This site is politically incorrect $1.99 $1.99 $1.99 $1.99 $1.99

Barnes & Noble NOOK Book $1.99

Barnes & Noble NOOK Book $1.99

B& NOOK Books $1.99

B& NOOK Books


Barack Obama rejects individual freedom, saying: THE INTERESTS OF COMMUNITY ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN ARE THE INTERESTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL and OUR INDIVIDUAL SALVATION DEPENDS ON OUR COLLECTIVE SALVATION. Yet, America's prosperity owes its success to individual freedom, to pebble droppers free to work their miracles in a free market. That made America different.

Ours was a system of self-government, not something imposed on us by an iron fist from afar, as was the Old World’s custom. It is what made us so different from all other nations. It is the growing gap between legislators and those governed by them, as the disease of abuse of power. It is the abuse of power by the few over the many that harpoons the life and efforts of free, creative geniuses that stand apart from the community or herd, providing us with prosperity above all other nations. The American ideal of the supremacy of individual interests over the interests of community is most important, and small, limited government protects individuals.

The world is steeped in the tradition of class separation where the few elite rule the many. As the rulers proclaim, it is for everyone’s own good. Anyone who disturbs what has become a natural order of things, where community interests are more important than are individual interests, is a radical, like those who operate their boats at high speed leaving wakes and making waves that disturb other boats tied secure to their traditional moorings. The speeders are radicals. America was just such a radical speeding amongst other nations moored to their traditions who seek only equilibrium.

In time, most Old World nations have found an alliance of rulers, business and labor, as in mercantilism, to provide the greatest, well-managed equilibrium for their nations. However, in a free, unmanaged, uncontrolled business environment, creative individuals can start new businesses. They are upstarts challenging the market positions of long established businesses. It is radical behavior on the part of individuals free to pursue their own interests, skills, talents, inequalities and aspirations. It creates a burdensome encounter where change to the established and accepted methods and practices occur often. In short, it gives the world another America, a New World of individual freedom, where community interests, as defined by the elite few, is less important.

From the Pilgrim’s landing in 1620, America became the New World leaving the Old World traditions behind. There was elbowroom for individuals to pursue their fantasies, as long as they harmed no one else. They moved fast. They challenged old ways and practices, providing new and better ways to do things. They went around or over those who tried to slow them down and left behind many bobbing vessels straining at their moorings. They created greater prosperity than known anywhere in the Old World. They were the radicals so hated by the Old World traditionalists found in the modern Democrat Party in America and over the entire world.

Our nation formed around a novel idea, that each of us is born equal in the sight of our Creator and our laws. That is how we began. It is after our birth that the novelty of America really shines. First, we give up our equality. Then, we develop unique inequalities as we grow and learn. America is novel even more because it provides a pathway of dream fulfillment so each of us can pursue our inequalities in freedom. We are able to pursue our own individual dreams and chose our path. Our inequalities are not just negatives, unless we chose to see them that way. We become unequal, not superior, in our intelligence, education, health, growth, abilities and temperaments as we change our interests, talents, skills, aspirations, needs, wants and the dreams they fashion for us. America is a land of broad boulevards and paths that allow and encourage each of us to be the best we can be, as individuals, living in harmony with our fellows.

To keep those paths we must stop the expansion of government. We need to free the whole domain of private activity from government influence, except as it prevents injustice. Only on this condition can we succeed in keeping our liberty or assuring the free play of the harmonious laws God has decreed for development and prosperity of the American people. The 1620 gift God gave to America was an opportunity for people to start all over again and promote that natural order mentioned by Jefferson. They were given an opportunity to create their own government to serve their own interests. For them to control their government, it had to be close, that is, within reach. It had to be limited to preventing injustice, not providing justice or remodeling mankind. This is precisely what separates America from the rest of the world.


There are only two sides in politics. Just two! One side is where a few elite believe they have the right answers for managing all the people. They have many prescriptions and they battle each other over who is correct. They share one common belief, which is ordinary people cannot manage their lives without help from them. The other side has one policy. It says leave the folks alone and they will find their own way, that they are all capable.

The elite think we are not capable of being free to find our own way. We are bad people who prey on each other like starving cannibals. We need elite, like an Obama, Castro, Stalin or Mao to guide us. Because they believe in the ugly and sinful nature of men, if allowed to develop freely, will lead society toward injustice, pauperism, and inequality. Their answer, then, must be a few elite ruling the many. One supporter of the elite’s hate people view said, “My thought about nature, history, and society is guided by the assumption (based on repeated and studious observation) of strife, conflict, struggle, as the pre-eminent character of life and existence.” This view is shared by all on the left.

George Washington was chosen first president under our third constitution. Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton joined Washington’s administration. Jefferson was Hamilton’s leading opponent and the assumed leader of what was later identified as Democrats. Hamilton led the Federalists. Our American political differences began with these two men and their beliefs.

Hamilton believed in a strong central government, a national bank, government and business formed much like the mercantilists in Europe, and themselves as the elite managers of people. From Hamilton we get Henry Clay, then Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and the Progressives, then Taft, Hoover, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, Bush and McCain. Reagan was more a 19th century Democrat.

Hamilton was no friend of our final Constitution, and certainly not the Bill of Rights. He and his Federalists were Nationalists and elite managers. They wanted nothing to limit government and looked down at the ordinary man and woman. After the First Amendment was adopted, the Federalists ignored it and passed the Sedition Act which imprisoned and fined editors for saying bad things about the government.

The Federalist Party all but vanished after the death of Hamilton, morphing into the Whigs then the Ripon Republicans in 1854, becoming the Republican Party. Hamiltonian ideals were sustained for two centuries, by Republicans and then modern Democrats. The Hamilton and Clay alliance became the basis of the Whigs and then the National Republican Party, then a rival to the 19th century Democrat party. They favored tariffs to protect U.S. manufacturers, pay for federal public works, especially roads. This was European mercantilism more than an American free market.

Abraham Lincoln and the new Republican party revived Henry Clay's Hamiltonian program, the American System, using an active meddling government elite to modernize the economy. It was a Hamiltonian nationalistic opposition to the state’s sovereignty ideals of the early Democrats, taking us to the Civil War.

Congress created tariffs to promote industries in the Northeast, build markets for western foodstuffs and southern cotton. It called for a national bank to provide ample circulating currency and federal subsidies for internal improvement projects, such as clearing of rivers, construction of roads and canals to facilitate the movement of goods through the nation. They wanted a managed supply of paper currency and lower interest rates on bank loans, and for public funds, even debt, to build or improve transportation infrastructures. These were European, government and business alliances or mercantilist ideas rejected by 19th century Democrats who favored a free market.

Republicans wanted to grow the economy in a well-planned, managed and organized way, by all-knowing elite managers. Whigs also believed that government-planned economic development would increase individuals' choices of career opportunities available to them. This was never the purpose of the federal government, however.

From 1800 to 1900, we have the 19th century Democrats from Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, and James Polk to Grover Cleveland. They were our first libertarians.

Jefferson led a coalition, the 1800 Revolution, to oppose the economic and foreign policies of the Federalists as well as repeal the Sedition Act. The Democrats insisted on a strict construction of the Constitution, denouncing the national bank, as unconstitutional. They favored states' sovereignty and the supremacy of the ordinary man over bankers, industrialists, merchants, and other moneyed interests. Democrats dominated Congress and most state governments; it was weakest in the Northeast.

Jefferson and Madison, through the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, announced the “Principles of 1798,” which became the founding expressions of their party. The most important of these principles were states' rights, opposition to a strong national government, skepticism in regard to the federal courts, and opposition to a National Bank. Democrats saw their opponents as supporters of an aristocracy, not of the people.

The original Democrats were never involved in expanding the central government’s powers or of privileged class influences and imperialism, as some have suggested. Hamilton’s Federalists called them "Democrats" or "Jacobins" to associate them with radicals and mob rule, and the excesses of the French Revolution, just as is said about Tea Party people today.

Modern Democrats still celebrate Jefferson-Jackson day dinners, whose policies differ so much from Democrats today. Beginning in 1890, Democrats shifted left to a party of economic populism; saying they represented the so-called interests of the “little man,” and the unions. Republicans were the pro-business, mercantilist party. Both parties, by the early 20th century, squeezed out any influence of the 19th century Democrats and began diluting their principles of individual freedom.

Congressman Wright Patman from Texas led the Democrats in fighting the Chain Stores, like Penney’s, Kroger and Safeway threatening the mom and pop stores, when the big stores, from an economy of scale gave the “little man” the best quality products a the lowest price, in the same way the corporate farm would later do for the “folks.” Democrats supported the Old World Unionists and socialists who corrupted our education system.

Americans, for over 300 years, followed what the Transactional Psychologists described as the healthy view of people, that “I am OK, you are OK.” This rose out of our Judeo-Christian founding that we are individuals and we treat others as we would have them treat us. Because of this view, and the willingness to step aside when a creative wave and wake-maker is coming by, without envy, America created a free market which made it the most prosperous nation in the world.

The left, the socialists and modern Democrats, claim the interests of community are more important than are the interests of the individual. They believe they, the small elite, are OK and the rest of us are not OK. Therefore, it is essential to them that the form of government permits a few elite, a small group of shepherds, to rule the many, that the average person should have no say in their own government. This is what they want and are establishing in their 21st century constitution. The lawyers have decided that judges should rule, like cowboys managing their herds.

19th century Democrat positions, supporting individual freedom and local government, reflect the ideals of today’s Tea Party movement. The legitimate self-interests of each individual are more important, to Tea Partiers, than are the interests of the community. The Tea Party movement reflects more the policies of the 19th Century Jefferson Democrats, not modern Democrats and not Republicans.

Sean Hannity says, “We need to go back to our roots” with the GOP, and that is wrong. Our roots are with the 19th century Democrats, and they no longer exist unless the Tea Party movement can change the GOP to reflect it. We can only hope the Tea Party movement grows and the elections that follow put in place those who believe as the Tea Party movement believes. Our freedoms and prosperity depend upon the Tea Party movement today.

How can I be sure I am an individual, separate from and of greater value than the herd? Obama says community and herd interests are more important than my interests. That must mean I am not alive separate of the community or herd. Yet, I am aware of my own existence and how I stand in my part of the world. I am able to love people and things others may not see. I have interests that are unique to me. I have values defining my path in life that reflect me, as I am. My enthusiasm is my own, not equal to others. That must mean individual freedom surpasses communalism, which says I am equal to others. That unlocks my inequalities to grow and benefit myself and those around me. Therefore, I know I am alive!

Are community interests more important than individual interests?
Should government provide justice or prevent injustice?
Is the pursuit of equality more important than pursuing inequalities?
Is individual freedom more important than government running the community?


Tea Partiers believe the interests of individuals is more important than are those of the community. When individuals prosper, their families and communities prosper. Obama Democrats believe community interests are more important. As elite, they can better define and govern community interests. Government serves the interests of the herd.


Left, right, middle, socialist, communist, fascist, monarchist are Old World labels where a few elite rule the many. The New World is where the many rule themselves in individual freedom. Which side has worked best?


The longest world tradition is a few elite rule the many, the Old World. The New World began in 1620 with individual freedom. The new tradition produced prosperity and happiness never experienced before. Which is better?


Frederick Bastiat, a nineteenth century French legislator, said, “All men’s impulses, when motivated by legitimate self-interest, fall into a harmonious social pattern.” People's self-interests are, by nature and experience, harmonious with community. If people’s interests are harmonious, liberty is necessary and no one should interfere with their interests. Community should not block their interests or try to redirect them. America proved him right! Conservatives and libertarians support this. Democrats want to destroy this.


Auguste Comte believed people should not do as they please and pursue their own interests, as community is reality and individuals unimportant. Like Rousseau, Marx and Obama, he believed men are like bees and ants, none able to survive doing as they pleased. Self-interests, they believed, are antagonistic and community must rule through elite rulers.


Individuals reach beyond their grasp, pursue their own legitimate interests, use skills, talents and aspirations so families and close communities prosper. Middle or moderate views discourages their freedom for some tyranny, hoping it will not expand. Where is a middle ground?


A group of families, a church resettlement, with the Geneva Bible as its constitution, started America in 1620. People were free to make their own way in a new and uncertain land. The American dream was born. Ordinary people could own land. They could follow their own interests, talents, skills and aspirations in freedom.


America was not a result of the European Enlightenment of the 1700’s. It grew from an enlightenment of experience starting in 1620 New England. People were free to own property and its product. They farmed, created, built, manufactured and traded freely. They schooled their children to develop their skills. They prospered free of Old World limitations. They formed small governments suited to their experiences and needs. America’s Free Market grew from willing exchanges. They never intended government to mediate or intervene in their behaviors, other than to prevent injustice.


America, one out of two hundred of the world’s nations, with only five percent of the world’s population, has twenty-five percent of the world’s wealth. No rulers prevented Americans from thinking out of the bubble and acting out of the box. They can be the nails sticking up that Old World governments hammer down. They can make a wake and rock the boat free of restraints. They could drop pebbles and cause ripples in placid waters. They defined community interests when pursuing legitimate self-interests. They rejected slavery of the many to the rule of the few. Pebble droppers created America's prosperity and still do as entrepreneurs.


Should community interests really trump self-interests? This is our political question and conflict in America today. Is individual legitimate self-interest or the interests of the community most important? Can there be a balance? America already proved the best model of political reality in the world, so why is it fair and just we rid ourselves of some freedom to satisfy the envy of the Old World? Is the proof of the failure of the Old World side and the success of the New World side yet not enough?


The Christmas Revolution began 2,000 years ago with the birth of Jesus. His teachings were a rebellion against Old World governing concepts. He taught sovereignty of the individual with interests and aspirations unique to each, individual freedom limited by the Golden Rule and a belief that "I'm OK, you're OK." It was a new world order and spread 1620 years after it began by a small band of Pilgrims settling in Massachusetts. It proved successful. Individual interests and freedom to pursue life, liberty and prosperity proved harmonious in American communities. Americans rejected the power of the few elite in whose arrogance thought they could do better. Because of its teachings, Christianity is targeted for defeat by those who believe community interests are more important than are individual interests. Its celebration is ridiculed and prohibited in America today. The New World, founded on the Christmas Revolution, proved freedom and prosperity. The Old World, on the other hand, prefers slavery and chains for the many.


Is self-centered greed or legitimate self-interest the main concern with Ayn Rand's beliefs? Many say she promoted selfishness, thereby greed, which is self-centered and anti-individual creativity. That is anti-Rand. Rand admired the creative individual, people like railroad builder James Jerome Hill, on whom she was reputed to have based her Taggart characters in Atlas Shrugged. Independent “I’m OK, you’re OK” people are OK with Rand, not the criminal takers. If we look at Howard Roark’s summation to the jury, from Fountainhead, we do not see a self-centered individual destroying his work. If he was greedy he would have simply accepted his payment. We see an other- and outer-centered individual in love with his own dreams and creations, as one would love a spouse, child or family and refuse to allow them to be assaulted. That is the kind of self-interest that built America. Though love for anything spiritual may be missing, a great idea or vision also measures up to that which is spiritual, beyond self, and that view is not inconsistent with Christianity.


America dissolved the two tier social structure that still exists in the rest of our world. It was the major deterrent to economic progress in the world, because it shut off adventure by the many ruled by the few. The two tier, elite and powerful few ruling the weak many in the social herd, meant no one should stand above their fellows in each tier. No one could safely challenge the accepted and established way things operated. There was no attraction to do so, no pulling a single individual forward into uncharted waters, only the fear of being punished. America, without an elite and powerful few ruling the herd, experienced what it was like for free men and women to think out of the social bubble and act out of the box, become pebble-droppers and try to fly in so many areas of interest, that progress was the unavoidable result. This is what the 19th century libertarian Democrats fought to retain for America that the 20th century Democrats are trying to destroy.


Sometime in the beginning, when men and women first settled on the earth, they started having sparks of creative genius and ideas to make life easier. Men amplified their energy and increased their productivity with tools they created. Other men feared the genius of the individual. They shared their fears with others in community. They struck out at anyone challenging the way community did things. Men were afraid of the genius each had but could not understand.

All through the centuries, few had the courage to think out of the community bubble and live out of its box. Community created taboos and restrictions to protect its culture. Each new idea and improvement upset long accepted and established traditions. The creative and inventive men often died for their genius. They were the nails sticking up that community hammered flat. That fear of offending gods and rulers, with the product of a single man’s genius, ruled the community. Even so, some men would continue to pursue an itch, even threatened by death.

No change ever rose from a desire to please community. Community feared the source, the creative mind living free of their control. Genius was madness, witchcraft, a sickness that had to vanish. Genius went beyond the control of rulers, gods and other men. The product of genius, rarely accepted at first, glorified individuals as children of God. Individual consciousness could not exist apart from an individual’s self-interests.

The fear of individual genius was a unifying force of rulers of community interests. Community interests grew from internalized fear and superstition, as well as externalized threats from those who rule. Community interests rise from a tradition and culture of fear. Fear shapes the interests of community. Individuals, however, must think and act from their own interests. They cannot be compelled to work and create, except from their own interests and motives. Their creative intelligence is not a product of self-sacrifice. Creative genius must be independent of the rule and opinion of others. Whatever we have today, as tools to make life easier, came from the genius of self-serving individuals dropping pebbles in the pond and rocking the boat while making waves.

Every disruption in the prosperity of a community came from community attempts to interfere in the individual’s genius and self-interest. Most people believe individual self-interest, because it stands apart, is the enemy of community interest and the interests of the ruler. The world has lived on baby steps to progress, to peace and prosperity, because of its fear of the individual.

America’s political and sociological departure from the ordinary history of man began 400 years ago when it recognized individual freedom in America. Each person had "unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” given them by their Creator, not the ruler. The ruler was absent, the Creator always near. America allowed each to make their interests real. American genius invented and produced. They did not plunder others or memorialize their genius. Americans prospered, as did their families, communities, states and nation. Individual legitimate self-interest proved best, out of all of man’s history, for the interests and prosperity of community.

The world is crumbling again, under a religious belief in self-sacrifice. Many claim community, nation and world interests are more important than self-interest. They challenge the right of individuals to exist for their own sake. Genius is condemned again as selfish and something to be feared. Communities have only prospered without conflict when genius is free. It suffers when individual freedom is gone.

Why did it take so long for the world to discover that free individuals make it a better place to live? The new Americans lived by the moral code of the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule. It defined our early New England pioneers. A tradition based upon those moral codes took root. It established beliefs, habits, customs and ways of doing things. Families were the core communities. As families gained levels of prosperity never known in the Old World, their larger communities prospered. Prosperity from freedom, not dictatorship, was the gift of America, the New World.

Pioneer Americans created what they needed. They traded, invented and built their lives without meddling bureaucrats. They made laws, hired police officers, courts and jails in each of their communities. Local home-rule government was to prevent injustice. All children had to be educated and skill-trained in the many schools they built. Teachers encouraged and taught them to pursue their own individual genius, interests, skills, talents and aspirations.

America’s Declaration of Independence expressed a tradition of community structure. It was not something people had to accept. It reflected the beliefs of 150 years experience with individual freedom. The Enlightenment was a product of America, not of a handful of European philosophers. Americans created a tradition, stood on their own, supported their families and communities without a recipe of a ruler or church. Those prospering helped those who did not. They did not fear genius, invention and entrepreneurial dream-chasing. It was a tradition that built the most productive, creative and prosperous nation in the world. It was a reflection of individual freedom.

In the past 100 years, Old World supporters have been trying to change America by ridiculing and demeaning its traditions. They want a return to traditions based on fear, anger, envy and greed. They want the power to manage our nation, which will surely result in the kind of poverty and misery so well known in the Old World.

Americans are now confused over which is most important. Is community interests or legitimate self-interests most important? Community we know has no interests, except fear and the threats of displeasing rulers. Only individuals have interests and passions. Many Americans still know freedom of individuals to chase dreams, use genius and skills, is most important. An infection of doubt has taken place, however. Schools, media, politicians and entertainment have infected the thinking of Americans. Once, we believed that local government, democratic and closest to the governed, was best. The productivity of free individuals once made sense. Today, too many are looking to a central government for guidance, handouts and relief from their problems. Americans are selling their birthright for thirty pieces of silver

The supporters of community interests believe they are elites who must plan and manage. They cannot accept that free actions of individuals in community can manage better than they can. America's successful free market showed everyone that individuals do it better. Elites believe free individuals are not morally and intellectually capable of existing without them in the driver’s seat.

Today’s liberalism evolved from Old World struggles against feudal oppression by church and monarch. It found a home in America, until the free economy of America produced such great wealth. Liberals pitied the living conditions of the poor, even though they were never as bad as in the Old World. They became more community-minded and opposed unshared prosperity. They wanted a new America based just on each person being equal in outcome. Liberals want a generous redistribution of private property and wealth. They refuse to believe poverty is a choice and reject the notion that poverty will always be with us.

Liberals are not for choice. They will destroy the choice individuals have for prosperity through freedom. They believe, as elites, they must design, build and manage all nations of the world. There is no difference from the Old World monarchies and dictatorships. America’s traditions have always been under assault by other nations and some in our own ranks. Now, the entire world is focusing on America. They want to know if liberty can prevail against the assaults. Only time will tell. Only a sufficient rebirth of people’s interests in our traditions, its achievements as well as renewed patriotism can prevent America disappearing from the world. Who then, will stand up for America?


Individuals with strong values based in faith, pursuing their own interests, using their own talents and skills, prevent liberal progress. The independence of mind and spirit of Americans blocks general acceptance of liberalism. Legitimate individual self-interest, under years of assault in schools, entertainment and the media since the middle of the last century, is paying off for liberals as they position themselves to take the political rudder of America. The pillars of an individual’s life also are debased. First, his belief in God and Christ, with his personal, not group relationship. Individuals accepting Christ are responsible for their personal behavior. Second, the family, where a man and woman join and produce children, each giving up some of their interests for the good of that small family community. Liberals want interests sacrificed for the larger community they rule, as the entire community, tribe or nation is the central focus of all human interests. Legitimate individual self-interest, Christianity and the wholesome family are the three obstacles to the rule of modern American liberalism.


How would you choose between America's two major political divisions? Liberal Democrats see community interests superior to individual self-interest. Conservatives see legitimate self-interest as more important. Democrats expect everyone to be equal in a level community. Conservatives see everyone as created equal and have a right to their own life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Democrats believe only community has such rights and government should support community interests above the legitimate self-interests of individuals. Democrats see taking private property from one person to give to another as a justified benefit to community. America proved free and prosperous communities grow from prosperous individuals. America was set apart from the rest of the world and achieved the greatest happiness for the greatest number because liberty and self-interest go hand in hand. Will our choices in 2008 eliminate individual liberty for the compassion of communalism? Which are the best choices for America's future?


America began in New England, where people found they could finally stand on their own two feet, be free to be what they could become, own property and what they produced on it. They believed their Creator gave them their rights and they created their governments limited to protecting those rights. Armed with a Christian moral code, they pioneered, created, built and became individually prosperous, resulting in prosperous communities. Defined by the Declaration of Independence, and by the enormous success of their nation, individual liberty confronted the world. When compared to nations whose people are still under the yoke of dictatorships, America became that City on a Hill worthy of emulation. Democrats once believed in these American core principles. They have abandoned them for Old World ideals, where the few elite manage the many. Today's Republicans are also smothering the flame of liberty and are following the new Democrats and returning to Old World ideals. Do we have any courageous idealists like Jefferson, Madison and Reagan today? Is either Party worth saving? If not, what is the alternative?


Our world has divided itself into two parts. The majority is the Old World. The minority is the New World. The Old is thousands of years in the making. The New is only several centuries. The New World turned the entire world upside down, by putting individuals in control of their own lives. Up until then, the few with the power ruled the many powerless. The New World shared power between its citizens, they lending some of it to their limited and well-defined government. The Old World is still the larger of the two, with 95% of the population. It is fighting to regain its dominion of the few over the many. In America, the modern conservative defends the New, while modern liberals fight to regain the Old. In the Old World, there are many variations of the idea of a few powerful rulers. The results upon the many are always the same, despair. For peace, Americans are told they must sanctify elite rulers and abandon the wonders of their New World.


John Edwards divides America by two, when it should be three. There are three Americas. First, John Edwards' America, a small percent of elite who believe they are superior to everyone else. Then, the second America, of whom he speaks, the people wanting Edwards and his elite to care for them. The third America are the "I am OK and you are OK" people. They are the innovators, adventurers, creative dreamers and doers. They think out of the bubble and live out of the box. They are self-confident, self-sufficient, stand on their own two feet and see everyone else as equally worthy of living their own lives. It is that third group John Edwards and his Party dislike, because they are the only ones who make things better for the second group. They also show how the first group is arrogant and incompetent. To the elite, the third group is the enemy.


Transactional Psychologists describe people in four ways. The healthy group is "I'm OK, you're OK." I am good and so are you. That is the American approach. The opposite is "I'm not OK and you're not OK." Laws and law enforcement are needed to manage these people. There is also the "I'm OK and you are not OK" people. They see themselves as elite. They want to rule the rest of us. The "I'm not OK and you're OK" group are looking for leadership from the elite. The few who have led the many for centuries are the "I'm OK, you're not OK" people. The many who are led are the "I'm not OK, you, the elite, are OK" to whom we bow. Of course, there have always been the criminals of the I'm no damn good and neither are you crowd. Only in America, since it began in New England, has the world seen so many "I'm OK, you're OK" people, and they created a free and prosperous nation.


In the last 100 years, America has shifted from a land of “doers” to a land of “be-ers.” Americans have abandoned the principles of responsibility and governance from personal to political. Where each believed responsibility for his or her actions and thoughts were personal, we substituted political regulators. People are no longer to blame for their actions. Community now shoulders that burden. Americans lost the will to rule themselves. They passed it to political experts instead. That loss brought a loss of care and concern for individual morality, family and community, as well as liberty. We see it in today’s political campaigns, in the appeals for votes offered by various leading candidates. The major appeal today is, “Elect me and I’ll save you and supply all your needs.” One Party focuses on that pledge, while the other still tries to convince voters they prefer individual liberty, but are willing to sacrifice it when they see the need. In either case, Americans lose.


Here are the American core principles stated in the 1892 Platform of the Democrat Party. It is not a right-wing extremist position, though today’s Democrats would say so. “The representatives of the Democratic Party of the United States, in National Convention assembled, do reaffirm their allegiance to the principles of the party, as formulated by Jefferson and exemplified by the long and illustrious line of his successors in Democratic leadership, from Madison to Cleveland, we believe the public welfare demands that these principles be applied to the conduct of the Federal Government, through the accession to power of the party that advocates them; and we solemnly declare that the need to return to these fundamental principles of free popular government, based on home rule and individual liberty, was never more urgent than now, when the tendency to centralize all power at the Federal capital has become a menace to the reserved rights of the States that strikes at the very roots of our Government under the Constitution as framed by the fathers of the Republic.”


After the American Revolution, two opinions divided Americans. About a third wants to limit and another third to extend the power of the people. The remaining third did not care either way. Federalists, under Hamilton, wanted strong centralized government. They wanted to manage community interests. Republicans, under Jefferson, wanted home rule and decentralized government. They wanted legitimate self-interest to define community interests. Democrats inherited Federalist opinion. They added a Fabian-Marxist flavor. They discourage legitimate self-interest to favor community interest. The Republican third now face their biggest single issue. Should they remain loyal to their founding or follow the Democrats? Should they limit or extend the freedoms of Americans? Individuals pursuing legitimate self-interest create prosperous communities. Many prosperous communities make up a prosperous nation. Government best creates and manages communities of poverty without freedom. No other single issue tops this one. It is our choice!


Our Declaration of Independence said God gave us our rights to life, our liberty, and the pursuit of our own self-interests, and if that pursuit was a success, so too would be the communities in which we live. Today, some American politicians claim the superiority of community interests over self-interests, as it was in the Old World. However, community has no mind, no heart and no soul, with which to define its interests. Community can have no interests other than those defined for it by someone with the power to say what they are or should be, and on it, those politicians will hang a sign; "Do not disturb under penalty of death."


We hear compassionate people saying immigrants flock to America because it is the land of opportunity. Does it mean, when an immigrant sees an opportunity to mug someone, it pays better? Does it mean immigrants can come here to live off American taxpayers, get schooling and medical care, so long as it does not change their thinking or language? No! America has never been the land of opportunity. What it has been, that sets it apart from the rest of the world, is the land of elbowroom. In America, the only guarantee a person has is a right to pursue legitimate self-interests, talents, skills and aspirations. If they want to chase a dream, not a handout, America is the place one can come legally.


Democrats say community interests are more important than self-interests. In a family, that is true. Parents care for members too young to care for themselves. Once they have grown, concerns turn to pursuit of legitimate self-interest. Growing family members are encouraged and educated to pursue their interests, skills, talents and aspirations. Doing well promotes prosperity for those around them. To extend family management to society, assuming members always unable to care for themselves is to say a few elite must always manage community interests. That is tyranny! It holds community down, no matter the motives. America proved individual liberty to pursue legitimate self-interest improves and uplifts community. This leaves the Democrats with nothing to control.


Five constitutions formed the laws of America. The first was the Geneva Bible. It set God's limits to human behavior and released us from the limits of the king. The second was the Mayflower Compact, defining how the first settlers would live. The third was the Articles of Confederation. It complimented laws of the colonies when separating from Britain. The Federal Constitution was the fourth. It was to create a better union. Americans created the second, third and fourth. The present fifth constitution is an unelected imperial judiciary. It makes laws after the fact. It evolves with passion over reason. It removes the blindfold covering the eyes of justice, and the book and scales from her hands. It replaces written law with "living" law. which differs little from the king's law. We have come full circle.


Fear, an early emotion, if unresolved, becomes anger. Both are stressful and lead to depression. The world's political ideologies appeal to the emotions of fear, anger and depression. Despair, helplessness, dismay and hopelessness are the soil in which the left plants its ideas of envy, anger and antagonism toward those who find happiness. Those emotions are like points on a compass. East is fear. West is anger. South is depression. North, however, is the better emotion. It is elation. Elation rises from the pursuits of things greater than the pursuer. Arrogance of pride melts away when elation enters a life. Freedom to chase dreams, visions and personal aspirations gave elation its chance in America. The political tradition promoting elation is the party of individual freedom, of Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln and Reagan. The anti-American left attracts those living with fear, anger, depression, pride, envy and ignorance. It leads them to despise those they would be better to emulate.


Who ran from the barnyard screaming, "The sky is falling, the sky is falling?" What are the rest of the barnyard animals supposed to do about it? Should they be frightened, join and stand with the screamer, giving up their power of attorney? The sky falling would be our common crisis, and anyone saying they could help us would be our savior. Al Gore came screaming out of political oblivion to say we are all doomed to be cooked by the weather unless he guides us. His angry followers fire back at anyone who challenges him. Are we the ones causing global warming, not the sun or the earth? Has the earth never changed before man walked upon it? Is man, in all his arrogance, even capable of changing the earth? Gore and his followers cannot prove their case, but threaten anyone who resists their claims. If that crisis does not take hold, the Democrats will create another one until voters are so frightened they give up their liberty. The crisis elite will then be able to manage the world.


What would happen to us if we did not have big chain stores like Safeway and Wal-Mart? What happens without the great distribution networks bringing goods fresh from farms, dairies, orchards and packing plants? What happens if we could not get to limited centers of food supplies? We would have to think about where our next meal is coming from, just like the people in the dark ages and the seventh century, when the Prophet walked beneath the date trees. Who provided the lifestyle we now enjoy? Was it a dictator, Mullah or tribal chief? It was the cumulative efforts of free men and women pursuing their interests and aspirations making life, as we know it, possible. Today, many want to reestablish dictatorships in the world, including America, where we do not have to focus on the source of our next meal. What has history proven? Did it prove that caring, feeling elites make good dictators, or that individual liberty makes great nations?


Revolution implies changing how we live and are governed. There have been only two successful revolutions in our world. It is not the American, French or Russian, or any political conquest. The first was the birth, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus. 1600 years later, followers of Jesus established a New World in America where His teachings gained traction. People accepted the few ruling the many, until these two revolutions. Jesus taught only individuals were responsible for their own thoughts and deeds, and removed escape from God into the cover of community as an option. Redemption is only for individuals. Rulers see individual freedom to pursue legitimate self-interest a threat to community interests, as defined by them. Socialists, liberals, Muslims and Democrats condemn America and all who advocate individual self-interest. It undermines their ideas that a few wise elite should rule the many. It explains their anti-Christian bias as well.


Those who define political correctness say those who pursue legitimate self-interest are selfish and politically incorrect. They cannot be PC if seeking only to satisfy their own interests instead of community interests. Selfish is not PC. The world has accepted that individuals cannot think only for themselves and be PC. America, the land where individuals could pursue their own interests and aspirations, has more prosperous communities than any other nation. Those prosperous communities together created a prosperous nation. Even with the proof liberty is best for people, liberals say it is not PC.


If you ask a conservative, taxes pay for limited, well defined government. If you ask a liberal, it is two things. First, it is the means to redistribute income and make people equal. Second, taxes are a tool to manipulate behavior. It implies a cadre of elite and their minions to manage us all. They decide what people may have and how they are to behave. When conservatives suggest tax cuts, it is shock and awe for liberals. Liberals believe money belongs to government and, at best, rationed as they see fit.


Do parents want schools to mold and shape children to fit their community, or be helped to excel in their life ahead? Looking at it from the parent's view, this is how we know if we should choose community interests or the pursuit of legitimate self-interest. Political views support public schools teaching children to adjust and conform to community, not to excel as individuals. Politicians, school administrators and teachers ignore parents who want their children to excel. Democrats, socialists and Muslocrats want a society of easily managed conformists. Thinking out of the bubble and living out of the box makes people and their ingenuity unmanageable. In short, it makes Americans. Those elite few who would manage us all cannot cope with that. Schools today serve political needs, not the child's needs.


NEA, Federal and State led public schools want children to adjust and conform to community. Skill training is discouraged as individual self-interests are contrary to community interest. Taught not to stand apart from the crowd, teens have no idea what they will do. They are hopeless when contemplating their future. Control of their destiny is left to boredom, gangs and self-medicating with drugs and alcohol. Many consider suicide. Skills appropriate to their interests would make them winners. Those with aspirations and moral boundaries succeed. Parents should make sure their children gain knowledge and skills to suit their interests. That will give them a reason to grow and live. Control of the schools must be taken away from the teacher's unions, as well as Federal and State governments. Local control works.


A fact contrary to a deeply planted belief, so deep it is out of the reach of reason, is unacceptable. Public schools teach children that people pursuing their own interests are cruel, heartless thieves who deprive many of happiness. They assume when one earns another is deprived. It is difficult to challenge these beliefs, once rooted. Give a small child a pumpkin seed to plant, and it turns out zucchini instead, and the child will angrily insist it is a pumpkin no matter the harvested evidence. A child begins as an emotional receptor, and challenging an erroneous belief, as adults, is difficult. People will justify their beliefs to the death, no matter proof to the contrary. The best way to convince is to actively listen, question and encourage them to roll their belief out on a limb until it falls by its own weight. Only then can they see it.


This means: Separation of Morality and State. Religion co-opted morality when Moses gave us the Ten Commandments and Jesus the Golden Rule, the foundation of our laws. This new idea of separation makes it illegal for any taxpayer-funded agency to include morality as part of its function. Imagine, going to jail because you did not kill someone. How about being sued by the ACLU because you treated someone as you would want them to treat you? Who turned America upside down? Even if I were an athiest, how could I take issue with common decency and morality? However, it cannot be, because there can now be no religion or morality associated with any behavior taking place in the public square.


New rights for America based on behavior are here. Our Creator gave us our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our constitutions protected our legal rights. Our most immoral legislators and judges now give us rights to our worst self-centered misbehaviors. The new rights they give us have no predictable limits as long as behaviors, tastes and fashions change. Courts will rule on whim and feelings of the moment, not the law. We will teach children to accept aberrant behaviors as rights, even participate in them, regardless of how destructive. The moral values of parents may not influence their children. Protecting unhealthy, life-threatening behaviors, instead of protecting children, is more important. Soon, there will be no distinction between right and wrong, good and evil, as each becomes a choice and a right. This is our chosen road back to the Dark Ages.


In a recent Bill O’Reilly interview of Whoopie Goldberg, Whoopie defined the true difference between a Liberal and a traditionalist American. She told O’Reilly he differed with her because he “thinks,” whereas she “feels” about issues. That is the difference! In our earliest years, we emote and feel about the world around us. As we grow, our reasoning faculty develops and we mature to adulthood using more reason than emotion, or so it should be. We expect mature individuals to think things out, using their logic and reason to understand their world. We are supposed to fortify our reason with a sound education. Our schools today do not fortify reason, nor even support it. Reasoning and thinking is something individuals do, whereas community members “feel” about things. Whoopie, like all liberals, are immature “feelers” who emote their way through life. Conservative Americans generally rely on reason, thinking and reality to order their lives.


You would not vote for anyone who dislikes you, or whom you dislike. Do your and their interests match? There are three kinds of people in the world. A small number are elite, smart, wonderful and caring, as they see it. To them, everyone else are children needing their care. Vote for them so they can remodel community. Then, a large number want to be cared for by the elite. They will vote for them too. A third group are good and capable and see everyone else equally so. They do not look for directions from an elite. They want your vote so they can stop the elite from meddling. In America, everyone benefits when non-meddlers are out of office. Self-proclaimed elite, smarter and more caring than anyone else, run for office so they can remodel society and rule as elites ruled before them, such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Hussein and Castro. So, who should you vote for?


Lacking courage and honor, our politicians demand we stop insulting the world's slave-masters. Would African-Americans still be slaves if Abraham Lincoln lacked the courage to fight slavery? Was the Declaration of Independence only for those in the North? Was it wrong to extend it to those in the South if it meant conflict? Was it worth a civil war to stop it from spreading to the rest of the nation? Then, is it wrong to challenge ruthless dictators so they will not spread their slave systems? Is it wrong to defend America against those who would challenge American freedom? Do those cowardly politicians really want to keep Americans free, or build their own ruthless dictatorships?


Do you want to end airborne particulate matter, i.e., air pollution? Do you want to end the biggest greenhouse gas, the one that traps heat from radiating back to space? I bet you want both! If you got both, you would have a bone-dry planet. Rain and snow, the water cycle, can only occur if moisture condenses on particles and then falls from the sky. The biggest greenhouse gas is moisture. Moisture, as clouds and fog, act like a blanket keeping you warm in your bed. It keeps heat from leaving the body of the planet. That is why it feels colder in the morning when the sky is clear, and warmer when cloudy. Carbon dioxide is miniscule compared to moisture. It serves to nourish plants as does moisture from the sky.


Maybe it is time. Many Americans want their economy taken over by people like a Boo Boo Bygolly and the United Nations. Third world nations can pick America's bones clean and remove its economic engine piece by piece to their nations, where they can use slave labor and pollute freely. It is UN style justice and we deserve it, if you listen to liberals. Freedom gave us too much. Is it time we stepped aside and let despotism have another chance?


"Scaring the voter" is credited to Al Gore with his global warming crises. Hillary needs to catch up. She can do it and become Mother Nature at the same time. She can say there is a global wobble crises. Uneven population on the planet causes it. All that weight on one side causes a wiggle in rotation, affecting the world's wobble. It shifts plates, causes earthquakes and tsunamis. Hillary's movie on the wobble crises, hosted by Rosie, predicts a Florida wipeout in the next tsunami. Shifting southern hemisphere waters will flood Australia. She wants the UN to move 300 million people from the other side of the planet to the United States. She will make them Democrats and put them on welfare. Host nations will empty their prisons, mental hospitals and Muslim training camps. The people of America will welcome the chance to double-up in their homes with these new immigrants.


Gullible warming is politically cool and attracts only the best people. They are the socially, sentimentally and emotionally elite of the feeling class who live far above ordinary people. Their complete rejection of reality and science, in favor of the aristocracy of care, is a model of the socialism of the elite. Global warming becomes the focus of danger upon which all manner of people can come together, as if united by a common enemy. Whosoever strays from the path of this fiction deemed truth, is unworthy of life in society. Only the wisdom of belonging is important when confronted with the truth of reality. Will you stay for tea?


The EPA must set cafe standards on human breath. Five members of the Supreme Court said Human exhalant of CO2 is like automobile exhaust, a pollutant. The EPA must regulate it. Breathing in is OK, breathing out is not. Large, overweight Americans are like SUVs. A law to prevent excessive CO2 emissions from nasal exhaust discourages hard labor, exercise and sex. Exertion is out. Rest is in.


Katrina was a shock in many ways. It is a major contributor to the death of American home rule. The counties, as local government, are first responders. States help when counties cannot. Washington was never a first responder, but can help. Government closest to the people joins with them to aid their own communities. Citizens share feelings of care and responsibility for their own communities. Those feelings and beliefs in personal responsibility made America what it is. Fingers pointed and palms up, toward Washington, cause the ideal of home rule to be diluted. What is left is a feeling of "Who cares?" Local citizens rising to meet challenges can be found in the great fire of 1875 in Virginia City, Nevada, as well as New York, Chicago and San Francisco. Citizens in the affected areas provide the best and fastest solutions.


Youth today expect quick and easy fame and fortune. It is easy to get if they get away with robbing a bank. Taking from others is always easier than serving others. It is easier than being a great sports or American Idol performer. It is much quicker than the usual way people acquire fame and fortune, like a Bill gates, Steve Jobs, or Thomas Edison. They focus on ideas outside of and greater than themselves. By thinking out of the bubble and living out of the box, they find new ways to serve, resulting in rewards from others. They get their fame and fortune because of successful quests. They do not focus on rewards. If young people could understand that, they would pursue a cause and not first an end. Regrettably, the young, from their self-centeredness, see only instant gratification as worthwhile, valued by no one else. They must mask the pain of failure to achieve meaningful fame and fortune with drugs, alcohol, promiscuity and early death.


PC, or Politically Correct speech or thought, is the limitation placed on anything contrary to accepted thinking. Managed thinking in America, by such groups as the ACLU and the New York Times, is accepted. They, not the Churches or written law, are the supreme judges of modern American belief. They decide what is correct thinking. Those courts judge and condemn the accused. They separate the accused, and their families of like mind, from the community. They must protect the community that has accepted PC as unwritten behavioral law. They view political incorrect mind-sets as social inheritance and a menace to citizens of the PC community. Liberals simply want to sanitize America and protect against aberrant thinking, although aberrant behavior is encouraged.


Labels should describe a product. Misleading buyers with bad labels is wrong. Todays political labels mislead! We need new labels so people know what they get when they vote or join a political party. There are only two political views needing good labels. One says community interests only are important. The other, that legitimate self-interest is best. Labels like right, left, conservative, liberal, or moderate do not represent these points of view. Freedom to pursue legitimate self-interest is the newest political view in the world. The oldest political ideal is supremacy of community interests. The welfare and needs of the tribe, community or nation, as an elite leader sees it, is more important than the impulses of individuals. The labels might be COMMUNALISM on one side, where the safety, security and stability of community is designed and managed by a small elite. INDIVIDUALISM is the other side, where people are free to think and live out of the bubble and box, and improve community from their own successes. These two labels cannot coexist.


Democrats are reputed to be for the little guy. Congressman Wright Patman, Democrat from Texas, started that myth. He and his party declared war on chain stores in the 1920s to stop giant retailers from squeezing mom and pop stores out of business. A&P, Penney, Sears, Kroger, Piggly-Wiggly, on up to present day Wal-Mart came under attack. Americans agreed with them and voted Democrat, but they voted for the Chain stores with their dollars. Product freshness, quality, variety and prices were better than mom and pop could offer. The little guy benefited from the chains' economy of scale and efficiency during times when every nickle counted. The same applies to mom and pop farms against huge corporate farms, which, like the chain stores, provide an economy of scale and production benefiting the little guy. The appeal of the myth is even stranger when we see how the Party, led by a few wealthy big guys, claims an interest while digging ever deeper into the little guy's pocket.


At best, ten percent of the American population, about 30 million people, could be the last supporters of the American dream of individual liberty. They represent about one-half percent (0.5%) of the world's population. It is a very small number aware of the ideals of liberty. Ordinary people having a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of legitimate self-interest started that American dream in New England. It resulted in America being the most prosperous nation in the world, providing the greatest happiness for the greatest number. People could think out of the bubble and live out of the box, chasing their own dreams and aspirations. They created and produced wild and crazy tools and methods to improve everyone's lives. Acceptance and understanding of that American dream has been dying in America, and not well known in other nations. The rest of the world just wants America's material wealth, not the ideals that produced it. Are half-percenters getting too old to care anymore, or have they just lost the will to fight?


Liberals and conservatives differ on whether community has greater value than individuals do. Restorative justice is an example of liberal community interest-based approaches to crime and conflict. It is what takes place in a family when a child breaks the rules. Punishment precedes forgiveness. It focuses on the harm, who was harmed, who did the harm and the affected community. The objective is repair, to put things back the way they were. In murder, things may never be put back right again. A victim is dead and is no longer of value to a community. The murderer still lives and may yet have value to community. The peace and stability of community is most important to the liberal. The conservative, however, disagrees with a community-based approach. Lawfully apprehended, tried and convicted, a murderer should be punished to the extent he punished a victim, not the community. It is a message to others. Behave or be punished. Restorative justice is injustice as a reward for bad behavior, not justice through punishment.


A tradition results in generally accepted behaviors by most everyone in a society. Traditions rise from beliefs, habits, customs and ways of doing things handed down from one generation to another. If you read the Declaration of Independence, you would see the expression of an accepted tradition of just how government is established. Jefferson and others did not discuss and formulate something people should believe, but reflected established beliefs. For 150 years prior to that Declaration, people created the American Tradition. They stood on their own feet, supported their families and their own communities. Those who prospered helped those who did not. They educated all children. They encouraged creative thinking and entrepreneurial dream chasing. That tradition built the wealthiest, most productive and creative nation in the world, and the only one based upon individual liberty. In the past 100 years, Democrats have been trying to alter the American society by altering its traditions. They are building new traditions founded on fear, anger, envy and greed, which will assure them of power for years to come over a nation of poverty and misery.

My Books

e.g. Fiction, History, Magazine Articles, etc. goes here
Creative people make prosperity
Changes which hurt America
Describes freedom to think and act
Essays for use by speakers for America