Millennials have never seen a robust, American economy

Americans under 25 (Millennials) have never heard anything good about America.  Even when the economy was rolling in the mid 2000s all they heard was how bad the American economy was.  Young people in this nation have never heard about how great and honorable it is to be American.

Think about it.  All young people have heard the past 15 years have heard is negative news about the iraq war, how Americans torture prisoners of war in order to get news, how Americans are the cause of world poverty, how American factories are the cause of global warming, and how the American economy sucks.  

I mean, think about it.  Even while the economy was booming during the Bush years all they heard was how bad the economy was.  Then when Obama became President and the economy was truly bad, they heard how good the economy was. So they have developed a warped sense of what good is.  

They have never, at any point in their lives, ever seen unfettered, unadulterated, conservatism/ capitalism.  They have never seen a robust American economy. They have never seen how victorious America can be over those who wish to do harm to its citizens.  

They hear news how 20% of American families have no one employed and they don't even bat an eyelash because they just think it's normal. They hear news how the economy grows 1% of 1% in the first quarter of 2014, and they believe the people who blame it on cold weather.

They are not taught how great America is, or was.  They are not taught about the founding documents and the founding fathers the way we were.

Think about this for a moment.  Think about what your view of America would be if you were never told about the founding of this great nation.  Think if you were never taught about American greatness and American exceptionalism.  It's no wonder they have a warped view about what America is capable of.

They are told that by their exhaling CO2 they are contributing to the warming of our planet.  They are told if the global temperatures increase even by the slightest degree that we will be no more.  They are told this, and they have no reason not to believe it, because contrary views are not taught in schools.

They are taught that America is a racist nation full of people who hate gays. They are taught how women are treated poorly.  They are taught that the way to get out of poverty is to redistribute wealth, and then they are exposed to the rise in unemployment and poverty that is the resulting factor of this.

No wonder kids today are down on themselves.  No wonder they are down on America.  They get a warped view from only one angle in school and the media and social sites and they think that's the only angle.

That is, unless they have parents at home who share with them the truth about America, and how great unfettered capitalism has made this nation in the past.

Their view is that what is going in America today is just normal; its how it always has been.  So they don't blame anyone for it because, especially not Obama, because he's just another President who was handed a bum economy.

Kids today have no historical perspective. They just see what has happened in their lifetime, which has been a barrage of bad news about America. Constant attacks by liberals in Washington and the media.

That is, unless they come from a family where they see and hear what America is capable of. Unless they come from a family that tells them how great America was when they were growing up. Unless they have a family that tells them what the world was like before America existed.

Most Millennials have never seen anything else, so they just think this is normal. They think this is the best it gets.

This is why it's so important that, in the upcoming midterm and general elections, that we elect people with strong, conservative values into both Congress and the Presidency.  

20% of families have no one working, says data

The BLS has been tracking data on employment in families since 1995.
That year, 18.8% of families had no one working.
The highest percentage was in 2011 when it hit 20.2%
It's hung at 20% in both 2012 and 2013.
So we cannot blame just Bush or Obama.

New data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor shows that a whopping 20% of American households have not one person working.  That means that 1 in 5 households are living off the government.

The Bureau defines a family as follows:

Families are classified either as married-couple families or as families maintained by women or men without spouses present. Unless otherwise noted, families include those without children as well as those with children under age 18

About 1 in 5 American families have no one working,
the trend has been consistent since 1995

The report showed that in 2013 there were 80,445,000 families in the U.S. and in 16,127,000—or 20 percent--no one had a job.

I supposed if you define economic success by how many families are on the government dole, then this is remarkable.

However, if you define success, as most people do, by how many families are self sufficient, then this is a stunning sign of the abject failure of the American economic system.

Something we are doing is abjectly wrong.

The era of the hypocritical liberal

There is a long list of libertarians and conservatives who have said for years that many liberals, those who think capitalism is unfair and want to make laws to limit people from enjoying the benefits of it, are hypocritical.

For instance, Al Gore champions the cause that capitalism is the cause of global cooling/ warming/ change, while at the same time flying around the globe in a CO2 emitting jet.  Obama does the same.

Curtis Kalin, in his June 24, 2014, article at cnsnews.com, "The Era of the Limo
usine Liberal," sort of hits the nail on the head of this discussion. Share on email

Hillary Clinton is not the only prominent, rich liberal who is having trouble articulating their vast concern for the poor and income inequality. Recently, there has been a rash of major liberal figures downplaying the fact that American capitalism has been quite good for them, while attempting to hamstring it for the rest of America.

Of course, this debate began anew after former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made her infamous comment that she was “dead broke” after leaving the White House, despite her ownership of multiple homes. Clintondoubled down on the sentiment in an interview with The Guardian, saying she’s not “truly well off,” even though her net worth is around $100 million.

Hillary isn’t even the only member of her family who sounded tone-deaf on their wealth. Her daughter, Chelsea told The Telegraph she’s tried really hard to care about money, but just can’t:

“I’ve tried really hard to care about things that were very different from my parents. I was curious if I could care about [money] on some fundamental level, and I couldn’t.”

Enter Vice President Joe Biden, whose salary has been paid for by taxpayers since he was elected to the U.S. Senate at age 29, said he
doesn’t own asavings account, even though he kind of does.

Back in 2012, inequality crusader Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who lives in a $5 million house and whose stock portfolio totals around $8 million, boasted about her wish that no member of Congress own stocks.

And finally, anti-capitalist movie-maker Michael Moore was asked by yours truly via Twitter in 2011 why he produces movies trashing the same economic system that made him a very rich man. Let’s just say after four minutes of trying, Moore really never cogently explained that conflict of interest.

It seems the era of the “limousine liberal” has returned. Self-proclaimed crusaders for the poor who rake in millions while attempting to undermine the very system that allowed for their wealth.

China to become #1 world economy this year?

The United States became the world economic leader in 1872.  So that means the U.S. has been the economic leader of the world for 142 years. That streak is pegged to come to an end in 2014.

Ulyssess S. Grant was President in 1872. Experts predict, based on analysis of economic data, China will surpass the U.S. as the most dominant economic nation sometime this year.

This is stunning, and it will happen under Obama. I'm not saying I'm blaming Obama for the collapse of the American economic system, although he did nothing to turn things around.  He said he was going to, although, to this point, none of his economic strategies have worked.

Statistics show that the U.S. had an abysmal 1% of 1% (that's 0.1%) economic growth in the first quarter of 2014.  The Obama administration is blaming it on cold weather.

Now, let's delve a little deeper into this.  Consider statistics between 2011 and 2013.  During this time, the American economy grew 7.6%.  However, during this time the Chinese economy grew 24%

Obviously, there is something the Chinese are doing that's driving their economy, something the U.S. is not doing.  And I know what it is: it's capitalism.

Communist leaders, after years of watching how successful capitalism works, has adapted a capitalistic economic system.  The U.S. has gone in the opposite direction.  The result here is a rising Chinese economy and a declining U.S. economy.

Personally, I think we should be happy for the Chinese, because it's evidence of what conservatives have been saying all along: capitalism works.  That the U.S. is falling is evidence of the failures of the progressive movement here.

Muslim Caliphate forming in middle east

There was a part of me that wondered back in the run up to the War in Iraq that it might be better to leave Saddam alone in Iraq.  I thought that because it might be better for the U.S. for the Muslim Shites in Iraq to battle the Sunni in Iran.

As I look back I think I was right.  It was better when they were blowing each other up, and there was no risk that, if one one, there would be a Muslim Caliphate that might try to take over the world and force everyone to become Muslim.

The democracy created by the Bush administration was nice, so long as we continued a presence in Iraq.  But then along came Obama, who figured the rest of the world saw us as occupiers, or bullies, in Iraq.  So he tole them when we were going to pull out and he did.

So then you had conservatives warn Obama that if he does this that the terrorists, the Sunni, are just going to wait until after the U.S. is out of Iraq before they start terrorizing.  Now we have an all out Civil War in Iraq, just as expected.  But this time, Iran is helping out.  The goal of the Muslim nation is to form a caliphate, and this is exactly what might form should Iran take over Iraq.

Of course a while back we had a regime change in Egypt and everyone in the media saw this as a good thing.  Only problem was that a democracy doesn't mean the people will vote in people who support America.  In fact, just the opposite: they voted for the Muslim Brotherhood, a Muslim terrorist group, to lead them.

The purpose of the regime change, we now may presume, had nothing to do with creating a democracy, as the media proclaimed.  It had to do with creating a Muslim Caliphate.  It was a prediction made by Glenn Beck, and he warned about it way back in February of 2011.

So now Obama says that there is no military solution in Iraq, but proclaims to be sending 300 military advisers who are, he said, not going to take sides. He said:

We're prepared to send a small number of additional American military advisors, up to 300, to assess how we can best train, advise, and support Iraqi security forces going forward. The United States will not pursue military options that support one sect inside of Iraq at the expense of another. There's no military solution inside of Iraq, certainly not one that is led by the United States.

Since the Sunni are on the march and headed for a takeover of Baghdad, and since Iraq has a weak military, chances are pretty good if the U.S., the most powerful military in the world, doesn't take sides, that pretty much means Obama is supporting regime change in Iraq, and that he supports the formation of a Muslim Caliphate.

This should not come as a surprise, and Obama's history prior to becoming president, a history the media refused to discuss, tagged him as a radical Muslim supporter. Many conservative and libertarian voices chanted that there is evidence Obama doesn't even like the United States.

It's a shame that we should be at this position when you have people saying: "How did we get here."  This is especially true when we know that we were warned well in advance this was going to happen.  People didn't like to hear the truth: that certain Muslims were going to try to create a Muslim Caliphate, or Muslim State, ruled by Sharia law.

Chris Matthews, to take one example, called the idea "Loony Toons."

They didn't want to hear it because they didn't think it could happen. They didn't want to, as Beck recently said to Megyn Kelly on Fox, see the darkness that could happen.  They saw terrorists groups like the Muslim Brotherhood as friends, as so they didn't want to believe they would try to do this.

So people didn't see the writing on the wall.  They didn't listen to Muslims who said point blank: "We want to destroy Christians and Americans and Europeans and Israelites.  We will not settle until everyone is converted to Muslim or is dead."

They turned a blind eye to it just like the world did when Chamberlain warned us what Hitler was up to, and they turned a blind eye when there were warnings what might happen on 9-11.

Many people in the media, many of the same folks who thought Beck's idea was "Loony Toons" are now surprised that this is happening, or at least the seeds of a Muslim State are being planted in the Middle East.  They are taken aback by it, when they should't be.

Recently Beck spoke with Megyn Kelly on Fox and said he is not happy his prediction came true.  He said, "If we don't take steps right now, I see something far worse than a caliphate coming our way."

He continued:  "If it is a caliphate, it's going to be a civil war in the midle east, and we should be no where near it.  Unfortunately, what's going to draw us in is oil."

For this reason, he said, we should make ourselves energy independent, and soon. We should build up our own oil reserves.  He said we need to stop worrying about EPA concerns about coal because if we let that stand in our way we are going to be drawn into this civil war, and there will be massive American bloodshed if that does happen.

Kelly said that on June 10, 2014, the New York Times printed: "The group that's building a caliphate."  So even the New York Times is now agreeing with Glenn Beck's Caliphate theory, which, by the way, is no longer appears to be a theory but a fact.

Would God allow other intelligent life forms to exist?

If other intelligent life forms exist, what might they look like, and how might they develop.  Those were the topics of my last two posts.  Today I would like to discuss the third question in this series: would God allow other intelligent life forms to exist?

I am a Catholic, and that makes me also a Christian.  I, therefore, believe in one God, father almighty, maker of heaven and Earth. In other words, I believe that God created all things.  He created men and women in his own image, and the entire purpose of our lives is to obtain the wisdom of God, because God is all wisdom.

I think the answer to this question is best explained by Oscar Lukefahr in his 1989 handbook "The Catechism Handbook."  He wrote:

We believe that God made all things.  In this fact we find the answer to life's most basic questions: Where do we come from and where are we going?  Scientific studies of the development of life forms and of the appearance of human beings on earth can be helpful in explaining the when and how of creation.  But religion must study the why of creation, its meaning and purpose." 

No one knows when God created the planet, nor when God created mankind. Back in the 19th century most scientists believed the earth was about 6,000 years old, and they determined this by tracking back the generations to Adam.

There were problems with this timeline.  One was that fossilized boners were found of large animals, animals which eventually became known to us as dinosaurs.  Original theories pegged these bones as those belonging to the animals of Noah's Ark.

Later, however, when carbon dating was invented, it was determined that these bones were much older. How could this be?  How could anything be older than creation?  Well, the logical answer here is that the Biblical should not be taken verbatim; that the stories in the Bible are allegorical.  That does not mean they are not true, it simply means that they were written long after the fact.

You see, you have to realize that a written language was not invented until about 5,000 years before Christ.  Before this time, all wisdom was shared from one generation to the next by word of mouth.  Even after that time only scribes could write, meaning 99% of civilization could not.

What this means is two things.  One, in order for stories to be easily remembered, they were made to be pithy.  Often they were turned into easy to remember poems or songs.  Two, by the time these stories were recorded for the Bible, they had been told over and over again, and Lord knows that every person retelling a story tells it different.

So, by the time the Bible stories were recorded for posterity purposes, they had, in essence, become allegorical.  This in no way means they are inaccurate.  This does not mean they are unimportant.  This does not in any way change the meaning of the Bible versus, because God would not allow it.  It simply means that the stories are summaries of what actually happened.

Genesis, for example, says God created the universe, the world, all the animals, and mankind in six days, and that he rested on the seventh.  You have to keep in mind that most people were not educated, and so what would be the easiest way to explain this.  Well, it would be to trim all time down to days, something every person can understand.  So, in this sense, creation became seven days.

Now, science has proven that creation did not occur in seven days.  Evidence suggests the earth is about 4.54 billion years old, much older than the scientists of the 19th century thought.  Does this mean the Bible is inaccurate?  Absolutely not. Does this mean the Bible is allegorical? Probably.

So, to answer our question: would God allow other intelligent life forms to exist? Why not? According the my previous posts on this subject, we see that intelligent life forms, if they exist, would have to be created in a similar manner as humans were, and would have to come from a planet created in the same fashion as earth, and in an environment similar to how man was created.

The development of intelligent life on Earth was not a coincidence.  If intelligent life exists on another planet, it would, not by coincidence, resemble what we have on this planet.  This is sound evidence that all things, indeed, are created by the same creator: God.

It's good to talk politics with your kids

I remember debating with myself once what I should tell my children about the political world.  I actually decided once I shouldn't say anything, and let them figure it out for themselves.  The problem with this is: if I don't tell them the truth, where will they get it?

You see, that is the question that plagues all conservative parents:  If I don't teach my kids the truth, where will they get it?  If they get nothing but progressive or liberal propaganda, how would they be able to make an informed decision?

Take environmentalism as a good example.  The media/schools basically just go with the latest fad and go with it.  Back in the 1970s when liberals thought the planet was cooling, they wanted to melt the polar caps.  Yet then they were proven wrong and started calling it global warming.

During the 1990 and 2000s you had political leaders, such as Al Gore, telling people the world was going to burn up if we didn't act now. By acting, he wanted to create regulations to stop people from creating carbon dioxide (CO2).  But there has been no increase in global temperatures since 1996 or 1997, and so they changed the name to climate change.

Now all you hear about on TV, on the Disney channel, on CNN, on MSNBC, is how we are causing climate change.  So, if kids are so inundated with all this global cooling/global warming/ climate change stuff, how in the world are they ever going to make an informed decision.

They aren't.  There is not way a kid can make an informed decision when those who educate are telling them that a "theory" is a "fact."  Yes, indeed, a theory, be definition, is an educated guess.  It's what the scientific community goes with until they learn better.  It does in no way mean it is a fact.

My point is, kids ought to be taught both sides of the story, not just the global cooling/ global warming/ climate change side.  They ought to be taught the conservative argument that the earth's temperature increases and decreases in cycles.

Actually, the name "climate change" was stolen from conservatives just as liberal" was stolen from conservatives.  Did you know that the traditional definition of liberal was minimal government and a focus on personal liberties.  So, they basically forced classical liberals to change their name to conservative or libertarian.

Now they stole our idea; that the climate changes.  Only they twist the idea of "climate change" to make it appear as though it's caused by man.  The original idea is that the climate always changes, or goes through cycles no matter what man does.  

Look at it this way.  There were periods of global warming and cooling that altered the face of the planet many times over. In fact, there was a period of global change that occurred around 10,000 B.C. that forced humans to live around the three great rivers in that area: the Nile, Tigris, and Euphrates.  This migration resulted in the world's first civilizations in Mesopotamia and Egypt.

So, global change has always existed, and there is nothing that man can do to cause it, and nothing man can do to change it.  It just is.  It just does.  That is something, I bet, that few kids learn in school or from reading the news.

They are no longer shown both sides of an argument and allowed to decide for themselves.  They are no longer taught how to think for themselves.  They are now just shown propaganda in the hopes that they conform.

Surely I'd die happily knowing all my children agree with me politically. However, if they think otherwise, I'd still be happy knowing they made that decision with all the facts on the table.

If other intelligent life-forms exist, what might they look like?

Aaurornithoides lived about 65 million years ago
near the end of the age of the dinosaurs.
It was about 60 kg and had a tail for balance,
yet it also had a brain close to baboon size.
However, it was not challenged by an ice age,
and therefore its evolutionary process was slow.
It's evolutionary process was also cut short,
by a meteorite that killed all life larger than 40 kg.

Assuming there is intelligent life on another planet, and that God allowed it, what would the intelligent life forms look like?  This was a subject discussed by John Gribbin in his 2000 book "The Case of the Missing Neutrinos and Other Curious Phenomena of the Universe."  The theories he postulates are quite impressive.

He posed the question this way: 

What are the chances that, if ever we do make contact with intelligent beings which have evolved under similar conditions, they too will be upright, bipedal animals with two arms, each ending in a five-fingered hand, and a head mounted on top of the body carrying a pair of eyes, a nose and a mouth?

By intelligent beings, he is referring to the kind that "builds civilizations and spaceships."  By studying the evolutionary history of mankind, he came to the following conclusions.

1.  It must have a large brain in proportion to its body:  This would allow it the ability to think and to adapt to its environment as necessary.

2.  It must not be too big:  An elephant is so huge "it is insulated from the dangers of attack by enemies and has never had to use its intelligence to fight off enemies.

3.  It must not be too fierce:  Animals like tigers, lions, and bears have sharp fangs and claws, and have the ability to rip enemies to shreds and eat them.  They have no reason to be intimidated by enemies, nor any need to run and hide.

4.  It must not be too good at hiding:  Rats and squirrels are small and fast enough that they could easily scurry away from danger.

5.  It must not be too comfortable in its environment:  The whale and the dolphin are considered to be as intelligent as humans by many, but they "have few enemies and are supurbly adapted to their watery environment."

6.  It must live on land:  A dolphin-like or whale-like creature would be too comfortable with its environment to make any changes.  Therefore, "Intelligent, tool-using life will emerge on a planet like ours on the land, not in the sea."

7.  It must have two legs for running:  This would have to be able to use these appendages to run from enemies, and to hide, and to wait for a chance to adjust to their new environment.

8.  It must have two arms with hands:  This would allow it to carry things.  The number of appendages does not matter, as many people do just fine with only two fingers.  However...

9.  It must have a thumb:  This allows it to grip things, and put together the tools needed to adapt to its new environment.

10.  It must have a head mounted on top with two eyes:  This would give it a "three-dimensional view of the world.  Three-dimensional vision is esential for judging distances, whether it be the distance to a charging lion or to a morsel of food waiting to be picked up."

11.  Eyes mounted high above the ground:  This "is essential for a prey animal, which needs early warning of impending danger.

12.  It must have something resembling a mouth and nose:  This will allow it to breathe air and to eat food.

All of these may come in various forms.  For instance, while the intelligent life form must have two legs, it may also have a tail for balance, like a kangaroo or a Saurornithoides.

Imagine, for instance, that saurornithoides had followed the same evolutionary path, in response to similar evolutionary pressures, as humans later did.  A human traveling to such a planet would be an impressive civilization of "eight-fingered, kangaroo-like bipeds."

Of interest here, that humans developed an arithmetic system using a base of ten. We must assume this is because humans have five digits on each hand, and ten total digits.  Since saurornithoides have four digits on each hand, and ten total digits, it would have developed an arithmetic system with a base of eight.

Of course the main sticking point to any of this is whether God would allow for it to happen.  There are many Christians who refuse to believe in evolution, although, to me, there is too much evidence to deny it.  Therefore, I see no reason why evolution and Christianity cannot live side by side.

I also see no reason why a loving God would not allow an intelligent life-form to evolve on a distant planet.  Or, at the very least, the theories postulated by Gribbin should help some writer of fiction establish a distant civilization on a planet named Alton.

If other intelligent life-forms exist, how might they develop?

For life to form, a planet must be ideally positioned in a solar system.

Why did intelligent-life form on Earth?  If God allowed it, how might intelligent life forms develop on other planets besides earth? These are questions that were tackled by John Gribbon in his 2000 book  "The Case of the Missing Neutrinos and Other Curious Phenomena of the Universe."  The theories he postulates are quite impressive.

1. The planet must hold water:  This is essential for life to form.

2.  The planet must have volcanic activity:  This is essential for elements needed for an ideal atmosphere to develop.

3.  The planet must endure ice ages:  While the Saurornithoide meets all the above criteria, it lived 65 million years ago, a time when the environment of the planet was rather stable.  There were no environmental changes that forced a speed up of the evolutionary process. Around 10,000 B.C. an ice age forced mankind to go into hiding, and this is what forced it evolve into what it is today.

4.  There must be no environmental catastrophe:  It is possible that the Sauronithoide may have evolved, if given enough time, into an intelligent life form.  However, a meteorite slammed into earth, causing ash and heat that created an environment animals larger than 40 kg in mass size to die off.  Since the Sauronithoide was about 60 kg, it was among the catastrophes.

5.  The planet must have a sun with a solar system like earths:  This would be necessary to keep the planets in line, and to create an earth-like environment ideal for life.

6.  The planet must be the third planet from a star like the sun:  The planet must be in an ideal position in the solar system.  "The nearness of the Earth to the Sun makes the Earth rocky; the exact distance of the Earth's orbit from the Sun has determined the nature of the atmosphere and oceans which cover our rocky planet." Planets too close to the sun are too hot, and planets too far are too cold, for an ideal atmosphere for life to evolve. Distance from the sun also determines the effect of gravity in holding the planet into a solid or gaseous state, withe earth being at the ideal distance, again, for life. Planets close to the sun are too dense, and planets too far from the sun are too gaseous and not earth-like at all. Venus is close to the earth, but has an atmoshpere that is thick and creates a "greenhouse effect" that makes the planet too hot (about 500 °).  Mars is close to the earth, but is too light and cold (about 30 °C) for water to form.  So Venus has too much carbon dioxide, and Mars has no water. The Earth, alone, is at just the right distance from the sun to create an environment just right for life to form.

7.  The planet must have an ozone: Oxygen must build up in the atmosphere, where "chemical reactions," stimulated by radiation from the sun, causes an ozone to develop.  This creates a filter that "blocks out th sterilizing ultraviolet radiation. Under this protective blanket, life could move out of the sea and onto the land, while an abundance of atmospheric oxygen allowed new life forms to invent the trick of respiration, using the oxygen as an energy source."

8.  The atmosphere must include carbon dioxide:  Actually, the atmosphere must include an ideal amount.  Too much would cause a greenhouse effect similar to what occurs on Venus, making the planet too hot to sustain life.  Yet an ideal amount is essential for plants to process it into carbon and oxygen.

9.  The atmosphere must include oxygen:  This allows for metabolic respiration to occur, and for life to exist outside water.

10.  The planet must have a moon:  The moon is essential because its gravitational pull controls the rise and fall of the sea level, exposing life to both air and water in the space of a short time (only a few hours), creating an environment for life-forms to be gradually exposed to a new environment (air), and to gradually make the evolutionary changes necessary to live on land.  (See, how the earth and the moon interact at astronomytoday.com)

Now, there obviously can be some variations of these, although the essential elements must be in place in order for life to form.  Then, once the environment is created, and once lifeforms existed on land, then the environment would be set for a hunan-like, intelligent life form to evolve, thus developing the type of intelligence needed to form civilizations.

Are GPS trackers in cars really good?

Are GPS trackers in cars good?  They -- that being the experts -- say it is, and that it should be mandatory for our own good. They say that they can be used to know if you were speeding prior to an accident.  They say it can be used to find you if you get lost.  It can be used to solve crimes.

But it also makes it so the government knows where we are at all times.  It allows companies to keep track of employees.  So it can be good, they say.  And it's true, it can, or at least has the potential, to be beneficial..

But it can also be used against you.  It can be used by your boss to say, "hey, you said you were here, but you were not here."

Students have been found guilty of keeping track of kids, when they were at home in their rooms.  Is that a good thing?

The government can use it to know how much you drive, and they have already talked about making laws to tax you per mile that you drive.  Is that good?

Bottom line: proponents of making GPS trackers in cars say it is for your own good.  Opponents of it say it is yet another effort to take away more of our liberties.

Is Google violating our personal liberties?

I love Google.  I have a Google Chrome book, use Blogger, use Google Word, I use Google web browser, and use Gmail.  One day, however, I noticed that there were a bunch of libertarian and conservative books advertised on the right side of the computer screen.  I thought, "Is libertarianism gaining in popularity?"

Then I realized, "No, they are marketing to me.  They know I love liberty."

So they know, from what I search for, or what sites I go to, what I'm interested in. If I'm Googling shoes, I might get an ad for shoes "even while I'm in the store."

I suppose this could be good in a way, but it is a violation of my liberties.  It is a violation of my right to privacy.  Because I know that in order for those ads to appear, Google is selling my information.  They are getting rich by selling my information, and all I get out of it is an ad.

I'm sorry to say this, but I think this is a scary thing.  If my information is that available to advertisers who want to profit off me, then it's probably also available for governmental officials to spy on me (If I was offered a choice, I wouldn't be so concerned.  If I was offered the option of payment, I might consider).

The only way to get people to stop tracking you is to stop using Google, stop using your iPhone.  But Google makes everything they offer free.  If I want to keep blogging, I have no choice to use Google.

I suppose, in a way, the fact it is free is Google's payment to me.  On the other hand, the fact it is free also traps me into the system.  It's similar to the government offering free schooling so they can use that platform to brainwash our kids.  It's scary.

For all the privacy I have lost while being on the web, I wouldn't give up what I do for anything.

Is it time to impeach Mr. Obama?

Okay, so I have never been an advocate of impeaching a president.  I think the idea is repulsive and counterproductive.

So you impeach a president and then what? You get his vice president as president, and he now has a fresh hold on the presidency and all the power that goes with it.  You have a potential, then, for eight more years of these guys being in power.

No!  That is not good.  But that's not even my main reason for being against impeaching a president.  In fact, back when there were arguments for impeaching President Clinton for lying about having sex with Monica Lewinski, I was opposed to the idea then.  The reason:  it looks bad for America.  As a person who loves my country, I do not want my country to look bad.

So now we have a few people talking about the possibility of impeaching Obama. You have people saying that the first thing Congress will do if people vote republicans into a majority in November of 2014 is to impeach Obama.

As noted, I have been completely opposed to this, until Obama released four of the world's biggest, most evil, villains in the world, giving them right back to the evil Taliban to which they came, in exchange for a person who appears to have been a deserter and not a prisoner of war.  Or, you could say it was one of our guys for four of theirs.

To me, this latest action makes all the suspect actions of Obama in the past several years make sense.  If Obama is making a four for one swap, releasing four Taliban leaders in the process, it's a sign to me that he does not see the Taliban as the enemy.  It's a sign that he sees his own country as the enemy.  That, dear readers, is an impeachable offense.  It's something I wrote about under my pseudonym even before Obama was elected.

Well, actually, what is impeachable is that he was, by a law that he signed, supposed to give Congress a 30 day notice for any prisoner swap.  But did you know that he tried to make this same deal back in March of 2012. The only reason this went public is because he briefed some members of Congress about it, they found it a repulsive idea, and so leading democrat and mega Obama supporter Dianne Feinstein put her country first an leaked the story to Foreign Policy magazine.

So this time Obama didn't want that to happen, so he bypassed the law and made the swap without telling Congress.  He broke the law.  This, by the way, is an impeachable offense.

However, we must temper any enthusiasm here.  The idea of this blog is not to be one sided, or blind sided, so we must take a look at all the facts before we come to any conclusions here.

Charles Krauthammer, in his June 5 column, notes the following:

There is strong eyewitness evidence that Bergdahl deserted his unit and that the search for him endangered his fellow soldiers. If he had served with honor and distinction, there would be no national uproar over his ransom and some of the widely aired objections to the deal would be as muted as they are flimsy. For example:

1. America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.  Nonsense. Of course we do. Everyone does, while pretending not to. The Israelis, by necessity the toughest of all anti-terror fighters, in 2011 gave up 1,027 prisoners, some with blood on their hands, for one captured staff sergeant.

2. The administration did not give Congress 30-day notice as required by law. Of all the jurisdictional disputes between president and Congress, the president stands on the firmest ground as commander in chief. And commanders have the power to negotiate prisoner exchanges.

Moreover, from where did this sudden assertion of congressional prerogative spring? After five years of supine acquiescence to President Obama’s multiple usurpations, Congress suddenly becomes exercised over a war power — where its claim is weakest. Congress does nothing in the face of 23 executive alterations of the president’s own Affordable Care Act. It does nothing when Obama essentially enacts by executive order the Dream Act, which Congress had refused to enact. It does nothing when the Justice Department unilaterally rewrites drug laws. And now it rises indignantly on its hind legs because it didn't get 30 days’ notice of a prisoner swap?

3. The Taliban release endangers national security.
Indeed it does. The five released detainees are unrepentant, militant and dangerous. They’re likely to go back into the field and resume their war against local and foreign infidels, especially us.
The administration pretense that we and the Qataris will monitor them is a joke. They can start planning against us tonight. And if they decide to leave Qatar tomorrow, who’s going to stop them?

So that was Krauthammer.  I think we can see he is equally concerned about this swap, although, because Congress has failed to show indignation at any of Obama's other unconstitutional moves, then how can he justify taking action on this most recent illegal move.  This kind of points the finger at the idea that neither the republican nor democrat party gives a hoot about the constitution.

However, I must note, that I recently watched the Untouchables starring Robert De Niro as Al Capone and Kevin Cosner as Eliot Ness.  This great movie reminds us that it was not that Capone was a famous mobster, nor that he sold alcohol illegally, nor that he killed hundreds of men in his attempts to get his way, that landed him in prison. No!  It was one small detail he considered to be minute:  it was tax evasion.

The fact that Obama has gotten away with illegal acts, acts that have weakened our economy, our borders, our national defense, our national resolve, and our confidence did not get him impeached.

He opens our borders and allows millions of illegals to cross our border, illegals who are prone to take low paying jobs and not bring in new ideas and technology to America, and illegals who will, more than likely, put themselves on the government dole and vote for democrats and their progressive ideals.

He allows guns to be sold near the border and to end up in the hands of Mexican drug lords to be used against American's trying to protect the border.  This was what many refer to as "fast and furious."  Obama wanted people to think drug Lords were crossing the border and purchasing guns at American stores, and he wanted to use this as a reason to get gun laws passed.  But, as it turned out, Obama is the one who allowed those guns to be sold.  Yes!  It all makes sense now why he would do it: he hates America.

It all makes sense now.  It's like I've had an epiphany of sorts.  All of these actions, when you put them together, all made America worse off.  It put us down to size.  Sure, Obama took hits. Sure, his popularity plummeted.  But, bottom line, he did what needed to be done: "fundamentally change America."

But this later action tops all of them, and should be the straw that breaks the camels back. It should be the action that causes -- forces -- Congress to take action.

I believe that he knows now that he no longer has the support of Congress, nor the people. For this reason, he is going to do whatever is in his power, legal or illegal, constitutional or unconstitutional, to continue his efforts to, as he put it, "fundamentally change America."

In other words: Impeach Obama.  Don't give him another 2.5 years to continue to destroy our country that he obviously hates.

Capitalism creates success, progressivism creates chaos

Wherever liberalism has been tried it has failed. On the other hand, wherever conservatism has been tried it has succeeded. In fact, conservatism has made life so great in America that many people take it for granted; they have little concept of how hard life was before it existed.

By the way, the liberal movement in the U.S. used to be called the progressive movement. Of course a name is just a name. They'd probably use Communism or Socialism if those names weren't already tarnished. For the sake of simplicity, we'll simply refer to them all as progressives.

On a similar note, conservatism is the same as capitalism. So, for the sake of simplicity, we'll just refer to it as capitalism. So we have capitalism verses progressivism.

Walter Williams, professor of economics at George Mason University, gave us the following quote: 

"Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow man. Capitalism made it possible to become wealthy by serving your fellow man."

I love that quote.   It explains why countries that embrace capitalism prosper, because people have freedom and liberty.  It explains why countries that embrace progressivism fail, because no one can get anywhere.

In progressive nations you have to be a member of the party, and the party steals and loots what you earn in order to redistribute it.  By taking your money, you become imprisoned in the system.  You are forced to stay in poverty.  In order to gain anything you are forced to steal and loot, just as the system does to you.

Capitalism frees people to provide services and products people are willing to pay for, and if you hit it big, you get really wealthy. If you don't hit it big but do reasonably well, you'll do reasonably well.  Countries that exist under unfettered capitalism prosper, and examples of this are the Harding/ Coolidge economy of the 1920s, the Kennedy economy of the 1960s, the Reagan economy of the 1980s, the W. Bush economy of the 2000s, and the current Chinese economy.

Capitalism is made up of people who are forever dreaming about coming up with ways to make life better. Capitalism is about improving the quality of life, improving the standard of living for as many people as possible.

Progressives try to make everyone the same, and when everyone is the same, you have no wealthy people.  When you have no wealthy people, you have no incentive to improve your lot in life.

Lacking the opportunity to improve your life, people become lazy.  No new jobs are created, and therefore everyone is equally poor.  That's fine, because the goal of progressivism is equality for everyone.  In other words, progressivism creates poverty.  Poverty creates desperation, and desperate people loot and steal.  

Capitalists know it's impossible for everybody to be the same. It creates an environment for, if you are willing to take risks, you may become wealthy. When you have people with money, they will take risks that create jobs. When people are working and making money, they are happy and content. When people are happy and content, they are not desperate and do not have a need to loot and steal.

Progressives create an environment that stakes one group of people against the other, and it is from here that class envy develops: the rich hate the poor who are stealing from them, and the poor think the rich are making money at their expense. The poor think it's unfair the rich have all that money, so they devise ways to steal it from the rich. So the government solves this problem by trying to create an idealist world where everyone is the same, and where they all make the same amount of money. But all this does is force people to steal and loot in order to survive.

Socialism is a never ending cycle.  They say they are doing it "for your own good."  They assume people are too stupid to make wise decisions with their money, so they devise ways to take it from you and spend it for you.  Yet since they are paying your bills, they believe they can tell you what you can eat so you can stay healthy.  They say they are doing this "for your own good," but it's really to keep their costs down.  

Progressivism sounds good to the people; it feels good.  But when it's put into place, all it does is create little train wrecks wherever it is instigated.  They take over healthcare so more people can have it, but in return healthcare gets worse. They take over economies to redistribute wealth, and all they do is create an environment where groups of people hate each other.  

Progressives never elevate the people at the bottom.  They always try to penalize the people at the top and take away from them and blame them for the inequities and the problems in society.

But it doesn't stop with economics. They go after what people say. You can't say things that hurt people's feelings, and you definitely can't judge people for bad behavior.  

They have to make sure that anything that creates human triumph is discredited, because that sends the wrong signal to a liberal or socialist or communist government. You can't have exceptions on the plus side.  You can't earn wealth while there are still people in poverty.  You simply can't.

They hate God, because God is the antithesis of their form of government.  God teaches freedom, liberty, personal choice, individualism, and conservatism. They can't have that; God sends the wrong signal to a liberal or socialist or communist government 

They also try to keep people uneducated and lie to people . They twist history to suit their own agenda.  They create medial fairness laws, and never allow conservative voices to be heard.  And, most important, they don't want their people to see how well people live in other nations, because that would make them want capitalism for themselves.  

That's why the Chinese Government controls the media and the Internet.  Once people see freedom their whole system will be defeated, it will crumble to the ground, so they keep people stupid by lying to them and preventing them from becoming educated. If a person learns too much he is thrown in prison or murdered. A good example of this is the Tienanmen Square masacre. 

In Russia, under the Soviet leadership, Russians were told how bad it was in America, and because they had no way of learning the truth, they believed it. People who became educated, or who learned how well Americans really had it, were murdered amid what the government would chime as a mass epidemic of disease.  They were able to mask the truth because there was no world media.

Some actually even credit, along with the arms movement, Hollywood for the fall of the Soviet Union. Hollywood showed the Soviets how well Americans had it under this thing called "capitalism." 

When there wasn't television Stalin could simply murder people and get away with it, but because he couldn't do that anymore, there was no way to stop Russians from watching TV and seeing what Hollywood offered.  Of course, when watching TV, they also saw American news, and were alerted of what was really going on in America; that Americans weren't evil and wicked, their own government was. So the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.

Another thing that helped Stalin's movement was the fact that the progressivess in the U.S. controlled the media, and so they were able ignore the failures of the same movement in Russia.  Yet advancements in technology made it so the media became worldwide, and so the modern media made it so Russian leaders could no longer hide the failures of communism, the progressive movement in Russia.

Progressive leaders can no longer kill to get their way.  They can no longer control the media to get their way.  So the only method left is to make it so people don't make much money.  If you take away their money you take away their freedom. They accomplish this by by taking from anyone who makes money and redistribute it to the poor.  

It's for this reason socialist/ progressive/ liberal leaders constantly attack the rich, and it's for this reason they encourage class warfare and envy for achievers.  They attack corporations, and they attack rich people (except rich people who donate to their causes like George Soros). 

Capitalists make it so people can make money serving other people. Serving means making iPhones, televisions, cable TV, Internet, fast food, medicine, cars, etc. It means easy access to food and other essentials of life.

In socialist nations the food is aplenty, but no one wants to harvest it, so the people go hungry.  Hungry people are forced to steal and loot in order to satisfy basic needs.  

When socialists see something needs to be done, the government has to force people to do it.  Because the government takes any money people make, no one wants to do it.  

In a capitalist society, when someone has an idea, a product or service that will benefit others, he he has incentive to make it work because he knows he will get to keep any money he makes, or donate it to charities of his choice.  

Capitalism allows people to harness creativity.  It encourages creativity. Creativity is the main source of productivity.  All the good in the world today, therefore, was caused by capitalism/ conservatism.  

Despite this, too many people are tricked into believing the cause of it all is government.  Yet all government does is take away prosperity.  All government does is destroy wealth.  The only time the government rewards you with wealth, the only time it lets you keep your money, is when you use it to support the cause. 

Capitalism is always evaluated against dreams. Progressives/ Socialists/ Liberals/ believe that, if you do as they say, they can create a Utopia.  Utopia is a dream. It's a fantasy where everything's perfect; where there's no pain; where there's no suffering; where everybody has whatever the socialists/ liberals/ progressives think is important today.  In their Utopia, in their dream world, everybody's got health care. Everybody has a house, has an electric car. It's a dream. It doesn't exist. It's an idealistic dream.  

Capitalism is hard, cold reality. There's no question it is by far and away the best economic organizing system of human beings there's ever been.

So capitalism, which is a proven, demonstrable, there hasn't been any other legitimate world superpower, economic and everything combined, except the United States of America. Although some people in America today, the progressives, the liberals, are trying to make it so America no longer is a superpower.  They think this will help them create their perfect world.

There have been wealthy societies before America, but very few people participated in that. The rest were slaves or common, ordinary, everyday nothings who made all the wealth possible but never shared in it. There's been wealthy places but there's never been a wealthy superpower.

The United States developed, fed, clothed, protected, defended, provided for, took care of disasters, the world over. No other country has ever been able to do that.

And yet there's this constant battle in this country. The United States is unfair, it's unjust, it's racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic, it's immoral, it's run by white guys. None of that has ever been true.

But let me ask you a question. What else has a chance when evaluated against a fantasy or a dream? Let's say, for example, you have this fantasy of the perfect woman or man, and you really think she or he exists. I mean, every aspect of your dream, every aspect of your fantasy, you hold out for it. Guess what? Your life is going to be miserable because it doesn't exist.

Take any other fantasy, any other dream, any other figment of your imagination where there is perfection and then evaluate that against reality, and I guarantee you reality is gonna lose every time.

Capitalism is reality and it's got more to recommend it than any other way or system. But compared to the Utopian dreams of liberalism and socialism and communism, it is always going to come up short with the dreamers and the fantasizers. And when those people end up in power, like now, then you end up with real problems. And we have them. But we'll come out of it.

So capitalism, the very idea that created this superpower, is said to be a failure because it's evaluated against fantasies. There never has been a successful socialist country. There's never been a successful communist country.

So when progressives talk to the people, they always talk in terms of "what will happen" if we continue charging "forward." In fact, "Forward," was Obama's campaign slogan in 2012, the same slogan that was used by another famous progressive by the name of Mussolini.  It was also used by a famous evil progressive in Germany in the 1930s.

Anyway, they keep talking about how, if we continue to do what they say, we will eventually get to, move forward to, this Euphoric world they always talk about. But we keep doing what they say, keep being tricked into believing it, and all that happens is chaos.

Yet that doesn't matter.  Progressives continue saying things like, "The only reason progressive ideas have failed in the past is because of capitalism." But when they are in charge, when they get their way, they destroy everything they touch.

The bottom line is, no progressive nation has ever succeeded.  The only thing progressivism succeeds at is failing and creating chaos.

In fact, you can always tell when progressives are in charge because of the chaos they create.  While the progressive agenda aims for a euphoric world, the only euphoria ever seen is when conservatives are in charge. 

Why do progressives hate the founding fathers?

Ever wonder why it is that progressives do not seem to like the founding fathers, and constantly try to diminish the founding documents?  Well, it's because the founding fathers were all conservative.

Now that we understand this, it's easy to see why progressives, or at least those who are pushing the progressive movement, say that the Constitution is a living document that must be changed and updated.  It is why they say the Declaration of Independence is dead.  It's why they ignore the Constitution to make into law what the people do not want, but what is essential to advance their agenda.  

A perfect example here is the fact that many progressives use Thomas Jefferson as a perfect example of a founding father who was an atheist who was for a large government.  

Why do progressives in the U.S. constantly say that Thomas Jefferson was for big government and that he wanted the Bible out of government?  Well, it's because he was really a conservative, and if people knew that they might want to become conservatives.  For this reason, they twist the truth to make Jefferson what they need him to be in order to advance their agenda.  

Neither of these are true, by the way.  Jefferson, although he may have been a deist, still understood the importance of God and the conservatism he preached. Jefferson, in essence, was for a limited government.  

Chuck Norris actually covered this topic in his April 13, 2014, column "Three myths about Thomas Jefferson."  He sites the following quote from Jefferson:

Jefferson was actually for smaller government, less debt and fewer taxes. About eight years after his two terms of president, Jefferson wrote, “We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses, and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes, have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account, but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers.”

Thomas Jefferson probably was a deist and not a Christian, although he also understood the importance of God in a functioning government. It is for this reason, in various letters to John Adams, he discussed why he thought it was important for a government to inculcate the values and morals taught through the Bible.

Jefferson wrote that he believed, that since the new nation could not afford a militia, that something else was needed to keep Americans in line.  Jefferson understood, perhaps by reading books from his own library, that fear of God and the Devil are all that is needed to encourage people to love and respect their neighbors.  That it was important for the government to encourage Bible study.

It is for this reason the founding fathers -- Jefferson, Washington, Paine, Adams, Madison, Franklin -- used God's name so frequently.  They understood, that in order to maintain a functioning society, God is essential.

Here is why progressives want to get rid of God in society?

In order to understand any argument for or against the Bible, there are only four elements you need to know: 

1. The Christian Bible teaches conservatism
2. The founding fathers were all conservatives
3. Conservatism is capitalism
4. Capitalism is individualism

Knowing this will help you understand why the Bible is essential to the conservative movement, and why the Bible is the antithesis of the progressive movement.  

For the sake of simplicity here, any movement that teaches that redistribution of wealth is essential for a functioning society is progressive.  So, therefore, all of the following movements are, in essence, progressive.

1. Liberal
2. Progressive
3. Socialist
4. Communist
5. Collectivism
6. Fascist
7. Totalitarian

So, for now on, for the sake of simplicity, I will simply refer to any of these as progressive.  Since the Bible teaches conservatism, it, therefore, is the enemy and must be eliminated.  

Now, with that understood, can tackle some of the greater questions, such as: 

• Why are progressives always trying to get rid of God in our lives? 
• Why do secularists care that non-secularists share God's word? 
• Why is it so important to get God out of schools? 
• Why can't we have Nativity scenes in public places? 
• Why did Stalin say getting rid of God was the most important part of advancing Communism?
• Why do progressives say Thomas Jefferson wanted a huge government

To answer these questions all you have to do is understand that the Bible teaches conservatism.  What is conservatism?  It's capitalism and individualism.  It's limited government and free choice.  It's personal responsibility and accountability.  It's values and virtues.  

Through His Bible, God teaches that those who believe, those who work hard, will reap the rewards of their crops.  That they can keep what they need to feed their families, and decide for themselves what to share with others.  The Bible teaches love, hope and charity, so people learn the importance of taking care of their neighbors. 

A good example of this is the Pilgrims and the first Thanksgiving. Progressives teach in schools that the first Thanksgiving was all about Thanking the Indians for helping the Pilgrims grow crops.  They teach this because if people knew the true story they fear they would become conservatives. 

Conservatives teach the complete, and true story.  They teach that the purpose of the first t thanksgiving was because the Pilgrims tried socialism for the first few years they were on American soil, and it failed. It failed because even those who did no work got the same amount of profit and the same amount of food on their tables. It failed because there was no incentive for people to work.

So the Pilgrims ultimately decided to try what the Bible preaches: hard work, i.e. capitalism. Under this new system, crops flourished. So after abundant crops were harvested that year, they decided to throw a huge party to offer thanks to God and his Bible; they wanted to thank got for teaching conservatism.  

Of course there were Indians there, Indians who taught the Pilgrims how to manage the land.  The Pilgrims appreciated the Indians and knew that God had sent them to help.  Yet thanking the Indians was not the only reason for the great celebration: the reason was to give thanks to the Lord, God. 

It's understandable that progressives would want to teach their own version.  It's essential to advance their agenda.  They know that in order to make the progressive movement look good they must tell their own version of history; they must lie. 

Since most kids are taught the progressive version of the first Thanksgiving, kids do not learn the failure of socialism and the success of capitalism.  They do not learn this great lesson.  Progressives do not want you to know that Progressivism has been tried again and again and again throughout history, and it has failed every time.  They do not want you to know that, so they rewrite history.  

Think about it.  This is exactly the same reason why communist nations do not allow people to do to church, because God teaches capitalism, the antithesis of communism.  This is why Stalin got rid of all the churches in Russia.  He knew that the lessons of capitalism taught in the Bible could not co-exist with communism; that you cannot have both.  

By understanding the four elements, you can also understand why progressives in the U.S. consistently talk bad about the founding fathers, and want to change the three original documents, all of which mention God. 

So, why is it that progressives work so hard, so adamantly, to prevent children from learning about God?  It's because what God teaches is conservatism, the antithesis of liberalism. 

Put down the electronics, pay attention to your priorities

So I sat down for lunch in the cafeteria at work, and observed that everyone at the table but me was looking at their iPhones.

My parents came back from Florida for a weekend, and we visited them at their Manistee home.  My dad observed my son was looking at his iPhone, and said, "What's so interesting on that phone?"

It wasn't that my dad had a problem with my son having an iPhone, it was more him implying in a polite way that "I am right here, and you haven't seen me in three months."

I don't have a problem with people pulling out their electronic devices, as I'm guilty as anyone.  I don't have an iPhone, but I love my Google Chrome Book.  I spend no time on Facebook, but I spend a lot of time blogging.  Still, there is this thing called prioritizing.  It goes something like this:

1. God
2. Wife
3. Children
4. Other people
5. Other things

I think other things can be broken down like this:

1. Work
2. Hobbies

The idea is when you get any of these out of order nothing works right, or you create little train wrecks, such as people getting mad at you.  

I think as a general rule that when there are other people around you should put them first, and put your electronics away.  If you have work to do, put your electronics away, unless it's part of your job.  

I mean, it's just common sense here.  

While we're on this topic, I think it's interesting that a recent study reported on by CBSNews suggests that parents spend an average of 11 hours a day on electronic devices, and this comes at the expense of time with children.  

The report noted: Researchers at the Boston Medical Center observed 55 different groups of parents and young children eating at fast food restaurants. The study found the majority pulled out their mobile devices right away, and, in turn, their kids tended to act up more.

It's common sense, folks.  If you get your priorities mixed up, your life will be mixed up and your kids messed up.  Electronics are great, although we must be careful not to get carried away.