An address to liberals

I want to address this post to liberals. As a conservative, I want to preserve our nation as our founders intended. I do not want to be a Protestant, I want to be a Catholic. I do not want to pay for British wars, I want to spend my money on tea instead. You see, that is how the U.S. was founded. It was founded on the principle that people have inalienable rights, and should not have to do what they do not want to do.

Okay, that I why I am a conservative. For some reason, perhaps due to the fact that it's been so long, people forget what it was like living prior to the U.S. Back then, you had to give up most of your money in taxes, and you got nothing in return. The people who benefited were the ruling class, or the rich and powerful.

Unfortunately, this is exactly what is happening in the United States today, where you have large corporations promising to support candidates in return for political favors. The old name for this was a monarchy, new names for it are communism, socialism, fascism, progressivism, liberalism, corporate cronyism, and crony capitalism. I explained this in my post, "Crony Capitalism."

Now, in 2016, people do not think twice when it comes to solving problems by raising taxes, creating programs, creating regulations, that tell people what they have to do. Obamacare tells people they have to buy healthcare. Some taxes are taken from people and spent on preventing global warming. What if I don't believe that humans are responsible for global warming? Why should I have to fund it if I don't support it?

See, that's why I'm a conservative. When you create a program or think about creating a program, I want you to ask, "Is this program, or is this law, going to take away someone's freedoms? If the answer is yes, then we don't want it."

I understand your Aunt Millie might benefit from Obamacare. But I don't want to pay for it, I should not have to. It does not matter what my reason it. I do not want you to take my taxes to pay for global warming, I want to give my money to some asthma charity instead. That poor asthma charity should not have to suffer because I have to fund some program I don't want to support.

And, to be fair here, it's not that I don't care about your Aunt Millie. But I firmly believe that if the Federal Government got out of the business of trying to solve every person's problems, that they would be solved by default. Because I believed, when left to their own devices, and when you get government out of their way, the American people are capable of just about anything, including solving Aunt Millie's problems.

See, that's why I'm a conservative. I don't want people telling me what to do. I don't want people telling me how I must spend my money. I don't want people telling me I have to lose weight. I don't want someone preventing me from watching conservative news outlets. I don't want that. I want freedom and liberty, and I want freedom and liberty for everyone, not just a select audience.

Give me liberty or give me death. I love that quote. I would rather die than succumb to liberalism. I don't want to be told what to do. Because liberalism has succeeded, that is why 95% of the people in this country hate Congress.

They hate it because it finds a problem, and then creates a program that you MUST pay for. And some of us don't want to do it, and it causes animosity, just like paying for British wars caused animosity among the colonists.

10 things liberals always do during political discussions

Things liberals will almost inevitably do during a discussion or debate on politics, and why you should just ignore discussing politics with them.

1. They will tell you a sob story, thereby implying if you don't support their liberal programs you don't have empathy. I really would have benefited from.. my uncle Timmy has severe back problems, he can't work, he really needs... Do it for the children. We need to help our children.  This is to imply that if you don't support their programs, you don't care. A conservative should not buy into this, as their programs are meant to get government out of the way to remove barriers that prevent people from prospering. Example: lower taxes and cut regulations and everyone will benefit, not just one or two groups of people.

2. They will question your news sources. They will say, "Where do you get your news," "Or, you must just listen to Rush Limbaugh?" "You heard that on Fox news! This is their way of saying that you don't make sense, so you must have flawed news sources.

3. They will call you names, such as "You are a racist, homophobe, or simply an idiot." More likely, if they are in front of you, they will be nicer about it, and just say, "You are not nice." This is their way of saying, I have no more attacks, so I have to disqualify your argument by bringing you don't.

4. They will change the subject. You are talking about global warming, and they will start talking about something totally different. This is called pivoting. You are talking about the first amendment, and they say, "You probably believe the second amendment give people the right to own guns." Don't take the bait. Stay on track.

5. At some point, they will just sit there and say nothing. This is because you got to them. They are mad. It is my belief that if this happens, you won the argument, and you should leave it at that.

6. They will say, "Well, it worked in such and such a place," Or, "Such and such did it, so it will work here." This is as though to imply that two wrongs make a right. An example is universal healthcare, it worked in Canada, so it will work here.

7.  They will accuse conservatives of starting a conspiracy. Obama does this a lot, "It's just conspiracy talk." He was implying to talk that progressives got together years ago and plotted how they were going to take over Washington: it's a conspiracy theory.

8. They will in some way imply that you are opposed to progress. And they are right, and that is why they are called progressives and we are called conservatives. They want to progress --"Fundamentally Transform" -- the United States toward -- "move forward"-- a more socialistic society. We are called conservatives, meaning we want to conserve the U.S. as the founding fathers had intended. The U.S. was formed on the premise that government can't be trusted, that it absconds inalienable rights. And when progress is creating government programs that help the few at the expense of the many, that is not what the U.S. is about. A good example is Obamacare. Some people are helped, but others have to abscond their freedom to choose whether or not to have healthcare. That is progress that is the antithesis of freedom, liberty, and the American way.

9. They will say, "Well, you don't want solutions," or You don't want to solve problems" And they will be right, if the solutions call for more government. Why? Because more government results in less freedom. Every new law takes away another freedom." They will say, "Well, you just don't want to solve problems." Meaning, we are lazy and don't are.

10.  They will say, "Well, we have such and such a problem, and we have to do something." No we don't, especially if doing something means doing something that is stupid; especially if doing something is doing something that will abscond more freedoms; especially if doing something is something that is experimental and you don't really know if it will work (such as Obamacare).

The New World Order: The Progressive Dream

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We are not the cause of terrorism

There is a headline in Politico: "Why do they hate us?" It is in reference to the terrorists attacks by ISIS in Brussels. The media cannot understand why terrorists would attack Brussels. They are flabbergasted why this would happen. 

Brussels is the headquarters of European Democratic Socialism.  It is where peace talks occur. It is where all the elites who decide how all the people in Europe are going to live organize. It is where the European utopia is designed. And they truly believed they had created a utopia in Europe, and then this happens. How could it happen, they wonder? What did we do? 

They are just so sadly blind, and they will never solve this problem until they open them. ISIS is mad. They are terrorist thugs who have no respect for life. Their God teaches them to conform people to their religion, and all who refuse to conform must be killed. They pretend to be a religion of peace, but they are a religion whose God teaches to kill and maim non-Muslims.

They terrorized France. We finally caught the ringleader. And this angered them and they attacked Brussels. And liberals around the world are shocked that Brussels, the birthplace of European Utopia was born and honed, was attacked. They are shocked by this. They just cannot fathom why anyone would do this. So they ask the question, "Why do they hate us so much?"

They blame themselves. They blame America. That's who they are blaming here. Phooey on blaming the people who did the attack; it must have been something we did that ticked them off, prompted them to attack us. So what is it? What did we do? 

They are so ignorant. I am sorry to say it, but they just don't get it. You have these radical religious groups that have been around for years, centuries even, and they still don't get it. They still do not want to believe there are people who do not want any form of peace that does not involve the Muslim Caliphate. They cannot believe this. They are in complete denial. 

Look, the West is not the cause of terrorist. Europe is not the cause of terrorism. America is not the cause of terrorism. But if European and American politicians continue to keep an open border policy that continues to deny radical Muslim terrorism, it will continue to thrive. The only way to end it is to keep them contained, and to kill them -- the radicals I mean. 

But they won't do this. They won't because they naively think there is something they did, we did, to tick them off. They naively think that they can ignore them and they will go away. The naively think they can negotiate (see Iran deal) their way to peace. 

We will not call them out. We will not call them radical Islamic terrorists. Our president will not call them terrorists. To him they are just random acts of terror. We are doing everything to show them that we do not blame them, and so they just keep doing it. And then our elites ask, "What did we do wrong?"

Our liberal leaders don't call them out. They call terrorism work place violence. They call it random acts of terror. They do not criticize the terrorists. They just ignore the terrorists. Obama ignores the terrorists. While in Cuba, at a baseball game, he talked for 52 seconds about the terrorist act in Brussels.

Here is what Obama said:

The thoughts and prayers of the American people are with the people of Belgium, and we stand in solidarity with them in condemning these outrageous attacks against innocent people. We will do whatever is necessary to support our friend and ally, Belgium, in bringing to justice those who are responsible.

What will we do? What did we do when there was a terrorist attack on France? What did we do when there was a terrorist attack in San Francisco? Nothing! We didn't do anything. So why are to believe we are going to do something this time around?

All we do is ignore terrorism. I think this is the Obama strategy.  It think this is the socialist/ progressive way to utopia; to world peace. They think that if we ignore our enemies, this sends a signal that we mean peace; that they don't need to attack us. Then they will be peaceful.

Then they attack us again anyway. And we continue to ignore them.

Then they open up borders, let anyone in who wants. They let Muslims in, even if they might be terrorist thugs. We let them in because, to liberals, this is a sign of peace. Ignoring the problem, to liberals, shows peaceful intentions. Then they blow us up anyway.

We keep ignoring them, they keep attacking us. This is so stupid!!!

Then Trump comes along, says we can't keep doing this. We need to close our borders. We need to resolve this problem. And he's called dangerous.

Keep this up, and they will just continue on their unhappy way.

Obama continued:

And this is yet another reminder that the world must unite. We must be together regardless of nationality or race or faith in fighting against the scourge of terrorism.

How do you unite with terrorists? How do you unite with people who want to kill us? The problem is that we are united in our approach to terrorism, and it's being united behind an ideal approach that is supposed to create world peace and utopia. It's being united behind a naive view that ignoring and appeasing our enemies will somehow make them like us and not want to kill us.

They think that by Obama showing sympathy that that will solve terrorism. They think that by putting colors over your Facebook picture, that that shows sympathy; that that shows you care; that that shows we are united; that we are opposed to racism. They think opening our borders and letting anyone in who wants to come in shows we are not bigots, that we are not racist. Then among them come the radical Islamist terrorist, and they blow us up from the inside and from the outside. That's how they respond to our calls for national unity.

So, we are not the cause of terrorism. The Western way of living was not to blame for what happened in Brussels. What happened in Brussels happened because of the open border policy in Europe. Brussels happened because Europe stopped controlling its borders and did not require people coming into Europe to assimilate. This resulted in Europe giving up its sovereignty. It gave up its cultural identity, and now it can't do anything to control its borders because those who invaded the nation now control it.

And if we don't close our borders, the same will happen in the U.S.  And you have a guy named Trump who is the only one willing to openly criticize the current system, and he's called dangerous. Maybe the people who are dangerous are the people who want to keep our borders open. 

Note to elites: Radical Ismamic Groups do not want peace: they want to kill all of us unless we conform to their religion. They want a Muslim Caliphate. Period. If you don't realize that soon, they are going to annihilate us all. Then we will all be unhappy. Then we will have our liberties denied. We will not be free. We will all be miserable. You can't help thinking that's what these liberal elites want. So long as they get to keep their cushy jobs. I don't know. This is just sickening. 

Planned Parenthood: The Undeniable Truth

Margaret Sanger (1879-1966)

I bet most people are unaware of the fact that Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger with the goal of ending poverty by controlling the black population. So it is no coincidence that most Planned Parenthood offices are conveniently located in minority communities.

This was made light of on the campaign trail recently, when republican candidate Dr. Ben Carson said:

Maybe I am not objective when it comes to Planned Parenthood, but, you know, I know who Margaret Sanger is, and I know that she believed in eugenics, and one of the reasons you find most of their clinics in black neighborhoods is so that you can find a way to control that population. I think people should go back and read about Margaret Sanger who founded this place — a woman Hillary Clinton by the way says that she admires. Look and see what many people in Nazi Germany said about her.

Margaret Sanger believed liberated women did not want large families 

and motherhood was a socially imposed constraint on their liberty. 

She believed it was a false consciousness to want a large family.

She believed that if women thought of sex as a pleasurable experience,

rather than a procreative act, they would embrace birth control 

as a necessary tool for their own personal gratification. 

She brilliantly used the word 'liberation' to convince women

that they weren't going along with a progressive collective scheme,

but were in fact "speaking truth to power."  

Sanger was the first leading champion for birth control.

Carson is right.  Johah Goldberg, in his book "Liberal Fascism," said that Sanger wanted to prevent the reproduction of unfit people, and regulate reproduction of everyone else.  She once wrote in a 1922 book, "The Pivot of Civilization": "More children from the fit, less from the unfit -- that is the belief issue of birth control."

You have to understand that the goal of progressives was to create a perfect world.  In the introduction of her book, Orson Wells wrote: "We want fewer and better children... and we cannot make the social life and the world peace we are determined to make, with ill-bread, ill-trained swarms of inferior citizens that you inflict on us."

Goldberg said that in 1939 she started what she referred to as the "Negro Project," which aimed to get blacks to accept birth control.  Through the Birth Control Federation, she even succeeded in convincing black leaders to help pare down the supposedly large black population.

The ultimate goal of progressives such as Sanger, once again, was to create an ideal world, and to establish a "heirarchy of desirable persons," according to Ian Tuttle of National Review. Sanger's Birth Control Federation report reads: “The mass of significant Negroes still breed carelessly and disastrously, with the result that the increase among Negroes . . . is [in] that portion of the population least intelligent and fit.”

Now, if this is not racist, I don't know what is.  She must have recognized this, as she went on to say, according to Goldberg: "We do not want word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population."

Carson encouraged people to read up on Sanger, Just check out her 1922 book, where she also said:

The lack of balance between the birth-rate of the “unfit” and the “fit” [is] admittedly the greatest present menace to the civilization. . . . The example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken, should not be held up for emulation to the mentally and physically fit, and therefore less fertile, parents of the educated and well-to-do classes. On the contrary, the most urgent problem to-day is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.

Yes, it is true: she was a leader in the fight to eliminate people she deemed to be inferior and a burden on society, and this included both the mentally challenged and the Negro populations.

Interestingly enough, Sanger's Planned Parenthood was about doling out birth control, not abortions.  In fact, she abhorred abortion, calling it "barbaric," an "outrageous slaughter," and "the killing of babies."

What Hitler did during WWII put an end to any eugenics programs that existed on the planet, as the idea was revealed for what it really is.  But Sanger's mission to "liberate" women through birth control lived on through the feminism movement.  Today, few people know about the woman and the "movement" that gave birth to the organization.

Ironically, today's Planned Parenthood is even more eugenic than Sanger's Planned Parenthood, as one of the services offered by the organization is abortions.  Planned Parenthood is now the leading organization when it comes to aborting unwanted un-born children, having killed over 7 million of them since the 1972 Roe -vs- Wade decision.

Abortion rights, or pro choice, advocates say defend this number by saying that abortions are only 3% of what the organization does.  Yet an aborted baby is a dead baby who never even had a chance to succeed or fail. That, my friends, is the undeniable truth.

The undeniable truth is, as noted by Goldberg: "Abortion ends more black lives than heart attacks, cancer, accidents, AIDS, and violent crime combined. African-Americans constitute little more than 12 percent of the population but have more than a third (37 percent) of abortions."

Tuttle said that "the abortion industry, intentionally or not, has carried on Sanger’s troubling legacy. Why is it that, according to the Centers for Disease Control, black women are five times likelier than white women to have an abortion?"

Tuttle said that the pro-life organization "Life Dynamics" recorded the ZIP Codes of every Planned Parenthood facility.  The organization reported: "We identified 116 ZIP codes with more than one population control facility. Of those, 84 were disproportionately black and/or Hispanic. What this means is that, when the American family planning industry places multiple facilities in a ZIP code, that ZIP code is more than two-and-a-half times as likely to be disproportionately minority as not."

Of course, Tuttle says critics of the study say Planned Parenthood is just building centers where they are needed, and this so happens to be in African-American neighborhoods.  However, Planned Parentehood also claims that birth control would prevent unintended pregnancies in these neighborhoods, and that has not happened.  In fact, the opposite has happened.

Tuttle said, "In 2011, the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute published the findings of a study comparing rates of unintended pregnancy and abortion in 1994 and 2006. Among women with incomes below the federal poverty line, the unintended pregnancy rate rose by 50 percent. They also experienced an increase in abortions."

So the organization is promoting riskier sexual behavior through its birth control services, and then offering abortion services needed to end unwanted pregnancies.  Of when you add in here that that the organization is also illegally selling fetal body parts, the organization seems more and more shay.

If the organization were truly about preventing unwanted pregnancies among impoverished neighborhoods, facilities would be equally dispersed in all impoverished neighborhoods.  Because they tend to only be in impoverished African-American neighborhoods, we can see that Margaret Sanger's vision is living on, although "in a new form." said Tuttle.

Further reading:

• Jonah Goldberg: Liberal Fascism, pages 270-277
• National Review: What Ben Carson Knows About Planned Parenthood
• Young Conservatives: Dr. Ben Carson: Planned parenthood was started in order to abort black babies
• Articulating Ideas: The Evils of Planned Parenthood
• Confused Nun Wrong About Abortion
• Young Conservatives: Hilary Clinton Gushed About Love For Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger in Comments from 2009

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'

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.

Conservative -vs- Liberal: Which one is best?

The liberal said: "It's terrible that we live in a country where so many people have to live paycheck to paycheck."

The conservative said, "I see it turning around soon."

Liberal: "Really."  

Conservative: "Sure.  I believe in American Exceptionalism.  We are Americans.  We can make anything happen."

Liberal: "There are countries where new mothers get to take a year off after they have a baby.  There are countries where everyone has healthcare and is taken care of.  That's what we need here. I think we have too many greedy people"

Conservative:  "I agree."

Liberal: "You do?"  

Conservative: "That's why I think we should hire a conservative to be our next president to get government out of the way so that both businesses and individuals could prospers.  Then everyone who wanted one would have a job, and they could choose the healthcare program of their choice."

Liberal: "I think there are too many greedy people in this country, and that's why it doesn't work."

Conservative: "How do you define greed? 

Liberal: "People making more money than they deserve."

Conservative: "How do you define how much money they deserve?"

Liberal: "If people weren't so greedy we would have enough money so that everyone would have a job, and everyone would have healthcare, and everyone would have food on the table."

Conservative, "Isn't that what caused our current situation in the first place, thinking we could provide all this free stuff for people and solve all their problems?  It hasn't worked.  It has never worked.  It never will work.  Yet they keep trying, and they keep failing."  

The liberal looked at the conservative dumbfounded, got all mad, and trumped off.  I mean, the conservative didn't intend on getting his liberal friend upset. After all, they were just having a friendly discussion.

I keep rolling this discussion over and over in my mind.  Each time I watch it play out it causes the voices in my mind to go into a discussion of conservatism versus liberalism.  

What is conservatism? Conservatism is all about everybody's life getting better. Conservatism is all about everybody being respected. Conservatism is colorblind. Conservatism has nothing to do with identity politics. Conservatism is rooted in love of people and high expectations of everyone. Conservatism believes that everybody, if things are moved out of their way, can be much better, can accomplish more than they think they can. 

Conservatism believes people are smart, and when given the opportunity, when all obstacles are out of the way (regulations, taxes, what have you), people make the most of it, maybe even exceed theirs and our expectations.  Surely there might be a few choices that result in chaos, but that's just the nature of the world we live in.  That's what a justice system is for.

Conservatism doesn't divide people based color, creed, nationality, or sex.  Conservatism don't take someone else's money and spend it on things they don't want to spend money on.  Conservatives don't need to do this, because, under full fledged conservatism, people make plenty of money to buy whatever they need and want.  This was best proven in the 1920s under the Calvin Coolidge economic system.  

Conservatives believe in creating a strong national defense to keep people safe, and getting government out of the way to create a good economic environment that will allow every American -- regardless of nationality, color, sex, or creed -- to move up and make as much money as they are motivated to make.  

Conservatives believe there is plenty of money in this world whereby everyone who is motivated have have a piece of the pie.  And they believe the fact that some people in this country make more money than others assures other people of the greatness that can be achieved because of our Constitution.  The fact that some people are rich is an incentive; it creates a "I can do that too" attitude.

The left is the exact opposite. The left doesn't believe any of this about people. The left believes the worst of people. They believe people are stupid, and left to their own devices will make poor choices.  That's why they like to hire experts in Washington (preferably fellow liberals) who make decisions for people. That's why we end up with a one-size-fits-all healthcare system and educational systems that fail year after year regardless of how much money is thrown their way.  

And therefore they put themselves in this equation where they are needed to in order to help people even survive.  They lump people in groups, and instead of lifting everyone up like conservatives do, they cater to groups of people.  They put minorities, gays, and women before white Americans.  They put the poor before the middle class, and the middle class before the rich.  

And they hate the rich, and think they are greedy. That is what my friend meant when he said we have too many greedy people.  They believe there is only so much money to go around, and so they think it is "unfair" when one person makes more than another.  They think the money you spend on luxury items is money that could have put food on the table of the poor, or put Obama phones in the hands of the people who only have enough money to purchase cigarettes and $80 a month cable and phone service bills.  

So what happens when liberals get their "Utopian" world where everyone has a job, and everyone has healthcare, and everyone has an Obama phone, and everyone can take a year off every time a baby is born. If there are no rich people, that will mean that everyone will be poor.  Since everyone has healthcare, there will be no incentive to find anything better.  People will be having babies left and right, and no one will be motivated to do the work.

This has already been proven.  Liberalism has been tried and failed so many times in our history that I cannot even start to count.  Liberalism is the cowardly solution.  All you have to do to be a liberal is is to say you care for someone or something and come up with a solution that someone else pays for.  This often results in forcing people to do things they don't want to do, and just creates more chaos.  Then when their solution fails, they call the critics hate mongers, Nazis, idiots, and doom and gloomers.  

Conservatives believe people will thrive on their own if obstacles are cleared out of the way and they are motivated and inspired with high expectations. And it's all rooted in love of people.  They believe people are smart and will thrive under the ideal conditions that have been achieved only in this country.  It's called American exceptionalism; the American dream.

Further reading:

• Calvin Coolidge and the Roaring 20s
• What is American Exceptionalism?
• Why I am a Libertarian Conservative

The progressive View on Terrorism

This cartoon pretty much says all that needs to be said about the progressive view on terrorism.

Perfect!  What more needs to be said. 

Why won't progressives let us do anything fun?

Progressives spent the entire 1910s passing laws to perfect society, and once they tired of such laws voters elected conservatives in a 1920s landslide. It's seems such progressive attempt to perfect society have been rejuvenated in recent years and, according to polling data, people are once again fed up with it.

In the 1910s progressives, lead by Woodrow Wilson, passed laws that made selling alcohol a crime, and the president even made people who spoke out against the war effort criminals.  Such actions were not supposed to be allowed in a free country.

Now, in the 2010s, progressives have returned, only under the name of liberal. They have passed laws essentially making it illegal to smoke cigarettes except for in the privacy of your own home.

One of their main efforts today is that they want to force everyone to eat healthy. They say it's because they care for us, but we all know the reason is so that when they get their universal healthcare system we won't cost Uncle Sam an arm and a let.

Progressives want everyone to eat healthy.  They want you to eat apples when you are traveling in a car, as opposed to Little Debbies.  Because of Michelle Obama they are forcing our kids to eat boring meals at lunch time, unless they bring in their own food, and even then they are scrutinized.

Michael Bloomberg signed a law forcing New York residents to purchase smaller sized sodas to prevent them from drinking too much sugar.  They, in essence, want people to eat healthy every day. Sorry, folks, they don't even want you to go out on Saturday night with your friends.

They don't want you to eat in moderation, or to have an "unhealthy" day once in a while.  They want you to eat perfect, every day, and to be a lean, mean, fighting machines.  Some day they might even pass a law mandating that you exercise every day.

It's not that they care for us, though, because they don't want us to even be here. They don't like that there are too many people on this planet because people exhale carbon dioxide, which is contributing to global warming. If global warming wipes out the planet then the animals they want to give natural rights to will die.

They want you to have perfect bodies because by their rationing, once we get universal healthcare, you won't be a burden.  What they fail to realize is that even people who eat healthy and exercise get risks.  They don't realize you can't take the risk out of life.

Yet they don't see it that way.  They see a world of complete euphoria where everyone eats healthy and exercises, everyone has a job, everyone has food, and everyone has healthcare

The reason is because, in their perfect world, their dream world, they want universal healthcare; they want everyone to have a job, be thin, and to have healthcare.

Since alcohol and drugs are responsible for crime, they want to get rid of alcohol and drugs.  It's for this reason prohibition passed.  Oh, by the way, what happened during prohibition.  That's right!  People drank alcohol anyway, only they became criminals.

Today there is a marijuana prohibition of sorts, where normal people like you and me enjoy a joint, and they end up in prison.  Or they lose their healthcare license because they had a little fun.

The problem with this is that what if their theories are not true?  What if there is no manmade global warming, or cooling, or whatever you want to call it?  What if high fat foods are proven not to cause heart disease? Then what?

I'll tell you what?  We'll continue to have all these laws based on a hoax because no one will have the nerve to get rid of them for fear of losing votes.  As with the global warming hoax, there will be so many people politically invested in the hoax that they will -- as with Al Gore -- continue to deny it's a hoax.

I think people should eat responsibly, just like they should be responsible toward the environment.  But to get all scared of a little sugar and fat at the expense of having a boring, un-fun life is absolutely pointless.  I mean, unlike Bloomberg and Michelle Obama, most of us lead stressful lives, and we need a little sugar or alcohol to take the edge off.

All these laws to perfect society have changed us from a free state to a police state. however, if the 2014 republican midterms election means anything, the people are once again fed up with all the laws to perfect society.

Why do progressives hate the founding fathers?

Ever wonder why it is that progressives do not seem to like the founding fathers, and constantly try to diminish the founding documents?  Well, it's because the founding fathers were all conservative.

Now that we understand this, it's easy to see why progressives, or at least those who are pushing the progressive movement, say that the Constitution is a living document that must be changed and updated.  It is why they say the Declaration of Independence is dead.  It's why they ignore the Constitution to make into law what the people do not want, but what is essential to advance their agenda.  

A perfect example here is the fact that many progressives use Thomas Jefferson as a perfect example of a founding father who was an atheist who was for a large government.  

Why do progressives in the U.S. constantly say that Thomas Jefferson was for big government and that he wanted the Bible out of government?  Well, it's because he was really a conservative, and if people knew that they might want to become conservatives.  For this reason, they twist the truth to make Jefferson what they need him to be in order to advance their agenda.  

Neither of these are true, by the way.  Jefferson, although he may have been a deist, still understood the importance of God and the conservatism he preached. Jefferson, in essence, was for a limited government.  

Chuck Norris actually covered this topic in his April 13, 2014, column "Three myths about Thomas Jefferson."  He sites the following quote from Jefferson:

Jefferson was actually for smaller government, less debt and fewer taxes. About eight years after his two terms of president, Jefferson wrote, “We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses, and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes, have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account, but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers.”

Thomas Jefferson probably was a deist and not a Christian, although he also understood the importance of God in a functioning government. It is for this reason, in various letters to John Adams, he discussed why he thought it was important for a government to inculcate the values and morals taught through the Bible.

Jefferson wrote that he believed, that since the new nation could not afford a militia, that something else was needed to keep Americans in line.  Jefferson understood, perhaps by reading books from his own library, that fear of God and the Devil are all that is needed to encourage people to love and respect their neighbors.  That it was important for the government to encourage Bible study.

It is for this reason the founding fathers -- Jefferson, Washington, Paine, Adams, Madison, Franklin -- used God's name so frequently.  They understood, that in order to maintain a functioning society, God is essential.