The ultimate goal of idealism is equal pay, poverty for all

Perhaps people don't think of this much, but the reason people go to work each day is to make money.  And if you want to make a lot of money, then you have to take risks.  Thus, the incentive for taking such risks is the opportunity to make a lot of money.

Another thing people don't think about often is that the rich are not static, meaning you don't have the same people in the top 1%, or the top 10%, of income earners.  In other words, every ten years you have a different list of top earners in this country.  The reason for this is due to the risk.

It is also important to understand is that these same people, the ones taking the risks, also benefit the rest of the country, as they both spend their money in the process of risking it to make even more money.  Plus they spend money on luxury items that keep the economy afloat.

In other words, there are advantages of rich people.

Yet then you have people in Washington who want to raise taxes on these people. Thomas Piketty, in his book that is now #1 on Amazon called "Capital in the Twenty-First Century," suggests an 80% income tax raise on anyone making over $500,000 in order to get rid of that income class.

This, by the way, is the ultimate goals out of the pocket book of progressivism 101: equal pay.  To get this they take from the rich and give to the poor, or take from the haves and give to the have nots, however you want to describe it.

It's income redistribution.  And it has been tried thousands of times in world history, and is being tried in many nations right now as I write this, and it has failed every time it has been tried.

Why does it fail? Because in order for an economy to flourish there has to be an incentive to take risks.  America has always been great because every person has, historically, had an equal opportunity to rise to a better place in life.

Yet them came along the progressive movement, or the liberal movement, or the socialist movement, the idealist movement, or the communist movement, and then this all changed for the worse.  All of these movements, whatever you want to call them, want to redistribute wealth in order to make everyone equal.

This is the ultimate Utopian goal.  The problem is, that while it sounds like a great goal, it is doomed to fail. It has always failed, and will always fail.  The reason is because you cannot have a booming economy if you don't have rich people willing to save and invest.  You just can't.

The thing is, anyone who studies history, anyone who studies economics 101, will know this.  It is for this reason that these types of people don't want privately run schools, because it's easier to control what kids are taught when you have the government running it all.

Selfishness has destroyed great nations, and may destroy ours

What destroys nations is selfishness and greed.  I'm not just talking about rich people, I'm referring to the nation in general.  When we, as a nation, put our own personal desires ahead of our nation, the entire nation fails.  It is such selfishness that even brought down the mighty Roman Empire.  

Consider that Roman slaves did most of the work, and that each citizen of Rome had at least one slave, but more than likely many slaves. The citizens of Rome took advantage of the slaves, who did all the work, to live luxurious lifestyles.  But once wars ended and slaves were gone, the citizens didn't know how to work.  So the nation collapsed.  

This wasn't the only reason, but it was one of many contributing factors into the collapse of Rome.  People, the rich and the poor, kept asking for more from the government, and the government kept giving them more.  They did, in essence, create a nation of entitlement programs.  The cost of these programs ultimately became so great the nation collapsed from within and without.  

Now we have an American nation that has, for the past 100 or so years, slowly become a nation of entitlements.  The poor keep asking for more from the rich in the form of entitlements, and they become so comfortable that they can never get off of welfare.  They become so comfortable that they have no incentive to ever get up and go to work.  

The rich, on the other hand, often champion for these same government programs because it will benefit them.  Obamacare, for instance, was championed for by hospitals and insurance companies because they thought that it would create more customers for them.  In the end, it has merely created one more entitlement program whose cost is higher premiums, fewer insured, fewer employed, and more regulations for both consumers and employers.  

Now, I am not opposed to helping the poor and the needy.  Few of us are opposed to helping the poor and the needy.  But this has gone beyond just helping the poor and the needy.  It become more of a "what have you done for me lately" government.  

The more power you give to the government, the more power it will take. This is a historical trend that has occurred in nearly every government ever created. It was this, in essence, that brought down both ancient Greece and the mighty Roman Empire. 

If you give the government the power to tax, it will tax more.  If you give the government the power to create entitlements, it will create to many.  If you give the government the power to make laws "for our own good," they will creating laws based on idealistic myths.  

Worse, once the government makes a law, it takes away one more freedom. Whenever the government makes a new entitlement, people will not want to give it back, and politicians will not vote to eliminate for fear of angering voters.  

I think the idealistic, progressive movement began with an effort to benefit the underclass.  They had many victories, creating laws giving women the right to vote, and laws protecting workers.  But then they started to go too far, which is what government is known to do.  This is one of the reasons why the founders championed that government was a necessary evil.  

Government is necessary in order to create a safe environment for the people to thrive, although too much government, most often created for selfish gain, creates an evil empire that cannot thrive.  

A think a good quote to sum this up comes from Benjamin Franklin.  He said: "I am for doing good to the poor... I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it..."

It's time we, as Americans, stop thinking as individuals who want to make laws for our own personal gain.  Instead, we must start working together as one to protect and preserve the liberties our Constitution was created to protect.  

What is better? Nanny State or Free State

I have some friends who like progressive people in government like former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.  They think it's a good idea that laws are made that urge healthy lifestyles.  I, however, think that this form of nanny-style government is dangerous.

Think of it this way.  Think of the government as your home.  Since the parents are paying the bills, they get to set the rules.  They can prevent you from eating foods high in sugar and fat, and they can encourage you to exercise.

Now, once we the people give the government the power to pay our bills, then we are, in essence, making the government the parents.  By default, this gives the government the power to tell us what we can and cannot eat.

So every time a new study comes out showing that something we are eating is bad for us, then these government officials want to make laws preventing people from eating it.  This is what Bloomberg did when he banned the sale of 36 ounce drinks in New York.  

Why did he do it?  The bottom line is the government of New York pays a lot of money for healthcare.  A high cost in healthcare is the cost of caring for diabetic people.  Since pop has a lot of sugar, the idea was the people would drink less pop and ingest less sugar. 

This is the crux of the progressive movement.  They believe that experts in Washington should decide what's best for us. They believe that in the absence of a nanny state in government, people are stupid and will make unwise decisions.  

The problem here is that the these experts assume they are right.  But what if they are wrong.  What if people will simply buy more pop?  What if not drinking pop will still result in diabetes? What if these experts are proven wrong?  

Will they then get rid of the law?  There have been many instances in the past where these so called experts were proven wrong, and this did not stop them from changing their ways.  It has never resulted in the reversal of any laws. 

Whenever someone proves one of these idealist experts wrong, the expert simply trudges forward, even it it takes denying the facts and telling lies.  

Consider that, despite the assault on high fat foods such as McDonalds, Burger King and KFC under the belief that high fat foods cause hardened arteries and heart disease, science has proven that this is a myth.  

Scientists actually found a high rate of hardened arteries and heart disease in ancient Egyptian mummies, and their diet didn't even include meat.  They didn't even have the knowledge to make fried foods.  This has experts wondering if it's not the foods we eat but genetics that causes heart disease. 

Regardless, the experts continue the assault on high fat foods.  And I'm not saying you should eat these foods, I'm just saying that the experts are not always right. They make laws based on "it sounds good" myths, and make laws because "it's for our own good" and they they find out they are wrong, but they deny they are wrong.
A second thought I have on this topic is that for every new law one more liberty, one more freedom, is taken away. You must consider that every law tells me one more thing I must do, or that I cannot do.  It takes away my right to decide? It tramples on my personal liberty.

A third thought I have on this topic is this: Is the government supposed to make a new law every single time a new study comes out?  I mean, what if a study came out showing that long-term ingestion of popcorn caused dementia in the elderly? Are they going to ban the sale of popcorn?  Where does it end?

There is an alternative to the nanny state, and that is to assume people are smart rather than stupid.  I think people are smart, and will make decisions they think are best for them.  When provided with better knowledge, they will make better decisions.  

So, the powers that be should not assume people are stupid, thus making laws forcing them to make wise decisions.  Instead, they should assume that most people are smart, and make a gallant effort to educate them about the advantages of making smart choices.  

All the lonely people

Back in 1993 I graduated from college and felt very lonely.  I completed college, and realized I did not want to be what I went to school for.  I was hired as a journalist, and I hated it.  I knew I was a good writer, but I got a serious bout of writers block.  I quit, and then for the rest of the year I felt depressed and lonely.

I felt lonely because I felt there was no one I could talk to.  My dad didn't want me to quit my job, mainly because he said I would get better with time and learn to like it.  I knew I would not get better, and not learn to like it.  I felt like I had taken a wrong path.  I spent many hours wondering why God had allowed me to take this journey.  I wondered how I was going to get out of it.

I couldn't help thinking of this recently as I attended two different Masses where the Priest talked about "all the lonely people."  They both began their sermons by singing the following lyrics by the Beatles:

All the lonely people

Where do they all come from?

All the lonely people

Where do they all belong?

The moral of both these sermons was this: if you believe in Jesus, you are never alone.  If you believe in the Lord, God, you are never alone.  This is essentially the message of John 14:15-21:

If you love me you will keep my commandments.

I shall ask the Father, and he will give you another Paraclete to be with you for ever,

the Spirit of truth whom the world can never accept since it neither sees nor knows him; but you know him, because he is with you, he is in you.

I shall not leave you orphans; I shall come to you.

In a short time the world will no longer see me; but you will see that I live and you also will live.

On that day you will know that I am in my Father and you in me and I in you.

 Whoever holds to my commandments and keeps them is the one who loves me; and whoever loves me willbe loved by my Father, and I shall love him and reveal myself to him.

One priest said this is similar to those moments, as parents, that we hold the hands of our children.  Yet then there comes a time as parents you have to let go and allow your child to walk on his own and hope you taught well.  Usually, your children DO take steps on their own, and they do well.  This is how they learn to become independent.

Similarly, there are times when Jesus holds our hands, and then there are times when he lets go, allowing us a chance to walk on our own.  These will be the times when you feel lonely.  Yet those who believe will know that the Lord is right there all along.  We continue to pray for the Lord to reveal himself, to show us that he is still there.

It is in these moments we pray words, and we seek for our prayers to be answered.  Yet, for long periods of time, sometimes it seems, our prayers go unanswered.  Yet we continue to pray, because, deep down, we continue to believe; we continue to have faith.

And then, usually at unexpected moments, he shows us that he is there.  These are the moments that, as a parent holds the hands of his child once again, that God does the same for us.

Those of us who believe will have those moments when we feel His hand, once again, upon our shoulders.  Perhaps this will be a moment where the sun shines bright upon your shoulder, and you are hit with a revelation that you are with God; You are hit with the revelation that your prayer has already been answered; you are hit with the revelation that the Lord has been with you all along.

I had such a moment back in December of 1993.  My brother David encouraged me to visit him in Kentucky.  One evening he and his wife were gone, and I was lying on the floor with a journal in front of me.  A refreshing breeze wafted over me and my journal, ruffling the pages.  At the same time a ray of sun shined on me, and a shiver went up my spine.

That was one of those moments when the Lord grabbed me by the shoulder and held me, guiding me.  At that moment it occurred to me that I was going to be a respiratory therapist. The next day I called my mother, thinking she'd be angry with me for starting all over, but instead she was fully supportive.  That was when I realized God had talked to her about it too.

And it's not like we need the support of our parents to change courses in life, although, as most of us know, it surely helps.  It helps to know that you are not taking this journey alone; that you have those who support you.

Over time I realized that not only did God touch me in that moment when the sun shined upon me, but he was also guiding me all along.  He walked with me during all those asthma attacks. He walked with me through journalism school. He walked with me through advertising school. He walked with me when I was working for the Lake County Star.  He walked with me that year I felt lonely.

The skills I obtained during that time allow me to share the word with all those I meet, and all those who read the words I write.  So, while sometimes we feel as though our prayers are not being answered; that the Lord is not listening, chances are, our prayers have already been answered.

The quest to stop climate change, for our own good

One of the reasons the founding fathers set limits on what the legislature could legislate on was to prevent it from responding emotionally to the latest whims and wishes of society.  Today those whims and wishes seem to come in the form of emotions.

There are people out there who are trying to scare people into believing that modern technology is destroying the planet, and they have many people convinced.  There are kids that are literally scared that the world is going to end in 500 days, 5 years, 10 years, or whatever today's date is for the marking of the end of the world. They are convinced that we are the cause because we aren't doing anything about it.

It's obvious that the Obama administration has bought into these scare tactics, and, like the founders did not want, his environmental protection agency (EPA) is set to increase regulations on energy corporations.  He has to do this for our own good, because if he doesn't we won't do anything and we will destroy the planet.  He has to force this for the betterment of mankind.

According to Politico.com, "President Obama's Big Carbon Crackdown Readies for Launch:"

Obama is expected to endorse a strategy that seeks creative ways to achieve big carbon cuts — one that could lead some utilities to help their residential and business customers reduce their demand for electricity. Insiders refer to that as going outside the power plants’ “fence line"...

The new rule also won’t set up a single way for power companies to meet its requirements. Instead, it will set an emissions goal that states must meet, then give them guidelines for how they can comply. States must write their own compliance plans — subject to EPA approval — or the agency will step in with its own requirements.

Broad, state-level pollution targets would mean greater cuts and more flexibility for states, while viewing power plants as part of a collective system. Several environmental groups have offered model plans to the EPA in which some states would encourage utilities to switch from coal to gas and generate more wind or solar power.

The goal here is noble, although this is not the way to accomplish what they wish to accomplish.  In fact, just by using the words "collective system" shows that this is a progressive/ liberal/ socialist agenda item whereby the government thinks it knows what's best for people and is forcing them to comply.

However, what if the government is wrong?  What if the current belief that mankind is destroying the environmenet is wrong? What if these regulations force many or all of these energy corporations to go out of business?  Does the EPA care?

There are opponents of this ruling who are set to fight it, as noted by Politico.com:

Still, opponents will launch a major legal fight against the broad approach, saying the EPA can’t legally require steeper pollution cuts than a power plant could make on its own. “The reason why EPA has never before obligated a source to reduce emissions beyond its control is because it’s beyond its control,” industry attorney Robert Wyman said.

Progressives are known to use fear tactics to try to convince people that they are right.  Yet, when the fear campaign fails to inspire change, they do it with force. This, I am afraid,  may have the founding fathers rolling over in their graves.

Yet Obama doesn't seem to care about the founding fathers, nor does he have respect for the documents they wrote.  His main objective now is to save his legacy, and he believes he can do it by "saving the planet." God help us!

Further reading:

• EPA opens new war... on kitchen stoves!!!

The global warming debate: let the children decide

Right here on the cover of Newsweek magazine
opponents of the global warming theory
are made out to be bumbling idiots
for not becoming sheep.

Global warming does exists, and if we do not change our way of living we are going to send the planet to Armageddon. Global warming does not exist, and if we don't stop taxing and regulating American industries because of the hoax of global warming, we are going to destroy our economy.  This, in essence, is the modern global warming debate, raging since the early 1990s. 

So, who is right?

I watched a news program in March of 2008 on ABC news about this one scientist who had gone public with his notion that global warming was a hoax. I don't remember the name of the show, the host, nor the guest, although it really doesn't matter for the sake of our discussion here.  What happened was that, instead of the host of that program allowing this scientist to show his evidence that global warming is a hoax, he basically made an effort to discredit him, making him look like a bumbling idiot.

I was actually watching this show with a friend, and while the show was progressing, my friend kept waving his hand through the air saying things like, "See? See?  Global warming is real!"

I said, "That was a terrible report. That scientists barely had a chance to make his point."

My friend said, "Why's that? Because it proved you wrong."

The next morning I awoke and found my son, then nine-years-old, standing in the kitchen.  We heard a huge gust of wind, and both looked out the window to see a fresh blanket of snow.  I said, "Wow, it's not supposed to be doing this in March."

He said, "Yeah, especially with global warming."

Now, at nine, I don't know if he thinks about global warming, although I have a raging suspicion that it is taught, not as the theory that it is, but as a fact.  Chances are that most of his teachers tell him that people are destroying the planet.  I could be wrong, but by the things he brings home, by what I read, that's what I suspect.

I am willing to bet the other side of the argument does not see the light of day in schools. In fact, I bet the global warming debate is not even brought up in schools, meaning the global warming theory is simply a given fact in school not even worth debating.  

Yet I think that's wrong.  I think it's wrong to use a theory as a fact; a given.  I think it is wrong to thing that a theory is a fact, when it fact it is just a theory, an educated guess.  

Like I said, I do not have a problem with my children being taught about global warming.  I have a problem with them being told it's a fact.  I have a problem with it not being taught along with other theories that are equally credible, and that are supported by 50 percent of scientists and 50 percent of Americans.  

That said, if I were a 4th grade teacher, this is how I would teach about global warming.  Ready, here goes.  

"Today, guys, we are going to talk about global temperatures. Basically, there are two theories, and I'm going to leave it up to you what theory you want to believe in. What I'm going to do is give you the facts, and you can decide for yourself what you think.

"About 50% of scientists believe in global warming. The basis of the global warming theory is that we humans are causing the planet to warm up. By our use of fossil fuels, we are causing CO2 to build up in the atmosphere, and this is causing a greenhouse effect, where the planet keeps getting hotter and hotter. Since about 1970, the global temperature has increased by about one degree.

The people who believe in global warming, that we are causing it, want to regulate businesses and, tax them, and make laws that force them to stop doing things that they think are causing global warming, like driving gas guzzling cars, emitting pollution from factories, etc.

"Any questions?" 

After a discussion, I would continue the discussion:

"Okay, now I'm going to give you the facts provided by the scientists who do not believe in global warming. In fact, these scientists do believe in global warming, there is scientific evidence that the earth has increased by one degree since about 1970, although this temperature had not risen since about 1997.  

"However, according to scientific data, there is also evidence that from 1900 to about 1940 there was a period of global warming. This was a time when there was very little use of fossil fuels. Then, from 1940 to 1970, there was a period of global cooling.

"In fact, this global cooling became so bad in the 1970s that some scientists actually proposed melting the polar ice caps. They were never allowed to do that, but it was a proposition that was seriously discussed in Washington. Could you imagine what would have happened if they did melt the polar caps?  What repercussions would that have resulted in?

Here we might have another discussion, and then I would continue.

"What these people contend is that the global warming believers, the people who believe that man is causing the planet to warm, are only using data from 1970 on. The truth is, if you use data from 1900 on, there is evidence to support a cyclical trend of global warming and cooling. What do you think of that? 

"Thus, while the weather is warming now, it will at some point start to cool again. Likewise, to add one more fact, global temperatures cooled in January, 2008,  in all five locations where global temperatures are measured.

Economists who believe in global warming is a hoax think taxing and regulating businesses based on fear is only going to cause economic trouble.  Instead, they postulate reform to benefit the planet through public education and incentives for businesses to conform to better practices that are more planet friendly.   

"Now, based on the facts I just presented, let's have a discussion."

Just before class ended, I would remind my students of the following.

It is important to know there will always be people who put money before taking care of the planet. There will also be people who will support the global warming theory as though it were a religion even when presented with facts.  That is just a given.

Still, and most important, is that most people, regardless of whether or not they believe in the global warming theory, still love the planet Earth and want to do their part to maintain a good environment.  It is always important to work together to be environmentally responsible, no matter what theory you believe in.  

So, that said, what theory do you believe in?  Why? Let's have a discussion. 

Of course, now we would have a discussion. Then, later in the day, or perhaps the next day, I would tell my students that while I don't care which theory they decide to support, it is still important to work together to be environmentally responsible.

I also believe it is okay for a teacher to tell students their opinions, it's just not okay for teachers to use schools as training grounds for recruiting.  That, in my opinion, is what evil dictator nations do.  I think it is wrong.

I would say something like this: 

Now that we are done with our discussion, and before the bell rings, here's my opinion.  Please do not let my opinion influence you.  I believe that no matter what theory you decide to support, that there is global warming right now. There is also evidence that man has caused some effect on this global warming, but to what extend the facts we presently have access to do not show

The question is, will there be a period of global cooling in the future? Or, will temperatures of the earth steadily increase until our planet is destroyed?  

Regardless how you answer those questions, there is not reason to make decisions today out of fear and anger.  We need to make environmentally sound decisions in an environmentally friendly way.  We need to be happy and enjoy today, while considering the future. 

Plus, and most important, no matter what you decide to believe in, you must respect the opinions of those who disagree with you.   

Rinngggggg!!!!!

I might think about it, but I would not say:

You are not an idiot if you do not believe in global warming.  You are not an idiot for not being a sheep and following the crowd. To say such things is a maneuver to stifle creativity.  If we do that, then we will prevent further investigations that present newer facts and newer, better, theories from developing. 

We must never try to indoctrinate children to support idealistic theories, nor should we keep them ignorant on such matters.  Instead, we must teach our kids, or encourage our kids, to think, to investigate evidence, and decide on their own. Creative thinking and open mindedness are what made our nation the best nation in the history of the world.

So, when it comes to the global warming debate, we must teach our children how to think, not what to think.  Instead of forming sound conclusions at such an early time in the debate, we must encourage environmental responsibility over dogmatic idealistic solutions. the defense.

No evidence to support global warming theory

John Hinderaker, Power Line, wrote a good post about global warming. Do you know what climate alarmism is based on? Climate change/global warming alarmism, do you know what it is based on? It's based on one thing: Climate models. It is not based on empirical evidence. It "is not based on empirical observation." It is not based on real data.

The entire theory of global warming -- and I am not exaggerating -- is rooted in computer models predicting the future 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 100 years down the road.

And that is it. And the computer models are put together by biased scientists who have a financial interest in producing an outcome that their donors want.

A computer model is only as good as the data that's put into it. The whole global warming movement "is entirely predicated on computer models that are manipulated to generate predictions of significant global warming as a result of increased concentrations of CO2."

There is no scientific evidence backing it up. It is all a supposition that they use the computer models to back up. Then they go and get a picture of a polar bear on a small, little piece of ice. They present this fraudulent picture as evidence of ice melting at the North Pole, and when that ice melts that polar bear is gonna die! And a little kids in public schools are gonna believe that because a little kid doesn't know a polar bear can swim 60 miles.

A little kid doesn't know that that piece of ice is where the polar bear goes to take a vacation. The polar bear is there vegging. The polar bears seek out these little ice floes just to take a break. And theysee a fish, bam! They jump off, go get it, and come back. And it's true there are more polar bears today than in the last 10, 15 years. There's no truth to any of this alarmism. The models that are put together obey the input of the people that create the model.

By the way, he left uses economic models the same way. The Congressional Budget Office will use economic models to project what something is going to do in the future tax-wise. The only thing they have to go on is the data Congress gives them. It's all a hoax. But the thing that gets me is, there is no empirical data past or present that's utilized in these predictions of global warming. The models do not accurately predict the past.

The hockey stick thing that the guy at Penn State came up with to show what the Medieval Warming period was? It's totally made up, as the e-mails from the University of East Anglia fortunately illustrate. The models do not account for many features of the present climate. Again, this concept may be a little bit hard for kids to understand. But it's all also rooted in the belief that whatever was going on 15 years ago is the normal for planet Earth.

And they just made that up! They just decided that the average high and low, whatever the climate circumstances were 15 years, was "normal." So anything that happens from 15 years ago is bad because we're not holding at normal, and ideally we would hold at normal or reduce. But the earth is always changing; it's never constant. The whole thing is such a bogus hoax.

In fact, there is so little evidence of global warming that even the global warming proponents have changed the name of their argument to "global change." This is a sign, to me, that the proponents are so deeply invested in this, that there is so much profit being made both politically and financially from it, that instead of admitting they are wrong, they changed the name.

I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm just saying.

Further reading:

• Seven recent papers that disprove global warming
• New evidence to disprove global warming
• 10 things that don't disprove global warming
• Global warming: 10 facts and 10 myths
• Man made global warming disproved