What Was Freedom Like?

“What was freedom like?”

This is one of the few questions I do not want to have to answer when I finally have some grandchildren. Seriously, how does one answer that question?

We have a government far bigger and more bloated than the Founders ever dreamed about, let alone intended. That government reaches its intrusive tentacles into nearly every facet of our daily lives, all in the names of “safety,” “security,” “fairness,” “equality,” and a whole host of others, because those in the government believe that they know better than we do what's best for us. And we have allowed it.

The American people now work around one-third of the year just to pay our tax burden. Think about that for a few minutes. It's one hundred twenty-one days into the year before the money we work for becomes ours again. It's clearly evident we no longer have the economic freedom to pursue our happiness. And we have allowed it.

Whether or not you agreed with the stand Nevada rancher, Cliven Bundy, took, the fact that the government set up “free speech zones” should alarm you, to say the least. “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.” The Framers actually wrote that phrase out in the Bill of Rights so there could be no confusion about it. You could point out that the BLM isn't Congress, that they're merely part of the federal government, and technically you'd be correct. What you also have to consider, however, is that to the Founders and Framers, Congress was the federal government, or at least the largest part of it. Should not the same rules apply to any and all bureaus and departments that represent the federal government? This is merely the first step in the stripping away of the right to free speech. And we have allowed it.

Not long ago, I posted about the true meaning of the 2^nd Amendment. In it, I detailed how brilliant the Framers were in using the word “arms” when they enumerated the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The intentions of the Framers could not be more clear. In short, they wanted to ensure that the American people would be as well armed as any army the government could muster to prevent the kind of creeping tyranny we've had encroaching upon us for the last thirty-odd years. By the letter of the amendment, any American should be able to possess any weapon or weapon system that the government can field, so long as they have the economic means to procure it. That was the beauty of it – we're supposed to be on equal footing with the government that now tells us we cannot own automatic weapons, and that we must register the weapons we do own, not to mention the limiting of the number of rounds a magazine can hold. And we have allowed it.

How do we tell our grandchildren that even though the actual damage was done by those who despise what this nation was, is, and still could be – but also that it was us, the American people, who have allowed it. Call it complacency, laziness, or just life in general, the damage being done is just as much our fault as it is the liberals/socialists/communists: By permitting political correctness to silence, or at least diminish, our voices, the dilution of our rights, the stifling of individualism and entrepreneurship through confiscatory, we are causing our own demise.

Ronald Reagan once said, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.” Never were truer words ever spoken.

I, along with the rest of the admins on the Facebook page Liberals are Hypocrites, are doing what we can to educate you, bring to your attention both the good and the bad, and just generally make the truth known, and we refuse to be silenced. I certainly don't write this blog for fun.

We're doing our part as best we can. Are you?

If you're not, ask yourself how you're going to look your grandchildren in the eyes and answer them when they ask, “What was freedom like?” ~ Hunter

Hyphenated Americanism

I cannot possibly begin to explain how much I despise “hyphenated Americanism.”

There was once a time, not that long ago, when people from all over this planet wanted to become Americans. These people willingly foreswore their allegiance to their former countries to swear allegiance to the United States. Now we have citizens putting their heritage over their citizenship, even though their families have been in this country for generations. 

If you emigrated here from Africa, then became an American citizen, you're an “African-American.” If you were born here, raised here, and lived here all your life – you're an American. Charlize Theron is an African-American. Al “Not-so” Shapton is not. The same applies to any ethnicity. Yes, it really is that simple.

My heritage includes the Irish, German, Austro-Hungarian, French, English, Welsh, Scottish, Swedish, and Cherokee and Creek Indian. I don't use any of that to describe myself. I don't even call myself white. I'm just an American.

Let's get one thing straight: I am not saying you shouldn't be proud of your heritage. I'm not even saying you shouldn't celebrate it. I know I'm proud of my heritage. Well - maybe not the French part, but I can't really be picky about that, can I? (To my readers in France – relax, that was just a joke!!!) My point here is that you shouldn't place it ahead of your citizenship.

I call on any and all “hyphenated Americans” who read these words to lay aside the hyphen. Stop separating yourselves from the rest of the nation. Stop being a victim of the people who want to keep you separated. Liberals/progressives/democrats don't care about you, except for your vote to keep them in power. Do you not understand that keeping you hyphenated keeps you separated?

It's time for you to be “just” an AMERICAN. ~ Hunter

The TRUE Unemployment Rate

Early in April, the latest unemployment numbers were released, and while they were somewhat positive on the surface, it's what underlies those numbers that is significant. What the government uses to broadcast as their unemployment numbers is the U-3 (Total unemployed, as a percent of the civilian labor force (official unemployment rate)). These numbers are important, but did you now there are three other sets of numbers (U-4; U-5; and U-6) that tell the actual story of the labor force in this country?

“Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 192,000 in March, and the
unemployment rate was unchanged at 6.7 percent” - from the latest report. Sounds OK, doesn't it? Read on...

To thoroughly judge how the job-market is doing, you also have to look at what's called the “labor force participation rate.” The labor force participation rate is the percentage of working-age persons in an economy who: 1.) Are employed. 2.) Are unemployed but looking for a job. The typical U.S. participation rate is 67-68%.

During the last 5 years of the Bush Presidency, the labor participation rate stayed fairly steady, never dipping below 65.8%. Isn't it funny how the rate has done almost nothing but drop under King DingleBarry? Today it stands at 63.2%, up very slightly from the 62.8% which the lowest rate yet under King DingleBarry, as well as the lowest since Carter was in office (and we all know just how well that time period went). The only reason the U-3 numbers are dropping is because people who give up looking for work are no longer counted as unemployed. Hmmm. Funny how the MSM just keeps conveniently overlooking these little facts, isn't it?

Here is a chart of the labor participation rate from the Bureau of Labor Statistics website.

To learn more about the labor participation rate, I highly recommend this article.

The true unemployment rate can only be taken from the U-6 numbers, as it's the only set that actually counts those who have stopped looking, but are ready and willing to work. March's U-6 numbers: 12.7% – up slightly from February's 12.6% – is only down 0.1% from this time last year. Does that really sound like the job market is improving a great deal?

Let's not mention how almost 77% of new jobs created since this “recovery” started are part-time, thanks to that monstrosity not-so-affectionately known as 0bamadontcare.

These numbers can't be denied, nor are any of them fabricated. These are the numbers released by the government itself. That being said, I have just one question to ask - Still think King DingleBarry is good for the economy, you liberal buffoons? ~ Hunter

The complete chart most people never see.

(U-6: Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force) NOTE: Persons marginally attached to the labor force are those who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not currently looking for work. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule.



Didn't You Hear?

The most brilliant document ever written by man, conceived by the greatest minds this world has ever seen gathered in one place, at one time, the U.S. Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788. I firmly believe the United States of America was absolutely preordained by God, that America's existence was fate.

That same Constitution, however, is hated and vilified by his Royal Lowness, King DingleBarry. The King pretty much openly defies the limiting powers of the Constitution whenever it pleases him – witness all the recent scandals plaguing his Royal Court – and has no problem displaying his contempt for it, saying it's a “flawed” document because it doesn't specifically address the issue of equal rights for slaves (the real reason is because that was already addressed under the whole “We the People.” The Constitution doesn't mention race, color, or creed in any way.) He also despises that it specifically mentions what government can't do to you, yet doesn't say anything about what government should do for you (PSSSST... Hey – your Lowness. It actually does, i.e., national defense, general welfare, etc.)

Yep – the liberal-professed “smartest man ever,” a man who was a “Constitutional Law Professor,” - can't seem to figure out, you know, the subject he subverted - uhhh, lectured - upon in the University of Chicago, so he came up with a new plan - He's going to rewrite it. This should be good.

What? Weekly World News is just as valid a news source as MSLSD. Once again, context matters. ~ Hunter

The Unsustainable Welfare State

Ronald Reagan once said, “The best social program is a job.” The fact that the poverty level in this country has remained virtually unchanged since President Lyndon Johnson declared his “war on poverty” tends to confirm that statement. If you take the motivation away from someone to get a job by giving him enough to live on, where's the incentive to get a job? Ponder these numbers:

In 2011, the official poverty rate was 15.0 percent. There were 46.2 million people in poverty. After 3 consecutive years of increases, neither the official poverty rate nor the number of people in poverty were statistically different from the 2010 estimates.

The 2011 poverty rates for most demographic groups examined were not statistically different from their 2010 rates. Poverty rates were lower in 2011 than in 2010 for six groups: Hispanics, males, the foreign-born, non-citizens, people living in the South, and people living inside metropolitan statistical areas but outside principal cities. Poverty rates went up between 2010 and 2011 for naturalized citizens.
For most groups, the number of people in poverty either decreased or did not show a statistically significant change. The number of people in poverty decreased for non-citizens, people living in the South, and people living inside metropolitan statistical areas but outside principal cities between 2010 and 2011. The number of naturalized citizens in poverty increased. <---- Still think the amnesty bill is going to help the United States?

The poverty rate in 2011 for children under age 18 was 21.9 per-cent. The poverty rate for people aged 18 to 64 was 13.7 percent, while the rate for people aged 65 and older was 8.7 percent. None of the rates for these age groups were statistically different from their 2010 estimates.

The number of people in poverty rose for 4 consecutive years.

Think about it – between federal and state welfare programs, which totaled more than $1 trillion in 2011, enough to mail every poverty-stricken household a check for $60,000 each year, why would a person receiving that much “assistance” want to find a job?

Just to add a little context to the $60,000 – I work 40 hours a week at $13.69/hr. My yearly gross pay comes to a grand total of: $28,475.20. From that, I have to pay my taxes, utility bills, rent, phone bills, car insurance, etc., etc., etc. I don't ask for, nor receive, any assistance from anyone.

Now, let's look at what King DingleBarry has proposed to do with welfare spending in this country over the next ten years.

The Senate Budget Committee says welfare spending will nearly double in 10 years.

Using data from the Congressional Research Service and Congressional Budget Office, the Budget Committee's Republican staff has added up what's spent on cash aid, health assistance, housing assistance, and social and family services.

All told, welfare spending rocketedt from roughly $800 billion in 2010 year to about $1.4 trillion in fiscal 2022 — a nearly 80% jump. Overall welfare spending for the decade will be $11 trillion — "roughly one-quarter of cumulative federal spending," the Budget Committee reports. Think about that last statement for a minute. Let it really sink in. One quarter of all federal spending will be on welfare. Who's going to pay for it? We're already approaching the financial tipping point. All too soon, there's going to be more people sucking off the government than people paying for this largesse. Add in the rest of federal spending, and you can plainly see this nation will collapse under its own weight long before another decade passes.

How did we get here? In true King DingleBarry fashion, of course. The committee says the unimaginable spending is in part "driven by a series of controversial recruitment methods that include aggressive outreach to those who say they do not need financial assistance."

"Recruitment workers are even instructed on how to 'overcome the word "no"' when individuals resist enrollment," says committee research. "The USDA and Department of Homeland Security also have promotions to increase the number of immigrants on welfare despite legal prohibitions on welfare use among those seeking admittance into the United States."

Why are we advertising our welfare system in other countries when so many of our own are in such dire need of help?!

To paraphrase the great Milton Friedman, man's great achievements have not been the product of a government program, a redistributionary scheme or bustling bureaucracy. They are due to the simple profit motive at work in political systems that let people be fittingly compensated for their innovations and efforts.

No system has lifted man's standard of living as free enterprise has. Friedman also once said, the masses that suffer the most from grinding poverty are those trapped in societies that depart from free enterprise.

"The record of history is absolutely crystal clear," he said. "There is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system."

The focus of Washington should be on removing the restraints placed on the free enterprise system, rather than what it's been doing for the last eighty years – building a nation of dependents. The only people a growing welfare state really helps are the politicians who deal in the addiction to government. A hustling, booming economy improves everyone's situation. ~ Hunter





Busting The Top 5 Abortion Myths

Pro-lifers are constantly being challenged by pro-murder “people” whenever we post about our support for pre-born humans. They pose many all-too-speculative, and reliably ridiculous, questions, but they also perpetuate far too many myths while belittling those who believe in the sanctity of life. Unfortunately, far too much of the truth about abortion just isn't known to the general public. I hope this post will aid you when some cranky, ill-informed (or flat-out lying) liberal tries to pick a fight with you about your stance.

The myth: Abortion is only legal through the first trimester.

The reality: The frightening scope of Roe v. Wade, and Doe v. Bolton effectively established that abortion on demand was constitutional throughout the full term of pregnancy with virtually no restrictions, and for any reason; personal finances, social concerns, individual lifestyle. No matter what reason a woman chose, there are no significant legal barriers to prevent an abortion during any stage of a pregnancy.

The myth: Health issues, whether mother or baby, occur often enough to warrant abortion on demand for everyone.

The reality: Less than 6% of abortions per year are performed for health reasons, rape, and incest combined. With a statistic like that, there's no arguing that the overwhelming majority (94%) of abortions are performed as a means of birth control.

The myth: Nobody truly knows when human life begins.

The reality: It is a scientific and medical fact that human life begins at conception. That is inarguable. The being that results from conception is human, complete, growing, sexed – and here's the most important part – alive. Again, this is inescapable fact. The point of contention arises from whether this pre-born human being is actually a “person” and worthy of the rights and protections of an already born human.

The myth: Abortion doesn't happen often, but it is an unfortunate necessity.

The reality: At least 1.2 million abortions take place each year in the United States. According to a 1999 study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, nearly one in four pregnancies ends in abortion. 1,200,000 sounds an awful lot like OFTEN to me.

The myth: Abortion is used mainly as a last resort, mostly for pregnancies that result from rape or incest.

The reality: In an Alan Guttmacher Institute study entitled “Why Women Have Abortions,” specific answers were requested from respondents when asked why they aborted.

The top three answers were:

1.) Unready for responsibility. 2.) Can't afford baby now. 3.)Concern about how having a baby would change her life.

The bottom three answers, all tied for last place at 1% each were:

1.) Was a victim of rape or incest. 2.) Husband or partner wanted the abortion. 3.) Didn't want others to know she has had sex or is pregnant.

The “abortion is a last resort” argument is specious at best, completely fallacious at worst.

These are the first 5 abortion myths we're busting. More will follow in the days and weeks to come. ~ Hunter

Sources:

National Center for Health Statistics. Health, United States, 1994. Hyattsville, Maryland: Public Health Service, 1995. Abortion Surveillance 1985, Center for Disease Control, Table #18. Induced Abortion: World Review 1983, by Christopher Tietze, The Population Council, p 103. Maternal Mortality Surveillance 1979-1986, Centers for Disease Control, M&M Weekly report July 1991, Vol. 40, No. SS-1.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Center of Child Abuse and Neglect; National Analysis of Official Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting.
P. Ney, M.D. "Relationship between Abortion and Child Abuse." Canada Journal of Psychiatry, vol. 24, pp. 610-620.
Linda Bird Francke, The Ambivalence of Abortion. New York: Random House, 1978, 47-48.
George Skelton, "Many in Survey Who Had Abortion Cite Guilt Feelings," Los Angeles Times, March 19, 1989, p. 28.
"Report on the Committee on the Operation of the Abortion Law," p. 321. Ottawa, 1977.
Vincent M. Rue, "The Psychological Realities of Induced Abortion," Post-Abortion aftermath: A Comprehensive Consideration, Michael T. Mannion, Editor, Sheed & Ward, 1994, p. 543.

Fascism Is Socialism Is Fascism: The Same Goals And Results - Just A Different Veneer

Time for yet another history lesson from For Love Of Country.

I've long said that fascism isn't a “right-wing” ideology. The root word of fascism comes from the Italian word fascio, which means “bundle.” Bundle is collective in nature, meaning collectivism. As anyone can tell you, collectivism is exclusively “left-wing.” In reality, fascism is a variation of socialism.

I encourage you to read the entire article, but here's the part I find most telling. ~ Hunter

“Over the past seventy years, the left and their allies in the media have succeeded in labeling fascism as a right-wing or conservative philosophy when it in reality was an offshoot of socialism. Socialism/Marxism seeks the total control of a society's economy through complete state control of the means of production and income. Fascism seeks that same control, indirectly by the state domination of private ownership, as well as controlling individual income and wealth through taxation and regulation. Jonah Goldberg's masterpiece Liberal Fascism convincingly demonstrates the progressive roots of fascism.

Per Sheldon Richman in the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics:

As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalistic veneer. In its day (the 1920's and 1930's), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and Marxism, with its violent socially divisive prosecution of the bourgeoisie.


Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices; fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically (Obamadontcare ring any bells?).

Under fascism, the state, through official agencies, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Licensing was ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission. Levels of consumption were dictated by the state, and "excess" incomes had to be surrendered as taxes or "loans" - (“I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.” - King DingleBarry).

To maintain high employment and minimize popular discontent, fascist governments also undertook massive public-works programs (King DingleBarry has simply skipped this part, preferring to just give the money away in the form of massive handout programs) financed by steep taxes, borrowing (40 cents of every dollar the federal government spends) and fiat money creation (can you say Quantitative Easing?).”

The "Scientific Consensus" That Isn't Of Climate Change

Below is a small list of scientists, with impeccable credentials, all of whom were once global warming supporters, since turned skeptics. They are far from the only ones, which tends to belie the oft-repeated “scientific consensus” the environmentalist whackos like to throw around.

USA - Stanley B. Goldenberg, MS (Atmospheric Scientist – Hurricane Expert) - NOAA

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming.”

Commenting on the alarmist Hurricane report for the President he says “I didn't notice a single recognized hurricane climate expert in the list of authors and they definitely ignore a large body of the published hurricane research. There are a number of hurricane climate experts (including myself) that would disagree strongly with the hurricane-related conclusions of this report!”

USA - Dr. Neil Frank (Atmospheric Scientist and Hurricane Expert), former director of the National Hurricane Center, dismissed fears of catastrophic man-made global warming. Frank has published a variety of professional papers on tropical meteorology and served as the chairman of the International Hurricane Committee.

"It's a hoax," Frank told the Washington Post on May 28, 2006 regarding doomsday climate scenarios. According to the article, "[Frank] says cutting carbon emissions would wind up hurting poor people. When asked if he thinks more CO2 in the air would be a good thing. ‘Exactly! Maybe we're living in a carbon dioxide-starved world. We don't know.'" Frank also lamented that the UN's IPCC does not reach out to the many skeptics of global warming like himself.

Dr. Joe Sobel (Senior Meteorologist) of Accuweather, winner of the American Meteorological Society 2005 Award for Broadcaster of the Year, asserted that climate change is nothing new. Sobel has 35 years experience at Accuweather and has also been a member of the American Meteorology Society since 1966. Sobel said on January 11, 2007:

"The climate is changing. The climate has always changed, that is a fact of the earth's existence,"

"Only 10,000 years ago, which is geologically speaking is like the snap of a finger, we were in the midst of an ice age. There is not much doubt that climate changes and that climate will continue to change."

"Back in the old days... and I'm only talking 5 years or so ago... we did not name sub-tropical storms. Names were only given to storms that were deemed to be truly tropical. In the last few years, there have been a number of sub-tropical storms named. Those named storms go into the total of named storms and obviously increase the number of storms that year and consequently increase the average number of storms per year. It has been claimed that global warming is responsible for an increasing number of tropical storms and hurricanes, but here is a reason that the number of storms is increasing that has absolutely nothing to do with global warming. It's because we are mixing apples and oranges and calling them all apples!”

I'm sorry, but if you read the report, they don't really sound like just a FEW “fringe skeptics” to me.

I know the MSM has a bad habit of ignoring the things that go against, or don't advance, their agenda, but you'd think they would have given this at least a passing mention in order to maintain their illusion of objectivity. Yet they still blather on about how the “science is settled” and there is a “scientific consensus.” ~ Hunter

***I know these links are a few years old, but since this information wasn't reported widely back then, someone needs to let people know that they're not alone in their disbelief that man is causing global warming***



Climate Models WILDLY Wrong, Or Algore Said It's True, So It Must Be

As in all things computer related, what comes out is only as good as what goes in. When you use unproven theories and/or hypotheses as fact as a basis for your climate modeling, fail to take into account the basic, everyday vagaries in weather, and are seriously pushing an agenda, is it really that much of a surprise when things don't turn out like you wanted – er, planned – er, thought they would?

Turns out 114 climate predictions, made in the 1990's, out of 117, were wrong. I know, you're shocked!!! That's right, ladies and gentlemen, only three were even remotely close to be accurate. The other 114? Well, let's just say they predicted twice the amount of warming than actually occurred.

“Some scientists say the study shows that climate modelers need to go back to the drawing board.

'It's a real problem ... it shows that there really is something that needs to be fixed in the climate models,' climate scientist John Christy, a professor at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, told FoxNews.com.

But other scientists say that's making a mountain out of a molehill.

'This is neither surprising nor particularly troubling to me as a climate scientist,' Melanie Fitzpatrick, a climate scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, told FoxNews.com. 'The work of our community is constantly to refine our understanding of the climate system and improve models based on that,' she added.

The climate models, Fitzpatrick said, will likely be correct over long periods of time. But there are too many variations in climate to expect models to be accurate over two decades.”

Huh?! How can something be accurate in the long-term when it's consistently been wrong in the short-term? And not just wrong, but wrong wildly. It's always been my understanding that the more variations involved with something, coupled with the absolute randomness of their occurrence, the less predictable that something becomes – especially in the long-term.

I've said this for years now, but it bears repeating – How am I supposed to believe in “global warming” - how do I accept what they say the climate will be like 50 to 100 years from now - when they can't even predict the weather for three days from now with anything but the smallest semblance of accuracy?

But hey, if the "inventor of the internet" says the ice caps will be gone by 2013, it must be true, right? ~ Hunter





Three Years, Eight Months, Twenty-Six Days

Three years, eight months, twenty-six days separate 07 DEC 1941 from 14 AUG 1945.

Between the bombing of Pearl Harbor to the end of World War 2 on VJ Day, the United States built 22 aircraft carriers, 8 battleships, 48 cruisers, 349 destroyers, 420 destroyer escorts, 203 submarines, and 34 million tons of merchant ships.

American manufacturing muscle created 100,000 fighter planes, 98,000 bomber aircraft, 24,000 transport planes, and 58,000 trainer aircraft.

The indomitable will of the newly awakened “sleeping giant” also assembled 93,000 tanks, 257,000 artillery pieces, 105,000 mortars, 3,000,000 machine guns, and 2,500,000 military trucks.

The fighting spirit of 16.1 million men in uniform turned the tide in Africa, invaded and defeated Sicily and Italy, planned and executed the D-Day invasion, marched across Europe in the race to Berlin and hopscotched around the Pacific through the Battle of the Bulge, Midway, and the black sands of Iwo Jima, ultimately defeating the Germans and the Japanese.

Along the way, technological advancements that had been undreamed of prior to Pearl Harbor were invented, tested, and put into use, mostly by private industry working with the United States government to complete a task that was forced upon us. We were united in purpose more than any other time in our history, before or since.

Not even the attacks on 9/11 united this nation in such a way, though the differences were minimal.

Three years, six months, ten days separate 21 MAR 2010 from 01 OCT 2013.

In nearly the same time frame in which America entered and won the most destructive war in the history of this planet, the “government” finally succeeded in its takeover of one-sixth of the American economy, wrote nearly 11,000 pages of regulations for Obamacare, and created $4,084,106,238,500.08 of debt, all while using proven technologies that had been around for about two decades and failing to create a working website.

To add some perspective to this: The total cost of World War 2 for the United States was approximately $288,000,000,000. The total cost for healthcare.gov is estimated to be around $1,000,000,000 (and climbing, as the site still has issues).

How we have fallen so far, so fast, is something that I'm sure will absolutely perplex future historians. One thing I can say with certainty, however, is that the Greatest Generation would be absolutely livid with us for allowing that fall to occur, and I wouldn't blame them one bit. For that, we should all be very, very ashamed. ~ Hunter

The "Religion Of Peace" Is Anything BUT Peaceful

“Islam's biggest enemy is the qu'ran. If people learn what is in that book, islam will be finished.” ~ Ali Sina, a former muslim and founder of Faith Freedom International.

Well, let's find out some of what's in the qu'ran, shall we? Here's a small sampling, as well as some from the hadith, in no particular order. Please note that when I mention anything islam-related, it will always be in lowercase to emphasize my disdain.

The qu'ran contains at least 109 verses that call muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. The muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 327: - “allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. mohammed, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”

Quran (66:9) - "O prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end." (The root word of "jihad" is used again here. The context is clearly holy war, and the scope of violence is broadened to include "hypocrites" - those who call themselves muslims but do not act as such.)

Quran (61:4) - "Surely allah loves those who fight in His way" (Religion of Peace, indeed! The verse explicitly refers to "battle array" meaning war.) This is followed by (61:9): "he it is who has sent his messenger (mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist." (Infidels who resist islamic rule are to be fought. See next verse, below).

Quran (61:10-12) - "O You who believe! Shall I guide you to a commerce that will save you from a painful torment. That you believe in allah and his messenger (mohammed), and that you strive hard and fight in the cause of allah with your wealth and your lives, that will be better for you, if you but know! (If you do so) he will forgive you your sins, and admit you into gardens under which rivers flow, and pleasant dwelling in gardens of 'edn - eternity ['adn (edn) paradise], that is indeed the great success." (This verse refers to physical battle in order to make islam victorious over other religions (see above). It uses the Arabic word, jihad.)

Quran (4:95) - "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of allah with their goods and their persons. allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) hath allah promised good: But those who strive and fight hath he distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-" (This passage criticizes "peaceful" muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in allah's eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that "jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is the Arabic word used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. The hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man's protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad and this is reflected in other translations of the verse)

Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." (The martyrs of islam are unlike the early Christians, led meekly to the slaughter. These muslims are killed in battle, as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of allah. Here is the theological basis for today's suicide bombers.)

Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But allah knoweth, and ye know not." (Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that mohammed was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.)

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And al-fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing...
but if they desist, then lo! allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with allah] and worship is for allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, since mohammed and his muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). The use of the word "persecution" by some muslim translators is thus disingenuous (the actual muslim words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse). The actual Arabic comes from "fitna" which can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. Taken as a whole, the context makes clear that violence is being authorized until "religion is for allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.

Hadith:
Bukhari (52:220) - allah's apostle said... 'I have been made victorious with terror'

Bukhari (52:65) - The prophet said, 'He who fights that allah's word, islam, should be superior, fights in allah's cause. (mohammed's words are the basis for offensive jihad - spreading Islam by force. This is how it was understood by his companions, and by the terrorists of today.)

Muslim (1:33) - the messenger of allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but allah, that mohammed is the messenger of allah

Bukhari (11:626) - [mohammed said:] "I decided to order a man to lead the prayer and then take a flame to burn all those, who had not left their houses for the prayer, burning them alive inside their homes."

Muslim (1:149) - "Abu Dharr reported: I said: messenger of allah, which of the deeds is the best? He (the holy prophet) replied: Belief in allah and jihad in His cause..."

Muslim (20:4645) - "...he (the messenger of allah) did that and said: There is another act which elevates the position of a man in paradise to a grade one hundred (higher), and the elevation between one grade and the other is equal to the height of the heaven from the earth. He (Abu Sa'id) said: What is that act? He replied: Jihad in the way of allah! Jihad in the way of allah!"

Muslim (19:4321-4323) - Three separate hadith in which mohammed shrugs over the news that innocent children were killed in a raid by his men against unbelievers. His response: "They are of them (meaning the enemy)."

Muslim (19:4294) - "When the messenger of allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him... he would say: Fight in the name of allah and in the way of allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in allah. Make a holy war... When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them... If they refuse to accept islam, demand from them the jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek allah's help and fight them. (THIS is what they would call being “tolerant”)

And my personal favorite display of “coexisting”:
Tabari 17:187 "'By god, our religion (din) from which we have departed is better and more correct than that which these people follow. Their religion does not stop them from shedding blood, terrifying the roads, and seizing properties.' And they returned to their former religion." (The words of a group of Christians who had converted to islam, but realized their error after being shocked by the violence and looting committed in the name of allah. The price of their decision to return to a religion of peace was that the men were beheaded and the woman and children enslaved by the caliph Ali.)

As you can see from this small, but representative, sampling of quotes from their own “holy” books, to follow the path of islam the way their own words proclaim it should be followed, belie the “religion of peace” moniker. What more needs to happen in the name of this “religion” before you'll believe the truth? ~ Hunter

http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/

http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/

Tea Party, III%, Veteran, Patriot - Where Will You Stand?

I believe, as Jefferson did, that the government which governs least, governs best. Low taxation, few regulations, strong national defense: In general, keeping the bureaucrats out of our lives. That makes me a Tea Party member, and I'm proud of that.

While not a combat veteran like some I know, I am still a veteran, and I haven't forgotten my training. I can still shoot the private parts off a flea at 300 yards with a rifle, and the last time I checked, my oath to the Constitution didn't have an expiration date. I will fight for my nation, if that becomes necessary (a possibility I see inching closer every day). That makes me a III%-er. In fact, by actively participating as a Content Creator for the Facebook pages Liberals are Hypocrites, For Love of Country, as well as writing this blog, I'm already engaged in the fight - peacefully for the time being.

There are many reasons why I fight for this nation, but the first, biggest, and best reason I do this is I want my children, grandchildren, and all future generations of my family, your families - even the families of those doing their absolute best to destroy this nation - to enjoy the same freedoms I had growing up, the same opportunities, the same pride just to be an American as I've had.

The second reason is best expressed this way: “All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”

Well, I won't do nothing. I will not go quietly into the night and I will never be silent. I will forever fight for what I believe to be right and true.

For the time being, I'm content to fight peacefully with my words, poor as they may be. Do not delude yourself, however, that I won't take up arms if, or when, that becomes necessary, and I know many, many others who will do the same.

It matters little to me whether you stand Left or Right. What matters is where you will stand when it really matters. If you do not stand with the United States Constitution, you make of yourself an enemy of my country, and I shall grant you no mercy.

Consider yourself warned. ~ Hunter



Glenn Beck No More

I've been a HUGE fan of Glenn Beck for years, so it truly pains me to say this - no more Glenn Beck for me.


For the record, I do NOT believe the time for violence or revolution has quite arrived.  That moment is inching ever closer, but it's still in the distance.


I'm angry, yes - angry at the American people.  It's OUR fault that things have gone this far - yet we do nothing; OUR fault that the government has grown so big and bloated - yet we do nothing; OUR fault that we have professional politicians who are more concerned with winning their next election than helping the Americans people - yet we do nothing; OUR fault that the federal government infringes upon our God-given rights more now than at any other time in our history - yet we do nothing.


I ask you - when IS it the right time to do something?  Should we wait until it's far too late to do anything effective, or do we try to fix what's wrong as soon as possible?  NOW is the time to do EVERYTHING in our power to return this nation to the vision of the Founders.


If we don't do what's necessary, we've failed - failed ourselves, failed our children, but most of all, we will have failed the United States of America, perhaps even the world.  I, for one, don't intend to let that happen - with or without Glenn Beck. ~ Hunter

Is The Death Of The GOP Imminent?

Earlier this week, democrat (lowercase to show my disdain) “strategerist” James Carville made a statement that if the Republicans do not win the presidency in 2016, the party will go extinct. He may be correct, but not in the way he seems to think. I certainly hope he's not going to be right about that prediction, however.

First things first, let me state that I absolutely despise Carville. I have no use for someone who is so intellectually dishonest that he actually believes that there was a “Clinton surplus” in reality; a myth that I, and others much better than me, have busted time and time again. That being said, allow me to explain why I believe Carville might actually be correct.

The Republican party, as a whole, is too fractured; there's no unity of purpose anymore. There's certainly no “We're a better choice because...” For me, that last is a very important part of the differentiation of the two major parties; how people delineate between them. The Republican party establishment has been moving so far to the left as to be nearly indistinguishable from the democrats. Do the names McCain, Christie, Boehner, Graham, McConnell, and now Jeb Bush ring any bells?

All I've been hearing from Republicans lately is what democrats are doing wrong, but not enough about what the conservative alternatives should be. That's not enough anymore. We must carefully and thoughtfully distinguish Republican policy from democrat policy. No longer can we be the democrat party Lite. No more running of deficits of $500 billion and then saying, “See? We spend less than the democrats!” It just won't work anymore. It amazes me that many Republicans, particularly most of those listed above, think that merely spending less than the other side is a good thing when the federal government outlays are so much more than its revenues. Is it any wonder why we're having to raise the debt ceiling every few months, just so we can borrow more money to pay the interest on the money we've already borrowed because we spend so much more than we take in?

Pure, unabashed - and most importantly – unafraid conservativism is the only real answer to what ails this nation. Balanced budgets – ones that actually balance – a strong national defense, and pro-growth, free market capitalism economic policies, far less governmental regulations, and a much, much, MUCH smaller and less intrusive federal government would go a very long way towards solving the problems that plague America.

The most important thing we need to do, in my opinion, is unite behind one conservative candidate, and unite behind whomever it may be early in the primaries. A united front – very much along the lines of how the democrats do things – is essential to victory in the next presidential election. We also need to retire the progressives and RINOs driving the party into a ditch. They do nothing but get in the way of the true progress that conservatism represents.

If we don't get these things done, and probably many others, the Republican party, the party of true equality, that freed the slaves, ensured their citizenship and right to vote, the formerly fiscally responsible party will cease to exist in all but name.

If that happens, you need to ask yourselves this one question: What, then, stands in the way of the liberal agenda? ~ Hunter

An Urgent Environmental Alert

******ATTENTION ALL FOR LOVE OF COUNTRY FANS******
******URGENT URGENT URGENT******
There is an old, but little known, and even less researched environmental danger to worry about. Who needs to worry about CO2 emissions when we've got THIS to worry about?
It's called Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO), and it can be DEADLY!!!
The Environmental Impact of Dihydrogen Monoxide
Its widespread usage in all types of industries has led to Dihydrogen Monoxide being involved in a great many environmental incidents every year. Today's technology is insufficient to avoid most of these regrettable incidents, but there is little doubt that the presence of DHMO in each accident greatly raises the negative impact to the environment.

DHMO is found in great quantities in all streams, rivers, ponds, and reservoirs all across this planet. Even the oceans aren't immune – all of the “seven seas” are practically overflowing with this greenhouse gas, acid-rain enabler, and the major cause of soil erosion. DHMO has even been found in ice samples from both the Arctic and the Antarctic.
Industrial dumping of DHMO – the unseen VILLIANY

Despite environmental movements to ban the unlawful dumping of hazardous waste and chemicals into the waterways of the U.S. and abroad, the release of massive quantities of DHMO continues unabated. Industries cannot be held entirely responsible, as legislators are reluctant to pass laws forbidding making the disposal of most forms of DHMO illegal. Outside pressures, including those from corporate leaders, industry lobbyists, and even vested foreign governments. Unregulated dumping is the result of this governmental inaction, and is possibly one of the most overlooked environmental impacts of DHMO.

There are many surveys in which upwards of 60% of respondents favor a total ban on DHMO. High school and college students, Canadians – regular, everyday people. Surely, they must know something bad when they hear about it.

The consensus is CLEAR – Dihydrogen Monoxide MUST be BANNED. After all, can we afford to put it off until it's too late?

BTW, Dihydrogen Monoxide is naturally occurring, life-giving and life-sustaining. Every living thing on the face of this planet NEEDS it to survive. It's TRUE!!!

Everyone NEEDS................WATER.

Remember the funeral home sign post? This is one of those times to apply the lesson from that post – context matters. ~ Hunter



The Myth Of Man-Made Global Warming

Let's put the “man-made global warming” myth to bed, shall we? I didn't write this article, but I might as well have, as the author says nearly everything I've been saying for years. It's just being said in a much more succinct manner than I've put it. Sadly, I don't remember where I obtained this article or I'd give them the credit it deserves. ~ Hunter

The truth is that CO2 is a beneficial trace gas that exists in such small quantities in our atmosphere, that the idea of it playing any significant role in determining our climate is simply silly. CO2 comprises less than half of 0.1% of our atmosphere, and only 4% of it comes from human activity. That's 16ppm, or 1 part in every 62,500 parts of our atmosphere. CO2 is plant food, and a key component in all life on earth. Plants need CO2 to grow and produce oxygen. They feed animals, including ourselves. Animals in turn consume oxygen and plant-based foods, and exhale CO2. Without CO2, nothing could be green!

Ironically, the audacity of their lies about CO2 are overshadowed by the most obvious part of the Hoax - the fact is that warming is good. Throughout history, man, as well as all other living creatures, has thrived during the earth's warm periods, and suffered and starved during the cold ones, a lesson that we're about to be reminded of in the coming years.

The Roman civilization arose when the earth was much warmer than it's been recently. And it's no coincidence that just as the earth was entering the 400-year-long "Little Ice Age," the Roman Empire was overrun by the Huns. The Egyptians also built the pyramids when it was much warmer than today, and the beginning of the industrial revolution coincided with the end of the Little Ice Age. If global warming is such a problem, doesn't it seem odd that mankind has always flourished during the earth's warmest periods?

And if increases in atmospheric CO2 are the primary cause of warming, why, from the 1940's through the mid 1970's, was the earth cooling when increases in our use of fossil fuels were at their greatest?

And why is it that Mars and Jupiter, and Neptune's moon Titan, have all followed the exact same warming and cooling cycles as the earth during the 20th century? Does anyone think that our SUVs and power plants are causing the same climate change on other planets and moons in our solar system, or is it more likely that the changes there were caused by the fact that we're all in the same solar system? I.e., "It's the sun, stupid!"

In 1974, in an article in Time Magazine entitled "Another Ice Age?," the same alarmists suggested that the (then-)coming ice age was being caused in part by the same vehicular emissions that they're now blaming for global warming:
“Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.”

But then it stopped cooling and started warming again. This has been happening throughout history (see Global Warming: Exposing the Far Left's Lies)

Now, since the warming stopped 14 years ago, the alarmists are finally beginning to admit that the earth has started cooling again. And what are they telling us is the reason why? In what's got to be one of the most mind-boggling displays of chutzpah ever seen, they're actually saying that the reason that it hasn't been warming for the last 14 years is that China and India are now burning such a massive amount of coal, that it blocks the sun's rays from reaching the earth and warming it. That's right! Our use of fossil fuels is warming the earth, while China's is cooling it?

And while this insanity unfolds, we're still paying lip service to this absurd lie by continuing to make reference to the virtues of reducing our "carbon footprint." Every time we hear that preposterous phrase, we should laugh at it, and then explain why we find it so funny if anyone asks. Years of constant repetition is what sold the lie in the first place. It may take years of constant repetition of the truth to counter it.

There are millions of smart people out there who have been bombarded with this global warming nonsense for so long that they've actually come to believe it. The old adage that if you tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth happens to be true, especially when the people don't get to hear other points of view, something our mainstream media has made sure of over the last few decades.

But even though people are slowly growing skeptical about it, and turning away from the mainstream media, we can't afford to let our guard down about this scam. And we'll never truly defeat it for good by arguing against it based on the enormous costs involved. Whether it's global warming, or global cooling, or ocean acidification, we need to denounce this madness as the outrageous lie that it is, if we're ever going to defeat this hydra in all of its various guises.





The Antithesis of MLK's Dream

"I have a dream..." So begins what is essentially one of the most famous - and possibly most important - phrases ever spoken by anyone, anywhere. We all know it, and I believe most of us strive to live up to it ever since Martin Luther King Jr. first spoke those words, 50 years ago. And yes, I truly believe that.

What I can not believe, even though I've heard it countless times, especially in the buildup to last year's 50^th anniversary celebration at the Lincoln Memorial, is that Obama is the embodiment of that dream. In fact, I submit to you that he is the very antithesis of Dr. King's dream.

Think about it. In the last election, he received somewhere in the neighborhood of 93% of the black vote. A staggering amount of those votes were based solely on the color of his skin. Several black people I know who voted for him for precisely his skin color, as well as many blacks who said they voted for him because he is black interviews I saw on news stories. Would you not say that is the opposite of MLK's intent?

 

Everything Dr. King worked towards, his dream of a truly color-blind America, is quickly being dismantled by Barack Obama and people in his administration:  From the Attorney General Eric Holder refusing to prosecute the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation to the President of the United States - an office, by the way, that should automatically place the occupant above stupidity like this - saying that having to carry a picture ID to vote is somehow racist, while making those remarks at an event whose attendees were required to show - you guessed it - a picture ID to enter.  Can't you just taste the irony?  And the hypocrisy?  After all the progress this nation has made in race relations, and attempting to redress legitimate grievances, this administration is setting all of it back decades.

 

Don't get me wrong, racism does exist, and I will do whatever small part I can in defeating it forever.  The true racism in this country comes from the Left, as it always has.  It's merely a less obvious form of it.  Believing that one race needs special considerations, special help just to "level the playing field" - well, that just smacks of racism to me, and I believe MLK would think the same.  All he wanted was an equal opportunity for his people, an end to the discriminatory practices that kept them from enjoying the full greatness of American life.  He wanted a hand up, not a hand out for the black community, and the chance to prove to white America that blacks are just as smart, resourceful, and productive as anyone else.

I honestly believe that Dr. King would be deeply ashamed of what has become of the black community as a whole, and how his dream has been corrupted. I doubt very seriously that the man who told junior high school students in Philadelphia, several years after his famous "Dream" speech, to work hard and be known as the best at whatever they did, would approve of the professional victimhood and sense of entitlement that those who took over his mantle of leadership have forced upon their own community. ~ Hunter



WalMart Vs. Costco, Or Why WalMart Will Never Pay As Much As Costco

When people start talking about the difference in pay for WalMart employees vs. Costco employees, it just rubs me the wrong way. I set out to find out why the two retail giants pay scales really are so different. Well, as it turns out, someone already did the work for me. What follows is quite possibly one of the most brilliant explanations for the differences in ANY so-called “similar” business types. Kudos to Megan McArdle for this stunning work. ~ Hunter

I found this link to my old employer on one of our many local housing blogs this morning. It’s an old piece on the high wages paid by Trader Joe’s, Costco and a handful of other outlets. The text in the link: “A not-so-subtle message for Wal-Mart: Big retailers can pay decent wages and thrive. [Atlantic]”

Here’s a clip from the article:

“The average American cashier makes $20,230 a year, a salary that in a single-earner household would leave a family of four living under the poverty line. But if he works the cash registers at QuikTrip, it's an entirely different story. The convenience-store and gas-station chain offers entry-level employees an annual salary of around $40,000, plus benefits. Those high wages didn't stop QuikTrip from prospering in a hostile economic climate. While other low-cost retailers spent the recession laying off staff and shuttering stores, QuikTrip expanded to its current 645 locations across 11 states.

Many employers believe that one of the best ways to raise their profit margin is to cut labor costs. But companies like QuikTrip, the grocery-store chain Trader Joe's, and Costco Wholesale are proving that the decision to offer low wages is a choice, not an economic necessity. All three are low-cost retailers, a sector that is traditionally known for relying on part-time, low-paid employees. Yet these companies have all found that the act of valuing workers can pay off in the form of increased sales and productivity.”

Wal-Mart is trying to move into Washington, a move that said local housing blog has not enthusiastically supported. Hence, we’ve been treated to a lot of impassioned reheatings of that old standby: “Costco shows it’s possible” for Wal-Mart to pay much higher wages. The addition of Trader Joe’s and QuikTrip is moderately novel, but basically it’s the same argument: Costco/Trader Joe’s/QuikTrip pays higher wages than Wal-Mart; C/TJ/QT have not gone out of business; ergo, Wal-Mart could pay the same wages that they do, and still prosper.

Obviously at some level, this is a true but trivial insight: Wal-Mart could pay a cent more an hour without going out of business. But is it true in the way that it’s meant -- that Wal-Mart could increase its wages by 50 percent and still prosper?

I wrote about this last spring in regard to Wal-Mart and Costco. Upper-middle-class people who live in urban areas -- which is to say, the sort of people who tend to write about the wage differential between the two stores -- tend to think of them as close substitutes, because they’re both giant stores where you occasionally go to buy something more cheaply than you can in a neighborhood grocery or hardware store. However, for most of Wal-Mart’s customer base, that’s where the resemblance ends. Costco really is a store where affluent, high-socioeconomic status households occasionally buy huge quantities of goods on the cheap: That’s Costco's business strategy (which is why its stores are pretty much found in affluent near-in suburbs). Wal-Mart, however, is mostly a store where low-income people do their everyday shopping.

As it happens, that matters a lot. I produced the following graphic to sum up the differences that these two strategies produce:



(*Walmart figures include Sam’s Club, which despite having more stores, is much less profitable than Costco.)

What do you see? Costco has a tiny number of SKUs in a huge store -- and consequently, has half as many employees per square foot of store. Their model is less labor intensive, which is to say, it has higher labor productivity. Which makes it unsurprising that they pay their employees more.

But what about QuikTrip and Trader Joe’s? I’m going to leave QuikTrip out of it, for two reasons: first, because they’re a private company without that much data, and second, because I’m not so sure about that statistic. QuikTrip’s website indicates a starting salary for a part-time clerk in Atlanta of $8.50 an hour, which is not all that different from what Wal-Mart pays its workforce. That $40,000 figure is for an assistant manager, and seems to include mandatory overtime. To this let’s add a third reason: QuikTrip is a convenience store, a business that bears minimal resemblance to a department store, the category into which Wal-Mart falls. I mean, yes, you can buy candy at both places, but you can also buy a candy bar at the movie theater, and I still wouldn’t head to my local Wal-Mart for a 3:30 p.m. showing of "The Butler."

Trader Joe’s is also private, but we do know some stuff about it, like its revenue per-square foot (about $1,750, or 75 percent higher than Wal-Mart’s), the number of SKUs it carries (about 4,000, or the same as Costco, with 80 percent of its products being private label Trader Joe’s brand), and its demographics (college-educated, affluent, and older). “Within a 15–minute driving radius of a potential site,” one expert told a forlorn Savannah journalist, “there must be at least 36,000 people with four–year college degrees who have a median age of 44 and earn a combined household income of $64K a year.” Costco is similar, but with an even higher household income -- the average Costco household makes more than $80,000 a year.

In other words, Trader Joe’s and Costco are the specialty grocer and warehouse club for an affluent, educated college demographic. They woo this crowd with a stripped-down array of high quality stock-keeping units, and high-quality customer service. The high wages produce the high levels of customer service, and the small number of products are what allow them to pay the high wages. Fewer products to handle (and restock) lowers the labor intensity of your operation. In the case of Trader Joe’s, it also dramatically decreases the amount of space you need for your supermarket ... which in turn is why their revenue per square foot is so high. (Costco solves this problem by leaving the stuff on pallets, so that you can be your own stockboy).

Both these strategies work in part because very few people expect to do all their shopping at Trader Joe’s, and no one expects to do all their shopping at Costco. They don’t need to be comprehensive. Supermarkets, and Wal-Mart, have to devote a lot of shelf space, and labor, to products that don’t turn over that often.

Wal-Mart’s customers expect a very broad array of goods, because they’re a department store, not a specialty retailer; lots of people rely on Wal-Mart for their regular weekly shopping. The retailer has tried to cut the number of SKUs it carries, but ended up having to put them back, because it cost them in complaints, and sales. That means more labor, and lower profits per square foot. It also means that when you ask a clerk where something is, he’s likely to have no idea, because no person could master 108,000 SKUs. Even if Wal-Mart did pay a higher wage, you wouldn’t get the kind of easy, effortless service that you do at Trader Joe’s because the business models are just too different. If your business model inherently requires a lot of low-skill labor, efficiency wages don’t necessarily make financial sense.

That’s not the only reason that the Trader Joe’s/Costco model wouldn’t work for Wal-Mart. For one thing, it’s no accident that the high-wage favorites cited by activists tend to serve the affluent; lower income households can’t afford to pay extra for top-notch service. If it really matters to you whether you pay 50 cents a loaf less for generic bread, you’re not going to go to the specialty store where the organic produce is super-cheap and the clerk gave a cookie to your kid. Every time I write about Wal-Mart (or McDonald's, or [insert store here]), several people will e-mail, or tweet, or come into the comments to say they’d be happy to pay 25 percent more for their Big Mac or their Wal-Mart goods if it means that the workers are well paid. I have taken to asking them how often they go to Wal-Mart or McDonald's. So far, no one has reported going as often as once a week; the modal answer is a sudden disappearance from the conversation. If I had to guess, I’d estimate that most of the people making such statements go to Wal-Mart or McDonald's only on road trips.

However, there are people for whom the McDonald's Dollar Menu is a bit of a splurge, and Wal-Mart’s prices mean an extra pair of shoes for the kids. Those people might theoretically favor high wages, but they do not act on those beliefs -- just witness last Thanksgiving’s union action against Wal-Mart, which featured indifferent crowds streaming past a handful of activists, most of whom did not actually work for Wal-Mart.

If you want Wal-Mart to have a labor force like Trader Joe’s and Costco, you probably want them to have a business model like Trader Joe’s and Costco -- which is to say that you want them to have a customer demographic like Trader Joe’s and Costco. Obviously if you belong to that demographic -- which is to say, if you’re a policy analyst, or a magazine writer -- then this sounds like a splendid idea. To Wal-Mart’s actual customer base, however, it might sound like “take your business somewhere else.”

This is not actually just a piece on how Wal-Mart can only pay low wages -- I don’t know how much more they could afford to pay before they started to lose customers (or the board kicked the CEO out), and neither does anyone else writing about this. I’m actually interested in the larger point: the way that things most people rarely think about -- like the number of products that a store carries -- have far-reaching effects on everything from labor, to location, to customer service and demographics. We tend to look at the most politically salient features of the stores where we shop: their size, their location, the wages that we pay. But these operations are not so simple. They are incredibly complex machines, and you can no more change one simple feature than you can pull out your car’s fuel injection system and replace it with the carburetor from a 1964 Bonneville.