A quick word on Ebola

20 Oct

I don’t really watch the news. My main news sources are Vice News, the reports that Ben Swann does, NPR, Jack Hunter’s Rare Liberty and occasionally The Daily Paul. I’ve found the mainstream news to be mainly a waste of time. Reporters on CNN, FOX or NBC news seem to be focused on peddling fear to increase ratings. I find all the major networks to also mainly report the same news in the same types of contexts using basically the same words. In my opinion there’s always a bit of an over exaggeration to mainstream news reports. I think we are seeing that with the Ebola reporting.

Don’t get me wrong, Ebola is a serious thing and my heart goes out to any of the families that have lost someone due to Ebola, but when I see the reporting on TV about Ebola I wonder to myself, (just as I did when the mainstream news reported on swine flu and bird flu) “how many people have actually caught this in America as compared to the entire population of America ?” What’s the count, 4 in America so far have Ebola? How many hours of mainstream news have been dedicated to reporting on Ebola?

Lastly why are soldiers being sent to Africa to help combat Ebola, and why so many of them? Wouldn’t you need to send doctors instead of soldiers? And (I’m sure you saw this coming) where does the money come from to send so many soldiers to Africa when America is 18 trillion in debt?

Thoughts on Iran

24 Feb

Imagine you are the leader of a country, any country. It does not have to be the United States just any fictional country. Let’s say that while you are president of this country, you are a conservative who believes in the concept of defending yourself with lethal and deadly force if attacked. Your country is surrounded by other countries that have nuclear weapons yet your country has none. Would you be attempting to acquire a nuclear weapon in this scenario? As a conservative who believes in defending themselves with lethal and deadly force, are you fine with the idea of being the only person in the room without a gun? Let’s add another factor. While you are the leader of this fictional country and you start to move towards arming your country with a nuclear weapon the only country in the world that has ever used nukes to kill massive amounts of people is asking you to stop trying to acquire a nuclear weapon. Do you trust that country? Ladies and gents meet Iran. Many of the countries in Iran’s neighborhood have nuclear capability; they are China, Russia, India, Pakistan and others. If your neighbors are armed and ready to defend themselves with force, wouldn’t you also want to be armed? You would think that the GOP and Republicans would be the first ones to be able to easily understand such a scenario.

Do I want Iran to acquire nuclear weapons for the purpose of doing harm to other countries? Not at all, I don’t particularly want to see any country do harm to any other country with nukes. People try to make the argument that Iran wants to destroy Israel and that Iran sponsors terrorism. (Keep in mind that there seems to be evidence to suggest that that America gives aid to a group of people that call themselves freedom fighters in Libya and Syria but also call themselves Al Queda while in Afghanistan.) In my opinion, Israel can handle what ever Iran throws their way. Israel has dedicated quite a lot of time and resources specifically to the idea of defending themselves with lethal and deadly force. Israel has even said before that it does not need America’s help in defending itself. In all honesty it is time to start admitting to ourselves that the middle east region of the world has quite a lot problems to figure out on its own without American intervention. According to the research of Dr. Robert Pape, American intervention seems to be driving a lot of the problems we see with terrorism in the middle east. Besides, with 16.4 trillion dollar debt on the books, we simply cannot afford to get involved in the internal affairs of the middle east any longer. Many who call themselves Reagan Republicans seem to forget Ronald Reagan’s advice given in his autobiography;

 the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today.”

 In the last seven years with the rise of the Constitutional Conservative and the Tea Party, the GOP now has a newly found love for small unobtrusive constitutional government. So I must ask, if Republicans do not want the Federal government intruding into their personal everyday lives then why do they think people in the middle east would be fine with it? Where is the consistency?

Is Iran a threat? Iran is currently surrounded by approximately 40 American military bases on all sides, exactly who is threatening who? Even with Fox News (which as a Constitutional  Conservative type I honestly try to stay away from watching) hammering the idea that we need to worry about Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, I lean more towards saying that no Iran is not a threat. The Soviets had thousands of nukes and were very hostile towards the U.S, yet America did not go to war with them. Why are we so worried about Iran acquiring one nuke? If Iran is a threat then why is Congress discussing the idea of attempting to place gun control legislation on us and limit our ability to individually defend ourselves with lethal and deadly force?

In this day and age the mainstream media (some might say corporate media) is wrapped up in a lot of special interests and corporate conglomerates that seem to make money off of military contracting. Why would a private commercial entity such as Fox, CNN, ABC or CBS news be pushing the idea of fearing Iran so hard? To my knowledge Iran has no military capability to perform any kind of military strike on the American mainland. In fact America’s military is unmatched by any other country in the world. How is a 3rd world country with a struggling economy a threat to America? In fact let me ask you to think about something that I’ve been thinking about for quite sometime. Can you name a country that America has attacked in the last 35 years that had the capability of military retaliation on American soil? Is it Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya? Maybe you can think of one, I can’t.

Some make the argument that America is ‘exceptional’ and needs to be the leader of the world. They seem to really mean that America must dominate the world in military might. To that I say that this attitude has mainly led us to ‘exceptional’ 16 trillion dollar debt. America is not the policeman of the world and our economy is begging us to acknowledge this. The restraints within the constitution simply do not seem to permit America to participate in the type of foreign policy being practiced today. Why does ‘leading’ have to mean military involvement in other people’s countries? Why can’t ‘leading’ mean becoming the world’s best example of free market economics, individual liberty and prosperity?

If we really take a logical approach and we want to help decrease Iran’s ‘anti-west’ mentalities maybe the first thing we can do is start removing military bases from around their region, and stop sending aid to countries in that region that might be hostile to the U.S. After all if some other country was trying to tell Americans how to live and was setting up military bases in America’s region of the world, I think that would anger quite a few Americans. It works the same way for other countries. In essence maybe we should listen to America’s founding fathers on avoiding getting entangled in the internal affairs of other nations, especially now since we literally cannot afford a foreign policy of intervention. Maybe it’s time to put more focus on America’s borders rather than Iran’s or Pakistan’s. Maybe its time to start fixing America’s problems at home before trying to tell other people how to live. Maybe its time to keep that Reagan quote at the forefront of our minds when thinking of foreign policy, particularly in a time where the GOP is now witnessing a surge not only in anti-war mentalities, but in the concept of Non-interventionism itself.

America’s path to prosperity

29 Jan

I think many Americans would agree that today America is on a wrong course. It seems that the economy for now is very slowly recovering from the meltdown of 2008 however how many of you still personally know people who are unemployed or underemployed? Right now we have record numbers of people on food stamps and government assistance, and in some states there are more people on unemployment assistance than are employed. Many on the right blame the policies of Barak Obama and the growth of the Federal government for the problems America is facing. Of course many on the left try to make the argument that Bush is the one to blame for not having enough government involvement and that Obama simply inherited the problems Bush caused. Me personally, I think it is the fault of both ends of the political spectrum. In fact I think the problems America is facing now did not just start around 2008, I think America has been going down a wrong path for decades and we are now seeing just small fragments of the results of bad government policy on both sides of the aisle. America has been overspending for decades. The Federal government has participated in over reach, over extension, over involvement and intervention for quite some time and now. I believe America has to take some drastic measures to not only dig its way out of the hole its in, but to set the stage for long term sustained prosperity. Here is what I think should be done;

Address monetary policy

 

I am no expert on the Federal Reserve. I can tell you though that I have a problem with the idea that a very small group of people who work for a company that looks to be largely a private corporation, being able to have so much influence over economic decisions, and the value of the American dollar. I remember refinancing my house when I was in my 20’s. The mortgage officer told me that maybe we should wait on closing for now because “it looked as though the Fed was going to lower interest rates”.  Why should one small organization hundreds of miles away be able to have so much influence over my mortgage transaction with the bank? Couldn’t this set up a scenario where thousands of people would make economic decisions based on the actions of a small centralized group? How is this any different from the centralized planning that takes place in communist countries like China or Cuba? Is this what we call economic freedom? The Federal government right now participates in deficit spending. They are spending more money than what is being brought in. Whenever the Federal government falls short of money they simply print more money which aids in the erosion or devaluation of the currency. Think about that, if you or me had maxed out our credit card, we would be thinking more along the lines of cutting back on our spending and paying off our debts. Instead, because of the Federal Reserve the government is able to keep spending money and they simply print more money when they run out. This has to stop. There were American presidents in the past who opposed having a central bank. In fact the Federal Reserve bank is a relatively new idea in the history of America, coming into existence as of 1913. The Federal Reserve bank is being used by politicians to pay off corporate higher ups and even give money to foreign central banks. Why is the government participating in this when so many Americans are hurting at home? It’s time to start having a serious debate in this country about monetary policy. It would be nice to see people discussing terms like fractional reserve banking, competing currencies, Austrian free market economics and bimetallism. The monetary policy in America needs an adjustment so that the American people can stop being ripped off.

Cut Spending

 

America is 16 trillion dollars in debt and counting. It’s my belief that the 16 trillion dollar debt, along with a culture out of control spending is the greatest threat to America.   Many of us have heard that 16 trillion dollar figure so many times, that we are now desensitized to a frame of reference as to how much money that really is. I’ve heard a radio talk show host put it this way. Think about how much money you spend in one day in your day to day dealings. You probably buy food, gas, maybe some spending at a retail store. What number do you come up to? Now think about if you were to spend 1 million dollars per day. Think of all the things you would buy if you could spend 1 million dollars per day. Let’s say you had a really really long lifespan and you’d been alive since the time that Jesus was born, and you were spending 1 million dollars per day since then. If you were to spend 1 million dollars every single day since the day Jesus was born you still would not have spent 16 trillion dollars. That is how much trouble we are in with spending in America, yet the politicians give themselves raises and ask to raise the debt ceiling. I’d like to think that if any responsible and sane person had 20,000 dollars in debt and were spending more money than they were taking in, they would rethink their spending habits and begin to make the necessary cuts to avoid staying in debt and get to a point where they were prosperous. After all, individual wealth is directly related to a person’s savings and their ability to save money. If a business were overspending and putting itself into mountains of debt, how would they ever be prosperous? The government is different though, when the government runs out of money they do not necessarily go out of business, they simply raise taxes or print more money. We see no serious effort even by the Republicans in Congress to stop the spending problems. I’ve even seen Republican politicians complain about spending then immediately speak in favor of the idea of policing the planet and fighting more wars, both of which are methods of spending. In order to address the spending problem, we have to start talking about limiting government to its constitutional functions domestic and abroad, and therefore the abolishment of certain federal government agencies. No reductions or tinkering with code or regulation…abolishment. Here’s how you cut spending; Abolish the IRS, DEA, FDA, TSA, and the Federal board of education. Make drastic cuts to the FCC, EPA, Department of Homeland Security and begin to phase out the Federal Reserve. Lastly maybe we should consider bringing troops  home from Iraq and Afghanistan and remove troops from all conflicts where war has not been declared by Congress against a tangible measurable enemy. If we were to do these things, I think it would be a great start to cutting some spending.

Rethink the role of the Federal government

Tying in with the spending cuts, I think it’s important for people to think about the role of the Federal government. I believe that we arrived at 16 trillion dollar debt because people over decades have been asking the government to do more and more and more. We have become conditioned to seeing the Federal government in a more centralized far reaching role whether domestic or abroad. Americans to some degree seem to have lost confidence in their own decision making abilities and have developed a fear of personal responsibility. In part I blame a school system that has not really seemed to educate kids on the value of personal liberty and the intentions of America’s founders to have a small unobtrusive federal government. But then I guess we probably should consider the origins of the American public school model  and Horace Mann, who was influential (along with the Prussian education system) in the shaping of American public schools. Do we really need the government to regulate so much of our lives? Do we really need laws and regulations every time something goes wrong? The people that are more likely to be in touch with your daily lives are your friends, neighbors and social groups, why not place more emphasis on solving problems at the local level rather than looking to the federal government to do things for us? Every time we ask the federal government to act, regulate, provide or fight a war it is costing money that America simply does not have. Let’s start having a little more faith and confidence in ourselves and our abilities. If we put some emphasis into electing officials to different areas of state and federal government who believe in the 3 solutions I’ve mentioned here, I’m willing to bet that we would see an economic turnaround overnight.

School Choice

19 Jan

A few years ago in Cobb County, GA a woman was charged with fraud for falsifying her address in order to have her child go to a particular school. If I remember correctly she was charged with 12 counts of fraud weighing in at 5 years a piece….all because this woman did not want her child going to a terrible school. Let’s get something straight here about the power of government in regards to the law in America.

The government has a unique power that we as citizens do not have. It is the power to use deadly force in order to accomplish its goals. We as American citizens can by law make use of deadly force, but it is limited to defending ourselves if our lives are in danger. The government has the ability to use force (deadly if necessary) to make a person comply. It can use force to accomplish its goals. In the case of the CobbCounty woman, the government was attempting to use force to keep her child confined to a particular school district. (On a side note, isn’t this the description of a hostage situation?)

Anytime a law is made in America, what we are actually doing is granting the government permission to use force to bring about justice if the law is broken. Here’s a hypothetical example. Let’s say the law states that I cannot drive my car while not wearing shoes, a policeman notices me get into my car to drive while I have no shoes on and later pulls me over for breaking the law of driving while not shoed. Let’s say the officer writes me a ticket and tells me to put my shoes on and I outright refuse to do it (just for the fun of it and to add extra unruliness, lets say I rip the ticket up and become belligerent). By law the officer can now pull me out of my car and arrest me for refusal to comply no? If I struggle with him, hit him, we fight, whatever it is….once I have crossed the threshold of breaking the law, it gives him permission to use force in order to accomplish the goal of convincing me to comply with the law. This is what takes place whenever we give the government permission to pass and enforce a law. I know that the shoe scenario is pretty dumb sounding, but any law even the small stupid sounding ones give government the permission to use force if you do not comply. Why do you think we call it ‘law enforcement’?

This brings us back around to this poor woman taking her child’s education seriously, and trying to ensure that her child could go to a good school. As far as I know in all of Georgia, what school your child will go to is decided by the state. Yes you have some influence as to where your child can go by where you live, but is it true freedom of choice in “the land of the free” if the government presents you with limited options to choose from? The government plays a large part in where your child will go to school. If you want your child to go to a particular school you have to move to the district that applies to that school. If you live in a crap school district and cannot afford a move to get your child into a better school district…then that’s just tough. The law says your child must go to a particular school……break that law and you could end up with jail time….simply for wanting better for your child.

Because of where I live, should government determine where I should shop for groceries? What if it’s a terrible grocery store that sells crap products and gives me crap customer service? Should the government be allowed to force me to stick with that terrible grocery store because of the specific district that I live in?  Should government be able to quite literally hold me hostage to a ‘grocery district’ and its grocery store if I can’t afford to move to a different geographic location? If this sounds like a crazy thing to do with groceries, then why on earth are we doing it with something as important and life shaping as the education of a child?

Why should the government tell me where I can and can’t send my child to school? This is a decision for parents to make. Parents are the closest contact in every way to a child. They know they’re child infinitely better than a government can know their child no? From dusk until dawn a parent sees their child and knows their wants and needs and their learning style along with their interests, so why should an outside, centralized entity miles away that knows absolutely nothing about their child, play such a large role in where the child goes to school? In order to have true freedom I think I should be able to drive my child 30 to 40 miles away to a different school if I feel like it is a better school and it has room for my child.

I’ve heard people that argue against school choice say things like; “but the bad schools will simply shut down, if there were school choice”…..my thought, isn’t this a good thing? Again in regards to car purchases….if you have a car that simply is not cutting it, that constantly gives you transmission problems, electrical problems, fuel injector problems, do you go back and buy the same car again? No, you get rid of it. You select one that runs better. Why not do that with schools? If schools in Atlanta, GA or WashingtonDC (from what I understand some schools in both these cities are pretty horrid) had to compete to give your child an excellent education or shut down, don’t you think the quality of education would improve? Why not let people have complete control over where their child goes, and for whatever reasons? Some parents may keep their child in a particular school because of convenience, proximity and so on, that’s fine. Other parents may actually use a school as a baby sitter rather than an educator, that’s fine too. Others may want the child to go to a school with a good reputation or other parents may want a religious or political emphasis to their child’s education. With all of those scenarios and factors, why not let the parent decide rather than taking this power of decision and handing it to the government?

Many politicians seem to consistently vote to keep school choice away from American schools….what schools do you really believe they are sending their children to? How many politicians do you think there are with children going to the City of Atlanta or Washington DC public schools? With the kind of money politicians make, do you really believe they are sending their children to public schools? I haven’t seen the numerical evidence, but I am going to make a guess and say no, they don’t send their kids to public schools. Why then do they confine us “regular people” literally by the threat of force (deadly if necessary) to go to schools decided by government school districts? Is this really freedom? This is the kind of thing I think about when I see Americans waving their flags on the 4th of July.

In the end the Cobb County woman was acquitted of the charges. The jury found that the penalties involved were simply too harsh to apply to a person who was simply seeking a better school for her child to attend. Kelly Williams-Bolar of Akron, Ohio was not as successful however.

I think one of the keys to bettering education in America is getting the Federal government out of education and then doing away with these hostage like school zones.

Why would a black person be a Republican?

31 Dec

What reason would a black person have to be a black Republican? I’ve seen this question asked in a very perplexed manner by liberals and many blacks and minorities. I’ve even seen anger and vicious attacks brought by white and black liberals towards conservative blacks for being Republican. In all honesty I am perplexed when someone asks why a black man would be a Republican. Here’s my attempt to give some reasons.

First off, let us define what a Republican is because in the recent years we have come to confuse Neo-conservatives with being Republicans. A Republican is someone who prefers a small Federal government that does not intrude into the personal lives of individuals. (hint: I do not consider George W Bush to be a Republican or a conservative for that matter, apparently neither does he). As the GOP is struggling to find itself after the handing of the 2012 presidential election over to Barak Obama, it is emerging that a Republican is someone who wants the U.S constitution followed (in both foreign and domestic affairs) and the Federal government restricted to only the power given to it in the constitution. A Republican would rather have maximum personal responsibility without the Federal government trying to come in and ‘take care of them’ by means of programs and government spending. So now back to the question, why would a black person be a Republican?

Doing away with the income tax. Maybe some blacks would rather keep the money that they work hard for. Maybe some blacks do not believe in the idea of the government using lethal and deadly (literally holding someone at gun point) force in order to extract someone’s paycheck from them and redistribute it to someone else. If you think the ‘gun point’ word usage is extreme, just think to yourself about a scenario where you refuse to pay income taxes. Is the IRS going to show up at your door to kindly ask you to pay? No, they show up with your arrest and detention in mind. What do you really think happens if you aggressively resist arrest? Some blacks prefer the idea of being taxed on what you spend and not on what you earn. Why would you be a Democrat then with all the doctrine of forced wealth seizure and redistribution now prominent in the Democrat party?

Belief in free market capitalism. Black people in America have been entrepreneurial for a long time. I believe that it stems from a time when drastic limits were forced upon blacks in America, whether it be slavery or Jim Crow laws, hence an evolving spirit to simply become self sufficient and do things for yourself since outside forces were placing limits on blacks. Just think of Booker T Washington’s ideas on skill attainment. There are many blacks today who believe that a free market capitalist system with less government regulation and red tape, is the best way to better themselves and increase personal wealth and prosperity. Why would you be a Democrat when the prominent thinking in the Democrat party seems to be ‘the free market has failed’?

Guns, guns, guns. What if black people believe in the idea that more good people carrying guns results in less crime? What if you do not mind the idea of individuals being able to carry firearms in a concealed or unconcealed manner out in public? Would you join the Democrat party who in many ways, seemingly want to limit access to firearms?

Let me pose some other questions to you. What if you are black and do not believe in the idea of the government inserting itself into the doctor/patient relationship by means of Obamacare? What if you are black and believe in states rights and do not think the Federal government should be using a ‘one size fits all’ approach to legislation? What if you are black and you believe (CONSISTENTLY believe) that the Federal government should not be participating in trying to police the world, and you want a foreign policy of non-intervention rather than the unaffordable foreign policy existing now? (There’s no doubt that the GOP is leading that charge rather than the Democrats who are ok with bombing other countries with drones if Obama or some other Democrat does it). What if you are black and you believe that the problem of 16 trillion dollar debt should be solved by eliminating unconstitutional Federal departments? What if you are black and you do not believe in the concept of centralized economic planning? What if you are black and you believe in implementing a sound monetary system based on a gold standard, and do not like the idea of the Federal Reserve trying to manage the economy? What if you are black and do not believe in the Patriot Act or the NDAA? What if you are black and you believe that Social Security is a scam and you’d rather have the option of opting out of it to keep your own personal retirement account?

What if you are black and you believe these things? What party would you be more likely to identify with?

I think the rise of the black Republican is something that is inevitable. We are seeing today more than ever that the Federal government cannot micromanage the personal lives of individuals foreign or domestic. The 16 trillion dollar debt in America is a grand testament to this. Black people in America are waking up to the fact that the Federal government and its spending and over reach are  eroding our way of life.

Here’s an observation about liberal anger towards the black Republican. Time and time again I hear liberals criticize black Republicans as being ‘Uncle Tom’s’ or even ‘acting white’. Why? Because a black person wants to be self sufficient, keep the money they earn and have the possibility of defending themselves with lethal and deadly force, they are labeled as an oddity? Many liberals seem to actually believe that black people cannot make it in America without a government crutch. How do people not see the intolerance and racism in this? In other words, based mainly on the genetic make up of a black person they assume that the black person needs special help. Wouldn’t they have to assume in some part then that solely on the genetic make up of a black person that blacks are inferior and cannot function on their own, but by default need help?

Upon asked what the racial term is for a white man that believes in the same small government constitutional concepts, I have seen liberals become confused and go speechless. Their lack of a word to me suggests that they have a special place in their heart for a black person that prefers a small Federal government and more personal responsibility and liberty. In the minds of many liberals, a black person who believes in these things seems to deserve to be called a throw back slavery term or earns the accusation of somehow acting out of character for a black person. How is it out of character or ‘acting white’ if you’d prefer to opt out of Federal government programs and keep the money you work for?  We are not at a point in America of racial harmony. Its possible that such a point may never exist in America, but when a black person wants to express his political views and happens to believe in a small Federal government restricted by the constitution, I do not see anything wrong with him/her having the freedom to do so freely. Its time to stop looking at the Black Republican as an oddity.

The Sandy Hook Shootings

22 Dec

I am still trying to figure out what exactly happened at Sandy Hook Elementary on December 14th 2012. One of the official news stories is that ‘a lone gunman’ went into a school armed with 2 pistols and a shot gun. He shot and killed 26 people and then killed himself. Niall Bradley, a writer with Veterans Today has documented the multitude of changing details and facts that keep surfacing about the shooting. Some news stories are even claiming that a gunman was actually arrested in the woods near Sandy Hook. Here’s the link to Niall’s article so that you can try to decide for yourself what happened at Sandy Hook.  While so many news outlets report the story as though it’s a done deal, I’ll keep trying to figure out the facts.

I must mention also as a side note that I do not like conspiracy theory (there seems to be a lot of conspiracy talk surrounding the shootings). I would much rather focus on facts and empirical evidence. With that in mind, many of us have seen the footage on YouTube of Robbie Parker laughing merely seconds before giving a speech about his daughter Emilie Parker who was killed in the shootings. All I can really say is that I find it odd that a father would be laughing right before giving a speech about his daughter who died suddenly. To me it seems like if your child had been killed suddenly you would look more somber, you would probably be trying to compose yourself before getting on TV to talk about your deceased child. You would probably still be trying to work through your grief, not laughing about something right before speaking about her. That’s just making an observation though. Someone else might watch the clip and come to a different conclusion.

The real story to me in all of this seems to be school shootings in general and the availability of guns. How do we try to solve the problem of these school shootings? My first suggestion would be to take down the signs that advertise schools as ‘gun free zones’. What would happen if you advertised your neighborhood as a ‘gun free zone’? How do you think armed criminals would feel upon seeing that your neighborhood was gun free? To me ‘gun free zone’ signs are a broadcast that you are a sitting duck. In other words it is suggesting to armed criminals that if they were to come into this ‘gun free zone’ with a gun, people are less likely to be able to defend themselves using lethal and deadly force. It may seem like a strange idea to you, but what if a sign was put up reading ‘teachers inside may be armed and prepared to defend their classrooms with lethal and deadly force’. Really think it over instead of just thinking the statement is extreme.

If you had been in a classroom and an armed gunman went on a rampage, how different would you feel sitting right next to a friend who is familiar with guns, armed and ready to use that firearm to protect the classroom? At least you would have some type of chance at self defense. Some people make the argument for more police presence, or armed guards being placed at schools. This doesn’t sit well with me. First off it places the responsibility of personal protection into the hands of a third party. To me that would also normalize the concept of having armed police around all the time, which to me resembles more of a police state than the free society America is attempting to get back to being. Generally speaking, people who carry guns for protection tend to be more responsible than irresponsible. If you have gone through the trouble to get a concealment license, you are probably not going to want to do anything to mess that up. Let teachers who have their concealment license, carry on school property. At the college level, students should be able to carry. Our personal safety and protection are our own individual responsibility first and foremost, not the responsibility of the government or police. Keep in mind also that police for the most part show up after a crime is committed in order to clean up or try to prevent further crimes from occurring. We are the first responders when a crime is occurring against us. The idea of banning guns is a bad argument. All that does is guarantee that criminals will be able to access guns, while the good guys remain defenseless. Besides, America is not really set up for gun bans. The constitution recognizes the right of the individual to keep arms. The keyword here is right to keep arms. You do not have to ask permission from anyone if something is recognized as a right. The gun ban argument suggests the context that the government lets us, or gives us permission to have guns. This is not true. Having permission and having a right are two different things. The government recognizes our right as stated in the constitution to keep arms.

Think it over. Good individuals who carry firearms are a plus when dealing with criminals who carry firearms. I’m not saying that there is a perfect solution to every situation, but for the very least I think individuals should be able to defend their lives using lethal and deadly force against a bad person intent on doing harm with lethal and deadly force.

Why did Mitt Romney lose?

19 Dec

As Republicans are still in recovery mode from losing (or should I say giving away) the 2012 presidential election I think a few things must be discussed. Many in the GOP aren’t going to want to hear it, but I feel as though the GOP worked very hard to earn this loss. Though I am more of an independent who leans to the right, I did not vote for Mitt Romney. I could not bring myself to do it. From start to finish I saw a guy who talked and talked but never really and truly distinguished himself from Barak Obama. Sure he sounded at times like he would be different, but the more Romney spoke is the more I realized that Romney and Obama were simply two sides of the same coin. Both would not introduce competition to the Federal Reserve, both would not abolish the IRS, both have the same unaffordable foreign policy of pre-emptive wars against countries that do not seem to pose a threat to the mainland U.S, both were in favor bailouts and stimulus packages to corporations at some point, both offered no new ideas on the extremism that we see in American drug war policy, and both would not out right overturn the Patriot Act or NDAA.

Even though I despised Romney from the very start, I still watched the debates hoping he would give me something I could latch onto but that moment never came. Romney got to the debates and seemed to use focus group tested tag lines about ‘jobs’, ‘the economy’ ‘Reagan’ and ‘Iran’. He came off as a fake, and his record seemed to be all over the place on different issues. We got to the problems we have in this country mainly because of large obtrusive, expensive Federal government. We are not going to solve our problems with more of the same. I think it is also important to note that we amongst the small Federal government crowd are not going to solve our problems by parading ‘conservatives’ to run races that have any remote resemblance to George W. Bush. It’s not so much that Obama won, it’s more so that Romney turned off so many small government conservatives that actually believed in principles, conservatives simply rejected Romney. Just think about it. The GOP went up against a person that sounds eerily like a Marxist in a country that professes to love freedom yet the Republicans could not pull off a win. That’s how much people did not like Romney. While I am mentioning George W. Bush I think it is important to mention that 9/11 Republicanism is dead. Mccain’s loss proved it, Rick Santorum’s joke of a campaign proved it and now Romney’s failure to captivate conservatives has proven it. Enter Ron Paul.

I believe completely that Ron Paul has single handedly destroyed 9/11 Republicanism. I would argue that he is in the process of putting a stake in the heart of Neo-conservatism and given rise to something called the Constitutional Conservative. He has brought certain issues to the forefront of the GOP with his plain spoken logic that just will not go away. Because of Ron Paul the GOP is now in the middle of a shift. There is no way forward in the GOP without constitutional, liberty based (some might say Libertarian) ideas. I would go as far as to say that any Republican trying to get conservatives pumped up about pre-emptive war, getting involved militarily in more countries (despite very clear 16 trillion dollar debt) and not addressing the problems with the Federal Reserve, the NDAA and the Patriot Act will simply lose elections at the national stage. Ron Paul brought in a massive segment of people from all walks of life and racial backgrounds who were not there before, into the GOP. I remember seeing the percentages before the primaries indicating that minorities favored Paul to the other GOP candidates. Paul was the only one who had the courage to address the racial bias in America’s drug war problem. Ron Paul was and still remains a motivator. He renewed a confidence in liberty and the constitution and brought fresh ideas to the table that drew in millions of people, in many cases away from the Democrats. If Romney had whole heartedly embraced a lot of Ron Paul’s ideas, maybe he would have stood a better chance. Instead the GOP higher ups along with Romney’s people chose to work dedicatedly against the Paulistas, mainly in the nationwide conventions, disrupting them, disregarding rules, participating in fraud, physically assaulting people, censoring their speech, ignoring people who showed up and followed the rules that they’d taken the time to learn, dividing the party and some may even say, cheating Ron Paul out of the nomination in Tampa. The point of an election is to encourage people to vote for you and your party, not reject them and then somehow be surprised or shocked when your party loses. To the older guard in the GOP reading this, it is important to understand that there is no way forward without the Ron Paul people. Let me rephrase that…there is no way forward in the GOP without the Constitutional conservative or the small government ideas of people like Thomas Jefferson. Already, the higher ups in the GOP are talking about Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush and Paul Ryan as potential 2016 presidential candidates. I think any one of those will mean another loss for the GOP. These gentlemen have not decisively rejected the George W. Bush doctrine. I have heard none of these gents come out against the Patriot Act, NDAA and pre-emptive war. That alone will cause people (many of them young) to reject them. The GOP will need someone who is a stark difference from George W. Bush. Maybe the GOP needs to be looking at Judge Napolitano, Thomas Massie or Rand Paul for 2016. The advice I would give the GOP higher ups? Read the constitution, stop trying to tell the liberty crowd to basically give you money, sit down, shut up and vote for more expanded unconstitutional government, and realize that liberty ideas will expand the party. If the GOP does not wake up and realize this, they will keep reliving the Romney experience.