Sunday, January 31, 2016

Indeed, fear has created Trump

One of my socialist friends said that Trump plays on fear. I actually denied this during our discussion, although in retrospect I have decided that she was right: Trump does play on fear.

Trump caters to Americans who no longer recognize their country, and who fear losing it. He caters to Americans who fear terrorism, and feel our leaders are doing nothing about it.

You have immigrants coming into this country left and right.  Actually, immigrant refers to those who come into our country legally.  Those who come in illegally are not immigrants, they are invaders. We have no idea who these people are. They have nothing to offer. They are coming here for free stuff. They have no intention of learning English or assimilating.

Most immigrants who have been allowed to come into our country legally over the years are people who have something to offer.  They are lawyers and doctors and scientists.  They are engineers and journalists. They were inventors. They came here and they wanted to become Americans. They were glad to learn English and American history and were more than eager to hang American flags on their front porches.

Invaders have no intention of learning English.  They have no desire to learn American history. They do not care how America was formed.  They have no interest in learning about American Exceptionalism. In fact, some of them hate America, and believe their country is better than America. They are only here to take advantage of our generosity.

And, of course, once they come in, they know our leaders will not enforce immigration laws, and will not kick them out. In fact, there are some leaders in both parties who want to grant amnesty to invaders, even giving them pathways to citizenship.

Democrats want them to become citizens to they will vote for them, and most polls show they would. Democrats need victims, a permanent underclas sincapable of taking care of themselves, incapable of providing for themselves who will always be counted on to vote Democrat to be taken care of by programs created by democrats.  A majority of democrats across the board, both among the voting class and the establishment, support some sort of amnesty for illegal aliens. They feel this is the compassionate thing to do. Or at least that's what they say, because the real reason is that they want their votes.

A majority of republican voters do not support amnesty. To them this is the compassionate thing to do for the majority of Americans who want to preserve the culture that was formed after this country was established. They believe illegal aliens are here illegally, they are destroying our economy, and they are destroying our culture. Yes, it's sad that some people might have their feelings hurt, but they broke the law and they have to go.

The only republicans who support amnesty are among the establishment. They think that in order to continue winning elections they need the Hispanic vote, and the only way to get them is to be seen as the nice guys who supported amnesty. They somehow think that if they support amnesty, by some magical means Hispanics will start voting republican, which is not going to happen.

This is why you have people like Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush supporting amnesty. Bush has been pro amnesty all along, along with his older brother George W. Bush. Rubio was a member of the gang of eight who got an amnesty bill through Congress. Other republicans said they would support the Gang of Eight Bill so long as their was an adjunct to the Bill promising that any illegal allowed granted amnesty was not allowed to become a citizen for 10,15,20, or 30 years. The idea was that they would not be allowed to vote for many years down the road, making this Bill not about voting. But nobody in the establishment of either party was interested.

And then you have people like Chuck Schumer saying, "This is not about voting; this is not about citizenship; we are granting amnesty, not citizenship." But they as soon as the bill passes, they are going to start saying things like, "We are allowing them to live here, work here, join our military, and so now that compassionate thing to do is to allow them to become citizens and to allow them to vote." You know that's what's going to happen, because that's how democrats operate.  They lie.

If you don't believe me, look at how Obamacare got passed. They said it was going to lower healthcare costs. They said you can keep your current healthcare program if you liked it. They said healthcare premiums would go down. They said it was going to help the economy. They said it was not a tax. And then as soon as it was passed, the Supreme Court declared that it was a tax. And then healthcare costs went up. And then healthcare premiums went up. And then businesses stopped hiring full time workers and the number of part time jobs skyrocketed. You see, they tell you what you want to hear to get their bills passed, and then when they pass they change their minds. And no one ever calls them on it, but that's a story for another day.

Making matters worse is some people believe the 14th Amendment gives anyone born within our borders automatic citizenship. For this reason pregnant women come into our country to have their children, for free in American hospitals (and these hospitals can't afford it, and some have closed because of it), so their children will gain citizenship. Then they become anchor babies and democrats and republicans alike won't send them nor law breaking families home.

So democrats support amnesty because they need a permanent underclass to create programs for so these people continue to vote democrat, and most republican voters don't understand why the republican establishment would by into this. Voters cannot fathom why any republican would sign onto this, and then you have Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio doing exactly that.

Amnesty would do nothing more than give democrats a permanent voting class, and it would destroy the republican party and it would therefore destroy any culture that's left over from our founding. It would destroy America. Voter hate this idea, and the establishment is saying, "Screw You!" And that is what has created Donald Trump. The republican establishment keeps pushing Amnesty, the voters keep saying they don't want it, and the establishment continues supporting amnesty. Voters are fed up with it, they are angry, and they are supporting an outsider in Trump who says he will, once and for all, remedy the immigration/invasion problem.

They are coming here to take advantage of our country. Yes, we have every reason to be ticked off about this. We have every reason to fear this, and fear that our leaders don't care. And that is why Donald Trump has 42% of the republican vote, because he says he will build a way, and he will deport illegals, and he will do it; people believe he will do it. And so that is why he is so popular. That is the essence of the Trump movement.

And, coming in among them, are people who want to destroy our nation. They are people who establish themselves into our country in order to destroy us, to terrorize us, from within. And despite this fact, our leaders, both republicans and democrats, have done nothing to stop it.  In fact, the invasion has been put on steroids during the Obama administration.

Democrats have created rules that allow illegal immigrants invaders access to many of the programs offered by government, and they surely cannot be turned down by hospitals.  Most of them have no ability to pay their medical bills, and this is a problem because it is illegal for hospitals to turn them down. So our hospitals, or our government, gets stuck paying their medical bills. Some of them have closed their doors, leaving American citizens with no local hospitals.

And the influx of invaders, who are not doctors and lawyers and journalists, who are people who would have something to offer. They are poor people, people who our government allows to have access to food stamps and welfare. This is a huge economic burden, costing us millions of dollars each year.

Added to that is the fact that they are taking jobs Americans would do. But Americans can't take these jobs because the supply of workers is to great that the wages for these jobs have declined so much they are not worth taking. Economics 101 suggests that as the demand for jobs increases and the supply of jobs stays the same, wages decrease.

I think it was Ted Cruz who said that journalists would care if it were journalists coming across the border driving down their wages.  Lawyers would care if it were lawyers coming over driving down the wages for lawyers.

Yes, there is fear here. And making matters worse, you have countries walking all over America. You have our leaders making bad deals with nations like Iran, setting them on a track to obtaining nuclear weapons. Could you imagine if ISIS gets access to such weapons? It's possible.  And our leaders are doing nothing about it.

We also have a national debt that is spiralling out of control, and this problem is only exacerbated by a president who just proposed adding another $4.3 trillion to this debt. And then you have one candidate in Bernie Sanders who proposes for the government to increase taxes by $500 a month so he can hand out more "free stuff" and this only adds to the burden and the fear. It solves nothing. We are already spending money at a faster clip than we can afford, and adding more entitlements only gives more power to those in power, and this does more harm than good.

Adding to this is you have member of the Obama administration making bad deals with climate change activists in Paris to set more global regulations that make it even harder for corporations to make profits. You have so many regulations that it's almost not even worth opening up a new factory in the U.S., because there is so much overhead just to start. This is one reason why corporations like Ford open new factories in Mexico instead of the U.S. Add to this the rising minimum wages and rising costs of healthcare, and it only gets worse.

It seems there is no bottom line any more. There are no limits to immigration, there are no limits to how far taxes can go. There are no limits to social programs. There are no limits to how many regulations can be created. No limit to how many women you can seduce. No limit to who you can marry. No limit on socal values.

There are no rules. There are no limits.

And that is why religion was so important to our nation. That is why immigration and immigration laws were so important, because they assured that, if you come here, you will become one of us and make us better as a nation.  You had something to offer.  Now we just let anyone in, regardless of who you are, regardless of what you have to offer.

There are no limits to social decline. For instance, there are not leaders who say, "Hey, you cannot say that! You cannot do that!"

Even parents are no longer setting limits.  Dads used to set the rules.  Dad's would say things like, "You will not have sex until you are married.  You will go to college.  You will work. You will not lip off.  You will not support communism in this house. You will be a good person. You will say nice things. If you don't, you will get a licking."

The same thing with mothers. My grandma used to click me on the head when I was naughty. She took me to church, and when she was unable she expected I would go myself. If she found out I didn't go, I was in trouble. I might have been yelled at. She made me feel uncomfortable. I always felt uncomfortable when I broke rules, because there was that underlying guilty feeling they created in the back of my mind."

Now there is not guilt. This is because there has been an all out onslaught of Christianity. There has been an onslaught on religion. There has been an onslaught on rules of civilization. There has been an onslaught on institutions.  There has been an onslaught on American Exceptionalism. Examples of this is when Obama appologizes to our enemies, and breaks apart our mighty military, and has our enemies bail out stalled Navy ships and has soldiers bow to our enemies in embarrassment.

There just seems to be no common sense in government anymore. There doesn't seem to be anyone who says, "Woah, let's put on the brakes. We cannot afford this.  We cannot do this. We cannot continue to artificially raise the minimum wage. We cannot continue to increase regulations and burdens on businesses. We cannot continue to raise taxes on the middle or working class.  We cannot continue to allow people to invade our nation. We are in a state of moral and social decline. We need to STOP!"

We need adults, mature people, in positions of power to stop the attack on institutions, and to stop the attacks on people who succeed. We need people to stop the attacks on capitalism.  We need people to stop the attacks on liberty. We need people to stop the attacks on Christianity.  We need people to recognize and stop the moral decline of our nation.

There's no "there" there anymore. There's no basis, there's no foundation, there's no bottom line. It seems like we're in a free-for-all when it comes to any kind of values you want to talk about: Cultural, political, pop culture, you name it.

Look, for most of history America has been about getting away from too much government. We don't want government telling us what to do and how to live our lives. Now we have people in government who make it bigger and bigger. They make it so we must obey government. We Were once told to questions authority, and now we are told to obey the government or we are racist.


We need some mature people in positions of power.  We need some adults. We do not need someone we like. We need someone who will say, "Enough! Stop! We cannot afford this. We don't have money for this. We cannot solve everyone's problems. We cannot afford to be everything for everyone. We are going to bankrupt if we don't stop. Our country is going to fail if we don't stop. If we stop, we can make America great again, just you wait and see."

This is how Trump came about.  He's the only one speaking out against all this.  He's the one who says we need to stop; we need to put the breaks on; we need to follow the rule of law; we need to set limits; we cannot afford this.  Trump, in essence, is the dad or the mom. Surely you don't want to be told no, but sometimes it's for your own good.

So, in this way, liberalism created Trump.  Obama created Trump.  The establishment republicans established Trump. I say this because, in the last two midterm elections, they were voted into office under the promise that they would stop Obama. They have not. They have allowed Obama to accomplish all his goals. They have done nothing to stop him. That has people mad. That has created Trump.

I think that there's a sizable percentage of people in this country that are frightened, scared at the lack of values, the lack of anything solid to depend on. When a downward spiral happens, there's nothing to put the brakes on it. There's nothing to stop it. Everything just keeps descending with very little end in sight. And nobody in the political culture is talking about it -- except Trump.

They have reason to be scared. You have legislators in New York trying to pass a bill that would allow illegal, undocumented aliens to vote in New York City elections. You also have 60% of democrats who think socialism would be great for America. Most Americans do not want either of these to ever happen, because they would destroy America. This fear has created Trump.

I don't want to compare the current democratic party to Hitler's Nazi party, but it was socialist ideas of Hitler that mesmerized Germany. He said he was going to assure everyone a job with fair wages, and he was going to give everyone free healthcare and free college. He offered to take care of the sick. He offered to take care of the elderly. He offered to take care of everyone. He offered everything to everyone.

And so the scary thing is he won an election, and then once he was in office he took away Bibles and he took away any freedom of choice among the populace, and he forced people to join the military, and he started to kill Jews, and he started wars to take over the world. You see, democrats aren't that bad, but they like to mesmerize people by saying they will give them free stuff. And when they are elected they will pass laws, and every new law takes away another freedom. Every new law, every new regulation, takes us closer and closer to socialism, which is exactly what we fought against in WWII, and Vietnam, and etc.

So Bernie Sanders is not on the cook fringe of the democratic party anymore, he is in the mainstream. He is a typical democrat now. And what he has to say is very seductive. Socialism is always seductive. But socialism never works. Eventually you will run out of money. Socialism says everyone will be equal, but what happened in Russia? You had the middle class, the entire middle class, lined up in food lines. They had plenty of food, but no one willing to get it into homes.

Since everyone was taken care of, there was no incentive to do anything. Heck, why would I become a respiratory therapist when I could work at a front desk at a hotel and make the same money. Why become a doctor? Why become a nurse? Why become a teacher and put up with pesky kids when I can do a less stressful job, an easier job, and make the same money. Socialism is very seductive, but it never works. It will not work in America either, but our leaders don't care. They say, Screw You.  And that created Trump.

The destruction of the American economy by those we entrusted with running our government, created Trump. The destruction of our healthcare system, the attack on our culture, and the decline of culture, decency and morality created Trump. The out of control spending created Trump. I mean, people have fears that our country as we know it may not exist if Hilary or Sanders gets elected. Truly, the fears are justified.

You have people like me who can't get ahead. You have people like me who are living pay check to pay check and who worry about their bills going up; their taxes going up. There are legitimate fears that our kids won't even live in the same country we grew up in. There's the fear they will some day get the bill for our out of control spending.

So, yes, fear has created Trump. When he comes in with the slogan (the same one used by Ronald Reagan, by the way) of "Make America Great Again!" people hear it. People want their country back. Americans feel America is no longer great.  One poll even showed that 58% of Americans say they no longer recognize their country.  They are afraid it might not be around much longer. They want it back.

We, as Americans, do not live in fear. Yet it we have been taught from the beginning, since the days of our founding, that freedom is fragile.  If we want to continue living in the American dream, then we must fear the worst and prepare for it.

Wednesday, January 27, 2016

Dealing with liberals on Facebook

I do not agree with the old saying, "Never discuss religion and politics." A better saying is: "Do not discuss religion or politics with an idiot." That's a saying that is best fitting, especially in the world of Facebook, where propaganda sharing has been put on steroids, particularly through the use of memes. These often segue into discussions, some of which incite anger.

A recent example is the issue of Syrian Refugees. After the attack on France by members of ISIS who apparently came in among the influx of refugees, there have been calls in the U.S. to keep the refugees out of the U.S., at least until better vetting procedures are created. Yet many friends on Facebook equate this form of "being careful" with racism and xenophobia.

When you argue with them they do not say, "You are an idiot." That wouldn't be nice.  What they do is even worse.  They allude to the fact that you are an idiot, and make you feel terrible about yourself. They say things like, "You just need to stop listening to people just who you agree with." Or, "You are just being old school.  You need to wake up."

Recently one of my friends on Facebook made a comment about the attacks by conservatives on government funding of Planned Parenthood.  He said Margaret Sanger would be rolling in her grave. In response to this I wrote, "Did you know Sanger opposed abortion."  His response, "You are wrong. You are dogmatic.  You need to stop hanging around just people you agree with."  I'm paraphrasing, but that's essentially what he said.

So, that said, what to do you do about liberals on Facebook? What do you do when someone puts something on their Facebook page that is not true?

1. Understand Liberals are good at emoting.  When faced with a question, liberals ask the question, "Does it feel good?"  They look at themselves here and ask, "Will it feel like I am helping someone?"  Yes, I feel like I'm helping the refugees.  They ask the question, "Will our country feel good."  Yes, we will be helping people in need.  So if you oppose letting in refugees, they emote. They say things like, "Well, if you don't want to let them in, then you are racist." Liberals make decisions based on emotions, so when you oppose their ideas they emote. "You just don't care," they say.  Another example is social security. All evidence suggests our current social security program is unsustainable.  Yet if conservatives propose to change it, liberals claim, "You just don't care about old people," or, "You just want to throw grandma over the cliff."  A more general wine by liberals is, "You are dogmatic.  You are just not educated.  This is mainly because you only hang out with people you agree with."  Getting into a political discussion with people like this is like blowing snow during a blizzard.  You could give them all the facts in the world and you won't change their minds. They will make you out to be an idiot, racist, homophobe, old school, dogmatic, etc. It's best to avoid them altogether. If you do approach them, make them site.  This way you can shame them for being so uninformed; so subject to propaganda. Shame them for forming decisions based on feelings rather than facts, and show them why this is so dangerous.

2.  Know they don't know the facts. Again, they make decisions based on emotions rather than facts.  For this reason, they are genuinely ignorant people, at least when it comes to politics. When they put stuff on Facebook, they are nothing more than provocateurs. They are arrogant and condescending and thing they're morally superior to you.  So, no matter what you do, do not go on defense.  Do not let them get you into a position where you feel like you have to defend yourself. You do not need to offer proof, because your opinions are sound.  They need to offer you proof. This is how you burn them. This is how you show them that liberalism is the cause of problems, not the solution. Keep them on defense by staying on offense. Again, do not let them put you in a position where you feel you have to prove what you believe. Do not try to explain whey abortion is bad, let them explain why it's good.  You see, that's what they are trying to do, is position you as morally inferior to them.

2.  Don't get caught in the sewer.  Liberals like to make you out to be an uncaring idiot.  This is mainly because they make decisions based on emotions. If you oppose Obamacare, then you don't care about the sick.  If you oppose gay marriage, then you must hate gays. You are not going to win a discussion with people like this.  It's best just to stay out of this sewer.  It's just best to ignore them. Basicall, don't get into an argument with a fool, because after a while you can't tell who's who. They'll beat you down with their emotions. You are not going to change their minds on anything. You could offer all the facts in the world, and you are just uncaring.

3.  If you do approach them, make them cite evidence.  It's best to just avoid them, but if you do decide to jump into the arena, make them site evidence.  They say anyone opposing Syrian Refugees is racist.  Ask them to site their evidence.  Ask them to name names.  Ask them to explain the virtues of the refugees. Ask them if it's possible someone might pretend to be a refugee just to get into this country.  Poke holes in their claims by making them site. Make them demonstrate what they don't know. Of course the problem here, when they don't know the answer, when they have no facts to back up their claims, they will go right back to emoting. So, again, you must be brave to go into this arena.

4.  Stay on offense.  Do not go on defense.  Do not let them get you into this trap. You state fact after fact after fact. You ask them to state facts in support of their argument. If it gets to the point where you have to go on defense, it's best just to go away. You do not let them gain any moral authority. You must make them prove that they are right. When they can't, you walk away knowing that you are the winner. Do not go back, because you will probably find you have been attacked and ridiculed.And then demonstrate that all they're doing is emoting. And then shame them. Shame them for being so uninformed, for being so malleable, so subject to propaganda, and blame them for posing a great threat. Their attitudes are putting this country at great risk. Just don't ever go on defense with them, Adam. Just always stay on offense. Do not grant them any moral superiority. You make 'em prove it, demo it.

5.  Leave when you are ahead.  So you state a fact that you think states your point.  Good. Then go away. If you go look at the discussion again, you will see that you have been attacked.  You have poked a huge hole in their argument, one of which they have no evidence to refute.  They do not have the facts on their side. So it is here that they call you "backwoods," or "dogmatic." It is here that they tell you you are dogmatic and only hang out with people you agree with.  When, in truth, it is they who are dogmatic and only hang out with people they agree with. The truth is you know them better than they know you. The truth is that you are well informed, and it is they who are misinformed. Yet you don't want to go there.  This is where political discussions can go bad.  So, it's best just to stay out of this sewer unless you are really up on your facts and aren't worried about hurting a liberals feelings.

6.  Don't let them depress you.  Sometimes, you see so much liberal filth on the Internet you have a tendency to depression.  It's easy for people continuously exposed to liberals to become depressed (such as students of liberal teachers), because they think we are the blame for all the problems in the world.  They tell kids that their parents are destroying the economy. Their parents are struggling to make ends meet, and their teachers tell them that "this is the new normal."  There's all sorts of reasons why exposure to liberalism can make you depressed.  Don't let them make you depressed.  I don't get depressed.  I get angry. But never depressed.  If they make you depressed, just walk away; avoid the sewer.

7.  Stay off Facebook.  If it gets to the point these people just piss you off, just stay away from them.  If it gets to the point you feel you have to respond to them, unlike them.  You probably can't block them because they are your friends and relatives, but you can hide them. That's what I do.  If you looked at my Facebook page, you only see pages of people who have something intelligent to say. Yet there are times I get so irritated with all the liberal filth on Facebook that I just stay away for a while.

8.  Stay informed.  Read as much as you can from credible sources.  Get your news from more than one source, and that means sources of various political affiliations.  Understand that most of the media is bias, and liberally biased. So, when I say get your news from more than one source, I do not mean reading the New York Times and then watching MSNBC and ABC News. I mean watch ABC News, watch MSNBC (if you can handle it), watch CNN, watch Fox News, read the New York Times, and also read National Review, and listen to shows like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. You must hear all voices. You must read about the founding fathers. You must read about how this country was formed. In order to fight off the liberal infusion going through the veins of this nation which is attempting to destroy it from within, we must keep ourselves educated. Show them how naive it is to let anyone into this country who wants in. Show then how it makes us less safe. Show them how liberals make us less safe.

9. Don't be afraid to use conservative media.  Many times I post links to news articles showing evidence.  My liberal friends will say that that's part of my problem right there, that I already have a slant. And even when I site a liberal source like ABC News, the immediate response is insults and name calling that have nothing to do with the cited source. They do this because they don't have any evidence on their side. They are genuinely ignorant. In order to gain moral superiority, they have to discredit you and your sources, no matter where they are from. They will not respond to any facts in a positive light, because they are not there to debate ideas: they are there to bully you. They want to make you look inferior.  They want to look Superior to you. For this reason, they believe they don't have to prove anything to you. They believe that you are the idiot.  They believe you are dogmatic, racist, homophobic, or whatever the slam of the day is.  So, if you do want to engage them, leave a link to a related article with the evidence to show them they are flawed, and then know that they probably won't read it. Know that when you go back to read the response, it will probably be an attack on you that ignores the article altogether. Just do not let them drag you into the sewer, because that's their goal.

10.  Know liberals are depressed.  Liberals are very depressed about the world. Many do not believe in God, and so they have no reason to feel the goodness of God.  They have no reason to feel the optimism and joy.  They believe mankind is the cause of global warming, global cooling, or climate change.  They feel panicked about the world we live in, and believe if we don't make changes the world will come to an end soon. They believe that people with disposable income are greedy and selfish and worthy of punishment by taxes.  They don't see large corporations as creating thousands of jobs, but as evil and greedy and out to control the world, so they try to take them down with high taxes and regulations.  They see rich people as hoarding all the worlds money supply so their won't be any available for the rest of us.  They try to find victims wherever they can in order to turn them into liberal democrats.  They do this by punishing those who succeed with high taxes and redistributing this money to those in need. In this way, they buy votes and turn otherwise hard working people into little democrats. Kids see their world, and they become depressed. Liberals are depressing. So when you offer them facts, when you attack their ideas, you are attacking their soul. In fact, their liberalism is their religion. If you offer your facts or your ideas, you are, in essence, attacking their religion. So, when you have a hard core liberal, it's best just not to engage them.  Take the morally high and superior ground and just let them rant and ignore them.  Know that you are right, and that you don't need to prove yourself right.  Do not engage them.  Do not let them drag you down into the sewer with them.  Do not let them make you depressed (angry, maybe, but never depressed).

11.  They will never admit you are right.  They already know they are right. They have no need to offer any evidence whatsoever.  This is why it is so easy for them just to ignore any facts you offer or cite and attack you instead.  They already believe they are morally superior.  They are arrogant and condescending about their idiotic ideas.  They, therefore, will never admit they are right.  When you prove them right, they will never apologize. Their only goal is to make you depressed so you can join them in the sewer of ignorance.  Their goal is to make you mad.

12.  Know they don't educate themselves.  If you were to observe a liberal, you will soon realize that they do not read the news nor watch the news on TV. They do not have time for it, because they are more interested in entertaining themselves with filth. So, if you know someone is like this, you know that they can't possibly be educated on the issues.  This goes back to an old saying that if you do not teach conservatism, a person will automatically revert to liberalism.  If you are  a liberal, you make decisions based on feelings over facts. They try to downplay facts. Facts don't matter to them. They want refugees into this nation because it feels good to them.  And now I have come full circle.

You may also enjoy reading:

Monday, January 25, 2016

Are conservatives really 'backwards' and 'backwoods'?

From time to time liberals refer to conservatives as "backwoods" or "backwards."  Sometime they use the term "old school."  The truth is, not only do these terms not apply to conservatives, they apply more to the liberals who use them.

To make it simple here, all of these terms are polite ways of saying, "Primitive."  So, when a liberal says that a conservative is "backwoods," he is in essence saying that the conservative is primitive.  Now we can break the term primitive down further.

1.  Liberal definition of primitive: Traditional christian values and morals, such as those taught by the church.

2.  Conservative definition of primitive: The way of life prior to civilization.

In the primitive world, marriage is defined as Commune marriage, the system prevailing amongst some primitive peoples by which within a small community all the men are regarded as married to all the women and vice-versa, sometimes called group marriage, sometimes called polygamy.

In this system all men and women work for the collective, or state. Everything they do is collected by the state to be doled out equally among the people. In this system no one gets to keep a share of the profits of his labors, and therefore there is no incentive to excel above and beyond one's peers.

By this system, there was no incentive to become better, and so people remained primitive.  It was this system that ultimately gave birth to fascism, Marxism, socialism, progressivism, and liberalism.  Their goal is always to create a euphoria, yet all that results is chaos.

Marriage had no meaning, and so culture was not taught. It did not matter if you had sex with other women while married, because you were married to everyone.  Abortions were considered acceptable.  Having a child outside marriage was considered acceptable.

Christianity recognized that there were consequences to all these actions.  They recognized that children who were born of married parents were more likely to become productive members of society.  The recognized that abortion had negative consequences on a society, such as sadness.

Christians recognized that the primitive definition of marriage had consequences, and therefore created a system whereby marriage was defined as a man and a women.  The purpose of marriage was to procreate, and then to share culture with their children.  A part of this culture was a moral code that established marriage between a man and a women.  Adultery and abortion were frowned upon.

When the first civilizations were formed they tried to live without morals.  In Ancient Greece, it was considered as acceptable to live by the primitive definition of marriage.  It was fine to have abortions.  It was fine to have sex with whomever you chose to have sex with.  These were considered fine.

Yet these immoral acts, as Christians saw them, were primitive and worked to destroy civilization rather than hold it together.  So the new moralistic, Christian world was created.  This system is now called the "Christian Right," by liberals, and "old school" or "backwoods."  These people, liberals claim, or those who still believe in this system, are considered to be "backwards."

Yet the truth is, liberals are backwards. They are trying to return society to where it was in the primitive world, where marriage had no meaning; where marriage was defined as whatever you wanted it to be defined.

To further make my point, the definition of marriage I pulled out above was from the 1989 version of the Oxford English Dictionary. Their definition of marriage, as defined by liberals, is:
Commune marriage, the system prevailing amongst some primitive peoples by which within a small community all the men are regarded as married to all the women and vice-versa, sometimes called group marriage, sometimes called polygamy.
You see, so who are the real backwoods people.  Conservatives have actually created a system that works.  Where marriage is defined as between a man and a women, people thrive.  Every study ever done on the subject shows that children born of a mother and a father, even if the father dies, are 80% more likely to become productive members of society.

Yet liberals want to make marriage meaningless.  All you have to do to see proof that I am right here is to look at any city in the U.S. that has been controlled by liberals for 30 or more years.  All you have to do is look at Detroit.  Liberals there have gotten everything they ever wanted: marriage has no meaning, abortion doesn't matter, it's okay to have sex before marriage.  And what has that gotten them.  Where is the Euphoria?

Detroit is proof that liberalism is backwoods. They have turned Detroit into a primitive world.  Rich people are frowned upon and taxed.  And what has all this gotten Detroit.  Since marriage doesn't matter, 9 in 10 children are born to single parents.  No dad is around to teach culture, and moms are too busy working. So kids do poorly in school and join gangs.

Single mothers are supported by the state, and so there is no incentive for them to do better.  Children see how their mothers lived, and they grow up to live the same.  So the cycle of poverty continues.  And it's all because liberals have gotten everything they wanted in Detroit, things they keep telling us will create a euphoric society.

So while liberals claim conservatives are "backwoods" or "backwards," the truth is that liberals are.

Further reading:

Wednesday, January 20, 2016

John F. Kennedy: The Last Conservative Democrat

John Fitzgerald Kennedy might possibly be the most written about President in modern history, and I do not wish to rehash it all. What I'd like to focus on is an aspect of his presidency that gets little attention: the fact he was the last in a long line of conservative democrats. Much evidence supports this claim.

Kennedy was inaugurated on January 20, 1961.  This was a time when the top marginal tax rate was at 91 percent, and the capital gains tax was at 25 percent. Hoover was the first to suggest raising taxes in order to pay for programs he thought were necessary to spur the economy. FDR put taxes on steroids.

After the Great Depression, and after WWII, there was no place for the economy to go but North, so Harry S. Truman essentially rode the wave caused by the post war boom.  He was more concerned with worldly matters, such as receiving the unconditional surrender of Germany, and figuring out how he was going to get Japan to surrender (he ultimately decided to drop Fat Man and Little Boy), and then reconstruction of Europe.

This boom produced eight years of economic growth and prosperity during the Eisenhower years. Nearly every indicator of economic health -- GNP, capital investments, personal savings, and income, showed substantial upswings. So neither Truman nor Eisenhower needed to stimulate the economy by reducing the tax burden.

This changed as John F. Kennedy came into office.  By 1960 the high tax rates started to catch up with the economy, and a recession ensued.  Kennedy understood that lowering taxes would encourage people to save and invest. He also understood the single best means of stimulating an economy was to lower capital gains taxes.  So he proposed lowering the top marginal tax rate to 65 percent, and the capital gains taxes to 19.5 percent.

Sounding much like a modern day conservative, Kennedy explained his economic plan on December 14, 1962, in a speech to the Economic Club of New York:
This administration pledged itself last summer to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes to be enacted and become effective in 1963. I am not talking about a quickie or a temporary tax cut which would be more appropriate if a recession were imminent. Nor am I talking about giving the economy a mere shot in the arm to ease some temporary complaint. The federal government's most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities of private expenditures...
When consumers purchase more goods, plants use more of their capacity, men are hired instead of laid off, investment increases, and profits are high. Corporate tax rates must also be cut to increase incentives and the availability of investment capital. The government has already taken major steps this year to reduce business tax liability and to stimulate the modernization, replacement, and expansion of our productive plant and equipment...
Our true choice is not between tax reduction on the one hand and the avoidance of large federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget, just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits. Surely the lesson of the last decade is that budget deficits are not caused by wild-eyed spenders, but by slow economic growth and periodic recessions, and any new recession would break all deficit records. In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low. And the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.
Liberal democrats, such as Al Gore Sr. and John Kenneth Galbraith, championed against Kennedy's economic plan.  They proposed raising taxes and increasing government spending. They said Kennedy's plan would only result in less government revenue, and not grow the economy.   Kennedy essentially called Gore a "son of a bitch" and told Galbraith to "shut up!"

Even republicans opposed the Kennedy tax cuts, claiming they were reckless.  During the Kennedy-Nixon debates, it was Kennedy who championed for tax cuts and not the republican.  In fact, when Nixon was later elected as president, he would end up being more liberal than Kennedy.  This is yet another example that it's not the party, but the candidate we should be concerned about.

After his death, Congress agreed to cut the top marginal tax rate to 70 percent, but failed to cut capital gains taxes.  Still, despite liberal democrats and moderate republicans claiming it wouldn't work, government revenue doubled (or nearly doubled when adjusted for inflation). In 1961, tax revenue was $94 billion. This climbed to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusted for inflation).

The tax cuts were so successful that Lyndon Baines Johnson presided over a country in economic prosperity.  GNP rose 10 percent in the first year after the tax, and economic growth averages a rate of 4.5 percent from 1961 to 1968.  Disposable personal income rose 15 percent in 1966 alone. These are pretty substantial numbers showing the benefits of responsible economic programs.

Along with tax cuts, he was also an ardent supporter of having a limited government, meaning he was not a big spender. In fact, his annual budgets were always less than the 1959 Eisenhower budget.

However, when it came to the military he was a big spender (much like Reagan did 20 years later). He increased the budget by 20 percent, and increased the supply of nuclear weapons. He believed it was important to spend money on the military so we did not have to use it.  In other words, he believed that if people feared and respected our military, they will not mess with us. Some call this "Peace through strength."

He was also a strong opponent of socialism and Communism abroad. He was so opposed to Communism that he increased American involvement in Vietnam.  When Cuban rebels tried to overtake the Communist Fidel Castro, Kennedy sent troops to Cuba in what became known as the Bay of Pigs. After that failed, Russia attempted to send a ship full of nuclear weapons to Cuba.  Despite calls within his own party to stay out of it, Kennedy ordered the U.S. Navy to take action.

He believed in order to win the Cold War the U.S. had to beat the Russians where it counted. The best examples of this were his military spending and his promise to send astronauts to the moon. He said it was very important to beat them to the moon, "otherwise we shouldn’t be spending this kind of money, because I’m not that interested in space.”

A famous line from his innauguration speach was, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."  This was in reference to the welfare program, of which he was an ardent supporter of reforming. He believed in  "training for useful work instead of prolonged dependency."

In another effort to spur economic growth, he championed Congress for the authority to negotiate tariff reductions in order to lower prices and stimulate economic growth. In a special message to Congress on January 25, 1962, he said:
"The American consumer benefits most of all from an increase in foreign trade. Imports give him a wider choice of products at competitive prices. They introduce new ideas and new tastes, which often lead to new demands for American production... Increased imports stimulate our own efforts to increase efficiency, and supplement anti-trust and other efforts to assure competition. Many industries of importance to the American consumer and economy are dependent upon imports for raw materials and other supplies. Thus American-made goods can also be made much less expensively for the American consumers if we lower the tariff on the materials that are necessary to their production... American imports, in short, have generally strengthened rather than weakened our economy... the warnings against increased imports based upon the lower level of wages paid in other countries are not telling the whole story. (One reason for this is that) American products can frequently compete successfully even where foreign prices are somewhat lower--by virtue of their superior quality, style, packaging, servicing or assurance of delivery... This philosophy of the free market--the wider economic choice for men and nations-is as old as freedom itself. It is not a partisan philosophy."
Perhaps most important, his values and principles were biproducts of the fact he was very religious, attending Catholic Mass every week. He was an ardent supporter of life, and when asked about the topic of abortion, he said, "Now, on the question of limiting population: As you know the Japanese have been doing it very vigorously, through abortion, which I think would be repugnant to all Americans.”

We would not be talking about Kennedy the way we do today if he had listened to his advisors. Polls show that 85 percent of Americans still hold a favorable view of him, and he continues to rank as one of the best presidents of all time. This is probably the result of his conservatism. He was, in fact, the last conservative democrat.

Further reading:

Wednesday, January 13, 2016

The Best Way to Help Poor Children is sans Obama

This is a teaching moment here, and this is the purpose of this blog. We'll keep the individuals I'm referring to anonymous, calling them Carmen and Jeff.  Hang on a moment, and you'll see this post is a quintessential example of something I wrote about a few months ago.

Jeff said that he felt bad because many kids don't get much for Christmas. Their gifts from Santa entail simple things like shirts and pants.  And then their friends talk about what they got for Christmas -- bug things like Stereos, computers, video games, etc. -- the poor kids feel bad. So, he said, we ought to think of this, and give our kids more humble gifts from Santa, and make it so the big gifts, the expensive gifts, are from the parents.

So then Carmen says, "You have a point there."

I said, "That's a perfect example of why we need to get rid of people like Obama."

Carmen and Jeff look at me all offended, Jeff says, "This has nothing to do with politics."

Carmen said, "When I was a kid there was a republican in office, and we were still poor."

I didn't mean to get them so upset, and so I said nothing more. Later I'm sitting with just Carmen, and she said something about our paycheck, about how it's simply not enough money for us to get ahead. And I said, "Bingo. That's exactly what I was talking about.  People suck so much out of paychecks to help the poor to the point that now everyone is poor. That's what people like Obama want. They want victims."

Yes, it is to the point right now where we feel we can't get ahead.  My parents, and my grandparents, worked hard to get ahead.  They were never rich, but they could afford to buy a nice house with plenty of bedrooms for all the kids.  They had to work hard to get this, but they had it. Today, I work just as hard as my parents and grandparents, make about the same amount of money, and only make enough, after taxes, to buy a humble home where my kids are doubled up.

Look, allow me to explain.  It's easy to see the poor child and to empathise with him. This is what drives liberalism.  They count on you not seeing what is not seen, and that is all the money taken from hard working people to pay for all their government programs aimed to help these victims.

Yet it goes to show that the truth hurts, especially when you're referring to poor children who's parents don't have enough money to pay for gifts.  I was not meaning to sound like I don't care, but my point was that liberals feed into stuff like this. Liberals want poor kids, and they want people like you to feel bad for them, because that makes you all victims. Now, here me out here.

These poor kids are victims. Liberals like Obama need victims to survive, and to keep the democratic party going.  They say things like you are saying, "Oh, I feel your pain." And then they create programs to help them that someone else has to pay for.  And so taxes have to be raised on the hardworking people, the rich, the middle class, and also the poor.

On the surface people see Obama's programs come off as good.  They are helping the poor. They are making it so the poor can eat, have a roof over their heads, and so forth.  But what is not seen is all the money filtered from paychecks. By the time you get them they are so small that the value of the dollar goes less far than it did 40 years ago.  In other words, liberalism has made everyone poor. That's what they mean when they say they can create a euphoria.  Their euphoria, their world where everyone is equal, is a world where everyone is poor.

And you can say that when you were a kid you were poor and their was a republican president.  But that is not telling the whole truth.  Since the 1960s, since the death of John F. Kennedy, liberals have controlled the media, they have controlled what our kids learn, and they have controlled Washington. And I'm referring to democrats, but I'm also referring to establishment republicans like George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, Mitt Romney, John McCain, John Kasich, Jeb Bush, and John Boehner.

These are the types of republicans who are also liberals.  Look, just last week presents a perfect example of what I'm referring to here.  In 2010 and 2014 republican voters, in landslide elections, put republicans into office who promised to oppose democrats, and to stop Obama.  Then they sign budget deals like the one last week where the democrats get everything they want funded and republicans get nothing.  Some say Obama got what he wanted with a fight, but there was no fight. Republicans just caved on everything.

Here's a better example.  In the mid 1980s democrat controlled New York was in a depression and about to go bankrupt.  Donald Trump was rich already, and so he had no personal need to invest in New York.  But he did.  By the time he was done, he had created millions of jobs for New York, and billions of dollars.  He had single handedly pulled New York out of a depression. And he was not a politician.  He created no government programs. What he did was encouraged government to get out of the way, give him tax breaks, etc., and he did what businessmen do: make deals.

So who do you think really cares about the poor: liberals or conservatives? Liberals are gutless people who say they care about the poor, and create programs other people have to pay for, such taxes out everything we buy or make, and in the long term make everyone poor. Conservatives look like they don't care for the poor because they don't offer them free programs, but they create environments where everyone has an opportunity to prosper, and where the dollar goes a lot farther.

In other words, even if those poor families made the same amount of money under a conservative government that did not include Obama, those few dollars that bought cheap gifts from Santa would have been able to buy more expensive gifts. So, you see, the best thing we can do for those poor kids is to get rid of Obama.

That said, I'm all for helping poor kids. It's called charity. And less money taken out of paychecks, the more charity people do. For instance, during the 1980s, when taxes and regulations were low under Ronald Reagan, charitable givings were at record highs. So, get rid of the Obama's of the world and poor kids will be far better off. 

Further Reading:

Monday, January 4, 2016

A person must study hard to remain a conservative

John O'Sullivan, former editor for National Review, said that anyone who doesn't practice conservatism every day will naturally gravitate towards liberalism.  This makes sense, considering liberalism is the easiest path, and requires no education whatsoever.  

This kind of goes back to what Rush Limbaugh said about liberalism being the gutless choice.  It takes no education to be a liberal, he said.  All you have to do to be a liberal is say you feel someone's pain, and come up with a solution that somebody else has to pay for.  Then when someone attacks your solution you avoid debate on the issue and attack that person personally with words like homophobe, idiot, racist, sexist, etc.  

Sullivan said: Any institution that is not explicitly right wing will become left wing over time."  He refers to it as his first law.  

What he means is that in order to be a conservative you have to constantly be educating yourself.  You have to constantly be learning.  You have to constantly be reading books and magazines.  And, since most people don't have time for that, they slowly migrate, or evolve, into liberals.  It's the natural progression of liberalism. 

He believes that conservatism must be front and center in your mind, you must study it every day, or you will lose it; you will become one of them -- a liberal; a socialist; a communist; a fascist; a progressive.  That's what's needed to stay abreast, because the natural gravitational pull is to liberalism. 

It is easy to become a liberal.  It takes no effort to be a liberal.  To be a liberal all you have to do is wake up and enjoy life.  When you aren't actively educating yourself, it's easy to believe all the politically correct, secular, jargon spewed out by the left wing media, and left wing teachers, and left wing professors, and so forth.  If you aren't armed with the ammo to protect your mind from their propaganda, you will naturally start to gravitate to their way of thinking; their way of the world.  

It takes a lot of effort to be a conservative.  It takes no effort whatsoever to be a liberal.  Just look at anyone who is a liberal and you will see for yourself that they probably don't even read the news.  And if they do read the news it's the liberal news like the New York Times. If they watch the news on TV it's CNN or MSNBC, or stations that do nothing but repeat the same old propaganda spewed by every other liberal outlet our there.

This is why American history is so important. This is why it's important the kids learn what life was like for people before the United States was formed. This is why it's important to learn about the founding and the founding fathers.  

Sunday, January 3, 2016

The Parable of the Broken Window

I think that everyone should read Henry Hazlitt's book "Economics in one lesson."  Thankfully, you can read it for free right here. Or, at the very least, everyone should read chapter 2, "The Broken Window."  This is the best economics lesson ever told, and it's very short.  So I'm going to post it here 
A young hoodlum, say, heaves a brick through the window of a baker’s shop. The shopkeeper runs out furious, but the boy is gone. A crowd gathers, and begins to stare with quiet satisfaction at the gaping hole in the window and the shattered glass over the bread and pies. After a while the crowd feels the need for philosophic reflection. And several of its members are almost certain to remind each other or the baker that, after all, the misfortune has its bright side. It will make business for some glazier. As they begin to think of this they elaborate upon it. How much does a new plate glass window cost? Two hundred and fifty dollars? That will be quite a sun. After all, if windows were never broken, what would happen to the glass business? Then, of course, the thing is endless. The glazier will have $250 more to spend with other merchants, and these in turn will have $250 more to spend with still other merchants, and so ad infinitum. The smashed window will go on providing money and employment in ever-widening circles. The logical conclusion from all this would be, if the crowd drew it, that the little hoodlum who threw the brick, far from being a public menace, was a public benefactor.

Now let us take another look. The crowd is at least right in its first conclusion. This little act of vandalism will in the first instance mean more business for some glazier. The glazier will be no more unhappy to learn of the incident than an undertaker to learn of a death. But the shopkeeper will be out $250 that he was planning to spend for a new suit. Because he has had to replace the window, he will have to go without the suit (or some equivalent need or luxury). Instead of having a window and $250 he now has merely a window. Or, as he was planning to buy the suit that very afternoon, instead of having both a window and a suit he must be content with the window and no suit. If we think of him as part of the community, the community has lost a new suit that might otherwise have come into being, and is just that much poorer.

The glazier’s gain of business, in short, is merely the tailor’s loss of business. No new “employment” has been added. The people in the crowd were thinking only of two parties to the transaction, the baker and the glazier. They had forgotten the potential third party involved, the tailor. They forgot him precisely because he will not now enter the scene. They will see the new window in the next day or two. They will never see the extra suit, precisely because it will never be made. They see only what is immediately visible to the eye.