Government not responsible with your money

I had a discussion with a good friend who happens to be a liberal republican, and he said that he believes most people are irresponsible with their money, and that the government must take some of it so it can be spent wisely.

I said: "people are smart and are capable of spending their money way more wisely than the government can."

He said, "People do not spend their money wisely, and therefore the government must do if for them."

I said, "I beg to differ.  Individuals work hard for their money, and therefore make wise decisions so they don't blow it.  Government officials have no ties to that money, so it's easier to spend it.  In other words, it's easier to spend other people's money than your own."

He said, "The government is less wasteful with money."

I said, "You think? If an individual blows his money, he pays a consequence.  In this way, he learns to spend it wisely.  If the government blows money, no one seems to care.

Cal Thomas wrote a recent column on May 6, 2014, "Government waste: Where has all the money gone?" that covered this issue well.  He said:

Most people, perhaps even the super-wealthy, who are usually accountable to auditors, want to know where their money goes. This is especially true when they detect money for which they can't account. Not so with the federal government.

Some recent headlines reflect a disturbing pattern that has contributed to our $17 trillion debt and to a growing cynicism among the public, which increasingly regards government in a negative light.

Here are just a few recent gems gleaned from reading newspaper stories and wire service reports: "Pentagon to destroy $1 billion in ammunition." This USA Today story says, "It is impossible to know what portion of the arsenal slated for destruction ... remains viable because the Defense Department'sinventory systems can't share data effectively, according to a Government Accountability Office report..."

So in addition to nonfeasance add incompetence.

The New York Times reports on a modest medical office in Brooklyn that received $4.1 million in Medicare funds for "therapy." The Times says the money went to one person. Maybe the government needs therapy. Taxpayers certainly do.

A personal favorite, again from USA Today: "IRS workers who didn't pay taxes get bonuses."

Then there's this from the Washington Post: "Navy to award contract for Marine One helicopter fleet in shadow of previous failure." Why let failure get in the way of a government program?

"$6 billion goes missing at State Department," reports the Fiscal Times. I'm constantly misplacing billions, aren't you?

The bottom line here is that the government is not more accountable with money than individuals.  While individuals are accountable to auditors, the federal government is not accountable to anyone.  While individuals spend money on things that are needed, the government spends it on things no one wants.

The truth about socialism

I have been telling my friends for years that there is no difference between liberalism, socialism, Marxism, fascism, communism, and totalitarianism. My liberal friends beg to differ, saying there is a significant difference.

Yet the bottom line is that they believe that it is possible to create a euphoric, or perfect, world where everyone has a job, and everyone has food on the table, and everyone has healthcare.

In order to obtain this euphoria, they believe that people, left to their own devices, are not smart enough, or unwilling enough, to make the appropriate decisions on their own.  For this reason, their experts have to make these decisions for us, or at least to nudge us in the right direction.

Likewise, in order to fund this their society, they believe that every person should make equal wages.  They believe that there is only so much money to go around, so it's their job to take from the well off and re-distribute this money to the not so well off.  In this way, liberals, Marxists, fascists, communists, and totalitarians all believe in the same thing, and are all the same.

While called by various names in order to hide its true identity, socialism is socialism no matter what. Don't let them tell you otherwise.

Perry looking very presidential on immigration issue

A while back I wrote a post about how political analyst Dick Morris predicted that Rick Perry would be the next GOP nominee. Today, that prediction is looking great as Rick Perry is by far presenting himself as the most presidential.

Today Morris's prediction is looking good, as Rick Perry has sent the National Guard to protect the Texas border to prevent any more immigrants from trying to illegally cross in the hopes that they can get amnesty.

A while back Barack Obama made an executive order that families with children in America may come to the United States to be with their familes.  He is likewise trying encourage Congress to pass laws giving illegal immigrants amnesty.  This has basically encouraged unhappy Mexicans to illegally cross into America, or at least send their children this way in the hopes they'll be able to join them later.

It's been estimated that over 250 children are crossing the border every day. Many states are very concerned, petitioning the president to put a stop to this, as they cannot afford to house, school and provide healthcare for all these illegal children.

The influx become so pandemic it's scary right now to be an American.  Yet Obama does not see it as a crisis.  His response is to say "I'll look into it" or "it's the republicans fault because they voted against my immigration reform."

Of course former President George Bush is not off the hook either, as he was encouraged to put troops on the border to prevent such a crisis from occurring, and he didn't so either.

I think both Bush, and now Obama, do not put troops on the border because both of them fear that doing such a thing would cause Spanish Americans to prefer the other party.  Of course, by looking at trends, most of the people crossing the border are uneducated, and most likely to vote democrat regardless.

Both also did so under the guise that American has always been a state of open borders, something that is not true.

In fact, most people do not know this, but between 1924 to 1965 we shut down immigration. We closed the borders so that those who had arrived could assimilate and become American, which they wanted to do, by the way. They learned English. They became accustomed to American holidays. They wanted to become Americans.

Today we don't even ask that those who cross our borders assimilate. This was good, because America is better when we are one united nation (a melting pot) as opposed to a divided nation (a salad bowl).  United we can conquer any problem, although divided we fall.

Rick Perry looks good by sending troops to the border.  His move looks even better when you consider that a recent poll shows that greater than 70 percent of Americans believe we should secure our border and send illegal immigrants back home.

Further reading:

1. Perry: What you are doing is a crime
2. 77% want illegal immigrants sent home, 81% say it's a serious issue

Why do we have to fix what isn't broken

The agenda of liberals is not popular.  People do not want more taxes.  People do not want more regulations on corporations.  So in order to move forward with their agenda, liberals must create fear.

Global warming is a perfect example.  Global warming is one of the biggest hoax's of the past 30 years. There hasn't been any increase in global temperatures since 1997 or 1998, and yet the powers that be continue to tell our kids how a minute rise in temperatures may destroy the earth.

So our kids come home all scared, according to polls.  When we were kids schools scared the hell out of us by preparing us for bomb threats.  They told us that at any time Russia might blow us up with a nuclear bomb.  I even remember discussing this with my mom. But back then the threat was real; Russia did have bombs aimed right at us.

Today, however, the threat is not real.  Today the threat of global warming, and the fear caused from it, is specifically agenda driven.  Fear makes people desire action, just what liberals want to do.  Liberals claim their actions to be the resolutions to the cause of this fear.  In other words, global warming is an excuse for government action; it's an excuse to tax and regulate.  It gives Obama permission to take executive action when Congress doesn't act to prevent and treat global warming.

Actually, they don't call it global warming anymore.  They can't call it global warming because the globe is not warming any more.  Now they call it climate change.  They have no evidence anything we do is causing changes to occur, but they need us to believe it so we are scared the planet might blow up or something if we don't tax and regulate.

It's the same thing with Obamacare. They went around telling us how bad the healthcare system was, even though we had the best healthcare system in the world.  Our healthcare system was not broken.  But they told you it was, and this created fear.  Scared people -- a minority -- wanted action, and what we got was Obamacare, something that is unproven, doesn't work, and no one wants.

The idea is that humanity's destroying the planet, and not just any humanity, but highly advanced, economically highly advanced humanity is destroying the planet, primarily the United States. Capitalism, where people's progress, economic progress, is destructive to the planet. This has been the message. We're destroying it, greenhouse gases, with the giant cars and trucks that we drive and all the airplanes that we're flying and all the miles we're flying and all the fossil fuels that we're burning.

Global warming, climate change, is their way of creating guilt in the minds of Americans so they support liberalism and oppose capitalism. Most people do this, most people buy into this, without even knowing.  They have this idea scratched into their brains slowly by the powers that be. Presently, as I write this, the kids on the Disney Channel are telling my kids that change is needed and that you can make a difference. It's a slow brainwashing process, and kids who don't have educated parents will fall right into their trap.  In fact, the kids giving the message probably don't even know what they are falling for. 

So, you ask: why do we have to fix what isn't broken?  It's because that's the only way for liberals to get their unpopular agenda passed.  They cannot get it passed by the will of the people.  The cannot get it passed through Congress.  So they must create fear, because when people are afraid they want resolutions.

Further reading:

• Youth anxiety on the rise among climate change

Obama's economic statements misleading

I used this quote on another post on this blog, although I find it so amazing that I must use it again to make another point.  Consider the following from a March, or April, joint press conference with Obama and German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

We've learned that our businesses created 273,000 new jobs last month. All told, our businesses have now created 9.2 million jobs new jobs over 50 consecutive months of job growth. The grit and determination of the American people are moving us forward. There's plenty more that Congress should be doing from raising the minimum wage to creating good construction jobs rebuilding America. And I want to work with them wherever I can, but I keep acting on my own wherever I must to make sure every American who works hard has the chance to get ahead.

First of all, the numbers he uses are misleading.  While the Bureau of Labor Statistics report that 273,000 jobs were created last month, 800,000 people left the workforce.  So while the unemployment rate presently sits at 6.3%, the U-6 unemployment rate sits at 13.6%.  This is a more accurate depiction of the 963,630,000 people in America currently not working.

Another thing to note here is that Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is influenced by three factors: consumer spending, business spending, and government spending.  If consumer spending is not rising, and business spending is not rising, then a rise in GDP can only be explained by government spending.  If government spending is needed to make the GDP rise, it reveals the market is not self sustaining.ector does.

Other than his statistics, the rest of Obama's comments are also misleading.   If "the grit and determination" were actually working to improve the economy, then the government would not need to take action in order to stimulate the GDP.

Besides, the government doesn't create good construction jobs anyway, the private sector does.  Yet, I suppose, if you don't have a good understanding of economics 101, which is no longer taught in public schools just for this reason, you'd have no clue you were having the wool pulled over your eyes.

In fact, if you read the entire quote, the 1st part suggests the economy is booming, and the second part says the government needs to create jobs and artificially raise wages.  The first part completely contradicts the second part.

I suppose if you were the leader of a nation and your policies are failing, you'd spin the statistics too.  I wouldn't.  I can honestly tell you that if what I did failed, I'd recognize it and try something different.  I would not lie to make my failures look like successes and continue trudging forward with what's not working.

America is no longer alarming to its foes or reassuring to its friends

The Economist has an interesting article that challenges Americas desire, and even its ability, to be a leader on the international stage.

As we have witnessed over the past several months, as Russian has set troops in Crimea, Obama has threatened sanctions, yet has done little else.  His threats had little influence over Putin's efforts.  As Russian annexed Crimea, Obama's America stood on the sidelines, leaning up against a tree.  For that reason, I find this cartoon very fitting. You have the sheep (Ukraine), and the wolf (Russia), and then you have Uncle Sam just leaning against a tree watching.  That said, does the U.S. have any influence at all on the international stage?  In other words, is the U.S. willing and able to defend its allies against aggressors like Russia?

The article starts out by asking:

AMERICA’S allies are nervous. With Russia grabbing territory, China bullying its neighbours and Syria murdering its people, many are asking: where is Globocop? Under what circumstances will America act to deter troublemakers? What, ultimately, would America fight for?

The article continues

The answer to this question matters. Rogue states will behave more roguishly if they doubt America’s will to stop them. As a former head of Saudi intelligence recently said of Vladimir Putin’s land grab in Ukraine: “While the wolf is eating the sheep, there is no shepherd to come to the rescue.” Small wonder that Barack Obama was asked, at every stop during his just-completed four-country swing through Asia, how exactly he plans to wield American power. How would the president respond if China sought to expand its maritime borders by force? How might he curb North Korea’s nuclear provocations? At every press conference he was also quizzed about Ukraine, for world news follows an American president everywhere.

While conservatives chant things like "peace through strength," Obama disagrees.  He said, “Very rarely have I seen the exercise of military power providing a definitive answer,” he told an audience in Seoul."

So it appears apparent that Obama's strategy of using words and sanctions as opposed to military mite will not change.  Because of this, some reporters are asking Obama questions along the lines of "are your actions, or non-actions, emboldening American enemies?"

Yet Obama's answer to this question was that we “haven’t really learned the lesson of the last decade.” In other words, American hawks did not learn the lesson of Iraq.

Yet, as the article notes, Obama's strategy does not appeal to voters, who say defending America is "very important."  However, most Americans do not want U.S. troops in Ukraine, with only 6% saying they would use force, according to polls. And, of course, most people don't want action in Syria either.

Of course this makes sense considering no one wants war.  In fact, even hawks don't want war.  Just because troops are put into a country doesn't mean the U.S. wants to go to war.  In fact, just the opposite is true.

U.S. troops in Ukraine would make sense for two reasons:

1. We promised during the Clinton administration we'd defend them if they disarmed.  So, we'd be honoring our word.
2. Putin doesn't want to go to war with the U.S., and so U.S. troops in Ukraine would disuade Putin from taking action there, allowing Ukranians the opportunity to create a democracy

As far as for the Middle East, U.S. influence isn't any better: 

In the rest of the region the story is not much cheerier. The new government in Egypt ignores American finger-wagging about human rights and buys lots of Russian weapons. In Syria President Bashar Assad was caught red-handed last year gassing his own people, an act that Mr Obama had specifically warned would trigger American punishment. Yet this “red line” was crossed almost with impunity.

There were sound arguments for all these apparent American retreats. Yet the widespread impression in the Middle East is that the lion has turned into a pussycat. Its foes rejoice; its allies bewail their perceived abandonment.

Iraq’s leader, Nuri al-Maliki, is chummier with Iran than America. Iran jauntily backs militias and political parties in Iraq. It sends bullets and “advisers” to Syria via Iraqi airspace. It sponsors Iraqi Shia volunteers to fight American-supplied Sunni rebels in Syria.

Of late, America has sometimes taken a back seat to other countries, as with France’s intervention in Mali and NATO’s in Libya. Or it has simply shied from doing anything much, as in Syria.

The article does note some successes in the Middle East, however.  For instance, "
oil prices are stable, Israel has never been so prosperous or secure and Iran has agreed (under intense pressure) to curb its nuclear ambitions somewhat. Terrorism now poses far more danger within the Middle East than to the rest of the world."

I think the key words per this article are "Lion" and "Pussycat." While the U.S. was once a Lion with a lot of influence around the world, we are now a pussycat, good for nothing more than our cute looks.  As a lion, we were able to protect ourselves and our allies.  As pussycats we have little or no control over what our enemies do or don't do.

In other words, a pussycat military strategy has made it so "America is no longer as alarming to its foes or reassuring to its friends." Since defending our nation and our freedom is the number one responsibility of our government, this is a serious issue, and one that I hope is addressed by republicans during campaign season.

References:

1. The decline of deterrence: America is no longer as alarming to its foes or reassuring to its friends

What is Gross Domestic Product (GDP)?

Spikes in GDP by government spending are only temporary.

Among the most common means of measuring economic status of a nation is the gross domestic product (GDP).

So what is GDP? I think we are safe to use wikepedia in this instance.

The basic measure of a country's economic performance and is the market value of all final goods and services made within the borders of a country in a year. It is a fundamental measurement of production and is very often positively correlated with the standard of living.

Basically GDP is the sum of three products:

• Consumption by the people
• Investment by businesses and people
• Spending by government

The acronym for this is CIG: Consumption, Investment, Government spending. That should make this easy to remember.

However, this marker has come under scrutiny by some economists as it may be misleading. Take, consider, for example, the October, 2009, number, which showed an improvement in economic activity 3.5%. Many economists used this as a sign that the recession ended.

However, if you dissect the sum of the three above products, you will see that that 3.5% is misleading. According to statistics there was no new consumption by consumer;  they were not buying the goods and services produced by businesses; they were not buying houses; they are not buying vacations and TVs and electronics. In fact, according to statistics, consumer spending was down.

Likewise, according to statistics there was no increased investment in businesses or by businesses. They did not create new jobs, the did not spend on new equipment, the did not build new facilities.

So, if you consider consumption by the people and investment by business and people, you see no economic growth.  This is bad, because, in order for an economic recovery to be sustainable, it must come from the private sector

However, if you look at spending by the government, you do see economic growth. This is bad because it shows that the only economic growth was because the government was spending money it collected by taxes.  This, in essence, is artificial economic growth, and is unsustainable growth.

If you look back to this time in Obama's term, it was when he was handing out cash for people to buy cars.  In other words, you see growth because people bought cars because the government just paid $24,000 per car bought during the cash for clunkers program. It was also a time when the government was handing out cash to get people to buy houses, so this also helped spike the GDP.

So you can see, that if you analyze all the numbers, the private sector was not growing in October of 2009, and the government sector was.  Individual people and businesses were not investing money into the market, but the government was busy spending other people's money.

In fact, economic experts have said that half the 3.5% increase in GDP was the result of cars bought during the cash for clunkers program, which, by the way, had expired by October, 2009.  A large portion of the remainder was from houses bought under the house refund program, which was set to expire in November, 2009.

The Obama administration purposefully increased government spending because this is the crux of Keynesian economics.  So, to Obama and his progressive followers, the GDP of October 2009 of 3.5% was good. This was not by accident, it was because Obama is a follower of Keynesian economics.

Keynesian economists believe that that the economy will improve if the government stimulates it by artificially increasing demand. FDR used the same economic system.  Both Obama and FDR increased spending on goods and services in order to create government jobs and increase spending, and therefore GDP, in this way.

However, increasing economic activity through government spending has drawbacks.

1. Most jobs are temporary.  Creating temporary government jobs by government programs to build bridges, repair roads, plant trees, etc. will create jobs that increase the GDP, but a few months later the GDP will shrink as these jobs are eliminated. 
2. Money used to pay for government jobs is taken from people who work, meaning they will have less money to put into the market.  
3. Obama's stimulus package increased the national debt by trillions of dollars that must be paid back at the expense of our economic future. 
4. Like the cash for clunker program, all government created jobs are only temporary. While they are in effect the GDP may rise, but once they are expired the GDP will go back down again. Thus, a rise in GDP caused by increased government is NOT a sign of an improving economy.
5. Government programs like cash for clunkers artificially inflates the sale of cars, making economists thin the economy is improving when it's not.  So car companies hire workers only to have to lay them off when the program ends, resulting in a shrinking of the GDP. 
6. Government spending increases the national dept, forcing future generations to pay it off, and forcing the government to borrow money from other nations, such as China.  The ultimate risk here is that the entire system will collapse, and other nations will lose respect for America. It presently stands at $17,480,794,453,219.59
7. Keynesian economists use dept to create economic growth.  This comes with severe consequences if that dept cannot be paid off.
8. U.S. government debt to GDP failed to rise dramatically from 1960 to 2008, but it almost doubled from 2008 to date, just as households took on debt rapidly from 2001 to 2009 and companies quietly increased their leverage.

The only way to get real economic growth is to create incentives like cutting taxes on consumers so they have extra after tax revenue to purchase goods like computers, TVs, cars, houses, telephones, and MP3 players, and services like cable TV and the Internet.

The only way to get real economic growth is to cut taxes and regulations on businesses so they have an incentive to increase investments on things that will boost the economy like new machines, tools, buildings and workers.  This is the only time tested method of getting long-term increases in GDP, and real economic recovery. You have to have growth in the private sector.

So, during an economic recovery you will have an increase in consumer spending and investment by businesses, not the government. An improved GDP is good, but not so much when the reason for that increase is due to an increase in government spending which is funded by increased taxes, increased national debt and printing of more money -- things that decrease confidence in the economy and devalue the dollar.

The private sector is what holds the key to you and me making money. It's where all the good paying, long term, jobs are created. If the private sector does well then the economy is doing well.  If the private sector is doing well, both the unemployment and the U-6 unemployment rate will drop.

Falsely spiking the GDP by government spending is a Keynesian strategy to artificially make economic numbers look better. True economic growth would be indicated by a rise in GDP due to spending by consumers and businessmen.

References:

1. Exploding Private-Plus-Government Debt To GDP: Davos (World Economic Forum) Conversation Starter
2. U.S. National Dept Clock

What is the U-6 unemployment number

U6 Unemployment Rate from 2000-2014

According to the The Bureau of Labor Statistics the unemployment rate dropped from 6.7 to 6.3% in March of 2014.  While these numbers have some thinking the economy is improving, others suggest these numbers may be misleading.

This is especially true when matched up against other statistics provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which show that 800,000 fewer people were in the workforce in March, making the total of 92,594,000 . When you compare these statistics with the unemployment number, we can see that something doesn't add up.  

As a matter of fact, if news outlets report that the unemployment rate dropped in March, that looks good for Obama.  That is the intent of the methods of doing the unemployment number.  The reason they look so good is not because jobs were created, but because the unemployment rate does not include people who have given up looking for work.

A better number than the unemployment number is the U-6 unemployment rate. This number includes all people of working age who are not working.  So, while the reported unemployment rate for March was 6.3%, the U-6 unemployment rate was 12.6%.

The despite the misleading numbers, Obama uses them to his advantage.  Consider the following quote by Obama from a joint press conference with Obama and German Chancellor, Angela Merkel.

We've learned that our businesses created 273,000 new jobs last month. All told, our businesses have now created 9.2 million jobs new jobs over 50 consecutive months of job growth. The grit and determination of the American people are moving us forward. There's plenty more that Congress should be doing from raising the minimum wage to creating good construction jobs rebuilding America. And I want to work with them wherever I can, but I keep acting on my own wherever I must to make sure every American who works hard has the chance to get ahead.

While those numbers may be good public relations for people who don't understand economics, we understand that they are misleading, and not truly representative of true economic status.

Bottom line: the U-6 unemployment number is the number that should be used to measure economic status, and the U-6 number should be reported by the media -- no matter who the president is.

You can check out the history of the U-6 unemployment rate at portalseven.com.

Government spending 20% of GDP

If you want to improve your standard of living, you're not going to do it by receiving a check from the government.  The only way to improve your standard of living is by investing yourself in the marketplace.

Yet there are a lot of folks who think the government is needed to make life better for people.  They think that it's a good thing that 20% of the gross domestic product (GDP) is government.  In fact, the media is reporting this as a good thing.  They are reporting that if it weren't for Obamacare, that the economy would have had negative growth in the first quarter of 2014.

They say healthcare spending increased at its fastest pace in more than three decades because of Obamacare, according to Reuters.  They say it caused a floor that prevented a net loss in economic activity.  They say this is good.

Reuters notes:

Healthcare spending increased at a 9.9 percent annual rate, the quickest since the third quarter of 1980, and it contributed 1.1 percentage points to GDP growth.

But this is not good news.  In fact, it is bad news.  When the only reason the government grew at all (an abysmal 1% of 1% in the first quarter of 2014) is due to government spending, then you have a serious problem.  This is because, for there to be an economic recovery, it needs to come from the private sector.

It's the private sector where the good jobs come from.  It's the private sector that provides the best opportunities to get rich.  It's the private sector that provides the best opportunity to improve your lot in life, not the government.

Surely the government can create jobs.  But it does so at the expense of the private sector.  Surely the government can assure that everyone has healthcare.  Sure the government can assure everyone has a retirement.  But, it does so at the expense of the private sector.

Why? Because everything the government does is with money it took from people who work for a living.  When you take what people earn, that's money they won't be spending on goods and services; that's jobs that won't be created. All this growing government is spending money that is not yours.

But when 51 percent of people who vote don't pay taxes, they have no invested interest in this.  They don't care how much the people who work are taxed, because they're not affected by it.

It doesn't help when the media buys into the idea that more government is a good thing, and they put a positive spin on it.  They sell the idea that Obamacare prevented a negative GDP for the first quarter of 2014 and sell it as a net positive.

No wonder the youth in this nation, the millennials who have never seen a robust economy, have a pessimistic view of their country.

Kids who eat chicken legs aggressive, says study

So there are lawmakers who are trying to push for a perfect society.  So one of the ways the accomplish their idealistic goal is to make laws forcing us to make safe choices.  So every time a new study comes out they start salivating.

It was this kind of stuff that we had to deal with the entire term of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.  He banned smoking in public based on studies, he banned large pops based on studies linking high carbohydrate diets to diabetes, he tried to make a law banning salt in restaurants because salt was believed to cause high blood pressure, and he assaulted McDonalds because the theory was that high fat foods alone caused heart disease.

Of course, when studies come out disproving their theories they simply ignore them.  That's the hypocrisy of it all. When studies come out to prove something is bad for you, they can't wait to pass a law taking away our personal liberties.  Yet when a study proved genetics and not high fat foods cause hardened arteries, they ignore it.  When a study proved salt has nothing to do with high blood pressure they ignore it.  That's hypocrisy.

So the latest Cornell University study done shows that kids who eat chicken legs to the bone are more likely to be aggressive and disobey adults.  So I wonder how long it will be before some lawmaker forces parents to make their kids use a knife and fork to eat their chicken.

Of course that poses a problem too.  These same people want to take guns away from people because guns kill.  So here they want to take the chicken legs out of the hands of children and give them knives.  I suppose they could ban knives too.

Why would someone valuable time and money doing a study like this anyway.  It's obvious they have an agenda here.  They want to show that uncivilized eating has consequences, and they want to make sure parents and schools don't allow for it.

Morris predicts who will win 2016 GOP nomination

Will Rick Perry win the GOP nod for 2016.
Dick Morris says he's set up just right for it.

As a former pollster and political campaign consultant for Bill Clinton, Dick Morris is an expert on how to win elections. In a recent column, "To Get GOP Nod, First Lose," he explains how the GOP is a a "monarchic and legitimist institution," with the current leader handing off the reigns to the next leader.

In other words, in order to win the nomination a candidate must first have lost a bid to gain the nomination.

He said:

The Republican Party is, at heart, a monarchic and legitimist institution. Party leadership is handed down in orderly succession. Rebels and insurgents are typically given short shrift.

He explained this further:

In the beginning, Thomas Dewey begat Dwight Eisenhower. Eisenhower begat Nixon. Nixon begat Ford. Reagan lost to Ford and then, it was his turn. Then Reagan begat Bush-41. Dole had lost to Bush-41 and then, it was his turn to try. Bush-41, literally, begat Bush-43. McCain lost to Bush-43 and then, it was his turn. Romney lost to McCain, and then, his turn came.

The democratic party is the opposite, he said, with only Al Gore previously losing a bid for the Presidency before he eventually won the nomination.

So, he said:

What does this predict for 2016? Of the defeated candidates left over from 2012, Rick Santorum is probably too focused on social issues to win. Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann can be dismissed as flashes in the pan and the problems that knocked them out of contention have not gone away. Romney probably won’t get a third chance — even Nixon only got two. Newt Gingrich inflicted too many wounds on others and on himself.

That leaves Rick Perry. He’s acceptable to Latinos, based on his Texas record. He draws strong Tea Party support without being defined by it. A Southerner, he is clearly ready to play on the national stage. A big state governor, his record on jobs has only gotten better. Perry can’t be dismissed.

Of course, as Morris readily admits, Perry is not the perfect candidate. He said:

Will his debate brainlock disqualify him? Not if he doesn’t repeat it. Bill Clinton recovered from a disastrous 1988 convention speech. He’s probably had enough time to recover from his dismissal of Social Security as a “Ponzi scheme” in his book.

But Perry has to develop a truly national perspective to win. He can’t forever be repeating “in the state of Texas” before each line.

He needs to know more about issues other than energy. In 2012, he showed the same lack of depth and laziness in issue preparation as Sarah Palin did in 2008, but he wasn’t caught as easily because he’s a man.

So, we'll lock this in as Morris's prediction.  Let it be known, for the record, that he predicted, in a book nonetheless, "Condi vs. Hilary,"  that Condoleezza Rice would be pit against Hilary Clinton in 2008, and, while he was close about Hilary, he was not even in the ballpark with Rice.

Morris, however, has been very right about many of his predictions regarding presidential elections, and, so right in fact at times, that he may have been the sole reason Bill Clinton won twice. So his predictions should be duly noted. 

Without life there is no liberty; without liberty there is no life

The reason I don't go to Facebook much is because it gets frustrating all the stupid stuff that people put on there.  What I hate most is when people put stuff on that shows that they have never read the Constitution.

Recently a person posted this:

One failed attempt at a show bomb, and we all take off our shoes at the airport.  Thirty one school shootings since Columbine, and no change in the regulation of guns."  John Oliver

The problem with that statement is that it's against the law to use your natural rights to take away the natural rights of others.  It's illegal to kill people.  It's not illegal to own a gun.

In this way, the only way you could succeed at making a law banning the sale of guns would be to change the Constitution.  And the whole intent of the Constitution was to make it to the U.S. Government could not make a law taking away natural rights.  Since defending yourself is a natural right, the Constitution is rock solid in this regard.

Natural rights never change, and for that reason the Constitution should never change. If you want to prevent events like Columbine, you teach people the values of the Bible, which teaches one to "love and respect thy neighbor."

I'm not implying that any person needs to own a machine gun, let alone two. However, no democratic society should be able to vote away the rights of other people, let alone take away the life other people.  Taking away one will not solve the other.

Or, worded another way: without life there is no liberty, but without liberty there is no life.  Leave my life alone, and leave my liberties alone.

For 99.9% of history governments abducted from the populace the ability to enjoy natural rights and freedoms.  We had best not forget this and start passing laws based on emotion, because every law passed takes away another freedom.