Skip navigation

Tag Archives: Government

And now this news is very old, but since this is not really a current events blog, here we go. I also apologize for not having a lot of fun blogs lately but alas.

This story first came to my attention when two guest hosts were filling in on the Glenn Beck program, (sorry I forgot their names), and well it got me thinking, on perhaps a case study on why I am a Libertarian and why I am in fact a Libertarian.

This representative is in ignorance of this issue. She does not know the difference between a magazine and a clip. Something which she should know given the issues she is being forced to vote on in this day and age.

But yet she is forcing herself on an issue, of which she is ignorant of, by virtue of her position and the fact that Gun Control is a hot button issue.

This is the perfect response for anyone who asks, why are you a libertarian? Why do you distrust the Government so much? Why do you not want a central authority with the ability to give out things like health care and gun control and free abortion stuff.

Because, by and large, politicians are not experts at anything other than being politicians. And even if they were our expertise or knowledge base often extends to a few subjects we are interested in. Yet politicians, these days, are often asked to make decisions that affect each and every aspect of our lives. Everything from house insurance to border security to important and vital foreign policy interests.

I am a Libertarian because, while I have a general trust with people, I do not trust them to make decisions of this importance and which are so broad in nature. And I do not trust them because I do not trust myself.

Because I did not know the difference between a magazine and a clip, I was not sure. And while I do not trust myself with power long before this, it’s still another reason why its a bad idea.

And if I cannot trust myself with power over my life or anyone else’s because I am ignorant of a great many things, then how can I trust the people in charge? Who could be just as stupid on the thing they are being asked to make a decision of.

Even with expert testimony, being rushed in, giving people graphs and information and statistics left and right, yelling and shouting, doing this for millions of issues, really?

We are supposed to make decisions on this?

And then biases come into it, data that supports my position will sound better to me then data that doesn’t. So again, how can we trust politicians to make the right choice in this issue?

So I fall as a Libertarian, legalize almost everything and let the chips fall where they may based on the individual and then let the individuals and the community try to deal with the consequences.

Not mandates from stupid or ignorant people, not one size fits all solutions, just let people try to do their best with their own ignorance and brilliance.

That way all they harm is themselves, or the people around them, but not the three hundred million people around them.

This past week the country, and Major League Baseball in particular, celebrated ‘Jackie Robinson day’. And in the spirit of the occasion I would like to offer up my perspective on just what it means to me to celebrate and enjoy this event. The Majors celebrated it with a huge league wide celebration, all the players across the league wore the number 42, and a new movie starring Harrison Ford just premiered.

While this day is important, and while I acknowledge and even appreciate what Jackie did and his legacy. I sometimes wonder, just what is the point?

While this question may sound flippant it really isn’t because in the modern-day quest of acceptance of many people, many people are turning to their organizations and governments to ‘do the right thing’. To legislate certain activities that some consider to be unkosher, that some others have no problem with. That some are trying to force themselves on certain organization that may not accept all their extra curricular activities. And on, and on, and on, and on it goes.

In other words, we could stand to learn a lot from Jackie Robinson, Branch Rickey, and even from the Negro Leagues. How they comported themselves, how they reacted to the world around them, from their failures, and their triumphs.

The principle lesson that should be learned, the first point that needs to be made, is that all of these people, all of the individuals, all of the organizations, were private. Unless there was some Government involved in the process behind the scenes. And in fact in many cases the Government were making laws that helped to prohibit and make it more difficult for the Major Leagues or the Negro Leagues to conduct business.

In the end of the day the story of Jackie Robinson was a series of bold and dramatic choices. Major League teams at the time, for their reasons, did not have colored people playing. The Negro Leagues saw this situation and decided to start their own business to appeal to a customer base hungry for the product they could provide, mainly black Baseball players. And then Branch Ricki, for his own reasons, decided to start a bold experiment and let Jackie Robinson play ball for the then Brooklyn Dodgers.

That was basically it. No one forced anyone to do anything. No one forced Branch Rickey to take on Jackie Robinson. No one forced the Negro Leagues to open their doors and provide a product their owners thought was lacking. No one forced Jackie to play baseball in the Major or Minor Leagues. And no one seemed to force MLB to go along with the scheme in the first place since, while his playing was contentious, he was still allowed to play.

The only force that was applied, it would seem, was from the racist ball players and fans who booed him, tried to bean him, or just prevent him from playing.

But other than that this was a private partnerships engaged by individuals and groups of individuals.

Now on the flip side of the equation the Negro Leagues did allow white baseball players to serve around the same time Jackie Robinson did. (Source) And as that same source points out the Government in the South made it next to impossible for white players to take the same field with black athletes.

The only force in the situation was being applied, by Government, to prevent businesses from practicing.

So what is the lesson here?

That if you do not like what some organization does the best solution might not be to force them to do something against their beliefs, for you could be in the same position when the Government forces you to do something against yours, but maybe to form your own organization. Maybe to start meeting in private home groups of neighborhood and city blocks and go camping and practice good manners and good leadership out in the woods and the trails of the US. Or to form your own religious organization where you can do whatever the heck you want when it comes to joining two people. Or your own Hotel chain where…well I think you get the idea.

And as for those other organizations? Well maybe you can wait them out. Be forceful, be polite, state your opinion, engage on the battlefield of ideas but if they do disagree, then let them.

And if they do disagree instead of thinking they have taken away some fundamental human right go out there and seize it on your own. Go out and love, go out there and associate, go out there and form your own businesses and organizations. They did it, why can’t you?

I am stuck in the position that I often find myself in of having so many blogs and ideas I want to discuss that I am not exactly sure where to begin. But this is something that is the most recent, and maybe the most heart-felt, so maybe I should start here eh?

To a lot of people (statists of varying degrees) it is impossible to separate the idea of morality from ideas on law and Government. The two ideas are indistinguishable from one another, as are culture and society and what a people ‘want’, this is all reflected and even intimately linked with Government. And while I do agree with that to a certain, very small extent compared to a lot of others, I have been forced to wonder how one can promote two, in this case seemingly contradictory ideas, at the same time. After all if something is the right thing to do, the definition of a word, or even the moral ideal then should we not put it into law that things should be this way?

If it works for me why shouldn’t it work for everyone? After all the Government has successfully given me benefits and insurance and has kept a roof over my head or kept my kid from eating dog meat or has helped the sick and the elderly. Without these benefits we would not have a thing.

This is the argument that helps justify the mantra: Bottom line Government does have a role and a large and important role to boot in making sure people are safe and fed and cared for.

Then the counter argument becomes, since society, culture, morality, and law are so closely entwined in this scenario, the argument becomes if you do not support these programs, if you do not think the Government should be enforcing a standard of living in this regard then you must want kids to starve, or are in favor of the things we want the Government to be involved in (Gay Marriage).

Whatever I feel on these issues specifically on a case by case basis it is possible for me to not like something, but not want the Government to touch it. To be moral on our own without having to wait for the Governments permission or sing songy approval.

It is possible for me to be, for argument’s sake, against Gay Marriage but not want the Government to interfere.

The reason? Well as obvious as this is I am not God. Nor am an especially great and upstanding individual. I don’t think this needs to be said one of my forms of entertainment is to blabber on a WordPress blog at obscene hours of the night instead of doing more normal things.

So I am not God, I am not a fantastic person, good maybe, but I am still trying to figure out many of life’s mysteries.

And so is the vast majority of humanity.

And yet we feel comfortable in enforcing our morality on others? Even if it says so in a book we hold dear? We feel the need to go out and be busy bodies and try to enforce our morality on others when we have issues, problems, when we can be corrupt or make bad decisions because of our desires?

No, I generally am very uncomfortable with doing this. And I am also uncomfortable when people do this on my behalf. When politicians start doing things I support and consider a good idea I generally reconsider the idea.

In at least a short aside from my Mass Effect stuff, oh and hi btw, but in a short aside I really have to get this off my chest. Kinda commenting on this issue in the time and since once again Gay Marriage is in the news. And in the Political arena, and is something that should be talking about.

But…I hate it. In the past I have talked about my dislike of this issue. Not because I hate gays or Christians but because this issue just should not be. We have bigger fish to fry, other issues that are at stake. And the solution, one way or another, for this problem is patently obvious. And yet people spend most of their time just yelling at each other and not focusing on trying to solve anything.

So as a result I tend to shut down on this issue, sure I have talked about it but I have shut down on this and probably a lot of issues. For one reason or another. But again if I don’t speak out, maybe no one else will. Which could be the whole point of this blog.

So here I was, here I sit, getting angry, getting miserable, wondering what to do. So I went to Facebook and explained my issue: That the solution to this problem is for both sides to shut up, have a reasonable debate, respect each others rights…both of you!

And well I built that Facebook post, and well I did get some support from it.

So I built, and they came.

Here I was thinking that I was virtually alone in this issue when the two sides in this political debate seemed bound and determined to tear each other apart at the seams for not believing what they believed, for either wanting to change the definition of the word marriage, or to take away the ‘rights’ from a group of Americans.

And this has left me with a sense of unerring depression and angst that two groups of people could do this to one another and potentially put the country in greater jeopardy when we have so many other massive issues to worry about then this. We are risking a borderline Civil War in some respects, one group of the country or the other absolutely not agreeing with the other, over a disagreement on definitions and rights. And people wonder why I dislike Government?

But I took a stand, I got tired of it and since the issue is in the national consciousness again I made a ‘mini blog’ on Facebook. Not exactly something I am proud of, Facebook probably is not the best medium to engage in something like this. Not even sure if WordPress is the best place to engage in something like this.

But then something quite remarkable, though not unexpected happened People responded to the post, and they were agreeing with me, that government should get out of marriage and leave it up to the individuals and organizations involved to worry about it.

Jared Tapia and Scott Lehner made a comment in support of this idea.

Austin Petersen made a comment on his own Facebook in support of it which other fellow Libertarian commentators came on in support.

Now knowing Libertarians like I do this should not have come as a surprise. Yet it was heart warming. That here I was making a bold post or what I thought was a bold post and then more and more people came out to support it.

Jared made a bold post, and then people came out to support him.

Austin had people who supported his views.

I built it, and people came. We may surround them after all.

But for all of these people there are still people out there who want Government meddling in marriage. Because, well to paraphrase in a very simplistic manner, that we are too dumb. Or people are too dumb sometimes to know what they are doing, what they are getting into, and have no way of knowing how to get out of it. So we all have to suffer. Not by strengthening the individual, but by forging a stronger Government.

They are entitled to their opinion, and on some level they might be right.

But I built it, I took a stand, and people gathered around me. Letting me know where they stood, either as allies, or as…well enemies might be a strong word…but as opponents to my ideological preferences.

And this ultimately, is good.

This past week, (yey I am actually writing something that is current and do not have to wait for it and blah blah blah), immigration has been in the news, both legal and illegal immigration. The President was all set to unveil his plan to address this issue and deal with the current immigration problems facing this nation, mainly illegal immigration, so the Senate one upped him. A so-called ‘gang of eight’, eight senators, four democratic, and four Republican, came together to propose their own solution to the problems, to be voted in the full senate.

This group includes Marco Rubio, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Chuck Schumer. Some of the politicians who are the most reviled, and most hostile to the liberties and values of our Republic.

Now there is one big problem with this and one thing I fear, which is perhaps a lesson to all of us.

And that is, in short, do not judge a bill by the people who make it, or by a certain series of buzz words. Just because I, and many other Conservatives and Libertarians, have disagreed with these politicians numerous times in the past, does not mean they cannot do something good.

And just because it has the words ‘pathway to citizenship’ means it is the wrong pathway to citizenship. That such a program may not even be blanket amnesty, something all Conservatives do not like.

This bill, from what I have heard, sounds reasonable. Worker visas for agricultural work, work verification for people to ensure they hire American citizens, penalties for people who knowingly hire illegals, a pathway to citizenship that includes illegal immigrants heading to the back of the line. And last but not least a provision where the border will be secured in order for these to take effect.

So it sounds like a reasonable proposal and people should not poo poo it just because we do not like the people making the proposal in the first place. That is at least partially bigoted and a little pig-headed.

On the other hand we do not need to blindly trust either.

After all these politicians have…at the best…a very political track record. They get things done for convenience and to advance a particular agenda, at least that is what their track record shows, not what is best for the country or for the constitution.

And, as Glenn Beck pointed out on his radio show, people have promised to secure the border. Promised that they would secure the border and we just have to deal with the people whoa are here now and everything will be hunky dorie.

This is a familiar pattern with politicians.

Everything from the Patriot Act and the NDAA, oh no it is just here to protect you, to keep you safe, from the big horrible spikey monsters under your bed…politicians swearing up and down that the things that are in those acts are not actually in them when they are.

To the most recent ‘Patient Affordable Care Act’. Or how about the…well you get the picture.

And after all we have seen one bill after another after another start out with the best of intentions, only to be weighed down with amendments, and pork, and so much legalese as to turn the final product, into something we will have to pass to find out what is in it…to paraphrase Nancy Pelosi.

So in the end trust but verify. We cannot distrust something simply because it’s from John McCain and Chuck Schumer…but we cannot trust it because it is from a Republican, or a Democrat…or from the Government..they are only here to help!

Will this be a solution? I don’t know, but if we don’t take things on their own merits then we are all doomed to repeat the mistakes of our past.

Recently, in the wake of the Sandy Hook Massacre two competing, and yet oddly coherent, narratives have emerged. Mainly, it is all the Video Games fault, or it is all the guns fault.

Now guns, they have their defenders, whole organizations devoted to their defense, and some very good points have been made in their defense. The national attention is there and the message is well articulated…but there seems to be little defense for Video Games. Or at least none who have made this point.

In response to this and other tragedies Glenn Beck hosted a noted military psychologist on his TV program the other day, and the claim was that we are now raising a generation of killers through video games and the media. That Video Games are teaching people to kill, desensitizing people to kill, and is in effect causing the violence. Media and the rest of the ‘culture’ for that matter.

Now the arguments were very compelling actually, the idea that was presented that video game companies could be using the same tactics that the US Military uses to forge soldiers to sell a product, is interesting. I would buy it even, if it weren’t for one thing.

It’s never happened to me.

Now I want to make it very clear here, Glenn is not advocating for Government actions and bans, he is advocating for the individual to take action. He is simply pointing out what he believes this is a dangerous cultural problem that needs to be fixed through the individual and individual family. The day after his program aired his co host announced he had removed all the violent games, including Lego Indiana Jones, from his home. Beck even said that technology is like fire, it is good if you are the master of it, but bad if it is the master of you. So even he seems to be close to the answer to this problem….

Because it all comes down to the individual.

I am struck by this fact because I have been playing violent video games on and off since I have been..what? Six? Seven? Somewhere around then.

I was playing games like Ape Escape, Spyro the fire-breathing dragon. Crash Bandicoot which involved a…Bandicoot which twisted around in a tornado like pattern and blasted people out-of-the-way… well by people I mean demon spawned animals and stuff…or something…owned by a fat headed guy. Which then later evolved into a game where you were running around a race track launching missiles and bombs and TNT and Nitro at your fellow drivers, either human controlled or not.

To my early teens, playing games like the Medal of Honor Frontline, and Conflict Desert Storm I and II. Battling the Iraqi and Nazi Regimes, taking down tyranny by waging a special war as a Delta or OSS operative.

To my late teens waging a different kind of war in Conflict Global Terror, my first rated M game, which coincidentally involved the charters from Desert Storm fighting Neo Nazis…today.

To my early 20s with the Mass Effect series, the Call of Duty franchises, with blood and guts galore.

But yet, with roughly a 15 year ‘career’ in Video Games, by killing and destroying millions of beings from Nazis, to Trolls, to Cyber Zombies, I have not committed a murder, had nary a violent thought about a classmate or fellow human being, and in point of fact I was a lot more violent before my video game career then after it. But then again I was five, and mighty confused.

In fact I have often used Video Games as a stress relief, when I have had a bad day of school, stressful, or just really pissed, gone on the Play station, and went Orc hunting in Lord of the Rings.

Video games can inspire people to do a whole lot of things, out of jealousy, or ‘teaching them’, or whatever. But it is irresponsible to blame an inanimate object on any of our societies problems. After all it is a lot harder to kill someone with a video game, then a gun! I mean can you just imagine grinding away at a person’s head with a DVD?

The fault is with the individual, the lessons are from the individual, and the lessons are to the individual. The inspiration is to the individual.

Because during the program the Psychologist friend of Glenn’s made the argument that gaming is actually teaching people marksmanship. That people who play Video games aim for the head.

Now this is something I wonder. If I play Ace Combat or Madden NFL can I be a Fighter Ace or an effective football coach? So this argument fascinates me.

But this argument also has two big problems:

First of all most games that involve shooting aspects you get the message often loud and clear ‘aim for the head’. But that is a sound Marksmanship principle you can pick up almost anywhere, from television, to documentaries, to army training manuals, to the mere fact that your biological computer is in your head, might be a good place to shoot! And games can also teach one that it might be better to shoot people elsewhere, their chest for ease of accuracy, their legs to show them down, but again anyone can almost tell you the same thing.

And then the principle might be there, but often enough the actual combat situations aren’t. When you shoot a character in a video game there is no recoil, no wind, nothing for you to gauge how a real life shot should behave. All of these need to be taken into account in the real world.

And even games who do that, like the sniping missions in the Call of Duty series, taking in wind and the Coreilas effect, you don’t feel the wind on your face, you do not have the gun in your hand, you do not and cannot judge how the wind affects the bullet in the real world. Never mind other considerations.

But even then it is the individual who is important.

Sure a video game can ‘teach’ a gang member in east LA where to shoot a cop. But it could also teach a cop in Atlanta how and where to shoot, or what the situation calls for in a bank robbery and a hostage situation. Or it could teach a kid how to act to defend his kid sister from a robbery.

It is not the technology, not the media, not the fiction, not the gun, and certainly not the oven toaster causes deaths. Its how we use them, its how we chose to act with this technology.

And for other opinions on this issue visit this article:

Sandy Hook is still fresh in our memories, and their has been a ‘rash’ of shootings in the news, police shootings, school shootings, and mothers protecting their families…and children protecting their sisters.  All with guns.  Good and evil. 


And in the wake of the tragedies and the recent events a huge debate has started in this country over what is causing this rash of violence, and how to stop it.  I will address what is causing it later in the week with other blogs. 

As for the solution?  I am not sure I have one.  Just an observation that maybe we can stop gun violence, at the end of the day, by making sure the good guys have guns. 

During the climax to the Eric Flint Novel 1632 the town of Grantville found itself under siege.  Or more to the point the Grantville High School found itself under siege.  From a vicious band of Calvary and horse mounted warriors which were, at the time, renowned for their ruthless pursuit of their enemies. 

They were attacking a High School full of kids, teenagers, and families, in order to specifically cut the heart out of the new nation and cause them to suffer from a huge loss of morale and their technological might. 

But they were stopped, by one twenty something with a shotgun, by another with a semi automatic rifle, with a much larger round then the one shot from certain versions of the AR-15, by armed teachers, and by the forces of Gustavus Adolphus riding in at the last moment waving sword and wielding pistol, all combining to stop the attack with only minimal ‘allied’ casualties. 

Now this is not proposing a solution, this is certainly not saying that armed guards in schools are the answer, in fact I think this is a dumb idea and a bit counter intuitive in its own right.  And unneeded. 

This is merely an observation, and to again echo the NRA press conference after Sandy Hook, the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun…or a sword or a a good guy with a gun. 

A gun that can make rather large holes in you, like maybe a ‘Assault Rifle’. 

And while we never hope for violence, we never want violence, and violence responding to violence might not be a ‘solution’, at least we have the option of defending ourselves when the time is right. 

And these weapons might not be needed, but then it only takes one incident when they are needed, and aren’t legal, to appreciate their need. 

So, ban gun free zones, throw the idea in the dumpster, put the thought in any criminals mind that any time they walk into the building there could be at least one gun, if not more. 

Open up schools to teachers, janitors, administrators, and student volunteers for community service, as long as they are adults, to sheriff’s posse’s and parent patrol groups.  Anything to keep these kids safe from harm. 

And if anyone is willing to challenge this notion, then they will be met with, good guys with guns. 

Dear, Mr. Beck

Since the election you have claimed that we have ‘lost’ an entire generation. Mainly anyone who is of ‘College’ age has been lost to the public education system and just the society in general, lost to being Libertarians and Conservatives and believing in Small Government principles. That they are Socialists, or Liberals, or are voting en masse for the big Government policies of the current administration.

Regardless as someone who is Libertarian/ Conservative, someone who sees the corruption inherent in both parties, and someone who has spent my entire life in the Public Education system I can tell you that this is not the case. I still believe, raised in this environment, in the Constitution, our small Government, and that America has done more good to the world and the history of the world than harm.

And I for one believe it because of your influence, mainly, into looking things up and thinking and finding my own answers to the life’s solutions. You have encouraged me to think deeper and be a better person.

I am not alone as I know people my age, who have voted for Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, have started their own business ventures and made things of themselves far more than I have. And they see the dangerous road this country is on.

This generation, as is any group of people is only lost if we give up on them. Are we going to assume the blacks or the Jews are lost because vast numbers of them vote for Obama? Are we going to assume that we cannot make any headway in any minority group because a lot of them are against the things we stand for?

This is the choice that we face. Either we let go, or we double down. Because eventually if we forsake people and lose people then these people will grow up to be the next Barrack Obama’s, the next future leaders, the next future teacher’s which will continue to sprout their political, moral, and scientific sensibilities on even more generations. And then what? Do we lose them to? If we give up on these people now then we could easily lose the entire future by the influence they will have.

I refuse. I will continue to preach my message, from a perspective of a young American, and from the perspective of someone who cares deeply about this country, cares because of you. I hope you join me in this message and continue to fight the good fight to all groups of the United States. As I also hope that all those within the sound of my voice and typing fingers can do the same.

OK so I promised kinda new format since, you know, stuff. Then I vanished for a while, then the election happened. Oh dear. 😦 So I have decided to do this instead, kinda merge politics with the new format idea for this blog so I can talk about both politics and a rather important geo political issue, but still keep it kinda free. The question that we have to ask ourselves in the next four years.

What would Shepard Do?

Would she give up and take it? Whine and wonder at the unfairness of the universe and the idiocy of her fellow….Americans? (haha) No I don’t think she would at all. She would in fact do quite the opposite.

Commander Shepard is not the type of character to trust politicians. She in fact has proven herself to be anti-politician time and time again during the course of the games. Or, to be more precise, no matter what the political elites do and believe, whether or not they believe in the Reapers or not. She knows the truth, and acts accordingly, no matter what anyone tells her.

Her whole society doubted her, almost everyone she met told her she was delusional, and plain insane for believing in the Reapers. But she continued to fight anyways and struggle to get her point across, no matter the cost to herself, or her reputation.

She did not care, she knew what was right, and fought for it.

So we have to do. We have to do the same thing if we hope to survive.

No matter what our society does, who they vote for. No matter what the politicians do to us, what regulations, laws, or unfair practices. No matter what names we are called, racists, ignorant, bigoted, and homophobic…we must fight.

A lot of people have been echoing this message and so to do I. If we are to learn anything from the election is that this struggle is not over, and that Democracy does not work. But that is a discussion for another time.

Recently a documentary has been released called 2016, and while I haven’t seen it the message was loud and clear: If you vote for Barrack Obama the country will be in dire straights and will be burning from bad debt and big Government.

Now this did not get me thinking but then something else did. Sci fi…and if I am to be entirely honest..Mass Effect…combined the elections.

So I have to beg the question: What will this country or world look like in 2016, what will it look like in 2183? What will it look like in the 2260s? What will it look like in the 2370s?

Now I am no weatherman, and nor do I play one on TV. I am not a prophet, a sage, a wise man or a seer. I cannot answer the question. And this isn’t about the elections. Well it is. But it’s about something a lot larger than any election.

It’s about making the choice. Right here and right now. And not just about what form this country will take. Not about who will be President. But the lives we want our children to live, and their children, and their children, and their children. We have the choice to make. And not just in the voting booth.

We have the choice of what world we will create and how will we create it.

Will we create a world of dangerous and tumultuous liberty? Do we create a world of oppressive tyranny? Do we create a world of magic and wonder where there can be infinite technology coupled with an infinitely benevolent Government that somehow does not come down on its people? Will we prefer the calm chains of a large Government coddling us and stifling us and giving us some rights while denying the important ones? Or will we recommit ourselves to Liberty, no matter how ugly it can sometimes get?

America this is the choice before us. World this is the choice before us. I know what I am going to do, I know the world I want to hand down to my children. But we have to realize that only we are responsible for creating that world. We citizens of the United States. We citizens of the world. Our world will not be created in London, or Washington, Berlin or Cairo or Beijing. It will be built in the back alley streets. On the farms and in the factories. In Small towns like where I spent the first few years of my life, to the street corners of big cities.

It will be built either by us choosing to help people in need, by taking responsibility for solving our problems…to be energy independent…to get our fiscal houses in order…to work hard and then be able to honestly enjoy the fruits of our labor. Or will we choose to let others deal with it. Hope and pray for some George Washington, some Ronald Regan, or some random Government cop on the streets. Do we take responsibility, or do we abdicate it? Do we build a better world or put it in other hands, and thus build the world that we want?

This is the choice that we face, this is what will determine where we go into the future.

I renew the call, that no matter who wins the election, no matter which candidate comes out on top that we renew ourselves and get up to build the world we want. In all the ways we can do so.