I look forward to being about to spend a couple of hours watching the new Jackie Robinson bio-pic, 42.  I’m a baseball fan and have been since my dad introduced me to the game as youngster. My earliest memories of my dad are playing catch, watching the Game of the Week, and Pride of the Yankees, the story of Lou Gehrig.

Jackie Robinson’s story has been told in books, films, and even a Broadway play. This is because it is such an important and compelling story of moving our still great nation forward. But, one thing I have noticed is that there is one aspect to the story that is almost completely untold.  Social justice was not the only reason behind Branch Richey’s push to integrate Major League Baseball.

The two main players in this story, Jackie Robinson, who was a great baseball player, great man, and the exact right person for the job in 1947, and Branch Richey who had seen and disliked the Jim Crow south (and discrimination in the north) while playing or managing both football and baseball; focused baseball and our nation on racism when #42 debuted at first base for the Brooklyn Dodgers on April 15, 1947. Attendance soared at Ebbets Field and when the Dodgers visited other cities. That should not be ignored.

Jackie, as both he and Richey anticipated was subjected to harsh treatment by fans, opposing players, opposing managers, and even his own teammates. I can’t possibly do justice in describing that, and also keep this blog reasonable in length. So, apologetically, I’m not going to try.

Branch Ritchey was an astute baseball man. He created, quite literally, the modern farm system by buying existing minor league teams and turning them into teaching stops for players he acquired. He introduced statistical analysis, the batting helmet, and the batting cage (among other things) to the Dodgers, and by the fact of the Dodgers’ success their use spread throughout baseball.

The word success in that last sentence is my belated point. Jackie Robinson played 10 years with Brooklyn. In those ten years the Dodgers took the National League pennant six times, finished second three others, and won the World Series in 1955. Branch Richey was interested in success and he knew that the black players languishing in the mismanaged Negro Leagues would be a great enhancement. The first team to sign a black player would have a leg up on signing the best of those players.

The principle that the free market rewards decisions that result in a desirable outcome (winning games or making money) was directly at play in the decision to sign Jackie Robinson.  Building a winning team was most definitely a reason why Richey took the heat, he knew he would, by being the first to play a black man in majors.

Rewarding winning, or making money is not an evil or even a bad thing for society.  The creature comforts that you take for granted are a direct result of the free market rewarding someone with money for producing a good or service that was desired by the general public. Thomas Edison did not invent the light bulb to free the world from darkness. That was just a secondary (and very large) benefit. He did it to make money. 

I want to start this blog out by congratulating so many Americans for using their common sense over this past month. In that time the Sequester became law and another round of Democrat fueled and Obama led hysteria was unleashed. But, this time most of America, and I’m happy to say even some people who voted for Obama looked at what happened, compared it to what Obama and his minions were saying and then said to themselves “Wait a minute. This is bullshit”

So what did happen? Well, back in 2011, Congress was tasked with raising the debt ceiling (credit card limit) of the Federal government. Republicans wanted some spending cuts; otherwise they said it would be irresponsible to keep spending at the rate they were. Democrats said, ‘Hell, No! We can print or borrow the money”. Obama came to the rescue with sequestration. This was a proposal that if a Super Committee of the same congressman who couldn’t agree now, but could magically agree at a later date, then across the board cuts of about 2.3% would occur. As expected no one gave an inch. They were, however, able to put the date of the sequester off until March 1st, this year.

Then the world did not end last December and March 1st actually happened. So Obama had to sign the sequester order which (except for all of the entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare) forced across the board cuts of not 2.3%, but about half that. Why? That's because the fiscal year is already about half over.

Then the doom and gloom started.

Even before Sequester kicked in, the Department of Homeland Security released 2000 illegal immigrants saying they did not have the money to hold them.

The Sequester had not hit yet.

America called “Bullshit”

Obama gets up and makes one of his thousands of road speeches, this time telling Americans how devastating these cuts (to the rate of spending growth. We will actually spend more money this year than the year before) will be to the economy and people everywhere.

America looked at their paycheck and said “I just had to take a 2% pay cut. The kids are getting fed. I’m still paying the bills. I didn’t like it, but the world didn’t end”

America called “Bullshit”

I can hear the liberals all yelling. We call “Bullshit” Obama was just given a mandate by the people with his reelection. The people want this spending!’

I used to be a big movie person. I’d watch at least one during the week and kept my video store card hopping. Now, not so much. I still enjoy an occasional movie and will take my wife out to see a couple or three per year. But as the years have gone by and I’ve watched our society deteriorate, eaten away by civil discourse and social decay, I look around and try to figure why we have gotten to this point and how it came to be.

I don’t think I am going to dwell too much on the Why of it. Human nature and an ignorance of history play a large part in that. The Romans fell. The Soviets fell. The Greeks are falling for the second time, and for the same reasons. And America is falling.

The How is also complicated and I lay most of the blame on liberalism and their mistaken belief that they can help one person by hurting someone else. They are also cursed with a level of arrogance that fuels most of what is causing America’s decline. Our current president is absolutely positive that he knows what is best for everyone one of us in America. Guns are bad. The rich don’t pay enough, ever. Global warming is a certainty. Hitler was sure of himself, too. Now, I don’t equate what Obama is doing to the genocide and war that Hitler caused, but the level of arrogance is comparable.

And that arrogance brings me back to Hollywood. Hollywood liberals have convinced themselves that because they are exceptionally talented at pretending to be something they aren’t, that they can pretend to be an expert on issues concerning politics and science. That delusion is fine in itself, but because of their fame and prominence they have a disproportionate sway with a large part of the American populace.

Think about it for a second. The best actors, those best gifted in the art of deception, those anointed by the Academy Awards, are given the most credibility by American in general. The only other class of people this good at lying are politicians and Americans at least have the sense to know not to believe what they say. But get Brad Pitt, or whoever won Best Actor this year, to endorse it, and Americans will buy horse manure and rub it on their faces.

Now as I see it, these Hollywood elites have the same freedom as you or I. They can give their money to whatever causes they choose, and they are free to sway others to do the same. If I am being honest, they are even free to use their powers of deception to lobby Congress, to pass laws to take my money and freedoms.

But here comes my true epiphany. I am not required to like it or support it. In fact, I’m an idiot if I do. When I pay good money to attend a movie that is driven by some liberal actor, who disagrees with me philosophically, not to mention politically, I am empowering said liberal, with my own money, to fuel whatever idiocy this person cares to preach.

So, I don’t do it.  I don’t watch the Oscars. I don’t go to see very many movies. I watch only an hour or so of TV per night and I TiVo that. That way I don’t see the commercials that are paying for it. I do try to support entertainers that I do agree with on a political level, but they are rare and in hiding. Make no mistake. Hollywood is overwhelmingly liberal. Actors who let on that they are conservative are called one name in Los Angeles, Waiter.

But does my stance really matter? No, I’m just one guy and the vast, vast majority of Americans would rather be entertained through TV or movies, than read a book or something that requires effort. So, it’s one more windmill for me to till at.

Am I missing out? Well, I have never been subjected to even one episode of Jersey Shore, Toddlers and Tiaras, or even Survivor. I count that as a blessing. I had to ask Google what a Honey Boo Boo was. Good call not watching that one either. I can’t name the current American Idol judges. I don’t remember which picture won Best Picture last year, but chances are you don’t either. So, No, I’m not missing out.

Like I said I do watch some TV.  But I have resolved that the entertainment industry is not going to rob me of my time, my money, and that I will minimize the amount of support I give those working against what I believe in.

Now excuse me while I go spend the next hour letting a bunch of liberal actors help me escape the reality they are helping to carve out. The irony really bites.

My election night blog I said that I thought it was over. That Obama’s reelection spelled the end of America as we know it. I said that socialism was now inevitable and that would ultimately lead to a complete collapse. Well, it’s been nearly three months since then and I’ve had time to think about this more and contemplate what can be done, and the likelihood of righting this ship. As a result I officially say “We’re screwed.”

We are locked into a hopeless situation, where the best possible scenarios now involve only delaying the inevitable, in hopes that enough American’s come to their senses to stop electing liberals to office. Why?

Liberals control K-12 education and most colleges. K-12 education is dominated by the teachers union, and school boards that populated mostly by former and current teachers union members. These unions represent the interest of the teachers, not the interest of the students or the parents. The candid and telling quote from Albert Shanker, former president of the United Federation of Teachers;

 "When schoolchildren start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of school children."

 makes their position clear.

Those same unions are involved in an incestuous relationship with the Democratic Party. The unions funnel millions of dollars to Democrats (and almost nothing to Republicans) and the Democrats in turn, through school boards and state politics give teachers a very generous pay scale, benefits and pension program. The teachers are thus  (and I speak generally, not for every teacher) are bound to the Democrat party, so as not to derail the gravy train. This leads them to support every liberal policy that tumbles out of the mouth of a brain-dead liberal politician. Children become indoctrinated in the liberal culture and must figure out for themselves that the false promises and dead end policies they were taught are false.

Most colleges (Hillsdale and Pepperdine are two shining examples that are immune to this) then turn the heat up to a boil and temper these still impressionable kids into liberals. Some of them go into business and the real world and are scrubbed of this foolishness. Most don’t. With degrees is Sociology, Women’s or Minority Studies, Music, Political Science, and any number of liberal arts degrees, these people look to the liberals who traveled this path before them for employment or handouts, until they too can mentor someone with a degree that can’t finance even a payment on their student load debt. They end up in politics, news outlets, or right back on campus as teachers and professors.

Behold the highest currency denomination ever issued by any country in the world; the Zimbabwe One Hundred Trillion Dollar note. This was not a joke; far from it. In 2008 when this "money" was issued, the country of Zimbabwe was in the midst of what is called hyperinflation, and was attempting to stay ahead of it. It failed and that failure should be a lesson to all.

The genesis of this note began in 1998 when Robert Mugabe’s government made the decision to enter the Second Congo War.  Zimbabwe was only 18 years old, and very much a nation trying to establish a thriving economic system, inspire the confidence of foreign investors and to build capital reserves. Zimbabwe did not have the extra capital needed to pay for the accoutrements of war, nor the ability to borrow the large sums needed to finance their war effort. To meet those obligations, Zimbabwe succumbed to the traditional (but short-sighted) method to raise money; they began to print it.

A country takes in money by taxing the output of it's citizens. Zimbabwe’s economy is made up, in large part, of agricultural based products; farms. So a large part of the taxes came from the output of farmers.

Let’s back up for just a moment. The country of Zimbabwe has it’s roots in the British colonial system. This means that by the time Zimbabwe was becoming independent, a small percentage of white, British descendents, owned and farmed the vast majority of the farmland in the new country. I am not here to debate the right or wrong of that situation, but when Mugabe took power in 1998, he undertook the task of changing that.

In 2000, Mugabe allowed the black veterans of Zimbabwe’s war of independence to invade the farms of the white land owners, and take the land by force. Right or wrong, the white landowners had been able to work the land to great advantage and were providing large amounts of money to the Zimbabwe treasury. When they were driven from the country, farm outputs were cut in half when comparing 2000 to 2007. Mugabe’s brutal action did not go unnoticed by the Europe and the United States. They instituted tough sanctions. That meant that outside infusions of capital through investment and capital dried up. 

With expenditures up, revenues down, and little means of borrowing money, Zimbabwe began to print money. Inflation, the decrease in the purchasing power of the monetary unit, was the result. Inflation comes about when there is more money (and credit) competing for the same or few amounts of goods and services. It’s like if you could use a scoop of dirt to buy a hamburger. Dirt is so plentiful, that the next person will offer two scoops for the same hamburger, so you end up having to offer three.

This is a gross oversimplification, but the principle is the same. To keep up with the increased demands of inflation, the Reserve bank of Zimbabwe printed more money, and then higher denominations to try to pay for their obligations, especially with other nations. Those nations who contracted to provide a good or service to a Zimbabwean for x amount of Z-dollars, found at time of payment, those dollars could buy much, much less. They would demand more Z-dollars in compensation. More Z-dollars were printed and the cycle repeated and intensified. 

There have been a handful of protests in the past two weeks that appear to be driven by labor unions. Their aim to raise the minimum wage paid to fast food workers in New York City, to $15.00 an hour. The protests have been endorsed by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), who are undoubtedly looking for new members.

The website championing this movement, Fast Food Forward, lists four reasons why this new minimum wage is needed. They are all misleading or irrelevant. Stay with me for just a few lines while I deconstruct these assertions. It is important to understand how weak their arguments are, and then I’ll tell you what they are leaving out.

#1—“200 billion is grossed by the fast food industry annually”

This fact is misleading. They use the amount of money that flows into the industry without telling you how much flows back out, leaving a profit. It is the profit that is important. You can gross a billion dollars, but if you spend two billion in the process, you won’t survive. Their profit margin is in the 10% range. Labor costs are about 25-30% of the business expenses of a fast food restaurant. Let’s put this on the back burner for a just a bit.

#2—“$25,000 is the average daily salary of most fast food CEOs, over 2x what the average worker makes in 1 year”

This is likely not even a fact and it’s irrelevant. The website doesn’t quote its source, but these types of “facts” often include the stock options and bonuses paid that are based on the performance of a company. The company does well; the CEO gets a nice slice. The company tanks; the CEO gets canned.

It is irrelevant because most fast food restaurants are franchised. That means the real CEO of that company is making nowhere near the amount quoted, and is often the guy running the day to day operation.  It’s just a way to pit people against people.

#3—“Workers make only 25% of the money they need to survive in NYC while working at fast food companies.”

#4--$11,000 is average yearly salary of fast food workers in NYC”

These fast food jobs are entry level positions. These jobs were never supposed to be used to support a family. These are jobs you take to start a working career. They are equivalent to babysitting the neighborhood children on weekends. These are jobs traditionally filed by high school kids first starting out and working part time, (A reason why #4 is misleading) and still living at home. These are jobs that teach basic employment practices (show up each day, on time, and do what is asked of you and do it very well) and give kids a source of income.

Years from now when the book “The Rise and Fall of the United States of America” is written by some citizen of whichever country succeeds America as the dominate power on this globe, there will be a chapter on Barack Obama. That chapter will be called “The Final Nail”

I wrote four years ago that this nation was at a crossroads. I wrote that we had a clear decision to make. A vote for Barack Obama would be for a man with very socialist tendencies. Obama won and he spent the next four years proving me right. He misappropriated money from TARP to bailout General Motors and Chrysler, turning the US into a part owner of the companies. He signed the legislation making certain large banks ‘too big too fail”, thus making them government partners, he actively pushes to give labor unions more and more power, his policies have made a greater percentage of people dependent on food stamps, unemployment payments and disability, all the while pushing to take more and more money away from the so-call rich. And finally, the cherry on the Obama sundae, his signature achievement, the final nail; ObamaCare.

ObamaCare sets us on the unmistakable path to government funded healthcare. ObamaCare is now officially unrepealable. November 2012 was our last chance, our very last chance, to repeal this law, and to turn America back from socialism and then collapse. We failed.

ObamaCare is good intentions implemented through a terrible piece of grossly expensive legislation. 2000 plus pages of regulation and taxes that even the lackeys who wrote it don’t understand. But one thing is really clear. It’s expensive. Our nation can not survive this additional expense plus the mismanagement and gross waste that will come with it. Repealing it and replacing it with something more manageable had to happen.

Obama and the entire Democratic Party lack the will, leadership, or fortitude to address the problem of the entitlement programs we already have. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Food Stamps, are all ideas filled with good intentions. But we can’t afford them in their present incarnations. Over 2/3 of our budget, and 100% of the actual taxes we take in, go to fund these programs. We borrow or print money to take care of the things the federal government was intended to do. Things like national defense and infrastructure. When ObamaCare is fully implemented the amount of money we have to tax, print, or borrow only gets worse.

The Democrats won’t change any of those programs, including ObamaCare, for fear of losing votes. The Republican’s can’t change them because they are not in power, and likely won’t be, baring some economic disaster. There is no mystery to how this will end. The house of cards crumbles. Adding ObamaCare both finalizes the inevitable and speeds it up.

So, grandchildren, I’m sorry I could not make this clear to more people. I tried. I never thought I could make a huge difference. But, I did think that all the high profile people pulling in the same direction would make a difference. Obviously, I was seriously wrong. But, one thing is clear; the majority of Americans now fall into one of two camps. They either are too ill informed to make the choice that would keep this country viable, or they believe that Americans need government solutions to their problems.

Government solutions require more laws, regulations, and restrictions. So government must then grow. Government takes from those who produce and redistributes. Those that the government takes from, then have less incentive to produce.  

Government is also overhead. Overhead is non-productive. It is the stuff businesses strive to reduce so there is money leftover. Government does not worry about money leftover (profits). Profit acts as a natural barrier to excess spending and waste. In the real world an entity unconcerned about profits vanishes. But when the government runs of money, they take it, print it, or borrow it. All of those things are bad and unsustainable. They will come to end at some point. We are now destined to spend way more money than we can possibly take in, and there is little left to slow it down.

That is why our die is cast. It is no longer if America collapses, we are down to when.

It’s over and my side lost. America is now on the unavoidable path to the fundamental change Obama promised.

You’ll have to excuse me if I don’t celebrate with the rest of you. 

I have a lot of respect for Libertarians. They want the world to be much like I do; a small, unobtrusive government with people taking responsibility for their own lives. These are the ideas in which our country was founded. These ideas are also the compass that our Founding Fathers gave us to find our way. We have long since smashed that compass and have been looking to Washington for direction, instead of within ourselves.

On November 6th I wish a man like Libertarian Party nominee, Gary Johnson was going to be elected President of the United States. I wish that he was joined by like minded members of Congress and that we could begin immediately dismantling the federal bureaucracy that is strangling this nation. I also wish I was six four with a 105 mile per hour fastball.

On the morning of November 7th, either Barrack Obama or Mitt Romney is going to be elected president. Gary Johnson has no shot, and anyone that tells you different is stupid, delusional, or naïve. You may not like it, but it is the same as not liking Hurricane Sandy. Hate it all you want, but there is nothing you can do to stop it. Given that; Libertarians have only four choices when voting for President; Obama, Romney, Johnson, or No Vote. Let’s look at each one.

Let’s dismiss “No Vote” out of hand. If you are reading this, you care about this country and your vote is the one thing you can do to make a difference.

As for voting for Obama, there is little to attract a Libertarian. Yes, I understand on social issues he might be closer to you. But, his record on gun control is 180 degrees of yours, his record on foreign policy hardly mirrors what Libertarians stand for, and most importantly he is the anti-Christ to a Libertarian who wants smaller government and a government that leaves people alone. A Libertarian who votes for Obama must be a single issue voter, and might as well register as a Democrat.

I can hear the hard core Libertarians yelling; “There is only one choice! Vote for Gary Johnson!”

I am a firm believer in that voting for your party, straight down the line, is the way to go. However, with the exception of a handful of state offices, Libertarians can’t be elected. Being a Libertarian is tough. It’s like being a Navy Seal; there are only a few that are up to the standards. Libertarians believe that you take out a loan for a house, you pay it back. No bailouts. If you get sick, you should have either savings or your own insurance. The government has no part in it. When life kicks you in the teeth, the Libertarian carves his own dentures. This rugged individualistic attitude does not attract enough people to get a Libertarian candidate elected, in most cases.  Sorry, but that is the way it is. Gary Johnson is not going to win. It won’t be close.

Now I hear those same Libertarians scream

“I don’t care! I’m sending a message to those bastards!”

The most recent debate between Mitt Romney, President Obama and moderated by Candy Crowley perfectly illustrates, in a microcosm, what Romney is up against in his run for president. It’s not just that he has to present his side of the issues and then let the people make their mind. No, he has to present them in an unfriendly environment, to an unfriendly interviewer (moderator), and then has to spend his limited time pointing out the disingenuous answers that are given by the President.

I will defend that statement in a second. But, first let me say that Romney acquitted himself very well last night. He had command of the facts and made point after point concerning jobs, the economy, and both our debt and growing deficit. He had Obama constantly trying to defend his record, and I don’t think Obama’s answers on the economy, or much else, are going to play very well with undecided voters.  Both sides are claiming victory on this one, but Obama needed a decisive victory to stop the bleeding. He didn’t get it. Like the VP debate of last week, the talk is about Crowley and Obama’s deceptive answer, not the issues. Round two to the challenger.

Unfriendly environment; each of these four debates is being held at a university; supposedly neutral territory. But, last night shows, by the cheering (presumably by the students, and not the press) when Crowley “fact checked” on an answer the president gave. The vast and overwhelming majority of our colleges have become indoctrination centers for not only liberalism, but socialism. The fact that attendees could not contain themselves, when “their man” was supposedly vindicated, is proof positive. Why are none of the debates being held at places like Hillsdale College, Grove College, Pepperdine, or even in a non-university setting? Where is it written that the conservative must always be on hostile ground?

Unfriendly reporter: The prime directive of a debate moderator is to stay objective and neutral. Candy Crowley was not that. It started with the second question of the debate. In a debate there is a back and forth. Debater #1 gets the question; Debater #2 gets the last word. In the first question, about Jobs, Romney got the question, and Obama got the last word. On the next question, about gas prices, they went back and forth, but the last response should have gone to Romney. He had to call Crowley on that, and then when she tried to brush him off, talk over her to get his point across. She constantly let the president run over on his allotted time and Obama ended up with 11% more talking time.

Then we have the questions. And remember, these were not random questions. They were fully screened, chosen, and even who would get which question was decided by Candy Crowley and her staff. There was nothing random about what was asked or who it was asked to. Question #4 was about the “fact” that women make only 72% of what women do. This is an old half truth, which has been debunked time and time again. Women who have worked for the same company, for the same amount of time, doing the same job, make almost the same amount of money. The discrepancy is no where near 28 cents on 

I decided I wasn’t done with Joe Biden yet. Last week I dissected his performance and demonstrated that the whole debate was nothing but an act; an attempt to do nothing but paint Romney and Ryan as liars and incompetents. It failed, as all anyone is talking about is Joe Biden’s antics. Jay Leno and Saturday Night Live are thanking God for Joe Biden right now.

But, the more I though about the more I couldn’t let Joe off so easy. Because not only was his smirking, laughing, and gesticulating unprofessional and immature, he sat there and lied to the American people, and only talk radio is calling him on it.

Let’s start with this quote after the moderator asked about the killing of Chris Stephens in Libya and Paul Ryan pointing out that the embassy had inadequate (to say the least) security.

“Well, we weren’t told they wanted more security there. We did not know they wanted more security again.”  ---Joe Biden

First, they need to be told that on the anniversary of 9-11, the first anniversary of 9-11 after the killing of Bin Laden, a fact Obama trumpets every time foreign policy is brought up, in a city with known Al Qaeda activity, that beefed up security is needed? Who shows these mental giants where the bathrooms are at? Perhaps, instead of going on Letterman or The View Obama should attend the security briefings that he routinely ignores.

But, it doesn’t stop at incompetence. The very day before the Vice Presidential debates a congressional hearing was conducted on the actions in Benghazi and Eric Nordstrom, the former chief security officer for the American Embassy in Libya said that;

“his request to extend the deployment of an American military team was thwarted by the State Department’s Department of Diplomatic Security.”

The White House claims it wouldn’t have done any good. I so trust their judgment on this matter over the guy in charge of keeping those American’s safe.

Staying on the subject of the tight grasp the Obama administration has on the Middle East, we have this quote from Joe Biden.

“When my friend talks about fissile material, they have to take this highly enriched uranium, get it from 20 percent up, then they have to be able to have something to put it in. There is no weapon that the Iranians have at this point”

Biden is conceding that Iran is going to get to the point of having the fissionable material. This is a complete failure of the Obama administration. Obama has talked