Why The Left REALLY Wants A Minimum Wage Hike

One of the favorite manipulational issues of the Left is that of the minimum wage. Every few years, the unified cry of the Democrat party is that the minimum wage needs to be raised. Upon that word, those in the liberal media dutifully print article upon article about how billions of Americans are starving because they can't feed themselves on the minimum wage. We're showered with sob stories about how these decent, hard working people have a right to the dignity of earning a "living wage".

Of course, business leaders accurately state that raising minimum wage will cause the prices for goods and services to rise, so in just a few months, the new minimum wage will have the same purchasing power of the old minimum wage. Additionally, raising the minimum wage also causes a decrease in the work force, as businesses try to reduce costs to keep their costs as low as possible so that they can maintain their evil, greedy profits. How dare they actually expect to make a return on their investment of time and capital. But, I digress on what will be another post on another day.

At a rally yesterday, our Campaigner-In-Chief made the following statement: "If your member of Congress doesn't support raising the minimum wage, you have to let them know they're out of step, and that if they keep putting politics ahead of working Americans, you'll put them out of office."

Many people believe that the Democrats push minimum wage hikes to rally the uninformed voters to keep themselves in power in the 2014 elections. Others believe that they do so because when the minimum wage goes up, the wages of many union workers go up because their contracts stipulate their pay as a proportion of minimum wage.

Personally, while I know that those are true, I believe that I had an epiphany a few days ago about why they truly want to raise the minimum wage. That reason is to get an increase in tax revenue. "But Mike", you're saying, "most of the people making minimum wage pay little to no income taxes!" And you would be right, they don't pay very much in income taxes. They DO, however, pay PAYROLL taxes. Every person pays 6.2% of their direct pay and 6.2% of their indirect pay in FICA taxes. Also, every person pays 1.45% of their direct pay and 1.45% of their indirect pay in Medicare taxes. (Since we're talking about low income workers, just forget about the fact that these apply to the first $117k of their wages. And yes, the worker DOES pay both parts of the tax, but you've been duped into believing that since your employer writes a check for half of it, it doesn't come from your earnings.)

I know that math can get boring and repetitive, so let's make it a little easier. There are 52 weeks in a year and payroll taxes equal to 15.3% of wages are paid. 15.3% of 52 is 7.956. That means that you can multiply pay by average hours per week by 7.956 and determine annual payroll tax. 

Here are some annual payroll taxes based upon our current minimum wage:
$7.25 x 20 hours x 7.956 = $1154
$7.25 x 30 hours x 7.956 = $1730
$7.25 x 40 hours x 7.956 = $2307

Here are some annual payroll taxes based upon the PROPOSED minimum wage:
$10.10 x 20 hours x 7.956 = $1607  (an increase of $453)
$10.10 x 30 hours x 7.956 = $2411  (an increase of $681)
$10.10 x 40 hours x 7.956 = $3214  (an increase of $907)

The person only working 30 hours a week would be paying more in payroll taxes than the person currently working 40 hours a week at the current wage. Now, you're probably shaking your head, thinking that (A) all that money goes in Al Gore's mythical "lock box" to be used for only Social inSecurity and Medicare, and (B) it's only a few hundred dollars, so what difference does it make? 

First, payroll taxes get dumped into the general fund, and are spent faster than they are collected. The second is the more important, however. Just for the sake of simplification, let us use the 30 hour worker as the typical example. He or she would be paying $681 in additional payroll taxes. Not a great deal, right? Not individually, but remember, there are 3.6 million workers making minimum wage. Assuming they all work 30 hours a week (many will only be allowed to work 28 due to Obamacare, but again, that's another story) the federal government will see a revenue increase from minimum wage earners of:
$681 x 3,600,000 = $2,451,600,000. That's 2.45 billion dollars in new spending money, all because the caring, considerate Leftists wanted to help the poor and downtrodden.

It doesn't stop there, however. Millions upon millions of people make between the current minimum wage and the proposed minimum wage. They'll not only be raised to the new minimum, but will (rightly) demand to be paid the same proportion above the new minimum wage. That is to say, if I made $1.50 over the old minimum because I had been at a job for a year, then I'd expect to make $1.50 over the new minimum. Just using some assumptions of $12 an hour and 40 hours a week and 10 million workers, that would mean $15 billion in new tax revenue. And don't forget about the guy who was earning $10 or $11 or $12 an hour because they're a supervisor or skilled worker. You better believe that they won't settle for their pay being just above minimum wage.

Additionally, millions and millions and millions of workers make more than minimum wage, and will not settle for taking a de facto cut in our pay. So the people making 2x or 3x minimum wage will demand a raise, or move around to other companies willing to pay them what they are worth. Again, pure assumptions, but let us look at worker making 3x current minimum, or $21.75 an hour. Suddenly, the minimum wage goes up to $10.10, and he's now only making twice the minimum instead of three times the minimum. As we've clearly shown, almost EVERYBODY'S wages will go up, and contrary to what the people who've never worked a day in business believe, prices WILL go up as well. It's called inflation. So, does our hypothetical worker settle for getting a raise equal to the increase in minimum wage? That would be $10.10-$7.25 = $2.85 + $21.75 = $24.60? Or is he going to expect that his pay remains at 3x minimum wage, which would now be $30.30?

Going back to an earlier possible motive for the minimum wage hike, many union contracts do stipulate their contract wages be proportional to minimum wage. All those people will be paying more in payroll taxes.

So in about six months, most employees will have some type of an increase in their wages. At the same time, prices will go up, and their new pay will have about the same purchasing power as their old pay. But the federal government will be receiving billions upon billions of new money to spend.

Fast forward another year and a half to early 2016. The increased revenue has been pouring in for a while now, and guess what. Since the government took in more than they estimated at the time that they passed the budget, the deficit will be less than projected. And all of the coiffed propaganda artists at the alphabet soup "news" agencies will be crowing about how Obama's policies are finally working, and that's why we need to not only continue with a Democrat in the White House, we should give both houses of Congress to them as well.

THAT is why I believe that the Democrats are pushing for a hike in the minimum wage. To increase revenue, and to win elections not only in 2014, but in 2016. If you truly believe that the rich liberals (shouldn't that be a registered oxymoron?) care about the little people, I don't think that you're paying attention. And if you think that the liberals have done all to this great nation that they WANT to do to it, you're sadly mistaken. The fundamental transformation is just getting started..

Government Gremlins

Most of us remember the 1984 classic movie, "Gremlins". An unsuspecting young man gets an exotic pet from his father. Caring for the pet consists of three rules: Never get it wet, keep it away from bright light, and never, ever feed it after midnight.

Over the past week, there has been a standoff between 200 federal agents and a Nevada rancher named Cliven Bundy. The situation seemed to be poised to become the next Ruby Ridge or Waco...when the involvement of Rory & Harry Reid with a Chinese company about a solar power plant saw the light of day. Within 16 hours, the Bureau of Land Management decided that they didn't want to push the issue. The BLM announced that it was releasing the cattle that they had rounded up, and were not going to steal anymore of his cattle.

As I thought about this development, it occurred to me that the federal government is a lot like the Mogwai. Government seems like a good idea at first. The idea of having a government to keep us safe gives us a warm fuzzy feeling. As a Christian, I understand that God created government, and that it does have a place in our lives. However, government, like fire, is a great servant and a horrible master.

The first rule of gremlins is that you can't get them wet, or they multiply. Consider the rate of growth of our federal government. We now have federal agencies that regulate what kind of toilet (EPA), what kind of light bulb (DOE), and what kind of car we can drive (DOT). Not only do we have multiple agencies, we have so many agencies and laws that they routinely argue among themselves about who has more authority, and who has "jurisdiction" for an issue. If you could bring the Founding Fathers to modern day DC and show them all of the federal laws and agencies, they'd ask us what part of the Declaration of Independence we didn't understand.

Secondly, you're never allowed to feed a gremlin after midnight...no matter HOW much it whines, cries or begs. Sounds just like our government. Year after year, the "public servants" in DC tell us that they have to rob more and more and more and more and more of our hard earned money from our pay because they just simply must have it. Government should be treated like children and pets, that is, it should be trained and taught that there are limits, and that "NO" means "NO". Once a child is allowed to tantrum his way to a treat at the supermarket, he'll continue to do so.

Lastly, government is like gremlins in that it HATES bright light. When government dealings are done in back rooms and in dark alleys, the people cannot be aware of how they are being robbed. Cases such as contracts being steered to companies of sitting US Senators like Diane Feinstein.

The American people must but our government back in the cage our Founders created for it. We MUST remind our bureaucracies and politicians that they work for US, not the other way around. Our government believe otherwise. But as Sir William Wallace said in the movie "Braveheart", "You think the people of this country exist to provide you with position. I think your position exists to provide these people with freedom."

Spiritual Physicals

I went to the doctor yesterday for an annual physical. The doc checked my blood pressure, LDL, HDL, triglycerides, white & red blood counts and my height & weight. 

He looked at all the info on his chart, closed the folder and said "Have a nice day, see you next year."

Absolutely stunned, I asked, "Aren't you going to tell me anything about the results? What I'm doing wrong? What I need to do differently?"

He smiled and said, "No, it would be judgmental of me to say that your results are either good or bad, or to tell you what you are doing is wrong or right. Even worse, I'd not want to force my opinions on you by telling you what you should do. Just pay the clerk at the desk...."

NOW, consider this: your local church is not to be a hotel for saints, it's to be a hospital for sinners. You wouldn't go back to a doctor that did what I'm describing, why in the world would you go to a church like that?

If you choose to skip regular doctor visits, it's your own fault if your life is shortened and diminished.  
Same thing if you skip regular worship attendance...

Why I Love The Movie "Cool Runnings"

As we begin the Winter Olympics of 2014 in Sochi, the Jamaican bobsled team has been in the news due to the fact that their luggage was lost, which also contained part of the bobsled! Many years ago, my bride and I went to see "Cool Runnings", and it immediately became one of my all time favorite movies. While primarily billed as a comedy, it has some VERY powerful messages to tell. Albeit with comedic and dramatic adaption, the characters and the story are real.

If you've never seen the movie, here's a quick plot synopsis, with Spoiler Alert: The primary character is Derice Bannock, the son of a champion Olympic sprinter who is himself seeking to win Olympic gold in Track. During the official qualification trials, another sprinter trips Derice and a third runner, removing them all from contention in the Summer Olympics that year. Desperate to become an Olympian, Derice tracks down Irv Blitzer, a former US bobsledder who was disqualified and disgraced for cheating and has moved to Jamaica in shame and self-imposed exile. Blitzer had unsuccessfully tried to convince Ben Bannock to compete as a bobsledder, based on the idea that four fast sprinters should make excellent pushers, and thus champion sledders. Derice coerces his best friend to help him, and they eventually convince Irv to train them, IF they can find two more members for the team. Of course, the two other members wind up being the guy who tripped Derice and the third runner. No one on the team is happy, most of them have some reason to hate the other, and Irv doesn't believe that they can even make it as a team. After many, many, many hilarious training escapades, the team winds up in Calgary, Alberta, Canada for the Winter Olympics..without even having a sled with which to compete. Irv buys an old training sled from his former US pals, and they paint it with the Jamaican colors and name it "Cool Runnings", which is said to mean "peace(ful) be the journey". Derice develops an admiration for the Swiss team, who have a watch-like precision in everything they do on the course. Far from home and in front of recognized world-class athletes, the team struggles to fit in, and to overcome their fears and nervousness. The first time they try a practice run, the sled winds up going down the course without them, as they fail to mount properly! During their first competition run, the team fumbles, largely due to Derice trying to imitate the Swiss, but manages to complete the run, landing them in last place. Overnight, the team fights over whether they came as themselves, or someone else, particularly the Swiss. On their second day, the team shows up in full Jamaican flair and not only competes successfully, but does so well that they are actually in contention for a medal. During a heart-to-heart between Derice and Irv, Derice asks why Irv cheated. Irv tells him that he did so because winning was everything to him, and that if Derice isn't enough without a gold medal, he'll never be enough with one. When they take the course on the third and final day, they are ready, sure and prepared to compete, and hopefully win. The team absolutely aces the pushoff, and is on track to win the gold when disaster strikes. One of the nuts on their old, rickety sled comes loose, and they lose control and suffer a horrendous crash, sliding to a stop within sight of the finish line. After determining that they are all okay, they pick the sled up, put it on their shoulders and carry it across the line, because Derice has to finish the race. As they observe what is happening, several of the competitors who had previously picked on and harassed the team begin scattered applause, which turns into a full standing ovation from the crowd, competitors and even the judges as the movie ends. When the lights came up in the theater, my bride was astonished to see tears streaming down my face. Not a lone tear, but a full on gusher. As Larry The Cucumber says, "I laughed, I cried, it moved me, Bob".

As a Christian, there are many, many truths that can be gleaned from this story:

1) You might not wind up running the race that you prepared for and thought you would run. Several of the Apostles were fishermen, one was a tax collector, and Paul was a Pharisee.

2) You might not like everyone on your team. One of the Apostles was Simon the Zealot. Zealots were a nationalistic political group that hated the occupiers and collaborators. Another of the Apostles was Matthew, who was a tax collector for the occupying Romans. Imagine a Tea Party activist and an IRS 501(c)(4) application inspector playing on the same softball team.

3) You might not run your race in an environment that you would choose. Paul was a Jew's Jew, who would up preaching salvation to the pagans and barbarians of the world.

4) You have to run your own race in your own way, without worrying about other runners. Peter asked Jesus what would happen to John, to which Jesus reminded him "follow ME".

5) You might not have the best and newest equipment to run with. David went into battle carrying only a sling and five stones...and the presence and protection of Almighty God.

6) Your contentment cannot come from your circumstances or even your results, but instead from the fact that you are precious to Jesus, and that you are working diligently to follow Him. The Apostle Paul tells us in Philippians 4:12&13 that contentment comes from relying on Jesus.

7) You may not win according to the standards and measures of the world, but you have to finish your race. Paul himself speaks of this in 2 Timothy 4:6-8. Jesus rewards those who finish their race, not those who run the fastest, best, or most attractively.

I encourage you to watch this film! It's funny, it's entertaining, and it is indeed a moving picture. Then share with me your insights into Cool Runnings!

A Proposal For Presidential Primary And Election Overhaul

Most Americans are already tired of talking about the 2016 election, since the media began discussing potential candidates about .0005 seconds after President Obama was declared the winner in 2012. And I believe most Americans are nowhere as enamored with political primaries and campaigns as the establishments themselves, along with the hundreds of managers, advisers, pollsters and reporters.

I read with great fury an article about the RNC attempting to shorten the 2016 primary season. Of course, the fact that the news is covering the 2016 primary in early 2014 is a little aggravating, but let's set that aside. The thing that infuriated me the most was the fact that the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries were again enshrined as being first in the nation. To be clear, I have no particular dislike for the citizens of these two states. But where, exactly, did the US Constitution grant them disproportionate influence over the selection of presidential candidates?

To answer my own question, the USC did not do any such thing. This system was set and agreed upon by the establishment politicians and power brokers of both major parties. I suppose that part of this is simply because they are lazy, and want to be able to utilize the existing networks in these states. However, I also believe that a large part is to allow the establishment itself to hold sway over the primaries. Let me be clear: I cannot stand and have no respect for establishment politicians and power brokers of either party. As a general rule, anything that they want should be immediately opposed, until a compelling reason can be determined and supported.

When the primaries for both the 2008 and 2012 elections finally came to my state of Mississippi, the candidates that I was most passionate about supporting had already dropped out. This essentially meant that I had to hold my nose and vote for someone I didn't really want.

With that in mind, I propose the following changes to the presidential primary and presidential election systems.

Presidential Primaries:

1. Divide the many states into two categories, large and small, based upon congressional representation.
2. Select, by blind lottery, two large and two small states to be the early primaries. These four states are removed from the rotation for the next 4 elections
3. Schedule the four primaries over a two month term, one election every two weeks, on a small, large, small, large progression.
4. Two weeks after the last primary, every other state holds their primary. The entire primary season lasts 10 weeks.
5. The delegates of every state are awarded based upon the voter results of their congressional district. No state may award based on a "winner take all" system.

Presidential Elections:

1. The entire nation has a synchronized 24 hour period where the polls are open. Polls open at 2pm in Hawaii, 3pm in Alaska, 4pm in Pacific, 5pm in Mountain, 6pm in Central, and 7pm in Eastern, and close at the same time on the next day. This removes any possibility of the media influencing voter turnout or voter decisions by reporting poll results or survey responses in the time zones that have already reached 7pm.
2. As in the primary elections, electors are awarded by their congressional district, with the exception of the two Senatorial electors who would be awarded by majority vote. This puts almost every elector from every state in play, instead of the current system where presidential candidates can and do make willful decisions to completely ignore the citizens of entire states because their victory road map does not require them. In addition, it also decreases the influence of metropolitan areas over rural areas. For example, Idaho has approximately 1.6 million citizens, but over half that number live in five cities.

As a side note, in case anyone asks about the Electoral College being abolished. The disparity between populous and remote states, as well as the disparity between urban and rural areas is the reason that the EC exists. Removing the EC would soon result in presidential candidates focusing only on a handful of metro areas and basically ignoring the majority of the nation.

Well, I've made my suggestion. I'd love to hear your feedback. My biggest point is that the establishments of both major parties like the existing system because it allows THEM power over our decisions.

Why I Oppose The Budget "Deal"

As I write this, US Representative Paul Ryan making appearances on TV and radio to explain, sell and defend the Ryan-Murray budget deal that was announced yesterday. Multiple groups immediately announced their opposition, including Heritage Action and Americans For Prosperity.

While I do not have anywhere near the influence of these groups, I do oppose the proposed deal. I oppose it for one reason, because I believe that this is an attempt by the two party "establishment" to get the budget issue dealt with long before the January deadline, so that they can move on to other issues, such as granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. (Just a side note, this is an issue now, because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would not allow the budget up for debate and discussion six months ago. We are talking about passing the budget for the current fiscal year, over two months into the fiscal year. And these are the people that some want to be in charge of our healthcare..)

That is not, however, the biggest reason that I oppose the "deal". I am opposed to this plan of action for one reason: it does practically nothing to control our runaway federal spending and reduce our national debt. Our national debt is approximately $17,300,000,000, or $17.3 trillion. The US government collected approximately $2,770,000,000 or $2.77 trillion dollars in revenue last fiscal year. If we stopped spending money on ANYTHING else besides retiring the debt, it would take us 6 years and 3 months. That is, of course, not accounting for the interest on the debt that would accrue during the 6 years.

Let us put this in terms to which most Americans can relate. John and Suzy Public are married. They have a combined income of $50,000 a year, and decide that they are ready to purchase a house. (Now, for the purpose of this example, I am using generalizations.) The couple contacts a bank or other mortgage lender to acquire approval for a loan. Given their income and credit score, they are told that they are approved for a loan of up to $150,000. That is, they can buy a house worth up to three years salary. The loan term is 30 years, during which they will re-pay the principal of the loan approximately 2 times at 5.25% interest, or 3 times that amount at 9.5% interest.

Now, let us go back to the government spending. Most of the spending of the US government is not being spent on houses, roads, bridges or other assets that could conceivably grow in value over the years. It goes to pay for food stamps. Corporate R&D subsidies, aka welfare. Payments to farmers to not grow crops. Cell phones. Medicaid. Medicare. Social Security. Salaries. Bullets. Fancy signs to re-name existing facilities in honor of someone. That is to say, it goes to expenses, not assets.

Basically, most of our federal spending is what individuals would put on a credit card, that is, it is un-secured debt that will only grow in cost as time passes. A nation may truly need to borrow money from time to time, in the event of war or massive national disaster. However, no rational, honest individual would believe that they could continue to borrow more and more money, spending 130% of their annual income as a steady, unchanging practice.

Because eventually, the bill will come due. We have the equivalent debt of TWO mortgages, and the hailed "deal" will add a THIRD over the next then years. The house of credit cards will eventually collapse, and financial destruction will be realized. National bankruptcy. Our dollar will be so devalued that Revelation 6:6 doesn't sound so outrageous: "Then I heard what sounded like a voice among the four living creatures, saying, "Two pounds of wheat for a day's wages, and six pounds of barley for a day's wages, and do not damage the oil and the wine!"

Maybe another verse of Scripture is fitting for this topic, Proverbs 22:7, which says "The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is slave to the lender." A fair amount of our Treasury bills that were issued to borrow the money for our debt are owned by foreign citizens, and even foreign governments. China is one of these nations. While some deny this, China is still seeking status as a world superpower. Recently, they have declared a section of the East China Sea as an "air defense zone", and is expecting all air traffic to identify itself to Chinese air defenses. From time to time, the Chi-Coms rattle their sabers about Taiwan, claiming that the island state is still part of China. Bigger still, they push as much as possible against our allies in the region, Japan, South Korea and Australia. So what?, you ask? Well, what if China were to tell the US, "We are going to send troops into South Korea tomorrow. If you take any action, we will dump our T-bills on the market and collapse your entire economy." As a nation, we are happily selling ourselves into slavery to other nations, corporations and ultra-rich individuals, like some crack addict who cannot conceive of life without an endless supply of his drug, in our case, wasteful spending.

But I believe that we are still missing the most important aspect of our situation. That is, we are neglecting to account for our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. Proverbs 13:22(a) tells us that "A good person leaves an inheritance for their children's children.." Instead of that, what are we leaving them? A massive, unsustainable debt that will eventually collapse. A series of chains that are controlled by our enemies and by the rich. We are selling THEIR productivity, rights and freedom so that WE can "eat, drink, and be merry", all as we kick the can of financial responsibility further down the proverbial road.

In a real sense, WE are making slaves of our own children. We are signing our grandchildren into slavery so that we don't have to make tough decisions. Even the Deist Thomas Jefferson saw this as an evil action, and a cause of great suffering. He said "It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world".

As a Christian, I cannot and will not place chains around my children's necks, nor allow any to be placed around mine. What about you? Will you continue to support the Washington DC status quo of deficit spending? Or will you stand up to the people who work for YOU and tell them "CUT SPENDING!"?

An open letter to Senator Thad Cochran

Senator Thad Cochran,

Today, I read with great sadness that you have decided to seek another term as one of the US Senators from the Great State of Mississippi. I had truly hoped that you would choose not to run, and to quietly retire out of public life.

As a productive, tax-paying citizen of Mississippi, I cannot and will not support you for any further public office. I am convinced that you are no longer worthy of the honor of serving me, my family, and my State.

Reviewing your actions, I do acknowledge that you have been on the right side of some issues, particularly some Senate confirmations. You did indeed vote against appointing Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. In addition, you voted against confirming Eric Holder as Attorney General, and Kathleen Sebelius as Secretary of HHS.

Sadly, though, you have absolutely been on the wrong side of many Senate appointments. You voted to confirm both Ruth Ginsburg and Stephen Bryer to the Supreme Court. I repeat, you allowed two of the Justices onto the Court who upheld the PPACA, which is the most destructive and damaging piece of legislation ever passed by Congress. On top of that, you approved both former Senator Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense and former Senator John Kerry as Secretary of State. I cannot help but wonder what your vote would have been if Holder or Sebelius were current or past members of the Senate.

Regarding legislation, you have failed in that regard too. Back in 2006, you voted to legalize medical slavery of the unborn under the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. While you did vote against PPACA, you recently voted for the second cloture motion, the one that opened the bill for amendment and allowed Harry Reid to strip the defunding language from the House legislation.

Also, it seems that you view your primary task in office to be the securing the return of our own monies back from the federal government. Whether it be earmarks, pork, or guaranteed bases in defense appropriations, you are well-known to be skilled in that area. However, I do not want my representatives to fight to bring my money back from DC, I want my representatives to fight tooth and nail to cut spending, reduce our national debt, and ultimately reduce the overall size and scope of our runaway government.

Regardless of your conservative ideals and principles when you first went to Washington DC, I believe that you have been corrupted by the mediocrity of the GOP establishment, the arrogance of the US Senate, and the overall detachment and elitism of DC.

A review of your time in DC and national politics is truly stunning:
Elected to House in '72.
Re-elected to House in '74.
Re-re elected to House in '76.
Elected to Senate in '78.
Re-elected to Senate in '84.
Re-re-elected in '90.
Re-re-re-elected in '96.
Re-re-re-re-elected in '02.
Re-re-re-re-re-elected in '08.
Now, you are seeking re-re-re-re-re-re-election in '14.

Frankly, the idea that out of three million citizens in our State, you are the only person worthy of representing us in the Senate is absolute hubris.

As I said earlier, I had hoped that your retirement would preclude this situation. But, as you have decided to enter the arena again, I have determined that I must do all within my ability to seek your defeat. I had already been inclined toward Chris McDaniel, but now will be actively promoting and supporting his campaign.

On the topic of the primary campaign, I urge you to keep the discussions and ads about ideas and issues, instead of personal vitriol and attacks.

To quote our President, let me be clear: I do not hate you. Indeed, I frequently pray for you, that you will seek to represent our State with dignity and honor, while protecting and defending our Constitution, promoting freedom and liberty, and living in obedience to our Savior and His word. I will continue to do so, as long as you hold office. I will continue to contact your office to register my position on issues, and as always, treat your staff with respect.

But you, sir, shall never receive my vote again. Should you prevail in the primary, my vote will be cast for another candidate.

Sincerely,
Michael Dunger
Olive Branch