Democrats Also Believed in Iraq WMD's

Here's a list of quotes from beloved Democrats strongly suggesting the Iraq was developing WMD's, as borrowed from theteaparty.net.  Very interesting how it's only Bush, the only one with the courage to take any real action, who takes all of the blame.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

President Barack Hussein Obama, the Tyrant

King George III was a tyrant.

He imposed heavy taxes on the thirteen colonies without offering them the representation afforded to the rest of Britain.  This was only one of his many tyrannies.  Thomas Jefferson listed many of those tyrannies in the Declaration of Independence.  Many of which, can be directly compared with the tyrannies of President Barack Hussein Obama.  In the spirit of Thomas Jefferson, I'd like to list some of those tyrannies, and compare them to the tyrannies of the tyrant King George III.  Not all can be compared.  King George had more power than President Obama.  For example, it would take more than a mere four years, even for a tyrant to dissolve the House of Representatives, though has has repeatedly went around them with his executive orders.

"He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

What this means is that he refused to approve laws that were for the good of the people.  Obama has done the same.  As individual states request things like omission from unpopular laws like The Affordable Health Care Act, they are denied, and have to sue in hopes of attaining this.  When Arizona passed SB1070 in order to reduce crimes like murder, rape, and kidnapping, as well as many other conducted by illegal immigrants, his administration stepped in to stop it.  Even more, his administration has refused to cooperate with the state for the sections of the law that has passed.  There was nothing illegal or unconstitutional about this law, regardless of how controversial it may have been.  Despite this, he did not allow Arizona to pass this law.

"He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures."

This one doesn't apply directly today, but a comparison can still be made.  He has passed several laws in which he has refused to allow Republicans, elected to represent their voters, to attend.  Meetings either held in secret, or in ways that it was unfeasible for them to attend.  On top of this, he has issued over 900 executive orders, bypassing those elected to represent the American people altogether.

"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance."

Obama has created a multitude of Czars to oversee many matters.  More than any president prior.  He taxes our people more and more, and he creates hatred and division among the people in order to do so.  He takes our taxes, and wastes them, and businesses go under, and jobs are lost.  He is eating our substance, and to no benefit of ours.

"For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States"

This one also does not directly translate to the tyrannies committed by Obama, but a comparison can certainly be made.  I refer of course, to the atrocities allowed in Benghazi, and the Fast and Furious scandal, in which assault weapons were provided to the Mexican Cartels, leading to the deaths of hundreds, and the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.  He has blocked any investigation into the Fast and Furious scandal, and does not allow any real information from the Benghazi terror attacks to come out.  In relation to the Fast and Furious, he has insisted that his office had nothing to do with the operation, yet he has invoked Executive Privilege in order to block the revelation of the records involving the operation.  Executive Privilege can only be invoked to protect the White House, not the Attorney General.  So, he is either lying to protect Eric Holder, lying to protect himself, or both.  He cannot be both involved and uninvolved at the same time.

His Attorney General has also prevented the prosecution of the Black Panthers for voter intimidation, despite the perfectly solid evidence against them.

"For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent"

Time and again, he has imposed federal taxes on our people without their consent.  He does so with executive orders, and closed door deals in which he swore against during his first campaign.

"For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury"

He has recently issued an executive order allowing American citizens to be held without charge indefinitely for the sake of National Security.  Without a need for a charge, no reason has to be made.

_________________________________________________________________________________

There are of course, many more tyrannies committed by our 44th President.  Whether it be lying to the people, forcing unjust laws upon us, provoking racial and class warfare, or just ignoring the will of the people, his list is great.  This is an ever expanding list.  It's important to remember that when the declaration of Independence was written, the tyrant King George III was in power for far more than four years, and started off with more power than Obama to begin with.  The more power Obama gets a hold of, the more tyrannies he will commit.

If the States attempting to secede manage to do so, you can expect the list that Thomas Jefferson gave to match the list of Obama's almost exactly, with even more listed.

Before I conclude this, it's important to note the differences between the position that Obama has been put in, and the position the King George was in.  King George was under a great amount of pressure from Parliament to overtax the American people.  In Obama's case, he has no such pressure.  He's the one creating the pressure on anyone to commit these tyrannies.  This makes Obama all the more a tyrant.

President Barack Hussein Obama is a tyrant.  He is deserving of that title.

Our New Name

As I'm sure my older readers have noticed, the name of this blog has been changed to "The Free Market Effect".  This was done to correlate with my new facebook page, which can be found here. https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Free-Market-Effect/111179859038601

The Free Market Effect is the effect generated by a truly free market, with minimal government interference.  It is the scientific principle of cause and effect resulting from such a free market, one that has been seen many times over.

The Free Market Effect is an assortment of great things.  Things like low unemployment, better jobs, better quality of life, lower cost of living, greater technologies, and the list goes on.  It even benefits the poorest of the poorest of the poor.  What we call poverty, some places call wealth.  It improves every facet of life.

It works in many ways.  In a free market, citizens are put in charge of their own lives.  This means that they take care of themselves, therefore taking pressures off of the people as a whole.  Obviously, this saves money.  It encourages people to work for better lives.  When everyone works for better lives, social problems dissipate.  It accomplishes many of the goals that socialism hopes for where socialism fails.  Those that want to go the extra mile, put forth the work, investment, and risk that it takes to develop their business have a greater chance of success, which means a greater chance of even more jobs.  When that business does succeed, it can grow unhindered by crippling regulations, creating even more of those benefits.  Charities would benefit greatly, since they are mostly supported by the well to do, and the number of those well to do would greatly increase.

If you're asking why these effects are not occurring, the answer is that we lack a true, free market. In fact, we have created a society where success is frowned upon, and people believe that the answer to social problems is to take more and more from those that have succeeded.  This takes money away from investors that would have otherwise invested that money, which creates better jobs.  As well as this, it discourages entrepreneurs from investing more, because they lose more money.  It's a viscous cycle that can only be stopped by the exclusion of big government from the market.

In fact, what we have is a free market diluted with socialism.  In order to solve the problems created by this socialism, we add more socialism, which creates more problems.  So we try to solve that with more socialism.  It's like drinking water with cyanide, and blaming the water.

The Free Market Effect means a better life for all of us, and with it comes the freedom to live your life as you choose.  But it comes with the responsibility to take care of yourself.  Don't worry about whether or not somebody has more money than you.  If you want more, then better yourself.  Whether that be go to school, go the extra mile at work, or start a small business, or whatever, it's up to you.  And in a free market, you can do it.

A Defense of Bush

During the first six years of George Bush's presidency, America prospered.  During the last two years, we experienced a harsh decline, that accelerated even faster over the next few years after he left office.  So, because the decline began during his term, it MUST have been his fault, right?

I'm afraid it's a bit more complicated than that.

You see, the President does not have complete power.  In fact, he is just one aspect of the federal government. In fact, when the congress is against him, he's actually over-powered by them.

For example, during Clinton's term, he was out numbered.  He began his presidency acting very liberally, doing things like trying to enact universal healthcare.  However, he could accomplish very little due to his being outnumbered.  It's a good thing.  We have a system that prevents the President from being able to do whatever he wants throughout his entire term by giving the people the opportunity to have him outnumbered every two years.  But I digress.  It was clear that he could not enforce his agenda, so he took a more conservative approach by giving in, mostly to Newt Gingrich, and doing things like cutting spending, and balancing the budget.

By 2006, Bush was outnumbered 2-1, and was forced to cooperate with liberals in order to get anything done.  Things like bailouts, and stimulus packages, and expansion of wasteful government programs.  These led to huge damages to our economy.  After Obama took office, he then amplified these things by enacting them in a much bigger way.  But that's another story altogether.

But Bush took us into an illegal war, using lies to justify!  Also not true.  Not one law was broken in order go to war.  All congressional approval necessary was given, and even voted on by many of the liberal politicians condemning it.  And no lies were told in order to go to war.  False intelligence does not mean that it was a lie, it just means that it turned out to be wrong.  It happens.  In fact, during Bill Clinton's term, he strongly advocated that we go to war with Iraq, because of WMD's.  As did MANY democrats, whom after the fact, suddenly act as though they were against it from the start.  It's like when a bunch of kids are playing around, knock over a lamp, and then all but one of them jump away from the lamp, and then point their fingers at the one.

Neither of these things, however, are what caused the collapse that we're facing now. It predates Obama, and it predates Bush.  It even predates the first Bush.  In fact, it goes all the way back to Jimmy Carter.

The real cause of the collapse was the Community Reinvestment Act.  If you don't know about it, research it.  Read the actual act.  Signing this into law guaranteed the eventual collapse of the housing market, and thus, everything else.

The Community Reinvestment Act forces banks to give loans to people who cannot necessarily afford them. In order to comply, a certain percentage of loans had to be given to those in lower income brackets. What this meant is that even if the vast majority of people in a certain income bracket were considered huge risks, it didn't matter.  If these banks wanted to stay in business, they had to grant a certain number of loans regardless of risk.  When a person with a high lending risk takes out a loan to buy a house, then the risk is that they will default.  Banks can't afford to just buy houses for people, so they are inevitable forced to foreclose on the home, which costs more money than it does to have a lender that makes their payments.

This law was then amplified over the next few decades by liberal politicians, like the Clintons and Janet Reno.

This resulted a large housing bubble.  Hundreds of thousands homes were being purchased, that otherwise would not have been.  This was the housing boom that we experienced a few years ago.  It was a great deal for many for a short period of time.  Houses were being built all across the country, and home values were at an all time high.

But, it was artificial, and doomed to implode.

Inevitably, a few short years into the artificial boom, hundreds of thousands of homes were defaulted on, forcing banks into issuing foreclosures.  Now you have way more homes than you have homeowners.  Hundreds of thousands of empty homes.  Supply and demand forces the value of these homes down, since there is a far greater supply than demand.  Now even those who can afford to keep their homes owe far more than their homes are worth to begin with.  People all over the country lost astronomical amounts of money in their real estate investments, damaging companies, which eventually led to fewer jobs, as everything began to collapse.

Bush didn't destroy the economy.  If you want to blame someone, blame Jimmy Carter.  Blame Bill and Hillary Clinton.  Blame Janet Reno.  Bush's hands are clean on this one.

The "Slander" against Obama and the DNC

My last blog detailed the slander against Romney, and why it was false.  Now, I'll focus on facts about Obama that liberals have claimed was merely slander, and detailing why it is in fact true.  

Disclaimer:  The original plan for this plan was to research on liberal pages for examples of this slander, however, I can't seem to find a whole lot of specific examples, so many of these will just have to be negative facts.  (It is interesting that it was so much easier for me to find specific examples of slander against Romney and the RNC, but incredibly difficult to find specific examples of slander against Obama.  I would speculate that this is due to a lack of actual slander, and is perpetuated by nothing more than when negative things are said against Obama, that his supporters can only be responded with by saying it's not true, and further debate would only prove that it were true, or at least likely true.  If these things were true, and those that were educated on the subject knew they were true, they would avoid mentioning them like the plague, even to dispute them.  It's would be far easier to make a blanket accusation that there is a lot of slander out there without specifying where, and keeping conversations on the subject as short as possible.)

Let's start with his famous "You didn't build that" speech.  There are two claims.  One is that he never said that.  Not true.  I heard it.

So, as you can see, he clearly said exactly what people are saying he said. 

The other claim is that it was taken out of context.  Also not true.  I just posted him elaborating on what he meant.  He explained how you don't deserve credit for your success because government provided great teachers, roads and bridges, and the internet.  He elaborated on how government was the reason that you were able to succeed.  He didn't talk about how these businesses give that government the money to hire teachers, build and maintain bridges and roads, etc.  Government can't accomplish anything without funds provided by these businesses.  It's quite the contrary.  If a government is successful, it didn't get their on it's own.  It got their on the backs of it's people.  But I digress.  I've already proven that he both said it, and meant it.  If you want a further argument on how this speech was so wrong, I'll be doing a blog more specific to the subject at a later time.

I've heard it claimed that it isn't true that Obama slashed medicare to pay for Obamacare.  This is most definitely true.  Over the next ten years, it cuts $716 billion from medicare, and that still doesn't come close to covering the costs of Obamacare, which he claimed wouldn't cost anything.  Although, to be fair, most of this doesn't cut current spending, but rather slows the increase in the budget, but the claim that Obamacare cuts $716 biillion from medicare over the next 10 years is absolutely true.

Obama supporters like to refute the claim the unemployment is way out of control as slander as well.  They're wrong on a few levels.  When Bush left office, unemployment was at 7.8%.  Today, it is at 8.1%, and that certainly isn't the peak.  I can go further than this, though.  368,000 workers have left the work force since Obama took office.  This means that some amount of those have given up hope in ever finding a job.  If you adjust the numbers, and add 368,000 workers back into the workforce, we actually have unemployment over 11%. So, not only is unemployment higher now than when Obama took office, if you count that people that just gave up hope, it's astronomically higher.

There's the famous "this economy is bad because Obama inherited it, and it's not his fault".  Really?  You're still saying that?  It's been nearly four years, and growth is horrible.  When Reagan was president, he was creating 500,000 jobs a month, and he was doing it by promoting small businesses.  Obama creating 80,000 jobs by spending astronomical amounts of money, often costing millions per job, and there are still fewer jobs today than there were when he took office.  

There's been a report that Obama is the smallest spender since Eisenhower.  This report uses skewed data to come up with this, and this should be obvious to any objective person.  Our debt has nearly doubled in less than four years, so to suggest he's somehow spending less is ridiculous.  This report counts things like war spending, which is generally not intended to be spent, it's there just in case.  I believe it was Rush Limbaugh (I don't care if you like the man or not, focus on the point here) that said it's like putting enough money in your budget to buy a brand new car every year, even though you intend to keep the same care for ten years.  If you keep the same car for ten years, it doesn't mean that you cut all that money out of your budget, since you never really intended to spend it.  it's there just in case.  It wasn't an amazing feat that you didn't spend your "just in case" money.  Previous presidents were not given credit for not spending that money, only Obama.

The Slander Against Romney (And the RNC)

I recently heard that Obama is the most slandered man of all time, by someone claiming truth as slander.  Since liberals are claiming this, I thought I'd go ahead and point out all the slander that I'm hearing about Romney and the RNC, both from the Obama campaign, and the ridiculous statements floating around the blogosphere and facebook.

Let's start with the claim that Romney's slogan is identical to a slogan used by the KKK in the early 1920's.  Whatever jackass came up this is actually quite clever.  The claim is that Romney uses the slogan "Keep America American", and that the KKK used the slogan as well in the 1920's.  This is half true.  Just not the first half.  This slogan was used by the KKK, but these words never came out of Romney's mouth, much less used as his slogan.  The genius in this is that if someone wanted to double check this, they are more likely to double check whether or not the KKK said it, which they would find that they did, and then only assume that Romney said it.

Since we're on the subject of this particular piece of slander, let's give credit where credit is due.  The credit belongs to a very liberal media.  I have confirmed that at the very least, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times both reported that he said this, and then later issued a retraction, but the problem with this is far fewer people see the retraction than there are that see the story.  Front page stories are rarely retracted on the front page, networks that broadcast stories on TV most often issue retractions on the net rather than on TV, etc.

Romney did say something close to this, but it's meaning couldn't be further.  What he said was that the current president is transforming the United States into a European Style government, and that he believed we should "Keep America America".  As in not transform the United States into Europe, but stick with the style that has made America great.  One letter makes all the difference.

If anyone has further questions on this, feel free to comment.  Otherwise, let's move on.  Let's focus on Romney giving a steel worker's wife cancer.  This one is quite the stretch.  The claim is that after Romney took away his health insurance, that his wife got cancer.  After months of treatment, she died, and he was stuck with the bill.  Here's the actual order of events.  Romney worked for Bain Capitol.  Romney left Bain Capitol to help save the Olympics.  Later on, after Romney left, his health benefits were dropped.  Three years after that, his wife also lost her insurance.  That's right, even after that, she was still insured anyways.  They didn't get private health insurance.  Then, after all this, she got cancer, and didn't make it.  Then, the Romney campaign used her death to attack shamelessly attack Romney.

Next item.  The claim that the RNC was devoid of minorities.  I actually love this claim, because it's so easy to flip around.  It's actually pretty solid proof of NBC's extreme bias.  Liberals think that there were no minorities, because when they watched the RNC on NBC, they didn't see any.  This is because NBC cut off coverage of the event every single time that a minority spoke.  There were actually several.  But liberals would never know, because their networks refused to cover it.  This is disgusting, and should never be tolerated.

There's also the clam that Romney is a felon.  This is based on a single phone call by an anonymous person with no evidence that said he was a felon.  We have no idea who this person is, whether or not this person is credible, or if he has ever even met Romney to begin with.  One single person who can't be named makes a phone call to make the claim.  No evidence.  Not just no damning evidence, there isn't even circumstantial evidence.  It's impossible to disprove evidence that doesn't exist.  For all we know, it was this guy here on a pay phone.

Possible one that should be considered the most offensive, particularly by blacks, is the democrat's claim that they have been fighting for civil rights for over 200 years, presumably against the republicans. If more people were further educated in their history rather than what uneducated celebrities told them, they would know how false this is.  It's the exact opposite.  Republicans have been fighting AGAINST democrats for over 200 years in the name of civil rights.  Democrats supported slavery.  Democrats wrote the Jim Crow laws that kept blacks segregated.  Democrats are the reason Rosa Parks was arrested for refusing to sit in the back of the bus.  Of the civil rights laws that were voted on, the average amount of democrats to vote against them was about 82%, whereas the average amount of republicans to vote for them was about 98%.  In short, without republicans, there would still be separate water fountains.

There's the claim that the Romney/Ryan medicare plan would force seniors to change their lives and use the voucher system.  This claim is ridiculous, and could only made by someone who doesn't know what the plan is to begin with, or is just plain lying.  Paul Ryan has clearly stated far before this accusation was made that seniors should not be forced to change their lives because of government's mistakes, and therefore no senior citizen would be forced to change.  Senior citizens that don't want to change their healthcare can remain in the exact same program with the exact same coverage that they already have.  The only ones affected are future generations.  With the way we're going now, healthcare won't exist period, and it's proven.  Coverage isn't being cut, the system would just change, and it's clear that something has to change, or we'll lose it entirely.  However, Obama has raided billions from medicare to pay for Obamacare, then claims that Romney wants to throw Granny over a cliff.

Then the claim that republicans want to prevent women from getting healthcare.  What's happening is that they don't want to force people to provide something that is against their moral conscience, regardless of whether or not they agree with those morals.  No woman is denied contraceptives.   If you work in a place that doesn't provide contraceptives, and it's important to you that you don't have to use your own $5, you have the option of a new job.  With the other plan, if you don't want to provide something that goes against your conscience, your only option is to shut down, all so someone doesn't have to spend a couple bucks of their own money, and doesn't have to switch jobs.  Nobody is trying to force the ACLU into providing free bibles, or Islamic organizations into providing free bacon, or the Obama campaign into free Romney/Ryan bumper stickers.  Nobody is trying to outlaw contraceptives, despite how liberals are spinning this.

I could go on and on and on, but this is already ridiculously long.  I've shown you where the slander against Romney is actually false.  In a little bit here, I'll do a separate blog on how the things that the left calls slander against Obama are in fact, true.

The Differences and Similarities Between Liberals and Me

It's probably no secret that I generally don't share the same policy stance with liberals.  As such, more rabid liberals tend to paint me as a heartless person that caters to the rich at the expense of the poor.  This could not be further from the truth.  

To my readers:  Please finish before judging me.  I have a point here.

10 Things that I have in common with liberals

1.  Compassion for those that are unable to take care of themselves.  Be it that they are unable to work, they live in a third world country stricken by famine, in a situation that has spiraled out of control , etc.

2.  A strong middle class is important.

3.  Legal immigration is far too difficult with our current system.

4.  Animal products are absolutely terrible for you, and a society that lives off junk food forces us way below are potential.  That's right.  I shop at Whole Foods when I can.

5.  America is worth investing in.

6.  Racial discrimination is wrong.  A man should be judged by his actions, not the color of his skin.

7.  Gender discrimination is wrong.  A woman who provides the same quality service should be compensated the same as a man. 

8.  Every man has the right to pursue happiness.

9.  Our environment is important.  Dirty air and water isn't good for anyone.

10.  Our teachers that dedicate their careers to helping students reach their full potential deserve appreciation, and compensation.

10 Things that I differ with liberals on.

1.  Charity is not the government's responsibility.  It is a personal responsibility. When you donate to a charity, nearly all of your money goes to the cause that you chose to support.  When the government subsidizes a charity, most of that money is actually lost in the system.  When government donates for you, you have no say in what cause that your money goes to.  A society also doesn't receive the many benefits of generosity when they were never given the choice.  

2.  A strong middle class is not supported by taking large amounts of money from those that create jobs, and giving it away in excess to those that don't really need it.  It results in those that create jobs having less money to create jobs with, and it encourages those quite capable of providing for themselves to live off of others, thereby weakening the middle class.  My solution is too treat all citizens the same, not leveraging one to pamper the other.  Aside from this, the more the rich are attacked, it discourages people from going through the work necessary to attain that status.  I'd quote John Lovitz here, but after censoring the profanity, there might not be much left.

3.   Legal immigration is far too difficult, but it's because we are too soft on illegal immigration.  Every time free status is given to someone who stole it, someone trying to do it the right way now has to wait all the longer. By cracking down on immigration with laws like SB1070 unadulterated, not only can we put serious dents in American social issues, but we can afford to focus on making it easier for those wanting to come here honestly.

4.  The animal products thing doesn't tend to be very popular with my peers, but I swear by it.  Not just animal products, but all junk food has a far greater toll than people realize.  By living with nutritional excellence, disease can all but be eliminated, longevity would be greatly extended, and quality of life would be far greater.  If this lifestyle were more popular, it would be far easier to live this way, and the more people that truly lived it, the greater the world would be.  However, with government enforcement, who's to say that they aren't making the right decisions for you?  And if they get to decide what you eat, then what don't they get to decide?  If they can decide what you eat, they can decide what you can drive, they can decide what you watch, they can decide what house you can live in, they can decide your religion, they can decide how much money you can have, the list goes on.

5.  America is worth investing in.  But it shouldn't be government that does it.  The investment that should be made is to let it's people keep as much of their money as possible, regardless of status.  Historically, when this is truly allowed, the people thrive.

6.  Racial discrimination is wrong, and that's a two way street.  During the pre-civil rights era, if a black man was attacked by a white man, and the black man defended himself, he was assumed to be guilty.  Today, a man who is half-white is attacked by a black man, he defends himself, and mobs gather at the homes of anyone who even share his name threatening death to any who live there.  The media edits footage to make him appear unscathed, and only show pictures of the black man when he was only 12 years old.  The only thing suggesting that he is guilty of murder is the color of his skin, and the color of the assailant's skin.  I also believe that things like suggesting that minorities aren't capable of taking care of themselves is preposterous, and only serves to persuade minorities that they can't, perpetuating the stereotype.  When a person is told their whole life that society won't allow them to achieve, they don't attempt to achieve, and therefore do not achieve.  I believe that it's wrong to tell a person that because of their race, they have to see things from a liberal point of view, or be shunned from their community, and be accused of betraying their race, a term commonly heard amongst groups like the Ku Klux Klan, the Aryan Nations, and the Black Panthers.

7.  Gender discrimination is wrong, and those participating in it should be held accountable, but only when the act is actually committed.  It's repeated by liberals that a woman performing the same job as a man makes less than that man, but the data is flawed.  When the data only compares career women to career men, women actually tend to make more.  The data used for this assumption overlooks certain factors, like a higher percentage of women working fewer hours, due to wanting to be home with her children.  When you work full time or more, you climb the ladder faster, and make more.  On top of that, when sexual harassment lawsuits are abused, it encourages discrimination, since employers tend to worry that frivolous lawsuits will be filed if they hire women that appear to be a certain type.

8.  Every man has the right to PURSUE happiness, not be provided with it.  When you provide people with free things in order to give happiness, you have to take from others.  If your rights impede on my rights, then they are not rights.  Someone who is provided everything in life is unlikely to ever truly know happiness, as he never learns to appreciate what he has.

9.  Our environment is important, but silly propaganda should not be heeded.  There is far more science debunking global warming than there is supporting it.  Regardless, a polluted world isn't something to be embraced.  My solution is to let the free market do what it does.  Innovate.  Technology is good for the environment, but forcing it along artificially only slows it down.  When the free market gets there naturally, it's strong, and it lasts, and the problems it solves never return.

10.  Our teachers that seek to help our children reach their full potential deserve recognition, but to assume that all teachers should be treated as such is foolishness.  For example, there was a teacher that taught at my high school that threw a party where sixteen year old students attended.  Alcohol was provided at this party. My dad was on the school board at the time, and he did his job by attempting to have him fired for it.  He was never fired, my dad was kicked off the school board, and a family member of mine was nearly expelled a few years later in kindergarten over a ridiculously small incident, which many teachers lied on their report about in order to make it look as extreme as possible.  My father had the audacity to hold a teacher accountable for his actions, but the teachers had only themselves in mind, and defended each other regardless of their corruption, even attacking children to get their sick revenge.  Teachers across the country have been exposed indoctrinating children by doing things like making them sing songs about how great Obama is, or in the case of a teacher in my school, refusing to let kids out of class unless they say that Obama is great.  This is illegal, yet these teachers are not losing their jobs. Teacher's unions fight to ensure that ALL teachers jobs are protected, and paid equally, regardless of the quality of their work, which results in teachers who really deserve a good pay to be paid less, so that worthless scum can have a piece of the good teacher's share.

So, it seems that in many fashions, I'm just like the liberal.  I'm not a cold, heartless, greedy individual while liberals have a monopoly on compassion.  I'm like the liberal, in that I want the same ends, but my tactics are different.  I believe that liberty can achieve all these things, while the liberal feels that politicians must be given control of our lives so that they can regulate these things.  I say that regulation does't work.  Never has, never will.  Even where liberals blame conservatism for catastrophes, a closer look always reveals that it was regulation that caused the problem, which is not conservatism.  

I implore you.  Take the conservative route.  It can achieve all the ends the you seek in ways that regulation and big government can't.

Taxes aren't too Low, Spending is too High

"We don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much." - Ronald Reagan

These words are timeless, whether you like him, or not.  If you don't live this way in your personal life as well, you're destined for poverty.

Here's an example.  John Smith has a credit card debt problem.  He's $50,000 in debt.  He makes $30,000 a year, but he spends $40,000.  Rather than make cuts to his lifestyle, he decides that he needs a better job. He succeeds.  He works really hard, and he gets a promotion.  Now he makes $40,000 a year.  You would think that the problem is solved, but the natural inclination for a person with a history of spending more than they make in this situation is too now spend more.  Now he spends $40,000 a year, but he's spending $45,000 a year.  The problem isn't that he doesn't make enough money, the problem is that money burns a hole in his pocket, and so he spends more than he makes.

Here's an alternative example with the same John Smith.  It starts the same.  $25,000 in debt, makes $30,000 a year, spends $40,000.  But in this example, he decides that the answer is a budget.  He makes $30,000 a year, so he decides to cut his expenditures down to $25,000 a year.  He owns a home with an unpaid mortgage, so he sells it, and get a more modest one.  To make it more relate able, we'll say that still leaves it unpaid, but cuts the payments in half.  He's now saving on mortgage, insurance, taxes, and probably utilities.  He cuts back on eating out in all forms, and now virtually always cooks at home.  He cooks from scratch to the best of his ability, rather than buying pre-made meals, because he knows it's cheaper that way, and he makes his meals in bulk, so that he can bring leftovers to work with him.  He buys most of his clothes at a thrift store.  He sells the car he's still making payments on, barely making enough to pay it off as well as buy an ugly beater.  After a lot of cuts he previously couldn't imagine giving up, he sees that he's accomplished it.  He even has $5,000 left over to start paying down his credit card debt.

After all this, he gets the same promotion.  Now he makes $40,000.  This new John Smith is now wiser with money, so rather than thinking he doesn't need to live on a budget any more, he simply takes another look at his budget, and decides to live a little better, but still take it easy.  He increases his lifestyle by $5,000 a year.    He adds some money to his entertainment, and less necessary facets of his budget, but most of it, he decides to pay toward his mortgage, understanding that if he owned his home entirely, he'd be far better off.  Even if it wasn't the one he now missed.  The other $5,000, he pays toward his credit card debt.

Before long, his debt is paid off.  Now he has $10,000 extra every year.  Rather than spending it, he saves it.  Now, instead of paying interest on money he's already spent, he's collecting interest on money he actually has.  Now, instead of spending himself so far into debt that the taxpayers will be forced to take care of him when he's forced to retire, he's going to retire comfortably, early, and on his own dime.  He won't care that Social Security isn't around by that time, because he's already set.

There is no logical reason to think that this doesn't apply to government.  We are constantly thinking that we need more government programs.  Whether it be extended welfare benefits, or glitter for dog shows.  Both of those things are really supported by the government, by the way.  There are millions of problems to be solved, and government tends to believe that this responsibility is it's own.  The further we descend into a welfare state, the more people also believe this.  If we manage to solve all the problems, the minuscule problems become big problems.  What we consider poverty is in many parts of the world, considered wealthy.  A fact which can be accredited to the freedoms we have in this country, that these other parts of the world do not have.

If you increase the taxes to pay for the spending, it only results in even more spending.  It always has, and it always will.  We've increased taxes enough.  It's time to stop focusing on that, and time to create a budget that spends less than it brings it.  With our debt, it needs to be significantly less.  We are currently spending one trillion dollars more than we bring in every year.  This needs be as close to reversed as possible.  Repealing Obamacare is a start, but it's only a start.  Welfare needs to be reformed so that it's not so easy to be abused.  The bureaucracy needs to be slashed, so that there isn't waste around every corner.  Every single program like glitter for dog shows needs to be eliminated.  We can do it, we've done it before.  

If You Own a Business, You Built It

Recently, Obama gave a speech, stating that "If you own a business, you didn't build it.  Somebody else made that happen".  If you listen to the whole speech, he claims that you owe the credit for that business to government, on the basis that they provided you with things like roads, education, and a great country where your business can thrive.  This is just insulting.

My family owns a small chain of fairly successful restaurants. We've owned a few previously that didn't work out.  They were incredibly expensive time costing endeavors that in the end, yielded nothing but a leased building full of expensive equipment we couldn't get rid of.

As for those that worked out, they were a pain to get off the ground.  First and foremost, it required a lot of money.  All businesses have a lot of start up cost.  So you save the money needed, and you put your name on the line.  You borrow money, and you put everything you have up as a collateral.  You spend all this money getting the place up and going.  Getting the perfect building, equipment, etc.  Then you hire employees, and you find that you're paying out more than you're bringing in.  What you have is an incredibly expensive empty building.  It takes a couple years to generate enough customers to make a profit, and years more to make a profit that's worth all of this.  You pay your taxes, and you pay significantly more than most of the country.  You follow the laws, and every time the government shows up with some new ridiculous problem, you comply.  You live on less income then your employees, because what you're working for is a business, not a paycheck.  And Obama dares to take the credit away from you.

Ultimately, the government did NOT build the roads, provide great teachers, etc.  The tax payer did.  What the government did was take a portion of your money, waste most of it on things you rather didn't exist, and then used a small chunk of it to build roads, and higher teachers, many of which should never be described as great.  We'll get into that later.

Now, Obama didn't just insult the businessmen and entrepreneurs of this great country, he insulted the people as a whole.  He gave the credit to the greatness of this country to government.  He insulted all tax payers.

What makes this country great is not it's government.  It's the people.  Despite what Obama said in his speech, this country was never founded on socialism, even if it has been slipping that direction.  This country was founded on liberty from it's government.  It's America's people that make her great.  I know we have issues here, as does every country.  America's people make it thrive by going to work every morning, and knowing it's for a purpose.  The pursuit of happiness.

Witness #9 in the Zimmerman Trial

Witness #9 has made two claims in the Zimmerman trial.

The first being that he molested her.  Until further evidence is brought to light, this claim should be seen as nothing more than a claim.  After all, the way the public has treated Zimmerman, why not assume that one person out of so many making death threats and forcing elderly couples out of their homes based on nothing but a tweet from Spike lee might lie?  It's not like these rabid Zimmerman haters have given any reason to show that they're above it.  The Black Panthers issued a public hit on for $10,000 that they wanted to collect donations on to make 2 million.  I imagine that it would be easy to pay someone with no morals to lie.  It wouldn't take $10,000, and we already know that they're willing to pay that to see him dead.  Why not to see him in prison?

The second being that Zimmerman's whole family is racist.  She claimed that the "general feeling" is that they don't like blacks.  Except for blacks that act white.  I'm going to stop right there for a moment, and focus on the part where she said they only like blacks that act like whites.

Unless I'm mistaken, she is suggesting that whites behave a certain way, and blacks behave a certain way.  Blacks that don't behave a certain way aren't considered real blacks.  How is that assumption in itself not racist?  You're forcing people of different races into categories.  On top of that, it could be argued that she is suggesting that Zimmerman's family prefers to be around people like themselves.  Not people who look like themselves, since she said they like blacks that "act like whites", but people who behave as they do.  And this is somehow racist?  What it all boils down to, based on what she said, they aren't interested in someone's race, but rather personality.  That's racist?  To judge people on their personalities rather than their race?

Back to her claim of Zimmerman's family being racist.  Now we'll focus on the general feeling part.  The general feeling?  She has a feeling that they are racist, but can't give a single example of what makes them racist.  Not one instance of say, avoiding the minority children that Zimmerman tutored for free.  Nothing at all.  That sounds like a pretty wild claim to me.

Since the beginning of this whole thing, people have been spreading lies about Zimmerman to paint his as badly as possible.  From MSNBC's edited security tapes to the wild claims of a racial slur in the 911 that experts say was likely the word "punk", people with a need to feel superior will stop at nothing to paint this guy as a monster.

Some of these things are lies, but still dishonest.  Not one recent picture of Martin has been shown.  Think that the kid in that photo looks like an innocent child that could never hurt anybody?  He probably was when that photo was taken.  He's 12 in the photo that was painted all over the news.  I'd give more examples, but this is already my third blog on the subject.  I've already covered it.

Don't buy into the politically correct BS painted all over the internet.  The fact is that if someone has been accused of racism, with or without evidence, he's easy to hate.  And when somebody is easy to hate, people lie about him.  Look at these things objectively, don't buy into rumors.  This is a real person we're talking about, who has made far bigger contributions to his community than most of his attackers that belive they're doing the right thing.

It's Deeper than Healthcare

The vote last Thursday ruling Obamacare in it's entirety was a travesty for many reasons.

The more obvious reason is that it destroys the greatest healthcare system in the world.  Before you go arguing about the cost of healthcare in Sweden, or anywhere else for that matter, notice that I said the BEST healthcare system in the world, not the cheapest.  Other countries may be able to fudge it so that it looks cheaper, but the fact of the matter is, that when it comes down to it, if it's an option, their citizens come here when lives are on the line.

Nobody wants to wait for their turn to get treated for a potentially fatal condition in a country with Universal Healthcare, because who knows if you can hang on long enough to get.  When it takes six months to get that surgery you need, because of the lack of doctors, equipment, and money, and you've been given, say, four to six months to live, that doesn't work for you.

I realize that this isn't universal healthcare, but it's close.  It's still government involved in your healthcare decisions.  I've heard it pointed out that we don't want to introduce the compassion of the IRS, and the efficiency of the Post Office into our healthcare.  I'd come up with my own way to put it, but I don't think there's a way to put it better.  What bloated government program makes things better?

The president said that this was not going to involve a tax increase.  That was said up until it's constitutionality was before the Supreme Court.  Turns out it's unconstitutional to fine people for not purchasing a product, so now it is a tax.  Sure, you really should have health insurance anyway.  It's kind of a responsibility, for the most part.  But that's not the point.

You shouldn't drink alcohol.  Does the government have a place to tell you that you can't?  You shouldn't eat junk food.  Does the government have a place to tell you you can't have Doritos?  Or have a Caramel Macchiato?

Which brings me to my next point.

Since this ruling has declared that the federal government can tax you for not purchasing a product, it now opens the door to be able to coerce you into buying pretty much anything.

I've always been against the concept of a sin tax.  I think it's ridiculous to make someone pay significantly more just because they have a bad habit, and they're easy to gang up on.  But this is far worse.

If they can tax you for not purchasing health insurance, then why can't they tax you for not buying a house, since home owners typically make a greater contribution to society?  What's to stop them from taxing Vegans from not purchasing meat and dairy?  The government already insists that it meat and cheese are good for you.  What's to stop dirty politicians from making back door deals with corporations for campaign contributions, and then taxing people for not purchasing that corporations products once their in office?

A company could easily create, say, a TV that uses 3% less energy than a regular TV.  The definition is about 10% lower, and the price is 10% higher, but they can claim to be environmentally friendly.  They make a deal behind doors with a crooked politician, and make a large campaign contribution.  Now that this politician is in office, he can push to create a tax on anyone that doesn't purchase this TV.  He can have it apply even if you don't own any TV.

If you think that's far fetched, it won't be as time passes.  This health care law would have been considered far fetched ten years ago.  But this is the path we're on.

Consider this example.  Rather than using an example with a demonstration of the wrong path, I'll use a right path, so that all of my readers can be on the same page, conservative, or liberal.  The abolition of slavery.  There have always been those that want to see it abolished, but because the world was so desensitized to it, these people were a minority.  Abolishing it was obviously the right decision, but it wasn't something that was going to gain popularity over night.  Abraham Lincoln himself said that blacks were by no means equal to whites, but should still be free.  On top of that, he offered to allow certain people to keep slaves under certain conditions.  This was the first step, and even as sad as it was, it was very unpopular.

Today, if I were to shout out that the abolition of slavery was wrong, and that we need to bring it back, I'd be crucified.  And rightly so.  Point is that we had to set out on that path to ever get there.  We think now that taxing people for not buying all these different products would never fly, but if we allow one thing, we give them the power.  So why couldn't they in five years?  Or ten years?  Or fifty years?  One hundred years?

When we give up a little ground here, and a little ground there, eventually we're so off track, we can't even remember where we started.

The solution is to take that ground back, and make repairs so that it can never happen again.  The first step is to repeal Obamacare, in it's entirety.  After that, the commerce clause needs to be amended to specify that the government can in no way penalize a private system for not buying a product simply because he exists.  We can fix this, but it's going to take action.  Real action.

Eric Holder in Contempt

I keep hearing about how holding Eric Holder in contempt is little more than a witch hunt, and frivolous.  But the evidence suggests that it is far from that.

Eric Holder has already committed perjury on the subject.  Under oath, he claimed that he had only found out about the operation in the last few weeks.  It was then proven that he knew about it long before that.  Ten months before that.  That's a felony on it's own.  He gets away with it by claiming that he misunderstood the question.  Fine.  But it's out there now.

Obama has claimed executive privilege to protect these documents.  This is something that every single president, including George Washington, has claimed at some point during their presidencies.  It's a legitimate thing, used to protect highly classified information at the executive level.  However, Obama has claimed that the White House knew nothing about it, and were in no way involved.  If true, then this means that executive privilege does not apply, since it the executive branch wasn't involved, then it wasn't at the executive level.  The other possibility is the Obama lied, and the White House was involved.  Either way, it's incredibly suspicious, and appears strongly as though something is being covered up.  Either way, this claim to executive privilege is illegitimate.

Eric Holder has offered a deal.  He has offered to provide a summary of the documents if the investigation is dropped, and he is no longer pursued.  This is ridiculous.  It's like agreeing to confess to murder if you can get immunity from it.  It's actually more ridiculous then that, since he's still not willing to provide the documents.  This is incredibly suspicious, since it shows he has something to protect himself from.  If he's innocent of any wrong doing in this, then these documents would exonerate, but presumably put something else in jeopardy, such as agents, or other investigations.  That's the only reason to legitimately keep these documents classified, but he's offered to give the information up if he isn't pursued.  It means that it's only himself that he intends to protect, and he intends to protect himself from the American people seeking justice.

This behavior is more than suspicious.  Any private citizen with evidence like this against him would never get out of being charged with a crime.  What's ridiculous is any claim that this shouldn't be investigated.  If nothing else, these documents should be read privately by multiple impartial judges, and then determined if they should be held back, or if it seems that there is something being covered up.  In fact, if I myself were up against this, I would volunteer to do just that, since if he is in fact innocent of this, the documents would exonerate him.  I would publicly offer to allow a group of impartial judges to review the documents.  That way, no operations or people could be put in danger, and the people would be satisfied that nothing fishy happened.  But he hasn't offered this.

The Problem with the Dream Act

The Dream Act, and the small portion of it that was rammed through against the will of the people, sounds good, but it's got problems.

Obama just issued an executive order, ensuring that younger illegal immigrants who meet certain parameters cannot be deported.  They must have been brought here before the age of sixteen, be currently under the age of thirty, graduated high school, and a few other requirements.

The basis of this is that they never chose to come here, they were brought here by their parents.  They've built a life in the U.S., and have committed no crimes (Which is a false statement, since being here in the first place is in itself, a crime.)

Here's the problem.

First, as I stated earlier, they are here illegally to begin with.  Now, if they're under eighteen, it's not really their fault.  They were brought here by their parents.  But why is this a reason to not deport them?  We're not talking about incarcerating them here, we're talking about enforcing that a crime that is being committed cease.  If you rob a bank, then give the money to your children, it's not their fault, but that's not a reason to not confiscate the funds.  If they want to be here, then they need to be legal citizens.  Only a few ignorant people are against legal immigration.

Second, this takes an opportunity away from a person trying to do things the right way.  The more pressure there is on our country from illegal immigrants, the fewer we can allow to come here legally.  All are resources are dedicated to taking care of those that don't have a right to be here in the first place.  They are stealing from those that started off the same, but decided to do it the right way.

The Dream Act isn't this wonderful thing that only helps innocent people.  It helps criminals continue to be criminals.  It helps them steal tax dollars and votes from law abiding American citizens, and steal opportunities away from those that would do things the right way.  Don't be fooled, the Dream Act is NOT harmless.  It only helps criminals.

Vote for Ron Paul, and Vote for Obama

Don't not vote, just because your ideal candidate isn't getting the nomination.

What you have, whether you like it or not, is two options.  You have what we could call a moderate Republican.  He's closer to the center than he is to the right, and what we need right now is a president to the right.  Unfortunately, the other option is a Democrat that's further left than any president we've ever had.

If it's agreed that what we need is a president that's as far right as possible, then the obvious choice out the of the two is clearly the liberal Republican, not the Marxist Democrat.

If you choose to not vote, because you refuse to not vote for the lesser of two evils, then you've left it up to fate.  You've given up on our country, because you can't get your way.  You're taking your ball, and going home, because you don't get to play the position you want.

If nothing else, do it to buy time.  It could save our country from socialism just to slow down the progression towards it.  Even if you're still headed towards it, at least it's a slow pace rather than a sprint.

For the love of God, don't just give up on something as important as our country.  Mature adults learn to make do with what they have available to them.  You wouldn't sleep on the sidewalk because you're forced to live in a studio apartment rather than the dream home you feel you deserve.  Why would you allow a Marxist destroy our country just because the less liberal option isn't conservative enough?

I'm not a Mitt Romney fan.  In fact, he was one of my last.  My two candidates were Michelle Bachmann, or Herman Cain.  They've both dropped out.  I didn't throw up my hands, and refuse to vote because of it. I didn't to this, because it would be giving up on my own country over a temper tantrum.

I have my hopes that he can become the next Ronald Reagan.  After all, Ronald Reagan began his political career as a liberal democrat.  This probably won't happen.  But what also won't happen if he's elected, is that Obama won't get re-elected.  

Rabid Liberalism

There’s a reason that there seems to be more rabid liberals then conservatives.

I wouldn’t make the claim that there are no completely disillusioned conservatives.  There are.  Or that there aren’t reasonable liberals.  But I seem to run into more disillusioned liberals than disillusioned conservatives.  The ones that hate everybody that disagrees with them, and can’t even offer a counter argument, because they don’t seem to know why they believe that a person is evil, just that they are.

I’m frequently criticized by these rabid liberals for listening to people like Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh.  Guilty.  Let me tell you why I listen to them.  They bring up points that make sense.  We think alike, so therefore, I listen to them.  There have been times when I had to give up on one for a while over a disagreement, because they didn’t see things the way I do.  This is because I have a mind of my own.  They bring up points of view to be taken into consideration.  They talk about what’s going on, and their thoughts on it.  They even take liberal callers, and occasionally invite liberal guests.  If you were to listen to these programs every day, even if you disagreed with them, you could grow.

Now let’s look at where far too many liberals get their intellectual diet.

Hollywood.  Alec Baldwin doesn’t have a talk show where he talks about these things for an hour or more a day.  He has a twitter feed.  And his worshippers listen.  Same thing goes with Matt Damon, and so many other celebrities.  They just say that certain people are evil, or that capitalism is wrong, etc.

While I listen to Rush Limbaugh in the morning for an hour or so, I hear the whole subject.  It’s not a fly by deal, he actually talks about it.  He doesn’t say that Obama is an idiot, and then moves on.  He’ll tell you about how Obama’s condemning the courts for ruling against him, and how the Supreme court exists because the foundation of this country is based on a small government, and that by having three branches of government instead of one or two provides checks and balances, and why what the president is doing is wrong.

Hollywood does the opposite.  Celebrities say that people like Sarah Palin are idiots, and that’s the end of the statement.  The occasionally make something up as well, and then never address it again.

Don’t waste too much time on these rabid liberals.  They are children, doing what’s cool.  If they don’t have an argument, just let them know that they’re children, and then move on.  If you’re having trouble recognizing which ones are rabid, there are clear signs to search for.  One is that in place of an argument, there is an insult.  No facts, just calling you an idiot.  Another is a variety of swear words. 

Fellow human beings – Don’t be this person.  Conservative or liberal, just don’t do it.  It’s immature, and it only serves to suggest your not intelligent.  If you want to be taken seriously as an intellectual, you have to think logically, and control your emotions.  If you can’t control your emotions, then you can’t make logical conclusions.

Nobody Cares About the Stupid Dogs

Relax.  The last thing I want is for us to decide the fate of the most powerful office in the world based on two ridiculously insignificant dog stories.  These goes to both sides.

My first thought when I heard about liberals in a rage that Mitt Romney strapped a dog carrier to the top of his car was, that if this was the best dirt that they could come up with, then we're golden.  

Then Mitt Romney responds by mentioning that Obama has admitted to actually eating down.  Okay, that's both gross, and to some, morally questionable.  In one of Obama's autobiographies, he mentions that as a child in Indonesia, his father fed him dog meat.  It's gross, but it's not that big of a deal.

This mention should probably be the end of it.  We should be focusing our attention on how insignificant the dog carrier story is, not obsessing with our own insignificant dog story.

Animal rights activists are having a hay day over the dog carrier story.  Because we all know how much dogs hate the feel of wind in their faces.  Ever roll down the window for a dog?  You're biggest worry is them jumping out, not him somehow getting sick.  Like I said, ridiculously insignificant story.  It's just the mad rantings of people looking for a reason to crucify anyone opposing Obama.

But now usually level headed conservatives are obsessed with the dog meat story.  It's gross, but let's be real.  He was a child, and his dad fed it to him.  Kids will eat just about anything that you tell them to.  Is this what the side opposing the most Socialist president in the history of our country should be known for?  This is a guy who said that his home state of Hawaii was in Asia, and that the United States has 57 states, and we're talking about a questionable meal his father fed him?  He's been on more vacations and he's spent astronomically more than any president prior, and we're obsessed with this?  

If we want to dethrone Obama, we can't obsess with petty things, particularly when there are so many concrete things going on.  How about we talk about his accusations that Bush was unpatriotic for spending $4 trillion in eight years, and then he himself spent $5 trillion in three years?  That's a rate of 3.25 times the rate that was spent while fighting a war.

Can we drop this, before we lose all credibility?

Free Market Capitalism

Free Market Capitalism is the ONLY system that works for the people.  It is the one system where a people can truly be free, because it's the one system that encourages independence.

As a child, I lived with my parents.  I paid no rent, I had no bills, I was fed, and I was even provided with spending money.  But I had rules.  I had a curfew, I was only allowed to watch certain movies, and I needed permission for a great many things that would have otherwise only been my business.  The reason I had these rules was because I was living under someone else's roof, and being taken care of.  I had the burden of dependence.

When I became an adult, I moved out.  I got a job, and I started paying my own way.  I got married to the girl I wanted to marry, I chose the house I wanted to live in, when I go grocery shopping, I buy what I want.  I am permitted to do anything that isn't illegal, because I now have the freedom of independence.

In systems like Socialism or Communism, you have a life compared to the childhood I described.  The more you allow your government to take care of you, the less freedom you have.  The government is able to demand Social Security payments on the basis that it will have to take care of you if you have no retirement plan.  It makes sense.  If you are going to end up their obligation if you don't do it, then they need to limit that as much as possible.  Though the Individual Mandate in Obamacare was rightly deemed Unconstitutional, the reason was government would have their hands in insurance.  If they are going to take care of you by disallowing an insurance company's right to not cover preexisting conditions, then they need to make sure that everyone has insurance to begin with.  Otherwise, insurance companies would all tank, since nobody would bother buying health insurance until they actually get sick, meaning that the job of an insurance company would be to trade a large amount of money for a small amount of money, which isn't viable.

When you take unadulterated Free Market Capitalism, you get the opposite.  You are responsible for yourself. You're free to make the right decision to get insurance.  You're also free to get the coverage you want.  You're free to have the rights to your own money.  If your job isn't bringing in enough, you're free to cut your budget, save, and invest.  Have a modest income?  You can still do the same, and then have a generous income.  There's no reason to stop there.  But it's not just personal wealth that's affected.  If you're having a second baby, you have the right to keep it.  When you put government in charge of mandating your finances, they get to determine that the population is too high, and needs to cut it down.  You're free to live the life that you want to live, and to make your own personal decisions.

Zimmerman's Arrest and You

It's been confirmed.  George Zimmerman is in custody.  While some may cry out that justice is finally being served, I say quite the contrary.

George Zimmerman has been charged with second degree murder.  In order to qualify as murder, Zimmerman must have committed a premeditated act with intent to kill from the beginning.  That means that before he was aggressively beat down, that he had to have plans to kill him, either wise, it would be considered manslaughter, even if it weren't justified.

What evidence of murder do we have leading to his arrest?  Let's take a look at everything we know so far:

1.  Zimmerman claims that he was attacked by Martin.  His claim is that Martin broke his nose, then began       banging his head into the sidewalk.

2.  Police Reports back this claim up.  Reports say that he was badly beaten, and covered in grass stains.

3.  A witness claims that a person in a red sweater (What Zimmerman was wearing) was being beaten, and screaming for help.

4.  A security video that was once used as proof that Zimmerman was unharmed shows a large gash in the back of Zimmerman's head after being enhanced.

5.  Zimmerman was a community volunteer.  Aside from being the Neighborhood Watch Captain, he also tutored minority children for free on the weekends.

6.  Martin was at least to some degree, a juvenile delinquent.  He was currently suspended for being in possession of a baggy with the remnants of marijuana.

7.  According to the head detective, Martin's father originally said that it was not his son's voice screaming in the 911 recordings.  

8.  Zimmerman is half white, Martin is black, and virtually all of those calling for Zimmerman's arrest cried out racism without a hint of evidence that Zimmerman, guilty or not, was racially motivated, suggesting that the accusation made against him actually ARE racially motivated.

On the other side of the issue, we have:

1.  Martin's parents and friends (with a clear reason to have a bias) claim that he was a good kid.

2.  Zimmerman followed him while on the phone with 911 reporting suspicious behavior.

There is a mountain of evidence suggesting that Zimmerman had just cause, with only a negligible amount of circumstantial evidence against him.  There isn't even evidence of manslaughter, let alone murder.  But what does this mean for you?

It means that if you are attacked, and the difference between life and death is you taking their life, the act of defending yourself could land you in prison, particularly if you're white, and the aggressor is black.  What's more is that criminals will know this.  

Self defense laws are important, because criminals should live in fear.  It's really the only thing preventing crime.  If they don't live in fear, then law abiding citizens live in fear.  So even if you're the type that would die before defending your life, you're still affected by this.  You are now more likely to have the opportunity to put that to the test.  Criminals now know that as long as they are the right color, they can get away with it.  As long as their aren't cops around, they're free to act like thugs, just as long as you're the wrong color.

Ironic?