But this holiday is not about the wars, curse them all.  It’s about the patriots who put their lives on the line for a belief that what was achieved by our war for independence was worthwhile.  That even today, freedom is worth the cost they personally pay.  Remember the Hero’s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1kaXpnJD-0

The Plan

I have watched a lot of videos, read a number of articles and blogs that address our current political circumstances, our nation’s economical problems and the events that we are all faced with as citizens of the US. However, the video on this Web site really struck a major nerve. http://www.freemarketamerica.org

It struck a nerve because for a number of months now I have grown more and more convinced we are facing a government regime bent on destroying both individual liberty and Constitutional principles. A government that ignores the laws it was designed to protect, or rewrites those laws to enable it to do as it pleases.

That we are no longer in control of our government, but that it now controls us.

It struck a nerve because it provided specific examples of how a regime could go about destroying not only a nation, but the founding principles from which that nation was built. The video presents a scenario of how certain influential powers could go about collapsing a country without revolution and at the same time affirm a new social order; one that would virtually eliminate liberty and freedom.

It struck a nerve because it parallels my theory that government is executing a specifically designed plan to “fundamentally change” America into some kind of Socialist / Marxist / Communist State. A plan that transitions all power and rule to those who hold office, or those who financially control those in office.

I believe it is being done by design, and is being executed with specific and certain precision. I also believe it is a plan that has been in the works for many decades, although initially was not as maliciously intended as it is today. It is also bi-partisan. I believe it is a plan that has evolved as needed depending upon various events and circumstances, and it is a plan that continues to grow and strengthen. Its strength is derived from each success or milestone the plan has built into it. The more successes and milestones achieved the more robust and consuming the plan becomes.

The plan is much like a cancer, and like a cancer if left unchecked it will kill its host.

Some examples:

The recent Healthcare Act/Law which forces individuals and corporations to purchase a specific level of coverage, or be fined. That is an absolute violation of the Constitution and attack on individual liberty

The Stimulus Plan (both Bush and Obama) which further depletes an already exhausted money supply, and creates the need to print more money resulting in a weakened dollar.

Giving the EPA unlimited power and at the same time propagandizing the falsehood that humans are causing significantly negative changes in the environment. And the EPA is now a major catalyst for “Green Energy”, which is a supporting doctrine to alternative energy and government control

An endless effort to create multiple government entities both Federal and State.

Thousands of new laws which are designed to further the control over the population

Wars

Continued programs within the Public School System designed to indoctrinate our youth to a pre-determined mindset

Borderless boarders and an absolute defiance on the Federal Governments part to uphold those laws it was sworn to enforce. The more desperate minorities they can add to the government welfare program the more voices they have to continue the message that the government can help.

The promotion of alternate energy sources coupled with the closing of numerous oil and natural gas drilling sites and continued purchasing of foreign supplies. This too is a coordinated effort to further “Green Energy” and the governments influence of natural resources.

Industry bailouts designed to increase taxes but more importantly designed to influence and/or gain control of certain industries. If you want to further your control over natural resources such as oil, then assuming partial or total control over industries biggest user of oil is paramount.

The Patriot Act – This is an absolute and blatant act to allow the government to spy on its citizens and use terrorism as an excuse to prosecute. Additional efforts to gain access and/or regulate the internet further this endeavor.

The Executive Order – The worst and most destructive act/law initiated since this country was founded. No one man or woman should ever be allowed to invoke acts or statutes under any circumstance, otherwise liberty erodes.

Taxes – Completely out of hand and a key to the designed destruction of fair trade, individual prosperity and industry.

Endless Propaganda designed to specifically brainwash the sheeple into a particular mindset. The media is also a significant catalyst to further the plan.

The Federal Governments endless effort to intimidate State government to kowtow to a particular agenda, or suffer shortages in federal funding and/or other needed assistance.

Gun Control and an endless attack on weapon manufactures, their client base, individual citizens and the Second Amendment. They know that an armed citizen is more difficult to control or intimidate.

Eminent Domain – Another example of the government invoking laws designed to solely benefit its agenda and power. This is another absolute violation of both Constitutional and individual rights.

The selection and pandering of specific individuals by both parties on the basis of pure public appeal verses qualifications and abilities. This is more blatant at the POTUS level, but is evident at all levels of government. Obama is just the latest example of bringing the flamboyant, charming and eloquent puppet to the podium.

Continued efforts to promote equality and fairness verses competition and individuality. This is a mainstream agenda at the school level. It is also one of the most influential agendas for molding the next generation to require and expect more and more government assistance. Start educating and indoctrinating them at an early age so that when they are adults they already function as you conditioned them to function

Redistribution of wealth and the continued demonizing of the wealthy. This is an effort to eliminate the entrepreneur spirit that developed both the country and a once great industrial nation.

Racism – Probably more predominant now than it was 40 years ago, but in a way that furthers the gap between all races.

Welfare and Entitlement Programs – although initially created to provide a “hand-up” they have now evolved, by design, to be deprecating enslavement.

Party alignment – This is a critical catalyst in hoodwinking the individual. Debates about specific fundamental issues like abortion, marriage, gun ownership, racism, war on terror, drug legalization, borders and a dozen or more other heated issues only serves to redirect us from the real issue. This enables the government to continue its effort while the majority argues about mindless dribble. What we should be focused on is how licenses for marriage & guns is a direct violation of Constitutional rights, that we only need to go to war to defend against an aggressor, medical treatments are solely individual choices, all people’s have the same God given rights and what drugs we use and how we treat our bodies is also an individual choice. The government has no jurisdiction unless we chose to violate the same rights of another. And they have become experts at redirection.

I could go on for pages and pages, but the critical issue is the number of laws, programs and mandates that surface daily at an overwhelming level. Not only are they designed to reduce or eliminate individual liberties and freedom, they are designed to indoctrinate and intimidate.

Throughout world history government or powerful rulers set about defining and enforcing laws and programs to accomplish two basic principles:

Ensure adequate taxes (the current regime calls it revenue now) to support and promote their desired lifestyle

Control those under their rule in order to maintain their power and secure monies required to minimize or eliminate the threat of revolution or foreign invasion.

Interestingly enough all those regimes that adopted this evil style of government or rule eventually failed and caused or greatly contributed to the deaths of thousands.

It is an absolute that any form of government or rule founded or controlled by these two primary rules will eventually collapse.

Our government has over the past 100+ years evolved to the point of adopting these two primary objectives, and are consciously designing more laws and programs to promote them.

Those in power today DO NOT consciously believe that they are truly functioning in the best interest of the people, and for us to believe otherwise is blind ignorance. I have come to the conclusion that those who currently serve, or are looking too, are self centered, indignant and driven by greed. This is especially true at the Executive level.

If we are to change things we must first realize that the current government is only self serving, and each and every act or initiative it undertakes is designed to further its control.

We must realize that the only thing the government can do that is even slightly to our benefit is NOTHING. Any other effort is hurtful and designed to further the elimination of liberty and freedom, or at the least promotes current rules doing the same.

Despite all the laws and acts that have been invoked over the countless years, life and liberty would eventually evolve positively if the government would just stop.

From my own point of view this direction seems more feasible than working to elect different corrupt individuals to replace the current corrupt individuals. They are all cut from the same mold and either by desire or through peer influenced persuasion will evolve to be no different than their predecessors.

Now the Federal government is already too big and too strong to fight on an individual level, however local officials can be swayed. And since any and all acts or laws initiated by government officials are hurtful to individual liberty and freedom, our course of action at the local level is “NO”. They cannot be allowed to further government’s agenda. No more taxes, no more programs, no more facilities or institutions and no more laws or mandates of any kind.

My vote will be cast for those individuals that run on a platform of eliminating current taxes, laws, programs or rules, but only at the local level. At the Executive level casting a vote for one of the regimes chosen figureheads is an exercise in futility, because we are just placating a corrupt and evil entity. The simple fact that the Electoral College decides who will serve as President is evidence enough that we have no influence.

Maybe this approach will begin the effort to return our Republic and reinstate individual liberty and freedom; otherwise we will see some form of revolution followed by a great deal more suffering.

NO is the only answer.

CM

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/Stimulus-Grants-Fund-Erectile-Dysfunction-And-Sexual-Habits-Studies-151195105.html

But I admit that I mostly know people in the major metropolitan areas (Raleigh, Durham, Charlotte, Fayetteville, Chapel Hill) and have little acquaintance with the more “rural”parts of the state (this will be important later). That doesn’t mean I don’t have no ties to the small towns and small town people here, just less than the cities. I encourage people to come here. It really is a beautiful state (although admittedly Wyoming, Colorado, or Montana are much more my style, just not Mrs. Weapon’s style). We have some classic things, like the hometown Durham Bulls baseball team, the Outer Banks, the great ACC rivalries, and lots of American history.

The wording as it appeared on the ballot

But North Carolina has a darker side to it too. They seem to be politically backward in this state (of course I admittedly think MOST states are politically backwards with people damaging the world through the ballot box). These people elected Elizabeth Dole, who hated the state and came here only when necessary, as their Senator. They made Beverly Perdue the Governor (yes from THOSE Perdues). And just yesterday, they made me more embarrassed to be be a North Carolinian than I have been at any point in my life. Because yesterday, this state voted 61% to 39% in favor of adding an amendment to the state constitution defining marriage as strictly between one man and one woman. This in the very state that will host the National Democratic Convention in just a few short months.

Of course the folks in charge of rallying the troops in favor of this ridiculous amendment claim this isn’t about homosexuals.  Tami Fitzgerald, executive director of Vote For Marriage NC. told cheering supporters in Raleigh, “We are not anti-gay. We are pro-marriage.” To which I say, absolutely. I imagine then that the KKK isn’t anti-black, they are just “pro-white.” What a ridiculous statement, the entire amendment was created and marketed as being against gay marriage. But you know what, it doesn’t just ban gay marriage in North Carolina.

It impacts ALL domestic partnerships in North Carolina. Employers now face not being allowed to provide benefits to both same sex AND heterosexual domestic partnerships, and the children of those partnerships. There is a provision to protect situations where a legal contract is in place, but the vast majority of jobs in this “at will” state have no such contract. As a result, not only do people face losing benefits, but the state itself may find that businesses looking to relocate or start a new endeavor will avoid North Carolina and their uncertainty. One of the major factors in employee retention is benefits offered. That is now called into question. This is why many businesses and a large portion of local chambers of commerce were opposed to the amendment.

The amendment will take away the ability of partnerships, both gay and straight, to take actions that they should be afforded. A child raised by two unmarried people could be taken away from one if the “legal” guardian were to pass away. Decisions about medical treatment cannot be made by a domestic partner because they are no longer legally recognized. I think you see the overall implications just based on these two examples. The point is, that Amendment 1 passing did damage to far more people than just same sex couples who desired to express their love for one another.

Not to mention that there were some obvious shenanigans going on during the election process yesterday. There were many reports of folks being given ballots that did not include the amendment 1 referendum on the ballot at all! In several very “anti” amendment precincts, voters over 17 years old were being given ballots for people under 17 (In NC, 17 year olds can vote for candidates, but not on the referendum). These reports were coming out of Orange County, Durham County, Wake County, and Mecklenberg County. Why are the counties important? Take a look at the map to the right…

The counties in red voted no on the amendment. That little cluster in the middle is Orange, Chatham, Durham, and Wake Counties (Durham, Chapel Hill, and Raleigh). The little red county on the southern border is Mecklenberg County (Charlotte). Counties with the highest populations in the state, and also counties that were high negative on the amendment (my county, Durham, voted 70%-30% against). What else does this map tell us? The other counties represented in red are the city of Ashville (hippie town NC) and the county where Appalachian State University are. So the college towns and major metropolitan areas with more educated folks voted no, while the rural counties voted yes.

This isn’t all that surprising. This is the bible belt, after all. I could go into my rants against the christian stance against gay marriage, but there isn’t anyone here who hasn’t heard it from me before. So I won’t bore you all with re-stating my positional reasoning. All that is important is that I proudly voted against the amendment because I believe we don’t have the right to take away civil rights from people simply because we don’t agree with their lifestyle. As the saying goes, those who require the law to prove that their morals and faith are true, really have no morals or faith to prove.

North Carolina has made a grave error. Situations like this are the very reason why we are a republic and not a democracy. What we are seeing is a classic case of tyranny of the majority. Just because you have the numbers to pass a law doesn’t mean that you have the right to pass the law. When a law clearly discriminates against a group of people, then the law is wrong. And one day the religious fools that pushed for this law will reap what they sow, when they find themselves outnumbered and are discriminated against in the same horrific way that has been done with this law. But that is a day yet to come. For today…

I am ashamed to have to admit that I am a North Carolinian.

In politics, a partisan is a committed member of a political party. In multi-party systems, the term is widely understood to carry a negative connotation – referring to those who wholly support their party’s policies and are perhaps even reluctant to acknowledge correctness on the part of their political opponents in almost any situation. Partisanship can be affected by many factors including current events, figureheads (presidents), decisions, and even location.

In the United States,  “partisan” has come to refer to an individual with a psychological identification with one or the other of the major parties.

“I have no objection. Let the electorate see the real reason a lot of republicans oppose Obama.”

I shouldn’t be offended since I’m not a Republican, but I do oppose Obama and don’t think that comment reflects well on me and most who have and are speaking out on today’s issues.  The TeaParty was vocal about fiscal responsibility and was called racist.  Please, let the electorate see the real reason a lot of democrats support Obama.  The price of gasoline alone is issue enough to call for his being thrown out.  He railed against Bush when oil prices spiked, by his own words and standards, Obama should be thrown out of office.  He is constantly attacking the “fat cats” on WallStreet while showing compassion for the man on the street suffering thru these hard times.  But who is more responsible for those hard times, WallStreet or OvalStreet?  The guy in the oval office, wearing out our printing presses with “qualitative easing”.  How much has the value of the dollar dropped since he took office?  WallStreet didn’t cause that and the decrease in what you can buy for a dollar.  The one defense I will offer for WallStreet is at least they are honest in what they seek, it’s all about the money!

HOWARD STERN: Who should be the next President of the United States Elle MacPherson, go ahead.

ELLE MACPHERSON: I think Obama’s going to do it.

STERN: You like Obama?

MACPHERSON: Yeah, I’m living in London and I’m socialist. What do you expect?(1)

I think most of us have been waiting and watching for Greece to fall.  I admit to being gullible from time to time, just like Charlie Brown I fall for the media blowing up an issue into a catastrophe.  But on Greece and the Euro, I feel confidant there is a real story, not just media hype.  For one thing, Flag has mostly agreed  it is a big deal.  And then we are told about all the other countries near default.  But first, a close look at Greece.

Will Greece Default on March 20 ?

Felix Salmon is adamant that we’ve got the actual date for the Greek default:

But at least we have a date, now. Greece will officially default on March 20.

I find it very hard to fault his logic as well.

As I pointed out yesterday the actual haircut that the private sector holders of the debt are being asked to take is a lot higher than the 50% that is generally being bandied around. It’s a lot more like 70%.

Well, they are no Black Flag, but I think Forbes is somewhat credible.  I by no means think they have all the answers.  I think enough credit may not be given to the leaders of France, Germany and the Euro that have cheated death and won more times than can be explained.  But then, as in with all forms of gambling, the “house” does have some advantages, in this case, the makers of the rules may not be as bound by them as the rest of us.(1)

It seems to me they are juggling, catching one pin just before it hits the ground and tossing it back into the air.  Another “pin”.

Euro zone unemployment reaches near 15-year high

(Reuters) – Unemployment in the euro zone reached its highest level in almost 15 years in February, with more than 17 million people out of work, and economists said they expected job office queues to grow even longer later this year.

Joblessness in the 17-nation currency zone rose to 10.8 percent – in line with a Reuters poll of economists – and 0.1 points worse than in January, Eurostat said on Monday.

Economists are divided over the wisdom of European governments’ drive to bring down fiscal deficits so aggressively as economic troubles hit tax revenues, consumers’ spending power and business confidence which collapsed late last year.

February’s unemployment level – last hit in June 1997 – marked the 10th straight monthly rise and contrasts sharply with the United States where the economy has been adding jobs since late last year. (2)

Ireland.

Debt-mired Ireland is facing a revolt over its new property tax.

The government said less than half of the country’s 1.6 million households paid the charge by Saturday’s deadline to avoid penalties. And about 5,000 marched in protest against the annual conference of Prime Minister Enda Kenny’s Fine Gael party.

Emotions ran raw as police backed by officers on horseback stopped demonstrators from entering the Dublin Convention Centre. Many protesters booed and heckled passers-by who were wearing Fine Gael conference passes, some screaming vulgar insults in their faces.

Protesters jostled with police as they tried to block the way of Fine Gael activists using a back entrance. One man mistakenly identified as the government minister responsible for collecting the tax had to be rescued by police from an angry scrum.

Kenny said his government had no choice, but to impose the new charge as part of the nation’s efforts to emerge from an international bailout. Ireland already has endured five emergency budgets in four years and expects to face at least four more years of austerity.(3)

AP

Phyllis O’Toole joins an estimated 5,000…

Now as to the little I know (or think I know), we put around 800 Billion into TARP, passed under Bush and administered by Obama.  About half of that went to foreign banks.  We are also invested in the International Monetary Fund and World Bank.  Again, I think I know that if something hurts the Euro, like one of its nations defaulting, it will hurt the US.  And it’s just too damned easy to find others who think similar thoughts..

“Somewhere down the line we will have a massive wealth destruction that usually happens either through very high inflation or through social unrest or through war or credit market collapse,” he said. “Maybe all of it will happen, but at different times.“(4)

I have also said the US is at a tipping point, with 48.5%  getting some form of government support.  I think the government like keeping a dependent group.  I think once it’s large enough, we may never move back to a fiscally responsible nation, and will likely fail sometime in the future.  It’s pretty simple, why would anyone work if they can be paid to sit at home and do nothing?  Why work hard if the government takes any “extra” you produce and gives it to people who sit at home and watch TV?  When the workers are outnumbered by the non-workers who like living off the dole, all they have to do is keep voting for politicians that will continue to reward them.  Funny thought, our best hope may be the non-workers might be too lazy to vote.  But I’m sure the power that be will “fix” any problems like that, provide cell phones that allow you to text in your vote.  Hey, it’s good for the environment.  What’s our carbon footprint for driving to the polls every two years?

Am I wrong?  Maybe overstating things?  So how’s that socialism working out in Europe?

Voters may topple eurozone rescue plans

Rick Moran

Spain

Spain is in a recession, though only down an estimated 1.7% in 2012, if things go well. Unemployment is at 23%, which is higher than Greece for the latest Greek data that I can find. But more than half of young Spaniards (over 51%) are out of work, creating a lost generation that has been hardest hit by Spain’s economic woes. The total number of unemployed has climbed above five million, and Spanish under-25 unemployment has nearly tripled, from 18% just four years ago.

” ‘This is the least hopeful and best educated generation in Spain,’ said Ignacio Escolar, author of the country’s most popular political blog and former editor of the newspaper Publico. ‘And it’s like a national defeat that they have to travel abroad to find work.’ Young Spaniards are now living in the family home longer than ever before, pushing the average age of independence from their parents to well into their thirties.” (The Telegraph)

Unions called a general strike on Thursday as the recently elected Spanish government delivered its new austerity budget. While the protests were mostly peaceful, the pictures we see are of youth in partial riot mode. It is eerily similar to the onset of riots in Greece just a few years ago – except that unemployment is higher than when the Greek crisis started. And while Spanish leaders will protest that Spain is not Greece, there are striking similarities .(6)

Progress can often be defined as the stuff that happens while humanity is preoccupied with everything that is going wrong. On the surface, the first decade of the 21st century looks like an ugly parade of terrorism, war and economic convulsion. But in one important sense it stands as possibly the greatest decade in human history. And that’s no accident.

Among the most vicious enemies of human welfare is poverty. In a world plagued with limited resources, bad governments and unsound economic policies, it often appears to be an inescapable scourge. Most people paid no attention in 2000 when the United Nations proclaimed the goal of halving the number of earth’s inhabitants living in extreme poverty by 2015, compared to 1990.

But way ahead of schedule, the target has already been hit. For the first time since it began tracking, says a new World Bank report, “the data indicate a decline in both the poverty rate and the number of poor in all six regions of the developing world.”

In 1981, 70 percent of those in the developing world subsisted on the equivalent of less than $2 a day, and 42 percent had to manage with less than $1 a day. Today, 43 percent are below $2 a day and 14 percent below $1.

“Poverty reduction of this magnitude is unparalleled in history: Never before have so many people been lifted out of poverty over such a brief period of time,” write Brookings Institution researchers Laurence Chandy and Geoffrey Gertz.

Just as important as the extent of the improvement is the location: everywhere. In the past there has been improvement in a few countries or a continent.   Not this time. 

A sad note to end on, more riots in Greece.  A 77 yr. old man kills himself near parliament to protest the severe cuts imposed by the government.  He had worked and paid in for 35 years and stated he did not want to have to feed himself from the garbage.(9)  This kind of event provokes an emotional reaction in many, someone HAS to be blamed.  But who?  They have borrowed more than they can reasonably repay.  They refuse to balance their budgets, spending more than they take in.

I think the blame goes to many, the unions, the retired, the non-working, the entire entitlement society.  And then there is/was the politicians that promised them they could have increases in their retirement benefits, in their union benefits, free Viagra with their health insurance.  And these politicians have all done the same, they have agreed to all these spending increases and borrowed against future earnings.  Pass the buck, kick the can down the road, etc.. knowing they would safely be out of office when the bill comes due.  I know I do not envy those in office today, bound by promises somebody else made and facing reality, that no one will continue giving them money that all signs show will never be repaid.  So the world will sit back and watch as the birthplace of democracy commits suicide.

Can any good come from this?  Will the US and the rest of the world learn from this example?  It doesn’t seem so to me.  Obama’s last budget shows interest payments will exceed defense spending in 2019. (10) All the controversy over was he a Muslim or socialist is funny now that’s its obvious, he’s Greek.  So I must think everyone who still supports Obama want’s to follow Greece’s example.

(1)http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/01/18/will-greece-default-on-march-20/

(2)http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/02/us-eurozone-unemployment-idUSBRE8310CQ20120402

(3)http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/ireland-faces-popular-revolt-property-tax-16045514#.T3nDm9mJA2J

(4)http://www.cnbc.com/id/46923999

(5) http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/04/voters_may_topple_eurozone_rescue_plans.html#ixzz1quuhoGVm

(6) http://www.businessinsider.com/mauldin-the-biggest-thing-that-matters-right-now-is-spain-2012-3#ixzz1quzLzwix

(7)http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2012/03/21/6-states-where-taxes-are-soaring/

(8)http://reason.com/archives/2012/03/29/toward-the-conquest-of-world-poverty

(9)http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/9187738/Violent-protests-erupt-in-Athens-over-debt-suicide.html

(10)http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamas-budget-interest-payments-will-exceed-defense-budget-2019_635445.html

That said, I discovered, when my defense mechanisms kicked in, that logic and reason is not the answer either. My default defensive position is to shut down all emotion and feeling and mimic Mr. Spock from Star Trek as closely as possible. In the end, placing logic as the sole dictator of one’s mind really can destroy the soul. It is not that it makes you evil, it’s that it makes you soulless. A robot. Robots are not bad, they just aren’t good either. I prefer to be good, and I think “good” is essential to human interaction and to “good” in society.

So, yes, the Libra libertarian says it’s all about balance, big surprise. Actually, you would be surprised how hard it was to really embrace emotion after what my emotions did to me. Every bad decision I ever made, every time I have ever hurt myself badly, and every time I have ever really hurt other people I was leading with my emotions. On the other hand, some of the greatest beauty in my life also came from leading with the heart also, though most of those times I was still using my reasoning side at least a little bit.

The champions of reason always rail against the idea of the ends justifying the means. This is true. What they usually miss, however, is that the means do not always justify the ends, either. I fully agree that doing what “feels right” or doing something with a lofty goal does not excuse doing the wrong thing along the way. Caring for the poor by stealing from the rich is still wrong. However, declaring that one’s actions are “right” just because they are logical and consistent without concern for the outcome of those actions is equally problematic. What is it that makes a certain path “right”? Consistency is a key factor, to be sure, but one of the key things missed by Ayn Rand, for instance, is that just because something makes logical sense does not make it right, and more importantly, it does not make it realistic in terms of human philosophy. Humanity does not always act logically, often leading to things of beauty and even leading to innovation. A moral code cannot depend entirely on the means nor the ends, both must meet the criteria one has set for morality. If following perfect logic, for instance, leads to war and destruction, is that end justified by the means? According to whom? Is not, in that case, logic held as nothing more than a god in some religion? One must remain open to observations of reality, and reality does not always make sense, especially when that reality is the reality of the human experience and human nature.

The mind is more than feeling, the mind is more than reason. Faith, emotion, logic, reason…these are all aspects of the mind. All of these should not only be recognized, but utilized. To ignore any one of them leads to issues, and often one simply is in denial of engaging in that which they deny. That usually means they are caught off guard by it, they do things thinking they are acting with reason when they are really motivated in some ways by emotion or belief. In doing this they act out of balance or they lose credibility with others who can see the reality they are missing.

Everyone has beliefs, everyone has emotions, everyone engages in thinking, though perhaps it is not very good reasoning, it remains a part of the mind. Even if you recognize all the parts of your mind, if you fail to use them, or you allow one to overwhelm the other, you end up in trouble. When you fail to temper emotion with reason you end up acting foolish or even making a decision that seems right only because you fail to consider the consequences. In many cases this leads to more evil and negative consequences than would be had if the “caring person” did nothing at all. When you fail to temper reason with emotion and caring, you end up abandoning your fellow man, a state of soullessness, but eventually a state of peril, since no man is an island. Man is a social creature, without others we would not have survived, and it is not likely, even now, that we would survive without each other. Besides, emotions not involved tend to become erratic and involve themselves in other things. It is sort of like the best and worst part of you, and if you let it do its own thing because you ignore it, you end up allowing it to become a loose cannon.

One of the side effects, for me, of embracing the whole mind is that I was able to understand more clearly matters of faith. I had a crisis of faith in my younger days that lead to a rethinking of my whole belief system. Yet, it was not faith at fault, but corruption and those using the faith of others to gain power for themselves. I never have really reconciled my faith, not entirely. I am sort of an agnostic with Christian roots. Regardless, I learned key things about faith and its place in humanity and in my life. Faith is to emotion as science is to reason. Faith is of great value and great power. Science is too, but when those who champion science decry faith and deny its value they make a grave error. Faith may not always make sense, and yes, faith has been the root of much evil in the world. However, the exact same can be said of emotion. Just because something does not make sense does not mean it lacks value. Many people have found the strength they needed to help others, to help themselves, etc. by the power of faith. I never fault or belittle faith for this reason, it has power and can be used for good.

A caring intent is the evidence of the soul. Reason alone cares not, so reason alone will ignore the soul, and eventually, starve it. Suppressed enough, the soul may disappear altogether. The soul, however, remains as fragile as intent itself. If, in the process of achieving intent, the means are corrupt, then the soul is corrupt as well. If, in the process of intent, reason is abandoned and the goal of the intent is not achieved because the result of the well-intended act is more pain, then the soul is equally corrupted. If the social safety net is achieved by violence, then is it really an act of a good soul? If the safety net feeds the hungry but turns them into dependent slaves, and the scourge of poverty grows rather than being stayed or reduced, then the reasonless emotion cries out and redoubles it efforts, wreaking greater havoc and becoming an instrument of evil. Thus, both the abandonment of reason and the abandonment of emotion lead to the destruction of the soul. The two must be in balance. For some, the emotions may lead, but reason must temper it, thought and logic must prevail against feeling’s impulsiveness and its ability to be manipulated. Emotion without reason is foolish and lacks wisdom. For others, like myself, reason must lead, but I cannot allow it to rule me totally, lest I become soulless and cold, a robot rather than a man. Reason, without emotion, is heartless and will lead to a life without beauty and passion, hardly a life at all.

 And we must remember that if reason leads to pain, then it is not justified just because it is reasonable. Another solution must be found. Logic, no matter how pure, is not singular, many solutions may be found. If one does not lead where it should, another must be sought. This is the beauty of innovation, an aspect of the mind that is neither emotion nor reason, but is as important as either one. It is what fills the needs of humanity, be those needs born of reason or of emotion. It is often the arrogance of either emotion or that of reason, thinking they are right and closing off to the possibility of other solutions that squelches innovation, and leads, often, to battles between emotion and reason, rather than emotion and reason being in balance and seeking the help of innovation to find a solution that works for both sides.

Let’s start with the claim. According to pundits on the left, somewhere between 10% and 15% of voting age Americans do not have a valid form of government issued ID with which to prove their identity at the polls. Take this excerpt from a NY Times article:

Of course the Republicans passing these laws never acknowledge their real purpose, which is to turn away from the polls people who are more likely to vote Democratic, particularly the young, the poor, the elderly and minorities…

There is almost no voting fraud in America. And none of the lawmakers who claim there is have ever been able to document any but the most isolated cases. The only reason Republicans are passing these laws is to give themselves a political edge by suppressing Democratic votes.

The most widespread hurdle has been the demand for photo identification at the polls, a departure from the longstanding practice of using voters’ signatures or household identification like a utility bill. Seven states this year have passed laws requiring strict photo ID to vote, and similar measures were introduced in 27 other states. More than 21 million citizens — 11 percent of the population — do not have government ID cards. Many of them are poor, or elderly, or black and Hispanic and could have a hard time navigating the bureaucracy to get a card.

So where did that number come from? Nearly every single article I can find that lists a source links back to a survey from the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law. In other words, nearly every single person citing such statistics is operating on info released from a very heavily left leaning source. If we are going to base the claims all on one study, I thought it pertinent to look a little closer to what the survey entailed, because they would have you believe the survey simply asked “do you have an ID?” But that is not what they asked. Here is what they asked in their poll of 2000 people:

1) Do you have a current, unexpired government-issued ID with your picture on it, like a driver’s license or a military ID?

2) If yes, does this photo ID have both your current address AND your current name (as opposed to a maiden name) on it?

3) Do you have any of the following citizenship documents (U.S. birth certificate/U.S. passport/U.S. naturalization papers) in a place where you can quickly find it if you had to show it tomorrow?

4) If yes, does [that document] have your current name on it (as opposed to a maiden name)?

States With or Considering Voter ID Laws

So think about what is being asked. Think about how many people have an ID that would work just fine, but they still had to answer “no” when put under the strict questioning above. For example, I for many years (as a member of the US Army) had a Driver’s License with a picture of me at 16, with my hometown address, and that had expired 3 weeks after I entered the military. I didn’t renew my license until ten years later when I exited the military, because we were not required to do so as long as we were on active duty. After that, my driver’s license has often had the wrong address on it, because working in my last company I moved around A LOT. Mrs. Weapon went three years with her maiden name on her driver’s license after we were married.

Additionally, Mrs. Weapon didn’t renew her passport to her married name until 6.5 years after we were married. Regardless of any of that, ask her if she could find her passport on one day’s notice, and her honest answer would be no. It’s here somewhere, we go on the search each time we realize we will have to use it to leave the country on a trip.

In short, both Mrs. Weapon and myself would have been counted as part of the 10% (that was the actual number from the survey, not 11-15) that do not have ID. Yet we have both voted in every election and under every single proposed voter ID law in the country, we would still be able to vote by providing a utility bill to verify address, a marriage certificate to verify maiden name change, or a passport if we were given more than a day or two notice of when election day will be (since these are widely known, why was this kink thrown into Brennan’s survey, I wonder).

So what does this show us? It shows us that the survey questions were written in a way that causes a drastic inflation of the percentage of voting age Americans who do not have ID. I will leave it up to you to decide whether this was an intentional effort to bolster liberal arguments or whether the folks at NYU are just inept in producing valid data. Regardless of which it is, the fact remains that the data is flawed.

And the conclusions derived from that data are even more flawed. This is from yet another NY Times piece:

Republicans have been pushing these changes for years, but now more than two-thirds of the states have adopted or are considering such laws. The Advancement Project, an advocacy group of civil rights lawyers, correctly describes the push as “the largest legislative effort to scale back voting rights in a century.”

Anyone who has stood on the long lines at a motor vehicle office knows that it isn’t easy to get such documents. For working people, it could mean giving up a day’s wages.

A survey by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law found that 11 percent of citizens, 21 million people, do not have a current photo ID. That fraction increases to 15 percent of low-income voting-age citizens, 18 percent of young eligible voters and 25 percent of black eligible voters. Those demographic groups tend to vote Democratic, and Republicans are imposing requirements that they know many will be unable to meet.

My favorite part of this was: Anyone who has stood on the long lines at a motor vehicle office knows that it isn’t easy to get such documents. For working people, it could mean giving up a day’s wages. I guess it is OK for the (according to the Brennan numbers) other 90% of the voting public to do, but asking that remaining group to do this is not practical. What a ridiculous statement to make. But I digress…

How do we know that these types of conclusions are flawed? Because they fly in the face of all the other claims made by the same groups. You see, these same folks who claim we will be disenfranchising these voters regular fall on the side of providing more government aid as well. According to their claims, blacks are disproportionately poor, the poor (of any race) are only surviving because of all the government assistance. But what do we know about these wonderful programs of government assistance that overwhelmingly help minorities and the poor?

We know that these programs require ID in order to qualify:

• You need ID to get welfare.
• You need ID to get unemployment.
• You need ID to get food stamps.
• You need ID to qualify for government assisted housing.
• You need ID for Medicare
• You need ID for Social Security
• You need ID to cash a check (including a welfare check)

I think you get the point. All of these programs designed to help those same poor potential voters require that you have a government issued ID in order to use them. And why is it that those programs need an ID? To eliminate fraud, of course. Makes perfect sense to me. Yet the claim is that those same people using ID to access these programs, don’t have ID in order to vote. Further, I don”t hear the left clamoring about that requiring an ID to qualify for welfare is an undue burden on the poor who require it. After all, if they want the assistance, they will get the ID.

Well if they want to vote, they will get the ID (or use the one that they are using for government programs).

Voter ID is not some vast conspiracy by the right to take away the voting rights of millions of poor or minority voters. It is the common sense step to take when we are seeing so many instances of voter fraud (whether you deem them “significant” or not). The only reason to oppose Voter ID is because you wish the fraud to continue, as disenfranchisement is a made up rallying cry using the most effective unprovable claim in modern politics (racism and discrimination).

Further, the concept of Voter ID has been upheld by the Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision in 2008, authored by Justice John Paul Stevens, that upheld the constitutionality of Indiana’s tough ID requirement. Voter ID is constitutional, it is easy to accomplish, it is necessary, and there isn’t really a valid argument against it that I can see. But I will wait to see what the rest of you have to say…

One of the great things about small children is that they lack filters. They will say exactly what they think  and act exactly how they feel. As such they are a great window into the human patterns. If a young person wants something they scream to get it. If you make them mad, they will stubbornly oppose you on everything regardless of facts or reason. We have all witnessed this in children, and we tend to chalk it up to immaturity. But I think this is incorrect. I believe that the stubbornness of children is human nature, not immaturity. And while many believe that we grow out of this phase eventually, I believe that it is still there, buried inside us as adults.

As a result of this, we react in much the same way as children when discussing issues that are important to us. The only difference is that as adults, we are more educated and better at rationalizing our reactions. We don’t clap our hands over our ears and refuse to listen (well most of us don’t anyway), but we are every bit as stubborn and every bit as unreasonable under the right circumstances. Further we hold that grudge over the offending issue for much longer. Go back and watch small children. They don’t resolve their issues at all, because rational discussion is impossible for them. The only difference is the grudge doesn’t last as long. They will move on to building a new fort and forget the argument. We adults won’t take that step.

Now apply this to today’s political discourse. In doing so you will see what I believe is the great downfall of American politics. Those presenting the arguments have resorted to doing so in the most baseless way possible. Gross exaggerations, spastic generalizations, mean spirited accusations, and pure emotional appeal have become the tactic of the day. One need look no further than the very men and women chosen to represent us and the very medium meant to inform us to see the glaring proof of these tactics:

• GOP claims that what Democrats want is a Soviet style of communism
• Democrat claims that Republicans don’t care about anyone but the elite rich, coupled with their narrative painting all upper class members as immoral monopoly men intent on stealing from the poor.
• The portrayal of laws requiring proper ID to vote as intentional attempts to disenfranchise poor voters
• The portrayal of laws requiring proof of citizenship as equal to the Nazi’s asking for your papers
• The overwhelming (and this one is so big it almost deserves its own article for inclusion) GOP tactic of fostering fear of terrorism to justify gross injustices such as the Patriot Act
• The entire global warming debate and the claims of doomsday approaching despite history showing otherwise
• GOP claims of “defending marriage” that include the idea that allowing to same sex people who are in love to marry will lead to bestiality or that it somehow lowers the status of traditional marriages (a bar which has already been set pretty damn low in my opinion)
• Any political topic regarding children from either side

These are just a few of the wide range of examples. We all know that I could offer a list that went on for days and that the list would have tons of examples from both political parties and the media.

And what makes matters worse is that neither side bothers to hide the fact that they are well aware that while emotional appeal is a dirty tactic in regular debate, it is a winning strategy to win the debate in political discourse. Take for example this opening to an article on one the left’s largest sites:

When it comes to the structure of arguments, getting someone to accept your claims simply because they trigger emotions such as anger and outrage is a fallacious approach to debate. In politics though, appealing to emotion is a very critical component of a successful campaign. And it’s something that, after all of these years, still hasn’t sunk in with the Democratic Party as a consistently winning strategy.

Let us look past the ridiculous idea that Democrats haven’t embraced emotional appeal as a winning strategy while the GOP has (when in reality both have in different ways). It seems, the majority of the time, it is the ONLY strategy employed by either party in any large debate topic.

The point is this: For most people (and by most people I do not mean politicians and MSM folks), when they enter a true discussion on an issue, they do so with the intent of discussing it rationally and relying on the facts and talking about the true potential consequences of the actions in question. But this quickly devolves into a hate filled diatribe that alienates the two sides from one another.

This is because none of us like to be thought of as stupid. Allow me to offer an example or two of this happening to me.

The 1% debate: I get it, there are some bad rich people out there. I also get that the bad rich people have far too much influence in Washington DC. But the second that you ignore that the “evil rich” pay the lion’s share of taxes or that you insinuate to me that we should pass laws to punish all wealthy people, with zero regard to how hard many of them worked to get there and how many of them did so without some mythical advantage or immoral actions, you have stated to me that you think that I am so dumb that I cannot see the flaws in your argument. I now become less inclined to even discuss the topic with you. Further, since I can see that you are irrational and unable to see these other things that I see, I will generally oppose all your solutions immediately, because I deem you unable to do so without emotion.

The Gay Marriage debate: I get it, you don’t think its natural for same sex couples to marry. You think that the only reason for marriage is to propagate the species, therefore a union that cannot result in birth is obviously against the laws of nature and forbidden. But when you make this argument, you falsely claim that this is the purpose of marriage. We don’t need marriage to have kids, that much is certainly clear. Marriage is a statement of dedication and love to another person that matters to us. Sex with the potential for children has nothing to do with it, unless of course you believe that people who are sterile also should not be allowed to enter into the “sacred union.” Perhaps the church should outlaw hysterectomies and vasectomies, the way they have contraception, as well? After all, they don’t occur in nature. Further, the government is firmly entrenched in the “sanctity of marriage,” through special recognition and benefits. For those screaming about the separation of church and state being so important, outlawing gay marriage because it violates the christian faith is the most ridiculous removal of a barrier between church and state I have seen. Ignoring all this when it is so clear means that you either think that I am stupid or that you refuse rational discourse. Either one makes me not want to further discuss it with you.

Illegal Immigration Debate: I get it, you think that it is wrong to deny those who are here any of the government goodies that the rest of us get. But the second that you ignore that you scream for removal of his rights because George Zimmerman broke the law (or didn’t, I don’t want to start that up again) while ignoring that they broke the law entering our country without the proper procedure, you kind of bury yourself. Further, if you disagree with the immigration policy, muster up the support to change the law, but don’t simply decide that this law should be ignored while so many others should be followed to the letter. You either believe that the rule of law is the proper way to keep a civil society or you don’t. You can’t pick and choose. That you ignore these things makes me believe that you think I am stupid, despite all that you are ignoring. I will tend to hold onto that grudge, cause we don’t have the ability to find some sheets and start a new fort.

Climate Change: Perhaps the biggest one of all for me. It certainly makes me think that you assume I am really, really stupid when you state that a two degree rise will destroy us all when history shows that it has been much warner than that in the past. It certainly makes me feel that way again when you ignore the fact that the “science” we are supposed to believe is found to be fraudulent in some cases and mistaken in others. When you propose trillions of dollars in spending to combat something that we don’t have any evidence what-so-ever that we can affect, while simultaneously screaming that we need to spend trillions taking care of the “99%” and fighting so many attempts to spend on things that we obviously CAN impact, It appears irrational to me. In fact, that you believe I will change my mind in spite of the sheer multitude of flaws in nearly every aspect of man made climate change “proof” is certainly a statement of what you think of my critical thinking ability.

Health Care: Another of the big ones for me. I get it, you believe every person should have the ability to receive health care no matter their economic status. You will find that a great many people who oppose the recent health care legislation attempts agree that it is a good goal to have. However, when you blatantly ignore all the aspects of the situation that are found that are negative, and when you further ridicule me as though I am stupid for thinking that a panel that determines what care will or won’t be made available to me is an awful lot like a “death panel,” it gets me angry. If there is any topic over the last two years that has brought out our inner child on both sides, it is this one. Those on the left need to stop acting as though government is a benevolent group of people who would never put a law in place that do bad things in the name of the greater good. Those on the right need to stop acting as though there aren’t rational ways for us to implement something that ensures everyone can receive basic care. There will be more on this topic coming as Buck has provided to me his thoughts on a single payer system and I will be answering his thoughts and we will together be publishing an article discussing the issue…

But I think you get the point. I think that we are all flawed in certain parts of our beliefs. But I will address this from my personal experiences here at SUFA. I have tried really hard over the last three years to present my beliefs, for public consumption no less, so that they can be debated and argued, and I can make changes to what I believe when a logical point is made. Despite the fact that I have altered my stance on some important topics over that time, there are still several here that believe I am nothing but an ideologue who toes either the GOP line or the Black Flag line, depending on the day and topic. In my opinion, that means that you think that I am stupid, because to be an ideologue and ignore the arguments on either side out of hand is just that…. stupid.

It is frustrating to be thought stupid when I know, even if no one on SUFA agrees, that I am a pretty smart guy who tries to look at all sides of every issue. I have said this before, and it bears repeating: I don’t write my thoughts on SUFA to change everyone who reads them to believing what I believe. On the contrary, I have done so for the past three years to challenge what I believe, have it attacked and debated, so that I am able to increase the knowledge I have and make better decisions about what I believe. To that end, I have encountered two distinctly different reactions:

There are those who generally agree with a lot of my thoughts. Those folks, JAC is a good example, treat me with respect despite often disagreeing with me. As a result they present me with rational argument, devoid of name calling or emotional attacks. And because of that reaction, I have learned a lot and they have managed to change my opinion on some subjects and I have been able to do the same with some of their opinions.

There are those who generally don’t agree with a lot of my thoughts. Those folks, and I won’t provide an example , tell me I am stupid, or worse accuse me of being intentionally dishonest. They work to destroy my credibility by claiming I am an ideologue, a shill for the GOP, or whatever works. And because of that reaction, they and I find it relatively difficult to accomplish anything in debate. I often feel I am too busy writing ten paragraphs to re-affirm what I actually believe before I can even get to the point of debating the topic on merits. As a result, we learn nothing from each other and never learn to see each other’s positions.

There are times, when those in category two end up in category one on an issue. Charlie is a great example of this. Once Charlie and I find a way to be civil, stop accusing each other of believing something that we don’t, and debating the merits, we actually start to understand where the other one is coming from, even if that doesn’t result in either of us changing positions. The debate still ends up being productive. If nothing else we improve on our ability to defend our positions.

Now, I am going to be the first to admit here, that when things have not gone that way with Charlie, I am exactly 50% of the reason. While I am generally not quite as “caustic” as Chaz, I certainly have the ability to be as rude to him as he is to me. I much more enjoy when we get past that point (I will take credit for usually being the one to extend a truce and reset the anger with an apology when warranted  ) and begin to discuss things rationally. Charlie is a smart guy after all, and provides me with a far different perspective that what I have on my own.

And I hope that by reading those few times when Chaz and I have found common ground by respecting each other and having a debate focused on the issues instead of each other each of you has caught a glimpse of what I imagined SUFA to be when I started this website over three years ago. Those who have been around for many years can remember how much time I spent batting down hostility and demanding respectful conversation. You can remember how often I muttered the mantra that without civil discourse the gap would widen and we would never come together to combat the real enemies of freedom, big government fueled by corporate cronyism.

So I ask each of you to consider what I have put down on paper here (or on a keyboard in reality). SUFA was meant to be the one place on the web where people could come together and discuss topics with respect and using the facts rather than emotional pleas. People on both sides of the topics have gotten away from that. There are times when I have gotten away from that. I don’t want that to continue to be the case. Despite claims that SUFA has lost readership because of the opinions of certain people here, the reality is that SUFA has lost readership because we failed to live up to the standards of civil discourse this site was started with. In short, because we have failed to keep what made SUFA different in the beginning.

So buck up kids. Imagine that every person you talk to at SUFA is big enough or bad enough to punch you in the mouth and you couldn’t do a thing about it (because some at SUFA actually are…). And then imagine you are speaking to their face rather than across hundreds of miles. You would be surprised at how much more civil you will be if you do so and subsequently how much more you can get out of the conversation. If we can accomplish this I believe that SUFA will again grow in readership and we will again get something positive out of it. If not, I can promise that SUFA will end up going away no matter how much I try. After all, if there isn’t anything different and better about discussing things here, I don’t have the time to compete with all the other sites where civility isn’t present.

We aren’t children. We won’t bitterly disagree and start building a fort together five minutes later. The bitter divide in America exists because each side assumes the other side is simultaneously stupid and then fails to treat others with any respect as a result. That isn’t to say that we should lose all the passion we have for our subjects. But we can be passionate about what we believe without disrespecting one another. Further, we all lose our tempers once in a while and say something that is disrespectful. Take my cue and apologize when you calm down and realize that you have done so. Because even a child won’t learn anything from someone who continues to tell them nothing more than how stupid they are. Don’t fall into the trap that politicians and their pundits have set for us. Appealing to emotion is only a strong political tactic if we allow our emotions to be tweaked.

All of us here at SUFA have been coming here for years. And I have learned enough about each of you to know that you are better than this. None of you are stupid. LISTEN to the other side and debate them on the merits. You won’t learn anything from them if you don’t. And more important, you certainly won’t change their position unless you stop riling up that hidden trait we all have to tune out to the opinions of those who insult us.

Sorry for such a long article. Obviously this is a topic I am passionate about…