The Founders On Immigration

I'm getting incredibly tired of hearing people say “but the United States is a nation of immigrants” or my personal favorite - “Everyone who isn't a Native American immigrated here illegally, so what makes us any different?” To quote a famous fictional Colonel, “HORSE HOCKEY!!!”

The “everyone not Native American” statement is so laughably easy to destroy that it's hardly worth the time, but I will, just get it out of the way. You can't be an “illegal immigrant” when there were no laws governing immigration at the time. And yes, it really is that simple.

The U.S. being a “nation of immigrants” isn't much harder. Eighty-five percent of the residents currently in the United States were born here. If you were born in this country, the simple fact of the matter is you are not an immigrant. Even if your parents arrived here 2 minutes (legally, I hope) before your birth, you're a natural-born American. That means you're NOT an immigrant; you're descended from immigrants. Do you get the difference, liberals, or do I need to break out the crayons and construction paper? And no, you can NOT eat the crayons, Barry.

A little while ago, I posted about multiculturalism being a significant factor in the death of this nation. Turns out, the Founders would've agreed with me. Here's just a small sampling of their thoughts on immigration and assimilation:

George Washington, in a letter to John Adams, stated that immigrants should be absorbed into American life so that “by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures, laws: in a word soon become one people.”

In a 1790 speech to Congress on the naturalization of immigrants, James Madison stated that America should welcome the immigrant who could assimilate, but exclude the immigrant who could not readily “incorporate himself into our society.”

Alexander Hamilton wrote in 1802: “The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education and family.”

Hamilton further warned that “The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another. The permanent effect of such a policy will be, that in times of great public danger there will be always a numerous body of men, of whom there may be just grounds of distrust; the suspicion alone will weaken the strength of the nation, but their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader.”

The survival of the American republic, Hamilton maintained, depends upon “the preservation of a national spirit and a national character.” “To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens the moment they put foot in our country would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian [Trojan] horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty.”

Liberals love to claim that conservatives are anti-immigrant (which, of course, means we're racist). Try telling Ted Cruz's father, a conservative and an immigrant, that he's “anti-immigrant.” We're not against immigration; we're against criminals (and let's be clear – that's exactly what they are) crossing our borders and being *rewarded* for doing so. We want immigrants to come here legally; we want the federal government to enforce the laws are already on the books; and we want a damn fence so we can avoid all of this in the future.

Michelle Malkin may have said it best: Many of us still have faith in a strong, sovereign America – the unhyphenated, the law-abiding, the gratitude-filled sons and daughters and grandchildren of legal immigrants for whom such distinctions still matter. But it’s no thanks to the assimilation saboteurs who put “one world” over “one nation under God.”

All that having been said – isn't it funny how much you can learn regarding what the Founders' vision for this nation really was just by reading their own words? It's called history, liberals. You might just try learning from it for once instead of trying to repeat it. ~ Hunter

A Speech Every American High School Principal Should Give

Today I bring to you a short speech, written by conservative talk show host Dennis Prager, that I truly wish every single public school principal across this great nation would give to their students at the start of every school year.

* * *

A Speech Every American High School Principal Should Give
By Dennis Prager .

To the students and faculty of our high school:

I am your new principal, and honored to be so.
There is no greater calling than to teach young people.

I would like to apprise you of some important changes coming to our school. I am making these changes because I am convinced that most of the ideas that have dominated public education in America have worked against you, against your teachers and against our country.

First , this school will no longer honor race or ethnicity.
I could not care less if your racial makeup is black, brown, red, yellow or white. I could not care less if your origins are African, Latin American, Asian or European, or if your ancestors arrived here on the Mayflower or on slave ships. The only identity I care about, the only one this school will recognize, is your individual identity -- your character, your scholarship, your humanity. And the only national identity this school will care about is American.

This is an American public school, and American public schools were created to make better Americans. If you wish to affirm an ethnic, racial or religious identity through school, you will have to go elsewhere. We will end all ethnicity, race and non-American nationality-based celebrations. They undermine the motto of America , one of its three central values – e pluribus Unum, "from many, one." And this school will be guided by America 's values. This includes all after-school clubs. I will not authorize clubs that divide students based on any identities. This includes race, language, religion, sexual orientation or whatever else may become in vogue in a society divided by political correctness.

Your clubs will be based on interests and passions, not blood, ethnic, racial or other physically defined ties. Those clubs just cultivate narcissism -- an unhealthy preoccupation with the self -- while the purpose of education is to get you to think beyond yourself. So we will have clubs that transport you to the wonders and glories of art, music, astronomy, languages you do not already speak, carpentry and more. If the only extracurricular activities you can imagine being interested in are those based on ethnic, racial or sexual identity, that means that little outside of yourself really interests you.

Second , I am uninterested in whether English is your native language. My only interest in terms of language is that you leave this school speaking and writing English as fluently as possible. The English language has united America 's citizens for over 200 years, and it will unite us at this school. It is one of the indispensable reasons this country of immigrants has always come to be one country. And if you leave this school without excellent English language skills, I would be remiss in my duty to ensure that you will be prepared to successfully compete in the American job market. We will learn other languages here -- it is deplorable that most Americans only speak English -- but if you want classes taught in your native language rather than in English, this is not your school.

Third , because I regard learning as a sacred endeavor , everything in this school will reflect learning's elevated status. This means, among other things, that you and your teachers will dress accordingly. Many people in our society dress more formally for Hollywood events than for church or school. These people have their priorities backward. Therefore, there will be a formal dress code at this school.

Fourth , no obscene language will be tolerated anywhere on this school's property -- whether in class, in the hallways or at athletic events. If you can't speak without using the f -word, you can't speak. By obscene language I mean the words banned by the Federal Communications Commission, plus epithets such as "Nigger," even when used by one black student to address another black, or "bitch," even when addressed by a girl to a girlfriend. It is my intent that by the time you leave this school, you will be among the few your age to instinctively distinguish between the elevated and the degraded, the holy and the obscene.

Fifth , we will end all self-esteem programs. In this school, self-esteem will be attained in only one way -- the way people attained it until decided otherwise a generation ago -- by earning it. One immediate consequence is that there will be one valedictorian, not eight.

Sixth , and last, I am reorienting the school toward academics and away from politics and propaganda. No more time will be devoted to scaring you about smoking and caffeine, or terrifying you about sexual harassment or global warming. No more semesters will be devoted to condom wearing and teaching you to regard sexual relations as only or primarily a health issue... There will be no more attempts to convince you that you are a victim because you are not white, or not male, or not heterosexual or not Christian. We will have failed if any one of you graduates this school and does not consider him or herself inordinately fortunate -- to be alive and to be an American.

Now, please stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of our country. As many of you do not know the words, your teachers will hand them out to you.

* * *

Multiculturalism is, I believe, one of the single biggest reasons we are failing, as a people, to pass on what it means to be an AMERICAN, not only to our children, but to the countless millions of immigrants that arrive in this country every year. And what kind of example do we set? We can't even be bothered to recite the Pledge of Allegiance or stand for the National Anthem anymore, for crying out loud.

How can we expect those who come here for a better life to become an American, when those of us who were born here don't even know what it means anymore, let alone practice it? ~ Hunter

Yep, It's STILL Bush's Fault

I was just perusing Twitter, and I came across a conversation about how the 1% and George Bush are to blame for the “Bush Recession.” Seriously, I thought I was going to stroke out my blood pressure rose so precipitously.

Don't get me wrong, spending under Bush was indeed ridiculous, and most true conservatives called him out repeatedly for it, but the lion's share of the blame goes to the democrats.  This is written tongue-in-cheek, but that doesn't make it any less true.

JAN. 3, 2007
The day the Democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was January 3rd 2007, the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, the start of the 110th Congress. The Democratic Party gained a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.

For those who are listening to the liberals, particularly King DingleBarry, propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault," think about this:
January 3rd, 2007, the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress:
The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
George Bush's economic policies set a record of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!

January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney “Hide the” Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd”ering Fool” took over the Senate Banking Committee.

The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?

Can you say Banking and Financial Services?

Thank the DEMOCRATS (especially Barney) for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5% GDP and 4.6% Unemployment...to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!

BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 times to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy. Barney blocked it and called it a "Chicken Little Philosophy" (yet the sky actually did fall).

And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? King DingleBarry.

And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie?
His Royal Lowness and the Democrat Congress, especially Barney.

So when someone tries to blame Bush – remember January 3rd, 2007.

Bush may have been in the car but the Democrats were in charge of the gas pedal and steering wheel, and they were driving the economy into the ditch.

Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party.

Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011.

In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until the Constant Campaigner could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budget.

And where was Vapid Vacationer during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009. Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period:

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes King DingleBarry, who voted for the budgets.

If the Perpetual Partisan inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.

In a nutshell, what the Empty Chair is saying is, "I inherited a deficit that I voted for,
And then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th, 2009.”

I have a question for the liberals reading this:  King DingleBarry was inaugurated in January 2009 - when does it get to be HIS fault? ~ Hunter

Operation Wetback, Or How The U.S. Dealt With Criminal Aliens In The Not-So-Distant Past

I've been hearing a lot of talk from politicians lately, from both sides of the aisle, about the impossibility of stopping, or at least slowing, the flood of illegals crossing our border with Mexico. “We just need to deal with it,” they say. “It's impossible to stop.” Every time I hear one of our elected representatives utter something along these lines, my mouth just drops open. The stupidity in just stunning, and remember, these are *supposed* to be the best and brightest among us. I did some digging into how the Unites States has dealt with the problem of criminal aliens before, and I was flabbergasted by what I found. With that in mind, I think it's time for another history lesson from For Love Of Country - this one about how the U.S. dealt with criminal aliens as recently as the mid-1950's.

Operation Wetback (I did NOT make that name up)

Prior to 1943, more Unites States Border Control Officers were stationed along the U.S.-Canadian border than the U.S.-Mexican border. Angry Mexican land and farm owners, frustrated with the Bracero program (Briefly, Bracero was a program in the U.S. Which allowed Mexican workers to cross the border to work as replacements for the men fighting in WW2. In short – Mexico was losing workers to the U.S.), pressured the Mexican government to call for a meeting in Mexico City with the United States Departments of Justice and State, as well as the Immigration and Naturalization Service and U.S. Border Patrol.

This meeting yielded increased border patrols along the southern border, with resultant increased deportations, yet criminal aliens still flooded across the border. Many deportees returned to the U.S. side of the border as quickly as their legs could carry them. To combat this, in 1945 the Mexican and American governments devised a strategy to deport Mexicans deeper into Mexico using planes, boats, and trains. In 1954, however, negotiations over the Bracero program stalled, prompting Mexico to station 5000 troops along the U.S.-Mexican border. In response, President Dwight D. Eisenhower appointed General Joseph Swing as INS Commissioner, charging him with mending border control issues so that the negotiations would stabilize.

While Operation Wetback wasn't formally announced until May 1954, planning between the General Swing-led INS and the Mexican government actually began earlier that same year. On 17 MAY 1954, command teams consisting of twelve Border Patrol Agents, buses, planes, and temporary processing stations began locating, processing, and deporting Mexicans in the United States illegally. A mere 750 Immigration and Border Patrol officers and investigators, 300 jeeps, cars, and buses, and seven aircraft were all that was allotted for the operation. Teams focused on the quick processing and deportation, while the planes were able to efficiently coordinate the ground efforts and increase mobility. Deportees were handed off to Mexican officials, who quickly sent them to central Mexico, where labor opportunities were plentiful. While Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Chicago were included in the operation, the main focus was on the border areas in Texas and California.

During the first year of Operation Wetback, there were 1,078,168 apprehensions and deportations were made overall, with 170,000 captured form just May to July 1954. The total number of apprehensions would fall to 242,608 in 1955, and continued falling year by year, until a slight rise in apprehended criminals in 1962.

During the entirety of Operation Wetback, border recruitment of criminal aliens by American farmers continued, largely due to the cheap labor of criminal aliens, as well as the desire of farmers to avoid the bureaucracy of the Bracero program; that illegal immigration continued, despite the efforts of Operation Wetback, was largely responsible for the “failure” of the program. Despite the decline in apprehensions, the total number of Border Patrol agents more than doubled to 1,692 by 1962, and an additional plane was also added to the force. In terms of apprehensions, Operation Wetback was immediately successful. The program would also result in a more permanent, strategic border control presence along the United States - Mexico border.

The United States government had shown that they do not tolerate illegal activities, sending back an average of 1,100 criminal aliens per day – in an age with no cell phones, no computers, and none of the sophisticated surveillance equipment accessible to law enforcement today. Oh, and they did it with approximately 1/10^th the manpower that Border Patrol has today.

The problems we have with illegal immigration can never be solved if we don't secure the border first (which, by the way, is the “law of the land”- just like Obamacare). Our own history shows that. To the members of Congress that may read this, I say - BUILD THE DAMN FENCE!!!

And yes, it really IS that simple. ~ Hunter

Context Matters

Imagine you're walking down the street, minding your own business, just window shopping for nothing in particular and everything in general. You reach the corner, and when you glance up, you notice a business on the opposite corner, with a sign posted prominently out front that reads:

We Would Rather Do Business With

1,000 Al Qaeda Terrorists

Than With One Single American Soldier!

Reading it, your blood begins to boil. I mean, what decent, red-blooded, patriotic American WOULDN'T be upset by this? How DARE they?! If it wasn't for the United States military, that business might not exist, and they certainly wouldn't be able to put up a sign like that. Their “free speech” only exists because the military ensures it exists.

By the time the light changes, allowing you to cross the street, you're positively fuming. You decide you're going to march into the business and read everyone in there the riot act, from the owner right on down to the lowliest employee, and you're not going to hold back!!!

Reaching the front door, seeing red, pulling the door open, you take a deep breath as you're about to start yelling at the first employee you see. That's when you read the name of the business painted on the glass of the front door - Malloy's Funeral Home.

Suddenly chagrined and humbled, you turn around and walk out.

The moral? Context matters. ~ Hunter

Have We Lost The Fight Against Abortion?

Folks, I've come to believe that we have lost the fight. I did not reach this decision lightly - in fact, I didn't think we'd lost until I saw this picture.

This is a 19-week-old fetus, otherwise known as a human baby. His name is Walter Joshua Fretz. He was born alive, and before God called him home, he knew his mother's love as she cuddled him, counted his fingers and toes, kissed his head, and felt his tiny heart beat.

Take a good, long, hard look. How *anyone* can deny the humanity of this baby is utterly beyond me. Does this really look like it's just a "blob of cells"? Why does a human being deserve less protection and concern than sea turtle eggs, a rare frog's habitat, or a fish? Americans have become jaded to the value of human life, especially the weakest among us.

Have we become so selfish as a people that we don't want to believe that what we're doing, the culture we're perpetuating, the legacy we're leaving for future generations – all of it – is wrong, if not downright evil? How do we look our children in the eyes and tell them, “You're the one I chose to live?”

If you want to protest against the death penalty, that's fine. I don't have a problem with that. I think you're wrong and naive, but that's just my opinion. Don't stand there, however, and lecture me about how wrong it is to put a convicted murderer to death, that it's cruel and inhumane, yet in the same conversation express your support for abortion (yes, that conversation actually happened).

How can a person be so against the execution of someone who knew right from wrong, yet still made the choice to commit a crime deserving of the death penalty, yet believe that the choice to murder the truly innocent is somehow a good thing? That kind of dichotomy is utterly and forever beyond my ken.

Until we can turn the tide and bring this to an end, we cannot win this fight. As it stands right now, I don't believe the nation we grew up in, the land we love, will ever grace the planet with her presence again.

Please don't misunderstand – I will NEVER stop fighting to put an end to abortion. When what should have been my second child was murdered almost 20 years, at roughly the same age as Walter, I was devastated. I mourn that child every day of my life, almost as much now as I did then. I wonder what she'd look like, sound like. I miss the laughter I never heard, the love my son and I got cheated of, the life that never was. I missed out on the proverbial “Daddy's Little Girl,” which is something I'll regret until my dying day. ~ Hunter

Walter's mother, Lexi, took some incredible pictures of Walter, which you can see here, and you can read Lexi and Walter's incredible story in her own words here.

One Of The Left's "Great Distractions" - Income Inequality

Lately, we've been hearing renewed talk about “income inequality,” one of the Great Distractions put forth by the Left. After King DingleBarry met with Pope Francis the other day, His Royal Lowness (that's Obama to you liberals out there), had a brief press conference in which he proclaimed that income inequality was the main focus of the discussion. The Vatican, however, said otherwise, but that's another subject.

With all this talk about income inequality, I thought it might be a good time to remind people what that phrase – or rather, what their supposed “solutions” to it - really means – socialism. Basically, they plan to take from one to give to another - be it through higher taxes on those who make more or artificially inflating the wages of those who make less. There's really no other way to describe it, and we should, all of us, be wary of it.

You cannot make everyone truly equal by making the rich poorer. It has never worked. The great Benjamin Franklin knew that in the days before there was an actual "welfare class."

“For my own part, I am not so well satisfied of the goodness of this thing. I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. — I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. There is no country in the world where so many provisions are established for them; so many hospitals to receive them when they are sick or lame, founded and maintained by voluntary charities; so many alms-houses for the aged of both sexes, together with a solemn general law made by the rich to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor. Under all these obligations, are our poor modest, humble, and thankful; and do they use their best endeavours to maintain themselves, and lighten our shoulders of this burthen? — On the contrary, I affirm that there is no country In the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent.” - Benjamin Franklin - (On the Price of Corn, and Management of the Poor For the LONDON CHRONICLE, 1766)

Forced "equality" leads to one thing above all others - a class system: The same kind of class system that the Founders and Framers tried so hard to avoid. Does the phrase "all men are created equal" ring any bells?

The fact of the matter is that there can never be "true equality" amongst human beings. There will *always* be someone better at the same job, smarter, faster, more innovative than you, or me, or anyone else. That's simply the way it is and nothing can change that.

One of the things that made these United States the envy of the world in so short a time was both the premise and promise, that the circumstances of your birth mattered very little in what you could accomplish in your life: That you were the master of your own destiny, on the whole.

I know *how* people have forgotten this - social engineering in public schools, where our children are taught that competition is bad, that no one is better than anyone else, which is a patently false notion. I might even be able to narrow down the *when* – say the “Department of Education” and the radical leftists who've been running it for forty-plus years?

What I can't figure out is the *why* - why we have forgotten what America means, or used to mean to the world. This was the nation to which everyone wanted to belong. People yearned to be as free as Americans – free to make their own way, to do what they wanted, live where they wanted – without the destructive influence of a massive, bloated government.

What REALLY bothers me, what really sticks in my craw, is what's going to be required to bring that all back. God help us all when - not if - that day comes. ~ Hunter

The Faults And Foibles Of Fast Food Foolishness

Last week in Philadelphia, PA, and approximately thirty other cities, protests were held against McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's, KFC, Papa John's, Taco Bell, Arby's, Hardees, and several other fast food companies to highlight the “low wages” these companies pay their employees. My first thought was probably the same as yours: Here we go again...

What are they seeking, you ask? The protesters are calling for a living wage of $15 an hour.

Yes, you read that correctly - $15 per hour.   Now people are calling on these companies to raise wages to a point where people can support a family off of them.

My question to you is – do you notice anything “special” about these companies?  I do – there is not a single one which requires more than a minimum of skill whatsoever to work for them.   I'm sorry, but it's true.   You can quibble all you want, but having worked fast food before, along with a plethora of other jobs, I have firsthand knowledge that minimum skills are required.

These are entry-level jobs, primarily intended for young people.  You're certainly not supposed to raise a family with the pay scale that working these jobs begets.  They're for entry (hence the term “entry-level.”  Do you get it, liberals?) into the workforce.  These jobs are normally used as a stepping-stone to a better job with better pay after you put in some time and effort.  You acquire the better job and pay with experience and/or education.  Most people don't just walk into a high paying job, and certainly not working at fast food restaurants when just about anyone can walk in off the street and do that job.

I know that there are people who have been laid off from well-paying jobs, and are forced to accept anything they can take, including flipping burgers, just to put food on the table.  Most of them realize that they're just marking time until something better opens up for them.  This isn't about them.  This is about those who are doing nothing to improve their situation themselves, instead relying on either the government to mandate a minimum wage increase - which will cause even further destruction of jobs and the workforce than has already been done – or to put pressure on the companies to raise their pay far beyond what those jobs are actually worth.

Anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty, and a basic grasp of business economics, will tell you that any and all costs incurred by a company will eventually get passed on to the consumer. It's almost an immutable law of business.  The reason for that is quite simple:  Every business that exists operates primarily to make a profit (that really IS an immutable law of business). In order to make that profit, costs must be passed on, and some of those cost is the wages that are paid to employees.   When wages go up, prices must necessarily go up, if only to keep the profit margin (again, profit is the main motivating factor for a business to exist).  In fact, the only entity that remains operating without turning a profit is a government, which should tell you pretty much everything you need to know right there.

There are many different theories about how wages for employees are determined.  I won't go into them all, but the one that seems to make the most sense to me is a two-fold one:

1. The more workers there are that want, or can do, a particular job, the less that job will pay. It's simple “supply and demand.”  The more “supply,” the less “demand” to pay a higher wage.
2. A worker's skill set, experience, education, and/or union membership play a significant role in determining a salary for a given worker or job.  The more skilled and experienced, the more educated one is, the more likely it is one will earn more for a given job.   Trade unions tend to skew this towards inflating wages beyond a job's true value, however.

To add a little context to that $15 per hour figure that the protesters are seeking, I am presently employed as a machinist.  My pay rate is $13.42 per hour.  My job requires a decent amount of skill to perform; certainly more than what's required to operate a deep fryer, microwave, or even a grill. I was, until recently, the lowest paid machinist in the shop, for two simple reasons:   I had the least amount of experience, and the least amount of skill.  I don't, however, begrudge and protest against those who get paid more than I do.  I work hard to gain the experience that I need so that eventually I, too, will receive a higher wage.

I know I'm probably going to catch hell for this post, but I don't care.  When it comes to wages, the market pays what said market is willing to bear.  Yes, there are high and low extremes, but economics is economics.  Think about it like this: You wouldn't go spend $800 for a flatscreen TV that you can get elsewhere for $350, would you?  Why, then, should employers be *expected* to pay more than a job is worth paying?  Yes, it really IS that simple.

Those protesting against the pay that they voluntarily agreed to receive will be amongst the first to wonder why their place of employment closed down, should they get their wish of $15 per hour.  While I don't want to see anyone lose their job, especially in the Obama economy, I think it would be a valuable lesson to those willing to learn from it, as well as a delicious irony. ~ Hunter

A Country Founded By Geniuses But Run By Idiots

Just to lighten things up a bit, I present to you a masterpiece of political commentary. ~ Hunter

A Country Founded by Geniuses but Run by Idiots

If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for entering and remaining in the country illegally — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If you have to get your parents’ permission to go on a field trip or to take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If you MUST show your identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor, or check out a library book and rent a video, but not to vote for who runs the government — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If the government wants to prevent stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines that hold more than ten rounds, but gives twenty F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new leaders in Egypt — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If, in the nation’s largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not one 24-ounce soda, because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If an 80-year-old woman or a three-year-old girl who is confined to a wheelchair can be strip-searched by the TSA at the airport, but a woman in a burka or a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If a seven-year-old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher is “cute,” but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government regulation and intrusion, while not working is rewarded with Food Stamps, WIC checks, Medicaid benefits, subsidized housing, and free cell phones — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If the government’s plan for getting people back to work is to provide incentives for not working, by granting 99 weeks of unemployment checks, without any requirement to prove that gainful employment was diligently sought, but couldn’t be found — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If you pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big-screen TV, while your neighbor buys iPhones, time shares, a wall-sized do-it-all plasma screen TV and new cars, and the government forgives his debt when he defaults on his mortgage — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If being stripped of your Constitutional right to defend yourself makes you more “safe” according to the government — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

What a country!

How about we give God a reason to continue blessing America?

Reid-iculous Moments, Or We Did This To Ourselves

Ladies and gentlemen, on 21 MAR 14, Senate Majority Leader “Dingy” Harry Reid, in a stunning display of stupidity, even for him, declared that “all” of the “horror stories” coming out about Obamacare are “untrue.” Because THAT many people from all corners of this country, from all walks of life, and across the entire political spectrum are somehow conspiring against this president to derail the single worst piece of legislation ever devised, passed, and implemented. No, seriously, he ACTUALLY said that.

Yep, I laughed too...

Not to be outdone, however, Harry Reid-iculous decided to one-up even HIS rampant and rather obvious lack of intelligence. For what seems like the 8,295^th time, a decision was made to delay some part of the law; this time the enrollment deadline. The reason? Well, how about I just let Mister Reid-iculous tell it his way:

“Explaining the reasoning behind the latest Obamacare delay, Reid-iculous said too many people just didn’t know to use their computer properly and needed more time. Apparently, it had nothing to do with the well-documented failings of the website that have embarrassed the White House for months.”

“Dingy” Harry also said that people weren’t “educated on how to use the Internet.”

“We have hundreds of thousands of people who tried to sign up who didn’t get through,” he said. “There are some people who are not like my grandchildren who can handle everything so easily on the Internet, and these people need a little extra time. It’s not — the example they gave us is a 63-year-old woman came into the store and said, ‘I almost got it. Every time I just about got there, it would cut me off.’ We have a lot of people just like this through no fault of the Internet, but because people are not educated on how to use the Internet.”

I'm sorry, Harry, but since the internet as we know it has been in existence since the late 1980's to early 1990's, depending on who you ask (Not YOU, Algore), I'm pretty sure most people here in the United States have at least a passable working knowledge of how to use the internet. Even my own mother and father, who will 66 and 68 this year, respectively, know how to use the world wide web. My generation is the one that built the internet into what it is today (for good or ill remains to be seen), but our children – you know, the ones your monstrosity requires in order for it to work – are the true masters of it. Do you HONESTLY believe they're too “uneducated” on the workings of the web?

There are times when I wonder if liberals really are as stupid as we think they are, or if they're trying to put one over on us. I mean, seriously, how can anyone truly be as helmet-wearing, window-licking, crayon-eating STUPID as they appear to be, yet still be breathing? I know, I know – breathing is an autonomic function, but even so, they are beyond ridiculous at this point.

I long for the days when the political class still had a sense of honor and pride in what they did, when they realized that holding a higher office meant you were a SERVANT of “We the People,” and were less concerned with staying in office than doing the work they were sent to Washington to do. I yearn for a citizenry that was truly informed by a free and open press; a press that wasn't a willing participant in an agenda so destructive to the American people.

Most of all, however, I wish that “We the People” hadn't abrogated our responsibilities to the greatest nation that has ever existed. The sad fact of the matter is that it's OUR fault that Harry Reid-iculous, and others like him are still in office.

We did this to ourselves, and that, my friends, is the saddest thing of all. ~ Hunter

A Lesson For The Economically Challenged

"The key insight of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations is misleadingly simple: if an exchange between two parties is voluntary, it will not take place unless both believe they will benefit from it. Most economic fallacies derive from the neglect of this simple insight, from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another." - Milton Friedman

“The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.” - Michelle Obama

Here we have two quotes. One by a Nobel Prizewinning economic GENIUS, the other by an economic dunce. I think you can guess which is which.

I *loathe* hearing the “piece of the pie” economic “argument,” especially when it comes from people who can't seem to be bothered enough to actually think for themselves, those who seem to think that there's a fixed amount of wealth in the world, and that what *I* earn comes at the expense of someone else, as Mr. Friedman so ably stated above.

All one needs to do to prove that the pie gets bigger, with more wealth being created over time, is find 2 pictures of almost any city (with a few exceptions – Detroit, anyone?); one from about a century ago, and one from today. Compare them, really study them.

Notice the difference? If there's just a set amount of wealth in the world, where did all those improvements come from? Those of you reading this post on a mobile device, be it a tablet, smart-phone, laptop, whatever it may be – where did the wealth come from to create those gadgets?

In order to get down to the basic, unadulterated facts, let's leave government interference, in the forms of excessive taxation, unnecessary regulations, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum, aside for this discussion. Trust me - if we didn't, we'd be here for five years before we reached the start, let alone the actual point.

I know the economics and arithmetic challenged liberals aren't going to understand what I'm about to say – a fact that makes this even better for me – but think about it like this: Suppose I write a book and have it published. This book sells far and wide, and it sells tremendously well, garnering me millions upon millions of dollars. Suddenly, I'm a very wealthy man.

On the surface, to those who persist upon seeing a “fixed pie,” it appears that I achieved my new-found and ill-gotten wealth by taking money from others, while they got nothing in return. They don't get a part of my “share” of the pie. The reality, however, is far different.

Those who purchased my hypothetical book not only received the book, they presumably also got some enjoyment from reading it. They were provided a product AND a service, for which I was compensated, thus making the transaction mutually beneficial. As an added bonus, that transaction helped pay the salaries of the people who published, printed, stored, shipped, and sold the book, increasing their wealth as well. Not a single person was actually deprived of anything; nobody “lost” their piece of the pie, as it were.

That's called capitalism, also known as the free market. It's the only known economic system that consistently lifts people out of poverty, raises standards of living, and ensures what you leave behind is better than what you found. The sooner the “big government” leftists understand this, the better off we'll all be. Yes, even THEM!!! ~ Hunter

Please give my Facebook page a “Like.”

The Truth About DemoKKKrat Racism (Part Two)

Next up, civil rights era Democrat racism. You'll never learn this in any history book.

This is a list of segregationist state governors in office during the Civil Rights era. Something to notice - they're all Democrat, with one exception – Strom Thurmond, and even he started as a southern Democrat. This is part of the Democrat legacy of racism and the historical record.

• Ross Barnett, Governor of Mississippi (Democrat).
• C. Farris Bryant, Governor of Florida (Democrat).
• Harry F. Byrd, Governor of Virginia (Democrat).
• Francis Cherry, Governor of Arkansas (Democrat).
• Jimmie Davis, Governor of Louisiana (Democrat).
• Orval Faubus, Governor of Arkansas (Democrat).
• Marvin Griffin, Governor of Georgia (Democrat).
• Paul B. Johnson, Jr., Governor of Mississippi (Democrat).
• Robert F. Kennon, Governor of Louisiana (Democrat).
• Lester Maddox, Governor of Georgia (Democrat, American Independent).
• John McKeithen, Governor of Louisiana (Democrat).
• W. Lee O'Daniel, Governor of Texas (Democrat)
• John Malcolm Patterson, Governor of Alabama (Democrat)
• Strom Thurmond, Governor and U.S. senator from South Carolina (Democrat, States' Rights Democrat, Republican)
• John Bell Williams, Governor of Mississippi (Democrat)
• Fielding L. Wright, Governor of Mississippi (Democrat)

The 1964 Civil Rights Act Roll Call Vote: In the House, only 64 percent of the Democrats (153 yes, 91 no), but 80 percent of the Republicans (136 yes, 35 no), voted for it. In the Senate, while only 68 percent of the Democrats endorsed the bill (46 yes, 21 no), 82 percent of the Republicans voted to enact it (27 yes, 6 no). Again, these facts are a matter of historical record. The 1964 Civil Rights Act could not, and would not, passed without Republican support.

Republican President Dwight Eisenhower sent troops into the South to desegregate the schools, and appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision.

The Republicans also:

• Enacted civil rights laws in the 1950’s and 1960’s, over the objection of Democrats.
• Founded the HBCU’s (Historical Black College’s and Universities) and started the NAACP to counter the racist practices of the Democrats.
• Pushed through much of the ground-breaking civil rights legislation in Congress.
• Fought slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom, citizenship and the right to vote.
• Pushed through much of the groundbreaking civil rights legislation from the 1860s through the 1960s.
• Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, was the one who pushed through the civil rights laws of the 1960’s.
• Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois wrote the language for the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
• Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing.
• Republican and black American, A. Phillip Randolph, organized the 1963 March by Dr. King on Washington.

Thaddeus Stevens, a Radical Republican, introduced legislation to give African Americans the so-called 40 acres and a mule and Democrats overwhelmingly voted against the bill. History reveals that Democrats lynched, burned, mutilated and murdered thousands of blacks and completely destroyed entire towns and communities occupied by middle class Blacks, including Rosewood, Florida, the Greenwood District in Tulsa Oklahoma, and Wilmington, North Carolina to name a few.

The light of history also reveals that it was Abolitionists and Radical Republicans such as Henry L. Morehouse and General Oliver Howard that started many of the traditional Black colleges, while Democrats fought to keep them closed. Many traditional Black colleges are named after white Republicans.

After almost exclusively giving Democrats their votes for the past 50-plus years, the average black American cannot point to one piece of civil rights legislation sponsored solely by the Democratic Party that was specifically designed to eradicate the unique problems that black community faces today.

The real record isn't pretty, is it liberals? Don't worry, I'm not done yet.

After the Civil Rights Act was signed in 1964, and President Johnson signs the Voting Rights Act in 1965, black voters completed their wholesale change from being exclusively Republican voters to Democrats. Three factors come into play, but in no way does “party switch” play into it.

Kennedy and King:

The defining issues of the early 1960's were of equality and civil rights. Marches and protests were taking place across the country, and rightly so.

President John F. Kennedy, requests Senator Harris Wofford's aid in planting Kennedy firmly on the correct side of history concerning the Civil Rights movement. Upon a suggestion from Sen. Wofford, Kennedy places a phone call to Coretta Scott King, when her husband had been arrested and jailed. This call affected Martin Luther King Jr's father - a Republican and Richard Nixon supporter - so deeply, he very publicly threw his support to the Democrats, declaring he'd bring “a suitcase full of votes” along, which he did. When the father of the most famous and prominent Civil Rights leader switches sides, a great many will naturally follow.

Civil Rights Legislation:

The 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act were passed by a Congress wherein Democrats were the majority, and they were signed into law by a Democratic president. This had a powerful effect on public opinion.

The ironies involved were many. Both pieces legislation had essentially been authored by Republicans. As a percentage of the party, a greater percentage of Republicans voted for both bills than did Democrats. And a cadre of Democrats filibustered the 1964 bill in an attempt to prevent its passage. Al Gore Sr. was an active participant in this filibuster, as was the lifelong liberal Democrat, Robert “KKK” Byrd (an avowed and unabashed racist and former Klansman).

Simply put, both bills could not have been passed without the actions of Republicans, not to mention that both were just modern versions of civil rights legislation that Republicans had passed - and Democrats had systematically undone - 100 years earlier.

Last, but not least – The Southern Strategy:

Misguided, at best, just plain stupid, at worst; in the presidential election of 1960, the Nixon campaign decided to go after votes in the South. The South had been, from the beginning of the country, solidly Democrat, but fractures had begun to appear in this monolithic support, and the Nixon campaign felt they could make enough headway there to turn the tide. This was called the "Southern Strategy." Nixon's campaign and Republicans contended that they were appealing to traditional American values. Their Democrat opponents countered that they were appealing to underlying racism pervasive in the South.

Whatever the truth was, the Democrats' characterization of the Southern Strategy gained enough traction to have an effect. Ironically, there was still institutionalized racism in the South at that time, but it was still being expressed almost exclusively by Democrats. Southern Democrat governors, such as Faubus of Arkansas, Wallace of Alabama, and Barnett of Mississippi, were standing in doorways of schools, calling out the National Guard, and even closing them all down for a year to prevent their integration.

Here's the absolute, unvarnished truth – there was no “party switch,” no “ideology switch.” Face it – there was no switching anything, plain and simple. People will say that Republicans were “liberal” or “reformers” before, and after, the Civil War. That is an intellectually, not to mention historically, dishonest argument.

Here's the important part: The fact of the matter is that Republicans then, and conservatives now, favor strict interpretation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. You know, like the part that says “all men were created EQUAL.” (Do NOT turn this into a gender issue) I've read the Constitution – as far as I can recall, the rights and freedoms enumerated therein make no reference to skin color.

It's Republicans and conservatives that desire a color-blind society. We actually BELIEVE people should be judged by the “content of their character.” We don't care what your racial, ethnic, religious, or socio-economic background is. All that matters is that you believe in the Constitution the way it was written, and the way it was meant to be understood.

Liberals and Democrats do nothing BUT label people, turn them into hyphenated Americans, which leads to racism. Believing a people of a certain color can't succeed on their own merits is racism, hidden under the guise of compassion. Keeping a people beholden to a system that does nothing to actually help those people is stupid. Maintaining that system is pure evil. ~ Hunter

The Truth About DemoKKKrat Racism (Part One), Plus Charlie Rangel Is An Idiot

Over the last several months, a few liberal democrats (intentional lowercase “d” to show my absolute disrespect for them) have acquired diarrhea of the mouth and calling Republicans and conservatives the dreaded “R-word” - racists. They've focused on the Tea Party in particular, which is pretty strange considering there's a great many prominent black conservatives who identify with the Tea Party. Kevin Jackson, Allen West, Herman Cain, Mia Love, Reverend C. L. Bryant, to name a few.

The word “racist” is thrown around so often anymore that it's becoming quite meaningless. Personally, having that particular pejorative hurled at me is almost a badge of honor. What it tells me is that the user has nothing left to bring to the table; their “facts” have been proved false, their opinions obliterated. Their house of cards has fallen. When someone charges ME with racism, I know I've won.

Why do I bring this up, you ask? It's pretty simple, really. Democrats always like to forget – very conveniently, I might add – their party's sordid history of racism. They like to transfer their own misdeeds onto the Republican party, apparently not realizing that it's all a matter of historical record. They truly never cease to amaze me.

Take good ole Representative Charlie Rangel, for instance. Six or seven days ago, the New York democrat, in a decidedly stunning display of idiocy, declared that Tea Party members are, and I quote, “mean, racist people....Because in those red states, they're the slave-holding states. They had the Confederate flag. They're now the Tea Party; they still got the Confederate [flag]. I don't think that's a coincidence.” Of course, we all know just how active the states of Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, North and South Dakota, and Nebraska really were during the Civil War (that would be not at all for those of you who believe as Rangel does). Let's not mention that both Virginia and Florida, states that actually WERE in the Confederacy, were carried by the Constant Campaigner in 2012. That can be our little secret, OK?

For the record, I think Charlie Rangel is an idiot of the highest magnitude; a crayon-eating, window-licking buffoon. He is one of the poster children for what ails this nation, and I really don't think that can be stated often enough, or over-emphasized. To call the “red states” out as racist, simply because some of them USED to be part of the Confederacy, just smacks of stupidity.

With all that being said, I'd like to review the democrats LLLOOONNNGGG history of racism. And because it's so long, I'm going to split it up into what I hope are tolerable portions. I hope that this can help you educate those that will listen. Part one starts right now:

Let's call a spade a spade, shall we? And by that, I ONLY mean call something WHAT IT IS (and it's really sad I have to explain that).

Racism in this country still exists, in an institutionalized form, much like the very real slavery of the past. It's hard to say that, but it's true. That being said, I know most of our fans know where, and from whom, collectively, it originates and resides today. If you just said liberals/progressives/democrats, you'd be absolutely correct. This post is more for the liberals I *know* are watching the page right now.

Here are just a few examples:

1. Dr. Benjamin Carson has been called “Uncle Tom” how many times, by how many people on the left?
2. Alfonzo Rachel has been accused of trying to be “too white.”
3. Clarence Thomas, Allen West, Mia Love, Condi Rice, Herman Cain – hell, even Colin Powell way back when – ALL of them vilified by the left.

What do these people all have in common? They all either ARE, or lean heavily to, the RIGHT (Colin Powell not so much anymore). These people REFUSE, and rightfully so, to place themselves in any kind of “box.” They simply are who they are – AMERICANS.

Some believe that to be conservative, you must BE racist, that what you want to “conserve” is the deep-south, pre-Civil War, plantation slavery mentality, and nation we had. If you look at actual HISTORY, nothing could be further from the truth.

In 1865, Republicans pass the 13th Amendment, ending slavery. 100% of Republicans vote for it.
Even among northern Democrats, it receives the support of only 23%.

In 1866, Democrats form the KKK with the express purpose of preventing the election of Republicans in the South. Democrats admit - under oath in Congressional hearings in 187 - that the Klan is a Democrat creation intended to restore Democrat control of the South. The Klan carries out this plan by means of a series of massacres at Republican Party meetings. Their purpose was to kill Republicans, to drive Republicans from the South, and to prevent blacks from voting or serving as elected officials. They killed a lot of people.

Three years after Appomattox, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, granting blacks citizenship in the United States, came before Congress: 94 percent of Republicans endorsed it.

The first grand wizard of the KKK was honored at the 1868 Democratic National Convention, and no Democrats voted for the 14th Amendment to grant citizenship to former slaves.

These are but a few - and more importantly, WELL DOCUMENTED - examples of Democrat racism in the years immediately after the Civil War. The list is really quite long. ~ Hunter

The Language Of Abortion "Rights" From The Left, Or How To Speak Moron

Liberals love to throw around terms like “reproductive rights,” “free to choose,” and my personal favorite - “reproductive slavery” when they're defending their choice to murder a pre-born human being. Let's take them one-by-one, shall we?

Pro-choice: Being pro-choice means you're pro-murder. You ACTIVELY seek the willful and deliberate destruction of another human being. That's perilously close to the legal definition of murder in any jurisdiction in America. Please, I'm begging the crayon-eaters (that's you, liberals) NOT to chime in about how it's not a human until it's born because science and medicine say otherwise. There is no way you can dispute the science of which you liberals are so fond. Of course, since we Tea Party members have a better grasp of science than you, maybe we can explain it to you.

And naturally, pro-choice doesn't extend to the size soda you want to drink, where you wish to educate your child, the RIGHT to bear arms (which, I remind you, actually IS in the Constitution, unlike abortion), buying health insurance, and a whole host of other choices you liberal nitwits want to limit, does it?

Reproductive rights: Has there ever been a more dichotomous phrase? I'm sorry – isn't ABORTION diametrically OPPOSITE reproduction?

One of the definitions of reproduce is: Produce offspring: to produce offspring or new individuals through a sexual or asexual process.

One of the definitions of abortion is: Operation to end pregnancy; an operation or other intervention to end a pregnancy by removing an embryo or fetus from the womb.

Yeah... They sound similar, don't they? Let me see if I got this straight: You're not too ashamed enough to turn away from the murder of the only innocent party in a pregnancy, but you ARE too ashamed to call it what it is? Can you be any more hypocritical?

Right to choose: According to Hunter's Guide to Liberal Idiocy (no, it's not a real book, YET), right to choose means choice to murder. There's no other way to put it. It's documented scientific and medical FACT that human life begins at conception. That's indisputable. Murder is the willful and deliberate taking of another human life. That's inarguable. Abortion is the removal of a BABY from the womb to terminate a pregnancy. The only way you can do that is to KILL it, deliberately.

Last, but certainly not least; reproductive slavery. What does this even mean? You can't equate slavery with pregnancy; you just can't. Slaves never have a choice whether they want to be slaves. There is a veritable plethora of ways to avoid getting pregnant before it happens. Leading the way, of course, is the only tries-and-true, 100% guaranteed-to-always-work way to not get pregnant: ABSTINENCE!!! If you do not have sex, you cannot get pregnant (I hope that wasn't too scientific for you, crayon-eaters). Add in the nearly unlimited choices in low-cost birth control methods, and there should never be an unwanted pregnancy in this country, EVER.

You can quibble over semantics all you want, but what it boils down to is you want to play without having to pay. You want a repercussion-free life, and the sad fact of the matter is that the baby that YOU created is the only one who really pays. ~ Hunter

****Please note that I realize rape and incest are completely different circumstances, and although I will ALWAYS believe it's wrong to abort in those cases, I *can* understand them to a certain degree.****

Why Obamacare WILL Fail

One of the biggest reasons Obamacare WILL fail is the lack of insurance underwriting. For those who don't know what underwriting is, allow me to explain.

Underwriting is one of the aspects of insurance that makes most everyone's eyes glaze over. Underwriters deal with statistics - they’re number crunchers. Most people who have an insurance policy don’t even know that at some point their application passed through an underwriter’s hands.

An underwriter’s job is to make sure that the insurance company charges just the right amount for the coverage it provides. They figure out how much risk you represent, how much coverage the company can offer you, and how much that coverage should cost.

Insurance is based on risk. When you get an insurance policy, the insurance company is taking on some of your risk. For example, if you drive a car, you have a risk that your car will be damaged in an accident. Having auto insurance means that if the car does get damaged, the insurance company will pay for the repairs. By having a policy, your risk is lower.

The insurance company makes up for the risk it takes on by charging premiums and setting deductibles. If a company charges too little, it could go bankrupt when large claims are filed. But if a company charges too much, it will lose business to its competition.

Insurance companies, like any other business, want to stay competitive, not to mention open for business AND make a profit, so it's understandable why underwriting is important to them, as well as their customers. Keeping claim payouts to a minimum is a very important factor determining profitability. The role of underwriting in an insurance company's profitability cannot be understated. Underwriters assess the potential for future risk by analyzing various consumer reports, attempting to determine the likelihood of a policyholder or applicant making a claim.

In the People's Paradise of New Jersey, where I live (yay), health insurance underwriting isn't really underwriting anymore. Your individual risk to the company no longer factors into the process, and the result is ridiculously high premiums.

Without the ability to price health insurance plans based on your medical history, insurance carriers can't anticipate how much money they might have to spend. For people with serious health needs, this is an advantage because in states where medical underwriting is permitted, their premiums may be higher. Because insurance companies in New Jersey are not allowed, however, to adjust prices on most products for age, gender, smoking habits, and health status, prices tend to be very expensive even for the young and healthy. Consequently, health insurance rates in New Jersey are some of the highest in the country.

Since health insurance companies in New Jersey can't adjust rates based on past medical treatment, they have been authorized to price certain plans based on "Modified Community" data. For all plans except "Basic and Essential" policies, your age is the only factor that effects policy premiums. However, New Jersey health insurance companies also offer cheaper, limited-benefit policies called Basic and Essential plans that cover only the most major incidents and contain significant limitations on covered services. If the carrier's analysis of treatment and claims reveals patterns of increased use and risk in certain geographic regions or within demographic populations, Basic and Essential policy prices for an entire age group, a gender, or consumers living in certain areas may be increased.

This lesson was learned by Massachusetts, after it adopted its own skinny version of Obamacare. To meet the law’s costs, insurers hiked premiums. Massachusetts’ regulators blocked the increases. All the plans reported losses the very next quarter.

Massachusetts regulators went after the underlying source of spending – peoples’ use of medical services. First and foremost, that meant taking on the providers. Massachusetts moved to regulate the prices that doctors and hospitals could charge and the kind of services that they could offer. Rates are rising nationally because, like Massachusetts, Obamacare guarantees more free medical services while doing nothing to make the market for these things more efficient, or competitive. Again, like Massachusetts, some form of price controls is the next political chapter.

What happens when government sets price controls? Setting a maximum price generally will lead to lower supply. There will also be a shortage, demand will exceed supply; this causes consumers to want more of the product than producers have available. When the federal government restricted gas price increases in the 1970s, long lines formed at gas stations and only those motorists who waited long hours in line received the scarce gasoline. Price controls distort the working of the market and lead to over-supply (by setting a minimum price) or shortage. It's simple supply and demand; when you distort either, you have problems.

And guess what else has the same restrictions on underwriting as New Jersey and Massachusetts AND has the “Modified Community” risk assessment? If you answered Obamcare, you'd be entirely correct. Sounds great, doesn't it?

I honestly believe, without a doubt in my mind, that had King DingleBarry REALLY wanted to fix the healthcare industry's rising prices, removing the restrictions on the interstate sale of insurance, and allowing honest competition in the free-market, would have done wonders the likes of which government can only DREAM. And since we all know he just LOVES his Imperial Decrees (that's Executive Orders for the liberals out there), he could have done that with the stroke of his pen – no law needed.

This wanton destruction of 1/6 – 1/5 (depending on who you listen to) of the American economy isn't accidental or an unintended consequence of well-meaning incompetence. This is deliberate. What I want to know is when people are going to WAKE UP!!! ~ Hunter

The Fall Of A Great Land

There was once a great nation with rolling hills, vast open prairies, plentiful lakes and streams, and mountains that reached the sky. It was the envy of all the world around it. People wanted to become part of it, to partake in the good things of that nation, the opportunities it offered to become more than they would have been.

The great positions of power were filled with good men, those who had sacrificed much to tame the land, build the cities. As a whole, they were fair and just to all. And the nation became the richest, most powerful the world had ever seen, and the people were happy.

There were injustices, and the good men attempted to end them, but were thwarted time and again by evil men who did not believe these injustices were wrong. Over time, and after many hard-fought battles, the good men triumphed, setting right the wrongs that had been allowed to fester for so long. Sadly, however, the descendants of those evil men eventually took power in this nation. They created many more injustices, different from before, but they had the same effects.

This land's wealth was once measured by the land it possessed. As the nation's citizens vastly increased in numbers, this “land wealth” was slowly, inexorably replaced by taxation.

By desiring to remain in power above all else, and under the guise of “doing good,” the rulers began over-taxing the wealthiest and most powerful amongst the citizenry, to make them powerless to stop these evil men. A powerful set of enforcers was needed to accomplish this – an “imperial guard,” if you will.

The evil men, again under the guise of “doing good,” promised the poor of the great land – the poor that the evil men had, in fact, created - many free things, that the rulers would take care of their every need.

“We care,” said the rulers. “The rich care nothing for the likes of you. See how they keep what they have for themselves?!” All the poor need do is keep the evil men in power so that they could do these great things.

Thus the wealthy and most powerful of the great nation were weakened through taxes, as the rulers took from them to give to the poor.

Things like food were handed out, but it wasn't enough, or given frequently enough, to satisfy the poor.

“We cannot feed our families!” the cry rang out. The rulers gave them more food, more often.

“We want what the rich have, but we have not the money to pay for them!” came the cry from the poor. The rulers gave them monies. Just a little at first, but as with the food, it wasn't enough money, nor was it given often enough.

And political freedoms were thrown away in the name of peace, security, and materialism. This abdication of political freedoms, this welfare state, led to despotism. The people were told what kind of work they could do, what kinds of foods they could eat, what medicines they could take.

Those who worked, those who created the great wealth of the nation, became fewer and fewer, while those who took from them became many. The rulers, fearing the loss of their power, promised more to those who took, and took more from those who worked.

Soon the rulers could no longer pay to maintain what a nation needs to survive, and still pay to keep the poor. And thus a great nation fell...

If any of this sounds familiar, that's because it describes is the fall of Rome. There were a great many other factors that led to its fall, but the economic decline was the most preventable, and likely the most significant one. Other factors included the over-extension of their military forces, a huge imbalance in trade with the far-flung lands of their empire, and unchecked immigration (those last two sound familiar, don't they?).

What it also describes are the eerie parallels between the Rome of old and the U.S. right now.

Our great nation is spending itself into oblivion, all in the name of “fairness.” At this moment, there are more people on food assistance programs than there are full-time workers; between federal and state welfare programs, the average amount of assistance received by the poor in this nation is $44,000. To add a little context, I make just a little over $27,000 per year, and I work hard at what I do.

That doesn't give much incentive for the takers to actually go out and work, does it?

Ronald Reagan proclaimed that “...the best social program is a job.”

John F. Kennedy said, “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”

Thomas Jefferson, arguably the most stalwart defender of the Constitution, once uttered these very prophetic words: “Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.”

Sure sounds to me like he knew what he was talking about, doesn't it? ~ Hunter