When considering many issues in life as an individual or society, it is important to carefully consider all things before we make a decision. Everything we do has consequences to it, good or bad. Some of these consequences haunt or reward us throughout our lives and others cause us joy or pain for mere moments. There are decisions we make as individuals and as part of the society that sometimes create other issues and thus more decisions to be made, we call this the “Slippery Slope”.
The Sliders in society are the people that continually either make decisions without regards to consequences, ignore wrongs or are ignorant accomplices to wrongful actions of another. The most common excuse I hear by Sliders I have come across is that everybody does it. When they say this, they attempt to excuse themselves from being an accomplice by their support, when they actually, by their excuse, become part of the problem with no solution. It leads us down a slippery slope of making it an acceptable behavior for the next person. I am sure you can think of many examples that in the past were unacceptable even rude but today, because of the Sliders, is normal.
The Sliders have brought this country of ours to its knees by their looking the other way and letting things slide with our government. We have gone down many slippery Slopes and one could not be more obvious than the ever growing government. Our most dangerous Sliders are the politicians that lead us without making careful decisions. These economical and social decisions made by our politicians have led us to the brink of both economical and moral decay. They are the most dangerous of Sliders because with their ignorant accomplices come individual loss of freedoms and the tyranny that comes with it that affects us all.
Of course, not all of us our willing accomplices to letting things slide. The greatest example of this country in its battle against the Sliders is the Tea Party. Not only is this a group of Patriots that refuse to keep going down the slippery slope but, they are replacing the Sliders in office with politicians that will bring us back on sure footing. They have succeeded at making tax cuts a debate of how much rather than if we should cut. The Tea Party has waged war against the Sliders and trying to wake up as many of the ignorant accomplices at the same time.
- M. Garry
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Friday, April 22, 2011
Going Green: Government sponsored religion
Some of us go to church or other place of worship and are concerned about right and wrong and the rewards and punishments that come with not living a morally correct life. There are some of us that either are agnostic or have declared the belief in the existence of nothing regarding a higher intelligence.
Where does Environmentalism fall?
Let’s take a look at today’s Environmentalist. They believe man is ruining the Earth. That is the belief that all other notions come from in Environmentalism. That by itself does not make it a religion but, what brings them to that conclusion does. Environmentalism is not just a religious view it also has economical and political parts to it (Anti-Capitalism/Liberal).
The biggest modern day environmentalist belief is that the Earth is warming and we are having drastic weather because of what man is doing. Sadly, Al Gore was not the first to propagate this notion, 30 years before, Liberals were sure that the Earth was cooling because of what man was doing. Strangely enough, they also called for more government to solve the problem. This meant more regulations and a higher cost of doing business in the states.
This makes it more of a religious movement because you have to take a leap of faith to make this conclusion when there is nowhere close to a consensus that would make it more than a theory. It also, like most religions, has a lifestyle that they believe you should live to avoid Hell on Earth or at the very least bad consequences of great environmental disasters that will come if you don’t. This includes what to eat, how much water, toilet paper, and electric to use, what car to drive, the list goes on. I would be fine, along with most Americans, with their religious beliefs until they start seeking legislation to force me to live the way they believe is right to achieve righteousness.
How is government supporting it? It is very obvious. Government is involved in what kind of light bulbs we use because of Environmentalists beliefs, E-Checks here in areas of Ohio and other states for regulating unproven standards to cars, government green energy programs, cash for clunkers, etc… All in the name of governments support and campaign for going Green. Even to the extent of pressuring car manufacturers into making cars that people will not buy. It’s only a matter of time before Earth Day is made a national holiday if this is allowed to continue. So, yes, I think you can make a good case for government sponsored religion. It is one thing to have a belief it is another to force your beliefs on the rest of us with laws, Happy Earth day!
- M. Garry
Where does Environmentalism fall?
Let’s take a look at today’s Environmentalist. They believe man is ruining the Earth. That is the belief that all other notions come from in Environmentalism. That by itself does not make it a religion but, what brings them to that conclusion does. Environmentalism is not just a religious view it also has economical and political parts to it (Anti-Capitalism/Liberal).
The biggest modern day environmentalist belief is that the Earth is warming and we are having drastic weather because of what man is doing. Sadly, Al Gore was not the first to propagate this notion, 30 years before, Liberals were sure that the Earth was cooling because of what man was doing. Strangely enough, they also called for more government to solve the problem. This meant more regulations and a higher cost of doing business in the states.
This makes it more of a religious movement because you have to take a leap of faith to make this conclusion when there is nowhere close to a consensus that would make it more than a theory. It also, like most religions, has a lifestyle that they believe you should live to avoid Hell on Earth or at the very least bad consequences of great environmental disasters that will come if you don’t. This includes what to eat, how much water, toilet paper, and electric to use, what car to drive, the list goes on. I would be fine, along with most Americans, with their religious beliefs until they start seeking legislation to force me to live the way they believe is right to achieve righteousness.
How is government supporting it? It is very obvious. Government is involved in what kind of light bulbs we use because of Environmentalists beliefs, E-Checks here in areas of Ohio and other states for regulating unproven standards to cars, government green energy programs, cash for clunkers, etc… All in the name of governments support and campaign for going Green. Even to the extent of pressuring car manufacturers into making cars that people will not buy. It’s only a matter of time before Earth Day is made a national holiday if this is allowed to continue. So, yes, I think you can make a good case for government sponsored religion. It is one thing to have a belief it is another to force your beliefs on the rest of us with laws, Happy Earth day!
- M. Garry
Tea Party Fever
Getting sick of seeing half your check going to who knows what government program? Tired of hearing the whining of public employees because people want them to start contributing more of their own money instead of yours to their own pensions? Do you feel grief hearing the President defend an act of war in Libya, after spending his political life attacking our last President for doing much of the same?
If you answered yes to one of those questions you might have Tea Party Fever. The good news, once you have a dislike for limited government and a liking for the Constitution and your individual liberty, you will never desire the chains of socialism. There is no cure but, it can be treated by voting out politicians that do not defend the constitution and fight for a limited government. The treatment is ongoing and must be done at every opportunity.
Once you have infected your politician it will spread and cause great economic upturns, a feeling of American superiority, and reduce the size of the government. This fever does not discriminate and has infected Democrats, Independents, as well as Republicans. The people infected when gathered in great numbers are peaceful, but their voices can be heard across the country (Including: Alaska & Hawaii).
- M. Garry
If you answered yes to one of those questions you might have Tea Party Fever. The good news, once you have a dislike for limited government and a liking for the Constitution and your individual liberty, you will never desire the chains of socialism. There is no cure but, it can be treated by voting out politicians that do not defend the constitution and fight for a limited government. The treatment is ongoing and must be done at every opportunity.
Once you have infected your politician it will spread and cause great economic upturns, a feeling of American superiority, and reduce the size of the government. This fever does not discriminate and has infected Democrats, Independents, as well as Republicans. The people infected when gathered in great numbers are peaceful, but their voices can be heard across the country (Including: Alaska & Hawaii).
- M. Garry
Monday, April 18, 2011
Making Law: The Politics of Statistics
Should we make laws solely based on statistics? After all statistics can be discriminating and do not always show the big picture. To begin with, most of these statistically based laws are not just, because they do not protect you from another, they protect you from yourself.
When they make a statistic, you only see focus on what they have diagnosed has the problem they would solve if they took this action and not revealing the truth of it, that it is more politically motivated than it is making you safer. You simply leave out what may be inconvenient to your stats and add that which is more favorable to them. You can use statistics for most anything to make an appearance of something being unsafe and once you make it an emotional appeal it is very hard to make any logical appeal at that point.
Once you go down this road and make it a precedent, how can you tell anyone who has just lost someone that you will not make a law to protect others from their loved ones fate. It certainly would not sound very well to tell them that you are sorry for their loss and that freedom comes with certain risks to keep it. So, a politician buckles to pressure and we make a law that requires you to wear your seatbelt, or denies you some other choice that protects you from no one but, is made law based on emotional appeal and statistics that will not reveal how many others have not been harmed. Not to mention motorcyclists have no seatbelt, should we make it illegal to ride them? More importantly the most important fact lost in this debate is your right to choose is lost. Yet, you still have a right to risk your life skiing at high speeds down a slope, sky diving, rock climbing, etc… All of those activities putting their participants at high risk.
The thing that is of most concern to me is, to what end statistics will be used? We should never use statistics to make a case for a law. What should be used is reasoned arguments that do not make a case based on emotion. Protecting us from ourselves should never be law, it should be choice, as long as we do not harm others buy are actions.
- M. Garry
When they make a statistic, you only see focus on what they have diagnosed has the problem they would solve if they took this action and not revealing the truth of it, that it is more politically motivated than it is making you safer. You simply leave out what may be inconvenient to your stats and add that which is more favorable to them. You can use statistics for most anything to make an appearance of something being unsafe and once you make it an emotional appeal it is very hard to make any logical appeal at that point.
Once you go down this road and make it a precedent, how can you tell anyone who has just lost someone that you will not make a law to protect others from their loved ones fate. It certainly would not sound very well to tell them that you are sorry for their loss and that freedom comes with certain risks to keep it. So, a politician buckles to pressure and we make a law that requires you to wear your seatbelt, or denies you some other choice that protects you from no one but, is made law based on emotional appeal and statistics that will not reveal how many others have not been harmed. Not to mention motorcyclists have no seatbelt, should we make it illegal to ride them? More importantly the most important fact lost in this debate is your right to choose is lost. Yet, you still have a right to risk your life skiing at high speeds down a slope, sky diving, rock climbing, etc… All of those activities putting their participants at high risk.
The thing that is of most concern to me is, to what end statistics will be used? We should never use statistics to make a case for a law. What should be used is reasoned arguments that do not make a case based on emotion. Protecting us from ourselves should never be law, it should be choice, as long as we do not harm others buy are actions.
- M. Garry
Thursday, April 14, 2011
An Attempt to Redefine The Tea Party and More....
This was not directed at me but, I thought it a good example to show the misinformation being spread to keep their members from knowing the truth. This was from politablog on FaceBook.
Ha! I didn't even see the posts on here too! oh man... Don't listen to this John Martin guy, he is just another ultra-conservative, right-wing extremist. If you actually want Reason and civility in public affairs; A government accountable to the People; Liberty & Justice for All. Then join the Coffee Party, not this Tea Party crap that spews hate, lies and injustice.They are anti-science and look what they are doing in texas.
They want to remove the seperation of church and state, they want to get rid of Thomas Jefferson's ideas! They also want to make students learn and memorize Jefferson Davis' inaugural address right next to Lincoln's! It is shameful! Take action and learn! Don't try to change history and don't let the right-wing extremists change the US! They are just like the Fascists under Mussolini.
- Ashley
You are being gravely misinformed about the Tea Party. I think you might be misinformed about the failed Coffee Party too. The Coffee Party was set up to counter the beliefs of the tea Party, has in more government, more redistribution of wealth. Hate, lies, and injustice? You will have to be more specific. Anti-Science? If you refer to the believing the religion of Global Warming has a Science, you would be right. After all with Global Warming you have to believe considering there is hardly enough evidence to blame man for it. If man were being tried for crimes of Global Warming, I would say that there is plenty of reasonable doubt to dismiss the charges. It would be an injustice to make man pay for a theory.
Again, in Texas you might be exaggerating a little. Please be more specific. Besides the fact there is no such thing has separation of church and state. All that there is related to that topic is an idea that our founders did not want a state sponsored religion. They were very much all about freedom of religion, a main reason for independence was so men can freely associate with their religion.
Thomas Jefferson's ideas? Have you read any of his quotes. They are all about not using government for social engineering mostly and restraining government growth for the good of freedom.
Fascist? Once more, you need to take a look at the words. The Tea Party movement ideas of less government and more freedom is hardly authoritarian. Now, telling people how they should live their lives and making it law, that fits the definition of fascism and is more towards the liberal activity in government we have today.
- Micheal Garry
Ha! I didn't even see the posts on here too! oh man... Don't listen to this John Martin guy, he is just another ultra-conservative, right-wing extremist. If you actually want Reason and civility in public affairs; A government accountable to the People; Liberty & Justice for All. Then join the Coffee Party, not this Tea Party crap that spews hate, lies and injustice.They are anti-science and look what they are doing in texas.
They want to remove the seperation of church and state, they want to get rid of Thomas Jefferson's ideas! They also want to make students learn and memorize Jefferson Davis' inaugural address right next to Lincoln's! It is shameful! Take action and learn! Don't try to change history and don't let the right-wing extremists change the US! They are just like the Fascists under Mussolini.
- Ashley
You are being gravely misinformed about the Tea Party. I think you might be misinformed about the failed Coffee Party too. The Coffee Party was set up to counter the beliefs of the tea Party, has in more government, more redistribution of wealth. Hate, lies, and injustice? You will have to be more specific. Anti-Science? If you refer to the believing the religion of Global Warming has a Science, you would be right. After all with Global Warming you have to believe considering there is hardly enough evidence to blame man for it. If man were being tried for crimes of Global Warming, I would say that there is plenty of reasonable doubt to dismiss the charges. It would be an injustice to make man pay for a theory.
Again, in Texas you might be exaggerating a little. Please be more specific. Besides the fact there is no such thing has separation of church and state. All that there is related to that topic is an idea that our founders did not want a state sponsored religion. They were very much all about freedom of religion, a main reason for independence was so men can freely associate with their religion.
Thomas Jefferson's ideas? Have you read any of his quotes. They are all about not using government for social engineering mostly and restraining government growth for the good of freedom.
Fascist? Once more, you need to take a look at the words. The Tea Party movement ideas of less government and more freedom is hardly authoritarian. Now, telling people how they should live their lives and making it law, that fits the definition of fascism and is more towards the liberal activity in government we have today.
- Micheal Garry
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Arizona on The Horizon
Some people say that Arizona’s immigration law will ruin the economy. Although I am not sure how my friend Juan came to that conclusion. I would assume only that he may be misinformed on purpose and the nature of Arizona’s new law.
The new immigration law will help legal immigrants in Arizona and if similar bills are past many other immigrants in other states will be served better with stricter enforcement on the crime of illegal immigration. Much like enforcing laws against stealing helps lower the cost for people who choose to pay for their goods, immigration enforcement will lower the cost in waiting and other hardships to legal immigrants enter this country. It will also help in lessening the discrimination that come with being a immigrant when people are more secure in knowing the odds are higher that an immigrant next to them was here by legal means and contributing to society.
So, for the sake of all of our immigrants that come into this country legally, I hope it does work. The immigration process is there for a reason. There is a line of people who want to come to this country for the best opportunities on this Earth, in order to protect our citizens from disease and criminal elements we have to screen people and get to know them before we just let anyone in. That is all Arizona is doing. Read the law! Yes, they will be discriminating against people who are not here legally.
This Arizona law only requires that you follow the immigration laws of this country. Mexico has far more severe consequences for illegally migrating into Mexico. I welcome anyone from anywhere that wants to come to the USA through the front door.
- M. Garry
The new immigration law will help legal immigrants in Arizona and if similar bills are past many other immigrants in other states will be served better with stricter enforcement on the crime of illegal immigration. Much like enforcing laws against stealing helps lower the cost for people who choose to pay for their goods, immigration enforcement will lower the cost in waiting and other hardships to legal immigrants enter this country. It will also help in lessening the discrimination that come with being a immigrant when people are more secure in knowing the odds are higher that an immigrant next to them was here by legal means and contributing to society.
So, for the sake of all of our immigrants that come into this country legally, I hope it does work. The immigration process is there for a reason. There is a line of people who want to come to this country for the best opportunities on this Earth, in order to protect our citizens from disease and criminal elements we have to screen people and get to know them before we just let anyone in. That is all Arizona is doing. Read the law! Yes, they will be discriminating against people who are not here legally.
This Arizona law only requires that you follow the immigration laws of this country. Mexico has far more severe consequences for illegally migrating into Mexico. I welcome anyone from anywhere that wants to come to the USA through the front door.
- M. Garry
Monday, April 11, 2011
Seperation of Church and State or Congress Shall Make No Law?
Trying to find the seperation of church and state in the 1st amendment. Only thing I can find so far is, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." How is that a concept for seperation? All it says has to do with laws nothing more. Has long as laws are not made in support of religion or prohibiting it. Ten Commandments on State property is NOT congressional law, Christmas tree on city property is NOT congressional law. I am going to vote inside a church for crying out loud.
Creationism can be taught in schools because there is no law passed by congress for school teachings for or against the teaching of it, making that decision up to the States(10th Amendment). I'm sorry I had not called anyone stupid, I just thought someone might actually take aim at the issue intead of name calling. I am more comfortable voting for a candidate who wants to limit government and by proxy stop attacks on our freedoms versus a candidate that is for bigger government and by proxy voting for people telling me how I should live my life. Remember folks, all of us have more freedoms under smaller government.
M. Garry
.
Creationism can be taught in schools because there is no law passed by congress for school teachings for or against the teaching of it, making that decision up to the States(10th Amendment). I'm sorry I had not called anyone stupid, I just thought someone might actually take aim at the issue intead of name calling. I am more comfortable voting for a candidate who wants to limit government and by proxy stop attacks on our freedoms versus a candidate that is for bigger government and by proxy voting for people telling me how I should live my life. Remember folks, all of us have more freedoms under smaller government.
M. Garry
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
