On Brexit: The Real Deal

Posted on Updated on

People are wising up to their governments ripping them off with massive taxes and minimal protections. The economically illiterate tend to see things from a leftist viewpoint, because they lack a fundamental understanding of supply and demand and how that concept transcends every facet of every market. Further, people on the left tend to rely on emotions as the substantive portion of their mental energy when making decisions. This is okay a lot of the time, but when a decision will have a tremendous effect on the lives of everyone around them it becomes dangerous.
Thus, we hear leftists ignoring the damning economic impacts of welfare states and open borders on tax payers and locally raised people looking to compete in their labor markets; also, resulting from this disposition, we hear leftists shouting down dissenters of the Brexit movement in a deluge of epithets (racists, xenophobes, bigots, etc.), which is par for the course and so was expected.
In truth, the majority of UK citizens want to have sovereignty over their island, so they can regulate their businesses, afford welfare benefits, control their borders, and police themselves – themselves. Brexit is a really big deal, and I think voters made the right choice yesterday. That said, conservatives in the UK will need to step up to the plate in the aftermath, and they’ll need to stick to their guns. The transition to a free society in the UK will be temporarily painful, but in the long run it will be a far better deal in terms of economics and security for the people who live there.
I do expect, though, to see terror plots carried out, violence from leftist sympathizers, and volatile markets over the next 6-18 months. Islamic terror groups, and individual cells will want to dissuade the masses of truly taking control of their own country by making it seem as though the population is unprepared to fight domestic terrorism. The left, likewise, will throw fits. We’ve seen this in America lately quite a bit. When the right doesn’t like something, they tend to protest peacefully, while the left tends to light fires, beat people to the ground, harass and assault women (perhaps pelting them in the face with eggs), and wholly behaving like a bunch of psychopaths. The markets will jolt this way and that for a time simply due to the unknown. After all, when today WASN’T like yesterday, and tomorrow WON’T be like today…
So, I think we’re in for some interesting news stories out of the UK in the coming days and months. And, ultimately, we can look forward to the start of a global economic recovery.


Obama To Nation: Smoke and Mirrors

Posted on Updated on

The following are my thoughts on some of the things President Obama said in his Address to the Nation on 06 Dec, 2015 regarding the latest terrorist activity in the Western world. It isn’t an aggregate of all of my thoughts on the matter, but I hope this really makes people think. 

 Screen Shot 2015-12-08 at 2.46.25 AM

“Good evening.  On Wednesday, 14 Americans were killed as they came together to celebrate the holidays.  They were taken from family and friends who loved them deeply. They were white and black; Latino and Asian; immigrants and American-born; moms and dads; daughters and sons.”

Obama got only three sentences into his speech before plucking the heartstrings of race-in-America. One of the quickest ways to get people thinking defensively and manipulate them into treading softly in their thoughts and speech is to bring up racial differences. In truth, at least one of the people at the party was of Middle Eastern heritage. Unfortunately, he left early to pick up his Pakistani wife so they could murder the other races Obama referenced.

“…it is clear that the two of them had gone down the dark path of radicalization, embracing a perverted interpretation of Islam that calls for war against America and the West.”

 You’ll note he didn’t explain that statement in detail. In fact, the murderous mujahideen in San Bernadino didn’t pervert anything. The Quran and the Hadith each quite clearly state a collection of actions and behaviors that God finds most desirable. Dying a martyr’s death, or Istishhad, is a tremendous honor. While this practice does go against the strict Islamic instructions against murder and suicide, it’s no more contradictory than a Christian who fights back against an attacker in accordance with “an eye for an eye” rather than following the contradictory “turn the other cheek” suggestion found in the same religious text. Obama isn’t a bumpkin; he knows this. His statement is a dishonest mischaracterization of the true nature of Islamic teaching.

“Intelligence and law enforcement agencies have disrupted countless plots here and overseas, and worked around the clock to keep us safe.”

 Countless? So are we safe, or are there constant, around-the-clock attempts to murder us coming from all directions in all places? Countless?! That’s a lot.

“Our military and counterterrorism professionals have relentlessly pursued terrorist networks overseas…decimating al Qaeda’s leadership.”

It is true that primarily American forces have decimated personnel and structures of Al Queda leadership in the past, but he is being a bit sophistic. Equally brutal Islamic leaders and groups have cropped up to replace any void left by the erosion done unto them by Western forces. This is why the oh-so-efficient War On Terror hasn’t ended yet.

 “Our success [in defeating terrorism] won’t depend on…abandoning our values…”

That’s great news! I bet he won’t go on to suggest that we begin redacting the universality of Constitutional rights, which affords everyone in America a higher degree of equality than anywhere else in the world, without due process in this same speech.  Or else, he will.

“…we will continue to provide training and equipment to tens of thousands of Iraqi and Syrian forces fighting ISIL on the ground so that we take away their safe havens.  In both countries, we’re deploying Special Operations Forces who can accelerate that offensive.”

 There you go, folks. It’s official – boots on the ground! Did you catch it? Obama is deploying an untold number of “Special Operations Forces” back into Iraq (as if they aren’t already there) and into Syria. Nobel Peace Prize much?

“Since the attacks in Paris, we’ve surged intelligence-sharing with our European allies.”

 Is it possible that this is a new idea? It’s not like terror plots being carried out or attempted by Muslim fundamentalists in the U.S.A and Paris are a new phenomena. Let’s not forget Obama’s previous statement that these types of plots are countless! Countless terror plots have been stopped, and I believe several have been carried out throughout Europe and the U.S.A. Why wasn’t our greatest-in-the-world, protective, daddy-like government surging communication with his government neighbors for years in order to avoid attacks like the one in Paris? This statement is absolute nonsense. Unfortunately, that means Obama thinks his constituents are naive enough to fall for this obfuscation.

“We’re working with Turkey to seal its border with Syria.”

 Wow, it must be real important to make sure that nobody exits miserable, Islamofacist Syria and gets into Turkey. Of course, Obama has been encouraging and signing off on the importation of thousands upon thousands of unchecked Syrians into the U.S.A.   So which is it? Should we be wary of Syrian migrants, or welcoming? Are they a threat, or an opportunity to share love throughout the world?

“That’s why I’ve ordered the Departments of State and Homeland Security to review the visa *Waiver program under which the female terrorist in San Bernardino originally came to this country.”

 If I’m not mistaken, Obama recently mocked conservatives who voiced concerns about importing potentially dangerous Muslim Sryians by the tens of thousands when he mentioned that they are “…scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America as part of our tradition of compassion. First they were worried the press was too tough on them in the debates; now they’re worried about 3-year-old orphans. That doesn’t sound very tough to me.” Indeed, Obama was implying that women are nothing to worry about! How could anyone suspect a woman of being a terrorist? Yet, just a couple weeks later, a woman makes up 50% of a terrorist force that has left 14 dead and 17 wounded in San Bernadino, CA. I guess, yeah, let’s check out that waiver program, Mr. President.

“Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun.  What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon?  This is a matter of national security.”

 Ah-ha! I had a feeling he’d do it. You see what he’s not telling us is that the American government is taking our taxes by force and using them to prop itself up while it maintains its status as the largest arms dealer in the world. Yes, our government arms terrorist groups in the Middle East, and then tries to disarm the law-abiding Westerners who live within their borders.   Obama is saying that guns are so dangerous, that we should disarm ourselves and arm dangerous groups waging Jihad throughout the world. If this isn’t making sense to you, that’s to be expected. You aren’t seeing the big picture. Only Obama and his democratic teammates can see the big picture. I mean, can you even begin to come up with an argument as to why our government doesn’t have the authority to create obscure lists, like no-fly-lists, members of whom lose their Constitutional rights? Nope, you can’t. You can’t because Obama is implying that it would be silly if you tried to. Look, it’s a matter of National Security! We have to arm the Mujahideen and disarm you. You are the threat; jihadists are over there…except when they’re here. Let’s move on.

“I know there are some who reject any gun safety measures.”

 This is sneaky. Here Obama is implying that people are either with him or opposed to ALL gun safety measures. This is truly scary. The leader of our country is misguiding the masses with a hideously lowdown false dichotomy. Is “Don’t point guns at people” a gun safety measure? Are background checks a gun safety measure? Are hearing and eye protection gun safety measures? Are ten day waiting periods a gun safety measure? Is “don’t drive with a loaded gun in the cab” a gun safety measure? I could go on and on. I really could. My point is, there are degrees of gun safety, and there are different areas of gun safety. To present the opposition to his platform as people who reject ALL gun safety measures is absolutely wrong. Most people fall somewhere in between the two extremes. Obama knows this, too. He’s a lawyer by education, not a buffoon. He is well aware of the falsehood of his statements.

“We also need to make it harder for people to buy powerful assault weapons like the ones that were used in San Bernardino… But the fact is that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies — no matter how effective they are — cannot identify every would-be mass shooter, whether that individual is motivated by ISIL or some other hateful ideology.”

 Wait, so law enforcement cannot keep us safe no matter how efficient they are? And Obama’s solution to this is to make it more difficult for the vast masses of ordinary people to arm and defend themselves. Is that a question? This doesn’t make sense.

“Finally, if Congress believes, as I do, that we are at war with ISIL, it should go ahead and vote to authorize the continued use of military force against these terrorists.  For over a year, I have ordered our military to take thousands of airstrikes against ISIL targets.  I think it’s time for Congress to vote to demonstrate that the American people are united, and committed, to this fight.”

 Obama is a Constitutional lawyer. Yet, here he is admitting that he has broken the law by waging war without the consent of congress. And, he so casually mentions that congress “should go ahead and vote” us into war. He even claims that Congress should do this, because it would demonstrate that you, and me, and your neighbors, and your kids’ teachers, and the mailman, and  duck-call makers in the South, and fishermen in Puget Sound are all united in our longing to wage war in the Middle East! Who is this clown kidding? Who does he think is longing to wage war? Who does he think is united in this initiative?   Would a couple hundred Congressmen geographically separated from their constituents by thousands of miles voting to wage war be representative of hundreds of millions of people? No, it wouldn’t.

“But just as it is the responsibility of Muslims around the world to root out misguided ideas that lead to radicalization, it is the responsibility of all Americans — of every faith — to reject discrimination.”

 Discrimination? Is that the issue here? Oh, I didn’t realize much of the terrorism plaguing our world is the result of Americans of all faiths discriminating against each other or Muslims or whatever he’s talking about. What a wise man this Obama is.

“We were founded upon a belief in human dignity — that no matter who you are, or where you come from, or what you look like, or what religion you practice, you are equal in the eyes of God and equal in the eyes of the law.”

 It’s a good thing he didn’t mention the inalienable rights of all men that our country was founded on, or it would have been difficult to confuse us into thinking his idea to put people on an obscure list and steal away those rights without due process was a good one.


I could have written many more pages about this boneheaded mumbo jumbo, but I’ve made my point. Our president is knowingly muddying the water, as usual, surrounding the recently publicized Muslim terror acts in the Western world. He’s dividing the populace and manipulating the people into thinking it’s a good idea to be disarmed. He’s politicizing tragic events in order to push a socialist agenda. He’s not on our side.

To, or Not To, Debate: A Lesson

Posted on Updated on

Below is a recent exchange I had with an unnamed person about a statement they had made on social media regarding the President’s latest endeavor – “free college”. The debate was flawed from the start. So many poorly developed skills and highly developed fallacies were apparent that I felt compelled to save the conversation as a lesson to review.
I was able to openly, respectfully debate some people in the thread, and I even had quite a bit of support in my favor. Still, I’ve redacted all but the comments back and forth between “Instigator” and myself. And while that naming convention certainly denotes bias, you’ll see fairly quickly that it fits like a fogged over, cracked glass slipper.


On a call today, I heard someone I respect call our President “weak,” “ineffectual,” and a “closeted Muslim.” This was in response to what is currently going down in Paris. So, entirely unrelated things. Thankfully, mine is not a shy or retiring personality, so I told him I disagreed. This is one of the many things our President has done/said recently that make me proud to be an American. I hope it’s not just a pipe dream. (And by that I mean: I hope the Republican-saturated Congress doesn’t scuttle the thing, either out of “fiscal conservatism” or out of spite.)
I tried not to say anything, but it seems almost irresponsible of me not to. Here’s a different perspective:
What if they scuttle it out of common sense? After all, it isn’t actually “free” college. It is, in fact, a hijacking of middle class Americans’ freedom since they will be FORCED to pay billions of dollars annually for the program. And wouldn’t corralling youths into welfare-schools inflate demand and cause a reduction in the supply? And wouldn’t that result in skyrocketing costs? This means that tax-robbed people will end up paying even more money for a lesser education that they, themselves, aren’t even getting! Not to mention, the opportunity cost people will pay who won’t actually benefit from this “furthered” education while they could have been gaining workplace experience and increasing their wages through time in their industry. And, won’t this tremendous influx in college-goers completely devalue the college degree for all the people who actually would otherwise benefit from obtaining one? Also, being that every American is already $58,000 in debt to the government’s creditors, I’d say that stacking this unfunded liability on the shoulders of the working class is a pretty terrible idea. Further, people can’t afford to pay for other people’s educations (in the same way that they can’t afford to pay for other people’s healthcare); the average American household is over $15,000 in credit card debt alone. People already come out of government schools worshiping government, financially illiterate and with an inability to think critically. A government takeover of community college-funding is the first few inches on the slippery slope to government stipulations, regulations, and government-approved curriculum. And the last thing Americans need is for young adults to be manipulated into staying in government-institutions becoming further indoctrinated, and causing true adulthood to be pushed off until years later than it already is. I think it would have been far more impressive if Obama had decided to improve the government-controlled education system which currently exists; the one that lands American children 26th in Reading, 28th in Science, and 37th in Math compared to the rest of the world. Government really ought to focus on doing less, and performing really well at what it already insists on doing.
Pcoast, we’re not going to do this here. Sorry you couldn’t help but say something. Your blanket bias against our government is just as ignorant as any kind of blanket bias in its favor. Anything else I say in response to you at this point will make me sound arrogant. After all, my vantage point on this issue comes from a level of education you neither admire nor aspire to. So, you can vote vehemently against this prospective program at this nascent stage on principle if you want to. I will reserve my final opinion for when a true plan shakes itself out (and answers many of the valid questions asked on this thread), and will cast my vote at that time.
It sounds as though I’ve offended you, and I certainly didn’t mean to. I tried to stick to the issue, and I think I did a pretty good job. I didn’t attack you whatsoever. Your level of education is astounding! I love that you’ve spent years studying your passions. I hadn’t thought to praise you for it while discussing President Obama’s initiative, though. And I didn’t realize that your education and experience in writing made you an unquestionable expert on all things political. You are right, though; I do not aspire to your level of college-education. I am a fairly well educated person in my own right though – I swear! As for my “bias” against government, you’re only partially correct. I have what you call a “bias” toward the INITIATION of force. And, yes, that includes government. Lastly, as you well know, I don’t vote (see my article https://pcoastcompelled.wordpress.com/…/i-dont-vote…/ ) I don’t think you have to worry about coming across as arrogant, as you’ve already set sail. LOL
Acquaintance, I’d say that my brother is trolling you, but he actually believes this stuff. And true believers will not be dissuaded from their limited world views regardless of how reasonable or right you are. Save your energy and your time, my friend. And don’t worry, because he doesn’t vote! 🙂 And Pcoast, don’t worry about insulting me. We may be on opposite sides of this issue (of most issues!), but I respect your willingness to articulate your viewpoint. Allow me to boil it down a bit: I think taxes are necessary and civilized and ought to be used to benefit the people who pay them; you don’t accept my premise, and therefore, we’re not actually arguing.
Trolling? How passive aggressive of you.
“Actually believes this stuff”? So you’re saying that I’m unique in my thoughts? That this isn’t real?
“True believers”? As if it’s organized? Like a cult or something?
“Limited worldview”? As though we don’t live in the age of information, and I haven’t traveled enough to hold credibility?
“He doesn’t vote” As if I don’t try to affect positive change in my own way?
“Don’t worry about insulting me”? As if I did? I never did insult you. I made no personal attacks.
“I respect your willingness to articulate your viewpoint”? So you don’t respect the honesty, integrity, well-articulated arguments to the point? You just respect my “willingness”? As though I’m amusing you with my haphazardly placed words?
“You don’t agree with my premise…we’re not arguing”?
You seem to be unable to keep from filling your paragraphs with atrocious amounts of ad hominem, and dozens of other obvious fallacies, assumptions and allusions. You’re correct when you say “we’re not arguing”. I am making arguments. You are making noise
It’s unfortunate. Someone with your academic clout should have the ability to discern arguments from name calling and distraction within their own written word; then again, now I’m making an assumption.
BTW, this is all in good humor. I know you “actually believe” your viewpoint too.
Pcoast, let it go, man. I’ve tried to keep it light, but your own passive aggression is drowning any possible good point you’re attempting to make. Acquaintance2 did make some good points, and I’d love to engage her… but she’s being measured and respectful. You’re being a pain in the ass. Read the room. And then re-read your comments, because they’re full of intended insults and sarcasm and every other unworthwhile waste of hot air. We, you and I, are not arguing. You’re slinging crap and I’m hoping you’ll relax and allow others a chance to share their opinions. Or not. Because this is Facebook, and minds aren’t changed here.
Instigator, I really don’t understand where you felt attacked. I reread my comments, and I felt they were clear and well-stated. I saw no personal attacks (outside of agreeing with you that you sounded arrogant). I’ve noticed over the years that you tend to only allow people to question you if they aren’t related to you, and even then, only if they don’t disagree. Calling my views, “Crap,” and suggesting that my articulation is carelessly slung about are very obvious misconceptions (at best). Implying that my comments aren’t measured or respectful is also a mischaracterization. I suggest you reread YOUR and my comments and see exactly where you misstepped. And, please don’t let me stand in the way of your response to Acquaintance2. Indeed, she made excellent points.
And, in case I didn’t make it clear, your credentials are worth nothing to the vast majority of people. You began attacking me when you touted your credentials saying that “After all, my vantage point on this issue comes from a level of education you neither admire nor aspire to,” implying that those without your particular educational path are mere simpletons. Actually, when it comes to people in general, if dey ain’t employing’ ya, dey don wanna hur boutchya digreeez, ya heard!? LOL.
You mischaracterized my comments from the get-go. So, YOU, please, “relax” and allow other opinions to be stated. And, YOU, stop “being a pain in the ass” and “slinging crap”.
And, btw, I’m still smiling on my end.
Moral to the story…. Don’t post things and not expect people to express their differing opinions. With that said this was extremely entertaining.
So glad to see that, as I slept, Pcoast, Acquaintance, and Acquaintance2 had such a fruitful conversation. Brother, I’d say the moral of this story is that no matter what I post, if Pcoast has his panties in a bunch about some tangential issue, he’s going to hijack the thread and be himself. And I shouldn’t waste my time trying to stop him. I welcome debate when I assert my opinion… But here, I wasn’t arguing anything.

Well, reading back, I can see how my attempts not to engage my brother(s) on this thread could sound dismissive and arrogant. That wasn’t my intent. If I post something on Facebook, whether I like it or not, that’s construed as a public endorsement of something. Probably more/different than I what I actually intended to support. I do expect and appreciate debate, and once something is public, it’s not up to me to decide who gets to comment or how many times or where he will take his argument. While I maintain my right not to engage, it is wrong to state that while also jabbing and insulting others in the process. Pcoast, I apologize for being passive aggressive and openly dismissive of your point of view.
You don’t seriously expect me to accept that backhanded grenade of a faux-apology, do you?
“Whether you like it or not” is irrelevant; your initial post reads, “This is one of the many things our President has done/said recently that make me proud to be an American. I hope it’s not just a pipe dream.” While I guess you COULD have meant that you’re proud he can speak at all…and that you hope it’s a pipe-nightmare… those possibilities were dashed when you went on to say, “I hope the Republican-saturated Congress doesn’t scuttle the thing, either out of “fiscal conservatism” or out of spite.”
To say that I am “considering” your post an endorsement, because you said it publicly on FB is, yet again, a mischaracterization of reality on your part. YOU ENDORSED IT, loud and clear (see quotes above).
Also, when you say, “…once something is public, it’s not up to me to decide who gets to comment or how many times or where he will take his argument,” you are implying that I went somewhere inappropriate with the debate, spoke too much, pushed an unheard of agenda, and even that this was “his” argument. In fact, my views are, more or less, shared by many, and YOU made a controversial post – not me; this is your argument as much as it is mine. You’re attempting to paint yourself in a victim’s light here as though I’ve bullied you. In truth, I’ve done no such thing, you are not a victim of anything, and I find your effort at painting ME as a bully, well, bully-like. And, I respond to criticisms of myself and my views regularly and respectfully in debates; it doesn’t bother me that people (in this case you) are unable to create a valid argument resorting to name-calling and false implications – that means you’ve given up. I do point it out, though, because I don’t like making people read between the lines.
Lastly, your most recent comment, apologetic as it may seem, begins, “I can see how my attempts not to engage my brother(s) on this thread could sound dismissive and arrogant. That wasn’t my intent.” If you think me a fool once, shame on me for my presentation; however, the second time… BOOOOO to you!!
You didn’t MEAN to come across as dismissive and arrogant? Really? In your first response to my views you accused me of having “blanket bias”, you called me “ignorant”, you admitted that you were already bordering arrogance, you held your college-education over my head as an attack on my credibility (as if your studies in writing have something MORE to do with an understanding of political sciences, economics, philosophy, etc. than my own education), you accused me of having no appreciation for your credentials (which, to be fair, I appreciated more before this stream’s genesis), and you pulled back your initial endorsement stating that, “I will reserve my final opinion for…” in an obvious back-pedaling stab at sounding more neutral to the matter than you did in your initial post.
You mischaracterized my views, abused your formal educational authority, and implied absolute falsehoods, both about me (personally) and about the information and views I was putting forth, throughout the entire exchange. You even ended with a revolting attack on my morality, organization, comprehension, etc., and you had the nerve to disguise that attack as an apology. I’m not easily hurt, so no damage was done to my feelings. No apology is necessary.
I’d rather you truly read back over this conversation and learn about yourself, and become a better version of you. Your passion and your writing abilities could be a tremendous force if honed properly, whether for good or bad is, I suppose, up for debate?
This will be my last post in this thread. I enjoy a good debate. This thread did provide some good ideas. It’s wonderful to know that folks are staying atop the issues at hand, and thinking.

P.S. This has been an excellent opportunity for people involved to see how many different ways a person can juke, dodge, distract, and tap-dance around issues when they’re losing a debate. My initial comment was concise and raised entirely valid points without any hint of attack. However, Instigator ‘s initial post was firm in her approval of Obama’s proposal, so she felt attacked by my points. This is understandable. But, rather than research, or otherwise find answers to the points I raised, she switched immediately to personal attack. And, she kept on swinging throughout the conversation. This thread is truly a magnificent read when going through it in its entirety for the purpose of learning the what-to-do’s and what-NOT-to-do’s when discussing important, controversial topics. This conversation has been at least vaguely funny, also, because the topic of “further subsidized tuition” isn’t a particularly inflammatory one.

New Year / Same Loathing: A quick fix!

Posted on

Every year I tell myself I’m going to do something really productive that’ll add substance to my life or bring me some sort of comfort. Last year I resolved to quit smoking. The year before I promised myself I’d lose twenty pounds. Actually, I had decided to do both of these things every year for the last five years, but January just keeps on rearing its head and taunting me to remake these promises and others.

New Year Resolutions, in my experience, tend to be mildly ridiculous in nature. They seem to always require some skill I don’t have, some will-power I’m unwilling to derive, a tool I’ll certainly not acquire, or means which will foreseeably remain out of my reach. Why do I do this to myself? It’s such a silly ritual – on the verge of superstition even. But so many people make them.

“Well I have to buy a new calendar on Wednesday, guess I better start workin’ out, or run a marathon or something.”

“I suppose I’ll eat more vegetables, and watch less TV.”

“I reckon I’ll be more attentive in my relationships this Wednesday.”

“Yep, On Wednesday I’ll start saving, stop eating fast food, learn to love myself, become bi-lingual, take a trip, meditate, take in some live-theater, become less self-conscious, pay off my credit cards, quit biting my toenails and begin an organization to piggy-back cripples all over town!”

People are nuts! Honestly, the concept of bettering oneself for the sake of being better is a pretty decent idea. And, good on the guy or gal who thought it up. But, what the hell, man? At what point do we draw the line between betterment and self-hate.

Do we really possess so few amiable qualities that we are in need of consciously acquiring new ones? Are we so unimpressive that we must accomplish enormous feats to prove our worth? And, who are we attempting to justify our existence to? Ourselves, our spouses, our families, our acquaintances, our Gods?

Surviving the first year of human life is remarkable. Keeping up with our peers in the monotonous confines of public school for 13 years is astounding. Think of all the challenging social horrors everyone overcame in those years: trying to listen to the right music, trying not to sound stupid, trying to sound cool, trying to wear the right clothes – the right way, trying to look athletic, trying to cover up pimples, trying to talk to the opposite sex, trying to learn enough to pass 35+ classes, juggling friends, emotionally charged relationships, parents’ demands, first jobs, learning to handle money, etc. It might be that the only reason anyone survives modern adolescence at all is due to distraction from the option not to.

And after most of that nonsense finally subsides as we reach our early twenties life begins to move so rapidly that most of the memories spiral past us and stretch over years and become nothing more than vague outlines in the margins of our minds. Yet we press on.

So don’t be so hard on yourself this year. You’re doing just fine. Regardless of where you are in life, you’re probably, at least, okay. And rather than become resolute in achieving some whacky pipe-dream I have a suggestion: try to write down five or ten things that you already do fairly well, or are decent at, and resolve to accentuate those qualities, instead.

So if you find yourself good-looking, be even better looking! No…not really. But, for example, if you feel you’re fairly generous, empathetic, an honest employee, a social-bug, and you eat two baby-carrots on the first Tuesday of every other month…. Try to find ways to emphasize your generosity. This doesn’t always entail money; many organizations will gladly accept your time, and you can use the experience to broaden your social network. You might read about a culture or subculture in society that you’d otherwise written off in an effort to learn about them and heighten your ability to empathize. Try to go out of your way to save money at work, or think of a way to improve something in the workplace that would otherwise be overlooked. And eat your damn vegetables, people! They’re. Good. For. You.

In other words, focus on your better qualities and put them to use more often. Recognizing your positive attributes builds confidence, and being this vague with your resolutions will allow for more opportunities to accomplish them. If you exploit those opportunities, I think you’ll find it a more rewarding and positive experience overall. Of course, if you can’t think of five things… there’s always a marathon.

Their Citizens: We exist to be used

Posted on Updated on

Screen Shot 2015-12-16 at 6.27.05 PMCory Remsburg was manipulated and indoctrinated in the public education system, brainwashed in the Army, used and exploited throughout the wars in the Middle East, and even after “his comrades found him in a canal, face down, under water with shrapnel in his brain,” after enduring an explosion from a roadside-IED on his tenth deployment… President Obama (as quoted) exploited yet another opportunity to use Mr. Remsburg. The President decided to finish up his State of the Union speech last night with an egregious appeal to emotion by trumpeting Cory Remsburg’s story of sacrifice in a last-minute attempt to unite his audience in a feeling of gratitude and awe. He used this soldier’s story not as an ode to liberty, nor as a harrowing tale representative of his own passion for military folks and their mission – rather, he used it anecdotally as a distraction from his ridiculous government-expanding agenda which he expressed in the hour prior. I’m fairly certain that Cory Remsburg did believe he was doing the right thing when accomplishing his mission overseas. And, he absolutely deserves the attention and gratitude implied by the President in his speech last night. But I think he deserves better than to be used as the closing act of a failing socialist’s annual theatrical event.  He, and others in similar situations, ought not to be used as political fodder.  As the President said at the beginning of that same speech, “Tonight this chamber speaks with one voice to the people we represent. It is you. OUR citizens.” Understand how telling this statement is; it shows exactly where the people stand in the gaze of bureaucrats.  We belong to them.

Robber Barons: An Unnecessary Good (Part One)

Posted on


Everybody hates a robber baron! Well, at least virtually everyone (those who weren’t properly educated on the matter). The public school system and liberal college agendas teach that wealthy, white men are to be denigrated for their greed and lack of compassion for the common man. As usual, this instance of “education” is another attempt to indoctrinate children into the belief that everyone deserves equality regardless of effort.

What they don’t usually stress, although it may be mentioned here and there, is that Vanderbilt destroyed the partnership between a private company and the government which had monopolized the ferry industry in New York State, thereby challenging the corrupt force of government guns being exploited in private industries. This means that Vanderbilt drove up competition in the transportation industry allowing for better quality, cheaper transportation for people using the ferry system.

It’s also highly unlikely that educators have been emphasizing Rockefeller’s incredible accomplishment of introducing “greener” energy by vamping up the world’s Kerosene availability. Through his work in this area, Rockefeller provided a new source of energy which he offered at a cheaper price to the consumer than the prevalently used whale oil of the time. The whaling industry was on the verge of wiping out whales – Rockefeller saved them! By 1890 the whaling industry was so devastated that the estimated amount of whaling ships had decreased from over 700 to somewhere in the neighborhood of 200. Also, the increase in availability of cheap oil allowed for most to afford lamps; suddenly, everyone could afford to stay awake after dark. This improvement to the availability of light was immeasurable in its impact on people’s quality of life and their ability to be productive after sunset.

Carnegie donated millions of dollars back in his day to build public libraries in an initiative to spread literacy throughout the U.S. He privately paid for over 1600 libraries to be built in the U.S. alone and over 2500 libraries worldwide. But, in order to spread envy, and hate of wealth, the liberal movement regularly bypasses this fairly important information, and instead tells of the low wage employment his companies offered.

Carnegie, Leviston and Rockefeller all donated millions of dollars and in some cases thousands of acres of land to help increase the availability of National Parks to the public. Keep in mind that millions of dollars in the 1920’s went a bit further then it would today. In fact, Congress didn’t appropriate any significant funds for National Park development until 1930; prior to that almost every source of National Park funds was private philanthropy.

The so-called Robber Barons of the 18th and 19th centuries didn’t steal anything; they earned it through educated, shrewd business dealings. They weren’t as greedy as you might think; they spread the wealth as they saw fit leaving the public with the benefit of the National Parks, Libraries, whales, an affordable energy source (in its time), increased productivity and comfort (ability to turn on a light in the dark), affordable transportation along the New York waterways, and much more. To brand these people as greedy, evil, or corrupt misses the mark as a summary. Stereotyping these amazing achievers and contributors to society as a negative force is highly inaccurate. They robbed no one, they weren’t government nobility, they did more good than almost anyone in their time, and their works led to the advancement of our society as a whole.

When you hear someone earnestly labeling these leaders of industry as robber barons, you’re hearing the liberal entitlement mindset. It bears no integrity, nor rationality, and it isn’t true. But, these days the government fills children’s heads with these fraudulent thoughts every year. What kind of people do they want the children to be? What kind of adults does the government want to reign over? They want tax-cattle. The kinds of people that don’t get it, therefore don’t question it, and as a result keep their heads down and eat the grass.

Teaching Your Child Religion: An Illustration of “Why Not”

Posted on Updated on

A reader brought this Facebook post to my attention this evening. I’ve altered it slightly to adjust punctuation and tense for the sake of fluidity. Regardless of my changes, this line of thought is one I hope all parents consider at one time or another. Below the quoted post are my interpretations of the questions and my immediate responses to each.

“I’ve often questioned the merits of religion; in fact, I think about it daily. I wonder how [much] better a person I [would] be if I feared my eternal soul’s destiny [and chose] the path of righteousness compared to how much I love my fellow beings now. And, I also wonder what I should teach my own son – my son who already has so much compassion in him as a toddler that he [would] put his own needs aside to ask if you’re okay if you show the slightest bit of agony. Why would/should I add fear to [his world]?” – Facebook User

Here’s my stab at it:

Question: Would fear for eternal damnation of your soul motivate you to be a better person?

Response: This is an easy one. If you are easily motivated by intimidation, the answer may be yes. Look at your lifestyle now, and think about your behaviors and actions and the things that compel you to behave and act in those ways. If you only show up to work because you’re afraid of getting in trouble, than your motivated by fear; if you show up because you’re a part of a team and enjoy supporting the collective efforts of your peers and superiors then fear is not your primary motivator.

Likewise, if you pay your taxes on time out of fear for future financial hardship and imprisonment, then again motivation by fear may be for you; if you find yourself feeling compelled to pay your taxes for the betterment of your fellow man and your country, then, again, fear may not be your best motivator.

After analyzing a few of these sorts of lifestyle choices, it should be plain to see whether or not you’d benefit from being frightened of a cosmic bully in your day to day life.

Question: Should you lie to your child about the existence of a trio of celestial jewish zombies, each existing in parallel dimensions and in different, inexplicable forms? And, further, should you threaten your child with truly egregious and unimaginable torments and eternal injuries in order to destroy your child’s innate sense of rationality and logic as a means to control him/her?

Response: Well, this one seems rhetorical, doesn’t it? Let’s pretend it’s not.

When a child is in its most formative, most impressionable years, it would be absolutely devastating for the child to realize that their parent is liar. Therefore, children excuse parents’ lies without a second thought and justify those lies in their minds as a defense mechanism warding off insecurity in their uncontrollable life situations.

You see, a child is helpless. A child is at the most utter mercy of those who’ve had the fortune of deciding to produce one and raise it. The child cannot leave if its living conditions are poor, nor can a child fight back (physically, emotionally, verbally, etc). No, the child is stranded to the situation into which it is born. As such, it would seem that the most valuable information to share with a child would be truths and principled concepts.

To illustrate this point I submit this analogy:
Imagine one afternoon; you’re volunteering at a retirement home filled with really, really old people, most of whom have dementia. Now imagine you enter the room of an elderly woman with Alzheimer ’s disease. Her name is Hazel. She’s 5’2”, her short, curly hair is silver, and she looks perfectly content – perfectly comfortable as she rocks back and forth in her chair by the extra-tall window overlooking the courtyard between the retirement home and the building next door. Hazel smiles at you, and in a voice shockingly peppy she says, “Good morning!” and raises her cup of coffee as if to give you cheers.

Before you can respond, one of the hospice-workers brushes by you and confronts Hazel. He kneels down in front of her and says, “Hazel, are you allowed to drink coffee after Three O’clock?”

Hazel looks away from you, slowly making eye contact with the employee. She sheepishly responds to his question, “Uh…I think I can have some coffee.”

“No. You can’t!” the caregiver says raising his voice, “there’s an invisible, venomous snake on your head! You can’t see it, you can’t tough it, it has no smell, it doesn’t make a sound, but if you have even one sip of coffee after Three O’clock the invisible snake with bite you, and you’ll shrivel up into a little dried out ball and nothing will save you! You’ll live for only a few moments of excruciating pain throughout your entire body and then you’ll choke to death on your own blood and vomit!”

Hazel bursts into tears and mutters pathetically, “Alright! I’m sorry! Please, take it.” She moves the cup toward him in her quivering hand.

The caregiver gently takes the cup of coffee away from Hazel and pats her on the head. “Good girl,” he concludes. Then he walks past you and out of the room.
The End

This sounds like a ridiculous, ludicrous line of behavior. It’s nearly unimaginable to any sane person. One would have to be so incredibly irresponsible, grotesquely controlling, and insidiously egocentric to stoop to such a shameful level in order to control a person so helpless – a person so dependent. A person would have to be absolutely, unapologetically mentally sick. Yet, when it comes to children, it happens every day.

Babies are born with instincts, and those reactive behaviors need to be guided and shaped by parents throughout their childhood in order to produce a clear-thinking, strong-willed, upstanding member of society. To purposely stray from this responsibility as a parent, and purposefully exploit a child’s trust with the intention of frightening the child into behaving unnaturally is despicable.

I know that some people subject their children to the abuse of religious indoctrination coming from a place of warped reality, and supposed love. Those people usually have been abused themselves, and have been, quite literally, brainwashed by their family, and/or peers. They are not clear thinkers; they’re conformists who make their decisions based first on intimidation from the state and their gods. A sane parent wants nothing like this for their child.

I suggest parents spend large amounts of time in quality thought in order to realize a set of guiding principles that they believe will truly lead to success (but what is successsssss???). Yeah – that type of thought. And, once a parent has found their own set of guiding principles, their own philosophy, they ought to apply it to their own life and make sure it’s effective and reasonable. Only then should a parent consider teaching their child about depth in life. By doing so prior to figuring it out for themselves, parents are apt to do more damage than good. And, of course, to take the easy route and resort to teaching ancient, mistranslated (hundreds of times over), ooky-spooky, crazy-ass-invisible-terrorist-with-a-list-of-demands-and-sorcerer-powers principles is certainly about the worst thing a parent can do to their child’s fresh, sponge-like mind.

This is getting a bit lengthy for a Facebook response, so I’ll leave it here. Like you, Mr. [Smith], I do not wish to offend anyone; however, I, on the other hand, am not opposed to it.
– Pcoast

For a deeper look into the perils of religiosity I highly recommend you read my article, “Why Your Religion Matters To Me and Others” @ https://pcoastcompelled.wordpress.com/2013/10/09/why-your-religion-matters-to-me-and-others/