PFBA - The Future & Automation

The employee complains about “the man.” The employer complains about the cost of labor. In the end, the employers are gaining an upper hand. They have been for some time.

First, companies are able to have their goods manufactured in parts of the world where people live on slave wages at best. These companies can then import those goods back into the United States and sell them cheaper than they sell goods made right here to home. How is it that a television set can sail across the ocean and still sell for less than a television set built here? However it happens, that’s what has taken place. Globalization just pushes the pedal to the floor in the process.

For those companies that cannot import their goods from other countries, namely, service industries and agriculture business, the companies have pushed for lax laws that allow cheap labor to flood into America. These are the illegal immigrants. Those Americans who cry foul, including those in the traditionally organized labor camp, are told that complaining is tantamount to racism. Nobody wants to be a racist, do they? Of course not, so it’s an effective way to quiet the resistance.

Here’s the question. When you have so many Americans sitting out of work, and are trying to automate more jobs, just who will have any money to purchase these goods and services?

These companies have found ways to squeeze more and more out of their labor force and the profits that were once spread across an entire workforce are now being pocketed by those at the top of the corporate ladder. This is evidenced by a truth that hardly anyone disagrees with; the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.

These titans of industry are now turning to the Democratic Party and aligning themselves with socialists. They are calling for people to be given “free” this and “free” that, but none of them are willing to pay higher taxes, or, God forbid, pay higher wages to their employees.

When companies pay a good living wage to their employees, their employees can afford to purchase goods and that is good for the economy. Also, by paying a good wage, employees no longer have to turn to the government for help. Walmart and McDonald’s both pay such low wages that the United States government subsidizes their labor costs. Most McDonald’s and Walmart employees cannot raise a family or live on their wages alone, and therefore turn to heat, health, and food assistance. Walmart’s owners are some of the richest in the world. They have enough money stuffed away that their great grandchildren will be rich. Imagine if that money had been spread amongst their workforce. Think of the savings to the government, aka; You, the taxpayer.

Here are some changes that would make the situation better.

1.      Tax any money not paid out to hourly employees. In other words, if a company makes billions and pays a paltry wage, they will be taxed heavily on that money because odds are, their employees are accepting government assistance. This will encourage companies to pay better wages as opposed to paying taxes. Either way, that money will be spent on the employees. I believe most companies would rather pay the money directly.

2.      Tax automation. If the government taxes automation and uses that money for the poor, many businesses may forgo automation and keep real people employed. The only time machines should be used is for dangerous work, which should be taxed at a low rate. We would rather have robots do dangerous work.

3.      Companies should be taxed for exporting jobs. If a job could be done in America, and it is not, the goods should be taxed to compensate for the under-employed. This could be pegged to the unemployment rate. In other words, if few are unemployed, it may make sense to have items made abroad. If certain items are meant to be made abroad, like Chinese silk, or Pakistani rugs, then that should not be taxed as high. There’s no reason that televisions are made overseas and shipped here cheaper than they can be made here.

We already use our tax system to influence people’s behavior. Corporations are not people. It’s true that they are made up of people who have collectively invested their money, but most corporations are run by a select few people, who in almost every case, are paid astronomical wages compared to most company employees, and they have fantastic benefit and severance packages. This is money that could be used to lift the lifestyles and retirements of their employees, while still allowing those at the top to be filthy rich. The only difference is that they won’t have as many succeeding generations able to inherit the wealth.

I am a capitalist, but a personal capitalist. I am not a corporate capitalist. I am also not a globalist. I believe in being a part of the global system, but I believe in forced diversity. Those who are globalists are trying to homogenize the world, to essentially form a world monopoly of power and influence. A monopoly is not a good thing. While having multiple different governments and systems is a pain in the ass to multi-national corporations, it is good for humanity. Diversity is good.

Climate Change Religion

This whole climate change argument has become religious. Those who subscribe to man-made climate change have become religious fanatics about it. They don't allow for any skepticism. Anyone who dares challenge the notion that man is the main reason for climate change is labeled the equivalent of a heretic. Those of us who are agnostic to the notion aren't offered the same common decency that other religious agnostics are afforded in America. There are some even calling for us ...to be imprisoned. Google it and you'll see that I am telling the truth.

This is scientific fact. Here in Iowa, there is evidence of both major glaciation, as well as Iowa being covered by water. The ground shows the glaciation and the limestone fossils show the water. Right now, we're somewhere in between. Scientitst themselves tell us that the last glacial event happened when Paleo-Indians were in Iowa. This means, within the time that man has been here in Iowa, we've seen the loss of glaciers, as well as the loss of the giant animals that used to roam here. Was that global warming? That happened in a blink of an eye too, on the earth being billions of years old scale.

Scientists say that earth has never warmed this quickly. Really? Who's to say? Ice cores? Who's to say that the rate of warming has to be constant? The sun isn't constant. Nothing is constant. Maybe this is a quick warm-up compared to others and man has nothing to do with it? To even postulate this is heretical now.

The problem with ascribing to this man-made global warming religion is that it involves placing heavy burdens on the poor and transferring American wealth and sovereignty to others. It's a tool for those creating vast sums of wealth based upon fear. Listen to the people screaming about Trump pulling out of the Paris accord. They are full of fear!

A final note. Those who ascribe to the belief that we evolved instead of being created tell us that it's survival of the fittest. Only the strong survive, as well as those who have been able to adapt. Shouldn't we be adapting to a changing climate instead of trying to change the climate? Do you realize how kooky that sounds? Man will control the climate? We're not talking about environmentalism, where we protect our water and air. We've been doing that long before this Paris accord. Christ, our water is cleaner now than it was in the 70's. Anyone else remember the acid rain terror?

BTW - When will the proponents of climate change, like Al Gore, start practicing what they preach? Only when they quit flying around in their private jets and taking limousine rides, I might get like Alfred E. Neuman in 1979 and start getting nervous. Until then, "What......me worry?"

The only time Alfred E. Neuman got worried. 1979 Three Mile Island incident.

 

Jewish Ham and Gay Christian Cakes

I saw a news story this morning from South Carolina where the newspaper seems surprised that an openly gay lawmaker was elected in a deeply Christian and conservative district.

This shows a complete and utter misunderstanding of the Christian faith. It’s as if the author of the article would expect evangelical Christians to run an openly gay man out of town on a rail. They don’t seem to understand that Christians are some of the most tolerant people on the planet. In fact, in Christian nations, you'll see great tolerance shown towards those who live and believe differently. That great tolerance was enshrined in our Constitution, written mainly by Christian men.

What we don’t appreciate is a perversion of our faith by those who wish to change us. Homosexuality is a sin. It always has been in the Jewish/Christian faith, and until Jehovah God instructs us differently, I suspect it will remain so. Lying and stealing are also sins, by alas, nobody has asked us to change our views on those issues yet.

Because we don’t see homosexuality as acceptable, we do not feel comfortable embracing it within our churches, although, some churches that are more “worldly” have. You can see parallels in the Jewish faith. The strict adherents to Judaism will not eat pork. However, there are some Jews who aren’t really that strict who enjoy the occasional ham sandwich. It depends upon your personal religious commitment as to how you approach your faith and apply it to your life. Thankfully, in America, this is your right. Go to many Muslim nations where they have religious police, and you won’t have that freedom. Over there, you may be imprisoned, or worse, for enjoying that ham sandwich. (Muslims don’t eat pork either)

Most Christians see the gay community the same as we see others of different faiths or creeds. As long as they don’t bother us, we don’t care. Do Buddhists come into our churches and demand that we worship Buddha?  Do Muslims come in and demand that we pray to Allah? Are Jews allowed to come into our churches and remove all references to Christ? Obviously not. Why then are gay people coming into churches, many times the very church they attended their entire life, and demanding that the church change its views on homosexuality because of them? Should the church change its views on rape, lying, or murder because those people come to our churches too? No. We show the same compassion towards sinners that Christ asked of us. It does not mean that we must accept sinfulness as normal. Sin is sin and the wages of sin is death. That is fundamental Christian bedrock.

Do we see homosexuals going into synagogues and mosques demanding the same treatment? If so, I don’t see it. It’s funny to me that I’m only witnessing the attack on Christian values and beliefs, and not the same treatment towards Jews or Muslims.

Why isn’t the gay community asking Jewish and Muslim bakers to bake them gay wedding cakes? Why are they suing Christian bakers for refusing? Isn’t it the right of anyone in this country to refuse to act in a manner that they see as endorsing anything that is contrary to their religion? Is refusing to design and deliver a cake for a gay couple to a gay wedding, truly discrimination? If a gay customer came into a bakery and wanted to purchase a cake, already made, and the owner refused because the customer is gay, that is discrimination. However, asking the baker to personally design and deliver a cake for a gay wedding, something they would not normally do, and requiring them to do so, is not the same thing. It's the bakery owner's religious right to refuse.

If I go into a Jewish delicatessen and want to order a sandwich, they cannot refuse me as a Christian. I have to purchase what they have available. I can ask the deli to serve certain things, but they are under no obligation to cater specifically to me. If I want a ham sandwich, I cannot force that deli to serve ham. I don’t have a right to a ham sandwich. They are not discriminating against me or my religion by refusing to carry or make me a ham sandwich. If I want a ham sandwich, there are plenty of other places to get one. Their refusal to serve me a ham sandwich doesn’t indicate a hatred towards me. It indicates that they are living within their religious beliefs, something they have a right to do. The same ought to apply to the Christian baker. Sadly, it doesn’t.

The Clinton Playbook – “Change the story, polish, minimize, and spin”

Hillary Clinton is sick. Let’s not beat around the bush about it. There have been rumors of her illness for some time, especially since she hit her head and had a concussion in 2012. What happened to her on 9/11/2016 was not a case of simple dehydration or pneumonia as her and her campaign have stated.

Watch the video of her. She is fine, hugging, kissing, and schmoozing people. Then there are photos of her with her doctor or nurse, squeezing fingers and the next thing we see is Clinton standing at the street, waiting for her ride, which is against all Secret Service protocol as it leaves Clinton as a ‘sitting duck’ on the side of the street. All the while, nobody is panicking. This is obviously something that Hillary’s entourage is accustomed to. Even Bill Clinton let it slip to Charlie Rose that this has happened many times. He then back-tracked and CBS edited the interview to take that part out. It is apparent that whatever is wrong with Hillary Clinton is not what we are being told.

Surprise Surprise! This is the Clintons that we’re talking about!

Hillary appeared a couple of hours later, coming out of Chelsea’s apartment, and looked so much better. Pneumonia, really? Pneumonia isn’t something that leaves you fine one moment, on death’s door the next, and then an hour or two later you’re fine.

No, pneumonia is a killer. Those afflicted with cancer and AIDS often die from pneumonia. The elderly take pneumonia shots because pneumonia kills so often.

Pneumonia caused by bacteria or virus is contagious. Here Clinton was out hugging and kissing folks. Was she told that her pneumonia was non-contagious or did she not care about spreading it about? The types of non-contagious pneumonia are from inhalants, fungus, and aspiration issues. Is this the type of pneumonia that she had? To be honest, I doubt she has pneumonia. She would have been in terrible shape to begin with if she had. I’m more apt to believe dehydration, but even then, it would be a stretch. It wasn’t that hot. Water is plentiful, and she wasn’t doing anything physically strenuous.

Why the lies? It’s because that’s what the Clintons do. I don’t know why that is. Some people rob banks. Others murder people. Some people just lie because that’s who they are; liars. That’s the Clintons for you.

Bill Clinton was the master at this. Hillary isn’t quite as good, but it isn’t for lack of trying. Below, I have posted a video from 1992. Here, Bill Clinton is facing criticism for his, “I didn’t inhale” comment. The two situations are slightly different, but in both cases, Bill and Hillary use the same tactics. First, they try and restructure the truth into a version that creates a new narrative. They polish this narrative up. It’s a narrative that allows them to minimize what they said. After that, they spin like a crocodile in a death roll.

First, Hillary;

Hillary comes out of Chelsea’s apartment two hours later looking refreshed and claims to the media that she feels fine. She even finds a kid to hug. This changes the narrative from, “Hillary is ill” to “Hillary is not ill”. But, at this point, it may not have been apparent to Hillary that video of the event was captured and then released to the public. At this point, the official story was, “She was dehydrated.” Her appearance on the street reflects this narrative.

Then, as it became apparent that video of the situation was leaked, it then became, “She was diagnosed with pneumonia on Friday.” She sure didn’t act like a woman who had pneumonia, but, this allowed Hillary to again change the narrative and make herself look like a warrior, someone who just works and works and works, even when sick with potentially fatal pneumonia! That’s the polish folks. Even Christiane Amanpour used apologetics to explain how great Hillary was when compared to other past American leaders, and then Amanpour retorted, “Can’t a girl have a sick day?” How effective. It makes Clinton look like a victim and in today’s society, we’re all supposed to feel sorry for the victims. Everyone wants to be a victim these days it seems…..

Then, later in the evening, knowing that damage control must be done, she goes on Anderson Cooper and furthers her story stating that as soon as the van doors shut and she got some water, she was perfectly fine. Really? Then why not come back out and greet people some more? Why cancel your trip to California? But, this is part of the minimization tactic on this Clinton play. She even used her husband’s famous phrase, “I didn’t think it was a big deal.” Really? Boy, a female John Wayne we have on our hands here!

Finally, she spins it. She goes into stating that Trump needs to release his health information and that he hasn’t done this or he hasn’t done that. Guess what? It wasn’t Trump who collapsed and then told lies about it! Not once has Trump shown any ill health. But, this is the spin to redirect attention. It’s almost a psychological tactic if you ask me. Don’t look in this hand, look in this other one….

Compare this to her husband’s appearance on Arsenio Hall in 1992. First, Bill tells the story differently than it actually happened. This allows him to put some personal Clinton shine on it and it makes the story capable of handling the bullshit that he’s about to make the story carry.

He then minimized it by using very similar words that Hillary just used the other night, “I didn’t think it was a big deal,” from her to his, “..it is not a big deal.” Then they both spun. First, Hillary spun it into re-directing attention to Trump and claiming that he needed to be scrutinized too. Bill spun and started talking about sending kids to college.

In short, they change the story. They polish it. Then they minimize their part in it, and then they spin. On the video, you'll have to fast forward to the 23:55 mark. Here’s the video below and below that, is the transcript from the pertinent section:

 

Here is a link to the actual time where the transcript below comes from: https://youtu.be/ckHfgqK_hcU?t=23m55s

“Here’s the deal, when a politician says something, if you’re a politician, the cynicism about politicians is so great that people thought, “Well, this guy calculated this whole answer, and he calculated it so that he thought, ‘Well, maybe he won’t burn me quite as bad if I say I didn’t inhale?’.” That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard of.

They asked me a question that I didn’t know they were going to ask and I gave an honest answer. And that, “I didn’t inhale.” was a nervous after-thought. I was sort of laughing about it after 22 years. I mean, that’s all that was going on and I was sort of laughing in my mind about it, but I got beat-up about it, ‘cause everybody thought that I calculated this answer.

You know, maybe I should…maybe I should be more calculating than I am? But, you know, if, you folks are never going to get good politicians, uh, really good public officials, if all you want is somebody that calculates every word they say, every deed they do; and their whole life becomes like a robot, or an automaton, you know. I did something when I was younger. I told the truth about it and I made a mess of telling about it because, I guess, I’m still kind of embarrassed about it after all these years.

But it is not a big deal, and it sure…and it was made into a federal case. I got more publicity on that … than my idea about how to send every kid in America to college, who wants to go, which I think is more important to the election and to the future of this country.”

(Applause)

(Smug smirk) (Drink of water)

On Brexit

The British people have narrowly voted to regain their independence. I was surprised that they voted this way. I’m not surprised because I agreed with remaining, but because I have felt that the UK has been a socialist/liberal haven for long enough that their chains of bondage would never be undone. I’m happy to be wrong. Their escape was a narrow one. Future generations should appreciate how lucky they were to get out while they were able to.

Throughout history, there has been a portion of humanity who wishes to have someone lord over them. If this were not the case, we wouldn’t have had such large kingdoms created where a monarch or dictator of one kind or another, has kept a large group of people subservient to them in exchange for a little food and security. A large portion of the Old Testament of the bible is devoted to this. The Israelites doubted God and Moses in the desert and many lamented that they would have been better off in slavery back in Egypt where they at least had a bite to eat. These same Israelites, who after gaining their freedom and having a system of judges, demanded a king, and the Lord warned them. From the book of Samuel;

So Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking for a king from him. He said, “These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen and to run before his chariots. And he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his servants. He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants. He will take your male servants and female servants and the best of your young men and your donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”

But the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel. And they said, “No! But there shall be a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles.” And when Samuel had heard all the words of the people, he repeated them in the ears of the Lord. And the Lord said to Samuel, “Obey their voice and make them a king.”

And a king the Lord gave them, and all the chains that came with it. Obviously, people have changed very little since ancient times. In more modern times, our own country made a choice about whether they wanted a king over them or not. In our case, we had enough of all the chains that came with having a king and we rebelled and cast our chains off and became free.

Very much like the scare-mongers of today in this Brexit vote, during the American Revolution, there were many who wished to remain loyal to the king. I have read before that the colonies were divided three ways. There was about a third who wanted independence. A third didn’t care, and a third wished to remain indentured to the king. Many of the very same arguments were made by those wishing to remain loyal to the crown that have been made by the Remain camp in this referendum. These colonial loyalists thought the world was going to end by our leaving the British Empire. Many of them went back home to England and fled to Canada.

With the benefit of hindsight, we now know that those who stayed did not suffer for long. In fact, America would go on to become the powerhouse that it is today, and it wouldn’t have done that had it remained chained to England. How different history would have been had we not gained independence and showed the world a different way to live.

The same thing will happen with a free United Kingdom. You don’t have to belong to the “global village” in order to be a part of the global community. In the village, you must do as others have decided for you. As an independent member of the community, you retain the freedom to make the correct choices that are best for you.

Who in their right mind would go to a doctor and allow someone else to make medical decisions for them? Who would accept legal counsel based upon what may be best for another party? Why then do we think it’s good to have others decide what’s best for the UK? Shouldn’t the UK be able to decide what’s best for itself?

This brings out the reality of the whole situation. This is all about globalism. This isn’t the sort of globalism where you learn to play nice with your neighbors. This is a form of globalism where you become part of a commune. Others decide what you get and what you give up. Others decide what you shall do and not do, all in the name of unity. How can we teach our daughters to be independent people on one hand, yet be anything but in our own government affairs? The buzz-word for this new form of globalism is called progressivism. It’s like an opium for the masses. Those who subscribe to it are either those who shall become lords over others, or those who are so intoxicated by its effects that they know not their own poor condition, like an opium addict. All these poor souls know is that it feels good. They grow dependent upon the drug of progressivism and get to the point that they can no longer care for themselves. They turn to the leaders to take care of them. All the while, the fruits of their labor are taken from them and their burdens are increased. This must be stopped at all costs.

Freedom comes with great challenges. The first of which is insecurity. In a free society, the people have the opportunity to fail. They also have the opportunity to succeed. This is the beauty of freedom. Under freedom, you have a choice. You have opportunity, real opportunity, to make something of yourself. You don’t need government to give you a hand up. Under freedom, you have the opportunity to do it yourself, and to take pride and profit from the toils of your work. Not everyone succeeds in a free society. What’s important is that there is at least opportunity.

I remember reading books on the Civil War and the freeing of the slaves. Many slaves wandered around after the Civil War, lost, because they didn’t know how to live free. Many of them returned to their masters and continued on as share croppers. Many in the south punished the blacks with unfair Jim Crow laws, and kept the blacks in a new kind of slavery. I read that some slaves, especially those with benevolent masters, thought their life was better off under slavery than it was after they were freed because at least they had a roof over their heads and food on their table. Once they were freed, they no longer had those securities.

This being said, I doubt anyone would publicly declare today that the slaves were better under slavery than they were when freed? Instead, slavery is viewed in the eyes of those slaves who were treated cruelly. Slaves were property and many slaveholders treated their slaves as part of their families. Even in those cases, there are very few who would argue that it was better for these slaves to remain under the control of their masters instead of choosing freedom. Yet, in this Brexit situation, the progressive globalists are claiming that it’s better for the UK to keep their chains on because they have a benevolent master in Brussels. How can this be?

It’s because those who are most vocal about remaining in the EU are the new masters that lord over others. Take yourself back to Civil War America. Can you imagine many masters using the same arguments to discourage turning the slaves free? Many of the same arguments today could just as easily have been made then. Rarely does anyone in a position of lordship over another give it up easily. The Israelites didn’t have it easy leaving Egypt. They turned and went back into servitude and found themselves enslaved many times over the course of history. When we left England, we had to fight for independence not once, but twice. Finally, we are in a world where the progressive globalists have been creating a new world order for themselves as lords over the masses and they are not happy about Britain choosing to rule themselves.

In America, we see this in our own election. Globalists on both sides, democrat and republican are having fits and tantrums, beating the drums of fear, and name-calling, in order to stay in power. Hillary believes it takes a village. What she won’t tell you is that she’ll be it’s queen and you her servant. She will promise you a roof over your head and food on your table, but like the Lord warned Israel, it comes at a price. Several on the Republican side are part of this movement too. This is why we have witnessed so many Republicans appear to cave into the left in this country. It’s because they too wish to lord over others and they want to be rulers too. They scoff at the libertarian wing of the party who ask for the very same thing that our forefathers wanted, and that’s liberty. Britain just chose freedom and we should too.