#26 Millennial Liberals are the most toxic group there is

Millennials.  That group that ranges somewhere between 15 and 35 years of age.  They think they know it all.  They think they have the authority to tell everybody that they know it all.  They feel entitled to it all.  They think they own it all.  They have no common sense.  They think all should be the same.  And if any of that doesn't happen then it's someone else's fault.

And they show no remorse about any of it.

Of course, it is our fault.  We raised them to where no one "loses".  We raised them with seat belts, hard hats, Neosporin (triple action ointment kind), a Kleenex box with aloe, warning labels on water, and full-time school psychologists.  And we somehow did it while we were drunk, high, divorced, promiscuous, and with no morality system to guide us.  Some of that is tongue-in-cheek.  Yes, Neosporin is good.  But the point is we coddled this generation so much;  we taught them to be "self-loving" and "sufficient" so much; we raised them that what ever they do is "ok" so much...that we forgot to actually teach them the lessons of life.

The worst one of them all is the heir-apparent, Princess Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  She is the epitome of this generation.  Not only is she the leader of this smart-mouthed ("who dis"), uneducated ("parts of government"), and inexperienced ("free education") generation, she is also the voice of the new Democrat ("Committee choices"), as if the old ones weren't bad enough.  She just doesn't get that her ideas are the reasons why millions of people have been killed in the past, millions of people are being hurt today, and that millions will suffer in the future.  All we have to do is look to the past, first.  We have forgotten the ideas of Stalin, Mao, Kim, and Castro.  Together they are responsible for 40 million deaths.  We have forgotten what it is like to hear the heart-wrenching stories of survivors from these countries.

Let's look back in short about the ideas of Marx, the father (blah) of communism.  He was raised in a secular family and his acquaintances in life pushed him farther away from any religious conviction.  Some may think that is not a big deal but it is.  It gave him no direction.  He went to a private school. (hmmm....)  He was coddled in his education.  And when he couldn't handle the way things were he got moved to other schools and even got expelled from higher education systems.  The Industrial revolution caused an inequality in human life (he had money) so he he came up with theories.  Life is about human struggle.  This struggle is based upon economic status.  Human existence will go through four stages of economic struggle.  The first one is feudalism.  Communities formed kingdoms but the king took power.  The rich rose up and took power from the kings and set up capitalism.  But he believed this system destroyed us so one day the working class (the proletariat) will rise up and take power away from the capitalists leaders (the bourgeoisie).  This will be a violent over taking and it will usher in socialism.  This system will have to create a forced equality on the people because it will not be easy for people to give up things and it will remain that way until everyone is equal.  Once that happens then the last stage of human existence will begin, communism, a utopia.  No need for government.  No need for laws.  All needs will be met.  A perfect world.

On paper, in theory, it sounds great.  Here is the problem.  It never gets out of the socialism phase.  The violence.  The forced situations upon the people by the government.  The control the government doesn't want to give up.  And we see this happening when we hear "Obamacare".  We are forced to give up our earned money to pay for people who to be quite honest don't deserve it.  We see this happening when we hear "free college".  It isn't free.  Even ding-dong said that, yet she didn't know she said it.  The regulations.  The forced "acceptance" and "tolerance" of things that go against our beliefs.  The higher taxes.  The impersonalization/depersonalization of life.  The lessening of any morality system.  The blaming of those who actually work hard for everyone's troubles.  It can never get to communism because socialism cannot work.

All we have to do is look at the present next.   Venezuela---CNN, FOX, NY Times, all you have to do is Google "Venezuela" and "chaos" and you get tons of articles all saying the same thing; Venezuela is not working.  And this is what "AOC" is trying to bring to us.  All because she has no idea.

All we have to do is look at the future now.  #millennialliberal, LOL, who dis, Instagram, earbuds...

#19 He needs to shut up.

Yes.  President Donald Trump needs to shut up.  But that is not this paper.  It is of course former president Barack Obama.  Maybe this is inaccurate but President Reagan never criticized President Bush when he left office.  President Bush never criticized President Clinton when he left office.  In fact he left him a note that was quite powerful and heartfelt.  President Clinton never criticized President Bush when he left office.  The two became friends and even helped each other with charities.  President Bush never criticized President Obama.  Some would say this article, Washington Times, proves that he did.  But he said government was the problem not one person.  Now while they were all campaigning, that is different.

However, now enter the most narcissistic president ever.  He criticized the Bush years.  He never took the blame for anything during his presidency.  And now he openly criticizes President Trump.  But we knew it was coming.  Even though President Trump is a loud-mouthed bully, and someone should shut his Twitter account down, it is still not the place for another former "dignitary" to try and topple them.

The only reason why he is doing it is because of his narcissism.  He feels that he never did anything wrong.  He only wanted the prestige.  If he wanted to change the country he would have stayed a Senator where he has no term limits.  If he wanted to make a change he would not have skipped on his last two years of being a Senator.  He saw the limelight and stepped out into it.  He wanted the fame and name.  If he didn't want this then he would shut up.  His time is over.  His legacy ruined many people.  He was a president for the minority, not the majority like presidents should be.  His policies, if they positively affected anyone, only helped the smallest number of people.  Cash for clunkers?  Turning over Bush's abortion policy (first thing he did in office even after saying in debate with McCain that it was above his pay grade, Debate).  Yes, Obamacare was only for the minority.  His executive orders.  Gay marriage (although this was not his idea, still only a few people).  My Brother's Keeper.  In other words, if you were white, male, straight, and Christian you had no chance in this presidency.  And for a president who said he was about equality, that would be hypocritical. Now, that is not to say that women, non-Christian, non-heterosexual practitioners, or non-white people are unimportant.  This is not to say that we shouldn't help those in minority groups of any kind.  What it is saying is that he only targeted groups that would vote for him or remember him in legacy form.  What it is saying is that he did not really believe in equality.  If we are "born this way", then white heterosexual males should not be penalized just because they have been in power for a long time.  Black lives matter?  YES!!!!  But all lives matter.  Women's rights?  Yes, but men should have parental rights too.  Freedom of speech and religion?  Yes, but Christians should be able to speak out without ridicule and defamation as well.

No, that president ruined most Americans.  His raising of the deficit to help a few we will be paying for decades to come, way more than all the other presidents we have had combined.  His raising of taxes, Obamatax, hurt the middle/working class, the same class that his mentor (Karl Marx) said we were supposed to help, i.e., the Proletariat.  These taxes were hidden.  For example, he changed the tax codes and made it look like a tax break but when the categories were re-evaluated and some were in different brackets, their taxes actually went up.  And on top of that his tax "breaks" were only $20 per paycheck.  That is enough for one meal at McDonald's per family each week.  President Bush gave $600 per adult, up front, one lump sum, enough for a down payment on a car.  His cash for clunkers raised used car prices so high that middle class families had to go further into debt buying new cars or settle for keeping their older unreliable cars for fear of going into debt.  Obamacare made most people pay more for their healthcare AND then forced us to pay for others.  That is not democracy.  His liberalism is not what the definition of classical liberalism, it is socialism, two terms that have consolidated from polar ends to become authoritarian, or as Bernie Sanders calls it Democratic Socialism.

Usually this site never gets personal, but his policies affected me, for 8 years and ruined my life. But because of that president's policies, me, the average American, lost $18,000 in those 8 years.  This stopped me from getting a safer and more secure car for my wife after her accident.  This stopped me from giving to more charities because my insurance went from $30 a paycheck to $90 a paycheck, thereby taking money I had reserved for groups like Food for the Hungry, local churches, and even family members.  This stopped me from adopting children because it takes a large down payment to get into the adoption system.  If I am the average American then how was that president for the people?

Do not say that that president progressed us.  Do not say that that president moved us forward.  He needs to go away.  He needs to shut up.  He should show SOME dignity like other former presidents.  Then again, maybe all presidents should shut up.

#18 Democratic filibuster is a cry for help

The latest battle in the broken American congressional system is the pick for Supreme Court justice.  It started of course last year when Antonin Scalia died and left a vacancy in the Court.  There needs to be nine justices to complete the court, although it has not always been that way.  It needs to be an odd number of justices in case there is a split decision there will never be a tie.  So why is this such a huge issue?  Both sides feel this will push the system towards their agenda.  But in all honesty, it won't change much.  Democrats especially think this will hurt them because of the abortion issue. Spoiler alert:  we have had a conservative Court before since 1973 and guess what...abortion is still legal.  It will remain legal because to get the law changed, there has to be a court decision that someone has to appeal to get to the Supreme Court.  It can't be made into an amendment because it takes 2/3 of Congress or 2/3 of state legislatures to even consider the change.  That isn't going to happen.  Both sides know this.  So again, why is this justice selection such  an issue?  Pride.

When Obama chose a person after the death of Scalia, he didn't pick someone based on what was best for the country, he picked someone based on who would uphold his "legacy" the most.  He could have worked with the GOP to try and find someone but he didn't.  He chose someone as fast as possible (one month, three days) to get someone in there; Merrick Garland.  That is not how you choose someone.  The GOP of course being the majority did what they should have done; checked the power of the president. Although, Garland was not the most liberal pick Obama could have chosen but still liberal enough (Liberal?).  Now, the GOP could have perhaps at least put it to vote.  They had enough votes not to confirm him.  However, given Obama's past they could not have taken the chance because if they voted no on him then Obama would have some justification of placing him there by an executive order.

Fast forward, now that Obama administration is part of history (THANK GOD), all of his nominees and appointments matter less or have expired.  Trump now picks Neil Gorsuch, a moderate conservative, although some say he is not, (Conservative?).  Trump at least had months to think about this and chose someone who many, even Democrats, liked.  But why is there still an issue?  Pride. Because the GOP stopped Obama's choice, the Democrats are automatically not going to confirm him or at least filibuster the vote.  That is just cry for help.

They lost the election.  They lost American confidence in their party.  They blame everyone and everything for their problems.  It wouldn't matter who Trump picked, unless it was Sanders or Clinton, and even then they may not have voted for them either.  The Democrats are only doing this in spite of the President.  It has nothing to do with Gorsuch.  It is only for revenge.  And for that reason the GOP have every right to use the nuclear option.  The same procedure that Harry Reid used when he didn't get his way, Nuclear option, in 2013.  But what will you hear the Democrats say? "That this is no way to handle the situation".  Well, you should have followed your own advice.  That is almost how you got Obamacare passed and that is how you ran things for years.  Justice is served.

Note: Trump as a person is not supported on this blog but political cry babies are less tolerated.

#15 There should never be a Clinton in office ever again.

The legacy of the Clintons in some minds will forever be filled with glee and smiles.  They will stand with them and explain to everyone that the time we had with Bill as President and Hillary as the First Lady was a time of prosperity and peace.  People had hope and opportunity.  These people are the delusional people around us.  Or at least they are uninformed of reality.  From the time they met in the 1960's to the present day the Clintons have mustered all kinds of scandals, propaganda, lies, blames, egos, and crime.  And people still love them for it?

We can even leave Bill out of it and we still have all kinds of issues with Hillary, yet so many have to do with him.

1. Covering up Bill's sexual harassment and perhaps rape charges.  Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, and Monica Lewinski.  Of course, she claimed it was just part of a right-wing conspiracy to derail her husband.  No, your husband derailed himself.  But she tried to cover it up with the infamous "truth squad".
2. She stole items from the White House at the end of her husband's reign.  Of course, she claims that she only took all the gifts that were given to her in those eight years.  They add up to $190,000.
3. Just like Nixon had spied on his political enemies, Hillary is linked to many of these types of activities as well.  She was thought to have looked up FBI files of people, which is a clear violation of the Privacy Act.  Of course ,she says it was just a mistake.  AKA FBIgate.
4. She fired workers in the White House just to hire her friends.  The "kitchen cabinet" effect may be her right to do but is just completely tacky and highly undiplomatic.  Some of the people she tried to hire were for self-indulging companies, such as securing an airline contract for her friend.  All of this was later to be called Travelgate.
5. Illegal activity in campaign finance, tax benefits, and "financial favors" brought about a probe into some of her dealings with real estate while she was in Arkansas.  Her actions helped bring the collapse of a local savings and loan.  All of her business partners were found guilty and put in prison, but she and Bill got out of it.  AKA Whitewater.  And years later she had taken funds from an Iranian political criminal.  Why can she get funds like this but be illegal and immoral for everyone else?
6. She received funds for her Senate run in 2000 by someone Bill had pardoned; a person who was on the FBI most wanted list for a while.  People in her family also received  money from those Bill pardoned.  She claims she did not know.  AKA Pardongate.
7. Selling secrets to China.  AKA Chinagate.
8. Lying about being shot at in Bosnia.
9. She moves from Arkansas to New York to run for Senate.  Why?  Because she knew she would not be elected by Arkansans.  In one of her first speeches she claims to be a New Yorker, even though she had only been there less than a year.  Propaganda.
10. She has been tied to a few murders; Vince Foster, Ron Brown
11. Emailgate.  Not only did she send valuable information by an insecure server, she shared her email account with a person (Huma Abedin) who is tied to a terrorist group, Muslim Brotherhood.  She claims the emails were not deemed "classified at the time".  So what?  She still should have known that the information she was sending was sensitive.  She claims that even if she did send things this way that others like Colin Powell did it too.  So what?  Colin Powell should be brought to justice too.  Just because someone else did it does not mean it is ok to do.  Ask Edward Snowden.  He basically did the same thing yet:
    

    
12. Benghazi.  There is nothing else that needs to be said.  Under her watch four Americans were killed.  Whether she knew about it or not it was her responsibility.  So to quote her own words: 3 AM Phone Call; she did not answer the phone call.  She emailed her daughter and explained it was done by terrorists.  She knew what had happened.  It was not about a video.  She was the Secretary of State.  This was her job.  She failed.  Look at how she handled it:

• She blamed an anti-Muslim video but then stated we didn't know if it was the video or not that caused the riots in Libya.  Yet, at the time of the attacks she went on air and apologized to the Muslim world about the video to make sure that this part of the world did not blame the US government.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xj_hNRUB9Q
• She said she did not know right away the attack was going on and that there was no real time video.  Although Charlene R. Lamb, Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Programs at the U.S. Department of State, said there was.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/real-time-libya-who-knew-what-when/2012/10/11/2422cd92-1349-11e2-ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_blog.html, and http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/10/benghazi-hearing/
• She said she did not or at least could not read any cable or messages that she got from Ambassador Stevens, who was her friend and placed him there because she knew he knew the dangers of the place.  Yet, she is head the Department of State.  One of the jobs is to know what is going on all the time.   And if Ambassador Stevens was her friend and he was in a dangerous place then why didn't she keep up with all the action that was taking place?  So now we don't know which one is telling the truth:  Lamb or Clinton (although Clintons do tend to lie at first).  After all it was 9-11, a day of heightened awareness anyway, right?
• She said it doesn't matter if it was a video or crazy terrorist assassins just wanting to kill Americans, but it does matter because knowledge will perhaps stop future events like this from happening.  Meanwhile there is a man in jail for the video, even though we have freedom of speech.
• She said they were only working on intelligence given to them; and of course Dick Durbin a Democrat Illinois brought up how we have worked with "intelligence" before with WMD, but he was being sarcastic.  He claimed the WMDs in Iraq was a cover up which was the real scandal, but this one in Libya wasn't.  That, of course, was just a way to distract from the real issue, typical Democrat. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/dick-durbin-benghazi-iraq-wmd_n_2539710.html
• There was a review board looking at all the evidence but it took eight weeks for them to form and Clinton is the one who put the board together.
• Oh yeah, her response to the whole thing was "what does it matter now?".

The above didn't even include her scandals with Bill nor did it list all of the other ones she may have perpetrated on her own.  And even worse yet, her policies haven't even been discussed yet.  And people think she is a good candidate?

The following is taken from her campaign website.  Here are the issues she is wrong on:

Campaign Reform--"Our democracy should work for everyone, not just the wealthy and well-connected."  Although this is a good statement and should be agree with, who is she to say this?  She is wealthy.  She got that way due to illegal campaign funding.

Racial Injustice--"Black Lives Matter". Yes.  But she only says this to get African American votes.  See Bernie Sanders to get more of this.

Wall Street--"Wall Street must work for Main Street".  She got $4.1 Million from Wall Street in donations to her funds., Goldman-Sachs, Citigroup, DLA Piper just to name a few who gave her hundreds of thousands each.

Other things she is wrong about that are obvious or already talked about too much:  abortion, Obamacare, Social education, she claims she is for small businesses yet supports Obamacare.

She is a closet socialist.  Socialism's definition is an economic system that puts control of the means of production into the hands of the community as a whole, a transitional state between capitalism and communism.  This is a scary definition.  The first part may sound noble.  But the rest can tear a country apart.  Choice is stripped from the citizen.  Socialism and communism is more than just an economic system.  They mess around with people's personal freedoms as well.  In 2015 she said, "Look, I don't believe you change hearts," arguing that the Black Lives Matter movement can't change deep seated racism. "I believe you change laws, you change allocation of resources, you change the way systems operate. You're not going to change every heart. You're not. But at the end of the day, we could do a whole lot to change some hearts and change some systems and create more opportunities for people who deserve to have them, to live up to their own God-given potential."  No Mrs. Clinton, changing the hearts is the only way to get things done, morally.

This is the definition of socialism. Adding government policies and allocation of resources. However she added create opportunities and invoked the term "God-given" to see more moderate. Those of the African-American community need to see that the Democratic Party is not the saving grace.  Neither is the GOP as a whole, so don't miaunderstand, but the Democrats only want your vote. That's it. Nothing else, just your vote.

Many of her policies are not that bad.  They are even border line conservative.  But how can you trust these views.  All she does is promise things to whatever group she is with.

If she turned her back on four marines who protect our country, and if she turned her back on national security via emails, then she WILL turn her back on you after she is elected. Heck, even President Obama did in many cases as well.

#14 The Trump Card and Suit will not always be the best

Even though socialism is not the answer that does not mean any tycoon billionaire's ideas are any better.  Although all of those who are running for president are millionaires or more anyway, so they are all hypocrites for the most.  But judge a person not by their economic standard but by what they stand for.

Illegal Immigration-- Building a wall on the southern border.  This has to be the most asinine thing to say.  The idea behind the concept is understood.  We have an issue in this country due to, yes, illegal immigration.  First of all the term is correct to use.  We have standards and rules to come into this country.  Some have been trying to get here for years and are going through all the steps and are getting beat by those who lie, cheat, and steal to come here.  It is not fair for those who have waited patiently to get here only for others to get the jobs first, or the "free education".  Another problem of immigration is that we can no longer trust all of those coming in.  And as comedian Paul Rodriguez says (paraphrased), "don't get mad at the Mexicans, we are just here to take your jobs, not to kill you".  Unfortunately, we don't know who is coming over the border.  But, to build a 50-foot wall over 2000 miles in length and say they will pay for it?  Impossible in more ways than one.  And, ask Berlin how walls go.  We have laws already in place.  Use them.  Immigration is fine, but use the laws already here.  No sanctuary cities.  Recreate something like Ellis Island again.  Allow the paperwork to be more user friendly for immigrants to fill out.  Do not send back one member of the family, but if they need deported send back the whole family.  But, before they are sent back give them the paperwork to do and show then the process.


Before the inevitable happens here is a disclaimer:  Yes, the Native American has been pushed out and taken over by foreigners, and it is completely unfair that this has happened.  It seems that it is hypocritical to say one group of aliens are ok and others are not.  But we are living in different times.  If we could all go back in time, odds are we would change what happened to the Native American.  But 250 years later this is a different country filled with those who are not the ones to blame for the plight of the Native American.  Americans of all are trying to protect themselves against a new type of enemy.  In a perfect world we would all be able to get along.

Other issues he is wrong about can't really be talked about here because who knows if he is really for that issue or not.  In the past he has been for the choice of abortion.  In 2011, he "changed due to personal experiences".  He said he is for affirmative action, but that is not a conservative value since it takes equal economic opportunity away.  He has been for gun control.  But things like this he has changed his ideas or maybe he is saying them to be considered a conservative enough person to be a GOP candidate.  He said he is for family values, but wasn't he married four times?  One shouldn't judge.

The problem is not necessarily his policies, save one, but the way he gets things done.  He is rude.  Pissing off leaders will not get the job done.  He is obnoxious and hard-headed.  Compromise is part of the game and sometimes needed.  Trying to bully others into your opinion is a 3rd grade tactic.  His arrogance will not let him lose.  He claims he wins at everything.  He has insulted his way to the top.  Calling Putin bald and short will not bring and end to any terrorism.  He wants to sue everyone. He says racist things but "don't mean them".   He may perhaps have a large white supremacist group ties.  But you are allowed to have an opinion, even as stupid as that one.  It is undoubtedly accurate that Obama had black supremacist groups follow him too.  And Clinton will have women groups follow her.  He is a misogynist but claims he "even hires women for construction jobs".   His believability is way too low.  He is inciting violence with every speech.  He is playing upon the fears and anger of people.  History says that is not a good thing.  This picture should be enough to stop anyone from voting for him.

Unless this is the competition:

Then unfortunately in this competition, he is a conservative.  The good news is he will only be a one-term president if he gets elected.

#13 If Sanders is elected we will feel the Bern

Before anyone jumps on the anti-bandwagon, this will hopefully be a series of what is wrong with most, if not all the candidates.  This is the easiest one to start with.

This is not to take away from the person of Bernie Sanders.  It is not an attack on who he is but what his ideas and policies would do to the United States and why he would be wrong for the presidency.  He is a self-proclaimed "socialist".  Now most will argue with that and say, no he is a democratic socialist.  But so what, Hitler called himself a National Socialist.  It doesn't matter what you call yourself, it is what you do that matters.

In a perfect world Sanders would be correct.  But in a perfect world Sanders would be wrong too.  Let's look at the things he stands for and what may be the issue.  All these are coming from his own website.

A Living Wage--Proposes a $15 per hour minimum wage.  In a perfect world, it would be nice if everyone could live the life of a millionaire.  No one would have to work.  No one would have to worry about bills to be paid.  Everyone would have a 4 story home with a pool and 3 classic cars in the garage.  But in a perfect world he is wrong because to get all of those things someone has to do the work.  Someone has to build the pool, car, and house.  Someone has to produce the materials, even if you built these things yourself.  It would be great if everyone could have these things.  But in reality it cannot be done.  The $15 would almost double what most minimum wage earners are getting now.  So how would that hurt?  Large corporations would not offer all the products they do now.  They would cut back and specialize only on a few products.  Sure, maybe someone would pick up the product but no one would compete against them.  If there is no competitions then that company can charge all they want and you are stuck with their price.  Then the government would have to step in even more to create price ceilings and more regulations that slow the business even more.  Adam Smith  wrote about the laws of competition and how when companies compete, the consumer wins.  Smaller businesses would not hire as many people out of plain fear that their business would not be able to afford to hire anyone.  Plus, who really makes minimum wage anyway?  Good companies but not a whole lot of experience or education is needed; McDonald's, Walmart, teenagers at their first job, pizza deliverers. etc.  Not many companies start at minimum wage anyway.  Not many adults who are worth anything take these jobs.  You stand at Walmart and all you hear is "when do I get my break", while they are bagging your groceries.  You order a cheeseburger and you get a fish sandwich.  The teenager is on their cell phone.  The pizza comes cold.  Sorry Bernie, the hike would not work and is not needed.  However, there could be a law that was passed that raises the minimum wage $1 every two or three years.  This would allow small businesses to make arrangements to meet the demands and would allow larger corporations to expand when needed without many layoffs or stoppage of products.

Free College--Make tuition free so graduates have no debt when they enter the workforce.  In a perfect world everyone would be educated first at home then with each level everyone would be educated even more.  No debt, no real estate taxes, no books to be bought, computers for everyone with access to the internet and all the technology.  No tests to pay for, no graduation fees for cap and gown.  But in a perfect world he is wrong because again, all those things that he wants free someone has to work, create, and/or be paid for.  How would professors earn a living?  How would books be paid for?  How would buildings and newer facilities with that best of technology get paid for?  In reality, not all people are college material.  Some are barely high school material.  Some would say education is a right.  Actually it is a privilege.  Why?  Because some people do not care about education.  If you do not care then you lose your right.  Now public education for children should be free.  Estate taxes should be gone somehow. but then again how are schools going to be built?  How would teachers be paid?  How would new textbooks and technology be accessed?  Yes, there needs to be a change in education but free college?  It would be paid for, but by the upper and middle class. He says Wall Street will pay for it.  How?  If more people went to college free then thousands upon thousands may enter the college.  That sounds good until you have to incur the costs.  Wall Street would not be able pay for all fluxion and growth.  That means tickets to extra curricular activities would raise.  Food on campuses would raise.  Colleges would find other fess like travel fees, security fees,  and other smaller things that are already free.  All this would stop the middle class person from succeeding in college.  And don't be fooled, the middle class is still the largest group in the USA.  Yes, interest rates are too high.  But there are already many scholarships and grants that most people can get IF they actually cared enough to try and get in high school.  Sorry, Bernie, it would back fire.

Creating decent paying jobs--Claims he would put 13 million people to work.  But doing what?  In a perfect world everyone would have a job and work according to their ability and need.  All would afford their luxury and accrue their desires.  But in a perfect world he is wrong.  Look at the jobs he said he would create:roads, transit systems, bridges, airports, seaports, etc.  We can agree that these replaced.  But his plan is to create government paying jobs to get these done.  Who would pay for it?  The middle class again.  If these need done give incentives for privately owned construction workers to be hired.  Local communities should be in charge of it.  But taxes would still have to be raised somehow to pay for this, unless the local communities could find other ways to do it.  This one is a no-win situation.  But who would your rather have in charge of the project, the government or the one who works for a living?  Sorry Bernie, the concept is great but it needs improved.

Supporting Black Colleges--Providing higher education opportunities for African-American students.  In a perfect world ALL students/people of ALL ethnicities would have this opportunity.  No discrimination.  No racism.  But in a perfect world he is wrong, these type of programs only offer more divisive opportunities.  How would offering these programs help African-American students?  They are not offering real world opportunities.  In a real world we are all on the same page and those who do the best should get the best.  Many of these colleges are watered-down and do not give a real world view.  There should be no "white" colleges, no "black" colleges, no "all-male" colleges, and no "all-female" colleges.  If we want true equality then we do not water down anything.  We do not make things easier for people to do, that just makes people lazier.  We need to add programs that offer challenge, innovation, motivation, and inspiration for ALL Americans.  In a world of division, especially created by Obama, and can see where a Trump presidency would go, we need someone who brings unity not more division.  Sorry, Bernie, this would add to racism, not equality.

Expand Social Security--In a perfect world we would all be able to retire at a young age and be able to live off what we made and have some left over to give to the next generation.  All would be able to afford their medical expenses and have a next egg for rainy days.  But in a perfect world he is wrong because first of all social security is an insurance program.  INSURANCE!  Not something that should be controlled by the government.  It's YOUR money, shouldn't YOU decide what to do with it?  The program was not supposed to be a permanent solution to a temporary problem (1930's).  If you expand SSI then again, it has to be paid for by someone.  What we need are incentives for people to save their money.  The government should not tell you what do to with your money and how much you need to save.  If people are dumb enough to waste their own money then that is their own allotted stupidity.  This is just another program that makes us lazier and tells people let someone else pay for you.  The private sector could hire thousands of people and offer a competitive retirement plans, even off of Wall Street.

The Iran Deal-- He supports the Iran nuclear deal.  In a perfect world there would be no nuclear weapons.  No war.  No terrorism.  No bad trade deals.  But unfortunately for this issue we are nit in a perfect world.  Iran had proven time and time again that they are a country that reneges on deals and has supported terrorism all over the world.  What should be done is a deal that says prove your worthiness first; the more you comply the more you will be given.  They have already broken the del twice and nothing has been done.   Sorry, Bernie, Iran needs to be dealt  with not made a deal with.

Racial justice--Black lives matter.   If you say no to this then take your seat in the back of the bus and be quiet.  But black lives matter campaign is actually the negative response to injustice.  Blaming the police for everything is not right.  If you break the law then expect consequences and if you resist arrest what is a police officer supposed to do, wait for something bad to happen and then respond?  Sorry Bernie, all lives matter and if it comes down to supporting the criminals or the police then standing behind those in blue is a better choice.  Where are all the protest against violence and crimes period?  If we had no crime then police would be less needed.  They are under fire today because they have perhaps the worst job to do.  If they can't use force then the criminal wins.  If they use force then they are villainized.  He claims that African-Americans are disenfranchised since they have a felony on their record.  Well, all felons have this done to them.  Should there be a way for felons to get back their vote?  Sure.  But those in prison do not get the right to say, remember they are there because they took someone else's right away with their criminal act.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/21/police-kill-more-whites-than-blacks-but-minority-d/?page=all
https://www.yahoo.com/news/maryland-policeman-killed-unprovoked-attack-chief-005009853.html

Other issues he is wrong about but too long to go into:  abortion, higher tax brackets, and Obamacare.  See labels for these.

Now he does have some good ideas but how can we get them done?  Equal pay, fair immigration law, caring for our veterans, supporting family values (although we disagree on what that is), climate change (although don't go extreme).

These are just seven components of what makes Bernie Sanders' presidential bid bad for America.  Everything he is promising sounds good in a prefect world.  And that is what Karl Marx said; a utopia.  But we know utopia does not work when the government will have to intervene so many times.  Socialism is socialism, it doesn't matter what word you put in front of it.  Socialism on paper may open the way for equality and a friendlier atmosphere but it reality it only causes laziness and more division.  People feel entitled to everything and they are not.  Some would always have to work to get us everything we need.  There would still be the haves and the have nots only the haves would have less than they do now.  Hundreds of thousands of Americans have given their lives to fight the tyranny of socialism and communism.  They fought for freedom and so that people can have the free will that we have.  They died defending the right to choose.  And now we have candidates who support the idea of taking away individual choice but disguise it as "democratic socialism".  Change is not good just because it's change.

And perhaps the biggest point is, where in all of history has socialism been good for the whole?  Not one society has been successful without killing, propaganda, and anything of the like.  No thank you.

#12 The history of Obama.

Barack Hussein Obama:

Who is this man?  Why did we vote for him twice?  Why was re-elected?  Look at his history and you decide.

In his 20's.

• He graduated from Columbia University and Harvard Law School, with honors.  He served as president of Harvard Law Review.  He studied to be a lawyer.  That is the first warning sign.  He studied to learn how to twist words so that no one can understand.  But don't call him articulate because you would be a racist.
• He worked as a "community organizer" for three years.  No one to this day can understand what that job entailed or why it was important.

In his 30's

• He worked as a part-time lawyer and law school lecturer.  The question is why couldn't he be a full time lawyer?  What exactly is a "lecturer"?  Apparently he wasn't good enough to become a full-time lawyer, nor a "professor".
• Ahh, but maybe he didn't have time since he started to write his autobiographies already.  Wow, to be this young, non-vital to any system yet be so important that he would write his own story.
• He married Michelle and had two girls.  No one ever said he was a bad husband or father.  So it will never be said here either.
• After no major lawyer firm would hire him, he ran for Illinois State Senate and served for 7 years.  He had no leadership role after 7 years.  He wrote no legislation.  He voted "present" over 100 times instead of making any decisions.  Probably because he started to hang out with American terrorists like William Ayers.  He started going to a church that taught hatred from Rev. Wright.

In his 40's

• He ran for US Senate from Illinois and beat Alan Keyes in 2004.  He served four years, only 2/3 of what people elected him for.  No leadership role.  No legislation that amounted to anything.  But oh my, he gave a very articulate very well typed speech at the DNC making a name for himself and planting the seed to move on to his next useless endeavor.  He started his presidential run only 304 days after his start in the Senate.
• He stated that adding trillions to the debt was unpatriotic and irresponsible.  Meanwhile not putting his hand over his heart while others said the pledge.
• His wife added that for the first time in history she was proud of her country.
• He promised to cut the deficit, he promised lower unemployment rates, he promised to bring the troops home from day one.    He promised to work with other political parties.  He promised the most transparent administration in history. He said he would sit down personally with rogue leaders.  He said he would shut down Guantanamo Bay and bring prisoners here on our soil.  It is said he made 500 promises but has kept 120 of them.  The problem lies with the ones he kept.  Obama's promises
• He said the Mid-West people cling to guns and religion. He said abortion was above his pay grade.
• He became president in 2009.
• He picked Joe Biden to the VP, twice.
• He won the Nobel Peace Prize for a speech.  No actions, just a speech.

In his 50's

• He passed an $800 billion stimulus (while in his 40's) that has proven to be a failure (in his 50's).  For the record, the Conservative Papers was a proponent of a bailout but not how the contract was created--no accountability for those who received it.  He promised the unemployment rate would drop to below 6% after four years.  Not once, has it come close.  For 45 straight months unemployment has been over 8% with one dip to 7.8%.  And these numbers only reflect those who are still actually looking for a job.
• He has added $5 trillion in new debt in less than four years, fastest growing debt of any president in history.  Not just largest in history but growing faster as well.  So much so that we have to borrow even more.
• He has bowed to at least three foreign leaders but didn't sit down with them.
• He denied the surge for our troops then recanted.
• He censored news media that did not show him in a positive way. (FOX News)
• He ended the war in Iraq almost 2 years after he said he would.
• He went to Turkey and never mentioned the genocide.
• He felt like he had to apologize for America being affluent and resourceful.
• He shut the GOP out of stimulus meetings.  Meanwhile pushing for the investment in failed technology like Solyndra. 
• He pushed through Congress an illegal vote on Obamacare by allowing extra time for none other than Ohio's Sherrod Brown to come back and vote after the allotted time expired that would have killed the bill in debate.  It was passed 60-40.  Sixty votes were needed on this type of bill.
• He has allowed the highest number of food stamps, the highest number of people on welfare and blames people who earned their money for poverty.
• His platform kicks God out and gets booed for helping our greatest Middle-eastern ally.
• He has covered up the tragedy n Benghazi by lying about emails from the White House.
• He gave the order to kill bin Laden.  Good.

His answers to all of this:

Any positive results---It is unprecedented.

Any negative results---It's Bush's fault.

The man became president with very little private sector experience.  So what made us think he could run a country?  He passed no legislation in his 11 years as a senator.  So what made us think he could pass legal laws as president?  His promises of hope and change had to be changed because we lost hope.  So what makes us think he will carry us "forward"?

Even though at mid-term election time the country made the largest (unprecedented) switch in history back to the GOP in Congress (63 DEM voted out), the nation will be stupid enough to vote for him again.

Note:  Most of the factual information used here in this Paper is from a publication called Decision 2012 that used reuters.com, businessweek.com, whitehouse.gov, treasurydirect.gov, and NBC News broadcasting as resource.  There are of course opinions that lay down evidence of why this President is a failure.

#11 Calculating the candidates.

With less than a month now left to the Iowa Caucuses get underway, a process given too much importance to by the way,  here is a list of what to look for in a candidate.

The GOP:

• Those who do not matter are Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, John Kaisich, John Gilmore, and Rand Paul.  These four should just drop out and save money, time, and effort.  Their time is over and they perhaps should never run again.
• The bottom tier:

1. Chris Christie, New Jersey, two terms as a Republican governor is a very Democrat-hyped state, former prosecutor, former US Attorney.  Hot headed and out spoken at times (even his website says "Telling it like it is", but that may be due to his New Jersey background.  Often criticized for his weight.  His biggest obstacle though is his dealings with the shut down on the George Washington Bridge.  He was acquitted of all wrong doings but there is still doubt.  He is not part of Washington but has been part of the establishment recently.  His governorship brings his leadership ability up.  https://www.chrischristie.com/  Assessment:  Conservative values= 8, Leadership abilities= 7 Corrupted by DC= -1
2. Carly Fiorina, California, former CEO of Hewlett Packard, and AT&T.  A formidable opponent to Clinton but only because of her female status.  She did run HP but bad times hit and under her leadership it lost a lot of its stock value (could have been anyone at the time). Her emotionless features do not make her unattractive as Trump said, but makes seem her unattached to the people.  Even when she gets angry she shows no emotion and he voice never shows any inflection. But being part of the anti-establishment allows her to not be persuaded by lobbyists however Wall St might.  https://www.carlyforpresident.com/  Assessment: Conservative values= 9 Leadership abilities= 5 Corrupted by DC= 2
3. Jeb Bush, Florida, former two term governor of Florida, former business entrepreneur.  A family man with family values.  Almost everything he has been a part of has succeeded; his business actions, his terms as governor have mostly been viewed as positive barring any bias.  His biggest problems though are of course his name, although out of all the Bushes in politics he is probably the most stable, his business actions some think were unethical, and his personality is less than desirable.  He is even tempered but seems to smile at the wrong times. His strengths are that he knows how to be an executive and he has been out of the Washington loop for years.  https://jeb2016.com/  Assessment:  Conservative values= 9, Leadership abilities= 9, Corruption by DC= 0
4. John Kasich, Ohio, governor, former 9-term Representative of Ohio, business entrepreneur.  They either hated him or loved him in Ohio.  He has been known to fly off the handle but then turn around and be the calm one at the table.  He fought against unions but then backed down when Ohians said no to that.  He has executive experience but has been part of Washington problems before.  He is successful in his business endeavors.  He has turned Ohio around from the disaster that Ted Strickland brought.  His problem is he is not known.  His speaking skills are irritating.  And he karate chops the world when he speaks.  https://www.johnkasich.com/  Assessment:  Conservative values= 9, Leadership abilities= 8, Corruption by DC= -2

• The top tier:

1. Marco Rubio, Florida, three term Senator, five term state Representative in Florida.  Only one of three Hispanics in the Senate, he came from a upper class family who lived the American dream.  Although many will say that is his problem because even though he came from a upper class family he had his own financial issues.  He stands up for family values but his work in the Senate as been scrutinized for his lack of appearances.  His views seem to be very solid but he has been too much involved with Washington in the recent pass.  He may have good values and views but can he show up and do the job? https://marcorubio.com/  Assessment:  Conservative values= 10, Leadership ability= 6, Corruption by DC= -2
2. Ben Carson, Maryland but from Michigan, Neurosurgeon.  Former job hunter until he was accepted into medical school.  Credited with performing the first successful separation of Siamese twins joined at the head.  Part of many business board of directors.  He has published eight books.  He broke through poverty and showed what can be done when you actually rely on yourself and not the government.  He has no political experience but has been director of John Hopkins Hospital.  A great speaker, he has good ideas but perhaps too soft spoken. Could he lead with that type of demeanor?  https://www.bencarson.com/  Assessment: Conservative values= 9, Leadership abilities= 4, Corruption by DC= 1
3. Donald Trump, New York, Entrepreneur, TV Mogul.  Loud, obnoxious, but doesn't stand down to anyone.  His "outside Washington anger" is what fuels his campaign.  His executive decision making is what makes his leadership appeal strong.  But his values seem to change with time and his family values can be highly argued.  His wit can be either sharp or offensive and sometimes both.  He has the guile to be a leader but what he says may sometimes be too confrontational and divisive.  Her may not be corrupted by Washington but he may be corrupted by Wall St and even worse, Hollywood.  https://www.donaldjtrump.com/  Assessment:  Conservative values= 6, Leadership abilities= 7, Corruption by DC= 1
4. Ted Cruz, Texas, two term Senator, has held three government positions besides Senator and was a professor law in Texas.  He knows a lot about Constitutional law as that is what he taught in Texas. He is a family man full of family values.  His major problem is his attitude.  He comes across as confrontational and unsympathetic.  He is part of the establishment  as he has had many government jobs but none of them in the executive role but is also not really part of the mainstream corruption.  https://www.tedcruz.org/ Assessment:  Conservative values= 9, Leadership abilities= 7, Corruption by DC= 0

The DEMs:

• There is only now on tier as the bottom two have dropped out.

1. Bernie Sanders, Vermont, two term Senator, former EIGHT term congressman from Vermont, former Mayor in Vermont, small odd jobs including filmmaker.  Actually, an "independent" he always sides with the Democrats.  His socialist ideas are not mainstream but is the Donald Trump of the democrats as he reflects the "outside Washington anti-establishment for liberals" side.  He is very progressive and outspoken but has been in Washington for the last 18 years and has no competition in his small populated liberal state but he has no executive experience. His policies would be like Obama on steroids but with less prejudice. https://go.berniesanders.com/page/content/splash  Assessment:  Conservative values= 1, Leadership abilities= 6, Corruption by DC= -1
2. Martin O'Malley, Maryland, three term governor, former Mayor of Baltimore and city council for 16 years, served as chair of DEM governors.  A family man but fights for non-traditional family values.  He has not been part of Washington per se, his mother is highly involved in the last 30 years.  He did accomplish a lot during his tenures in all of his positions. and many of them have been positive in return.  https://martinomalley.com/  Assessment:  Conservative values= 2, Leadership abilities= 8, Corruption by DC= 1
3. Hillary Clinton, New York, former Sec of State, former two term Senator from New York, former First Lady of the US, former First Lady of Arkansas, former lawyer, involved with many charities.  She has been part of Washington for the last 23 years, by far longer than any other candidate.  Her problems are far more than this page can hold, scandal after scandal has followed her but perhaps the biggest is still happening, her TWO FBI investigations into her emails and Benghazi where four Americans were killed because of her indecision. She has done a lot more than Obama in her career does play the family woman very well expressing her being a grandmother all the time.  She is the queen of all promisers.  https://www.hillaryclinton.com/  Assessment:  Conservative values= 5, Leadership abilities= 1, Corruption by DC= -5

Add these all up and here are the rankings from worst to best:

1. Clinton= 1
2. Sanders=  6
3. O'Malley= 11
4. Trump = 14
5. Carson = 14
6. Christie= 14
7. Rubio = 14
8. Kasich= 15
9. Cruz= 16
10. Fiorina= 16
11. Bush= 18

Yes, the best candidate is again a Bush.  Read 'em and weep.  The best ticket would be Bush/Cruz.  The worse ticket would be Clinton/Anybody.

**note:  John Kasich was added later due to his late arrival to the race**

#5 Hobby Lobby stands up against the liberal war facades.

The newest "war on women"; the Supreme Court's decision to allow places like Hobby Lobby to disregard certain parts of Affordable Health Care Act (aka Obamacare) has been said to be another piece on the war on women.  There are many flaws with this assumption, or better this accusation.

1. First and foremost, the Act is a war on the middle class because it was created by lies about what it was supposed to be.  It was not supposed to be a tax but nonetheless the same Supreme Court said it was.  But this is a different story that has been chewed on way too many times, though the American people keep getting choked on it, including yours truly.  Who gets the burden the most for this tax? The middle class does.
2. Secondly, the Act is war on American democratic values by forcing people to pay for other's life choices.  Why should people who choose to live a healthier life have to pay for others who chose to live a riskier life?  This is what charities are for.  Why should people be forced to pay for things that are disagreeable?  Why is birth-control considered "health care" anyway?  People choose to have sexual relations.  If Americans are not forced to do something then they are more than likely open to give to the charities that are closer to their hearts.  Again, this is another topic that has been rehashed too many times, so let's move on.
3. Thirdly, and more on this topic, not this decision nor Hobby Lobby's stance is a war on women.  As a matter of fact it is actually the other sides' war on conservative values, if you will.  Not only forcing the average American to pay for unwanted actions or immoral choices, as in point number 2, but forcing religious groups to support not only life choices as aforementioned but the consequences of those life choices as well that go against their value systems.  But that's okay, apparently, to the liberal culture. Again, how is birth control considered health care? 
4. Fourthly, if this is a war on women then it is a war on conservative women who are made out to be sycophants or not real women in their thinking.  There are plenty of women who do not believe in abortion, or even birth control sometimes.  Yet, we have women who are in leadership positions that claim all women's rights are being threatened by this decision.  That is another lie.
5. Lastly for this paper, this is not a war Hobby Lobby has against its female employees but rather it is a war on companies like Hobby Lobby who have religious leadership.  Hobby Lobby did not say that were going to deny their female employees any coverage as a whole but only wanted the mandatory coverage on what is known as the abortion pill to be dropped.  Hobby Lobby is a Christian organization, and to be quite frank and all personal bias aside, is one of the best organizations in the country.  The lie that goes with this part says that this opens the way for other religious organizations to opt out of some of the Act.  These are the same people who argue about separation of church and state, mind you.  If we actually have this "separation" then religious organizations have always had and should always have this option anyway.  But, since this goes against liberal "values" then the separation is not valid (sarcasm).

Overall, the decision does not hurt women in any way, shape, or form.  If women who work for Hobby Lobby or the Catholic Church in a related topic that do not get the health care they wanted from these organizations, isn't that what the open enrollment for Obamacare was all about?  If they don't like their coverage, they do not have to take it and can sign up for their own personal account with the AHCA.  The rest is just liberal lies.  The real war on women is our culture.  Change the culture and there is no more war.

#4 What is the purpose of government?

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The definition of government is a group of people who control or make decisions for a country or state.  There are technically two types of government; democracy and dictatorship.  Everything else, whether a president, king, or parliament rules will fall into these two categories; no matter what Wikipedia says.  People will have difference of opinion when it comes to what the government can do or what it is meant to do and that causes the variances.  But in the United States it is clear what type we are supposed to have and what they are supposed to do.  Yet, people living in the United States are either ignorant to what the Constitution actually says or they refuse to live by it.

The articles of the Constitution explain the type.  We are a federal republic, or more specifically, a presidential democracy.  A democracy led by an elected president but with three separate branches of government to ensure that no one person could become too powerful.  It is also separated to ensure that laws that are created are for the progress of the electors and not for the elected.  But how?  This is where those famous words written in 1781 become so important.

• We the People of the United States.  Many will argue that this statement written back in 1787 was a racist/discriminatory remark.  And left alone in its historical context could be made out to be that way.  Was it meant for only male, white, property owners?  Again, by itself, maybe.  But read on.  They knew that white male property owners were "in charge".  But they did not use that language.  They easily could have.  This they knew would leave room for future discussion.  Today it means anyone who is an American citizen.  But the most important issue of this statement is that the people are in control, not the government.  The people should have more power than the government.  Small government.
• in Order to form a more perfect Union.  The framers knew they had come from a non-perfect world.  They knew what they were doing was not perfect either.  They wanted a MORE perfect union.  This means they knew in the future it would have to be changed.  But for now the laws they were establishing would serve as a better way to life than Britain.
• establish Justice.  Not to perfect justice, but establish it.  They were laying the foundations for a system that would create fairness.  But again, a more perfect union.  Justice may not always seem fair.  Some will always be on the short end of the stick.  What is fair for some may not be fair for others.
• insure domestic Tranquility.  Peace within our borders was one of our first and foremost priorities.
• provide for the common defence.  Securing our borders was another priority.
• promote the general Welfare.  The welfare this speaks of is not the Welfare System.  Oddly enough there are people who quote this line and say people should get everything provided by the government.  The goal here is to promote general welfare, not to provide for it.  Welfare also means how people are doing, not what they are given.  The system is supposed to promote ways for people to do better, not provide people things to be better.  Plus, the word general means "overall" not "everyone".
• and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.  It all comes down to this.  They created this paper so the future will have a chance.
• do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.  Establish again means to start, not to end.  This was the beginning of an experiment.  No one had ever created what we were about to create.  A new nation is now upon the face of the earth.  One that will be watched for almost 240 years now.  Many will hate it.  Many will want to destroy it.  But it can not be argued, most want to be it.

Why was it written? he American people just ten years earlier were being treated unfairly.  Laws were passed that they deemed were biased and hurt them only, economically and politically.  But it is more than just what was being passed.  It was more about who was passing them; a foreign land, someone who knew nothing about the American culture anymore.  A tyrant in our eyes since he did not allow the people to speak.  Anyone who said things against this tyrant could have had major penalties placed upon them.   Any action without justification would be met with unwarranted oppression.  That is where the Declaration of Independence comes in.  The early Americans committed treason but luckily won the war.  The ones who wrote this paper would either be considered heroes or traitors.  They needed to write something with purpose. 

Then after the war the framers wanted to form a government that was opposite of what they just broke away from.  The result?  The Articles of Confederation, a failure.  Why?  Because they allowed too much individualism.  The need for a new government was imminent.  The Preamble paves the way for that new government; one with a purpose.  This Constitution is by far the government paper that has changed the world more than any other ever before and so far ever since.  The original purpose of the Constitution still stands.  And that is what conservatives should fight for.

Those who are ignorant about the Constitution should get an education.  Those who refuse to live by it can leave.

#3 Liberalism stresses rationalization.

Rational: able to think and reason clearly.

Rationalize: to make rational.

At first these two words seem to be saying the same thing.  However, if you really look into it then you can see that they are not.  To be rational, one would have to be able to think for themselves and be able to have reasoning skills.  In other words, they can comprehend the basic laws of the universe since they would be common sense.  To rationalize does not mean to use these thinking and reasoning skills in real life. Notice the definition says to make rational, which means you have to try to turn something into being rational.  It is something people twist into what they think is real thereby stupefying themselves as they do it because they start to really believe in the lie they have created.  At this point morality takes a back seat or is even thrown out the window.

Follow the link below. Not only is it one of the funniest routines from the funniest of all comedy teams but it will explain this whole line of thinking processes. Abbott and Costello

Those who believe in liberalism can not be rational because all they do is rationalize.  They think war is unneeded yet they think at the same time murdering an innocent baby is valid.  Look at these two issues and watch how liberalism uses the process of rationalization to destroy the true argument and the morality.  Here is an example their line of thought and how they come up with their final view on these two issues:

1. Violent actions should be diffused by diplomacy.  This is a rational thought because diplomacy should always be the first reaction to everything.  But it does not answer all the problems that pose society and history shows that.  Some people can not be dealt with when it comes to certain situations.
2. War is a form of violence.  This is a rational thought, however, war in order to gain independence from a tyrant could be justified.  The thought process is starting to break down.
3. Violence is never the answer.  This is a semi-rational thought.  In a perfect world it would be a perfect answer.  However, when someone has broken into your home and is threatening your whole family and the only way to save them is by taking out the one who is holding them hostage, then violence has become an answer.
4. Therefore war should never be used.  And the final thought through liberalism has become rationalization.  Making something rational by a flawed process, hence, liberalism.  It is common sense, or dare say rational, to say that a dictator who is killing thousands of people, perhaps even millions, needs to be disposed of before it gets worse (remember Hitler and appeasement?). This goes with terrorists as well. How many more have to die before they control the world in fear?

Here is a second example.  Watch how the process breaks down but it still seems like good rationale:

1. Women have rights.  Rational.
2. Women have bodies.  Rational.
3. Women get pregnant.  Rational, but not all of them.
4. Women have financial problems.  Rational, but not all of them.
5. Women can't live with financial problems and add more problems by having a baby.  Partially rational and the rest is bogus.  People can get by no matter what problem they are facing.
6. Babies can't live on their own therefore they aren't babies yet they are fetuses.  And the process breaks down again.  Not even babies on the outside of the womb can survive by themselves.
7. Therefore women have the right to abort fetuses who may cause more financial problems when they are babies.  The rational has become rationalized again.  A baby is a human life form no matter what stage it is in.  Even if it is considered a fetus, it is still human.  It has a heart, stomach, cells, senses, emotions and other human features at a very early stage.

The last one was not a shot towards women, or even women who have had abortions.  It was a shot towards the thinking process that got them to that point.

The same goes with the health care issue.  Liberals can not understand why conservatives want to "take away the chance for someone to have health care".  Conservatives must be Nazis; they must hate the poor and women.  Liberalism uses the rationalization process to decide that conservatives are bad people who only want to hurt others and are greedy because they do not want to give up some of their wealth to those who are less fortunate.  This is not the case.  No one wants to deny anyone health care.  They just don't believe in forcing people to pay for others without their consent.  Fact:  Conservatives give to charities and they give more than those on the side of liberalism.  It should be a choice.  Forcing people into doing something is dictatorship.  Conservatives also just want to deny creating special rights to fit other people's choices and ways of life.  No one should have to pay for abortion when they do not believe in it.  No one should have to help pay for stomach staples, face lifts, nicotine gum, contraceptives, penicillin shots for certain diseases, or anything as stupid as these sound.  The health care bill has already opened the door for that to happen.  The argument that liberalism has claims people will die without this health care.  Fact:  no one is turned down from a hospital due to having no insurance.  It is against the law to do that.  No immediate life-threatening situation would go untreated due to no health care.

Liberalism- the Costello ideology; it multiplies 13 times 7 and gets 28.  And worse yet, it makes sense to those who practice liberalism.

Remember if you break the word rationalize into two separate words you get: Rational Lies. (lies that are clear).

#2 Why liberalism is not the answer.

Why doesn't Liberalism work?  If all practiced the idea of liberalism it would die off.  It can't survive without Conservatism. There would be nothing for them to argue with or try and ruin for the rest of the majority.  Liberalism creates an atmosphere that causes dissension and contradictions.

• Liberalism states it wants freedom of speech yet when someone who disagrees with it speaks up on how they feel they are called racists, bigots, homophobes, hate-mongers, or go as far as having the ACLU sent after them.
• Liberalism states there should be more voting rights but even the Democratic National Convention has things called Super Delegates who possibly can overrule the will of the rest of their voters in the primaries.
• Liberalism states human rights violators around the world should be dealt with but when America deals with the violators, especially with military action, then we become the violators.
• Liberalism states the sanctity of human life is important and all should be free to make up their own minds yet it allows for the murder of innocent babies who can't speak for themselves.
• Liberalism states individual rights are natural but it stands for government programs that are man-made.
• Liberalism states the Constitution should be defended yet the ideas of liberalism allows interpretations into what it means instead of reading exactly what it says.
• Liberalism states there should be pursuit of happiness yet want to set up government programs that force people into using welfare and not allow them to have a choice in a medical facility/insurance/health care company of their own choice; and then force other Americans who do not agree with this into paying higher taxes for these programs.
• Liberalism states family values should be strong but the definition of family is so vague in liberalism that anything could be considered "family value".

There is no set of common morals to go by under liberalism.  Without any set of common morals there would be less order almost to the point of anarchy.  Without any set of common morals there are no consequences. Liberalism kills people in all kinds of ways.  It kills them openly.  It kills them silently.  It kills them mentally, emotionally, physically and spiritually but liberalism hides it.  And to the defense of those who practice liberalism, they believe they are doing the right thing.  The essence of liberalism is based on human flaws and its reasoning is based on human rationalization; human ignorance at its worse.  It takes away everything traditional.  It may take away all the mores and folk lore that hinder progress but it also takes away the values and morals that keep people going and that has kept people going since the creation of man.  With these traditions and morals diminished it sets up vulnerability to inside destruction such as what happened with Rome and other famous societies.  Americans lose their identity this way.  Yes, we are a melting pot, if you will, but the melting pot melted common goals and beliefs into one.  Liberalism allows the melting pot to become more of a salad bowl.

People wonder today why they hurt.  People wonder what is wrong with society and other people.  It's because they have been fed with the lie of liberalism for way too long.  When they actually hear the truth they are afraid of it.  It makes them so scared they get sick about it.  Fear makes us say things and do things that are not logical. And because of this fear any ounce of conservatism seems wrong to them, especially the logic of the Judeo-Christian value system.

#1 What is a true conservative?

A typical conservative will believe in most of the following in no particular order:

1. Establishing a system of morality- setting up an agreed upon system of values, mores, folk lores, and morals.  Without trying to infringe upon other people's beliefs the system is closely tied to Judeo-Christian Biblical values.
2. Sanctity of life- stopping the act of abortion.  Knowing that some circumstances may cause moral dilemmas, the bottom line is trying to protect the innocent that do not have a voice for themselves.
3. Preserving the Constitution and the Declaration- the original ideas, not the interpretation of it. Understanding that the Founding Fathers were not perfect and were ill guided due to their economic practices, the original ideas they had set up are by far the greatest in history as a country.
4. Strong military- maintaining a presence in the world.  Keeping the status quo with the power of persuasion and the idea of total protection for all its citizens from outside threats is to be seen by all.
5. Nuclear family values- building the strongest of families.  Wanting to keep traditional roles of the family, with the authority in the hands of the parents; one man, one woman, and only one of each as the greatest structure of a community.
6. Market System- opportunities.  Creating an atmosphere for innovation, invention, and progress without purposefully hurting others in the process.
7. Low taxes- it's your money.  Collecting only enough money from its citizens to keep a honest form of government running efficiently.
8. Preserving American way of life- Preserving the traditions, symbols, culture, and history of the ideas of Americans; not to conform to the rest of the world or be told by the rest of the world what to do; i.e., patriotism.
9. Death penalty- for punishment and deterrent.  Protecting and establish justice for the victim over the guilty.
10. Small government- no Big Brother.  All of the above wraps up into this idea.  With as little interference as possible from the federal government the people should be able to pursuit their happiness without interfering with the values and happiness of others.

These 10 ideas of conservatism are what this site will focus on.  If and when there is a subject that infringes upon these 10 ideas or effects these 10 ideas then perhaps a "paper" will be written.  Until then please refer to Discover your political view and Discover your economic view to start your journey.