Stomping Your Feet Again

I want to keep this short because I don’t feel like writing anymore. But there are two problems with the companies and musicians boycotting North Carolina. Actually, three problems when you consider it is the same thing as little kids stomping their feet when you don’t let them have their way. (This is the part where a liberal will try to act like the people making the law that doesn’t let the little kid get his/her way is the metaphor that should be used for someone stomping their feet, but that is why I say people in general have a hard time distinguishing things)

First problem is that money being involved in decision making is why our Congress sucks. Bernie Sanders was right about one thing; we have to get the money out of the government. But the same people, who support Bernie, agree with the idea to fire people and boycott doing business with them just because they disagree about one issue. The reason why a politician can’t make the right decision is because he/she will lose funding if he/she disagrees with the people funding him/her. This is why our government sucks right now. Yet, those musicians and corporations used the same tactics on North Carolina. I think the biggest difference between me and everyone else is that I really don’t care if one state allows a transgender to use the bathroom, while another state does not. To me, that is the idea of America: diversity. The idea is different communities tolerating other communities (to a point). This is the only way to allow more possibilities of places to move that one person may like. In the beginning, there were communist communities in existence alongside capitalist communities in America (interesting that none of those communist communities made it very long). I don’t believe that type of diversity would be possible today (although some cities try really hard to be communist).

Basically what we have is a majority group of people who typically leave people alone when they disagree and a minority group of people who want people fired and destroyed financially when they disagree. Here’s where the second problem starts. If the majority treated the minority this way, we would regress to days when homosexuals had to stay in the closet. The people who have gained tolerance from the majority are now behaving worse and showing less tolerance than the majority ever did. Not doing business with North Carolina would be the same as not selling somebody a home because you disagree with their religion. So basically, all the people who don’t like Donald Trump are actually worse than Donald Trump because Donald Trump will do business with anybody if he thinks he’s going to make some money.

[On a side note, there are quite a few Muslim sects, or denominations (I don’t know what you would call it), that discriminate against women and children to a much higher level than North Carolina discriminates against the LGBT community. Yet, the same people who want me to be tolerant of all Muslims, won’t even do business with North Carolina.]

So instead of solving real problems, our courts, our media, and our governments are trying to determine who can use the bathroom when we’ve all been using the bathroom, whether we like the bathroom we’ve been provided or not, for thousands of years without government intervention.

And I have proof that women who aren’t allowed to use the men’s bathroom that get upset when they’re given a private bathroom aren’t men. I don’t know any man who wouldn’t feel like a king and be very satisfied if they were given their own private bathroom to use. And if you tell me that there is no such thing as how a man should feel or be, or that not all men are the same then why in the hell are you complaining about using the “men’s” bathroom. If you believe that certain characteristics don’t exist for men, then you shouldn’t believe the men’s bathroom exists. I think the reason why this bothers me so much is that just because somebody is complaining they are being heard. Yet, I complain about real issues that cause unemployment, unfair living conditions, economic hardships for all, threats to our way of life and safety, and nothing happens. People tell me to just do my best to get along. And when I complain, I complain for all. I complain for all Americans regardless of sexual preference or color. Yet, the people who are being heard only complain for their group. You’re right; bigotry still exists. The people who complain about it the most are driving it.

And Kurt Schilling is right: if you can use the stand up urinal without bothering me, then I’m not going to say anything. But if you can’t, then there is a reason why there is a female bathroom and a male bathroom.

And I don’t understand why Kurt Schilling can’t sue ESPN for being fired because of his beliefs. How can one person get in trouble for defending something that is either customary or already a law?

Thieves Feel Entitled

This whole notion of giving people what they need to be successful, or “content”, goes against every law and founding principle of our Country. For one, it is impossible to figure out what everyone needs and distribute it fairly. Why do you think the term, “created equal”, was inserted? Do you really think the original Americans thought everyone was created exactly the same with the same talents? I doubt it; most likely they used the term to illustrate that any system created should offer the same chance to everyone, equal treatment. If we are created equal, we should be treated equal by the system. It is impossible to control the circumstances that every individual is born under to make things fair. Communism has failed at trying this on every attempt. But it is reasonable to think that a system could be created that offers the same opportunity regardless of whether you are rich or poor. We do it in sports all the time. I want to be clear: the same opportunity from the created system!

I don’t know when this notion began, but I imagine people took advantage of communities wanting to help those who are handicapped. Like so many problems in today’s society, people try to piggyback off of one decision that was made to promote what they want even though the two situations are completely different. A theme that keeps coming up in all my discussions is the fact that many people can’t distinguish situations that are the same from those that are different. For example, take handicap ramps. Some people insinuate that handicap people are entitled to being provided a special entrance to achieve equality. But that is not the case, they are not being provided with a special entitlement. All people can use handicap ramps, so it makes sense that the city creates entrances that everyone can use. It is only logical that if a system is going to provide something, it should provide something that everyone can use if possible. Handicap people aren’t the only ones who can use the ramps; we all can so it’s not an entitlement. We also typically reserve parking upfront for handicapped people because it is something we wanted to do. Not because they are entitled to it. Parking up front isn’t helping you be more successful than someone else; it is just a nice thing to do for disabled people when making somebody park in the back can’t be avoided.

The above example is not the same thing as giving people something so they can do better. The government provides things for us all to use, but they are specifically prohibited from helping some people use it better than others; once again, the same opportunities from the system is what I’m talking about. As soon as the system starts trying to make different opportunities to create “fairness”, the system is going against the idea of America. What is the purpose of assessing people on something and then giving the lowest performers something special so they can appear to do better? There is no reason to assess people if the results are going to be tailored. Unlike the handicap ramp, there is nothing logical about this philosophy. Additionally, the people born with talents are going to be punished, which also makes no sense. Why would you punish someone for becoming the smartest or the fastest? It’s almost as if the person born without the talent becomes the lucky one. But what would any game with the most untalented people look like? (America right now). Any time one person gets a 90 on a test while another person gets a 100 on the same test, there were some factors (whether it be genetic or circumstance) that created the difference. Obviously the person who received the 90 has some type of handicap. Yet, nobody seems to care about the person who got a 90 not doing as well. All the attention is focused on the people who failed. A contradictory system at all levels! I’m baffled by the term “learning disability” because doesn’t everyone who scores lower than someone else have some type of disability compared to the person who scored higher? Isn’t the purpose of the test to see who was able to learn the most? With this type of logic there can never be a loser because if we don’t score the same then there was a problem with the system. My question for this society is who will be chosen to be the Doctors and who will be chosen to be the Custodians? America is so stupid right now not only does it goes so far as to only help certain people score higher in the system, but it also just gives people higher scores regardless of how they performed. They just as well go ahead and make some “Liberal Crow Laws” and tell everyone who is going to be what and how much we will all get. A system that communists have been trying for hundreds of years and have a 0% success rate I might add. I want to point out something at this moment, there are two things I’m saying are impossible and evil: it is impossible for the system to overcome nature and make everyone’s talents identical before the “game” and it is impossible to ensure that the outcome of the “game” will be identical for every participant. America is unlawfully and ignorantly trying to accomplish both of these evils today; not for character, but for profit by certain people. When I say “game”, I suppose I’m referring to your place in society and the life you can create for yourself.

Any time someone helps one person, who hasn’t earned it, get ahead more than another person who has earned it, robbery is taking place. The idea is a fair game. So nothing should ever be given to one person that specifically helps that person that isn’t also offered to every other person in the game. For example, I have no problem with someone being allowed to use a hearing aid during an oral test or a football game, as long as every person is offered the same device. Why? Because the hearing aid really has nothing to do with what is being tested or attempted. And as long as it’s offered to everyone, the only people who will get it are the ones who really need it. Now let me make it clear here that it is not the officials’ responsibility to provide the hearing aids. We simply let people get what they need, because it is not putting anyone at an advantage (i.e., study as much as you feel you need within a set amount of time for a test or work as many hours as you want on your own business). Otherwise, the officials would be responsible for providing everyone with what they need to make sure people are identical (impossible).

This is where people get confused. The situation I described above is not the same thing as giving a hearing aid to someone when hearing is the test. If the test or the game were based on the ability to hear, then it would be immoral to give certain people hearing aids. And that is what is happening in America today. With the exception of the New England Patriots, I’ve never seen two football teams line up and one of the teams be given special entitlements to help them perform better. I suppose this idea “entitlement” originated somewhere in New England as they have become accustomed to not following the rules but nothing happening about it. I’ve yet to read any clear rules or have ever seen the “Tom Brady tuck rule” evoked in a football game since it was used to propel the New England Patriots to a super bowl. I suppose this was a one-time entitlement.

This philosophy has gotten so bad, that people are demanding something special for themselves. For example, transgender surgeries when there is nothing wrong with the parts God (or nature, if it makes anyone feel better) gave them. It’s even got so crazy that people are demanding things for other people who don’t even complain. For instance, I’ve seen these new handicap ramps that go down to the ocean and people proclaiming equality. If people want to do it, that is fine. But this is not something the government should be involved in because the government does not help anyone else get down to the ocean. This is not the same thing as the government building an entrance for a government building that everyone will use. The government is not here to solve individual problems for people; the Communists tried that and ended up with more problems than people. Besides, if you aren’t capable of getting down to the ocean on your own, you probably shouldn’t be down there anyways because of the danger of drowning. So you should either be with someone who can get you there and save you, or you shouldn’t be there at all. The government should never do anything special for certain people in a society, regardless of whether you are a “special” or “normal” person (whatever either of those words mean, but I’m referring to majority or minority).

This does not mean that we can’t help the poor and provide equal opportunity to move up in the world. It does not mean that we should not think about handicapped or disabled people. It just means that everyone is entitled to the same crap that I’ve been given from the system. Circumstances may not be fair and you may take that up with your God.

[Funny how most people who scream separation of church and state would expect the state to play God in this instance. These are also the same people who all of a sudden think all types of religious marriages are the state’s business. Excuse me because once again I’m getting off track.]

Back to my point: the system has nothing to do with your God’s unfairness because it is impossible to make all circumstances fair in this world; however, we can make the system fair and competitive. We all know how much we hate the guy who changes the rules once he starts losing.  And one thing I’ve noticed is that nature is fair, unbiased, and does not change its rules for anyone and the original Americans were keen to this philosophy. That is why they tried to create as natural of a functioning system as possible with as few of man’s regulatory notions as possible. The idea is to let nature govern the system, not elected officials. People are not evil; evil is born with any system created. And the key to hope in any system is the pursuit of earning progression in your life.

Do not take this as an attack or disrespect to handicapped people. I am merely trying to point out the difference in what we do for handicapped people and that it is not the same idea as entitlement. I’ve never heard a handicapped person complain or try to get advantages. I respect handicapped people because all of the ones I know have the American attitude of proving they can accomplish the same as anyone else without special help. They work twice as hard and never complain, which I respect. I’m talking about people who aren’t handicapped, but want something to help them perform better. I’m talking about people who lose or don’t perform and then want the system to change the rules for them only. My point is to show that the entitlements happening in America now are not the same logic as a handicap ramp. In fact there is no logic in what is happening in America. There is no logic in pretending people are qualified to do something. Giving people what they need to be successful is the exact opposite of letting people obtain what they need as long as it is not an unfair advantage. And giving people who don’t earn it the same as those who have earned it is outright robbery and a self-destructive system. Every system that has ever been created in which the non-workers get the same as the workers has failed because people just stop working. Two things are happening in America, one would be the same thing as someone who is not handicapped not being able to walk up the stairs as well as someone else and then demanding a ramp be built that only he/she can use. And then when they get to the top of the stairs we all act like they accomplished the same thing as people who made it up the stairs on their own. Two, not only do we build the ramp but we also push people up the ramp and give them everything that everyone else earned. The government doesn’t give people glasses; it allows people who need glasses to get the glasses they want. If the government were giving an eye exam to find the best “spotters”, it would be absurd to only let the people with the worst vision use binoculars. And even more absurd to give the same score to people with binoculars who still can’t spot anything as people without binoculars who spot everything. What would be the point of the test?

It amazes me that the courts have been allowed to incorporate ideas into our laws by using words that never appeared in the constitution such as “separation of church and state” and also have been allowed to eliminate ideas in our laws in the face of words that do appear such as “equal and equal treatment.” People still insist on blaming lawyers, but what does a lawyer have to do with a judge whose pockets are lined with money?

I guess this has been allowed to happen for the same reason people still sit around watching the Super Bowl calling it American Football when it’s rules are really nothing like American Football or the original idea of the hardest hitter earning victory. I believe the recent demise of the “greatest” female fighter in the world, Ronda Rousey, illustrates how people will allow the media to dictate a lie as reality in the face of the truth. Hindsight is 20/20 and I’m not trying to act like I’ve been saying it along. This is in no way an attempt to degrade Ronda Rousey because I still think she is an exceptional fighter. I thought Ronda was a tough, bad _ _ _ and I still think she is because I would have hit the deck after the first punch from Holly Holm. But the truth is that I never really paid attention to her fights until this recent “kick heard round the world”. I had seen highlights, but I had never actually watched her fight. I definitely did not like Ronda’s personality or mentality before the kick and I still don’t, but when someone is beating people within 20 seconds every match it is hard to deny their toughness, especially when you haven’t been watching the fights. I still think Ronda’s tough and I still don’t like her attitude or mentality, so do not try to ignore or discredit my following observations by calling me an “overnight Ronda hater” (which is the media’s attempt to cover up the fact that they were full of crap).

So, I did some research and this is what I noticed: She was given fighter of the year just as Bruce Jenner was given woman of the year (I might add many people go to jail for pretending to be something they are not, it’s called fraud) and I don’t think either award was true. Why do I mention Bruce Jenner? Because I think there are just as many obvious facts that show Ronda was not fighter of the year as there are facts that show Bruce Jenner is not a woman. However, Ronda taunted this entitlement (I call it entitlement, because she clearly didn’t earn it but for some reason certain people in society have decided that some people deserve recognition more than others and we continue to allow them to delegate entitlements however they see fit) in Floyd Mayweather’s face, a fighter who in my opinion made Pacquiao look average (remember that Pacquiao was recognized as the fighter of the decade). But like most people who receive entitlements, it is easy to convince them they deserve it so Ronda had no problem accepting credit and asserting she had outdone Mayweather even though it was not true. I say she didn’t earn it because by definition the facts were not there to support it. She was very popular and made UFC a lot of money and fame, but that is not the criteria to be fighter of the year. When I actually watched the Bethe fight, it didn’t really look like Bethe got hit on the punch that set her down. At the time I assumed Bethe was the best that was out there because like everyone else I figured if she got a top fight she must be tough. But after seeing her fall so easy, it got my mind wondering. It seems like another recurring theme in my discussions are just how full of crap some of the sporting stations seem to be today because with a few minutes of research it is now obvious to me how wrong the things are that were reported. In fact, I don’t think Bethe is a very good fighter at all and I don’t think Ronda looked like a good fighter (much less best fighter) in that fight. What sounds more deserving of an award to you, beating Bethe or Pacquiao? If Ronda had beaten somebody like Ali or Cyborg (or Holm for that matter), then her award would have clearly been earned. I say: that the fact is that Mayweather beat “the fighter of the decade”. How can a fighter that beats the fighter of the decade be nothing and a fighter that beats Bethe be the fighter of the year? According to proofs and reasoning in Math, beating the fighter of the decade would make you not only the fighter of the year, but better than all the fighters of all the years in that decade (I know it was a different decade, but I think I’ve made my point that it was certainly better than beating Bethe). This is why I say there are facts that show she did not earn fighter of the year.

More ironically we were led to believe that Holly Holm pulled off the upset of the century. But if you take a closer look Holly Holm was a 19-time Boxing champion in 3 different weight classes. Before the fight, people were questioning whom Holly had fought when in reality we should have been asking whom had Ronda fought with her 12 and O record. There are many boxers who start out undefeated that we never hear about because they start losing once the competition picks up. How could any sports broadcasting station worth a crap let this slip? If you respond it was all about money and building up hype then you are part of the problem. No shit, that is the exact thing that I’m complaining about so don’t debate my argument with verification of my argument. Creating false illusions to make money should never be accepted as justification for a crappy job of reporting or anything else. I understand that it really doesn’t matter when it comes to Hollywood and MMA and it’s all about money. If you want to let people make a lot of money promoting fairy tale, super humans, who cares? The problem is that we as an intelligent species cannot allow this same fairy tale to exist when it comes to our social issues and our children’s education. We cannot allow these lies and exploits to ruin our quality of life, our sense of social justice, and the schools that our children attend.

Let us now turn to the point for bringing up this whole discussion because I really don’t value the ESPY awards or the legitimacy of Ronda’s dominance anyway. But what I do want to make clear is that it doesn’t seem like you have to know what you are talking about to be in the media anymore (evidence that the media is giving people jobs based on circumstances verse qualifications. Ironic since they are always the first to scream racism when they think they see someone else doing the same thing). The so-called experts don’t know anything and it doesn’t seem to matter how obvious they demonstrate their lack of knowledge. They continue to preach and we continue to listen. My point is that this is the same media that has been pushing a liberal agenda for quite some time now in the same manner Ronda’s supremacy was pushed. The difference is that in a natural, competitive system that allows the participants to determine their own success, such as MMA, the reality of the results cannot be disguised no matter the agenda and the truth always reveals itself. And what I’m saying is that I am sure that the liberal propaganda also being falsely promoted in America would experience the same fate as Ronda if there were some way to get immediate results. The problem is that most policy changes require years to experience the effects and there are an entangled array of social interactions and changes that complicate analysis. Further, the liberal media will never promote the assessment of their ideas by using real, direct results. These social constructs have always been the biggest weapon of immoral idiots, which allows their voice to ring into eternity and has made government a “10,000” year debate.

Why am I writing about this? Because the media is only capable of doing this if we listen to their analysis of the facts. The facts were available. Yes, the media did provide us with the facts! Not the mainstream media, but all of the local media outlets and everyday citizens who voice their opinions and are the backbone of America gave us the facts (they are the inspiration and target audience of this website). When I go back and look at video of both fighters the truth was presented. However, the biggest difference between America now and of the past is that now people rely on the media to explain what has been presented. People don’t seek out the facts and they don’t make their own analysis, as was once the norm in colonial America.

[This was also once the norm in our schools, but educational policies have forced changes on those norms and now look at the changes in our society. This illogical interpretation of social justice was propagated in our schools and has led to the creation of citizens who condone it. This is also another major point of this website but I am getting a little off topic again. My main point today is to focus on the ridiculousness of Entitlements, whether it be to help certain people perform better or just flat out giving people things they don’t earn.]

I assumed Ronda was the best female fighter because they told me even though her fight videos and Holly Holm’s fight videos were available to me. I could have looked at the facts because the media gave them to me, but just like you I’ve become accustomed to letting the media tell me what the facts mean. The result: we used to have handicap ramps and front row parking for people who had difficulty walking, now we have transgender bathrooms for people who have a gender and people capable of participating demanding special help when they perform poorly. We give people who want to commit crimes encouragement and degrade people who follow the laws. People who want something that is not fair are always defended and people who stand against what is unfair are always attacked. People who illegally park in handicap spots are given the first voice when they think that something is not fair and the government needs to provide more entitlements. And finally, we have the fighter of the year getting a lesson on how to fight from the #7 ranked challenger.

And realize this: just like the evidence was out there before the Rousey/Holm fight, there are hundreds of years of evidence, available by the same media, documenting liberal ideas failing in European societies. All you have to do is look for it and analyze it.

At no time, should the government ever do anything to lift one person up if it comes at the expense of another citizen. Otherwise, the government is nothing more than a gang of train robbers. This is the number 1 problem in America right now. I know it sounds harsh, but whenever you think the government should provide additional services for people for whatever reason think about this: If a college running back is told that he is too slow to be in the NFL, should the player be allowed to complain about having a running handicap? Should we do something to help this player make it to the NFL? If we come up with an alternative race and pretend the player is fast, will that help the player make it in the NFL? Do you really think that the purpose of schools were so that everyone could be a doctor regardless of talent and ability? If you help that running back make it to the NFL, he will be dependent on you and me for his entire career and feels he deserves it.

It’s not fair that someone is not performing well in what society has provided for everyone. Just like it’s not fair that we are all born different (although that is what I appreciate about other people). But that is something between you and nature because it’s a greater injustice and a lie for society to provide something extra for one person and then act like everyone is doing the same thing. And then it’s really dumb to start acting like that person is actually better now. Only people who think they are gods could believe that their lies are more correct than nature’s truth (Science). Ironically, it is the same atheists who adhere to Science and Evolution that come up with the majority of these “entitled” lies.

This is the way I see what America has become verses what it was supposed to become. Let us once again look at the stairs to an entrance. At one time, rich people used to use their circumstances to build stairs for their children to climb to get to the entrance. Nobody else could use these stairs and that is what made it unfair. So the idea was to give everybody access to stairs (such as public schools), which still need to be climbed by the most qualified people. Liberals have now turned this idea into finding people who can’t climb the stairs and saying they deserve something special; special circumstances just like rich people used to provide for their children. Whether we decide to provide a ramp for someone termed “handicap” is a separate argument depending on many variables; but regardless, when someone uses a special ramp that no one else is allowed to use he/she is not doing the same thing as everyone else. We’ve gone so far in today’s irrational reign of logic to actually push people up the ramp who can walk just as good as me. And just like many rich kids have become dependent on their family to always provide steps, the entitled people of America have become dependent on you and me. We all know the spoiled brat who underachieved his/her way into management in the family business. And the brat becomes a life long liability for the family business that needs someone else to do the managing. If someone thinks it’s evil when rich people do it, how could they possibly argue to create a system based on the same injustice?

[I really don’t want to get into the purpose of schools and what’s fair for people with “learning disabilities” although I am prepared to have that discussion. I just feel like I would be getting off topic, but I will say this: putting all of our emphasis on education as a means to become successful isn’t fair for those who aren’t inherently good at it and giving those who aren’t good at it special help isn’t fair for those who are inherently good at it (the same goes for all systems in place by society). Education could learn from what America has done with athletics. Even intramural sports at the local rec league level have phenomenal play and quality. Another example of how competition in a fair system (the idea of America) can improve the standard and conditions at all levels in society; isn’t this the argument for a quality public school education in the first place?].

Do we make a race with the purpose of identifying and only helping the slowest runner? Do we then pump all of our resources into making the slowest runner faster? Will it really help society for someone who runs a 5.5 40-yard dash to improve his/her speed to 5.4 (especially when it’s a lie and they’re still closer to being a 5.5 runner)? Does anyone really have the notion that it is society’s responsibility that the slow kid will become as fast as Deion Sanders? And the real kicker is that people think there is some alternative method to making people fast. As though the pattern of eating healthy, working out in the gym, and running sprints are constructs of the system that favored Deion Sanders. As though it was something different than talent, hard work, and qualifications that got him there. People are delusional for thinking that if we do something different and/or special the slow person will finally have their chance to be fast. As though in some system somewhere eating Twinkies and playing games that involve running on the computer will make slow kids fast because rich people aren’t holding them back with their fancy system of qualifications. All we can do as a society is provide the opportunity to train in the same way that has been proven to make the fast people faster and the smart people smarter. But we will never change the fact that we all can’t be Lebron James, and for some reason that is OK but people think that being smart and going to college or being productive and going to work is somehow different. Learning is an independent, self-controlled variable for the most part. People can only get as good as they want up to their inherited ability and if an education still meant something and could get you somewhere people might start doing better at it again.

Changing the rules of the race changes the race. And I’m not saying the rules don’t need to be changed, but I am saying that when the rules only change for certain people then it’s not a fair race.

Wouldn’t it make more sense to find something the slow kid is good at and pump resources into making him/her as successful as possible in this area? More importantly, why don’t we let the slow kid decide what he/she is good at to pursue as long as he/she is qualified.

And I know what some people are thinking now. But NO, I don’t have a problem with special services or special schools to help people become as functional in society as possible. To me this does benefit everyone because one of the goals of schools is to improve our ability as a culture to communicate and progress. But there is a limit to how much we need to spend on trying to help someone learn to read who has proven that they cannot read. It is not worth spending extra money to get a person to pronounce a few more words if they still won’t be able to read and comprehend. Normally when it is proven that someone can’t shoot the ball, they don’t make the team. And NO, I don’t have a problem with food stamps and helping the poor get back in the “game”. To me this does benefit everyone because one of the goals of America was to improve social conditions and our ability to allow all people a better opportunity to create the life they want. But there is a limit to how much we need to give someone verses helping them get back on their feet. Normally when it is proven that people are refusing to do something, they aren’t given anything. Let’s stop pretending like we can give everyone a shot at being a doctor if they weren’t born with those talents. Let’s stop pretending that University is for everyone and can make everyone successful. Let’s stop pretending that people who refuse to climb the steps were held in place by the system. Let’s stop pretending that some people who aren’t good at climbing the steps weren’t given many opportunities. And let’s stop having a thief’s mentality and pretending like certain people deserve something special to help them become successful or deserve to be given something someone else earned.

Religious Testing

Have you ever wondered why your personality mattered when applying for a government job, or any job for that matter? It makes more sense to evaluate a potential employee based on his/her history of accomplishment and skills directly related to the task one is being hired to fulfill. I’d go as far as to say that almost every “rubric” or evaluation system in use today should be based on direct relationships, rather than indicators and generalizations; Science instead of opinions about what data means. But this is the ongoing problem in the US; people have been trained to misinterpret Science. Schools place more importance on opinion than truth these days. There’s nothing wrong with rubrics or stereotypes (statistics) as long as they are based on direct relationships. However, I see a bunch of rubrics and statistics that don’t measure anything but associations and opinions. And even if the statistics or stereotypes are true there are certain things that should never be decided by a majority of a republic and there are certain laws that should never exist. However, most of this is a conversation for another day.

Let’s just focus on personality tests, a clear stereotype, for now. Although stereotypes are essential for citizens making decisions in the moment as they are going about their daily business, stereotypes have no place in making laws or enacting consequences. Personality tests are designed based on how a statistically significant number of people respond to a multiple-choice question. Responses that represent the views of people are then categorized to reflect predicted behaviors. If this doesn’t sound like the exact opposite of every government ruling that has been forced on citizens since the social movement, I don’t know what does. The minorities who fall outside the stereotype are being punished for no reason. Additionally, when I am given a personality test, my beliefs and views are being categorized to predict my ability to perform the task and get along with others. In order to obtain a government job, I have to have the “right religious beliefs” to pass the personality test. All of these things are specifically against the American Constitution and philosophy.

The government is the biggest bigot that exists. It annoys the hell out of me every time I see a judge hand out a million dollar lawsuit to an employer for discrimination. I see no greater creator of double standards, discrimination, and religious beliefs than our current government. To add insult to injury, most of what the government does is based on insignificant statistics. Making laws because of stereotypes is bad enough, but making laws based on insignificant numbers is unfathomable; especially without any real relationship existing between the law and the desired effect. The number of examples of our government operating in this unconstitutional and irrational manner is something I want to talk about one day, but for now let us continue with personality testing and psychologists. My answer to a multiple-choice question has no bearing on how I will fulfill my job duties. If I’ve never been in trouble with the law and I’ve made it through 20 years of school with no complaints, then my personality should be just fine with the government. It seems that a handful of anonymous, respected teachers that taught me could do a lot better job of assessing my ability to work and get along with others. If people really wanted to end discrimination, the only evaluation for a job application would be achieved skills and accomplishments. There would be no need to identify name, race, age, or gender. Instant messenger interviews would be the norm and an employee would be selected solely on ability. Liberals don’t want this because then they wouldn’t be able to complain about discrimination and Republicans don’t want this because then they wouldn’t be able to hire their sons and keep it in the family. If we stop focusing on race and gender, all of these people making money on “sensitivity training” would be out of a job. So of course a sensitivity trainer’s major philosophy is that we have to be hypocritical and focus on race. It’s easy to paint a picture about how your ethnicity and parents are to blame for your problems. If our major and only philosophy is to focus on something, that something will never go away…

(uhh…job security for the sensitivity trainers… shout out to all my real Americans, African or European).

I love Marshawn Lynch and his attitude, I just had to do it, sorry about that.

Liberals kill me when they think they have some edge on scientific understanding because they believe in evolution. First off, I can believe in God and still acknowledge the effects of natural selection. Second, what does evolution have to do with anything we are ever arguing about? Agreeing with something that Science supports doesn’t make you all knowing. A person may be correct about one thing in Science but wrong about something else (that is why I got a 100 on the Science test and some people got a 50 or 60). The most important question to ask is does that one thing that could be true have anything to do with the argument at hand? Just because natural selection exists doesn’t mean I have to give up my guns, or pay more taxes to support people who don’t contribute to the system so the ruling class can continue to skim money from those taxes, or allow gay marriage. I find it ironic that liberals tote such a big scientific stick but don’t understand some simple concepts in Biology such as the difference between a male and a female. I don’t want to get into gay marriage here or my thoughts about it and I’m not stating that I’m for or against it (that’s for another day). I’m simply pointing out some contradictions in arguments and lack of relevant logic to prove or disprove the argument by people who supposedly have such good scientific ration. The only thing evolution supports is Capitalism, yet liberals oppose this idea. But once again we have people in contradiction with their own beliefs when it comes to making decisions about what should be done in each situation even though all of the situations are really the same.

I believe the biggest problem is the inability (or unwillingness) of people to distinguish between things that are the same and things that are different. One of the goals of this website is to get both sides to realize that they are more similar than different, but for some reason they allow the media to direct their attention to the differences that don’t really matter. I know we’ve all been in arguments that end in one person saying “it’s just different because…” No, it’s probably not different. It’s probably that they want to apply their logic only when it allows them to do things that they want to do. Therefore, they’re logic probably sucks and they just want to be a dictator instead of letting people make their own choices that don’t directly affect anyone. These people always think it should be the leader’s decision, except for when the leader disagrees with them. My point for the last two paragraphs is that people are not recognizing personality testing as an enforcement of religious beliefs and judgement based on indicators endorsed by an establishment. It is no different than the Catholic Church hundreds of years ago deciding what laws and people should be promoted based on their beliefs and observed stereotypes.  This idea of government clergy using pseudo-Science to weed out government employees scares me. For that matter, anytime a psychologist enters the courtroom I’m scared. Americans are supposed to be judged using direct relationships not associations (i.e. shoot a basketball to prove you are a good shooter, or put a person in a challenging situation and observe his/her reactions).

It amazes me that Christianity is always under attack for being misused to sway weak minds into terrible acts or falsely accused of being the same as other ideologies that promote terrible acts. Persuasion is something that every person must face on a daily basis from a variety of beliefs. Killing in the name of Science or Jesus has no impact on the validity of the principles of either. Random actions have no impact on the validity of a set of principles because they are not related to those principles; whoever is doing the killing is not following the principles of either Science or Jesus. Last I checked, you are not allowed to randomly assign blame for your actions (although many courts are allowing people to do this now with the help of psychologist, government clergy). To illustrate what I am saying: If somebody says they are killing in my name even though my principles are completely against it, does that mean I am somehow to blame or that my principles that weren’t followed are somehow flawed just because people use my name?  And the truth of the matter is that I don’t know of a time in history where evil was committed in the name of Jesus. Yes, Christians have killed in the name of governments misusing religion or by following other philosophies outside of their primary religion (separation of church and state means hold true to your principles); this is why our founding fathers wanted to limit government power and distinguish between religious laws (regardless of religious origin) verses necessary laws to create free thought and opportunity. Further, certain laws have no business existing in America, even with “scientific proof” or “religious proof”.

On a side note, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that communities must give up their beliefs or practices in God to satisfy different beliefs or unbelievers. They just can’t make any laws that punish any minority for not believing or vice versa. Yet, the government takes prayer, an act that has no direct effect on anyone (much less effect than gay marriage I might add), out of school because beliefs can’t be forced on anyone. But it promotes personality testing to see if my response to a multiple-choice question gives me government-approved ideologies to obtain work. And to further stir your curiosity, I will point out that Science is just as much of an evolving theory as the New Testament from the Old Testament. Things that I was once taught as truth in science class are now known to be false. Faith also exists in Science because teachers taught me things 50 years ago as truth that have since been proven wrong. Scientists have faith that their principles will lead them to the truth, but quite often their current theories are wrong and become illogical. In 50 years when it becomes OK to eat red meat again, will they also realize that their personality tests were wrong? So if a community wants to teach religion they have every right to do so, especially since Science is also considered a religion by so many “enlightened” thinkers. An American school is supposed to be teaching free thought and allowing students to arrive at proven ideas anyway. Teaching evolution as truth is just as much of a Constitutional sin as teaching any religion as truth. This just shows you how far we’ve veered from our original philosophy of transferring ideas. We as humans are so far from knowing the truth; it would be a lie to proclaim any field of study an all knowing truth. And please don’t take this to mean that facts don’t exist. I am merely pointing out the similarity in the evolution of religion to the evolution of science in the search for understanding. I am also pointing out that communities should be allowed to decide what they present to their children. And as long as only facts are presented as truth, no law has been broken. I would risk wagering a large sum of money that more facts could be discussed in a religion class than what has been discussed in History classes over the years. Much of this paragraph is for another day and needs further explanation, but I want to stay focused on personality testing by the government. I got a little bit off track but I felt it was a necessary paragraph to include because it illustrates how similar the government and media have become to churches by faithfully using Science like a bad religion.

[Understanding Separation of Church and state requires a discussion about the difference between using associations and using direct relationships. It also involves holding a religion accountable to itself and not a respected representative. But it does not mean the “established” government can end or replace customs of a community. Customs and values are what make us humans. But like I said this would get off track and be quite the conundrum to answer with authority]

I believe the Nazis were Christians who used references from the Bible, but never do I remember them saying that what they were doing was in the name of Jesus. Most importantly, their actions did not follow the principles of Jesus and this is why Christianity cannot be blamed for their actions. However, ISIS on the other hand is following specific ideology of their religion. Most importantly, their actions are following the principles of what they are preaching. And the fact that people can’t distinguish the difference between ISIS and Christianity, but think they see a difference between government personality testing and religion pisses me off. How can people so Scientific not be able to distinguish different observations from the same observations? Because they don’t look at all of the variables involved and compare them, they only look for the one variable that proves what they want.

There are many things are schools are promoting now that have turned Science and Character Counts into a bad religion instead of a pure set of principles to discuss and understand. Science can be misused just as easily as Christianity. Especially, in the face of so many people who went through an educational system that devalued the role of Math, Science, and Skepticism in distinguishing the truth from opinion. For some time now our schools have been promoting cooperation rather than individual thinking. The only way to create a rogue cult is to produce citizens who can’t think on their own.  It becomes very easy to influence cooperative thinkers who don’t know how theories become laws in Science. It does not mean Science is wrong or bad, it just means that our government is misusing Science (with the help of the media) to mislead people for its own agendas. There is nothing wrong with Science or its principles. The problem is that people are not following the principles of Science and are not doing it properly. Unsettling to me are people who mock Christianity when this same fallacy happens but willingly follow our government or their political party in the name of Science without question. To help silence our questioning of Science famous people are used to spread the “good word” and are typically applauded because of their fame and fortune in our society even though they lack rhyme or reason. Typically, all these famous people need to do is make statements that are false but would be appealing if they were true and people are satisfied. For example, saying that a law will end poverty when in reality the law will have no effect or an unclear effect. Another example, when a nonprofit organization says it cares about animals we all say it is a just cause and a good idea even though the organization may not do anything to help animals and uses its donations to pay its CEO’s lots of money.

If you want to play the numbers game, the fact remains that most prosperous communities associated with good qualities of living conditions have been Christian communities (And I need to be clear that I am talking about communities who follow the principles of Christianity, not just communities who proclaim to be Christian). I’m sure that there would be a lot of protest if I suggested that only Christians should be hired. I’m not saying that I agree with the previous sentence, I’m just saying that if we are to play this game that would be the result of “religious testing”. As much as I would like that, I know that it would not be fair to persecute people in this way because there are always many exceptions and I personally have seen many wonderful cultures. I would go so far as to say that most people are awesome when given the chance regardless of their religion. At least I’m able to admit it when something is wrong even if it supports my beliefs or opinions. However, please don’t confuse these statements into meaning that someone’s principles and beliefs don’t matter when you are hiring them.

[The number game would also show that communities are better off when citizens make their own decisions and the community fixes its own problems rather than being regulated by a system, but that is also another discussion]

Yes, we have to judge people when we hire or vote for them (see my article on “UnAmerican Football”). I’m simply pointing out the hypocrisy in what the government dictates and what it does. I’m also questioning the methodologies the government is using to develop its religion. When the government starts using character and values to judge people it sounds a lot like they are creating their own religious group. Basically, it sounds like they are telling me they can determine whether a Christian or Muslim will be the best person for the job. They are essentially selecting the same “type” of person instead of a qualified person. Isn’t this the exact opposite of what every government program has been pushing on people? Knowing the methods psychologists use to determine these stereotypes, I think it would be better to use Science to determine specific mental and physical skills that are required for the specific job and then test for these skills regardless of whether you are Muslim or Christian. Answering questions about your opinions that could change depending on your frame of mind and cultural values is not specifically testing anyone on any skill.

I’m not insinuating that values and character don’t matter because if a person’s values are in direct conflict with the required skill or task to be performed then he/she shouldn’t get the job. I am insinuating that only the skills that matter should be tested. People don’t understand the significance of Separation of Church and State because they don’t realize it is impossible to establish a state without some philosophy or system of belief. What causes problems regarding this idea is that people refuse to accept that many of America’s original principles are based off of the teachings of Jesus. And people also refuse to accept that if an idea goes against our Constitution then it is unacceptable regardless of whether you define that idea as a religion or not. I cannot change the fact that most of our founding fathers were well versed in Christianity regardless of how upset anyone gets. They were educated Scientists who studied many religions and chose to relate our founding principles with the scriptures from Jesus. They acknowledged that natural law (nature) is our message from God, or from the “system of our origin of higher power that science studies” if it makes you feel better (which I think none of us are clear on). Yes, there is God’s law but no church (or government) can dictate who is qualified to lead our understanding of those laws, which is the purpose of our Bill of Rights. There is a right and wrong, and enough of the original leaders believed that Jesus was very pure in how to determine that right and wrong while maintaining free will that the message of Jesus influenced our Declaration of Independence. Additionally, the Bill of Rights was designed to allow free interpretation of that philosophy for all citizens; NOT to end the interpretation of that philosophy in our social system.  So often it appears as though the Christian church is influencing our decisions, which technically it is, and this causes a lot of arguments about separation of church and state [and no, it does not have anything to do with gay marriage]. I felt this paragraph was necessary to acknowledge that at times one’s beliefs may need to be judged and it does not mean that religious persecution is taking place. Once again this paragraph requires much further explanation, but I want to maintain my focus on my disagreement with personality testing.

[Here also lies the root of all arguments I see in America. We cannot make a rubric that tells someone 100% of the time how to categorize events, such as whether religious persecution has transpired or not when someone’s beliefs come into question. We must rely on competent individuals to think and categorize each event, rather than following predetermined indicators with no thinking. On one hand you have enlightenment that inspired the birth of the United States; on the other hand you have the controlled corruption that inspires the decadence of Communistic states]

Back to my point, I’m saying stop playing the numbers game and follow what was set in motion by enlightened Americans several hundred years ago. Personality testing by the government is the first of a long list of complete crap that must be ended. The government should only be selecting people who are the most qualified to complete the desired task that is consistent with our Constitution and laws. It should not be making up a separate philosophy based on numbers of what beliefs it takes to be a competent worker. Maybe this is why police officers have such a hard time using discretion any more. They were selected for their religious belief in the current overbearing, un-American system verses serving and protecting communities governed by the people. Even if 100% of the best police officers that get along with all their coworkers eat steak, eating steak should not be a requirement because it has nothing to do with being a good police officer or getting along with people.

Think about it, government employees in today’s society heavily regulate “we the people”. And in many cases government employees are some of the least qualified candidates in the workforce. Shouldn’t we be selecting government workers based on their ability rather than their system of beliefs approved by the government? I’d rather have an independent thinker evaluate regulations imposed on me versus an undeserving cooperative thinker. I want people who can read and understand laws and regulations and their purpose, not people who depend on the ruling class to interpret the laws for them in exchange for security. Nor do I want people representing my community who don’t know what to do whenever a scenario arises outside of the box. Nor do I want people in my community who were selected because they are good at imposing control on me.

Only adding to the conundrum of personality testing is the number of government workers who passed a personality test but are now on some kind of meds.  I really don’t know what the purpose of personality testing is because it doesn’t seem to work based on the number of employees who pass the test and then end up being diagnosed with a problem and prescribed medicine. Adding insult to injury, people were denied work for the belief that they have a bad personality but after people get hired and they are “labeled” as having some kind of personality problem they get a free pass to be shitty workers and become drug addicts. At this point, I would love for someone to explain to me the functioning of personality testing by the government because I don’t see any type of logical coherence. So really the government psychologists are nothing more than drug dealers, except they are supported by the police. When you think about how many people’s lives have been ruined by the “war on drugs” and compare it to what our government does and even further compare it to the corruption that comes from what our government does you can become quite infuriated.

I know that Psychology uses a very good method of statistical analysis to create its beliefs, but Psychology is not a true science in the sense that it is unethical to design some of the controlled experiments that would be needed to prove facts. I adore Psychology for its advancements in helping people with problems that voluntarily seek it and I’m not saying that it can’t be useful in selecting a good worker. I just disagree with the way I see Science currently being used. I loathe Psychology for its advancements in persecuting people with no problems and “absolving” people who do wrong. We already know that most people don’t answer surveys honestly and there are a lot of people with screwed up behaviors in general. Do you really think it’s a good idea to use this population’s stereotyped responses to random questions about what they would take to the beach to assess an honest and intelligent person’s ability to be a police officer? Remember that personality tests are coming from the same field of study that believes it has proven that spanking children is bad for them. [Ironically, that is exactly what society condones from the police when we grow up and leave home and do something wrong in society, but that is also another conversation]. I would also like to know just what type of personality they are looking for when they do select police officers these days. Because it does not seem to be associated with “protect and serve”, it seems more associated with “force and control”. We may be robots that cannot control our actions. But Psychologists certainly do not have the handbook for these machines. And even if they did, Americans have chosen to live by free will and I will always choose to live by free will.

I’m not complaining about religion or testing and I’m not complaining about being judged by the government. It’s the idea of personality tests using associations to make judgements, which is the persecution of someone because of their values, without a crime ever being committed. It specifically uses a stereotype to evaluate someone’s ability. This is the fallacy of religion that was intended to be separated from the state because judgement should be based on direct relationships to what is being judged [And see my article on “UnAmerican Football” if you still assume that we cannot be judged because of our religion at this point in the discussion]. Using Psychology in the manner of “personality testing” is a threat to the beliefs in our Constitution and America’s individualism; it is a threat to freethinking. It is respecting the belief of an establishment without ever showing direct proof that I’ve been a poor worker. It is the end of protesting laws against our beliefs, our values, and our free will. I know the government does not use personality testing to a great extent, but it is the growing idea of “mental health” decided by the state the scares me. The notion that a person’s free will can be predicted was one of society’s greatest sins; using “Science” instead of “Religion” (ironically I’ve heard many University Professors label Science a religion) to feel better about it doesn’t change the sin. Especially, when the “Science” is being used by organizations so easily corrupted; the exact reason our Constitution was designed to specifically limit the government.

[Remember that hindsight is 20/20. It is easy to say I knew there was something wrong with that guy after he commits a crime, but what you are forgetting is that there were many guys that you thought there was something wrong with that did not commit a crime]

When we break the law we all have something in our biology that causes us to do it. But that something does not excuse us from being accountable for our actions even if scientists think they can identify that something. These are dangerous grounds that we agreed don’t exist according to our Constitution. Have you not seen “Minority Report”?

Saying that gay people and Bruce Jenner don’t have a choice is saying that free will does not exist because of preference. If that were true, no laws would exist. It is the free will to choose that Americans once sought; not approval from the government, not a certificate, and certainly not absolution…

Dictionarily Correct

I had to write a second thought this month because this conversation is essential to get straight because the fallacy is creating a lot of unnecessary confusion while America is being attacked. Dictionaries were created to eliminate this type of confusion that is pervading America today. It is the reason gay people should not be allowed to get a marriage certificate without some type of redefining of the purpose of the certificate. I’m referring to terrorism and the unnecessary confusion about religion. Terrorism has a definition just like religion. And when an attack occurs, we can apply that definition accordingly based upon what was agreed in our dictionaries for the purposes of communicating. However, whether you call the South Carolina shooting a terrorist attack or the San Bernadine shooting a terrorist attack is irrelevant. The South Carolina terrorist group was a one man lunatic that has been ended. I don’t care if he claims to be Christian or Muslim or a KKK member. He needed to be stopped because of his principles. However, the San Bernadine terrorist group is still alive and growing because it was not just two lunatics. The principles of these two lunatics are still very much alive in a larger group of lunatics. And the moment your principles condone the killing of another group of innocent people it does not matter whether it is defined a religion or not. The Charleston shooter cannot proclaim a holy war because neither Christianity nor KKK preaches these principles. However, that larger group of lunatics that I was talking about has proclaimed a holy war in the past because its principles specifically preach the killing of nonbelievers. And that is the difference.

And if you stop reading this discussion and proclaim to know where I’m coming from without hearing me out, then you are also part of the problem.

I’ve been saying it all along that the biggest problem with some people in America is their inability to distinguish, define, and classify situations (the devaluing of Math and Science in schools argument again…). It’s seems that the problem with some people is that they search for one similarity and if they find it they immediately assume that the two situations are the same. In order for two things to be the same, all of the characteristics must be similar.  A quick Geometry lesson on SAS, SSS, and ASA for determining congruence between triangles might help solve this problem, but most of these people have already failed this class or “passed” it according to today’s standards. Besides, a law cannot be written to define every possible situation that will occur in life, but these people believe it can. People must be able to think in order to classify situations as being within the law or not. Secondly, these same people would rather spend time arguing about the classification of something rather than fixing the problem. I don’t care if any of the shooters are classified as terrorists. The only thing that matters is stopping any and all groups who have these types of principles. The moment a group of people use Christianity or the KKK as a method to recruit people with the intention to do harm that group needs to be stopped, not the religion. We don’t stop the religion because the religion was not founded on the bad principles that sprang up from the cult. The difference with radical Islam is that the original “organization/religion” specifically preaches these principles. And this is the identifying characteristic that tells you the religion itself needs to be stopped. Religion has nothing to do with establishing an organization with illegal principles. If a group of people develop a denomination of Christianity based on illegal principles, then yes that organization needs to be stopped and religion has nothing to do with it.

Let me try to explain similar situations in which one the religion is to blame and the other the religion is not to blame. If I kill somebody because my Christian church persuaded me to commit the act, then I’m a killer. You may call me a terrorist, but it is irrelevant. And the fact that I’m Christian has nothing to do with it because Christianity does not preach this. However, my church has something to do with it and needs to be stopped. Not because it’s a Christian church or a religion, but because it is a church preaching bad principles. If I kill somebody because my Muslim church persuaded me to commit the act, then I’m a killer. You may call me a terrorist, but it is irrelevant. And the fact that I’m Muslim has nothing to do with it because the Muslim religion does not preach this. And the fact that I’m a radical Islamist has nothing to do with it because the Islamic religion… Oh, wait, yes, the religion does preach this. My radical Islamic church has something to do with it and needs to be stopped. Not because it’s a Muslim church or a religion, but because it is a church preaching bad principles.

Being a bad person or group of people does not mean that the organizations that they say they are associated with are bad, but being a bad organization with bad principles does. Do you really think the Charleston shooter was a Christian? Saying I’m Christian and being Christian are two different things. My actions dictate the truth. Jesus warned of wolves in sheep’s clothing, and even told us that we will know the tree by the fruit that it bears. It is time America returns to our founding philosophy of blaming what deserves blame. Yes, a genetically modified plant could be dangerous just like a natural plant. But it is possible that some genetically modified plants are perfectly safe; yet, in this instance liberals have zero tolerance without ever looking at all the facts or judging each genetically modified plant separately. Isn’t it ironic how those who cast stones towards bigots are the most ferocious bigots?

Now is a good time to illustrate the biggest cause of arguments between the two political parties. At times I see Republicans making the same pigheaded mistakes of donkeys because some people can’t distinguish a “red flag/stereotype” from the main purpose or a direct cause. I believe it is because some people don’t realize that in one instance an observation can be a “red flag”, while the same observation can be the purpose or direct relationship in another instance. For example, women have more “red flags” than everyone (haha) even though they are always screaming about bigot rednecks. That was kind of a joke and not the example, but I do want to focus on “red flags” from the male perspective. Let us take a single mother with two or three children for the example. One man may not want to be with a crabby, bothersome wife and will use the fact that the woman is a single mother with many children to assume she would make a bad wife. In this instance, the man is stereotyping because we know nothing about why the woman is single. This scenario is nothing more than a relationship (a stereotype) that could very well be true. Now take me on the other hand, I don’t want children. And if I did, I certainly wouldn’t want a premade family to take care of and support. So for me, this same instance becomes the actual cause or direct relationship as to why I don’t want this woman for a wife. I am not stereotyping, I am exercising choice using what I do not want as the main purpose for my decision. All of the problems in America are based off of some people’s inability to distinguish the differences I just described. Therefore, associations, relationships, and one event in a series of events are being erroneously used as proof, which leads to regulations and laws that cause problems. Or not being able to distinguish the main purpose of the argument/problem leads to violent, unnecessary disagreement.

Now is an even better time to point out something that the liberal side of Democrats always does. They pick a bad characteristic that they themselves exhibit and then try to transfer their own blame to the Republicans by finding a similar characteristic in something the Republicans have done. I believe I’ve heard Psychologist label this type of behavior before, but I cannot remember. I have many liberal friends who do the exact same thing to me, we call them hypocrites. They complain about something in us that we really don’t do, but they do all of the time to a much deeper extent. They then go around complaining about us, when in reality they are much bigger culprits of the complaint. Once again, it is due to the inability to distinguish situations that may have some similar characteristics but are really very different from each other. For example, when the two political parties were arguing over the debt limit I felt that the Democrats accused the Republicans of their own behavior. Democrats were acting as if Republicans were throwing a temper tantrum like little kids. But it would be the same thing as a parent telling their child, “no we can’t put more money on the credit card, so stop crying and stomping your feet.” And then when the parent refuses to put more money on the credit card the child tells the parent “stop throwing a temper tantrum and acting like a little baby because I am telling grandma to get me another toy with your credit,” all the while stomping their little feet and crying. Now you tell me who is throwing the temper tantrum.

[Now would be the best time to answer my question, if both sides are unwilling to yield, how can only one side be blamed? But that is not the purpose of this discussion]

The point is that some of our politicians can’t distinguish between a bad person or group of people and a bad religion or collection of principles. Personally, I don’t care what words we choose to use when discussing this problem. “Americanly”, the words do not matter and are irrelevant; what matters is the conveyance of understanding. And we all need to understand that the problem needs to be solved.

You Are only Allowed to be Anti American

This really is not what I wanted to talk about this month, but I couldn’t let the hypocrisy go by unnoticed. It is the most important flaw in liberal thinking that is killing America (notice I focus on “liberals”, not the Democrat party). It is associated with one-way stereotypes, but let’s face it, everything is associated with stereotypes because they are important because they are significant statistics. But the main point really has nothing to do with stereotypes, only the lack of consistency with social media and the new laws that seem to be accompanying them. My unrest began with an argument I read in relation to allowing Syrian refugees into our Country. The issue of refugees is not my concern or the reason for writing any of this. I am not arguing for or against this issue. I simply want to point out the hypocrisy in logic that is unjustly being supported by our courts.

The article was based off of statistics (stereotypes again) regarding deaths from terrorist attacks in America. According to the article there were 293 furniture related fatalities in 2011, which was far greater than deaths from terrorists in America, which I find to be an interesting figure since there were about 3,000 immediate deaths during the 9/11 attack and people are still dying from the after math of health conditions created during rescue and cleanup. Anyway, the article based its argument for allowing refugees into our Country on the statistic that you are far more likely to get killed by furniture than a terrorist. So according to the numbers, Syrian refugees should be allowed to enter the US because we should not be worried about terrorists because they are safer than furniture.  I immediately took it upon myself to look up the number of mass shooting fatalities in 2011. According to Mother Jones, a popular anti-gun media organization, there were 19 fatalities from mass shootings in 2011. And from several other sources, it seems that there were 17 fatalities of US citizens from terrorism in 2011. I must note that I believe the terrorist deaths were outside the US, so I don’t know that it would be correct to relate the numbers. But I do believe it would be correct to say that the number of terrorist attacks and mass shootings (especially since some of the mass shootings are terrorist attacks) are similar. So it would seem that the same people who argue that furniture is more dangerous than terrorists in America so we should not be worried about them immediately change this logic when data shows that mass shootings are far less likely than furniture attacks also. The numbers are very similar between terrorist attacks and mass shootings, yet the explanations of each are the exact opposite. We have a mass shooting crisis according to these people, but using the same numbers we have nothing to fear from terrorists because terrorism essentially does not exist. Remember, I’m not here to tell you what to think about the numbers. I’m just here to tell you what stupid is…

Honestly, I’m speechless at the bold admittance of stupidity and hypocrisy, but even more humbled by the fact that I seem to be the only person willing to literally stand and focus concerted effort against this type of immorality and open ignorance offered as justification. I cannot tell you what is moral, but I can tell you that contradicting agreed upon beliefs is immoral. It is also a form of enslavement and forced control because people enforce laws based on what they want, not what is correct. The biggest difference between America now and some time ago is that people with authority can get away with such poor justifications that lack sense. The politicians have been crooked since the beginning of society; the only difference is that in America they used to have to at least put some effort into hiding their crap. And that is the purpose of this website.

It seems like the only thing you are allowed to oppose and use stereotypes to attack are American ideals. When politicians do this it is supposed to be called treason, but I see it everyday now. Stereotypes can explain why things might exist, but they can never justify why everyone should be forced into something. In fact, that is why you don’t make laws based on stereotypes because you will without a doubt affect innocent people. Disproportionate statistics are used to make laws, but if you offer a disproportionate statistic to explain why a disproportionate observation is noted therefore no laws should be made you are called racist. As long as you influence people negatively regarding philosophies written in our Constitution you will be left alone, but if you influence people to follow what we have agreed upon you are told that the Constitution doesn’t allow you to influence people and that you are racist. I’m racist even though every new law we have today gives someone something special for being born a certain way. The idiocy in today’s society is making laws based on stereotypes that will only help a small percentage of the people, while it hurts the majority of the innocent people. And then saying if you do the same thing to help the majority of people it’s not fair because a small percentage of innocent people will be hurt is a contradiction and stupid. It is stupid to use stereotypes at all to make a law, but really dumb to only do it when you make laws that bring the majority of the community down. If you are going to make laws based on stereotypes, you should at least make it so that the majority of people are helped. However, as an American I believe we should only make laws that create a common good for all, such as roads for infrastructure and no stealing for community safety and the idea of free will. And let me illustrate something that is not a law or injustice, but just a good decision making process. If it is known that 30% of blood transfusions from a certain hospital infect people with disease, then it is ok to refuse a blood transfusion from that hospital. I am not persecuting the hospital based on stereotypes, I am simply exercising choice. It is not my responsibility to do anything for this hospital or accept blood transfusions to prove I’m not racist. If it is impossible to identify the good from the bad transfusions, I would be an idiot to take one from a hospital that is known to have a 30% infection rate, especially if I don’t need the transfusion or there exists other hospitals with 1% or even 0% rates.  I do not have to solve the hospitals problems to be a fair person and I’m not bullying the hospital for stating a fact that supports my choice not to go to the hospital. So do not confuse choices with laws when a community makes a decision. Just because you don’t like a decision does not mean it is an unjust law against your religion.

[Now would be a good time to explain the difference between a law and a choice/decision and people’s confusion that laws are supposed to solve their problems or promote their preferences, but I don’t want to lose the focus of the article]

The reason why you do not allow someone to be fired because they are gay is because majority voting does not dictate right and wrong. Remember, America did not become great because of democracy; it became great because of a democratic Republic with smart leaders following morals. And this is what we’ve lost through our bogus courts. The logic that is being used to fire people in America now, is the same logic that was used to fire gay people 50 years ago. Prestige could hurt the company business and popular opinion in those days did not like homosexuals, so businesses felt they could fire someone for being gay. People protested this, but the original movement back then was based on facts, definitions, and agreements trumping money and popularity. Courts found it illegal to fire someone solely based on preference. The only reason to fire someone is if it could be proven he/she had done a poor job based on the agreements of the hiring contract. The idea was to end stereotypical injustices regardless of the power of money. With this type of societal mindset, unions and tenure would become irrelevant. However, in today’s reign of “supreme law”; a person’s beliefs or preferences can now be used to fire them if it can be proven to cause financial damage. People are now being fired for publicized “mini-captions” regarding their statements, opinions, and preferences and nothing is being done to stop it. If you had specifically signed a contract based on those preferences or opinions then it would be a different story, but this is not the case. The same people that protested to stop this type of injustice against gays support it today because they don’t like the people and preferences that are currently being fired. Now, they say that the businesses have the right to fire a person if their image is damaged and possible financial gains could be lost. If this is the case, then the fact that 95% of people are not homosexual and a large majority of these people are Christians would give cause to fire someone because they are gay so as to not lose so much business, which used to be the argument in “evil Jim Crow era”. People who want to live by popularity voting or the power of money are creating a situation to negate the liberties so many have fought to gain in America over the years. But now, they want it because it is in their favor. However, this is the type of immorality that will cycle around to bite you in the butt. You don’t want those 95% white, rednecks to wake up with that kind of power again, or do you?

[I could begin a conversation here about the statement, “If you had specifically signed a contract based on those preferences or opinions then it would be a different story” and how the irony is that this is the only type of firing situation that is being protested in society today. In other words, people who should be fired because of contractual agreements about preference and opinion that were not true are being defended, while those who broke no agreements and should not be fired are applauded. This indicates that the only people being supported and defended are the ones who actual do wrong, which supports my statement that we are only allowed to be “anti-American” but I don’t want to get off on another topic]

The result of all of this is that the media, backed by the government, is now telling me how my child will be influenced. Only certain people and ideas are allowed to be spoken publicly without repercussion (sounds like the early 1900’s, except back then at least the censorship made sense). Only certain philosophies and “character counts” are allowed to be taught in my local school [which this is the topic I wanted to discuss this month]. If I spank my child and teach him/her respect for God and the feelings of others, I’m called a lunatic. And the same people calling me a lunatic say it’s ok to kill a baby in the womb if you don’t want the responsibility. They also say that God doesn’t solve mass shootings. Yet, when the Christian faith was allowed in our schools things seemed to be a whole lot safer than with all the new gun laws these “sane” people have brought. Does this sound like America to you?

And this is all caused because the children of the people who worked hard and made something great are now inheriting the fruits of the American dream. However, having lived privileged lives they have no understanding of how that fortune came to be. Why do I say this? Because there are two paths to becoming liberal minded, being lazy and doing drugs while wanting what others have or growing up rich. Many rich kids are jaded and think that money really does grow on trees. I will give them credit in that they do have big hearts and want people to experience what they think is reality. But chances are, when I meet a liberal thinker they are typically driving around in a nice truck that they didn’t really do any work to get. And this is what plants the liberal seed in their mind. Along with the fact that every child wants to rebel against what their parents preach. If you look at every major media source of influence, the message being promoted today is much different than 60 years ago. I say it is because the children are taking over for the people who worked to build those successes. And the children are changing the influence that once used to come from people who knew what it took to be successful. Not only successful as a person, but a community of people. Look at every movie and TV show from your childhood and compare it with what your children are watching before you disagree with me.

This article is not to prove anything regarding guns or terrorists. It is only to show the hypocrisy of liberal arguments. It is to show that there is no logic in what is trying to be forced on America by a minority of people and the media. Not all rich people are immoral, but the ones who are will surely love and seek to promote this type of mindset from the lower class. Illogical philosophies create dysfunctional systems, exploitations, unwanted results, poor conditions, and people who can do whatever they want. This creates a perfect society for any evil leader looking to make more easy money.

So this is what I’ve learned from liberal logic: “We shouldn’t be worried about terrorists because furniture has killed more people in America in 2011, but we do need to control more people who follow the law because several mass murderers also killed a lot less people than furniture in 2011 and those murderers who were mass shooters need to be called terrorists so we should be worried about terrorists.” The same people saying there is nothing to fear from terrorist when they give a speech about Syrian refugees also say that terrorist activities are at an all-time high when they give a speech about how George Bush created ISIS and is to blame for all our “terror” problems that disappear only when they are speaking about the Islamic religion. And I’m here to call you a piece of crap if you say the exact opposite thing depending on which opinion you want to force on me. This is why I’ve preached the importance of Math and Science in our schools. This is the exact reason why I say that the lack of accountability in our current educational system is ruining our Country. No logical thinker could ever accept these types of justifications. And if we let our children pass class based on these types of justifications they will begin to believe that the illogical is true. Just because we are American does not mean we are too good to work at a fast food restaurant. It just means that we have to earn it by not being able to think critically and solve problems with logical truths and facts. However, we must still be able to add and subtract.

What I don’t understand is that there are many people who agree with me, many more people who agree with my general idea than disagree with it. Yet, the only time they speak up and do anything is to quiet me down because they don’t want trouble…

Liberal ANALogies

I can’t help but post an additional thought after hearing all of the idiotic arguments for gun control. This post is not about gun laws or the second amendment. I’m not trying to argue anything about our gun laws. I simply want to point out the lack of sense from liberals. And I also want to point out an incorrect analogy that the president used when he was acting like we are all so stubborn for not caring about shooting massacres and for not letting him fix the problem by following his orders. That is another tactic of liberals, when you disagree with them they act like you are evil and don’t care about the problem. They act as though they have an obvious answer and that the rest of us just don’t care. Instead of accepting the fact that the reason why we don’t agree with them is because we don’t think their solution will solve the problem. In fact, we think that their solution will create more of the problem, which has been known to happen with liberal policies in the past. Yes, we all care. But I don’t have to let people get their way who say they can fix something just to prove that I care. I mean, how often do we hear politicians saying they can fix something? But how often do they actually fix something or even do what they say.

In this instance, I am reminded of the people we all know who spend five minutes of their life “tweeting” two or three ideas about global warming, racial injustice, and the growing disparity between the rich and middle class caused by George Bush. These people then take a shower, fix themselves up, and go to a wine social with the one percent from Wall Street. They then get on a private jet with the one “percenters” and hop to an exotic island where they exploit to the highest levels possible the inhabitants and resources of the island only to return home to their bed where they have a good night’s sleep feeling peace with themselves because they did their part to save the world by telling all of us with their twitter messages that we are the problem.

Starting with the president, this is a topic he’s talking about that also concerns me because it does seem like mass shootings have become an epidemic. And this is the one time where I actually hear both sides saying similar things in special moments; although, the media would never point that out. So when I give this example, please realize that I do not give it so that you won’t listen to the president. In this instance, we should have a discussion about what the president is saying and do some research. I am giving the example to illustrate bad analogies. However, I do refuse to have a discussion when it comes to the right of the people to bear arms, I am not referring to his gun law references that need discussing. I am referring to a discussion about what is causing these mass shootings and is there a way to avoid it without trampling the rights of a free nation. And remember that doing the research is so that better decisions can be made, not proof that you can force your philosophies on people. The role of the government is to provide better alternatives/opportunities for all equally so that people can avoid breaking the law and pursue individual happiness.

The truth of the matter is that the only solution is for localities to figure out measures they could take to prevent such tragedies, although I believe it is impossible to predict and prevent a random criminal act. But it should be the responsibility of local politicians to research and understand what is happening to find possible solutions that do not violate free will. I have no problem with the federal government helping and making suggestions, but a centralized location with centralized data should never make decisions for localities; a founding principle of our Country that has been lost and covered up. Anything the federal government provides should be helpful and accepted, not restrictive and forced.

[I’d start with the poor use of prescription drugs for mental patients or the fundamental changes regarding accountability in the education system or fundamental changes in our society regarding self discipline and/or accountability of one’s own actions, or the new irrational system our society has created that is driving people crazy but that is another conversation]

When people make statements about America it drives me crazy because you cannot make one statement that describes all of America. It is one of the most diverse places I’ve been. So when the government comes out with a statistic that supposedly represents all of America we should be able to understand it is crap. Mixing numbers from NYC with Mississippi will surely not give us any informative representation of either location. This is the reason it is better for localities to solve their own problems. Because you are lying if you think what is happening in Mississippi and what will work there is the same thing as what is happening in NYC and what will work there. We all proclaim to know statistics are jaded anyway. Everybody says they understand that averages don’t tell the story, such as one student scoring a 0 on a test while another student scores a 100 and the class average is 50. The average represents nothing about the class. We all say we understand this, so why doesn’t everyone start acting like they understand it and quit listening to the crap instead of pretending to be enlightened but still follow the crap. It is absurd for anyone to say they can use a statistic to describe all of America.

The comment that the president said that I want to focus on as a bad analogy, a common habit among liberals these days, is that “we fix roads and have seat belt laws to prevent tragedy/make our lives safer” (I guess he means reduce risk, I’m not sure). And I disagree, and this is an example of democrats making analogies that seem related but really are something completely different. We have seat belt laws because of money and insurance companies, not because the government wanted to reduce risk for our safety. They came out with those statistics just so they could pretend like their agenda was necessary. We fix roads because it provides infrastructure to improve conditions for all and to have a prosperous nation. And yes, it makes sense to make them as safe as possible for all if there is a way; that is called being smart. But when we fix the roads there are no restrictions or regulations to my individual freedoms that come with it. We do have restrictions and regulations that apply to all when we use the road, but that is because it is a public place that we must all share. However, remember that I never have to give up any of my rights to use that public place, which is why I find it interesting that we have to give up our guns to go in city buildings when we conduct city business. [Not sure how I feel about this topic, but I would like to move on]. The point is that the president is acting like seat belt laws and infrastructure were driven by the idea of our government protecting people from themselves. One, that reason is not true. Two, neither ideas are the same thing as trying to prevent someone from breaking a law. Trying to stop someone from being a killer (or breaking any law for that matter) is not the same thing as trying to keep people from having accidents or make safer roads. An analogy that describes what the president is talking about better would be making 55mph the speed limit, and then trying to come up with more regulations to predict and prevent people from going over 55mph by taking away more freedoms from everyone. So when I say that his analogy is incorrect, these are my justifications.

I don’t think anyone out there is insinuating that we shouldn’t be concerned or try to understand how to reduce people from breaking the law (but if that were a possible task, I believe all of the jails in the world would be less populated). The question I have for the president is what are they researching other than gun laws? Now, I’m pointing the finger back at our government and asking what ideas have Democrats presented and pushed other than gun laws? Because the increased gun laws and regulations we have now sure don’t seem to be the solution. Why make more of something that doesn’t work? Most businesses will stop funding a theory and try something different when data suggests that a particular plan or idea isn’t working. However, most Democrats interpret this same data to mean that we need to increase spending and invest further into the methods that don’t seem to be working. Or they come up with bogus statistics to feel better about their failures. Bottom line is that politicians only talk, just like those “tweeters” island hopping. I’m tired of hearing about gun restrictions that won’t work, and I’m tired of hearing about how Obama cares but nobody else does. Start doing some real research and come up with some logical arguments about what can be done that won’t take rights away from law-abiding citizens. And by the way, I’ve never heard anyone say that we need more guns to solve the problem, although that is what Obama insinuated (people are simply saying that self defense is the best way to protect yourself and your family; another liberal tactic is to reword your argument so that it means something different than what was intended). He then says that the data shows that more guns is not working, but doesn’t the data show that more gun laws aren’t working either? And don’t give me a statistic that includes suicide either. That would be the same as taking Pepsi away from people and then bragging that statistics show people have less Pepsi related obesity just like you predicted, even though the same obesity is occurring with Twinkies. By God, if they only knew Math and Science they would know they have to show there are less violent gun crimes or less obesity in general. I know one thing, inner city Chicagoland has a lot of gun laws and I’m sure as heck not going to go walk around there no matter how much Obama tells me there is a statistic to prove it is safer.

I’m not saying Republicans, or anybody for that matter, has done anything better. But a common fallacy in our society right now is the logic that doing something and/or implementing change for the sake of fixing a problem we don’t like is automatically better than doing nothing. The current system could be limiting the problem better than the new system. Just something to think about before you start bossing people around.

An interesting side note is that automobile deaths are still slightly higher than gun related deaths. And if you take out suicides, I believe automobile deaths would be quite a bit higher. This is another example of people jading statistics to act like they can force their opinions on you. I also can’t find any data that shows a significant impact after seat belt laws took effect. So I’m just not quite sure what the president is talking about or what everyone’s point is with more gun regulations or taking away things that are risky, or forcing people to do things that are supposedly less risky for their own good. I’ll eat every Twinkie and drink every Pepsi I want just before I go to the gym, thanks for the info about Pepsi being bad for me though. I appreciate it.

But the most ludicrous argument I hear is from people who pretend that the government is more capable of protecting an individual, than the individual. A mass shooter has 15 to 30 minutes (I don’t know the actual numbers, but it has to be close to this) to kill before police arrive and have a shootout with the suspect. Actually, the mass shooter kills himself more often than the police actually ending the crime. Regardless, there is a long response time that gives the suspect 15 to 30 times as much time to carry out damage. And people applaud this system as though the professionals have done such a great job. When in reality it would take an armed citizen less than a minute to accomplish the same task, which I believe has happened more often than the authorities stopping the mass shooter (I’m not sure about this statistic either and I don’t feel like looking it up, but I know for sure that citizens in my home town stopped more crime when I was growing up than the police. The officials would always show up 30 minutes or so after the crime). An interesting side note is that liberals typically would scream, “If it saves just one life, we must try!” One armed citizen could save many lives, but I have a feeling that in this argument that philosophy would all of a sudden disappear until it is needed again (which make it a crappy philosophy). They would later say, “gun regulations could save just one life, we must take away freedom in the name of hope.”

Any time a logical person raises the argument that armed citizens can protect themselves better, the liberal will start screaming, “We don’t live in the Wild West!” Unfortunately, they are correct that we don’t live in the America that used to be so great. However, they are incorrect in relation to the argument. Another liberal tactic is to say something that is correct and true that has nothing to do with the argument. It makes them appear correct about something and it confuses the person they are debating because the person agrees with the statement but it takes the person time to realize the statement is unrelated. So, the liberals start saying that armed citizens will lead to Wild West shootouts and society will become a bloody, crazy shootout. At this point it is difficult to argue with these people because they ignore the fact that we already have a blood bath on our hands. Some crazy “A” hole is already having a Wild West shootout. The only difference is that now the innocent people are helpless. And these liberals also ignore the fact that when the police show up they are going to have a Wild West shootout anyway. And we’ve all seen how many random bullet holes police shootouts produce. Much more than the armed citizens who have taken out mass shooters immediately. I can’t write anymore about this because I don’t understand how this particular rebuttal could continue.

It is a fact that there used to be less gun regulations and more common day use of guns. There was a time when people would go to high school with guns hanging in the windows of their trucks. And it is a fact that in those days, there were less mass shootings. I know how to interpret the correlation, but the reality of what it means I don’t know. This would be a fine lesson for liberals to follow, because correlation doesn’t prove anything and it doesn’t mean the understanding of why the correlation exists is known. I do know that I love being American and if you don’t like the Wild West it seems like you would move. I also know that if America becomes like the rest of the world then I can’t move somewhere to be American. If you’re scared to live free, say you’re scared and move to the confines of security. These walls can be found all over the world, Berlin, Russia, North Korea, etc, etc.

And before I forget, Europe and America are two completely different places. So don’t use their societies as proof for what we need to do. Although, that doesn’t mean we can’t get good ideas from them. But in reality, good ideas can be found anywhere.

UnAmerican Football

American football is a perfect example of how rules and regulations have ruined America. Our society has mirrored the changes that have been brought to the game, or the game has mirrored our changes, that have led to something crappy for both. This post is quite simple; I don’t like watching American football anymore because it’s not really American football. I can’t believe people continue to watch a sport based on forcefully tackling the opponent that now has subjective rules and regulations that punishes a team for forcefully tackling; and the people remain silent. It seems like the team who tackles the best can arbitrarily be punished, while the other team is rewarded and becomes a winner without having to actually do anything. The rules in football today would be the same thing as disqualifying a boxer for punching a defenseless boxer in the face. That’s the thing with America now. We have all these systems that worked 100 years ago, and now we’re making changes to the system that contradict the whole purpose for the existence of the system. And then we wonder why we suck.

[We could have a long discussion about this and what our courts and laws have done related to equality, assistance/infrastructure, and the way we assess whether our systems are working]

People say they want to protect the players. If you really wanted to protect the players, you wouldn’t give them a helmet and tell them to run into somebody hard enough to knock them over and cheer.  Ironically, the injuries continue. Then the judicial system says it’s the league’s fault. But the players don’t have to play the game. Since when did one person’s chosen actions become the responsibility of somebody else. Getting sued all the time and losing will definitely force you to change.

I find it interesting that people who demand a separation of church and state use morals as a reason to impose regulations on others. Separation of church and state simply means that your church doesn’t make decisions for the government. It doesn’t mean that people with similar beliefs can’t combine morals with logic to make a better community for all. The philosophies of the community should be very dear to the heart of the decisions the local government makes. Separation means we don’t simply follow the church. We elect officials; and yes pastors can be officials. Separation of church means that you can’t exclude people because they don’t follow your pastor and you should never force people to follow your pastor. However, it does not mean that people who don’t like your church can force the community to change or force the pastor to be silent. If it did, then it would mean I could force football to become American football again because I certainly don’t like what it is now. If you like a community that prays but you don’t pray, that’s fine. You can live there as long as you follow their laws. Separation doesn’t mean they have to stop praying, it just means they can’t force you to pray. Groups of people specifically traveled across the Atlantic Ocean so they could pray together the way they wanted, and now they can’t do it. And people somehow think this was the whole idea of separation of church and state and what the original people wanted. If the original people had wanted to end prayer and God, don’t you think they would have done it since they were the ones making the rules? So don’t try to act like you know what they wanted, all we know is what they did and how they lived.

The media tried to attack Dr. Ben Carson for making the statement that a Muslim shouldn’t be president. I can only ask the question, would we all be fool enough to vote for leaders who have openly admitted they don’t believe in our faith or philosophy of government? It would not make sense to elect a candidate from the communist party to run a system based on natural law and capitalism. It would not make sense to elect a Nazi bigot to run a system based on free will and equality either. The beautiful thing about America is that both of those candidates can live in America with their beliefs and make agreements with people of similar beliefs, as long as they don’t break required laws. It is ok for a community to pray together as long as they don’t force people to pray with them. Anybody who doesn’t like the moment of prayer is free to leave or get elected to office to create change. I just don’t think I want to elect someone who openly admits he/she wants to eliminate Jesus from my community. People who question Dr. Ben Carson either never read our founding documents or don’t understand them. Our founding documents and system of natural law are clearly based on the teachings of Jesus. Whether you call it morals or logic, why would I want to elect someone who fundamentally disagrees with my community’s way of life? This is not an attack on Muslims as I have met many intelligent, peaceful Muslims. But I should not have to pretend that their vision of social law is different than mine. The reason faith matters are that character and fundamental beliefs will influence logical decisions and understanding over social laws.

To me it was a loaded question to ask somebody whether a Muslim should be president. If you think about it, Christianity means many different things to many different people who interpret the Bible differently. Allowing people to interpret Christianity and live together the way they wanted was the real reason for people coming to America. I do know that one huge difference between Muslims who came to America a hundred years ago verses Muslims who come to America today (all immigrants for that matter). Muslims used to kiss the ground and be thankful to be in such a welcoming place that would let them live in peace. Immigrants used to be excited to assimilate themselves into the American way of life. Now, there are immigrants who come with hatred and want to change the American way of life. Am I supposed to pretend that I don’t see Muslims preaching hatred against the “infidels”? Do not forget that at one time in America people feared electing a Catholic president because of the corruption associated with the Catholic church that sent the pilgrims across the ocean in the first place. So yes, your faith and beliefs or non-beliefs do matter. If people say things that disagree with our philosophy of government and their beliefs are different than ours, then yes, I would be a fool to vote for those people. The problem is that just because they say they are Christian or Muslim doesn’t mean they really are practicing the definition of the Christian religion or Muslim religion. That is why the goal of this website is to create a way that communities can identify political leaders by their character, achievements, and political policies instead of by their religion or political party.

One good thing to be taken from this discussion is that a black man, Dr. Ben Carson, now knows what it feels like to be an honest, hardworking successful white male. America has come a long way since slavery. Ben Carson made a logical comment on the spot because he was trying to have an open and real discussion. His statement was then analyzed by a lot of people who made assumptions, who then drew conclusions about his character rather than question and debate his statements. All of a sudden Ben Carson  became a bigot, but I guarantee you that if we judge his character by his past actions in life (which would make more sense than a few statements he made during a discussion) we would see something quite different than a person who commits prejudice acts. Yet, people are making these statements about his character as though they are facts.

The purpose of America and this website are to realize that just because you are Muslim or Christian doesn’t mean you will be a good leader. The goal is to create a way of electing the best people who will follow our philosophies/morals. The problem with the discussion is that the word Muslim can have many different meanings regardless of its textbook definition. This is why people normally have to discuss things to understand what they mean. Some people view “Muslim” as though it is an ethnicity and then get all offended. Others view it as radical Islam, while others view it as a slightly different version of Judaism or Christianity. And you are right; we shouldn’t judge an official based on his/her religion. But if a particular religion has specific philosophies that contradict our laws and someone professes to have these conflicted views, then no we shouldn’t vote for her/him. I think this is all Dr. Carson was trying to point out. I find it interesting that no one would question us if we said that a KKK member should not be our president, even though technically the founding principles of the religion were actually peaceful and well intended. How do we know whether he/she is a practicing member, or exactly what parts of the KKK philosophy she/he follows? I suppose the answer would be to actually look at his/her past actions and accomplishments. I do find it interesting that one thing that the Muslim religion and the KKK have in common is their self-proclaimed supremacy, whereas the Gospel of Jesus is focused on acceptance. Also, I have seen groups of Muslims chanting ideas in direct conflict with my way of life and our laws. So I do believe that Dr. Carson has a leg to stand on when he questions whether or not we should elect a Muslim official. Wouldn’t the people attacking his statements just love it if we all voted someone into office who would change our laws to fit their beliefs? Being tolerant doesn’t mean that I have to condone the acceptance of someone who wants to change me; that would be called being a gullible fool. I suppose the better way to approach the situation would be to just focus on what a person has tried to do and has accomplished when voting for him/her. Because the truth is that I really don’t know what it means to be “Muslim”, which is why the question should have never been asked. You give a smart man a stupid question and he tries to answer it honestly and somehow the smart man gets critiqued instead of calling out the reporter for his/her irrelevant question. We should be questioning whether or not the reporter should be a reporter for formulating such a poor question. And Dr. Carson never said we should make it a law or do religious testing for political office. He is just referring to the fact that the voter does have the right to vote for someone who shares similar philosophies of life, especially when those philosophies make up the societies laws.

America is a place where people can take risks if they want. Yet, I don’t believe that people could agree to play an old game of American football without somebody being wrongfully sued if an injury occurs. The new rules of football are immoral in the sense that they are hypocritical and contradictive to the purpose of the game. They result in one team winning a game without ever really achieving anything over their opponent. In fact, the team who hit the hardest is most likely to lose. Sadly, this seems to be a pattern in American society as well. Your beliefs or non-beliefs should never prevent a group of people from playing an old game of American football if they want. A person who shows up to the game and doesn’t like it should never be able to change the game. And if somebody shows up who believes the rules of football should be changed to the rules of soccer, then I would be stupid to vote for that person. If they want to play a different game, they can go somewhere else and play it. The thing that kills me is that people will participate in this new game that is just like soccer, but continue to call it football. Come to think of it, the rest of the world does call soccer football, so it appears that America is becoming more and more like the rest of the world everyday. The unhappy people who showed up have changed the rules of American football with the help of the courts. The rules have changed so much that I’m no longer watching American football. If you want to play a game with less risk (like soccer), just say so and go do it. The whole idea of America is that I can take my own risks, live my life the way I want, and solve my problems the way I want. We made an agreement that allowing each to solve their own problems and take the risks that they want would be the greatest freedom every experienced by a society. Additionally, it used to be common knowledge that a government is lying when it says it can protect you from the risks that this life brings us all. It would be the same as the government professing it could protect you from death and taxes. Rules and regulations never have and never will be able to end risks that we must all face from birth on in this world no matter what Obama or Bernie tell you. Obama trips me out every time there is a mass shooting and then he starts shaking is head and speaking with a condescending tone as if he could really stop these tragedies if we would just do what he says. All liberals are like this; they speak as if they have a message from God about what needs to be done to solve unpredictable acts but that we are too stubborn to just do what they say. Funny thing is that normally what they want to do has already been done and proven not to work. Creating more regulations for people who don’t follow the law really doesn’t help. People are confused about what is the law and what is a regulation to prevent/predict who will break the law. I don’t want to live in a world where proven idiots are predicting if I will break a law. What I don’t understand is that I was here first and now that I’m complaining people are telling me that I just have to accept it. How come the people who showed up complaining didn’t have to “just accept it” too?

I’m not saying gun regulations are unnecessary, especially if they are used wisely and effectively for the right reasons. It just ticks me off that liberals act like they truly without a doubt have the solution to stop mass shootings. When has any liberal idea ever worked? I honestly don’t see how more gun regulations can have any effect. We have more regulations now and less common daily use of guns than years ago when there didn’t seem to be a problem, so something is not adding up. In many aspects the US and Mexico have more in common than the US has with Europe. And Mexico has some of the strictest gun laws; yet, they have much more gun violence than the US. Fact of the matter is that if you get rid of suicide statistics, the gun violence numbers drop quite a bit in the US. And I really don’t see how someone deciding to shoot himself/herself with a gun can be the government’s problem. It seems like if I wanted to kill myself and you took my gun away, I would just use a rope or something. How many things can you take away in the name of risk?

If you want to live under the European umbrella, by god go live under it. If you don’t want to eat American beef, then don’t eat it. But why on Earth can people not understand that forcing me to not eat American beef for my own “so called protection” is the kind of oppression the original Americans fought against. The government will never be able to protect you as well as yourself, your friends, and your community. At one time, Americans knew this and it is the reason they made the original agreement to face risk head on and live free. I have no problem with the government warning me, advising me, and certifying things for me in all of our interest. However, the government should never be able to restrict me in the name of risk, especially when they use the same methods to protect me that they claim I can’t use to protect myself because its too risky. If I want to be a boxer, or play a good ole game of American football, or eat good ole American beef then I can, and I will be responsible for any risks that come with my free will choice.

Reiteration of September post

I want to reiterate the purpose of this website and those who made the glory of USWNT possible:

Having spoken so highly of what the women’s soccer team has accomplished I feel compelled to also speak about our brave service men and women. If it weren’t for them, none of the USWNT ladies would have the opportunity to fulfill their dreams. I’m always at a loss for words because I cannot possibly fathom the sacrifices those who serve in our military make. I’m humbled because I don’t quite know how to honor and thank them. Offering my gratitude through this website and some outspoken recognition is all I can think to do. Because one of the main purposes of this website is behind the pain we feel when we think of some 18 year old soldier being sent off to dangerous lands far away while we enjoy our freedoms here in safety. The whole time my fellow friends and I are constantly complaining about something. It might not seem like it at times, but the complaints of this website are all directed at holding our leaders accountable so that if our young service men and women do give the ultimate sacrifice, their lives, it was absolutely necessary.

This website is also about bringing communities together to solve their own problems and finding a better way without government interference. Imagine if our communities and media stations cared as much about their favorite teacher and “the top ten teaching feats” as they do their favorite athlete or sport’s team. I believe our educational problem would be resolved beyond belief compared to any conformational system our government can try to regulate.

This website is also about speaking your mind against the “man”. Take the mainstream “sports world of news” for example, with all their constant preaching and agenda pushing. I’ve been saying it for several years now that they’re getting too big for their britches. I don’t care what they think about law-abiding citizens with guns or any other political view. Just report the news about a sport, that’s what you’re supposed to know although I question that at times. I certainly don’t need to hear what anybody with a “sport’s” degree thinks about the economy. I think what we all need is a little competition with the Sport’s broadcasting and reporting in this Country. Then maybe we won’t end up with a team who can’t even win their own division ranked higher than the team who did (shout out to Baylor). I’d love to go in with somebody to start a new sports broadcasting network that actually reports news about the sporting events and only the sporting events.

For starters I’d give Christen Press and the NWSL the props they deserve because Ms. Press is pure bad “_ _ _”. She does Michael “Jordanesque” things on the field, creating goals out of nothing and when I turn on the “sports world of news” I have to look at some guy running around with his shirt off like he did something after he scores one time. And truth be told, all he did was kick a ball into an open net created by his team’s maneuvers but he runs around and acts like he did something great by himself. And this is not one of those girl power speeches or we need to all watch soccer speeches because I don’t believe in promoting certain types of people for the sake of promotion and I’ve never really liked watching soccer. I believe in supporting people who work hard and achieve regardless of color, race, or gender. She has earned my words and I would be reporting the interesting facts of a game regardless of her beliefs; and you can decide whether to follow her or not but I would continue to report the facts. But where is the self-righteous media, who loves to jump on the liberal bandwagon just to have a story, reporting on her feats. It seems like they only want to talk about and promote the athletes that they like and influence the way they like. Here is a chance to actually promote greatness of women and they’re silent. If they really believed what they preached, they’d be giving her the face time. How else can women generate as much money, if they don’t get the face time deserved? If you give somebody $100 to run a business and give another person $10,000 to run a business and then compare their returns as justification of “something”, that to me is a problem worth discussing. However, I don’t actually have the numbers or the facts; I’m just giving people some place to start looking and by God, start thinking on our own.

A Lesson from World Cup Glory

I’m tired of writing about so many negative events and feelings that I wanted to take a moment to be inspired. Of course, you know I can’t speak without working some kind of argument into the discussion but I will save that for a little bit later. But first I wanted to congratulate the US Women’s Soccer team for working hard with the opportunities provided to them, making us proud, and playing some of the best and toughest soccer I’ve ever seen. It was obvious how well prepared and polished the team was from hard work and practice. The coordination of set plays and the unison with which the players moved during live play are evidence to this fact. All of the defining qualities that founded this Country were brought back to life brining tears of joy to my eyes. Qualities that the current politicians and media are trying to erase from history. I don’t believe it was about accomplishing their dreams, I believe it was about relentlessness for the pursuit of their own happiness in a land of opportunity (although those opportunities seem to be dwindling the more we butcher our Constitution).

A group of women took it upon themselves to set personal goals and make them come true. Rules were not changed for them, government intervention was not provided, and they were pretty much left on their own to achieve; the underdogs. Like most Americans the women put their hopes on their own backs and created their own opportunities. And most important they worked hard to make the most of each opportunity afforded them; self-made individuals that collectively created a self made team. I’m sure that some were given better opportunities than others, but that is the game of life that is impossible to eliminate (as communist states have shown us). They created a community of excellence that won over the support and care from all of the different communities that make up this place we call America. They accomplished this by working together and picking each other up to continue individual struggles towards greatness that would benefit the team as a whole. The performance I witnessed demonstrated passion, commitment, and perseverance in the name of pursuing happiness. Each player had individual goals in her quest for greatness and because their goals were never allowed to interfere with each other, but rather each was willing to voluntarily help the other achieve her goals greatness was attained for all.

These women earned their position and role on the team. I believe they represent an idea of independent effort combined with good intentions that can always rise up through the struggles of life. Our women appeared to be mentally and physically tougher than their opponents. As I watched the games, all the ideas that I associate with America permeated through me from their attitude and performance. Being born the fastest or the strongest doesn’t mean you’ll be the best. Toughness and accountability are what it takes to be the best, and anybody can become tough through hard work. Thank you women for not making excuses and putting your own destiny on your own shoulders and becoming the toughest team in the World Cup.

The debate begins with the discussion about why they are not paid as much as the losing men’s team. And the answer is that they still don’t generate as much money as men’s soccer. Making it to the top is a process and it will always be easier for some people than other people just based on circumstances. When I got out of college it was easier for other college graduates to get jobs based on the circumstances of whom they were already connected. I don’t believe in punishing these people because it is impossible to end connections within a society. You can’t make people like other people nor should that ever be our government’s role. Additionally, to insinuate that the government would be capable of monitoring and regulating fair circumstances would be a bold face lie. Communism has experienced more of a “good ole boy” system than any Jim Crow system implemented in the South. Just because people don’t like a sport doesn’t mean the government needs to endorse the sport or coerce people to like it. There are plenty of men’s sports, such as wrestling (real wrestling, not WWF), that don’t even exist at the professional level. It’s not the government’s job to make choices about what the people like and watch. Just because people like hamburgers doesn’t mean the government needs to subsidize chicken patties. It just means that Chick fil A has to work harder and put more of those commercials on air to make it to the top, which they did and succeeded. Chick fil A put their own destiny on their shoulders and made it happen by working hard and delivering a better product to the community. Through hard work Chick fil A was able to become the #1 fast food in America. It is never the government’s job to make a particular brand or philosophy exist. The only role of the government that is well defined in our founding documents is to make sure an unbiased; competitive/free system is followed (ironically, the media tried to hold this minority group, Chick fil A, back in their pursuit of happiness).

The best thing we can all do is try to create a system that allows as much competition from top to bottom as possible and then stick to the system. The system is a joke if you modify it midway through the game just to make certain players appear better. This is the problem with liberals: they don’t want to make the game fairer; they want to make the game (circumstances) more beneficial for a different group of people. In other words, they want to choose who we all like but its still ok to hate who they want you to hate; rather than everyone sticking to the system regardless of who they like. They don’t want to end unfair circumstances; they just want different people to have them. America is not about making sure minorities get their way, although that is what the current “man” in America wants you to believe. America is about making sure minorities still get to participate in the competition. The government should not be doing anything that benefits minorities or majorities. Equal protection under the law means that if somebody qualifies for something he/she gets it regardless of belief, race, or gender. Equal protection does not mean that we make special qualifications to make minorities happy.

There are benefits that come from being the most liked, which is why men’s soccer generated more money. But that didn’t come from the system, that came from the fans naturally (I suppose there is an argument here for who was funded more to begin with and promoted better. I don’t have the numbers so I can’t comment on this, but that would be a better place to start an argument). If women and men both generated the same amount of money and the men were still getting paid more, then you’ve got an argument. But that didn’t happen. And you can’t force people to like women’s soccer better than men’s soccer (although I do, but that’s my decision). Take basketball for instance, I can never watch women’s basketball. Although they may be much better than me, the play is nowhere near as exciting or entertaining as watching what the men do. I’m not going to pretend just to appease a group of people either. It’s how I feel regardless of who gets upset. I have no problem with women trying to promote themselves or working towards this goal in basketball. But if it has to be forced or the system has to be corrupted to make this appearance exist, then it is immoral and un-American.

The truth is that there are more men who prefer to play sports and follow sports than women. I know many women who don’t watch any sports, get a boyfriend and the next thing you know they are the biggest Pittsburgh Steeler fans you’ve ever seen. The women become just as big a part of the Sunday “funday” as the men even though they didn’t initially care about any sports. I’ve never seen a man do this. If women supported their own sports and were just as big of fans as men, it would certainly help sway the competition for women’s sports. I can tell you that the USWNFT swayed me into their camp. I’ve never liked watching men’s soccer. However, I thoroughly enjoyed the competition and skill that I saw during the Women’s World Cup this year. If given the choice, I would go to a women’s professional soccer game over the men, which I plan on doing. Nobody is forcing me to do this; the women earned this commitment from me with their style of play and professionalism. It is a small step and the beginning of the process for the women’s soccer team to be paid as much as the men’s team. But this is what it takes in life. Success isn’t a requirement of hard work, but hard work is a requirement of success.

When people start making stereotypes about pay it turns me off to their cause. For example, there was a place in NYC where women paid 77% of their tab one night to raise awareness about how women make 77 cents for every dollar that men make.

(on a side note: are the men who believe they are women and the women who believe they are men creating error in this statistic? Forgive me for being a sarcastic _ _ _, but that’s what the ridiculousness of America has brought me to now).

I find this funny because that night the majority of women who received this corrupted advantage in the system probably make more money than most of the men around me. Here again we see the liberal way; they don’t correct the problem they just make it unfair in their own way. A better way to address the issue would be to hire a qualified woman as manager and pay her top dollar and highlight her superior effectiveness, while pointing out specific situations in which unqualified men have received jobs and pay verses more qualified women. In this way you are pinpointing specific injustices instead of misinterpreting statistics. Let’s start having discussions in America based on fact and direct cause and effect again. And a fact is that everywhere I look, women who are doing the same job as men with the same qualifications receive the same pay. Of course private Corporate America looks different, but it looks just as different for the military service man as it does service woman.

I’ve talked to many women who don’t even really care about having a career and if they do work it’s just so that they can have a little bit of spending money for fun. I haven’t met every women or every man, but I can say that I’ve never met a man who wasn’t worried about making money to live and better his surroundings. I have my own conclusions as to why I’ve noticed this trend, but I will keep those thoughts to myself. And yes, the trends in my experiences are important. If I notice that 70% of people in a town run stop signs, it doesn’t mean everyone needs to get a ticket. But it does mean that I better be more careful going through an intersection in that town than back home

(and it sure as heck doesn’t mean we need to do something special to make it seem like the people in this town don’t run stop signs or even worse giving the people who run stop signs special privileges while blaming those who stop. Even worse would be banning the people who do stop from complaining about those who don’t stop so as not to offend the people causing the problem. But that’s a completely different discussion).

So if many women don’t even want to work, it stands to reason that they aren’t going to make as much as men or maybe there won’t be as many female scientists. You can say I’m stereotyping but that’s exactly what that bar in NYC did. And a stereotype is a significant statistic that can cause certain outcomes to be more prevalent, but what that statistic means or why it exists can be easily misinterpreted which is why we don’t make laws based on statistics. In fact, as I mentioned earlier it is the government’s job to make sure the system doesn’t punish an individual on the basis of stereotypes. All of the men who make less money than women were unjustly punished by the bar offering 77% bar tabs for women only. It is not the government’s job to create more female scientist, it is the government’s job to make sure that every qualified female who wants to be a scientist has the opportunity. From there we can talk about why qualified females are not getting jobs. But please don’t forget that I know plenty of qualified men who don’t get jobs either.

Some of my above comments are probably upsetting and “offending” the very women I’m actually trying to stand up for right now. But seeing past different perspectives, listening to honest thoughts, and recognizing other’s experiences to understand that someone different from you can still stand behind you at the end of the day is a major step towards success. The last paragraph is the type of open discussion that needs to exist if two different types of groups can ever get along. Black men and white men, men and women, Christians and atheists need to discuss with this type of honesty and openness if acceptance, tolerance, and understanding are ever to be achieved. Not liking what somebody says does not mean you are being harassed, it means you are having a debate. Calling somebody a name or using words that people don’t like is not bullying, following somebody around and refusing to let them have peace or forcing them to listen or agree would be bullying; understanding the concept of harassment is a lost art in America thanks to our rogue judicial system. The fact of the matter is that I am showing women respect by telling them exactly what I think regarding the topic at hand. Pretending not to think what I just said above would be disrespectful by assuming they can’t handle the conversation. If people speak differently depending on whom is their audience, how will we all ever be able to get on the same page as Americans? If white people only speak freely with other white people and black people only speak freely with other black people, then we should not wonder why each feels more comfortable and understood within their own “skin color group”.

These statistics about women making less money than men are coming from that small percent at the top who have the real “good ole boy system”, not the white trash spray painting “nigger” all over the place (which I’ve seen a black kid doing that just to start trouble when I was in junior high). Yes, the high paying jobs are being given to white men with connections. But the system and the average man aren’t involved in this privilege. The problem is the media always wants to punish the average man by creating some corrupted advantage that never addresses the real problem and never punishes the real “good ole boy” system. If I were to do a study to figure out how much men pay in bills verses women and then open a bar to give men this numerical discount, what do you suppose the media would have to say about that? I don’t know, but I’d have a lot of women patrons because men would be bringing their dates there for sure.

The point is that complaining about not getting paid enough without concrete, factual examples of two people doing the same but one getting more money for no apparent reason is counterproductive to the cause. Crying because people don’t like your sport or your idea will only turn people away (which I’m not accusing the USWNT of doing this, I’m only speaking generally). Calling for someone else or some body of government to make your cause popular will only create resistance and to me is un-American. However, putting your cause on your shoulders and inspiring people with good ideas and desirable “products” will ignite people to help you build something permanent. There are no guarantees, nor should there be any. For Women’s Soccer, you’ve already got one more person from a completely different mind-set willing to follow. They do not have my support because of some predetermined agenda that I want to promote, they have my support because I honestly enjoyed watching them play and recognized their demonstration of hard work values that motivate me. Couple that with the fact that all of the new rules in the NFL are ruining the game and the on field competition/toughness (much like our courts are ruining America’s competition), I’m ready to start cheering for a new group of athletes who play for more than just money.

I wanted to end by giving Hope Solo a shout out. I want to set an example of judging people by what you know about them, not by what you don’t know about them or what others say about them. I only know Ms. Solo by what I witnessed on the field and during interviews. And I would like to thank her for her passion, focus, and fierceness. All I’ve ever seen out of her is a strong, competitive nature and I am glad that she has represented me on the world’s stage. I thank her for being herself, expressing her true self, and saying what she thinks (Marshawn Lynch and Richard Sherman would be proud of her, another two of my favorites). I thought that was every American’s dream. Remember that if people never spoke freely and meekly followed what is portrayed as “appropriate”, women would still be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen and gays would still be scared in the closet.

Having spoken so highly of what the women’s soccer team has accomplished I feel compelled to also speak about our brave service men and women. If it weren’t for them, none of the USWNT ladies would have the opportunity to fulfill their dreams. I’m always at a loss for words because I cannot possibly fathom the sacrifices those who serve in our military make. I’m humbled because I don’t quite know how to honor and thank them. Offering my gratitude through this website and some outspoken recognition is all I can think to do. Because one of the main purposes of this website is behind the pain we feel when we think of some 18 year old soldier being sent off to dangerous lands far away while we enjoy our freedoms here in safety. The whole time my fellow friends and I are constantly complaining about something. It might not seem like it at times, but the complaints of this website are all directed at holding our leaders accountable so that if our young service men and women do give the ultimate sacrifice, their lives, it was absolutely necessary.

This website is also about bringing communities together to solve their own problems and finding a better way without government interference. Imagine if our communities and media stations cared as much about their favorite teacher and “the top ten teaching feats” as they do their favorite athlete or sport’s team. I believe our educational problem would be resolved beyond belief compared to any conformational system our government can try to regulate.

This website is also about speaking your mind against the “man”. Take the mainstream “sports world of news” for example, with all their constant preaching and agenda pushing. I’ve been saying it for several years now that they’re getting too big for their britches. I don’t care what they think about law-abiding citizens with guns or any other political view. Just report the news about a sport, that’s what you’re supposed to know although I question that at times. I certainly don’t need to hear what anybody with a “sport’s” degree thinks about the economy. I think what we all need is a little competition with the Sport’s broadcasting and reporting in this Country. Then maybe we won’t end up with a team who can’t even win their own division ranked higher than the team who did (shout out to Baylor). I’d love to go in with somebody to start a new sports broadcasting network that actually reports news about the sporting events and only the sporting events.

For starters I’d give Christen Press and the NWSL the props they deserve because Ms. Press is pure bad “_ _ _”. She does Michael “Jordanesque” things on the field, creating goals out of nothing and when I turn on the “sports world of news” I have to look at some guy running around with his shirt off like he did something after he scores one time. And truth be told, all he did was kick a ball into an open net created by his team’s maneuvers but he runs around and acts like he did something great by himself. This is not one of those girl power speeches or we need to all watch soccer speeches because I don’t believe in promoting certain types of people for the sake of promotion and I’ve never really liked watching soccer. I believe in supporting people who work hard and achieve regardless of color, race, or gender. She has earned my words and I would be reporting the interesting facts of a game regardless of her beliefs; and you can decide whether to follow her or not but I would continue to report the facts. But where is the self-righteous media, who loves to jump on the liberal bandwagon just to have a story, reporting on her feats. It seems like they only want to talk about and promote the athletes that they like and influence the way they like. Here is a chance to actually promote greatness of women and they’re silent. If they really believed what they preached, they’d be giving her the face time. How else can women generate as much money, if they don’t get the face time deserved? If you give somebody $100 to run a business and give another person $10,000 to run a business and then compare their returns as justification of “something”, that to me is a problem worth discussing. However, I don’t actually have the numbers or the facts; I’m just giving people some place to start looking and by God, start thinking on our own.