Ommmm.... Maha mantra..... The-left-is-really-coming-unhinged..... Ommmm.

I’ve heard some real doozies out of the liberal left in my day. But, one I heard about just this week - the more I think about it - has to be the weirdest, dingbattiest nonsense to come out of LaLa Land yet.

Apparently some professor of religious studies at Michigan State University - one Shreena Gandhi - co-wrote an article accusing Americans who practice yoga of...wait for it.. contributing to white supremacy and promoting the “yoga industrial complex.”*,**

Sayyyy...whut?

According to Wikipedia, yoga originated in India and is intertwined in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism.* So, I just gotta ask; how on earth does practicing yoga promote “white supremacy?”

And I’m not even sure What the cornbread hell the “yoga industrial complex” even means. Somebody’s gonna have to tell me what that is before I could even know to be offended about its alleged promotion and proliferation.

And here I'd thought that cement and stone Confederate Veterans statues that had stood for decades or even over a century had last summer and fall suddenly been found to be oppressing black people was the craziest, most paranoid or most outrageous version of "victim mentality" I'd ever hear in my lifetime....

Now there's this - the white supremacy of the yoga industrial complex.... 

Just about the time I think I’ve heard everything and the left can’t possibly outstupid themselves any worse, they always find a way of rising to a new high in low or an even more unhinged concept or comment.

So, given their history, their next idea should be quite...entertaining. That’s all their thoughts are worth anymore. They long ago abandoned credibility so we might as well get a few laughs out of it. That’s about all the redeeming value liberal thoughts have to offer society anymore.

*Nash, C. (2018, January 30). Professor: White People Who Practice Yoga Contribute to White Supremacy and Yoga Industrial Complex. Retrieved February 01, 2018, from http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/01/30/professor-claims-white-people-who-practice-yoga-contribute-to-white-supremacy/

**News, F. (2018, January 29). People who practice yoga contribute to white supremacy, professor claims. Retrieved February 01, 2018, from https://nypost.com/2018/01/29/people-who-practice-yoga-contribute-to-white-supremacy-professor-claims/

* Wikipedia (26 January 2018), Yoga. Retrieved 1 February, 2018.

If they'd just stop and think how improbable their allegations sound and how little sense they make....

Amazing the dark, sinister “nothing-to-beneath- them-to try” tactics the libs/Dems (same thing) are resorting to to try and destroy PRESIDENT (eat it, Libs!) Trump’s fledgling presidency and cabinet. And equally amazing is how this sham scandal “fake news”) about Trump and Putin’s Russia colluding to rob Dem idol “Crooked Hillary” Clinton of her immaculation as the follow-on POTUS after Barry Obama.

If anyone with half a brain - which already rules out most liberals - would actually think that allegation through, they’d come to realize that the LAST thing a former KGB Lt Col and communist like Putin would want is a Trump presidency. Putin would far rather want someone of like socialist/communist ideology like Clinton than an entrepreneur like Trump whose motto was “Make America Great Again.” Putin would far more desire four more years of a marshmallow pushover America like his buddy Barry Obama created.

Remember it was Obama who late in his first term was caught in 2012 mentioning to then-Russian

President Dmitri Medvedev that he (Obama) would have more flexibility to negotiate after the US election that November (which Obama was re-elected, don’t ask me how). So, who’s stupid enough to believe that the likes of Vladmir Putin or any other Russian would want to have to face off against would

be someone of PRESIDENT  Donald Trump.

But since today’s media runs like the propaganda ministry of Nazi Germany and truth has far little place in their product, they, like Josef Goebbels of Germany follow the ideology that if the same lie gets told often enough, it will become the truth in the minds of the brainwashed and the emotionally-driven brainless.

A lesson in real world economics.

This little item is wonderfully precise at distinguishing between the conservative right, and the liberal left.  It is one of the very best examples I've ever seen at drawing the contrast.  Enjoy!  And happy holidays. Scratch that! Merry CHRISTMAS!

This is going round the internet and is really spot on. Keep in mind, it is not me saying this, I wish I was that fast on my feet. But whoever wrote it/spoke it is exactly right!

A guy looked at my Corvette the other day and said "I wonder how many people could havebeen fed for the money that sports car cost."

"I am not sure," I replied. "It fed a lot of families in Bowling Green, Kentucky who built it. 

It fed the people who make the tires, it fed the people who made the components that went into it, 

It fed the people in the copper mine who mined the copper for the wires, 

It fed people in Decatur IL, at Caterpillar who make the trucks that haul the copper ore. 

It fed the trucking people who hauled it from the plant to the dealer and fed the people working at the dealership

and their families. 

BUT,... I have to admit, I guess I really don't know how many people it fed."

That is the difference between capitalism and welfare mentality. When you buy something, you put money in people's pockets, and give them dignity for their skills.  When you give someone something for nothing, you rob them of their dignity and self worth.

Capitalism is freely giving your money in exchange for something of value.  Socialism is taking your money against your will and shoving something down your throat that you never asked for.

Where DO they get their economics education?

The headline read: SEATTLE RESTAURANTS CLOSING THEIR DOORS AHEAD OF MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE.”*

Yeah…well…all I can say to this is…DUH!

I don’t know where these liberals got their education on economics. But, anyone who’s spent the first two weeks in a REAL economics course class (not this Marxist pap they seem to be teaching nowadays) knows that as price of a given product increases, demand for it goes down. That has been true since time immortal for anything - bread, beer, smart phones or…wait for it…yes, even labor!

So, guess what; the libs that buy into this “feels good but never works in the real world” “spread the wealth” Marxist horse hockey that Obama and his kind like to spew convinced Seattle to pass an ordinance which took effect April 1, 2015 required city businesses to increase the minimum wage they pay workers to $15/hour.

Let’s put this under the microscope for a second. According to “the Washington Restaurant Association, before the wage increase, a typical cost breakdown for Seattle restaurants was: 36 percent of funds devoted to labor, 30 percent to food costs, 30 percent to other operating costs, and the remaining 4 percent was profit margin. However, under the minimum wage increase, if a restaurant owner made no changes, labor costs would rise to 42 percent in quick service restaurants and 47 percent in full service restaurants. [Emphasis added].

“Arguing that the wage increase is harming the workers it was intended to help, the free-market think tank the Washington Policy Center said, ‘The [restaurant] shut-downs have idled dozens of low-wage workers, the very people advocates say the wage law is supposed to help. Instead of delivering the promised “living wage” of $15 an hour, economic realities created by the new law have dropped the hourly wage for these workers to zero.’” * Get that? Zero!

Business people have to be smart. Or they don’t stay in business for long. Those that do, look at their costs, their processes, their costs and try to price their products accordingly. According to how much investment they have in that product and how much price the market will bear. Ask yourself:

• Would you spend more to make less than you spent to earn it – in other words, lose money? No, of course you wouldn’t.

• Would you spend a given amount to make only that amount back  - in other words, break even? Probably not.

• Would you spend a given amount to make that and a given % more back? Probably so.

But it seems trendy today for all the libs to be saying that most businesses make too much more than they spent back – in other words, excess profits (a favorite Marxist mantra, by the way). So, maybe you’re saying “Yes. I’d spend a given amount to make a small % return on my money.”

Fair enough. But let’s examine the % extra a little. Should a person make enough to put some aside “for a rainy day?” Most people say yes. Should a business be allowed to make enough to save for downturns in the business climate/market? Most people say yes, but some say no more than that should be allowed.

OK. Keeping that last thought, let’s take a fictitious Seattle restaurant as example of the impact of this minimum wage increase. Let’s say that our fictitious Puget Sound Seafood Joint makes an average of 9% profit annually over expenses. Not bad, but not awesome either. As a matter of fact, “high-end restaurants earn, on average, a profit margin of just 8%.”**

So, with annual gross revenue of $397,000, our fictitious fish joint only banks a little more than $31,000 gross profit (just to keep the numbers round). Before we jump to a conclusion that such should be enough, remember that’s the rainy day market fund. What if there’s another recession like hit in ’08 and ’09? How long would that $31,000 last?

Those only come once in a blue moon you say. More minor ones come every four to five years, so you think our place should survive fine through both with such annual revenues? OK… But what about rising costs? Realize that a restaurant’s food costs are as much as 45 to 50% of its total operating costs.*** And what about the not so obvious rising costs – insurance, taxes, rent and…labor?

All of those cost increases have to come out of that profit margin making it a smaller %…or the restaurant has to raise their prices to keep the % the same. Before we jump to a conclusion that to reduce the profit margin is the more “fair” answer, let’s think about what a business might do with the profit dollars it banks up over time, “retained earnings” accountants call them.

What if a restaurant’s management would like to add wait staff or kitchen help to provide better service to its customers? What if its management would like to give out Christmas bonuses to kitchen and wait staff this year or otherwise increase their base wage? Or, what if adding another store is being thought about? Each and every one of those decisions is impacted negatively by increasing any of the costs in the restaurant’s operation.

That includes spiking labor costs 42 - 47% like the Seattle city council did last year.

So, how did all this really affect Seattle restaurant employees since the new minimum wage ordinance came into effect? Firstly, Anthony Anton of the Washington Restaurant Association says that “in a $700,000 restaurant, he estimates that the average restaurateur in Seattle has been making $28,000 a year.” [Emphasis added].****

That’s only a 4% profit margin on average.

From January to September, 2015 Seattle lost 700 restaurant jobs. One might think that’s not so bad considering what a major metropolitan area Seattle is. But consider this: Washington state restaurant jobs outside Seattle increased by almost 6,000. *****

And the “domino effect” of such restaurant closures goes beyond restaurants. For example, “The Seattle Times reported that a Clarion Hotel recently made the decision to close its full service restaurant (laying off 15 people) and let go of a night desk clerk and a maintenance worker. It also plans to raise its rates by 10 percent to offset increased labor costs.” ******

Another headline read: “Seattle’s $15 Min. Wage Is Making Something Happen That City Leaders Never Expected.”****** YA THINK? They’re actually shocked by that! Yeah…well…all I can say to this is…DUH!

Honestly, where do these “feels good” liberal clowns get their economics education?

 

 

* "Seattle Restaurants Closing Their Doors Ahead Of Minimum Wage Increase | NFIB." National Federation of Independent Business. 20 Mar. 2015. Web. 22 Jan. 2016.

** Rotelli, Wendy. "How Much Profit Should a Restaurant Make?" Restaurants.com. 9 Apr. 2013. Web. 22 Jan. 2016.

*** "Don't Fall Victim to Restaurant Profitability Myths." National Restaurant Association. Web. 22 Jan. 2016.

**** "More Seattle Restaurants Close Doors as $15 Minimum Wage Approaches." Shift Washington. 12 Mar. 2015. Web. 22 Jan. 2016.

*****Perry, Mark. "Minimum Wage Effect? From Jan. to Sept. Seattle MSA Restaurant Jobs Fell -700 vs. 5,800 Food Jobs in Rest of State - AEI." AEI. 21 Oct. 2015. Web. 22 Jan. 2016.

****** DeSoto, Randy. "Seattle's $15 Min. Wage Is Making Something Happen That City Leaders Never Expected." Western Journalism. 16 Mar. 2015. Web. 22 Jan. 2016.

 

Too good, too "spot on"...well, not to share!

Viewing life through the Conservative or Liberal lens (aka Jeff Foxworthy's "Fence Test")

I received this in a forwarded email earlier this week. This is really straight forward thinking and “calls it like it is....” It’s attributed to standup comedian Jeff Foxworthy though I couldn’t corroborate that from a brief internet search. If Mr. Foxworthy said this then kudos to him for his clever observations. If not, then kudos to whoever wrote it. But this pretty well sums up how Conservatives and Liberals view the world.

Jeff Foxworthy on the fence: Which side of the fence?

If you ever wondered which side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!

If a Conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one. If a Liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a Conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat. If a Liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a Conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life. If a Liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect. (Remember, respect is always earned).

If a Conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. A Liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a Conservative doesn't like a talk show host because of what he/she says, he switches channels. Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.

If a Conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church. A Liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.

If a Conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it. A Liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

How Herman Cain was treated shows another example of just how low we've sunk.

The hypocracy, arrogance and double-standard of these guys is just amazing. To say nothing of their sneering (to put it politely) at the "concept" of "innocent until proven guilty.

Any naïve liberals out there who think liberals and Democrats have the country's best interests and minorities' best interests - meaning the growth of America, liberty and prosperity with minorities having just as much a chance as anyone else - better pay attention to how Cain was treated. The old leftist slander and smear machine is just as in gear against conservatives who also happen to be minorities today as it was against minorities back in the days of the KKK. Look at how they've treated Supreme Court Clarence Thomas, former-congressman JC Watts, former Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice and now presidential candidate Herman Cain. All were articulate and damned smart and accomplished individuals, all professed Conservatives who also happened to be black Americans.

I'm sorry to say it, but unfortunately today, "liberal" is apparently a synonym for" hypocrite." Would anyone want to bet that - now that Cain's out of the way - no one ever hears any more about any of these media tramps and their (so far seemingly) false allegations against Cain? For all I can prove or disprove, Herman may have had more ho's than Tiger Woods, but for God's sakes, how about we give the man a chance and presume him innocent until there's proof positive that he's guilty?

Yet, when it was the liberal candidates' womanizing that was not just allegated, but well-documented (Ted Kennedy, Jesse Jackson, Slick Willie the intern-molesting Clinton) then we're told to look the other way because, "character doesn't matter." Barak Hussein Obama's only experience before getting elected president of the United States was "community activist" and a less-than-one-term US senator who only voted "present" the few times he cast a vote at all. Yet to question his qualifications for office was to be labeled a "racist" by liberals. Yet, they lined up to rail at the female Republican vice presidential candidate - Sarah Palin - who'd been a City Council Person and mayor of Wasilla, Alaska and Chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission before becoming Governor of Alaska, a position she held from December 2006 until her resignation in July 2009. They called her inexperienced - inexperienced to be the VP, yet they thought a community activist was qualified to be the P! Yep, these liberals are all about advancing qualified women in the world!

And, of course, as soon anyone even begins to question Barak Hussein Obama's unsound, destructive and un-American  policies and behaviors since being elected President, well! They tell us that's only cause the questioners are racist. It surely couldn't be because he runs roughshod over the Constitution, shows absolutely no respect for America, her industrial might, her military might nor her seeming to having been the 911 emergency call to the rest of the world as soon as they've ever needed help.

So, there you have it; that's "the side of the aisle" that claims to represent women and minorities against those evil, cold-hearted, racist and chauvinistic Conservatives and Republicans. Joseph Goebbels' Nazi Propaganda Ministry would've been very proud of the liberal media smear machine's accomplishments against a black man like Herman Cain these past few months. Not only did they absolutely ruin a guy's name, reputation and family without a shred of credible proof having been offered to prove the charges beyond an accusation, they managed to vilify the victim while escaping any accountability for their despicable tactics or loss of their own or that of their side's name, reputation or family.


It's disgusting enough to make one vomit.

Whatever happened to the rules about "polite mixed company?"

When I was growing up and getting worldly enough to be able to converse about such things, it was drummed into me that one didn't discuss sensitive subjects like politics, sex or religion in polite mixed company. This was to avoid any potential conflicts with those whose opinions might differ and therefore avoid any arguments and resulting hard feelings.

But recently, I've been noticing an interesting but disquieting behavioral trend. I've been noticing the differences in conversation "manners" and how they seem to differ between those of political conservatives compared to those of liberals. Before I get too far into this, perhaps I should mention that several liberal friends of mine have told me over the years that they think I'm more of a moderate. Perhaps that will allow me a little wiggleroom here in terms of what I'm about to say.

With all the political intensity of the past several years, I've been witness to many a conversation about politics and world affairs. Very few of these started out to be such or were held at events or venues that could be considered political. And very few of these conversations were amongst people who were known to have similar political leanings - in fact, either quite the opposite was true or the potential for such was high. Yet most of these conversations have shared a common characteristic; they were initiated by individuals of the liberal persuasion making a rather loud and often very out-of-context political statement.

What is interesting about this is that in all of these occasions, these potentially-inflammatory comments were made with no regard for the possibility that anyone in earshot could have a differing opinion or could feel outright offended by what was said.

So, my question is this; what ever happened to avoiding such sensitive topics in gatherings where there could be resulting tensions, hard feelings and whatnot? When did our society become so divided politically that we ceased focusing on the things that bind us to a common culture, or brought us together as friends in the first place, or our common interests in the activities of a club or group and so on? When instead did cramming one's political opinions down everyone else's throats in the vicinity become a more noble goal?

Whatever happened to keeping our opinions to ourselves unless we're asked for them first? And what's wrong with if we do have to oblige and actually give an opinion, doing so in more hushed tones and finish by saying, "but this really isn't the time or place to discuss politics, so why don't we change the subject?"

Perhaps in the interests of conflict resolution we should revisit the rules of polite society and avoid the conflict before it ever starts by just keeping our opinions on sensitive topics to ourselves unless we're in a venue where open political debate is truly welcome. Perhaps in this way, we all could instead focus on those things that bind us together.