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.