Common Phrases Often Misused

Liberalism is very unpopular. So, one method liberals often use is to create happy names for unhappy and unpopular phrases. Here are a few good examples.

1.  Global warming theory is real. They say global warming to make the theory look like a fact. What they really should say, to be accurate, would be "Man-made global warming." In fact, there hasn't been any rise in global temperatures since the mid-1990s. Global warming isn't even a real theory. What it really is is an excuse for liberals to raise taxes and increase regulations to advance their agenda.

2.  Climate change is real. Conservatives have been chiming for years that the climate is always changing.  So, when global temperatures quit rising, they changed the name of their theory to "Climate Change." Again, what they really mean to say is "Man-made climate change." So they poll people, and they say, "Do you believe in climate change?" Most people are going to say "yes" to this. A more accurate question would be, "Do you believe in man-made climate change." A majority of Americans do not.

3.  The term liberal. Liberal used to be about human liberty and its gradual progression. It was about freedom and limited government. It was about the progression of freedom and liberty. It was about limited government. Nearly every President from Thomas Jefferson to Grover Cleveland were considered liberals.  This all changed with the progressive movement of the early 20th century. . When word got out that progressives were the American version of fascists or communists, the term progressive soured. So, when FDR was president, they changed their name -- or abducted the term -- liberal. Ironically, fascism is the antithesis of freedom and liberty. But, this didn't matter, as the name stuck. This forced historians to start referring to liberals like Thomas Jefferson and Grover Cleveland as classical liberals. Modern liberals (of the true sense, that is) refer to themselves as either libertarians or conservatives. Read "What is fascism?"

4.  The U.S. is a democracy. The founding fathers understood that most democracies ended up run by tyrannical dictators. This is because, in order for a true democracy to be effective, all the people must stay up to date on all the issues, and they must all participate in debates and voting. Usually, with ancient Greece and Rome as our best example,, most people are too busy to participate, and so this creates an environment for a dictator -- like Caesar -- to take over. The founding fathers did not want that to happen in the U.S. In fact, they didn't like democracies. So, they chose to form a republic in the U.S. That said, we are a republic, not a democracy. Read: "America is a republic, not a democracy."

5.  Donald Trump and his proponents are anti-immigrant. He is not anti-immigrant. This is just a phrase used by liberals and the media to make Trump look worse than he really is. Trump, and most Americans, are anti-illegal immigrant. They want to keep illegal aliens in an effort to keep our nation safe and secure.

6.  The Affordable Care Act is Necessary. The affordable care act was named to make something that no one wanted sound good. The truth to the matter is that it is not affordable. Premiums for most people have skyrocketed since the advent of the ACA. In fact, premiums are so high, deductibles are so high, that most people with insurance can't even use it.

7.  Russians hacked the election. The Russians did not hack the election. They hacked emails. They tried to hack emails at the republican national committee headquarters and failed. They tried to hack emails at the democratic national committee headquarters and succeeded. However, they did not hack the elections. This is impossible. It's impossible because the polls, polling booths, are not connected to the Internet. So, it's impossible for polls to be hacked. It's impossible for the American election to be hacked. This is the exact reason voting is not done on the Internet.

The bottom line is that liberals cannot tell you the truth. They cannot refer to something as it actually is, because they would never be able to advance their agenda if they did. In order for liberals to advance their agenda, in order for liberal candidates to become elected, they have to pretend to be conservatives. This is what FDR did. 

New World Order: What would it mean for us?

So, there are talks that the goal of progressives is to downsize America, and get rid of it's borders and sovereignty, with the ultimate goal of creating a New World Order. If they got their way, what would this mean for those who currently consider themselves America -- or us? 

If a NWO were created, it would mean that a Super Government would probably be created somewhere in Europe, such as Brussels or Prague. Or, I suppose, it could be head quartered by the United Nations in New York.

The people running this Super Government would be considered the smartest people in the world. Whatever they believed would be forced on the rest of us. Considering they are the experts, they know what's best for us. So, it wouldn't matter what we thought, we would be forced to accept the edicts, the regulations, the laws they set forth. 

It wouldn't matter if you didn't believe that the theory that man is the cause of global warming was a hoax. You wouldn't even be able to state your opinion, because you would probably be put in prison if you insisted on stating it. Or, at the vary least, your opinion would be minimized. There would only be three or four TV stations, and all of them would be run by the state. The government would be able to promote what it wants, and put down whatever it wants. 

This Super Government would set up a World Court, and this court would supersede anything written in the U.S. Constitution. This would mean that you are not necessarily proven innocent until proven guilty. It would mean whatever the justice experts decided it meant. And you can imagine that these experts would all be progressives and not conservatives. Conservatives would all be silenced or killed. They would be the majority who sit in prisons. Or they would just be killed if they continued to act out. This would be similar to how it was prior the the United States. 

A Security Council would be created by the defense experts. They would decide who went to war and with whom and when. They would decide the rules of war. They would decide who won the war. They would decide who had what weapons. They probably would decide to take all the weapons from the people to make sure there was not public revolution against the desires of the state. A state militia would control the people and keep the peace. It would also take care of anyone who spoke out against the Super Government. 

But this would be their Euphoria. This would be the world where everyone has a job, a home, a car, an iphone, the Internet, cable television (or whatever was made available), food, and healthcare. And you can easily see what we would be giving up in order to enjoy life in this so called euphoria -- our liberties. 

In the past, both George W. Bush and Bill Clinton were willing to wage war against the United Nations when they decided to create a World Court, on the grounds that they were not willing to have rights currently protected under the U.S. Constitution absconded by government. However, Obama doesn't seem to have such qualms. 

The New World Order: The Progressive Dream

If we pay attention to what our leaders say we can figure out their true intentions. For instance, John Kerry recently implied that we should get ready for a borderless world. If this comes to fruition, and we have no borders, then we have no states, and we have no United States. There has to be some form of government in this new borderless world, and this preludes to the New World Order.

During a commencement speech in at Northeastern University, Kerry said:

“I think that everything that we’ve lived and learned tells us that we will never come out on top if we accept advice from soundbite salesmen and carnival barkers who pretend the most powerful country on Earth can remain great by looking inward and hiding behind walls at a time that technology has made that impossible to do and unwise to even attempt. The future demands from us something more than a nostalgia for some rose-tinted version of a past that did not really exist in any case... You’re about to graduate into a complex and borderless world.”

This goes back to the liberal belief that individuals are flawed, and tend to making decisions that benefit the individual at the expense of the whole. This refers to individual people and individual states. So liberals believes experts on the national stage should make decisions for them. At the very least, make regulations to nudge individuals and individual states in the right direction. Hence the need for a large governmental body of progressive experts in Washington, and a Super Government somewhere in Europe that many refer to as the New World Order.

So, they do not see America as the leader of the free world. They do not see that 99.9% of individuals lived under totalitarian governments that absconded freedom and liberty prior to the existence of the United States. They do not believe in American Exceptionalism. They believe that America exemplifies everything that is wrong with the world. They see the American Constitution as creating an environment that encourages individuals to make selfish decisions, and so their aim is to "change it" and move it "forward" so that they can "fundamentally transform America."

They believe that an American Superpower creates unbalance in the world. They believe if America has nuclear weapons, that someone else (i.e. the Soviet Union) must have nuclear weapons to balance the power in the world. They believe if America is the wealthiest nation in the world, that it has accumulated its wealth at the expense of the rest of the world, i.e. third world nations. They believe America steals the world's resources. So they believe America makes people poor and enslaved. They do not believe in American Exceptionalism.

They believe America is arrogant and selfish, and this works to the disadvantage of the rest of the world. They believe the American system is flawed from the beginning, and therefore it must be taken away.

This explains why Obama has depleted our military and ended the NASA programs. This explains why Obama keeps our borders porous, because he believes we are responsible for the poverty of those coming in. This explains why Obama supported the KYOTO protocol, which allows the United Nations to create regulations requiring industries to cut green house gases, even though this would supersede Constitutional protections.

This explains why liberals create programs allowing illegal aliens access to social security, welfare, and medicine. It's only fair that we give them the same opportunity that we give our own people, because we absconded that opportunity from them in the first place.

So, borderless, by John Kerry's definition, by Obama's definition, by the liberal definition, means that we hve to cut America down to size. This explains the open border policy that does not require those those entering be assimilated into the American way of life. It explains economic policies that do not make the American economy better. It explains a healthcare system designed to wreck the American economic system from the inside out.

Lacking borders, we will need a Super Government. This was the purpose of the United Nations. It was supposed to be this super power government. This is a place where experts, preferably liberal experts (all the experts of the world), take the most popular theories and force everyone else to believe them.

They will be seated in Brussels or Hague. They create regulations that require all world factories to reduce carbon dioxide emissions or else. Of course the smaller industries won't be able to afford to comply with the regulations, so this will force them to go out of business or merge with larger conglomerate industries, trusts, or monopolies. This will make it easier to form a universal, socialistic world economy.

They do not want borders. They do not want states. They do not want sovereignty. They want a world ruled by progressive experts who, so it may be assumed, know what's best for all of us. This, they believe, will result in a euphoric world where everyone has a job, a house, food, healthcare, free education, a retirement, etc. And, of course, there will be no bad guys. They are naive enough to think this world is possible outside of Heaven. This is all possible by destroying America first, eliminating borders, and creating a New World Order.

The one thing that all of us will be forced to sacrifice for this euphoria is our freedom and our liberty.  You will still get to choose, but it will be a choice between two options that the smartest progressives in the world want you to choose from. That will be the end of your liberty. They will promote what they want to promote, and shut down what they want to shut down. And, before they get there, they have to change the constitution, fundamentally transform America, shut down its sovereignty, and eliminate its borders. 

What is Communism?

Americans have traditionally viewed Communism as the antithesis of upward expansion and liberty. Liberals, on the other hand, believe the basic tenets of Communism will work if the right people are put in charge of it with a sufficient amount of money. So what is the reality of Communism?
Let's start with a quote from Chris Cuomo.  His is the son of the former liberal governor of New York, Mario Cuomo.  He traveled with Obama to Cuba as Obama became the first sitting U.S. President to visit Cuba since Calvin Coolidge did it in January of 1928.

Alisyn Cameroto asked Chris: "Hey, Chris, we can't help but notice your culturally appropriate garb that you're wearing. Tell us the history of your shirt."

Mario said: 

"My guayabera? This shirt belonged to my father. It was given to him by Fidel Castro. It marked conversations going on decades ago that were the same as those today. The concern was the freedom of the people. What is the point of this communist regime if it is not to truly make everyone equal, not at the lowest level, not by demoralizing everyone, but lifting everyone up. My father, generations of politicians have been fighting this. So I wear this shirt as a reminder of that."

Obama coddling Raul Castro, a totalitarian, dictator thug.
Castro called for an end to the Embargo,
and Obama asked Congress to end it.
Castro blames poverty in Cuba on the Embargo,
not on the failures of Communism.
We are the only country that doesn't trade with Cuba,
still, our embargo is blamed for their failures.
And liberals believe this stuff. 

So, what does this mean? It means that Cuomo has a positive view of Communism. What he said is probably representative of the liberal view of Communism. It makes sense, as liberals often speak glowingly of the Soviet Union system, and opposed Ronald Reagan in his efforts to stop it. They often speak glowingly of Castro, despite the Cuban embargo signed by Democrat John F. Kennedy on Feb. 3, 1962.

Obama even called on Congress to end the Embargo. claiming that normalization "is a long journey." The embargo was intended to be in effect until Cuba reduced its alignment with Communist powers. Obama began the journey to normalize relations a year ago, and he promised not to visit Cuba until freedom and liberty had been was improved on the island. Yet none of these stipulations have been met by Cuba, nor are there any signs that they will be met.

So it appears that liberals must indeed believe that Communism can elevate people up out of poverty, and that Communism is about freedom and liberty. Obama must already believe this about Cuba, otherwise he wouldn't have gone gone to Cuba.

They hold out hope that if only the right people were in charge of it with a sufficient amount of money that it would work.

To understand this you have to understand where liberalism and Communism come from. I described it in my post "What is Fascism?"  Here is a snippet of what I wrote:

"Fascism, commonly known as Marxism, is a form of government whereby the state is worshiped as a religion, and experts in the state make rules that attempt to prevent many of the flaws of men. The police-state then enforces these laws, and the end result is an ideal world or euphoric world where everyone has a job with equal pay, and everyone has health care, and there is world peace. Fascism is a movement that began around the turn of the 20th century, and it grew roots in nearly every western nations. What form it took depended on what country it was formed in."

Early forms of it entailed progressivism in the United States, Communism in the Russian Soviet Union, Socialism in Italy, and Nazism in Germany. Modern versions of it are European Socialism and Liberalism. Modern liberals even refer to themselves as progressives, or as Democratic Socialists.

It makes sense that modern liberals would deny any link to Carl Marx, as Hitler's version of it, and Stalin's version of it, and Mussolini's version of it soured the image of Marxism. It therefore has traditionally been viewed as anti-American, anti-Capitalism, anti-Freedom, and anti-Liberty. It was viewed as a form of government the traps people in poverty and only allows upward expansion for those running the government.

It was viewed as a form of government that forced people to conform to policies established by government. Those who spoke out against it were prosecuted, imprisoned, or even executed. It was a form of government that caused many to want to escape, and to prevent this walls were built, such as the Berlin wall in Germany.

Because they are all of the same ilk, liberals held out hope that Communism was the best hope for sameness, equality, and equality of outcomes. They believed that because Communism was initiated in nations that were not burdened by the U.S. Constitution, and therefore they hoped to see it prosper; held out hope that it would.

They tell kids in schools that it's about individual freedom, economic prosperity. They tell them that everyone will enjoy it, because everyone is doing their best. They sell it as everyone is being the same, with the same opportunities and the same outcomes. They sell it as nobody losing, no competition, and total freedom.  They tell kids that they can do whatever they want and the state will make sure that everybody ends up with a lot.

They tell kids that Communism is how you get to utopia. Utopia is where everybody is happy. It's Heaven on Earth. It's where everybody gets what they want. It's where there is no crime because everybody is happy. It's where there is no terrorism and no wars because everybody is happy.

What kid wouldn't want that?

So the best way to get kids to see Communism for what it truly is is to teach the truth about it. Show them that, once people learn what Communism is, they have to build walls to keep people in. Many people have defected Cuba to the United States, and the reason is because they hate it. People are put in jails and executed for opposing it. So they are forced to conform.

And forcing people to conform means forcing them to abdicate their freedoms and liberties. It means forcing them to give up their Bibles and their rifles. It means forcing them into public schools that are completely run, and completely controlled, by the elite. You cannot be free if you are forced to be the same as everyone else. And you will not be happy. And you will not be rich. And you will definitely not be elevated.

They say their ideas will lift people, elevate them out of poverty. But there is nothing in socialism, nothing in liberalism, nothing in Communism, nothing in ISIS, nothing in dictatorships, nothing in monarchies, that will elevate people. You cannot be elevated if everyone is the same. In order to be elevated, you need people to be unique, which they are. When people are allowed to be unique, that's where you get ideas from that help to elevate people. You don't get that from sameness.

This system on its face fails because it assumes everyone is the same and can be the same and can be treated the same. It assumes every outcome can be equal. It assumes the every person in a country can be upper middle class.

It fails because everyone is not the same. Every person has different opinions, values, morals. Every person thinks differently. Every person is unique. And for this reason, the utopia that some people believe can be created via socialism can never, has never, will never, work. It's designed to make everyone poor. It's designed to make everyone the same. It's designed to make everyone miserable. It's designed to provide a system whereby the leaders are the only ones who have what they want.

If that's what you consider utopia, then that's what you'll get if you support Communism. The only Utopia can be found in Heaven. Anyone who reads the Bible knows that.

People have to be taught the Communism will not result in upward mobility because it is impossible in the Communist system. The only people who have any chance of bettering their lot in lives are those running government and their friends and family members. This is no better than what 99.9% of governments offered prior to the United States. Most governments prior to the U.S. were totalitarian dictatorship governments where only the ruling class lived well That's exactly the type of system Marxism wants to revert back to.

Communism has never worked.  The U.S.S.R. lasted from 1922 to 1992. That was 70 years. And yet it collapsed because, since everyone made the same amount of money no matter what they did, no one had an incentive to work. There was plenty of food, but no one was willing to pick it, put it in trucks, and ship it to stores. So there were people starving. Because the nation was so economically deprived, it could not keep up with the United States. The U.S.S.R collapsed. Down fell the Berlin Wall.

Communism has been given 50 years to work in Cuba. It has been an abject failure. Communism, Socialism, liberalism, progressivism, whatever you want to call it, never works. Every time it's been tried, every place it's been tried, whatever form it takes, it fails. In fact, if Communism in Cuba works so well, then why are people constantly trying to flee it, often risking their lives for a small chance at liberty? Why are people constantly defecting Cuba for America? Why would anyone want to abandon such a paradise?

Communism, socialism, fascism, progressivism, is based on good intentions, and it keeps getting a free pass even though it never succeeds. Look in the United States where it's been tried. Look at the war on poverty. There are just as many people in poverty today as when it started. Yet it's hailed as a success. Then look at Capitalism. If it's not perfect, if one person falls through the cracks, it's hailed as a failure.

So now you understand why so many people continue to worship Communism. Now you understand why Obama went to Cuba to lend credence to a Communist, totalitarian dictator thug who imprisons and kills people who disagree with his form of governance. That's the modern day Democratic Party.

Further reading

• Rush Limbaugh: Obama lands in Cuba: One small step for man, one giant leap for Marxism
• Newsmax: 10 reasons Cuban Embargo should not be lifted
• ABC News: Here's what happened the last time a U.S. President visited Cuba
• Articulating Ideas: What is liberal fascism?
• Naples Herald: Coast Guard: 9 Cuban migrants die, 18 rescued of Marco Island

Why socialism, liberalism and progressivism always fails

One of the biggests myths that liberals believe is that there's only so much money to go around. They believe that people who make lots of money do so at the expense of others. This explains why rich people are so often referred to as "greedy" and "selfish" and "materialistic" by the left.  And it's so not true.

Now, surely, in some cases it might be true.  But in most cases, just because someone is well off does not make them greedy.

This also explains why the left constantly barrages people who succeed.  They do not like it when companies make profits.  Instead, they believe any money over what is needed to make a living should be spread out among all the other people equally.

This explains why they want taxes for the rich and not for the middle class and poor.  They want to punish those who succeed by taking the money they worked so hard to earn and doling it out to the poor.  In other words, they believe they know how to spend other people's money better than they do.

Actually, liberals believe that, left to their own devices, that people who succeed are naturally greedy, selfish, and materialistic; that they will naturally put themselves before the state, And, they believe, this is wrong.

This is why they hate capitalism so much, because capitalistic societies create opportunities for the few to benefit off the many, or so they falsely believe.

A perfect example to help me make my point is Dan Price, CEO of Gravity Payments.  He read somewhere that $70,000 was an ideal salary.  If you earn this salary you can have a nice house and car and have plenty of money left over to live a good life.  There's no need to make more than that.

Here's a guy who made over a million a year.  He decided to give himself a huge pay cut to $70,000 a year, and he gave this same salary to all his workers.  In other words, he decided, as so many on the left do, that it's unfair that one person makes millions of dollars while all the people who are the workers make so much less.  So he redistributed the money among all who work for him.

Guess what?  This happened back in April.  Not even four months later he announced that it was an utter failure. He had people who worked for the company for many years, were very loyal to the company, and they were upset that people who were newly hired were making as much as they were. Some of them -- some of his best employees -- quit.  It was a devastating blow to his company.

When you dole out money equally you expect that every person will do an equal amount of work.  In the ideal world, this might happen.  But in the real world this is impossible.  In the real world you are always going to have people say: "I'm going to make $70,000 no matter what I do, so I'm not going to go out of my way to do anything."

Why did this system fail? Because it assumes that everyone is equal.  Dan Price assumed that if everyone else made the same money he did that they would have the same passion that he does.  He believed the liberal myth that equality would bring fairness and happiness.  And he was wrong.

The fallacy here is that if everyone was equal, if everyone made the same amount of money, that everyone would do the same amount of work, and everyone would be equally happy.  This is the euphoria liberals think they can create. This is the biggest myth of liberalism that exists out there.

Sure, in their ideal world everyone is equal.  But in the real world people know that no two people are alike.  We are all unique. We all have our own goals, desires, and ambitions.  Some of us naturally work harder than others.  Some of us are early to work every day, and others are late no matter how hard they try.

Not only that, contrary to what the left tries to force on us, no one wants to be the same as someone else. We all yearn to be individuals; we all yearn to be unique.  Surely I might want to be like my dad, and I might want to be like the CEO running my company, or I might like to emulate one of my better coworkers.  Still, I don't want to be considered the same as everyone else. We all want to be unique.  We all want to be missed when we are gone because no one else can do what we do.

That reminds me of a sign I saw in the nursing report room a while back: "No one notices what you do until you are gone."  This means that when you are no longer here, people realize how valuable you were.  All these years, for instance, they just assumed the storage room miraculously was stocked every day.  Now that you aren't around they see that it was you, all along, who stocked.

When my grandma passed away, the general consensus among us grandkids was that this was a woman who could never be replaced. If you are healthy psychologically, then you are special to the world in this way too. You cannot be replaced.  You are unique, You are an individual.  You don't want to be lumped in with a bunch of slackers, half-baked, half-caring people. You want to be thought of as the cream of the crop, and you can't be if everybody's making 70 grand.

Worded another way, if we all make the same income(a so called fair wage), and we all have the same healthcare, and we all have the same education, and we all have the same everything else, then we are nothing more than sheep.  We are herded by the great big Sheppard who lives in Washington D.C. who goes by the name of Uncle Sam.

The problem with this analogy is people are not sheep.  We all yearn to be unique We all yearn to be special. We all yearn to offer some special gift. We all offer a special gift. If everyone is the same, then we are no longer needed. To assume we are all the same is to assume we are all easily replaceable, and that goes against nature

It is for this reason that liberalism, progressivism, socialism, Lenonism, Marxism... always fails.

There are many people in this world that are so special that they will never be replaced.  This is human nature.  We are not the same, and cannot be treated the same. So any attempt to make us the same assumes that we all produce the same, and that's simply not true. It's human nature. To try to perfect human nature will always lead to chaos.

And that's exactly what happened at Gravity Payments after Dan Price decided to give everyone who worked for the company the same wage of $70,000.  Because there are so many different levels of talent and ability, the system set in place never had a chance. It was socialism pure and simple. Everyone was treated the same. Nobody was considered more important than anyone else. They are interchangeable. When one person retires or quits or dies, another can simply fit in to fill the empty pair of shoes, or so the

Marxist assumes.  Such a system is doomed to fail no matter how many times it is tried.Sure it might sound good and make you feel good, but it never works. It has never worked.

The main problem with socialism is best summed up by Rush Limbaugh:

The main policy or main flaw with socialism side from run out of somebody else's money at some point is that we're not the same and we are not equal. There is no such thing as fairness. Fairness is always arbitrary depending on who has the power to define it, and there certainly is no equality. There's equality of opportunity, equality of chance, equality before the law, but these people talk about equality in terms of outcomes, and there's no such thing.

You put a system of socialism in place where you have equality of outcome, and you're always gonna have some renegades, some entrepreneurs who are gonna say, "Screw this," and they're gonna bust out, and they're gonna do what they do, and they're not going to be shackled by silly rules like this. And then you have, on the other end of it, people who are gonna say, "I'm gonna get 70 grand a year, man, and I don't have to do anything special? I just have to show up?" and that's all they're gonna do. Because slackers are everywhere.

If you're not going to be compensated or rewarded for merit-based behavior, then there's no reason to be concerned about merit-based behavior. So that goes out the window, too.

Why did Dan Price's system fail? Because it was pure, unadulterated socialism. Call it liberalism or progressivism or whatever you want, it has failed every single time it has been tried. Yet because it smells good and sounds good, the best and brightest among us will continue to fall for it.

Further reading:

• Articulating Ideas: Idealism versus Realism
• Articulating Ideas: What is Fascism?
• Washington Times: Dan Price, Seattle CEO Who Set Company Minimum Wage at $70K, Now Struggles to Make Ends Meet
• Hot Air: CEO Who Raised Workers’ Minimum Pay to $70K Hits Predictable Problems
• National Review: It Turns Out That Equality Can Feel a Lot Like Unfairness
• Rush Limbaugh: CEO Who Made $70K His Company's Minimum Wage Admits It's a Disaster

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:

• Liberalism is a gutless choice
• 4 differences between liberals and conservatives (coming in April, 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:

• Gallup signals the GOP: Abandon the Bitter Clingers in your Backwards Base 
• Gallup: Americans Continue to Shift Left on Key Moral Issues
• What is the definition of backwoods?

The true story of Thanksgiving

There was no freedom of religion in the early 1600s. If you did not believe in the same religion that King James I wanted, and you worshiped God in the way you wanted instead of what King James wanted, you were treated as a common criminal. You were hunted down, put in prison, or even killed.

These individuals wanted to be left alone to worship the way they wanted, and in 1608 they moved out of their homeland of England to Holland. But there was much hardship in Holland too, so the Pilgrims decided to leave England for America. But they stopped back in England first to receive funding from the Virginia Company. Then in August of 1620, 102 Pilgrims set out for America in a ship called the Mayflower.

During the ride across the ocean much discussion ensued as to what form of government to create. While still on the Mayflower in 1620, the Mayflower Compact was signed, and one of the signers was William Bradford. The Pact said that all goods and services, and all land, would be owned by the mass community, and the profits would be doled out equally among the masses.

When they landed in November they found a land that was cold, shelter less, and not very welcoming. In fact, in that first harsh winter over half of the Pilgrims died. When Spring finally arrived, the Indians taught them how to build shelters and to plant corn, fish for cod, and skin beavers to be used as coats.

The fact that an Indian tribe, lead by Massosoit, was a blessing from God in itself, because without his blessing the other Indian tribes would have pulverised the Pilgrims. This was also a blessing because a pirate named black took advantage of his friendship and took many of his people.

They did better at this point, but things did not go as well as Bradford, the original governor of the community, had expected. He decided that while the Mayflower Pact sounded like a good idea, since no one owned anything, and there was no incentive to work more than the minimum, there were many crops that went unplanted, and much that wasn't taken care of, and productivity was very poor. People did whatever the minimum was needed of them, and then they quit. What the Pilgrims had created here was an early form of socialism.

By 1623 the harvest was so poor that starvation and death became a problem almost as bad as when the colonists first arrived. They had the know how and the potential for having good crops, but this wasn't happening.

Bradford realized this pact was not working. He wrote: "The experience that we had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years...that by taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing – as if they were wiser than God." Yet he realized it did not work as expected.

Bradford decided to take an idea from the Bible. He gave every person a plot of land to take care of as their own. If they did well, they were able to keep part of the profits as an incentive to work hard. They were allowed to market and profit from what they sold. In effect, he turned loose the power of the marketplace. He created the worlds first capitalistic government.

The following harvest was abounding. It was not abounding because of help from the Indians, but because a socialistic government was replaced by a capitalistic one. On this, Bradford wrote: "This had very good success, for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been."

The Pilgrims did so well that they set up stands where they exchanged goods and services with the Indians, and they used profits from this to pay back their debt in England. In fact, the colony started to do so well economically that many Pilgrims decided to migrate to the colonies. This was called the Great Puritan Migration.

For helping them come up with a new system that worked to produce the bountiful crops, they decided to have a roast to give thanks to the Lord. There were some Indians at this celebration, but not as many as we and are kids are taught in school.

Now the Pilgrims were also thankful for the Indians for helping them and even protecting them. Yet that was not the main Intent of that celebration. The main intent was to thank God for teaching them an effective government.

The history books tell us that the first Thanksgiving was celebrated to give thanks to the Indians for helping the Pilgrims survive after that first hard winter. Sure the crops were improved that second November, but there was no celebration. There was no celebration until socialism was quashed and a capitalistic government was formed and the economy of the colony prospered. This is what the colonists celebrated on that first Thanksgiving. The date was August 9th.

However, since William Bradford's original notes were lost for many years, the story of  Indians saving colonists and this being the reason for the first Thanksgiving became common. And when Thanksgiving was made a national holiday by Congress in George Washington's first year in office, November 26 was selected as the day. And even while Bradford's journals were discovered, this false date and the false story of the first Thanksgiving were not corrected.

The unfortunate result of this fallacy not being corrected is that the lessons of Bradford were not learned. Carl Marx, Stalin, Lennon, Hitler, Mussolini, all played with various forms of socialism, and none of them worked.  Even today, in both the Europe and the United States, forms of socialism continue to exist. Perhaps if the true story of Thanksgiving were known, the failures of the past would not be repeated over and over again.

Further reading:

• Smithsonian: What as on the menu at the first Thanksgiving?

What is social justice?

It seems we are forced to do a lot of things we don't want to do, and it's always in the name of "social justice." So what is social justice, and how does it effect us as individuals?

Well, to begin with, social justice is not about individuals, it is about society as a whole. To understand it, we first need a definition, so hear goes.

Social Justice:  Sacrificing personal or individual liberties and justice for the benefit of the whole of society.

Let me put it this way: Social Justice teaches the opposite of what the Bible teaches. The Bible, the Gospel, preaches rule of man or individual rights. It preaches individual choices and taking accountability for the individual choices we make. This is what lead up to capitalism, and is how Christianity has lead to a capitalistic system of government.

Social Justices is the opposite of this.  Social Justice teaches that, if you are better than someone else, then you have to have something taken from you to make you equal to everyone else.  If you are worse than everyone else, then you are given something that you did not earn to make you equal.

So, social justice is taking from those who have, giving to those who have not, in order so that all people are equal.  The problem with this is that if everyone is equal, there can be no rich and no poor.  If there are no rich, then there is nothing to shoot for.

In essence, everyone is poor.

Since everyone is taken care of regardless of effort, then no one makes an effort improve things.  The bottom line here is that everyone remains poor.  There is plenty of supply (such as food), but no one willing to pick it.  This is one of the reasons the former Soviet Union failed, because no one was willing to do any of the work.

Under the American version social justice (aptly called either progressivism or liberalism), if you earn more than "your fair share," your taxes are raised to make you equal.  If you make less than your fair share, social justice programs will help make you equal.  Social justice programs include welfare, social security, healthcare, and so forth.

They also include regulations to make sure you comply with the will of whatever modern fad is ongoing, such as regulations to prevent global warming. This is another excuse they use to raise your taxes, which is essentially what regulations are.

Yet since average working people are now poor, taxes are raised on the rich even higher so they continue to pay their fair share.  Yet they find ways to dodge taxes, or they themselves run out of money and become equal citizens.

Now, since there are fewer rich people, or (ideally) no rich people, this means that a euphoric world has been created where everyone is equal.  The aspect of this that so many on the left fail to understand is that if there are no rich people, than everyone is poor.  If everyone is equal, everyone is poor.

So, since there are no rich people, and the people are now all equally poor, there isn't enough money to sustain the system.  So it all comes tumbling down.

This is the fear of the people who oppose social justice.  It is the reason the Bible preaches individualism, because social justice fails every time.  In fact, Social Justice is only a happier term for socialism, liberalism, progressivism, and fascism.

The ideal goal of social justice is to create an ideal world, a euphoric world, where everyone works, everyone has a working wage, everyone has healthcare, everyone is taken care of in every way you can think of.  Yet it is never obtainable and never sustainable.  It is a system that fails every time it has been tried.

So, social justice is a system where those who have sacrifice what they earn for the benefit of the society as a whole.  But there is another aspect of social justice, and this is the sacrificing of individual justice for the good of the whole.  A quintessential example of this is the 2015 Baltimore Race Riots following the death of a black man in police custody.

In order to quell the riots, in order to generate peace, in order to create calm, Al Sharpton called for a Nationalization of the police force (social justice).  Less than 24 hours later, Baltimore Mayor, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, threw the book at the police officers involved, indicting them on every charge they could think of.

The justice system is thereby ignored, and the individual rights of these men are sacrificed, for the good of society as a whole.  It does not matter if these men, these police officers, were guilty or innocent.  Their liberties are sacrificed for the good of the whole.

And it's obvious these charges were made based on social justice, because the legal system was not followed.  For Ferguson, Michael Brown was shot on August 9, 2014.  A grand jury took 108 days to review the case before returning a no indictment.  Eric Garner died on July 17, 2014, and a grand jury took 140 days to get a ruling against indicting. Freddie Gray died April 19, 2015, and he was indicted by Mayor Mosby without even consulting a grand jury, in less than 24 hours after receiving police department investigation results.

Is this justice? Or social justice?  Justice means the system of laws is followed to assure individual rights are not violated.  Social justice means personal rights take a back seat to good of society.

To me this system of social justice doesn't even sound good on the surface.  Yet because social justice sounds good on the surface, many people fall for it.

Further reading:

• Glenn Beck: What is social justice?

Is Pope Francis A Socialist?

The pope says that if you do not give some of what you need, then you are not faithful. If you do not give up some of the money you need, you are not being charitable.  If you are not living like the poor, you are not charitable.  If you are not equal to everyone else, you are not faithful.  If you are not socialist, you are not faithful.  If you are not faithful, you will not living like Jesus.  If you are not living like Jesus, you are not getting to heaven?

Is that not what he is saying?

In other words, he is saying, or so it would seem, that you either need to be poor, or you are not faithful. Seriously, this is what he said. Here, listen to his own words as reported by the  National Catholic Reporter:

Focusing on poverty and sacrificing for the poor are the heart of the Gospel, not signs of Furthermore, if Christians don't dig deep and generously open up their wallets, they do not have 'genuine faith.'

Essentially what he is saying here is that, if you do not open your wallets to the poor, you cannot be faithful. He is saying that you must support big government programs or you are not faithful. So, essentially he is saying that conservatives, like you and me, cannot be faithful.  That is a stretch, to say the least.

The article went further.

He said people often hear, "Oh, this priest speaks about poverty too much, this bishop talks about poverty, this Christian, this sister talk about poverty. Well, they're a bit communist, aren't they?  But "poverty is precisely at the heart of the Gospel. If we were to remove poverty from the Gospel, people would understand nothing about Jesus' message," he said, according to Vatican Radio.Being fully Christian means being rich in spirit, faith, the Word, wisdom and zeal -- things that Jesus has taught and offered all people, he said. Make sure, however, that this huge amount of "wealth in the heart" also impacts the wallet, he said, because "when the faith doesn't reach your pockets, it is not a genuine faith." Pope Francis said the "theology of poverty" is based on the fact that Jesus -- in his divine richness -- became poor; he lowered himself and sacrificed himself to save humanity. The beatitude "Blessed are the poor in spirit" means "letting oneself be enriched by the poverty of Christ and not wanting to be rich with those riches that are not from Christ," he said. Christian giving goes beyond plain charity, which is good, but isn't the "Christian poverty" believers are called to embrace, he said. "Christian poverty is: I give to the poor what is mine, not the excess, but also what is necessary" for one's own well-being. Christians do this because they know that sacrificing in such a way enriches them, he said. "And why does the poor person enrich me? Because Jesus said that he himself is in the poor."  When people strip themselves of the material, "Jesus works within" them and they are enriched; when people give to the poor, Jesus is also working in the poor, "in order to enrich me when I do this," the pope said.

This pretty much defines socialism to a tee.  Socialism means that you take from the rich and give to the poor. It's using the IRS to force people to give to the poor.  The pope is calling this charity. Although, it's not charity, it's welfare; it's socialism; it's communism.

But the pope is saying that Jesus supported communism.  He is saying that you cannot just give your disposable income to charity, you have to give some of what you need. In other words, he is saying that all of us must live in poverty; we must all be poor.

And, if you think of it, that's essentially what socialism is.  The goal of socialism or liberalism or progresivism or whatever you want to call it is to create a euphoric world where everyone makes the same amount of money; we are all equal.

And, if everyone were equal, if there were not rich people, by default, would not that mean that we are all poor.  In essence, socialism is the government Jesus preached, as socialism means that we are all equally poor.

Is this what the pope is implying.  Is this why he hates capitalism?  Is this why the left refers to anyone who lives above their means as evil, greedy, rich people? It would seem so.  And so, I think we are safe to say that our pope, Pope Francis, is indeed a socialist.

Further reading:

• Articulating ideas: What is charity?
• Articulating ideas:  Pope wrong about capitalism
• Breitbart.com: John Kasich Rips ObamaCare Critics For Not Understanding the Bible
• National Catholic Reporter: Concern for poor sign of Gospel, not red flag communism

Myth Buster: Welfare is charity

There is little doubt that the Bible teaches one to give freely to those in need. I have written about it on this blog, and it's called charity. However, there are political and religious figures of late who seem to confuse charity with welfare.

The most recent to fall victim to this was Ohio governor and republican presidential candidate John Kasich. He has been a supporter of Obamacare, and has even allowed for Obamacare welfare expansion in Ohio. 

On October 10, 2015, at an appearance before the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, he responded to his critics:

"Look at Medicaid expansion. Do you know how many people are yelling at me? I go out to events where people yell at me. You know what I tell 'em? ... I say, there's a book. It's got a new part and an old part; they put it together, it's a remarkable book. If you don't have one, I'll buy you one. It talks about how we treat the poor. Sometimes you just have to lead."

So, essentially he said that welfare is charity. He is saying that you should be willing to give of your well earned money to the government because the government is doing with your money what the Bible preaches, and that is to give it to those in need.

But he is wrong. To understand this, let's look at a couple definitions.

• Charity:  Giving freely to those in need some of what you have. 
• Welfare. The government mandating that you give some of what you earn to others in need.

You see, charity is when you give by your own choice, and welfare is you give because you have to. So welfare, by definition, is not charity. 

Still, there are those, like Kasich, who want you to think welfare is charity. This is how they get large corporations to agree to support big government programs.  This is how get people who work so hard for their money to support the expansion of government.

This is how you get 52% of Catholics to support characters like Bernie Sanders.

Look, Pope Francis has used the myth that charity is welfare to justify his calls in support of government regulations to prevent man made global warming and to help the poor. In response to critics, he said, via the National Catholic Reporter, that...

Focusing on poverty and sacrificing for the poor are the heart of the Gospel, not signs of communism.

The truth is, when God created Israel, he did not tell the people to give money to the Romans. What he did was tell people to leave some of their crops so that the hungry could work to get them. The Bible preached we should help the poor, but that the poor should work for what they get.  In other words, the Bible preached that if you don't work you do not eat.

In this way, the Bible preached charity, not welfare. 

Further reading:

• Articulating ideas: What is charity?
• Articulating ideas:  Pope wrong about capitalism
• Breitbart.com: John Kasich Rips ObamaCare Critics For Not Understanding the Bible
• National Catholic Reporter: Concern for poor sign of Gospel, not red flag communism

Myth Buster: All rich people, corporations, nations are greedy

Quite often my liberal friends say things like, "Donald Trump is greedy," "It's a rich, greedy corporation." They refer to any rich person as greedy, not just Trump.  Any corporation that makes money is greedy, such as, "Greedy pharmaceuticals" set their prices too high. I think It's frustrating to me when they say stuff like this, but I think I understand why they do: it's based on a fallacy.

It almost seems as if liberals hate success, as they are often trying to punish people who succeed. They falsely believe, that left to their own devices, people will not give to charity; they will not help the poor. I attempted to allay this myth in my post, "Pope Francis Wrong About Capitalism."  Capitalism creates opportunities, and people under capitalistic societies donate more to charity than people under any other form of government.

I think the big misconception, the big fallacy of progressives, is that they believe there is only so much money in the world, and if one person, or one corporation, becomes wealthy, that this comes at the expense of everyone else, especially the poor.  In other words, if one person makes a million dollars, this is a million dollars that will not help the poor; in fact, it hurts the poor.  That's why they refer to rich people like Donald Trump as greedy and selfish.

The truth is that there is plenty of money to go around so that everyone can get rich.  This what Trump is saying when he says, "I'm rich, and I will make you rich too."  There is no shortage of money in the world. Rather than trashing people like Trump who succeed, we ought to put them up on a pedestal with an inscription under saying, "You can be like Trump: You can get rich too."

That's the whole point of American exceptionalism.  It's not that we are better than other nations, it's that, before American, 90% of people lived in poverty. America -- more specifically: American Exceptionalism -- has made it so that anyone can rise up to be as rich as kings or queens or totalitarian leaders. This was never possible before America.

People like Trump are a rare breed who sacrifice all to succeed.  Trump had to sacrifice years and money on educating himself, and he had to take great risks to succeed.  In fact, he was so focussed on succeeding that he risked his first marriage to Ivana. I don't mean to ramp up Trump here, I'm just trying to give an example of how getting rich is not bad.  Trump got rich by creating hundreds if not thousands of jobs. As Trump rose to the top he took many people with him.

That's the whole purpose of unfettered capitalism or capitalism.  Some call it supply side economics.  As Jack Kemp used to say, "A rising tide lifts all ships."  During the 1980s, when regulations and taxes were cut, people of every class rose to a higher class. In fact, when regulations, taxes, and government programs were cut in the 1920s, there was no unemployment (it was 2%, while most economists consider 4.5% no unemployment as there will always be people between jobs).

It's not only just individuals and corporations that are greedy, it's America. There are literally people, even within our own country, who think this is unfair; it's unfair that Americans are so rich, because they get rich at the expense of every other nation. They think we are the reason other nations are poor because we absorb all the money in the world.  They think it's not fair that we have all the wealth and no one else does.

What they fail to see is that 99.9% of the world was poor prior to America. Before America, there was no place in the world you could go to be free; there was no place in the world where you could worship what are religion you wanted; there was no place in the world you could go to take an idea you had and prosper.

Again, what they should do is put America on a pedestal and teach rulers of other nations how to accomplish what America has accomplished. Instead of saying Americans are greedy, they ought to ask: What made America so great? What made Americans so prosperous? Why does everyone want to go to America? How can I do that for my country?

Let me word this another way. People who really care for the poor, for the little guy, should want the little guy to have an improved life: more contentment, more happiness, more stuff.  If this is true, then they should want to emulate the United States. You certainly wouldn't want to tear it down.  If you truly cared about the poor, you would create a nation just like the United States.  You wouldn't teach them that America is selfish and greedy and rich at the expense of everyone else.

America is about freedom, liberty, and prosperity.  So if you want people to succeed, you should teach American principles, not deride them. Because before America there was no prosperity. The people who teach that America is rich and greedy try to make things fair by punishing and penalizing people at the top. Then when those people are gone, there are no jobs. This is substituted for government checks, which will disappear when the U.S. is gone. Then everyone will be equally poor. That is the utopia they seek -- fairness, equality of poverty.

It doesn't make sense. Why try to destroy the one beacon of hope, the one shining city on a hill, where every person has an equal opportunity to succeed.  Why destroy that by telling people that those people are greedy in their materialism? Why, if you truly love the poor and want to help them, wouldn't you teach them how to get it too? Why not teach your people how to prosper?

You have a special place, you want it to stay special, you better learn how it got special. Otherwise, you are going to have people want to destroy it, and you won't have a reason to stop them. Or, if someone were to come into our nation (as progressives have) and try to tear it down one piece at a time, and you didn't know why it was great in the first place, you might just stand by and let it happen.  In fact, you might even be willing to give up your liberties for the cause. You might be convinced to do just that.

And that's what's wrong with our country today, is our schools are not teaching the answers to these questions, so kids are growing up in the most prosperous nation in the history of the world, and yet they think it has always been this way. They think people were always free. They don't understand that 99.9% of people lived under totalitarian dictatorships or monarchies before the U.S. came about, and that freedom had to be fought for. They aren't taught this, so they don't feel the need to protect and defend it against the onslaught of liberalism.

That's why they can so easily be taught that anyone who succeeds in life is greedy and selfish; that anyone who gets rich does so at the expense of the poor; that capitalism breeds poverty. When the truth is that everyone was poor before the Unisted States, and capitalism creates prosperity not poverty.

Anyway, America is special, and to keep it special we must know how we got to where we are.  Once we know that, it will be easy to see how capitalism creates jobs; capitalism creates prosperity.  Capitalism makes life better for the poor, not worse.  If you really, truly love the poor, then you will tell them that they can have it too if they want.  And that's why Trump says, "I am rich, and I want to make you rich too."

We do know what dead people thought!!!

We do know what they thought because they wrote a lot.

Quite often I find myself quoting the founding fathers or other dead people.  Recently I did this while debating with a friend of mine who happens to be a liberal and an atheist.  I essentially was explaining to her that belief in God is integral to any functioning society, and the founding fathers knew this.

She argued that there is no way I could know what the founding fathers were thinking.  She said there are many times people like me (meaning God fearing conservatives) say that they know what people of the past were thinking, and that this is not possible. Her exact words were:  "But, you shouldn't claim that dead people believed things that you can't personally witness."

To this I said: "Isn't that the purpose of writing, to share what you witness?"

Thomas Jefferson was a founding father, and we have many copies of things he wrote while he was alive, and it is through these writings that we know what he thought on various issues. It's often believed that he did not believe in God. Whether this is true or not does not matter.  

Jefferson and John Adams wrote many letters back and forth, and in many of these letters they discussed the importance of religion.  They discussed how the young United States could not afford to keep up a military, and therefore they were concerned that the nation would be able to prevent people from committing crimes that might destroy the nation from within.  

By their review of history, they believed that no nation could exist without people who were fearful of a greater power.  They believed that nations that feared God and the Devil were able to keep their people under control.  

It was for this reason the founding fathers believed it was essential for America to be a Christian Nation. It was for this reason the Ten Commandments are etched on the walls where the Senate meets.  It's for this reason "In God We Trust" is engraved on coins.  

This strategy worked, thus holding the nation together through some really defenseless and tough times early on it its existence.  This strategy worked until the 1960s, when progressives started to break down the infrastructure of this nation, first and foremost by their efforts to extricate God from schools and God from Government.  

My point here is that we do too know what dead people thought, especially when these dead people wrote their thoughts and opinions when they were alive.  

However, despite her claims that there is no way I could know what dead people thought, she wrote: "Einstein found the Bible 'childish, primitive.'  

So, while I can't say that dead people believed things, she did the same thing.  So obviously, either she has been reading the writings of Einstein, a dead person, or she somehow knows what a dead person thinks.  Yet since she doesn't believe in God, nor angels, then how is it that she can possibly speak with dead people? 

So I come back with this: "Einstein believed in God, and said that he sees no reason why God and science cannot co-exist. He said, 'Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.'

Rush Limbaugh once said that liberalism is the cowardly choice, because all you have to do to be a liberal is say you care for something or someone, and come up with a solution that someone else pays for.  Then when someone criticizes your idea, you attack them with vitriol such as: "You are an idiot, Nazi, child hater, women hater, homophobe, racist."  Sometimes they say nice things like, "You are not being nice."

In this case, such vitriol came out as, "You can't possibly know what dead people thought." In other words, she had no argument to refute what I said, so she attacked my words.  She did this even though what she said was untrue, made no sense, and was hypocritical.    

I'm used to this, as this is what usually happens when you debate someone who has no facts to back up their opinion.  That's how these discussions usually go.  This is what I'm used to, considering I like to challenge people with facts and logic.  Sometimes though, as was the case here, continuing the discussion wasn't worth my time. 

My point here is not to criticize my friend's comments. My point is that I often like to quote the founding fathers to prove a point that my liberal friends have no counter argument for.  So, instead of citing facts, they attack me with vitriol like, "There's no way you can possibly know what dead people thought.  

Quite the contrary: "You can know what dead people thought."