Ford's Long Road: Why its Consistency Keeps me Invested

Ford Motor Company might be the biggest bear in my portfolio, yet I've held this stock off and on for over 30 years and still own shares today. Despite its lackluster performance, I believe Ford is a company worth owning, and its recent dip in share price might present a good opportunity.

I have to admit, my belief in Ford comes with a grain of salt. Nearly 20 years ago, when OneShare was a thing, I bought a share of Ford for my nephew, complete with a framed stock certificate, because he was showing interest in investing. That share cost a little over $9 back then, and today, it's trading around $11 a share.

Granted, it's not all bad. The stock has hit highs in the mid-20s over the years. But overall, it's been a sideways performer. It's also no dividend aristocrat, although you'd think it might be, having suspended its dividend in 2020 during the pandemic and only restoring it in Q4 2021. Still, with a current yield of 5.76%, the dividend offers an attractive opportunity to earn while you wait.

Generally, my approach to trading Ford has been to buy shares under $12 and sell them once they exceed $15. Rinse and repeat. Ford's historical data over the past 40+ years shows consistent cycles, so I don't anticipate any significant stock runs soon. Therefore, I view Ford as a place to simply park money for the yield and occasional gains as it presents a fair overall return beyond just the dividend.

Think of it as a "savings account with benefits." Sure, Ford could suspend its dividend again—a valid concern given their last earnings call and forward guidance, which weren't stellar despite beating top-line and earnings per share estimates. However, considering Ford's current position, I believe the dividend is safe for the foreseeable future. The recent drop in share price stems from Ford's less than impressive outlook, which didn't inspire investor confidence, leading to a 6% dip in post-call trading.

One area of concern and nervousness is Ford's EV division, which has still shown impressive growth despite the overall downward pressures in the EV market. Even though the EV division only accounts for 3% of Ford's overall business, it could still impact revenues, especially as it continues to be a loss-maker. Any significant drop in EV sales in the near future can potentially negate any strides made in more profitable areas of their business, becoming a major drag on their bottom line.

The bottom line for me is that whenever I evaluate Ford's stock, despite its perpetually stagnant share price, what stands out, at least in my opinion, is Ford's consistently strong position. Something I think many investors ignore. Over the years, management has navigated tough waters in a highly competitive market, keeping the company moving forward, maintaining impressive cash levels, and keeping debt relatively low. Even back in 2008, when the government bailed out the ailing auto industry, Ford opted out and pulled through with flying colors.

Ford's stock may never be the most thrilling investment I ever own, but I believe it continues to have value despite some forward-looking hurdles. It holds a place in my portfolio because, while it may never make me rich, I'm confident it won't make me poor either. Sometimes a steady and reliable investment, despite many ups and downs, is just what you need to balance out the highs and lows of a more volatile market. For me, Ford offers that stability, making it a worthwhile investment to continue to hold.

When I say, "Ford's not going anywhere any time soon," sure, I may be saying Ford isn't going through the roof, but I am also saying it's not going through the floor either.

Disclaimer: This information is for entertainment purposes only and should not be considered as financial advice. It is important to always do your own due diligence before making any investment decisions or to seek the counsel of a certified financial planner or other financial professional. Jim Bauer currently holds shares of Ford Motor Company stock and intends to buy more shares following the publication of this article.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them. Want to know more about the stock market and how to invest? Consider reading The Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham. Any proceeds from the sale of this book helps to support this page and to continue to deliver content of interest and is greatly appreciated.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

There You Go Again, myLot: Can You Ever Just Stop Being Mean to Members?

It pains me to continually have to write bad press about myLot, a social interaction community that pays its members to interact with each other. At the same time, there is an old saying about staying out of "the news."

If you don't want to be in the news, don't create the story.

I like myLot, and I want to be very clear about that. I would not have stuck around with the site as long as I have if that were not the case. And generally speaking, my experience there is mostly fun and rewarding, especially since it is a rather tightknit community of people who reside there. They almost become like family and friends, even if it is rather unlikely you will ever meet anyone there in person.

However, admin, and I would say even the ownership, is another story, and it wasn't always this way. But it has been this way over the past three or more years, and maybe a bit longer actually. Not good.

The way admin conducts themself, and I should point out that it has been different people during this time, is rude, condescending and quite disrespectful toward members, and blatantly so. And this has been true of at least the last three of them.

I often question why this is. Because as I have stated many times before, the members of myLot are the heart of the site. They are the only reason it even exists. What exactly is the point of driving a wedge between the people who moderate the site and the members who interact within it?

Most who have no ill intentions, mind you, who are operating within the site.

Sites such as myLot, as well as other social media platforms, all have rules, and there's no rocket science behind understanding why they are there, and even why they are important. It's the glue that keeps everything working smoothly so that everyone participating on the site can have a good experience and be free from certain people who may not have the best interests of the site or the community at hand.

And by the way, admin should have the capacity to know who those people are, and who those people aren't. You should also afford any good member at least some leeway when it comes to enforcing the rules since while we are all aware of them, we're not necessarily going to remember every single detail about them.

It happens. We're human. It's not to say that the rules are as complex as say, the tax code. But you're still not bound to remember every little detail. 

Granted, and I have said this many times before about myLot, I will admit some of the rules are a bit weird. But I'm not here to critique that, other than to simply say some of the rules are weird. It's my opinion. The site owners are well within their rights to disagree with me about that.

My issue is more about the manner in which admin interacts with the community and the lack of concern, it seems, from the owners regarding how members feel about that. I have expressed concerns in the past directly to them, and never received a response.

That is, by the way, a response. They simply don't care. Even if they don't say the words, the non-response speaks for itself.

What leads me to this current rant, if you want to call it that, was a post that was deleted by admin that was discussing a lapse in earnings updates at HubPages, a site where writers write articles or blogs and publish them.

There is no rule against writing about other earning platforms on myLot. But they do have a rule about adding a link to the site you are talking about. I am aware of the rule. However, I had simply forgotten about it. So, the reason the post was deleted was not because of the content, but rather because it did not link back to HubPages.

A very minor infraction, mind you. And not one that should, in any case, illicit a holier than thou response from admin.

As is my personal rule, I contacted admin to learn why the post was deleted and based on former interactions with admin that I have had before, I gave a response to it. I will grant, one might suggest my response could be construed as rather immediately "combative" in nature. But if you understand the full back story, the response to my post being deleted, and the reason I worded it the way I did, actually makes sense.

It's not like, when it comes to admin, that it has ever been unclear that I will not challenge them whenever I feel it is necessary. So, is it just to antagonize me in some way? They seem to dislike any member who doesn't bend to their power. And of course, I am not one of them.

I said, "If you decide to delete a post of mine, I do expect an advance notice and an explanation. It's called courtesy. Just letting you know."

Many members have posts deleted often with no explanation, and while it is clear that admin is not required to offer one, I am often perplexed what purpose it serves not to? Especially when most members are not out to break rules intentionally or are otherwise engaged in "nefarious" activities.

If the only problem with the post that was deleted was that it needed to have a link added, there is an edit function for our posts. Admin could have easily sent a friendly reminder for me to simply add a link, and all would have been good.

But instead of taking a practical approach, admin chooses to continually assert some form of "authority" over members that I think, serves no purpose other than to stroke the egos of a person who has been put in a position to be in charge of something that goes right to their head—and let's face it. The people the owners choose to do this are not necessarily at the top of the food chain. Hey, let's be real. It's myLot where, believe it or not, some people earn $5-$10 a month and refer to myLot as a job! 

The former admin was an elderly pot smoking dude who lived with his dad, living on the government teat.

Not exactly the cream of the crop, as you might say. It was often quite the ponderance, to try to figure out how many tokes of the bong he took before getting really nasty with some members, running myLot like a prison camp. "Do as I say or else!"

The response I got from admin was exactly of the sort I am always used to, and so it was no surprise. Nasty, rude, condescending, as well as demeaning. "I will refer you to the Terms you agreed to when joining which state I am not required to tell you when or why something gets deleted. However, if you want to know why, I will tell you. There is a 4-year old discussion by a previous Admin stating you must add a link to a site when discussing other earning sites. Yours was the third such discussion I have deleted in the past week for not adding links (all from members who should know better), and now I believe I am simply no longer going to allow discussions about other earning sites."

Besides the response being poorly written, it belittles members and is quite accusatory. But again, why is there so much animosity dealt toward members of the community, which seems constantly apparent when dealing with admin? I mean, I simply forgot to add a link. This requires swift and decisive action delivered with a commanding blow?

It's myLot remember, for crying out loud. A place where we talk about what we did that day and what we had for dinner. Sometimes there are deeper discussions. But that's pretty much the bulk of them. Menial and rather trivial things that even most people outside the site, if the posts came up in search, wouldn't even remotely be interested in reading about.

So, these are largely inside discussions. The site doesn't seem to care much if organic traffic waddles in. It makes its money by the ads members see. No one else. And I think the owners are realistic when it comes to knowing myLot will never be a multi-million-dollar enterprise. It's just a tiny site that lives on the Internet with a handful of people playing around on it that the owners might be able to make a car payment with.

I'll grant you, even my own response should be, it's just myLot. Who cares? A post got deleted. It wasn't important. It's not important. I might have lost two cents if I am lucky. But it's, of course, the principle of it. And I am big on principle.

I did write to the owners of the site on this one, simply asking the question, "I am curious why you continue to put admin in place that is rude and disrespectful, as well as rather condescending toward members here?"

I will await their response, but if past history is any indication of future results, I am pretty sure my concerns have once again fallen on deaf ears and admin will go about his or her business as usual, waving their iron fists over member's heads. 

I would very much like to give the owners an opportunity to share their thoughts on the issue. But I have no expectation that they will do that.

Either way, I have a platform outside of myLot to talk about it. And of course, that's exactly what I will do. That is exactly what I did here. myLot hates bad press enough that they don't allow any negative commentary regarding myLot within their walls. Yet, they always forget that some of us who are on that site have bigger audiences outside of it, and the commentary that gets put out here will be far more scathing than anything that might get put inside of it.

But hey, just in case Blogspot happens to have its own internal Gestapo lurking around the edges waiting to pounce on me, I'll be sure to leave a link below to myLot that you are welcome to peruse at your leisure.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them. Want to check out myLot, you can click the link here to learn more.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

Well, What Do We Have Here? The FCC, CBS and Kamala Harris

Is this sort of like a James Comey moment when he had just a small shred of integrity in 2016 when he announced just days before the election that he was reopening the investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails, supposedly on the merits?

Oh wait. No. It wasn't that at all. He was sure that Hillary Clinton would beat Donald Trump, and he thought releasing that information would offer him some cover, just in case he was wrong about that. You see, if you remember, Trump had some very serious questions about Comey's actions, even suggesting some of them may be criminal, and if Trump would have control of the Justice Department, that could present some issues for Comey.

Well, that and his thought that if the information were to come out after Clinton was elected, she'd be considered an illegitimate president. According to Hillary, she contended that Comey's announcement, which came on October 28th, 11 days before the November 8th election, was part of the reason she lost.

Now we have a formal complaint filed with the FCC by the Center for American Rights regarding the recent CBS 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris that was found to be edited in a way that could be an effort to mislead the American people.

A serious accusation, by the way, and one that the FCC may have to also take seriously. But it also opens a broader speculation, which has always been clear to some people, but now may wind up being clearer to more people similar to Comey's announcement.

"Maybe Clinton did actually do something bad here. And even something very illegal."

"When broadcasters manipulate interviews and distort reality, it undermines democracy itself," said Daniel Suhr, who is the president of the Center for American Rights. The FCC must act swiftly to restore public confidence in our news media."

It's one thing to believe that the media has it "in the bag" for Kamala Harris. It's entirely another for it to be glaringly obvious and irrefutable. On top of that, it's dangerous that certain details be kept from the public in an obvious attempt to protect her.

When she was asked about American-Israeli relations, in the aired interview she answered, "We're not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end." What she actually said was, "Well Bill, the work we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by, or a result of, many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in that region."

As Suhr put it, it's not about editorial considerations in the news media. It's about distorting the news, which falsely represents a candidate or otherwise causes people to potentially have a different view.

Gosh, where has he been in the past decade or so regarding Trump news coverage? But I digress.

The thing is that, and not that it's all that big a surprise, the news media is covering for Kamala Harris and have been for a long time, just like they were covering for Joe Biden. It's simply wrong. It's not the media's job to campaign for or provide cover for candidates. It's their job to report the truth, fair and simple. They owe it to the American people to do that because every time we turn on the news, we are supposed to trust them to give it to us straight, and that trust has been eroding for a very long time. Things like this just serve to speed up that erosion.

There's a bit of a deeper question here as well. So, that clip was found. Or was it leaked? Perhaps by someone within CBS who is not favorable to Harris? Hey, they can't all be die-hard liberals, can they? The clip came out before the "edited" interview aired. But unlike other interviews, CBS has thus far refused to release the transcripts of the full interview.

The question is why? What other answers were edited? Were there some word salads in there that someone thought, "Oh, we probably don't want to show that?" Or, worse, some worse answers that would cause some people to cringe a little bit at the thought of her being in the White House?

Because we know how she talks. We've seen it too many times to count in the past. And we know that she's had great cover since she was announced as the Democratic nominee, making a concerted effort to keep her well on script to reign her in as much as possible.

Whether or not the FCC does anything with the complaint is to be seen. But perhaps there may be some political considerations in acting or not acting similar to political considerations Comey made in 2016. Either way, the filing is in the news. People are going to know about it. Will this revelation of an edited interview have any impact in November? That's to be seen.

I mean, I do think we are reaching a tipping point of some sort here when it comes to the media. From wall-to-wall negative Trump coverage to the cover up of Joe Biden's health and hiding policy positions Harris had before she was the nominee and making her seem like an entirely different person than she was.

I think consumers of news are becoming a bit fatigued and are tired of the lies and misleading coverage.

What the FCC has to decide now is whether they want to ensure they have some cover no matter who wins in November. Because this kind of puts them between a rock and a hard place. Do nothing and Trump wins and he might direct the FCC to do something, or Harris wins, and they have to look like they are acting in an actual regulatory manner as opposed to doing the bidding of a political party.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

The Brett Baier and Kamala Harris Interview: My Final Take

Going into the interview I had some concerns, even though I have great confidence and faith in Brett Baier to ask the hard questions, that he might go a bit light on Vice President Kamala Harris, or even allow her to close question segments with the final word with no clear rebuttal.

He didn't do that. He challenged her on claims. He presented her former and current positions and gave her the opportunity to explain the contrast. He presented polling outlining voter sentiment on a variety of issues that are not favorable to Kamala Harris on the economy, the border and other issues and point blankly asked her why, if she has a better path forward, the majority of the American people seem to be indicating they disagree with her.

Look, I am going to give Kamala Harris at least some credit for sitting down with Brett Baier. She easily could have said no, and I am sure that she was prepared to be in an interview situation that would be unlike anything that she would ordinarily be accustomed to.

But she didn't pass the smell test. She didn't answer the questions, and I think a lot of her combativeness during the interview was more to stall it, present less time for real questions, and control the interview than to display a sense of command.

What she ultimately did was spend the bulk of the interview taking shots at Donald Trump and dismissing the dismal results of the administration she was part of for the past four years, taking no responsibility, acknowledging no mistakes, yet at the same time trying to distance herself from Joe Biden.

As you would expect, Harris was armed with an arsenal of talking points, and she wanted to get them all out in rapid-fire as best she could.

In the end, I don't think the interview did any good for the Kamala Harris campaign, but at the same time I am not sure if this close to the election, it changes any minds either. But it did present a glaring example of why a Kamala Harris presidency poses more danger to the American people than she wants to claim a Trump administration would be.

Again, we have results to go by. We have Trump's first four years, and we have Biden's last four years, and she is correct to point out that there is a stark contrast between the two choices, only all of the problems that have happened in the last four years were partially under her command.

Over and over again she lobbed accusations against Trump about the dangers he poses, from threats to democracy to weaponizing the military against the American people, yet at the same time completely dismissing the fact that 79% of the American people in polls say that we are headed in the wrong direction as a country.

That's her problem to own and explain, by the way, because Trump wasn't there to steer the country anywhere. And actually, Harris' attempt at an answer to the question why was actually a bit bizarre, if you ask me. "It's Trump's rhetoric for the past decade," she tried to assert. But as Brett pointed out, "You were in the White House. Not Trump."

The bottom line is that we are in the final throes of this election. I think we have all the information we, as voters, need in order to make a final decision. I tend to believe that decision is Trump. But of course, it's hard to tell when the media seems to want to point us in a different direction. 

Like I have said before, I think any popularity or lead Harris has ever had has largely been driven by media spin much more than voter sentiment. Will the race be close? Who knows? It shouldn't be. But again, who knows?

All in all, I am going to give Brett Baier a thumbs up for a hard hitting, on point interview that I think touched on key issues and questions that gave us a better picture of the real Kamala Harris, unfettered by the usual media drooling over her or the left that we are used to.

We got to hear the right questions asked, and the American people got to see her unable to answer them with any conceivable substance. The left wing media will of course say Brett attacked Kamala Harris or was rude to her. But I'll just say that's because he didn't ask her what her favorite color is or what she plans to serve on her table at Thanksgiving.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

READ ALL OF THE TAKES ON THE BRETT BAIER INTERVIEW WITH KAMALA HARRIS

Take One: Brett Baier and Kamala Harris on the Border
Take Two: Brett Baier Puts Kamala Harris Into a Deer In Headlights Mode with Immigration Question
Take Three: Brett Baier Continues to Lock Kamala Harris Up on the Economy and Her Campaign Slogan

Brett Baier Continues to Lock Kamala Harris Up on the Economy and Her Campaign Slogan

One of the most frustrating things about Kamala Harris' repeated assertions during the Brett Baier interview, was this notion she was trying very hard to convey that Donald Trump is not putting the interests of the America people first in his campaign. 

What? Where have you been?

Trump has talked about the devastating blow to American families that inflation has caused. He has talked about the border. He has talked about the economy. And he has talked about the need to reduce high prices at the gas pump.

"Donald Trump has no plans," she kept saying.

Only the reality is that Trump has had plans all along, including many of which he had already implemented during his first four years. Policies and plans that were mostly effective and worked, by the way, no matter how badly Harris wants to convince the American people they didn't.

Brett asked her specifically regarding the economy, "Why do you think most people say they trust Donald Trump more than you when it comes to the economy?" And once again she skirted the question, instead bashing Trump as well as citing Nobel laureates and the Wall Street Journal as sources to say, "They trust our plan."

Which is essentially, the same plan the Biden administration was wanting to pursue—Harris is really just an extension of that even if she somehow wants to try to separate herself from it, while at the same time telling The View she wouldn't change anything the Biden administration did during their four years in office.

Again, am I the only one completely confused here?

I go back to what I have said before. Who was in office these past four years? Was it Donald Trump? Or was it Joe Biden and Kamala Harris? She acknowledges we have all these challenges and problems that need to be fixed. But it wasn't Trump who was in the White House when they happened and now, she's the one with the better ideas to get us out of it?

Brett asked her another very poignant question about her saying over and over again that her presidency would turn the page. "You've been vice president for the past four years. What are you turning the page from?"

Where I find her "answer" is remarkable is how she framed it, basically trying to suggest we are needing to get away from divisiveness, pointing fingers and passing blame, and trying to take people down instead of lifting them up.

Wait a minute. Would that be like accusing a political opponent of crimes? Of insurrections? Of trying to jail him? Of having wall to wall endless negative coverage comparing Donald Trump to Marxists and fascists and Adolph Hitler himself? 

She says Donald Trump's rhetoric instills fear in people's minds. So, what does saying that he will become a dictator, wanting to use federal law enforcement agencies to jail dissenters, take down democracy or whatever other evil plans he supposedly has—all of which are patently untrue, by the way—do to not instill fear in people's minds?

She is basically saying that we need to turn the page ahead against all the things her administration has been front and center of for the past four years, orchestrating all along.

At the end of the day, the fact is, Harris has nothing new to offer the American people and she's trying as hard as she can to erase the last four years and somehow pin all of America's woes on Trump. There's no other way of putting it. 

The question is, who's really buying it?

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

READ ALL THE TAKES ON THE BRETT BAIER INTERVIEW WITH KAMALA HARRIS

Take One: Brett Baier and Kamala Harris on the Border
Take Two: Brett Baier Puts Kamala Harris Into Deer in Headlights Mode with Immigration Question
Take Four: The Brett Baier and Kamala Harris Interview: My Final Take

Brett Baier Puts Kamala Into a Deer in Headlights Mode with Immigration Question

If you ever wanted to know what a deer in headlights looks like, it was Vice President Kamala Harris as she was squarely trapped by a question brilliantly framed, that she thought she nailed the answer to.

"There's a lot of people that look back at what you said in 2019 when you first ran for president," Brett began. He reminded her that she supported allowing immigrants who were in the country illegally to apply for driver's licenses, that she supported free tuition for illegals at universities, as well as offering illegals free healthcare.

"Listen," Kamala Harris said, almost seeming irritated by the question by her body language. "That was five years ago."

She went on to convey her regard for the law and asserted she didn't advocate for these things while she was vice president. But of course, we all must remember, she was the vice president. Biden would have had to sign off on these things, and I contend even for him, these ideas would have been considered far too radical to take seriously.

Because of course, they are radical, and I think most Americans, including many Democrats, would be opposed to them.

She basically tried to throw out the notion that she would ever go back to her former position. But it was Brett's follow up question that was the gotcha moment. "If that's the case, you chose a running mate, Tim Walz, Governor of Minnesota, who signed those very things into state law. So, do you support that?"

Her pause was nearly 3-seconds long, which may not seem like a very long time. But clearly, she was taken aback by the question and immediately the wheels were spinning in her head. One could have pictured a sudden appearance of Will Robinson's robot in "Lost in Space" entering the frame warning, "Danger! Danger!"

The problem with her ultimate answer is the same as is the problem she has with most of her answers. She didn't answer it. She said her and Tim Walz are committed to following federal law. Yet clearly, Tim Walz had different interests as governor. So, which is it? She changed her position on the position and now Tim Walz has too?

How much more confused can the American people be made trying to figure out what Harris is actually for or against? Why didn't she condemn Walz' law or have further comment on it? Will she now, if elected, go to the courts to ask to challenge Walz' law on the grounds that it violates federal law? And will Walz, who enacted it, now side with her in the challenge?

Does this make sense to anyone?

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

READ ALL THE TAKES ON THE BRETT BAIER INTERVIEW WITH KAMALA HARRIS

Take One: Brett Baier and Kamala Harris on the Border
Take Three: Brett Baier Continues to Lock Kamala Harris Up on the Economy and Her Campaign Slogan
Take Four: The Brett Baier and Kamala Harris Interview: My Final Take

Brett Baier and Kamala Harris on the Border

From the very first question Brett Baier asked in his interview with Vice President Kamala Harris, he had to be as wholly frustrated with her "answer" as I found myself, and that I think a good many Americans would be frustrated with as well.

She did not answer it.

What she did was completely go around it. She kept bringing up the bipartisan bill, and yet the question was not about what they wanted to do nine months ago. It was about what decisions they made on day one, within hours of taking their oath of office, that caused the border issues that have now become a top concern for many Americans, that were clearly a result of their decisions, not Donald Trump's.

She kept wanting to try to hammer it home. "We have a problem." Yeah, sure, that's great to recognize that. But why is it that you can't recognize that it was the decisions of the Biden administration that made the problems big problems? What she's talking about fixing is something that, it is clear, her and Joe Biden broke.

And what of the very stinging question Brett asked her about the border patrol and the bill? "They supported it. But they also just endorsed Donald Trump and said you've been—quote—a failure with border security. Why do you think they said that?"

"I think they're frustrated," Kamala Harris told Brett. 

Yeah. Okay. But why? If your policies, as Harris suggests, were to address the border issues how come the border issue has only gotten worse? How many times, when even Democrat governors and mayors came out and said, "We've got a problem here," did Harris go out alongside Joe Biden and repeatedly tell the American people that the border was secure when clearly it wasn't?

They are her words. "I think they're frustrated." But Brett also reminded her that the Biden administration rescinded 90 Trump border patrol policies, and in the interview, she tried to make the claim that Trump's border policies did not improve things at the border. But the reality is, that doesn't seem to jive with what the border patrol believes to be the case.

If rescinding Trump's policies were an effective strategy on the border issue, wouldn't the border patrol then be endorsing Kamala Harris instead of Donald Trump? Instead, they are "frustrated." But apparently not at the man whose policies they know would be reimplemented on day one if Donald Trump were to be elected.

She was literally talking in circles in spite of herself, and the reason is, she has no answer. And that's part of the reason she was trying so hard to dance around it. They rescinded Trump's policies because they disagreed with them. The plan failed. They are responsible for it. They lied repeatedly to the American people about the issue. And now they simply want it to go away and make it appear that Trump is playing poltics now with the border, when all along the very reason they nixed Trump's border policies was because of politics. Not what would have been in the best interests of the security of our border and the American people.

The bill was nothing more than a last-ditch effort to make it appear they were taking the border issue seriously. But of course, we know that was simply a trick. One that in other circles, she's been able to get away with performing. But Brett wasn't letting her have her "moment" to pour on the spin.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

READ ALL THE TAKES ON THE BRETT BAIER INTERVIEW WITH KAMALA HARRIS

Take Two: Brett Baier Puts Kamala Into a Deer in Headlights Mode with Immigration Question
Take Three: Brett Baier Continues to Lock Kamala Harris Up on the Economy and Her Campaign Slogan
Take Four: The Brett Baier and Kamala Harris Interview: My Final Take

I'm Just Going to Stick with What I Know, Thank You Very Much: It's Columbus Day

by Leonard Knath, staff writer

I'm sorry. Did you just call it Indigenous People's Day? I have a new name for it too, actually, now that you mention it. I am going to call it Blow it Out Your Ass Day. In other words, you can take your political correctness and literally shove it where the sun doesn't shine, and I don't really care about what you think about that any more than you care about changing history, and what a holiday is called.

As it happens to continue to be a free country, with the 1st Amendment so far untouched by cancel culture, I am going to say what I want just like you feel so free to.

By the way, have you seen a bottle of Pearl Milling pancake syrup lately? It says right on the label, "Formerly Aunt Jemimah," so what are you really accomplishing here anyway? I think nothing but more liberal BS that only a very small circle of people care about that accomplishes nothing but to create more division.

Curated by the very people who drive around in Tesla's crying about climate change with "Coexist" stickers on their bumpers while acre and acre of land is mined for minerals to make batteries as coal plants burn ton after ton of coal to bring sparks of electricity to the very plug you put in where the evil gas pump is supposed to go.

Ah. I get it. We're saving the planet and saving ourselves from...ourselves. For the greater good, supposedly. 

Ten years from now we'll be burying those massive car batteries, and ten years after that we'll have aquifers polluted by them after we bury them. The left who clamored so loudly for them will simply blame the big corporations for being the problem, of course.

"You were supposed to figure out how to recycle them. Not bury them!"

Look, whether or not it was Columbus who landed on our shores way back when or whether or not the people he saw when he landed were people from India or indigenous people doesn't matter. It's our history. Right or wrong. It's what it is. It's what it was.  

Why can't we just discuss the mistake? Why do we have to change the history? Why do we have to cancel it? What purpose does it serve to deny it? I mean, what if, in Germany, they completely tried to erase the Hitler era and make it sound more appealing? Because that's really what Indigenous People's Day is all about. Making people feel better. 

Like it or not, good or bad, we have a history just like anywhere else in the world. We don't have to like it. It doesn't even have to be a good history. Slavery sucked, for example. It was terrible. The Jim Crowe days are no more appealing than a colonoscopy without anesthesia or lube. But it still happened.

You can call the day whatever you want to call it. That's your right just like it's mine to call BS on it, and to continue to call it Columbus Day. I'm only mad about it because you're mad about what I want to call it. Otherwise, I couldn't give two hoots.

But that's part of it too, isn't it? You want to control me. You want me to conform to your demands. You want me to crater under the weight of your pressure.

"You can't call them Indians."

Oh, the hell I can't. You can try your best to rewrite history and change the story. You can tear down the statues and rename the pancake syrup. But what you can't do is change the facts, no matter how badly you want to or no matter how hard you try.

Since 1937 it has been called Columbus Day. If you want to call it something else, that's fine. But you're going to have to step in line and wait your turn if you want everyone else onboard with it. It's been Columbus Day for far longer than you have been opposed to it being called that. And if I call it what it is to me, well, you're just going to have to accept it just like you expect me to call it what you want me to call it now.

Season's greetings or Merry Christmas? I don't know. Both are correct. You decide. But don't try to tell me which one is right, and which one is wrong. You don't get to have exclusive dibs on who makes the rules. That's not how it works.

Leonard Knath, pronounced like math, is a seeker of truth and an adamant denier of the status quo. He makes his home in Stratford, New Jersey in Camden County where he lives with his wife Dee and their two cats, Lawson and Saul.

Do you want to keep up with the latest posts from The Springboard? Follow us on our Facebook page to keep up with the latest posts wherever they may be posted.

© 2024 Leonard Knath

The Role of Businesses in Society: It's More than Just Taxes

I often revisit the topic of taxing the rich and big businesses because I think it's crucial to understand it in a different way than we usually tend to. Although, I will admit, it's probably a rather controversial thing to say, I think it's likely in the best interests of most Americans to maintain the current system, even if it appears unfair.

If we view taxes as a contribution to society and our way of life, as they fund essential public services, infrastructure, and social programs like Social Security and Medicare, forming the glue that keeps everything functioning, similarly, businesses contribute enormously too, even if they pay a lower percentage in taxes than the average working-class citizen.

If we consider taxes as a means to enhance society, ensure smooth functioning, and in some circumstances, redistribute wealth, businesses also play a crucial role in achieving these goals through what they produce.

Consider that businesses provide employment, helping people support themselves and their families. They drive innovation, creating new products and technologies that improve our lives. Although they may not send a physical check to the IRS, they significantly contribute to the tax base by stimulating economic growth through their goods and services, which generate tax revenue. Businesses also make substantial contributions to society by supporting communities through charity, sponsorships and volunteer efforts. For example, Anheuser-Busch has donated cans of water for disaster relief, and Elon Musk made Starlink available for communication in hurricane-affected regions. Additionally, businesses heavily invest in infrastructure, including communication networks like telephone and Internet services, as well as rail and shipping services.

In other words, when we demand the rich and the businesses pay their fair share, are we overlooking the valuable contributions they already make? We all play a role in a functioning society, and if we solely measure contributions in dollars and cents, we're missing the point. We're focusing on the wrong things.

How would we feed our families without the jobs that businesses provide? Beyond that, how much wealth would we miss out on without the opportunity to invest in these businesses through stock sales? Without the profit incentive, what inventions that enhance our lives might never have existed?

Taxing businesses or the wealthy more pulls money out of the real economy and places it in the hands of the government who are not equipped to function as drivers of innovation and growth. The rich, with less to invest, would be hindered in creating new ventures or expanding existing ones. Instead of fostering economic growth, as the government suggests more taxation would achieve, taxing businesses more actually depletes resources, leaving less money available for meaningful contributions to society.

Sure, it can seem disheartening to see the top 1% getting richer and richer, and it may seem like they're holding back the lower rungs of the financial ladder. But I believe the opposite is true. Without strong businesses growing and generating massive profits, society would be in far worse shape than it is today.

As I said before, we all have a role to play. I think understanding our place in the world is important, and rather than undermining the achievements of one class, what another class achieves should be an incentive to have loftier goals for ourselves—on top of that, success should never be something that we should ever want to penalize. 

When it comes to taxation, we have to ask ourselves what truly improves our lives? Is it economic growth that fosters better opportunities for working Americans, or the artificial redistribution of wealth that fails to lift anyone out of their current class and circumstances?

Regardless of what anyone thinks "fair share" really means, I think businesses are already paying their dues and we have more to be thankful for than to be angry about. No matter how unfair it seems. When we look around us, all we see are the businesses and the massive profits they generate. We fail to see how our lives might be very different if they did not exist, or what opportunities might not exist without what they contribute for them to even be possible.

The United States is the richest nation in the world for a reason. And that's because we allow people to become rich and be more in control of their own wealth. You can say my commentary here is a commentary on trickle-down economics and claim it doesn't work. I contend it has always worked, and the only problem we have with it is that some people simply don't open the spigots to their faucets.

Taxing the rich and businesses more is not the solution to our own financial problems we face. Allowing the free markets to work and educating people on how they can participate in it is the answer. Taxes do not contribute to better opportunities for society as a whole. It robs us of them.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them. You may also want to check out The Springboard on YouTube.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

Kamala Harris and the Illusion of Change

Looking at the Kamala Harris campaign, I can't help but recall the early 90's Jack in the Box E. Coli outbreak, which tragically killed four children and infected 732 people across four states. This comparison isn't meant to disparage Jack in the Box or dredge up old events that they likely prefer to remain in the past.

The truth is, it was one of the worst incidents of its kind at the time, and Jack in the Box nearly went under for good. Their name was tarnished, and no one would dare eat there. So, what did they do? They tried to rebrand themselves as Monterrey Jack's instead.

The problem is, it's essentially still Jack in the Box with nothing more than a new sign and name. The leadership, business practices, food sources, quality standards, and sanitary standards all remain unchanged.

Which brings me back to Kamala Harris. They've done nothing more than slap a new label on the same product. It's the same Kamala Harris as always, just with a different facade.

There was a time when you could be fairly confident that a rebrand wouldn't fool anyone. People would catch on quickly. "Hey, wait a minute, this is just a Sourdough Jack with a new name. What's going on?" But the difference is that the times we are living through now are probably the most politically divided as we have ever seen.

In times like these, logic and critical thinking go right out the window, and they have.

Yet, I can't shake the feeling that times might not be so different after all. Perhaps it's just hope, wishful thinking, or even naivety. But I want to believe that as a people, we haven't entirely lost our grip on reality. Can it be that now, when it seems like we've lost all sense, it's really still there? Lurking in the shadows. Just waiting for the right moment to emerge and bring back our faith in the system and what's right in the world.

When you look at the polls, there are so many things that point to this presidential race being a very close one. Based on what we know, it shouldn't be. Not if the elements that make up commonsense were working properly.

Moreover, the media should be falling all over itself over what the Harris campaign is trying to pull off. After all, they own the archives. All they have to do is rewind the tapes, and not all that far back, to see we're being lied to and badly.

The rebranding shouldn't work. Not only based on what they are trying to sell us as the new and improved Kamala Harris. But based on the last four years that Kamala Harris was part of. She went along with all of the policies Biden put into place, and when those policies failed, she went out and defended them.

The economy is humming along. The border is secure. Inflation's not so bad (hey folks, dontcha love this thing we call Bidenomics?)...

How could it ever be possible that the past four years could be in such stark contrast to the four years prior, that we could be lied to about the president's health, and that Kamala Harris could go on the view and tell the hosts she would not change a single Biden policy decision, and still be elected president?

If Kamala Harris pulls this off, take note Jack in the Box. If you ever need a comeback, she's your gal.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them. Check out my new YouTube channel as well, appropriately titled The Springboard, where I discuss a variety of topics there as I do here.

© 2024 Jim Bauer