Barack Obama Could Have Had THE Greatest Legacy of All Time

Looking back to a post I wrote way back in 2008, "Righting the Woes of Black America Starts at Home," it makes me think about how much of a missed opportunity was presented during the presidency of Barack Obama.

At the time, race baiters like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton were not at all too pleased with certain comments that Obama made on the campaign trail which put some of the onus of many black problems in America back unto themselves.

He did not pass all of the blame on black America mind you, and rightly so. But he did acknowledge that not all problems in black America are the fault of society or the government. 

"We've got to demand more responsibility from Washington. We've got to push aside those special interests and let the voices of the American people ring out," said Obama. He even said that we needed to demand more responsibility from Wall Street. 

"But you know what," he added. "We also have to demand more responsibility from ourselves." 

I thought Barack Obama was right about the comments he made. These were powerful words. These were words I actually wanted to hear. And when he uttered them, I thought, even though I did not support his presidency, that if he could accomplish nothing else, if he could be the force which can turn around all of the past issues facing black America—it would be the greatest accomplishment of all time.

He would have left a legacy as powerful as Abraham Lincoln's freeing of the slaves. Of the historic marches for freedom of Martin Luther King, Jr.

If nothing else, the strong words of Barack Obama at that time gave me hope, despite his running as a democrat, despite his clearly being a liberal, that perhaps we might finally see a voice (potentially coming from the podium of the highest office in the land) that would speak for black America in a way that would encourage a newfound path forward instead of against them as so many in the leagues of people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton did for so long. 

And frankly, that so many in the democrat party did and continue to do to this day.

I am not saying that Barack Obama would have had the power to change everything. But he certainly had the power to foster change quite powerfully among society as a whole. Especially in the black community. It was a message that could have been powerful in that it would have said, "We have the opportunity and the ability and the strength to become what we have always known we can become—that we know we are and rather than be victims, to be leaders of our own destinies."

Words not unlike many spoken by Martin Luther King, Jr. frankly. Powerful words that lift a people up. Not hold them down. Words that strengthen the heart and solidify the resolve rather than soften the heart and weaken the resiliency of purpose.

Because that's been my biggest complaint of so-called leaders like Jackson and Sharpton and even of the democrat party. Their message is always one of despair and failure and blame. 

Not for one second will I deny that there aren't a multitude of issues that help to support at least some of the arguments people like Jackson or Sharpton have made over the years, as well as others in their camps. But to deny the internal portion of culpability is to deny, ultimately, the real change that can be made to actually foster progress.

It's sort of like the historical words of John F. Kennedy, "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." Those were powerful words as well. It put the onus of America's problems in the hands of everyday citizens and said basically, "We cannot expect the world's problems to be solved by someone else. We must strive to see within ourselves what we can do to help solve those problems together."

Isn't that sort of what Barack Obama said? And how could those words have been interpreted as talking down to black people, as Jesse Jackson suggested, or even anger a people as a whole? Shouldn't words like that provide for an aha moment? A revelation of possibility? A moment of realization of a key ingredient that had been missing all along to finally make the real change achievable?

The key takeaway here for me is that Barack Obama left this massive idea on the table when he made history and became the first black president and took his oath of office. He unfortunately, and frankly sadly, missed the greatest opportunity the world has ever known to rise up black America in a way that would have presented a very different landscape today for all of America and society even today.

The question becomes, when does that opportunity ever come again? And how did he so poorly miss it?

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on Facebook or on YouTube to keep up with the latest installments wherever The Springboard writes. You can also follow me on X @jimbauer601.

The Point of No "Return" in Pricing

Beer sales might be a strange way to talk about the point of no "return" when it comes to inflationary pressures. But here I am talking about it.

The thing is, during times like these when prices are rising faster than paychecks and there seems to be no end in sight at the register for paying more for just about everything, many businesses get accused of price gouging.

In the eyes of some consumers, there must be something shady going on here.

And I will admit, sometimes it certainly feels that way. Like how convenient it always seems to be that right before a weekend or especially a holiday weekend, gas prices suddenly shoot up. And I feel that way even though I understand certain macroeconomic things that factor into why that happens—and it has nothing to do with price gouging.

Inflation is also not a product of or a result of price gouging.

The simple fact of the matter is that when inflation hits, it hits everyone. And businesses are not immune to it any more than anyone else is. The cost of raw materials goes up. The cost of utilities to run the machines go up. The cost of wages possibly goes up. The cost to transport finished product goes up. Every aspect of the cost of running the business goes up.

And in order to maintain their margins and remain profitable, so does the cost they sell their products for go up.

But like most things, there is a limit here. There is only so much a customer will pay for something before they finally decide it costs too much and leave it on the shelf. This is the point of no "return" on the prospect of raising prices to protect margins.

In other words, at some point the customer will simply refuse to pay the higher price such as what happened with beer maker Heineken. They raised prices enough that consumers finally said no, and their sales dropped over 4% in the last quarter as a result.

Granted, there are certain things that consumers have a need for regardless of how much it costs. Certain foods, for example. Gas for the car. But even on those two things there are certain things that consumers we can do to curb costs. 

They really don't have us by the balls at the end of the day as much as we may want to believe that.

Consumers still have the power to send a message, and many do. When egg prices hit $4 and $5 per dozen, I simply stopped eating eggs. And did so for 3-months. And I don't think I was the only one, because one thing I observed when I went into the grocery stores was that eggs were always fully stocked.

People were not buying them. Demand for eggs plummeted. Egg prices came back down. 

Granted, the costs driving the prices up didn't change. In fact, because inflation is far from done, costs actually continued to rise. So, now the businesses have to make a decision. Either allow product to rot on the shelves and not get paid anything for it or sell it cheaper and suffer through a period of lower margins.

And that's exactly what you are seeing. More and more businesses are reporting lower sales numbers due to higher prices but are also reporting lower margins. Many are saying, "We have simply reached a point where we can no longer afford to raise prices and stay afloat even if we lose money or experience lower margins on every sale."

Heineken, as an example, knows that the more it continues to raise prices in order to compensate for higher production costs, the more customers they will likely lose as a result. It's a no-win situation. 

So, as much as we like to think that the companies are simply trying to take advantage of us, the reality is that they're not. In fact, they cannot. Especially in areas where there are alternative options for consumers to choose.

There is a flip side here, as there always tends to be, and that's that consumers pulling back and saying no actually helps to curb inflation. It weakens demand and with less money pouring into the economy, suddenly things slow down economically, which is a primary ingredient to combatting inflation.

There may be a short period in between all of this before inflation really comes down when businesses may hold certain prices to try to recoup what they lost when margins were lower. But even that will be short-lived. Because consumers do see the news. If they see that inflation as a whole is waning but prices aren't coming down, there will be backlash for that.

As it has always been said in business, the markets will charge what the markets are willing to bear. And when it comes to that, there is a point of no return. There is a point at which consumers will ultimately decide what prices should be. And businesses will either have to pay attention or risk losing their business.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on Facebook or on YouTube to keep up with all the latest anywhere The Springboard writes or shares his thoughts on the world, money, politics, and other topics of interest of the day.

Election Denial Is Not a Reason to Say No

Former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and many others in Congress on both sides, in this whole clown show we currently are watching unfold before our eyes as we once again can't seem to pick a speaker are citing Jim Jordan's "election denial" position as a key reason he simply can't be the speaker. 

But do we have short term memory problems here, folks?

Beyond just the tweet from 2017 from Nancy Pelosi that resurfaced after she publicly made the same assertion that denying Biden's win is a big reason to say no to Jim Jordan's bid in which she wrote, "Our election was hijacked. There is no question. Congress has a duty to protect our democracy and follow the facts." What the hell was the entire four years about while Trump was president? What seemed to be the primary function of Congress under Speaker Pelosi's charge?

To deny the election of President Trump and get him out.

The odd thing to me is this. In 2016 there was no evidence that the election did not happen as the voters decided it. And I don't say that as a republican nor as a Trump supporter. I say that because there was literally nothing to suggest that Trump did not win in 2016 other than innuendo and accusation placed by Hillary Clinton and the democrat party that somehow Trump colluded with the Russians to seal the deal.

Something that was clearly debunked at every turn no matter how long investigations ensued trying to make their accusation valid. But of course, they couldn't because it simply wasn't true.

But that didn't matter. Not to the media. And not to the democrat party. In their eyes Trump simply was not the legitimate president under any circumstance and it was their job to oppose him no matter what and oust him from office whatever it would take.

The work of the American people, in their eyes, literally became the removal of a duly elected, sitting president against the will of the American people, and to convince the American people they were doing the right thing.

Going back to that "no evidence" argument regarding 2016, there seems to be quite a bit of it regarding 2020—or if it is not evidence per se, it's at least a lot of question marks that deserve a deeper dive look and some more definitive answers other than, "Biden won, just deal with it."

Look, I am not even so much an election denier as I am simply a concerned citizen who thinks our elections matter, and if there are questions, we ought to be interested in knowing what the real answer is. Perhaps if the media and the then leader of the House, and even the American people had been quick to dismiss the idea of a stolen election in 2016, I could accept a quick dismissal of the same in 2020.

But we have a complete reversal here, and we have since Biden was "elected."

Jim Jordan has simply been one of the more vocal congressmen asking questions and wanting answers. "Let's look into it," he has said. Because again, unlike the Russia collusion hoax which had all sorts of evidence pointing to "it didn't happen," the questions regarding to 2020 at least point to, "it possibly happened."

Without rehashing the suggestions I have made in the past, which I believe are legitimate questions; we know that Trump received 10 million more votes in 2020 than he got in 2016. We know that Biden supposedly got the highest number of votes for any elected president in the history of the United States, and that before mail-in ballots were counted, which were about 90% for Biden, Trump was winning the electoral college.

If nothing else, I think we need to know more about how those mail-in ballots were received. By whom and under what oversight? What checks and balances were there and how were they verified? 

Either way, what we have here is simply a mess of great proportion. And it is costing the American people valuable time. Not only that, but it's also thoroughly eroding any sense by Americans that we can rely on our government and our elected officials to get things done that are critical to our lives and to the nation's needs.

For the past 7 years what we've seen is chaos. Frankly from both sides. And right now, at least on our side, we're seeing massive division that is hurting us, and I think it may hurt us going into 2024 no matter who the nominee happens to be, even if I am convinced to this point it will be Trump.

We cannot be a party divided and stand any more than we can be a nation divided and stand. If the question barring Jim Jordan from the speakership is simply his stance on the 2020 election, well, we've been down this road before with Pelosi. No one complained about her attacks on the election which led to four years of investigations and impeachments. So, why should it be a problem for Jordan?

Granted, I don't want to see more of what we saw under Pelosi. But at the same time, I also think there is just too much work to be done that isn't getting done as bickering back and forth seems to be the only job Congress has any more.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on Facebook, YouTube and X at @JimBauer601 to keep up with the latest from all the places I share my thoughts and opinions.

The Leonard Allen Cure Shooting

After seeing both the dash cam footage and bodycam footage of the exchange between Leonard Allen Cure, the man shot, and Staff Sergeant Buck Aldridge of the Camden County Sherrif's Office in Georgia, there are several takeaways here.

If you have not followed the case, here is a brief breakdown of what occurred.

Deputy Aldridge was traveling along I-95 on routine patrol when he observed a pickup truck pass him at 100 miles per hour, after which Aldridge pursued him and turned on his lights and sirens. After a mile or two, Cure, the driver of the truck pulled over and Aldridge exited his patrol car and instructed Cure to exit the vehicle. Cure was uncooperative and combative, Aldridge called for backup and warned Cure he would be tased. Ultimately Cure was tased, which did not faze him, and a struggle ensued during which Cure was fatally shot.

With all due respect to the situation, that is a very condensed version of the events, however, still sums up essentially what happened. 

In the media there is a lot of focus and attention, and I think more than misguided, on police abusing authority, overstepping their bounds, or being otherwise thugs. It is always painted as the rule rather than the exception, and all cops are placed in a bad light as a result.

And I'll be honest with you. I happen to be a fan of 1st Amendment audit videos, and there are plenty of examples to be seen of bad cops. Or cops that do not fully grasp the law, which they are supposed to enforce, and even sometimes rely on an uneducated citizen to get things from them they are not technically legally able to.

I think the best course of action is usually to observe everything with an objective frame of mind and not draw conclusions right off the bat, which so many do. Especially the media. But of course, it is the media that drives the preconceived notions around interactions between cops and citizens.

Right off the bat I would have to say that I thought Deputy Aldridge was too quick to "take action," and it seemed he wanted to control a situation immediately that, at first glance, required no control. At the time of the stop, we simply had a man speeding, granted recklessly, in a truck. There was no real "pursuit," and no sign of evasion as Cure was driving in the far-left lane and it simply appeared he was trying to get over to the side of the highway, but other traffic was preventing him from doing so.

On the one hand, some people would say that Aldridge simply asked the man to exit his vehicle. Those would be the ones fully siding with law enforcement. But the video clearly shows that Deputy Aldridge yelled at Cure. 

"Step out. Step out! Get out!"

You can't hear if Cure is saying anything in the video to prompt the abrupt commands. But clearly one could easily observe that the situation was being immediately escalated. And perhaps unnecessarily so. It also seems clear that Deputy Aldridge, prior to exiting his patrol car, had already made the decision he was going to arrest the driver for reckless driving.

When Cure did exit his vehicle, he told Aldridge he, "wasn't doing shit."

Two problems come to mind in this scenario. We have perhaps a cop who is bit too aggressive, and we have a citizen who decides he does not like cops and will not be compliant.

But there is a side story to this. Cure was recently exonerated for a crime he did not commit that he spent 16 years in prison for. So, in that circumstance, it is understandable why a man like Cure might have a beef with the law. However, on the flip side, if Cure was truly a law-abiding citizen, he would act like one regardless of his situation. Especially having full understanding of why he was being stopped.

Leonard Allen Cure had to have known he was speeding.

And perhaps Cure's demeanor would have been different had Deputy Aldridge engaged him in a different manner from the beginning.

Maybe, maybe not. We can never know. But, to my mind, these are all important details to be observed when making a full and fair analysis of everything that happened leading up to Cure being fatally shot. And this is where the media fails as well, I think.

The way the media has largely chosen to portray this story is to emphasize the exoneration of an innocent man, and to also emphasize the aggressive demeanor of Deputy Aldridge—but to work very hard to paint one or the other in a better or more negative light.

They are trying to paint Cure as a victim, which, if you watch the video, it is easy to conclude was not a victim at all. What he was, was a man caught in a series of events that he very much contributed to, which ultimately led to his death.

Was Cure's shooting justified? In my opinion, yes. But again, you can't just draw that conclusion. You have to weigh in everything that happened to get there. Is speeding punishable by death? Not hardly. But Cure wasn't shot for speeding. He was shot for attacking an officer.

Even if you were to rightly accuse Deputy Aldridge of handling the stop poorly at the very start, and being overly aggressive, it did not justify Cure's actions nor his response. Aldridge immediately escalated the encounter. But just as easily Cure could have deescalated it by simply being compliant and cooperative. 

It is possible, and like before we can't know, that had Cure's demeanor been different, perhaps Deputy Aldridge would have brought his aggression down a notch.

The one thing I do know, and I think I can say with certainty, is that if Cure's actions would have been less aggressive and combative despite the behavior of Deputy Aldridge, Leonard Allen Cure would be alive right now.

Despite what the media tries to portray, Cure was the direct contributing factor in his being fatally shot. Deputy Aldridge is not responsible for shooting Cure. The shooting of Cure was the result of the further situation his actions alone put the deputy in.

Deputy Aldridge told Cure to step to the back of his vehicle and put his hands on the back of the truck. Cure did ultimately do this, but not without hesitation and an exchange. When the deputy tried to arrest him, Cure further escalated the situation at which time he was tased.

Even being tased, Cure still did not comply, resisted the tasing, and went after the deputy at which time Deputy Aldridge had completely lost control of the situation. Cure had him, and he was winning, overpowering the deputy.

It is easy to understand that, in that moment, the deputy was in grave danger. And of course, Aldridge knew it. Just like Cure knew he had been speeding, Aldridge knew he was no longer in charge. Leonard Allen Cure was. It would not be at all of a stretch to conclude that Aldridge feared for his life and feared that Cure might potentially get control of his gun next and end the situation.

The only option left for Deputy Aldridge in that moment was to regain control of it. And in that moment the only choice was to draw his gun and shoot. I can't fault him for that. I don't think anyone can. And anyone in that same situation likely would have made exactly the same decision.

It was him or Cure, and that was that. It is also clear that Aldridge had no intent to kill him. He simply wanted to end the attack and potentially save his own life. And clearly you can see in the video that Aldridge had no way to aim in any particular way—he was under siege. He shot wherever he could point the gun and the shot turned out to be a fatal one.

What else is noted in this exchange is how shook-up Deputy Aldridge was. Not only about the attack itself. But the shooting. And that's another aspect of these kinds of incidents that don't really get touched upon by the media. 

If you have a conscience, and most people do, it hurts to take a life. 

I would imagine that even in situations where taking a life is a matter of survival, it still doesn't feel good. And while Aldridge didn't outright say it, it was clear he was angrier with Cure for leaving him no choice but to act as he did than about the attack itself.

I think, for me, there has to be a better connection between law enforcement and citizens. From all walks of life. And for all walks of life. There has to be a human element that is present on both sides. An understanding that not all citizens who encounter the police are immediately bad or that all cops are either. 

Had Aldridge approached this stop differently from the beginning the same result may have occurred. But it also can be said that Aldridge's immediate response to the stop had as much to do with the result as Cure's reaction did.

Clearly the victim, if there is one, in this case is the deputy. He reacted as he did, appropriately, given the options presented to him. Even he shares some blame in the outcome, he will likely bear the burden of persecution simply because he's a cop and he killed someone in the line of duty.

And the media will of course do what it always does. Emphasize the falsely accused man who was killed and paint him as more of a model citizen than he actually was. The media did go to great lengths to do much research on the cop. They dug into his past and found evidence of other instances where he used excessive force or was fired for it.

How much research did they do to find out what Cure was doing prior to his false arrest that had him on the radar, at least, by the police? What was Cure's past criminality? It's not like we won't know about it. Just like in the case of George Floyd who had a very checkered past that was very bad. 

As I always say about things like this, there are so many lessons to be learned by them. Lessons that get lost in the politics and the innuendo and preconceived ideas based on narratives we want to find within these stories that fit broader narratives some people prefer to push.

How do we stop things like this from happening? Maybe we simply can't. That may be an idea as silly as Utopia. But we can gain understanding. And with some of that understanding applied to similar situations in the future, by both the police and the citizens who find themselves in interactions with them, perhaps some outcomes can be changed.

We just have to want to see the bigger picture and absorb all the details that matter. We want to try to put ourselves in each other's shoes and not immediately assume one side or the other has ill intent.

Both of these men, on that fateful day, played a role in what ultimately happened. And we have to be fair about that. In this case we can conclude that there was a true villain, though. And that villain was Leonard Allen Cure. Even if we can also conclude that Deputy Alridge may have planted the seed. Cure was the one who ultimately watered it.

Part 1 of dash cam footage.
Part 2 of dash cam footage.
Body cam footage.
***Disclaimer: Some audience members may find the footage of this incident disturbing. Viewer discretion is advised.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on YouTube and Facebook.

Fetterman Backlash May Be Unwarranted

Let me be clear. I generally do not support democrat senator John Fetterman. But then, do I really support people? Or do I support positions? Because regardless of whether or not I am a conservative republican, positions and policy are things I have always said, that for me, trump all other considerations.

Fetterman has, of course, received quite a bit of backlash over a comment he made on X regarding the Israel-Palestine clash over the recent attack by Hamas against Israel that has now escalated to cause the deaths of thousands on both sides.

Many of those deaths are unfortunately innocent people and children. The cost of war is real and there are always innocent bystanders who get caught in the crosshairs. And no one, including me, is calling for more death and destruction. However, there is a caveat here.

Essentially, Fetterman has said that there should be no ceasefire. I tend to agree with what he said on the basis that Hamas initiated this war and what Israel is doing is simply responding to that attack. Israel did not ask to be fired upon. But Hamas and Palestine did. 

Ultimately, I think there needs to be a strong message sent. If you attack us, there will be a price to pay. We may disagree on the underlying basis, in the eyes of Hamas, for the attack itself. But nonetheless, we were attacked, and we are going to respond.

Any country that finds itself under attack has to respond in the interest of protecting its citizens overall. And making it clear to anyone who wants to launch an attack that there will be consequences if that action is taken.

You might say that Israel has made its point. The death toll is double for Palestine than it has been for Israel. Israel has essentially won if you only go by the numbers. So, why not end it there? And maybe there is an argument to be made on that basis.

However, it's not the first time that Hamas has done this. This has been an ongoing conflict dating back decades. It's both a religious war as well as a land war. It is a disagreement between two nations about who has the claim to the Gaza strip ever since land lines were redrawn post 1967.

Ultimately, there has to be a consequence for Hamas. There has to be a consequence for Palestine. There has to be a reason for them to reconsider attacking Israel the next time they may plan to launch one. And because the attacks have been ongoing for so many years, right now Israel has a strong interest in sending a very strong message that the terrorist activities of Hamas will simply not be tolerated.

In a way they are saying, "We can have this debate behind closed doors, hashed out reasonably and sensibly in a diplomatic way. But the minute you decide to hash out this dispute with shells and bombs, we are going to respond similarly."

And they have a right to do so. Israel is well within their rights to react.

I think part of the backlash against Fetterman's comment is because there are sides who think that a ceasefire is the answer to the problem. Just stop the fighting and have both sides go about their days. Of course, most of us know that's not true. Nothing will change in the minds of either side if a ceasefire happens today, and it will only be a matter of time before we are having this discussion again.

There comes a time when anyone who is constantly under attack is going to say, "We've had enough and are tired of being your target." Thus, Israel's response to the most recent attack.

I wish that both sides could simply come to an agreement. I have stated in the past that I strongly agree with the policy of the United States to support a two-state solution and divide land lines between both Israel and Palestine along the Gaza strip to the way they were prior to 1967.

Both sides oppose this, and thus they continue to fight for what each sides think is theirs. And of course, the Palestinians don't like the Jews. They don't think that Jews should exist at all. So, here we are in this locked position with no real foreseeable resolution.

The question becomes, if a ceasefire happens today does it do anything to truly stop the carnage? Not today. But tomorrow. When the next attack happens and the fight surges on once again? If you think about it, sometimes war deters future action and saves lives.

It's been shown in wars of the past and in severe actions taken by our own country against Japan in WWII.

The entire situation is a sad one. I understand principally the stance on both sides. I wish there was a workable solution. I wish we could simply call for a ceasefire and call it done. But I am not sure a ceasefire really does anything but kick the can forward and put more future lives in peril.

When should it end? I don't know. I do know, however, that we cannot coddle terrorism and allow it to happen without consequence. There has to be a response and there has to be a strong one. And that response needs to be strong enough to send a very clear message.

Perhaps what should end this is for Israel to simply tell Palestine, "This ends now. The warring. We must now sit at the table and talk. And until that happens, we will continue to respond in the manner in which we are now."

If the war is to truly be won, the only way to truly end it, is to sit down and talk about their differences, air them out, and be willing to compromise to find a solution that may not give both sides entirely what they want, but one that ultimately is acceptable.

Fetterman gets a pass from me on this one. 

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on YouTube and Facebook.

MyPillow's Fall is Leaving Us a Tell

It would seem, in an ironic sort of way, that what has happened to Mike Lindell of MyPillow fame and the reason behind it might be a bit of an odd turn of events if not also a very telling tale of how democrats and liberals think.

What do they (liberals) always say about businesspeople? They put profits before all else and leave the regular folks behind in the process.

Was it not so long ago that republicans and conservatives were bashed by the left for bringing pain to Anheuser-Busch for its stance on the Dylan Mulvaney issue and support of LGBTQ+ issues? After all, according to the left, the makers of Bud Light simply had an opinion, and they were entitled to it. 

Enter Mike Lindell who also has an opinion. But of course his opinion, albeit a controversial one (but so was the Dylan Mulvaney opinion from the right) did not and does not align with what the left thinks. His kind of opinion is not allowed and therefore he must be destroyed.

As a result, enduring ongoing legal battles that have wiped his bank accounts clean and destroyed his company as voting machine companies sue him for defamation and many retailers have opted to remove his products from their shelves, the left is rejoicing.

This is what you get, they say.

In a way I agree with the sentiment. I have said often that businesses can have an opinion, and surely their leaders can as well, but that mixing their opinions with their business presence is generally a bad idea. Granted, Hobby Lobby and Chick-Fil-A proved to be exceptions to that rule.

In business the only goal is to make a profit and sell your products, and because certain opinions alienate some customers and potentially threaten one's ability to do that, you probably should just keep quiet.

At the same time, one thing Mike Lindell has been very vocal about is his convictions regarding the matter he is fighting so hard for. He's held his position and held firm in his pursuit of it without regard to profits and even his own riches.

He has put what he believes in ahead of profits.

Shouldn't the left, so hateful of the rich, rejoice in that over the potential devastation of his business and wealth? You don't have to agree with what he says or what he is fighting for. But if you are going to make the statement that a business is entitled to say what it wants and shouldn't be punished when they say things the left agrees with, on the basis of "free speech" as it applies to them, and "doing the right thing" as it aligns with their position, shouldn't the same concept apply even if what is being said is opposite of their side's position?

This is where the double standard always comes in to rear its ugly head. This is where the tell comes from.

Beyond that, doesn't the business who decides to pull a product from shelves also engage themselves in politics when they decide to do that? And why are their "statements" not challenged as well at some level?

Let's think about what may have happened had retailers decided to pull Bud Light from the shelves after the controversy over Dylan Mulvaney took hold? How would the left have reacted to that decision? Would they have said of the businesses who refused to sell the AB product, "Their business, their decision, get over it," like they did when AB decided to double down on their position over the infamous beer can?

Not hardly. Because again, this way of thinking only applies if the reason behind the decision is in lockstep with what they think is right.

The question in a case like the MyPillow one is, why would anyone perhaps not question, just a little bit, what the real motivation is if you are willing to destroy your business and keep on with what you are fighting for?

Beyond that, how does what Mike Lindell is doing align with the left's unrelenting stance that rich people only care about the money and will exploit everything and everyone in order to simply make a profit?

Clearly, he's not doing that.

Regardless of whether or not I agree with Lindell, or even admire his stance, I still stand by my thought that mixing business and politics is a recipe for disaster and should be avoided. But I also think that when it comes to "the response," it should not always be a sort of one-sided one. Because particularly when it comes to product yanks, it tends to happen to conservative leaning opinions as opposed to liberal ones.

If it is good for the goose, it is good for the gander.

Some businesses have a different kind of reach, such as Hobby Lobby and Chick-Fil-A, where they have standalone buildings in which to sell their products. MyPillow relied mostly on mail order or the retail stores that carried his wares. It's harder to get your products out if the stores won't carry them or TV stations won't even air your commercials.

The problem I have with all of this is that so often the left gets its way, and they are happy about that, but get fit to be tied if the tide turns against them for the very same reasons they win on their side.

Take the Washington Redskins or Aunt Jemimah pancake syrup. The indian figure on Land O' Lakes products or Uncle Ben's rice. Clearly all evidence of a cancel culture the right does not embrace that the left does. And yet, while the left will cry foul if anyone is against their cancellations, they are perfectly fine if something aligning with the right is cancelled.

I think as a people and as a society, we need to decide what we want. And more importantly, to decide why we want it? Is it to get our way and simply have our say? Or is it because we truly believe in the underlying fundamental basis for shutting down anything.

Because the same woes facing Elon Musk's X could also be an example. Does X experience issues because of the business itself and what it offers? Or is it affected only because the views of the guy who owns it leans conservative in his views?

Ultimately, we're not going to stop businesses or business leaders from having opinions. It's still a free country and these people and businesses are entitled to exercise their constitutional rights just as much as anyone. But when it comes to the products they sell? I think it should be left up to the buying public to also support or not support something. If the decision had been made to pull MyPillow from the shelves because the consumer decided to let the products collect dust on the shelves, that's one thing. But taking away the choice of the consumer to send their own message is wrong. Just like in the case of the Bud Light controversy, the opinion of the consumer was clear. Bud Light beer stayed on the shelves while competing brands flew off them.

Yet no one pulled Bud Light entirely to avoid any potential backlash for carrying the product despite the clear opinion of the buying public. And that's the very reason MyPillow was pulled. The retailers did not want to be associated with the opinion of the brand. But again, this decision sides with the left and once again leaves conservative opinion behind.

Like what I have to say or the way I say it? Follow me on YouTube or on my Facebook page to keep up with all the latest goings on of The Springboard.

Time To End the Circus on the Next Choice for Speaker

There are days when I swear, I am but a mere witness to a circus and that bothers me. Because right now a lot of the circus seems to be on my side of the political aisle. And I mean that with all sincerity. Hey look, I have said it many times before and I will say it again, just because I am a republican doesn't mean I am going to overlook reality like the other side does and dismiss what I can see with my own damn eyes!

I supported McCarthy for the speakership when the question came around last time and urged my fellow republicans to simply show strength and rally around the guy—even if they have some reservations. Which, to be fair, we're going to have with just about anyone. No one is a perfect candidate no matter what they are running for. 

The thing for me was about the optics of it all. Take optics for what they are, but the truth is that's exactly what the media wanted everyone to see. Instability, infighting, disarray, discombobulation and lack of direction.

And the months long McCarthy fight did more than provide for enough of that, and even with the now ousting of McCarthy we're still giving the media the same fodder for more bad optics.

Nonetheless, I can also understand some of the arguments in favor of McCarthy's losing the gavel. I'm an honest guy, like I keep saying. Was the decision a bit hasty in my opinion? Sure. Regardless of anyone's opinion overall the reality is that it just adds to the narrative that the republican party is disorganized and unfocused.

But that's for another day.

The two top contenders in the mix right now are Rep. John Scalise (R-LA) and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), and so far, it appears Scalise may have slightly more support than Jordan does. Personally, I think Scalise may be the better choice right now, but honestly, I think either would make a good speaker. Jordan in the past, for example, has shown deep interest in getting to the bottom of a lot of important questions, and he's been a bull in Congress in my opinion.

At the same time, I also believe that Scalise has more admiration and respect from the other side and that makes him slightly more suited to the position. Because not only does he need to rally the caucus, he needs to be able to reach across the aisle and be able to bring sensible judgement and ideas to the table working with the president.

Granted, regardless of whatever respect he has from either side, getting the 218 votes he needs to become speaker is no easy task. Especially if the republicans can't make up their minds what they want or need to do. And right now, they are having a really tough time with that.

Throw into the mix the Trump card. It's not the first time his name has come up of course. It did as well when McCarthy was fighting for the spot. His name is in the mix yet again, with at least a couple members supporting the idea, and the infamous Marjorie Taylor Greene saying she won't support anyone other than Trump for speaker.

Trump even went on to post on social media a picture of him holding the speaker's gavel without any text to accompany it, and publicly stated when asked whether he'd consider the role if asked, "All I can say is we will do whatever is best for the country, republican party and the people."

By the way, Trump will never be speaker. At least not in my opinion. For one thing if the battle for Scalise and Jordan are a climb up a very steep mountain, the feat for Trump would be one of astronomical proportion the likes of which we have never seen or may never likely ever see again.

It is, by all measures, simply anecdotal. But again, it adds to the circus even though I might support Trump to land the role—although I am not sure I agree that it would be good for the country, the republican party or the people. And that's not me discounting Trump's leadership capabilities. It's just me being realistic.

And, at the same time, reaffirming my position that what we need right now in the role of speaker is someone who can be less divisive and rally the troops and be able to cross party lines. I think that person is Scalise. Jordan would have difficulty doing that in my opinion, and certainly Trump would not be able to do that.

In fact, going one step further, I think Trump in the role of speaker would also damage some of his chances in 2024 as well as distract him from his own campaign. As I have said many times, the focus needs to be on 2024 and on how we defeat President Biden. And that's as tough a road, despite that it shouldn't be, based on Biden's complete failure of a presidency, as Scalise's ascendency to the speakership. But we're in a very weird time right now and the media's not giving things to us straight and many Americans either don't care or are actually listening to what the media is telling them.

Either way, what I am hopeful for is that we can be swift in our election of a new speaker and keep the infighting to a bare minimum, showing strength and solidarity to the American people who very badly right now need to see a republican party better able to come together.

We need to end the circus. It's gone on long enough and it's gone beyond the clown show. We're in near ridiculous territory.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on YouTube or on my Facebook page to keep up with all the latest Springboard stuff from here, HubPages and other places where I ply my wares and share my thoughts.

Is America Slowly Becoming Lost?

It is unfortunate that it has to be said, but it just seems like our political environment right now is just in a shambles. And it's not just a left or right thing. It's the entire thing. From a completely dysfunctional administration in the Biden/Harris presidency, from democrats who deny all things real and a media that supports false narratives and fails to report the news accurately, or even with honesty or integrity.

From the upper leadership on the republican side such as Mitch McConnell having frozen in front of the camera several times, clearly too old to continue to serve the American people nor the party effectively, from guys like Fetterman wearing jump suits to work.

From a complete landscape of old and tired people like Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi not offering anything new to the American public, simply vying for power and support from within, to an entire landscape of political rivalry unlike anything we have seen before.

Even when it comes to voters, is anyone being honest anymore? Does anyone really care about the health of the nation and the direction we go? Is our vote about doing what's right or simply winning? And how much is anyone really paying attention to what's really going on? How many of us really care? 

And now, of course, we have the ouster of Speaker McCarthy further exacerbating at least the appearance of dysfunction.

Look, at the end of the day we have to get back to the old understanding that there has to be compromise. That we all can't have things completely our way and that for the common good we have to be able to at least find common ground and have the ability to accept that we can only ultimately meet somewhere in the middle.

Even looking back at Biden's first day in office, why could he not have taken some time to carefully examine what went right about Trump's policies and keep the ones that worked in effect? For the good of the people? Instead, he simply dismissed everything, wiped the slate clean and here we are now feeling the awful pains of that terrible decision.

Trump actually did examine some of Obama's policies, and he kept many of them in place while rearranging or only slightly altering others—but of course he removed things that clearly were not working.

Many presidents in the past have done it this way as well, including Obama.

Beyond all of this there's just no accountability. There are no checks and balances. We have a media absent from letting us know what's really going on and truly wanting to dig deep into the issues we all face.

The media is doing nothing to advance the peace or prosperity of the people of the country. Or to advance anyone's understanding of what's right or wrong or why. It's not giving anyone the ability to think outside of their own biases and actually formulate working, sensible opinions on where we are and where we need to go, and who is responsible for advancing our cause or setting it back.

In an odd way it may be part of where Trump's appeal stems from—from all sides by the way—despite outward appearances we are led to believe. And that's that while all of the establishment is fighting a miserable battle, trying to win that thing, this thing, or the other thing, he's simply reaching out to the American people from the outside looking in and letting us know it's a disaster and telling us why.

We need change. And we need it badly. Not only from our elected officials, but from the American people as well. And from the media. We need to get back to that United We Stand, Divided We Fall culture that once permeated the collective American psyche.

We need to be able to recognize the pitfalls of all of this dysfunction and honestly call it out for what it is, rather than simply take political sides through all of it just because. 

How many times have we heard so many people complain, "The two-party system is broken," only to fall heavily to one side or the other, and then defend their side even when they are clearly wrong? Sure, I am a conservative republican. But not to sound like a broken record, I am an American first and foremost above all other things.

Do I side with my side more often than the other side? Yes. Is it because of bias? I'd like to believe it is not. I'd like to believe that I simply have the ability to be honest about what either side is doing and make a judgement based on how I feel about it rather than how I think I should feel about it.

The problem we face, and I have repeated this several times, is that unless we recognize the dysfunction and begin the process of weeding out our bad apples, from both sides, we may not ever be able to get back to any sense of normal. We may not be able to save ourselves from the disaster we are ultimately creating, fostering, or allowing to continue.

Was ousting McCarthy the right decision? Maybe. Maybe not. Should Pelosi have faced stark criticism and disdain from her own party all the while she was Speaker and mucking up the place? Maybe. Should older elected officials like Feinstein (before she passed away) or Mitch McConnell pass their batons on let fresh voices in? Probably.

Should the American people demand it? 

The question really becomes, "Who is now in Congress that actually belongs there? Who is now in Congress who is actually doing the work of the People?"

It would be an extremely short list on both sides. And if the American people were paying attention, and perhaps even if the media were doing their jobs, we'd have already cleaned house. It goes back to what I said earlier about the complaint of the two-party system. That we allow the two-party system to decide for us who to vote for instead of making those decisions on our own, based on our own personal analysis of who's running on whatever side.

It's the argument that we need term limits.

Something I tend to agree with now. But what have I have always said is that no one remains in office who is not elected by the people to remain in office. So, we can argue all day long that too many people stay too long, but at the same time we the people continue to return them to their offices election after election after election.

We're in a shambles because few people care and the people "in charge" know it. We're in a shambles because no one who holds any office right now feels any threat that they may not be able to return if they get things wrong. We're in a shambles because almost everyone in Congress is out of touch with the needs of the American people. We're in a shambles because not a single elected official understands how their policies actually affect the average citizen. And because not a single policy affects them. We're in a shambles because like most Americans, the media has picked a side. We're in a shambles because no one bothers to listen anymore, or to deeply think about all of the unintended consequences of what is essentially a feel-good idea that looks good on paper, or is comforting to certain, select ears.

That being said, in all honesty, does that leave us much hope for 2024? I am not sure. Sure, I side with Trump. But even in that camp would I prefer a better alternative? Absolutely. And not for the reasons you may think.

It's the distraction that is the problem. And regardless of whether Biden is reelected or Trump returns to the White House, I think that distraction remains.

But beyond that, there is no real alternative on either side either. Right now we are literally caught between a rock and a hard place. Our only hope is that we are getting to a point where people begin to realize the dire state that we are in and begin to operate in a way that allows us to turn it around.

But again, I also think there comes a critical point at which we will no longer have the ability to do it.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on YouTube or on my Facebook page.

One of the REAL Reason Trump's Skipping the Debates

Normally, and under normal circumstances, I'd lambaste someone for not attending any presidential debate, regardless of the side. While I don't think debates are the end all to be all, I do think that they are important to better understand our candidates and what they are running for or on.

Hell, I watch democrat debates all the time simply because I have always felt that in order to disagree with a democrat candidate, I need to know exactly what it is I disagree with. I don't have that answer if I choose not to tune in simply because I assume I will disagree with everything they have to say.

But I side with Trump on his decision not to participate, and it is not because I also happen to be a Trump supporter.

The question is, what substance would we expect to get out of Trump's participation? What could we learn about his plan for America? What could we learn about his thoughts on Ukraine and issues facing us regarding the border? About taxes. About the economy? About inflation?

The simple answer is, we'd learn nothing at all. Because those questions would not be the types of questions anyone would be interested in asking him. It would all be about the false indictments and bogus impeachments and the make-believe January 6th insurrection.

Not a single question he'd be asked would advance his campaign or offer us a better consideration of what he wants to do or will do if he were to be reelected.

Even when it comes to Fox News debates, no one ever bothers to put a real conservative on the panel. They always opt for the lefter leaning hosts. Chris Wallace in one of the 2020 debates all but tried to throw Trump under the bus and frankly trampled all over him disgustingly.

And that's me saying that despite my very real take-away from those 2020 debates that Trump did an extremely poor job at them. But I have been critical of Trump many times in the past for various antics. But it never wavered my thoughts about his presidency, which I think is important.

I continue to be displeased with some of his antics as I think it detracts from the real issues we face and his real answers as to how we solve them, and as I have said time and time again, sometimes his own antics leave him in a spot to make those antics the focus rather than the substance of his message.

People need to hear his message.

But that goes right back to why he's dismissed himself from the debate stage. Even if he does attend the debates, his message will be moot. Because again, no one will ask him about the message. What Trump would essentially be agreeing to by attending the debates would be to accepting an invitation to a literal non-comedic roasting which would focus entirely on things that matter very little to the American people.

In an odd way you could make a comparison here to a jury trial and the right decision many lawyers often make not to put the accused on the stand. Optics. Or the possibility of bad optics which would do more harm than good in defending their case.

In other words, while the optics of Trump's not attending the debates, in the eyes of some, is bad optics in and of itself, the fact is that if he were to attend, the optics may well likely be much worse.

Part of the problem is what debates have really become. Hosts are chosen essentially by what side the particular media outlet has decided they want to support and advance. And so, the questions themselves are often geared toward driving a particular narrative rather than getting to the heart of the important questions.

Trump has also realized this from the 2020 debates specifically. Even if his performance, by my measure, was horrible, I also had to honestly step away and ask myself, was his performance driven by just Trump being Trump, or was it driven by the manner and types of questions he was being asked?

The media has been rife with so much bias anymore that one might even rightly question whether or not debates are even an important part of the question of who is best to lead. As I said before, I have found them to be helpful in order to better understand where candidates are coming from. But is that really true anymore?

The real question is, does it hurt him? I don't know the answer to that. I will say that so far it doesn't seem to have done any damage at all, and in fact, may even be helping him tremendously. The closest second in the race is Ron DeSantis and by every measure he's so far behind Trump right now that in most cases we'd have already decided he stands no chance.

So, the likelihood that Trump will indeed be the GOP nominee appears to be almost imminent. Which is perhaps another reason Trump has decided to bow out of the debates. It's already been decided and so why bother with the debates at all? Just focus on the campaign and reaching out directly to the people who are interested in his message and be able to freely offer the message he wants to deliver instead of the message the media would rather be heard.

Did you know that The Springboard has a YouTube channel? Check it out for discussions of money, investing, business and other related things. You can also follow The Springboard on his Facebook page.

The Cost of Being Right

It keeps popping up in the news that since Elon Musk took over Twitter (now X) that it's losing throngs of daily users. And while that's true, what's not necessarily true is the reason why users have left. The media wants to paint it as "an attack on free speech and promotion of hate speech."

But, as is typically the case, who is defining what free speech is and what can be classified as hate speech? The media. And well, the left.

All too often anymore the truth itself can simply be called hate speech. Like saying a man is a man and a woman is a woman. Forget about science or the verifiable truth of that statement. It's hate speech in the eyes of many people.

In order to be a racist in today's world, for example, you need not honor the KKK or support segregation or other things. You simply need to call for a secure border and have conservative values. And if you espouse these values in a place like X, you are going to be labeled a hater and a racist, and according to some, you should not be allowed to say these things and because Musk, unlike his predecessor Dorsey, is not policing and censoring and shadow banning these values, many people simply can't handle that.

Those are the people who are leaving. The ones who before Musk were able to willy nilly say anything they wanted and could be assured that anyone espousing different opinions or values would immediately be shut down.

What essentially happened is that the playing field was leveled, and a good many people simply could not handle it.

By leaving they also have the impression that in some way they are sending a message that this simply cannot stand, and we should go back to the way things were or else. We'll destroy you, they are essentially saying.

Of course, that's not going to happen. The site is better now than it ever was. Freer now than it ever was. And more truly user-friendly than it has ever been. Everyone gets to have a voice, like it or not. 

At the same time users are dropping off, of course some advertisers are also saying no to X. That can be a problem since X is of course a business, and its main source of revenue is from advertising. Musk has said he wants to charge all users to use the site, but I think that's a recipe for disaster. That could potentially destroy the site and any hopes it can make a full recovery.

While some may be willing to pay for the chance to tout their opinions and share their lives on the site for a small fee, I would suspect most would not. I would be one of those who would not be willing to pay to post.

At the same time, I think that if the site were to operate behind a paywall, it would also become less diverse and more of a "club" of sorts than a total free place to express oneself.

But that's a separate issue.

Part of the reason some advertisers are jumping ship, though, is directly related to the media and its portrayal of X, which they think resonates with their customer bases. In fact, I think the reality is just the opposite of that. Consumers are paying attention to woke politics by companies more than ever, and if they see an advertiser essentially rallying against free speech, I am not sure this will bode well for them.

Most people, despite how it seems sometimes, are more conservative and patriotic than many give credit for—even many liberals.

What Musk's X is suffering from is very simple. It's suffering from doing what's right. It's suffering because it broke up the monopoly the left held on speech. And naturally there are going to be some people who simply won't accept that.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page or check out my new channel on YouTube, The Springboard. Want to check out something entirely different? Get free Bitcoin here.