Ending foreign aid will do more to help people in impoverished
nations than all the aid we have given since the founding of this country. Foreign aid simply lines the pockets of
corrupt foreign leaders. It does not
help the people.
Van Jones on safe spaces.
He is correct. You should be
physically safe, but that does mean ideologically safe. We have the right to our own opinions. He
sounds classically liberal or libertarian, not really leftist, in this. I like it.
“I’m on board with the Trump
protesters, not because they are resisting Trump specifically, but because they
are resisting the power of the executive branch of government.”
Predictably, the republicans have put forth an absolutely
miserable plan for health insurance. It's terrible simply because it is a central plan.
“Just because Obama and the
Democrats tried to nationalize health care doesn’t mean Republicans should tie
themselves in knots trying to make Obamacare palatable—or functional. If they
really want it, let the states have at it.”
The proper health insurance plan is no plan at all. Let the people decide. That is my opinion.
What is fact is that health insurance should be decided by
the states. We should have 50 different
laboratories of health insurance. We can
have California on single payer and Texas on no plan at all and other states
somewhere in between. That is
Constitutional.
Dennis Prager with some wisdom:
“All this leads to a particular rule, which is,
in order to maintain a low crime rate and social stability, a country has only
two choices: Do not allow immigrants into the country, or allow immigrants into
the country, but be certain to assimilate them into the native population as
quickly as possible.
If you
want to understand the immigration crisis, just know that because the left has
undone the second choice, it has made the first choice — Japan’s choice — look
tenable to many for the first time in American history.”
As Prager points out, the left cries, “We are a nation of immigrants”
while blatantly ignoring the second half of the sentence: “who assimilate into America.” The more we identify and focus on
differences, praising diversity and multiculturalism, the more we divide
ourselves That is human nature. Of
course, diversity adds value to all our lives - as long as there is a common
unifying factor. IMO our unifying factor
is we are alL humans entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness. This is btw not a uniquely American
view, explaining why we see the assimilation portion of the statement.
Personally, I don’t necessarily think we need to assimilate
into America, but there is something to be said for assimilating into people
that love and respect each other.
This absolutely has to be from the Onion. People are going to drop rocks from the moon
and kill people on Earth and Guam is going to become so overpopulated that it
capsizes….? These morons. Give me a break.
Chris Rossini makes a very good point. As good as it might feel to spite the media,
we should never be happy when the government extends its power. Despite how dumb they might be or how much
propaganda they push, the media does not have the power to tax us, draft us into
an army, seize our assets “lawfully’ through civil asset forfeiture and
more. The government is the enemy at the
end of the day.
I 100% agree with Walter Williams’ enlightening explanation
for why we have race relation issues.
Government always yields a one size fits all solution, which inevitably
leads to conflict.
“The
prime feature of political decision-making is that it's a zero-sum game. One
person's gain is of necessity another person's loss. … As such, political
decision-making and allocation of resources is conflict enhancing while market
decision-making and allocation is conflict reducing. The greater the number of
decisions made in the political arena, the greater the potential for conflict.”
Williams further points out that ethnicity, color, religion and
regional differences, which create horrific wars is other countries, have not
been the genesis for the same behavior in America’s melting pot. Why?
“A good part of the answer is that in the United
States, there was little to be gained from being a Frenchman, a German, a Jew,
a Protestant or a Catholic. The reason it did not pay was because for most of
our history, government played a small part in our lives. When there's
significant government allocation of resources, the most effective means of
organizing for the gains are those proven most divisive, such as race,
ethnicity, religion and region.”
