Marijuana: Government should educate, not ban

As a libertarian I am not an advocate of laws that tell people what they can and cannot do, as this is the job of parents and teachers.  However, I am a champion for education and personal responsibility and accountability.

I do not believe the majority in power should be able to make laws taking away the rights of the minority.  That does not mean that the majority shouldn't try to educate the minority.  I believe this type of system would be best for everyone.

Consider the relationship between a dad and a son.  The dad tells the kid that he has to go to the University of Michigan to become a doctor, and the kid gets annoyed and decides not to go to college at all.

Consider the dad who tells his son that, under no circumstances, are you to drink alcohol.  The son goes off to college, gives into the pressure, or is under a lot of pressure, and drinks a six pack of Miller Lite.  He finds that such behavior takes the edge off the stress of life, and goes on to enjoy a beer or two every day.  

While these are facetious examples, they show that no person in power should in any way try to force his views on others.  However, that does not mean that a parent, or a government, should not try to educate.  In fact, a wise parent or government would do just that.

Consider how much better off society would be today if, instead of the Supreme Court deciding the way it did in the Rowe-V-Wade case, had it simply said that it is not up to the government to decide, it's up to the people.  

If you think of it, telling those who do not support abortion that they have to accept it only created more animosity.  It actually strengthened the pro-life cause, and made the pro-choice cause more arrogant and condescending. It actually helped to create the current partisan divide most people say they hate. 

While I believe that smoking marijuana is a poor behavior that increases the risk for worse behavior later on in life, it's not my place to tell people they cannot smoke it.  However, I certainly can educate people about the facts.  In the process, I might learn something myself.  

For instance, South Dakota State University reports that smoking one marijuana cigarette is equivalent to smoking 16 tobacco cigarettes in terms of damage it causes to the body.  It can cause memory loss, impair judgement, and affect a person's performance at school, work, and in the car.  

Other side effects are noted by the National Alliance on Mental Illness:

• Increased risk of chronic lung disease
• Increased risk for lung cancer
• Increased risk of problems with menstruation in women
• Increased risk of development of breasts in males
• Increased risk of dental problems
• Increased risk of cardiovascular concerns in older patients
• Increased anxiety and depression in people with those disorders

Forbes.com reports that even light marijuana smoking may be linked to neurological changes, and this is especially significant in young people whose brains are still developing and less so in older smokers.  

Realistically, however, while there are side effects, many claim marijuana is a relatively harmless drug.  Perhaps so, but those who use it should still be aware of the facts, just as those who smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol should be aware of the facts. 

You see, I've been the victim of an attack on cigarette smoking and alcohol drinking my entire life.  Since the time I was in the second grade people people have been telling me I should not smoke or drink for this reason or that reason. 

Noting these risks, I choose not to smoke.  But, likewise noting the risks, I enjoy alcoholic beverages when I choose to drink them.  Yet I believe the rewards from drinking responsibly are well worth the risk of side effects.  I drink alcohol knowing the advantages and disadvantages.

So it would be hypocritical for me to tell my kids they cannot drink.  In fact, I would be somewhat disappointed if, some day in the future, I could not have a drink with my children.  

At the same time, however, while a puff of tobacco might calm my agitated nerves, the potential risks far outweigh this benefit. 

You have a right to smoke, but your right stops where my right to breathe fresh air starts.  So there needs to be some laws to protect my right to breathe fresh air (especially the rights of innocent children and infants to breathe fresh air). 

I feel the same way about marijuana: it should be legal, people should be educated of the risks, and it should not be encouraged.

Meaning that people who live in the State of Washington should not be on Facebook flaunting about their purchase of marijuana and how they smoked it and made pot cookies.  All this type of behavior does is decondition people to the dangers associated with a nation of pot heads, including a malaise behavior that results in people who lack concern and motivation toward reality (hey, man!).

As noted before, no majority should have a right to vote away the rights of the minority.  That does not mean we, as parents and responsible adults, should not educate and encourage good behavior, because we should.  

Obama is the perfect president

I remember when George W. Bush was president, and his poll numbers were low, we were inundated with a daily onslaught of front page articles and news updates on CNN reminding us of how unpopular he was.  But now that Barack Obama's polling numbers are low we get nothing.

People who don't seek news from alternative routes, which is probably the case for most people, would have no idea that Obama is as unpopular as Bush.

The Media Research Center, which has the task of monitoring media fairness, has reported that there were 124 network reports of George W. Bush's approval ratings between January 1, 2006, and August 31, 2006.  During the same time span in 2014, there were only 9 reports of Obama's disapproval ratings.

Likewise, while evidence suggests the recession is still ongoing, the media make it seem like it's over.  On Tuesday Obama ordered bombs to blast enemy enclaves in Syria, and, if you pay attention to the main news outlets, you'd think it was the most perfect war ever.

This is the kind of thing that happens when the person in charge is someone you support.  It's a perfect example of poor journalism. If you were a person who didn't understand this, you'd think Obama was the perfect president.

Denver students protest American Capitalism

Hundreds of student protesters walked out of class in Denver, Colorado's largest school district, on Tuesday, September 23, to protest capitalism and Americanism. They walked out of class because because, as protesters said, they are being "propagandized with pro-American themes."

They were protesting because of a school board proposal to only provide instructional materials that present positive aspects of the nation and its heritage.  It would establish a committee to regularly review texts and course plans, starting with Advanced Placement history, to make sure materials "promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free-market system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights' and don't 'encourage or condone civil disorder, social strike or disregard of the law."

Now this kind of thing would be unheard of after WWII, when patriotism was at its highest. It's the kind of thing that was not needed because it's what American parents wanted, expected.  You expected teachers to teach patriotism.  You wanted them to teach American history.

You wanted them to teach patriotism. You wanted them to teach the benefits of capitalism, because that was the only system historically proven to allow those kids to take risks and have the opportunity to make something of themselves someday.

Capitalism is the only system that will allow these kucklehead kids to take chances. Socialism, the only alternative, and what liberalism and progressivism is based upon, only allows people dibs on other people's money (called taxes) that you can take and use as your own, but their is no pride in knowing that you succeeded on your own, if you actually do find success.

Usually only the priviledged few succeed in a socialist nation, while anyone can find success, if they are willing to take chances, in a capitalist nation like the United States.

So parents used to just assume this kind of stuff was taught in American schools, and now it has to be written.  And when it is written people who lack knowledge of our history are out there protesting it.    

It used to be expected that you would teach the truth about American history.  It used to be that parents and students were proud of their heritage, and proud of their country.  

Obama's perfect war

Dozens of enclaves of Islamic radical jihadists were bombed into rubble by U.S. warplanes that roared over the Syrian border on Tuesday.  The person ordering the assault was President Obama, who is perhaps the most anti-war president we have ever had.  

Despite the attacks, however, the media has been relatively silent; so far there have been no body counts; no civilian casualty lists. 

So far the anti-war protesters are spending their time as global warming, animal rights, and feminist protesters.  One might wonder if the anti-war cause is burned out and needs more time to regenerate, especially after eight years of George W. Bush.  

Now that Obama is the one in charge of the war effort, it seems possible that his war to end all wars might just be the most perfect war ever.  Every war ever fought in the history of the world has required ground forces to take stuff away from the enemy in order to secure the land, but Obama insists they won't be needed to win this war. 

Obama is the first military leader ever to have figured a way to win a war without ground troops.  He will do it with no war casualties, because if there are any there will be no body counts.  There will be no civilian casualties, because even if there are any they won't make the front pages.  

Where are all the people who believe nonviolent methods could have been used to negotiate with these terrorists?  Where are all the doves? 

Ebola may be deadlier that first suspected

So the Ebola virus appears to be worse that first suspected.  But we no longer need to worry, because President Obama is sending 3,000 U.S. troops over to West Africa to stop the spread of the disease.

I know... I know... you're thinking the same thing I am: the purpose of the military is to shoot people and break things, but Obama has found a revolutionary new task for the military, a task of conquering a disease that not even the world's best scientists and physicians have not been able to conquer.

But what is the military going to break in West Africa?  Who is it going to kill? Are they going to go over there to shoot the virus?  I am perplexed as to what the military is going to do, unless it's 3,000 military scientists and physicians.

Even if the task was to shoot the viruses, this task might be impossible.  Reports have it that the death count from Ebola are greatly under reported.  A grave digger working in the capital of the Republic of Sierra Leone, a city of over a million inhabitants, said copious bodies have been dumped for burial.

Yet while this is true, the Sierra Leone Health Ministry has reported only 10 deaths from the Ebola epidemic that was first recognized just over six months ago. Even the World Health Organization has acknowledged that the body count has been severely underestimated.

As I reported at the RT Cave, the virus is highly infectious, meaning that it easily jumps from one person to another, yet it's not very contagious, meaning that to get it you have to touch the bodily fluids of someone who has the disease, something that rarely occurs unless you are a healthcare worker.

However, there are investigators in Canada who suspect that the disease may have figured out a way to spread between species and victims through the air; that it has found a way to be airborne.  If this is true, the disease may also be deadlier than first suspected.

Capitalism is free thought, open discourse, and individualism

"Think for yourself," was something my grandma told me when I was a kid. After mulling those words over and over in my mind the past 30 years, now I'm starting to wonder if they meant more than what they imply on the surface.

Bill O'Reilly, in his May 14, 2014 column"Americans Expensive Indoctrination Camps, said the following:

Universities were once bastions of free thought and open discourse, but that is no longer the case, not if your "free thought" is based on Christian or conservative principles. According to a recent poll by researchers at UCLA, 63% of college professors identify themselves as "liberal" or "far left," while just 12% are "conservative" or "far right." And the imbalance has only been getting worse (or better, depending on your perspective) in recent years. Loons like Ward Churchill used to be the exception, but not any more.

Liberalism is basically a modern spin on old progressivism which was a spin on socialism.  While many of my liberal friends will argue that those are three different things, I would argue that they are all the same in that they all champion for redistribution of wealth, or taking from those who make and distributing it to those who make little.  In essence, that is the same thing.

The idea behind the progressive movement was that experts (mainly liberal experts) in Washington were to decide what's best for you.  The idea behind this was that most people are out for themselves, and left to their own devices would only do things to benefit themselves.  This only generates chaos.  Capitalism, on the other hand, resulted in chaos: you had some people who got rich at the expense of the poor.

The entire premise of socialism/ progressivism/ liberalism is that people are not smart enough, or too selfish, to make decisions that were good for the collective.  Therefore, laws must be enacted, or programs, that nudge them one way or another.  In this way, they lose personal liberties; they lose their natural right to make free individual choices (such as whether or not to purchase healthcare, whether or not to support efforts to decrease carbon emissions).

Socialism/ Progressivism/ Liberalism is based on idealism, where there is an ideal world we yearn for. The ultimate goal is a world that is free from man made pollution, where every person receives equal pay, and everyone has healthcare.  This is a dream goal, and the only way to accomplish it is to make laws, or to somehow nudge people into doing the right thing for the collective.  This system would ultimately lead to an end to chaos.

In other words, the capitalist, or individualist, idea of individualism, or free thought, would have to come to an end.  Every decision you make now should be based on the collective goal of creating this perfect goal.

There is an old adage that young people tend to be more liberal, and as they age they become more conservative.  The reason for this, one my presume, is because as we develop experience we realize that Utopian dreams are not possible; that the best results come from free thought.

It is this, I think, that my grandma was referring to when she said, "Think for yourself."  Capitalism is based on a system of trusting the chaos that results from individualism, or free thought.  The opportunity is always there that you might benefit from your creativity, and this is an incentive to try to make it work.  It is for this reason that capitalism is the greatest economic system ever instigated by any government.

So while schools used to be bastions of "free thought and open discourse," they are now places where liberal experts try to indoctrinate our children. It is at this point in your life that you have to hope that old wisdom is remembered by your children, lest they be indoctrinated.

NFL finally back to normal again

I don't know about you, but I was so glad to get back to football talk this past weekend.  During the pregame shows on Fox and ESPN there was no talk of Ray Rice or Adrian Peterson, at least during the time I was watching these channels.

Like other guys and gals who love football, I don't watch pregame shows and NFL games to hear about politics.  In fact, just the opposite: I do it to get away from life for a while.  I do it to forget about politics and bills and money and work.

But here we were, week after week, hearing about how bad the NFL was because of a few guys.  There was one interview on ESPN between a female sports journalist and Roger Goodall.  It took place just after Roger Goodell told Ray Rice he was no longer welcome in the NFL, and during the media fallout.

She said: "Don't you feel bad for ending this man's career?"

Goodell defended himself. I was irritated that he would do this, because I always tell my kids that if you get to the point you have to defend yourself you are probably guilty.  What he should have said was this:

"I did not end Ray Rice's career: he did."

The bottom line is this: Any man who disrespects the natural rights of the women and children in his life is a thug.  Period.  And just because one man disrespects the women and children in his life in no way represents the place of that mans employment.

The reason I wrote that is because, over and over again during the past several weeks, we have heard about how bad the NFL was for harboring such thugs.  We have been hearing about how bad men are.

We have been hearing how what's happening in the NFL, how its harboring of people found guilty for drunken driving, ingesting drugs, spousal abuse, and other sociological crimes, is indicative of men in the main population.

You know how many times some ESPN sports analyst was interviewing some person who said something like: "What Ray Rice did was representative of the NFL in general.  The NFL is too rough, and such acts of violence are conducive to men acting badly."

This is poppycock.  In fact, studies show that the NFL is less violent than real life. Yet if you were new to ESPN, and new to the NFL, and were watching these pregame shows for the first time, you'd think the NFL was full of a bunch of child beating, wife beating, thugs.  You would turn it off.

Yet if that was the goal of these journalists, they failed.  A recent poll showed that such poor, politically orientated, journalism had no effect on who watches football.

It seems wherever there is a trauma, and men beating their wives and children is a trauma, there are progressive activists who try to take advantage of it to advance their agenda.  In this case, it was feminists who believe the NFL is too violent and who are aiming to femanize the game.

What I'd like to say to them is: get on with your life, and let us enjoy the game!

Further reading:

• DigiNews: Ray Rice Indicative of Violence in the NFL? Data Says No
• USAToday: NFL Arrests Database
• RedState: No, the NFL Is Not a Hotbed of Wife and Child Beaters...Despite what the Left Would Like You to Believe
• FiveThirtyEight: The Rate of Domestic Violence Arrests Among NFL Players
• RushLimbaugh.com: TV Show Idea: The NFL Court - 09.15.14
• RushLimbaugh.com: The NFL Collides with the PC Media Culture - 09.17.14
• RushLimbaugh.com: Aren't Most NFL Players Democrats? - 09.17.14
• RushLimbaugh.com: And Tim Tebow was Bad for the Game? - 09.17.14

Democracies should not allow people to vote away their own liberties

One of the problems with democracy is they are automatically inclined to grow the government.  People are naturally inclined to make laws, and each law takes away another liberty.  In time, the government becomes big, and this comes at the expense of liberty.

A perfect example of this is the United States.  Now, I know that the founding fathers were aware of this, and it's for this reason they tried to create a republic such as they had in ancient Rome.

However, in the early 20th century progressives gained power, and they succeeded at convincing people we are a democracy. Since that time, when they have been in power, they have succeeded in voting away the rights of the minority, which, in this case, were capitalists and conservatives.

In order to do this they either had to change the Constitution, which is what happened with the 16th through 19th amendments, or ignore the Constitution, which is how the Social Security Act of 1935 and Obamacare were passed into law.

They have since convinced people that America is a democracy.  They succeeded to such an extent that even (compassionate) conservative George W. Bush referred to America as a democracy, and he said his mission in the Middle East was to spread democracy.

Yet it's not democracies we want to to spread, it's republics. Democracies can vote for terrorist or progressive leaders.  While progressives don't want terrorist leaders, they do want progressive leaders.  This would not happen in a republican government.

In his 2011 book, "Liberty Defined," Ron Paul said that people in a democracy should not be allowed to vote away the liberties of the minority.  In fact, if we could go back in time, the founding fathers should have made this one of the first amendments: "No law can be made that takes away the liberties of others."

You could word this amendment another way too: "No law should be made to force people to do things for their own good, because that would assume that the majority knows what's for the best of the minority, which isn't always the case."

Actually, no such amendment is required, so long as the Constitution were followed.  However, the founders did perceive the Constitution to be misinterpreted, and it's for this reason they established the Bill of Rights.

Why am I could be a libertarian?

Most people don't realize this, but most presidents prior to Teddy Roosevelt were

Why did I make the decision to become a libertarian?  Because I believe that people have a general inclination to be smart, to make wise decisions, and most people don't want to be told what to do.

I don't want to be told what to do or how to do things.  Generally, when people try to control me a feeling of resentment and anger brushes over me.  I see this often in children when we adults try to force our methods and views upon them.  

I think that, as a nation, there is a general resentment of government when the people in powerful positions think they know what's best for the people and decide for them on critical issues.

Roe versus Wade is a perfect example.  Here the Supreme Court somehow found a way to rewrite the Constitution and forced abortion on everyone.  The result was resentment and anger by the people who believe abortion is murder, and that by doing it we are taking away the natural rights of the baby; or the right to breathe and to live.

If the opposite would have occurred, if the Supreme Court have decided that abortion was illegal and banned it in the United States, there would have been, and still would be, an outcry from those who believe abortion is the choice of the mother. 

I think that there should be an amendment to the Constitution that simply says:

No law shall be made by the majority that takes away the natural rights or liberties of the minority, unless the actions of the minority impede on the natural rights of others. 

That pretty much sums up my political views.  If this were law, no person in Washington could decide what foods you can and can't eat, and no one would force you to buy healthcare.  No one would tell you you have to pay for contraceptives.

No small group in Washington would be able to pressure the Atlanta Braves, or the Washington Redskins, into getting rid of their logo because they think its offensive.  All this results in is resentment.

Libertarians assume people are smart.  We allow people to make decisions on their own and take responsibility for their own actions.  Surely there will be risk and chaos, but there may also be great rewards.

A libertarian, therefore, would allow the people to decide for themselves, rather than have experts in Washington decide.

When every decision made has the same results, as would be the case when every person does things the same way, the results will all be the same.  In this way, greatness will never be achieved.  Greatness can only be achieved when individuals are provided the high risk, high reward options of personal choice.

The reason is quite simple: I believe that people are smart, and left to their own devices, can make better decisions, with better results, than the collective would make.

Also see why I'm a libertarian conservative. 

Here's why I don't do Facebook

People at work ask me all the time why I don't do Facebook.  I usually tell them I have nothing useful to say.

The true reason is because I'm too busy for Facebook. I get up every morning and write, and then I spend time with my kids.  That doesn't leave any time for Facebook.

I usually do go to Facebook once or twice a week, and usually it's when I'm too tired to do anything useful. Then what I find is that every other update is from one or two people who seem to monopolize my Facebook page.  It's not that I'm not interested in what they have to say, but that I'd like to see what more than one or two people are up to.

There's also the fact that it appears that Facebook is merely just a place where people can advertise themselves.  This can be fine if it's a neat picture or two, but some people put junk that's not worth sharing and all it does is take up space so I can't get to stuff I'm interested in.

There are things I do like about Facebook.  I like that you can regain contact with friends you lost contact with years ago because Facebook didn't exist.  I like getting news, sports, and political updates.  I also like being able to easily message my friends, and to have an occasional chat online.

But the rest of Facebook, as far as I'm concerned, is not something I want to be pinned to for several hours a day.  I care about all the people who are my friends on Facebook, and even many I chose not to friend.  Yet I'm not a fan of updates that notify me of everything a person does on any given day.

Please take no offense if you are one of the culprits as this is merely my personal opinion, and does not in any way affect whether or not I like you.  Also, if you are the kind of person who constantly complain about those who have alternative opinions as you, I will block you too.

Chances are you will not know I did this, and it does not mean I don't like you.  As a conservative and libertarian, I do not want to shut up the voices of those who have alternative views, but if you even hint that you do you will be blocked. Sorry, that's just the way it is.

Is God liberal or conservative?

So, in answering the question "Is God conservative or liberal?" the authors of realtruth.org answer it this way:

As recorded in the Old Testament, God revealed His Law to ancient Israel. Comprised of commandments, statutes, judgments and precepts, God’s Law evidences His viewpoints on a wide range of civic, social, environmental and other issues.

In revealing the Ten Commandments to the Israelites (Ex. 20:1-17), God established that there is right and wrong behavior. He also explained there are penalties—swift punishment!—when one breaks His laws (Lev. 26:14-39). All this would seem to align God’s views with traditional conservative ideas.

On the other hand, God also explains that He is merciful and gracious (Psa. 116:5). He promises to bless and care for those who heed Him (Deut. 28:1-14). He also says that He watches over the poor, widows, orphans and foreigners among His people. This would seem to place Him strongly in the camp for the “social justice” Christians.

I agree with this entire answer until we get to "on the other hand."  You see, the author here is assuming the conservatives don't care for the poor, which is  not true.  Conservatives believe that by getting the government out of the way everyone will be better off in the long run, including the poor, especially the poor.

So, if you're going to say that God is liberal because liberals care for the poor and conservatives do not, your argument does not work.

God created free choice and capitalism

I want to tell you something about socialism and capitalism, and God and the Devil, and Goodness and Sin.  These are things that many people will try to convince you are not true, but they are.

First of all, socialism (liberalism, progressivism, communism, totalitarianism) is a form of government where experts (mostly socialist experts) believe you are not smart enough to make responsible decisions, so they make decisions for you. They decide what is best for you. People never have to strive for perfection because the experts decide for you what perfection is.

Capitalism (conservatism, liberatarianism) is a form of government where a government exists only to protect the people, who are given complete and total control of their own lives.  The people are allowed to make decisions, although are forced to take responsibility for their actions.  If they succeed, they are allowed to reap the rewards.  If they do poorly, they will be forced to suffer, or to try to do better. Since perfection is what the people perceive it to be, they will always strive for it.

When God created the world and put people in it, He very well could have made everyone do exactly what he wanted.  He could have made it so we were all the same, with no chance to improve upon the world.

He didn't, because what kind of a world would it be if we were all the same? It would be a very boring, non-productive world.  We would not be able to improve upon it. There would be no purpose in living if we were all the same.  He might as well not even have made us.

Basically, what God decided not to create was a socialistic world.  He decided not to make a progressive or liberal world.  He decided not to make a communist world.  He knew that a world where everyone was the same, where all the choices were already made by an elite power (in this case Him), would make for a bunch of lazy, non-productive people.

If you think about it, mankind has tried over and over and over and over and over again to create a socialistic society, and it has failed every time.  You can look back at nearly every ancient society, and they all eventually failed.  You can look at the Pilgrims after they traveled to the United States, as their leaders failed to incite productivity until after they inculcated the values of the Bible and capitalism.  You can look at recent examples in Russia and the Soviet Union.  You can look at any totalitarian dictatorship that has ever existed.  You can look at any oppressed nation, any third world nation, and you will see some form of socialist government, and failure.

God new that socialism would never work, which is why he gave us all natural rights and free will and liberty.  He gave us the ability to choose, and to take accountability for our actions.  He knew this would result in sin and chaos, but he also new this would result in many great things.  He new out of chaos would come great inventions, many of which we take for granted today such as philosophy, medicine, electricity, plastic, computers, Internet, television, cable television, automobiles, glass, microwaves, photography, and flight.

Most of the greatest discoveries and inventions came as a result of governments that inspired free thought, or a way of life that inculcates freedom and personal responsibility as inculcated by the Bible.  In other words, the Bible is about making the individual better, not about making the state or collective better.  The Bible preaches individual responsibility and accountability.  In other words, the world can become better by making the individual better.  This is sort of the pretext of what would later form the basis of American freedom and American exceptionalism; a form of government that allowed individuals with an idea and a desire to go as far in life as they could, rather than being limited by their government or some government leader, such as a king, queen, or dictator.

God gave us all free will.  He made it so that we had the ability to choose, and he made it so we had to take responsibility for our choices. If we wanted to, we could work hard to make the world better.  Yet at the same time, we could be selfish and greedy and work to make the world better for ourselves.  In other words, we could choose God, or we could choose Sin.

In other words, God was the first conservative.  Sin, Satin and Socialism were created out of the chaos as a means of controlling mankind and converting men away from God.

A perfect modern example of this is Stalin. He even said once that he was a Christian man himself, but he could not allow his people to worship God and his Bible because the Bible preaches Capitalism.  So he banned religion, and he burned all the Bibles and churches.

The people of Russia were not happy, so in order to keep the people from leaving communism, he oppressed his people by telling them lies about the free world and making them feel as though they had it well in Communist Russia.  The same still holds true for Communist China today: the people are not happy, but they are oppressed and told lies so they believe they have it well under the rule of a dictator, who lives well in his mansions.

The Communists built the Berlin wall, but they didn't build it to prevent people from coming in, because they wanted people to come it.  They built it to keep people from getting out, because they knew no one wanted to be controlled by the government.  You see, this was exactly why God did not choose socialism, and he gave us free will instead, because he did not want to have to build walls to keep us here.

The United States was and is the greatest example of capitalism that has ever existed.  American exceptionalism means that for 99.9% of human existence most people lived under oppressed dictatorship and were not allowed to be free.  The United States was the first nation ever that allowed for unfettered freedom under the promise that the government would never take away any of the natural rights given to the people by God.  This is why God blesses America with so much greatness.

Why do you think 40 percent of liberals (progressives, socialism) in the United States say that they do not believe in God and His Bible?  The reason is because socialism cannot exist with the Bible.  The two do not go hand in hand, because God preaches capitalism.  So long as any person worships God's Bible, unfettered socialism cannot exist.

It is for this reason that they don't allow prayer in schools, and work hard to take away divinity scenes from public places.  It is for this reason that they try to convince people there is not God, and that science cannot exist in a world with God and His Bible.  The truth is, they do this not because they love you, but because they thing you are inferior to them. They do this because they want to control you and drive you toward satin.

The truth is, God can exist with science, and God can exist with evolution and God can exist throughout the world.  God is freedom is liberty is free choice is personal responsibility and is accountability.  God is the antithesis of chaos: He is success, and he is capitalism.

See my post "Why Progressives/Liberals/Socialists/Totalitarians want to get rid of capitalism"

Does Obama like America?

Kennedy was a true leader who was proud of his country.
One must wonder what Obama truly thinks of his country.

I discussed a while ago that progressives have no idea what American exceptionalism is.  What they believe is best summed up by Obama himself:

"I believe in American exceptionalism just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism."

Obama recently said:

I believe in American exceptionism with every fiber of my being. But what makes us exceptional is not our ability to flout international norms and the rule of law. It is our willingness to affirm them through our actions.

So, he said in the first quote that we are not better than any other nation, and in the second quote he flat out says that "America sucks."  He says, paraphrasing, "How can we be world leaders when we don't behave properly.

He said in a commencement speech to the Cadettes at West Point, a speech to the military about foreign, where he said that the U.S. military will be out of Afghanistan within a year (to give our enemies ample time to sit back and wait for that day to come):

American influence is always stronger when we lead by example. We can't exempt ourselves from the rules that apply to everybody else. We can't call on others to make commitments to combat climate change if a whole lot of our political leaders deny that it's taking place.problems in the South China Sea when we have refused to make sure that the Law of the Sea Convention is ratified by your United States Senate, despite the fact that our top military leaders say the treaty advances our national security. That's not leadership. That's retreat. That's not strength. That's weakness.

Maybe Congress does not sign the "Law of the Sea treaty because they do not believe it will help the United States?  Do you know when this treaties was open to signature?  It was in 1982.  So, how many Presidents, how many members of Congress, refused to sign away American liberties since that time, by not signing the treaties?

Obama, in essence, is saying that America stinks, that if leaders in Washington don't give up our liberties for the good of the planet, then we are no better than any other nation.  He is saying that we are not a superpower if we cannot be perfect in our own right.  He is saying that when we act like a superpower without being perfect ourselves, that we are hypocrites.

Of course, here he is giving a speech on foreign policy, and he says that we cannot be world leaders unless republicans give in on their principles and sign on to treaties that will end climate change.  He's saying we cannot lead when we are not perfect ourselves.

Truth is, America has never been perfect, and we've been brilliant world leaders in the past.  We were not perfect (had slavery) when we won the Revolutionary War.  We were not perfect (killed our own brothers) when we won the Civil war. We were not perfect (political fighting among ourselves) when we fought in Vietnam.  We were not perfect (political fighting among ourselves) when we fought in Iraq -- twice.

So, we have never been a perfect nation, as there is no such thing. That's the whole problem with progressivism and liberalism is that they think they can create a perfect society.  Now Obama is implying that he wants us to wait until that day before we can be world leaders.

He wants republicans to do this even though they understand that there is no evidence humans are destroying the planet, and signing on to such treaties would take away liberties.  I hate to say this again, but no democratic nation should ever allow those in power to vote to take away the liberties of other people (actually, it was Ron Paul who said it).

We must continue to ask ourselves, "Does Obama Hate America?"  Does he think that America stinks? I'd hate to say this is what I believe, although if we go by his own words, you'd be hard pressed to think otherwise.  When you listen to Obama's West Point Speech (which I recommend you do by clicking here), you cant help but to think that Obama has a problem with our country.

Further reading:

• I'm NOT WEAK: Obama answers critics in West Point speech and insists the US must lead the world by example – 'If we don't, no one else will'
• Mediaite: CNN Reporter: ‘Icy Reception’ for Obama from West Pointers During Speech

Is it possible for Obamacare to be repealed?

Jeffrey H. Anderson, "The Road to Repeal," in the May 26, 2014, issue of The Weekly Standard, (volume 19, number 35), gives us optimism that the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, might some day be overturned.

He said:

Obamacare was profoundly unpopular when the Democrats went ahead and passed it anyway, daring the American people to make them pay. Voters responded by removing more Democrats from congressional seats—69 between the two chambers—than they had since before Ted Williams first donned a Red Sox uniform, in the spring of 1939. In 2012, the failed Republican presidential-selection process yielded a nominee who didn’t make Obamacare a central issue and later called it “very attractive.” He lost despite Obamacare’s continuing unpopularity, which was indicated by exit polling. Now that Obamacare has finally gone into effect, its combined impact on Americans’ health insurance, their health costs, and their personal freedom—not to mention the nation’s solvency—has been far worse than its supporters advertised and possibly even worse than its opponents predicted. In response, President Obama has refused to implement the legislation as written, unlawfully altering parts of it as if he were a one-man Congress. Meanwhile, the 123 polls taken on Obamacare during his second term (according to Real Clear Politics) have all found it to be unpopular, with more than two-thirds of those polls—and 8 of the 10 most recent polls—showing approval deficits in the double-digits.

So—yes—Obamacare can, should, and must be repealed. America’s future as a nation of liberty, prosperity, civil society, and laws depends on it. Indeed, given its unpopularity, the question should be: How can Obamacare not be repealed?

So, there you have it: room for optimism.

Liberal ESPNFL trying to get Roger Goodell to resign

So you had Ray Rice beat his wife and drag her unconscious body from an elevator at a casino, where there are video cameras everywhere.  The entire thing was on video, and yet all Ray Rice initially got was a two game suspension.

So then you have the media complaining that the punishment Ray Rice got was an insult.

So then all of a sudden the NFL comes out and says it finally saw the video inside the elevator, the one of him hitting his wife, and they indefinitely suspend him and the Ravens fire him.

So, all should be good and well, right?

Wrong?  We are talking about the liberal media here.  If anything, the media, ESPNFLL (ESPN-National Football League Liberals), should be rejoicing that the NFL finally woke up and gave this jerk his due punishment.

Yet they are not.  Instead, they are out and about trying to force Roger Goodell, the NFL commissioner, to resign.  They are also putting pressure on Ravens owner Ozzie Newsome to sell the team, and coach Jim Harbaugh should also be forced to resign.

They say there is no way they didn't see both videos right away, which, by the way, is probably true. I mean, Roger Goodell looks to me as though he is lying through his teeth every time I hear him say anything about the Ray Rice incident and how it was handled.

So the media finally gets what it wants, and then they are still not happy.

This is the same liberal media that defended Bill Clinton tooth and nail even after there was evidence that he did have sex with that woman.  They defended Bill Clinton because they agreed with his agenda. They love Bill Clinton no matter what he does; he can do no wrong.

This is the same liberal media that defended the Reverend Jessie Jackson when he was unfaithful to his wife.  They defended the Reverend because they agreed with his agenda.  They love the Reverend no matter what he does; he can do no wrong.

So as long as the offending person has the ability to move forward the liberal agenda it doesn't matter if they do wrong.  But be it someone who does not have that power, then that person ought to be impeached.

Ray Rice had a terrible year last year, and chances are he would have been equally bad this year.  His statistics have been in decline.  But that doesn't matter, because he ought to punished to the full extent of the law.  Justice was served the day he was fired by the Ravens and indefinitely suspended by the NFL.

Well, not complete justice, because he has yet to face jail time.  And, of course, his wife is defending him tooth and nail, saying that she loves him and all.  That's just her being in denial.  This woman needs help to stay with a thug like that.

But ESPNFL and TMZ and other such liberal outlets are now out to get Roger Goodell removed from his job, and they want to do it despite not offering the same treatment to other men who committed crimes against women.

I'm not even saying Roger Goodall isn't guilty of what he is being accused of.  I agree that he should resign.  I think he should have resigned the day he gave Ray Rice a two game suspension, while other players who committed lesser crimes were suspended for four games (Wes Welker) and even a full season (J. Gordon).

The NFL is guilty as sin here.  You have the coach of the Ravens saying he saw the video for the first time and it changed things.  Bullshit! Rice and his wife even admitted to what had happened, and they gave him only a 2 game suspension. The videos were out and about all along, so you can't tell me the NFL didn't have access to them.

Janay Rice is the victim here, but she is standing by her man.  Why? Could money be the reason?  I think she thinks that if she left her man she would no longer get the glory and the fame and the money would be gone.  She is a victim here.  It's not easy to leave a comfort zone, even when that comfort zone is being married to a thug.

Nobody is talking about the games on ESPNFL, they are talking about Ray Rice beating up his wife and how the NFL didn't do enough.  They are salivating over this stuff.  They love it.

Ray Rice got fired from Nike.  The Ravens are trying to clear the memory of Ray Rice by getting rid of his jerseys and offering free exchanges for people who want to return Ray Rice jerseys they already bought.

This is not good.  But ESPNFL loves it.  The liberal media loves it; this is what they live for. Get ready for them to be talking about this for days, weeks, and even months to come.

Why does beer cost so much?

I like beer, and my beer of choice is Natural Ice.  Just recently the price went up to just under $10, and that includes the deposit.  While I enjoy it a lot, I would enjoy it a lot more if the price wasn't so high.

So why is the price of beer so high?  This was a topic recently taken up by Bonnie Kristian at CainTV.com: "Here's how government makes your beer 44 percent more expensive and way less tasty."  She wrote:

The last six-pack of beer I bought ran me about $11. It was a craft Altbier from Wisconsin, and it was lovely.

It was also 44% more expensive than it needed to be.

Yep, it turns out if you total up all the taxes “levied on the production, distribution and retailing of beer,” according to the Beer Institute, they add 44% to the retail price. My Altbier pack could have cost just $6.60, which definitely would have made it even more delicious.

For craft brewers and beer drinkers in Florida, this bad situation is about to get much worse. That’s because there’s a bill making its way through the Florida state legislature right now which would force all breweries to sell their beer to distributors and then buy it back again before selling it to customers.

If this sounds completely nonsensical, that’s because it is.
For big beer makers, like Miller and Anheuser-Busch, a law like this is no problem. Corporate brewers don’t typically sell beer straight to customers anyway; and if they want to, they can afford to absorb the extra cost.

But for smaller, craft breweries in Florida, this bill could be devastating. The buy-back mark-up from distributors will force brewers to raise their prices by at least 30%, meaning a huge hike in prices at that adorable little brewpub you keep meaning to visit.

In other words, regulations like these mean less success for local brewers and therefore less tasty beer for us.

It should come as no surprise, perhaps, that the Florida state representative who sponsored the bill received $3,500 in donations from big brewers the month before he introduced this legislation...

On a national scale, small breweries are still subject to extensive federal regulations which many can’t afford to follow. Changes that are easy for a Pabst or Coors factory to make come with exorbitant costs for microbrewers, making it impossible for many to stay in business—a classic example of the way regulations tend to benefit the big businesses which lobby for them at the expense of their smaller competitors.

Meanwhile, the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) is limiting your access to new beers from out of state. The TTB requires all beers sold across state lines to undergo an additional approval process, which slows the distribution process and can stretch the finances of small, new breweries.

Again, if you want to stop large, rich corporations from spending millions of dollars each year trying to influence government, make it so the government has less influence over them.  That's truly the only way to solve this problem.

While I post about half the article here, it's worth your time to click on over and read the rest.  Kristian also writes a neat history of beer and beer regulations that have made beer taste less good and cost more.

Think for yourself, and you won't fall prey to propaganda

I specifically remember this wise old lady saying to me, "Think for yourself!" While she did not expound, in retrospect I'd imagine this was her way of encouraging me not to fall prey to propaganda.

It used to be that the goal of American schools was to teach critical thinking. They would provide for you piece of evidence A and piece of evidence B and let you decide.  This was their way of teaching you how to think for yourself, and therefore survive in the real world.

Today, however, the goal of American schools is to push forth the progressive agenda. So instead of providing evidence, they teach propaganda. For example, instead of teaching showing the evidence and letting the students decide whether or not they believe mankind is responsible for climate change, they just teach that we are the cause of climate change.

It gets to the point that some people are so unable to think for themselves that they read articles like Allister Doyle's article at "Reuters" called "Global Cooling: Antarctic Sea Ice Coverage Continues To Break Records," and they panic.  It's to the point that you almost have to feel sorry for these people.

The article notes:

Six glaciers, eaten away from below by a warming of sea waters around the frozen continent, were flowing fast into the Amundsen Sea, according to the report based partly on satellite radar measurements from 1992 to 2011. Evidence shows 'a large sector of the West Antarctic ice sheet has gone into a state of irreversible retreat', said lead author Eric Rignot of the University of California, Irvine, and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. 

Of course, then you read articles like Michael Bastasch's article in "The Daily Caller" called "West Arctic Ice Coverage Continues to Break Records," and you wonder why people are still so doom and gloom about the environment.

Bastasch's article begins:

Someone let Al Gore know the South Pole isn't melting. Antarctic sea ice coverage reached record levels for April, hitting 3.5 million square miles -- the largest on record. It was a cold summer down in Antarctica, with sea ice coverage growing about 43,500 square miles a day, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC)." 

Not much is said about the Reuters story, probably because progressives control most of the media.  So you have young people, people who have been influenced by progressive thinkers their whole lives, writing on their blogs about how the world is coming to an end.  They are literally panicking.  And then you have guys like Doyle writing for Reuters saying, "Calm down, the world is not coming to an end."  But you don't hear anything about this beyond the conservative media.

Just to let people know, the four foot rise in sea levels over the next 100 years is only a guess; it's an estimate; it's a hypothesis; it's a theory.  It in no way means the world is coming to an end, and it in no way means there is truth to the global cooling/ global warming/ climate change theory.

A friend of mine asked why it is that people would want you to believe in global cooling/ global warming/ climate change when so much evidence shows it is not true.

The answer is: because they have so much invested into it.

So instead of accepting their theory is not true, instead of saying "mankind is not destroying the planet, they just change the name of their theory.  It was called global cooling in the 1970s, global warming in the 1990s, and climate change in the 2000s.

Progressives are known for changing names as people catch on to fallacies. For instance, once socialism developed a bad name in the 1930s, so they called themselves progressives.  Progressives developed a bad name in the 1950s, so they called themselves liberals.  Now people are catching on that liberalism is the same as socialism, so they are again calling themselves progressives.

Could you imagine what would happen to Al Gore if he said, "I'm sorry folks. I was wrong about global warming all these years?"  His career would be over. His credibility would be lost forever, or so he would think. I actually think it would improve his credibility, as it would show he's willing to change his opinion as new facts are learned.

But there continue to be many politicians and corporations who make a ton of money off people believing in global warming.  This fallacy also gives progressives an excuse to increase regulations and raise taxes.

Now, I have all the respect in the world for people who choose to believe in all this stuff about climate change, so long as they make their decision based on a review of the facts and not through propaganda.

So, in order to prevent that from happening, parents must encourage their kids to think for themselves, considering most teachers and journalists have already fallen for the propaganda and are repeating it to our kids.  We must use words such as, "Think for yourself!"

Further reading or viewing:

• Watch: Opinion Duel: Climate change
• French Foreign minister says we have only 500 days left to save the climate

The dilemma of the business cycle

The normal business cycle for any economy calls for regular periods of recession, trough, recovery, and peak or boom.  When an economy falls into a recession there is usually a specific reason for it.  Today, unlike in the past, when a recession occurred there was an investigation into what caused the recession, and efforts made to fix it.  This has not been done during many of our recent recessions, and the result has been an assault on personal liberties.

Think about it.  The reason the recent recession started was because of an artificial housing bubble caused by governmental programs that encouraged people to buy houses who couldn't afford them. Anyone with an economics 101 education knows that such a strategy is unsustainable.  

Yet instead of considering this actual cause, the government tried to bail out banks and businesses that failed as a result of these bad policies.  And instead of ending the bad policies and allowing the economy to naturally rise, the recession is prolonged.  Such policies were enacted by Herbert Hoover and Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s, by Jimmy Carter in the 1970s, and again by George W. Bush and Barack Obama in the 2000s.  Instead of pulling us out of a recession their policies only prolonged it.  

As a matter of fact, it almost seems as though progressives tend to use recessions as an excuse to push forth their agenda.  Instead of reducing regulations and taxes, they pass laws that create more government programs and raise taxes to force people to pay for them, thus taking away liberties in the process.  Yet such strategies merely prolong recessions rather than end them. 

Bipartisanship is bad, partisanship is good, believe it or not

There's people who say things like "I wish politicians would just get along," or, "they need to work together and compromise."  Yet we may be better off when they don't.

Allow me to explain.  What if you believe people are smart and are better off when left to their own devices.  Yet you have republicans and democrats in office who both think they know what's best for you, and get together and pass laws that take away your personal liberties, your right to decide for yourself.

Do you still think bipartisanship is good?

What we really need is people who fight for our liberties, regardless who it is. We need people who defend the constitution, regardless of who it is.  We need people who push forward sound economic policies, regardless of who it is.  We need people who will protect our private property, regardless of who it is.  We need people who will protect our freedom of speech, regardless of who it is.  We need people in office who will oppose an increase in the size and scope of government, regardless of who it is.

If you have republicans and democrats in office who oppose any of this, then it is best that they don't get along.  It is better to be the party of no, and to do nothing, than to do something stupid.  It's better to do nothing than to do something that will make our lives worse.  It's better to do nothing than make laws that are risky and unproven, such as Obamacare.  It's better to do nothing than make laws that will take away our personal liberties at the expense of some idealistic Utopian dream.

For the past 100 years this is the type of system we have had.  Ever since the election of 1912, where you had a progressive democrat in Woodrow Wilson, and an even more progressive republican in Teddy Roosevelt running for President of the U.S., both parties have become victim to progressive ideals that have undermined the principles of personal liberty and private property.  It has not been done by the democratic party alone, but both parties. The reason these bad policies have passed was with bipartisan support.

Sure the two parties argue over issues, but, too often, when it comes to increasing the powers of the president, increasing government programs that give rich people and corporations more of a reason to try to gain favor over a rising governmental influence, and running up the deficit, both parties are alike.  Both parties are guilty of ignoring the constitution to pass laws they think will make people like them enough to gain votes come election time, instead of protecting liberties.  Excuse the idiom, but the two parties seem more concerned with currying favor rather than protecting liberties we worked so hard to get.

It is also for this reason that I tell my friends that it is not a good idea to "just give him a chance."  That's what one of my friends said about Obama, that "he is our president, we should give him a chance."  Why?  Why would I do that when every thing he stands for is the opposite of the values and principles I support.  That's why it's okay when people like Rush Limbaugh say things like "I hope he fails."

It's better to have a partisan divide as opposed to crossing the aisle to create programs that work to the detriment of the greatest nation the world has ever seen and will ever see.

As Ron Paul said in his 2011 book "Liberty Defined:

We have had way too much bipartisanship that promotes an agenda that has ignored constitutional restraints and free market principles... So-called moderate politicians who compromise and seek bipartisanship are the most dangerous among the entire crew in Washington. Compromise is too often synonymous with 'selling out,' but is sounds a lot better. Honest politicians who state that their goal is total socialized medicine (or education, etc.) are met with a greater resistance; while people who favor the same thing but sell it as moderate bipartisanship slip by unnoticed.  They are the ones who destroy our liberties incrementally, in the name of compromise and civility

Paul added:

Moderates are somehow convinced that they are the saviors of the country, rescuing us all from the effects of philosophical differences.  In fact, philosophical differences are healthy because they lead to the clarification of principles.  Genuine progress is going to require more confrontation, partisanship, and serius and honest discussion of the truth about government, the economy, and every sector of American life.  It also needs politicians who can hold strong to their beliefs and do not compromise their core values.  How sad a state we are in when it seems like such a stretch to expect that from a politician!  We need to bring back some understnding of the idea of liberty and what it means.  Bipartisanship will not help that process along, mainly because there are so few things on which the two parties agree that would be good for the country. 

Bottom line: Bipartisanship and Compromise can be good, as we learned when the Constitution was signed into law, but not when it comes at the expense of personal liberties.   Partisanship may look ugly, yet at times it can be the best defense against political assaults on personal liberties. Bipartisanship that advances constitutional restraints and free market principles is what is needed to return this nation back to greatness.