Hey, Republicans, the Latino Vote is Not Hard to Get

I am perplexed by Republican's inability to figure out how to get the Latino vote, since it is a no-brainer.

First, seal the border except at legal check-points. All polls show Latinos want to prevent further illegal immigration, mostly because it is THEIR jobs that illegals go after. So, step one to pleasing Latinos is to prevent illegals from getting in. This is non-negotiable, not only for Latinos, but for most Americans nationwide. This also solves the "anchor baby" problem - if they can't get in, they can't give birth here.

Then comes the part where we need to deal with the illegals that are already here. While Latinos are opposed to more illegals coming in, they are also opposed to deporting those who are already here, as many of those are family members or friends. So, if you want to win the Latino vote, we need a fair way of dealing with the illegal population. And that, to, is simple.

First, make it public that illegals already here, provided they have no criminal record may stay, be issued a work visa and have legal status simply by coming in and signing up. They may NOT become citizens unless they go through all the same steps as any other legal immigrant, and must learn English. Otherwise, they are legal and may work here, and pay taxes. These special visas will be renewable every 2 or 3 years - if they have not committed a crime, their visa is renewed. And any illegal who does not sign up would be considered a criminal - why else would they not sign up and get a "free pass"? So, upon being located or arrested for anything else, see below.

Criminal illegals would first be tried for illegally entering the U.S., which would be made a felony, and if it is their first offense, they would be placed on probation and deported. If they return, they would automatically be arrested for violation of probation and sent to prison to serve their term, not less than 5 years for the first offense, and 10 for the second.

Republicans need to understand this simple concept - Latino Americans are just like any other segment of our society. They want to keep family and friends close; they want to keep their jobs to feed their families; and they do not want criminals roaming the streets. How do I figure this? I did what most Republican politicians never do - I asked legal Latinos on the street how THEY would deal with the issue. I did not ask illegals, nor Latino pundits like Geraldo. I asked the folks on the street, the ones who will vote.

To win the Latino vote is as simple as sealing the border, deporting or jailing criminals, and providing the current population of illegals a means for remaining here legally, to work.

As a side benefit - the children they have will be citizens, with the right to vote someday - and they will remember it was Republcans who mde life better for their families.

Simple.

/

The Dirty Little Secret About Minimum Wage

It is understood that many people in this country do not earn what some may call a "living" wage. To combat this, some believe it is necessary to increase the minimum wage, which will "lift those people out of poverty". One proponent of this is Bill O'Reilly, who says "$10.00 an hour won't hurt anyone." He's wrong - it will hurt everyone! Bill should stick with subjects he knows and comprehends, because he obviously does not understand the intricacies of economics, nor has he taken the time to figure out the unintended consequences.

I am not just talking about the jobs that will be lost as companies must make cuts to cover increased costs, or decide to incorporate robotics, as would happen with waitpersons at the local restaurant, greeters and stockboys. I am talking about how it hurts every person in America without doing so much as a penny's worth of good for the poor.

Here's the dirty little secret that few understand, and fewer will talk about...

Consider, for the sake of an example, the Ramen soup company. (I chose this because many poor people rely heavily on the low cost of Ramen in order to feed their families.)

Assume they have line workers at minimum wage - say, $7.50/hour. They also have line supers at $10.00/hour who oversee the line workers, and those line supers work for line managers who earn $15/hour.

In come the "do-gooders" like O'Reilly, clamoring to raise the minimum wage to $10.00 - a 33.3% raise. So now you have line workers earning the same as their bosses, which just is not right - the bosses have greater responsibilities, so now they, too, need a raise. And now THEIR bosses, the managers, need a raise, because they need to be paid more than those who work for them.

The result: every employee of the Ramen company has to get a raise. There is absolutely no change in the "income disparity" that the minimum wage is intended to solve. But more important, whereas wages and benefits make up roughly 75% of the costs of running the business, the cost of making and marketing Ramen has now increased by roughly 25%, an increase that can only be met by raising the price of Ramen. This is because the employer only has two choices for making up the added cost of wages - lay people off, or raise prices. He cannot go into the basement and print money ,like the government can.

But it gets worse - the people who market Ramen, ship Ramen and sell Ramen are also getting those raises, and their costs must be added to the end price. 

So, now poor people are making 33.3% more on their one wage, but the cost of living has increased substantially on every item they buy - not just the Ramen soup. Everything goes up, because every business is paying employees more. And though they are now earning more, those employees are also required to spend even more than their raise will cover. Meanwhile, every person in America is now paying more for everything.

Raising the minimum wage does not add to the economy - it simply adds cost without adding to the GDP, which in turn harms the economy. In fact, it CANNOT add to the economy because employers cannot print money - they can only transfer it from one place to another.

The short take - you cannot simply raise the minimum wage of low income employees and not expect every other employee in the company to require a similar increase. It's not "just" an extra $2.50/hour for a few people. It's an extra $2.50/hour for EVERY employee in the company. So, pundits like O'Reilly who do not fully understand economics are very, very wrong when they say "It won't break anyone." If a business has 200 employees, raising the minimum wage to $10/hour will increase that company's costs by a whopping $500 for every hour they operate.

Here's a clue, Mr. O'Reilly - in real life, there are few things that are as they appear on the surface. I never would have thought Bill O'Reilly to be a "surface" thinker.

Examples of other things that are the opposite of what they appear to be:

PAIN - while it certainly does not feel good, it is a good thing. It tells us when something is wrong, so we can get treatment. Without pain to tell us when to take action, Mankind would have been extinct long ago.

WAR - Man has no superior predator to keep our numbers in check. If not for war and disease, we would have overburdened this planets resources hundreds of years ago, depleting all food and water supplies, bringing about extinction.

ANTI-BACTERIAL SOAP - Most bacteria are good, and necessary for health. Anti-bacterial soap kills more good bacteria than bad. And if you have a septic system that requires bacteria to do its job, flushing anti-bacterial agents can destroy your septic system, costing thousands in repairs.

REGULATIONS - while some are necessary, most are not, and only serve special interests. Regulation is the opposite of freedom - with each new regulation, we, the people lose freedom, and the government gains power OVER the people, which is the opposite of the intent of the founding fathers.

It would certainly be helpful if more people would take the time to THINK about ALL the unintended consequences of things before they advocate for or against them.

Brought to you by IntelliBiz , home of "The Simple Man's Guide to Real Estate Investing"

/

Peace on Earth - Laudable, but Impossible

 

 

This is that wonderful time of the year when folks around the world (well, in free nations, anyway) proclaim a strong desire for "Peace on Earth". What a great sentiment - albeit impossible.

Don't get me wrong - Mankind should never stop trying to achieve peace on earth, as that is what keeps us reasonably civilized. But no one should ever be caught up in the belief that peace on earth could ever be a possibility - it cannot, and here is why...

The world is a natural place, and it is ruled by natural laws. For example, there are predators, and there is prey. Both are essential for the balance of nature. If not for herbivores (prey), plants would take over the world, creating an atmosphere of almost pure oxygen and depleting carbon dioxide. Such an atmosphere would spell extinction for the plants, and any other life on the planet.

To keep the herbivores in check, so they do not deplete the vegetation to the point that oxygen is no longer being created, there must be carnivores (predators) and omnivores (part carnivore, part herbivore). This creates a balance.

But nothing in nature can remain stagnant. As predators feed on an abundance of herbivores, the predator population grows, resulting in an eventual depletion of herbivores. As "prey" becomes harder to find, the predators begin to die off, as food is scarce. And as the population of predators shrinks, herbivores again proliferate. And the "life cycle" that keeps everything in balance is working as it should.

Enter Man.

Man, an omnivore, and the only one with the power to reason, build, create and otherwise control his environment to any extent arrives on the scene. Man is a predator, but he is also prey, and in an effort to insure his ultimate survival, he must compete with other predators. So, Man uses his human abilities to "remove" other predators from the scene. Man is the ultimate predator in that respect.

And this is where it becomes impossible to have "peace on earth". Mankind does not really have any superior predator to keep his numbers in check. So the population of Man just keeps growing and growing. The only natural means for keeping the human population in check are disease and war. Without them, Man would have made himself extinct hundreds of years ago - if no one ever died in any war, the population on earth would have outstripped the planet's ability to support us centuries ago - long before technology would make it possible to feed more people with less. We would have used up all of earth's resources centuries ago, which would cause extinction of nearly all life on the planet. That is because everything that lives, consumes. For one thing to live, something else must die.

Now think about that for a moment. Imagine 12 billion people on a planet capable of sustaining only 8 billion. Since no one would willingly sit back and watch their children die of starvation, war must inevitably ensue, as people fight and kill each other for the few resources available. What would YOU do if your children were dying of starvation, and someone else had food?

Man will not stop procreating. Yet, earth's resources are finite. If one country needs energy, food, water or any other resource, that country will go to war to take what others have. It is a matter of survival.

And we all want to survive.

War, like big game hunting, helps keep populations in balance. Man has no real natural enemies other than disease, that pose a threat to our survival. So we must prey upon each other.

As Jesus said, "The poor will always be among us." There will always be "haves" and "have nots". And both will always be ready to kill in order to survive.

In short, it is the First Rule of Nature - survival of the fittest.

/

Obama COULD Relieve Racial Tensions, But...

If the president were really interested in neutralizing the racial tension and angst in America, and help heal the country, there a a few things he has the power to do - but he refuses to do them, because to do them would be to break the stranglehold Democrats have on minorities and those in poverty.

He could, for example, push for school choice, which would allow those in poorer neighborhoods to go to better schools and get a better education. But he stands firmly against school choice, knowing full well that disallowing it harms the black community. He bows to votes and contributions of the teacher's union (and all other unions) rather than do what is right.

He could subsidize trades programs in the schools in urban areas, to provide hands-on experience and training for good paying trade occupations. But the only "occupation" our president is interested in is that which is perpetrated by the anarchists of the OCCUPY bunch.

He could reduce corporate taxes, encouraging business growth, producing more jobs. Nope! Won't do that, either.

He could stand strong for family values, and encourage black families to be WHOLE families, with two parents. And for children without fathers, he could build and strengthen a solid mentor program, where fatherless kids can find a father figure for guidance.

He could sign a couple of the jobs bills that Republicans have put forth, which would help take some black families out of poverty. But he won't do that, either.

Yeah, there are things Mr. Obama could easily do. But he won't, because the Democrats can only control the minority vote as long as they keep them dependent.

/

Hunting - Emotion vs Intellect

First, let's get this out of the way - I do not hunt anymore. But at least I know WHY I gave it up, and it was based on an intelligent choice, not an emotional one.

Hunting has increasingly become a contentious issue, because as with anything else, there are those who are for it, and those against. But unlike many other issues, the hatred against hunting - and hunters - is escalating due to the huge amounts of money being spent by a few people to gin up the hatred. For example, in Maine, the state with the best bear management program in the nation, the national Humane Society in Washington D.C., backed also by huge monetary resources from the likes of Mr. Bloomberg, spent many millions to convince Mainers to put an end to bear hunting. Twice they put it on the ballot. And twice they lost. But in the process, their political ads created animosity and helped convince many people that bear hunting is inhumane.

Just recently, a well-known hunter posted a picture of her kill on Facebook, and immediately began receiving death threats. I guess they think killing people is okay, but not game animals.

So, here is the problem: some people look at an issue intelligently, while others look at it emotionally. The visceral reaction from anti-hunters indicates they are making their judgements from emotion, not intellect.

This post will hopefully cast a little light on a few things that most people on BOTH sides are seemingly unaware of.

First and foremost, until recent times in the history of humans, hunting was essential for survival. If you, or someone in your family did not hunt, you simply did not eat. Hunting has always been a fact of life. Today, with markets on every corner, the need to hunt has been diminished for many, but not for all, as there are still places where the local market may be a hundred miles away (as in Alaska), and there are still people who are too poor to pay the outrageous prices in the meat section of WalMart. For those people, hunting is still essential to their survival.

Which brings up the second point - unlike people who are opposed to hunting and who get their ribeye steaks at the meat counter, hunters kill their own meat. They do their own "dirty work". And, unlike the beef or pork the non-hunter eats, the deer, moose or duck that a hunter eats has a fair chance of escaping. The cow or pig never has such a chance. Somehow, non-hunters are unable (or unwilling) to acknowledge that they, too, are killing animals. Maybe they believe that their packaged meats were never alive. If you eat meat, you are killing animals. The only difference is whether or not you have the guts and the skills necessary to do your own dirty work.

Another huge point to be made is the one of conservation. Well-managed populations of game animals is necessary for the well being of the animals. If left unchecked (and un-hunted), the populations would increase to the point that many would starve to death. Non-hunters contribute nothing to managing game. But hunters pay dearly for conservation measures. The fees they pay for licenses is the money used to support conservation efforts. And the hunting, itself, is a conservation method used to keep populations in check, so animals do not starve. In fact, in areas with a shortage of hunters, both the federal and state governments have their own professional hunters.

In that regard, hunters not only pay for the management and conservation for the benefit of the animals, but also are active and unpaid participants in the necessary thinning of the populations.

Maine, again as an example, has had the best management program in the country for bears, keeping the number of animals at the optimum level where both man and animal are able to live in harmony. In contrast, New Jersey has a ban on bear hunting, and residents throughout the state are facing increased incidents of being threatened by bears, as the animals invade even the suburbs, looking for food. And that is a direct result of too many bears vying for too little food. That is what is cruel and inhumane, not hunting.

Non-hunters would do well to use their intellect rather than their emotions and realize that every time they eat packaged meat, an animal died for them. They would do well to realize that the money for conservation comes from hunters. And if they were actually thinking, instead of acting emotionally, they would realize that mankind was designed as an omnivore - being both a meat eater and a vegetation eater. Science knows this because of such things as our teeth - we have both molars and bicuspids as well as canine teeth. They also know this by the placement of our eyes - herbivores (vegetarian animals) all have their eyes on the sides of their heads, so they can see danger coming from almost any direction. Carnivores and omnivores (a prime example is the owl, or cat) all have their eyes in the front, for a greater ability to focus on the hunt.

And there are certain proteins, necessary for human health, that are only available readily from meat. I say "readily" because those proteins can be formulated by mixing certain veggies, such as corn and beans. But in meat, those proteins are already complete. Until the advent of markets on every corner, it was not always possible to obtain the right mix of veggies, which were only available in season. And in some regions (the Yukon, for example) veggies are not readily available at any time. That means Man had to eat meat. It was not an option. Strict vegetarians died in the late winter, as stores of veggies were depleted.

In short, hunting is essential if we are to conserve and preserve wild game in a world where their domain is shrinking as man encroaches. Instead of vilifying hunters, non-hunters should thank them for doing the "dirty job" that non-hunters are unwilling to do.

So, why did I give up hunting? I can afford to buy the meat I want (many cannot), and I made a decision to not kill anything I did not need to kill for either food or self-defense. But if times get tough again, I'll dust off my .270...

/

Immigration by Executive Fiat - Act of Desperation

As most folks know by now, President Obama appears set to use Executive Order to prevent further deportations and provide some form of legalization of up to 6 million illegal immigrants. More to the point, he intends to do it right away, even though there is no rush. So, why is he doing this?

The pundits all have their theories, and some of them may even have a grain of truth to them, such as the theory that he is simply trying to anger republicans to the point where they make a mistake, allowing Democrats to keep the White House in 2016. And I agree that Mr Obama probably does have that in mind. But there is an even more insidious nature to his plan.

Desperation!

The Democrat party has spent decades cultivating the Latino voting block, and they need it if they are to keep virtually perpetual control of the government. It is critically important to them. But with both houses of Congress going into the hands of Republicans in January, Obama sees a very real threat to the Democrat  plan - Republicans could very easily pass an immigration bill, and leave Democrats holding an empty bag. I believe President Obama would rather have his presidency go down in flames, rather than to allow Republicans to win over the Latino voting block.

After all, if the Republican Congress passes an immigration bill - and they will - and Obama signs it, Republicans win. But if Obama vetoes it, Latinos will be so angry that Democrats would never get another Latino vote and the Republicans still win. In either case, the Democrats lose if Republicans are allowed the opportunity to pass an immigration bill.

So, Obama has a real need to act preemptively - to use an Executive Order to make Latinos believe the Democrats are looking out for them, and to do it before January.

And THAT is why he will act before the new Congress is seated. It has nothing to do with what is good for the country. With Mr Obama, it is always about what is good for the Democrat party - even to the detriment of the nation.

/