Tax Cuts Increase Government Revenue

A typical myth used as a scare tactic.
This one was created to dissuade voters
from supporting the Bush tax cuts
in 2001. Which, by the way,
increased government revenue.

There are so many myths out there it isn’t even funny. A common one revolves around tax cuts. Every time Republicans propose tax cuts, you have democrats chiming: “How are we going to pay for it? We can’t afford tax cuts.”

Why not. For one thing, why can’t the government do with less? The entire premise of a tax cut is that the government can go with less. If you have less money, then you cut waste. Where is there waste in government? There’s lots of waste in government. Cut the frickin waste. If a job isn’t needed, cut it. If a department isn’t needed. Cut it.

Reagan cut taxes. Reagan also increased spending on national defense to win the cold war. God forbid. The tax cut inspired an economic boom. By the end of the 1980s, the national debt was sky high. Democrats blamed the Reagan tax cuts. They failed to blame their reneging on their promise to cut spending.

Still, even without spending cuts, tax cuts pay for themselves. With more money in their pockets, people have more money to spend. This boosts the economy. Able to keep more money, businesses, and industries have more money to play with. They can hire more workers. They can open new plants and hire even more workers. They can offer higher wages to keep their best workers. They can offer higher wages to draw in the best workers.

This creates more jobs. The end result is more taxpayers. More taxpayers equals more revenue.

Think of it this way. When you want to buy clothes, where do you go? What stores do you shop at? You shop at the store with the lowest prices. You look for bargains. You look for sales. You try to buy the lowest priced items. You go to the store with the lowest prices. You go to Walmart. You go to Amazon if they have better prices.

When you're shopping, you try to get the best deals. This way your money goes farther. You can buy more with it. You can get more stuff. Or you can keep more of your savings if you want. You can save. You can get out of debt. There are so many options.

Taxes are the same as store prices.

When you go to a yard sale what do you do? You see something for $20, you say, “Would you take $15?” More often than not they accept your lower price. If the product is 50 cents, you just pay the 50 cents. This is because it’s not worth your time to bargain for such a low price.

Taxes are the same way. If they are high, you find ways to get around paying them. It’s worth your time to bargain. When they are low, you just pay them.

The end result is the government makes more money off tax cuts than with tax hikes. When taxes are low the government makes more money. You have more taxpayers. You have fewer people trying to find ways to hide their money and not pay high taxes. You have more money coming into the government.

I can give you three real-life examples. You have the Warren G. Harding/ Calvin Coolidge tax cuts of the 1920s. You have the Kennedy tax cuts in the 1960s. And you have the Reagan tax cuts in the 1980s. They all resulted in an economic boom. They all nearly doubled the national income over the ensuing ten years.

There you go. I just put an end to the myth that tax cuts cost too much. I put an end to the myth that you have to find a way to pay for tax cuts. I just put an end to the myth you can't afford tax cuts.

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. 

Legal Immigration: Myth Buster

Oh, there have been so many myths about immigration tossed around lately it's almost enough to make me puke. In this post I will allay many of them.

1.  Conservative Republicans are anti-immigrant.  False.  What we are opposed to is illegal immigration. We believe it is important to follow the rule of law. Crossing the border legally is following the rule of law.  Crossing the border illegally is not following the rule of law.  Letting illegal immigrants stay in this country, and receive entitlements paid for by citizens and meant to be for citizens is not following the rule of law.  Providing amnesty (official pardons) to those who came into our country illegally is not following the rule of law. If you do not follow the rule of law, what you have in anarchy.

2.  Putting a moratorium on legal immigration during times of war is unconstitutional.  False.  Trump called for a temporary ban on Muslim immigrants into the U.S., and the republican establishment, democrats, and the media just about went crazy. They called Trumps idea anywhere from "controversial," "racist," "un-American," "un-constitutional," "fascist," and simply "crazy."  None of these are true.  Pat Buchanan answers this call best in his column "Establishment Unhinged." He wrote:

The Constitution protects freedom of religion for U.S. citizens. But citizens of foreign lands have no constitutional right to migrate. And federal law gives a president broad powers in deciding who comes and who does not, especially in wartime. In 1924, Congress restricted immigration from Asia, reduced the numbers coming from southern and Central Europe, and produced a 40-year moratorium on most immigration into the United States. Its authors and President Coolidge wanted ours to remain a nation whose primary religious and ethnic ties were to Europe, not Africa or Asia. Under FDR, Truman and JFK, this was the law of the land. Did this represent 40 years of fascism?

2.  Closing our borders is un-American. False. Calvin Coolidge signed a law in 1924 closing our borders to immigrants. This was done because there was a massive influx of immigration, and coming in among these immigrants were anarchist terrorists. Perhaps the best example came on September 14, 1901, in Buffalo, New York, when William McKinley was assassinated by Leon Czolgosz (which ironically gave us our first progressive president). Czolgosz was an anarchist terrorist who had immigrated from Europe. Between then and 1924 there were various bombings committed by anarchists from Europe within our borders. Names of other socialist-anarchist-terrorists from Europe were Ferdinando Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzett. They were both tried, convicted, and executed for acts of domestic terrorism. In order to curb the trend, Congress and President Coolidge decided to close the borders in 1924. They stayed closed until Lyndon signed a bill reopening them in 1965. (For the record, progressives at the time claimed that Sacco and Vanzett were wrongly accused.)

3.  Illegal immigration is not an economics issue, as republicans say.  False.  Immigration, whether legal or illegal, IS an economics issue.  Immigrants have an impact on American supply and demand for jobs.  As the supply of workers for a specific job increases, the wages employers need to pay decreases. So not only are illegal immigrants taking jobs that Americans are willing to do, they are driving down the wages and salaries these jobs pay, thus rendering them about useless for Americans seeking employment. This in turn drives up the unemployment rates.  The total unemployment in the U.S. right now is about 40 percent if you include those seeking work and those who have given up. This is much higher than the 25 percent unemployment rate of 1933.  Of course those no longer seeking work are not seen in soup lines, and that's because they are living off welfare programs. So, as you can see, illegal immigration is too an economic issue.  It is for this reason it is important to secure the border and enforce immigration laws already on the books.

4.  It is bigoted, racist, and un-American to close our borders.  False.  As noted above, it has been done before to defend and protect the American people. The number one role of government is to provide for the security of the American people. If people live in fear of leaving their homes, they will stay in their homes and stop spending money.  If this happens, the economy will tank.  This is one of the reasons Coolidge signed a bill closing the borders in 1924. It is absolutely not un-American to do what is needed to protect and defend the American people.

5.  A religious test for refugees goes against everything America stands for. False. As a matter of fact, it is statutory (required by law) and we have always screened for religion. We have to. The reason is because, when refugees say they are fleeing their country due to religious persecution, we have to ask them what religion they are. They have to tell us, because that's the only way we can validate their story. We can prove that there is, say, religious persecution going on in Syria. What we cannot prove is that every person claiming to be fleeing Syria due to religious persecution is telling the truth. So we have to verify their stories. In order to do this, we have to ask them their religion. It is the law. We also need to make sure they are actually refugees, and not members of some terrorist organization. This is common sense. The people who say we cannot ask immigrants where they are from or what religion they practice are the ones who are not well informed. 

 6.  It is not compassionate to close our borders. False. It's compassionate to help out refugees, and it's compassionate to keep our borders open to legal immigration to allow aliens an opportunity to experience American Exceptionalism.  What is often not considered here is compassion for American men and women who can't find a decent paying job because illegal immigrants are flooding the market and driving down wages. What is often not considered here is compassion for citizens and their families who are victims of crimes committed by illegal aliens. What is often not considered here is compassion for tax payers who are forced to pay for entitlement programs meant to help Americans hard on their luck only to see this money going to support immigrants here illegally. What is often not considered here is compassion for the immigrants who take the legal path to citizenship only to see those who came here illegally shown more compassion. What is often not considered here is compassion for Americans who don't feel safe and secure. What is often not considered is compassion for traditional Americans who feel they are strangers in their own country. 

7.  We cannot let one group in at the expense of another. False. We can and we have done so in the past. You do not let people into your country who pose a threat. For instance, if we are at war with the people of one country, you don't let people from that country into our country. As a matter of fact, FDR closed the borders to Japanese, German, and Italian aliens. While he has allowed Syrian Refugees into America, TheHill.com reported in January of 2015 that Obama refused to allow Christian Refugees into this country.  While he plans to allow 10,000 Syrian Refugees into this country over the next  year, there are no Christian Refugees that will be allowed in.  Let me add to this. Passed by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by a Democrat President, was The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (number eight US Code 1182, inadmissible aliens).  It reads:

"Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by president. Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, the president may, by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

The law was first used in 1979 by Democrat President Jimmy Carter.  He used the law to prevent Iranians from entering the United States during the Hostage Crisis.  He also made Iranian students already here check in, and if they did not have appropriate papers he deported them.  And this was not done in secret either, as Carter announced to the world he was doing this on national television.

The very first US immigration law was the Chinese Exclusionary Act of 1882. Then there was the Anarchist Exclusion Act of 1903. So it is not un-American, nor racist, nor irrational, to prevent a group of people who might pose a threat to national security from entering our country.  As a matter of fact, it's the smart thing to do.

8.  We can properly vet refugees.  False. How can we do this when we can't even find illegal immigrants in our own country. How can we do that when we don't even know who is coming into our country illegally.  How can we do that if, as democrats say, we cannot ask them what their religion is.  How do we know they are really religious or political refugees if we cannot ask them where they are from and what religion they are? The answer is you can't. There is no database listing who is a refugee, so you have to ask them where they are from and what religion they practice.  In fact, as noted above, it's statutory. 

Conclusion.  The truth is, we have been at war with Muslim extremists since the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, and every president since has downplayed the issue. Clinton, Bush, and Obama have all avoided the issue of immigration. They have down played it out of fear that they might be seen as no compassionate or racist or bigoted.  The result is a border that is so porous we have no idea who is crossing it. The practice of continuing to allow porous borders is suicide.  It would be like living in an impoverished neighborhood with a high rate of gang violence and keeping your doors unlocked and windows open.  Why would we continue to let people into our country at such a dangerous time as this? 

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

Childhood depression on the rise, but are smartphones really the cause? Or is it schools teaching them to fear?

So reports of a rise in childhood depression have lead some of the world's leading child psychologists into blaming social media, such as Facebook, and material things such as smartphones.  The telegraph quotes a child psychologist with 25 years of experience named Julie Lynn Evans:

“In the 1990s, I would have had one or two attempted suicides a year – mainly teen aged girls taking overdoses, the things that don’t get reported. Now, I could have as many as four a month.... “f I try to refer people on, everyone else is choc-a-bloc too. We are all saying the same thing. There has been an explosion in numbers in mental health problems amongst youngsters. Something is clearly happening,” she says, “because I am seeing the evidence in the numbers of depressive, anorexic, cutting children who come to see me. And it always has something to do with the computer, the Internet and the smartphone.”

She's basically saying that kids are exposed to too much stuff, to too much information. They get too much access to wisdom too fast, and making more and more of them increasingly depressed.  I understand that kids today have fast access to knowledge we had to go out of our way to find at a library or bookstore when we were kids.

However, rather than jump to conclusions, lets consider some other things that are going on in the world today that might cause kids to become increasingly depressed.

1. Kids being taught that God, the harbinger of hope and faith, does not exist
2. Kids being taught that man made global warming is destroying the planet
3. Kids learning hearing doomsday predictions in schools
4. High rate of divorce that has kids separated from their families and friends
5. High rate of single parent households 
6. High rate of kids growing up in poverty
7. Kids being taught that they are bad if they respect traditional marriage
8. Kids being taught to be afraid of eating foods they love based on theories
9. Kids, many of whom are overweight, taught that being overweight is bad
10. Government programs taking away the incentive to work, thus leading to families trapped in poverty
11. Kids not being able to eat the feel good foods they want to eat while in school
12. Fear that Muslims will try to kill them
13. Not being able to speak the truth about Muslims
14. Christian children not being able to pray in school, or being ridiculed for talking about their beliefs
15. Conservative children being mocked and ridiculed for talking about their beliefs
16. Children hearing their parents called Nazis, homophobes, idiots, gramma haters, due to their beliefs
17. Christians being persecuted all over the world, and no one doing anything about it
18. The country being "fundamentally transformed" from capitalism to socialism. 
19. A rise in laws that tell people what they can and cannot do; laws that take away liberties
20. Kids not being told the truth about the founding of this country, and being ridiculed when they do
21. Kids being told they are idiots for believing in a "fictional, mythological Bible."
22. An endless parade of hate, fear, and vitriol being taught in schools.
23. Kids being told they cannot grow up to be better than their parents. 
24. Parents having to go bankrupt because of the poor economy
25. Parents losing their jobs because of the poor economy
26. Parents being forced to work two or three part time jobs because of Obamacare
27. Fear that they will have less freedom than their parents
28. Fear of terrorism
29. Fear that they will be forced to go to war
30. Fear of a Muslim Caliph
31. Fear of Russia taking over Europe
32. Fear of WWIII

I mean, I could go on.  What do you think.  Is too much access to wisdom making kids depressed? Or is it all the exposure to hate, fear and vitriol? 

Theories are just theories, part 3

So you have this theory that the NFL causes brain swelling that can only be diagnosed on autopsy. You have a theory that the NFL causes an increase in suicides. None of this is proven, but you have the NFL accepting the premise and defending itself.

And you have guys like Shannon Sharpe blaming the NFL for intentionally allowing the game to go on while knowing all along that it caused brain damage.

So, based on one theory, all the people who run the NFL are evil and wicked and trying to make a buck at the expense of all the people playing the game.

So then the media buys into the theory. Because that's what the media does: every time a new theory comes out they consider it as fact. Instead of just reporting on it and letting the people decide what is true or not, they treat it as a fact.

So then you have people like Chris Borland reading what the media says. Then Borland gets scared, and he quits the NFL based on his fears. And of course there are other players in the NFL equally scared but don't want to risk giving up all that money.

Surely we should respect theories. Surely we should be careful. But we should not panic and change the game of football based on a couple theories.

I think people tend to over react to theories, and it is this that has lead to the rise in mental disorders in this nation.  Yet, in the meantime, people who believe every new theory postulated think the cause is smart phones. 

Theories are just theories, part 2

You may also replace big industry with progressive.

How many theories were postulated that told you that coffee is bad for you. Once it was thought that it would cause Parkinson's. Yet the same people -- who happen to be on a government panel -- who said that are now claiming that drinking four cups of coffee a day prevents parkinsons. They are also claiming it prevents heart disease and liver cancer.

I remember my mom, back in 1977, drank a beer a day while she was pregnant with my younger brother. Then she didnt' breastfeed, because one study came out that showed formula was better for a newborn. Yet that theory was proven to be false, and now the recommendation is that children should be breastfed until the age of three, which was how long most parents throughout history nursed their kids.

My point here is that we need to stop kowtowing to theories.

Another theory postulates that the NFL has lead to an increase in suicides among former players. So the NFL accepts the premise on the scanty evidence available, and defends itself against it. While a more sane solution would be to monitor the situation while waiting for more evidence to come out.

I have seen this (by my own study of medical history) over and over and over throughout history. It goes all the way back to the primitive and ancient worlds. You had people for thousands of years banned from touching a corpse, even for scientific purposes, because dead bodies were considered sacrosanct; that touching them would cause the gods or demons to cause famine and disease.

So what good did this result in. None. It resulted in slowing down of progress. It made it so people would have to wait until the 18th century to actually be able to look at and study a dead body without fearing death. It made it so people had to wait until the 20th century to get results. It made it so asthmatics had to needlessly suffer until the 1950s.

It's all because of senseless, cooky, mythological, feel good theories. It was all based on fear caused by theories that were later proven to be nothing more than theories; nothing more than myths.

Further reading:

• Theories are just theories: part 1
• Theories are just theories: part 3

Theories are just theories, part 1

As a person who has studied the history of medicine, I have seen over and over again throughout the history of mankind that people tend to overreact to theories. They forget that theories are just ideas that have yet to be proven true or false.

Look at global warming as a good example. You have people who are scared to death that the world is going to be destroyed if we don't do something to stop it, and yet there has been no increase in global temperatures since 1998. And yet they don't care, they continue to be scared, to champion for more regulations that harm economies.  No wonder kids these days are depressed. The so called experts like to blame it on stuff like iphones, but the real reason is probably that kids are taught to be scared based on "theories."

There once was a theory that asthma was all in your head. All the focus of physicians was aimed at finding medicine to soothe the mind, rather than soothe the bronchial muscles that spasm during an asthma attack. It was for this reason that asthmatics had to wait until the 1950s to get medicine that actually worked. You see, sometimes the most well intentioned theories are wrong.

Another good example is the NFL. Joesph Maroon was the first to discuss a study of the brain that produces Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy (CTE), a brain disease caused by swelling of the brain due to violent head injuries, such as those produced by violent hitting during football.

This "theory" has yet to be proven, however. This was just the result of one study. Many initial studies have later been proven false. 

Another good example here is the hypoxic drive theory. Many COPD patients, for years, have been denied the oxygen they need based on a silly theory. While the theory may prove interesting in theory, real life experience has never corroborated it. Nearly all studies since its inception have proven it false. Yet out of fear of causing their patients to stop breathing, many physicians to this day continue to under oxygenate their patients based on this myth.

So based on one study, Chris Borland, a star defensive player for the San Fransisco 49ers, has decided to quit his million dollar job after only playing one season. He is turning down all sorts of fame and money based on a theory that has never been proven.

Years ago scientists came up with this theory that all cholesterol was bad for you. They believed that all foods high in cholesterol caused heart disease. So, based on this theory, you had many people afraid to eat foods that tasted good.

According to the Washington Post, there is now new scientific evidence that "eating foods high in cholesterol may not significantly affect the level of cholesterol in the blood or increase the risk of heart disease." The findings are so significant that the U.S. Government is "poised to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol."

According to National Review, March 9, 2015: "Few areas of science have seen greater advances in recent decades than medicine, but the cholesterol story shows that when dealing with highly complex systems, even the best-informed scientists, using the best available data with the best of intentions, can draw conclusions that turn out to be incorrect. Science deserves all the love we can give it, but that love should not be blind.

My point here is that people need to quit overreacting. Surely we should respect theories, but we must stop treating them as facts. And the last thing we should do is write laws that are nearly impossible to get rid of based on fear caused theories.

Further reading:

• Theories are just theories: part 2
• Theories are just theories: part 3
• Challenge the theory: 'Think for yourself'

Myth Buster: Half of all marriages end in divorce

Statistics show this cartoon is misleading.

There appears to be quite a gloomy view of marriage in our society about marriage, especially considering, as they say, 50 percent of marriage end in divorce.  But, according to livescience.com, this percentage is not even accurate.

The website notes:

It's a common trope: Half of the couples who tie the knot will be untying it before long. In fact, it's true that the divorce rate is about half of the marriage rate, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. As of 2009, the marriage rate was 6.8 per every 1,000 adults in America, and the divorce rate was 3.6 per 1,000. But simply tallying those numbers doesn't provide a very accurate picture.

That's because the people who are divorcing each year aren't the same ones getting married; the comparison basically stacks up two different generations and equates them as if they're one and the same. Instead, a more revealing way to look at divorce rates is to calculate how many people have ever married and then subsequently divorced. These numbers peg the peak divorce rate, in the 1970s, at about 40 percent. [Marriage & Divorce in America (Infographic)]

The number has declined since, driven by fewer divorces among college-educated men and women, who tend to delay marriage.

So, you see, the divorce rate isn't as high as they say.

I am not a racist because I disagree with Obama

So I'm on Facebook, and I read this: "What if Obama was white, would the creation of 200,000 jobs for several straight months still make you think his economic policies aren't working."

When I see junk like this, I have a hard time not responding.  So I didn't, but I will in this space.  Here is what I would have responded if I did.

So, are you implying I'm a racist because I don't approve of Obama's economic policies.  Let us investigate those 200,000 jobs. Actually, let's just investigate the 275,000 jobs created in June.  On the surface that number sounds great.  However, once you break it down, it actually doesn't.  Consider that in June the number of people employed full-time actually declined by 523,000, and the number of part-time workers increased by 799,000 (which includes those who wanted part-time and those who wanted full-time but could only find part-time).  So the 275,000 number is misleading in itself. It is in no way indicative of a robust economy.  Am I a racist because I chose to investigate the numbers the Obama administration releases? Am I a racist because I do the job the media refuses to do? 

There, that saves me from angering some friends.  Thanks.

Obama trying to use UN to force liberal agenda on world

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

First she states the facts:

The Obama administration is working to forge a sweeping international climate change agreement to compel nations to cut their planet-warming fossil fuel emissions, but without ratification from Congress.

In preparation for this agreement, to be signed at a United Nations summit meeting in 2015 in Paris, the negotiators are meeting with diplomats from other countries to broker a deal to commit some of the world’s largest economies to enact laws to reduce their carbon pollution. But under the Constitution, a president may enter into a legally binding treaty only if it is approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.

To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal that would “name and shame” countries into cutting their emissions. The deal is likely to face strong objections from Republicans on Capitol Hill and from poor countries around the world, but negotiators say it may be the only realistic path.

The ultimate goal here is to punish countries who do not conform to the law, if it is passed, or to shame them into complying.  In other words, either you conform to the progressive agenda or you will be shamed and ridiculed until you do.

But then she goes on to blame republicans as the reason Obama is forced into such action.  She said:

Lawmakers in both parties on Capitol Hill say there is no chance that the currently gridlocked Senate will ratify a climate change treaty in the near future, especially in a political environment where many Republican lawmakers remain skeptical of the established science of human-caused global warming.

For 30 years people have been claiming that mankind is causing global warming, and yet there has been no increase in global temperatures since 1998.  Because global warming has been disproved by said facts, they have changed the name of their theory to "climate change."  It appears they have too much invested in the myth to just give up on it now.

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

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

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

Kids who eat chicken legs aggressive, says study

So there are lawmakers who are trying to push for a perfect society.  So one of the ways the accomplish their idealistic goal is to make laws forcing us to make safe choices.  So every time a new study comes out they start salivating.

It was this kind of stuff that we had to deal with the entire term of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.  He banned smoking in public based on studies, he banned large pops based on studies linking high carbohydrate diets to diabetes, he tried to make a law banning salt in restaurants because salt was believed to cause high blood pressure, and he assaulted McDonalds because the theory was that high fat foods alone caused heart disease.

Of course, when studies come out disproving their theories they simply ignore them.  That's the hypocrisy of it all. When studies come out to prove something is bad for you, they can't wait to pass a law taking away our personal liberties.  Yet when a study proved genetics and not high fat foods cause hardened arteries, they ignore it.  When a study proved salt has nothing to do with high blood pressure they ignore it.  That's hypocrisy.

So the latest Cornell University study done shows that kids who eat chicken legs to the bone are more likely to be aggressive and disobey adults.  So I wonder how long it will be before some lawmaker forces parents to make their kids use a knife and fork to eat their chicken.

Of course that poses a problem too.  These same people want to take guns away from people because guns kill.  So here they want to take the chicken legs out of the hands of children and give them knives.  I suppose they could ban knives too.

Why would someone valuable time and money doing a study like this anyway.  It's obvious they have an agenda here.  They want to show that uncivilized eating has consequences, and they want to make sure parents and schools don't allow for it.

22 myths about gay and gay marriage

The fight in this country regarding gay marriage is based on misinformation both on the right and on the left.  The purpose of this post is to clear up some of these myths so we can make informed decisions, kiss, make up, and get on with our lives.  

1.  The liberal argument is to champion for gay rights. The truth is, all people are born with natural rights, and these natural rights are protected by the Declaration of Independence, The U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.  

One natural right, for instance, is the right to choose who we spend our time with. 

These founding documents were written for "We the People," meaning all the people.  No laws can be written to deny this right, and no laws have.  Two straight people can spend time together, and two gay people can spend time together.  No natural rights are violated.  

2.  The liberal argument is that gay people should get the same benefits from marriage that straight people get.   Sure, if marriage has benefits, gay people should have the opportunity to get these same benefits.  

On the other hand, if the only reason gay people want to marry is benefits, then that sort of deflates the purpose of marriage.  Marriage is a union or a commitment between two people based out of love and respect and the promise to take care of each other regardless of the hardships that will come on the road ahead.  If people are marrying just for benefits, then perhaps the benefits should be taken out of marriage. 

That said, if the people of a state are adamantly opposed to "scarring" the institution of marriage, then civil unions are an option.  Yet this path seems to have been rejected by the ignorant on the right who have no tolerance for their gay brethren.   

3.  The gay fight should be on the federal level. Again, there is no need to fight for change on the federal level.  The U.S. clearly already protects the natural rights of gay people.  The tenth amendment reserves the right to make any laws regarding gay marriage to the states or to the people.  So the fight should be on the state level and not on the federal level.  

4.  An argument on the right is that God prohibits the gay life.  This is perhaps one of the biggest myths of all time.  The Hebrews were very concerned with the spread of disease, and were the first to prescribe to the idea of disease prevention.

Since they observed that the transmission of disease was rampant among gay men, they discouraged the behavior and encouraged only monogamous relationships. When Moses gave his people laws, it was not because he hated his "gay" brethren, but because he wanted to prevent the spread of disease among his people.

Of course this was taken out of context by later generations who were ignorant of what the situation was at the time the Bible was written.  The truth is, God loves gay people just as much as he loves straight people.  

5.  An argument of the right is that if gay marriage is legal, there will be a bunch of gay men walking around holding hands, something they want to avoid discussing with their kids.  The truth is there will be no more exposure to this after a law is made than what is already occurring.  According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), at the present time just over 2% of Americans comprise the homosexual population.  There's no reason to believe that a law making gay marriage legal would increase this population. 

6.  People who oppose gay marriage hate gay people. This is a generalization that is more than likely false.  Most people who oppose gay marriage don't hate gay people, they hate that people want to risk hurting the institution of marriage. They hate the thing, the idea, not the people. This is not to say that there are a few people in the majority who are intolerant to the homosexual population.  Yet to say that the few represent the view of the majority is poppycock.

7. A liberal argument says the gay fight is the same as the fight for black civil rights.  People who believe this think that those who oppose gay marriage are no better than racists who denied black people the right to vote.  This could not be further from the truth, yet it's been repeated so many times that some people simply start to believe it as fact.

To understand this we must understand the difference between natural rights and civil rights.  Natural rights are those rights that we are born with that cannot be taken away by government.  Natural rights include the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.  They include the right to breathe air, the right to eat, the right to search for food, and the right to defend yourself.  They also include the right to enter into a contract.  Civil rights means the right to have all the laws enforced equally among all the people.

Black people were denied their natural rights.  For instance, while white people were allowed to ride on buses, black people were not; white people were allowed to live free, and black people were not.  Since the laws were not enforced equally, black people had their civil rights violated: They had to fight for their civil rights.

The fight for gay marriage has nothing to do with civil rights. All people are born with a natural right to enter into a contract, and marriage is a contract.  The constitution protects the right to enter into a contract, although it does not define contract. This means that the definition of contract, by the 10th amendment, is reserved to the states to define.

It is not a violation of civil rights for a state to act in the public interest by regulating through state law under what conditions a marriage contract can be entered into.  So, by the laws of most states, marriage is defined as between a man and a woman.  Any man can marry any woman, and no man can marry another man.

Civil rights are not violated so long as this law is enforced equally.  However, it would be a violation of civil rights to tell someone, "You cannot get married to anyone."  It would be a violation of civil rights to tell this gay couple they can get married, but this gay couple cannot.  If this were the case, then gay marriage would be a civil rights issue.  But this is not the case.

So the right that gay marriage proponents claim exists really does not. The right of all men and all women to marry is not denied by state laws. The ability for a person to marry someone of the same sex is equally denied to everyone.  Therefore, this is not a violation of civil rights. 

8.  The term gay means homosexual.  False, but not completely false.  The truth is, the term gay means happy or full of mirth or care free.  It comes from the Old French term gai, which in turn comes from a Germantic word that is not completely known.  In fact, you can hear the word used in the tune for the Flintstones: "You'll have a gay old time."  So you can see that as of the 1960s the term gay, in the mainstream anyway, still meant happy, mirth, or carefree.

However, there were times throughout history where the term "gay" was used as a slang term in reference for lifestyles that were not traditionally acceptable.  For instance, in the 17th century the definition was twisted to mean "of loose and immoral life."  This was a twist on the original meaning "care free."

In the 19th century the term was used as slang to refer to a woman who was a prostitute, or a man who slept with a lot of women, sort of the opposite of today's use of the term. There was also a phrase "gaying it up" which referred to having sex.

The modern use of the term "gay" as slang for "homosexual" was started in in the 1920s and 1930s.  It was from this point on that gay people referred to themselves as gay.

In 1955 the homosexual crowd took the term "gay" national, starting a public relations campaign to make the term popular.  The reason was because they thought "gay" shed a positive light, as opposed to the offensive sounding "homosexual" or "homo."  The goal was to shed better light on homosexual behavior.  The PR campaign was a huge success.  This is a perfect example of how perceptions can change over time by spreading information as opposed to forcing change by laws.

9.  Marriage is about love:  This is one of the main arguments by the left.  They say if two people love each other, whether gay or straight, they should be able to create a union and share each other fully. However, if marriage were about love, then it would be easy for a couple to make the selfish decision to separate when they fall out of love.  If it were about love, then there would be no need to stay married when love was no more.  The truth is that marriage was created to create a stable environment for the children.  It is about the welfare of children.

This was explained best by Mona Charen in her October 14, 2014, article at nationalreview.com, "Answering Ted Olson: Changing Marriage is not the way to secure dignity and respect for gay couples." She said:

The idea of endorsing same sex marriage implies that mothers and fathers don't matter.   If two men who love each other or two women who love each other are equally good for children’s welfare, then the argument that men and women should marry and remain faithful to the partner with whom they conceived children loses its force.

The “being with someone you love” case fits nicely on a greeting card, but it also contributes to the divorce culture, because the implicit message is that when you no longer love someone, the purpose of the marriage is over. Adults’ feelings will trump all, as they too often do already.

The move for same-sex marriage was never about marriage. It was about social acceptance. We should give the social acceptance, but not undermine marriage.

So marriage is not about love, it is a union between a man and a woman in order to create a favorable environment for creating and raising children. At least this is how it has been defined traditionally, and how it is still defined by most states.

10.  Gay couples should not be allowed to raise children:  Poppycock!  Gay couples who can create the stable environment required for the raising of children are just as capable of raising children as anyone else.  There are many children in this world in need of a good home, and if this home can be created by a gay couple than this should be an acceptable part of our society.

11.  Gay marriage would result in no harmful societal effects.  Not necessarily true.  If you tamper with the definition of marriage, where does it stop.  It doesn't just stop with people of the same sex getting married. People in UK want to marry their dogs and everybody's saying, "Well, it's okay. We've changed the definition," and the same-sex marriage crowd says, "No, no, no, no, no. You can't!" Why not? You're the ones that wanted the definition changed. Where does it end?  Justice Samuel Alito recently tackled this topic during a Supreme Court Debate, saying, "Why not let four lawyers marry one another?" There's a reason traditional American marriage has been defined as between a man and a woman, and it is to prevent such a slippery slope from occurring.  When such occurs, the definition of marriage may become so watered down that it no longer has any viable meaning.

12.  The old view of marriage is now considered bigotry. Some people are now considered inconsiderate bigots for supporting traditional marriage. To understand why this is not true let us further differentiate between the old, traditional definition of marriage, and the new definition of marriage.

• Traditional. Marriage is between a man and a woman.  It's needed to shape sexual behavior and promote the well-being of children.  It is a long-term commitment and not a convenience. It is about children and raising them properly.  It is about creating families and holding them together, promoting culture, and keeping it solid and together. It is about something specific. It is a solid structure that is good for all eternity, despite its faults. It has long-term value. It is a commitment. It is an unchanging, solid foundation to hold societies together regardless of the changing desires of that society.  It is an institution.  Ideally, originally, marriage was defined as a union between a man and a woman, and under God.  It is about advancing the human race and creating culture. 
• New. Marriage is about love and convenience. It's an emotional union between another person or a thing.  There is no specific goal other than to show love or to obtain some convenience, such as benefits or some other specious desire.  There is no long-term commitment, and no long term goals. When you fall out of love, you just get divorced and move on.  It does nothing to hold families, society together.  It does not promote culture in any way.  It is not about something specific. It is not a solid structure. It has no institutional long-term value. It is not a commitment. It is not a solid foundation for holding societies together, and therefore has no societal benefits.  It is an institution. It has nothing to do with a man and a woman, and nothing whatsoever to do with God. It has nothing to do with advancing the human race and nothing to do with culture. 

So, traditional marriage is not about bigotry, although liberal teachers and the media (such as every one on the Today Show) have done an excellent job of marketing new marriage so that people who even consider holding on to traditional views are often considered bigots and homophobes.  This is not true, as traditionalists do not hate gay people; they (most of them anyway) respect them as any of their other brethren.  Yet because they don't want tradition messed with, they are frequently called names.

13.  Traditional marriage is inferior to the new view of marriage.  The writers of National Review Online answer this one:  "We think the older view is not only unbigoted, but rationally superior to the newer one. Supporters of the older view [of marriage] have often said that it offers a sure ground for resisting polygamy while the newer one does not (offer that resistance). But perhaps the more telling point is that the newer view does not offer any strong rationale for having a social institution of marriage in the first place, let alone a government-backed one."

14.  Gay marriage is a Constitutional Issue for the Supreme Court to Rule on.  Wrong. Again, and I probably sound like I'm being redundant here, but the Constitution does not even mention gay marriage, and therefore, as per the 10 Amendment, it is up to the States to decide. The Constitution neither commands states to adopt one of these two understandings of marriage (the old nor the new definition) nor forbids them to.

Since it is not an Enumerated power, Congress cannot act on it -- but states can.  This is called Federalism. In this sense, some states may make laws granting gay marriage is legal, while others may choose not to.  So, when the issue of gay marriage comes to the Supreme Court, the Court should declare that this is not a matter for the Court to decide.

On this issue, Justice Kennedy said, "This definition has been with us for millennia, and it's very difficult for the court to say, 'Oh, well. We know better.'"  In other words, it's not up to the courts to decide the old view of marriage is bigoted, and that the new view is superior.  Of course Kennedy also said it's not up to the courts to decide that only "opposite-sex couples, uh, can have a bonding with the child. That was a very interesting... That's just a wrong premise."

So true.  So, the Constitution does not allow the Supreme Court to decide this issue: it  an issue that should be decided either on a state, local, or individual basis.  Worded another way: there is no Constitutional right to marry, and there is no constitutional right for two men or two women to marry either.  So the issue is not for the courts to decide.  If the courts somehow find that there is, it is wrong.  However, while there is no constitutional right, that hasn't stopped the courts from finding one (as was the case in Rowe -vs- Wade).

15. If gay marriage is found constitutional, it will not affect churches.  Wrong.  If the Supreme Court finds that the same sex marriage is a constitutional right, then this may force Catholic churches to marry same sex couples.  If churches refuse to do this, they may lose their tax-exempt status. This will eliminate many churches.  For some people on the left, this is the ultimate goal: to eliminate churches.  That's what happened in Communist Russia.  It Was the goal of fascism.  So you can see that such a decision will cause further conflict, and further divide our nation the same way the Rowe- vs- Wade decision did.

16.  Twenty-Five percent of Americans are gay?  It's true, a recent Gallup Poll showed that American adults believe 25% of Americans are gay.  The estimated population of the gay and lesbian population is thought to be 2%.  So why do people think the percentage is so high.  The answer may be because this number is beefed up by a liberal press and Hollywood.  According to Gay and Lesbian Against Defamation (GLAD), out of 813 scripted regulars, 32 are gay or lesbian. This means that 40% of characters on TV are gay or lesbian.  So, with the gay and lesbian population inflated in Hollywood, the warped view of the gay and lesbian population makes sense.  The truth is that the gay and lesbian population is 6 million, with only about half of them (about 3 million) championing for gay marriage.  Still, this small minority has had significant success in the U.S. in their efforts to change the traditional institution that has been the glue and fabric of traditional families in America.

17.  The high divorce rate shows traditional marriage doesn't work anyway.  Wrong.  Just because some people enter into the institution of marriage and fail doesn't mean it's the fault of the institution.  Not everyone is going to obey the rules of marriage.  Not everyone is going to succeed.  An institution is what it is; it is not defined by who enters into it. The problem with marriage is not the institution, it's certain groups of people who, based on their desires at that moment, leave people to think it is unfair that they cannot enter into it.  Certain people are the problem, it's not marriage. The problem is that certain people have been convinced that, based on the whims and wishes of the modern world, marriage is unfair and that everyone should be included.  They are the problem, not the institution of marriage.  Ideas change and people change, but marriage is unchanging.  However, if you change the definition to suit modern desires, then marriage has no meaning. Those who inculcate such change, they are the problem with marriage.  The institution of marriage, when left alone, has worked to hold societies together for over a thousand years. So, while certain marriages fail, marriage itself does not fail, so long as it's traditional nature, it's traditional definition as being between a man and a woman, holds true.

18.  Traditional marriage is unfair.  It is fair.  It is so that any man can marry any woman.  No two men can marry one another.  Every male and every female has an opportunity to enter into it, and all such unions have an equal opportunity to succeed.  It is up to the individuals to make it succeed. Some people, or groups of people, are made to think it is unfair because it doesn't offer them what they want (such as benefits), but that does not mean the institution of marriage in and of itself is unfair.  Fair is that people who cannot enter into it can find some other means to find happiness, benefits, or what have you.  Fair is that any man can marry any woman he wants, and any woman can marry any man she wants.  Fair is that, in most states, no man can marry another man, and no woman can marry another woman.  So long as the law is enforced equally, it is fair.

19.  Marriages do not hold families, cultures together.  Wrong.  Every study ever done on the subject shows that societies where traditional marriage is inculcated, children are 70-80% more likely to become productive members of society.  It has been proven over and over again.  There have been so many studies on this that I don't think it would serve any purpose to list just one here. This is one of the reasons why some people believe the best way to help impoverished people is to encourage marriage between one man and one woman.  This is the time tested best method of helping people and societies rise up out of poverty and to maintain productivity.  Yet once you allow same sex marriage, that changes the whole definition of marriage; it changes the whole meaning of it.  Marriage in this new sense has no meaning, and has no societal value other than to make people happy in the moment. People who worry about the attacks on traditional marriage worry about future implications of such action, such as the eventual breakdown of the society our forefathers worked so hard to build.

20.  Republicans/ conservatives/ Christians need to become more tolerant toward gays to maintain relevancy. The argument here is that we need to soften our image and become more tolerant in order to win future elections.  While homosexuality and transgenderism was once considered weird, they are now considered normal.  So, those who wish to defend old, worn out, conservative/ Christian values in favor of marriage as between a man and a woman are now considered weird. They are considered discriminatory, mean-spirited, bigoted, racist, homophobic, sexist, and misogynist.  They are considered deadbeats, dryballs, and sticks in the mud. So in order to stay relevant the republican party must change, or move forward.  This is a myth, because, if republicans caved on every issue like this, they would become democrats and liberals: there would be no difference between the two parties. The truth is that republicans/ conservatives/ Christians ARE tolerant toward all people, especially especially the gay community.  Our gay brothers and sisters need and deserve our prayers.  Rather than cave, republicans/ conservatives/ Christians need to become as good at getting their message out as the the 3 million who want to make gay marriage legal have.  We must explain that we love all our brethren, including our gay brethren. As Pope Francis once said, "A person once asked me, in a provocative manner, if I approved of homosexuality. I replied with another question: 'Tell me: when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?' We must always consider the person." We must educate people that the quest to preserve tradition is a quest to preserve culture that is needed for a society to continue to exist, it is not an attack on the gay community. All the reasons to this are explained in my response to myths 1-19 above.

21.  All gays are democrats.  The truth is that many gays are republicans who humbly go about their lives. They do not try to force their views on the majority.

22.  Marriage is not a religious thing, it goes way back further than Christianity.  Wrong. It's not something that some slave owner 200 years ago invented specifically to discriminate against people. The first references to marriage anybody knows of are in Genesis. So you can say that the first references to marriage come from God.  Genesis 2:23-24:  "Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was staken out of Man."   "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."  It's also reaffirmed in the New Testament in Matthew 19:4-6, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh; so no longer two, they're one. What, therefore, God has joined together, let no man separate."  There was no solid definition of marriage before religion, and that's what the left wants to get back to.  They want there to be a watered down meaning to marriage so that religion has less meaning.  That's their goal.

23.  People are born gay.  Look, I'm no scientist and no doctor, and I don't think I'm any more qualified to know this is true or false than anyone.  And, just to repeat something here, I really don't think it really matters why people are gay.  As the old saying goes: "It is what it is."  We should respect people for what they are, and we should love everyone regardless of who they choose to spend their time with or who they choose to love.  In essence, this is what Jesus would want.  Still, that said, if you look at the logic of it, the idea that people are born gay doesn't make sense.  Look at it this way: The #1 objective of every species, of every one of God's creatures, is to procreate to keep the species alive. Think of it this way, environmentalists are concerned that the north white rhino and the Amur Leopard might go extinct.  Well, imagine if the only two of each of these animals were gay.  The species would go extinct.  Imagine if all white rhinos were gay as of ten years ago.  Then the species would have gone extinct long ago.  The truth to the matter is, you never hear about gay dogs, cats, lions, tigers, bears, rats, mice or cows.  In the same way, God (or nature, or the peanut butter ferry or whatever you believe) does not make gay people. Gay, like love, is a choice.  You choose it.  That's fine.  That's acceptable to me.

Bottom line: Any discussion in the arena of ideas should be made in light of the facts, and, to the best of my ability, I have attempted to allay myths about homosexual marriage using nothing but facts here, compared to "It sounds good" or "It makes me feel good."  Regardless, as a nation of God fearing people, we must love one another as Jesus loves us.  So, if I succeeded in allaying common misconceptions about gay marriage, you are now armed with the wisdom needed to further this discussion in the arena of ideas.

Further Reading:

• Natural Rights of Men
• Answering Ted Olson: Changing Marriage is not the way to secure dignity and respect for gay couples
• Justice Alito: 'Why Not Let Four Lawyers Marry One Another?'
• National Review: The Constitution is Silent on Same Sex Marriage
• Daily Caller: Obama's Solicitor General Admits Religious Colleges Could Lose Tax-Exempt Status For Opposing Same Sex Marriage 
• Rush Limbaugh: How Tiny Political Minorities Get Their Way 
• Rush Limbaugh: With New Normals Come New Wierdos