How Judges Change the Meaning of Laws Over Time

The following is a fictional story about the colors of traffic lights and how unelected judges change the meaning of a law over time.

Many years ago, when cars were starting to show up on city streets, traffic lights were installed in every village. Some villages designated that a green light meant a car could proceed or go, and a red light meant that a car must stop and wait until the light turned green before it could proceed. Other villages designated that red meant “GO” and green meant “STOP”. It was so confusing for travelers.

While there was a general recognition that there should be a standard traffic light for all the country and many villages had changed their traffic lights to be consistent with what was becoming the standard, a few villages refused to change. Representatives in the legislature passed a law mandating that red meant stop and green meant go. The people overwhelmingly agreed that the new law was a good thing. The wording of the law was simple and clear. It said, “Red will mean stop and green will mean go for all traffic lights in every village.”

For many years there was not a problem as every village complied with red meant stop and green meant go. One village decided that it was going to use red-violet to mean stop and blue-green to mean go. A traveler to this village was confused. He challenged the color change in court. The court heard his case but the judge ruled that red-violet was still red and blue-green was still green. A few years later, another village decided to use violet for stop and blue for go. When that change went to the courts, a judge ruled that violet is close enough to red-violet and blue is close enough to blue-green and, therefore, it is permissible. “After all,” said the judge, “since red-violet has been ruled to be acceptable, it only makes sense that violet is acceptable since red-violet has violet in the name and that has been ruled on already. And likewise, for blue-green. And besides, there was precedent.”

The judge was praised for being progressive and not being constrained by the historical meaning of the words, after all, words change over time and the law is a living document. Some originalist judges – those who interpreted the words of the law to mean what they originally meant - argued that red meant red and green meant green.

A few years go by, a village decided to make blue-violet mean stop and blue-violet mean go. It was so very confusing. A judge ordered that the village change blue to mean stop and violet to mean go. As a progressive judge, he viewed his likes and dislikes as always being consistent with society's likes and dislikes. It became the law of the land. Until, one village decided to make red-violet mean go and blue-green to mean stop. Once again, a judge said it was allowable because violet is essentially the same as red-violet and blue is essentially the same as blue-green. And besides, there was precedent for this and he started shouting some Latin word "stare decisis" as if it was some magical chant.

One hundred years after the enactment of the traffic light law, a village changed its traffic lights so that red meant go and green meant stop. Again, a judge ruled -  based on precedent  - that this was allowed. And furthermore, in keeping with the original intent of the law, all traffic lights throughout the land must be consistent. And that is how red became to mean go and green became to mean stop.

Fight Authority, Unless

Young people today have been so effectively brainwashed that they don't even realize that the leftists are the authority now. Leftists control the schools, the universities, the media, social platforms, the entertainment industry, most all large cities, and many large companies.

Do you really want liberty?

Roman historian Sallust observed that, " Most men do not desire liberty; most only wish for a just master. This desire for simple answers to complex questions forms a perpetual clamor for Masters with Answers, and Masters must have slaves."  

Liberty is messy.  While order exists, it is not centrally planned order; it is an order that spontaneously comes about when the plans of others collide when people interact, trade and strive.  And just when the emerging order settles down the forces of creative destruction redoes it all over again.  Most people are not comfortable with change.  They like order and control.  They may not admit it but their clamor for government control of almost every aspect of society is their way of admitting it.  

Liberty means mostly that you are responsible for you (and whomever you choose to be responsible for).  With that responsibility comes the recognition that failure is your fault and success is your choice.

Follow These Steps Before Demanding that the Government Do Something

Statists Play the Indoctrination Long Game

On Christmas Eve, I went to a chain bookstore looking for a box set of the Little House books for a friend's young daughter. While I was there I noticed a section of biographical and historical books for children. As I looked closer I noticed there were plenty of books on America's founders like Washington and Jefferson, but no Madison or Mason. There were also a few books on entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs and Edison and sports figures like Jackie Robinson and Muhammad Ali. But there were also many books lionizing liberal icons such as Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Gloria Steinem and Obama. Then I saw a book on The Great Depression. I quickly scanned it. Not surprising, it was the usual “unfettered capitalism failed and FDR, using the power of the federal government, came to the rescue” narrative. It even promoted the standard claim that, while FDR's programs were turning the corner, ultimately it was World War 2 that finally got the US out of The Great Depression.

These books only reinforce the indoctrination from schools that those who used the power of government are the heroes and those that fought for less government were standing in the way of progress. What is puzzling to me is why don't teenagers and college students revolt against the indoctrination that they have been force fed since preschool? They certainly did in the '60s. Why has the statist worldview continued to be cool while liberty not so much? I believe it is mostly due to libertarian voices being lumped in with conservative voices who have become easy targets of leftist social media activists. Maybe a separation of social conservatives and interventionists from libertarians is coming. But without being able to make the case for liberty through social media, libertarian ideas will not stand a chance. 

“If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it.” – Mark Twain

No to Open Borders: When Immigrants Undermine Liberty

In one of my previous posts I made the argument that open borders was not always the practical libertarian position.  In my Two Islands post, I argued that statist-minded immigrants could and likely would destroy liberty if allowed to immigrate in large numbers.  Here is what I said: 

Let’s suppose there are two island nations. One is named Liberty Island and the other one is Statist Island. Both are democracies. Neither have a constitutionally constrained government. Both practice open immigration. Since both island nations are democracies, the people get the government they vote for.

On Liberty Island, the people prefer smaller government, one which protects life, liberty, and property. In general, the government doesn’t interfere unless a citizen violates someone else’s right to life, liberty, and property. For the most part, the role of government is to provide a small, defensive military. Consequently, the tax rates are very low. The people of Liberty Island are very prosperous.

On Statist Island, the people want their government to provide a wide range of services and to regulate the affairs of its citizens and companies. Consequently, the government consumes a very large proportion of the wealth. Statist Island has high unemployment and low growth rates. Over the past few years, things have been so bad that many have migrated to Liberty Island, not in search of liberty but primarily as a way to feed their families. They have brought with them many of their customs and culture which have made Liberty Island a more vibrant and diverse island.
Unfortunately, they have also brought with them their statist political philosophy.
The new arrivals join with a minority of Liberty Island voters and start winning elections. These elected representatives encouraged more and more Statist Islanders to migrate to Liberty Island. Soon the statists were in control of the Liberty Island legislative branches and the presidency. They then enacted statist policies and liberty was no longer to be found on Liberty Island.

Over at Marginal Revolution, Tyler Cowen links to a study of U.S. Immigrants' Attitudes Toward Libertarian Values by Hal Pashler which found that immigrants to the US generally are hostile toward libertarian ideas.  Here is the abstract:

While there has been much discussion of libertarians’ (generally although not universally favorable) attitudes toward liberal immigration policies, the attitudes of immigrants to the United States toward libertarian values have not previously been examined. Using data from the 2010 General Social Survey, we asked how American-born and foreign-born residents differed in attitudes toward a variety of topics upon which self-reported libertarians typically hold strong pro-liberty views (as described by Iyer et al., 2012). The results showed a marked pattern of lower support for pro-liberty views among immigrants as compared to US-born residents. These differences were generally statistically significant and sizable, with a few scattered exceptions. With increasing proportions of the US population being foreign-born, low support for libertarian values by foreign-born residents means that the political prospects of libertarian values in the US are likely to diminish over time.

While there has been much discussion of libertarians’ (generally although not universally favorable) attitudes toward liberal immigration policies, the attitudes of immigrants to the United States toward libertarian values have not previously been examined. Using data from the 2010 General Social Survey, we asked how American-born and foreign-born residents differed in attitudes toward a variety of topics upon which self-reported libertarians typically hold strong pro-liberty views (as described by Iyer et al., 2012). The results showed a marked pattern of lower support for pro-liberty views among immigrants as compared to US-born residents. These differences were generally statistically significant and sizable, with a few scattered exceptions. With increasing proportions of the US population being foreign-born, low support for libertarian values by foreign-born residents means that the political prospects of libertarian values in the US are likely to diminish over time. - See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/12/u-s-immigrants-attitudes-toward-libertarian-values.html#sthash.9gnQg64r.dpuf

While there has been much discussion of libertarians’ (generally although not universally favorable) attitudes toward liberal immigration policies, the attitudes of immigrants to the United States toward libertarian values have not previously been examined. Using data from the 2010 General Social Survey, we asked how American-born and foreign-born residents differed in attitudes toward a variety of topics upon which self-reported libertarians typically hold strong pro-liberty views (as described by Iyer et al., 2012). The results showed a marked pattern of lower support for pro-liberty views among immigrants as compared to US-born residents. These differences were generally statistically significant and sizable, with a few scattered exceptions. With increasing proportions of the US population being foreign-born, low support for libertarian values by foreign-born residents means that the political prospects of libertarian values in the US are likely to diminish over time - See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/12/u-s-immigrants-attitudes-toward-libertarian-values.html#sthash.9gnQg64r.dpuf

If the primary purpose of government is to protect liberty, which most libertarians believe, then a government is justified in restricting immigration of individuals who hold views contrary to a constitutionally constrained government.  Furthermore, if a group of immigrants has been shown to be overwhelmingly anti-libertarian in their views, then government is justified in limiting entry of individuals from that group just because they are from those countries where the people are hostile toward liberty.  

Unfortunately, the US government's policy has been to encourage immigration from countries where there is little support for limited government, free exchange of ideas and products, and the rule of law.  When a country is fairly evenly divided, these statist voters will have a huge impact in the future direction of the US.

EDIT: The original title of this post was "Libertarian Case Against Open Borders."     

Tea Party vs Occupy Wall Street

Senator Rand Paul recently made some insightful points about the differences between The Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street.  Sen. Paul said, “The Tea Party, I always say, is more like the American Revolution, and Occupy Wall Street is more the French Revolution.  . . . We (The Tea Party) weren’t unhappy with people just because they were rich; we weren’t happy with you (the banks) if you were making money off of our taxes and we were bailing you out. If you were making $100 million, your bank goes bankrupt and all of a sudden we bail you out and you’re still making $100 million — that upset us.”

The Tea Party hated the big bank bailouts because it violated the rule of law and would only encourage risky behavior in the future with taxpayers' underwriting the loses. Occupy Wall Street just hates rich people and corporations. Big difference. Liberals see the world as a clash between oppressors and the oppressed. Libertarians see the world as a clash between coercion and free choice. A political philosophy based on envy will not lead to win-win solutions, it will only give us lose-lose outcomes.

Teach Your Children Well by Joseph Sobran

Teach Your Children Well by Joseph Sobran


Teach Your Children Well

by Joseph Sobran

    
Because I write about politics, people are forever asking me the best way to teach children how our system of government works. I tell them that they can give their own children a basic civics course right in their own homes.

In my own experience as a father, I have discovered several simple devices that can illustrate to a child's mind the principles on which the modern state deals with its citizens. You may find them helpful, too.

For example, I used to play the simple card game WAR with my son. After a while, when he thoroughly understood that the higher ranking cards beat the lower ranking ones, I created a new game I called GOVERNMENT. In this game, I was Government, and I won every trick, regardless of who had the better card. My boy soon lost interest in my new game, but I like to think it taught him a valuable lesson for later in life.

When your child is a little older, you can teach him about our tax system in a way that is easy to grasp. Offer him, say, $10 to mow the lawn. When he has mowed it and asks to be paid, withhold $5 and explain that this is income tax. Give $1 to his younger brother, and tell him that this is "fair." Also, explain that you need the other $4 yourself to cover the administrative costs of dividing the money. When he cries, tell him he is being "selfish" and "greedy." Later in life he will thank you.

Make as many rules as possible. Leave the reasons for them obscure. Enforce them arbitrarily. Accuse your child of breaking rules you have never told him about. Keep him anxious that he may be violating commands you haven't yet issued. Instill in him the feeling that rules are utterly irrational. This will prepare him for living under democratic government.

When your child has matured sufficiently to understand how the judicial system works, set a bedtime for him and then send him to bed an hour early. When he tearfully accuses you of breaking the rules, explain that you made the rules and you can interpret them in any way that seems appropriate to you, according to changing conditions. This will prepare him for the Supreme Court's concept of the U.S. Constitution as a "living document."

Promise often to take him to the movies or the zoo, and then, at the appointed hour, recline in an easy chair with a newspaper and tell him you have changed your plans. When he screams, "But you promised!," explain to him that it was a campaign promise.

Every now and then, without warning, slap your child. Then explain that this is defense. Tell him that you must be vigilant at all times to stop any potential enemy before he gets big enough to hurt you. This, too, your child will appreciate, not right at that moment, maybe, but later in life.

At times your child will naturally express discontent with your methods. He may even give voice to a petulant wish that he lived with another family. To forestall and minimize this reaction, tell him how lucky he is to be with you the most loving and indulgent parent in the world, and recount lurid stories of the cruelties of other parents. This will make him loyal to you and, later, receptive to schoolroom claims that the America of the postmodern welfare state is still the best and freest country on Earth.

This brings me to the most important child-rearing technique of all: lying. Lie to your child constantly. Teach him that words mean nothing – or rather that the meanings of words are continually "evolving," and may be tomorrow the opposite of what they are today.

Some readers may object that this is a poor way to raise a child. A few may even call it child abuse. But that's the whole point: Child abuse is the best preparation for adult life under our form of GOVERNMENT.

Joseph Sobran (1946–2010), conservative turned libertarian, was one of the most significant American writers of his time. See his website and his intellectual journey.

Copyright © 2013 by the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided full credit is given.

How to Explain Libertarianism to a Kindergartener

This from David Boaz:


Inspired by Robert Fulghum’s bestseller All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten, I like to tell people that you learn the essence of libertarianism — which is also the essence of civilization — in kindergarten:

Don’t hit other people.

Don’t take their stuff.

Keep your promises.

And read Yertle to Turtle to them.

Book Review of Glenn Beck's Agenda 21

Note: the following book review is by my 15 year old daughter.

This year for Christmas my dad gave me Agenda 21 by Glenn Beck (with Harriet Parke). I know what you’re thinking.  What kind of dad gets his teenage daughter a book by Glenn Beck for Christmas? But I thought I’d give it a try anyway. A quick internet search reveals that the book title is a reference to a non-binding UN plan of the same name intended to promote “sustainable development” at the international, national, regional and local levels. This plan strives to achieve social equity, reduce consumption and emphasize environmental preservation. In this book, the authors imagine a world in which the ideas of Agenda 21 are strictly implemented. Citizens are prohibited from anything that consumes more resources than it contributes. They are also forced to live and work in a society that allows no room for personal achievement or success.

This book's story line will be familiar to teen fans of recent dystopian novels that have come out since the incredible success of The Hunger Games. Like Matched by Allie Condie, Delirium by Laurent Oliver and Divergent by Veronica Roth, to name a few that I’ve read, Agenda 21 follows the story of a young girl who lives in a dystopian society. This girl, Emmeline, lives under the rule of an oppressive and over controlling government that has resulted from its attempt to make all people equal in every aspect. If you’re familiar with this story line, you pretty much know how this book is going to end. However, even knowing this, I really enjoyed the book. Unlike other dystopian novels, Agenda 21 does a better job of explaining how the government gained all this power to make this society the way it is. It’s fascinating and scary at the same time.

 The government of this society became as powerful as it is by making small, subtle changes that went unnoticed until it was too late. Small changes were made and people were made to believe that they should all be equal. An older woman who was alive when the "reforms" were first implemented tells Emmeline that there were  four types of people: the believers who supported the reforms; the protesters, who spoke out at great risk but were silenced; the quiet and watchful who put their heads down and said nothing; and the passive unbelievers who did not try to act until it was too late. She later elaborates on the fourth type, the passive unbelievers. She explains that they “trusted the way things were.” They believed that if they worked hard, they would succeed and be rewarded for their efforts. When the government started to make changes they still “trusted the way things were” and they missed the early warning signs. By the time they really understood what was happening, it was too late.

The story is about Emmeline's journey from acceptance of the way things are to someone who seeks freedom for herself and those she loves.  Emmeline lives in an assigned community and in an assigned home with an assigned partner. She is one of the last children to be raised by her parents instead of in a “Children’s Village.” Because of her unusual upbringing, she recognizes the importance of family more than others her age. When she has a baby and the government takes it away to be raised in the “Children’s Village,” she is willing to do anything to see her baby. Her love for her child eventually motivates her to make a radical decision that changes her life.

                Although this book may not have been written as a book for teenagers, I enjoyed it. If you like this type of book, you will probably like Agenda 21 as well.

Dumb Facebook Post on Gun Control

Statists (aka “liberals” or “progressives”) are more than eager to tell you how smart they are while posting the dumbest things on Facebook.  Following the horrific shooting at Shady Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, a “friend” re-posted the picture below.   I, of course, have hidden his identity and cleaned up the language.  (Why is it that statists think they have to swear when they want you to know they are outraged? We get it.  We are all outraged by the shooting.) 

So let’s look at his comment.  While posting a picture saying that if your first thoughts are how Obama will use this tragic event to take your guns then you “stink” (I actually modified what it actually said) as a human being, he proposes to limit access to guns by placing intrusive requirements on law-abiding citizens.  Ironic, huh?  I am sure he would be outraged if someone suggested that his freedom of speech be limited by requiring “mandatory, annually renewed licensing, liability insurance, and psychiatric screening” before he could post his political opinions on FB.  He would probably point to the protection afforded him by the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and rightly so.  He, however, doesn’t see that that same Constitution acknowledges the “right to keep and bear arms.”  His reference to the “18th Century” is a clear indication that he knows the 2nd Amendment exists but doesn’t care.  In his and many progressives’ worldview, we have moved beyond the wisdom of the founders. Call me crazy, but I will take the wisdom of Madison and Mason over today’s political hacks and loony Facebook “friends.”

As Joseph Sobran once remarked, “Do liberals want big federal entitlement programs? Lo, the Interstate Commerce Clause turns out to mean that the big federal programs are constitutional! Do liberals oppose capital punishment? Lo, the ban on “cruel and unusual punishment” turns out to mean that capital punishment is unconstitutional! Do liberals want abortion on demand? Lo, the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, plus their emanations and penumbras, turn out to mean that abortion is nothing less than a woman’s constitutional right!

“Can all this be blind evolution? If liberals were more religious, they might suspect the hand of Providence behind it! This marvelous “living document” never seems to impede the liberal agenda in any way. On the contrary: it always seems to demand, by a wonderful coincidence, just what liberals are prescribing on other grounds.”

Does my FB friend want the government to confiscate the guns of law abiding citizens?  Lo, the Constitution undoubtedly means it can.  

Trick or Treat?

On Halloween before the 2012 presidential election, I thought I would re-post one of my L4K Lemonade Stand Chronicles stories which I originally posted in 2009.

The L4K Lemonade Stand Chronicles:

Trick or Treat?

“Trick or treat, trick or treat,” Little Timmy was yelling as he skipped down the sidewalk. (Yes, Little Timmy skipped. Surprised?)

“Will you shut up!” demanded Barry.

Barry and Timmy were making plans for Halloween. It was always a day the boys looked forward to. They had closed the lemonade stand a month earlier so they now had more time for other activities. And nothing was more fun than pretending to be someone else and getting free candy.

But who would they be this year? And who would give the best candy and who would get their windows soaped or their trees TPed?

Timmy always liked pretending to be an economist. He had dressed up like an old English economist named John Maynard Keynes for the past three years. He also liked John Kenneth Galbraith. Barry always made fun of him for dressing like two “free market” economists. He had suggested a few more "progressive" economists to Timmy but Timmy’s dad wouldn’t allow him to dress like those guys. He had said something about no one would know Larry, Moe, and Curly these days. Barry hadn’t decided who he would be this year. He was toying with dressing up like Two Face, The Riddler, or pretending to be professional basketball player.

As the boys ran to meet up with the gang, Timmy suddenly took a detour around the old theater. Barry yelled at him to stop, but it took a block before he did.

“What is wrong?” Barry asked.

"I don’t like walking by the theater with that poster out front," Timmy confided.

“What poster? Oh, you mean the poster of that old horror movie It’s Alive!” said Barry.

“Yes,” Timmy said, “it gives me the creeps . . . what with that claw sticking out from the baby carriage.”

“It is just a movie, you chicken,” said Barry, “I have an idea. The only thing you have to fear is fear itself . . . or something like that. Let’s sneak in to the movie. You won’t be afraid when you see how cheesy it is.”

“I don’t know, Barry, the last time I saw a really scary movie I wet my pants,” admitted Timmy. But he trusted Barry so he went along.

They mistakenly sneaked into theater number two where a public announcement was being shown live. As they set down a very scary woman came on to make an announcement. She announced that the government would be making all the decisions now. She said with delight, “When health care is controlled by us, we will have the justification to do WHATEVER we want because health is an even bigger ace card than that stupid commerce clausewe have been relying upon for years as justification for ignoring the Constitutional limits on governmental power. Food, manufacturing, pre-natal testing, end of life, it all will fall under our control."

She laughed as zombies stood behind her nodding in agreement as if they were under some mind control. Timmy became scared and, well, let’s just say he ran home to change.

Barry got excited too. So excited and so hopeful that he too had to run home too. As he ran home he kept yelling, “It’s alive, it’s alive!”

Post Script

I hope no children got too scared reading this story. It is after all just a story. Isn’t it? 

Socialism (Liberalism or Statism) Explained by Battlefield351

Here is another excellent YouTube video which is part of Battlefield315's conversations with a liberal series.

Battlefied315 destroys this idealistic young liberal's arguments for socialism (or liberalism, or progressives, or statism).  But as is typical of many young idealistic liberals, she is oblivious to how weak her arguments are.  This is one of the most brilliant videos on this subject I have ever seen.  Battlefield315 hasn't posted any new videos lately.  I encourage him to get back at it.

Liberal Universities Explained Video by Battlefield315

I just stumbled upon this YouTube video and it is both hysterically funny and sadly accurate.

A recent survey has revealed that professors have gotten even more liberal.  If you are conservative or libertarian, you should seriously consider not supporting these liberal indoctrination centers know as universities.  This is especially true of the social sciences.  

Nickelodeon's Kids Pick the President: What Kids Should Ask

The children's cable channel Nickelodeon has invited President Barrack Obama and the Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney to answer questions from kids on the Linda Ellerbee hosted show called "Kids Pick the President."  What is getting a lot of publicity is that Romney declined to participate.  I have no idea why Romney would not want to do this.  It would appear to be an idea venue to discuss the most significant issue facing kids, namely, the massive debt we are leaving them.

According to a Nickelodeon poll the top issues for kids are 1. Same-sex marriage, 2. Education, 3. Health care, 4. Taxes, 5. Immigration, 6. Iran, 7. Energy, and 8. Jobs.  

The lists looks more like what a typical adult would say are the top issues.  Obviously kids' opinions on politics are often a reflection of their parents' views or what they have heard on media (both social and traditional).  So I am not surprised that The Entitlement Debt Bomb didn't make the list.  But make no mistake it is THE issue that will doom today's children and future children to a reduced standard of living.  The current US government debt is just over $16 trillion and growing which is equal to the total GDP of the US.  The current debt is already lowering our standard of living due to the debt service and the diversion of capital out of the private sector.   

The bigger concern, however, is the total unfunded liabilities.  According to some estimates the total unfunded liabilities are $100 trillion to $220 trillion.  Most of the unfunded liabilities are associated with Social Security and Medicare.  Most young people realize that they will never receive any Social Security.  As pointed out in a previous post, entitlements and interest on the debt will completely consume the federal budget by 2025.  There will be no more money for defense, courts or, well, anything else.  Now certainly most of the "anything else" aren't Constitutionally authorized functions of the federal government anyway but neither are Social Security, Medicare, or any of the entitlement programs.

So THE question to President Obama and Mitt Romney from kids should be, "How are you going to reduce the debt burden your generation is leaving my generation?"

A Message to My Liberal Facebook Friends

I have something to say to my statist Facebook friends (yes, I know, you like to call yourselves “liberal” or “progressive”).  I am glad you are my friends (and not just FB friends) but you are not helping to improve the tone of political discourse with your daily mindless posts.  And in case you are thinking I am talking about you and only you, I assure you I am not.  Because, you see, it is ALL of you.  You all post the same mindless crap.   It is like there is some statist puppet master pulling your strings.  Whenever I see “Stop watching FauxNews, think for yourselves” posted five times by five different FB friends on the same day, I have to chuckle at the irony.  Gay marriage, chicken sandwiches, the latest gaffe from Romney, what some nobody Republican dog catcher foolishly said about something, are all insignificant and by posting this crap you are acting like middle school girls who like to talk about frivolous things.  So enough of the snarky look-how-smart-I-am-because-I-found-a-funny-picture-showing-how-stupid-those-Republicans-are posts.    And, it doesn’t help your case when you resort to name calling (nutjobs, baggers, sociopaths) and constant carpet F-bombings, you come across as insecure middle school boys who want to act all tough.   Honestly, rarely do any of my conservative or libertarian FB friends do any of this stuff.  But from my dear statist friends, it is an everyday thing.  It would be one thing if you actually wanted to talk about policy (as opposed to political gotcha), but you have shown no interest in having a true political discussion.

So let’s be clear, this election is about one thing and one thing only – how can the entitlement debt bomb be defused.  It is undeniable to anyone who is paying attention that unless we do something about the federal debt, our children will be condemned to a lower standard of living.  And, yes, I agree we need to bring home the troops and stop getting ourselves involved in wars with countries that have not attacked us.  I agree we can no longer afford an empire. But guess what, we have to cut entitlement programs because entitlements make up 62% of the federal budget and will completely consume the budget by 2045.  Entitlements and interest will consume the total federal budget by 2025. 

It has been estimated that the total unfunded entitlements liability (future required payments) exceeds $100 TRILLION dollars. Yes, that was trillion with a T.  So what my statist friends need to understand is that every new thing you demand from the government has a cost.  Nothing is free.   

And the answer is not to raise taxes.  If the federal government took 100% of the income of the top 1% (those making over $384k a year) it would not balance the budget let alone pay down the debt.  The total confiscation of the income of the  top 1% would provide only $750 billion while the annual federal deficit is projected to be $1.1 trillion.  And of course with a 100% tax rate the top 1% would “go Galt” and stop working or leave the country.

So do we begin to have a rational discussion about how to save this country from financial collapse or do you want to continue to post mean-spirited snarky crap?  If it is the latter, then you are no better than all the hack politicians who have destroyed this country.  I know you are better than they are, please show it.  

On spending money you don't have

I spend money, 

I don't have.

To buy things,

I don't need.

To impress people,

I don't know.

I found the above poem on a discussion board.  I don't know who to attribute it to but I thought it was too good to not share.  As my children get older I find myself counselling them about not falling for the trap of celebrity worship, reckless consumerism, and deriving self-worth from material things.  Just as government can enslave us through reckless spending and borrowing, we can enslave ourselves by our own reckless buying and borrowing.  There is a lot of freedom in living debt free.  And character can be built through delayed gratification.  

Indoctrinating the Grasshopper Generation

This interview scares me but it doesn't surprise me.  That liberal indoctrination of youth in many public school classrooms and through varied media platforms (movies, TV, Internet) should not be a surprise to anyone.  I once read that most adults don't stray too far from the political views they held prior to the age of 20.  Similar to many religious organizations, the statists realize that if you get them young they will likely hold onto those beliefs.  


In the interview below Jack Chambless, an economics professor from Valencia College in Florida, tells of an assignment he gave his students on the first day of class.  He asked them to write an essay on what the American Dream meant to them and what they expected from government to help them realize the American Dream.  He said only 10% said they wanted the federal government to stay out of their lives as much as possible. 80% said they wanted the federal government to pay for their education, find them a job, help them buy a house, and give them money in retirement. Professor Chambless suggests that his students are simply parroting back what they have been indoctrinated to say from their years in public schools.  


As I said, this interview scares me because I suspect Professor Chambless is correct.




FYI:  Here is a link to an article from The Blaze about a teacher handing out a flyer that promoted communism as a being superior to capitalism. 

Speak with Conviction

This video of a Taylor Mali poem makes a very good point about how today's youth's lack of conviction is evident in their way of speaking.