Friday, July 31, 2015

SICK AMERICA

The Democrats and its media (The New Tork Times, the Megaphone of the Left, and the Alphabet of Propaganda: NBC CBS ABC AP NPR PBS MSNBC CNN) count and highly publicize every black person (no matter what) shot and killed by any police officer.  The Republicans and Fox News count and highly publicize every American citizen killed by any Illegal Immigrant.  Is this really about black lives or American citizens?  I argue F no, it is lies and BS for power, raw power of the politicians.  You and I fall for it.  Just call bullshit on Obama and his devotees. And on Fox News for announcing truth.  Illegal Immigrants are...illegal. They kill Americans While they are innocent until proven guilty of murder, they are guilty of being illegally here.  Most police officers protect us from criminals. They legally shoot and kill suspects and criminal perpetrators but should not be above the law. But videos are not proof and the media is not jury in a court of law.

With the police, the far-Left media should, but do not generally withhold, judgment until a jury decides if the incident goes to trial. Split second decisions, belief that their lives are at risk, are complex and shouldn't be decided by a newscaster or talking head. Again, most police do a dangerous  well, but they, too, are human with emotions. In most, if not all cases, the black people killed were or had been committing a crime, however minor, but a crime.

With Illegal Immigrants reports of the crime of murder with sometimes reports of a perpetrator's verbal admission that he did it, is news not opinion.  See the difference?

But trading deaths for votes is disgusting.  While I am a conservative, and biased, I can say truthfully that the Democrats started it.  I am glad a Republicans are speaking out,




Thursday, July 30, 2015

White Advantage/Privilege? Or White Achievement?

Educated, “white,” males who were engaged in commerce of one sort or another, declared independence of the American colonies from England and its monarch, King George III.  White males led the Revolutionary War using force to make those words of independence a reality. The same stereotypical white males drafted what has become one of the most important, impactful documents in human history: the United States Constitution. Those pages were brought to life by white males in executing the concepts of the Constitution bringing forth what today is arguably one of the greatest nations in the history of the world. The United States of America has shown to the world that a democratic, capitalist country can peacefully agree to meaningful changes in leadership, even with bitter philosophical differences of the parties. It is among the most free – in speech, assembly, opportunity and employment, movement, religion, political rights, ownership of property, enterprise and commerce, human rights of life, liberty and the  pursuit of happiness, and equal rights under the law – and most prosperous country in history.

Now, let’s take it to an even higher level. Following is a made-up (by me) list of among the greatest achievements during human existence (when the major accomplisher is known). One of the very great ones, of course, is the forging of the American political system, with the rule of written law, equality under the law, private property, and a government of the people (“self government”).  Human rights and human prosperity have bloomed under it.

Among the greatest achievements during human existence:

Harnessing of Electricity. Electricity is a natural resource which was something interesting but mostly useless until the white male English scientist William Gilbert (or Gilberd) published his seminal work of experiments on electricity and  magnetism and coined the very term electricus which later evolved into “electricity.” His findings established the groundwork for the white male German, Johannes Kepler’s laws of planetary motion which was a foundation for white male Englishman, Isaac Newton’s theory of gravity. Nearly two hundred years later white male Benjamin Franklin showed that lightning and static electricity were the same. Other white males invented batteries  (Italian, Alessandro Volta), the first effective arc lamp (Sir Humphry Davy, English) and other inspirations of  white male Frenchmen, Italians, Germans and Brits whose names are familiar:  André-Marie Ampère, Georg Ohm, Michael Faraday and in 1837 white male American Thomas Davenport invented the direct current electric motor, the basis of most electrical appliances today. Inventor of an effective incandescent light bulb along with an entire integrated system: white man Thomas Alva Edison, who is also responsible for moving pictures and recorded music. 

Transportation. Ships with sails have been used since at least the fifth century B. C. and in all likelihood much earlier, so the color and gender of those innovators are not known. About trains: The first use of rails was in the 1767 by a company in Shropshire, England, owned by English Quakers. The first reciprocating steam engine to power a wheel was invented by a Scottish inventor, James Watt. He patented in 1784 the first design for a carriage propelled by steam which an employee of his built later that year. The automobile was invented in Germany by white male Karl Benz in 1885. The first of which was powered by a single-cylinder internal combustion four-stroke engine designed by white German Nikolaus Otto. The first flying machines with controls were invented by the American Wright (white) brothers.

Communications. Telegraph was suggested first in Scots Magazine (1753) then German von Sommering, Spanish Campillo built models until in 1823  Englishman Francis Ronalds first made a working electrostatic telegraph over eight miles of wire;  then Russians and Englishmen made improvements until Samuel Morse invented and patented (1837) an electric telegraph with his assistant, Alfred Vail, developing Morse Code to go with it. Telephone. The first device to replicate the human voice over wire was invented by American Alexander Graham Bell who patented it in 1876; his mother and wife were deaf and he had long experimented with hearing devices. Bell was Scottish but ended up in Boston via Canada. In 1864 Scot James Maxwell wrote that electromagnetic waves could travel through air. Pouncing on that, white male Italian, American, German and English inventors built working models, first used with Morse code between ships and land, then one-way developed into two-way, then telephony, tele-video (television), navigation (including by satellite), radar, and the digital data transmission of today. Most if not all conceived by white males, many American.

Development of computers. Wilhelm Schickard, a white German polymath, designed a calculating machine in 1623 which combined a mechanized form of Napier's rods with the world's first mechanical adding machine built into the base. In 1642, while still a teenager, Blaise Pascal (white Frenchman) started some pioneering work on calculating machines and after three years of effort and myriad prototypes, invented a mechanical calculator. Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz (white German) invented the Stepped Reckoner calculating machine around 1672. However, Leibniz’s invention did not have a method to carry numbers. Leibniz also conceived the binary numeral system, key to all of today’s binary computers. Around 1830, Charles Babbage, another English polymath, originated the concept of a programming a computer. In 1936 a white gay British genius, Alan Turing, presented a paper describing a computer and thus became the father of computer science. Its commercialization initially came from England with the Ferranti  Mark I (parent company was founded in 1882 by white Englishman, Sebastian Pietro Innocenzo Adhemar Ziani de Ferranti) and the U. S. with UNIVAC I for the U. S. Census Bureau. Then IBM took control with its 650 mainframe in 1954. Later came Digital Equipment (Ken Olson, white male founder) making mini-computers. They were followed by microcomputers based on Intel semiconductors (Intel, started by three white males, was the inventor of silicon microprocessors), with IBM’s hardware and Microsoft’s software (two white male founders); Apple Computer (also two white male founders) began around then also. So called personal computers in essence merged with smart cellular phones continuing to miniaturize up to and including the Apple watch. Today, of course, computers and computing devices permeate every aspect of life all over the world. 

The concept for the Internet came from the United States Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s (DARPA) white males: Tim Berners-Lee, Bob Kahn, Vint Cerf. Marc Andreessen, cofounder of Netscape, the first major Web browser company which essentially launched the Internet (”dot com”) industry and has revolutionized the world in countless ways was white.

Cell phones as we know them started in the United States by engineers from Bell Laboratories (where in 1956 John Bardeen, Walter H. Brattain, and William Shockley, all white males, received the Nobel Prize in Physics for inventing the first transistors, and home to myriad ground-breaking technologies of radio astronomy, lasers, charge-coupled device (CCD) semiconductor sensors, DNA prototyping machines, UNIX operating system, the C and C++ programming languages, TDMA and CDMA digital cellular telephone technologies ) then a division of the American Telephone & Telegraph Company stemming all the way back to Alexander Graham Bell. They were then  attempting an automobile-to-automobile communication system, with the first service commencing in St. Louis, Missouri, June 1946, as AT&T’s Mobile Telephone Service. The system used Motorola radiotelephones. Motorola was started in 1928 when two white Catholic brothers bought a bankrupt battery company in Chicago.
 
Capitalism (and free enterprise) has been – very arguably – proven to be the most fair allocator of capital, employer of workers, arbiter of taste in consumer products of any economic system yet devised in the world; the United States was implicitly a “capitalist country.” The American financial system early on enabled vast amounts of excess capital to be deployed into starting new companies, resulting in entirely new industries. This includes the early “trusts” dreamed up by Samuel C. T. Dodd, of Standard Oil, a distributed banking system, venture capital and private equity partnership models as well as hedge funds. Like it or not,  most U. S. companies have been founded by white males, many of whom had invented products that formed the basis for their companies. A few are: Thomas Alva Edison (General Electric); Charles Goodyear (vulcanization); Alexander Graham Bell (AT & T); Eli Whitney (the cotton engine – “gin”); Henry Ford’s assembly line; RCA (David Sarnoff); Willis Carrier (air conditioning); More recently, to toss off a few more white male names that have rewarded the world: Walt Disney, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, mentioned above, Larry Ellison (Oracle), Larry Page and Sergey Brin, Ph.D., then students at Stanford University (Google), Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook), and Jimmy Wales who, together with Larry Sanger, founded Wikipedia, from where some of the general information in this essay emanated. A few white males who didn’t necessarily invent products but who were simply entrepreneurial: The Big Four of railroads, Stanford, Huntington, Hopkins, Crocker (Central Pacific R.R.); John D. Rockefeller (Standard Oil); J. P. Morgan (JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley), Sam Walton of Wal-Mart, and Howard Schultz (Starbucks). Inventions by mistake of white male Americans were pacemakers and the lithium-iodide battery to power them by Wilson Greatbatch; an American pharmacist, John Stith Pemberton, who invented Coca-Cola; Thomas Adams, trying unsuccessfully to replace rubber for tires with a natural gum, chicle, chewed it, later adding flavor and thence creating Chiclets and the chewing gum industry.

The spread of capitalism and economic, political and social freedoms, as exemplified by the United States, has enriched the world. From the 1981 to 2010, abject poverty – those living on just over dollar a day dropped from half the citizens in the developing world to 21 percent in 2010 – in part by dollars flowing from U. S. purchases from free trade, and free enterprise in every remote area where allowed by their political systems. While “poverty” is an arbitrary political term The World Bank recently reported on October 9, 2015, that the share of the world population living in extreme poverty had fallen to 14.5% in 2011 from 36% in 1990. The number of people in the world living on less than $1.25 a day has fallen to 1,011 million in 2013 from 1,926 million in 1991.

While certainly not every innovation since Adam has been by white males, by far the vast majority have been conceived and implemented by white males and since the establishment of the United States of America, American companies have been conceived, established, financed, managed and innovated mostly by white males. In many cases, the white males started with little, faced great odds, and kept going in spite of obstacles, and succeeded. While tens of thousands of others took the same path, they failed, many losing everything they owned, and were never heard of again.  
Hewlett-Packard)

Of course the original demographic of the United States was predominantly white (and Christian). In 2013 it was: White (non Hispanic) 62.6%; Hispanic or Latino 17.1%; African-American  13.2%; Asian 5.3%; American Indian & Alaska Native 1.2%; Native Hawaiian & Other Pacific Islander 0.2%. With the Civilian Labor Force being 79.4% white, according to government statistics. Given the superiority in numbers, it should be no surprise that white people have accomplished so much. Foreigners have always  flooded our country: From the British Isles (including the Scots and Irish), Germany, Africa, Netherlands, Mexico, Spain, Italy, France, Poland. Generally each group faced bitter denunciation and rejection, with many brought over in captivity from Africa as slaves and others as near slave indentured servants.  More recently Asian country immigrants including China, India, South Korea, Viet Nam, Philippines have been legally allowed in.  The United States was – is truly – a melting pot, with opportunity offered to all.
Now I’ve argued that white male Americans have been responsible for much of the innovation and prosperity since the formation of the United States, raising all boats (most all of the poorest in the United States and many of the poorest in most countries have reaped advantages of white achievement and have cell phones, electricity and bicycles – the first verified claim to making one was by white, German civil servant Baron Karl von Drais); has causing assimilation of most immigrants into the U. S. who began as loathed minorities greeted with discrimination. They assimilated and choose to fit in as they choose. (“Pursuit of happiness.”)            

There should now be little doubt about the vast amount achievement by white males, but would it all  have taken place anyway without white males who were in power?  Is white advantage/privilege (WAP)  implicitly “unfair” and would the world would be a better, more moral place without it? If not, if WAP has been beneficial to the world, why are there blatant attempts to debase it? No doubt “diversity” feels good, but which is better for humanity? And are the two, white achievement and WAP mutually exclusive?  So given all this, what actually is the new notion of  WAP?”

There is argument that whites have more freedom to move around, speak freely, buy stuff, work wherever they want. These seems to beg the question that non-whites cannot do all this, which is untrue, or that minorities can’t do them as much, which is impossible to measure, “enough” being subjective. WAP includes a high, “unwarranted” opinion of one's own worth, greater social status; and freedom to move, buy, work, play, and speak freely at home, work and school.  According to Samantha Vice ("How Do I Live in This Strange Place?" Journal of Social Philosophy, September 7, 2010), The concept of white privilege also implies the privileged right to assume the universality of one's own experiences, marking others as different or exceptional while perceiving oneself as normal. American, in other words, being in the white majority. Turns out that in being the majority means the assumption of normality, usual, and average.  Others are not normal, usual or average. Lawrence Blum in 2008 argued in "'White Privilege': A Mild Critique," Theory and Research in Education, that many social privileges are interconnected with being white, requiring a complex and careful analysis to identify whiteness' contributions to privilege. This means that the notion of whiteness is not inclusive of all white people. Critics of white privilege also note that there is a problem with the interpretation of people of color. That is, it fails to acknowledge the diversity of people of color and ethnicity within these groups, but apparently white is white.  Or something. All this seems to presume that having privilege is bad, that diversity is good and other such unprovable pablum. Or simply that none of this makes sense.


I think the concept of WAP encourages certain non-whites not to assimilate, deciding that the white majority has to change to satisfy and incorporate the religion, nationality, mores and dress of minority groups. The federal government has passed labor laws to label as discrimination the desire to hire persons reflecting the majority. In applying for jobs, a person might not get an offer if he or she speaks “African American Vernacular English” or perhaps “Indian English” that are sometimes difficult to easily understand, or wears baggy, saggy trousers or a burqa. If the candidate is black, Indian or Muslim he or she can sue. If the job seeker is white, that is that.  White privilege?

As Winston S. Churchill said, “History is written by the victors.” And Jawaharlal Nehru said, You don't change the course of history by turning the faces of portraits to the wall. And the old saw, “He who has the gold makes the rules.”

I argue that WAP is little more than an invention by left-leaning and Democrat Party ideologues seeking more power for themselves by using their minority factions in attempting to eliminate the achievement of the white (male) majority and substituting guilt for achievement or negating achievement entirely.  It is about power.

Friday, July 17, 2015

Donald Trump Mucks Around in the Scrum and Fights

 

File:The Wall Street Journal Logo.svg

The Wall Street Journal


Letters to the Editor

Thursday, July 16, 2015, Page A 10

 

Donald Trump Mucks Around in the Scrum and Fights

While Mr. Trump’s message is often impolitic, it is a message that needs to be analyzed and understood; we should not concentrate on his personality or style.


One phrase about Mr. Trump in Ms. Noonan’s column highlights why liberal/progressive/democrats (LPDs) seem to have Republicans on the run most of the time: “he doesn’t play within the margins of traditional political comportment.” Well, neither do the LPDs, and when they get into power, they don’t obey the law as written. Everything is a political calculus. And they win. Mitt Romney was a polite gentleman, as most Republicans are, and didn’t seem to want to get down in the scrum to champion “business” and “free enterprise,” the core of his experience that would have made him a good president.
Mr. Trump relishes the spotlight and enters the scrum to fight. Americans want a leader, and they thought Barack Obama would be one, but it turns out he is the leader of the Democratic Party, not Americans as a whole, sadly. Ms. Noonan sums up Mr. Trump’s appeal as having its limits—“Blowhards don’t wear well.” But as Mr. Romney proved, neither do polite gentlemen.

Theodore M. Wight
Seattle

And the editorial that led to my letter:

Donald Trump’s Appeal—and Its Limits

Sometimes an ill wind feels like a breath of fresh air.

By 
PEGGY NOONAN, July 9, 2015.

Donald Trump is an unstable element inserted into an unsettled environment. Sooner or later there will be a boom.
He has shot up like a rocket since his June announcement but likely has a low ceiling and short staying power. He is not as popular with Republicans as Bernie Sanders is with Democrats.
Does Mr. Trump ruin the Republican brand? That tends to be the eager question of those who hope he will ruin the Republican brand. But he’s his own brand. He doesn’t call his hotels “Republican Plaza.” He spends much of his time knocking Republicans, setting himself apart from the party and its contenders.
If he says something stupid and cheap it will reflect on him. If he should say something brilliant and wise it will not redound to the benefit of the GOP.
He’ll make things uncomfortable for Republican candidates, who will devise ways of dealing with it. He enjoys disparaging them—they’re “dopes”—and highlighting their weaknesses. Just by walking into the room he lowers the tone. His special brand of irresponsibility may prove infectious. Reporters love him because he’s colorful, dramatic, walking-talking clickbait. At the moment he controls the daily agenda because reporters insist other candidates respond to whatever he says. That will lessen as the novelty diminishes.
On the other hand Mr. Trump will make most of his competitors—certainly all those in the top tier—look, in comparison, measured, thoughtful and mature. No one who looks at Donald Trump will then look at Jeb Bush, John Kasich or Rand Paul and question whether he has the presidential temperament.
Mr. Trump’s loquacity will be a challenge in the debates. How will anyone get a word in edgewise? Candidates will rely on the moderator. The moderator may amuse himself by stepping back and watching the fun. None of the candidates will want to take Mr. Trump head-on because he doesn’t play within the margins of traditional political comportment. He’s a squid: poke him and get ink all over you.
He has the power of the man with nothing to lose. If he won he’d be president. If he loses he’s Donald Trump, only a little more famous. His next show will get even higher ratings.
He puts individuals and groups down in a mean and careless way. He has poor impulse control and is never above the fray. He likes to start fights. That’s a weakness. Eventually he’ll lose one.
But Donald Trump has a real following, and people make a mistake in assuming his appeal is limited to Republicans. His persona and particular brand of populism have hit a nerve among some independents and moderate Democrats too, and I say this because two independent voters and one Democrat (they are all working-class or think of themselves that way) volunteered to me this week how much they like him, and why. This is purely anecdotal, but here’s what they said:
They think he’s real, that he’s under nobody’s thumb, that maybe he’s a big-mouth but he’s a truth-teller. He’s afraid of no one, he’s not politically correct. He’s rich and can’t be bought by some billionaire, because he is the billionaire. He’s talking about what people are thinking and don’t feel free to say. He can turn the economy around because he made a lot of money, so he probably knows how to make jobs.
He is a fighter. People want a fighter. Maybe he’s impolitic but he’s better than some guy who filters everything he says through a screen of political calculation.
Some other things Mr. Trump has going for him the three people I spoke to did not mention but they agreed when I did:
Mr. Trump is not a serious man, which is part of his appeal in a country that has grown increasingly unserious.
He’s a showman in a country that likes to watch shows—a country that believes all politics is showbiz now, and all politicians are entertainers of varying degrees of competence. At least Mr. Trump is honest about it.
He capitalizes on the fact that no one in America trusts politicians anymore.
The thing that has propelled him so high so far—he’s No. 1 among Republicans in one national poll, No. 2 in New Hampshire and tied for No. 2 in Iowa—is his announcement speech on June 16. One part of the speech has been heavily quoted: “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. . . . They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” That last—“I assume”—was the cruelest.
The minute I heard it I knew he’d hit a nerve. He said what a lot of people think and are afraid to say. Certainly after the murder last week of a young woman in San Francisco by an illegal-alien felon who’d been deported five times, what Mr. Trump said resonated.
My moderate Democrat friend who called this week was explicitly supportive of his comment, and asked my opinion. I said illegal immigration is a calamity. It is an admission by a nation that it has lost control not only of its borders but of itself. It is no longer functioning as a sovereign nation; it has lost its self-protectiveness and dignity. And in this predatory world they note when you don’t see to your own dignity. So I’ve long supported complete closing of the border to illegal entry and cracking down on visa overstays.
But as to Mr. Trump’s words, throughout our history other nations never sent their “best” to America. My people and my friend’s, the Irish, were not Ireland’s elite when they came in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. They had nothing back home; that’s why they left. The landed gentry, the high-born, the educated and established—they didn’t come here. They didn’t have to! The wretched refuse did. And the Irish transition to America was not so smooth. There was plenty of poverty, overcrowding, addiction, criminality. We should always remember—and Mr. Trump, as a native New Yorker, should remember—that our city’s arrest vehicles weren’t known as paddy wagons for nothing.
There may even have been some fairly fractious Trumps way back then . . .
We’re all limited by the facts of where we live and what we see, but I live in New York, surrounded by immigrants of all nations, many but by no means all from points south, and they are the hardest-working people in the city. They keep the place up and operating each day. Everyone thinks of them as the good guys—they make nothing worse and a lot of things better. Whether they are legal or illegal, I see how they work and what they do to educate their children and as human beings I honor them.
My friend said “Yeah.” And then, more softly, she said “Yeah” again.
She still likes Mr. Trump, but it gave her pause.

Think of how powerful he’d be if he had a longer memory, or could take tough stands without maligning people. That’s his weakness. Blowhards don’t wear well.

Thursday, July 16, 2015

Republicans are afraid of the New York Times

How about this: Republicans are afraid of the New York Times, the Megaphone of the Left. If it criticizes a Republican he or she shrinks, cowers and stutters an apology. Remember: Republicans caused ObamaCare -- a miasma of strangulation, higher costs, worse health care and an ever-more-powerful government. 


Today, our country is at risk of death. If Iran gets nuclear weapons and missiles, its second target will be the United States. Obama is guaranteeing that will happen. Republicans -- NO MORE Mitt-ing STAND UP and reject this abomination. Obama doesn't care about America, his ego just needs to win, to decimate and lord over Republicans. Stand up for your fellow Americans, it might be our last stand.

But don't call your Congressmen if you are from Washington State.  They are Obama-Americans, Democrats who, too, will kill America to take down the Republican Party.

Yes, it has come to this.


Friday, June 19, 2015

Vacation

From Seattle: Missoula, Bozeman, Billings, Detroit Lakes, Santa Fe, Tucson, San Diego, Aptos, San Francisco, Ashland back to Seattle about June 30.  This is the Periodictablet.com Tour.  Look for us.

This is our initial Listening Tour.

So we'll be back in July.

Friday, June 12, 2015

The End is Nigh: the Rule of Law and Private Property

President Obama some months ago declared the Corinthian Colleges guilty of fraud.  No indictment, no trial, a diktat. The Department of Education went along (naturally, he's the boss!) and withdrew new student lending to its students. The result was Corinthian's bankruptcy, students stranded and hundreds of instructors, administrators and janitors added to the unemployment lines.  No trial, no defense, only what the president (of the Democrats) arbitrarily wanted: the destruction of for-profit companies.  At the first of his term he took student lending out of the hands of all private sector companies, again arbitrarily by diktat,  the Megaphone of the Left piles on: the New York Times and its tentacles plus the Alphabet of Propaganda: NBC CBS ABC AP MSNBC PBS NPR. They parrot their beloved Leader and label the students as "defrauded" arbitrarily.  Investors in Corinthian lost all their investment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/10/education/questions-of-cost-in-plan-to-aid-defrauded-corinthian-colleges-students.html?src=relcon&moduleDetail=lda-articles-0&action=click&contentCollection=The%20Upshot&region=Footer&module=MoreInSection&version=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&configSection=article&isLoggedIn=true&pgtype=article

LiberalProgressiveDemocrats are eliminating the Rule of Law, one of the strongest foundational elements of the United States of America, and the concept of private property, the bellwether of capitalism.  Obama despises and doesn't understand either, having never touched either in his real world!

The End is Nigh.

Saturday, May 30, 2015

THE END IS NEAR

The "Republican Party" or actually the historic businessmen who supported it in the past, have relinquished political power and there was little to take its place. To be fair, they were busily building companies after World War II, innovating for the benefit of everyone in the world, and creating jobs and prosperity at home. And so came and went the greatest moment for the greatest country in the history of the world. Politically however the country was being infiltrated by liberals who went on to become socialist-informed Progressives. Then came the '60s and the kids went crazy. Most university professors climbed aboard sex, drugs and rock n roll to be popular -- the "achievement" goal of that time. Mainstream, older university administrators were ill prepared and with little backbone gave in to the kids. From there on it simply was a matter of time. JFK got killed and LBJ took advantage. The world of squeaky-wheel activism was born and grew...almost all on the Left because Republicans were too polite and too busy building businesses. Somewhere around then, trial lawyers thought activism was a great thing for making money. They started suing and business executives, frightened of negative reputations and potentially large awards by clueless jurors, they caved and settled for cash their insurance companies paid. The Democratic Party saw the same opportunity and legislated for more possibilities to sue, and greater awards, including class actions where the awards became gigantic. Trial lawyers slowly became one of the major sources of financing for the Democratic Party which handed out quid pro quo whenever possible.


Fast forward to NOW. Republicans are clueless. The Democratic Party owns the educational establishment from pre-K through Ph. D.; the educational industry, non-profit activist non-profits; the entertainment industry; the non-Fox/WSJ media from the New York Times and its long tentacles, and  Rolling Stone, to the alphabet of propaganda NBC CBS ABC NPR CNN MSNBC PBS MTV;  The Left is financed by Democrat-legislated union monopolies over government workers and mandated dues taken from them; and, of course, the aforementioned trial lawyers..... The end is near. 

I am writing a book about The End.

Thursday, May 14, 2015

The World Needs Jeb Bush


In his blog Bernard Goldberg.com today, Bernard Goldberg declares that The Donald will not run for president, again.

 I respond:

I for one am sick and tired of a narcissist mismanaging our country and the world.  Trump would be unable to work with anyone else or certainly to give a modicum of credit to anyone else.  Sound familiar?  That is the situation the world faces with who I like to characterize as the President of the Democrats. Obama has attempted naive resets with killers around the world: Putin, Assad, the Castros, and now the Ayatollah of Iran. These people have taken advantage of Obama's dangerous ego coupled with his absolute ignorance of much of anything except how to convince the ignorant and naive to elect and reelect him. With the outright anti-Republican support of the New York Times, and its branches of "news" (sic) papers around the country including the Seattle Times; the wrongly labeled popular media assisted: NBC MSNBC CBS ABC PBS NPR CNN. Plus the educational establishment,   entertainment industry and more. All want LiberalProgressiveDemocrats to control this country. Why? Because they seem to think the Left is standing firm against The Man who they see as businesses and Republicans.  While in reality The Man is the Democratic Party clinging to its near-absolute power. Its destructive-to-prosperity union bosses, trial lawyers and non-profits that take the money created by businesses and use it to destroy those businesses. It is working, our growth after the Democrat-run federal government-caused recession has been miserable while the government has thrown billions around to keep its power, calling it "stimulus."

The world is on fire from dictators' uprisings or plunges into near-anarchy: Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, Burundi and others I can't remember or spell.

Russia and the Peoples Republic of China are ominously threatening us and former allies in the Gulf states, Egypt and Israel (and France, Germany and England) are distancing themselves from a confused and weak America. 

All the while, Obama is worried that there aren't enough women here running businesses or that homosexuals can't get married or that some people succeed while others don't.  And he states that the greatest threat facing our country and the world is...the sun.  Hun?  Yep, Global Cooling (the '70s and '80s), Global Warming (the '90s and '00s), and now that those two labels have been proven wrong: Climate Change (no duh, it ALWAYS changes). "The End of the World is NIgh!" Malthus stated in the 1700s and now Obama promises that centuries later.. WTF?  Are most Americans just wanting to be fooled? And hasn't humanity proven the ability to innovate to solve every problem since 5 billion years BC (Oops, that is not politically correct, it's B. C. E. now.  Look it up.) Either you believe in "We the People" (Republicans) or you do not (Democrats)!

So in reality, the world NEEDS an experienced, solid, sober, comfortable, intelligent, modest pro-business president with a sense of humor. That leads only to one person who can win: Jeb Bush. The country and the world are at the brink.  The U. S. can die from bitter Progressive oppression of any single person or organization that disputes the primacy of its funding groups (freedom of speech): union bosses, trial lawyers (the quiet thieves), environmental billionaires, and the moral superiority of its "squeeky wheel" microrities who reap billions of dollars in payola: The gay, the rich, those with darker-colored skin, government workers and the less-than-1%ers.  True that covers most everyone in the country except the rational, the hard-working, the employers.  Bush has a better chance of capturing the non-Hillarites.

Friday, May 8, 2015

They Got Us Again

Here they go again.

The LiberalProgressiveDemocrats (PLDs) have turned the tables on the regular people of the United States of America. Used to be -- when I was young -- we were respectful and a little bit afraid of the police. Afraid enough not to commit crimes.  Well I did a couple times. My brother and I threw stones to break windows in an abandoned house in Cedar Hills, Oregon. After the act, we looked at each other and not wanting to go to jail, hightailed it (as we used to say) home. No one ever said anything.

That wasn't the case two other times.  Once alone I shoplifted a couple of candy bars at Ranko's Pharmacy in Tacoma. The clerk caught me and luck wouldn't have it, a policemen was outside.  He was brought in to lecture me. I was about eight, and he truly scared me, he was tall and imposing in his blue uniform and deep voice. Mom was called and she came and led me home in shame.

It was years later, about seven or eight when my cousin and I were at the grocery store in Lakewood, Washington.  Seemed a good idea to steal some more candy (I think, I really can't remember what it was) and we did.  Apparently we weren't opaque with our activities: the store manager was watching from a mezzanine-office window. He came down, nabbed us, took us up to the office and called the police.  Then Mom, again, and I suppose my aunt, my cousin's mother. We were 13 or 14. The police came and as they say, read us the riot act, and scared the heck out of me. I don't know about Diana, whether she even remembers. That did it! My life of crime was scared out of me.  I have never committed another robbery.  Or theft.  Or crime, except perhaps speeding.

Fear worked.

Now, though, fear seems to be evil (or perhaps "against Progressive social norms," because there is no such thing as "evil") and that concept is supposed to be a reminder of Republican times. There is a new federal Justice Department probe of Baltimore is to "repair the public's trust in the Baltimore Police Department...by bringing about transparency, accountability, and greater community understanding" said Baltimore's mayor, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake wrote in a letter to the new United States Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, both darker-skinned females. This federal probe which looks only for misconduct on the part of police officers in order to renew "trust" of the community with the police. ("Poleeeese.")

Call me old fashioned.  But I actually naively thought that the duty of the police is to degrade and destroy crime. Crime against citizens and their property. Part of that is to cause a healthy respect and fear of the police, not derision.

The LPDs have convinced us -- "We the People" -- that the police are hanging around to make the community feel great about itself, just after that community burned, destroyed and looted its own community and beat a few of them up.  WHAT?  The community that pelted a retreating police troop with huge, dangerous rocks and cement blocks. And a week or so later, amidst celebratory parties and media coverage of the arrest of policemen.

Yes, here they go again.  And they got us again.

Ladies and gentlemen we have lost our country to a gaggle of mad power-hungry politicians and reporters.

They will never stop!  No one in power EVER has voluntarily relinquished their power except by our political system that itself is being ignored, and George Washington.

Sunday, May 3, 2015

BLACK LIVES MATTER: Blacks, Whites and crime in New York CIty

There are approximately 8,500,000 residents in New York City.

Blacks make up about 23% -- 1,955,000 people--
YET:
They represented 62% of murder victims
          committed 80% of all shootings
                            70%  of all robberies
                            66% of all violent crime

Whites make up about 35% -- 2,975,000 people
YET:
They   committed  1% of all shootings
                               5% of all robberies
                               5% of all violent crimes


There are about 25,000 police and allied law enforcement officers.

Since the 1990s a Republican Mayor, Rudy Giuliani and Police Commissioner William Bratton launched a war on crime, of sorts.  Since then crime has dropped 80%!  Correlation not causation?

Beginning 1994 they began to attempt to stop crime not react to it, using data, and including legally-justified asking questions to those thought (arbitrarily and racist to some, based on experience and common sense to others) to be acting suspiciously. Precinct commanders were held responsible for crime in their areas. Like it or not, playing with the numbers comes up with about 10,000 black and Hispanic male lives saved, since nearly 80% of the homicide deaths were of those groups.  BLACK LIVES MATTER!

Instead of "Hands Up, Don't Shoot!" how about "Hands Up, Please Frisk!?" And live.

Sunday, April 26, 2015

TRIGGER WORDS


Females: You are proudly admitting that you are not strong enough to listen to words, "Trigger" words. (As Mom and Dad said: "sticks and stones will break my bones, words can never harm me!") You really think you can be president of the strongest nation in history, Leaderess of the Free World? What a pathetic, laughable thought. So if Vlad Putin tells a President Hillary Clinton that she's a useless old thieving hag that ought to be raped by Boco Haram, she'll scurry to find a Safe Room to hide?  ARE YOU F'N KIDDING? Thinking about it, that was the default action of President Barack Obama: seek out a safe golf course. Pathetic.

Research actually shows that children and adults have the capacity to grow stronger after experiencing some traumatizing event, perhaps a hurricane, for example. Lawrence Calhoun and Richard Tedeschi, professors of psychology, University of North Carolina, Charlotte, found that post-traumatic growth can occur in from 30% to about 80% of survivors. Those who grow from a trauma tend to take time to think and and try to make sense of the event. They struggle to grasp meaning to gain perspective and understand that indeed they have the inner resources to deal. It helps to be with a group that listens and discusses rather than ignoring for fear of traumatizing all over again. Hiding from "Trigger Words" makes the experience worse. If friends and family believe that trauma can change a person for the better, it does. And as LPDs advocate, vice versa is worsa.

And here is the evidence: Published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (October 2010) a study by researchers at the University of Buffalo--the State University of New York and the University of California -- Irvine. 2,398 participants to test "resilience" after 2001. Asked if they had experienced any of 37 negative events, those who had a history of some lifetime adversity showed lower distress, fewer symptoms of post-traumatic stress and higher life satisfaction. Adversity can help people develop a "psychological immune system," especially a few of them and some time ago.


Hey, LiberalProgressiveDemocrats, we have God you have the Clintons. We have the better deal.

You LiberalProgressiveDemocrats talk about fairness, diversity, equality, and the like while YOU are consciously separating us, by sex, race, ethnicity, achievement, and wealth to gain your own selfish power, raw power over "We the People." As Hitler accomplished, you are trying to isolate and create hatred against whites, males, successful entrepreneurs, and the police. You seem to be trying to start WAR, the Second American Civil War, and your media is too ignorant or  pandering (and money hungry) to get it, or maybe it does: The New York Times. NBC, CBS, ABC, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, PBS. You began with super rich Frank Roosevelt and  his getting Negroes dependent, then came the poor and union bosses dependency, now it's many, many more minority factions including some you make up: Trigger Word Victims, LGBTRSTQs.  Hitler started small and as his power increased so did his violence. Millions of Jews died. Would you of on the Left desire that we white successful men be put in camps and given what we deserve? If you think that absurd, where will you stop?  Think about it! But funny thing, you on the LEFT, we have the guns and the will and God and righteousness and happiness and the American Dream on our side. You have Hillary. We will FIGHT to keep them, when you get us there. You might be winning now, but you won't stop until you are killed. Sorry, but check out non-Zinn history...Power once obtained is never voluntarily given up. Never. 

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

A BRIEF, SMART, NEW VISION FOR AMERICAN POLITICS AND HOW WE GOT HERE

Unfortunately the once-innovative United States Constitution has not been able to keep up with the new ways of factionalizing groups which since about FDR has slowly undermined it. Madison and the authors of the Constitution and many founders of the country understood how affinity groups could get together and gang up on the rest of the country.  The Constitution brilliantly limited that with the bifurcated government of individual states and the central federal one.  It itself was further divided into lawmaking (Congress, itself divided into two parts, originally one for the successful, "knowledge class" and the other of "the people." And administration charged with carrying out the laws. The third, judicial, would settle arguments between the other two.  It worked pretty well going into the Depression when the so-called independent Federal Reserve caused another decade of damage by tightening money. Rich, marriage-cheater won several elections by segmenting the country into the factions feared by Madison.  The "poor," union bosses, Negros and others.  The big change was his ability to communicate to disparate people and herd them into voting blocs. FDR -- again a rich man who had an allowance from his mama all his life until she died and who plunged into financial scheme after scheme all of which failed, turning him not against his poor judgment but against capitalism as a whole.  He was on his way to strangling the country with anti-business regulations when he abruptly turned to businessmen to industrialize weapon-making, logistics and the war. World War II and its success by American business "made" the country as the strongest in history. FDR's insane belief in Stalin which led to the Cold War, was a pediment to America's future. The country's power, innovatively, financially, industrially, culturally and morally grew. But so did the central power of the federal government.

FDR's initiation ultimately led to Lyndon Johnson's paean to assassinated John F. Kennedy: the Great (socialist) Society.  Government grew larger overwhelming the states.  The Supreme Court enabled it with "activist" decisions.  Ronald Reagan slowed the power accumulation and launched the final thirty years of America's prosperity and growth. Then along came Obama. 

Today, the incentives are heavily against a limited, rational federal government of by and for the people.It has become the financial and regulatory supporter of those factions that can deliver the most votes or money. Union bosses and trial lawyers have been given monopolies. Negroes have been deceived into believing that they are less able than whites. A variety of other pet causes have been encouraged by the party in exchange for votes and money: the Climate Change Religion believers; the endangered species protectors, abortionists, the prosperity-haters (capitalism haters like FDR) trying to grossly limit necessary energy for life; And tinority (tiny minority) groups with the loud megaphones of the bias feeders like the New York Times, NBCBSABCPBSNPR, the so-called LGBTQ?s and the likes. The Democrat government favors those it gets the most money from and showers gifts upon them in exchange.

Obscene monopoly money from union bosses and trial lawyers has upped the ante and most actions of most politicians now is toward raising money. Guesses are that Hillary Clinton, Democrat candidate for President in 2016, will raise $1,500,000,000 to get into the office.  THIS IS INSANITY. The United States government is all about money now with the Democratic Party measuring and weighing everything by money. Income inequality. Bank profit. Business executive compensation. Justice Department accusation settlements. The greedy "rich" (who in actuality but not popular belief are Democrats). The "poverty level" (as defined by Democrats). The Pursuit of Happiness as guaranteed by the U. S. Constitution has been replaced by the Democrats' pursuit of money. But actually all this LiberalProgressiveDemocrat activity has not been ABOUT money or rights (they have been tools) it IS ABOUT POWER, RAW POWER OVER "WE THE PEOPLE." President Obama wants those he dislikes (Republicans, the successful, white folks, conservatives, businessmen) to give the fruits of their success to those who -- for whatever reason -- have not succeeded. PERIOD. 

The hegemony of the LiberalProgressiveDemocrats and the mad need to raise obscene amounts of money to win a seat in power in Washington, D. C. for candidates of both parties, could easily be changed: prohibit all organizations, including non-profits, corporations, labor unions, and the like from donating cash or time to candidate elections.  Limit each live U. S. citizen to, say. $5,000 per candidate per election.  And prohibit private lobbying and hold ONLY open group meetings on specific subjects of legislation so ALL interested parties would get the same information and be able to act on it. Federal government rules and laws requires this of corporate disclosures: transparency and equality. Finally, put in term limits of 2 or 3 terms for Congress and one 6-- 8 year term for president.  Then politicians could devote time to "We the People" and not they the buyers (tort lawyers, union bosses, etc.) of what the government can provide with taxpayer money.

But Congress must change Congress and THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN until the U. S. becomes unable to repay its debt. $20 trillion today; $30 trillion in 2025.  Somewhere will be too much and then if there's anything left, Hope and Change can be real again.

http://www.periodictablet.com

Monday, April 13, 2015

A Strong Republican Must Run

With the entire U. S. Government, the educational institutions from Pre-K through Ph. D.s, the entertainment industry, the non-Fox/WSJ media, union bosses' billions of monopoly-coerced dues, trial lawyers' Democrat tithes from legislatively-bought extortion, and trillion-dollar subsidized Far-left non-profits 100% for ANY Democrat, and certainly a female cis-gender woman, a Democrat will win.  Unless the Republicans can run a true fighter, unlike Wuss Romney, Dementia-McCain, who will stand up strong and proud and tell the country that ProgressiveLiberalDemocrats only want power for themselves not what's good for America.  That LPDs want to dictate how businesses need to run, how we need to live our daily lives ans thstbthevONLY choice they will give us is to kill our fetuses. Nrepublicans need to offer CHOICE in schools, mortgages, consumer products, autos, energy, healthcare, and on and on and on.  "We the People" can make better choices for ourselves than some Harvard elite that actuall only know how to read not live.

Http://www.periodictablet.com

Jeb Bush can beat Hillary.

Monday, March 9, 2015

Ashley Furniture, Selma, Alabama And Free Enterprise or Political “Assistance?”

The CEO of Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. thought “I knew I couldn’t compete,” as described in a front page article in the Wall Street Journal (“U. S. Furniture Survivor Tries to go Global,” Friday, March 6, 2015). Products from South Korea and Taiwan were cheaper and of better quality than those made by his company. Immediately he went to his Congressman desperately seeking help.  Republican Steve Gunderson, his representative from western Wisconsin, said, “You need to prepare to compete.” Further, he told Ron Wanek, also founder in 1970 of the privately-held family firm, not to expect any government help. Ashley, then with thirty-five employees, was and still is located in Arcadia, Wisconsin, with a population of 3,000; 45 years later, it is now the largest manufacturer and retailer of furniture in the U. S. with nearly $4 billion in revenues.

“In Selma, Struggle and Hope” (page A3 of the same paper) the 50th anniversary of “Bloody Sunday,” the violent civil-rights clash that helped usher in the 1965 Voting Rights Act” is lauded. With a population just over 20,000, Selma is one of the poorest cities in America and 80% black. Its black state senator, Hank Sanders is quoted as saying, “Selma has been left out of the very progress that it helped create.” President Obama will go to Selma to celebrate its past (and doubtless, ignore its bleak future). The Journal article features Jerria Martin, Selma resident and civic leader, who is executive director of Selma’s 21st Century Youth Leadership. According to its website, “The mission of the 21st Century Youth Leadership Movement is to inspire, assist, organize, and develop young people of all ages to be skilled community focused leaders, resiliently and creatively empowering themselves and their communities.” Among other goals it is focused on training young people to create a community garden; beautiful perhaps but nothing to help the financial future of Selma’s youth. Ms. Martin earned a master’s degree from Princeton Theological Seminary and wanted to use the skills she learned there for “transformative change.” State Senator Hank Sanders, a Democrat,  received degrees from Talladega College and Harvard Law School. Wikipedia writes:  “Hank has helped found or build many [non-profit, at least partially government-funded] organizations.” His wife, Faya Rose Toure, also a lawyer and an activist, wants the anniversary to reconnect youth with the past civil rights struggle, and the “long hand of slavery and segregation that is still affecting consciousness today.”

And there you have it.  On one hand, free enterprise thrives in a tiny Wisconsin town; Ashley employs 13,000 private sector workers in the United States. On the other hand is upwards of 50 years of public sector “assistance” and White House encouragement in a poverty-stricken, majority-black, Alabama city. For his part, the President of the United States has encouraged more community activism and government dependency instead of growth in the private sector. President Obama, through his takeover of the student-lending process, has enabled college students (both graduates and dropouts) to borrow over one trillion dollars from the U. S. taxpayer (funneled by the U. S. Department of Education). If these debtors, around 50,000 Americans, go to work in non-profit organizations or government entities, their loans can be forgiven in ten years. If they go to work for for-profit companies it will take twice as long for the government to forgive the loans. Since they can restrict their payments to ten percent of their wages, it pays them to work in low-pay non-profits.

These two articles present a sad commentary of the stark contrast of the two municipalities. Are there lessons to be learned? Does government “help” encourage more Selmas and the maintenance of poverty I wonder? Then I wonder, is this kind of government for the benefit of the United States of America?  Or for the Democratic Party? Further, what if Selma had been told it couldn’t compete, and that there was no government assistance available?  Would the leaders have stepped up and started for-profit companies and thrived? The CEO of Ashley was told he’d get no assistance. He had a free choice. Perhaps give up, sell out or think of how to compete. No doubt luck had something to do with the difference. Mr. Wanek “has long been inspired by the hardy stock of rural Minnesota and Wisconsin.” But are the workers in Selma not hardy stock? Do they work less hard? Wanek was a leader, being president of the graduating class of 36 in his hick town high school, but “didn’t stand out.” Clearly there are leaders in Selma, but perhaps the Democrats in power don’t trust the private sector enough to steer these  leaders toward the profit-seeking, prosperity-building private sector.


There are vital lessons to be learned in analyzing the two entities, if anyone cares.  But, then, there must be action if such lessons learned are to be fruitful.

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE TRUMAN DEMOCRATS? POWER TOOK THEIR MORALS AWAY

From the New York Times, Sunday, March 1, 2015: Historysource by Michael Beschloss


Discussing the bond between Lyndon Baines Johnson and Harry S. Truman...

"In the mid-1960s, Truman was by no means the popular cult figure -- embodying plain speaking, decisiveness, honesty, common sense and a modest lifestyle -- that he became after his death."

PLAIN SPEAKING
DECISIVENESS
HONESTY
COMMON SENSE
MODEST LIFESTYLE

MISSING IN (IN)ACTION IN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

Tuesday, March 3, 2015

MORE TAXPAYER MONEY GIVEN AWAY BY BARACK OBAMA

Democrat-labeled "distressed homeowners" who borrow and can't make mortgage payments are about to get some more forgiveness courtesy of his feel-sorry-for Mel Watt, head of his Federal Housing Finance Agency. Arbitrary NEW RULES force extension of loan terms, forgiving principal or -- this is critical -- stopping sales of foreclosed property to investors.  Investors are a despised class to the Obama administration since they compete with the federal government's giveaways of tax payer monies to get Democrats elected. In this case investors who might take the property away from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to lessen taxpayer risk can't.  Only obviously-Democrat advocacy housing activists get in first. Or people who will live in the houses (and vote for Democrats.) The far-left Center for American Progress lobbied for it, as did the New Jersey Community Capital non-profit which buys foreclosures.

CRONY "CAPITALISM" is not capitalism.

President Obama's arbitrary, illegal action to grant to ILLEGAL ALIENS Social Security cards and numbers, among other goodies, will give them UNEARNED INCOME SUBSIDIES immediately without them ever working. YOU will be paying for their Democrat Party windfalls.  For whom will these newly-fat cats vote in the next and every subsequent election?  DEMOCRATS. Using your money.

And I thought bribery was illegal.  No matter nothing is illegal for the President of the Democrats.

@periodictablet

Republicans: Kiss Choice





The Messrs. Reinhold Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, and Karl Christian Rove, Republican political consultant, can sure raise the money, but they can’t turn a phrase. In the Wall Street Journal’s “How Senate Republicans Can Close the Sale,” by Karl Rove, Opinion, October 2, 2014, he discussed 11 Republican principles that Priebus presented in a speech at George Washington University. They included, "we should leave the next generation opportunity, not debt" and “our country should value the traditions of family, life, religious liberty and hard work;” 23 words all together. Remember K. I. S. S.? It is an acronym for “Keep it Simple, Stupid,” which is a principle that systems work more effectively if they are kept simple and understandable. For example, “choice” is one word while Priebus’s and Rove’s philosophy is 23. That one simple word – choice – encompasses Republican principles better than any other.  Yet it is virtually owned by the Democratic Party which puzzlingly offers actually only one “choice” and that only to women. It is time that Republicans seize that word – choice – and present it to the nation as the embodiment of their philosophy. Republicans want to offer many choices to everyone, Democrats want to control.  That is the dividing line between left and right.

Why can’t all Americans choose the schools their kids go to? Why can’t we choose to keep our long-time family doctor? Why can’t we choose not to join a union? Why can’t we choose to have an adjustable-rate mortgage, if it fits our budget? Why can’t we choose the crib we want, a crib won’t hurt our baby, only our neglect will. Why can’t I choose to take a drug that might save my life? Why can’t I choose whom to hire and whom to fire in my business? Why can’t I choose not to wear a helmet when I ride my motorcycle?  (This is a 55-year old gripe of mine!) I think I can make  better choices for me than some political appointee sitting in Washington, D.C. can.
Myriad governmental institutions limit the choices of the American public. They include the Federal Trade Commission, its Division of Advertising Practices and Fair Information Practice Principles, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission among countless other U. S. government agencies, commissions, divisions and so on. They substitute their choices for ours.
Obviously, there are circumstances when the knowledge of elite experts in a field is needed for something dangerous that I can’t begin to understand. But is using the word “natural” to sell corn flakes something really so dangerous it needs an expert to stop me from choosing whether to believe it or not? Really?
Why will the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) prohibit me from being able to be one of 75,000 students to choose Corinthian Colleges, Inc. to get an education, or its 15,000 employees from choosing to work there if the government forces it out of business but doesn’t protect me from choosing or working for Harvard or the University of Washington? The CFPB says Corinthian deceived, bullied, misled and was predatory to students.  But what if I am a bartender with a B. A. from Yale and owe $100,000 in student loans, that’s OK?
Why can’t I choose to buy Bucky Balls, those magic magnetic magnetized balls? Because the Consumer Product Safety Commission banned them in its first stop-sale order in 11 years. Kids might eat them. What about pennies, nickels or quarters?
Sure, I might get hurt or cheated but it will be my choice; anyway, I think we’re smart enough to know. After all, practically all the information ever known to humanity is available to anyone on a little cell phone. But it seems politicians primarily of the Democratic persuasion don’t think we’re smart enough so they invent governmental institutions and pass laws to protect us from ourselves. Or do they?  Over a million U. S. government employees belong to unions, which contribute vastly more to the Democratic Party than to any other. So for whose benefit really is it to have thousands of union members make decisions for me?
Politicians can say anything true or false, benign or dangerous, and it is protected. The Supreme Court decisions on the First Amendment make core political speech more important than other forms of individual expression. I’d argue that political lying can be severely dangerous to individuals and the country.
The question is, should We the People be able choose for ourselves or should a few politicians, unelected political appointees and union members choose for us?  Who is more capable of looking out and deciding for us, we ourselves or politicians? Republicans, advocates of free enterprise, believe we ourselves generally are capable to choose for ourselves while Democrats, advocates of a large, powerful government, believe that generally their elite political appointees or hires are capable and they should make our choices for us.
Mr. Priebus and Mr. Rove, which do you think more powerful? "[W]e should leave the next generation opportunity, not debt" and “our country should value the traditions of family, life, religious liberty and hard work;” 23 words, or “Republicans offer Choice” one word?” Choosing or obeying?

“We the People” is democracy, free enterprise, and choice.  That is the Republican Principle.