Protection of Valuable Items


My family just bought a brand new car. For years before this they had traveled in an old, somewhat rusty, van that they eventually sold for $200. When they had the old van, they would seldom lock it, even in public places. My mother’s reasoning for this was that no one would want to take it. Locking it was not necessary. But since we got the new car, they lock it religiously. Because of course, a shiny new 2016 Chevrolet Traverse would be far more coveted than a rusty 2003 Chevrolet Venture.

It’s the exact same concept with rights. They are only protected because they are valuable. Why did we fight the democrats in the 1860’s to give rights to slaves? Because civil rights are valuable. Why do we fight the democrats today so that people can say what they want? Because free speech is valuable. Why do we fight the democrats today to keep our 2nd amendment right to own guns? Because our gun rights are valuable. The fact that the liberals would even think of repealing the 2nd amendment is the very reason for which it was written in the first place.

I don’t own any guns. I’ve only ever shot a gun once. I don’t love guns. So a repeal of the second amendment wouldn’t truly be detrimental to my personal life, but I fight to keep guns legal because it is a constitutional right. If we begin to think of taking away one of our constitutional rights, the gate will be open, and who knows what other rights will begin to disappear. This country was formed because Englishmen were tired of government takeover. And it’s only taken us 240 years to get back to a society that they fled from in the first place. If only someone could discover a new large land mass so that the conservatives could flee to, start a revolution, and live without government interaction. They say history repeats itself right?

Back to the new car my parents purchased, the fact that someone would want to take it, or anything else valuable, demonstrates immense socialism. My parents worked for that car. Only people that are as entitled and selfish as socialists would want to take other people’s hard labor for themselves.

Rich people need protection from the socialists.

Guns need protection from liberals.

Only valuable things need protection.

Don’t Let Us Stop You!


It was a conversation that I had with an extremely liberal fellow college student, regarding socialism of course.

“Yeah college would be free, but you realize taxes would go through the roof, right?”

“Yeah, I’m fine with that.”

“Like 50-60%”

“Hey, if it’s going to help other people, I’m fine with that”

You can be certain that any conversation with a socialist will eventually be steered in the direction of “Oh, we need to help people!” In fact, that seems to be the entire platform of the socialists. Even in their name, SOCIALism, they claim to be “for the people” (which is ironic considering their policies take power away from the people and hand it to the government)

Although this conversation was many months ago, I recently discovered a fascinating concept.

Socialists can still be socialist under a capitalist government. However, capitalists cannot be capitalist under a socialist government.

Let’s go through this:

If socialists are truly for “helping the poor”, what part of capitalism hinders them from giving 60% of their income to the poor? You can still do that… under ANY government. Capitalism is the government of freedom; in fact many times capitalism is called “free-market”. It’s a free system- you can do what you want- which includes helping the poor.

However, if we turn the tables, it doesn’t work the opposite way. It seems stingy and rude, but if you want to keep all (or most) of the money that you worked for and not have the government take it and give it to other people, socialism does NOT allow for that. Socialism is government takeover.

Everyone has different opinions on how government should be run, so the one that provides the widest range of possibilities for pleasing everyone is capitalism. It’s a free market- you can basically do whatever you want to. Giving 60% of your income to someone else? YEP! Keeping most of your income? YEP! It allows for both.

I can just hear the liberals now “But the rich people will just decide to keep their income, and the poor people will continue being poor”

So you admit you’re in need of rich people to fuel your socialist policies.

And if you are actually in NEED of the rich people, it would do you well to not hate them. (I’m looking at you, guy who shouted “f*** off!” in response to what Bernie said we should tell the billionaire class). And if you are in need of rich people’s money, your government isn’t really “building the poor up” it’s really “tearing the rich down”.

Don’t think of capitalism as a limiting factor in your giving to poor people. You can literally do what you want. It’s a free-market. Let’s keep it that way.



Don’t Tamper with the Environment


I love creating mini-scenarios in my mind of how societies work. Because it would be unethical to “test” different policies on a real society, this is a good way to see play-by-play actions of how different policies affect societies. Of course I do this all the time with America toying with the idea of socialism.

Joe has a job. Joe gets money from his job. Joe uses that money to buy necessary goods from the store. Replacing the goods that Joe buys at the store is someone else’s job, and the cycle starts over. This is the succession for good economics.


Joe has a job. Robert doesn’t. Socialism takes over and redistributes half of Joe’s income to Robert. Neither one of them has adequate finances to purchase necessary items from the store. Because of this, the store now has to supply goods for two people while only receiving capital from one. The store suffers, Joe suffers, and Robert suffers.

Labor1– Capital2-Goods2

Now the system has been tampered with and the system doesn’t match.

Of course we know that societies do not consist of one or two people, and stores cannot run on the income from one or two people. Yes, the sizes of the populations are different in a real society, but the proportions remain basically the same. Under socialism, there is less labor in the economy because the capital from one person’s labor has been redistributed among multiple people.

It seems extremely odd to tell liberals this concept: don’t tamper with the environment. Why? Because one “species” is always connected to another, and a domino effect will happen because tampering with one “species” will always affect another. In ecology, they have this concept down- but in economics, not so much. Tampering with capital will affect labor and goods- the three things necessary for a good economy.

Any society that doesn’t see the need for labor, and only the need for capital redistribution  will almost certain end in its doom.


Historical Appeals


“I love argument, I love debate. I don’t expect anyone just to sit there and agree with me, that’s not their job.”-Margaret Thatcher. While I don’t completely resonate with the first half of this quote, I readily agree with the second half. Exposure to the opposition is what makes our arguments well-rounded.  We aren’t to debate or argue for the sake of conversion; it would be unthinkably immature to think that your argument is so superior that it is capable of converting the opposition’s professed thought process. No, we argue and debate for the sake of broadening the scope of sub-arguments on a given issue, and to enunciate the sub-arguments that we feel are more important to the issue.

It was a question that I was asked personally in regards to my twenty-fifth blog post “Observable Organization” on Islamic terrorism:

“Would you say that Christianity is a religion of peace?”

This was my response verbatim:

“The message of the blog basically was “This is not a coincidence and something must be done” It’s for the world today. If I was the ruler of the bible land in bible times I would say something needs to be done about the Christians. Right now they’re not the problem, Islam is. It doesn’t justify anything but currently Christians aren’t blowing people up.”

Yes, there are biblical accounts of Christians terrorizing and committing genocide. No one is denying this. But this is what I compare it to:

The year is 2016; Islam has come down with some sort of sickness. The mother of Islam decides that Islam needs some medicine to get them back to health. Because the medicine is bitter and Islam doesn’t want to take it, he cries “What about my brother Christianity?! He was sick 2000 years ago! Why don’t you give him the terrible medicine?”

Of course no one is saying that Christianity has always been a religion of peace and no Christian ever did anything terrible. But why give medicine to a presently healthy person because of a past illness? Save the medicine for the people who are presently sick!

This allusion to history is not contained to Islamic/Christian arguments. Black lives matter enthusiasts will make ample calls to the KKK and slavery. Again, no one is saying these aren’t valid, just that they are not currently affecting us. There’s literally an amendment to the constitution about abolishing slavery, and while the KKK does still technically exist, any clear racist threats are quickly indicted.

Of course we know that we can’t completely shut our eyes to history or else we are doomed to repeat it, but why make appeals to lost organizations and groups that no longer exist? If liberals truly deem themselves “progressive” they shouldn’t be spending so much time looking in the rear-view mirror-ironically something that liberals often criticize conservatives for.

And it’s also very interesting that some aspects of history aren’t highlighted. Those pro-slavery KKK members? Yeah, they’re democrats. Those abolitionists? Yeah, they’re republicans. That Nazi leader you compare to Trump? Yeah, he was a socialist. (I’m looking at you, Bernard).

You live in present history. Start acting like it.

Heaven: The Perfect Capitalist Society


Before the actual meat of the blog can commence, I must begin with preliminary statements so the liberals don’t lose their minds.

  1. Yes, I realize most Americans don’t identify as religious so therefore any arguments that marry church and state won’t be received well by this crowd. So if you fit this majority of non-religious people, know that this post is not geared toward you.
  2. Yes, I realize that we as American government believe in separating church and state so this isn’t a suggestion for how our government should be run. Again, this isn’t for the atheists, it’s for the Christians.
  3. Yes, I realize that in heaven there probably won’t be any money. (Although quite honestly no one knows what heaven will be like, but money probably won’t be high on our minds). Just read it and calm.


Capitalism and socialism come from two concepts: individualism and collectivism. So even in a moneyless society like a classroom, these concepts still apply. In a socialist classroom, all students would be rewarded for good behavior of a few, and disciplined for the bad behavior of a few; versus a capitalist (individualist) society where everyone is disciplined or rewarded based on individual behavior.

As a Christian, I had always thought that heaven would be a socialist society because of God’s equal love towards everyone. Discrimination clearly won’t be a thing in heaven, and we’ll all be treated equally- like socialism. But after a chat with my conservative ex-roommate (who actually deserves most of the credit for this blog idea), I realized that heaven won’t be as socialistic as I thought.

A Google search for “Bible verses on socialism” will yield results on both the capitalist and socialist sides.

“For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.”- 2 Thessalonians 3:10

“And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need.”-Acts 2:44

There’s no doubt that as Bible-believing Christians, we are instructed to help the poor, even financially, and even if they didn’t work for it. But there is a vast difference between helping someone of your own free will because of your professed moral code, and the government forcing you to help people because of their professed moral code. We call this the difference between individualism and collectivism.

As far as heaven goes, Christians believe that God will be extremely individualistic about the “getting in” part. Protestants believe that we enter heaven not by our works but by God’s grace, so it’s not a “you did bad things so you can’t come in, and you did good things so you can come in” but rather belonging to a specific church isn’t going to cut it. You personally as an individual have to make the decision to accept God into your heart.

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. ”-Matthew 7:21-25

In political terms, joining a labor union won’t ensure that the collective group of you will make it to heaven. This is an individual thing. You know, like capitalism. God looks at each one of our hearts personally, not at the collective professions of a church or sect.

Of course heaven will be a place of equality, untouched by the divisions of the world, but don’t expect a collective group, a particular church, or a labor union to get you in. Better plan on doing it yourself.


Jobs, Cheap Burgers, and College Degrees


So fast food workers want $15/hour- more than double the current minimum wage of $7.25. In fighting for this increase, liberals will show you charts of how minimum wage has not been consistently rising with time, so they’re overdue for an increase. This may be true, but it’s doubtful that the rates are so woefully off track that a 106% increase is necessary.

And, let’s be quite honest with ourselves, the reason that workers want this increase is not to make the charts look pretty, it’s because they want more money. And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. Everyone wants more money- this is capitalism and thankfully we still have that fire in us to want more. Socialists dream is to abolish the thought of people wanting more money, because, well, I don’t know how anyone could be that stupid.

One of my favorite lines from this argument is

“No one can support a family of four on $7.25/hour”

Sure. But the liberals are certain that the only way to move up the pay ladder is to whine to the government about how they want more money for the exact same amount of labor. Of course no one can support their family of four while only one of them is salting fries at McDonald’s. But why do you have a wife and two children if you are only working at McDonald’s? No offense to anyone who works the job currently, but I should think that most level-headed people’s end goal job is not fast food. These types of jobs are perfect for entry level applicants like high-schoolers, college students, and art graduates. But by the time you’ve started a family; your finances should be a little more stable than fast food.

This isn’t forcing cultural or personal beliefs on a broad spectrum of workers, this is logic. No, you cannot support a family of four on a McDonald’s salary because the job was not intended for that. You can support a family of four on nearly any college degree because the job was intended for that. And how do you afford such an education? Well, by working at McDonald’s.

Yes, using McDonald’s as a way to get through college and then getting a better job, or demanding that you receive the same pay as a college-degree job from working at McDonald’s yields the same result. (Granted the federal government actually takes workers’ whining seriously). But the only difference is one requires work, and the other one only requires complaining.

For the sake of easy math, let’s create a fictional scenario. Joe owns a McDonald’s. Joe employs 7 workers for $7.25/hour. In one hour, Joe would pay his employees $50.75. Once Joe’s employees get empowered by liberalism they demand $15/hour. In order to keep spending relatively the same ($50.75), Joe could only afford to keep 3 employees ($45). So liberals are willing to fire more than 50% of American workers simply so that the remaining workers could make as much money as a college-degree paying job, without actually going to college. The only other option that Joe has is to keep all 7 of his employees and adjust the price of his food to make up for the increase. So, the price of a Big Mac (currently at $3.99) would increase to $8.22. With price increases this drastic, Joe could be certain that sales would decrease, leading to the decline of the restaurant.

So, these are your options under $15/hour minimum wage: 50% of workers fired, or paying $8 for a Big Mac.


You could keep everyone employed, pay $3.99 for a Big Mac, and go to college. But that would involve not whining, so I’m not sure liberals could accomplish it.

Until then, keep on whining. We’ll keep our jobs, cheap burgers, and college degrees.





Observable Organization


Last semester my biology professor said something that has shaped my view of social politics. It is extremely biological, but also applies to how we view and sometimes judge others.

“We all love to organize things in little boxes”

This is why there is an entire branch of biology dedicated to identifying similar characteristics and placing them in different boxes that biologists call taxonomy. But upon further observation, I noticed that we don’t stop at placing animals in different boxes according to characteristics. We do this with people as well.

And what is extremely interesting to me is how we all love to be the organizer, but we all hate to be organized. The war cry of every single social justice warrior has been “Society needs to stop placing us in parameters and let us be who we want to be!” That’s excellent! I’m all for it. But existing at the same time as this concept is this one: “We feel more comfortable being together in a group with people that we can relate with”. That’s also excellent! I’m all for it. But for the sake of consistency, picking one would be preferable. How can both statements exist at the same time? I’ll tell you.

We all love to be the organizer, but we hate to be organized. So the first statement comes from wanting to shake off the chains that society has placed on a single group-they’ve been organized by the outside- and we as people dislike that. But if they organize themselves from within, it makes them feel comfortable.

An example: Does anyone think black churches are racist and exclusive? Not when they’ve been organized from within. But think of the Jim Crow laws. (Yes, they were awful, no one is condoning them SJW’s). Both are types of racial association, and for obvious reasons Jim Crow laws were hated because they were given inadequate facilities-“separate but equal” didn’t really work. But had they been exactly the same facility, it’s not too far from organizations like black churches or black clubs at universities.

Regardless of truly racist 1960’s laws and black organizations, what every one of every color hates is being organized.

“All blacks are __________”

“All whites are __________”

Can you put anything in the blanks that makes the statement true? Of course not! Because we aren’t held to the organization that we are sometimes placed in by society. But even though level-headed people know that a certain group can’t be held to societies’ standards, people still organize- because we love it.

In light of recent events, a particular group receiving an enormous amount of negative stereotypes is Muslims. We’ve all heard the news stories about some woman wearing traditional Muslim garb minding her own business grocery shopping or so forth, and receives hate from people about her being a terrorist. And once liberals got a hold of stories like this, they started this movement of “Islam is a religion of peace”-because of one woman in a grocery store. And conversely, conservatives have got a hold of stories like 9/11 and started this movement of “Islam is a religion of terror”.

“All Muslims are _______”. We know from before that no word can make this statement true, so level-headed people steer away from the thought that all Muslims are terrorists. (And I’m all for that! Take that, people who think all conservatives are racist- as if we didn’t JUST discuss how we can’t say all _____ are _____)

But what if we flip it?

All terrorists are Muslim- IT’S STLL NOT A TRUE STATEMENT PEOPLE, but this time we’ve come SO much closer to the truth than the previous statement. No level-headed person can bury their head in the sand to the fact that thousands of people in hundreds of attacks have been killed in the name of Islam.

We notice patterns. We organize. And no, it’s not good.

But this is not a coincidence.

For whoever that woman was in the grocery store who got accused of being a terrorist when she was minding her own business, as a level-headed American, I am truly sorry.

To the families of the nearly 3000 people who lost their lives on 9/11, as a level-headed American I am truly sorry.

We must realize that this issue is one of threading a needle. We can’t go all the way to one side and say “Islam is a religion of peace”. How extremely insensitive is that to the families of the 9/11 victims to say that? And of course we can’t think that every person in a turban is going to blow us up. But if liberals are set on keeping their self-proclaimed “party of science”, they must realize that the first part of the scientific process is observation. If you can’t see this pattern, perhaps you had better rethink your “scientific” worldview.

So yes, organize. Don’t stereotype, and place labels on these organized groups, but organize, think, observe.

This is not a coincidence.




Flimsy Adherence


My mother is a certified elementary school teacher. My father has a master’s degree in administrative education. My sister just graduated with her degree in elementary education. So besides going through 13 years of schooling myself, you could say that I have further insights into how classrooms are run. I’ve never run a classroom myself, but often I compare it to politics. One of the easiest ways to see how policies could potentially affect a society is to see how parallel policies affect classroom dynamics.

Have you ever heard a teacher use this phrase? “Because some people have abused the privileges I have given you, the system will now go away”. An example may be a teacher allowing students to have their phones in class as long as they aren’t constantly on them distracting themselves and others. However, if the students are not responsible and are using their phones as a distraction the system goes away-because the students themselves have abused it. And they were warned- they have only themselves to blame.

There are two ways that this system could be governed: socialist and capitalist. Under the socialist system, all students would lose privileges to have their phones in class when a handful of students abused the system. Under capitalism, everyone is responsible for themselves so the students who treated the system respectfully get the positive consequence: keeping their phones.

Good teachers know that they must be incredibly consistent. If they state something clearly, failure to adhere to the correct execution of stated policy will lead to their students thinking that the system is flimsy and does not apply to them. I call it an erasure of consequences. Consequence has been given a bad reputation. We see it as all bad when consequence merely means a reaping of the seeds that you yourself have sown. Good seeds yield good harvests. Bad seeds yield bad harvests. Meddling in consequences- erasing them altogether-teaches people that they can sow bad seeds and expect a good harvest.

The trouble with how liberals view this system is that to them, it is far too harsh. Liberals cannot bear to see people in bad situations even if they know fully well that it is the direct consequence of their actions. So they’ve meddled with the system so that everyone has an equal harvest when some planted much better seeds. They don’t see it linearly: laborà capitalà possessions. They look directly to the end and see that the possessions aren’t equal without giving thought to the consequence of the seeds that they have planted.

They’re abusing the system. And if the teachers of the system were good teachers they would know that not adhering to your word will cause citizens (or students) to think that the system is, well, flimsy and doesn’t apply to them.

If we believe in our policies, we must adhere to them.

Harsh Medicine for Poetic Socialism



How poetic a statement released from the party of science. It is a lovely analogy, and one that socialists love to apply to politics, but what are the true repercussions of such a statement?

Firstly, who is the narrator of this poem? It is written in the second-person imperative with implied subjects in the second to last line. (You) build a longer table, not a higher fence. It’s clearly a command, but from whom? The neighbor who wants free food? The government? Yourself? The narrator of this poem is also the one who gets to deem what is “more than what you need”. Socialists deem anyone richer than themselves as extravagant, luxurious, and frivolous. But there’s a hierarchy. So these people who the socialists have deemed extravagant may be simple in their own minds, and covetous of the people who they deem as extravagant. We can’t say that someone has “more than what they need” because we are not them. You can’t conclude that someone is vain and selfish because they have something that you don’t. Perhaps you have something that they don’t. Or perhaps they are swimming in a sea of debt from purchasing expensive items that you don’t own because you’ve decided to only buy what you can afford.  It’s a very greedy thing to base your political view on what other people own in material possessions.

Some people will extend their table willingly, but is it truly the job of the government to force citizens to provide other citizens with possessions they haven’t earned? If one labels oneself as Christian, then we can begin to talk about being bound to another belief system and how one is being inconsistent and hypocritical about it. But this state is run independently of any church. It’s simply not the place of the government to tell us to be caring people. We have the freedom to be heartless- at least until we elect a socialist.

OK, so let’s say we’re sitting at a table filled with ample food and we follow this socialist poetic advice. We’ve extended our table to feed everyone who doesn’t have enough. Now everyone’s happy! But do you expect this to be a one-time occurrence? So it happens again. And again. And again. And now, since the hostess has fed more people than she had been previously with no extra income, she no longer has enough capital to continue the service. Socialism is great! Until you reach carrying capacity and the entire system collapses because there is not enough money for redistribution.

“If we don’t cut spending we will be bankrupt. Yes the medicine is harsh, but the patient requires it in order to live. Should we withhold the medicine? No. We are not wrong.”- Margaret Thatcher.


The Great Wall of America


“I hear fearful voices calling for building walls and distancing people they label as ‘others.’”… “Instead of building walls we can help build bridges. Instead of dividing people we can connect people. We do it one person at a time, one connection at time.”-Mark Zuckerberg

The pacifists. The emotional. The scientists? The liberals.

I love these emotional appeals that say “Oh, we need to connect everybody!” as if the global community could be compared to a second-grade classroom. It’s interesting that we don’t hear much talk about “connecting everybody” in neighborhoods with high crime rates. Until there is no crime, there will always be a need for security. “Build bridges instead of walls”. OK Mark, you go to North Korea and say that- what’s that? Oh yeah, that would be stupid.

Walls that divide have frightened people for years. It’s certainly not something good, but if you ask China, Korea, and the White House, sometimes it’s necessary.

Those who are opposed to the Trump Wall demonstrate a core concept of liberalism- a removal of consequences. We see this in so many political issues. Death penalty- “Oh no! That’s too harsh of a consequence.” Abortion- “Oh no! The consequence of your unprotected sex? Just dispose of it! Anything but having people face the equal and opposite reactions of their decisions. Illegal immigration- “Oh no! It would be too harsh to send them back or stop them from entering initially” Too harsh- we’re starting to treat law-breaking as if it were… a second-grade classroom. Yes, walls that divide have frightened people for years- and as a result of that, we are now experiencing a new fear: the fear of consequence.

If you’ve ever yelled at an employee for what you deemed an unfair execution of policy, you’ve noticed that good employees will get a supervisor who tries to explain the policy in more detail, and why it was enacted in the first place. It’s obvious that the customer is angry, but who are they truly angry with? The employee or the policy?

You can yell at the employee all you want, but nothing will change until you talk to the people who have actually made the policy. The employee is not responsible for making the policies; he is only responsible for enforcing them. So getting mad at Donald Trump for wanting to enforce legislation that has already been in place is completely pointless. He didn’t make the law, Congress did. Technically, any president that is not enforcing laws already enacted by Congress is not fulfilling his job properly. (Yes, I’m looking at you, B. Hussein.)

America is the only country that people expect the government to accept illegals. You’ll notice that immigration from North to South Korea isn’t a huge problem. South Korea doesn’t get called racist for not treating illegal North Korean immigrants as legal citizens.

So many people focus on the latter word of this two word issue: immigration. Not accepting immigrants does sound incredibly insensitive and racist. Wanting to deport all people who aren’t of a certain color or race does sound Hitleresque. But what conservatives focus on is the first word of the issue: illegal. There are so few people who have a genuine hate for legal immigrants trying to make a better life for themselves- Donald Trump included. His stance on immigration is not one of hatred, intolerance, or white supremacy. His stance is based on a simple, fundamental concept that because of liberals, America has disregarded:

Don’t break the law.