by: the Common Constitutionalist
I was speaking to a customer at my office last week. He is as conservative as anyone and fairly well read. He comes by to pick up supplies every once in a while and invariably the conversations turn to politics.
That day, we discussed everything from incandescent light bulbs to Obamacare. He began to turn the conversation into a complainathon.
He bemoaned the bond buying scheme by the Federal Reserve, saying that the $85 billion a month money flood can’t possibly be sustained. It was then that I told him the great news – that the Fed was paring back to a mere $75 billion a month.
by: the Common Constitutionalist
As with most companies that employ outside salesman, mine is no different. We have territories that each man (or woman) confines himself to.
For the longest time there was one territory the consistently lagged behind the others. Salesman after salesman failed, all saying the same thing: “You just can’t make a living in this territory.” There were not enough customers, too much competition, etc. We literally went through eight salesmen in a row, telling us the same thing. Yet we knew there was great-untapped potential there.
Along came a relatively unassuming and introverted man. He was the opposite of the stereotypical salesman. You know, type A, extrovert, a little loud, a little arrogant. All indicators pointed to his failure, but we took a shot anyway.
Well, this quiet man (who looked exactly like the singer James Taylor) became our number one salesman, month in, month out, year in, year out.
How did he do it? Well, simple. He was real. He was the embodiment of every successful cliché on the books. He said what he meant and meant what he said. He talked the talk and walked the walk, and all the rest of those sayings.
The bottom line is people, his customers, liked and trusted him. He was humble, but not a doormat. He stood up for himself and didn’t compromise just to make a sale. In other words, he didn’t prostitute himself.
He prided himself on knowing his product better than anyone but was not afraid to tell a customer he didn’t know the answer. He would find the answer and inform the customer… every time.
Upon his retirement, after just eight years, something unusual occurred. I’ve never seen or heard anything like it before, or since.
He was so loved and respected that when his customers found out of his impending retirement, huge orders just started appearing. Customers were calling in purchases for a full year or more on one order, just so he would receive the commission. It was their way of thanking him for years of unwavering service. It was truly epic.
Nice story you say, but what the heck does it have to do with anything?
Well, because politics is just sales. It’s as simple as that. Instead of a product, you are simply selling yourself, your ideas and your values.
Now, most of us have not dealt directly with politicians, but have with salesman, and it’s always the same, isn’t it.
Unfortunately, politics and sales attract some of the same types. Smarmy glad handers that flash a fake smile and make hollow promises.
People, more often than not, buy from whom they like and whom they feel they can trust. There will be some ill-informed customers that believe any line of crap handed to them, as long as it is what they wish to hear. Thankfully, they are in the minority. They vote the same way. But that only works when there is a dearth of competent competition.
The salesman I spoke of could be compared to Ronald Reagan and those before him, a bunch of Bob Doles, John McCains or Mitt Romneys.
People trusted Reagan. He was the real deal. He, like our outstanding salesman, set himself apart. He wasn’t just one of many. He didn’t just say, like so many politicians and salesman: “Yeah, I can do that too.” For an informed customer or voter that isn’t a reason to switch salesmen or candidates.
Now more than ever, we need those who have the courage to care more about their country than the next election. They must be honest, bold but humble and not compromising of their core beliefs under any circumstances. They must know their topics and sell their vision.
Whether in sales or public service, those who speak the truth and are knowledgeable need no Teleprompter.
Public Schools Used to Have Rifle Teams — Even New York
by: Gary DeMar
I graduated from high school in 1968. There were some problem students. I do remember a student who robbed a bank during lunch and hid the money in his locker, but that was the rare exception. It was big news at the time because it was so out of the ordinary. There were fights and petty thievery. The perpetrators were dealt with swiftly by the administration without having to worry that their parents would hire a lawyer and sue the school.
My wife grew up in a small town in the northwestern part of Pennsylvania. The schools closed for the first day of doe and buck season. There was no reason to hold classes because most of the boys would be out with their dads hunting deer. No one ever took a gun to school to shoot anybody. You could see kids riding down the street with a rifle across the handle bars. Continue Reading
by: the Common Constitutionalist
Dr. H. Wayne Carver, the medical examiner investigating the December 14, 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, said autopsies completed on 20 children and six adults on Saturday showed they were killed with multiple bullets fired by a rifle at close range.
“I’ve been at this for a third of a century and my sensibilities may not be those of the average man, but this probably is the worst I have seen or the worst that I know of any of my colleagues have seen,” Carver told reporters gathered at Treadwell Park, less than a mile from the school where the shooting occurred.
The veteran medical examiner told reporters that the victims had all been identified and their bodies released. Carver appeared to be very uncomfortable during his news conference, complete with conspicuously nervous laughter throughout. It was a rather odd and macabre display of callousness; down right creepy, if you ask me.
He said all of the victims he had examined had all been shot by a Bushmaster .223 caliber assault rifle, one of at least two weapons Adam Lanza, the 20-year-old suspected shooter, used to commit one of the deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history.
Yet on later that same day, NBC reported that both federal and state officials had confirmed to them that in fact Lanza carried 4 pistols into the school. That, in fact, Lanza left the Bushmaster rifle in his car and didn’t take it into the school.
I am not a nutty conspiracy theorist, but something went on here and someone, for some reason, was lying about the weapon or weapons Lanza used to slaughter these kids and their teachers.
Yet, I don’t here a word about this major discrepency of facts. Why not?
If this school was assaulted by Lanza using only handguns, why the sudden hew and cry over the banning of assault weapons?
Is no one else even the slightest bit curious to find the facts in this case, before we go off and start the great American gun grab? Guess not.
State imposed minimum price fixing. That’s the American way!
For Lafayette stockbroker Kenneth Daigle, buying a gallon of milk is no longer the bargain it used to be on Tuesdays at Fresh Market.
The upscale supermarket chain yanked milk from its $2.99 once-a-week promotion after a state auditor objected to the low price. A gallon of whole milk was priced at $5.69 Thursday at the Fresh Market in Perkins Rowe.
State Agriculture and Forestry Commissioner Mike Strain said Fresh Market violated state regulations by selling milk below cost as part of a promotion.
The supermarket routinely sells a gallon of skim, 1 percent, 2 percent or whole milk for $2.99 on Tuesdays, limiting the quantity to four per customer.
State law requires retailers’ markups to be no less than 6 percent of the invoice cost after adding freight charges.
The Dairy Stabilization Board oversees milk prices in Louisiana. The board was established after Schwegmann, a New Orleans-area grocery chain, launched a legal battle in the 1970s with the Louisiana Milk Commission to buy milk from out-of-state suppliers because it was cheaper.Continue Reading
Investors seek to buy island from Detroit and start a ‘new nation’
A developer wants the city of Detroit to sell an island that is now a city park to a group of buyers looking to transform it into a new nation.
Rodney Lockwood, a developer from Bingham Farms, a village of 1,100 people about a half-hour from Detroit, is pushing for the city to sell the 982-acre Belle Isle for $1 billion to a group of investors who ‘believe in individual freedom, liberty and free markets,’ according to a website set up by proponents of the concept, commonwealthofbelleisle.com.
During the next three decades, the buyers would establish a ‘remarkable new nation’ of 35,000 people using private money, transforming the island into a quasi-autonomous state with its own government, currency and system of taxation. The large sum paid for Belle Isle would be used to train Detroiters to fill the huge need for construction workers on Belle Isle.
There would be no personal or corporate income tax in this business-friendly utopia.
Most people would buy citizenship to Belle Isle at a cost of $300,000. Twenty percent of the population would be exempt from paying the fee, allowing for some socioeconomic diversity.
All citizens would be mandated to have good credit, no criminal background and command of the English language, according to The Detroit News.
Supporters forecast that a privately owned Belle Isle would rival Singapore ‘as an economic miracle,’ generating ‘billions of dollars in desperately needed economic growth’ and becoming ‘a social laboratory for the western world’ — an experiment in small government.
The construction jobs produced by the massive undertaking and its other economic benefits would restore Detroit ‘to its former glory,’ backers claim.
While the Commonwealth of Belle Isle has prominent supporters, including the retired president of Chrysler, Hal Sperlich, it will probably be struck down by Detroit municipal officials, according to news reports.
Lockwood even acknowledges that the concept is unlikely to be approved, while George Jackson, president and CEO of the Detroit Economic Growth Corp., was quoted as saying the idea won’t advance.
Last fall, Detroit Mayor David Bing and Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder reportedly struck a deal handing over the operation and management of Belle Isle to the state.
City Council members were unhappy with the deal, which would have granted a 30-year lease of the island to the Department of Natural Resources, saying it lacked specifics and wouldn’t provide jobs and contracts to the people of Detroit.
The agreement called for the new state to fund renovations and operations of Belle Isle instead of paying rent which the brokers of the deal said would save the city $6 million a year. The state wants the City Council to revisit the issue in 2013.
Attribution: Dan Prochilo, Daily Mail
by: the Common Constitutionalist
I was recently speaking to a friend and fellow conservative. The conversation invariably turned to a discussion of “The One”. My friend was complaining of what a fascist dictator Obama is becoming. I had to laugh knowing that Obama has always been a fascist and it’s just becoming more obvious now. He spoke as if this were the first time in American history we have a president that fancies himself a dictator or King.
I gave my friend a quick synopsis of King Andrew Jackson. You may link to it here. It was as if he hadn’t heard this, as if it were news to him, and he, I regard as someone who is a fairly well-rounded and knowledgeable conservative. He did understand, and I agree, that fascism is a product of the left, not the right as most are taught. The left, the progressives, like fascists are enamored with, and in fact worship the power and expansion of the state and absolute control of it.
There have actually been several “want to be” fascist leaders in America before the present. As bad as they all were, in my opinion, there has been none worse than president Thomas Woodrow Wilson, our 28th.
Historian Walter McDougall wrote that Wilson, “loved, craved and in a sense, glorified power”.
Wilson said, “I cannot imagine power as something negative and not positive. No doubt a lot of nonsense has been talked about the inalienable rights of the individual, and a great deal that was mere sentiment and pleasing speculation has been put forward as fundamental principle.” He went on to say, “government does whatever experience permits or that the times demand” and, “the president is at liberty both in law and conscience, to be as big a man as he can. His capacity will set a limit.”
Progressives, statists like Wilson are always arguing that the “Times”, not the Constitution, dictate government policy. He believed that the country’s leaders are not servants of its citizens but masters. He alleged that a, “true leader uses the masses of people like tools. Men are as clay in the hands of the consummate leader.” Humility was not one of Wilson’s attributes.
Another trait of all dictatorial advocates is that is that they abhor dissent. They won’t accept and frankly don’t understand any disagreement of their brilliance. For example, upon entering World War I Wilson exclaimed of antiwar protesters, “Woe be to the man or group of men that seeks to stand in our way.” Just imagine the rancor of the left leaning press if George Bush had the stones to stand up and say something like that.
Wilson, as all progressives, claimed to have a reverence for America’s founders and the original documents until, of course, their beliefs clash with said founders. Then it is always the same excuse not to adhere to the founders’ original intent. The “Times” again, they say, dictate all actions.
Wilson exclaimed, “While we are followers of Jefferson….You know that it was Jefferson who said that the best government is one that does as little governing as possible….But that time has passed. America is not now and cannot in the future be a place for unrestricted individual enterprise.” I guess the average American just can’t handle freedom.
Now have you ever noticed that most wars break out when a progressive is in charge? Just an observation and I’m sure strictly coincidental.
But Woodrow Wilson actually bragged about fighting a war with no national interest at stake as is the law. “There is not a single selfish element, so far as I can see, in the cause we are fighting for.” So according to Wilson we had no national interest, no strategic benefit, no clear and present danger to our involvement in World War I. Is that what he’s saying?
Wilson said of World War I, “As head of a nation participating in the war, the President of the United States would have a seat at the peace table, but… If he remained the representative of a neutral country, he could at best only call through a crack in the door.”
So was Wilson saying he got America into World War I so he could have a seat at the peace table? Over 116,000 died in even more wounded so he could promote his warped view of worldwide collectivism and one world government through his “League of Nations?” He did proudly admit that we had no national interest in the war. I would not like to think this of any man but the more I look, it appears that he did just that.
Wilson’s grand legacy will continue in Part Two.
England’s Crime Rate Nearly Four Times Higher than United States. Hey Piers Morgan, Care to Explain That?
by: Gary DeMar
I’ll give Piers Morgan credit for one thing: He’s not afraid to interview people who have strong disagreements with him. He’s giving them a platform for views that rarely see the light of day on liberal networks.
He had Alex Jones of InfoWars on a few nights ago. While Jones was a little over the top, he didn’t roll over for Morgan. Too many conservatives want to be friends with the media as if their agreeable style will somehow endear them to the liberal media establishment. It will never, never, never happen.
Morgan also had Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America on. Don’t mess with Larry Pratt. He comes to interviews prepared, and he’s a lot more measured and calm than Jones. In his December 19, 2012 interview, Pratt had said that “evil’s in our hearts. Not in the guns.” That’s probably the first time the secularist Morgan ever heard that before. Of course, it’s true. Good people, or at least people who work hard to say no to evil thoughts and desires, do not murder people. When some usually good person “snaps,” the snapping is the evil in them (James 1:13–15; Mark 7:14–15).
Pratt went on to say to Morgan in the interview:
“The problem occurs, sir, in those areas precisely where we have said ‘no guns.’ The problem doesn’t occur where the guns are allowed freely to be carried to be used by people. There we have very low murder rates.”
Pratt returned to Morgan’s show on January 9th of this year. The sparks flew over crime statistics.
The vast majority of people in England do not own guns. Guns are heavily restricted. Morgan sees this as one of the reasons crime is low in England. At least that’s what he’s been trying to pass off to his low-information viewers . . . until Larry Pratt showed up for round two.
Pratt maintained that the official police homicide numbers are cooked. “The data that you are using for the murder rate in England is a sham,” Pratt countered. “There’s a monumental miss-reporting of what constitutes murder. If three people are murdered, it’s likely to be counted as one event.” In fact, an article on crime statistics in England makes the same point: “there are the official police figures (which historically under-record the true level of crime).”
Morgan couldn’t handle the truth. He accused Pratt of “deliberately lying, deliberately twisting” the data. Where did Pratt get his information? Instead of there being 39 murders in 2011 that Morgan claimed, Pratt stated there were 970. “That’s exactly what your own constabulary is saying,” insisted Pratt.
Then just yesterday, I came across an article that was published in The Telegraph on July 2, 2009:
“Analysis of figures from the European Commission showed a 77 per cent increase in murders, robberies, assaults and sexual offences in the UK since [the] Labour [Party] came to power.
“The total number of violent offences recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa.
“The UK had a greater number of murders in 2007 than any other EU country — 927 — and at a relative rate higher than most western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
It gets worse. “Overall, 5.4 million crimes were recorded in the UK in 2007 — more than 10 a minute — second only to Sweden. . . . It means there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe.”
Great Britain’s crime rate is nearly four times that of the United States. “By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 population.”