Now Global Warming Causes Prostitution?

Can I ask you to please help a poor old farm boy out? I’m just a little confused.

Al Gore is still pounding his drum about Global Warming and how it’s proven science and that “scientists are not in a conspiracy to lie to us.” (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/milken-conference-al-gore-rocks-449247) At the same time the esteemed congress woman Barbara Lee of California has introduced a bill related to Global Warming in order to save women from being driven into “transactional sex”( http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/296679-dems-warn-climate-change-could-drive-women-to-transactional-sex), which I take it means prostitution, due to the effects of global warming.

Well, we certainly can’t have the world going to hell in a warm hand basket if it means the ice caps are going to melt and we are going to have droughts and people starving or having to sell themselves as sex slaves if they are to survive this disaster. Let’s jump right on these proposals by Al and Barbara. Who cares how badly it will affect the everyday citizen due to increased costs and lowered standards of living.

Oh, wait a minute.

Back before the earth cooled and there were no polar ice caps, what was the planet like? Humm, oh yeah, that was back in the time of the dinosaurs. These scientists that Al tells me to believe say the planet was basically one big jungle in the middle and near the top and bottom of the planet I seem to recall them saying it was fairly moderate. Both climates would be suitable for sustained agriculture, not death due to starvation or women having to sell themselves just to get a bite to eat.

So Al and Barbara, which story the scientists tell am I to believe? The planet is going to warm up, the ice caps are going to melt, deserts everywhere and helpless women having to sell their bodies to avoid starvation? Or, should I believe the scientists who tell me that when the planet has warmed in the past, that growth on the planet has exploded? Both flora and fauna expanding because conditions for growth have been so great now that temperatures have increased throughout the world and there is more water available as both water and water vapor due to the melted ice caps. Just as it did in the past.

I’m so confused Al and Barbara.

Now add to this the fact that this very week (the week of 4/29/13), Russian scientists (you remember them Al, the guys who are not in a conspiracy to lie to us) are saying that we are heading into an expected era of global cooling that will last between 200 and 250 years. (http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/healthscience/2013/April/Russian-Scientists-Global-Cooling-on-Horizon-/)

Al, you tell me the science on global warming is settled (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9047642). It’s impossible to question because some scientists (who we have seen are not beyond fudging the data), have said it’s so. Never mind that following a course of action that you claim will slow this global warming, which you say is a settled question, will make you millions and millions of dollars. I feel certain you would never lie to us and that neither you nor your scientist opinions would ever be affected by the lure of the dollar.

I mean, we all know that scientists live on air and have no need of worldly possessions, so they would never promote a cause that would enrich themselves on a personal level. Everything scientists do is for the betterment of the universe as a whole. And Barbara and Al, neither of you are self-aggrandizing assholes who would do or say virtually anything to increase your wealth and/or power.  Right?

So that leaves this poor old farm boy dazed and confused. If the science is settled, and if scientists would never lie, and if Al and Barbara are just looking out for our welfare, how in the ever loving name of anything that’s holy can there be so much bovine produced fertilizer for these folks to be shoveling out?

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.

How Come Liberals Want To Compromise?

In the current political climate, the Liberal/Progressives (LibPos) have successfully labeled conservatives as inflexible and unwilling to bend or compromise. They have done this with the support and full cooperation of the LibPo mainstream media.

So why are the LibPos always asking for compromise? No one ever seems to ask. It would seem to be a logical question, but no one ever does, and thus it is never answered.

Well, I think I have the answer.

Conservatives are interested in keeping things the way the Founding Fathers intended. To them, any change that isn’t moving things back towards the original intent is degrading our country and by definition, bad for the country.

LibPos on the other hand, are continuously trying to drag the country into a more socialist position where the government relentlessly increases its presence within our society.

So as a LibPo establishes a position that is diametrically opposed to what a conservative sees as good for the country, they know that the conservative will oppose it. The LibPo then says, “If you don’t want to go this far, what is your compromise position? We are willing to compromise. We don’t have to have all that we want. We are reasonable folks. Let’s hear what you’re willing to accept.”

What has this done?

It has set up a premise that a reasonable person will meet somewhere between what each party wants. The problem with this is, that ANY movement in the direction of the LibPo takes us further away from what the Founding Fathers intended and closer to what the radical LibPos want. When the LibPos establish the beachhead position on their side of the line, any compromise position then moves the conservatives in their, the LibPos, direction.

You never see or hear about from the media, when a conservative position is established and they say we can compromise, but we are headed in this direction. As an example, if the conservatives were to say, “We want to completely close the boarders to illegals entering the country.” The LibPos don’t come back with some compromise like, “OK, let’s close the Arizona portion of the boarder and study the effects.”

If the conservatives establish the beachhead position on their side, the word “compromise” never crosses a LibPo’s lips or their sycophantic medias keyboards/monitors. They are never framed as the inflexible ones.

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.

Contro The Language, Control The Argument

Those who wish to disarm American citizens would seem to have a powerful ally as the debate moves forward. They have the vast majority of the media on their side. These are the people who choose how they will phrase the information they decide to report. In this case, they have chosen to apply the term “Assault” to the weapons they are seeking to ban.

You may be asking yourself why is that important?

Well, the reason is that the word “assault” is an emotionally charged word. Webster defines assault as: “a violent physical or verbal attack”. So as they choose to call these weapons assault weapons, they are positioning it in the listener’s mind as the aggressors weapon, thus cannot be a “defensive” weapon.

The other straw man the media and the anti-gunners prop up is that these are “military” weapons that should not be in military hands. This fallacious argument positions it in the listener’s mind that these weapons are designed for war. When in fact the actual military version of these weapons are capable of full automatic fire and are in fact, assault weapons. The true military assault weapons ARE banned from ownership by the general public.

The “military” style “assault” weapons that the anti-gunners’ are attempting to ban are neither military nor assault. They look like a military assault rifle but do not function like one. The operator must pull the trigger every time they wish to fire a round, as opposed to a military weapon capable of automatic fire where one pull of the trigger will initiate continuous fire until the trigger is released. This is tantamount to saying that you should charge insurance rates on a Volkswagen Beatle with a Ferrari kit on it the same insurance rate you would levy on a real Ferrari. While they may look a lot alike, they are, in fact, different.

By having the media in favor of disarming the American populace, they control the language a large portion of the populace uses, and thus are able to place those who disagree with them in a defensive position. In point of fact, the media and their cohorts in this argument are the ones who are actually conducting the assault. It is an assault on your rights.

As the old saying goes about fighting with the media, “Don’t pick a fight with someone who buys paper by the ton and ink by the barrel”. In this case though, it was those exact folks who picked the argument, not those of us who support the Second Amendment.

We are faced with trying to respond and defend against ad homonym attacks against gun ownership. Arguments such as, “these weapons are not necessary for hunting”, or “these are not for self-defense, these are military assault weapons” , or “why would you need more than 7 bullets to stop an intruder?”.

Those who are arguing against the second amendment are totally ignoring the premise upon which it is based, which is, so the citizens of this country would be able to defend themselves against a government that over reached its authority. One that placed onerous demands and regulations upon its citizens.

Those who support an all powerful central government don’t want the citizenry to be able to resist.

Or so it would seem to an old country boy.

A Look Behind The Liberal/Progressive Curtain

A LibPo (Liberal/Progressive) lets the curtain slip.

LibPo icon Piers Morgan let the curtain slip aside recently when he spoke with Christine Quinn, New York Mayoral candidate, on his CNN television program.

In his interview he told Ms. Quinn, Mr. Morgan espoused that “occasionally” people need a nanny state to make their decisions for them, as left to their own devices, they make bad choices. So naturally, these decisions should be left to our betters.

I wonder just how strongly Mr. Morgan would espouse this feeling if there were others in charge of our government and the government decided everyone should own a gun. Or maybe a different government might determine that everyone should contribute to the NRA. Or maybe the government would decide it is best if all pregnancies were carried to term. Would Mr. Morgan be as supportive of their being a nanny state government to make our decisions for us?

As normally is the case, it would be a matter of whose ox is being gored. But LibPos seldom consider the other side of the coin. They can never conceive of themselves as not being the ones in charge, because in their minds, they are always the smartest kids in the room. They feel that the rest of us are not smart enough to make our own decisions and thus we should leave these important matters to them. We should trust that they know what is best.

I am never in favor of one person being able to unilaterally determine the course of another individual’s behavior. NO ONE should have power over another individual’s Life, Liberty or Property without their consent! Period!

It is for this very reason that our Founding Fathers wrote in the Declaration of Independence:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

I would postulate that when a government, any government, be it large or small, starts dictating individual’s personal behaviors, it has over stepped its bounds. It is at that point that the government should be over thrown. Luckily, our Founding Fathers set forth a manner to peacefully do this via the ballot box. It is not necessary for us to behave like some Banana Republic. A coup de ta is not necessary. We have the ability to change those making these onerous demands upon us on a regular basis. 2014 is the next such opportunity.

I’m afraid the old adage is true. “We get the government we deserve.”

In 2008, for whatever misguided reasons, a majority of Americans chose an individual who truly believes he is smarter than the rest of us and should make all our choices for us. In 2010, we put somewhat of a counter weight in place. In 2012, to my utter amazement, the majority of ballots cast (note how I’m saying ballots cast not necessarily the majority of legal voters) were for the same individual who believes he should be making all the decisions. That we can’t choose our own course.

I certainly hope that 2014 will change the direction of this country and that the LibPos won’t have driven us so far into the weeds that we can’t find our way back.

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.

A Root Cause Of American Decline

Oh my god! If you weren't aware of it all ready (clearly you have been on extended trip out of the solar system), here is prof positive that our country has turned into Bazarro World!

Three teens in Florida, tackle another teen who is pointing a loaded gun at yet another teen, at point blank range. They wrestle the loaded gun away from him and undoubtedly save a minimum of one and quite possibly more lives! And what do these heroic students get from the school for their efforts?

SUSPENSION!

That's right. All three were immediately suspended by there school!

And "Why" you might ask, would students doing the right thing at risk of their own life and health, be suspended?

According to school "policy" they were involved in an incident involving a gun.

Hello!

School!

These boys weren't the ones who introduced the gun into the situation! They were the ones REMOVING the gun from the situation!

In fact, if these kids had been to a government school the day they showed the DHS sponsored film produced by the city of Houston, they did exactly what the government says to do.

Run, Hide, Fight!

According to our federal government's Department of Homeland Security, when faced with an active shooter you should RUN if you can, HIDE if you can't, and FIGHT if options one and two won't work. http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=5VcSwejU2D0&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D5VcSwejU2D0

These boys were on a bus with one boy threatening to shoot another. Note the word "bus". Nowhere to run. Nowhere to hide. They did the right thing! (Actually, I'd say they did the right thing even if options one and two were available to them.)

We here all the time about how something bad happens and no one does a thing to help and we decry our civilization's uncaringness for others. All the while wondering "How did our country ever devolve to such a state?"

Well this case is exhibit number one.

Our schools are teaching our young to become uninvolved drones!

What is the real lesson being taught to our kids here? If you get involved and stop a terrible thing from happening you will be punished! If you do nothing, the system will not punish you. Negative reinforcement will be withheld! Removal of a negative is felt to be a positive, particularly in the young. The system is teaching our young that uninvolvement is the right course of action.

I put it to you that our lily livered educators (which have been taught this behavior by many folks who were 60's draft dodgers themselves) are the root cause of many of our society's current ills.

This country needs an immediate and drastic change of course in what we are teaching our young. We could do without many, if not ALL, of the touchy feely sensitivity crap our schools waste time and money on and return to some serious civics instruction! Teaching our kids what it should mean to be an American! Not some neutered world citizen view!

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.

Here is a link to the story this is based on: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/02/high-school-student-disarms-gunman-gets-suspended/

With Choice Comes Responsibility

Being Liberal FaceBook page has the following post:

“The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a woman’s life, to her well-being and dignity. When the government controls that decision for her, she is being treated as less than a full adult human responsible for her own choices.”        Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

They are posting this as an argument in favor of pro-choice, which by the way, I’m in favor of. I fully believe that a woman should be able to choose who, what, when, where, why and how they engage in sex. I do not believe that the government should be involved in this decision in any way, shape or form.

Where I’m confused and where the feminists don’t seem to see the logical disconnect is when they say they don’t want the government to control decisions about their sex life while at the same time asking the government to pay for their choices.

Now I don’t know about you, but where I grew up, the person who paid the bills got the final say.

Liberals constantly like to whine and moan that conservatives are trying to remove a woman’s ability to choose. In fact, it couldn’t be further from the truth. Conservatives are not telling women how they must behave sexually. They are just saying that it is not the government’s job to pay for their personal choices.

I don’t know any conservatives who are trying to outlaw abortion, or birth control. They just don’t see it as their job to pay for somebody else’s personal choices.

I believe liberals can have sex with anyone they want, any way they want. However, it’s not my job to pay for the consequences of their choices and actions or to provide props for them, such as the pill or condoms. I believe that I have the 2nd amendment right to own and carry a firearm. That doesn’t mean I think I should use tax money, some of which a liberal may have paid (though the odds are slim), to pay for my gun and ammo, or even my holster.

But the liberal mind can’t seem to grasp the concept of “My choice, my cost”. If you want to give up your right to choose and turn it over to the government, than fine, the government can then pay. But don’t forget, they get to choose, and they might choose a cheaper option than birth control or abortion, they might choose to just sterilize you and avoid the whole issue. The government always knows what's best for you, ya know.

With choice comes responsibility. In this case, if you wish to have individual choice, you need to be responsible enough to pay for your choice. If you can’t afford the cost of a condom or the pill, maybe the sensible choice would be to not engage in sexual activity.

At least that’s the way an old farmboy sees it.

iPhone vs Chevy Volt

iPhone VS Chevy Volt

So why do you suppose the Chevy Volt is such an unmitigated disaster? The federal government has directly sunk millions upon millions of dollars into its development and millions more indirectly. So why is it that it is such an Edsel? (I haven’t looked up the numbers, but I would actually bet there were more Edsels sold to a much smaller population base than GM has sold Volts.)

Compare this to iPhone sales. The iPhone is projected to sell so many units that it will actually affect the nations GDP. And as near as I can tell, it didn’t take a single dollar of taxpayer money to develop or market.

So what’s going on? Why is it that a product that the current government says we need, supports its development and, participates in its production (gave partial ownership to unions and gave millions to keep the company afloat) is such a colossal failure? While at the same time a product that the government has virtually nothing to do with is a runaway success?

I would have to speculate that the reason is simple.

Apple developed a product that quenched a consumer felt need. An easily portable, intuitively user friendly device that meets three needs that the consumer wants filled: 1) a mobile phone, 2) a personal entertainment device, and 3) easily portable connection to the internet.

The government, through Chevy, on the other hand, has provided a solution to a problem the consumer has not perceived. The need for an electric car.  Not only have they solved a problem no one has perceived, they’ve made the solution so expensive, that virtually nobody is willing to even give it a try. And to add insult to injury, at the exorbitant cost they are asking for this solution to a non-problem, they are costing the American tax payer over $40,000 per vehicle. That’s right, Government Motors is losing over $40k for every Volt they sell.

Apple, on the other hand, turns a tidy profit on every single unit they sell.

It’s an old lesson being taught once again. Government should stay out of business. It should not try and direct market activities or pick business winners and losers. Just as every centrally planned government has proven to date, when the government gets involved with deciding the who, what, when and where of business, chaos and failure cannot be far behind. The Chevy Volt, Solyndra, the EPA trying to run the coal industry out of business, all examples of the government getting involved in business to the detriment of the American people. And what does our current political leadership want to do when faced with this record of appalling failure? They want to double down on it. They ask us to keep them in place for another 4 years. This is so counter intuitive it is unbelievable. Common sense tells you the first thing you need to do when you find yourself in a hole is to STOP DIGGING!

In about a month we will find out just how dumb the American electorate is. We have a chance to stop digging. As the saying goes, ”we will get the government we deserve”. God help us all if we continue to dig.