ICONIC FREEDOM

Americans for Prosperity - Fight for Arizona

2010-08-27T18:20:00.002-07:00

ALL LIFE IS ABOUT FREE MARKET PRINCIPLES

2010-07-15T04:46:00.000-07:00

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!

DOES THE TEA PARTY SEEK TO BETRAY THE NATION

2010-05-10T05:00:00.003-07:00

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.

"We Hold These Truths..."

2010-05-02T06:45:00.002-07:00

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?

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

2010-04-21T06:08:00.000-07:00

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.

ALL INTEREST IS SELF-INTEREST

2010-03-23T06:10:00.001-07:00

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?

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

2010-03-21T06:15:00.001-07:00

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.

OUR CURRENT POLITICAL SITUATION ISN'T ABOUT OUR RIGHTS BEING TAKEN AWAY, IT'S ABOUT OUR FREEDOM BEING TAKEN AWAY!

2010-03-04T06:52:00.002-07:00

It is a dangerous man who would seek to enslave the mind of another man and not allow the individual to decide for self where his rights come from. If he would seek so easily this enslavement and transgression of freedom of another man’s free conscious mind, what is to stop him from enslaving the totality of that man?

If you believe that our rights come from anyone or anything other than nature itself, in as much as each is born with such rights – they are inherent, then you are enslaved to the demands of such entities.

As a result, you are not free, for there is an ever arousing fear that one day such rights can be taken away by an entity other than self. If you choose such a thought process for self, so be it.

No man can take away that which you are born with. You can limit speech, choice, freedom, but you cannot take away that which a man is born with.

That our rights are inherent simply means we are born with them. How you determine the beginnings of life, any life, is irrelevant to the greater society.

We only seek to clarify such things as where rights “come from” for what purpose of self-interest?

By determining for all of mankind where our rights come from, we seek to infringe on the free conscious mind of another human being.

The only self-interest in such pursuit: control & manipulation.

If you are of a political persuasion that “believes” you own these rights through any particular belief system and thus can force others to your will, not only are you inaccurate, but you reveal the nature of your need to control rather than your desire to extend and advance freedom.

If personal responsibility has been developed within you by owning your choices, having the ability to respond to your choices and only making choices at the consent of others – what care do you have of how it all came to be?

Why would it be so important to you to prove such? What is your self-interest?

We’ve seen the road to incredulity from gorebal warming hysteria, which sought to cherry pick, manipulate and attempt to force others into their way of thinking.

Science seeks to falsify itself and modify reality when new information becomes available. Freedom is inherent in this pursuit by the nature of its flexibility to change & develop.

Belief seeks no such falsification, nor does it care.

Neither shall the two ever meet.

To infringe on the beliefs of another is not freedom.

Science is objective. We observe data which draws conclusions – those conclusions can change over time – and typically do. In freedom, the ability to develop is ever present. In control, the ability to develop is atrophied.

The observation of beliefs is simply this: a person is giving his personal experience from within. Giving your personal experience doesn’t make something a fact.

Leave inherent rights to the individual.

Leave others to the freedom of their beliefs.

Leave freedom to an individual to decide for self through his conscious mind where his rights are derived.

Let each decide for self, lest you reveal your nature to control others and subjugate freedom.

Stop arguing where your rights come from and start fighting for your freedom to decide for self.

THE ONE 20.10 PROJECT

2010-02-13T18:17:00.000-07:00

SEX AND THE REPUBLICAN

2010-02-12T05:15:00.000-07:00

The recent upheaval once again about sex education being taught in schools can lead one to confusion regarding such topics, especially when both sides are so emotional about the issue. That’s a red flag.

It's really quite simple: it is not the government's responsibility to teach children and teens about sex education, just like it’s not the government’s responsibility to teach children about religion.

Sex is a very personal issue for parents and they need to be the ones who are teaching their children about this subject.

If a school wanted to offer such classes as an OPTION, so be it. If we're going to have education in our society as an entitlement, let's at least do our best to own more responsibility in that education.

By getting government out of this subject, it can lead parents to reviewing and pulling other subjects out of education that don't belong to the government, but belong to the parents.

Here's the rub: ;)

By getting government out of sex education it now COMPELS parents to teach this information to their children. That means you now OWN the choice of teaching them and are compelled toward the ability to respond when their choices step outside of personal responsibility.

If your child gets pregnant, if your child contracts an STD, if your child contracts AIDS, if your child has sex before the age of consent - IT ALL RIDES ON YOUR SHOULDERS! (it does now, anyway, parents just try to blame the education system for their failure in teaching at home these important aspects of life)

What you teach your child, how you teach your child will say much about your character and integrity.

If you put fear in your child rather than encouraging education, you own it.

If you don't disclose important information to children, you own it.

If you manipulate information to children, you own it.

In other words, you are NOW the government and all the criticism of how government withholds information to manipulate Americans is now your responsibility since information abounds in society and no child need contract an STD or have an unwanted pregnancy.

The more information an individual has, the less confused he will be, the more responsible his choices are reflected in such.

People don't like hearing this, but it is reality: you are free to destroy your child's mind.

You are free to fill their heads with all kinds of misinformation, tall tales and the like - no one will stop you.

HOWEVER, you take full accountability and responsibility for when that child makes choices that are at a cost to others without consent.

You own that child's choices when they make decisions which impact their lives, in the short term or the long term.

With freedom, comes responsibility. With parenting comes accountability.

I agree that we need to get certain subjects out of government education. But are you ready to take on the accountability and responsibility of such a choice?

While much has been accomplished toward reducing abortions, and not because of government involvement but parental involvement, much is yet to be done.

Teach your child about the responsibility of their body and much can be done to avoid long term consequences of choices made in ignorance and lack of information - ALL the information, not just the information you agree with.

Do you like it when government keeps you ignorant to information by which you could make an informed decision, because they disagree or dislike the information? Apply that same criteria to your children and an unsuspecting society that will be the recipient of ignorance.

If you have issues regarding types of sex, with whom one has sex, it's all going to surface while teaching your child. If you discriminate certain factions of society, you own teaching your child such information.

YOU OWN IT! No freedom loving American would stop you from such choices. Are you ready to accept the consequences of teaching such when your child experiences the harsh reality of response to misinformation given by you?

You think you want more freedom? Okay. How much?

How educated are you about sex?

CHARACTER, INTEGRITY AND MANIPULATION

2010-01-26T11:17:00.002-07:00

What is character? How does one achieve such?

Character is the nature of who you are and how you develop it is through the millions of choices you will make throughout your lifetime.

Integrity is a reflection of character. Through these millions of choices what emerges is the observation of self and from others that your choices are made without pre-judgment and upholding of freedom, free choice, self-reliance, and self-governance.

Republicans are masters of self-evaluation toward self-correction; this is a great thing. Democrats are almost incapable of such. This is an advantage.

Republicans being open to the idea that no subject or situation is ever resolved to an extent that it cannot be revisited at a later date, is a brilliant approach. Democrats love to live in self-righteousness. They start from a position of being “right” and therefore every opposition is simply because you’re inept, stupid, ill-equipped to understand, sub-standard, bigoted, racist, misogynistic, dumb, and astro turf.

From this position, Democrats stand on the unbalanced beam of self-righteousness, use “social justice” as credential, then manipulate with language to convince those who want to be manipulated.

The question before Republicans: do you want to be manipulated?

Every candidate who jumps into a race from this point forward needs to assimilate freedom, free choice, the development of personal responsibility, speak to limited government and safety of this nation. If he, or she, cannot, then reconsider your vote for that individual.

Sob stories or stories to tug at your heart strings; fear mongering of our “fate as a nation” is nothing more than manipulation.

If a candidate truly upholds freedom and all the precepts that follow, then all such concerns would naturally resolve themselves. Your children need not worry about their future if they’re living in freedom.

To state, “I have concern for our future where a life of freedom is no longer” speaks to everyone, irrespective of any hyphenated label they wish apply to themselves. It’s universal.

Don’t let politicians get away with this manipulation. Call them out on it. Don’t let politicians use your family, children, elderly, husbands, wives, military or anyone else to extort your vote.

If a candidate is or was a small business owner, great, speak to that with respect to understanding a FREE market system where choice, competition, obligation to personal responsibility and consent are paramount.

If a candidate understands the scientific method (and he should!) then let him speak to how he understands what it means when politicians try and thrust junk science on us strictly for political and financial gain.

Sympathy, empathy, personal experience: these are not synonyms for legislation.

Freedom is a reason for legislation.

Individual choice is a reason for legislation.

Unleashing markets from the chains of regulation is about freedom which is a reason for legislation.

Getting government out of everything is a reason for legislation because it’s about freedom.

You get the picture here? I know you do. Now our candidates and politicians need to.

They will tell you that only 30,000 people out of 670,000 people in a district actually voted; that they need to “negotiate” for votes (this is euphemism for granting favors for votes). My question to them: what is your message that isn’t getting through to the other 670,000 voters? Why can’t you motivate them?

If you ignore a larger piece of the pie for the minority, isn’t that what liberals do? They want to manipulate the larger group for favor of a minority group?

Are you so attached to an outcome that it blinds you to the simple message for freedom, free choice, independence, self-reliance, and self-governance?

We know all candidates want to win – that’s a “duh” moment. However, a candidate who is attached to the outcome has a personal agenda that isn’t about freedom and advancing freedom for his fellow Americans. If your motivations are anything other than freedom, you’re a fraud. Out of freedom is the byproduct of every personal concern that EVERY AMERICAN has to live free.

As a candidate, I would want to win, but not at the cost of the American people’s freedom and certainly not at a cost to their loss of confidence when they find out all the “sweetheart deals”, or “special favors” or “cow-towing to special interests” in order to get elected.

These are euphemisms for bribery.

And while we’re on the subject of integrity, don’t fall for the “with all due respect” line. If an individual is developing integrity through character & personal choices, that person would naturally have self-respect. As a result, it wouldn’t occur to him to speak about others in ways that were “disrespectful”. There’s a difference between speaking to reality and coddling the feelings of others.

If it’s not in your nature to have self-respect, then you may want to self-evaluate whether or not you should open your mouth to begin with.

Growing up, my mom always liked to tell us, “It is wiser to remain silent and thought a fool, then to speak and remove all doubt”. She read it somewhere and never missed an opportunity to utilize it.

I miss that woman. J

WHAT IS LIMITED GOVERNMENT?

2010-01-15T06:26:00.001-07:00

What is limited government?

Does government being limited mean that only your personal agenda is supported and enforced?

Or does it mean that government is limited to managing the safety of our nation, upholding contracts between parties, enforcing the unbridled dissemination of information to Americans in order to advance and encourage personal responsibility and little else?

If Republicans REALLY uphold limited government, then that limit has to extend even to the strongest of "social issues" that affect them.

Here's why: limited government means government out of all these issues so that free markets, creative and innovative solutions can spring forth where communities can address a list of priorities rather than government becoming the nanny for your specific concern.

Using government to advance your personal agenda is not limiting government, but expanding it. Get government out of it all and we will all put our collective heads together and come up with some great ideas that government will NEVER come up with.

If Republicans want to stand for limited government, personal responsibility and safety of the nation they'll find a whole lot more people voting (R).

It doesn't mean anyone is telling you to give up your principles in life, to the contrary.

It means getting government out of favoring your principles over another American's principles. It means government staying neutral in all issues of a subjective nature. And isn't that what this pluralistic nation is really all about - acknowledge the freedom of all while favoring none?

If the focus is on the idea that you live your life at no cost to another without his consent, then laws will be enacted which will give consequence to the man who makes the choice in antithesis.

Life is subjective – in the eye of the beholder. How could we possibly think government could favor and enforce every American’s version of how life should be lived?

It can’t and freedom compels that it doesn’t. Government need only uphold our Constitution and Americans will figure out the rest.

In all of life we do one of two things: we move toward something or we move away from it.

Every time you want or demand that a personal social issue of concern be managed or forced by government, you’ve moved away from freedom and into the hands of control.

If Republicans, along the spectrum, really uphold free markets, then they should have confidence that they can manage their principles and social issues of concern without government interference; that they will create innovative solutions toward their goals.

If Republicans stand by the integrity and character of limited government, personal responsibility (which includes, of course, fiscal, as well) and safety of this nation – they will find an overwhelming number of Americans over time joining the cause for freedom.

WHAT ABOUT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS?

2010-01-07T16:19:00.003-07:00

Recently on Glenn Beck’s program he made another ownership statement regarding where our rights come from. His argument is that liberals say there is no god which then leaves the issue of rights coming from government and not god.

This issue continues to be a source of contention to people who want ownership; having ownership then invokes control. How do we know that? Because in America we want our Constitution to uphold our ownership of property so that we can control how we manage it, what we do to it, and how we live in it – our comfort and security.

The same can be said about the ownership of self. We want our Constitution to uphold the ownership of self so that we don’t have government telling us what health care to buy, what food to eat, what exercise to participate in, what school to attend, et.al.

A “Right” is intrinsic – it exists within you and cannot be taken away from you – your thoughts, your faith, your speech. Only through government can your rights be limited, but even then, in the privacy of your mind you can say anything you want, think anything you want, pray to whoever you want and government cannot stop you.

What difference does it make where our rights come from?

Some say their deity, others just say nature itself.

If you personally believe your rights come from your specific deity, who would infringe on your freedom to believe such.

If you personally believe your rights come from nature, who would infringe on your freedom to believe such.

The only reason a person demands that others believe as he believes, is to control.

We complain about government trying to control us, yet we engage in similar behavior when we attempt to own something that does not belong to us – an individual’s rights; the individual’s conscious mind to decide for self.

The only rights we need care about are individual rights by which a person can make his way in this world without government interference.

The only laws we need care about are the ones this nation creates which protect self and society from those who would infringe on the freedom of someone trying to make his way in this world.

We don’t have a right to comfort just because we have distaste for someone’s choices.

Live your life at no cost to others without their consent. If they didn’t consent, don’t make the choice.

If you insist that rights only come from your deity; that laws are only from your deity and demand others be in abeyance to such, then you have abandoned the birth of our nation in freedom.

You’ve abandoned freedom of the conscious mind to decide for self in understanding that, “we hold these truths to be self-evident”.

Consider two very important pieces of observation: the Declaration speaks only to the terminology of “Creator” – a term that is universal for each individual conscious mind to decide for self.

Second, since the Declaration of Independence isn’t our rule of law, but the Constitution is, even upon the addition of the Bill of Rights, it never invoked the word God, gave no reference to, and placed no subjective ideology above any other within its writings. Freedom of religion to decide for self. Not that the nation would not necessarily have its citizens enjoying their personal religions, but the freedom to choose that religion if desired.

If, as some would like to project our founders “intentions” were of religion, would we not have advanced our understanding of individual freedom at this given time, to realize, as we did with slavery, suffrage, and other issues, that each must have the freedom to decide for self irrespective of government. That each must have ownership of self to decide. That each must respect the inherent right of another to decide for self.

Government cannot be involved in religion as it cannot be involved in anything where an individual must decide for self. Otherwise it’s nothing but another form of control. Government makes a mess of everything it tries to control no matter what the intention.

Limited government, personal responsibility, safety of our nation – these are issues which unite us all.

How a person acquires his integrity and character is of no concern to me or you, only that he does.

If each developed personal responsibility toward owning his choices, only makes choices for which he has the ability to respond, then only makes those choices at a cost to no one else except those who consent, the byproduct is integrity and character through the upholding of freedom, to self and others.

FREEDOM OF RELIGION? THE RELIGIOUS WON'T ALLOW IT.

2009-12-28T13:03:00.006-07:00

Recently at a Tea Party meeting and then again while watching Laura Ingraham on the No Spin Zone (an oxymoron if ever I’ve heard one – there is more spin on that show than the Tilt-A-World at the fair), the issue about freedom and religion continues to elude people. Part of Ingraham’s argument is the “lack of tolerance for beliefs”, yet her entire interview was taking passive/aggressive shots at the interviewee about her beliefs.

Do we all agree that beliefs are personal and subjective to the individual?

Do we all agree that each decides through his own conscious mind how best to reach integrity and character?

Do we all agree that there is no single path that can lead a person to such qualities?

Do you personally care whether a person is religious or not? Whether they believe in god or not? Even our Constitution upholds that no religious test is required or desired to seek office.

Do you personally care where a person develops his character and integrity from?

What does it say about Americans who claim they uphold freedom, yet, do not want to accommodate belief systems that differ from their own? Expanding freedom is about accommodating differences.

Accommodating differences isn’t about giving preferential treatment, it’s about finding the freedom and neutrality within aspects of life once thought of as narrow in perspective, then stepping back and expanding freedom. When we know more, we expand more.

If freedom is extended to freedom of the conscious mind, then individual freedom is upheld to its apex; this is ICONIC FREEDOM! This example, to a modern world where some still live in the idea that killing infidels is a promotion in the eyes of their specific deity, impacts over time to end such jihadist behavior and other forms of religious conflict.

Consider: no one needs to tout America’s greatness, it’s ability to advance freedom, to create opportunity – history speaks for itself and observation from non-Americans drives people to want to visit, to want to live here, heck, they’ll even come here illegally it’s so great. If any religion needs government endorsement or support, then it’s nothing more than a political weapon utilized by political parties to force others into subjugation, be it health care, education, abortion…you name it.

Democratic liberals use the construct of “Social Consciousness Fundamentals” to bully people, establish moral authority and control Americans. Republicans use the construct religion to bully people and establish moral authority to control Americans. Both parties then take those constructs, wield them as weapons of massive destruction on the Constitution and individual freedom, and then create laws out of it.

We know how destructive government is when it puts its hands into anything.

We value the idea of upholding individual freedom. We crave the upholding of free markets to create solutions and innovation toward further progress. We love free markets because it upholds freedom.

Why would Republicans think that it is ever a good idea to get government involved in religion in any manner, shape or form? Or to seek financial favor whereby government can dictate as it did with GM and others?

People only seek government intervention when they want to control what others are doing; what their choices are.

Look at the various “movements” over history, which ones have advanced freedom and which ones have done nothing but create inequality and favor a particular group?

Acknowledge all; favor none. Government allocating pluralistic tax dollars to any group is favor.

For those of you thinking right now as you read this how “offensive” it is, or how “ludicrous” it is get government out of religion, have already left individual freedom behind. It’s likely you will not ever extend individual freedom of the conscious mind to others and even more likely you just want your version of government control. Your problem is that you won’t own it. It’s a contradiction to say you uphold freedom and then impose, invoke and demand through subterfuge a religious agenda.

How does this manifest itself in America, you ask? I’m glad you asked.

Starting your political meeting with prayer instead of a moment of silence; screaming because the State or Federal Christmas tree doesn’t include a nativity; ripping down another person’s symbols of beliefs; demanding that prayer be reinstated in school; arguing prayer in a non-religious school ceremony or holiday program; keeping “One nation under god” on our money and in the pledge and other examples are subtle and not so subtle forms of control instead of upholding freedom. (Look up the Bells of St.Mary’s, you’ll find school kids reciting the pledge without ‘one nation under god’ because it didn’t exist)

Self-righteousness is thinking you’re beliefs and choices are “right” and everyone else must subjugate. Don’t we all just love the ex-smoker, ex-fat person, ex-“anything” that tries to tell us what to do. It matters nothing to most freedom loving Americans how individuals reach integrity and character of self. There are many paths to any one destination. Self-righteousness espouses you know what’s right for you, thus everyone else, too. Isn’t that what liberals are so fanciful at doing. Isn’t it what irritates us?

It appears that some, not all, fortunately, want society, government and law to be about constructs of morality, rooted in personal ideology, be it religion or social consciousness. These people seek favor & endorsement from government. They want to use the blunt force of government to subjugate society to their beliefs and a misconstrued “right of comfort”.

These folks say they love the Constitution, this country and freedom, but their actions paint a much different picture.

America is tired of both parties telling people how to live, what to think, how to reach integrity and character.

America is tired of both parties using social consciousness fundamentals as a weapon of morality by which to control and push legislation.

America is tired of both parties using religion as a weapon of morality by which to control and push legislation.

America is tired of both parties absconding individual freedom to push a personal agenda involving any one particular religious or social viewpoint – all at a cost to others without their consent.

There will be no religious freedom until those who practice religion and faith stop trying to put religion into politics and through legislation.

Freedom includes freedom of choice, not just the choices you agree with or approve of. Yes, freedom of religion is freedom from religion for those who don't subscribe, but it doesn't mean we live in a society that is free of religion - otherwise it isn't freedom. Each decides for self. We acknowledge all; favor none.

This is very crucial for Republicans to "get" - religion is personal, it's subjective - based on your opinion. If you want it to be about what is “proven” then science will decide (see: gorebal warming). If you want it to be about faith, then freedom will decide – the freedom for each to choose within his own conscious mind.

It may not happen in 2010, perhaps not in 2012, but the election of the people, for the people, and by the people is coming, a day of reckoning on those who have forever been attempting to force America to hold a particular belief system be it religious or social. It’s too bad, because if their motivations for doing good in this world are such, then why force others into it? Wouldn’t the observations of action be the marketing itself which draws others to it naturally?

Get out of social issues and utilize the free market to create/innovate solutions toward gov't being limited or non-existent in religion, abortion, marriage, education, health care, the environment, et.al and we'll see a huge swing in the direction of freedom for everyone and liberals becoming marginalized, instead.

You don't have to indoctrinate people to want to come and live in America. The same is true for religion. If your religion is something people want, like in any free market choice where personal value is placed, religion will naturally draw people without coercion or force.

When you have to force people, you've lost freedom - internally and externally.

THE MAGIC OF CHRISTMAS!

2009-12-14T09:27:00.001-07:00

Any family who grew up with Christmas traditions will enjoy a peek back into the past! There's nothing like old footage to remind you of the magic of Christmas.

Merry Christmas to your family, wherever they roam this holiday season

THE HIJACKING OF TERMINOLOGY: CONSERVATIVE

2009-12-06T12:26:00.001-07:00

Recent polls suggest that a great many Americans are self-identifying as conservative and what does that actually mean?

If 40% are self-identifying as conservative, in order to win elections, Republicans are going to need to convince another 11% of the electorate that their platform is one that is worth pursuing.

The problem is that some Republicans have hijacked the term “conservative” and created its meaning to be one of religion instead of what the word really means: limited.

We speak of conserving, we speak of limiting – government, abuse of resources, money, time, energy. Conservative has nothing to do with religion. Disenfranchising the other 60% of the population because they don’t hold a religious view is rather absurd, especially if you want to win elections and make change toward individual freedom.

Good people with solid values about limited government, safety of our nation and personal responsibility do not have to endorse a religious viewpoint. Hard to believe as it might be, there are some stand up citizens who have never believed in a god or a religion. Astounding as it might be there are some who never speak of their religious views and are upstanding politicians. The law of averages tells you that out of 535 members, it’s not possible that all believe in a deity or religion.

Isn’t it infringing on the individual freedom of another human being’s conscious mind to, not only assume for them that the god you believe in certainly exists for them, but that they would have to endorse your specific acceptance of such deity and/or religion? Isn’t that viewpoint antithetical to freedom itself? Isn’t freedom of religion one of our establishment clauses?

No freedom loving American wants any other American to not have his faith or to be silenced because of his faith. The question to ask yourself is this: if I want to have the freedom of my beliefs, why is it that I am insisting that others share that belief?

Isn’t freedom, individual freedom, personal responsibility, safety of our nation and limited government what truly unites ANY human being?

“Conservatives” don’t own right, goodness, charity, benevolence – so why do they keep acting like they do?

Great Americans who contribute and will continue to contribute to America’s freedoms don’t need to be religious to do so. And if you think they do, then what does it say about where you are in terms of extending freedom of the individual’s conscious mind to decide for self how his life should be lived?

What does it say about your position that mirrors the liberal democrats who want to control our lives with their version of religion?

Conservative isn’t about religion but about limiting government’s reach into our lives. If beyond limited government, personal responsibility and safety of the nation are your agenda, then you’re behaving as liberals behave: thinking you own righteousness, seeking to control others & their choices and doing so through force.

And why should any of the other 60% of our population vote for another candidate who just wants to behave like liberals do, doing the same thing liberals do, forcing their values & morality on the rest of us.

The fact is: we don’t. Judging from emails I receive, a lot of us don’t.

We need not care if you’re black, white, Jewish, Hindu, gay, straight, man, woman – any differentiation is merely used to seek favor and entitlement.

Our personal choices in life of religion, food, car, family, etc. are irrelevant. If you believe these are relevant to politics, then there’s something else at work other than upholding and advancing personal freedom.

We’re all Americans seeking individual freedom so we can create the life we want to live. When we make choices only with the consent of others, we uphold the Constitutional foundation of contract, agreed upon by any two people. What is more representative of freedom than that?

We live in a Republic; we are chartered by a Constitution. I am a Republican and I uphold the Constitution. I defend individual freedom and individual choice irrespective of whether or not I agree with the choice. If your choice does not inhibit my freedom of choice, what care do I have that you make it?

What care do you have that others make choice that you don’t agree with? What is your agenda?

Republicans can take back the terminology of conservative to its meaning of limited government.

HONORING OUR MILITARY AT CHRISTMAS!

2009-12-03T00:16:00.001-07:00

WE AWAIT YOUR SAFE RETURN!

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

CLUB FOR GROWTH - A SOCIETY FOR ALL

2009-12-01T04:17:00.002-07:00

Club For Growth understands that limited government will create the environment which will move our society toward resolving all other issues, however, being involved in social issues just creates more problems than it solves.

If you want government involved in social issues, consider why that is? What personal agenda are you attempting to thrust onto society for your comfort?

Free Market solutions can manage social issues which concern all of us, while upholding individual freedom.

Asking government to be involved in social issues is asking for favor and entitlement; social issues are not the role of government.

Milton Friedman once said that the only reason we have as much freedom as we do now is because of the inefficiency of government.

If you think government should or will solve social issues, you're a RINO - you are motivated by personal agenda at a cost of individual freedoms to others. Society doesn't exist for you or I.

Personal comfort is not a right.

Sympathy, empathy, personal experiences are not synonyms for legislation.

ARE YOU READY TO GIVE UP YOUR FREEDOM TO OBAMA?

2009-11-28T07:20:00.003-07:00

ARE YOU READY TO GIVE UP YOUR FREEDOM TO THE OBAMA THUGOCRACY?

TO AVOID PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY SO YOU CAN BE TAKEN CARE OF BY THE OBAMANITES?

WHEN PEOPLE STARTING THINKING THEY KNOW HOW YOU SHOULD LIVE, WHAT CHOICES YOU SHOULD MAKE, THE "DEMOLITION MAN" TYPE OF WORLD IS WHAT WE FACE.

FREEDOM OR CHOICE, WHICH SIDE ARE YOU ON?

"You see, according to OBAMA'S plan I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think; I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder - "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-o all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay, pal? I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener. You live up top, you live OBAMA'S way, what he wants, when he wants, how he wants..."

GOREBAL WARMING & THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

2009-11-28T05:41:00.010-07:00

With the recent climategate, my call to the Terry Gilberg Show on Sundays here in Phoenix, AZ on 550 AM KFYI, we discussed the importance of understanding the scientific method and how science is never a consensus.

Christopher Horner, Fred Singer and other great researchers and scientists disagree with the "hypothesis" regarding gorebal warming.

Years ago the M&M Project was created by Ross McKitrick and Steven McIntrye, who did amazing research unmasking and uncovering the fraud behind the "Hockey Stick" graph inserted into the IPCC report over a decade ago.

In their research, McKitrick and McIntrye found that the data sets utilized to create the hockey stick were fraudulent. Data had been skewed to make it appear as it did in the report claiming climate temperatures were rising at dangerous levels.

Stories of television dramas are made of these: the stonewalling done by Mann, who created the graph and the false data, is something right out of the book, State of Fear by Michael Crichton (which,if you haven't read is one of the best researched books told in story form I've enjoyed regarding climate research).

Two aspects of great importance for any politician to be able to, not only understand, but have the ability to explain are: the scientific method and free market capitalism. These two important aspects of how we advance technology and increase the quality of life here in America and the world abroad are not to be taken lightly, nor utilized for politicizing at a cost to Americans.

As a citizen, I will, and I encourage you to do so as well, hold our future candidates and elected officials to these understandings.

Not assimilating the scientific method leads to blind acceptance, which is a method of avoiding personal responsibility. It's like voting on a budget with no understanding of what a spreadsheet looks like or knowing what the receivables and payables are all about.

Not understanding the basics and power of free market capitalism leads to destructive socialistic ideology, which avoids personal responsibility.

Both science and capitalism are right in line with this nation's foundation: FREEDOM

Capitalism is a voluntary contract; consent of two Americans negotiating goods & services which create jobs, self-reliance and self-governance. Regulations, controls and the like are what skew, distort and create problems in capitalistic societies.

Science creates freedom in understanding our universe, the world in which we live and how to best utilize our resources for creating better quality of living. Claims of consensus are what create problems by people attempting to control information rather than releasing information and letting citizens draw their conclusions along with making their own decisions toward personal choice.

Not subjects to be taken lightly; clearly subjects neglected over the years in exchange for wealth building and politicizing life instead of upholding freedom along with personal responsibility.

SCIENCE IS THE ONLY DISCIPLINE AND METHOD WHICH ACTUALLY SEEKS TO FALSIFY ITSELF, TO FIND WHERE IT'S IN ERROR IN ORDER TO CORRECT ITSELF AND ADVANCE.

Consider all the people, methods and claims which never think they're in error and will make choices at a cost to you & I in pursuit of personal agenda, "because I know I'm right".

ON THE ISSUES: THERE IS NO WAR ON CHRISTMAS!

2009-11-22T09:26:00.001-07:00

There is no war on Christmas.

It’s a media ploy to garner ratings from riling people up and making them think their rights are being infringed upon. Schools, Business, Government Entities, name it and someone thinks there is a war on Christmas.

It’s theater of the absurd.

If you’re having issue with a pluralistic society and getting religion out of government, you need to look seriously at your motives and agenda.

Each must decide within his own conscious mind how to live this life, even our founders understood that.

No one religion, religious view or ideology owns this nation. We are a nation of pluralism, where we acknowledge all and favor none – the one thing we all favor: freedom.

If you think you own this nation, you have more serious issues than someone not saying Merry Christmas. The nation doesn’t exist for you.

Public schools are funded with tax dollars from everyone: Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Jainists, Buddhists, Christians, Catholics, Lutherans and the list goes on for some 2000+ religions & beliefs in this nation. Has this fact been lost on Americans? How do you think public schools get funded? From the PUBLIC!

A better reason couldn’t be offered for getting government out of schools so that parents can put their dollars where they desire into private schools which espouse their belief systems and values.

Asking your neighbors to fund your child’s education is like asking you to fund a woman’s abortion.

Somehow certain people of faith think that their religion should dominate all others to the extent that the Hindu, Jew and Muslim down the street should be paying for their child to go to public school and be forced into a specific prayer, or forced to accept a particular view of religion.

We’ve forgotten what objective freedom means vs. subjective ideology.

It’s a CHOICE to send your child to public school.

If parents make a choice to not fund their child’s education into a private school and instead use the entitlement of education, then sending their kid through the public school system funded with tax dollars of ALL AMERICANS with ALL BELIEFS, compels neutrality in order to serve such systems to educate all and not indoctrinate none - that's what home is for - teaching the values & beliefs you desire.

“Why should my child, who is Jewish, be forced to say a Christian prayer in public school? My taxes pay for that school just as the Christian parents.”

Thomas Jefferson once said, “Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine”. We are a Republic, guided by a charter, not a democracy where “majority rules” takes away the freedom of others.

Do some organizations get crazy about Christmas? Sure. Not allowing green and red paper? Really? I digress.

If Wal-Mart, a privately owned company enjoying the benefits of free market supply/demand economics doesn’t want to say “Merry Christmas”, that’s their prerogative. If consumers want to send a message, not of threats, but of supply/demand economics by simply stating, “We disagree with your policy and will shop elsewhere”, it is likely that Wal-Mart will shift its policy if it matters to them.

Just because our nation has done something for years doesn’t mean the action taken has upheld freedom.

We enslaved people for decades, then self-evaluated and self-corrected.

We held women in suffrage for decades, then self-evaluated and self-corrected.

We continue to grow as a nation and find where we are not upholding freedom of the individual, we self-evaluate and self-correct.

We acknowledge all and favor none.

If you hold to the idea that you have a particular belief system and rituals must be favored by “government funding or endorsement” then you are asking for an entitlement along with bullying others into subjugation – it's what Muslims do to their women and would do to all of us, given the opportunity.

It’s not a war on Christmas; it is self-evaluation and self-correction.

The Christmas Tree, as an example, has come to symbolize a time of giving in our society which has nothing to do with religion of any kind. The tree was a pagan tradition to start with and wasn't endorsed by religious people. What difference does it make where it came from unless you're trying to take ownership by which to control others?

Not sure who put it into your head that your particular beliefs in life about ANYTHING are given credential toward entitlement, limiting the freedom of another American.

On your home, at your private business, on your shirt, in your car put up all the stickers, nativity scenes, and crosses you desire. In and on government funded entities which represent ALL THE PEOPLE (remember that phrase,WE THE PEOPLE, meaning everyone?) then we seek neutrality to acknowledge all but favor none.

Shout out Merry Christmas! Sing out Happy Holidays! Celebrate any or all of the holidays you desire! Get government out of such things and no one cares who celebrates what holiday and “goes around making merry”!

If you want to create drama in your life, then see through the filter of victimization that there’s a war on Christmas thus a war on your religion.

Or see life through the filter of freedom. How do we create more freedom for self and other Americans by self-evaluation, self-correction and developing our understanding of expanding freedom, not limiting it?

“Why should religion be removed from the public square!”

Because society doesn’t exist for you and your personal beliefs, that’s why!

If you’re having issue with religion being out of the government funded public square, you need to ask yourself some serious questions about wanting to control others.

Republicans don’t want to be controlled regarding health care, education, abortion, marriage and the like, yet find no hypocrisy in wanting to control others by demanding their religious views be favored on government property or government funded schools.

You think winning elections is by manipulating voters to your side? By playing to the sleight of hand touting freedom all the while in subtle form attempting to maneuver to get your way?

We will continue to lose elections if we don't start cleaning up where we've not upheld individual freedom and start speaking to a pluralistic society that can make decisions for themselves within their own conscious minds of how to live this life.

You can't fake freedom, either you assimilate freedom to your core and can speak to it, or you cannot.

People and voters, know the difference - we can spot it a mile away when people start injecting their own subjective ideology instead of objective freedom in their actions, their words and their deeds.

Freedom or control - which side are you on?

ON THE ISSUES: THE ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND

2009-11-16T08:33:00.001-07:00

Recently at my precinct meeting a representative from the Alliance Defense Fund gave a speech. It started with demonizing the ACLU, followed by invoking entitlement, advanced with subjective ideology of what government is about and lacking in character and integrity

Demonizing the ACLU to further your personal agenda brings no credibility.

You mean this ACLU:

2004: trial regarding allegations of Rush Limbaugh's drug abuse, the ACLU argued that his privacy should not have been compromised by allowing law enforcement examination of his medical records

1997: Internet Free Speech in ACLU v. Reno, the court struck down the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which censored the Internet by banning "indecent" speech. Although this was a major First Amendment victory for the information age, the battle continues; the ACLU often finds itself defending online free speech from further assault. (one reason we have the ability to speak openly on blogs)

1986: The ACLU also defended Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North, whose conviction was tainted by coerced testimony — a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights.

In 1973: the ACLU was the first major national organization to call for the impeachment of President Richard Nixon, giving as reasons the Nixon administration's violations of civil liberties.

In 1967: the ACLU successfully argued against state bans on interracial marriage, in the case of Loving v. Virginia.

1954: Brown v. Board of Education: the ACLU, having long supported the legal battle for equal education, celebrated a majority victory when the Supreme Court declared that racially segregated schools were in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment in a case brought by the NAACP

1942: Fighting for the Internment of Japanese Americans: the ACLU stood almost alone in denouncing the federal government’s interment of more than 110,000 Japanese Americans in concentration camps.

The favor and entitlement ADF screams about the ACLU doing, is exactly what ADF is doing: seeking favor from legislators or the courts to support their personal specific view of life, what choices a person should make and how to live life, even to the assumption of existence – they believe and you best, too! What happened to the founders idea of freedom of the conscious mind to decide for self?

Crosses on mountains that are on government property utilizing pluralistic tax dollars does not limit government, it expands its reach and favors one religious view over another. Private property, no problem, no one cares. Government property – it’s gotta go. Society doesn’t exist for you!

Just because we haven’t developed past certain discriminations, doesn’t mean the courts aren’t accurately reversing some of the bullying that has gone on with regard to the upholding personal freedom.

Slavery, suffrage, interracial marriage, discrimination – any of these sound familiar, all “traditions” at one time in our society, all tolerated by society, some even using the bible as credential to continue or further it.

Finally, the speaker had the Obama-audacity to say that government has interest in the family propagating to help pay taxes and fund our society. How absurd! This is antithetical to freedom, free choice, free markets and limited government. Not to mention bigoted – there are lots of variants when it comes to creating families through a variety of methods. This myopic view of life is breathtaking.

Society existed long before any government came upon it to tax it and spend like thieves. If government “cannot run its household on the liberal allowance it receives” from the current tax payers then it is the legislators responsibility to live within their means and cut spending.

The ONLY reason a person would make such a declaration is to impose a subjective and ideological view of the world upon everyone else – just like liberal democrats.

Yes, the ACLU & ADF over-reach; yes, the ACLU & ADF fight for freedom; yes, the ACLU & ADF have their place in society.

However, for the Alliance Defense Fund to propagate certain “values” and thus seek protectionism from the courts or through legislation is acting in hypocrisy to freedom, free choice and freedom of the individual conscious mind to decide for self. Not to mention that it’s the same behavior they are accusing the ACLU of doing – forcing opinions and behavior onto society!
In so much as your personal choice does not infringe on a personal choice of another without consent – without contract – without agreement, it’s not the governments business, nor mine, nor yours. In free markets we call this: choice.

If you are asking courts and legislators to favor your religion, your definition of marriage, or any other social agenda for which you disagree about the free choice of another American, you live in hypocrisy toward freedom itself.

No one should be listening to or be lectured by an organization that seeks its own personal agenda antithetical to freedom of the individual all the while demonizing the ACLU or any other organization.

Both organizations need to clean up their acts.

The Alliance Defense Fund can start that self-evaluation leading to self-correction (long before the ACLU ever will) by seeking to get government out of our lives, out of marriage, out of religion, out of education, out of abortion, out of health care and all other social issues where government has no business. Do that and it takes away the weapon of hypocrisy that liberals easily wield at Republicans. Unless, of course, demanding favor for subjective ideology, overstepping the Constitution and insisting others believe as they believe, is their goal

With this kind of thinking, Conservatives are fast becoming liberals with religion – and guess what? People are onto the scam.

Limited government, personal & fiscal responsibility, safety of the nation – no one can argue these foundations who does not reveal himself anti-American.

If the ADF wants to fight battles, then fight the battle for equality of freedom by getting government out of it all so that free people can make free choices and stop looking for endorsements from government.

ON THE ISSUES: EMOTION VS. FACT

2009-11-10T11:24:00.003-07:00

EMOTION VS. FACT

Republicans are missing an important fact that happens to be on their side when discussing the economy, the market, jobs, how best to manage the dollar, et.al.

Democrats argue their emotions; Republicans argue their facts and figures. So why aren't Republicans making the point that Dems aren't interested in facts, they're interested in what "feels good"? There is no tangible measure for emotion. You can scale it from 1 - 10, but emotion will always be subjective, offering nothing of fact.

Now, don’t let this idea gather complacency for you, Republicans do the same thing when it comes to social issues they have “passion” about (read: emotion) verses what reality is (facts).

Republicans are so great about self-evaluation and self-correction. This author sent Michael Steele an email months ago supporting the idea of discussing how best to approach the manipulations of democrats, only to be ignored. You may ask, why should Steele care what you have to say? For this reason: if you want to disarm your opponent, you must have regard for reality, even the realities you’re not comfortable with. You must own the reality before you and seek solutions, not emotions.

Free market solutions can manage social issue conflicts but it will never happen as long as government is involved and Republicans are ideologically blind, ill informed and short sighted to their own personal agendas. Own your reality.

Recently the Stupak Amendment was being touted as some “victory” for Conservatives, Republicans and those of us who would like to see government out of abortion. Problem: if the amendment had not passed, then the Dems who were very concerned about government funding abortions would have likely voted “nay” on HR3962, thus stalling the government takeover of healthcare.

Being ideologically blind to your emotions will lead to misinterpretation of reality. It also leads to justifications, excuses and rationalizations for choices made in the face of what reality is showing you: that which is observable.

If pundits would start pointing out that Dems are arguing emotion instead of facts, they’d get the upper hand. You can’t argue a person’s opinion – it’s subjective. You can argue a person’s facts if they are inaccurate. If you get your house in order regarding other social issues and the emotion they carry for you, then you are able to own reality and argue with Dems on factual and practical solutions created through the creativity and innovation of free markets; music to our ears.

Stupak was stupid. Republicans were misguided by voting for it. With the exception of Congressman John Shadegg, who voted “present” in protest of the bill, but still standing for life & government out of abortion.

For more on this and other subjects with solid solutions, check out my bookand interview regarding what ICONIC FREEDOM is really all about.

GREG'S INTERVIEW WITH TERRY GILBERG ON KFYI AM 550 PHX, AZ

2009-11-02T03:29:00.003-07:00

THIS INTERVIEW IS WITH TERRY GILBERG ON KFYI AM 550 HERE IN PHOENIX, AZ

YOU CAN PURCHASE THE BOOK AT LULU.COM

CHECK OUT MY BLOGSPOT ICONIC FREEDOM

TERRY'S WEBSITE LISTEN TO TERRY EVERY SAT/SUN ON KFYI

THE TERRY GILBERG SHOW

2009-10-27T23:17:00.001-07:00

Listen to KFYI, AM 550 in Phoenix on Sunday, Nov. 1st from 7-8pm (streams on the web - AZ does not do daylight savings time)

I'll be on the Terry Gilberg Show discussing the latest topics and my book!

Here's the link: http://stores.lulu.com/iconicfreedom

ON THE ISSUES: LEGALIZING DRUGS

2009-10-25T08:12:00.002-07:00

Are people really getting upset over the potential of marijuana being legal?

People huff paint and toxic fumes from household cleaners.

Kids I worked with used to drink Nyquil, vomit the syrup and walk around high for hours – they were called Nyquil parties. All available over the counter.

People drink and have alcohol available to them 24 hours a day – ever been to Vegas? They have an open bottle policy! Where’s the outrage! Where’s the contempt! Call the Mayor!

Are you really this naive?

If the problem is concern that people will “do more of it”, so what?

The concern is always that one behavior is a gateway to other behaviors.

It must be assumed then that drinking water leads to alcoholism.

When people think it's the "other guy" who is too irresponsible to make choice for self, you can count on the accuser being the one who is just as irresponsible; it used to be called: projection.

Who cares if someone wants to take drugs? It’s not your life to decide for another. If safety is your concern, you have to face reality that at any point in time lots of people are walking around the world high as a kite.

If you really want to make sure that certain jobs, where accuracy is most important when it comes to the responsibility of another’s life, make policy for those jobs within those companies that a daily drug test is required.

Frankly, it’s not a bad idea to have pilots take a drug test or alcohol breathalyzer test before getting in the cockpit, but no one seems to be worried about that. Nor is it out of reach to have health care workers test for drugs; I went to school with a nurse who was a recovering drug addict and work was where she got her “loot”. Her stories of rampant drug abuse were shocking.

Police, military and any other number of official positions carry weapons aren’t given such tests on a daily or hourly basis, but the law of averages tells you that at least some of those people are high on something. Folks don’t check-in to rehab not for nothin'.

Trying to control behavior is like trying to herd cats. Responsibility compels those who make choice to be able to respond to the choice. If drug use is such a concern then compel companies with high-risk jobs to demand regular and frequent drug tests, and then get out of the way. That's how free markets work: demand and supply.

Reality is that everyone has distaste for everyone else’s behavior and choices, be assured of that. Trying to control behavior of others only reveals you as arrogant, controlling, and manipulative and eventually, a hypocrite as your choices will show incongruence.

Start questioning yourself as to why you are so concerned. Where is freedom and personal responsibility?

Is it about your children?

Who then is responsible for teaching their children the consequences for such choices?

Can you police your child’s every choice? No. You can arm them with as much information as possible and accept the risk you took by having a child to begin with. If this comment offends you, consider reality: you chose to have a child knowing the world around you. Attempting to control others for your personal comfort? Society doesn't exist for you.

Unless you are planning on following your kid around 24 hours, then you better make certain you teach your children what development of personal responsibility is all about. It would be in your self-interest to teach accountability, responsibility and outcomes.

Consider how much information is available to you as an adult that you never look up, research or inquire about before making choices which could clearly alter your life. You're not teaching that negligence to your kids, are you?

If you’re willing to take the risk of indulging in drugs, alcohol, and the like, no freedom loving American would stop you.

The difference in any choice is that it is only made with the consent of those with whom it affects. Don't make a choice you can't respond to.

If it doesn’t affect you, why do you care so much?

DICK CHENEY AT KEEP AMERICA SAFE DINNER

2009-10-23T07:52:00.004-07:00

Dick Cheney's full speech at the Keep America Safe dinner. Visit KeepAmericaSafe.com

The Bush Administration kept information safe for the BO administration to utilize in March 2009; their efforts were appreciated by the BO administration lying that the Bush administration did nothing and BO had to start from scratch. Rahm, have you no shame, you trog!

This is called LYING, people! This isn't misspeaking, error, mistake, this is LYING and taking cover. How many times will this president lie before ALL of America gets it. How loud does this have to get before you get it!

With 62% of Americans trusting McChrystal instead of the administration... (source: foxnews poll)

ICONIC FREEDOM MEETING

2009-10-19T10:48:00.001-07:00

ICONIC FREEDOM MEETING This link takes you to the meet-up page to rsvp.

If you'd like to take a look at my print-on-demand book recently published on lulu.com and you're interested in advancing/shifting the political/personal paradigm, we are starting a group in November in North Scottsdale.

Let me know what questions you might have or how best I can support your decision making process to join us.

Cheers,
Greg
iconicfreedom@live.com

ANITA DUNN - POT, THIS IS KETTLE; YOU'RE BLACK!

2009-10-13T18:52:00.005-07:00

While Republicans have their issues to self-correct, Democrats are the ones who have shoved an agenda of ideology down the throats of Americans by thinking they know what light bulbs we should buy, what cars we should drive, what food we should eat, what health care we should purchase...

Ideology is thinking you know the choice that others should make for themselves in this life; as if you know best.

Ideology is antithetical to freedom, free choice and freedom of the conscious mind to decide for self how this life should be lived.

Ideology is control and manipulation; control of choice and manipulation of information for self-interest.

If liberal means maximizing freedom, then liberal Democrats are anything but liberal!

ICONIC FREEDOM SPEAKS WITH JESSE KELLY RUNNING FOR CONGRESS CD8 - TUCSCON, AZ

2009-10-06T17:37:00.009-07:00

Congressional District 8 Tucson, AZ

"Jesse Kelly reminds me of Barry Goldwater." - Judge Andrew Napolitano of Fox News

Better words were never spoken of a true patriot, a man who served our nation in the military protecting our freedoms and who wants to continue that fight for freedom in our nation's capitol!

Make a contribution, help send Jesse Kelly to congress. A donation of $10 by thousands of Americans can create the type of funding needed to elect Jesse. If you're looking for someone who gets what limited government, safety of the nation and fiscal responsibility are all about - this is the patriot to vote for!

You don't need to be a resident of Arizona to support Jesse Kelly's efforts.

Let's roll!

Gregory Wirth is the author of

ICONIC FREEDOM: Living Your Life At No Cost To Others Without Their Consent.

ICONIC FREEDOM PUBLISHED AT LULU.COM

2009-10-05T09:19:00.003-07:00

ICONIC FREEDOM PUBLISHED AT LULU.COM

BANK OF THIS AMERICA, OR NOT?

2009-09-23T07:40:00.003-07:00

Is this Bank really a bank representative of America?

This issue regarding the flag display isn’t just some emotional dust up that some may want to allocate and dismiss in order to move on.

Do you really need to tell your staff about respect for the American flag?

Perhaps that’s more revealing, your error in hiring individuals who need to be told this?

The reality to focus on: What has Bank of America revealed about itself as a corporation who enjoys the freedoms of America and the free market capitalistic system for over 100 years by which it has benefitted?

There is no “mistake” or “misunderstanding” – there is only choice.

One choice over the other – either you respect the flag and proudly display it and encourage the same, or you do not.

An error in choice speaks to you about the importance of paying attention to your choice to begin with and before making it.

In a free nation we uphold the freedom of speech, either in word or action. Both reveal the nature of an individual. We don’t need “apologies” to coddle our “feelings” – we observe, understand, and act.

Some in America have overreached, thinking that their personal emotional opinions about America are facts by which they choose action from within their position of power, reflecting an Anti-American stance. Where did the branch manager get this idea of corporate policy?

Freedom upholds an individual’s right to do so. Freedom also upholds Americans to act in a contrary manner by which to send a message of strong intolerance to that individual’s choice.

You’re free to have your speech and Americans are free to respond.

THE WIZARD OF ODDS

2009-09-21T22:41:00.004-07:00

When the Wizard of Oz was approached by Dorothy and friends, he seemed ominous, larger than life, he spoke with the fires of brimstone, the domination of a giant, and he commanded the will of others. When the curtain was pulled back, clearly he was an old man, who dressed not so fashionably, stuttered and stammered, catching his groove once in a while to impart wisdom. And in the end he was nothing more than a snake oil salesman with a basket & balloon that even he didn’t know how to control.

Obama acts like the Wizard, tall on all kinds of antics, pyrotechnics, loquacious rhetoric, deep resonance, and in the end, the curtain gets pulled back and he’s nothing more than a stammering snake oil salesman who can’t function without his teleprompter or pointing his fingers.

When the characteristics of freedom live within you, little is needed in preparation to speak before large gatherings, exchange quips with other Americans, joke with the media or plan for interviews.

When the characteristics of freedom live within you, there is a natural flow of language that speaks to reality, avoids manipulation, aims to clarify, is rooted in genuine honesty, and resonates like a fine cello that knows the path of a musical crescendo in concert with Americans.

Obama was the dream of some and the nightmare of so many.

He has revealed his true, natural self. And while he may think himself confident & stalwart, he is instead, narcissistic, histrionic, arrogant and insecure.

He seeks disdain of others rather than acknowledgement of differences.

He espouses discourse rather than discussion.

He implies racism rather than pluralism.

He avoids personal responsibility in every speech, every interview, and every quip he makes.

He seeks cover for himself at the expense of others.

He deflects, distracts and shows contempt for those who do not adore, obey or subjugate.

Obama hasn’t become a joke, he always was a joke, it just took longer for some to realize, than others.

He was always shallow, never of substance.

Whatever his true intentions, they aren’t about loving this nation, in sickness & in health, for better or worse.

His is a deep rooted pattern of disease mindedness that from his own self-loathing and self-hatred attempts to destroy the esteem of this nation, like the parent who tries to destroy a child’s spirit.

Obama made the error of thinking that the nation didn’t have the fortitude, strength, power, ability, esteem and pride to talk back to him; to face him down, to not be bullied.

Obama made the error of thinking that Americans loved him more than the country.

Obama was wrong.

BERTHA LEWIS FROM ACORN SAYS TO STAFF "YOU'RE TOO STUPID!"

2009-09-20T16:18:00.004-07:00

It's so great when people like Bertha reveal their contempt for other human beings, regardless of their station in life. When I worked with homeless and those in poverty, the idea was always to support them in acquiring skills to become self-reliant.

Apparently, Bertha thinks if her staff are "too stupid" well they just terminate them. Where was their training prior to being given responsibilities as important as the ones these ACORN employees who were fired?

It just reveals the fraud in their charity, their social concern for others.

LET'S FACE IT, IF YOU'RE TOO STUPID, THEN YOU DON'T DESERVE A JOB! Nice message, Bertha!

PAY ATTENTION: To how she calls her staff stupid and how she dodges the question regarding race. Wallace clearly asked her after showing her the immediate & emotional response from the investigation, she jumped to conclusions and implied racism, if she was now going to retract that implication & accusation. She never answered it.

A victim is a victim is a victim. Like obama, she avoids personal responsibility.

ASSUMPTION OF ACCURACY

2009-09-17T11:37:00.003-07:00

When Obama came onto the political scene prominently in 2004, many liberals thought he might be President one day. So dire for this fantasy of liberals that instead of voting for reality, they voted for a fantasy.

What is consistent about the liberal mind is the aversion to reality and instead, the desire for fantasy. It’s one of the reasons they’re such good artists, they suspend reality for fantasy. Some do it only on stage; others make a life-style out of it.

The emotional upsurge to vote for, not an American who happens to be black, but a black man for president, suspended reality, emboldened the fantasy.

When the reality settled in, like the 3rd date with a boyfriend, slowly the bad news started emerging, but love was bequeathed and there was no stopping the ceremony.

There is an “assumption of accuracy” from the mindset of those who hurl the race card. Because of historical transgressions, the capitulation gives way to righteousness. The owning of righteousness within a person’s mind reveals an attitude of, “no matter what I do or say from this point forward, I’m right”.

When the assumption of accuracy is the filter by which a person moves through his life, then any attempt at discourse is seen as racism. “My policies and actions are righteous, therefore the only reason you disagree is a result of my race, the one thing for which I have no defense as I was born this way”.

The liberal mind voted in a fantasy, which has been deified and glorified. When is comes to policy the “assumption of accuracy” for disagreement then can’t be facts, so it must be racism.

Facts are irrelevant to the emotional of our world; they are obstacles to their “happy ending”.

ON THE ISSUES: THE VALUE OF LIFE

2009-09-14T08:19:00.002-07:00

How do you decide the value of life?

Where did you derive your ideas regarding the value of life?

The answer to these two questions will become the basis for this discussion.

ALL LIFE IS EQUAL

Recently the uproar over another czar of Obama’s is making a similar stance, but, as usual, the understanding of this statement is distorted and Sunstein’s mind walks off the map.

Stick with me here.

The value of life is similar to the free market system. In a free market system we each decide the value of something, as a result, we take action of replacing the dollars in our pockets with the service or product we would rather have. This is a free and voluntary contract.

Life, any life, is the same. I make my case by the following examples:

* You value your life more than Jihad, so you’d take Jihad’s life
* You value a cow or chicken less than your dog, so you butcher and eat them.
* You value a wild deer less than your pet cat, so you hunt it down and eat it.

Still not convinced? Okay, how about some of these personally placed values:

* I value my family’s lives more than my friends’ lives.
* I value my friends’ lives more than my neighbors’ lives.
* I value my neighbors’ lives more than an unknown American’s life.
* I value an unknown American’s life more than I value a foreigner’s life.
* I value a foreigner’s life more than I value an animal’s life.
* I value an animal’s life more than a plant’s life.
* I value a plant’s life more than a bacteria’s life.

Life begins at conception.

The value placed on that life is subjective, meaning personal opinion, by you the individual placing the value you’ve decided. This upholds your freedom to value this life much more than say someone across the world, that doesn’t.

We take life every day for safety, sustenance, sport, disregard or comfort. How we decide the taking of that life is predicated on your philosophy. To make the assumption that the value of life is endowed through spiritual philosophy is to negate those who utilize no such beliefs but still uphold the value and regard for life; value is not exclusive to a party or philosophy.

If you want to utilize a spiritual philosophy no one would infringe on your rights of that choice, however, you don’t need spiritual beliefs to have regard for life.

Some people have a presumption of "existence", however, this again is personal and subjective. To impose such presumption onto others infringes on their personal freedom of thought. You don't want to be told what to believe and neither do others.

We decide as a society that we want to favor our own species and of course we would –it’s probably a good idea since we want to continue the human race. Every species favors its own. Of course, we subjectively decide which of our species’ life we take in war, in abortion, in defense, in anger.

However, the value we place on each life is purely subjective to the individual.

The implication that a “dog engages in rational thought more” than a baby, well, to some degree is true because a baby can’t live on its own or fend for itself, but we favor the baby and hold higher value to the baby, which again, to me and you makes perfect sense – we favor our own species, why wouldn’t we. As a society we understand the vulnerability of the baby who cannot take care of itself. Again, very logical.

This discussion is so important in the dialogue regarding the value of life and abortion. While we would like to see abortions reduced greatly in our society, unfortunately, reality tells us that some women have not developed personal responsibility to the extent that they aren’t using abortion as contraception.

One great step forward toward this reduction is to stop having pluralistic tax dollars funding abortions.

Let those who want to have this option or who agree with this choice, to fund the clinics that would provide such a service. In this way nobody pays for something they don’t agree with until we move past this.

Another great step is to let the free markets create educational centers funded by individuals and corporations where women could go to get counseling, education, learn ALL the options available to them in order to support them moving to developing personal responsibility.

Yet one more option is to create a network of mom’s who can swap out babysitting time so that women who find themselves having an unexpected expectancy, can still work and trade some of their time-off babysitting with other moms and eliminate the need for welfare because these women will be working. They may struggle and have challenges, but society cannot absolve them of their choices or save them from the reality they created through their choices. Free markets can support solutions, though.

When we educate people they move closer and closer to accurate choices. How do we know these choices are accurate? The choices are upholding freedom, having regard for life, and accepting personal responsibility for each choice, having the ability to respond to each choice, all the while making their choice at no cost to others who didn’t consent.

One trap you don’t want to fall into is the trap of applying morality of your value to the greater society.

Morality is like value placed: personal opinion. When you start arguing it, you’re really just arguing whose opinion is valued more. Well, obviously, each person thinks his opinion is more valuable. It’s circular and useless. You can't "prove" an opinion is fact, if you did, then it's a fact and not arguable.

It’s more powerful to debate freedom – there is no capitulating freedom, either someone is for freedom or they are not. Unmasking their need for control will dismantle the attempt to control and reveal who they are.

You’ll gain more solid footing by upholding freedom, and then look to how free society in a free market can come up with great answers regarding the personal issues that each of us places value and would like some resolution.

All done in the name of freedom – ICONIC FREEDOM!

9/12 ARIZONA TEA PARTY!

2009-09-12T17:57:00.004-07:00

...AND OBAMA, YOUR 15 MINUTES ARE UP!

2009-09-10T11:14:00.003-07:00

President Obama had an opportunity last night to show leadership, uphold freedom and endorse the freedom of other Americans.

Instead he, his staff and complicit gop cowards, decided to subjugate.

The president had a moment to say, “Congressman, I understand you disagree. We can debate these specifics and I look forward to it. Thank you for being outspoken” But he didn’t.

To the other members booing the Congressman, the president could’ve said, “Please don’t admonish an American for exercising his right to free speech. We are fortunate enough to live in a nation where public and private discourse is encouraged and embraced – we silence no speech, we silence no American.” But he didn’t.

This morning he could have said, “The Congressman has no need to apologize. I am not in fear of hearing free speech by any American in this nation, in fact, I encourage and uphold such freedom. The congressman made his position known and I welcome the opportunity to debate the facts of the bill to clear up any confusion either on my part or the Congressman’s.” but he didn’t’.

But all of these responses require confidence, lack of arrogance, and patriotism.

Instead, he does as he always does: demands subjugation, elevates himself above others, showed contempt and anger for another American’s right to free speech and appeared like a victim which is his typical modus operandi.

I'm waiting for someone to call the Congressman's comment, racism - wait for it, I'm sure it's got to be coming.

There is no standard for discourse in this nation – that is one of this nation’s strengths – we don’t define how another should live his life, the choices he should make.

Anyone thinking they have a standard, by which everyone else should live, will make a target for your own back, for the day will come when you transgress another’s standard and will be forced to subjugate – and neither of these scenarios upholds freedom itself.

How is it that you think yourself elevated above others in order to tell them how they should live, the choices they should make, the way to behave, what is acceptable and what is not? Who died and left you in charge? Arrogance - plain and simple!

Why do you have a need to control?

Freedom or Control – which side are you on?

ON THE ISSUES: RACISM CREATES BRAIN FREEZE

2009-09-04T11:33:00.005-07:00

The indefensible accusation of racism creates brain freeze to the person it is heaved at, and why?

The average American citizen understands our history and has moved away from racism, most especially the type of racism my father and my grandfather grew up with. In most circles people find it quite repulsive and distasteful to listen to racial remarks about others.

Comics make jokes about race and people laugh, why? Because the jokes are based on truth, placed in the context of a "comedy club", where we are willing to admit it.

Let’s have a reality check. There are aspects about a person we sometimes don’t like – your eyes, your hair color, your height, your weight and maybe somewhere in there, your race. So what? Should we call you a “folicalist” if you dislike the color or style of someone’s hair? Should we label you an “eyeist” because you dislike the color or shape of someone’s eyes?

Yet, instant brain freeze when someone says, “you’re racist”. We shut down. We have no evidence to refute such an accusation. It’s like trying to prove love exists, you can’t – because it’s a personal experience.

Racism is a personal subjective experience, often used as deflection & distraction, with attempts to silence the opposition, appear like a victim and advance a personal agenda. The individual who uses racism seeks to hype up emotions so no one is paying attention to what is really going on.

Why would a person choose the experience of being offended?

Don’t gloss over that question.

Why would a person choose the experience of being offended?

What is a person trying to do when they throw out the charge of racism?

Racism exists in the mind of the one who needs it to portray himself as victimized – he wants something for nothing. There is an ulterior motive. It has been so misused at this point it has little effect except to reveal the tantrum of the individual who tosses that emotional Molotov-cocktail into a conversation.

The charge of racism is a deflection from reality.

When Representative Charlie Rangle (D-NY) was pressured because of his misdeeds financially, he finally threw down the race card when all reality pointed to his unethical behavior and no other response he was giving was getting him out of it.

When Governor Patterson (D) of New York recently was pressured because of his poor policies and even poorer performance since being thrust into his position, threw down the race card in the face of reality.

When the no-talent Janeane Garofolo had no other means by which to slander the actions of other Americans having their voices heard during the Tea Parties, she throws down the race card.

When Obama supporters saw my sign of Obama as the Joker along with the label of Socialism, one protester walked up and asked me, “Don’t you think that’s racist?” and of course I replied, “No, but the fact that you just asked me that question, is racist”.

What filter is that person seeing the world through?

Racism is in the mind of the beholder.

By the way, the Joker poster reflects the fake smile hiding the sinister intent. It has nothing to do with his race.

Why would a person looking at it think of race, first?

One incident after another always reveals that the person making the accusation simply wants to distract and deflect.

Why do they find it necessary to go down that road and insult a person’s race?

Insult? You didn’t know that someone calling you racist is an insult to THEIR race? Oh, let me explain.

The accusation of racism is utilized as victimization of the individual. Empowering victimization is implicitly saying that the individual is too stupid or cannot be trusted to figure out how to manage any challenge placed before him. He’s weak. He’s incapable. He needs an excuse.

To call someone a victim is to empower that individual toward irresponsibility. To give him a credit card that lacks personal accountability and personal responsibility for “charges” made. He no longer has to own his choices or is compelled to have to respond to his choices because “he’s a victim”.

Poor you. Poor pitiful you.

Yes, some people end up in some extremely unfortunate circumstances. Calling them a victim insults them. To think you know better how another should live his life or the choices he should make is to elevate yourself.

I don’t know about you, but, most people see that as an insult.

Compare the examples of those who seek no special treatment when circumstances created challenges in their lives to which they acted toward their own personal success to overcome those challenges.

The best way to quiet down the racism charge is to simply say, “I understand you feel that way, and the point you wanted to make is?” or “Now, why do you want to go down that road?”

Who put it into that person’s head what racism is, to begin with?

The person making the claim needs to define what racism is, in doing so; they corner themselves into the abyss of personal experience which is not a credential or evidence of accusation.

Charging racism shows how the individual is attempting to silence that which he doesn’t want to hear, unmasks his martyrdom and attempts to appear like a victim to the extortion of others – trying to get something for nothing. Why else would a person call something you just said, racist?

If a person were racist, isn’t the observation of such a person and choosing to walk away, enough of a resolution? Unless….you’re trying to get something for nothing.

What does it give you to hold onto your victimization, to be defined by it, to utilize it as your biography in life?

Whatever happened to: sticks & stones may break my bones…

HOUSE RESOLUTION 1776

2009-09-02T14:58:00.005-07:00

THIS BILL IS BROUGHT TO THE HOUSE FOR HONORABLE STATESMEN IN ORDER TO ABOLISH AND AVOID GRAFT, FRAUD AND CORRUPTION FROM DAY 1, YEAR 1 OF ENACTMENT OF THIS RESOLUTION

1. NO COVERT OR OVERT EXCHANGE OF FAVORS IN ANY CAPACITY

2. ANY ACTION OF SAID EXCHANGES SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY SUSPECT, INVESTIGATED AND THE REMOVAL FROM OFFICE IF PROVED FACTUAL

3. ABOLISHMENT OF ALL LOBBYISTS, THEIR OFFICES, THEIR CAPACITY AND ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS WILL COMMENCE IMMEDIATELY – THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE YOUR LOBBYISTS. EACH REPRESENTATIVE WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SETTING UP A SYSTEM WITHIN THEIR DISTRICT BY WHICH TO FIELD REQUESTS FROM THEIR CONSTITUENTS; ALL REQUESTS MUST BE UPHELD WITHIN THE CONSTITUTION AND THE ARTICLE BY WHICH AUTHORITY TO PRESENT SAID RESOLUTION MUST BE CITED.

4. NO DESIGNATIONS WITHIN ANY HOUSE RESOLUTION WILL BE RECOGNIZED, NO ALLOCATION OF FUNDS TO SPECIAL PROJECTS WILL BE CONSIDERED

5. ATTEMPT TO BRING FORTH REQUESTS FOR SPECIAL PROJECTS AND OR ALLOCATION OF FUNDS TO SPECIAL PROJECTS, SHALL BE CONSIDERED SUSPECT AND THEREFORE INVESTIGATED FOR FAVORITISM, GRAFT, FRAUD OR CORRUPTION OF THE REPRESENTATIVE AND OR THE HOUSE

6. THE MAJORITY AND MINORITY LEADERS WILL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR ANY BILL WHICH REPRESENTS SAID SPECIAL PROJECTS AND WILL BE COMPELLED TO BEGIN INVESTIGATIONS OF THOSE REPRESENTATIVES WHO PROPOSE SUCH PROJECTS

7. ANY AND ALL INVESTIGATIONS AGAINST A REPRESENTATIVE IN THE HOUSE, SENATE OR EXECUTIVE SHALL IMMEDIATELY CONSTRICT REPRESENTATIVES’ VOTE AND PARTICIPATION

8. EACH REPRESENTATIVE WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ESTABLISHING AND MAINTAINING A WEBSITE BY WHICH YOUR CONSTITUENTS CAN STAY IN CONTACT AND VOTE FOR RESOLUTIONS THEY DEEM APPROPRIATE FOR YOUR DISTRICT

9. NO PERSONAL EXPERIENCE OR SUBJECTIVE IMPOSING OF SUCH WITHIN RESOLUTIONS OR VOTES ON RESOLUTIONS WILL BE TOLERATED, ONLY FACTUAL INFORMATION TO SUPPORT SAID RESOLUTION AFTER HAVING CITED CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY, WILL BE CONSIDERED VALID

10. ALL ACTIONS SHALL BE IN LINE WITH THE CONSTITUTION INCLUDING ALL VOTES AND PROPOSALS OF HOUSE RESOLUTIONS

11. ANY WEALTH ACQUIRED DURING TENURE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED SUSPECT WHILE SERVING IN THE HOUSE, SENATE OR EXECUTIVE AND THUS INVESTIGATED IMMEDIATELY

12. ALL WEALTH BUILDING IS REDIRECTED UPON COMPLETION OF SERVICE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

13. NO BILL OR HOUSE RESOLUTION SHALL BE VOTED ON UNLESS THE REPRESENTATIVE HAS READ THE BILL HIM OR HER SELF – NO OUTSOURCING TO STAFF

14. NO OUTSOURCING OF ANY DUTIES TO STAFF FOR WHICH THE REPRESENTATIVE WAS ELECTED, WILL BE TOLERATED

15. THE MISUSE OF THE OFFICE FOR WHICH A REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ELECTED SHALL CONFER IMMEDIATELY THE REMOVAL OF SAID OFFICIAL. COMPLETION OF INVESTIGATION AND DECISION RENDERED WILL RE-ESTABLISH OFFICIAL OR REMOVAL FROM OFFICE WILL COMMENCE

16. ALL REPRESENTATIVES WILL BE REQUIRED, SAVE FOR FAMILY EMERGENCIES, TO BE PRESENT FOR ANY AND ALL VOTES IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE - NO EXCEPTIONS. ANY MEMBER ABUSING THE FAMILY EMERGENCY PRIVILEGE WILL BE INVESTIGATED

17. THIS BILL RECOGNIZES THE INDIVIDUAL AS THE EXPERT IN DIRECTION OF FREE CHOICES IN HIS LIFE, NO BILL SHALL SUBVERT OR CIRCUMVENT SAID RECOGNITION

18. NO RESOLUTION WILL BE CONSIDERED THAT DOES NOT EXPAND FREEDOMS OF THE INDIVIDUAL. ALL REQUESTS FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS OF ANY KIND WILL BE REJECTED. FREE MARKET SYSTEMS WILL SELF-CORRECT ISSUES OF PERSONAL NEED

Only Amendments which uphold and endorse freedom, limited government and personal responsibility will be considered for restructuring.

Ted Kennedy 'loved to hear and tell Chappaquiddick jokes'

2009-08-27T16:32:00.001-07:00

LISTEN FOR YOURSELF

AND WHO ARE THE SWILL CALLING FOR "RESTRAINT" WITH REGARD TO CRITICISM OF KENNEDY?

A MAN MAKING JOKES ABOUT A WOMAN'S DEATH HE CAUSED AND PEOPLE WANT TO PULL OUT THEIR SOAPBOX OF SANCTIMONIOUS RIGHTEOUSNESS!

KENNEDY - KLASSY WITH A K!

H.R. 3200 MARKED UP & ANNOTATIONS FOR REVIEW

2009-08-26T08:30:00.004-07:00

Please take personal responsibility for informing yourself of what is in this bill.

There have been notes handed out but I've not seen a version this annotated with explanations regarding H.R. 3200.

WRONGREFORM FINAL PDF

Came from this blog of professionals:

SMALL BUSINESS INSURANCE SERVICES

and this guy:

WRONG REFORM.COM

ON THE ISSUES: RELIGION AND AMERICA – FREEDOM OR CONTROL?

2009-08-24T14:31:00.003-07:00

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Wiktionary.org

belief system (plural belief systems)

1. The basis on which beliefs are based. For example a religious belief system is based on faith and dogma whereas a scientific belief system is based on observation and reason.

Now, before you start feeling defensive, let’s just have a chat about this – this post isn’t about changing your belief system, but to endorse it.

This author clearly does not hold belief systems. Over time, observation has lead to a decision for self. Many in my family, my parents included, have decided their faith outside of personal observation. Each decides for self.

What this author does uphold is your natural right to hold your belief system without debate. Belief systems are personal and subjective to the individual, so how could another individual deem it accurate or not? They can’t and there’s no reason to do so.

Subjective: opinion
Objective: fact

If you uphold freedom of the individual, isn’t it antithetical to freedom to want to suggest that the nation follow any one particular religious dogma or ideal?

Isn’t freedom in the idea of the individual getting to make the choice free of pressure?

If we say rights are self-evident, then isn't it a right to not have a belief system?

If you call the word Creator your deity, can't someone else call Creator their parents, perhaps? There isn't just one definition of Creator and if we uphold individiual freedom to decide, then isn't control when we tell people that Creator can only mean a deity?

Republicans are masters at self-correction.

And if this party wants to advance, isn’t it time to re-evaluate?

It’s not about trying to stop religion; trying to end personal worship; stop you from having your personal values or morals; or forcing your children to not believe –not at all – that wouldn’t be freedom now, would it?

It’s about asking you: Freedom or Control – which side are you on?

If you uphold freedom over control, then isn’t it upholding voluntary contract in our society by allowing individuals to decide for self, irrespective of your desires to have your personal belief system?

If you uphold freedom over control, doesn’t it create pluralistic acceptance rather than religious dominance to say to any American: each can decide for self?

Isn’t the hypocrisy, when railing at the opposition about attempts to control our lives, just a bit misplaced when this subject makes the same attempt?

I happen to like the idea of Santa Claus, frankly. I don’t care who believes it or not, I just enjoy it. I don’t, however, feel the need to claim the nation as a Kringle Nation or any other label because; well…I don’t own the nation. Society doesn’t exist for me or you, it exists for everyone. I want to see acceptance of all religions and belief systems without prejudice.

It would advance our society and the party if this subject became less a demand and more of an invitation to those who seek it and nothing else but appreciation by those who don’t.

If religion is mandated, I can only be indoctrinated into the religion: Freedom.

If a dogma is demanded, I can only endorse from: The Constitution

Both of these words and ideas have no religious endorsement, but engender the freedom to have your belief system irrespective of your neighbor.

I can’t tell the opposition that they’re trying to control my life by not allowing freedom of the market in health care, then turn around and lobby for special treatment for a particular cause, unless that cause: is more freedom!

I need to put my money where my mouth is and engage the free market into solutions. If there is enough desire for a particular cause, then it will happen where voluntary consent of individuals to participate reigns. If not, then I’m a group of one, but I’ve not obligated the society to my cause through some sort of legislation which would force everyone to take up the cause.

Control is about not giving people a choice. Manipulation is about limiting information. Doesn’t the idea of giving choice – whether we agree with the choice or not – and providing all the information – whether we agree with the information or not – really and truly sending the strongest statement of freedom we can make and extend to one another?

Isn’t the entire idea of a free market and free choice about being able to do just that: make a free choice?

Self-correction is a mighty powerful thing – this party has the ability & foresight, I guess the question is: Freedom or Control, which side is the party on?

HEALTH CARE RALLY IN ARIZONA - CONGRESSMAN HARRY MITCHELL (D) 08/22/09

2009-08-22T22:36:00.001-07:00

OBAMA: YOUR SCAM IS A SHAM & WE’RE ON TO YOUR GAME!

2009-08-22T07:45:00.003-07:00

Obama wants to appear like Santa Claus to everyone and he wants you to pay for it. His sinister intent is to steal from you the privilege of being able to extend your personal generosity to others, and instead make himself out to be the benevolent hero for “taking care of others”.

His attempt to claim ownership of generosity at your expense is manipulation, pure & simple.

Think of it this way: You and Obama are walking down the street, he turns to you and says, “Hey, can I get $100 from you?” to which you generously oblige. He then walks over and hands it to a homeless person. The homeless person looks at Obama and thinks he is the King; he is the Santa Claus; he is THE MAN!

And who generously gave that money to begin with?

YOU!

Obama wants to be the Oprah of the White House and wants you to pay for it!

Americans and humans the world over, when their circumstance is good, enjoy the feeling of generosity toward their fellow man; they will even give when times are not good & to give is a struggle for themselves. Many, who earn large sums of money and those who have little money, find great reward intrinsically when they have the opportunity to support others.

Obama wants to rob you of this privilege. He wants to take the tremendous feeling you get from gifting others and make himself seem like he is the grand benefactor to all.

When Americans have found themselves in times of trouble, other Americans are second to none in generosity. How many stories do you recall on television when someone needed a liver transplant, someone was in an accident, someone was born with a deformity, some little girl wanted to go to Disneyworld and her lemonade stand was shut down – and Americans were called to arms, went into motion to finds ways to extend their generosity and make things happen.

Americans, to their credit, have always been of this nature; to their chagrin at times because some people are sinister enough to take advantage of this goodwill.

But when we see that your scam is a sham, we’re on to your game and the jig is up!

Obama wants to obligate Americans, ALL Americans, even those who cannot afford such generosity, to pay for the welfare of others and take away this feeling you get of Patriotism when you can help your fellow American.

Obama wants to direct to himself all the benefits of those who would reach out to you to thank you; the ones who find themselves emotionally overwhelmed at our ability to extend a hand and give to one another – voluntarily – in order that others may find solace in their moments of challenge. He wants to co-op the embrace from your fellow man, meant for you, from the generosity you extend.

WE ARE AMERICANS! We are self-reliant and self-governing individuals. We take care of ourselves and take care of each other.

We observe those in our society who are incapable and those who are unproductive – we know the difference!

We do not want to fund the consequence free life-style of those who are unwilling to take responsibility for their lives and be accountable to their choices.

LET EACH CARE FOR SELF AND ALL WILL BE CARED FOR!

ON THE ISSUES: FREEDOM OR CONTROL, WHICH SIDE ARE YOU ON?

2009-08-21T04:55:00.016-07:00

Every choice in life that you make is predicated on either creating more freedom in your life or attempting to exercise control.

Think about it: if you don’t have a weight problem you eat freely, without too much concern because if you over-indulge you know you’ll get right back on track with your healthy habits. That’s freedom.

If you have a weight problem: you are constantly trying to control what you eat, what you think about it, how often you think about it, how much exercise you’re doing, because you’re trying to get on a track, any track that leads toward what? Freedom.

How about our history? Has the idea of freedom advanced society, industry, science, innovation, exploration, risk and creativity? Or has advancement been through control by dictating to you what you should think and how you should live your life?

The reality is that freedom advances opportunity toward self-reliance; it encourages growth of the individual. When the individual is self-reliant he does not need to look to others for support; for support from government.

In life, every choice you make moves you toward freedom or away from it.

Either you seek to expand your freedom by becoming more self-reliant and less dependent or you don’t. The byproduct of this self-interest is freedom and independence. The dependence of relying on others to support you, to take care of you, to make sure your needs are met, diminishes over time. A child is dependent, until the teen is able to support wants and the adult creates a life of desire.

Strangely, as this happens you also develop an intrinsic understanding of yourself: reliance – that you have the capacity and capability to manage, overcome, accomplish and meet challenges head on.

How do you know if you’re controlling? If you’re not giving a choice.

How do you know if you’re manipulating? If you’re limiting or withholding information.

You can’t live in freedom if you are so busy controlling others by not giving a choice or manipulating others by limiting information.

Every time we “should” others, we seek to control by influence rather than just offering choices and information, then letting them choose.

Why do people control? Because they don’t like other people’s choices and the potential outcomes – even if those outcomes have nothing to do with them!

It’s not freedom if you say, “I’m for free choice as long as it’s the choice I would make or that I agree with”.

Not even close to freedom. In fact, it’s antithetical to freedom.

The great thing about someone else’s choices? You don’t have to stick around to see the outcome. You can walk away; turn off the radio; turn off the television, stop reading the paper; get off the internet, don’t go to that church, stay away from that restaurant.

Consider how government controls its people by limiting choice; consider how government manipulates its people by limiting or withholding information. The more you know, the more education you have about anything that affects your life, the more informed choice you can make toward self-reliance, thus greater freedom in your life. Yes, it’s circular; it expands freedom as it develops.

Every entitlement program is about control – of your money, of other people; it’s an extortion of the nation. Free markets work, why? Because people can make free choices. When don’t they work? When government tries to control or manipulate. More freedom – more choices. More government – less choices.

Why do people seek the power of control? It’s Irrelevant. Observation that they are doing it, exposing it and demanding transparency of actions will all too soon reveal the personal agenda of “why”.

It’s not about WHAT you should think; it’s about HOW you think.

Accountability means owning your choices. Responsibility means having the ability to respond to your choices. Consent means upholding voluntary contract between you and the individual involved, that both agree on the exchange.

The byproduct is integrity – you’re never making choices at a cost to others without their consent.

You’re upholding freedom and letting go of control.

Freedom or control?

Which side are you on?

GREG WIRTH & RUSH LIMBAUGH VS. OBAMA

2009-08-20T21:23:00.001-07:00

GREG ON RUSH REGARDING HEALTH CARE

2009-08-20T11:38:00.002-07:00

AZGOP HEALTH CARE RALLY WITH KFYI - INTERVIEW EXCERPT

2009-08-18T10:36:00.002-07:00

HEALTH CARE RALLY WITH KFYI IN ARIZONA

2009-08-17T21:56:00.001-07:00

OBAMA HEALTHSCARE PROTEST IN PHOENIX, ARIZONA 2009

2009-08-17T14:39:00.002-07:00

ON THE ISSUES: WHAT UNITES US!

2009-08-14T08:45:00.002-07:00

For eons political parties are at odds with one another, each having their own set of rules, morals, values and precepts to follow, each wanting their vision of the world imposed and yet, one thing unites us all: FREEDOM

Sure, we can talk about social issues, we can debate all day long who was here first, who’s religion is more dominate, who corners the market on morals and morals denigrated, which party espouses values then spits in the face of ‘em, but at the end of the day the debates are fueled by: FREEDOM

The freedom of speech; the freedom of religion; the freedom of assembly; the freedom of the press; the freedom of contract; the FREEDOM OF CHOICE.

FREEDOM OF CHOICE CAN’T JUST BE THE CHOICE YOU AGREE WITH.

If we are to develop society toward personal responsibility, then this understanding must be assimilated at some point in our development. We can all vehemently disagree on how to solve issues; how infrastructure ought to be managed; how to look out for our kids; how to look out for our grandparents; how to look out for our society.

However, at the end of the day if we don’t all AGREE ON FREEDOM & FREE CHOICE FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL WHETHER WE AGREE WITH ANOTHER’S CHOICE OR NOT, we stand to divide ourselves as a nation for centuries to come, to our own peril. Freedom or Control – which side are you on?

Democrats hate free markets because of the outcomes, it leaves people who have little motivation toward productivity, out in the cold – this is a natural consequence. Republicans and Independents love free markets because of the outcomes – it leaves success in the hands of the productive in our society – this is a natural consequence.

Social issues have natural consequences. Free markets can actually solve these social issues. Get government out of our lives and allow innovation, creativity, education and solution oriented ideas to pour forth toward resolutions. Asking government to uphold your ideals over another’s is doing the same thing that Democrats do – forced imposing of what appears to be free choice, but is really control.

You live in hypocrisy when you ask the government to define marriage but then turn around and want free markets to prevail when it comes to education. Essentially: “I want my choices favored & enforced by government, but not your choices.”

This is a losing strategy.

When security and liberty are obtained, all things are possible. We have that! We just need government out of the way so all other issues can be solved. Value is in the eye of the beholder: we cannot tell another human being what to value & where to place that value, lest we, not only create a target for our own back of said imposing, but abscond with the freedom of the individual toward personal choice in this life. Either you are for personal choice or not – you can’t be a little bit pregnant.

FREEDOM OF CHOICE CAN’T JUST BE THE CHOICES YOU AGREE WITH – otherwise, it’s not freedom, it becomes your version of imposing on the world.

If Republicans and Independents want to pull the rug out from underneath the opposition there is only one way: get out of the way.

Let creative minds come up with free market solutions to abortion, marriage, education, health care, immigration and the like. Utilize legislators to enact few laws by which these free market solutions are allowed to operate. Get off the soapbox of sanctimony which makes Republicans and Independents the target from the opposition. Freedom can never be argued with except to reveal the controlling nature of the opposition – this brings enlightenment.

When you’re enemy is relieved of their weapons by which to attack you, then you stand on solid ground for advancement. Who is going to stand up in a free society and say, “I don’t want you to have freedom”? If they do, then let that be what is spotlighted: thank you for revealing yourself! Not the whining of morality, values or offensive remarks, the fact that the individual doesn’t want FREEDOM and wants to take YOUR freedom away! That’s a helluva powerful message to reveal about someone.

Republicans and Independents can stand for two things: Limited Government & Personal Responsibility.

We can support the development of personal responsibility by teaching everyone the art of owning your choices, having the ability to respond to your choices, and upholding our Constitutional Rights of contract by not making choices without the consent of the other individual with whom you are interacting. You gotta want it – you gotta want it more than anything else because it advances freedom. It can be a challenge to admit you’ve made choices that sought to control or manipulate others, but meet this challenge you must if you’re going to advance freedom. Clean it up; clear it up and move on. All life is trial & error, if you’re not self-flogging you can get more done.

Get your power and control needs met somewhere else, not in the public arena of freedom, free markets and free choice. Play out your version of Hitler somewhere else.

Limiting choice is control and manipulation for your own personal self-interest. An accurate choice for an individual comes from comprehension of ALL information relating to a particular concern, not limiting that information. Self- righteousness starts rearing its ugly face when provisional information is given by which to control an outcome because of personal self-interest. That’s not freedom; that is control; that is what Democrats want and do 95% of the time.

If Democrats really want to put their money where their mouths are, then let them set up societal charities where the unproductive can go get money, food, abortion allocations, welfare, healthcare and not off the backs of Americans who don’t want to pay for such. Let the rest of us set up systems of support whereby accountability is the foundation of such because it advances one’s development.

The greatest gift an American can give to another American, isn’t charity, it’s a job by which to create self-reliance; self-governance.

Let your actions toward free markets allowing for free choice reveal the nature of Democrats rather than beating Americans over the head with the obvious: Liberals are anything but liberal – they are about control, manipulation and re-distribution of your hard earned wealth.

I GUARANTEE you WIN every argument when you speak ONLY to FREEDOM, take the rest of it out and point toward that which is controlling of the opposition.

Anyone that wants to test this hypothesis to theory, feel free to comment here or email me iconicfreedom@live.com and we’ll go to the mat in order to create the warriors needed in this nation for sustaining and advancing freedom!

Let’s get this done! NOW, is the time! THIS is the moment!

LETTER TO THE SOCIALIST REPRESENTATIVE, BARACK OBAMA

2009-08-12T17:42:00.000-07:00

To the Socialist Representative, Barack Obama:

After just a mere 6 months, what many of us knew about you has revealed itself. You clearly understand nothing regarding capitalism and the free markets. If you did, then you destroy it purposefully. You have distaste for the outcomes of the free market because you think people are victims; broken and disadvantaged in America.

To the contrary – Americans see themselves, for the most part, as self-reliant, self-governing folks who love individual freedom and free choice. These Americans understand that the more freedom they extend to others, the more freedom they themselves get to enjoy.

You have used your race to attempt to silence others, advance your political goals and appear like a victim.

Your elitist, self-congratulatory, sanctimonious arrogance speaks volumes.

Any delving into your history shows you are anything but a victim. Of course, your history is sketchy, too, since so much of your legal records are sealed for whatever mystical purposes only you know and, of course, all the other political hacks who signed onto your “misrepresentations”. Honestly? Everyone is endorsing you from a website verification? Whatever, I digress.

I guess it would take a Constitutional lawyer to understand fully how to destroy our Constitution from within.

Responsibility & transparency? Clearly you have neither within you. Responsibility is the ability to respond. You don’t hold some of your own “swooners” to such a criteria of ownership, instead you attempt to enable their dependence – likely so you can control more of their lives over time.

Transparency is as foreign to you as the country you were likely born in. To be transparent means you have to own your choices and be honest, once again, a quality that eludes you.

Too often you have to utilize a teleprompter – this merely reveals your inability to have assimilated freedom here in America. Any American can speak about freedom, free markets, the Constitution, and easily so with no such prompting. Why, you ask? Unlike you, for us Americans, it actually lives within us.

You continue to reveal your inability to uphold the voluntary nature of contracts but instead seek to control & manipulate the American people in your thugsish ways. I would say your Chicago Style Ways, but I happen to like Chicago and wouldn’t insult its citizens.

In 2010 the American people will continue to speak out – in case you didn’t know it, you work for us – ALL OF US, not just the ones who happen to agree with you. It might do you well to remember that fact before you go popping off about us all shutting up.

With diligence, barring your corrupt ways, the American people will have you bounced from office by 2012 after having bounced those corrupt treasonous trogs who occupy the Congress & Senate right now.

In the meantime, try not to screw up America too much more than you already have. We’ve had to clean up the mess before; Americans are amazing and can do so again, we just rather not have to spend the next four decades doing so.

By the way, leave everything the way you found it – there are greater people than you that can support America towards its own self-correction.

Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Signed,
An American Citizen
Who wants his freedom & his nation back in the hands of those who support freedom!

WE ARE NOT UN-AMERICAN!

2009-08-10T10:48:00.006-07:00

FREEDOM OF CHOICE ISN'T JUST ABOUT THE OPTIONS YOU AGREE WITH MR. OBAMA!

WE ARE NOT UN-AMERICAN! OUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS MORE AMERICAN THAN PEOLOSI, REID AND ALL OTHERS WHO DENIGRATE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO DISSENT!

AMERICANS STANDING UP FOR FREEDOM AT THE HANNITY CONCERT 2009 IN PHOENIX, ARIZONA!

OBAMA CARE IS TO JUST DIE FOR!

2009-08-09T12:55:00.004-07:00

Obama Joker Poster! Socialism!

Poster board: $3.00
Printing job: $9.00
Lab coat: $10.00
Obamacare: No dollars!
Choices: Endless
Freedom: Priceless

You’ve got questions?

Dems & The President have no answers...

...for everything else, there’s America!

HEALTHCARE IS NOT A RIGHT!

2009-08-08T23:22:00.003-07:00

This was the rally at Harry Mitchell's offices on Saturday, August 8, 2009. More than 500 people showed up to protest the government take over of our healthcare system.

ON THE ISSUES: FREEDOM OF RELIGION, HEALTHCARE AND EVERYTHING ELSE!

2009-08-04T11:57:00.002-07:00

Recently on FoxNews, Huckabee spoke in one segment with John Stossel about freedom and free choice when it comes to healthcare and a variety of issues, Huck even turns to the camera to dramatically emphasize its importance.

In the very next segment Huck’s making the case regarding the United States as a Christian nation, attempting to credential it by stating that the “intentions” of the founders are to be upheld rather than what was actually written in our Constitution.

We call this hypocrisy. standing for one thing while doing another.

Question: how is it that the great founders of this nation got it, Huck, but you can’t seem to? That irrespective of their belief systems, we needed to be objective in such matters so that each can decide for self? Does this not support the very freedom and free choice that Stossel spoke about in the previous segment?

Freedom of choice cannot just be about the options you happen to agree with; just as free speech cannot just be about the speech you want to hear.

Let’s conduct a thought experiment. Let’s give in to the idea that we’ll unanimously call ourselves a Christian nation, but with these caveats: gay marriage will be enacted and abortion will remain unchallenged.

Here is the question to ask yourself: are you willing to endorse it?

If you’re not willing to do so, is it because what you really want is policy enacted based on your religious beliefs?

It really has nothing to do with just being recognized or called a Christian nation, it’s about much more than just that – it’s about controlling others with your ideological belief systems?

Existence is a belief system, which is inherently subjective: meaning – opinion. No American upholding freedom would infringe on your freedom of thought or opinion.

The very nature of bigotry, though, is one group telling its people that all the other groups are not valid; devalued in their belief systems; yours is the only true belief system.

Are you seeking religious dominance or pluralistic acceptance? One is control, the other freedom.

Branding something is antithetical to freedom.

If you’ve branded something, then it has no potential growth. You’ve eliminated the probability of change; no revision or progressing toward something greater or more useful, more appropriate for the time, more convenient, more efficient.

Thank goodness Edison didn’t think that about the word “light”.

Suppose that a cola company creates a product that becomes competitive with Coke. The fact is that our founders drank Coke, so this new cola really has no value and we’ll even go so far as to disdain or devalue those who don’t drink Coke and especially those who drink no cola beverages at all.

Any other drink that looks similar will not be considered, it has to be Coke – even if it’s a product that another company makes and wants to call Pepsi, Dr. Pepper, Tab, RC Cola, Diet Rite – doesn’t matter.

Since Coke was first and some of the founders enjoyed this beverage – they got to decide how the rest of the nation is going to be affected by such choices; doesn’t matter if you like Coke or not. Even if some of the founders decided later to stop drinking Coke or drank 7-up instead, it won’t matter because Coke was the first and we must uphold that tradition.

Now, if tradition is your platform, why don’t you repeal slavery and women’s suffrage – these were traditions of our founders. Why cherry pick which traditions; isn’t cherry picking, itself, subjective?

Look, limiting choice is nothing more than manipulation and control of others. With the exception of your own, no life is for you to decide.

Just like the Coke story, religion and Christianity have come to be the foundations for attempting to control others with subjective morals and values; subjective ingredients.

The problem is that you are not living in freedom by controlling others. In fact, you’re actually opposing freedom since the very nature of religion is that you’re accountable to something or someone outside yourself.

Why can’t I be accountable to myself? “You can’t be trusted to make the right decisions!” What political party does that sound like?

If your belief system demands that you believe yourself defective from birth, that’s fine. Or that self-accountability is anarchy in your mind, that’s fine, too. No American who upholds freedom would stop you. But, what is your motivation for insisting everyone else hold such beliefs?

“Anarchy in the streets” is a scare tactic to do what? Control your choices away from self-reliance.

It’s as if you’re too stupid to figure out how NOT to infringe on the freedoms of your fellow man.

It’s as if you’re NOT to be trusted with figuring out how to make personal decisions for yourself toward your own self-interest whereby you create self-governance, self-reliance and self-wealth.

Let’s face it, you just don’t get it and need someone else to decide for you.

Once again, if you want that life, no American who upholds freedom would stop you, but what is your motivation for insisting that everyone follow you down that path? Is this some shared suffering in your mind? “If I have to be in bondage to this belief system, so do you!” mentality?

Again, what political party does this sound like? Aren’t these the same arguments about healthcare?

If you hold the same ideological "belief-control systems" like the opposition, you’ll never advance freedom in the political arena. Better to hold your belief systems in private for yourself & family, and then speak only of limited government and personal responsibility with regard to elections, our representatives and policies.

Look at reality over the centuries: Freedom keeps advancing, not controls.

Develop Personal Responsibility through accountability, which means you own each choice you make in life; responsibility means you have the ability to respond to each choice you make in life; consent means making each choice certain that the choice is not at the cost of another human being without his consent – voluntary contract; the byproduct is every virtue you could possible muster in your mind.

ON THE ISSUES: CAPITALISM

2009-07-26T07:33:00.005-07:00

I posted the other day on twitter a simple challenge: I can define capitalism in two words, can you?

I didn’t have any takers.

Certainly I am a guy who will take hold of a subject and keep cleaning it up until I have what is the simplest of terms by which to express it – I understand we live in the sound-bite citizen – bumper sticker mentality. Moreover, I know it’s more efficient.

Defined in 2 words
Capitalism: voluntary contract

Defined in 1 word
Capitalism: consent

The reason capitalism works is because it’s voluntary.

I decide with my dollars where they will work most efficiently for my life and the seller to whom I turn over those dollars offers a product or service I want – one exchange for the other. The more choices I have of similar products or services, the less the price since the sellers are competing for my dollars.

What happens when our government attempts to control this process by limiting the number of sellers or controlling the price they can sell their products or services? In a word: manipulation.

Can anyone say – Obama Healthcare?

Whenever anyone is limiting your choices they are manipulating by controlling.

The question: why?

The question reveals the inherent nature of the government’s agenda and that’s all that is needed.

The government is limiting your freedom and freedom of choice. This is antithetical to our founding and why we are leaders in the world.

We should demand of those who seek office to define for the crowds what capitalism is, this will reveal two things and two things only:

1) Either you don’t inherently understand one of the greatest bearers of freedom and how Americans can prosper, eliminate poverty and elevate our way of life

2) Or you purposefully and willfully ignore it for personal agenda by which you seek to control & manipulate the people toward creating poverty toward dominance

Neither of these scenarios bodes well for the politician.

When you create poverty you are able to control others because they are no longer self-reliant or self-governing, they are dependent upon government for everything. Dependence is dominance.

Apply this idea to every social issue that affects our nation and you quickly see how government is seeking dictatorship rather than freedom.

Control is the implicit message: "you're too stupid to be trusted with this decision."

ICONIC FREEDOM speaks of Consent as one of the cornerstones of development of personal responsibility. Without consent we force others into subjugation, manipulation and control. Our society can easily and quite quickly move to personal responsibility if government were out of the way.

The premise is simple:

Accountability – own each and every choice you make in this life

Responsibility – have the ability to respond to each and every choice you make in this life

Consent – don’t make a choice that is at the cost of another human being who did not consent (voluntary contract)

The byproduct is integrity.

ON THE ISSUES: FREEDOM OR RIGHT?

2009-07-19T07:20:00.006-07:00

When we speak as Americans are we speaking about what is freedom or what is “right”?

Recently at the Gilbert, Arizona Tea Party I heard a woman standing next to me commenting, to no one in particular, as the speaker pontificated about being “right” for being present at the party, “I like being right!”

Indeed, I’m sure you do.

What happens when we pursue what is “right”? We pursue a personal agenda.

When we seek what is "right" for others, we seek to control others and their choices by stating that they are “wrong”, rather than pursuit of what is free choice to decide for self.

If that free choice is at no cost to another American unless he consents or contracts to such, it has no right or wrong implications except to the individuals involved.

When we limit choice, we seek to control – irrespective of any “do good” intentions of such behavior. The road to hell is paved replete with good intentions and unintended consequences.

We do not know for another human being how his life ought to be lived; only he can know that.

You insult others when you implicitly state, “you can’t be trusted to make these decisions for yourself, and therefore, I will decide what is right for you".

We each hold values and morals which are meaningful to us; some shared by others, some not shared by others. Freedom upholds the opportunity for each American, for each human being, to pursue personal values toward happiness of self. Again, so long as it is not at a cost to others without their consent – it’s what free market systems are all about – consent and contract.

Where does this pursuit of happiness go astray? When Americans attempt to make their “right” as a “right way to live” for everyone and demand subjugation or conversion to such “right” choices.

Be assured, some of your choices are just as distasteful to others as theirs' are to you.

If you seek to impose your “right way to live” legislatively or otherwise – that’s force; it’s not free choice any longer, it is manipulation for personal agenda and personal gain off the backs of others.

Do we uphold freedom when we persuade or when we force?

It’s not about being right, it’s about being free.

How much freedom are you willing to live in your own life? How much freedom are you willing to extend to others? Is the level of freedom you desire in your life directly proportional to the freedom you are extending to others?

We elevate ourselves toward being judgmental of others when we seek to impose what is “right” rather than what is freedom and free choice.

Some people like being controlled; it feeds their victimization of self. What kind of person are you who would engage, support and encourage such behavior. What does it say about you.

If elections are about winning in order to influence and increase levels of freedom, it’s easy to gather a mob of those who agree, it’s more telling if you’re able to persuade others to see the side of freedom.

The more freedom you live in your life, the more you are willing to extend to others. When you limit freedom in yourself, you will limit the freedoms of others.

Just because people agree or share your opinions does not credential those opinions toward law by which we control other people’s choices which have no cost to our own.

It’s not about being right, it’s about being free.

ON THE ISSUES: MORALITY

2009-07-12T09:21:00.007-07:00

In America, we uphold freedom of the individual to decide his life. Our charter in this Republic protects the mob from the individual to seek his pursuit of happiness without threat of those who have dissimilar viewpoints, choices, and sources of morality & values.

Value is in the eye of the beholder, so is morality.

Morals are subjective.

If you set a criterion for self & insist others be in abeyance to your criteria, then you seek to control others – you limit choice.

People don’t like the idea of individuals deciding their own morals because they lose the “moral high ground” argument by which to tell others how to live, what choices to make, what values to hold and sit in judgment on where someone else has “gone wrong”. You want to be “right”.

If you want to be “right” you’ve already abandon freedom for your personal agenda of imposing how you think everyone else should live. For what purpose do you need to be right?

If morals are only from within then affirmations outside you are not found and leave you floundering for approval.

From whom are you seeking this approval? For what purpose would you be seeking approval outside yourself? Reward? Recognition? Favor? Righteousness?

Seeking of the any of the above for your choices negates your altruistic action; you do it for other reasons not as a natural choice you would otherwise bestow upon your fellow man.

If you’re helping the poor, for example, to seek favor from your personal deity, then you do so off the backs of others – where’s integrity in that? Using other people to get ahead? Ouch!

The poor need guidance toward self-reliance not a temporary-feel-good-in-the-moment handout which lands them right back where they were. There are solutions for that problem with the grace & generosity of others, certainly.

All interest is self- interest. Even if your choice is to feel good about what you’re doing – that’s self-interest in feeling good. There is no interest that is not self-interest.

Further, is it in your mind that everyone has to agree with your morals & values? How does that uphold the freedom of individuals to decide their own life which may not look like your own? Where is the free market value system in that kind of dictatorship?

The solution? Get morality out of your life – it archaic, antediluvian and useless. Instead, develop personal responsibility where you own your choices (Accountability), you have the ability to respond to your choices (Responsibility) and make your choices at no cost to others without their consent (Contract).

From this comes integrity. True action of self toward the development of self not on the backs of others.

It also deflates political argument of what is or is not "moral" with regard to running government and society - it leaves it clean with the directive: "where is the upholding of individual freedom?"

We don't care about your morals & judgment of others, we care about how each will make his way in this life in total freedom of choice, not dictatorship.

THE AGE OF ENTITLEMENT

2009-07-04T18:20:00.003-07:00

On the heels of my previous article which spoke to the Age of Subjectivism, it becomes apparent as to why so many seem to want to force their subjective and personal view onto the world: Entitlement.

Oh yes, entitlements aren’t just defined as government wasting your money by taking away the hard earned dollars of one American and giving to another American who is contributing nothing. Harsh as that sounds, it’s reality. Entitlement also belongs to those who claim ownership of this nation by which to impose ideology onto others - both sides of the same coin seeking to control.

The government cannot give a job to someone or pay a salary without first having to take it from another American who did not consent to this choice – we call that force, manipulation and control.

What gets propagated from this action is the creation of people thinking they’re suddenly entitled to other people’s wealth…well, that and their diseased mentality of victimization.

Creating dependence creates the attitude of entitlement.

Ask yourself: “Why do I think I’m entitled to ANYTHING?”

Now ask yourself, “Who put such an idea into my head that I was entitled to anything other than my rights which are outlined in the Constitution?”

An individual who sees the self as a victim to other people’s choices will in turn look for comfort, safety and protection. The protection sought is a “right” in the mind of such an individual.

What of those who will not take up the gauntlet of life where independence, self-reliance and self-governance are mandated by the very nature of living and having been born unto this world. They often will see their choices as limited or no choice at all. They will see circumstances not of their making, victimizing them into deeper inabilities of making change. They will see their world as owing them for not taking care of their every need and having to live this life in burden.

Shared suffering - if I must live this suffrage, so, too, will you bear my burden.

Don’t confuse a difficult choice or undesired choice with no choice at all.

Life is about choices – the ones you make and the ones you don’t make.

The exaggerated vulnerability that an individual propagates within the mind is what creates victimization.

The lack of inaction toward self-reliance is what propagates victimization.

The lack of taking ownership of choice and the ability to respond to that choice is what creates victimization.

Once victimization takes hold of the individual, then entitlement: to be taken care of, rather than taking care of self, is what constructs the by-product manifestation: “I’m entitled”.

A lot of fancy dance for just being able to say: the lack of development in society toward teaching our citizens what it means to be accountable, responsible and living your life at no cost to others without their consent, is what drives the attitude of entitlement – what I call the Age of Entitlement.

LET EACH CARE FOR SELF AND ALL WILL BE CARED FOR.

THEY ENDEAVOR & FORGE YOUR FREEDOMS!

2009-07-04T06:29:00.000-07:00

WHAT IS THIS THING CALLED LOVE?

2009-06-25T07:14:00.004-07:00

Or in the case of Ensign, Sanford and others, what is this thing called lust?

Who cares about the tawdry details of one man’s tryst? Only those who seek to point toward the hypocrisy of such personal choice to utilize as a weapon.

The GOP has set the criteria long ago for the ridicule they endure and certainly see themselves suffering. They have stood upon the soapbox of sanctimony claiming to own righteousness and copywrite goodness, implying that others must live it in order to be worthy of anything – politics, money, freedom, liberty, et.al.

The reality is that they made a target for their own backs. Like liberals, they espoused personal subjective & selective choices and behaviors by which to impose morality then end up falling short of the goal.

If the GOP would simply concentrate on two things, much in the way of criticism, and the weapons of mass media/liberals, would disappear:

1) Limited government in the American’s life

2) Development of personal responsibility

“Gov. Sandford this affair you have smacks in the face of your values & morals you espouse to others…” blah, blah, blah

“This is a personal issue and a non-issue at that, as I will deal with my family & my personal responsibilities and choices made, frankly, it’s not the business of yours or anyone else. In the meantime, do you have questions about policy which seeks to encourage more freedom for Americans?”

Conversation over.

The focus must move from attempting to impose morality/values (which are subjective, selective and personal) to public policy ONLY and where the encouragement of personal freedom is sought more than any other ends or means.

Do this and the GOP creates a party of Teflon Platforms because they no longer are sitting in judgment lest they be judged. They continue to educate all Americans on development of personal responsibility. They continue to advocate for small government, free market capitalism, a strong military and little else.

You can’t make a target for yourself if you take away the weaponry by which your opponent is able to thrust toward you.

How does one advocate and develop personal responsibility?

Glad you asked.

1) Accountability: own your personal choices when made

2) Responsibility: have the ability to respond to your choices made

3) Consent: do not make a choice without the consent of others with whom the choice affects

The byproduct of such that gets created: integrity.

You will not assimilate or develop personal responsibility if you do not uphold personal freedom of every human being to decide his life. Further, you will not develop personal responsibility if you do not follow these precepts yourself.

If you want to continue your suffering & victimization, simply continue down the road of your ideology, which not everyone shares or is bound toward writ of application, and you will continue to make a target for yourself for others to dismantle.

DO YOU LIVE IN HYPOCRISY?

2009-06-14T05:46:00.002-07:00

You live in hypocrisy if you claim you want freedom and free choice but only for the choices you approve of

You live in hypocrisy if you claim you love free market systems then ask for subsidies

You live in hypocrisy if you claim judges are legislating from the bench but have no issue with decisions made for which you agree

You live in hypocrisy if you claim you endorse free speech but claim that regulations on television, et.al. is needed

You live in hypocrisy if you claim BO to provide evidence of jobs saved but will argue your god’s existence without evidence

You live in hypocrisy if you claim to believe in gorebal warming but can’t explain the scientific method

You live in hypocrisy if you claim you uphold life but have no issue with the killing of life you “deem appropriate”

You live in hypocrisy if you claim America as a Christian Nation but have issue with BO claiming we’re a Muslim nation

You live in hypocrisy when you push green marketing at work but burn fossil fuels like everyone else

You live in hypocrisy when you support universal health care but currently would not be caught dead in a county hospital

You live in hypocrisy when you claim to be liberal but act to control the behaviors of others

You live in hypocrisy when you vote to raise taxes to shelter the homeless but you do not donate all your expendable income to the homeless

You live in hypocrisy when you claim to be Christian but have no intention in following every word of the Bible

You live in hypocrisy when you rely upon religious freedom for yourself but push to enact laws based on your own flavor of religion

You live in hypocrisy when you denounce corporations and then go to Wal-Mart for the huge selection and inexpensive options

You live in hypocrisy when you smoke cigarettes and condemn others for being fat

You live in hypocrisy when you cry that homosexual marriage will ruin the integrity of marriage while you are having an affair or neglecting your family

You live in hypocrisy when you claim to be a Christian but have not even read the Bible

You live in hypocrisy when you benefit from inventions and scientific discoveries based on the applications of natural selection while denouncing evolution

You live in hypocrisy when you say you love the US Constitution but you are opposed to gun rights

You live in hypocrisy when you say you love religious freedom but claim the US is a Christian nation founded on Christian principles

You live in hypocrisy when you complain about the national debt when you have no savings and have personal debt

You live in hypocrisy when you complain but do not vote

You live in hypocrisy when you say you love freedom and democracy but see no responsibility to help others obtain them

You live in hypocrisy when you claim your religious beliefs are not subjective when you have no evidence to the contrary

You live in hypocrisy when you fear we are destroying our planet but continue to have more than two children

You live in hypocrisy when you complain about welfare but would seek government assistance in the form of student aid and tax deductions once the opportunity arises

You live in hypocrisy when you denounce the enforcement of our laws against hiring illegal immigrants as a humanitarian principle yet patronize those establishments that pay those immigrants’ substandard wages

You live in hypocrisy when you claim to love liberty but tax goods like alcohol and cigarettes based on your desire to control the behaviors of others

You live in hypocrisy when you say the government is "We the people" yet you look to the government to take care of you and solve your problems

You live in hypocrisy when you claim to believe but don't know empirically why

You live in hypocrisy when you denounce laws that target a segment of our population unless they do not affect you personally

You live in hypocrisy when you oppose laws that benefit a segment of our population unless they benefit you personally

You live in hypocrisy when you claim all men are created equal yet deny them rights to marry

You live in hypocrisy when you say you are not a hypocrite

You live in hypocrisy when you tout the need to reduce carbon footprints then catch a flight to attend a global warming conference conducted across the world

You live in hypocrisy when you say you search for truth but ignore evidence

The lack of development toward personal responsibility is what creates hypocrisy in our society. Develop this within yourself and hypocrisy disappears. Own your choices. Have the ability to respond to your choices. Make your choices at no cost to another without his consent.

The byproduct of this development is integrity. Hypocrisy lacks integrity, do you live in hypocrisy?

*shout out to friends Dan & Mike for their contributions*

ALL LIFE IS EQUAL

2009-06-01T08:30:00.003-07:00

While the news of Dr. Tiller may come as a welcome action for those who wish to end abortion, it does nothing to further this cause.

All life is equal across the board.

How did you personally derive the value you place on a life – any life?

The derivation, source if you will, that you pulled such “value” from is subjective – personal emotional opinion. No doubt that Americans uphold individual freedom to make such personal choice and place such individual value.

Having regard for reality, one must then own where life itself is being taken on a moment – to – moment basis in our world. We take the animal life and plant life for sustenance. We take the intruder’s life or jihad’s life because of safety. We take the animal life because of sport.

We take life every day, every moment of every day.

You say certain life is innocent? And how did you reach that conclusion? The same personal subjective opinion.

Who put it into your head that human life was elevated above any other life?

What is the self-interest of those that would tell you that human life is elevated?

If this is your rationale, would you not think that elephants then think themselves elevated – they’re bigger than you, can squash you in a moment’s notice, care not for your existence.

What are the implications of you as an individual when you subjugate others? Think that you are superior? Do you think this because you can speak? Our language is merely what we’ve developed over time as a means to communication; other animals have developed their own way of communicating through sounds and actions.

Do you think that animals know that you’re a human? That when you speak, your words mean anything? Consider that the sounds we make are merely sounds to animals and nothing more. Consider that your energy & emotion behind those sounds is what another animal is experiencing because it’s energy. Emotion is energy in motion – from one thing to another, be that person, animal, plant, etc.

Don't believe it? The next time you're playing with your dog, smile, laugh and say words about how silly or dumb the dog is and watch it continue to play with you as though you're not saying anything negative. When you're angry, how does the dog know? Your words or your energy?

REALITY:

Taking life is taking life. You can make all the rationalizations you want. You can create for yourself all the justifications you desire. At the end of the day though the objective observation – data only – is that the life is taken by the life that took it.

Respect for life continues to develop in our society. We’ve come a long way from times where we killed people simply for having a difference of opinion. Wait, nope, that’s right, killing the doctor was a difference of opinion. Jihad killing Americans was a difference of opinion.

When we each develop personal responsibility and regard for reality, whether we like the reality or not, our nation & world will advance to stages where the taking of life is respected more for the mere fact that it was life. We will also seek to limit that which we take of life and that which we waste when we take certain life.

Everyone is predator and everyone is prey. The reality of life is – who gets to whom first.

SELF-IDENTIFICATION AS CREDENTIAL

2009-05-26T14:26:00.006-07:00

Any individual who utilizes their background by which to seek credential are doing self and those they attempt to represent, a huge disservice and here’s why:

If you claim yourself as a “Latino” in order to create exclusivity by which to engender a credential of qualification, you then set yourself up for the representation of said label. In doing so you create the illusion that you are the best representation for your special interest, a leader by their definition and will now be accountable for the outcomes.

Sotomayor, like Obama before her, is being touted as the “first Latino...” you fill in the rest. In representing her “constituency”, what of her integrity, choices made along the way, actions, words & deeds become attributed to her and the group she represents? ALL of them.

Creating a credential of self-identification by which to influence is utilized for manipulation purposes only. The creation of “I’m like you” policy sets up any situation for attribution of failure or success to the entire group. When we identify as Americans we are representing Americans. In our trials & errors in life we are accountable (own our choices) and must be response-able to those choices.

United we stand.

So, too, when such credential is sought & extolled, will those who use their “background” as such for influence in our society; united they fall. If Obama works in error to the destruction of our nation in any capacity, he will bear on his back the entire Black community because he AND the community utilized his race as a credential for election.

You can’t say the election is historic if you are not pointing to that which makes it historic: his race.

Otherwise, the election would be nothing more than ordinary; nothing unusual, nothing to focus on except the policies that someone seeks office to represent.

And yes, voting for someone BECAUSE of their race is racism, not just voting against him.

In seeking policy to represent ALL Americans you will find that fewer & fewer policies actually need creating because too much is subjective in any one American’s life. What does this mean?

It means that only a handful of policies need endorsement by the entire American population lest they be special interests seeking favor to the exclusion of other Americans or entitlement by which it is at a cost to others without their consent.

Both the Latino community and the Black community are setting themselves up to victimize themselves by aligning & endorsing such identity as if it’s a reason to nominate, vote for or otherwise endorse someone for any office.

The individual must stand on their own, irrespective of any “special interest” toward the representation of all Americans. Speak to the issues which affect all Americans. Uphold the law which affects all Americans.

Extracting yourself for identification purposes toward manipulation of the electorate in any capacity, shows the inability to make the case for all Americans to support you. It emphasizes the desire for special privilege, entitlement and treatment.

Entitlements are sought by those who cannot otherwise compete in a free market individual-value-placed, society. Equality is opportunity, not entitlement. Equality is not synonymous with ability. You either have the ability to lead or you do not. Your race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, and yes, even your political party is irrelevant.

If a politician in a party finds him or herself in political hot water, it is the entire party that is affected, why? Because he or she set it up that way by stating they represented EVERYONE in that party.

Known by the company you keep, is a street that goes in both directions.

THANK OUR MILITARY FOR YOUR FREEDOM

2009-05-23T13:04:00.003-07:00

Shout out to former USMC Kirk Abraham, for the link. Follow him on twitter & visit his website

The Easteam Blog

Twitter

FREEDOM OF RELIGION

2009-05-15T18:26:00.003-07:00

FREEDOM OF RELIGION

While there are many in this nation who wish to self-identity the nation as Christian, they do so to the negation of all other religions which existed at the time. To continue to make the claim now negates all the newer religions developed since then. Additionally, it misrepresents the nation, which is inherently pluralistic, & seeks ownership in addition to disenfranchising others.

Why would people want to claim ownership of something except with the intention of wanting to impose their rules? When you were growing up, didn’t you hear your parents say, “As long as you’re living in my house you’re going to live by my rules”.

Is that not what those who claim this nation as a Christian nation are saying, “As long as you’re living in my nation, you’re going to live by my rules”?

Further, what of those people who hold no religion, where is there representation? What of those who are Protestant, Muslim, Mormon?

Freedom of religion is freedom from religion.

While you think yourself an individual who upholds freedom, regard for reality exposes the fact that you only uphold freedom & free choice as long as the free choice is the one you would make.

Talking about your religion in public is like talking about your sex life – it’s none of anybody’s business. It’s personal. It’s subjective. It belongs to you. Politicians have no business disenfranchising Americans simply because they don’t “believe” as the politician does.

Ask yourself a couple of questions:

Do I think that people can only be good if they are religious?

Do I think that religious people have a copy write on being a good person?

If religion didn’t exist would I still be a good person?

If you answer “no” to that last question, then you’re no better than the criminals who would seek to infringe on the freedoms of others having made choices at a cost to others without consent.

No doubt that any American who upholds freedom would infringe on your freedom to believe. However, it’s interesting that you would have no issue imposing your religious views onto others to the extent of limiting their freedom.

Either you are a good person because that’s who you are, or you are not. There is no bible or god who will make you that way.

You can’t buy good relations, you can only be good relations.

Accountability (ownership of your choices), Responsibility (the ability to respond to your choices), Consent (make no choice in life that is without the consent of another or at a cost to another without consent)

The by-product of this assimilation is that you become the “good” person you desire to be through respect of humanity, respect for individual freedom & free choice, respect for others who don’t think, act or behave like you do.

People who say they only behave because of their bible, are potential sociopaths who would, without such dictatorial guidance, otherwise commit crime upon their fellow American.

IF RELIGION DIDN’T EXIST WOULD YOU STILL BE & STRIVE TO BE A GOOD PERSON?

THE AGE OF SUBJECTIVISM

2009-04-20T09:07:00.002-07:00

We are living in the age of subjectivism.

What is subjective, the emotional opinions of the individual observation.

What is objective, the facts and data of observation.

Our world continues to increase the idea that each individual’s emotional opinion bears any weight when it comes to the policy making of our nation. It is the very disease of this idea that continues to corrode our nation with the inability to develop.

What is disease? The lack of freedom.

Health = Freedom, the more you have of one the more you have of the other.

Recently a friend read my book and upon completion said that he didn’t think it had any emotion in it – my exact intent. Why, because when deciding freedoms for others we need to be objective. We cannot allow the freedoms of another individual to be taken away because we have an emotional opinion about their personal choices in life.

If the choices of another are at no cost to us without our consent, then why limit that individual’s freedom?

The contradiction of claiming your personal subjective opinion as reason enough to take away another’s freedom is itself against freedom. Any free human being wanting to decide for self the direction of his life must have all freedoms allowed to do so.

Living in the age of Subjectivism is to subjugate one person’s opinions over another’s. Demanding your government to participate in this illegal action reveals the nature of the individual who, from deep within, truly does not assimilate freedom but the desire and compelling nature to control others for personal self-interest.

No politician is ever working for the people – every politician is working in personal self-interest every moment of every day. To the extent a politician would say he or she wants something for his constituency, it is only because he or she seeks something as a reward in one form or another, typically on the backs of others.

The question each American should ask: “What is that personal self-interest?”

If it is not bringing about more freedom and free choice for the individual, then no matter the rationalization, good intention or attempted good deed, that politician seeks to control and manipulate; to create a cost to others without their consent.

Enjoy Subjectivism in your personal life – knock yourself out. Leave objective facts & data for the public square so that much can be accomplished without subjugation of others and their freedoms for personal self-interest.

MESSAGE TO AMERICANS - IT'S NOT OKAY TO NOT BELIEVE

2009-04-14T18:44:00.002-07:00

Many in our nation self-identify the nation as a Christian nation, but which Christian nation? Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Fundamental, Liberal? What of those who are not Christian but Jewish or Buddhist?

“We are a God-fearing nation.” Really? Which God? Yahweh, Spirit Earth, Manitou?

“We are a Bible-based nation.” Really? Which part of the Bible, Old Testament, New Testament, or both? What of those with reliance upon other scriptural text such as the Book of Mormon?

If it's not okay to not believe, then all those who don't believe in a god are disenfranchised and not represented in America?

Are the religious then stating we are a religious nation, much like other religious nations where you have to believe?

Are the religious then stating that anyone who is not a believer is merely being "allowed" and "tolerated" to exist in this society that would otherwise rather not have them here?

The implication is that you're not okay if you're not a believer.

Yet, I would hold my accountability and responsibility up to any person who makes a claim of believing that my actions are steeped in greater freedom than their own.

That my conscious choices are more genuine than their own as I make my choices out of responsibility & accountability - I seek no reward from a source outside myself.

I make each choice at no cost to others without their consent.

Further, if each choice made is at no cost to others without their consent - how does that not uphold the Constitution and freedom of choice for every human being, irrespective of my personal choices or beliefs?

I place no burden or obligation onto another human being for which he did not place upon himself.

I go a step further and will not engage with a person who is not living in personal freedom if he is attempting to make a choice at a cost to himself whereby my participation would be taking advantage of his inability to live free

I treat all life equal across the board

I silence no opinion

I endorse that each care for self and all will be cared for

And how is it that the religious elevate themselves above my conscious actions or existence?

Identification is ownership.

To say “We are” is to claim identification – not everyone identifies as the same, what of those Americans who don’t identify as you do.

To claim a specific identification is to negate a pluralistic society.

Anyone who states to you “We ARE a Christian nation” negates every American who is not.

We ARE Americans is complete and inclusive.

Those that project intention from the Founders as credential, irrespective of the fact that the Constitution does not endorse ANY religion but supports the individual in seeking that answer himself, does so in order to uphold one belief over another – to create an identification and impose ownership.

We can’t be a little bit pregnant and we can’t limit just a little bit of freedom – we either acknowledge the inherent natural freedom of every human being or we do not.

And while someone may personally "believe" in a god, that doesn't mean everyone else does.

What does it say about an individual who claims his belief, knowing not every American believes the same?

It negates holding that all men are equal - we can't have equality if we discriminate based on "beliefs" and limit freedom as a result.

Beliefs are opinions, not facts.

Beliefs are personal experience, not facts.

Beliefs are subjective by the mere fact that someone can hold a different belief (opinion) and the only fact is that two people disagree.

Unless the belief (opinion) is proven to be a fact, it’s just a personal subjective opinion.

To uphold one opinion over another is to discriminate.

To uphold freedom for all opinions and no favor to one over the other does not discriminate.

A Free Nation that upholds Freedom, Free Choice and individual freedom - notice how that doesn't negate anyone's beliefs, politics, etc. - it's all inclusive of all human beings, Americans or not.

THAT’S freedom, baby!

*Shout out to my friend Mike for his contribution to this post*

DECAYING MORAL VALUES? HARDLY

2009-04-04T11:58:00.002-07:00

Our Decaying Moral Values?

Recently an article by Dr. Walter E. Williams ran in syndication espousing that the reason for our decaying society was the lack of morals, specifically, he said this:

“Most of our nation's great problems, including our economic problems, have as their root decaying moral values.”

He’s in error.

The reason our struggles occur in society is because of the lack of responsibility and the lack of development in teaching how an individual becomes responsible.

Accountability is about ownership of your choices in life.

Response-ability is about being able to respond to those choices.

Making a choice at no cost to others without their consent upholds freedom for every human being to decide the direction of life and where each choice will be spent, irrespective of another’s subjective opinion.

ICONIC FREEDOM: Living Your Life At No Cost To Others Without Their Consent

Morals and Values are subjective – emotionally driven decisions rooted in opinions from derived sources in this world which a person just happens to agree with.

Because you "share" or "agree" with others, doesn't lend credential, either - it is just an observation that you happen to agree or share the same moral or value.

People agreed, shared and had the opinion the world was flat, Jews were inferior, women ought not vote, Blacks were less than human - were those ideas "right" just because they were shared, agreed or had "majority" opinion or put to a vote?

Claiming moral decay is to imply you know what is moral. Perhaps you do - for yourself. You cannot possible know what is moral for another person. You cannot possibly know what is of value to another person.

Espousing "tyranny" or "anarchy" is simply incendiary language thrown out as an emotional Molotov-cocktail in order to justify your desire to control others.

Laws never stopped a person from doing what he or she was bent on doing. If laws stopped behavior, then murder, theft, rape and the like would no longer exist. It's illogical.

Subjective opinions are vast and many – as such it is impossible to tell another person what moral or value they must uphold for only the individual can decide for self.

Imposing your morals and values on others is taking away their free choice, their freedom to live, and their freedom to create.

Taking away choice is controlling and manipulating for your own self-interests.

Giving credential to your personal authority is a freedom upheld in our Constitution: Freedom of Religion.

Forcing others to adhere to or believe your credential or authority is totalitarianism.

Morals and Values are subjective to the individual

Freedom is for EVERYONE

When we develop our society to understanding the simple precepts outlined of Accountability, Response-ability and making choices at no cost to another without consent, we will then create the world in which we espouse we want to live, a world of FREEDOM.

SUBJECTIVE vs. OBJECTIVE: Knowing the Difference

2009-03-19T05:18:00.002-07:00

SUBJECTIVE vs. OBJECTIVE: Knowing the Difference

It seems like an unusual and rather simplistic topic for a blog, yet it is turns out that these two words are quickly becoming the most misused words in our political & public square.

Life is easy and natural when you are living in Health = Freedom; the more you have of one the more you have of the other.

SUBJECTIVE: feelings, personal experience, emotions, opinion
OBJECTIVE: facts, without emotion, without feelings, data

Why would this be a topic for a blog, you ask? I’m glad you asked.

Today, more than ever, turn on the television, the radio, read a blog, a news website – and most, if not all that is expressed, are SUBJECTIVE; people expressing their emotions, feelings and personal experiences. Great things, do you agree? So, what’s the problem?

The problem is that these emotions and feelings, which are subjective opinions, are being treated like they’re OBJECTIVE FACTS – they are not.

If you believe that Wall Street is “greedy”, that is SUBJECTIVE OPINION and not a fact. Why? Because you would have to define what greed is and then by what authority have you derived such an idea? Whatever your answer, even more questions will follow.

Why do you get to decide? Why is it that your derivation for criteria of greed is the definition of greed? Is it merely because others agree with you? Did you take a vote and it was decided? One man’s greed is another’s living wage.

If you believe that abortion is wrong, by what authority? What is your derivation for setting the criteria? Why your derivation? Why your criteria? Who gets to decide the criteria to begin with?

How about marriage, what of that criterion for deciding? Why do you get to decide? What is the derivation for making such a decision and disenfranchising others from your particular SUBJECTIVE OPINION?

Obviously, these are all very controversial topics in our society which are furthered in controversy by the FACT that everyone keeps applying their SUBJECTIVE OPINION of how they feel about these subjects, not what the FACTS are about these topics.

If your derivation for setting a criterion is perhaps your version of a deity, no one would infringe on your freedoms to do so. However, do you consider that if you are applying your particular deity you are telling everyone else they are wrong? How do you know you’re not wrong? Are others not free to decide who their deity is and criterion in life to be determined? What of those with no deity?

OPINIONS are not FACTS. If an opinion is proven through evidence, then it’s a fact.

Having your feelings, emotions and opinions is inherent within every human being. Living in America gives rise to the freedom of expression of such; we are lucky we’re here. Infringing on others who hold different opinions about marriage, greed, abortion and any other topic, is anti-American.

Furthering your personal agenda of imposing those feelings, emotions and opinions rooted in your personal deity or derivations through the courts or legislation is worse than anti-American, it starts to border on Totalitarianism when others are forced to think like you or behave like you.

The FACT is that every human being has personal experience and personal derivations by which they place personal subjective value upon a myriad of topics in our world.

In a free society with an understanding of free market values – the individual decides the value and then acts within self-interest.

No one person holds authority to tell another how to live his or her life.

You cannot negate a person’s emotions, feelings or experience because they belong to the individual – it’s personal. You can disagree, but so what?

Living Your Life At No Cost To Others Without Their Consent is the way to advance and move forward in life toward Health = Freedom, for yourself and for others.

If you make your choices in this life where each choice does not cost another human being unless he or she consents (contracts) with you, then how could that behavior ever be anything other than American – freedom, free choice, pursuit of happiness.

I may not agree with your choices, so what? If your personal subjective choice from your personal subjective derivation does not infringe on my civil liberties, my personal freedom to choose, then why would I care? If your choices are at no cost to me without my consent where I said, “Yes”, then why would I care?

The simple answer: control

Anytime you are not giving a free choice you are attempting to manipulate and control others.

I don’t care how you apply the formula – that’s what you are doing.

Controlling or manipulation is your version of thinking you know how others should live, what choices they should make, the quality of their experiences – none of which was turned over to you as authority to infringe on an individual’s civil liberty.

To alleviate much of these arguments of power regarding subjective vs. objective when it comes to people wanting their personal self-interest upheld, we all need to move toward getting government out of our lives.

The more government dictates morality and value through the courts and legislation, the more bogged down we get to the point of not having the ability to move without offending someone, somewhere, with something by which punitive measures are taken and civil liberties are infringed upon; putting people's civil rights up to a vote by a mob mentality.

Is that what your intention is? It's what you're doing, not what you say you're doing, that counts.

If you want to know more about this and lots of other controversial topics by which you can release yourself from victimization, check out my book or contact me.

GREED IS SUBJECTIVE

2009-03-04T06:39:00.014-07:00

Greed is subjective and reveals ignorance by those who invoke it.

One man’s greed is another man’s living wage. There is no authority by which a person can make claim of another’s greed.

What the individual reveals, instead, is his subjective self-chosen victimization by which to decide that another individual has more than he ought to have; has gained or obtained more than he should.

How could you personally decide the level of wealth another can achieve or ought to be able to achieve?

By what authority or derivation do you make such a decision?

By what criteria have you subjectively decided this?

Why do you get to set the criteria for the rest of the world?

Controlling others is a liberal ideology which limits freedom, is that your intention, to limit freedom?

No person is in contract with another for which he or she did not consent.

To make any claim of “greed” is simply to show disapproval of another’s choice in his self-interest. While you may disapprove, it reveals nothing more than your disapproval. Add emotion to this and now we see your jealousy.

"Subjective" is emotional rhetoric where the mind walks off the map and creates illogical discussion and debate. Subjective is personal to the individual. While our nation upholds personal freedom of choice, it does not uphold your level of comfort, that task is up to you to pursue – “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.

You can keep calling the choices of others “greed”, but you only reveal that you are a victim that wants to control others, control their choices, make a target for yourself when you reach their level of wealth and deny free choice of others which negates our foundations of this nation.

My book ICONIC FREEDOM: Living Your Life At No Cost To Others Without Their Consent discusses many ideas by which our freedoms and free choices are under attack by those with an agenda of controlling and manipulating others.

The more freedom you have the healthier your life.

I encourage you to explore these ideas and, of course, I encourage you to order my book in order to learn more about these principles of living your life in total freedom. Relinquish victimization to the dung heap of history and advance your paradigms of life and propel yourself toward greater freedoms.

ICONIC FREEDOM: LIFE COACHING

BOOK PUBLISHING

2009-02-27T06:58:00.000-07:00

ICONIC FREEDOM: Living Your Life At No Cost To Others Without Their Consent

ICONIC FREEDOM

2009-02-27T06:43:00.001-07:00

Now, more than ever, our freedoms and choices are being hijacked by legislators, politicians and every special interest group imagined. These individuals in their self-interest care nothing about your interests but about how to impose and infringe on your freedoms. Why? Because "they think they know something" about how the rest of us all should live our lives.

There are no interests that are not self-interests. However, when your choices within this self-interest are at a cost to others, you are infringing on your fellow citizens.

With Freedom comes Responsibility.

My upcoming book speaks to these issues the world over, where choices of individuals are at a cost to others without their consent.

ICONIC FREEDOM: Living Your Life At No Cost To Others Without Their Consent outlines what health truly is all about; how subjective vs. objective creates havoc in our society when others start imposing their subjective derivations and decisions upon the rest of us; discusses various subjects of application of this theory while tackling controversial issues that have long needed forthright discussion.

More importantly, my book outlines a step-by-step understanding of how to pull yourself out of victimization that is created and reinforced by society. Counter-intuitively, you are victimizing yourself by imposing your choices at a cost to others without consent.

No advancements and developments in our society toward greater freedoms will ensue unless these precepts are assimilated and lived daily by each and every individual: let each care for self and all will be cared for.

Check out the website and stay tuned for the "live" date of this publishing.

Thanks for reading

Cheers!