Blog Archives

A Great Month

6/2/2017

This month's posts cover a wide variety of interesting topics (at least I think so). Do dogs love us unconditionally? Why do many liberals support Kathy Griffin? Should President Trump have signed the Paris Accord (Agreement)? Car airbags were invented over 60 years ago so why did it take so long for them to be required by the Federal Government? Did you know that Kris Kristofferson was asked to teach at West Point? Is healthcare a Constitutional Right? Did you know that wearing eye protection from the sun has been around for thousands of years? Can an average person make more money on welfare than what an average job pays? Did you know that Thomas Edison was behind Columbia Records which is still the oldest record label in existence at 130 years? Did you know there's a monumental amount of evidence that you and I are treated differently in the judicial system than politicians?

There are over 100,000 people visiting this site and growing so I hope you agree that information is reaching the hearts and minds of people that certainly wouldn't know about it from the mainstream media. I'd greatly appreciate it that if you feel a particular post is worthy, you tell others about the website or at least copy and paste the post(s) into an email to share with your family and friends. Thanks for your support!

The Double Standard Party Strikes Again

6/1/2017

I've mentioned before that I'm a registered Republican because I have to be in order to have any kind of leverage in the voting booth since Independents haven't gained traction. I grew up living on a small family farm and many people in the community were Democrats. It's interesting that it isn't the case now. The Democrat Party left us long ago. Liberals took over and the Party lost too much integrity for me to stay a member. Keep in mind I'm not lumping all Democrats together just those who I consider on the far left. There are plenty of people on the far right that I'm not a big fan of either but for different reasons.

I'm not saying the Republican Party is perfect but somewhere along the way you have to look around at the people who are in your group and ask yourself if you want to be associated with them. Just like when our parents used to tell us the people we hung out with shaped our reputations.

I don't want to be associated with rioters. I don't want to be associated with young people who don't have a clue about the real world. My value system isn't in-line with many people in the entertainment industry. Voters from Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City, Seattle, don't have the same ideology I have towards individual accountability and the role of government.  I don't want to be in a political party that indexes so low in serving their country in the military. I don't have the same mentality of atheists. And I very much don't want to be associated with a political party that lives by double standards and I have countless examples.

The latest is the extreme double standards by liberals defending Kathy Griffin regarding her disgusting picture holding the bloody, severed head, of President Donald Trump.  Could you imagine the uproar from these very same liberals if Tim Allen (a Republican comedian), were to have displayed the very same picture but with him holding the head of President Obama? Celebrities would be demonizing Allen. Democratic leadership would demand investigations into him by the FBI and Secret Service. Some advertisers would pull out of sponsoring his sit-com: Last Man Standing.  The nightly news programs would dig deep into his past to negatively exploit his character.

None of this is pie in the sky conjecture on my part. The same liberals supporting Griffin would do everything in their power to take down Tim Allen.  Absolutely no one could convince me that liberals would protect Tim Allen if the roles were reversed. If you're reading this and are supporting Griffin by claiming "Freedom of Speech," dig down deep and see if you can convince yourself you'd proclaim the same if it were Obama's severed head.

Double standards is one of my major pet peeves thus why I'm not a registered Democrat. It doesn't mean that I don't sometimes support Democrat candidates. It's highly likely that if Biden put his hat in the ring that I would've voted for him. I think the DNC made a huge mistake backing Clinton and not doing whatever they could to convince him to run. I mention this so you know it isn't that I'm a hard-core conservative who hates the Democratic Party. I consider my membership in the Republican Party to be the lesser of two evils.

I'm by far from being a perfect person but I had to draw a line in the sand and choose sides.  I'm not a proud Republican, but I'd be an even more embarrassed Democrat. You might feel just the opposite based on your own ideology which I respect, I hope you respect mine as well.  The way I look at it, if everyone were perfect, there wouldn't be a big enough space for the Republican National Convention. :)

Do Dogs Love Unconditionally?

6/1/2017

I love dogs and have two miniature dachshunds named Sassy Girl and Shadow. One thing that I’ve heard a lot of dog lovers say over the years is that dogs love unconditionally but is this true?

I grew up on a small family farm and we had about every farm animal imaginable so I got to know a lot about animal behavior. For example, both cows and horses can show their love for you by walking up to you, being relaxed (which you can even tell from their eyes), and when they lean into you with their head; basically giving you a hug the best way they know how. Because of physical limitations they can’t demonstrate love for us like a dog can but it’s there.

In my opinion animals can show love depending upon your definition of it and certainly to different degrees; it’s just that dogs are great at physically showing their love and affection (i.e. jumping up on you, licking you, wagging their tail, etc.). If a dog loves us, its whole body exudes excitement when we walk through the door.

Why are they so excited to see us? Is it true they love us unconditionally? In my opinion true unconditional love comes only from God because as far as I know he doesn’t require anything from us to love us. I believe dogs love us because we take care of them. We feed them, caress them, give them treats, talk to them in a sweet/loving voice, etc. We demonstrate love towards them and they reciprocate in their own ways. I believe their love is conditional.

If you want to put my theory to the test, have your next door neighbor start taking care of your dog and then go over and visit after a few days. Next, start stopping by their house every few weeks or so. At first your dog would more than likely give you loving attention but it wouldn’t take long before the dog who loved you with all his heart, would have fallen in love with someone else.

I didn’t write this article to hurt your feelings towards where your dog’s love comes from and you certainly don’t have to agree with me, instead I wrote this to get across an important point about love and that is if you want to experience great love in your life, understand it’s conditional and do something about it.

Because we’re human, accepting anything without condition leads to us taking it for granted. If we want love, we must demonstrate love. Love is a verb not a noun. Certainly not in all cases do we get what we give but the best chance we have to experience love in our lives (in all relationships), is to proactively put it out there.

This means knowing what people need and then showing an effort to meet those needs. Sometimes someone just knowing you care enough to try to do things to make their life better, is enough to create a loving relationship. Many divorces occur because people quit trying to meet their spouse’s needs and the fact is if and when they move on to someone else, it’s going to start all over again. They’ll need to figure out the conditions for love in the next relationship and do something with it or fail again.

People are way more complicated than anything else on earth because needs vary based on our individual life’s journey. This is why it’s so easy to have great relationships with our dogs because demonstrating love from our part and their part is quite simple. If we want to experience love in our lives (i.e. family, friends, etc.), it doesn’t just happen unconditionally; it takes effort; it’s up to us whether it’s worth it our efforts. I think it is.

Lies About the Paris Climate Agreement

6/1/2017

I just finished watching David Muir and ABC Nightly News cover President Trump’s decision to not sign the Agreement and as usual the bias in their coverage was disgusting. By the way, 32% of their airtime this evening was about Trump while barely covering some extremely important events like the tragedy in Manila.

First of all, it was loaded with opinions by Democrats including the very liberal mayors of Boston and Pittsburgh, Marty Walsh and Bill Peduto. What about the many mayors who agreed with what President Trump did? Mainstream media integrity is truly an oxymoron.

They said the president of General Electric was upset about President Trump not signing the Agreement but didn’t mention that G.E. doesn’t need the Federal Government to require them to step up to the plate when it comes to their environmental policies. I'm a stockholder, I read about them every year. What does this say about him that he wants the government to force his company to do what he feels is right?

ABC News made a point of saying that we were among only two other countries (Nicaragua and Syria), that didn’t sign the Agreement yet didn’t mention that previous agreements were signed but not adhered to by countries like China, India, and Indonesia. Major global competitors of ours. The only countries who’ve shown a true desire to set and meet standards are coincidentally members of the G-8. Why don't we let the other 190 or so countries catch up, then we'll talk deal?

By the way, what exactly could Syria do to help a climate change initiative? Just who exactly would go in to ensure they were abiding by the Agreement? They better make sure they have a military escort and are wearing bullet proof vests. Do you see how ridiculous this is?

The Agreement itself has turned into political fodder just like the last one. We’d end up raising costs on some of our goods in the U.S. to do our part, while attempting to compete in a global economy. Of course our competitors were pushing hard for us to agree to their standards. We’d play by the rules, as usual, and they’d cheat, as usual.

When it comes to establishing standards to help the issue of climate change, cities and states can set their own if they wish. President Trump hasn’t prevented them from doing their perceived part by not signing the Agreement; although according to the liberal media you’d think this was the case.

Cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York have set their own standards and the Federal Government didn't get in their way. Have you ever asked yourself why coincidentally, the costs of living in places like these are so much higher than in average cities? Los Angeles has close access to products like cheese, meat, and produce so why do they costs so much more there than in a place like Charlotte, North Carolina where I live? Why are their utilities so much higher?

These liberal cities can do whatever they want as long as their citizens are willing to foot the bill. By the way, I've lived in Charlotte for around 28 years and I've never had a family member, friend, and/or neighbor that has moved to any of the cities I've mentioned above but I've met plenty of people that have moved from there. I wonder why? Rhetorical question. So tack on whatever regulations you like in the northeast, Charlotte will continue to enjoy the additional tax revenues from the citizens who used to live there.

Notice they aren’t mentioning the controversy regarding how much of a difference the changes would make towards addressing climate change. How can they accurately predict the Agreement’s impact on the world’s climate when economic growth is a major part of the equation. Economics isn't an exact science. Our economists are all over the board trying to figure out what's going to happen here in the U.S., so why in the world do the economists they have conducting their research for the Agreement believe they've got a handle on it especially on a global scale? They don't.

Do they assume all countries who sign the Agreement will abide by it in their projections? Not  taking into consideration the countries who won’t follow through based on past experiences, means their calculations can't be statistically viable. You don't need to be a research analyst to figure this out.

China alone can completely negate the Agreement's predictions. For example, how about air quality in China around the time of the Olympics? The world got a great look at the real China. Do you think their signature on a document is going to force them into improving their negative climate impact when they’re the leading producer of goods? They aren’t even following laws regarding child labor. If China fails to live up to the standards set based on the huge impact they have on the problem, means we can throw the Agreement's claims out.  How about covering this, mainstream media?

I'm just a poor farm boy who didn't attend an Ivy League University, but let me throw a little something out there and see what you think. Between our hayfield and cornfield was a line of trees. When I was hot from working in 90 degree temperatures and thirsty, I'd walk underneath the trees and cool off and drink some water. With a nice breeze the temperature could drop at least 15 degrees. The soles of my boots would start cooling down because of the much lower ground temperature. Now I'm not a climate change expert but I figured out that trees made a huge impact on temperatures.

With this in mind, what about the impact of development around the world because of population growth? I was surrounded by forest when I moved into my current home 20 years ago now there's new development all around me. I bet at least 30% of the trees are now gone and replaced by commercial buildings and housing developments. Do you think that the average ground temperature in my little part of the world hasn't risen at least a little?

A comparison of thermal imaging clearly shows the problem pockets around the world and guess what...countries with the greatest population growths are the ones impacting climate change the most along with countries lacking conservation standards like what happened to the rain forest.

The fact remains, liberals are saying that President Trump is on a "scorch the earth" campaign using scare tactics galore when the primary contributor to rising temperatures is the cutting down of trees for new development. Let's face it, this reality isn't good for politicians who are always looking for ways to fire up their constituents and continue enjoying their lavish lifestyles in D.C.  This is why there's such a tragic truth to the negative impact of low information voters on America's success.

I'm not going to go into a lot of detail because this article is long enough but not only did my family contribute to global warming because we cleared trees to plant crops but since we also did our best to help our community we owned a small herd of cattle which provided milk and meat. Like all cattle around the world, ours put out methane gas. This doesn't hurt carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere but there's not a scientist in the world who won't tell you that  Methane is 23 times more potent as a heat-trapping gas. I guess the Paris Agreement didn't want to address one of the real major causes of "global warming" because it is a political black hole.

Have you asked yourself just how many of those speaking against Trump not signing the Agreement, have actually read the Agreement? Do they know what the current global temperature is and how they measure it? Do they know the technology that was used in the 1800's to measure global temperatures and how it compares to the devices we're using today to where we have an accurate assessment for variations ? Please let this question sink in. How Do they know how countries will be audited and held accountable for following through on their commitments? Do they know how many fines were levied on other countries and were actually paid during the previous Agreement? I’m going to go out on a limb and say that it’s highly unlikely so why are they speaking out against Trump not signing the Agreement? What credibility do they have regarding this topic?

The bottom line is the liberal media is hurting our country by pushing a political narrative versus covering the Agreement in a fair and balanced manner. They try to make President Trump look like an idiot regarding this topic (he's done a good enough job of this on his own in how he's handled other situations so no piling on is necessary), when there are legitimate reasons for why he made the decision he did, which I might add, was part of his election platform.

These liberals remind me of the kid who cried "wolf!" They're shouting non-stop over every issue and slowly but surely more and more voters are tuning out their screams. Just in the last two months, I've heard political pundits plus Pelosi and Schumer say that Trump's budget, healthcare plan, and now his decision on the Climate Agreement will kill children. Pelosi was acting like she was in tears yesterday while quoting the Bible making Trump sound like the devil in not caring about mankind. Save the bad acting Pelosi because it's not working. Proof? Look at what's happened in the House and Senate over the last eight years then of course the Presidential Election. I know they think they're so much smarter than us deplorables but in this case they sure don't get it.

Around 22 million viewers watch ABC, CBS, and NBC’s nightly news broadcasts and are being influenced by their content. Their problem is they still think people believe everything they’re saying when the polls proved otherwise. The mainstream media gets livid when the term "fake news" is mentioned and maybe it isn't an accurate term but I promise you the term "manufactured news" fits because their coverage of President Trump not signing the Agreement is beyond outrageous.

If you're a liberal and are demonizing President Trump for his decision ask yourself if you know all the facts? Do you know the answers to questions I posed above because you sure aren't getting them by watching the national news. Are you doing everything you can to help the problem before pointing your fingers at others? What size car do you drive? How big of a house do you live in? Are you responsible with your utility usage?

For those of you demonizing Trump why don't you quit being part of the problem and become part of the solution. If you're really "all in" on helping your fellow man, stop eating beef and start planting trees. As for me, I'm selfish and plan on eating burgers on the grill tonight but I will be sitting on my patio in the shade of a huge tree I planted 20 years ago. You're welcome.

The Firing of FBI Director James Comey

6/1/2017

I find it interesting how “outraged” some Democrats are as to President Trump’s firing of James Comey when I’ve heard nothing but terrible things said about him from the Democrat Party since the last election. They’ve been saying he was a major factor in Hillary’s loss and wanted his head on a platter. So they got what they wanted but certainly couldn’t admit that Trump did anything good so they attacked him for firing him. Yet another example of why I hate politicians.

To go along with their “outrage” over Trump’s actions they make it sound like Trump did it in order to halt the investigation into his Administration’s potential ties to Russia. The Democrats are trying to insinuate that Comey being gone would somehow stop the investigation which is a lie but the fact is they don’t care about the truth, it’s all about optics.

Then there’s the fact that Congressional and Senate hearings are taking place that are also investigating whether or not there are any unlawful ties between Russia and the Trump Presidential Campaign or Administration officials, so the truth will come out regardless of the FBI.

Democrats are playing games once again by misleading their constituents. The angrier they can get them the more they’ll think their representatives are the good guys when in fact they’re working against the overall wellbeing of our country; they’re the bad guys. If these politicians can direct the attention of their constituents away from the things that matter like the Federal Budget and soaring debt, then they won’t be held accountable for their deplorable results and this goes for both political parties.

The bottom line is Democrats wanted Comey fired yet are attacking Trump for doing it. I find it embarrassing to watch because it’s so obvious what they’re doing but there’s no doubt it works for them because they continue to get re-elected. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have been caught countless times in outrageous lies yet they kept their jobs even heading their Party. What does this this say about their constituents or the Democrat Party in D.C.?

The problem is that since taxpayers are so busy in their personal and professional lives they don’t have time to peel back the layers to find the truth about what’s happening in Washington. Getting bias snapshots from the liberal media each night certainly doesn’t serve our needs and the fact is politicians use this to their advantage. Trump fired Comey because the FBI needed a fresh start. We all know this. The firing of Comey will do nothing to help the allegations against Trump. Comey is a political pawn for the Democrat Party for their other initiatives; it’s simple.

The Answer You've Been Waiting For

6/1/2017

I’m sure what I’m getting ready to share with you has been a burning question in your mind and that’s why I’m here, to give you the knowledge you need to succeed. Actually that’s not true, but it sounded good.

Anyhow, if you’re a football fan you know that a football used to be made out of pigskin but has been made out of leather for years. Which brings up the burning question, do we as U.S. citizens have a better chance of attending the Super Bowl than a cow (well at least the hide of a cow)?

If there were a lottery, you’d have a .02% chance of getting a ticket to the Super Bowl whereas based on the number of cows it takes to make a football, how many adult cows are available in the U.S., and the fact that the NFL uses 58 footballs for the game, a cow would have a .00000001% chance of attending; although I’m not sure they’d be as interested at being at the big game as we would be.

Government Transparency?

6/1/2017

Of course we can’t believe everything we see on television but the fact is many television shows that center around Washington politics like: Designated Survivor, Madam Secretary, The West Wing, etc., are all very consistent about how the Executive and Legislative Branches spin information. I call it telling lies but I’m from the mid-west.

The buzz word in Washington today is “optics” with the goal being to take situations and proactively shape how they will be perceived here and around the world in order to fit a particular agenda. The White House Press Secretary for example anticipates questions and then comes up with responses that will hopefully steer the reporters into the direction he or she wants. I’m not saying they intentionally lie (I’m also not saying they don’t), as I’m sure they wouldn’t want to get caught but they share a side of a story that puts the Administration in the best light which is far from being transparent.

There’s a reason why if someone wants a degree in political science that he or she has to take at least one course on how to debate. Students learn to take one side of an argument/issue and convince people that their stance is correct even if ideologically they don’t believe in what they’re saying. Students learn to find elements of truth and magnify them to support their arguments. They clearly learn there are two sides to every story and regardless of which side is closer to being correct, it’s the person who can sell their story best (spin), who wins the debate.

The most effective politicians are those who can spin better than their peers and the wheel spins 24/7 in Washington, D.C., which means when it comes to the Federal Government, complete transparency isn’t going to happen. I’d imagine that members of the Obama Administration had to hold back laughs when they said they were going to be transparent because government transparency is an oxymoron regardless of the political party.

With this in mind, we live in a pseudo world because we don’t know the truth about what’s happening in our country. Whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican and fighting passionately for your side, you aren’t arguing the complete facts because we don’t have them. There are several reasons for this including: 1) The Federal Government doesn’t think we can understand various situations because of the many variables often associated and how complicated they are so we don’t get all the facts. 2) It would take too long for them to educate the masses on certain events thus delaying critical response times. 3) If citizens knew the truth about everything then every other country in the world would too and this would be disastrous. 4) It could endanger the lives of men and women serving our country in a variety of capacities (i.e. Armed Forces, CIA, FBI, HLS, etc.), if there was insight into their operations. I hate it when the media tries to get details about what our responses will be to various events.

The bottom line is don’t expect government transparency because it doesn’t exist. Spin from politicians gets us too dizzy to see clearly and the fact is complete transparency isn’t in our best interest because it could create more harm than good.

When Were Sunglasses Invented?

6/1/2017

A gentleman by the name of Foster Grant was the first person to offer sunglasses in the U.S. in the early 1920’s but using eye protection from glare has been around for thousands of years. I have a pair from the 1800’s that are wire rimmed as part of my collection of unique antiques. I also have the leather case that came with it although it’s a bit worn.

Mankind always had a problem with glare especially where there was sand and snow so they looked for solutions. They didn’t look like the sunglasses we have today instead they looked more like spoons that covered their eyes and they were made out of bones or animal tusks with a little slit for each eye to look through. I find it pretty amazing that even cave men were problem solvers.

Should We Fear North Korea?

6/1/2017

I’ve spoken to a lot of people who are nervous about North Korea and their nuclear weapon aspirations. I’m certainly not an expert on the topic but there are some things I do know and it includes the fact that North Korea is struggling getting their rocket program going. They can’t successfully launch a nuclear attack without completely reliable rockets to deliver the nuclear bombs.

Can you imagine what would happen to them if they had a failed missile launch with a nuclear warhead on board? Even if they could successfully launch a nuclear missile there’s nothing that indicates they could come close to reaching the continental United States. It would be highly risky for them to use a nuclear weapon on countries around them like South Korea because of the potential fallout from radiation especially with the ocean being right there with massive winds.

Then there’s one more important fact. When I served on submarines in the Navy, we had 16 nuclear missiles on board that we could successfully launch. Keep in mind this is just one submarine and the Navy has many. We’d know as soon as they launched a nuclear attack and it would only take one U.S. submarine to blast them into submission in less than 20 minutes. As it stands now, they’d only have the potential to get a couple of missiles off before their missile party was over.

The leadership of North Korea knows all this so there’s no doubt in my mind that before they’d allow Kim Jong-un to authorize launching a nuclear attack, they’d assassinate him first. They might have to do it even sooner than this because he’s destroying their economy to keep up with his military ambitions. But for now, his leadership team will placate him in order to keep their status and not get killed like some of their counterparts have.

The bottom line is that when it comes to North Korea, sleep tight and don’t let the beg bugs bite.

Is Healthcare a Right or a Privilege?

6/1/2017

There was a firestorm in the media when a contestant in the Miss USA Pageant was asked this question and she said it was a privilege. She ended up winning the pageant because she was amazing in every way but many liberals wanted her pageant crown taken away because of her opinion on healthcare.

First of all, think about how ridiculous it is for liberals to think someone shouldn’t win the pageant because she has different opinions than theirs. It’s sad that so many liberals only believe in freedom of speech when what’s being said is agreeable to them.

This is exactly what’s hurting the personal growth of many college students throughout our country. Some students (a.k.a. young Democrats), are protesting and/or rioting to control who is allowed to speak on their campuses. They aren’t allowing other college students who want more conservative speakers in to hear what they have to say. Students are supposed to be in college to be exposed to different ideas but instead they narrow their thought process by filtering all things they find unpleasant to their naïve ideology.

The Miss USA contestant was correct. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it state that U.S. citizens should be provided healthcare and if it was, our country would’ve gone bankrupt years ago. If healthcare were a right then the House and Senate would have to include it in the Federal Budget which is already in shambles leading us to monumental debt under the Obama Administration.

There’s not a single liberal who could successfully argue that having healthcare is a Constitutional right. If liberals would like attempt to pass a Constitutional Amendment they can try but I don’t think it would pass the House or Senate. The reason for this is that from a fiscal perspective most members of both parties wouldn’t support it because the Congressional Budget Office would tear apart any legislation that would increase our Federal budget by over 30% and it would according to most research.

These representatives would have to come up with a plan to drastically increase tax revenues (angering taxpayers), and/or cut items from the budget including government agencies (angering special interests), to pay for a new Healthcare Amendment to the Constitution. They wouldn’t want to do either of these things because it would negatively affect their chances for being re-elected. On the republican side I can guarantee you that a representative wouldn’t be penalized for not passing legislation for universal healthcare but he or she would be out of a job if taxes went up drastically to pay for it.

Although many liberals have gotten heated up over this issue it’s very simple…healthcare is a privilege because we wouldn’t have a solvent nation if it were made a right. As Margaret Thatcher said: “Socialism is great until you run out of someone else’s money.”

The problem is that not enough people truly understand the damage that occurs when a government of any type goes bankrupt including a city government. At this point, it completely goes into survival mode where basic community services are reevaluated including expanding territories of fire and police departments which is of course dangerous but they do it. Local hospitals cut back on medical equipment and ER staffs. Road repair and construction is halted. The list goes on and on. A nation our size going bankrupt has horrific implications beyond the imagination or measure.

The fact is, no bankrupt government in history has come back to offer its citizens universal healthcare and we know what happens when we don’t respect history and what it has to teach us.

I’ll say it one more time then move on…healthcare for U.S. citizens isn’t a Constitutional right it’s a privilege. As a nation we aren’t meeting the financial requirements of the welfare we’ve already instituted and instead are borrowing money from other nations to do it. Continuing to raise our debt limit to provide privileges is dangerous. Why in the world don’t supporters of Obama Care get this?

<<Previous

Author: John Mann

Archives