Saturday, August 30, 2014

Mitt Romney a viable republican presidential nominee

Might the third time be a charm for Mitt Romney
Mitt Romney said recently that "circumstances can change" when asked if he'd run for president in 2016. While he is not my favorite candidate, sometimes we have to play it safe to win, and I'd much rather have him than risk another Obama-type presidency.

A Romney-Ryan ticket would look appealing
I also like the concept of another Mitt Romney-Paul Ryan ticket. I think that knowing right off the bat who the presidential and vice presidential candidates are would be a good seller.
Plus, and perhaps best of all, I think that all the dirt about Romney has already come out, of which there really isn't much other than the fact that he's run as a moderate republican and supported state-run healthcare while governor of Massachusetts.

However, he has the business and economic expertise from his past experience to run a country and get our economy running again.

So there's actually lots to like about the prospects of a Romney-Ryan ticket.  Now, we do not know for sure the he'd even choose Ryan again, but the prospects that he would sounds good anyway.

However, there are reasons not to vote for Mitt Romney, and one of the main ones was noted by Rush Limbaugh during his show on August 4, 2014.  He said:
If the Republicans nominate somebody that forced four million Republicans to sit home and not vote in this climate, why in the world are they thinking of doing it again?
He added:
A, Romneycare, Obamacare, they cancel each other out. But with the economy as bad as it was, with Obamacare lingering, with everything that was known -- Benghazi and everything that was known -- if poor Mitt was not able to capitalize on the absolute worst four years of a presidency we've had in my lifetime, what in the world makes people think he's gonna be able to do it again? I mean, history is history.
Rush said that one of the main reasons Romney lost was that he was afraid to attack the first black president, afraid to paint the first black president for who he really was: a failure.  People would call that racism, even though it's not.

During the last election Romney didn't have a chance, Rush said, because people didn't want to send the first black president packing, even though they had to know he was a failure.  And this time around, in 2016, Romney might be running against the first female presidential candidate, which would result in the same thing all over again.  Would Romney be able to paint Mrs. Clinton for who she really is: a hard-core-out-of-touch-with-common-Americans-liberal?

Rush also added a disclaimer about a Romney candidacy:
You won't find, in terms of just a nice man, you won't find anybody greater. Morality and family, you won't find anybody better. But it takes more than that. And there was a lot. Obama was screwing up left and right big time. There are some who think that 2012 should have been a slam dunk Republican landslide. And I'm close to being one of them. 
In the meantime, Rand Paul would best protect natural rights, and I think Rick Perry is the most presidential.  However, Paul would be a dark-horse candidate, and Perry already has people out to find dirt on him, even if they have to make it up.

So, the safe bet for 2016 might be an already run and tried Mitt Romney.  His skin has got to be tough as rubber by now, something that would help him retract all the mudslinging he'd face for being a republican president.

Friday, August 29, 2014

Austrian Economics creates prosperity

The names "austrian school," or "austrian economics," may not sound familiar to most Americans, yet if we call it by it's modern name, perhaps you'll recognize it. It's modern name is supply-side, or trickle down, economics. Perhaps a more fitting name for it is free market economics.

Ron Paul, in his book "Liberty Defined," describes the history of this economic philosophy:
The school of thought is named for the country of its modern founder, Carl Menger (1840-1921), an economist at the University of Vienna who made great contributions to the theory of value.  He wrote that economic value extends the human mind alone and is not something that exists as an inherent part of goods and services; valuation changes according to social needs and circumstances.  We need markets to reveal to us the valuations of consumers and producers in teh form of the price system that works within a market setting.  In saying these things, he was really recapturing lost wisdom that had earlier been understood by Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850), J.B. Say (1767-1832), A.R.J. Turgot (1727-1781), and many more throughout history.  But history needs people like Menger to rediscover forgotten wisdom.
Andrew Mellon and Jack Kemp were two economists who renewed interest in this philosophy, encouraging Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan respectively to adapt it.  Both Coolidge and Reagan reduced taxes and regulations, and with government out of the way, the American economies of the 1920s and the 1980s soared to its greatest heights in American history.

Paul continues:
The Austrian school champions private property, free markets, sound money, and the liberal society generally.  It provides a way of looking at economics that takes into account the unpredictability of human action (absolutely no one can quantitatively know the future) and the huge role of human choice in the way economies work (in markets, consumers drive decisions over production), and explains how it is that order can emerge out of the seeming chaos of individual action  In short, the ustrian School provies the most robust defense of the economic system of the free society that has ever been made.
The Austrian School "had achieved mainstream status before the so-called Keynesian Revolution of the 1930s swept away the older wisdom.

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

Hippocratic Oath required pledge not to perform abortions

Image of Hippocrates (460-377 B.C.)
Prior to the ancient Greek philosophy,
it was common for physicians,
to use their knowledge to kill for money.
The Hippocratic oath was an effort,
to change the image of the profession.
Since the days of ancient Greece physicians were required to take an oath, therefore promising to do no harm, including a pledge not to perform abortions.  Since about 400 years before the birth of Christ this has been known as the Hippocratic Oath.

However, beginning in the 1960s, rather than face the issue, most medical-schools dropped the requirement that graduates site the pledge.

Just think, an oath that lasted through all the trials and trivializations of 2,500 years of history was ended over the abortion issue.

Today the pledge is voluntary, and the part about not doing abortion is not a part of it.  Sad.


  1. Paul, Ron, "Liberty Defined," 2011, 

Obama trying to use UN to force liberal agenda on world

As a former journalist who has kept up his skills in the blogosphere, I have for you a perfect example of journalism bias. It comes from Coral Davenport at the New York Times in her article "Obama Pursuing Climate Accord in Leiu of Treaty."

First she states the facts:
The Obama administration is working to forge a sweeping international climate change agreement to compel nations to cut their planet-warming fossil fuel emissions, but without ratification from Congress.
In preparation for this agreement, to be signed at a United Nations summit meeting in 2015 in Paris, the negotiators are meeting with diplomats from other countries to broker a deal to commit some of the world’s largest economies to enact laws to reduce their carbon pollution. But under the Constitution, a president may enter into a legally binding treaty only if it is approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.
To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal that would “name and shame” countries into cutting their emissions. The deal is likely to face strong objections from Republicans on Capitol Hill and from poor countries around the world, but negotiators say it may be the only realistic path.
The ultimate goal here is to punish countries who do not conform to the law, if it is passed, or to shame them into complying.  In other words, either you conform to the progressive agenda or you will be shamed and ridiculed until you do.

But then she goes on to blame republicans as the reason Obama is forced into such action.  She said:
Lawmakers in both parties on Capitol Hill say there is no chance that the currently gridlocked Senate will ratify a climate change treaty in the near future, especially in a political environment where many Republican lawmakers remain skeptical of the established science of human-caused global warming.
For 30 years people have been claiming that mankind is causing global warming, and yet there has been no increase in global temperatures since 1998.  Because global warming has been disproved by said facts, they have changed the name of their theory to "climate change."  It appears they have too much invested in the myth to just give up on it now.

There is politics behind the myth, because if democrats can convince the world that humans are causing "global cooling" or "global warming" or "climate change," then perhaps they can use this "fear" to push forth their political agenda, which mainly results in more regulations and taxes that take away personal liberties and make nations poorer.

It appears that the only force against Obama's charge to force nations to accept global warming are republicans and poor countries.  However, once progressives like Obama get their way, all countries will be poor, as the only way to create equality, the progressive goal, is to redistribute wealth, thus eliminating the upper class.

It appears republicans and poor countries are the only folks who know the facts in this case, or at least care to heed the facts.  Coral Davenport is yet another journalist who fails to study history, learn the facts, nor report the truth.  She is yet another journalist who fails to comply with rule #1 of journalism: "report the truth, keep your opinion out of your writing."

Monday, August 25, 2014

Abortion: A sad state of affairs

If it wasn't bad enough the the Supreme Court found some inexplicable way to make abortions legal, now, under Obamacare, even people who do not support the horrendous act of violence are being forced to fund it.  This includes the Catholic Church, who has openly declared a war on abortion.

This is a sad state of affairs. If anything, if the Federal government were to rule on the abortion issue, it should rule on the side of life.  Now, not only is has it ruled on the side of death, it is now forcing the Catholic Church, of all things, to fund it.  This is not liberty. This is not freedom.  This is not justice. This is not moral. This is not legal.

Saturday, August 23, 2014

Atlantic Ocean hiding global warming?

For many years now a few scientists have been trying to convince people that humanity is causing too much carbon dioxide (CO2) to be released into the atmosphere, and that this is causing global warming.  The problem with this theory is that the global temperatures have not increased since 1998.

It's gotten to the point that global warming activists had to come up with an excuse to explain the heat that didn't happen.  They are now claiming the ocean ate it; that it is hiding 700 feet below the surface.

This past week scientists released a study that explains where all the global warming has gone.  They say that it has been being sucked into the Atlantic Ocean, and is hiding about a mile down.  It's a natural occurring event that goes in cycles, and explains why the atmosphere is not warming.

The problem with this is it doesn't make sense, because warm air and warm water rise.  If you go down a mile under the ocean it will be cold.  If you want to feel warm water, you will go to the surface, where the water is warmed by the sun.  

Instead of spending their time and money trying to prove global warming, maybe it's time these scientists accept the notion that mankind is not causing it.  

Friday, August 22, 2014

The problem with the "Pro Choice" argument

A lot of people argue that a woman should have the right to choose whether to keep a pregnancy or to terminate it.  However, there are problems with this argument that need to be addressed.

Many argue that a woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy.  However, few people on this side of the argument respect the natural rights of the infant.  An infant, thus, has a right not to be murdered.  It has a right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, among other natural rights.

Liberty, defined, means to exercise human rights in any manner a person chooses so long as it does not interfere with the exercise of the rights of others. By this definition abortion is not only murder, it's an obvious violation of the liberties of the infant.

It also diminishes the value of life.  It causes people to not even bat an eye, to not think twice, about killing a baby, thus ending a life, at the convenience of the mother. If anything, the Federal government should err on the side of protecting life, not taking it.

Diminishing the value of life has created certain social and moral issues, beginning with the idea of "when do you decide an infant is a viable human being."  How do you decide whether it begins at conception, three months, six months, or term?

Still, most pro choice proponents squirm at the thought of killing a baby in the 9th trimester.  Yet how is this any worse than killing a baby in the first trimester? If a mother is squirmish at the thought of ending a pregnancy near term, how is this any worse than ending it near conception?

If you decide it begins at term, then you are going to be aborting babies that could be viable human beings.  You could, then, take a kicking and screaming baby out of a mother, only to end it's life. Or is it only murder after a child is born?

Another problem with the pro choice argument is that many of the people who argue for the right of the mother to choose to have an abortion, they do not fight for her right to choose where to send their child to school, nor her right to choose what to put inside her body (narcotics, cigarette smoke, sugar, high fat foods, marijuana), nor can she choose to opt out of purchasing health insurance.  So in this regard, the pro-choice argument is hypocritical.

Technically speaking, there should be no argument of whether or not a woman can kill her baby.  Technically speaking, the argument should be the morality of killing an unborn infant.  Scientifically, the issue is solved.  Science has proven that a baby has a beating heart at an early age, and, if that heart is not stopped, a fetus will develop into a viable human being.

So, in my mind, a fetus is a viable human being at conception.  How this could be debated, how it could be argued as a matter of choice, is inhumane.

It is a sad thought that a physician can end a life and make a fee in the process.  how is it that a free and just society does not find a problem with this? Yet despite the moral and religious issue here, about three million human beings are aborted every year. This sends a signal to young people that we place a lower value on the small and the weak.

So most young people have an abortion for economic reasons. They kill their baby because it would cost too much to have one, and inconvenience their social lifestyles.  Most people choose abortions because they are not made aware that there baby has a beating heart.  Most women who have abortions grow to regret it, and this affects them for the rest of their lives.

For many young women, abortions is a simpler choice compared with taking responsibility for their actions, and making inconvenient changes in their lives that are necessary for the bearing and raising of children.

For something that impacts a young woman in such a negative way, and sends such a poor messages to young people, how could some people think this is okay?

Most people may not know this, but Spartan men were encouraged to rape.  If they were caught, they were made fun of.  Women were also encouraged to have abortions, and, although unsanitary and risky, many women had them.

The ancient Jews, the Hebrews, were aware of the moral issues caused by rape and abortion, and they sought to end it.  This is why their literature frowned on the practice, and forbade it.  So, if people thousands of years ago saw the problem with abortion, how could we not?

To solve the issue we need to defend and protect the liberties of the unborn children.  We need to educate young people as to when a heart starts beating, and we need to make abortions less convenient and less available.  We also need to encourage abstinence before marriage.

Obviously, regardless of the efforts made by society, there will still be abortions performed, many of them illegally.  Yet this should not stop us, as a moral and just society, from making an effort to end

Monday, August 18, 2014

How to solve the abortion issue

Regardless of what side of the issue the Federal government comes out on, half the country is going to be outraged.  The simplest solution here is to not take sides at all, and if the U.S. Constitution were followed, this is how the argument would be resolved.

Of course, this solution will neither be popular among conservatives nor liberals. Conservatives want to use the Federal government to make abortions illegal. Liberals want to use the Federal government to make abortions legal.  Roe versus Wade, in effect, was a success by liberals.

However, both the conservative and liberal positions are abuses of Federal power, and both unconstitutional.  So, in this regard, so too was the 1972 Roe -v- Wade ruling in favor of abortion.

Article II Section 8 of the Constitution gives 30 powers to the U.S. Congress, and these are in essence named the enumerable powers of government.  Some of the things delegated to Congress include standard weights and measures, coining money, post offices and post roads, the protection of intellectual property, and a national defense. Beyond these and a few other very specific items, there was not much for which the federal government was responsible.

The Constitution says nothing about murder, manslaughter, or any other acts of violence.  The Constitution only gives the government a right to make laws regarding counterfeiting, piracy, treason, and slavery.  It does not have a right to rule on abortion either.  Therefore, on this ground alone, the Rowe-v-Wade ruling is illegal.

If, for example, the government were to make infanticide legal, it would not be maintaining a republican form of government, which is required by the Constitution. If the Federal government were to rule on abortion, ideally it should err on the side of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, natural rights of the infant that are protected by the Constitution.

Regardless, anything not delegated to Congress is delegated, by the 10th amendment, to the states, or to the people, to decide. Therefore, the legal means of resolving the abortion issue is to let the states decide the manner.

In essence, if the law is followed, it would go back to the way it was prior to 1972, where some states had laws banning abortion, and some states had laws supporting abortion.  Those who continued to disagree with state law deserved the right to educate and fight for change.

Removing the power of the Federal government can be done with a massive educational movement, a majority in favor of such a movement in Congress, and a signature of the President. This, it would seem, would be much simpler than waiting for the Supreme Court to to repeal Rowe-v-Wade.

Although, the simplest means would be to regard the laws already on the books.

Friday, August 15, 2014

Liberty is freedom; progressive is sacrificing liberty

I think that a sense of liberty has been lost in the United States.  As our nation was formed based on the idea that a government was absconding personal liberties, America was founded on the idea of liberty.

So, what is liberty? Liberty is the natural right to exercise human rights in any manner a person chooses so long as it does not interfere with the exercise of the rights of others.  This means keeping the government out of our lives, as so to protect our personal liberties, i.e. natural rights.

History has proven that this is the only successful method of unleashing human energy and creativeness that build prosperous nations and protect people from systemic violations of human rights.

This was the definition of liberty accepted by Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, John Adams, James Monroe, James Madison, Ben Franklin, John Hancock, Alexander Hamilton, Charles Carroll, James Wilson, John Witherspoon, Benjamin Rush, Francis Hopkinson, George Washington, William Penn, along with a vast number of others.

The founding fathers, therefore, believed in the liberal philosophical system, republicanism, and capitalism.

Liberty, therefore, requires, if not demands, a responsible, limited government. The founders made this possible by creating a system of checks and balances, and through the creation of the founding documents that limit the scope of government, telling what it cannot do, not what it can do.  The idea here was to protect personal liberties, and make it so no government shall trample on natural rights, or the rights we are all born with.

In the early 1930s the term liberal was absconded by the progressive movement to shed a positive light on their movement.  This change was necessary to shed a positive light on their otherwise unpopular agenda.

The liberal movement continues to this day, although the progressives teach that it is controversial as opposed to common.  Yet, as we all know, it is progressivism that is controversial, not liberalism.

To believe in liberty is not to believe in any social or economic outcome, which is what progressivism does.  It requires acceptance of the disorder that results from the personal decisions that are made when the government does not intervene.

Progressives (a.k.a socialists, liberals, Marxists) believe in a dream.  They believe in a Utopia; a world where everyone has equal outcomes, which mainly refers to an equal share of the wealth.

In a progressive world, if your neighbor makes more than you, he must give you the difference no matter how hard you work. This is called redistribution of wealth.  In essence, progressives believe laws must be made to make this perfect world possible. They believe you must sacrifice some of your liberties for the good of the collective.

It is for this reason that Congress has succeeded at making laws "for your own good" requiring you to put money aside for retirement, healthcare, welfare, and charitable donations to causes that most people would not donate to.  This is what progressivism does. They do not care about your personal liberties, so long as you are sacrificing it for the general good.

However, in order to move the liberty movement forward, the name liberal could no longer be used.  Modern terms for this movement are conservative, libertarian, and tea party.

Liberty is not being watched everywhere you go. Liberty is being able to choose to drink soft drinks instead of milk, and being able to choose the size you sell or purchase.  Liberty is being able to decide for yourself what insurance policy you want to buy.  Liberty is being able to send your kids to the school of your choice. Liberty is being able to pray in school if you so choose, and being able to dress as you want, and voice your opinion without being stymied by a Fairness Doctrine.

Liberty is equal opportunity to succeed, yet not equal outcomes.  Liberty is the rich being able to keep what they earn. Liberty is being able to donate to the charities of your choice, not the charities of Uncle Sam's choice.  Liberty is the opportunity to rise into a better state of living, not creating for someone a better state of living at the expense of others.

Liberty can only be taken away by the government, and that is exactly what the progressive ideal is.  Liberty is what all people yearn for, and what millions of people have died for.  Liberty is also very fragile, as the success of the progressive movement has so openly shown.  Liberty is not runaway spending and personal debt.

When liberty is under attack, everything we hold dear to us is at risk. Governments, by their very nature, notoriously compete with liberty, even when the stated purpose for establishing a particular government is to protect liberty. Governments trample on liberty, and therefore progress, creativity, and prosperity.

In the past 100 years, progressives have been slowly, by the process of assimilation and a great public relations campaign, succeeding at taking away our personal liberties.  They have done this by making laws that tell them what they have do do, and by increasing the scope of government.

Thus, in order to protect liberty, we must limit the power and scope of government.  The simplest and most effective method of doing this is to teach our children the true meaning of liberty, and that it is a natural right that can only be extracted by government.

Our children must be constantly reminded of the thousand year struggle to learn and understand liberty, as for 99% of our history only the top 1% enjoyed the benefits of knowledge at the expense of the other 99%.  This is what makes America so exceptional, as it reverses this trend.

Our children must be taught not to be deceived into believing that government can make them safe from harm, provide fairly distributed economic security, and improve individual moral behavior.

History has shown over and over again that when governments are given a monopoly on the use of force to achieve these goals, that this power is always abused.  Perhaps there are no better examples of this than the collapse of democracies in both ancient Greece and Rome.

Perhaps most important, our children need to be taught to love and respect the founding documents which are intended to protect and preserve liberty.

Today, the seeds of progressivism that were planted in the early 19th century have grown to a full and flourishing tree, and an all out assault on our personal liberties.  We are, therefore, in need of a new revolution, only this time not to create a free nation, but to preserve one.

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

Pope redefines "charity" to include Marxism

In order to classify as tax-free organizations, religious organizations must not endorse any political positions.  Their sole purpose is "supposed" to be the charity, either financial or supportive. Yet the Pope has found a way around this.

The strategy of the Vatican is to redefine the meaning of the term "charity." They basically expand it to include "redistribution of wealth."  If you take from the rich and give it to the poor, what you are in essence doing is encouraging governments to increase charity for the poor.

Pope Francis, of Friday, May 9, 2014, called for governments to redistribute wealth to the poor in a new spirit of generosity to help curb the 'economy of exclusion' that is taking hold today.

In essence, the Pope is saying that the Vatican is a country, and it is, therefore, encouraging the United States to use its national influence to encourage other nations to redistribute wealth.  In other words, he is endorsing ne or another form of fascism --Marxism, Communism, socialism, progressivism or liberalism -- from the pulpit.

The pope said getting to the root cause of poverty "involves challenging all forms of injustices and resisting the economy of exclusion, the throwaway culture and the culture of death which nowadays sadly risk becoming passively accepted."

The truth is, the goal of all these 'isms is to make everyone equal, and the only way to make everyone equal is to make everyone poor. This is because, if you have no rich people, you have no jobs.  If you have no jobs you have no opportunity to become rich. If the incentive to become rich is taken away, people lose their creative ambitions.

This is why an Austrian governmental style, often called capitalism, or trickle down economics, is the best form of government.  It encourages individualism as opposed to statism, and provides an equal opportunity to succeed, but not equal results.  The truth is, taking from those who have and giving it to those who have not is not charity, it's stealing.

Monday, August 11, 2014

Progressives succeeded in changing a republic into a democracy

In order for the progressive movement to be a success,
progressives needed to take power away from the individual.
The founders of the United States wanted to form a republic rather than a democracy because they knew that democracies can lead to chaos, and they didn't want the new nation to be chaotic. The founders knew that democracies never work.

W. Cleon Skousen, in his book, "The 5000 year leap: Principles of Freedom 101," reminds us of this.  He said:
"There are many reasons why the Founders wanted a republican form of government rather than a democracy. Theoretically, a democracy requires the full participation of the masses of the people in the legislature or decision making processes of government. This has never worked because the people become so occupied with their daily tasks that they will not properly study the issues, nor will they take the time to participate in extensive hearings before the vote is taken. The Greeks tried to use democratic mass-participation in the government of the city-states, and each time it ended in tyranny."
The authors note that while a democracy becomes "increasingly unwieldy and inefficient as the population grows," a republic "governs through elected representatives and can be expanded indefinitely."

James Madison, one of the main authors of the Constitution, knew the limits of a democracy.  A republic, he said...
...derives its power directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior.  It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans and claim for their government the honorable title of republic.
The United States was a republic, and considered as such, until the progressive movement of the early 1900s. Early proponents of the progressive movement realized there were essentially two things standing in the way of moving forth their agenda: republicanism and the U.S. Constitution.  They aimed to tackle both these issues with a public relations campaign, or by twisting facts.

To understand this, we must first understand the history of the progressive movement.  Progressives believe that an ideal, or perfect, or Euphoric, world is possible. This is a world where there where every person has an equal share of the profits, where everyone who wants a job has one, and where everyone has health insurance.  We must realize that this is a dream.

To move America forward to this dream world laws must be made, and the people responsible for making these laws are experts in Washington.  Of course, these experts must all be progressives. These experts must make laws for the good of society, or for the good of all, or for the collective.  

The gist of this agenda is the assumption that people, as individuals, are not capable, or not willing, to do what is necessary to move forth the agenda. People, left to their own devices, are selfish, and will not give to charity and will not share the wealth.  So they must be forced.  

So you can see that this would not be popular in an republican America where individualism was taught.  So, these progressives started a campaign to change this view.  

Since a republican government limited their ability to push forth their agenda, the term "republic" was taken hostage.  It was at this time people, mainly progressives, started referring to their progressive programs as liberal, and their progressive programs as democratic.  They did this in order to make them sound more appealing.  They would say things like "this is for the good of society," or "for your own good."

For example, in 1921 socialists in the United States started calling themselves, "The League for Industrial Democracy." It has a much more appealing taste to Americans, and appeared much more likely to suck people in. 

During WWII, Woodrow Wilson added to the confusion when he hailed
"Make the world safe for Democracy."
This strategy worked.  Teachers and journalists prove the effects of this campaign by teaching that America is a democracy.  Even George W. Bush fell victim to this when he hailed that he was encouraging Muslim nations to become democracies.  

The second effort was to make the term socialism appealing withing the borders of the United States.  In order to to this they used the name "progressive" instead of "socialism."  Progressive was a much more appealing term.  Later, as this term lost its appeal, the name was changed to liberal.

Prior to the progressive movement the term liberty referred to the exercise of human rights in any manner a person chooses so long as it does not interfere with the rights of other people.  Liberal, therefore, which dates from the Middle Ages to about the 1930s, referred to freeing society from the shackles of the state.

In 1930 it was abducted by the progressives/liberals and now means "open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values." The term made it possible for the progressives to convince people that is was okay to change, or in some cases ignore, the laws of this nation, including the Constitution, in order to push forth their agenda.  

Evidence of the success of this campaign is seen in every day life in America. The influence of government has dangerously expanded far greater than the founding fathers ever envisioned, nearly to the point that presidents such as FDR and Obama have gained near king-like powers.  

Bottom line:  A successful push to destabilizing the meaning of the terms "republic" and "liberal" allowed progressives (i.e. socialists, liberals) to convince Americans to ignore or change the Constitution, thus allowing them to push forth their agenda. 

Sunday, August 10, 2014

Ebola virus disease now in U.S.

Ebola is perhaps the deadliest disease in the world.  There is no cure, so if you get it there's a 90% chance you will die.  The disease Ebola haemorrhagic fever, or what is now called Ebola virus disease, was first discovered in 1976, and the disease has never made it into the United States, until recently.

It first appears as flu-like symptoms, and then it starts to cause internal bleeding. So, basically, those who get it bleed out, and this ultimately results in organ failure, followed by death.  The only treatment is supportive, and basically involves hydrating patients.

The virus is very infectious, as even one virus can spread the disease.  However, it's not very contagious.  Patients suffering from it bleed out, so anyone exposed to the person may easily come in contact with bodily fluids. Yet it's not contagious because most people don't tough the bodily fluids of other people.

The disease originally only appeared in 1976 in Nzara, Sudan, Yambuka, and the Democratic Republic of Congo.  The disease takes its name from the Ebola River which is situated near the Democratic Republic of Congo.  Presently there is an outbreak in Guinae and Liberia.  Overall, the disease is thought to have killed over 800 people in Africa.

The disease is transmitted from one host to another through bodily fluids, which generally seep from the infected person.  It initially presents as flu-like symptoms here, or Malaria-like symptoms in Africa, although, and, quite often, these are brushed off as minor symptoms treated by home remedies.  Yet as the disease progresses, internal bleeding begins to occur, which ultimately leads to weakness, high fever, intestinal problems, and eventual death.

The disease originally affected wild animals in the tropical rain forests of Central and West Africa, and was transmitted to primitive people living in small villages living near these rain forests.  It is suspected that the original host was fruit bats of the pteropododidae family.

It's thought to have been transmitted to humans by these primitive people handling animals infected with it, such as fruit bats, porcupines, monkeys, and forest antelope.  Then it spreads quickly from one sick person to another, as loved ones yearn to help animals, or their fellow men and women, struck with illness.

This is what occurred recently, as 2 American missionaries in Liberia to help out the needy became infected with the virus.  These infected missionaries have made this issue political in the United States, as many have called for Americans to go there with supplies to help, some have insisted we bring them here for treatment, and others think we should just let them alone.  All arguments are reasonably respectable and understandable, considering the deadliness of this disease, and the ease to which it may spread.

To give you an idea of how easy this disease spreads, doctors taking care of them wear protective gear.  Yet despite this gear, it did not stop one of the doctors from becoming infected. Perhaps the doctor made a mistake somewhere along the line. Perhaps he did not zip up a zipper or he had a hole in his suit.  Perhaps he took off his gloves while handling the patient.  Regardless, it shows how possible it is, how easy it is, for this disease to spread.

President Obama, or at least members of his administration, made the decision to go get these two sick missionaries and bring them here. They were transported via an aircraft specially designed to handle such situations, and are now patients at Emory Hospital in Atlanta.

Whatever the motives, political or other (some say the Ebola victims were given a secret remedy), are beyond the concerns of this blog. However, it is our concern to consider the potential consequences of having Ebola in the U.S.

What this action means is that American healthcare professionals will come into contact with these two infected missionaries.

Some say, despite wearing protective gear, if one of them makes even the slightest mistake, the disease will sneak into one of them, and the disease will make its way to Atlanta.  It will fly with a host to New York, drive with another to California, and take the train to Denver.  An epidemic of Ebola virus disease may occur, secretly invading unsuspecting hosts.

Of course the virus could just as easily cross the border by means of one of the people illegally crossing our unprotected border.  People who come to America legally are screened for infectious diseases, but those who come in illegally are not screened. So the risk was present even without these two known infected missionaries being moved to Atlanta.

If the infected come to your hospital you will not be able to deny them treatment. In this way, every physician, nurse, respiratory therapist, x-ray technician, laboratory tech, and nurses aide is at risk for unknowingly coming into contact with the virus, therefore unknowingly assisting the virus in its quest to stay alive.

Considering the severity of this disease, every voice should be heard on this subject, including the words of Donald Trump, who Tweeted: "The U.S. cannot allow Ebola affected people back.  People that go to far away places to help out are great but must suffer the consequences."

He also Tweeted: “Stop the EBOLA patients from entering the U.S. Treat them, at the highest level, over there. THE UNITED STATES HAS ENOUGH PROBLEMS!”

Some people, including actor Whoopie Goldberg and former republican campaign aide, Nicolle Wallace, on ABCs the view, mocked such concerns.  In fact, Wallace said:
Think about who else goes to faraway places, Whoopi. We send our soldiers to faraway places. I think that we should put them in one of Donald Trump's hotels in New Jersey. I don't think they're doing very well. And I think one of his hotels would be a great place.
Such mockery is not helpful, and only discouraged people from speaking out their concerns.

While many Americans are fearful of a potential epidemic that might be caused as a result of Ebola in an Atlanta hospital, The Washington Post reports that some infectious disease experts say that is highly unlikely as the disease is spread by direct contact with blood, urine or feces of the patient, and not by airborne pathogens.  They say diseases like the bird flu is far more contagious, as it can easily be contacted from anyone who coughs or sneezes.

While it's possible, you are highly unlikely to catch the Ebola virus by a hand shake, or by simply being in contact with someone with the disease.  You could be on a plane or train with someone who has the Ebola virus and not be contaminated.

The experts say that the disease is easily spread in Africa because the people there directly handle infected victims, particularly animals both dead and alive, and are readily exposed to bodily fluids.  They also have extreme burial procedures where they bury their own family members and friends.  We do not do those things here, or are highly unlikely to.

Yet if you are a healthcare giver, on the other hand, you may be exposed.  So there lies the concern for us. This may be a good time to review universal precautions, and remind healthcare givers to wear gloves and gowns when the risk of exposure to secretions is eminent.

However, this may not even be necessary, as most hospitals, most healthcare staff, already do this.  Pretty much, the risk of this disease spreading in the U.S. like it did in Africa is highly unlikely, mainly because the preventative measures in place in this country are far better than those in Africa.  So even healthcare givers are highly unlikely to become infected with Ebola.

However, the Ebola virus would never come to the United States on it's own, and it's here now.  The fear is real, as patient who recently returned from a trip to West Africa was admitted to a New York hospital was tested for the Ebola virus, and the CDC admits six people in the U.S. have been tested for Ebola.

People who note their concern over the virus coming here and risking an epidemic should not be made fun of.  This is a serious issue that should entice a serious debate in the arena of ideas.  Because, as CBS News report, the Ebola outbreak may be more serious than thought.

Saturday, August 9, 2014

Should Obama be impeached?

If the only way to stop a lawless president from ignoring the constitution and over-stepping his bounds is impeachment, and the opposing party takes impeachment off the table for fear of backlash from voters, then there is no means of stopping him.

David Limbaugh wrote a good column ("Democrats, the Constitution, and the Rule of Law") on this subject. He makes a great point that. He writes:
Liberals believe, as a matter of their ideology, that the ends justify the means. We see it in practice every day. Liberals routinely distort facts and manipulate language to achieve their ends. As part of that, they will say that Republicans are guilty of precisely what they are doing. Manufactured projection is one of their most effective tools.
He added that while some conservatives would support a president ignoring the Constitution so long as the means was justified, most would not. He said:
But let me ask you to consider this: As a conservative, I would oppose judicial activism (roughly defined as the courts rewriting or making laws rather than interpreting them) to achieve conservative political ends. I don't know many liberals -- other than perhaps law professor Jonathan Turley -- who can make a similar statement.

It's not a matter of my (and conservatives generally) being more moral than liberals. That's not the point at all. The point is that we believe that preserving the integrity of the Constitution, as written and originally intended, is itself an essential end. 

We cherish liberty, and we understand the inextricable relationship between preserving the integrity of the Constitution and preserving our liberties. Anytime our constitutional system is undermined through egregious executive, legislative or judicial overreaches, our liberty is diminished.
He added:
When President Obama continues to act outside the scope of his executive authority and against the express will of Congress, he is, in effect, disenfranchising the people and thereby diminishing our liberties. When the courts rewrite laws to achieve their ideological or political ends, they assault the prerogative of the legislative branch and thereby further disenfranchise the people and popular sovereignty.
As a strong believer in the Constitution, the rule of law, the separation of powers, the doctrine of federalism and other essential limitations on government, I abhor judicial activism, executive overreaches and congressional usurpations, even if these abuses might be in furtherance of my political or ideological preferences. For to me, there are few more important principles than preserving the Constitution and the rule of law.
Basically, there is no law to stop a lawless president. In fact, the only thing that has stopped a president from over-reaching as Obama is today is the honor system and luck.

We have been lucky never to have a Stalin or Hitler or Hugo Chavez or Obama elected to the office of the President. Plus, all previous presidents honored and respected the rule of law (the Constitution) basically on an honor system.

So, basically, the only thing preventing any of the previous presidents, those before Obama, from violating the rule of law was the honor system. Other than that, the only means of lashing out against a lawless president is to wait for the next election.

In this case, November of 2016 might be too far away. That gives the president another two full years to further ignore and trample on our great Constitution, at the expense of our liberties and freedoms. That in mind, I am not endorsing impeachment, but it should not be taken off the table.

Friday, August 8, 2014

The thirty enumerated powers

In order to prevent the Federal government from getting too big, and therefore gaining too much influence over the people, the founding fathers created Article II Section 8 of the Constitution, which gives congress only 30 enumerated powers.

So, what are enumerated powers? They are those powers specifically delegated to Congress by the U.S. Constitution.  That means that Congress only has the right to rule on these 30 things.

Article II section 8 lists all of these powers:
  1. To collect taxes in order to provide a common defense and general welfare of the people
  2. To borrow money on the credit of the United States
  3. To regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several states, and with Indian tribes
  4. To establish an uinform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform laws regarding bankruptcies within the United States
  5. To coin money, regulate the value therof, and fix the standard of weights and measures.
  6. To provide punishment for counterfeiting the securities and Coin of the U.S.
  7. To establish a post office and post roads
  8. To promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries
  9. To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court
  10. To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
  11. To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
  12. To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
  13. To provide and maintain a Navy;
  14. To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
  15. To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
  16. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
  17. To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
  18. To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
  19. No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws:and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
  20. The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
  21. In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
  22. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
  23. The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
  24. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
  25. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
  26. New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union;
  27. The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
  28. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress
  29. The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment…
  30. The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
  31. The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
Basically, Article II Section 8 limits the power of government to just a few things, including: standard weights and measures, coining money, post offices and post roads, the protection of intellectual property, and a national defense. Beyond these and a few other very specific items, there was not much for which the federal government was responsible.

These powers have obviously been loosely regarded by both Congress and the Supreme Court.  However, what is not listed here Congress has no legal authority to rule upon.  For all other issues Congress must refer to the 10th amendment: 
The 10th Amendment:  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
So by the law, the Congress has no right to make any laws regarding punishment except for the counterfeiting of money, treason, and impeachment.  All other laws regarding punishment, including murder and abortion, are reserved to the states, and therefore the people, to decide.

It was written this way to protect the rights of the states, and to limit the scope and power of the Federal government over the states. Another reason for this was to give states unlimited power, although they had limited funds to which to run government programs, as only the Federal government reserved the right to print money.

This system also allowed for the states to be risky with new programs, with other states copying the programs of other states that worked.  When a state's program failed, the other states would bail that state out.  If the Federal government failed, there would be on one, other than another country or group of countries (such as the United Nations) to bail it out. So this prevented the Federal government from taking unnecessary risk.

According to Kevin Price, "at, "What are 'enumerated powers' and why do they matter, "The Founders of this republic believed in the dispersion of power. They did such in order to maximize individual freedom and to protect the power of the states. This unique system helped to limit the amount of money taxpayers spent on programs they disagreed with because on the federal level, all the enumerated powers were beneficial to all. Meanwhile, people had the power and freedom to move from state to state in order to find a government that best suited their needs. That power to "vote with their feet" kept most state government very small."

According to the Constitution, the Congress has no right to make any law regarding retirement, insurance, health, nor education, leaving these institutions up to the states, and therefore the people, to decide.

In other words, the size, scope and influence of the current government in the United States is illegal and must be scaled back.

How does God reveal Himself?

Fr. Oscar Lukfahr said that the only way you can accept God is by receiving the Holy Spirit.  If you do not receive it, then you will for surely not receive the word.  The word, or the son of God, who eventually appeared to us as Jesus, shares with us the wisdom of the Father, or Lord, or God.

He said there are two methods that God revealed his wisdom to us:

1.  Supernatural revelation: The word could not reveal to us all wisdom all at once, so he gradually revealed this to us.  For instance, the first revelation was that God existed.  Then, when Adam and Eve sinned, God revealed that he was willing to forgive and offer salvation.

2.  Divine Revelation:  The word came to us as a human named Jesus Christ, and he suffered as we suffer, and died for us so that we may live. As the word, or the son of God, he shared the word of God.  He commanded his apostles  to share the Gospel with the world.  They did this in two ways:
  1. Orally through their preachings
  2. Writings through their scriptures (the Bible)
He said the apostles could not live forever, so they left bishops as their successors to handle Christ's work and to help spread the word to the world.  In this way the church was formed in order to help teach the revelations to the people, and help them to understand the revelations.   These revelations are passed down by the church by two means, both of which come with the guidance of the Holy Spirit and of which are called "deposits of faith":
  1. Scripture (The Bible):  Written by human beings who used their abilities the best they could to share God's inspiration.  Since the Bible was written early in human existence, the authors had the limited ability to coin words.  For this reason, most stories are told in literary, or allegorical, styles.  Yet since the words they speak are from the inspirations of God, then  He is the author of the scriptures. Since he is the author, we must accept firmly and faithfully that the Bible, the scriptures, represents the words of God.  We must read through the words for the true message from God. The Bible is interpreted with the help of the Holy Spirit for those who have accepted the Holy Spirit. For those who have not accepted the Holy Spirit, the Bible might appear as an illogical work of fiction. 
  2. Tradition (Church):  This is the word that comes from the apostles, thus passing on what they learned from Jesus and the Holy Spirit. These are observed in the "tradition" of the church, which should allow priests to share the messages from the Bible and explain what they mean.
Those who accept the Holy Spirit will also be able to accept Jesus, and therefore God.  Those who receive God will have Faith, which is a gift from God.  Since God gave us the right to choose, those of us who choose to have faith choose to freely trust God

He said that faith is a gift from God.  It is our attempt to fully understand the word of God, and the truths he has revealed.  It's our effort to know God and understand him better. 

While faith is given as a gift, it can be lost. Lukefahr said:
Fairht must be free.  God does not force us to believe even though faith is necessary for salvation.  Faith can be lost through neglect and sin, and we must nurture faith by study, prayer, and works of charity.  When te trials of this imperfect world shake our faith, we should turn to model believers like Abraham and Mary.  Above all, we must look to jesus, the 'pioneer and perfecter of our faith'
He added
 Faith is a personal act, but we receive faith from others and should hand it on.  The faith of the Church is professed personally by each believer and by the liturgical assembly of believers.  The Church is our mother, our teacher in faith.  The Church guards the faith and gives us formulas, the Creeds, by which we profess our faith and remain one in the faith.  'Through the centuries, in so many languages, cultures, peoples, and nations, the Church has constantly confessed this one faith, received from the one Lord, transmitted by the one Baptism, and grounded in the conviction that all people have only one God and Father."
God reveals his wisdom, but in order to receive his wisdom we must accept the Holy spirit; we must have faith.

Thursday, August 7, 2014

How to get real campaign finance reform

People are known to spend money in order to gain political influence, and this starts with donating money to candidates prior to elections, and then sending lobbyists to state and national capitols.  There is nothing wrong with this, as it is completely constitutional, or legal.  

In recent years, however, this has gotten out of hand.  It's gotten to the point where corporations are spending millions of dollars for lobbyists who champion for causes that will benefit their corporations.  There are individuals with a lot of money who gain power and influence through their campaign donations.  

Yet there are those among us who champion that this is not fair, and that we ought to stop it.  There are those who don't think it's fair for people with a lot of money, and large corporations, to be purchasing government at the expense of the common folk and our personal liberties.  

So their solution is campaign finance reform.  Yet most of these have been shot down by lower courts because they are, in effect, unconstitutional.  The most recent attempt was the McCain-Finance Act, or the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, of 2002, that limited the amount of financial influence a person could have. In January of 2010 the Supreme Court ruled this law to be unconstitutional.  

The reason that these laws have been shot down by the courts is that, according to Article II Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, finance reform is not one of the enumerated powers given to the Federal government by the Constitution.  In other words, the Federal government has no authority to rule on it.  

Likewise, the first amendment guarantees the right of free speech, and campaign finance is a form of free speech.  Therefore, the Federal government has no right to control it b law . It does, however, have a right to control it by limiting the scope and influence of government.  

Think about it: if the size and scope of our government was not so huge, individuals and corporations would not have a desire to influence it.  So true campaign finance reform would come not from more laws that are unconstitutional, but reducing the size and scope, and therefore the influence, of government.

Further reading:

  1. Harry Reid wants amendment to give Congress the power to regulate spending levels in federal campaigns.

Wednesday, August 6, 2014

Obama tanking in polls, but no mention of it in media

An NBC poll released yesterday showed that Americans think very poorly of what President Obama is doing.  Despite this, Brian Williams on NBC Nightly News did not even mention his own poll.

When Obama was doing well in the polls they were on the front page of every newspaper across the country.  When George Bush was tanking in polls, this was front page news.  When Bush's numbers hit the 30s, Wolf Blizer of CNN had a cow.  But now you have Obama tanking in the polls, and you don't even get one mention of it, not even by the same network that did the poll.

Which brings us to the Rush Limbaugh Theorem as defined by Rush Limbaugh:
Limbaugh Theorem explains how it is that Obama escapes blame, how it is that Obama escapes accountability for anything happening as a result of his policies and his presidency. The way he does it is to act like he's not really governing. Somebody else is doing that. Somebody else is causing these problems. He's outside Washington!
So, instead of reporting on these poll numbers, Rush says that Obama is simply saying the polling is bad because people are tired of Washington, and tired because republicans don't want to pass any of his ideas.  It's not his fault because of republicans.

So despite tanking approval numbers in polls, the media -- of whom 80% note voting for liberal democrats -- ignores these polls even when they're their own polls.

So the polls show Obama has a 40% approval rating, and a record 76% believe their kid's lives will be better than their own.  They say that 71% believe our country is heading in the wrong direction.

But the Obama administration says these polling results are not because of anything he, because the unemployment rate dropped to 6.1% as a result of his policies, and 275,000 jobs were created last month.  He says about 200,000 jobs have been created each of the past several months, which, he says, is good.

The media barely touched on these polling results, if they touched on them at all. Yet if they did, the American people would know that Obama is no longer popular.  They would know Americans don't support Obama's policies.

Likewise, if they did, and they inspected the numbers Obama gave, they would learn that the number of people employed full-time actually declined by 523,000, and the number of part-time workers increased by 799,000 (which includes those who wanted part-time and those who wanted full-time but could only find part-time).  So the 275,000 number is misleading in itself.

What they fail to tell you is the 110,000 left the workforce, making the unemployment number artificially low. The U6 unemployment number, the one that includes these 110,000 workers, is 12.1%, twice the U3 number the media likes to report because it makes the president look better.

They don't tell you that teen unemployment rose for the third straight month, and is now at 21%.  This means that teenagers looking to get a job so they can afford a car, or cell phone service, are not finding work. Of course they'll probably try to spin this as good, considering the teenage unemployment rate was 27.3% in October of 2010.  In 2006, however, it was 14%.

They don't tell you that 700,000 immigrants are crossing the border each year, much more than the 193,000 who crossed during the Ellis Island years.  These people are taking jobs that teenagers could take.  Yet most of these people are not working because their simply enough jobs in Obama's economy to absorb this many people.  So, instead of contributing, most of these people absorb State and Federal dollars in the form of welfare, social security, and healthcare.

They don't tell you that Obama care has given businesses a dis-incentive to hire full time workers, and therefore the rise in part time workers -- 799,000 in June, 2014 --is the highest of any month since 1993.

They don't tell you that 275,000 new jobs created is not a significant number.  It's a positive good, but it's not indicative of a robust economy.  While they spin the fact that 200,000 plus jobs are being created a month under the Obama economy, this number is in no way indicative of a robust economy.

In fact, if Bush or any other republican were president, that 200,000 would be reported on accurately, and the economy would be made to look as bad as the media could make it.

Tuesday, August 5, 2014

Is thinking now obsolete?

One thing missing on this blog is someone to counter my arguments.  Yet in the meantime, Thomas Sowell seems to ring some of the same themes we argue here in his latest column "Is thinking now obsolete?"

He wrote.
Some have said that we are living in a post-industrial era, while others have said that we are living in a post-racial era. But growing evidence suggests that we are living in a post-thinking era.
Many people in Europe and the Western Hemisphere are staging angry protests against Israel’s military action in Gaza. One of the talking points against Israel is that far more Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israeli military attacks than the number of Israeli civilians killed by the Hamas rocket attacks on Israel that started this latest military conflict.
Are these protesters aware that vastly more German civilians were killed by American bombers attacking Nazi Germany during World War II than American civilians killed in the United States by Hitler’s forces?
Talk-show host Geraldo Rivera says that there is no way Israel is winning the battle for world opinion. But Israel is trying to win the battle for survival, while surrounded by enemies. Might that not be more important?
Has any other country, in any other war, been expected to keep the enemy’s civilian casualties no higher than its own civilian casualties? The idea that Israel should do so did not originate among the masses but among the educated intelligentsia.
In an age when scientists are creating artificial intelligence, too many of our educational institutions seem to be creating artificial stupidity.
It is much the same story in our domestic controversies. We have gotten so intimidated by political correctness that our major media outlets dare not call people who immigrate to this country illegally “illegal immigrants.”
Geraldo Rivera has denounced the Drudge Report for carrying news stories that show some of the negative consequences and dangers from allowing vast numbers of youngsters to enter the country illegally and be spread across the country by the Obama administration.
Some of these youngsters are already known to be carrying lice and suffering from disease. Since there have been no thorough medical examinations of most of them, we have no way of knowing whether, or how many, are carrying deadly diseases that will spread to American children when these unexamined young immigrants enter schools across the country.
The attack against Matt Drudge has been in the classic tradition of demagogues. It turns questions of fact into questions of motive. Geraldo accuses Drudge of trying to start a “civil war.”
Back when masses of immigrants from Europe were entering this country, those with dangerous diseases were turned back from Ellis Island. Nobody thought they had a legal or a moral “right” to be in America or that it was mean or racist not to want our children to catch their diseases.
This article impresses on our theme that the media should look at both sides of the coin, rather than just the one.

Monday, August 4, 2014

It's okay to be the party of no

There's an old saying that "it is better to do nothing than to do something stupid and unproven.  A government that heeds this advice would be far more likely to be successful than one that responds to all the whims and wishes of modern society.

Too many times we hear people see a problem and say, "We have to do something!"  It's good to search for solutions, but it's not good when these solutions are based on emotion as opposed to hard core facts.

Most U.S. Presidents before Woodrow Wilson had a Laissez-faire, or hands-off approach to government.  They basically stood on the sidelines and acted only when necessary.  Yet that all changed with Woodrow Wilson.

In fact, I believe it was Grover Cleveland (correct me if it was a different president) who was presented with a bill by Congress that would give increase taxes and donate $10,000 to states ravaged by natural disasters.  He vetoed the bill saying that the people are more effective at solving such problems than the government.  He was right. Since they weren't taxed, private people donated over $1 million to the cause.

During the 1920s the economy soared in an environment whereby the federal government basically cut taxes, cut regulations, and then just sat on the sidelines. That decade saw the greatest economic boom of all time, resulting in basically no unemployment.

During the 1920s taxes and regulations were scaled back, and that decade saw that largest rise in charitable givings in the history of this great nation.  So even while our nation is more charitable than any other nation in history, imagine if our leaders had more of a Laissez-faire approach to government.

Then we have examples of the opposite happening.  FDR raised taxes and regulations to the point that the great depression lasted ten years, while most recessions and depressions prior to the great depression were all short lived. They were short lived because legislatures and the president trusted the American people to turn things around.

The same thing happened during the last year of George W. Bush's term, and the entire Obama term, whereby the government overreacted to a recession and ended up making matters worse.  While our latest recession started in 2008, there is still no evidence that it is improving.

So, bottom line, Laissez-faire governments work best.

Sunday, August 3, 2014

The truth about the Israel-Palestine conflict

So I'm sitting here watching the news and see that the media is all upset that John Kerry was unable to obtain a peace treaty between Israel and Palestine.  Much of the media, in fact, is blaming Israel, who is shooting bombs into the Gaza strip and killing many in the process.

I hate to the the informant of bad news, but there will never be peace between Israel and Palestine, and the reason is not because Israel is the aggressor: The reason is because the Palestinians do not want peace.  I am not making this up, their rulers have said it over and over and over and over and over again.  It's like no one wants to believe the Palestinian rulers.

Quite frankly, there is some bad information coming from the media about Israel. I keep reading, or hearing, people complaining about how Israel needs to stop firing at the Gaza strip. How Israel is killing innocent men, women, and children by shooting at homes that were recently built.

What ever happened to the media that is supposed to report all the news, and share stories from both sides? Where is the media that wanted to learn the truth about Nixon and dug so deep they found tapes that were hidden by the President of the United States?  If good investigative reporting still exists, I don't see it very often, because this reporting on Israel is absolutely pathetic.

Anyone who follows what is going on in Israel knows that Israel gave tons of cement to Palestinians living in the Gaza strip so they could build homes.  That doesn't sound like something a terrorist would do.

The problem is that Palestinian leaders took that cement, and they built homes, but under those homes they built tunnels so they could stock pile weapons to use against Israel.  When Israel learned of this they knew they had to do something, otherwise innocent citizens of Israel would be killed .  So they decided to act.

However, what they did was they told the Palestinians they were going to bomb those tunnels, and they warned all the people living in the homes above them to get out of the way.  They told them the day and time they were going to bomb those tunnels, giving the Palestinians plenty of time to get to safety.

Do you ever hear that from the media?

If the media did its job, and told the entire story about the Israel-Palestinian conflict, it would learn quite quickly that the Jews would love to live in peace with the Palestinians, but the Palestinians would never live in peace with the Jews.  The Palestinians themselves might be happy to live in peace with the Jews, but their leaders would never let that happen, and have said so over and over again.

Yet the media continues to ignore this fact.

So what is the true story?  What is the media leaving out?

For starters, there is no such thing as a Palestinian refugee.  The truth is, the rulers of Israel did not kick the Palestinians out of Israel. The truth is, the Palestinians were living in peace with the Jews in the land that is now the State of Israel, and they were all invited to stay.  The Jews wanted to live in peace with their Palestinian brethren.

However, Arabic leaders did not allow Arabs living in Israel to stay in their homes and live in peace, because these Arabic leaders did not want peace.  In fact, they even openly said, and have said many times since then, that they don't want peace with Israel: they want the complete annihilation of Israel.

So their Arab leaders made all the Arabs leave leave the comforts of their homes in Israel in the hopes that some day they could destroy Israel and return to their "home land" and create a Palestinian State.

In other words, the notion that the Arabs were forced out of Palestine and made refugees is a farce. They were provided homes on Muslim territories, treated as refugees, and made to look impoverished and suffering in order to gain the empathy, and the money, of gullible nations like the United States and France and Spain and Britain.

It worked too.  The U.S. and Europe have given millions, even billions, to the so called Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), an organization created long after Arabic leaders forced their fellow Arabs to leave Israel.  Yasser Arafat, the head of the PLO, even did such a good job of fooling the media that he won the Nobel Peace Prize.  It should be known here that Arafat was a terrorists, although he was treated as a hero, even by President Jimmy Carter.

In fact, in 1978 Jimmy Carter negotiated a deal to Yasser Arafat that would have given him everything he ever wanted for his fellow Palestinians.  They would be able to live in peace with Israel while having their Palestinian land.

Yet Arafat stunned the media when he rejected the offer.  A lazy and incompetent media couldn't fathom how he could have possibly rejected this offer.  But, if they did their research, or if they paid attention, they easily would have understood that Yasser Arafat was a thug, and he, like other Muslim Arabs, did not want peace with Israel: he wanted Israel dead.

There's yet another example of the medias ignorance regarding Israel and Palestine.  In 1967 nearly every Muslim nation in the Middle East started a war with the tiny Israel, and tiny Israel beat every single one of them to a pulp.  As a reward for its victory, all Israel wanted was the Gaza strip and the West Bank.

Yet the media continued to make out as though Israel was the bad guy here, and that they took this land from the innocent Palestinians.  That was not the case at all. Israel won a war they did not start, and they won fair and square  They fought the war to defend their tiny nation, and the media acted as though Israel took land that did not belong to them.  This is the only time in world history one nation won a war and was treated as though it was the loser (actually, there is one other example of this happening, where the losers of a war are treated as the victors.  Americans defeated the Indians and won the right to live on their land, and the Indians are often treated as the victors.  I'm not saying I agree with this, but such is how it happened).

Initially after the palestinians left Israel the rules of Israel welcomed them back. However, it has now been so many decades since that time, and the Palestinians (who are brainwashed daily that Jews are evil and should be killed) have multiplied so many times over that inviting the Palestinians back now would be suicide.  There is no way the Palestinians could be welcomed back into Israel.  While such a fate is the fault of the Palestinian leaders following the establishment of Israel, the media continues to blame Israel.

Recently, as an attempt to show how peaceful they are, in 2005 Arel Sharon gave the Palestinians the Gaza strip back.  He also gave the Palestinians cement to build homes so they could live as peaceful neighbors.  Yet Hamas, another terrorist organization (it's charter calls for the elimination of Israel), had other plans.

I first learned the truth about Israel about ten years ago, and first wrote about it about five years ago.  One of the books I read was "Battle Ground: Fact and Fantasy in Palestine."  The book was written in 1973 by Shmuel Katz, who was a South African native who emigrated to Israel in the 1930s.

So don't take my word for it.  Here are the words of Shmuel Katz.

The Arabs are the only declared refugees who became refugees not by the action of their enemies or because of well-grounded fear of their enemies, but by the initiative of their own leaders. For nearly a generation, those leaders have willfully kept as many people as they possibly could in degenerating squalor, preventing their rehabilitation, and holding out to all of them the hope of return and of “vengeance” on the Jews of Israel, to whom they have transferred the blame for their plight.

The fabrication can probably most easily be seen in the simple circumstance that at the time the alleged cruel expulsion of Arabs by Zionists was in progress, it passed unnoticed. Foreign newspapermen who covered the war of 1948 on both sides did, indeed, write about the flight of the Arabs, but even those most hostile to the Jews saw nothing to suggest that it was not voluntary.

In the three months during which the major part of the flight took place – April, May, and June 1948 – the London Times, at that time [openly] hostile to Zionism, published eleven leading articles on the situation in Palestine in addition to extensive news reports and articles. In none was there even a hint of the charge that the Zionists were, driving the Arabs from their homes.

More interesting still, no Arab spokesman mentioned the subject. At the height of the flight, on April 27, Jamat Husseini, the Palestine Arabs’ chief representative at the United Nations, made a long political statement, which was not lacking in hostility toward the Zionists; he did not mention refugees. Three weeks later (while the flight was still in progress), the Secretary General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, made a fiercely worded political statement on Palestine; it contained not a word about refugees.

The Arab refugees were not driven from Palestine by anyone. The vast majority left, whether of their own free will or at the orders or exhortations of their leaders, always with the same reassurance that their departure would help in the war against Israel. Attacks by Palestinian Arabs on the Jews had begun two days after the United Nations adopted its decision of November 29, 1947, to divide western Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish state. The seven neighboring Arab states Syria, Lebanon, Transjordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Egypt then prepared to invade the country as soon as the birth of the infant State of Israel was announced.

Their victory was certain, they claimed, but it would be speeded and made easier if the local Arab population got out of the way. The refugees would come back in the wake of the victorious Arab armies and not only recover their own property but also inherit the houses and farms of the vanquished and annihilated Jews. Between December 1, 1947, and May 15, 1948, the clash was largely between bands of local Arabs, aided by the disintegrating British authority, and the Jewish fighting organizations.

The earliest voluntary refugees were understandably the wealthier Arabs of the towns, who made a comparatively leisurely departure in December 1947 and in early 1948. At that stage, departure had not yet been proclaimed as a policy or recognized as a potential propaganda weapon. The Jaffa newspaper Ash Shalab thus wrote on January 30, 1948:

“The first group of our fifth column consists of those who abandon their houses and businesses and go to live elsewhere. . . . At the first sign of trouble they take to their heels to escape sharing the burden of struggle.”
Another weekly, As-Sarih of Jaffa, used even more scathing terms on March 30, 1948, to accuse the inhabitants of Sheikh Munis and other villages in the neighborhood of Tel Aviv of “bringing down disgrace on us all” by “abandoning their villages.” On May 5, the Jerusalem correspondent of the London Times was reporting: “The Arab streets are curiously deserted and, ardently following the poor example of the more moneyed class there has been an exodus from Jerusalem too, though not to the same extent as in Jaffa and Haifa.”

As the local Arab offensive spread during the late winter and early spring of 1948, the Palestinian Arabs were urged to take to the hills, so as to leave the invading Arab armies unencumbered by a civilian population. Before the State of Israel had been formally declared – and while the British still ruled the country – over 200,000 Arabs left their homes in the coastal plain of Palestine.

These exhortations came primarily from their own local leaders. Monsignor George Hakim, then Greek Catholic Bishop of Galilee, the leading Christian personality in Palestine for many years, told a Beirut newspaper in the summer of 1948, before the flight of Arabs had ended:

“The refugees were confident that their absence would not last long, and that they would return within a week or two. Their leaders had promised them that the Arab armies would crush the ‘Zionist gangs’ very quickly and that there was no need for panic or fear of a long exile.” [Sada at Tanub, August 16, 1948]
The exodus was indeed common knowledge. The London weekly Economist reported on October 2, 1948:
“Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit.. . . It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades.”
And the Near East Arabic Broadcasting Station from Cyprus stated on April 3, 1949: “It must not be forgotten that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees’ flight from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa, and Jerusalem.”

Even in retrospect, in an effort to describe the deliberateness of the flight, the leading Arab propagandist of the day, Edward Atiyah (then Secretary of the Arab League Office in London), reaffirmed the facts:

“This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boasting of an unrealistic Arab press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of some weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re-enter and retake possession of their country.”
Kenneth Bilby, one of the Americans who covered Palestine for several weeks during the war of 1948, wrote soon afterwards on his experience and observations:
“The Arab exodus, initially at least, was encouraged by many Arab leaders, such as Haj Amin el Husseini, the exiled pro-Nazi Mufti of Jerusalem, and by the Arab Higher Committee for Palestine. They viewed the first wave of Arab setbacks as merely transitory. Let the Palestine Arabs flee into neighboring countries. It would serve to arouse the other Arab peoples to greater effort, and when the Arab invasion struck, the Palestinians could return to their homes and be compensated with the property of Jews driven into the sea.” [New Star in the Near East (New York, 1950), pp. 30-31]
After the war, the Palestine Arab leaders did try to help people –including their own–to forget that it was they who had called for the exodus in the early spring of 1948. They now blamed the leaders of the invading Arab states themselves. These had added their voices to the exodus call, enough not until some weeks after the Palestine Arab fighter Committee had taken a stand. The war was not yet over when Emil Ghoury, Secretary of the Arab Higher Committee, the official leadership of the Palestinian Arabs, stated in an interview with a Beirut newspaper:
I do not want to impugn anybody but only to help the refugees. The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the action of the Arab States in opposing Partition and the Jewish State. The Arab States agreed upon this policy unanimously and they must share in the solution of the problem. [Daily Telegraph, September 6, 1948]
In retrospect, the Jordanian newspaper Falastin wrote on February 19, 1949:
The Arab States encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies.
The Secretary General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and of Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade. . . . He pointed out that they were already on the frontiers and that all the millions the Jews had spent on land and economic development would be easy booty, for it would be a simple matter to throw Jews into the Mediterranean. . . Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes, and property and to stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states, lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down.
As late as 1952, the charge had the official stamp of the Arab Higher Committee. In a memorandum to the Arab League states, the Committee wrote:
Some of the Arab leaders and their ministers in Arab capitals . . . declared that they welcomed the immigration of Palestinian Arabs into the Arab countries until they saved Palestine. Many of the Palestinian Arabs were misled by their declarations…. It was natural for those Palestinian Arabs who felt impelled to leave their country to take refuge in Arab lands . . . and to stay in such adjacent places in order to maintain contact with their country so that to return to it would be easy when, according to the promises of many of those responsible in the Arab countries (promises which were given wastefully), the time was ripe. Many were of the opinion that such an opportunity would come in the hours between sunset and sunrise.
Most pointed of all was the comment of one of the refugees: “The Arab governments told us: Get out so that we can get in. So we got out, but they did not get in.”

So now Vice President John Kerry is disgruntled, and the media abuzz, as to why he couldn't broker a peace treaty, or a cease fire, between Israel and Palestine.

Besides, a ceasefire will only give the other guy time to rebuild and retool and to hide and stockpile more weapons.

It's like: Hello?  Anyone in there?  Have you not been paying attention for the past 57 years?

Now the Palestinians are under the rule of Hamas, and this is proof that democracies don't always result in freedom. In fact, the people of Palestine voted to be ruled by terrorist thugs who have a charter to destroy Israel.

Yet the media, a majority members in the United Nations, and the Obama administration, continues to see Israel as the bad guy.  In fact, as reported last Wednesday that the "White House Condemns Israel for Latest Attack of UN School in Gaza Strip."

You see, this is evidence that, while Hamas is openly advertising they are hiding weapons in schools and hospitals, so many people continue to be fooled, including our own president.

So you have Hamas purposefully putting sick people and children in harms way. Israel gives 20 minute warning shots so the kids and innocent people can get out of the way (something unprecedented in any war).  The media and the Obama administration still blames Israel because it refuses to see the whole picture.

Could you imagine if Canada hid weapons in Canadian schools and hospitals claiming that it was stockpiling weapons to destroy the United States, and the Canadians were proven terrorists with a doctrine to destroy America? Do you think we would sit idly by and do nothing?

Well, Obama might. Obama would probably blame America for being a greedy and selfish nation at the expense of the rest of the world.

I understand there is a lot of political gain to be had by claiming you are opposed to war and you want to prevent war casualties, but try again and again as you might, regardless of who you are and who is head of the PLO and who is Prime Minister of Israel, there will be no truce in the Israel-Palestine conflict absent an all out war.  In such case, the victor will get the land (unless Israel wins, then they will be considered the losers and treated as such).  Absent that, there will be no peace.

I'm not saying I want war, I'm just saying the truth that so many refuse to want to see, be it for political gain or all out ignorance.  Sometimes, the only way to peace is through war, as anyone who reads a history book will surely know. A good example is the Japanese and the Germans, who did not put away their primitive mindset until they were conquered by freedom.

Excerpt from Above is from the

Further reading: