Progressives stole the name liberal, we want it back

The progressives took the word liberalism and claimed it for themselves. Liberalism is the choice that unites most of us. That's the one where we all come down together and say, "Look, we can live with each other."

From the time of the founders to the 1940s liberalism was most people were called.  Liberalism stood for limited government to protect and defend liberty.  Progressives stole that term and claimed it for themselves to shed a positive light on their agenda of creating a large government that tramples on liberty. 

Why did our "classical liberal" ancestors allow this to happen? We need to take it back.  We need to start calling liberals progressives again.  And we need to call conservatives and libertarians liberals again.  This makes sense, because progressive and liberal are opposites.  

We need to take the term liberal back and allow the people to see progressives for what they really are: people who think they know what's best for you, so they create laws to force their agenda on you.  But this requires you to sacrifice your freedom and liberties."

You can't say to people, "Marijuana is bad for you, so we need to create a law banning you from manufacturing and selling it, without taking away their liberty to choose.  You are basically deciding for them what is good for them, and forcing them to be perfect.  What this does is create a dark market for marijuana."

For crying out loud, did we learn nothing from prohibition.  During prohibition it was illegal to import, transport, produce or sell alcohol in the U.S. What resulted was an underworld that made men like Al Capone rich.  It showed on a full scale level that governmental attempts to perfect the world create nothing but chaos.  

Yet we continue to allow it.  We continue to let progressives win at every level in the country.  We continue to let it continue even though only 14 percent of Americans admit to supporting their agenda.  They have infiltrated our nation. They have made it acceptable to allow government officials to say things like, "Hey, you should wear a seat belt.  So let's make a law that will fine you if you don't." 

"Hey, we feel that throwing more money at education will make it better.  Why don't we put the federal government in charge of it and throw lots of money at it." That happened in the 1960s and all it did was make education in the U.S. worse. They create regulations and programs aimed at fixing things because it sounds like a good idea, people buy into it, and then they make them worse. 

The same thing with the war on poverty. Trillions of dollars have been thrown into entitlement programs in this country aimed at ending poverty since Johnson's War on Poverty began in the 1960s, and all it resulted in was more people in poverty. 

If you need a good example just look at Detroit.  

These are the same progressives who stole the name liberal and claimed it for themselves.  We need to take it back and let them wallow in their progressivism. We need to let people see them for what they are: people who want to create big government at the expense of liberty. 

Liberalism is the exact opposite of what they are. We are liberals.  But we will be satisfied with people calling us classical liberals.  That's what we are.  That's what I am.  

As it is, we settle for the name conservative, constitutional conservative, liberatarian conservative, or simply libertarian.  That is what we are.  But what we really are is classical liberals, or simply liberals.  But we can't call ourselves what we really are, because progressives stole and obliterated the meaning of it. 

The reason this is important is because you have about 20 percent of people in the democratic party who don't want to be conservatives, and so they stay in the democratic party. 

They may not agree with us on everything, but they think like we do.  But they don't want to become conservatives because they think that's what Ronald Reagan was and they don't want to be that. But if we call ourselves classical liberals, we can draw all of them together.  They may not agree with us on everything, but all classical liberals believe liberty should come before state, and people should not be allowed to vote their freedoms away, regardless what the cause or belief or theory.

Most people understand classical liberalism.  They see progressives calling themselves liberals and they say, "I'm a liberal just like them."  But what they don't understand is that what they are championing for is not what they think it is. 

They have no clue they are championing for progressivism, which is a sister of socialism, communism, Fascism, Fascist Socialism, and all those types of governments.  Yet what they truly yearn for is classical liberalism.  

People in Europe think of Conservatives as the opposite of classical liberalism, or the opposite of freedom.  They think of us as Nazis and Fascist.  Yet this is not true, because we are the true liberals.  We are the classical liberals.  But because the progressive movement stole our name, they have succeeded at re-branding themselves in a better light. They have pulled the wool over the eyes of the world, so to speak.  

We need to recreate the image of freedom in the world.  We need to recreate what we are, we need to call ourselves classical liberals.  This way we can collect all the classical liberals into one party and take our country back.  

Why I'm a Classical Liberal

Classical liberalism (what used to be called liberalism) is what made America Unique. It's pretty much what every democrat president was from Thomas Jefferson down to Grover Cleveland.  Then progressivism happened, and the democratic party turned progressive.  When the term progressive became unpopular, they stole the term liberal to make their game look good.

So now we have to call what we are classical liberal, a.k.a. libertarian conservatism.  It's limited government, strict constitutionalism, and following the rule of law.

Here's why I am a classical liberal.

1. You can't spy on me
2. We can't have these never ending wars
3. You can't just throw me in jail without a trial
4. You cant kill me without a trial
5. You can't make laws that fine me for not doing something, such as not wearing my seat belt, or not eating the foods you think I should be eating, or not living a healthy enough lifestyle.  
6. You can't make me buy health insurance, or car insurance, or any insurance
7. You can't force me to participate in a social security program
8. You can't tell me I can't smoke cigarettes or sell marijuana or take hormone pills or experimental medicine 
9. You can't tell my kids they can't pray in school
10. You can't take away our public nativity scenes if that's what we choose to display at our courthouses or schools.

The true meaning of the Statue of Liberty

It seems that many people misinterpret the true meaning of the Statue of Liberty. They believe it means that the U.S. wants the impoverished, the poorly educated, and the unfortunate of other nations because of the slogan that is implanted on the base of the statue: "Give me your tired, give me your poor, give me your huddled masses."

Rush Limbaugh loves educating people about truth of American history, truths that have have been twisted by the left leaning people who have been educating our children since the 1960s. He reminded us, mainly those of us who are young enough to have been hoodwinked by our modern educational system.

In fact, that saying was not what the original purpose of the statue was all about. In fact, the original intent of the statue was to give us your folks who are fleeing oppression and we will provide them with an opportunity at a free and successful life. We will give them the opportunity to provide a good life for themselves.

It appears that the "huddled masses" quote was misinterpreted a while back to mean that we want your down trodden, your poor, your unfortunate, your disadvantaged, your uneducated, and we will provide you with a free education, free health care, and allow you to become democrats.

Actually, Emma Lazarus wrote the "huddled masses" poem as part of a campaign to build the pedestal of the statue. The poem was called The New Colossus, and it was written in 1883, and not even inserted onto the pedestal of the statue until 1903 when it was engraved onto the base.

The poem was forgotten and not even a part of the celebration of the opening of the statue in 1883, and it was not until 1903 that it gained much attention outside the original contest to raise money.

In fact, the original intent of the statue had nothing to do with immigration, it had to do with freedom and liberty. France was thanking us for being the first nation ever to make the rulers of their country aware that freedom and liberty was possible. This is ultimately what lead to the French Revolution.

Of course the French Revolution failed because they fought for the rights of man (man as a single entity) while the founders of the U.S. fought for the rights of individual men (we all have inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by anything other than the government).

The reason the statue was build had nothing to do with the Lazarus poem, and yet once again history was twisted so that one group of people who wanted to convince the children of the world the Statue of Liberty was all about immigration. This was all one big lie that was taught in schools since 1903. This was a distortion by the progressives to make you think America was willing to take anyone, from any place in the world or universe.

The truth is, the statue was a celebration of the Declaration of Independence. It was dedicated on October 28, 1886.

On July 1, 2010, Limbaugh said:

"In fact, we don't call it the statue of immigration, we call it the statue of liberty. Lady Liberty is stepping forward. She is meant to be carrying the torch of liberty from the United States to the rest of the world.She is meant to be carrying the torch of liberty from the United States to the rest of the world. The torch is not to light the way to the United States. It is to light the way to liberty to the rest of the world. Lady Liberty is carrying the light of liberty to the rest of the world. It is not a beacon for immigrants to get to this country because they’re tired, they’re poor, they’re huddled, hungry, or thirsty. And in the proceeding years, that is exactly what she did. And she offered her freedom to France and the rest of Europe, and those countries came up with their own form of freedom, and their own interpretation. That's what other countries do. We have a right to choose our own forms of freedom.

And yet none compare to that of the United States. None. We were the first to establish freedom, we were the first to sign anything like the Declaration of Independence, and we were the first to form a U.S. Constitution that was meant to protect the natural rights of men (it tells its government what it cannot do).

And yet, all these years later, the only people to grasp the true meaning of the original documents (Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution) and the Statue of Liberty are those sons and daughters of classical liberals, those who are now referred to as conservatives and libertarians. The rest of the world has their own skewered interpretation of the true meaning of what kind of freedom we have here in the United States.

Those who intentionally or unintentionally misinterpret the meaning of these great documents, or this great statue, are those who mean to change the United States to be something other than what the founders had intended.

Further reading:

• American Exceptionalism
• Natural rights of men
• Rush Limbaugh: It's the statue of liberty, not the statue of immigration
• Rush Limbaugh: The true history of the statue of liberty

What is fascism?

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 healthcare, 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 nation. What forms it took depended on what country it was formed in.

In most nations, there is no constitutional restraint against writing laws, and this empowered powerful men in certain nations to build powerful fascists governments. Examples include Stalin's Communism in Russia, Mussolini's Socialism in Italy, and Hitlers Naziism in Germany.

You also have to understand here that Nazism is National Socialism. Hitler decided who got healthcare and how much. Hitler decided who lived and who died. Hitler decided what programs were going to be formed, and he took money from the people to create them. He mesmerized the people with his Utopian agenda, and that is how he gained the support of the people. He did not tell them that, in the process of giving Hitler what he wanted, that they were signing away their freedom.

Under Hitler's appeal, his promise for a Fascist Utopia, that people lost total sight of reality  This is how they became so obedient. They were doing what they were told by their radical leaders. There was not an individual strain of thought, at a certain point. It was much more involved than that, but that's the gist of it. And it was all just another version of fascism.

But that can't happen in the United States.  Or, it couldn't happen, so long as the Constitution was respected. That's right! In the United States, the Constitution stood in the way of fascism, mainly because it was a document that told the state what it could not do.  For this reason, fascism had to take on a more gentle form.  This posed a problem for those who yearned to advance a fascist agenda.

In the U.S., progressives, which is the name they chose for themselves, quickly realized their agenda was unpopular.  So, in order to move their agenda forward, they had to take baby steps: they had to gradually, by way of assimilation, change minds.

One of the best ways of changing minds and inculcating change, so they learned, was by taking advantage of tragedies.  So when people lost their life savings during the Great Depression, they called on progressives to save the day.

Progressive experts in Washington, both republican and democrat, convinced the people that it as okay to surrender some of their personal liberties to the state for the benefit of society.  They convinced them by saying things like, "It's for your own good."

So the progressive movement took off, becoming the original fascist movement in the United States. Of course, power breeds arrogance, and arrogance breeds corruption.  The federal government went on an "it's for your own good" rampage, passing bill after bill after bill forcing people to cede their liberties to Uncle Sam.

This is what happened when the progressives managed to get into the White House during the election of 1912.  Woodrow Wilson was their man, although, if he would have lost, Teddy Roosevelt had an even more aggressive progressive agenda than Wilson.

Through Wilson, progressives were able to convince Americans that some laws were necessary to prevent bank failures and create jobs.  They convinced people it was necessary to enforce compliance with the state, and for a police state to arrest and jail anyone who spoke ill of the state cause.

They believed compliance to the state would create a more perfect union, sort of like the euphoria Christians talk about finding in the afterlife.  This euphoria was the ultimate goal of Mussolini, Stalin, and Hitler, and it was also the ultimate goal of Woodrow Wilson as well.

They had all created fascist governments that were unique to their respective states.  Yet they were, in fact, sister governments, all falling under the rubric term fascism.

It is in this way that we can fairly say that fascism gave birth to socialism, communism, Nazism, and progressivism.  We can also fairly say it gave birth to liberalism because liberalism is basically a racemic (watered down) form of progressivism. You might even call progressivism and liberalism neo-communism.

So, in this way, we can fairly say that fascism, communism, socialism, Nazism, progressivism, liberalism, statism, and even totalitarianism, are all sisters and are all one and the same form of government. They all propose to take from those who have and redistribute it to those who have not in an attempt to create a perfect, an ideal, world.

Why is the Fifth Commandment so important?

Stalin once said that, even while he believed in God, he must extricate God and his Bible from society because God teaches capitalism, and capitalism encourages individualism. Since socialism is all about giving up personal liberties for the good of the state, then Biblical teachings must be prevented.

It was for this reason that Stalin got rid of all the churches, and prevented people from learning about God.  It is also for this main reason that most all totalitarian dictatorships fight against Christianity.  Surely there might be other noted reasons for this, but the real reason is because Christianity teaches individualism, and individualism is the antithesis of state control.

The Bible, therefore, gives us all the right to choose, although it holds us accountable for our actions.  For example, a person may make the choice of taking advantage of the poor for personal gain in life, the end result will be eternal damnation.  For example, a person may sacrifice personal gain for the benefit of society, and the end result will be eternal life in peace.

So while the right choices may lead to eternal peace in Heaven, the wrong choices may doom us to eternal damnation in hell.  Yet the end result, according to the Bible, is that the greatest rewards come from the greatest individual decisions.

So you can see that it was in this way that Christianity is what ultimately lead the assimilation from totalitarianism to the creation creation of the U.S. Constitution and American Exceptionalism that followed. It was for this reason that God and His Bible remained the Cornerstone of the American educational system until the 1960s, when the state gained control of education.

There are various names for totalitarianism depending on where you live. In some countries it is called fascism, in others socialism, and still others it's communism. Here in the U.S. it was referred to as progressivism, yet when that name soured it became known as liberalism.  Liberalism is now sour, so many are referring to it as progressivism once again.

The progressives understood that if they wanted to move forth their agenda of perfecting society, they had to extricate the Bible from society.  So that is why they created the state run school system, and why they champion for the "separation of church and state."  It is in this way they prevent Biblical teachings.

So it is here where the fifth amendment comes into play.

Dennis Prager, in his column "You Don't Have to Love Your Parents: But you do have to honor them. The Ten Commandments has it right, for families and society."  He said:

“Honor your father and your mother.” 

This commandment is so important that it is one of the only commandments in the entire Bible that gives a reason for observing it:

“That your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.”

Many people read that part of the Fifth Commandment as a reward. But while it may be regarded as a reward, the fact remains that it is a reason: If you build a society in which children honor their parents, your society will long survive.

And the corollary is: A society in which children do not honor their parents is doomed to self-destruction.

In our time, this connection between honoring parents and maintaining civilization is not widely recognized. On the contrary, many of the best-educated parents do not believe that their children need to show them honor, since “honoring” implies an authority figure and that is a status many modern parents reject.

Then he adds:

Without a father and mother to honor, children lose out on having one of the most important things they can have — mothers and fathers exercising parental authority.

So, then, why is honoring parents so important? Why does the Ten Commandments believe that society could not survive if this commandment were widely violated?

One reason is that we, as children, need it. Parents may want to be honored — and they should want to be — but children need to honor parents, too. A father and a mother who are not honored are essentially adult peers of their children. They are not parents.

No generation knows better than ours the terrible consequences of growing up without a father. Fatherless boys are far more likely to grow up and commit violent crime, mistreat women, and act out against society in every other way. Girls who do not have a father to honor — and, hopefully, to love as well — are more likely to seek the wrong men and to be promiscuous at an early age.

Second, honoring parents is how nearly all of us come to recognize that there is a moral authority above us to whom we are morally accountable. And without this, we cannot create or maintain a moral society.

Of course, for the Ten Commandments, the ultimate moral authority is God, who is therefore higher than even our parents. But it is very difficult to come to honor God without having had a parent, especially a father, to honor. Sigmund Freud, the father of psychiatry and an atheist, theorized that one’s attitude toward one’s father largely shaped one’s attitude toward God.

There is one more reason why honoring parents is fundamental to a good society. Honoring parents is the best antidote to totalitarianism. One of the first things totalitarian movements seek to do is to break the child–parent bond. The child’s allegiance is shifted from parents to the state. Even in democratic societies, the larger the state becomes, the more it usurps the parental role.

Emphasis was added there by me.  To advance their agenda, first the progressives had to extricate parental control from society.  But the way to achieve this was to create a state run educational system where children are extricated from parental control and molded and shaped into good little progressives.

In the euphoric state-run society, schools are the parent.  It is teachers that kids look up to, and teachers who are taught to indoctrinate children to agree with the state.  It is here where they are taught to believe in man made global warming, and so forth.

So it's understandable that people who champion for state control would also seek to get rid of God from society.  If God is extricated from society, children start to treat their parents as just other members of society who must give up their liberties for the good of the state.

The Fifth Amendment is important because the alternative is honoring thy state. To honor the state means to give up some of our liberties for the good of that state.

How progressives destroyed educational system

Education was once tailored to suit the needs of the student
which created the best and the brightest minds in the world
Now education is a one-size-fits-all system that fails many,
and has resulted in a weakening of the American Dream.

Most of us are used to an educational system whereby our children get up in the morning and are rushed off to state-run schools.  They are then offered an education by trained educators hired by the state. These educators, therefore, have complete control over the minds of our children for 6-8 hours, 5 days a week. This system allows the state to shape and molds their minds.

This is not a knock on individual teachers, as most of them are excellent at their jobs.  Plus it's not their fault the system is the way it is. So keep that in mind as you read on.

The current system began in the 1960s, so it's relatively new.  It was an attempt by liberals to fix something that was working rather well.  However, let's put that aside for a moment and look into what the American educational system looked like from the founding until the 1960s.

Most, if not all, of the founding fathers, were educated by their parents.  These are men who became some of the brightest men in all the world, and they were educated for free at home. Some didn't even have access to books and learned simply by reading the Bible.

This is how it was for most of history.  Parents either taught their children, or groups of parents banned together to hire the teacher of their choosing, someone who had similar morals and values as they did.  These children were taught about God, and they were taught about natural rights and American Exceptionalism.

These kids knew more about American history, and world history, and Geography, and mathematics at the age of ten than most kids today.  It was in this way that the American educational system became the best in the world.  America gave birth to the brightest and the best minds, from which gave birth to the electric light, the refrigerator, the air conditioner, the computer, the generator, the telephone, the automobile, the assembly line, etc.

It was in this way, by the creating of the best educational system in the world, that America became the greatest nation on the planet, the envy of all the world. Despite the failures of today's educational system, and even while 9 of 10 American children grew up on isolated farms, 9 of 10 of these children were literate.

Yet then it came to an abrupt halt.  Why?

First of all, tests for children privately educated were all in the form of an essay, and therefore the child was forced to fully understand the subject and be able to form an opinion on it.  Here is an example of an 8th-grade world history test:

U.S. History (Time, 45 minutes)

1. Give the epochs into which U.S. History is divided.
2. Give an account of the discovery of America by Columbus.
3. Relate the causes and results of the Revolutionary War.
4. Show the territorial growth of the United States.
5. Tell what you can of the history of Kansas.
6. Describe three of the most prominent battles of the Rebellion.
7. Who were the following: Morse, Whitney, Fulton, Bell, Lincoln, Penn, and Howe?
8. Name events connected with the following dates: 1607, 1620, 1800, 1849, and 1865?

That's pretty thorough.  Most Americans today could not answer those questions.  But this is what all 8th graders were expected to know.  I highly doubt most college graduates would be able to answer most of these questions.  

So the downward trend in our educational system began among a small group of individuals in the 19th century who decided that they could make our already great educational system even better.  Yet they didn't see it as great, they saw it as flawed, and they believed they could perfect it by creating rules and regulations.  

What the progressives wanted to do was very unpopular.  People inherently do not want to be told what they can and cannot do, or can and cannot buy.  They do not want to be told they have to buy healthcare, or that they have to exercise, or that they have to eat only healthy food.  

Surely they wanted a perfect society, but the one created by god and his capitalism was about as close to perfection as was ever going to be achieved.

Yet the progressives challenged parents, claiming that the state could better educate their children.  Parents wanted nothing of this, so progressives came up with a plan to extricate God from society, and to do that they needed first to assimilate the educational system from the parents to a state-run educational system.  

Here is how the gradual assimilation from effective parental education to a failed state-run education took place:

1. The first public school appeared in the U.S. in 1821
2. In 1867 the Department of Education was formed, although it was called Office of Education.  It was created on a budget of $15,000 to study how we could make education better (remember, it was already the best in the world)
3. In 1874, the Massachusetts Board of Education said: “The child should be taught to consider his instructor, in many respects, superior to the parent in point of authority.” 
4. In 1919, Oregon made it illegal to not attend a state-run school.  The goal was to squeeze out the religious schools, and religious education. The Supreme Court shot this down, however. 
5. In 1865 the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was passed by Congress and signed by Lyndon Johnson, paving the way for governmental control of education through funding.  Essentially, state-run schools were provided for free, making it so other school systems could not compete. In other words, they essentially forced parents to conform.
6. In 1979 (October 17), President Jimmy Carter signed the Department of Education Organization Act, thereby creating the Department of Education. 
7. 2014, the educational system now receives $72 billion each year, God is not taught, the Bible is not allowed, and the educational system is so watered down that it is failing many of our children.
8. Our educational system is failing, especially in inner 
9. High school graduation rates are 9% lower than the national average, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.
10. High school dropout rate for African Americans in 2014 was 7.4%, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. This is higher than the national average. 
11. As of November 2011, the U.S. is ranked 4th in the world among developed countries, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. 
12. The U.S. is ranked 4th in the world on per pupil spending, and that comes to $11,600 per student. Despite this, the U.S. is ranking among developed countries is 17th in reading, 19th in science, and 26th in math, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. 
13. Despite the failures of the state-run educational system, and the previous successes of the free parental system that existed prior to the current system, people continue to ask for more money to make education better.  Yet despite annual increases in education funding, our educational system continues to fail our kids.

So, while progressives aimed to perfect an already great educational system through government control, they made education worse.  Yet what they did accomplish is taking kids out of the home in order to mold and shape them into good progressives.

As these kids mature into adults, it's difficult to convince them that the root cause of a failed American educational system is that God has been extricated from teaching, and that, above all else, the parents have been taken out of the loop.

Yet these were intended consequences for progressives, and this has resulted in them moving forth their agenda. So they certainly aren't going to insist on making changes in the opposite direction.

In fact, now that they have succeeded in brainwashing many of our children.  Worse, if you don't send them to schools you can be jailed.  Some people home school their children or send them to private schools, but federal regulations have even found a way to taint a child's education regardless of where it is taught.

They also now want to create a government pre-school system to remove kids from their parents even earlier.  Yikes!

Using the state-run educational system, state experts have succeeded in convincing many people that they -- human beings -- are responsible for creating climate change, giving government experts permission to tax and regulate to resolve this problem. This results in even less freedom.

The bottom line is that progressives in Washington have managed to abuse their power to advance their agenda.  This is something George Washington and most presidents prior to Teddy Roosevelt did not do. And considering a majority are convinced this is a good system, it may never be fixed.

 Now progressives are trying to fix a healthcare system that was considered by many to be the best in the world.  Early evidence suggests they are failing at that too. 

Starbucks CEO expects uncomfortable dialogue to resolve racial tensions in America, and it won't work

The first thing I learned this morning as I woke up was that Starbucks CEO Charles Schultz has an idea to improve race relations in this country.  He will urge his store baristas to write "race together" on $5 cups of coffee and urge employees to engage customers in conversations regarding "race and racial inequality."

This type of idea is the problem, it's not the solution.  Lecturing people about how they should behave will only incite anger in many, and cause them not to want to go back to Starbucks.  

Think of it this way.  When I go to a Detroit Tigers baseball game, I go there to see the best baseball players in the world.  It never even occurs to me that this guy is black or this guy is a Latino.  I don't care about any of that.  It is my assumption that some of the best baseball players in the world are amassed together at Comerica Park so I can enjoy a good game.  

I don't go there thinking, "Oh, my goodness, there are no black pitchers in today's game. We need to do something"

When I go watch a basketball game I go there to watch the best players in the world play basketball play a good game.  I don't go there thinking, "This sport is all black."  

When I watch the Detroit Lions I look forward to seeing big plays by some of the best football players in the world.  I don't go there thinking, "Gosh, Calvin Johnson is Black and most wide receivers are black," or, "Gosh, The Lions Quarterback is white and most quarterbacks are white, we need to do something."

No we don't.  All this number counting is only making race relations worse.  It doesn't matter what color a quarterback is, all that matters is he was hired because he was the best.  It doesn't matter what color a basketball player is, all that matters is he is the best man for the dunk.  If players are hired by color, then the teams they are on will suffer. 

Of course now you have videos of Starbuck's employees participating in the "Race Together" campaign, and as I was watching it I saw many Starbuck's employees participating.  It was my assumption that these people were hired because they were the best for the job.  Yet now you have people complaining because most of the hands are white.  

You see, number counting is not the solution.  Forcing people to engage in conversation when all they want is a cup of coffee is no solution either. All these things do is incite anger and make the problem worse.  The solution is to treat ALL people with dignity and respect, and to hire the best people for the job.

So, Starbucks can help solve the problem with race relations, but it's not by encouraging employees and customers to engage in uncomfortable conversation.  The way to do it is by setting a good example for others to follow. 

Further reading:

• Starbucks CEO has a terrible idea to fix race relations
• Here's what people are saying about Starbucks 'Race Together' campaign
• Starbucks wants its baristas to talk about race relations in America
• This is not the conversation you want at Starbucks

Only the facts point to the truth

There are those who say you can find an article online to support just about any argument.  But I would like to disagree with this on the grounds that the facts only support one side.

Surely you can find an opinion peace supporting any argument, but the truth is only on one side.  For instance, let's consider tax increases.  You will find articles supporting the notion that tax increases result in more government revenue.  They will argue: it just makes sense.

But there are others who argue that tax cuts create more governmental revenue. They will cite the Laffer Curve as evidence that if you raise taxes above a certain point revenue starts to decline.  In such instances, if you cut taxes so they are at or below this point, you will assure a steady inflow of tax revenue.

The supporters of this later theory will also be able to cite historical evidence in support of this theory, as Warren G. Harding/ Calvin Coolidge cut taxes and watched as the economy soared.  John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush cut taxes and saw governmental revenue nearly double in all instances.

So the evidence is only on one side.  Surely both sides will cite evidence, but just that it sounds good is not sound evidence.

Democrats and Republicans both created an imperial president

You can decide for yourself if this is true, but I heard, from a little ferry, that every time Obama opens his mouth a conservative grows its wings. Another ferry modified this and said that every time Obama opens his mouth another conservative is born.

The general consensus here, however, is that Obama continues to push forward his agenda despite the complete voter rejection of it during the 2014 mid-term elections. In other words, Obama continues to push forward his agenda, even though it is extremely unpopular.

I'm not trying to be offensive to my readers who love Obama's agenda, because regardless of whether you like it or not it's not popular. The reason it's unpopular is because Americans cherish their freedom: they do not want to be told what to do.

The whole premise of Obama's agenda, which is progressive, is for the government to make tough decisions so people don't have to. In other words, they believe sacrificing some liberties is for the benefit of the state.

Of course then the state gains power, and it has to enforce this power.  So now people are getting fined, arrested, or jailed, (and this is not all Obama's fault, rather the fault of the progressive movement) for doing things that they shouldn't be arrested for, such as smoking or drinking in public, taking certain medicines, not paying taxes, not buying health insurance, not sending your kids to state-run schools, etc.

It's gotten to the point that we have given up enough personal liberties.  Plus the government has gotten so large and so powerful that those in power are abusing it, something the founding fathers warned against.

A perfect example is how Obama used his executive power to push a health care bill through Congress that a majority of voters did not want.

A perfect example is how the Obama administration used its power to spy on conservatives who said they belonged to the tea party, a party that was opposed to the Obama agenda.

As what occurred in the 1920 election, people are tired of laws to perfect society. People want their liberties back. They want to scale back the government, take away some of this power, and take back liberties.

So the people send Obama a message in the mid-terms, and he continues to push forth his agenda.  Today it's all over the news how he wants to improve relations with Cuba, a communist country with a dictator thug as a ruler.

Why would Obama do this?  The answer is quite simple: The Progressive Agenda is a sister Agenda to Cuba's Communism.  They are both fascist parties that believe the state should make all the tough decisions, even when it means the people sacrificing personal liberties.

Look, it's not just Obama who tries to push forth the progressive agenda, as the disease has infested the republican party as well.  Sure George W. Bush did a lot of good things, but he also doubled the national debt, adding $5 trillion to it.  This was because he created progressive programs, vetoing only 12 bills, the lowest total since Warren G. Harding (and that's not even fair, because Harding never even finished one term).

So why did Bush add to the problem he purported to oppose?  Well, your guess is as good as mine.  Yet one might "assume" that he used the power of the pulpit to buy votes.

Yes!  This is, one might say, the exact reason Grover Cleveland vetoed 414 bills in his first term and 170 in his second.  Cleveland knew he could use his power to move forward his agenda, but he didn't want to give future presidents the power to trample on the Constitution for their own political gain.

Cleveland understood, as the founding fathers understood, that people have a natural tendency to abuse power.  This, as we have seen, is exactly what happened in Cuba where Castro became a dictator.  The same thing happened here in the U.S. where the president has gained imperial powers, being dubbed by many as the imperial president.

In essence, what is occurring in Cuba is exactly what progressives want to happen here.

It's the fault of both parties, though. Surely the democratic party is infested with fascist liberals, but the republican party is infested with them too.  Allow me to name a few: John McCain, Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, Scott Brown, Norm Coleman, Chuck Hagel, and Lindsey Graham.

If any of these guys runs for president, we might as well let Hilary win so the republican party doesn't get blamed for progressive failures.  And if the democratic party decides to save face and nominate a conservative, then we had better vote democrat.

We can look back at past presidential records and see that there have been just as many great democrat presidents as republicans.  And we can also see that Teddy Roosevelt was the first progressive, and he was a republican.  In fact, in the 1912 presidential election, Roosevelt was more progressive than democrat Woodrow Wilson.

Surely Obama's agenda has added $6.103 billion to the national debt, nearly doubling it. The second worse is not another democrat, however, but George W. Bush, a republican, who added $5.840 trillion to the national debt, more than doubling it.  Compare this with Bill Clinton, who only added $1.86 trillion, or Jimmy Carter who added only $299 billion.

Both of our political parties -- republicans and democrats -- have created imperial presidents who take money from voters and spend it on programs aimed at helping the minority at the expense of the majority.  And, as they usually say, they do it for our own good, while secretly doing it for their own political gain.

Yet the bottom line is that they abuse the power they are given in order to get re-elected and advance their agenda.  This is exactly the type of thing that George Washington warned against in his Farewell Speech in 1796.

Yet Obama gives us hope, so the ferry's say.  By continuing to advance his agenda, he his earning the ire of the electorate, indirectly creating new conservatives/ libertarians each time he opens his mouth.  While voters might hope he stops, his not doing so is empowering his enemies.

Negative action has doomed the republican cause

Negative action is doing the opposite of what you believe in order to make people think you are not evil and wicked.  While such negative action has become popular among republican lawmakers of late, it has resulted in a poor public image of the party, inhibiting the parties ability to capitalize on an unpopular president.

Negative actions have doomed the republican party.  For example, there are christian republicans who love all people but do not support gay marriage laws.  However, some of these folks have become convinced republicans are not winning elections because they are seen as anti-gay.  To remedy this they support gay marriage laws.   In essence, they do the opposite of what they believe in order to get votes.

Most republicans are in favor of shoring up our borders in order to prevent immigrants from illegally coming into this country.  They also favor the enforcement of immigration laws already on the books. They believe this is necessary to reduce the financial burden to states, and keep criminals and diseases outside our borders.  Yet since there are those who believe amnesty would secure the Spanish American vote, some republicans, such as John McCain and George W. Bush, support amnesty programs.

There are many people who believe Obama should be impeached because he has violated the Constitution with all his executive orders.  They believe this is unconstitutional on the grounds that the constitution allows this executive privilege so a president may take action in the face of emergencies when Congress is not in session.  Yet in order to not offend voters they have resisted attempts at impeachment.

The result of such negative actions is that we end up with laws the people don't want.  This should help explain why Congress is so unpopular.  It should also help explain why the checks and balance system created by the founders has not been able to stop the president from abusing his powers,

Negative actions also cause obscurations, or things that hinder people from learning the true power of what a person, or faction, can do.  When this happens, people lose the ability to see whether a politician is truly a conservative or a liberal.  A good example here is Mitt Romney, who ran for president as a conservative, but because he used negative actions to become governor of Massachusettes, many saw him as a liberal, or moderate, republican.  This might explain why conservatives were not excited about a Romney presidency.

Obscurations, therefore, create more ignorances.  The more ignorant a populace is as to the potential that could be obtained by voting for republicans, the less likely they will vote for them.  For instance, by telling the people you are for amnesty because you think people Spanish Americans would be more likely to vote republican, fewer Spanish Americans vote republican. Why would they change their vote to republican when both parties stand for the same thing?

By taking the negative action of blocking impeachment attempts you are in essence enabling ignorance on the errors of our president.  This is because, lacking impeachment, there will be no effort to educate the people as to the unconstitutional behavior of the president.  When people are not educated, they continue to remain ignorant.

By taking the negative action to not deny funding to Obama that would allow him to advance his agenda, Obama has no incentive to stop using his pen.  Lacking funds his pen would become academic, yet republicans don't want to do this because they think inaction would cause the public to hate them less.  However, the public continues to hate them due to their inaction or, more specifically, their negative action.

So, negative actions may cause obscurations that result people thinking worse about republicans, and not better. Negative action causes people to remain ignorant.  Negative action does not win people over to the cause.  Negative action does nothing more than weaken your position and draw fewer people to your side.

You see, polls show that Obama is unpopular right now.  Most people don't like Obamacare, they are upset about the way he has handled the economy, upset about how he has handled immigration reform and border security, and upset about how he has handled the Ebola crisis.  Yet republicans have not capitalized on this because they have a public relations problem that has essentially been caused by the constant use of negative actions.

Reports have it that, after the midterm elections, Obama wants to take executive action to create give amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants already inside this country. If republicans want to stop him they must take positive action in order to educate the public as to the worthiness of their cause.  Republicans could win on this, because, as CNN reports, 75 percent of Americans are already opposed to amnesty.

Reports have it that he wants to cut back on our nuclear stock because he thinks it will show other nations we don't mean them any harm, thus encouraging them to set down their weapons.  Yet republicans claim, and history shows, that other nations will do the opposite: they will stockpile and destroy a weakened and naive United States. This is what thug nations and terrorist factions do.  Just look at what happened in Israel for a good example.  If republicans want to stop this behavior, the only option they have is to take positive action against the President.

The lesson learned here is that republicans have a public relations problem, and it has been caused by too much negative action.  The simplest remedy for this is for republicans to simply stand up for the principles they believe in by positive actions, or actions that support the causes they believe in.