Blog Archives

Adolphus Bush (1839 – 1913)

1/29/2019

I'm taking a break from politics with this particular post. Adolphus Bush has one of the greatest stories of any entrepreneur I've ever read. Believe me, you'll love this story.

Best known for creating the first national brand of beer (Budweiser), there’s a lot to this man’s remarkable story. As you’ll see, he wasn’t only a brilliant businessman, he was also a tremendous philanthropist.

Adolphus was born in Germany and was the 21st out of 22 children. Yes, you didn’t misread it, they had 22 kids. He came from a wealthy family who provided wholesale supplies for breweries and wineries thus one of the reasons he was so good at what he did later in life. Education was extremely important to their family so Adolphus was sent to an elite learning academy in Brussels called the Collegiate Institute of Belgium.
He was 18 when he graduated and his father convinced Adolphus and three of his older brothers to move to St. Louis, Missouri and become U.S. citizens. St. Louis was a popular place for German immigrants at the time.

Because of his background he decided he’d work towards a career in the beer industry. St. Louis was a great place to brew beer because of its vast water supply and it had a lot of underground caves where beer could be stored and kept cool.

The brothers all got work at different places and began to get their feet on the ground. Adolphus started off as a clerk with a wholesale company but was drafted to fight for the Union Army. When he returned home, he learned that his father had died and had left him a portion of the inheritance.

Adolphus used the money to start a brewery supply company. He was extremely successful and began serving 36 different breweries in and around St. Louis. One of his brothers got into the hops business but eventually moved back to Germany. Another started a small brewery outside of St. Louis; he was perfectly happy running his own company. His third brother married the sister of the woman Adolphus ended up marrying and they moved to Chicago.

One of the owners of a brewery he did business with was Eberhard Anheuser. They became good friends and Adolphus fell in love with his daughter Lily. They got married and Adolphus bought out Eberhard’s business partner and the brewery’s name was then changed to the famous Anheuser-Busch Brewery Company. One year later Lily’s father died, and Adolphus became the company’s president.

Once again, he became very successful because he was a visionary. He believed they should come up with a national brand with universal appeal which became Budweiser. He created a department that focused on innovation for every facet of their operation (i.e. brewing, distribution, sourcing supplies, etc.). Sales and Marketing became significant contributors to the company’s success something other companies didn’t invest much money in.

Adolphus aggressively pursued relationships with beer distributors around the country that were servicing large populations (i.e. Chicago, Dallas, New York, etc.), so he could grow the Budweiser brand.

They were the first company to adopt pasteurization in 1878, so their beer kept longer which was very important to distributors who often had to throw product out of their warehouses because it went out of date. Besides this process they designed railcars that held beer and ice. Extending the life of their beer made them a hot commodity with beer distributors.

Adolphus was the first businessman to pursue vertical integration in order to increase efficiencies and enhance profits. He bought bottling companies and became the first beer company to offer bottled beer. He bought ice manufacturing plants. He bought farms so they could grow their own hops. He bought coal mines so they could save energy costs. He even bought some railways. Business strategy wise, he was about 100 years ahead of his time.

He was one of the wealthiest men in the country and he wasn’t selfish about it as he was always contributing to various causes and non-profit organizations. In today’s dollars he gave around $3 million to help San Francisco rebuild after the devastating earthquake of 1906. Germany had a terrible flood that killed a lot of people and he sent money to help the families rebuild.

Adolphus and Lily had 13 children. Adolphus Busch II and August Anheuser Busch along with their children became instrumental in running the company up until the family sold it around 95 years later. His great, great, grandson (August Busch IV), ran the company when it was sold.

It had gotten to the point where there was a lot of bickering among family members and most of them were ready to cash out at that point. It’s sad that the business was sold but not unfamiliar to family owned businesses that get a few generations away from the founder.

At one point, Adolphus bought a castle in Germany where the family took vacations. It was during one of these trips that he passed away due to an illness. He was placed on a ship back to the U.S. and then moved to St. Louis for his burial. Over 30,000 people showed up for his memorial because he was such an amazing man.

The Wealth Tax

1/25/2019

Elizabeth Warren has a plan to help the middle-class through taxing the "wealth" of people who have $50M or more in net worth. The wealth they have is after it has already been taxed by the Federal and State governments so now she's saying they want more out of them.

So many problems with this. First of all, her coming up with this plan, should disqualify her from becoming President because she's too much of an idiot to be able to perform the job, but what scares me is that so many people will agree with her. Why doesn't she just authorize people to go into the homes of wealthy people and take what they want? It's the same thing. It's stealing. But for some reason it doesn't sound as dirty when the federal government does the stealing on behalf of other U.S. citizens. If we had down this immoral path, our country will be in significant danger.

Then there's the fact that the IRS would need to become HUGE to go over everyone's records to figure out what their wealth is. You see the first step is figuring out who actually has this much net worth. Not all wealthy people are wealthy. There's an awesome book called: "The Millionaire Next Door," which covers this topic. It's easy to collect income taxes but to go into someone's personal finances and figure out exactly what their assets and liabilities are, that's a whole other story.

Every audit would take a significant amount of time. The Federal government would have to perform over 75,000 lengthy audits and they'd have to do them over and over again on the same people; and any new ones that became "rich." I'm using the 75,000 number because that's what Warren is saying but the truth is, the IRS doesn't know about peoples' wealth, they know about their annual income. They know about corporate wealth but not personal wealth, because it would be an infringement on personal freedoms. Where she came up with that number I don't have a clue. Well, actually I do, but I want to keep this post G-Rated.

The reason they'd have to perform these audits year after year on the same people, is because net worth goes up and down. If one year the IRS decides that a person's home is worth $800,000, then the fair market value of the home could go up or down the next year; it's a moving target. The $50,000 someone may of had in the bank would get the entire "Wealth Tax," one year but if they bought a car with it, the IRS would have to calculate what the car's worth in trade-in. It's an absolute nightmare. I don't even know if we'd bring in enough additional tax revenues to pay for a massive expansion of the IRS.

Just my opinion, but I believe Warren knows there's not a chance in hell that her plan would pass Congress; most Democrats wouldn't sabotage their careers over this move because the Democrat Party is now the Party of the rich (i.e. actors, athletes, entertainers, network executives, tech-moguls, etc.). Since she knows it won't pass but is pushing it on the campaign trail anyway, she's a liar. She's acting like she's looking out for the lower classes when she's not because she's selling a non-viable solution. It has become so easy for politicians to lie these days as they don't seem to have any form of conscience; they're shameless. The bottom line is what Warren is proposing to do isn't doable but more importantly, stealing someone's wealth, is immoral.

The mentality of this new breed of Democrat/Socialist politician; by the way some flat out say they're socialists, is going to destroy our country. If you listen to what they're selling it goes completely against capitalism, the very ideology that has made us one of the greatest civilizations in all of history. These new candidates are constantly talking about wealth inequality not being fair, when it is; it's our economic system. It's why the system has been so successful at lifting everyone up. People who are poor in the U.S. have extravagant lifestyles compared to other countries. They have televisions. They have phones. They have video games. They have shelter. They have food. They have close access to medical care. Capitalism raised their standard of living, it didn't make it worse or hold them down.

The fact is, wealth equality wouldn't be fair. Equality of outcome without equality of effort isn't fair. Matt Barkley and Tom Brady are both NFL quarterbacks. Doesn't the fact alone that you don't know who Barkley is, signify that Brady makes much more money? Should all the quarterbacks in the NFL take the total amount of money paid to all quarterbacks and divide it up? Socialist would say that's fair, because there would be income equality but then what incentivizes any of the quarterbacks to give their all? There's no reward for playing. They might as well sit on the bench and not risk injury because they'd be bringing in the same amount of money.

wrote this before, and I'll write it again to demonstrate wealth inequality and how absurd it is to punish people for making money. Of course I'm keeping the numbers down for ease of calculating. Let's say we give 100 college students $1,000 a piece and then one of those students has an awesome idea for a new phone and 49 of those students purchased it from her for $500 a piece. Wealth check. 50 students would still have $1,000 in the bank. Forty-nine students would have $500 and a new phone that is a luxury depreciating in value. Then the female student with the great idea would have $25,500 in the bank so she'd be 51 times wealthier than the students with $500 and a new phone.

With the new socialists mentality, this female student would be demonized because she's ultra rich. It wouldn't matter to them that this person didn't force the other students to buy her phone. It doesn't matter to them that she might have tremendous character and helps people in need with her money; she's evil by her association with money. Talk about judging.

The fact is, she did nothing wrong. Spreading the wealth by taxing her net worth , like Warren and others are proposing, isn't fair. It's not moral, it's stealing. Contrary to what they're preaching, Income equality isn't fair. Equality of outcome with inequality of effort, isn't fair. This new breed of socialists will take our country down quickly. Don't believe me. Venezuela was one of the wealthiest countries in the world, just 15 years ago. Socialism took hold and now millions are fleeing the country. We've got to stop them now!

What's the Real Story?

1/23/2019

The latest big story in the media is regarding the high school students from Covington Catholic in Kentucky and it’s a perfect example of how the media and some liberals in general, attempt to steer a liberal narrative. Before having the full story, they attacked the students for being racists against Native Americans.

Then when the entire video came out, they realized they had made a mistake and some of the media came back and apologized for jumping to conclusions about the students. Who could blame Democrats and the mainstream media for quickly attacking the kids, they had a great opportunity to attack MAGA hat wearing Trump supporters , pro-life students, from a religious school? It was the trifecta of liberal assaults.

But here’s the story that actually mattered, that they didn’t share. The video showed African Americans verbally assaulting these students with horrendous racists comments. It was brutal and I feel so sorry for them. If the roles were reversed and white people were shouting racists’ words at African American high school students, it would be covered 24/7 in the media. The people involved would be tracked down in anyway possible and some would no doubt receive death threats.

I don't like racists remarks of any kind and love Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr's, comments about content of character's importance over color of skin, so when it happens in either direction, blacks against whites or whites against blacks, it must be called out; the media refused to do it.

The big question is why they didn't cover what would normally be a significant story? I certainly can't say for sure, but throughout history motive can typically be found in influence, power, and/or money. In this case, African Americans have a significant amount of influence in the Democrat Party and would naturally receive cover from the mainstream media.

This is what our country has come to. Democrats and the mainstream media attempt to control the content of what we hear and see so they can push their political ideology. There was a huge story, but it wasn’t the one about what the students did, it was what was done to them. They didn’t physically or verbally assault anyone, they didn’t even cuss. But they were victims of hate based upon the color of their skin. It’s not just the stories they chose to tell, or how they tell them, it’s the stories the mainstream media doesn’t tell, that earns them the title of fake news.

Another Side to the Story

1/22/2019

Let me start off by saying that I do feel sorry for the federal workers who aren’t getting a paycheck but, there’s more to the story. Democrats are using the issue as usual for political reasons. They don’t care if they divide our country over every issue they can. They’re constantly saying that President Trump is holding these workers hostage.

Here’s what Democrats don’t want us to think about; most of these federal workers are better off then over 270 million Americans. They’re not poor. They’re not living off welfare. Many of them make substantially more money than an average private sector worker (there are some exceptions). They have jobs; they’re not unemployed. They’ve got to wait for their paychecks but at least they’re going to get a paycheck and it’s generally much more than what most people make.

The fact is that although it’s a terrible situation, there are way more people struggling day to day, than these workers. Democrats and the mainstream media don’t want people to think about this, so they flood the airwaves and in print, the suffering of these workers. Schumer and his entourage showed up on the steps outside the Senate building with pictures of some of these “struggling” federal workers.

It’s just a game to them. It’s all about politics. If they really cared about these workers, they’d allow U.S. citizens the added protection of having a border wall. They could refrain from some of their special earmarks in the budget and easily pay for the wall. Pelosi and Schumer are masters at getting earmarks (a.k.a. Pork). I’m not saying that both parties don’t do it, I’m just saying that the money is there, they just need to give up some special interests’ money.

The bottom line is it’s the old Wizard of Oz tactic where Democrats don’t want us to pay attention to the man behind the curtain. In this case they don’t want us to pay attention to the fact that these federal workers are way better off than most Americans.

Right to What?

1/22/2019

Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is healthcare guaranteed. Nothing is in there about subsidizing healthcare. We have a right to life, according to the Constitution, thus law enforcement tries to protect life, but we don't have a right to a good life; to a healthy life.

Women have a right to abortions according to Roe v. Wade, but they don't have a right to have the government pay for it. We have a right to free speech, but we can't expect the government to provide us with our own radio show so we can share our supposed wisdom. We have freedom of religion, but don't have a right for the government to build our church. We have a right to posses weapons, but don't have a right to expect the government to pay for them.

No Constitutional scholar could possibly prove that government sponsorship of healthcare and abortions, is required by law. As citizens we can decide if we want to pay for such things, but it's not the law of the land and I feel like way too many Democrat/Socialists are out there upsetting people thus dividing our country, by convincing people it is their right.

Young people don't have a right to a free college education. They don't have a right to have their college loans paid off by the Federal Government. Why should they get money to pay off their loans, they were blessed by having the opportunity to attend college, many young people aren't. The young people who couldn't get into college could use the money more than the spoiled college students who believe in socialism. If they truly believed in socialism shouldn't they refuse the money and give it to people in greater need? They're clueless. Anyhow, my two, maybe three, cents worth.

Walls are Racist

1/19/2019

Some liberals like to state that Mexico doesn't have a border wall between it and Guatemala but it's completely misleading. Mexico doesn't believe in open borders and they use fencing in strategic locations. Mexico doesn't have a continuous border wall just like we don't have one, nor would we, as border patrol and HLS just have areas where they want a wall to direct traffic to locations that are easier for them to patrol via personnel and technology.

But the fact is, Mexico does use fencing to help direct traffic to their port of entry and easily viewed via a search engine. With this in mind, are Mexicans racists for not allowing everyone in? This sounds strange to me because Guatemalan's are also Hispanic. Many liberals are saying that Trump and the Republican Party are racists for wanting a wall. Are all the other countries around the world who use border walls and specific entry points, racists? I don't know how this could be racism since they're keeping out other white people.

This is yet another example of very distorted ideology. How could these people say with any legitimacy at all, that having a border wall is racist? Some of the people making these claims are college professors. Why don't they understand that what they're saying is ludicrous and has no factual basis?

Thousands of people are brought across the Mexican border each year for human and sex trafficking. Human trafficking is basically slave labor in various sweat shops, and working as maids, groundskeepers, housekeepers, etc., while of course sex trafficking is a way of bringing young boys and girls and women into our country for pornography and prostitution. The sick criminals involved in this trade don't go through the port of entry, they get across our border illegally because too many critical areas don't have any type of fencing.

This is one of the major reasons why border patrol agents, Homeland Security, and I.C.E. want more border walls. They're the ones who have seen teenage boys and girls raped. They're the ones who have found illegal immigrants in horrendous human conditions because of forced labor. These people don't want a wall because they're racist, it's disgusting of Democrats to say this. It's almost treasonous to try and divide and conquer our country the way they are doing. The fact is Pelosi would rather play politics than protect these innocent people. She understood protecting them in the past as she has always been supportive of border wall legislation. In 2013, Democrats voted for over 200 more miles of fencing; Trump's not even asking for this much. It's sickening. It's not a Trump shutdown, it's a Democrat shutdown because they're the ones who truly don't care about these people. Pelosi says the wall is immoral, she's immoral.

According to Democrats: 1) Border walls don't work. 2) Border walls are immoral. 3) Border walls are racists.

If they truly believe this, then how can Democrats even consider negotiating? There's nothing Trump can do or say that would fix the issues they bring up. If they truly believe the above, then why haven't they introduced legislation to tear down our current border walls? We'd need to tear them down, if they're immoral, racist, and don't work.

I don't believe they will tear down the walls because I believe that Democrats are lying and don't truly believe what they're saying. They are choosing politics over country. They hate Trump and don't want him to get a win even if it hurts U.S. citizens. You don't have to be a Republican to see this, it's just common sense and logic. We've lost more citizens to illegal immigrants than we have soldiers since 9/11. What they're doing is horrendous.

A Famous Actor

1/19/2019

One of the most famous Hollywood actors was Archibald Alec Leach. He came from a poor family where his dad worked in a factory and his mom was a seamstress trying to get work wherever she could. She suffered from depression while Archibald's father struggled with alcoholism so he ended up with a horrific childhood. Even with a terrible upbringing he became a superstar in Hollywood making the cover of every entertainment magazine there was especially since he had numerous affairs and five wives . Archibald's talent agent thought he had a winner on his hand as Archibald was 6'2" tall and extremely handsome, but he was worried about his name so he told him he had to change it: they decided to go with Cary Grant. Good move!

Who Decides What is a Crisis?

1/18/2019

Why do Democrats get to decide what is and what isn't a crisis? If any political party knows how to manufacturer crises, it's them. Below is what the media was sharing when Obama was president and they supported him getting additional border funds. Apparently if Obama called it a crisis it was a crisis, no questions asked.

The Washington Post wrote in 2014, “White House requests $3.7 billion in emergency funds for border crisis,” while CNN published a feature, “Daniel's journey: How thousands of children are creating a crisis in America.” It described a problem of "epic proportions." Around the same time, the Huffington Post declared that “photos of the humanitarian crisis” along the southern border were “shocking,” and ABC News reported that Obama requested “$3.7 billion to cope with the humanitarian crisis on the border and the spike in illegal crossings by unaccompanied minors from Central America.”

More proof that the mainstream media is just an arm of the Democrat Party and that Democrats have deplorable double-standards.

The Movie Vice

1/18/2019

Before the movie "Vice," even came out, The Golden Globes nominated it for six different categories. I wrote about this movie last month because the trailer showed that it was going to be an attack on Dick Cheney and G.W. Bush. It's political and they make fun of mostly Cheney. I stated that it made absolutely no sense that it would be nominated when the fact is, even if it were a good movie, which it isn't, few people would show up for a movie about politicians especially since they're no longer relevant.

They also crazily nominated the movie before people even saw it. Most moviegoers are younger and they barely know anything about the Obama Administration so how could they possible remember Cheney? So now the movie has come out and it's being panned by the critics. The company Movie Insider gave it only two stars and Rotten Tomatoes ranked it at a low 63%.

This is a perfect example of how Hollywood works. They thought it would be a great movie because it's anti-Republican but they were wrong. The liberal judges at The Golden Globes tried to convince movie goers to watch the movie so they gave it PR through stating it was Golden Globe worthy. The fact is, Hollywood is a huge public relations machine for the Democrat Party.

Pelosi and Schumer are Shameless

1/18/2019

Many family members of those who were murdered by illegal aliens showed up at the Congress and Senate to talk to Pelosi and Schumer about their pain and why they want better national security, including a border wall and the elimination of sanctuary cities. They also brought pictures of the loved ones they lost. Not only wouldn't Pelosi or Schumer meet with them, they also didn't allow any of their staff to meet with them either so they had to leave.

Taking the great idea of using pictures that the grieving families brought with them, Schumer went to the Capitol steps with several people holding up posters/signs of people who work for the Federal Government and aren't getting paychecks. They attacked Trump as usual.

Not that I don't feel sorry for the people not getting a paycheck but the murdered victims at the hands of illegal aliens won't get a paycheck ever again. Their families will forever be in pain while the government employees who make significantly more than people in the private sector, will be back on their feet again, the murdered victims will not.

This is how Democrats work. Pelosi and Schumer are morally corrupt and they're supposed to be the best of their Party; I think this says a lot. It certainly reinforces my desire to remain a Republican and fight against them with everything I've got. They won't listen to the families of victims. They won't go to the border wall to meet with border agents. They won't have one-on-one meetings with Kristjen Nielsen, the head of Homeland Security, to discuss her reasons for wanting a border wall.

It's easy for them to get away with not doing these things because the mainstream media provides them with cover. They didn't even challenge them on why they changed their minds about needing a border wall or why Pelosi feels compelled to now call it immoral. They are now on the team of the Democrat Party and it's like playing a football game where all the refs are on the side of the other team. It's time to suit up because it's game on!

<<Previous

Author: John Mann

Archives