Thursday, July 15, 2010

ALL LIFE IS ABOUT FREE MARKET PRINCIPLES

When you look at free market principles, you can observe the freedom that exists totally and completely within it.

Free markets are rooted in the theory of natural selection. Natural Selection is the process of supply and demand interacting with price and subjective value.

Each individual places value upon any given service or product and exchanges the dollar$ in his pocket for the service or product.

There is no morality in this choice.

There is no racism in this choice.

There is no religion in this choice.

There is no gender in this choice.

There is no sexuality in this choice.

There is only CHOICE. You VALUE one choice over another.

The why of a choice is absolutely irrelevant.

And why should this be?

Because motivation means nothing except in the minds of those who seek to market a service or product. When you consider this “motivational” pursuit, you realize it’s about manipulation. How else can a company or individual get you to emotionally react in order to move your choice toward their product or service?

How do politicians do this? What language do they use? What “scenarios” do they conjure up to instill emotion in you, manipulating for your vote?

People who want to focus on motivation are doing so for distraction; it’s masturbation of the mind – self gratification, if you will, for their own self-interest.

When you observe the reality from the free market principles of life, you realize that all interest is self-interest. Each places value upon aspects of life, places energy, time and money toward such self-interest.

Rationalizations, justifications and excuses are either to discriminate or accommodate emotional reactions; they are used to manipulate either toward an outcome or away from an outcome.

Why does this matter in politics?

Because Americans have allowed and are accepting the manipulations of candidates who are seeking to control our freedom, and doing so through marketing of rationalizations, justifications and excuses.

Rationalizing choices, justifying choices and making excuses for choices – all in the name, supposedly, of freedom.

It has NOTHING to do with freedom; it has everything to do with control.

There is no candidate who is running for office that doesn’t use language like, “the right thing to do…”, the “moral thing to do…” the “I know what is right…” ideology.

These are people who aren’t seeking your freedom, but just another opportunity to control you; to manipulate you through the power of legislation and government; they seek this power through your vote.

Do you like being manipulated?

Do you like being controlled?

Apparently you do and you enjoy this type of personal abuse by doing what? Justifying, rationalizing and excusing your candidate’s transgressions of freedoms.

What the hell is wrong with you? What makes you want to give up your personal freedom? What makes you want to turn over your choices to another?

One reason only: to avoid personal responsibility!

Monday, May 10, 2010

DOES THE TEA PARTY SEEK TO BETRAY THE NATION

No doubt the Tea Party Movement has become mainstream.

The number of groups that have emerged, like a Phoenix rising from the ashes of insobriety with regard to freedom, is quite remarkable.

However, if it keeps self-identifying as religious by calling itself conservative, it will marginalize itself and betray this nation through advancing ideology instead of personal freedom.

If the Tea Parties are truly pluralistic, then self-identifying as anything other than neutral issues which affect all Americans, disenfranchises.

Yes, we certainly want people of character & integrity in office.

Yes, Constitutionally Limited Government, Fiscal Responsibility and Free Market Principles to win voter approval and advance our nation toward greater levels of freedom.

However, the backlash that awaits the Tea Party Movement and conservatives, if they are unable to move toward freedom through the objective, not the subjective, is mighty and massive.

The sense of betrayal by those who “trusted” their efforts and judgment will be all but washed away.

Perhaps that’s what “conservatives” need in this nation – a washing away of their contempt for Americans who don’t hold their religious beliefs.

There are plenty of Americans who uphold personal freedom, limited government, fiscal responsibility and free market principles who do not worship the same god or any god – they understand a fundamental principle of life: each is born with inherent rights irrespective of where they come from.

Does a man have the natural right to decide for self where his inherent rights come from?

If your government isn’t neutral to its people, then what are they?

The answer: favoring.

Republicans understand that “Conservatives” do not represent them, but find it a challenge to differentiate themselves since Conservatives hijacked the party some 20 plus years ago.

Conservatives immediately get emotional and decry that everyone wants to silence them about religion.

Not true and what’s worse? They know it.

They know that freedom loving Americans want nothing of the kind.

They also know that self-development compels our government to step out of religion, a very personal issue to each individual, and allow freedom of the conscious mind to decide for self.

Again, does a man have the natural right to decide for self where his inherent rights come from?

If Conservatives think government doesn’t do anything well and its intrusion is insidious, why would they think government involved in religion is “okay”?

Conservatives start behaving like emotional liberals when they decry “victim” because someone doesn’t agree with their version of control through religious beliefs.

Conservatives don’t want government using pluralistic tax dollars to fund abortions. I agree and so do many other Americans.

They have no problem, however, turning around and wanting government to utilize pluralistic tax dollars to fund the national day of prayer or any other number of religious actions such as prayer in school, or reading the bible in public education.

Conservatives have no issue denouncing the swindle that is gorebal warming yet attempt to put Intelligent Design into classrooms which has no basis in science at all. Anyone who knows the scientific method would never endorse either of these fraudulent endeavors.

It’s hypocrisy, folks, no matter how you try to rationalize, justify or excuse it.

Every argument espoused only moves away from freedom, not toward it.

Substituting one ideology of social justice for another isn’t promoting freedom, it’s attempting to advance control – it just happens to be your version of control.

Liberals are picking up on the hypocrisy and are starting to speak to it.

The ability to refute their arguments lies within the framework of neutrality of freedom for the individual to decide his life for himself. This neutrality will pull the rug from under their arguments once and for all.

If you don’t get this, you are determined to paint yourself into a corner when liberals start advancing toward you.

Independents are the fastest growing voter block and if you’re unable to move their vote through neutral government, then liberals will find themselves in power again wielding their mass destruction on our nation because they get the desire of individuals to “live & let live”.

Yes, the Tea Party Movement is having an impact; I’ve been proud to be part of it. However, if it keeps self-identifying as religious by calling itself conservative, opening it’s gatherings with prayer, quoting from the bible, etc, it will marginalize itself and betray this nation that is looking for alternatives within government that can advance freedom, not ideology.

Sunday, May 2, 2010

"We Hold These Truths..."

If we don’t allow personal choice, what do we call that?

“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”

Self-evident: meaning what? That it’s obvious? That it’s an observation of reality?

Self-evident is objective observation.

It is a fact that we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights; essentially no legality to impose a lien upon our inherent rights. However, I have some questions regarding this word ‘creator’.

Who decides which creator?

Who defines what the word ‘creator’ means to an individual?
Who decided that there is even a creator to begin with?

Why did one person get to decide for everyone else?

Does the mere question bring about emotion in you? Why is that?

What have you decided for yourself that now everyone else should agree with you?

Where did you get your definition of ‘creator’? Who put it into your head?

If you’ve decided this definition, how do you square with yourself that there are some 2000+ other religions that define creator, not in the same way as you?

Do you find that these people in your mind are simply wrong? What makes them wrong and you right?

Is not self-righteousness that which a person deems right for self?

If it is right for self does it imply that it has to be right for everyone else?

If it is right for everyone else, then they have no say or self-exploration of the topic?

If you have decided the definition of creator for everyone, is this freedom or control of the conscious mind of an individual?

If a man disagrees with your definition of creator, what does that stir within you?
Why is this topic so important?

Why must this topic be part of government? Why must it be part of politics?

I posit to you that until society, especially those in politics, stop defining for others that which they have decided for self, there is no freedom. We will do nothing more than spin our wheels; each feigning their control as freedom.

People want a ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ established so they can stand on a platform of righteousness instead of a platform of freedom; instead of a platform of consent. Why do you think that is?

Is shared suffering the motivation behind those who define life for others and seek control, “if I have to live by these precepts, rules and regulations which I suffer through, then so do you.”

If you do not want to control the definition of ‘creator’ for others, why bring it into politics?

If you “feel” that it is fine for others to believe as they do, then why does it matter how a person defines ‘creator’?

If you uphold free market principles of value leading to choice, why would you care what choice an individual makes?

Why would a person self-inflict victimization upon himself through someone else’s definitions or opinions? Do you not think you have a choice? If you don’t have choice, what do you call that?

Do you seek outside yourself validation and the need for others to agree with you in order to live your life?


“We were founded as a Christian nation”. Yes, and as a slave nation; a nation of discrimination; a nation of suffrage, yet we don’t seem to have issue self-evaluating and self-correction toward freedom in these areas?

What is it that drives within you the need for everyone to agree with you regarding your definition of creator?

Why is it that you seek to control others? And when you cannot control their minds, you want to use government as the weapon to silence the opposition, appear like a victim and avoid personal responsibility?

Why do you claim others want to silence you, but then your behavior seeks to silence your opposition?

If you uphold free market principles; free choice, freedom of the individual, then the individual will decide the value of something and place his self-interest, is that not freedom?

If you decide that government needs to favor your definition of creator; your beliefs of the world; your ownership of the nation, then explain again, how is it you’re different than the other guy who seeks control, just through different means?

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

"I DON'T CARE HOW YOU GET HERE, JUST GET HERE IF YOU CAN"

Character & Integrity - two very needed qualities in our politicians and in humankind, itself.

How one reaches such is totally irrelevant, in as much as that path does not cause injury to another.

This notion that only one path leads to character & integrity is insidious and such statements are made for only one reason: personal agenda.

Making claims of ownership of this nation by defining it as anything other than FREEDOM, is antithetical to freedom itself. Such claims seek to infringe on the free conscious mind of another human being.

If you're willing to infringe on the free mind of another, what won't you be willing to do in the name of your personal agenda?

If liberals "catch on" to this understanding, Republicans have few, if any, in leadership roles right now that would be able to speak to it.

Liberals would wield the weapon of charge: hypocrisy.

Republicans and we will have no place to turn in reference to freedom having already set the criteria by which to judge others; by which to impose on others; by which to infringe on others; by which to claim ownership sought for control.

We only seek ownership when we seek control.

"You would cut down all the laws of England to get at the devil wouldn't you?"

"Yes"

"And when you have, to what or whom would you turn for protection having cut down all the laws?"

I don't care how you get here to character & integrity, just here if you can.

Freedom or control - which side are you on.

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

ALL INTEREST IS SELF-INTEREST

All interest is self-interest.

There is no action taken by the individual that is not in his own self-interest.

Why so much emotional demagoguery regarding such a statement?

The reason is because those who rail against it don’t like the fact that they are revealed for their subterfuge actions.

The FACT is that every move you make is taken in your own self-interest, whatever that interest may be.

The individual who gives to charity does so for what reasons?

The individual who runs for office does so for what reasons?

The individual who goes to a restaurant for dinner does so for what reasons?

The individual who takes action in any capacity, speaks words of any kind, does so in his own self-interest.

He is trying to accomplish something; he is trying to express something; he is trying to achieve something.

What is that something?

That is the revelation to be unmasked.

And when you’ve asked the first level of “self-interest”, ask the next level of self-interest. And when you’ve asked the next level of self-interest, ask the deeper level of self-interest.

Understanding “all interest is self-interest” unmasks the individual in life for either their choices toward freedom of self and others, or their choices toward control of self and others.

What is the self-interest of the politician who proposes a bill?

Then, what is the self-interest of the politician who chooses his words to advocate for that bill?

What is the self-interest of the politician who votes on the bill?

If you’re not asking yourself, “what is the self-interest of the person I disagree with”, it’s only because you don’t want to be unmasked for your own self-interest.

If you had the courage to face your self-interest, you’d question it and you’d question it often.

If your self-interest was freedom, what care would you have that it be revealed?

Most people don’t question their self-interest because it doesn’t put them in a very “good” light.

It reveals the nature of who they truly are. It reveals their controlling nature, not a propensity toward freedom.

What is the self-interest of the mother who votes for Obama because she won’t be productive in society and has made choices to have 2 children for whom she cannot afford to raise on her own?

What is the self-interest of liberals who decry social injustice and attempt to distort facts in order to manipulate Americans?

What is the self-interest of conservatives when they claim ownership of values?

If you’re not asking yourself, “what is this person’s self-interest?”, you likely are doing so because you don’t want to know what your own self-interests are.

What are you afraid of knowing? What are you afraid of seeing? What are you afraid of revealing?

The fact is, to those who understand this inherent aspect of nature and life, already know what your self-interest is by the choices you make and the outcomes of those choices.

It’s like being Superman with x-ray vision; we see the scam that is a sham and we’re on to your game.

All interest is self-interest.

What do your choices reflect about your self-interests?

And what is your self-interest in your response to this post?

Sunday, March 21, 2010

WHERE DID LIBERALS GET SUCH AN IDEA OF FORCING SOCIAL JUSTICE ONTO OTHER AMERICANS?

Where did liberals get such an idea of forcing social justice onto others?

From you.

Whether you want to own the reality, the fact is that over time and our history, those with a personal agenda to force their belief systems onto society have been complicit in liberals developing the idea that social justice is a “right”; that “might makes right”, that the "majority rules" - even if that majority takes away the inherent rights of any individiual.

Talk of charity, “belief” in being your brother’s keeper, giving a handout – have long been principles of those with varied belief systems in our society.

How many times during a tv, radio or written interview does a politician say, "I believe that..." followed by a bevy of social justice issues to impose on Americans.

Don’t be a whiner and start complaining that religion is getting beat up again – to the contrary.

This observation is to bring comprehension in understanding WHY, once again, religion is personal and doesn’t belong in government.

Nowhere in this post or any post before it, would you read that a freedom loving individual would infringe on your inherent right to believe as you do, worship as you do, enjoy your religion as you. Again - to the contrary.

Too easily people distort belief systems for their own personal agenda. If this were not true then why are there tens of thousands of various religions in our world? People subjectively don’t like your particular rule(s) and decide to start a religion of their own; a belief system of their own.

Like a free market, whatever the market will bear will bring about competition.

If an idea is “good” and “worthy” to do, then you don’t need government to force it upon others.

Imposing your personal religion onto society in the various forms of trying to inject religion into a pluralistic society, not only isn’t upholding personal freedom, it’s actually infringing on the freedom of the individual’s conscious mind. So you’ve decided it for yourself. Does this mean you’ve decided for everyone else, too?

Imposing personal social justice ideas onto society is exactly what liberals do - and you taught them how to do it; how to force it; how to treat you; how to infringe on the free inherent rights of yourself and other Americans.

And this is where liberals have hijacked your belief system – they found the weakness in your weaponry of force and now use it against you.

It was once said, if you cut down all the laws to get at the devil, what will you turn to when the devil turns around to meet you. You’ve made a target for your own back and now liberals use it against you.

Religion is personal. Belief systems are personal. Each must decide for self in freedom, not through ANY government intervention. Doing otherwise is not limited government; it is expanding government for your personal social justice, for your personal agenda…wow, just like liberals.

Freedom compels each to decide for self. Limiting choice is control through manipulation. Let each care for self and all will be cared for.

He that owns gets to bully – is that your position? Where’s your upholding of freedom in that idea?

Religion and belief systems have ideas of generosity, charity, giving, and support – however, they are not the only methods of coming to such understanding of one’s humanity toward others.

AND charity has never done anything in giving a man a job toward self-reliance and self-governance. Developing personal responsibility, has helped a man toward self-reliance since he no longer sees himself as a victim of life but the empowerment of his choices.

Charity simply defers the reality of the individual to his circumstance already forged by his previous choices in life. It may relieve it temporarily but it doesn’t help a man feed himself every day, it only helps him have a fish for this moment in time to enjoy. Are you getting your jollies of the backs of others pain & suffering? Are you feeling good about yourself off the backs of others pain and suffering?

Cause that’s what liberals do.

Cause that’s what health care is all about.

Stop using government and "belief" to force others.

Focus on what's freedom and what's control - then choose freedom!

All you desire in life comes from freedom, not control.

Or, keep doing what you're doing and keep getting what you're getting.