The Coronavirus and the Liberty versus saving lives debate

The Coronavirus pandemic has ignited online one of the most important debates, where do you draw line between saving lives and protecting freedom and liberty. This is also an internal debate I’ve been struggling with since this whole crisis began and I’ve switched back and forth as things have developed, often too rapidly to keep up with

When the voluntary mass cancellations of sporting events, the closings of schools, and the travel bans from overseas first occurred I believed all of this was an unnecessary overreaction on a major scale.  I maintained that belief for several days.  It wasn’t until I learned the goal behind all of this was to “flatten the curve” that I changed my mind.  Reading this article from The Federalist Papers article Coronavirus Control Measures Aren’t Pointless – Just Slowing Down The Pandemic Could Save Millions of Lives is what changed my mind about all of this

The goal is to “flatten the curve.” Rather than letting the virus quickly rampage through the population and burn itself out fast, the idea is to spread all those infections out over a longer period of time.

Flattening the curve is another way of saying buying more time. Yes, it would potentially prolong the epidemic. But in doing so, public health agencies and the health care infrastructure gain invaluable time to respond to the crisis.

Most importantly, “flattening the curve” provides an opportunity to significantly reduce deaths from COVID-19.

On the steep rise of the epidemic curve, especially when testing capacity is lacking, there is a tremendous burden on health care providers – many of whom will fall ill themselves and be forced to self-isolate, becoming unable to provide care for those in need. At the same time, there is immense pressure placed on health care facilities where demand for patient care will outpace capacity – things like the number of hospital beds, ventilators and so on – for a significant amount of time.

Now that I’m familiar with the topic of flattening the curve I can see that this disruption of normal life is necessary when a society is facing a dangerous contagious disease.  This health crisis introduced me to another new concept which can halt the spread of a communicable disease:

Social distancing requires changes in how people work, live and interact with each other. It may require canceling or avoiding big events, limiting nonessential travel and rescheduling conferences. Traditional classroom instruction may have to move to online delivery – already happening in some colleges and universities, though less easy to do for K-12 schools.

Unfortunately this current threat is a completely new strain of virus, one where no one has a natural immunity.  It is the unknown nature of the threat that convinced me that the closings and cancelings are necessary.

The complete clinical picture with regard to COVID-19 is not fully known. Reported illnesses have ranged from very mild (including some with no reported symptoms) to severe, including illness resulting in death. While information so far suggests that most COVID-19 illness is mild, a reportexternal icon out of China suggests serious illness occurs in 16% of cases. Older people and people of all ages with severe chronic medical conditions — like heart disease, lung disease and diabetes, for example — seem to be at higher risk of developing serious COVID-19 illness.

The CDC Website on COVID-19 contains a wealth of great information on this current threat.  It is the communicable nature of this disease that convinced me that these steps are necessary.

A pandemic is a global outbreak of disease. Pandemics happen when a new virus emerges to infect people and can spread between people sustainably. Because there is little to no pre-existing immunity against the new virus, it spreads worldwide.

The virus that causes COVID-19 is infecting people and spreading easily from person-to-person. Cases have been detected in most countries worldwide and community spread is being detected in a growing number of countries. On March 11, the COVID-19 outbreak was characterized as a pandemic by the WHO

This Newsweek article Newt Gingrich: I Am in Italy Amid the Coronavirus Crisis. America Must Act Now—And Act Big was the final piece of information that changed my mind and convinced me that all of this is necessary.

These steps are not an overreaction. The coronavirus is out of control of in Northern Italy. As of 6 p.m. local/1 p.m. EST on March 10, there were 15,113 total cases in Italy, with 12,839 active cases, 1,016 deaths and 1,258 recoveries. And there were 162 total cases here in Rome.

The hardest-hit region around Milan has had to improvise as its health system has been deeply stressed by the sheer number of patients. In Milan and Brescia, field hospitals have been set up in the fairgrounds as the local hospitals have been drowned in patients.

Because the demand for respirators and intensive care has been beyond any previous planning, doctors have been forced into the kind of triage thinking developed for intense battlefield casualty situations. There are reports that emergency room doctors are allotting respirators to those with higher life expectancy due to the limited equipment in the hardest hit areas of the province. If you are older or have other illnesses, you may simply not be eligible for treatment.

As Libertarian I am 100 percent against the government at any level, but especially the federal government, ordering the mandatory canceling of events, domestic travel bans, and closing private businesses.  A much better solution would be for the government to urge, suggest, and educate that all of this necessary, and it takes place.  A voluntary curtailing of social activity is the only way to preserve our freedom and rights while protecting our health.  The mandatory steps taken by Governor Charlie Baler and the rest are wrong because they are mandated by the government.

Unfortunately a lot of people do not listen to good advise and refuse to stop engaging in behavior that puts others at risk of catching this disease, which could cause the virus to spread uncontrollably.  What do we do about that?  UGH.  That is the question that I’m struggling with the most. Liberty is the freedom to do as you wish as long as you do not harm others.  Spreading the virus to others definitely harms them and could harm society as a whole.  

Is Joe Biden a moderate? Checkout his campaign website

It has been often reported by the liberal media, and even some on the political right, that Joe Biden is a moderate.  My immediate reaction to these statements is that they are a bunch of bunk. After studying his positions and statements on issues I knew he is nearly as far  to the left as Bernie Sanders.  To confirm this I checked out the Biden for President official website.  Here are his positions on some of the most important issues.  All quotes are from his campaign website and all emphasis is from the website.

Joe Biden still is completely all for ObamaCare, which was a socialist takeover of our healthcare industry.

As president, Biden will protect the Affordable Care Act from these continued attacks. He opposes every effort to get rid of this historic law – including efforts by Republicans, and efforts by Democrats. Instead of starting from scratch and getting rid of private insurance, he has a plan to build on the Affordable Care Act by giving Americans more choice, reducing health care costs, and making our health care system less complex to navigate.

Because Joe Biden supports the public option rather than the full Medicare for All, he is slightly more moderate on healthcare than Sanders.  He is only slightly less to left of Sanders because the public option has always been a stealthy installment plan way of eventually reaching an entirely government run healthcare system.

Giving Americans a new choice, a public health insurance option like Medicare. If your insurance company isn’t doing right by you, you should have another, better choice. Whether you’re covered through your employer, buying your insurance on your own, or going without coverage altogether, the Biden Plan will give you the choice to purchase a public health insurance option like Medicare. As in Medicare, the Biden public option will reduce costs for patients by negotiating lower prices from hospitals and other health care providers.

As you can see from this quote on gun control Joe Biden is very much a radical leftist.

It’s within our grasp to end our gun violence epidemic and respect the Second Amendment, which is limited. As president, Biden will pursue constitutional, common-sense gun safety policies.

As president Joe Biden would use executive orders to drastically infringe on our right to bear arms.

Joe Biden also knows how to make progress on reducing gun violence using executive action. After the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, President Obama tasked Vice President Biden with developing both legislative proposals and executive actions to make our communities safer.

Here is a very radical gun control proposal.

Hold gun manufacturers accountable. In 2005, then-Senator Biden voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, but gun manufacturers successfully lobbied Congress to secure its passage. This law protects these manufacturers from being held civilly liable for their products

Here are three more gun control quotes from his website.  Judge for yourself whether they are radical or moderate.

Get weapons of war off our streets. The bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines that Biden, along with Senator Feinstein, secured in 1994 reduced the lethality of mass shootings.

Buy back the assault weapons and high-capacity magazines already in our communities. Biden will also institute a program to buy back weapons of war currently on our streets.

Reduce stockpiling of weapons. In order to reduce the stockpiling of firearms, Biden supports legislation restricting the number of firearms an individual may purchase per month to one.

That last quote is one of the most radical positions I’ve encountered.  The government at any level has no right to tell anyone how many guns they can own.

The immigration section of the Joe Biden Website is very lengthy and very far to the left.  Here is the most telling quote,

Creates a roadmap to citizenship for the nearly 11 million people who have been living in and strengthening our country for years. These are our mothers, fathers, brothers, and sisters. They are our neighbors, co-workers, and members of our congregations and Little League teams.

This one quote is an attempt to appear more centrist. Democrats have promised border security but have never delivered.

As president, Biden will finish the work of building a fair and humane immigration system–restoring the progress Trump has cruelly undone and taking it further. He will secure our border, while ensuring the dignity of migrants and upholding their legal right to seek asylum.

On the environment Joe Biden is very much a radical leftist.  As you can see he fully supports the Green New Deal which is a 90 trillion dollar laundry list of liberal dreams and desires.

Biden believes the Green New Deal is a crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face. It powerfully captures two basic truths, which are at the core of his plan: (1) the United States urgently needs to embrace greater ambition on an epic scale to meet the scope of this challenge, and (2) our environment and our economy are completely and totally connected.

Spread the word on social media that Joe Biden is very much a radical leftist

If we could stop looking to the federal government to solve our problems that would be great

It is abundantly clear from the transcripts of the Constitutional Convention and the transcripts of the Ratification Debates, the framers of the Constitution would never have dreamed that the federal government would become the primary solver of all the problems facing the people of the United States.  In fact most would be horrified, saddened, and confused to learn how it is now.

The framers of the Constitution would be horrified to learn that most problems are now solved on the federal government level because they knew the end result of this would be an extremely large and powerful federal government.  They knew that such a large and powerful federal government would be an extreme threat to the rights and liberty of the American people.  They took great care to write a Constitution that would prevent the federal government from growing so large and powerful.

The framers of the Constitution would be saddened to hear that the American people chose to abandon the constitution that they so expertly crafted for us.  Only by abandoning the Constitution could we allow the federal government to become the solver of all of our problems.

The framers of the Constitution would be confused that the federal government is now the primary solver of most of our problems because of all the provisions they worked into the Constitution to make sure the federal government would not have power and authority to carry out this role.  The federal government created by the Constitution was only meant to carry specific roles namely, to defend the United States as a whole, to represent the United States as one nation diplomatically to other nations, and to prevent the individual states from squabbling with each other.  The Constitution created a federal government with a very limited number of powers, all of them clearly spelled out.  None of those powers grant the federal government the power and authority to solve problems such as healthcare, poverty, education, and so much more.

The framers of the Constitution knew that the individual States, local governments, and individuals were the proper places to solve the problems of this nation,  That is exactly the blueprint they used when they wrote the Constitution.

Here is my solution to the healthcare crisis that would fit into the Constitution, and has a remarkable probability of working: let each state come up with their own unique solution to the problem for the residents of that state.  The government of each state could communicate with each other to find out which solutions worked the best and perhaps copy it.

The federal government has tried to fix education and has only made the problem far greater.  The same holds true for poverty.

To increase the prosperity of individuals the federal government needs to get out of the way.  For far too many decades the federal government has smothered private businesses with too many regulations.  President Trump has begun to dial this back, however, there is so much more that needs to be done.  Greatly slashing tax rates would be a tremendous help also, the first Trump tax were only a small step in that direction.

The war on poverty has only resulted in more poverty and way too much dependence on government handouts.  Private charity would do far more good along with the greatly increased standard of living that would be generated for everyone with slashed regulations and taxes.

So many other problems we are looking to the federal government to solve would actually be solved at the state and local level if we let that happen.

Are teacher unions behind the indoctrination of school children?

The indoctrination of American youth is one of the most major calamities facing this nation.  For a very long time I’ve suspected that teacher unions are most responsible for the indoctrination.  It is an informed suspicion based on a lot of research and because I was forced to join a teacher union when taught part time at a community college. 

My suspicions were confirmed when I read the Life News article  Most teachers quite disturbed about their unions’ push for sexualization and indoctrination of school children,  The article chronicles a speech made by a teacher at a Heritage Foundation event.  Here are the opening paragraphs of the article:

Speaking in the nation’s capital, a 28-year veteran California teacher explained that most teachers are disturbed by the decades-long push to indoctrinate and oversexualize school children by teachers’ unions dedicated to far-left cultural and political causes and not the well-being of kids. 

“When you hear that teachers are behind comprehensive sexuality education or that teachers agree with the sexualization of children, that’s a huge deception,” said Rebecca Friedrichs.   

On the contrary, “America’s real teachers are deeply distrubed by the sexualization of our children,” said Friedrichs.  

“America’s real teachers have been silenced and bullied by the very organization that is pushing the sexualization of children: That is, labor unions,” she declared.  

As you can see, Fredrichs is clear that the teachers unions, not the teachers, are behind the indoctrination,

The unions attack the very virtues that most teachers cherish. They have used the teaching profession to gain unfettered access to America’s children

She further emphasizes this with the following story.

At National Education Association (NEA) events, “Teachers were wined and dined, and if you agreed to start a gay-straight alliance on your campus, you could get big money,” said Friedrichs. “You could also get money to push LGBT activism in the classroom. But can you get money to actually do something to help your students? No. Can you get support — as a union leader — for your colleagues? No.” 

Most of the business items at NEA conventions “are about far left politics, the LGBT agenda, and divisive narratives,” said the veteran educator. “Every divisive word you hear or see in our culture was first mentioned or made up inside the unions.”

At NEA representative assemblies, I have teacher friends who have been fighting against the oversexualization of our children for over 30 years,” recounted Friedrichs.    

“Here’s how they’ve been treated: They have been spit upon. They have been screamed at. Their path back to their seats have been blocked. They have been barred from serving on sex-ed and health committees.

The over sexualization of children is the most dangerous and despicable form of indoctrination being pushed on school children across this nation.  Most parents are not aware of this.  They would be shocked and disturbed if they were better informed.   Here is a list of graphic examples from the article”

“So teachers are bullied on every level, and we are horrified at the instruction we are being told to teach to your children,” declared Friedrichs.

She offered a few examples:

We’re told to teach children of their ‘sexual rights,’ that they should have sexual pleasure at all ages; 

That out of wedlock sex with anyone you want is just fine from any age, and hey, you shouldn’t think you’re not bisexual or homosexual.  Don’t knock it until you try it.”

We are told that the number one goal we are to teach children is to prevent pregnancy.  

We are told to teach children how to use condoms by bringing in fully erect penics models for them to manipulate. Ten and 11 year olds.  

All of this has to be done in mixed company because we are told to tell the children as young as four, ‘your parents didn’t know your gender when you were born, so they assigned you a gender. There is really a huge spectrum of genders. You will figure out your gender someday. That is child abuse. It is also the abuse of parents. It’s also religious abuse.  

We are told we have to tell children how and where to obtain birth control, including the morning-after pill and abortion without parental knowledge or permission from age 12. 

“The details are so inappropriate that I cannot even mention them to you today,” continued Freidrichs. “But they’re being said to our children in America’s schools. That is evil.” 

Parents need to speak out loudly and stop this madness.

Shining some light on the true nature of Socialism

The fact that Bernie Sanders, the self avowed socialist, appears to be currently the front runner for the Democratic Presidential nomination is proof our educational system has failed to properly educate far too many about the true nature of Socialism.  It is up to us on the political right to set the record straight on social media. To make this easier I’ve assembled a selection of quotes from a couple of articles.

The first collection of quotes are from this American Thinker article Bernie Bros and the Catastrophe of Socialism

This first quote is not to flattering, yet it is accurate.

The love affair of young Americans with Bernie Sanders is the result of their disturbingly disastrous belief that they are entitled to what other people worked for. Pied Piper Bernie seduces young followers with his seductive lie: “You deserve and I will give you everything for free.” Ponder that, folks. In Bernie’s America, no one has to work for anything.

This next quote perfectly sums up one aspect of socialism the youth of this country fail to appreciate, it primarily benefits the least productive workers at the expense of the most productive.

You and Larry have summer jobs as waiters. You work your butt off, remembering patrons’ food orders correctly and swiftly filling their empty glasses; doing everything in your power to make their dining experience enjoyable. For your excellence, patrons tip you generously.

But rather than your well-deserved hard-earned money going into your pocket, it goes into a tip jar to be distributed equally between you and Larry. Meanwhile, Larry routinely arrives late, reeks of alcohol, takes long smoke breaks, routinely gets food orders wrong and does not give a rat’s derriere about the patrons. Management (government) forces you to share the fruits of your labor with lazy Larry. That is the major flaw of socialism.

Most students are not informed that socialism was attempted in several of the earliest colonies of this nation, and it failed each time.  One attempt was made in Plymouth Plantation.

William Bradford was the first governor of the Pilgrims’ Plymouth Colony. Bradford tried socialism, which meant that everything belonged to the community and everyone supposedly did their fair share of the work. Because of lazy Larrys, it failed. Therefore, Bradford wisely decided to give everyone their own land, which was extremely successful. Due to an abundance, families began trading goods and services. Capitalism.

I don’t think too many millennials would be thrilled to learn that socialism would put an end to innovation in the United States.

Duped Bernie Bros are thrilled over his promise to confiscate all earnings over a million dollars. Cell phones, the internet, medical breakthroughs, and other blessings are the result of individuals being allowed to be the best they can be; striving to reap great rewards for themselves and their families. Folks, there is nothing evil about that. If the government takes everything over a million dollars, why would anyone take risks or pursue new breakthroughs?

This next article, from the Mises institute, is rather technical, however, it contains a treasure trove of information Socialism: A Brief Taxonomy

As you can see from this quote, the most often cited definition of Socialism is incomplete:

The contemporary meaning of socialism often runs along the lines that it is a politico-economic theory in which the means of production, wealth distribution, and exchange are supposed to be owned and regulated by the community as a whole. This characterization of socialism emphasizes its important economic features; however, it cannot be considered a comprehensive definition. The wording implies a narrow understanding of socialism from the point of view of materialist and positivist currents of socialism but does not fully encompass the features exhibited in antimaterialist, anti-Cartesian, and Kantian members of the socialist family.

Here is a much more complete definition:

Socialism is a set of artificial socioeconomic systems that are characterized by varying degrees of collectivization of property, or consciousness, or the redistribution of wealth… socialization of property, collectivization of consciousness, and wealth redistribution are necessary and sufficient causative factors that taken separately or in combination unambiguously define an ideology as socialistic and designate preferred paths to socialism

The Mises article contains definitions of many different types of Socialism that have cropped up over the centuries, the one for Democratic Socialism is the most crucial to understand considering the popularity of Bernie Sanders.

Democratic Socialism in the USA, is a significant revision to Marxism, which practically does not leave even the foundation of genuine Marxist principles. Reformism has been a mainstream form of socialist ideology and practice since the end of the nineteenth century. Redistribution of wealth and partial socialization of consciousness are the main paths being utilized by the doctrine. Socialism is supposed to be gradually built within a capitalistic society by methodically changing the socioeconomic laws of the land using parliamentary procedures. Great importance is also attached to the mental transformation of members of the society through the indoctrination of the population in educational institutions and the propaganda of the socialistic ideals in the mass media, social networks, and materials of pop culture.

Equity – The latest hot concept in progressive indoctrination

Progressive indoctrination in the United States was once confined primarily to colleges and universities.  It has now infected grade schools and high schools across this nation.  The purpose of this indoctrination is to convert this nation from a liberty based free market nation into a Marxist nation.   This is chronicled in the Townhall article; Marxism Sugarcoated And Forcefed To Schoolchildren As ‘Equity’

American elementary schools have spent the past decade rapidly introducing leftist and socialist curricula into classrooms of little children. This type of leftist propagandization was previously reserved for older children in colleges and high schools. But the Obama era, followed by the shock of Trump’s election, catalyzed a more emboldened approach for leftist pedagogy. 

The progressive indoctrination has been spread through our schools by using many different warm and fuzzy sounding phrases and buzzwords.  This is a subject I’ve studied in great detail online and have covered it on several occasions on this website.  The concept of equity versus equality is a new one to me even though I’ve encountered many examples over the years.   Here is how it is defined by the author of the Townhall article:

Enter the new era of socialist propagandization of children: “equity.” Equity is taught as a type of superior fairness. It replaces the now archaic concept of equality. Equality is explained to our children as “generic” and “equal,” apparently bad things, while equity is pedestaled as “fair. ” You see, equality means that everyone has the same, equal opportunities, but this leads to unequal results. Equity, on the other hand, ensures identical results and thus leads to “fair” outcomes. The idea that America should offer equality of opportunity, not equality of result, is now dead, and has been replaced with the reverse standard – that America should offer equality of result

This nation was founded on the concept of each and every individual being created equal, we are all familiar with that most important line from the Declaration of Independence.  Hopefully it is still being taught in schools.  With the sad state of public school education you just don’t know.

The founders of this nation all knew that because every individual is truly unique, everyone with different talents, intellect, skills, and ambitions, every individual will achieve different levels of prosperity in a truly free society, with a free market economy.   They firmly believed that even though some individuals would achieve a higher standard of living than others, there was no better system.  Their belief in the rightness of that system is based on the fact that government force and coercion would be needed to guarantee equal outcomes for every individual.   They knew that money or other property would have to be forcibly taken from individuals with more wealth and redistributed to those who have less.  This is true in the United States thanks to the progressive income tax and redistributive welfare programs. If you don’t think force and coercion are involved here in this country try not paying your taxes. 

Like all indoctrination, clever and subtle messages are the most effective way to implement it such as this:

To teach the concept, children are shown an example of three kids trying to look over a fence: a short, medium, and tall child. In the first slide, each of them is given an equally-sized box to stand on. This results in the shortest kid not boosted up enough to be able to see over the fence, while the tallest kid is shown to be getting a boost that he doesn’t really need. Next, a second slide is shown. The tallest boy’s box is given to the shortest kid, with the shortest kid now standing on two boxes. The middle child keeps one, and the tallest gets none. The result is that everyone can now see over the fence, equally. The conclusion is taught as: “Fair isn’t everybody getting the same thing … fair is everybody getting what they need in order to be successful.” 

The first time I encountered this example on social media I noticed several glaring flaws which I know are most likely not dealt with in the classroom. 

First, where do the boxes come from?  Socialists would believe that everyone has a right to a box and government must provide it which means the boxes were taken by force and redistributed.  If individuals who do not pay to view the game are given boxes by the government to see the game who would pay to enter the stadium and watch?  Is that fair to the owners of the team and the stadium?  Wouldn’t it be best if the kids who wanted to see the game earned the money necessary to buy a ticket?

The author of the article shared this solution to the progressive indoctrination crises, one I very much agree with:

The only way to stop this socialist infestation of our grade schools is to stand up for your children, to vociferously object to every lesson plan that shows socialism dressed in sheep’s clothing. Keep an eye on your children’s homework and talk to them every day. Set aside Family Learning Time to teach your kids the truth about “equity” and what happens in the real world when equal results are forced. Remember, it is impossible to make everyone equally rich; it is only possible to make everyone equally poor.

The Massachusetts Senate Wants to Turn this State into California

The Massachusetts Senate announced on January 23rd that they very much want to turn ths state into California.  The announced this by declaring that they want to enact a California style Climate Cap and Trade package.  Nothing would speed this sate into turning into a hell hole like California faster than a Cap and Trade System.

I first heard about this disastrous effort when I say this article online: Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance article California Style Regulations in Massachusetts!

On January 23rd 2020, the Massachusetts Senate came out with a Climate Change package that would drastically increase regulations on how you live your daily life. The senate is seeking to tax you on necessities such as driving your car and heating your home, and simply raise prices on EVERYTHING! This package includes three separate bills and is going to be taken up by the Senate on THURSDAY:

I don’t think the people of Massachusetts are expecting to see a drastic price increase in all aspects of their lives, which is what will happen if the climate change legislation is enacted.  The politicians always seem to gloss over the price increase aspect when claiming that they are saving the planet.

Here are the details if the plan:

(S 2477) is a straight Carbon Tax that will increase the cost of living exponentially. It establishes net-neutral greenhouse gas emissions standards by 2050. It accomplishes this by adopting sector-based statewide greenhouse gas emissions sub-limits including, but not limited to, electric power, transportation, commercial and industrial heating and cooling, residential heating and cooling, industrial processes, solid waste, agriculture and natural gas distribution and service. This simply means you will pay more for electricity, gas, heat in the winter and air conditioning in the summer, trash disposal, food, and any other goods and services that uses any of these things to be made for you or to get to you.

It sounds ridiculously expensive doesn’t it?  How will senior citizens and low income individuals afford necessities?  How will businesses survive?

There is more to the proposed legislation.

(S 2478) Substantially expands the Massachusetts Appliance Efficiency Standards Act to include higher standards for a wider variety of consumer and commercial products. What will it do?
-It requires cooking appliances, air ventilation systems, and lamps to meet federal Energy Star guidelines
-It adopts California energy regulations for computers and computer monitors
-It establishes specific flow volumes required for plumbing fixtures, including shower heads, faucets, toilets, and urinals
-It sets an effective date of January 1, 2022, after which products covered in this act must meet their new regulations in order to be sold or installed in Massachusetts
-Maintains existing federal water and energy efficiency requirements in Massachusetts in the event they are withdrawn or repealed. 

Are you ready for air conditioners that don’t actually cool rooms or dishwashers that need to run twice as long.  All appliances will function poorer and be way more expensive.  That is what happens when energy standards are applied by government. 

I also found this article Carbon pricing is a cornerstone of Senate climate package from the Hannover Manner Local News.

The Massachusetts Senate plans to take up a far-reaching package of climate bills whose major components include an electric MBTA bus fleet by 2040, carbon-pricing mechanisms for transportation, homes and commercial buildings, and a series of five-year greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements that ramp up to net-zero emissions in 2050.

The three bills, teed up for debate on Jan. 30, with amendments due by Monday, amount to what Senate President Karen Spilka called a “comprehensive plan for the state” to respond to an international issue – global climate change.

“This is a race against time,” Spilka told reporters. “Climate change is changing not only Massachusetts and the United States, it is changing the face of our planet, and our planet’s survival is at stake.”

As you can see, saving the planet from the mythical climate change monster is the justification for this disaster.

The good news so far is the House of Representatives is not ready to enact this legislation yet.

“For several years the bill struggled,” Barrett said. “We did not find traction in the House in particular. I want to be respectful of the legislative branches and respectful of the governor. It seemed to me after two or three years that we weren’t moving quickly enough. I decided I wanted to put a price on carbon by any path we could lay our hands on, so I backed away from my preferred method.”

The Bad news is that our Governor embraces the idea.

This year’s bill allows the governor to choose among a revenue-neutral fee, a revenue-positive tax, or a cap and trade system like the Transportation Climate Initiative Gov. Charlie Baker is pursuing with other states. It would require a carbon-pricing mechanism to be in effect for the transportation sector by Jan. 1, 2022, for commercial, industrial and institutional buildings by Jan. 1, 2025, and residential buildings by Jan. 1, 2030.

Our State elected officials are trying to hammer this mess into actual legislation that will pass both houses and be signed by the Governor Baker.

Backing from the governor and the leaders of the two legislative houses creates likelihood that some version of a net-zero emissions policy becomes law this session. Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Kathleen Theoharides said she plans to issue a letter of determination in the coming weeks to establish a policy of achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

We must call our elected officials and tell them no.  We must also work hard to get more true republicans elected into State Office to keep Massachusetts from being turned into California.

Licensing Laws do far more harm than good

Licensing laws, and similar regulations, are a product of the progressive era which began around 1913.  These laws are meant to protect society as a whole, and individuals in particular.  A careful study of these laws will demonstrate that they have produced far more negative effects than positive effects.   This is explained in great detail in the Mises Institute article The Deception behind Government Licensing Laws

The primary justification for these licensing laws and regulations is:

One of the favorite arguments for licensing laws and other types of quality standards is that governments must “protect” consumers by insuring that workers and businesses sell goods and services of the highest quality.

There is one great flaw in that argument:

The answer, of course, is that “quality” is a highly elastic and relative term and is decided by the consumers in their free actions in the marketplace. The consumers decide according to their own tastes and interests, and particularly according to the price they wish to pay for the service.

Individuals are far better than a government bureaucracy, especially a gargantuan one at the federal level, at determining what constitutes a quality product.  Word of mouth and other forms of reviews by actual customers is a far better way of regulating the quality of products.  When potential customers hear that a product is no good or harmful then they won’t buy it resulting in the company losing money and possibly going out of business.

Licensing laws most always limit competition which is why they are championed by established large businesses.  That is why they spend so much money lobbying for them.

How much these requirements are designed to “protect” the health of the public, and how much to restrict competition, may be gauged from the fact that giving medical advice free without a license is rarely a legal offense. Only the sale of medical advice requires a license. Since someone may be injured as much, if not more, by free medical advice than by purchased advice, the major purpose of the regulation is clearly to restrict competition rather than to safeguard the public

Regulations meant to ensure quality products quite often stifle innovation.

Other quality standards in production have an even more injurious effect. They impose governmental definitions of products and require businesses to hew to the specifications laid down by these definitions. Thus, the government defines “bread” as being of a certain composition. This is supposed to be a safeguard against “adulteration,” but in fact it prohibits improvement. If the government defines a product in a certain way, it prohibits change.

Regulations imposed by government bureaucracies stifle private sector innovation for the following reason:

A change, to be accepted by consumers, has to be an improvement, either absolutely or in the form of a lower price. Yet it may take a long time, if not forever, to persuade the government bureaucracy to change the requirements. In the meantime, competition is injured, and technological improvements are blocked.

Licensing laws make it difficult for individuals to find jobs in a particular field. Take hair dressers for instance. It takes a lot of schooling to become a hair dresser, approximately 1500 hours.. Is it all necessary? The same holds true for many fields.

Here is the proper free market solution to low quality or harmful products and services:

In the free economy, there would be ample means to obtain redress for direct injuries or fraudulent “adulteration.” No system of government “standards” or army of administrative inspectors is necessary. If a man is sold adulterated food, then clearly the seller has committed fraud, violating his contract to sell the food. Thus, if A sells B breakfast food, and it turns out to be straw, A has committed an illegal act of fraud by telling B he is selling him food while actually selling straw. This is punishable in the courts under “libertarian law,” i.e., the legal code of the free society that would prohibit all invasions of persons and property.

Licensing laws and government regulations have affected me personally in a very negative way.  For the past several years I have been attempting to raise money to open a nano brewery.  I have created and perfected a large number of recipes that rival the best craft breweries.  Because of government interference the start up costs for this type of brewery is many times higher than what they should be.  The approval process for opening a brewery is about one year.  The beginning step is establishing a location before you begin the licensing procedure.   That means you have to rent or buy a location, before you begin the paperwork.  That is a whole year you have to pay rent when you are not taking in any money, and there is a good chance you could get turned down at the end.  Before federal government regulation put a stop to this, many started a brewery in their kitchen, then opened an actual brewery after they sold enough beer to afford this.  Because of the nature of beer it is a product that it is virtually impossible to make someone sick if you brew bad quality beer.  It is very expensive to outfit a startup brewery to meet federal standards, standards imposed by bureaucrats rather than brewers, There was no need for this change except to limit competition.

Hey Hey Ho Ho this Cultural Marxism has got to go

Political correctness and social justice are both designed by the political left to dismantle all of the institutions that built the United States into the freest and most prosperous nation that ever existed.  Both of these darlings of the left, which have been embraced by the modern Democrat Party, are based on the philosophies of Karl Marx.  His philosophies have now been applied to all aspects of culture rather than economics.  The Marxist roots of these leftist philosophies is explained in great detail in this American Thinker article Economic vs. Cultural Marxism: The Most Important Distinction

In this quote the author explains the roots of economic Marxism. 

As Marx phrased it in Das Kapital, “[i]n order to establish equality, we must first establish inequality” (1).  By finding the inequalities of the world, the Marxist can then begin eliminating the obstacles that impede equality.  The more of these sources of inequality the Marxist eliminates, the closer we move to an equitable socialist utopia.  This is why Marx was so adamant about abolishing certain fixtures of society.

Among the ills of society perpetuating inequality that need abolition, according to Marx, were history, private property, the family, eternal truths, nations and borders, and religion (2).  By destroying these sources of inequality, the Marxist is one step closer to the equitable world the Marxist knows is possible.  Marx believed that economic issues are the driving force of conflict in the world (3).  Eliminating class structure was the central goal of Marx’s Communist Manifesto.

It is obvious if you’ve studied the cultural wars that have been raging in the United States over the past few decades, which are all about implementing political correctness and social justice, the goals of Cultural Marxism are the same as Economic Marxism.

One person was most responsible for the transition from Economic Marxism to Cultural Marxism.  That person was at the Frankurt School.

György Lukács, is credited as the first person to advocate for the application of Marx’s economic principles to cultural struggles: “he justified culture to the Marxists by showing how to condemn it in Marxist terms.

Like Economic Marxism, Cultural Marxism is all about the destruction of the individual

The modern social justice advocate uses the abolition of individuality as a tool to strip human beings of their individuality and bifurcate society.  A bifurcation is a logical fallacy where a person makes things one or another, with no area in between.  For example, a bifurcation would be the faulty assumption of saying a person is either a Trump-supporter or a Hillary-supporter.  What about those who like Bernie Sanders or Ted Cruz?  What about those who like both Trump and Hillary?  What about those who like neither?

For Marx, his bifurcation was the bourgeois versus the proletariat.  You were either a rich person or a working stiff.  There was no in between.  For the social justice warrior, you are either privileged or oppressed. 

This bifurcation fallacy has been spread by our education system, Hollywood, and news media.  It now effects all aspects of our culture.  I have encountered this many times when I debate liberals on social media.  It is not much fun to be accused of supporting child molestation because I don’t embrace transgenderism, or being accused of supporting slavery because I embrace the Constitution.

You can see from this next quote why abolishing individualism is so important to Cultural Marxism.

Social justice is not just about living individuals involved in the current world; rather, it is about abstractions, generalizations, and the past.  Sowell explained that “cosmic justice must be hand-made by holders of power who impose their own decision on how these flesh-and-blood individuals should be categorized into abstraction, and how these abstractions should then be forcibly configured to fit the vision of the power-holders”

The social justice–Marxist strips the individual of individuality and then turns the person into an abstraction.  If a human being is an individual, then we can be held accountable only for our own actions; we cannot be held accountable for the actions of another person, let alone the actions of a group of people who lived and died long before our time.  If we are not individuals, then we can be turned into abstractions.  As abstractions, we can then be blamed for the actions of others who classify as members of these abstractions.  Those in power are the ones dictating the terms of these abstractions.

For an example of this, take race relations.  If I am an individual, I had nothing to do with slavery, Jim Crow, waging war with the American Indians, or anyone who did anything hundreds of years before I was born.  However, if my individuality is abolished, I am not a unique individual with specific characteristics.  I can be broken down into an abstraction designated by those in power. Individualism is something I embrace with every fiber of my being. 

I rage at the destruction of individualism that is at the heart of political correctness, social justice, and all other leftist philosophies.  Writing articles such as this is my way of fighting back

An essential reading list for all Patriots

if a nation expects to be ignorant & free, in a state of civilisation, it expects what never was & never will be. the functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty & property of their constituents. there is no safe deposit for these but with the people themselves; nor can they be safe with them without information. where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe.

Thomas Jefferson quote from a letter to Charles Yancey

Unfortunately our abysmal educational system, at all levels, has worked very hard at keeping everyone ignorant to the true meaning of our Constitution.  Because of this very few of us have a proper understanding of that most magnificent document which is the foundation of our nation and legal system.  Because of our ignorance the federal government has distorted the true meaning of the Constitution so much that they now use it as a weapon to take away our freedoms, rights, and property.  The only way to reverse this is for all of us patriots to educate ourselves and others about the true meaning of the Constitution. 

I’ve assembled a reading list of seven books that I consider to be essential reading for all patriots who wish to educate themselves about the Constitution,

1. The 5000 Year Leap by W. Cleon Skousen

This is the book that got me started on my journey to becoming a Constitutional scholar.  I consider it to be the best primer for learning about the concepts that the founding fathers used to write the Constitution and build the United into the freest and most prosperous nation that ever existed.

2. The Making of America: The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution by W. Cleon Skousen

Every single clause of the Constitution is broken down and explained in great detail using quotes from those that wrote and ratified the Constitution.  This is a lengthy book however it is extremely informative and very interesting.

3, Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 by James Madison

There is no better way to achieve a proper understanding of the Constitution than to study the transcript of the convention where the Constitution was written.  James Madison’s transcripts chronicle the many twists and turns during the entire process of the drafting so you achieve a perfect understanding of the final product.

4. The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay

The ratification of the Constitution was very touch and go.  It looked like it would not be passed in several states.  To improve the odds three individuals wrote essays explaining the different components of the Constitution in great detail, often answering concerns of critics of the Constitution.  This is a perfect resource for understanding the Constitution. 

5. The Anti-Federalist Papers by Robert Yates and Et Al

The Anti-Federalist Papers are a collection essays from critics of the Constitution.  In most of the essays they raised valid criticism, pointing out actual flaws.  In many cases it took decades for their criticisms to be proven correct.

6. The Bill of Rights: Original Meaning and Current Understanding by Eugene W. Hickok Jr.

The current meaning of the Bill of Rights is 180 degrees opposite from the meaning understood by those that wrote and ratified it.  The author of this book compares the original meaning and the current understating of every clause of the Bill of Rights,  There is no better resource on the Bill of Rights that I’ve found so far.

7. The Dirty Dozen: How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom by Walter Levy and William Mellor

The Judicial Branch is the one branch of the federal government that was restrained the least by the Constitution.  The Supreme Court has issued far too many rulings that contradict the meaning of the Constitution.  This has allowed the federal government to grow so huge that it is now a direct thread to our freedom, liberties, and rights.  This book examines twelve cases that were the most egregious examples of the Supreme Court not following the Constitution.