On Nano Breweries, Uber And Property Rights


Sometimes I read a headline and just get irritated.

This is one of those times:


What set me off is the word “allows.”

These people who want to start a business need to go before a council and ask permission to open it on a certain piece of property. The government doesn’t own the property. The council doesn’t own the property.

Why do they have a say in what is done with it? Why should a free person need their permission to enter into an agreement with the owner to use it for their business?

Because we’ve surrendered our power, willingly, to the state.

Here’s how it should work. You own a piece of property. You want to build a building on it, you build a building on it. You want to operate a business on it, you operate a business on it.

You don’t have to ask the city, county or state for permission. Why?

Because they don’t own the property. If you own it, you control it. No one else does.

But, what about the neighbors? Do they get a say?

The neighbors have rights and until the property owner does something to violate those rights, they can work with the property owner, but ultimately, they should have no say.

Will there be conflicts? Of course, but that’s the nature of things. It’s better if those conflicts are sorted out between property owners, even if it results in a court battle.

But the government has no authority to dictate to a property owner what they can do on their own property as long as they aren’t violating the rights of anyone else.

And that property isn’t exclusive to small little nano breweries. It includes personal automobiles.

Under no circumstances should the government have a say in whether you choose to give someone a ride in your personal car in exchange for a few dollars, nor should the government have a say in whether you agree to take a ride in someone’s car. If the ride were free, they wouldn’t say anything, but as soon as money is involved, they get in the middle of it.


Because the cab industry has an interest in limiting the competition. They use violence, i.e. the city government, to make it difficult or impossible for another business like Uber or Lyft to come into their are and start offering better, less expensive rides. If there were limited government and respect for individual rights, Uber would be stealing customers from Kansas City and St. Louis cab companies.

Instead, they left, which is a shame. Everywhere I go, if I take an Uber, and I often do, I ask the driver how they like it.

I have yet to have one say they didn’t like it. Most of these drivers drive in their spare time, making a few extra dollars. This allows them to increase their standard of living by providing higher quality service at a lower price, which helps me increase my standard of living because I’m not shelling out more loot for a taxi.

One key thing makes this possible: individual rights, including property rights.

We need to get back to respecting those. When we do that, most of our problems with government will disappear.

May 29th, 2015|Categories: The Blog|Tags: , , |0 Comments

The Confused Logic of the Republican Statist, Starring Sen. Mike Parson

A statist is someone who believes that a man’s work and life belong to the state, “to society, to the group, the gang, the race, the nation—and that the state may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.”

Does that sound like a Republican to you?

What if I told you there were many statist Republicans in the Missouri Legislature? Would you find that hard to swallow?

For some, it would be a given; for others, a bridge too far.

Let’s look at the recent Legislative Column by Sen. Mike Parson, who is running for Governor on the “I’m not from St. Louis” ticket.

Parson’s title for the column is “Protecting Agriculture in Missouri.” Now understand this: the only role government has in a free country is securing the rights of the individual. That’s it. Therefore, it follows that the only way a non-statist government could protect agriculture in Missouri is to protect the rights of individuals, including their right to property.

What does Parson say they did?

The agriculture industry in Missouri was strengthened this year with the passage of Senate Bill 12. The measure was signed by the governor and increases weight limits for trucks hauling livestock and grains during harvest, adds livestock to the equine liability waiver, and allows Missouri beef producers more control of the state’s Beef Checkoff program. The governor also signed House Bill 259, a measure known as the “Dairy Revitalization Act.” The legislation aids dairy producers with Federal Margin Insurance Premium payments; gives eighty $5,000 scholarships for students who want to return to the dairy industry; and requires an annual report by the University of Missouri on innovations for the dairy industry.

Not one of those things is a function of government.

Not one.  It is a statist mind that accepts government imposing a weight limit on trucks.  Why shouldn’t a farmer be allowed to haul heavy loads on public highways?  Because it’s dangerous?  Then isn’t the state absolving the farmer of any responsibility if something goes wrong?  “Well, it was within the limits set by the state.”  In a free country, the farmer loads his truck as he sees fit, and if his actions end up violating the rights of another citizen, then the state has a role.  The state shouldn’t be in the business of using force to tell a person how much they can haul.

It is the statist mind that accepts that government can say that the liability of an employee’s death or injury during “livestock activities” is waived for “livestock activity sponsors.”  Who defines what the “inherent risks” are?  The “livestock owners” or the estate of the dead or their family?  Or a bureaucrat completely divorced from the situation?  It seems this is something best left individuals and to the courts.  The court decides whether a person is liable, not a group of legislators.  And there are insurance companies out there willing to insure against such liabilities.

It is the statist mind that accepts government even being involved in a “Beef Checkoff program.”  But who would inspect the meat if the government wasn’t involved?  This question exposes the mind influenced by leftism.  It assumes that beef producers would willingly and knowingly sell products they know to be unsafe.  I don’t believe that.  Instead of making meat safer or of higher quality, it absolves Missouri Beef producers from having to protect the one thing that would make or break them:  their reputation.

Alan Greenspan wrote about this back in 1963:

What collectivists refuse to recognize is that it is in the self-interest of every businessman to have a reputation for honest dealings and a quality product.  Since the market value of a going business is measured by its money-making potential, reputation or “good-will” is as much an asset as its physical plan and equipment.

He continued:

Government regulation is not an alternative means of protecting the consumer.  it does not build quality into goods, or accuracy into information.  Its sole “contribution” is to substitute for and fear for incentive as the “protector” of the consumer.

What are the results?  To paraphrase Gresham’s Law:  bad “protection” drives out the good.  The attempt to protect the consumer by force undercuts the protection he gets from incentive.  First, it undercuts the value of reputation by placing the reputable company on the same basis  as the unknown, the newcomer or the fly-by-nighter.  It declares, in effect, that all are equally suspect and that years of evidence to the contrary do not free a man from that suspicion.

If the cattlemen of Missouri want to get together and create a standard, a Beef Checkoff, that doesn’t require the use of force to implement, go for it.  But the idea that government’s involvement will somehow result in higher quality is statist thinking.

The one think present in all of these things is the rejection of a person’s individual rights, including property rights.

You can buy that truck if you want, but the state will tell you how much you can put on it.

You can work that job if you want, but the state will build a wall to protect the businessman, should you die.

You can own cattle if you want, but the state will decide if they are good enough for market, not the buyers and certainly not you.

Remember, the role of government is to secure rights.  The statist mind rejects individual rights, replacing them with obligations to the tribe and actions by the state.

What’s even more revealing is the second paragraph in Parson’s column.  It’s all about the EPA’s overreach in the “Waters of the U.S.” regulation.  Parson’s doesn’t like the idea of the EPA writing regulations that affect “virtually any wet—or occasionally wet—spot in the country, including ditches, drains, seasonal puddle-like depressions, intermittent streams, ponds, impoundments, prairie potholes, and large “buffer areas” of land adjacent to every waterway.”

And he shouldn’t.  No where does the federal government have the power to do any of that.  But what Parson misses, or worse, accepts, is that the EPA is the embodiment of tyranny.

From the pen of James Madison in The Federalist No. 47:

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

The EPA writes regulations with the force of law. In other words, they have legislative power.

They enforce the regulations. In other words, they have executive power.

And if they so decree, they can decide that you’ve violated their orders. In other words, they have judiciary power.

This is tyranny.

And while Parson’s is right to reject the EPA’s overreach, he ignores one simple fact: it’s all overreach. He shouldn’t be protesting the EPA’s actions. He should be protesting the EPA’s existence. Furthermore, he’s complaining about one illegitimate use of force by the federal government while bragging about being a part of multiple illegitimate uses of force on the state level.

This is the importance of principles. You can’t kind of be for individual rights. You either understand the purpose of government and limit it to securing the rights of the people, or you reject individual rights and justify the occasional use of force to violate them. “Oh, I’m all for using the state to do this, but those guys using the state to do that is bad.”

That shows a lack of principles and a misunderstanding of the role of government.

It is an example of the confused logic of the Republican statist.

May 29th, 2015|Categories: The Blog|Tags: |0 Comments

The Show-Me Report: May 29, 2015

PoliticMO: Republican legislator’s pharmacy license in jeopardy after giving illegal prescriptions to himself, others and his dog

20 Pounds of Headlines: Missouri Lawmaker Has Pharmacist’s License Placed on Probation for 3rd Time

The Missouri Times: Lawmakers sue Nixon over NFL stadium funds

Fox 2: Lawsuit: St. Louis suburb’s courts violate rights of poor

Show-Me Daily: What to Do With Vacant School Buildings

Missouri Education Watchdog: Progressives weigh in on public education

Show-Me Daily: Ridesharing: Game Changing for Carpooling and Transit?

The Missouri Times: Missouri Democratic Party leads campaign of support for veto

Show-Me Daily: The Streetcar’s Economic Development Shell Game

Show-Me Daily: You Cannot Be Serious!

Fox 2: Group seeking Ferguson mayor recall finally able to turn in petition

Fox 2: Ferguson to hold 3rd town hall meeting on community policing

The Missouri Times: Lawmakers sue Nixon over NFL stadium funds

The Rolla Daily News: State auditor’s office begins review of county

May 29th, 2015|Categories: The Blog, The Show-Me Report|Tags: |0 Comments

The Show-Me Report: May 28, 2015

Fox 2: Ferguson hosts town hall meeting

Fox 2: Suit filed in Ferguson police killing moves to federal court

Fox 2: Lawsuits filed against Ferguson moved to federal court

St. Louis Public Radio: Praise and disappointment for Ferguson Mayor Knowles as recall effort moves forward

St. Joseph Post: State auditor’s office says St. Joseph schools improving (Video)

News-Tribune: Auditor’s office says St. Joseph schools improving

Fox 2: St. Louis voters to decide fate of $180 million bond issue

KPLR: Lawmakers file suit to stop use of Edward Jones Dome bonds for new NFL stadium

News-Tribune: Lawmakers sue Nixon, sports authority over proposed football stadium

Jefferson County Penknife: Vescovo Joins Suit to Halt Efforts on New Rams Stadium

PoliticMO: Kander jabs Obama, Blunt for support of “fast-track” trade bill

Missouri Business Alert: Prominent St. Louis Republican donors line up behind Hanaway

PoliticMO: South Carolina governor to raise money for Catherine Hanaway

Post-Dispatch: Nikki Haley to headline Hanaway fundraiser here in June

Post-Dispatch: Mo. Legislature withholds intern information, citing federal law that likely doesn’t apply to them

Show-Me Daily: Cheap Rent: A Saint Louis Advantage

Kansas City Star: Dave Helling: Transportation bill remains a bridge too far for federal, state legislators

The Eagle: Missouri House intern policy under review following scandal

Fox 2: Homicides on the increase in St. Louis

Show-Me Daily: Convention Hotel Justification Built on Fiction

St. Louis Public Radio: Stenger, Belmar aren’t through pushing for police tax vote

Kansas City Star: Are lobbyists evil?

Kansas City Star: With dad serving life for marijuana conviction, son talks about fight to free him

Southeast Missourian: MoDOT employees threatened in Sikeston

Fox 2: New documents dispute claim baby stolen from Homer G Phillips

News-Tribune: Records contradict claim in St. Louis baby case

Post-Dispatch: Cape Girardeau may seek loans to fix sinkholes

May 28th, 2015|Categories: The Blog, The Show-Me Report|Tags: |0 Comments

Belton Parents Walk Out of Graduation After Principal Targets Cops During Graduation Speech

Ask me again why we homeschool:

“I wanted to be a teacher ‘cause I wanted to change the world,” Belton High School Principal Dr. Fred Skretta said. “I wanted to make it a better place. I’m gonna be honest with you, in a lot of ways I fear that we are not there yet. If we were there, we wouldn’t have conflicts between police killing young black men.”

Parents said they were offended by Skretta’s remarks on their children’s graduation day.

“You don’t use the platform of a child’s graduation to push a political agenda or push your personal opinions,” one parent said.

Skretta took to Twitter to apologize, saying that he “meant no disrespect” with his remarks. TY all at #BHS graduation! I apologize if my remarks were offensive. Our law enforcement have difficult jobs & I meant no disrespect #agape — Doc Skretta (@Principal_BHS) May 17, 2015

Deputy Superintendent Dr. Steve Morgan said Skretta’s comments were not reflective of the district and that this is now a personnel matter.

“Comments were made at graduation and they certainly are not reflective of the district, so we sent out an apology in a statement today that went to all patrons reflecting that,” he said earlier this week.

It looks like he went and deleted his Twitter account. He was taking massive heat.

Hat Tip: Right Wing News

May 27th, 2015|Categories: The Blog|Tags: , , , |1 Comment

Kraus Says Kander Not Serious About Reducing Fraud, Needs to Investigate All Instances


Back on May 18th, there was big news when felony charges were made against four people for signature fraud:

The warrants were issued last week, but only one suspect is in custody. Keven Hayes, listed as homeless in the warrant, was arrested in Columbia on three counts of forgery. He doesn’t have an attorney listed in court documents, but he is scheduled for a Tuesday court hearing. He is being held on $13,500 bail.

Investigators allege that he submitted petitions with 363 signatures from Boone County, including names of deceased individuals and three people who when contacted said they hadn’t signed the petition. Hayes collected signatures on behalf of Buzzard Bay Strategies, which paid bonuses to those collecting the most signatures. The Boston-based company didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment Monday from The Associated Press.

Forgery warrants also were issued for Tracy Renee Jones, Danny Lawrence Williams and Rogell Coker Jr., according to court records. None had publicly listed phone numbers in Missouri, and court documents indicate investigators couldn’t find current addresses for any of them.

These folks were collecting signatures for early voting, a Democrat led initiative.

Secretary of State Jason Kander didn’t waste any time, taking credit for everything:

“I have zero tolerance for fraud of any kind, and will always be proactive and vigilant in investigating any report of its occurrence. My office’s Elections Integrity Unit conducted an investigation resulting from reports of initiative petition signature fraud in 2014. This investigation was referred to Boone County law enforcement and has now led to the filing of felony charges against four individuals. One of those individuals, Keven Hayes, has been arrested and the remaining three—Tracy Jones, Danny Lawrence and Rogell Coker—currently have outstanding warrants for their arrest. I thank Boone County Clerk Wendy Noren and Boone County law enforcement for their work on these cases, and look forward to these individuals being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”

If that’s the case, why did his office refuse to cooperate with Boone County Prosecutor Dan Knight, a Democrat, regarding a fraud case pertaining to early voting?

A probable cause statement is submitted to judges along with the information alleging specific crimes. If a judge determines the statement is sufficient to show a crime was committed and there is cause to believe the person named committed it, an arrest warrant is issued.

“We are not law enforcement, in terms of probable cause statement,” said Laura Swinford, spokeswoman for Kander.

The cases should be referred to a police agency, said Knight, a member of Kander’s Elections Integrity Task Force who said he told Kander at its first meeting two weeks ago “that in order for us to file charges in these types of cases, we have to have an investigation by law enforcement.”

All they had to do was refer it to law enforcement, like Knight told them.

Curious this was even a news story.

Especially considering Knight wasn’t the only prosecutor to tell Kander’s office this:

Buchanan County Prosecutor Dwight Scroggins Jr. said he responded to Kander’s office by suggesting it should work with law enforcement agencies for further investigation. The secretary of state’s office hasn’t subsequently referred the cases to the Buchanan County sheriff or local police, said Kander spokeswoman Laura Swinford.

Seems to me they could have been more aggressive in making sure these individuals were “prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”

All of them:

Today, Sen Will Kraus, (R-Lee’s Summit) called upon Secretary of State Jason Kander to do more to help with the prosecution of individuals suspected of committing signature fraud.

This morning, Secretary of State Jason Kander issued a statement taking credit for felony charges brought against four individuals in Boone County suspected of signature fraud. The felonies related to events occurring as part of a campaign to place an early voting scheme on Missouri’s ballots in 2014.

That same year, eleven local election authorities expressed concerns regarding irregularities with signatures. The Secretary of State responded by forwarding a letter to local prosecutors in only seven counties.

And a study shows it may have been even more widespread:

Graves Garrett examined a number of counties’ signature pages and ultimately found potential petition signature fraud and/or forgery to have occurred in 15 of the 69 counties examined. Of these 15 counties, 9 were found to have a relatively substantial of suspected petition signature fraud and/or forgery.

Although suspected petition signature fraud and/or forgery was committed by as many as 81 separate petition circulators, a large portion of the approximately 2,251 improper signatures are attributable to a handful of circulators. One individual alone accounts for 702 problem signatures (31% of the total). The three most prolific offenders account for 1,266 (56%) signatures. When the group is expanded to the top seven offenders, the number jumps to 1,825 (81%). Thus, while the signature problems are widespread, a handful of individuals are responsible for the lion’s share.

Seems to me that if a person has “zero tolderance for fraud of any kind,” there should be around 81 people facing charges.

Kraus wants Kander to do more:

“Instead of taking credit for the work of local law enforcement and prosecutors, Kander should do a full review of all counties that were not forwarded to prosecutors,” said Kraus. “If Secretary Kander is serious about reducing fraud, he should work with local law enforcement in all eleven counties to help move the process forward.

What do you think?

Photo Credit: YouTube
May 27th, 2015|Categories: The Blog|Tags: |0 Comments

The Show-Me Report: May 27, 2015

Fox 2: Missouri Senate hires attorney for ‘harassment complaint’

HNGN: Ferguson Protesters Were Promised Up To $5,000 A Month To Protest, Demand Payment

Fox 2: Ferguson Mayor Knowles maybe facing recall vote

Post-Dispatch: Residents pack Ferguson meeting over possibility of mayor’s recall

News-Tribune: Otto to run for US Congress

Post-Dispatch: Missouri hemp oil program slow to take off

Fox 2: Missouri governor delays state energy plan deadline

Fox 2: Nixon announces $2M for road repairs for tornado damage

The Eagle: Ashcroft wants voter photo ID

Ozark Area Network: Sen. McCaskill discusses end of military equipment transfer program

Missouri Business Alert: Welfare cuts in Missouri could offer sign of what’s to come

The Missouri Times: Parson, Steelman visit TWMP

Fox 2: St. Louis to put $180M bond issue to vote

KBIA: Missouri Representative to Run for Missouri’s 2nd Congressional District Seat

KBIA: Hearing Scheduled for Mamtek Construction Contractors

The Eagle: Mamtek construction contractors want money

May 27th, 2015|Categories: The Blog, The Show-Me Report|Tags: |0 Comments

The Paradigm Shift: Sen. Bernie Sanders and the Anti-War Violence is Moral Crowd

I’m Duane Lester and this is the Paradigm Shift.

Leftists across the country are giddy about the idea of Sen. Bernie Sanders running for president. Sanders, you see, is a self described democratic socialist.

And isn’t it nice that finally a Democratic candidate is honest about being a socialist? It’s like a warm ray of sunshine on an otherwise cold and cloudy day.

Looking back to when Sanders first ran for Congress in 1971, he ran as a member of the Liberty Union Party, a nonviolent, socialist party.

“A non-violent, socialist party.” There’s a contradiction for you.

When you look at the modern anti-war protests, and you’ll have to Google that these day, since those protests stopped about the time President Obama took over the war machine and started ramping up the war in Afghanistan, but when you look at them, you find them organized and populated with the far left pablum that rallies behind a statist like Bernie Sanders.

Actually, some of them don’t think Sanders is anti-war enough, seeing him as being part of the problem.

Anti-war leftists are nothing new. The first U.S. anti-Vietnam war protest was led by the founder of the World Worker’s Party. Before that, socialists and other far left groups came together to protest America’s fight against Nazism and later, communism.

Now understand, I’m not saying being against war is bad. War is horrible. I’m anti-war. But there’s something about a statist being anti-war that needs to be pointed out. And that’s today’s Paradigm Shift.

For decades, these people have decried the use of force against America’s enemies. Meanwhile, every policy and law they push requires a use of force against Americans themselves.

Just look at three things Sanders is calling for.

He wants to make college free for everyone. He wants America to have a single payer health care system like Great Britain. And he wants a ninety percent marginal tax rate.

How can he do any of those things? It’s a two step process. First, he has to completely reject the idea of individual rights. Then, he uses force against Americans.

Step one if very important for the welfare statist because there’s no such thing as a free lunch, or college education…or medical treatment. In order to provide college to everyone, one of a couple things needs to happen. Either the college professors need to forced to work for free, which violates their right to earn a living or pursue happiness.
Or, the producers of the country need to have their property taken from them and given to the professors in order to provide for someone who hasn’t earned it. But even forces the professors to teach for free, the state would have to provide food, clothing and shelter to the newly enlisted members of the academic army. So taxpaying Americans would have to have their property taken from them and used to provide not only the basic needs of the professors, but for the facilities, texts and probably even the occasional keg stand.

This is all an illegitimate use of force against an allegedly free people. It’s a violation of their most basic rights, the right to property.

And Sanders and the other anti-war drones advocate it.

To call it hypocrisy would be too polite. It’s obscene.

It turns the whole concept of freedom inside out and upside down. According to the welfare statists, it’s moral to trample on your individual rights in order to provide substandard health care like they have in Cuba.

To a leftist, it’s not wrong to use the power of the federal government to compel you to surrender the product of your labor to another, all in the name of equality.

Understand this: the whole foundation of the statist is based on the rejection of individual rights and the use of force against the citizenry. It’s the rejection of everything America was founded upon.

So while charlatans like Bernie Sanders protest the use of force against those who would do us harm, remember, they publically encourage the use of force against every American.

The socialist ideology can’t do anything without first committing violence against people guilty of doing nothing except being successful.

And they call it moral.

It’s why George Orwell wrote in 1984:

War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength.

2 plus 2 equals 5.

It’s completely upside down. Call them socialists, communists, leftists, fascists statists, whatever. They are the biggest proponents of violence on the planet. It’s time they owned it.

That’s the Paradigm Shift. I’m Duane Lester.

May 27th, 2015|Categories: The Blog|Tags: , |1 Comment

Post-Dispatch Editorial Shows How Completely Ignorant They Are About Economics…Seriously

When it comes to basic economics, the editors of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch are weapons grade stupid.

Today they published an editorial that is one economic fallacy after another and typical leftist blather.

Starting off with this gem:

By almost any measure, one of the least-successful movements of the past decade has been the effort to rein in executive pay. “Say on pay” laws haven’t worked. Tax reforms haven’t worked. Shame hasn’t worked.


What should these people be ashamed of? Being successful? Earning money?

These executives lead some of the largest corporations in the world. Can any of the editors of the Post-Dispatch do that? Hardly.

What the executives of these corporations have is a very elite skill set that now competes on the global scale. In other words, what they are selling, their abilities, is in short supply.

And for the editors of the Post-Dispatch, when something is in short supply, but the demand for it is high, what is the result?

It’s worth more. Hence, the salaries you statists want to restrain.

So, these people should be ashamed that they worked hard, studied, learned, applied what they learned and then entered into a voluntary agreement with an organization where they agreed to pay X amount of dollars for their work?

Why? Because a bunch of class-warfare mercenaries posing as newspapermen thinks it to be unfair?

Shame of the editors of the Post-Dispatch. They want people of skill and ability to feel guilty for using their skill and ability to make their own lives better.

(And that what just the first paragraph. It gets worse.)

If there’s any good news, it’s that the CEOs in the Equilar-AP study earned a mere 205 times the average worker’s wage. Average wages have risen slightly, so the number is down from 257 in 2013, the AP calculated. The AFL-CIO says the 2013 ratio was considerably higher, on the order of 331 times the average worker’s.

Whether it’s 205 times or 331, it’s markedly higher than the 30-to-1 ratio in effect in 1978. CEO pay rose 937 percent between 1978 and 2013, reports the Economic Policy Institute.

This nicely tracked the rise in income inequality. American workers have less because the bosses, and the shareholders they slavishly serve (the wealthiest 5 percent of Americans own 70 percent of stocks), have more.


The finite pie myth. The fallacy that economics is a zero-sum game is one of the more persistent fallacies out there, and I believe deliberately so. It’s effective to the ignorant, which I would assume readers of the Post-Dispatch editorial page generally are.

This fallacy boils down to the belief that if one person has more, than another has less. Because the CEO pay is higher, it’s not possible for American workers to get more. Or worse, when one CEO gets more, workers get less.

The problem is, it’s not true:

So we have a choice: either the editors of the Post-Dispatch didn’t know this, throwing their credibility on economic matters into question, or they did and just want to print propaganda, throwing their integrity into question.

I honestly don’t know which it could be.

But I do know the ignorance didn’t stop with the above:

The Dodd-Frank Reform Act of 2010 contained provisions giving shareholders a “say on pay.” At least once every three years, shareholders get to vote on financial compensation packa

May 26th, 2015|Categories: The Blog|Tags: , , , , |0 Comments

Rep. Bill Otto Releases Congressional Campaign Ad – It Could Be The Most Painful 2:22 Of Your Day (Video)

I’m just going to put this here:

Wow. That’s bad.

First thing I noticed?

He’s not looking at the camera:


As someone who makes the occasional video (perhaps you’ve seen my series “The Paradigm Shift“), this tells me that he’s reading his script not off a teleprompter, but off something else held below the camera. Now maybe this video was made in a union shop and the person who runs the teleprompter was on a mandated break…all day.

It’s more likely that whoever made this didn’t have a teleprompter. The whole video seems very low budget, so that seems to be the more logical conclusion.

It isn’t that hard to get a hold of a teleprompter. You can make one for about $40-50 bucks. Trust me on this.

The second thing I want to talk about is that background. If you’re going to go to the trouble of using a green screen, why would you use a plain white background? How boring.

Here’s a few backgrounds that I think would have been far better:






I could come up with more, but I just don’t want to.

I’ve put more effort into this video than it merits, to be honest.

It’s a poorly produced video filled with empty leftist rhetoric, exposing what we can expect to be a poorly executed campaign from a run of the mill lefty.

While Rep. Ann Wagner may have reason to worry about her re-election, it isn’t from the left, but from her right.

She could face a tough primary and that could be what sends her home.


Ok, I made one more after I was done recording the new Paradigm Shift:


Update 2:

I made these for Twitter. I’m having too much fun with this. I don’t think it’s going away anytime soon:



May 26th, 2015|Categories: The Blog|Tags: |0 Comments