Are old people really more wise than young people?

I think the first thing you need to do is define wisdom. If you think of wisdom as book smarts, memorizing facts and data that can recited back on demand, then I think age is obviously a obstacle since many older people have trouble remembering your name. If wisdom is more about knowing and understanding the minutia of life, perhaps age does help play a role. Mature people have after all lived longer and so have experienced more, so they could very well have insight that younger people could not have.

This being said I should mention that some old people live both figuratively and literally, in bubbles. Some people can achieve age while never bothering to stop and consider an alternate point of view. Some people grow up, live and die in the same small town having never traveled outside their state. Others have traveled the world, fought in wars and survived great hardships.

This of course, doesn't mean that folks who have traveled the world necessarily have open minds, or that small town yocals have closed minds. The overall knowledge or wisdom one has probably is more connected to the sharing of ideas, than anything else. This means that sharing ideas is paramount to obtaining knowledge. Knowledge after all is nothing more than ideas that have been proven and dis-proven over time. Any scientist will tell you that a negative result is just as valuable as a positive one, even if the result is met with a less than enthusiastic reception.

In my opinion there is no doubt that the younger generations can learn a great deal from those who have lived. The only problem I see is that many times, it's like pulling teeth trying to get some of the older folks to share. I've touched on this before, somewhere along the line it became a "rule" not to discuss politics and religion and in some families and circles, this morphed into a "rule" where no one shares any opinions or anything that might cause someone to be uncomfortable. How is the younger generation to learn anything if ideas, opinions and world views are not shared?

Of course this isn't the case with everyone, sometimes you can't hardly get a word in edgewise with some folks. They want to capitalize all your time with stories about the old world, the war or back when they had to walk to school up hill both ways. They might not know who won the world series last year but they can tell you in great detail each and every single mistake and misstep John F. Kennedy ever made. Or they might be to tell you each and every team ever to have any success at all while competing in our national past time but not have a clue who their Senator or Congressman is, or even if they voted for or against the latest piece of landmark legislation.

Sometimes skills and abilities are handed down from generation to generation. The Fathers and Grandfathers, The Mothers and Grandmothers, teach the younger generation about the skills needed in life. Sometimes these skills are lost because they want more for their children, because after all women shouldn't be stuck in a kitchen and young men shouldn't be forced to work with their hands, that's grunt work... All to often prejudices are inherited from the older generations. But acceptance is also learned. There was a time in the history of our great nation when blacks couldn't see a doctor because many simply wouldn't trouble themselves to help a colored person, while some treated these minorities with the same respect as anyone else.

A very telling piece from our American history is that back in the very early days of our country even before the republican form of government that we now hold dear is that both young and old, rich and poor alike were very knowledgeable and literate. Education was a key ingredient in the American Experiment, at a time when the percentage of literate people in Europe was very low, early Americans took great pride in making sure everyone could not only read and write, but understood what freedom meant. Having read from the same books and sharing ideas across the board led to people being able to compromise and grow. Even people who didn't agree were able to come together.

The only way for us to grow as a society, is if we continue to share opinions and ideas. It's important to note that several of our founders did not like each other very much, but they respected one another, so much so as to risk their lives for one another. None of this would have been possible if we simply refused to share ideas and opinions. This means that the younger folks need to listen and learn what they can from the older generations but it also means the older generations need to keep their mind open to new ideas that the younger folks bring to the table.

Where does this leave us, are old people really more wise or not? I think the answer is simple, it depends:-) An idea isn't necessarily correct just because it comes from someone who has achieved an advanced age just as an idea from a young person is not wrong simply because they have not lived or experienced any hardships in their life.

Cheers,

Mike

Modern Morals of the average Ron Paul hater

There once was a time when we learned that it was not right to go around punching and hitting people, especially if the only reason was name calling and chiding.  Many parents teach their kids to defend themselves but only when someone hits them first.    
 
Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.

Today it's being re-written.

Sticks and Stones may break me bones, but provocative words are worse.

The new moral of the story, attack anyone who uses words you don't agree with. Especially if they threaten someone else. You need not wait for them to attack you directly.

Can you imagine?

Mother - Billy, why did you punch Bobby in the nose? 

Son - Mom, Bobby was going to hit Kyle first.

Mother - Bobby was going to hit Kyle, but he didn't actually hit Kyle?

Son - Yup. That's what I learned from watching Fox News. It's ok to attack someone if they were going to attack your friend first.

Mother - Oh, that makes perfect sense....

Really???

Is this the new lesson we are going to teach our children?  

Police State

What happens when the state sees you as a threat?  They will use all means of force against you.  Resistance will not be tolerated.  The following is an excerpt from a recent SWAT versus citizen situation. 

"Within moments, and without Guerena firing a shot--or even switching his rifle off of"safety"--he lay dying, his body riddled with 60 bullets. A subsequent investigation revealed that the initial shot that prompted theS.W.A.T. team barrage came from a S.W.A.T. team gun, not Guerena's. Guerena,reports later revealed, had no criminal record, and no narcotics were found at his home."

This is what it means to live in a police state.  When a citizen who has served his country is killed due to suspicion and the police who charged with serving us, instead, become jury and executioners.  This man did nothing wrong.  He attempted to secure his property from an unknown attack and was killed by a superior force not made up of gang bangers or criminals but officers granted with a license to kill.  I'm sure that law enforcement will say that this was a accident and point to the fact that this hardly ever happens, but is that true?  In a land governed by the law of our Constitution, why don't they treat every home like it may be armed from within?  When did it become common place for the police to shoot first and ask questions later?

"The extent of this weapon "inflation" does not stop with high-powered rifles, either. In recent years, police departments both large and small have acquired bazookas, machine guns, and even armored vehicles (mini-tanks) for use in domestic police work."

Why is it now common place for the police to have such weapons but citizens need to jump thru hoops just to enjoy their constitutionally protected right to bare arms?  In my home state of Illinois, they require a special I.D known as FOID, (Firearms Owners ID) just to purchase and own firearms.  Many states require special permits and training for concealed carry.  Does this make any sense? 

The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting.  Do you really think the take over is going to look like this? 

Of Course not right? 

Totally Different!!!  They're wearing black....  

Cheers,

Mike
 

Do we need to support Israel?

We need to support Israel because this is the prophesy the Bible speaks about.  I don't understand this argument. 

 

Most would agree that the bible is clear on defense, and the possession of weapons to defend, but did the United States fulfill a Biblical prophesy in 1948 by creating a nation destined for war? I think that's a self fulfilling prophesy if I've ever seen one. The  Palestinian people people were there in the desert over a hundred years prior to us having ripped their land away so we could create a Jewish state in the middle of an Islamic desert. Then we armed those Jews for war, and we criticize others for arming the Muslims. Does this make any sense, to anyone? Now, today, people are looking at this whole situation like it's some kind of biblical prophesy. HELLO!!! SNL, couldn't make this shit up. Throwing together mortal enemies, adding weapons, and then standing back to see what happens.... OMG!!!, they're fighting, I CAN'T BELIEVE IT!!!! This must be what the bible talked about.....

Further more, the U.S.A is a nation of individuals. Belief in God is not prerequisite in order to be a citizen. 

(Thanks to Obama's bone headed comment you're going to hate my next words)

 
We are not a Christian Nation. 

 

Many people are christian and I have no problem with that. If those people wish to pickup their sword and flock to Israels defense, I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with, is when people believe that we as a nation have an obligation to commit lives to a war that has nothing to do with our own sovereignty.

I understand many people have a deep passion for Israel, but that passion has nothing to do with our rights and freedoms as American Citizens. Keep in mind there is still no war to speak of. Yes, there are threats and there will always be threats but when we look for a leader, a President for the United States of America, we need to look for a person who has Our (the Nation known as the United States of America) best interests in mind. We are looking to elect the POTUS, not the Christian Crusader of the world. That person has an obligation to ensure the existence of our land and our freedom not that of Israel. I believe that task currently belongs to Benjamin Netanyahu.

Let's just say for a moment that we vote for a candidate who promises to use all of our resources to defend Israel, up to a full scale nuclear war. Is that what's in our best interests?

The American People elected Woodrow Wilson because he promised to keep us out of war. We now know that was never his intention as he fully expected to get into the war and he did just that as soon as he was elected. Now, we have people turning away from a candidate who is promising to keep us out of war, and instead looking to support candidates who are almost promising to get us into a war. These are strange times indeed.

 

Cheers,

Mike

Occupy Wallstreet

My thoughts about the Occupy Wall street Protests now spreading across the country.

I think it's sad. It's incoherent and it doesn't make any sense. Few of them seem to have any idea what they are actually protesting and the ones who do have an idea are largely not interested in liberty or freedom but rather revenge on the rich. Have you read their list of demands? It sounds like a communist party platform. From “free” education and health care to a guaranteed “living wage”. The forced abandonment of fossil fuels, and the forgiveness of all debt on a planetary scale. These would require the forcible seizure of private property, and the compulsion of “desirable” behavior by an extremely powerful government. Far from agitating for any species of liberty, even the kind envisioned by the hopelessly lazy and disaffected, these protesters are demanding the final dissolution of economic liberty. Anarchy is the handmaiden of tyranny. Anarchist movements are never followed by increased liberty.

There are a few good idea's mixed in there somewhere but it's all terribly misguided. Most of them are just angry and envious of the the wealthy. Many are only there because this is being sold as an anti-TEA Party movement. They blame the rich and the corporations for issues that are really the fault of Congress and our Federal Government and when you try to point this out to them, all they can say is no you're lying, you don't have the facts. The TEA party folks want to cut spending and get things under control, this movement is all about more spending, extreme spending. They want to right off all Student loans, and give away free college education. They want everything to be Nationalized, and they aren't afraid to say it out loud. Honestly this is the anti-TEA party.

Tonights Florida GOP Debate

In a nutshell it was more of the same. The Fox news folks tried to frame the contest between Rick Perry and Mitt Romney but the answers given by both of those knuckleheads were nothing more than the same old rehearsed lines with a few zingers aimed at each other. Really it was exciting... Really.

I'm a little confused about Herman Cain. Where did the strong Fair Tax Cain go? Now Cain has his own, new 9-9-9 plan, and the Libertarian-Republican Garry Johnson is all of sudden the Fair Tax. I'm not sure what that's all about but it's interesting.

I like Newt Gingrich's comments about buying Greek Bonds and going down together. I also thought all the candidates had excellent answers to the question about how to fix the education system. We do need to abolish the Department of education and give more choice to the parents. The answer is clearly not to simply spend more money.

Ron Paul's rebuttal to his earlier answer in regards to money fleeing the U.S. was spectacular. He received much applause and I think he really helped clarify his position. Sadly, it was only the third time he was allowed to speak. Each time Ron Paul speaks however, I believe more people really begin to see where he stands.

I think Michelle Bachmann really hurt herself when she went out of her way to counter Gary Johnson's comments about flights to Cuba. Apparently Bachmann is scared of Cuban terrorists while John Huntsman is trying really hard to sound more like a libertarian. Rick Santorum is still trying his best to appeal to the social conservatives. His answer in response the gay soldier was actually quiet good. I agree with him, sexual relations have no place in the military, straight, gay or otherwise.

Rick Perry keeps taking more rope to hang himself with on the Gardisil vaccine issue. His answer tonight including a new twist about a women who lobbied him on the issue. Does this help him or hurt him? Do Americans want a President who will make such a statist decision due to a persuasive woman's lobbying skills.

Gary Johnson received the largest applause of the night with his "Shovel Ready" stab at President Obama. When asked to choose a VP from the candidates on the stage there where some very clever and politically smart answers but the best of all was Mitt Romney, who said, anyone on the stage would make a better president than what we currently have. I guess that means Mitt Romney just gave an official endorsement of legitimacy Ron Paul's campaign.

Remember 9-11

On this day 10 years ago the September 11th attacks took place. At 8:46am American Airlines Flight 11 crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center. At 9:03am United Airlines Flight 175 crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center. At 9:37am American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon and at 10:15am the official notification of United Airlines Flight 93 having crashed into a field at Shanksville, PA was reported to the world.

These attacks were awful and should never be forgotten but it's also important to remember that these attacks were carried out by radicals not connected to any state or government. The people responsible were loyal to madmen who only cared about carrying out an agenda of terror and hate. Their ultimate mission was to further the rift between our people and our beliefs. Are we going to let them win?

I believe America is great and will always have the upper hand against our enemies as long as we stay resolved and keep up a strong National Defense with a focus on who our enemies actually are. Let's not lose focus by going after the wrong people or worse.

Let's remember September 11th so we may show respect for those who were murdered and those who ultimately gave their life trying to rescue those who remained. Let's also not forget about the untold number of deaths due to war that proceeded. Let's not allow September 11th to become a day where Americans pit faiths against one another in order to prove some kind of superiority. This will only widen the gap between us and play into their hand.



Cheers,

Mike

Freedom or Big Government

At some point we as Americans need to decide whether or not we desire the government to become our end all be all source of support. Are we as individuals going to forfeit our rights as sovereign beings in order to allow the masters in Washington and our state capitals to provide our every need? Is this what being a free people, is all about?

Sadly some have already begun to yield to these masters. Rather than remain free individuals they have become compliant with the demands of an ever increasing government body and bureaucracies that continue to demand more and still more of our freedom. No longer are we able to decide for ourselves, these Bureaucrats will make decisions for you, if you let them.

Some welcome these overlords, accepting the fruits and gifts along with the chains that come attached. Some rue their very existence and have vowed never to submit.
Which will you be?

One thing is certain, this country was not founded on the principal of an all-powerful Federal government. This nation did not grow into the most powerful economic force by allowing the government to take control of our lives and our liberty. Much has been said of this word liberty. Many people are quick to point out the "IN GOD WE TRUST" imprinted on our money, but they often fail to remember the other word, "LIBERTY".

It's vitally important to always think of these two together as one, as they represent the ultimate bound of freedom. Our nation was forged in the desire to be free to express and to practice that which was forbidden to them. The founding fathers beliefs varied on the concept of faith but they were unanimous on the concept of freedom. They had it in their power to design our body based on faith but instead chose liberty.

Some have argued what this liberty really means but I think it's clear by looking at some of the comments that Thomas Jefferson himself had on the topic.

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

"The god who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them."

"In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty."


We did not win our independence so we could eventually submit to the very same tyranny our founders fled. They did not give their lives so we may again become enslaved to the powers of dictatorial government. They wanted us to be free. Are we strong enough to defend this freedom, are you strong enough to stand up and say no more? I am, I hope you are to.

Cheers,

Mike

It's all in a wheelbarrow full of cash

I've noticed something that really bugs me. The symbolism of a wheelbarrow full of cash seems to have changed over the years. While reading a ridiculous article somewhere suggesting that anyone who compares our financial situation to the German Wiemar Republic should be automatically ignored and written off as a, "fool incapable of intelligent and forward thinking debate.". I did a google search to find some historical pics of Germans back in the 20's. I also searched "wheelbarrow full of cash", and to my instant horror it occurred to me that this image is now being used a symbol of success or worse a sign of largess and corporate greed. It seems somewhere along the line people got the idea that this image should be used to portray people taking large amounts of money in their success as business people.

Do they realize how wrong this is? I have to assume the answer to this question is no. Most of the images depict happy looking people in business suits. Some even go so far as to have arm pumping signs of victory. I wonder if they would be arm pumping if they needed all that cash just to buy some groceries or a tank of gas for their car? I bet not. Worse still is that the the German example is not the only one. This type of hyperinflation has occurred several times in Europe, Africa and South America but modern day economists still feel secure in their Keynesian ways.

Back during Germany's hyper inflationary period between 1922 and 1923 things got so bad it wasn't just a matter of getting your cash to market before it was worthless but the smaller denominations were put to more utilitarian uses. They used Cash (Marks) to light their stoves and even wallpaper rooms. It was also used for child's recreation. You can still find old photos of Children using bundles of cash as building blocks and industrious boys who built kites out of worthless paper currency.

Don't worry it's not that bad yet.

But our leaders are working on it.









I could go on and on about the fiscal policy policy but for the moment I'm more concerned with how this

Became this.

Or worse.

Cheers,

Mike

Casey Anthony

Normally I would not even waste any time on this but so many people are talking about it, I might as well get my thoughts out on the trial.  Is she guilty?  Probably...  But Probably is not good enough. 

"It is better to risk letting a guilty man go free, than to condemn an innocent one."

-Voltaire

My grandfather once told me something just like this when I was a young boy. My grandfather was not a stupid man, he may not have been well read, and I'm pretty sure he never read anything by Voltaire but he once spelled this out albeit in a more graphic fashion. He told me "that it was better to allow a murderer to go free than a hang an innocent man.", he further explained to me that nothing could bring the dead back, no matter how angry you are and no matter how much better you feel when the murderer is laid to rest, the dead do not come back.

We now know that many innocent people have been hung for the crimes of others. As our technology improves, we continue to free people from the shackles of imprisonment. No amount of compensation can make up for time served, for lost life and lost time with family, and certainly no compensation can be made for innocent life taken in retribution.

Casey Anthony certainly is guilty of many crimes the least of which is being a horrible mother and possibly the worst is murder of her own daughter. But possibly is not good enough, many would argue that absolute certainty isn't good enough, to take a life in exchange for a life. One thing is for certain, no one is going to feel good about this in the end, that's why murder and death are so horrific.

In closing, I would like to ask all the people who are bent out of shape over the not guilty verdict if they feel this upset everyday when driving by a planned parenthood clinic? You do after all thirst for punishment of Casey Anthony for ending the life of her own daughter, does that thirst not extend to all mothers who commit the same crime? If not, how do you justify one and not the other, what right do you have to lay judgment for one life but not all life. Is it because this one is all over the T.V. and you can see pictures of the beautiful little girl?

Cheers,

Mike

Drug War, It's time to end it now.

I last visited this topic 2 years ago and in that time I've become more familiar with the ins and outs of drug policy. Since then it has only strengthened my resolve.  I understand many conservatives support the war on the drugs which means by default many TEA Party people do as well.  This is slightly unnerving to me as the TEA Party filter takes no issue with the legalization of drugs.  Legalizing drugs, even the hard ones are fully supported by the ideas of less government, free market trade and fiscal responsibility.  What is a little weird now is suddenly the country is filled with discussion about legalizing marijuana and other drugs. Candidates, politicians, former presidents and special interest groups also believe that the War on Drugs needs to come to an end.

What's even more inspiring is that people are looking at Portugal and it's recent results. They were not winning the war on drugs, actually they were losing it handily. In desperation, they passed legislation with the effect of a de facto legalization of all drugs. The result was not rampant, widespread drug abuse. Drug use and addiction actually declined, as did violence and disease.

The economic crisis is helping the realization that the war on drugs has failed. Taxpayers have long been slow to recognize the economic burden of drug prohibition. For decades they've been told that we only need to spend a little more and remove a few more constitutional protections. With decades of broken promises, busted budgets with trillion-dollar holes, and a teetering economy in crisis, more and more people are saying no to the war on drugs. Even LEAP, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, recently released a report entitled "Ending the Drug War: A Dream Deferred" on the 40th anniversary of the War on Drugs.

It's time, why wait.

Cheers,

Mike

Independence Day is not just the 4th of July, it should be everyday.

"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scare man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."

Remember that this day is only celebrated because approx. 1/3 of early Americans were brave enough to pledge their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor in order to fight tyranny so they may be free to live and allowed to pursue liberty and happiness.

Back then there was no fighting over a debt ceiling, they simply knew they could not spend more then they could pay.

There was no argument over who our military should support, we needed to grow a military in order to gain our own freedom.

There was no expectation that the government was going to take care of anyone, everyone took care of themselves and their families.

There was no war on drugs.

There was no pledge of allegiance, only a love of God and freedom.

We choose leaders who had principles and a solid reputation, even if they didn't agree with them on everything, they would hold true to their word.

As you enjoy your day think about how different it was when life was more simple. When all people expected from the government was to be left alone to live their lives in peace.

Here is an excerpt from a Calvin Coolidge speech given on July 4th in 1926. Can you imagine an American president today giving this speech?

"It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers."

Happy Independence Day.

Cheers,

Mike

Bush and Obama two peas from the same pod

President Bush added a 30,000 troop surge then withdrew them in 9/2007



President Obama added a 30,000 troop surge then withdrew them 6/2011



Change you can believe in, or the same old BS....

Cheers,

Mike

MSNBC removes God from the Pledge of Allegiance

So MSNBC played a special patriotic production of the Pledge of Allegiance for the opening of the U.S. Open. The only issue with this was that they omitted God and the indivisible with Liberty part. This has caused quite a stir and was even featured on Glenn Beck and a few other prime time talk shows. MSNBC Chief executive Phil Griffin released an apology to this later but also said, "MSNBC stands for something and MSNBC is really the place to go for progressives."

Glenn Beck and other right wing talking heads attacked this action as a pointed attempt to remove God from everyday life. I would agree with him on this except that "God" was never originally part of the Pledge of Allegiance. I know some people will not take kindly to my pointing this fact out, but I feel I must. Mr. Beck went out of his way to make this seem like an egregious action without even talking about the history of the pledge. This is especially troubling because Mr. Beck has always stood for and emphasized the importance of learning our genuine history.

So what is our genuine history on the Pledge of Allegiance. It's not as cheery as you might think. The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by the minister Francis Bellamy. He was known to be a Christian Socialist who had hoped that the pledge would be used by citizens in any country. The original protocol, called for a military style salute with the right arm fully extended towards the flag. (Nazi salute style) This practice was changed to hand over heart for obvious reasons.

The original

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

In 1923, the words, "the Flag of the United States of America" were added.

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

God wasn't added until 1954 when President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words "under God,"

Now I'm not saying that God being removed from the Pledge is good thing, but it's hardly fair to point at this as some sort attack at American Historical Tradition.

Cheers,

Mike

Why l hate the label "Constitutional Conservative"

Not all that long ago when I was still listening to Sean Hannity via radio on a regular basis, I liked to call myself a Reagan Conservative.  Another famous radio talker likes to take a different angle on this and go with Constitutional Conservative. Now, I've always had a deep found respect for the U.S. Constitution and am proud to say I aced my Constitution test in junior high.  I often carry a copy with me and I read it and even listen to debate on it on a regular basis, so at first, the label seemed like one I could really embrace.  The only problem was that at about this same time I also began to read more about our history and freedom which lead me to libertarian philosophy.  This is the same time I began following the career of Ron Paul and the idea of constitutionalism as a political philosophy.

This is when I came to the realization that the Constitutional Conservative label came about for those who just want to appeal to the Conservative Right while waving the banner of the United States Constitution. These folks share a similar agenda with the  NeoCon's while also justifying the Social Conservative point of view as well. Many of those who choose to use this label are generally strictly against the legalization of drugs and the removal of cartel economies.  Generally, they are also in strong support of the armed forces but most importantly they will make any excuse for the continued support of the military industrialized complex and the use of forceful intervention in foreign affairs including unprovoked attacks or preemptive war.  In the mind of the Constitutional Conservative, any military spending is good and beyond reproach.  This of course by itself fly's right in the face of what the U.S. Constitution is all about.  So in a nutshell the "Constitutional Conservative" is someone who believes in following the Constitution unless it goes against their own personal moral code, then to hell with the Constitution.  

This is simply not acceptable in my opinion.
Yes, Michelle Bachman, this includes you, even if you are the leader of the TEA Party caucus.        

Cheers,

Mike

Thoughts on Ron Paul

I'm a Ron Paul person myself and frankly I'm worried that the TEA party is going to tear itself apart over Whether Ron Paul is the Thomas Jefferson of the 21st century or A douche bag. I understand many people don't understand him and would rather support some vanilla flavored central planner over him but that's not a reason to be rude with one another when we all just want to save our country. Many however do not share this point of view.

I understand Ron Paul did not start the movement that we generally think about when someone says the "TEA Party movement" but technically he did start it. He started the concept back in 2007 when most of the TEA Party people were still asleep. They dumped tea into the Boston harbor via a blimp and called it the new TEA Party. Two years later it caught on when that dude made a speech at the Chicago Board of trade and people started doing small flash rallies, the rest is history.

Some say the TEA Party values are not libertarian. Again, I must disagree. Less Taxes, Limited Government, and Fiscal Responsibility. Those are all pillars of libertarian philosophy. Add to that a deep respect for the U.S.Constitution and your half way to being a libertarian. No, being a libertarian is not a prerequisite but the movement appeals to people who believe in self responsibility. Nanny Staters need not apply. Folks who approve of socialism, even a little, do not generally participate in TEA Party activities. These are yet more traits you're likely to have in common with he likes of Ron Paul.

Sometimes it's hard to reconcile true libertarian philosophy with ones own conservative philosophy when one has spent so much time in their life being for or against something, like drug use or the war on terrorism. Liberty is Liberty, when you come to the realization that freedom is not just a piece of paper kept behind glass in DC, it's a whole concept one must embrace. The Government either has power over us or it does not, there are no half way paths to liberty. We are free or we are not. We can smoke a cigarette but not a joint, we can use Vicodin but not heroine, who gets to decide?

Is Ron Paul the leader of the TEA Party movement? Of course not, but he's been TEA Party before many of us ever thought we would be devoting our free time to saving this country. Do you want to vote for a man with a real record of integrity or someone who's been around for 5 minutes and flips every time the wind changes? A man married to his wife and devoted to his family, or someone who cheats and has affairs? Do you want someone who actually reads and understands the U.S. Constitution, who has actually fought to uphold it against the forces or both major parties, his own and the Democrat Party.

Sure I can understand why some might feel a little confused when he says that killing Osama wasn't necessary. but think about it, what did it get us? Gas is still above $4, TSA agents are still groping women and children, Obamacare is still here, inflation is still rampant, unemployment is still about 10%. Killing Osama gave us a great warm feeling for about 5 minutes but then what? Was it necessary? In the grand scheme of things probably not.

Cheers,

Mike

Tax the Rich MORE!!!

Currently 47% of the population pays no federal income tax. If that number gets to 51%, Ayn's Rands work of Fiction "Atlas Shrugged" becomes nonfiction.

Recently Barack Obama gave a speech targeting the rich to pay higher taxes. This makes the left very happy, excited even, since this is what they have wanted for a long time. Consider this for a moment. The "Rich" a highly subjective term, are usually considered to be the top 3% of earners who own about half the wealth in this country, as any leftist will tell you. These are the folks who earn 250K and more, all the way up to Buffet and Gates and the like. These are the people who own real estate and provide jobs. These are the people who belong to charitable and community based organizations all around the country. These folks are extremely wealthy to this I have no doubt, but I also want to make sure you understand that all these folks combined do not have enough wealth to completely bail out the U.S. Government.

I'm not talking about Joe Bidden style "Patriotic Taxes", I'm talking about Nazi style knocking on their door in the middle of the night and seizing their assets. I'm talking about lining up the "Rich" and shooting them in the head.

This gruesome and unimaginable vision, would not put the U.S. Government in the black. CONSIDER THAT FOR A MOMENT. If we were to take ALL of their assets and put it towards the 14 Trillion dollar debt, we would still be in debt, by a large margin.

How is taxing ONLY, them, going to solve anything, especially while we continue to spend? Really consider that for a moment before you vote in 2012, thinking that the rich need to pay more. The only real solution is to get serious about cutting the size and scope of the Federal Government. 36 Billion is laughable.

Cheers,

Mike

Present Day America if Colonial America was like Present Day.

What would present day America be like if colonial America was like Present Day America? This is something I've found myself thinking about more and more lately. It almost seems like people today are more concerned with everything else than their own freedom. They act as if freedom is a given, not something requiring a fight or even taking a stand. What would our life be like if the founding fathers felt this way back in the 1700's?

So George Whitfield realizes that many people feel dead inside. Some folks get together and suggest George should use his connection with the people of the colonies to speak out. George decides this would not be politically correct. The Church of England would not like him speaking out against them and besides some people might get uncomfortable if he were to speak about religion publicly, especially if he were to mix in any politics. George instead decides to keep his feeling to himself in stead of stirring anything up.

Samuel Adams decides not get involved in the Revolution for Liberty because the King in order to silence him, has already used his power to destroy the Adams homestead. Tyranny is everywhere but Adams decides it's not worth the cost, he has already suffered incredible personal expense and loss, so he submits to those in power and promises never to speak out again.

Benjamin Franklin is awfully busy working on many inventions. Several Colonist attempt to persuade Franklin to get involved. He instead decides that he must focus on his career right now, he doesn't have time to fight against a tyranny that is starring him in the face. He believes things cannot get that bad, someone else will certainly right the ship sooner or later.

Robert Morris had several huge business projects he was working on, so he could not withstand the interruption to his projects that a war would certainly bring. Also, he was concerned what his fellow consumers might think of him if he were to get involved with all that nonsense against the King of England, that might be bad for business. George Washington could not leave his farm unattended for too long so leading an Army was obviously out of the question.

What do you think America would be like today?

Cheers,

Mike

Atlas Shrugged becoming more real everyday!!!

A popular topic by those who fully understand what's going on in our Country today is how Ayn Rands greatest work "Atlas Shrugged", reads like a manual on how the U.S. will evolve (Or de-evolve) Those of us like to point out characters in the book and explain how they fit into todays society. The man many like to point to in place of Wesley Mouch is Tim Gietner or even Ben Bernanke but neither in my opinion really fit. Over a year ago some were suggesting Jeffrey Immelt might be one who best fit this character and that was well before he was given a real seat at the actual table of government power.

Jeffrey Immelt has been appointed by President Obama to lead a new White House panel to work more closely with big business. Immelt as CEO of GE Corp has already used his corporate resources to help the administration and the agenda of President Obama. Some of his past actions are highly questionable and lead some to ask whether they were not purely political. GE is now heavily invested in Green Energy at a time when it's mostly the Government and not the Free Market pushing for more Green Energy technology.

Now Immelt will be more involved in assisting other big businesses on how to reduce unemployment while working more closely with the current administration. This leads me to ask, what will happen to those who don't work closely with the current administration? Is Immelt Wesley Mouch? I don't know, but he looks like he wants the job.

Cheers,

Mike

Did Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. stand against Judgment?

I heard something yesterday that made me think differently about the legacy of Dr. King. You hear so much today about what he stood for and what his message means but often we forget to look at his words and his actions. It it suggested by some that he stood against judgment, that he believed we should not be judged by one another. Dr. King if often held up by liberal activists as a beacon of hope for various movements that fight against favored bias. Many of these people forget or overlook that if King were alive today he would be written off as just another wacko from the religious right.

Dr. King told us himself that he dreamed of a day when people would be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin. He did not suggest that we should not be judged, in fact he suggested that we would always be judged. His main concern was that judgment be meaningful and substantive. Consider this the next time someone holds out MLK Jr. as justification of their stance. Look at their Character and ask yourself if it's genuine or if it's a ploy to gain credibility.

Cheers,

Mike