Wednesday, January 4, 2012

How the Failed Department Of Education Kills jobs

Simple arguments against the DOE... this isn't a hard case to make either if we'd all do our part and read.

Has the Department of Education Failed?


How much does the Department of Education Cost?

The DOE costs American taxpayers about $25,000 per student PER year. The department of education was designed to improve test scores. It has not so... Case and point. the DOE failed. 

How Does the DOE kill jobs?

How does the government make money?

They cannot. The government ONLY makes money by stealing it from the taxpayer either through taxation or through inflation (printing money). Which leads one to the simple conclusion that if the government steals from group A to pay for group B, group C is never realized. (read forgotten man theory)

All  government spending, especially the ineffective spending, kills jobs. We as the citizens must weigh out and decide what government spending is essential and what government spending in a hinderance. The department of education is a hinderance.

Also, government involvement in Education, like all other areas the government gets involved in, has caused the costs of college to rise astronomically. Simply put, if the college is guaranteed money through government loans, they will, like any other business, push the prices of their tuition up.

Friday, November 18, 2011

Newt Gingrich's Manufactured Rise

Gingrich is now at the top of the polls, I believe it is a manufactured sensation. The media does have sway, see between November 6th and November 13th the News references exploded, figuratively speaking. Newt Gingrich is just a flavor of the month big government Neo-Con

Friday, November 11, 2011


@CynthiaCHeath "If" I am biased it's 'cause I desperately want a candidate who can fix economy. Who would that be in your unbiased opinion?"


I apologize for engaging you outside of twitter and I am sorry if I came across as rude or condescending, due to the 140 character limitation on twitter it’s difficult to have a rational conversation. I assume that since our conversations are public via twitter anyway that you won’t mind engaging in polite debate here instead. I extend an olive branch from one American to another.

Bias and desperation are two very dangerous things to combine. How can you asses the logical outcome of an individual’s idea if you are admittedly bias? There is plenty of data out there on each candidate and to arbitrarily support one based on the rehearsed and strategic campaign rhetoric, phrases which are designed to appeal to you, is simply irresponsible.

“…who can fix economy. Who would that be in your unbiased opinion?”

My choice for president is the only person who has the historical record to prove that he understands economics. The only candidate documented who vividly predicted the housing market collapse in 2002 and warned us how to avoid the financial collapse in 2007. When all the other candidates were clueless and thought everything was fine. I allude without revealing his name to avoid your admitted bias, however at this point, you already know who I am talking about. Ron Paul, who is now predicting a world collapse “many times worse than the great depression and on a world level”, we all made the mistake of not listening to him last time…

The other candidates who are ex-lobbyists, bankers and corporate owned politicians will simply provide more of the same spending to suit their benefit. You want to desperately save the economy? None will provide a better monetary policy and the world financial market will collapse with the dollar, guaranteed.

I look forward to your response, take care.

Cynthia Response:

You are absolutely right. Twitter is a horrible medium for any kind of intelligent discourse. I welcome this kind of civil debate as it implies that we are attempting to weed through all the hyperbole and instead focus on what our priorities as a nation really are.

I told you that finding a fiscal conservative who can fix the economy is of utmost importance. Closely behind that in my opinion is supporting a candidate that understands that a strong military is the key to keeping us safe. Military strength equals peace.

Obama has done so much damage to our reputation as a strong military power. I want a candidate who will stand with our allies in defending democracy in the world.

Strong fiscal and military policy go hand to hand to keeping America strong.

My husband and I have had discussion at depth into Ron Paul's policies because we think his economic ideas are brilliant. I also believe he is a good family man and exemplifies family values that are necessary if the GOP is to remain that party.

The reasons I choose to support Mitt Romney over Ron Paul is the foreign policy piece of the puzzle. I don't think we can be fiscally strong if we are not safe. The world has changed dramatically and 9/11 taught us many lessons. There are many in the world who hate us and want us destroyed. As a Christian I must support the strongest candidate in defending Israel because they are our strongest ally in the Mid East.

I also know people personally who worked with Mitt Romney when he took over the Olympics in Salt Lake. He accomplished nothing short of a miracle in turning that endeavor which was originally very much in the red to actually turning a profit. That has not happened in modern day Olympic history.

Meg Whitman recently lost the Governor's race here in CA. She talked about working with Mitt Romney personally and described him as a man of integrity and one of the most honest businessmen she'd ever had the privilege of knowing. I believe her as having lived in CA I have followed her success at E Bay and now moving on to CEO at Hewlitt Packard.

Obviously I can go on and on. I respect your choice as I believe you've based it on facts. I hope you can mine as I have based it on my own research and personal experience.

My Response:


It’s great that you and your husband have devoted real thought on whom to choose, a great many Americans go simply on superficialities. However, I’d like to submit to you something most don’t consider: Motive.
In World War II Americans the nation over rallied for war, we begged for it, but what determined us? Looking back today we widely understand that propaganda had undeniably played a major role in our battle cry, images and words specifically designed to invoke emotion from us.  Do you think in the 1930’s and 40's that one would have accepted that these emotional ideas they held near and dear were a product of propaganda? To declare such at that time would have been blasphemous to the majority.

For the sake of my emerging argument it’s very fortunate that you used this particular phrase:

The world has changed dramatically and 9/11 taught us many lessons.”

If I propose to you that such a phrase is simply propaganda designed to evoke an emotion and to rally support for war would that ring as blasphemous to you? I suspect it would, as it would’ve to the people in the 1930’s and 40's. Do you think that 80 years from now historians who are afforded the benefit of time and hindsight would declare it as such? Will they agree with our emotional vindication that our only crime that we have ever committed is that we are free?

If we remove the irrationality of emotion and replace it with statistical data, testimony and philosophical logic we arrive at something much more substantive that of simple arbitrary hatred of ones way of life. Rather, we arrive at the understanding of blow-back from oppression and occupation, which began in the Middle East long before 9/11. This has been thoroughly covered in writings by University of California Professor Chalmers Johnson, but does one need to go even that far? Why can’t we take the words of the criminal himself at face value?

"While seeking Allah's help, we form our reply based on two questions directed at the Americans:
(Q1) Why are we fighting and opposing you?
(Q2) What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?
As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:
(1)   Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.

(i)                Palestine, which has sunk under military occupation for more than 80 years. The British handed over Palestine, with your help and your support, to the Jews, who have occupied it for more than 50 years; years overflowing with oppression, tyranny, crimes, killing, expulsion, destruction and devastation. The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals. And of course there is no need to explain and prove the degree of American support for Israel. The creation of Israel is a crime which must be erased. Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its*price, and pay for it heavily.”
“(b) You attacked us in Somalia; you supported the Russian atrocities against us in Chechnya, the Indian oppression against us in Kashmir, and the Jewish aggression against us in Lebanon.”
“(d) You steal our wealth and oil at paltry prices because of you international influence and military threats. This theft is indeed the biggest theft ever witnessed by mankind in the history of the world.
(e) Your forces occupy our countries; you spread your military bases throughout them; you corrupt our lands, and you besiege our sanctities, to protect the security of the Jews and to ensure the continuity of your pillage of our treasures.”

Osama’s letter goes on and is very specific.

Ron Paul voted to go after Osama Bin Laden; he also added that we needed to define our enemy so that we wouldn’t be in war perpetually. I firmly believe that the definition of these wars has been purposely vague as to insure longevity; but I will get back to this later.

On 9/11 we lost 2974 Americans, a tragedy we will never forget. But how do we make sure this never happens again? Do we continue with a foreign policy of occupation and intervention which all logic, data and testimony instigated the 9/11 attacks? Does it make sense that we’ve lost 8,000 American lives fighting an enemy that we can’t even define? How do we kill an idea? 

I have some statistics I’d like you to look over to display just how irrational our fear is of terrorism.

Odds of dying in a car crash:   1 in 6,500
Odds of being struck by lightning:   1 in 576,000
Odds of dying in a plane crash:   1 in 5,400,000
Odds of dying in a terrorist attack:   1 in 25,000,000

Our fear or terrorism is irrational as much like car accidents, terrorist attacks can NEVER be stopped; there will always be someone out there who hates us. They can, however, be greatly reduced by trading with other countries instead of occupying and killing their people, most of which are completely innocent of the 9/11 attacks.

As a Christian I must support the strongest candidate in defending Israel because they are our strongest ally in the Mid-East.”

I find it so strange that it is the Christians who are the most adamantly for war, the same Christians who demand that we protect a fetus’s life but then care nothing of collateral damage, the unjust death of a 5 year old Palestinian child. Doesn’t Christianity transcend race and region? I am not religious, but I have always admired Christianity for the morality that it instills. Where’s the morality in this? Israel has 300 nukes, she can take care of herself.

I urge you to research how much foreign aid we give to Israel and her surrounding countries, you will be sure to find that we give Israel three times less money than we give to her enemies. If we stopped giving all of them money, she would be better off. Essentially, our government takes money from the poor taxpayers here and gives the money to rich bureaucrats and dictators in other countries, often under contract that the aid be spent on our weapons and military technology.


If what I say is accurate, that propaganda rallies our support for war. Then who induced the propaganda? The answer is simply, the war profiteers:

Once one takes this into consideration, one begins to understand why Ron Paul is marginalized by the media, I go into depth about this in an earlier writing. Basically if he won, their profiteering racket would be over. If Mitt Romney wins, their profits continue.

Mitt Romney has deep ties in lobbyism with many of the companies that donate to his campaign are major shareholders in the federal reserve, the federal reserve and her elastic dollar is what makes perpetual war possible. 

Mitt Romney Donors:

“Strong fiscal and military policy go hand to hand to keeping America strong.”

This is political rhetoric and couldn’t be further from the truth. How did we arrive at such a financial calamity if this were remotely accurate? How did Rome collapse? She expanded during a financial crisis. We are not immune from this; history will repeat itself. We are broke and as Ron Paul says, we will either come home because it’s the moral thing to do or because of financial collapse.

Last thing I must say address, and will be proven. You cannot take our economic crisis seriously without scrutinizing and understanding the Federal Reserve. I offer this audio file of the prolific and respected Austrian Economist Murray Rothbard. Don’t think of it as a chore, but as a gift. I promise that once you have listened to his brief easy to follow lecture, you will never think about money, economy or the Federal Reserve the same. You will also understand why a Mitt Romney presidency will lead to financial collapse as his fiscal policy will not touch the Fed.

Take Care,