#27 The New Abortion laws.

There have been a few laws lately being passed in state legislatures that abortion is now a hot topic once again.  Ohio, Kentucky, Virginia, New York just to name a few are either banning more procedures or allowing more procedures.  And the internet is going wild with stupidity.

It all comes down to human life.  We know that.  The question is, "when does life begin?".  One side says it is at conception.  One side says it's not until the baby is outside the mother's womb.  And another side says it is somewhere in between.  The answer is it is at conception.

Why is it not when the baby is finally outside the womb?  In no particular order:

A baby can survive outside the womb at 6 months.  So the last 3 months there is a fully functional life form.  Yes, it will need help to survive, but so does a 3 year old.  Here is an extreme but it is valid.  A baby that is being delivered is a few seconds from being "expelled" from the womb but is still connected by an umbilical cord.  How is one second the difference?  What if the woman accidentally pushed at the last second while the baby is being aborted and the child comes out...is it still abortion or murder?

Why is it not just before 24 weeks?  One argument I have seen in the last few months is ridiculous. One person said it's not a baby until 24 weeks, or 6 months.  He was claiming it was the same as a tumor before this point since it is "living".  Why is that wrong?  Again, in no particular order:

A tumor is an abnormal growth that hurts the body of the host.  The tumor cannot develop into something that can think, feel, and love.  The baby even before this magical 24 week period is destined given no tragedy to develop into a fully grown adult.  The tumor has no destiny.  The tumor left alone will in most cases kill the host and die with the host.  The baby left alone will continue to grow and push its way out and then continue to develop into an adult.  The person claimed tumors are life so it's the same as human life.  He also claimed there is a difference between human life and personhood.  That is a weak excuse.  Tumors are living cells but not human life.  Human life means there is soul.  A soul means feelings, thoughts, emotions and so forth are apparent.  Tumors will never develop into that.  Personhood I understand what they are saying is when rights are given to the human.  But what makes them human then?  This person claimed that human life is no more important than any other life.  That is not accurate.

Plants are monochotomous.  They only adapt and react to the environment.  They share no feelings.  They don't raise children.  They don't fall in love.  Animals are dichotomous.  They have feelings.  They show personality.  But they show no conviction.  They only have fight or flight response.  They make be able to think but they cannot reason the way we reason.  Humans are trichotomous.  We not only adapt.  We not only have personality.  We have more than just other life forms.  We have purpose.  We understand.  This is why we can eat plants with no problem.  This is why we feel we can eat certain animals.  But we do not eat humans.  So for this person to say that human life is no more important than other life must be ok with eating people.

Ok.  So that brings in law.  Roe v Wade made abortion legal.  Yes it is law and we have to respect that.  But keep in mind, the law allowed slavery at one point.  The law said African-Americans (slaves) counted as 3/5 of a person.  Just because it is law does not mean it is correct.  It only means how things are interpreted for the times.  However, it doesn't matter what laws are out there.  Laws will not stop abortion nor curb it.  The culture feels the need for it because of who we are.  Our promiscuity calls for abortion because many want to do the deed but not take responsibility for their actions.  And yes, both women and men need to take that responsibility.

Then the person talked about morality and claimed morality is subjective. 

That is both accurate and inaccurate.  It is accurate because people think they know better than other people so their ideas are superior.  It is in accurate because if we all have different morality systems and cannot agree on anything then the human race will die out.  It will be chaotic with no answers.  Murder is wrong.  We all agree with that.  We have an objective morality system.

The subjectiveness comes in the definition.  And those with no conscience or remorse (anti-social tendencies) define murder in a demented way, hence...abortion is not murder.

We live in a sick world.  This person is just an example of how sick we have become.  We have taken life and have downgraded it to a group of cells with no purpose.  This is what liberals and atheists have done.  Ohio and Kentucky may have the right heart but as stated before until the culture changes it won't matter how many laws there are banning abortion.  But on the other side laws that Virginia and New York are passing just send us down that pathway of destruction even farther.  Thank you liberals and atheists.

#24 Ideologies are the real issue

An ideology is a set of beliefs that affects who we are. An ideology forms our feelings and thoughts. It is the way we see the world. To each person this is how we separate truth from fiction. Ideologies can be extreme or very subtle. Ideologies at first are neither positive nor negative but many will consider them to be negative due to many people who go to extremes to get their point across. They can be overpowering or they can even be just casual. But, ideologies, no matter what type, all share certain types of characteristics.  Below is a list of these characteristics:

1. They all are theories about human interactions. A theory is an idea that explains a situation. It is not always the exact truth but a way of understanding an event or topic. Most theories are filled with facts, perceived facts, or some kind of data that backs up the idea. Not all theories are ideologies but all ideologies are theories. Such as the theory of evolution is not an ideology. But if all you can do is think about the theory of evolution then it becomes your ideology.  Evolution is just a way of explaining our existence, hence a theory.  But if you make everything revolve around evolution, like it explains each and every part of our existence then it has become your ideology.  For the most, ideologies want to explain how humans interact with each other. The individual uses ideologies to also explain why they feel humans should feel, believe, or act a certain way. 
2. They are built upon a struggle of human existence. Ideologies are formed when an individual, or groups of individuals, see a struggle in society. They try and change the things that may have caused the struggle. Ideologies then tend to help individuals form groups for support. Each struggle has a reason why it happened.
3. They are systematic, usually organized. Ideologies have programs that people get involved, in other words, they are more than just ideas; they turn into actions. People who believe in certain ideologies tend to stick together and stand up for each other even if there may be some differences, controversies, or humiliation. 
4. They grow by seeking recruits. Ideologies gather support by individuals spreading a certain idea.
5. They need rationalization as their basis. This is where perhaps many of the groups get the most negative imagery from the rest of the population. Rationalization uses pieces of truth and creates a larger idea that is not exactly the complete truth, yet the believer in the ideology believes it. Hence, this where point number one above comes back into the conversation. This larger idea becomes the main theory of the ideological group.  All ideologies have some kind of intellect or their own kind of logic to back up what they say. 
6. The biggest characteristic is that ideologies are personal. Ideologies can become dangerous to an extent. People who take the theories very personal will believe in it enough to die for it and could perhaps even kill for the belief. When this happens people are called extremists. 

There are many types of ideologies in existence, such as social classifications and lifestyles. But the three most common ideologies deal with politics, economics, and religions. 

Politics in modern day terms can be divided into three categories; liberalism, moderate, and conservatism.  Liberalism expresses openness in society, personal interpretation of morality systems, and personal freedom.  Liberalism ideology.  Conservatism expresses order in society, systematic morality systems, and protection of individuals. Conservatism ideology  Moderates swing to one side or the other depending on the topic. 

Economics have two major categories; capitalism and communism. Capitalism expresses personal choice when it comes to money and less government involvement when it comes to supplies and resources. Communism expresses equality created by the government and control of resources by the government so there will be less wasted by the individual. In capitalism the individual gets to own their own property and can create their own business and have opportunities to make the most they can. In communism the government controls the property and makes the opportunity for all to be equal by dividing the wealth of the people. Economic ideologies

Religion has three thoughts; Theism, anti-Theism, and agnosticism. Theism is a belief in some sort of Supreme Being or essence, if you will. Anti-Theism refers to a belief that claims there is no Supreme Being hatred of any Supreme Being. Agnosticism is the idea that there is a possibility of a Supreme Being but the probability is low.  Religious ideologies

If you noticed most ideologies have the suffix “ism”. This does not mean however that all words with “ism” at the end should be looked at as negative. It strictly means that there are individuals who take the belief seriously or very personal. Not all beliefs turn into extremism. The ones that usually become extremism usually combine one or more ideologies. That is why many people try and quote, “Never mix politics and religion”. Again, that is not to say it is wrong to do it or that it is automatically a negative thing but when it turns into extremism people need to keep an eye on it. Religions at this point become cults. Politics become radical. Economics become a basis for discrimination.

All theories can be looked at but you have to be careful about how far you take it.  There should be no political party ideology.  This split between Republicans and Democrats is an idiotic ideology.  Just because the president and congress may be in different parties does not mean they should automatically stand in each other's way.  You may disagree with a person but that does not mean you have to be their enemy.

#22 Liberalism has killed the Millennials (and they don't even know it)

Looking at the generation that is ready to start their careers and starting the major turns in life puts fear into the hearts of the generations before.  But let's face it, the generations before the millennials are the ones who raised them to be this way.  Nothing, absolutely nothing has destroyed this generation though more than liberalism.  Liberalism always destroys.  Maybe those who believe in feel they are doing good and creating a brave new world but in the end it brings nothing but destruction.

In liberalism, everyone is rewarded.  There are no losers.   In the late 1990's many wrestling tournaments as an example started to change the way they said things.  Instead of saying the "losers' bracket", they would say the "non-winners", as if that was really different.  But what it did show is that apparently we had to start being more careful about what we say to be people, especially children so we didn't destroy their dreams.  Being alive was the achievement.  In reality that is probably accurate given the way we destroy life anyway.  Everyone gets a trophy.  We all meet in the winner's circle.  Even if you're 4'5" you can be the next Michael Jordan because mommy says you can.

• The problem with this way of thinking is that we are setting up false hopes.  Everyone thinks they will succeed because they were part of something.  We are setting an example for these millennials to not have goals.  They end up having no desire to do any better because they are "already winners".  Competition is too difficult for them so many just don't try.  They are afraid of actually losing.  And when they do they make so much drama about it as if once loss destroys all they have done.  That means they only try things that they know they will "win" at.  And because of this they always feel like they are right.  Remember they are never a loser, so they are never wrong.  Try and tell a millennial what they have done wrong and they will answer with some smart remark or give up.  They need to understand that life needs work.  They need to know that sometime things don't go right but you have to keep trying.  Sometimes you are wrong.

In liberalism, they teach that everyone should rely on others on ways to make things easier.  Technology is used by liberals and conservatives alike but listen to the example.  Yes, all technology can be used for good, but most of the time it is used to make things easier, a lazy way out of things.  It's ok to rely on others to get what we need.  Technology is no exception.  Everything is now at our fingertips.  All we have to do is ask Google, Siri, or Echo.  Millennials are constantly on their social devices.  That is how they converse, that is how they research, that is how they listen to music and read, that is how they stay connected with everyone around them, including those in the same room.  Everything has already been done for them.

• The problem with this way of thinking is that one day if all we do is rely on someone else having the answer then no one in the near future will be adding anything new.  We will have run out of those who have already did this and done that.  And because of all of this millennials do not know how to have a real conversation.  Emojis are not real life answers.  They do not know how to read people correctly.  There is no inflection on words.  People do not know how to actually express themselves since they are limited to 140 characters.  Then when they do talk to people they don't know how to control the volume or demeanor of their voices.  Everything sounds like an argument or a misunderstanding.

In liberalism everything is a right.  No matter what we do we have the right to feel a certain way, act a certain way, believe a certain way, or say whatever we want because of the freedom that liberalism stresses.  Yes, freedom of speech is the greatest thing we have but as Peter Parker's Uncle Ben said, "with great power comes great responsibility".  That freedom is often abused.  Just because you have freedom of speech doesn't mean you have to use it all the time.  Some things are not needed, but this generation feels they have the right, as in because they have an opinion, that they should use that right in all conversations.  No, sometimes SHUT-UP!!

• The problem with this way of thinking that if everything is a right, then there are no such things as consequences and we can all do what we want.  Lifestyles can be whatever you want because there are no absolutes.  That is absolutely wrong.  There are absolutes in this world.  But this generation has erased many of those lines we used to have drawn.  Things like abortions, sexual immorality, drunkenness, and drug usage on one side and then omission of caring, inactivity, and tolerance on the other side all hidden in the argument of "basic human rights".  It's not about abortion, it's about a woman's right to choose--wrong.  It's not about one man and one woman, it's about love--wrong.  It's not about using drugs, it's about feeling good--wrong.  The worse part is when you ask them about tolerance, they are only tolerant if they agree with you.  And if they don't agree with you then go back to the first issue above.

In liberalism everything is free and deserved.  Another distortion of basic human rights.  Free college, free health care, free contraceptives.  Where will it stop?  Free food!  Free housing!  Free clothes!  Free cars!  Free manicures!  Free make up!

• The problem with this way of thinking is life doesn't mean you deserve everything.  They feel they should get it no matter what.  They don't have the motivation to be any better.  They forget that somehow, someway, someone will still pay for these things.  How do you get food?  Someone grew it.  How do you get education?  Someone is using their talents to teach you.  How do you get contraceptives?  Well, first of all, have sex when you are ready for the consequences.

In liberalism there should be no religion.  If everyone is right then don't tell me about your religion because who's to say what belief is right?

• The problem with this way of thinking is without religion we have lost the last thing to believe in.  Yes, there are problems with "religions".  That is why people need to find the right thing to believe in, which is a different topic.  But we lost faith in our government.  We lost faith in our parents.  We lost faith in our systems.  The only thing left is our actual faith.  And now we are losing that too.  Without faith in something we lose hope.

This generation has lost all hope.  They have become lovers of themselves, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, and unholy.  It's no wonder why they feel like there is nothing to live for.  And this is what liberalism has caused.

#20 This was a spit in the face of soldiers

If you want to sleep with whoever you want, go ahead.  If you want to express your feelings for whoever, go ahead.  If you want to show your pride in what or how you feel, go ahead.  After all this is the United States, the most free country in the world (Yes, it is, try somewhere else if you don't agree).  But if you do, then don't compare your life or struggles EVER with what our military goes through...EVER!  This picture is not disgusting because of the portrayed homosexual nature.  Who cares?  You're gay?  Then you're gay.  This picture is disgusting because it makes it seem like this community is fighting for the freedom of all people.

Not even close.  The soldiers raising the American flag put their lives on the line not only for the freedom of their own country but for the whole Pacific Ocean and eventually freeing the Japanese from their own form of tyranny.  They dodged real bullets.  The sweat real blood.  They lived in real fear.  And most of all what they did was they fought for real freedom.  What did these on the right do? All they are doing in REALITY is fighting for sexual activity rights.

One could say they are doing it for everyone else but they are the only ones who received any "benefit" out of their struggle.  To be honest if they fought for this then they would fight for incest, bestiality, pedophilia, and necrophilia. NO!  This is NOT comparing these sexual activities with each other.  It is just saying that other sexual activities have a law against it, based on mankind's feelings.  Most homosexuals like most heterosexuals would say that pedophilia is sick.  But why?  They can't argue religious reasons because that is what they say is argued against them.  It is only sick because of our culture saying it is.  A person 40 years old having sex with someone 17 years and 364 days is wrong but the next day it's okay?  Why can't two siblings have sex?  Is it nasty?  By whose terms?  Can't be just religious.  It must be the culture.  So, the fight for freedom here on the right is not like the fight for freedom on the left.

One could say they are fighting against tyranny.  Then who is the tyrannical dictator they are fighting against?  It must be America since they changed the flag.  America must be the enemy since they are raising their own flag.  They must be saying that their flag is more important than all our country's flag.  The US, the freest country in the world, is their tyrannical enemy?

One could say they are fighting for minority groups who don't get a voice.  Why are there no women in the picture?

One could say they are fighting for equality.  Then all flags of all groups should be raised in the picture.  But wait, we already have that flag.  It has 50 stars and 13 stripes on it.

One could say that they are fighting for freedom of speech.  Then what are they saying?  Are they saying they are the new soldiers?  Are they the people who now do all the fighting?  Who knows if the soldiers on the left are gay or straight?  We don't.  But we sure know the ones on the right.

Yes, theirs has been a struggle to become more than 2nd class citizens.  That is understood.  Yes, there has been discrimination to this group of people.  That is understood.  Yes, there is a feeling of not belonging.  That is understood.  It is completely understood that this is not a perfect country or that not all people have had a voice in the past.  But that is NOT what this is about.  It is wrong and in poor taste because of who it replaced.  Nothing more, nothing less.

No.  This, no matter what, no matter how you feel, no matter who you are, is a spit into the face of every soldier that died or fought for the sake of freedom.

#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.

#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.

#9 Abortion is still wrong no matter how you spin it.

Yahoo, famous for their trivial, trying to start controversy, and mostly irrelevant articles posted this one yesterday:  Actress got abortion.

This article causes a little confusion to a conservative.  How is this about health care?  Was she sick? No.  Was the baby going to kill her?  No.  Was she raped?  No.  Or was it just going to put a damper on her economic situation?  Yes.  So, why should taxpayers pay for this through the ACA?  Her story is upsetting but for all the wrong reasons.  Her situation was tough.  Her decision could not have been an easy one when she got pregnant.  Her emotional state may have been compromised.  But this is not about "reproductive rights".  Her story should not be used as a flagship for law.  This is not PSA.  She was not a hero.  But that didn't stop Planned Parenthood.

"Insurance plans should cover abortion like other medical procedures, government programs should help low-income women who cannot afford abortion, and nonprofit groups that raise money to help women pay for abortion services should be fully funded,”--- Eric Ferrero, VP of communications for Planned Parenthood.

If she had her own insurance plan and she paid for it herself like any other "procedure" then maybe there wouldn't be such an issue but that is not what this was all about.  Ferrero's words aren't that bad from a legal standpoint.  Insurance plans should cover it if they want to, private insurance companies with their own policies that is.  Non-profit groups that are privately funded is okay as well.  However, other parts of people's insurance don't pay for even more expensive things like water damage to a basement which is not paid for by anyone but the policy holder due to it being an "act of God".  All of sudden there is a God under the law.  

But, there is another issue, a bigger picture, if you will.  What they fail to discuss are the other issues. What the fail to mention is the ethical and morality of the story.  Why was her pregnancy a shameful event?  Why couldn't she tell her mom?  Which part was she ashamed of?  Was it her pregnancy alone or the fact that she had sex outside of marriage?  The story is not consistent, nor ethical unless you base it on stupidity and liberalism.

She was an adult in college.  She was perfectly healthy when she and her boyfriend chose to have sex.  She used abortion to hide her actions.  She used this as a form of birth control because she knew her actions now had consequences.  But, it was too late; her baby was already a life form.

The link that is shared by the article is from  National Women's Law Center, State bans on abortion  And it claims that state bans on insurance coverage of abortion endanger women’s health and take health benefits away from women.  Since when does banning abortion endanger a woman's health?  The human race has been living for 6000 years and still thriving.  Health benefits?  Since when does banning abortions stop you from working out or taking vitamins?  What health benefits are they referring to?  Both of course have extreme cases that could be argued but only in rare cases and then exceptions may be applied as conservatives usually say.

Yes, her economic situation is not what she wanted.  But all of our actions have rewards and/or consequences.  If we all had abortions based on guilt or especially economics then the human race was doomed before it got started.  This is why the Affordable Care Act is wrong, it forces other people to pay for things that simply are not about medical issues but ethical issues.  And ethical issues also go on to hamper freedom of religion.

Point of this article was to push a liberal idea that abortion is okay.  In reality it is not.  Yes, abortion is legal.  Nothing right now can change it and maybe we shouldn't because that means more people will have unsafe back-alley abortions.  Nothing will change until we change the culture.  And that is what the real topic is about.  This young lady from this TV show was in an uncommitted relationship. Yes, they may even have loved each other but love is more than sex.  They were adults.  They knew how babies get here. They took the chance.  Even the girl knew something was wrong or otherwise she would never have been embarrassed, as an adult.  She tried to hide her actions and a life form paid for it.  The young woman should not be ostracized for her actions nor should any woman who has gone through similar situations.  But she should also not be used as model for getting laws passed or for younger woman to look up to.

Children used to be assets, now they are liabilities.  And we know what we want to do with liabilities...


Note:  the comments from AuntieChrist and the replies from me are taken from the comment section from Yahoo.

#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.