatives for inciting people to threats and violence through their "heated rhetoric". They state that this has caused "incitement to people whose judgement is not peaceful... and who either verbally or physically threaten people with whom they disagree."

I think that Pelosi etal are obviously trying to make political points against people THEY don't agree with by painting them with this brush of violence and threats as though any reasonable person would do such a thing. Their message in a nutshell: These Republicans/Tea Party/Conservatives are DANGEROUS RADICALS bent on VIOLENCE and INTIMIDATION."

I am hopeful that the American People will see through the obvious slander and take it for what it is worth: kitty litter.

For a moment, I want to step back and look at what has happened in the last 14 months. Average Americans who oppose the supposed health care "reform" have been branded as racists who hate "having a black man in the White House." It has been inferred that they are closet homosexuals (google the term 'teabagging' if you don't believe me). They have been called ignorant, uninformed, reactionary, inbred and stupid.

In spite of an overwhelming outcry from the people against the legislation, Congress has voted repeatedly for it. The people made their voices heard at town meetings, small gatherings and large protests held across the country. Still Congress refused to hear them. The people turned out one Democrat Governor, elected a Republican Governor in a state that had been Democrat for 8 years, and voted a Republican into a Senate seat held by Ted Kennedy for the last 47 years, each time repudiating the direction that Democrats were trying to take the country. Still they refused to alter for their decided course.

They bribed, threatened and cajoled their fellow members in order to bring them online, culminating in a vote held late on a Sunday night when most Americans were not watching, in which they passed a law that most of them have not read.

In short, CONGRESS ITSELF is responsible for what is happening.

When a government OF THE PEOPLE deliberately thwarts the will OF THE PEOPLE, they should not be surprised when they arouse the anger OF THE PEOPLE!

The Abyss

It looks more and more likely that the Democrats in Congress are going to pass the monstrosity of the so-called "Health Care" bill today.

In doing so, they are condemning our nation to bankruptcy and ruin.

As a country, we are jumping into the abyss that has swallowed great nations in the past.

Our government has ceased to be responsive to the will of the people. Our government no longer commands the consent of the governed. Only a decline into anarchy and chaos or authoritarianism can follow, unless the people regain control of the government.

We have but ONE CHANCE. Vote against any politician who voted FOR Obamacare and AGAINST the will of the citizens of the United States!

To consider the Democrats and Republicans equally responsible for the mess in Washington is no longer a valid argument. Democrats control ALL branches of government now and they will act on what THEY think is right for all of the rest of us! VOTE THEM OUT!

A Pretty Quiet Week

Well, it's been a pretty quiet week out here on the prairie. It's almost as if everything and everybody is pausing to take a deep breath before Spring really kicks in with abandon. Either that or everyone is so tense with anticipation of Spring Break next week that they're just staying quiet.

The daffodils have burst into life this week and that is a sure sign that warmer weather is on it's way.  I'm hopeful that we will see some bluebonnets on the way down to Corpus Christi this weekend.

I'm taking a week off from the grind of work and the madness of politics, though I will continue to consume my daily requirement of opinions, blogs and news, so don't be surprised if I belch forth something from the smartphone this week if I am truly incensed.

I intend to find myself a salty piece of land and dip my toes in the muddy waters of the Texas Gulf Coast.

So, adieu for now, and I'll see you on the other side!

What's My Race?

The Census is coming up soon, and there is a bit of controversy arising from the right about the questions regarding Race. The argument goes like this: The United States Constitution requires that an "enumeration" be made every ten years. To enumerate means to "determine the number of" or to "count". The Constitution gives no other requirements for the Census other than that the "enumeration shall be made... within every subsequent Term of ten years". Therefore, some are saying that all questions on the Census that are not part of an actual "enumeration" or count are Unconstitutional and that citizens are not bound to answer them.

I think I have to differ with my friends on the right for just a couple of things I feel need to be pointed out.

1. The US Census has asked about race since the first Census in 1790. At the time, it was necessary to determine how many "three fifths" "other persons" (slaves for anyone who isn't getting my drift) were to be counted and credited as population to the several states for the purpose of determining Congressional representation. EVERY CENSUS since 1790 has asked the same question about race.

2. Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution has another little dependent clause that my friends on the right fail to include in their argument: "in such Manner as they (Congress) shall by law direct." Seems to pretty much put a hole in the argument to me. Congress can collect any information they want, so long as there is a current law that allows it. Only Supreme Court action to further define what this means would change that.

So friends, if you are dead set on changing the way the Census is done, refuse to fill in the information, get fined, and sue the United States over the Constitutionality of the Census Law of 2010.

What makes it odd these days is the variety of different races you can be. There are 15 specified "races" on this year's census form. There are three different types of "Hispanic" an there is also sections for "Other Hispanic", "Other Asian", and "Other Pacific Islander". So 18 total choices. But, if none of those fit, there is always the catch all "some other race". I guess that for all the Vampires, Werewolves, Halflings, Elves, Dwarves and Trolls out there.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary, amongst it's multitude of wonderful definitions, defines race as "a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits". I wonder if that's what they mean when they say that all white people look alike!?

OK, so by this definition you have "White" which is a generic way to say "of European lineage. Then you have "Black" which is equally saying "of African lineage". Then there is "Hispanic": "of Spanish heritage". Native American, Native Alaskan, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, East Asian and West Asian. But wait, what about Arabs, Jews, Slavs, and Persians? The people of Romania claim that they were descended from the original Latins! Where will this all end?

In Eastern Europe before the first World War and after the fall of the Soviet Union there was a nasty little problem called "Balkanization". This is defined again by our friends at Merriam-Webster as "to break up into smaller and often hostile units".

I am concerned that the Federal Government's preoccupation with race, is an effort to do just this: To divide the American people into smaller and smaller "ethnic" groups and then set up a process by which these groups will compete with one another for the spoils of Government. We see this already with the Rich/Poor, Black/White, White/Hispanic arguments that are happening today. With a "balkanized" American people, they will be so busy fighting each other that there will be no one able to stand up to our enemies, Foreign and Domestic!

Teddy Roosevelt once said:

"There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all… The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic… There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else."

Today those hyphenations are different, African-American, Mexican-American, Asian-American, etc.

Benjamin Franklin, in his wit, on July 4, 1776 waiting his turn to sign the Declaration of Independence that brought our country into life said "We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately".

On June 16, 1858 three years before the United States was split asunder in the great Civil War, Abraham Lincoln said "A house divided against itself cannot stand".

Matthew Chapter 12, Verse 25: "And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand".

If we cannot all unite as AMERICANS, then the days of greatness of the United States of America are indeed past.

I'm NOT Angry!

Just wanted to get that out there before some jackboots start kicking in my door. I realize that two crazies recently killed people after writing anti-government rants on the internet. I would just like to point out a couple of things:

1. The first guy attacked the IRS. Now while I don't condone killing the poor day-to-day employees at the IRS, I certainly can understand the frustration with an organization whose job is to take your money and property. Call him a reactionary right wing nutcase.

2. The Pentagon shooter was a "truther" who thought the Bush Administration was to blame for 9-11. He was so far off out in the weeds that even his liberal friends thought him somewhat bizarre. Call him a revolutionary left wing nutcase!

The rest of the sane world falls reasonably between these two extremes, me included.

What I am is disappointed that the American People could be so easily hoodwinked by an obvious charlatan peddling the snake oil of "Hope and Change".

I am embarrassed for those few honest conservatives who continue to call themselves "Democrats" for no reason that I can see, who swallowed the kool-aid of "Obamamania" and have now come to the realization that they are in deep trouble.

I'm sad that our country has had to come to this point of near bankruptcy to finally see that we can't go on and on spending like there is no tomorrow.

So before any of you who might be anonymously reading this blog drops a dime on me to the feds, lighten up. I'm harmless.

Cockroaches in the Justice Department

My hat is off to Senator Grassley of Iowa for exposing the fact that no fewer than seven lawyers in the Justice Department and two in the White House Office of Legal Counsel previously worked in efforts to provide legal representation to ILLEGAL ENEMY COMBATANTS held at Guantanamo Bay.

I won't go into the legal status of these detainees other than to say that the rules of war have ALWAYS provided for SUMMARY EXECUTION of these types of provocateurs when they were found on the battlefield. I think that the Military Tribunal that was established has gone far out of the way to protect these people.

However, my point is thus: How can these lawyers who until very recently were acting in the interest of AVOWED ENEMIES of the citizens of our country, suddenly be expected to effectively represent these citizen AGAINST our avowed enemies. Have they no sense of morality or do they have some other agenda?

1. Illegal Combatants are not citizens and are not covered by the Constitution of the United States.
2. Illegal Combatants are and should be held by the military and subjected to any type of interrogation technique by which vital information may be extracted.
3. Illegal Combatants should be prosecuted by the military in Courts Martial after which, if convicted, they should be executed. If not, they should be immediately repatriated to whichever nation-state they were received. This would resolve the problem of permanent detention.

These people's SOLE PURPOSE is to kill us. They aren't trying to steal your car or big screen TV. Given the opportunity, they would kill every American Citizen they could reach. Why exactly should they be protected with "Due Process of Law"?

Lawyers who represented people whose sole purpose is to kill Americans CANNOT now act as credible advocates for the American people.

They should be IMMEDIATELY REMOVED from their positions with the government!

Happy Texas Independence Day

Just want to wish my fellow Texans a happy remembrance of that day in 1836 that a group of stalwart Texicans met together at Washington-on-the-Brazos to declare their independence from the tyrannical central government in Mexico City that had abrogated the Constitution of 1824.

Sometimes I wonder how long before stalwart AMERICANS declare their independence from the tyrannical central government in Washington, DC that has abrogated the Constitution of 1787?

A Political Dilemma

Small town politics are always fun and entertaining to watch and this year is no exception. We seem to be flooded with candidates for County Judge and several of the County Commissioner spots. I know most of the people running for these offices personally and know the rest by reputation. In a small town, that means how many people talk bad about them.

I guess I should start out by saying that I do not vote for Democrats. Period. I figure that anyone who would align him or herself with the party of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama is not the kind of person I want to be associated with.

Unfortunately in West Texas, particularly in the small towns, there are lots of "yellow-dog" Democrats. Let me explain as I don't want them confused with the so-called "Blue Dog" Democrats in Congress. A "Yellow Dog" Democrat is one more because of tradition than ideological alignment. They tend to be older and say things like "My Grandaddy was a Democrat, my Daddy was a Democrat, and I'M a Democrat." Out here, that can be attributed to the fact that FDR sent tons of money to the plains when the depression and dust bowl were raging. Why else would you have a town named "New Deal" in Texas. The joke is that they would vote for a yellow dog if it ran on the Democratic ticket.

Until 30 or so years ago, you didn't get elected to office in Texas unless you were a Democrat. That has slowly changed, and since 1994, all major offices statewide have been filled by Republicans. Unfortunately, there are still some counties in Texas, especially RURAL Texas, especially rural WEST TEXAS, where running on the Democratic ticket is the ONLY way to get elected. It has only been in the last 15 years, since I came to Brownfield, that the Republican Party has actually been able to recruit candidates to run as Republicans. I believe that this is the first year that the Republicans have fielded candidates for ALL the partisan races.

Now remember, I don't vote for Democrats. That's where I have my dilemma.

In several cases, the BEST candidate for the office is a Democrat. I won't talk about the Republican candidates, but in my opinion, they don't hold a candle to their opponents.

So what to do? Support the best candidate and pretend that they don't send dues to the party that runs the mess in Washington, or vote the party line for someone who is less qualified only because he is endorsed by my party.

Damn my political conscience!