Change you wanted, Change you have

more about “Change you wanted, Change you have“, posted with vodpod

 

 

Adolf Hitler’s, Obama’s SA members?

At least there is some fifty five million American voters not succumbed to the mindless, irrational euphoria of the misguided followers influenced by propaganda marketing of the word – CHANGE. This election spurs me to recall the ignorant Russian peasants who voted for Vladimir Lenin because of CHANGE. He’s different than the Tsar (George Bush). I dislike the Tsar, therefore I must love Lenin. Ya Lenin’s good! But he’s the leader of the radical Bolsheviks. Yes – but he’s different.

Or the German people crying for change in the Wiemar Republic. Hey, there is a one guy, Adolf Hitler. He hates that Wiemar Republic who’s responsible for the entire Great Depression. Oh what? He’s spewing hatred toward the Jews, democracy, wants to expand German borders into neighboring countries? He’s so – Different!

“George Bush, its your fault” we are experiencing the trough of the business cycle at the present moment. You caused this financial crisis that began twenty years ago because of the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. As well as increased legislation enforced prior to your presidency that forces loan companies to lend to prospects who cannot possibly repay the insurmountable fund. Also “your responsible” for one Illinois community organizer (BHO) who orchestrated lobbyist to influence loan companies to lend to people unable to pay back the loans. Furthermore, I’m voting for some one different because unemployment reached 6%.

What? Some one is different than George Bush? Who – Barrack who? He supports government intervention similar to France who has 9.1% unemployment and other European countries (Germany) with 10%. Well then he is different . . . I’m voting for CHANGE!!! Bush is sympathetic to capitalism? Therefore I hate capitalism!

I’m not suggesting Obama is equivalent to Hitler or Lenin etc. But I am declaring that we have elected the most radical socialist president since Woodrow Wilson and actually in the history of America, because people – fueled by emotional hatred of the incumbent president and in an act of irrationality voted for man just because he, vowing to redistribute wealth, initiate a government take over of health care, raise the industrial tax, corporate tax, capital-gains tax, windfall tax, tax on the stock market and American’s 401 k-plans (significantly hurting the middle class), and vows to cut military funding by 25%, negotiate with foreign enemy’s without any previous conditions to resolve issues, supports Supreme Court Justices not on a strict constructional basis, but on the notion they would favor a specific class, once voted for the most radical form of gun control in American history, placing restrictions on even single-shot and double-barrel shotguns, voted against a bill preventing abortionist from murdering an already born child clinging to life after a botched abortion, disregards the 1st Amendment with his approval of the Fairness Doctrine, has associations with two terrorists, mentored by a communist poet, closely tied to numerous racists and Marxists, has so many radical friends it would disqualify him to be in the FBI, but oh no . . . not the presidency, claims he will “recreate America” -WHAT, desires to have a “Civilian Corps” of 200,00 men funded equally to the military (Why does this guy want his own personal army?), all because he has induced the majority of people with the flamboyant propaganda of the magical six letter word.

We, who are either genetically  immune to this garbage or just have enough common sense and education about the basics of the economy, must keep a close eye on this guy and the legislation flying off his desk displaying his signature, as well as Harry Reed’s and Nancy Pelosi’s. We must at least attempt to educate the apparently emotionally unhinged and uninformed voters. However, we can rejoice that an African American has became president. Yet we cannot allow the obstruction of our Constitution, the transformation of our economy to even more government controlled socialism.

You say Obama is the answer. What (cause no one knows) is the question. I asked a Barrack supporter why he is voting for him. “He will bring back America,” he stated unspecifically of course. Well I was unaware that America had went anywhere for some one to bring it back. I’ll tell you where it may be heading. America is about to take a vacation to France: Only then maybe, will they say “We want change” and hopefully vote to return to the United States.

Determine how some one votes just by asking them a two part question

How did the stock market crash in 1929 and what would have been the best way to solve the problem?

I find this fascinating, maybe just because I thought of it, but the results seem to be quit accurate.

The market crash came about because of the lack of consumer spending, plain and simple. It produced a bubble in our economy. Now  you may say whatever, it was the time of the roaring twenties. Consumers spent like crazy. But it also was the time of buy now – pay later. a large number of people all buying goods on credit without paying. The businesses producing large amount of goods without being compensated properly. Households did not spend enough on consumer goods and services and businesses did not spend enough investing in new capital.

Now the real kicker that has influenced the way numerous people’s vote is how to fix this problem.

This is such a great question to ask some one because it focuses on the main differences between the platforms of say the Democrat and Republican party. I have said it many times, the strife between these two parties is not a fight between liberal and conservative. Those words practically mean nothing, but could mean everything. It actually is a disagreement between capitalism and socialism. (If you listen to the democrat debates, they want an economy based on government spending while the Republicans primarily focus on an economy based on consumer spending.)

Now Classical economists, such as Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and John Stuart Mill (Three of the first classical economists) would state that the economy always will fix itself. Supply and Demand charts always prove this statement. If the government would  let the economy fluctuate appropriately then it will be able to function smoothly and maintain it’s equilibrium. What many people are not aware of is what really threw our economy in a manic depression with a rate of 25% unemployment was the Smoot – Hawley Tariff act. Economists warned the Democratic congress of the time not to pass an increased tariff, because every time a tariff has been enforced it decreases the gross domestic product (GDP). Never the less it was passed in 1930, and 1931 through 1933 was by far the worse time of the economic depression, thanks to the tariff.

John Maynard Keynes came up with a theory that the market economy could be cured quickly by government intervention. As you should now this was the choice taken by President Roosevelt. He chose to increase taxes on the American people, which in return gave the government the ability to increase government spending in order to lift our economy out of the depression quickly. Now John Keynes predicted that although this action would benefit our economy in the short term it would prompt two long-term problems. One of these is a slow rate of increase in real GDP – a slow pace of improvement in the standard of living. The other long-term problem is persistent inflation – a persistently rising cost of living. Keynes suspected that his cure for depression, increased government spending, might bring both inflation and a lower growth rate of real GDP. With a lower growth rate of real GDP, the pace of job creation would also slow.

Once the late 1960’s and throughout the 1970’s, Keynes’ predictions became reality. Inflation increased during the 1960’s and exploded in the 1970’s. Real GDP growth slowed, and the unemployment rate increased. Keynes is recorded saying “In the long run we’re all dead.” In the 1970’s, Keynes was dead, but others were alive and well but had to suffer the long-term consequences of Keynes’ advice. Our economy continued to suffer until the Reagan tax cuts were initiated, allowing our economy to be based on consumer spending again which lowered unemployment and increased the GDP.

If one answers by saying “it was an unfortunate incident, luckily Roosevelt saved our country, I love tax increases! Then odds are they vote for the guy with a “D” besides their name.

If one answers by saying “the government should have let our capitalist economy function freely, without the government intervention of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff act. Our economy would have corrected itself by establishing it’s equilibrium without the damaging long term effects such as high unemployment in the future.” The probability of them voting Republican is awfully high.

“The more you know – the less likely you will vote for a socialist!”

Crazies saving the planet – By exterminating people!

I read the article “Meet the Woman who would not have babies – because they’re not Eco friendly” on daily mail a few days ago. Interesting enough I’m not shocked at all about reading this article because the woman is an “environmentalist.” These obsessed loonies come up with crazy outlandish ideas more often than Britney Spears goes to parties without wearing panties! For instance, in the 1970’s did the green faced people not harp about GLOBAL COOLING and we should melt the Arctic Ice caps by covering them with black soot? Gee I’m glad that didn’t happen, freak! This is the woman’s pic below – Toni Vernelli. Of course as usual there are many more just like her – once one person suggests something stupid many others follow.

  I don’t think it’s necessary for me to go on a rant here, but even though a vast number of people are nuts couldn’t they at least use some common sense. Apparently this woman became pregnant (God Forbid). So afraid that it would increase her carbon foot print she immediately had an abortion, then finally sterilized herself so she would not have children again. Interestingly enough, her boyfriend, now husband, presented her with a congratulations card, but who cares right? Right. Yet as do all far left crazed, just short of being a hippie, green  persons, they always have to make a remark that criticizes any one who does not partake in their dubious scem. Toni stated “having children is selfish. It’s all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet.” Is she implying that the people responsible for continuing the human race is selfish? Thank God every one is selfish otherwise this planet would only be occupied by selfish animals, fish etc. Could this be just another way of saying “Genocide is Good?” Maybe these people would call the Holocaust an improvement in the Eco system? What I can’t understand is if she is so environmentally sound, why become sterile. She could just continue to have abortions then use the dead lifeless corps as fertilization for her back yard garden! What I’m afraid of however, is in the near future, are we going to be reading about an obsessed lone gunman who killed seven people in an attempt to “save the planet?” This is the way ideas escalate. First we hear that we need to fight global warming so our grandchildren will live healthy. Now in regards to global warming, we should not even have grandchildren.

Democrats who like Ron Paul?

Is there any thing that could be this baffling? Some one explain this to me, why would a Democrat support some one who, besides his stance on the war,  goes against every thing the democratic platform stands for? Now the purpose of this post is not to rant against dems. There are many people who claim to be democrats because they do believe (for some strange reason)  in big government and raising taxes and will oppose any thing opposite to that. Yet there is a significant amount of people who say “I’m a democrat, but I support Ron Paul because even though he is a republican he is as liberal as any one!”

I’m going to step out on a limb her, and say I bet there are democrats who have no idea exactly what they are voting for nor why they call themselves liberals. Could it be that people only say they are liberals just because they heard a joke about Cheney or adore some one from Hollywood? Thats possible, ill tell you how I got there.

Ron Paul wants to bring America back to the principles envisioned by the framers of the U.S. Constitution: limited government, federalism, free trade and commerce. Notice the word “back,” you can’t be more conservative than that. It is not liberal! When they (confused dems) hear Ron Paul say he wants to dismiss the Federal Reserve and the income tax (because it’s unconstitutional) establish a limited government and decrease taxes. They say Yeah he’s cool lets do that. If thats what they want, why would they ever call themselves democrats?!! Your not liberal people, stop claiming to be! Furthermore he is pro-life, he stated he is “unshakable on abortion.” That doesn’t follow the democrat’s pro-choice agenda. He supports the 2nd Amendment, hence the Constitution, that doesn’t follow the democrat’s gun control agenda. He has stated “we must secure our borders now. . No amnesty!” That doesn’t support the democrat’s reform proposals which would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country.

So where am I wrong here? Do some people claim to be liberal, yet at the same time despise increased government intervention, increased taxes and infringements on our constitution? Could our government under go reform if people would stop getting their news on goofy talk shows, or for some – you-tube? Or is it that since he is opposes the war on Iraq people like his view on lower taxes, but if other republican president hopefuls speak of decreasing taxes they are scolded?

President Clinton Last Days in Office

 Want to know what else Clinton did, besides?

This is exacly how he will spend the next 8 years, 4 years, ehh.

Free Trade Good

Have you ever watched the movie Frankenstein? Where his creator tries to help the ugly guy out by creating a girl friend for him. She’s pretty, he’s ugly, so when she sees him she screams. Frankenstein runs away. Then he meets a blind man who invites Frankenstein to his house. The man gives him some food. In a rough monstrous voice Frankenstein says “food good.” Then he gives him something to drink Frankenstein says “drink good.” He gives him a pipe to smoke Frankenstein says “smoke good.” Well regarding the economy “Free trade good!”

Now I don’t want to go on a rant here, but for the love of God support free trade! The almighty Hillary said “I certainly think the free market has failed.” If that be the case, then it’s time we start storing up can foods, loading shotguns and making preparations to defend the land we own! Free trade allows American workers to specialize in goods and services that they produce more efficiently than the rest of the world and then exchange them for goods and services that other countries produce at higher quality and lower cost. Ask yourself: would the United States be better off if we still had millions of workers making textiles, instead of employed in the dynamic new businesses which have grown up in the last century? would we be better off if clothing cost five time as much as it does today, and we couldn’t afford to buy computers and software? Our economy works on a circular flow, yet every time the government sticks their filthy hands into it, it seems to takes the shape of a triangle. That not good. The law of supply and demand has a price equilibrium which fluctuates accordingly. When the government enforces a price ceiling or a price floor (such as minimum wage) it offsets the equilibrium price and prevents it from fluctuating appropriately which creates a bubble of unemployment. The widely loved Federal Minimum Wage increases unemployment. When it is raised by 10% it decreases employment by between 1% and 3%. Every time the American government enforces a filthy tariff  on trade, the U.S. economy suffers.

There is a lot of talk now about the need to support “fair trade.”Seldom, however, does anyone explain either what fair trade is or–even more to the point–to whom trade should be fair. In the name of fairness, different groups advocate different protections for their specific industries and call the comparative advantage of other countries “unfair.” For example, U.S. manufacturers think it is unfair that labor in China is cheaper than labor in the United States, and therefore ask for tariffs against Chinese products. But those tariffs would, in reality, be unfair to millions of U.S. consumers and producers who would be forced to pay higher prices for locally manufactured goods. “Fairness” assumes a dubious character in policies that pick and choose whom to treat “fairly.”The only form of fair trade–if such thing exists–is free trade.

This reminds me of the tariff of 1828, which was the highest tariff in U.S. peacetime history, enacting a 62% tax on 92% of all imported goods. The purpose of this tariff was to protect the industry in the north by increasing the price of European goods which was purchased by the south. The tariff forced the South to buy manufactured goods at a higher price which significantly hurt the economy because it reduced the southern states’  income from sales of raw materials. Also the great depression which began in 1929 (mainly because households did not spend enough on consumer goods and services and business’ lack of investing in new capital) reached it’s worse in 1933 with unemployment at 25%,  because of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act which was sign in 1930. Also even though economists concluded that the depression would correct itself, the government intervened which lowered unemployment in the short term, but as predicted it lead to high rising inflation rates in the 1960’s which exploded in the 1970’s increasing the unemployment rate.

So where am I wrong here? The socialist “fair” traders who attempt to discredit capitalism and free trade should look at the unemployment rates around the world. America is criticized because they do not have the high unemployment benefits as France does. Yet who has the highest unemployment rate? France! Is it possible that the higher the benefits of unemployment, the more people will be unemployed? duh! The more government intervention in the economy, the worse off it will be. People who want tariffs just to encourage domestic spending end up hurting the same economy in which they try to regulate.

The Absence of Liberty in American Government!

Now I don’t want to go on a rant here, but it seems to me that the liberty which we naturally have is being deprived by the one which was established to protect it. Is it not marvelous that America has – more laws and more citizens incarcerated in prisons than any other country! Either America’s government is not abiding to the foundation it was created on or liberty is defined as suppressing individuals to the idea of conforming to society. The truth is the American people are being stripped of many liberties that our founding fathers ensured to us and the erosion of our liberty has been evident throughout our American history. Our founding fathers came to America in order to escape the persecution and obsessive control of the British Government. They wanted to establish a country where people could partake in the natural rights they were born with in the absence of a government. Our natural rights include the rights to engage in economic enterprise, to improve ones condition by trading with others, to keep the fruits of those trades, and then to pursue happiness through the disposition of those fruits. However the only way people can secure their liberty and property is to have a government to suppress individuals who endanger those rights. After experiencing the atrocity preformed by the British government, Thomas Jefferson wrote the constitution in order to prevent the American government from over exceeding it’s purpose. Jefferson specifically gave only limited powers to the government in fear that it would become to powerful and infringe on the natural rights of the people. The greatest threat to the rights and freedoms of the American people lies within our own government. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to serve as a protective wall,  protecting the American people from the very real threat to their rights and freedom emanating from the federal government. But many Americans are unaware of this and view the government as the provider and protector of their welfare rather than a servant for the people and by the people. It is because of this, the American people now face a permanent loss of liberty and a dangerous realization of a government controlled nation with unjust principles.

The definition of fascism is the work of the linguistic effort of big government and big corporation working together to stifle the people. Despite the limited powers granted to the government, America is now being controlled by the force of large private banks manipulating the federal government to act in their favor. Since America has become a legitimate nation, large corporations and businesses have tried to develop a strong hold within the government to push their agenda. Even though the Article one of the constitution states that only congress can tax and coin money, by 1913 the sixteenth amendment was created and it gave way to the two greatest frauds in history, the establishment of the Federal Reserve and the income tax. Before 1913 all American money was backed by gold and silver and the federal government abided to strict constitutional functions. afterwards congress gave the Federal Reserve powers that have been deemed as unconstitutional since the birth of our nation. The Federal Reserve is a corporation made up of the major banks in America. It borrows money from itself, then pays it back with interest, which is where the income tax comes in. The income tax does nothing but pay the interest on the money the Federal Reserve borrows from itself. What is astonishing is that the federal government forces Americans to pay this tax even though there never was actually a law to do so. In 2005 the American people petitioned the federal government demanding that it shows a law that requires America to pay a direct unapportioned income tax. On August 31, 2005 federal judge Emmet Sullivan ruled the government does not have to answer the American people’s questions even though it is guaranteed in the first Amendment. This concludes that our liberty of petition is being discredited by the powers of a fascist government. Our founding fathers however where fully aware of the destructive potential that could originate from the compliance of large corporations. Thomas Jefferson stated “if the American people allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.” In 1963 President John F. Kennedy recognized the unconstitutional acts of the Federal Reserve and with a simple stroke of the pen Kennedy dismissed the Federal Reserve System and ordered the U.S. Government to restore it’s constitutional-mandate of controlling the money. President Kennedy was dead three weeks later. When President Lyndon Johnson took office, he immediately rescinded Kennedy’s order. The Federal Reserve has financed and profited from every war since World War I and continues to prosper from the excessive taxation of Americans. It has established a strangle hold on the federal government.  Government officials, both democrat and republican, are now the cooperation’s puppets who deprive Americans of liberty for the benefits of the Federal Reserve. There have been attempts to shutdown the Reserve, such as Representative Ron Paul’s 2003 proposal of the Liberty Amendment which repeals the sixteenth amendment. He states the Liberty Amendment “explicitly forbids the federal government from preforming any action not explicitly authorized by the United States Constitution,” but it failed to receive the required votes.

In 2001 the most profitable occurance for the Federal Reserve happened, the September eleven terrorist attack. This gave way to a global war and an excuse to expand federal powers in the name of the war on terror. “President Bush signed executive orders giving him sole authority to impose martial law, and suspend Habeas Corpus, which gives him dictatorial power with no checks and balances. The federal government wants America to believe the only way to protect our rights from terrorists is to take away certain rights all together. There are seven executive orders that expand federal power. Executive order #11921 provides that the President can declare a state of emergency that is not defined, and congress cannot review the action for six months. Executive order #10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation. Executive order #10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media. Executive order #10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels, and farms. Executive order #11002 requires the postmaster general to operate a national registration of all persons. Executive order #1000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision. Due to the threat of another terrorist attack congress passed the Patriot Act, which significantly undermines the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It promotes what are founding fathers feared the most and tried so had to prevent – a government controlled police state. The Patriot Act permits the FBI and police to search homes and offices without the owner knowing about it. It allows the government to secretly wiretap phones, computers and Internet activity. It also permits secret investigations of a citizen’s financial record and secret examinations of medical, travel and business records. It even allows the government to ban citizens of air and other travel and freeze all funds and assets without notice. The government now has the authority to jail someone for life without charges, without trail and without a lawyer. That is not quite the government Jefferson had in mind is it? what is also disturbing is that during the 1990’s President Clinton monitored millions of private phone call placed by U.S. citizens under a secret program code named Echelon. This proves that wire tapping has nothing to do with the terrorist act. It is this kind of federal power the Federal Reserve has wanted since it was first established. As long as the Reserve holds the money it calls the shots, not the federal government. Because of this, the liberty that Americans once possessed is diminishing at an alarming rate!

By November 2008 identification cards will be in effect for all American citizens. Anyone without a card will not be permitted to board an airplane, Amtrack train, open a bank account and enter a federal building. The Bill mandates that all drivers licences contain a radio frequency identification card, required by the Executive order 11002. This sound similar to the 1930’s in Germany where a Nazi soldier puts a gun to a person’s head demanding to see his papers. If the registration does not exist, the person is rendered a non citizen and sent to only God knows where. one must remember that Adolf Hitler received much of his power after terrorists firebombed the German parliament building, leading Hitler to declare war on terrorism and to seek a temporary suspension of civil liberties to deal with the terrorist threat. The Federal Reserve is associated with the World Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund Bank of International Settlements – which is the central bank of  all the central banks of the world. The Federal Reserve is using the American government to suppress Americans in order to reach it’s goal of global domination of a world government, substantially eliminated our liberties granted by the Constitution. Many believe that the war in Iraq is an attempt by the Federal Reserve and their partner the Bank of England to control the middle east and to make it a part of the new world order. Without the elimination of the Federal Reserve and the acts of citizens to enforce the Constitution upon the federal government, there will forever be an absence of liberty which continues to exist.

The American government was not established to provide Americans with the natural rights they were born with. It was created in order to abide to the laws of the Constitution which protect American’s rights. The Constitution is the law of the people, which governs the federal government toward promoting every individual the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If the American people are not willing to enforce their law then the federal government will continue to over exceed it’s purpose and the Federal Reserve will continue to prosper, no matter how well the Constitution is written. There is no liberty in the American government, yet it lies in the Constitution and the people who use it. It is time to declare to the government officials, No matter what, you will not suspend or infringe our freedoms. Obey our law, the Constitution. The real crisis is now our own government!

The Hidden Truth Behind the Ban on Cell Phones

It seems that some people are constantly trying to push boundaries to increase government influence. Evidence of this is the ban that makes it illegal to talk on cell phones while driving. There is a misconception within the reasoning of this ban and the scientific studies that support it contains bias information and may seem misleading. Due to the misrepresentation of this ban and the false reasons of implementation, I oppose such an infringement and believe there are better ways to insure safety rather than giving the government the power to legislate decision making.

Supporters of the ban on cell phones argue that many drivers who have been involved in accidents were talking on cell phones at the time of impact. Therefore the distraction of the cell phones must be responsible for the collision. This is a widely acceptable theory that is inevitably inaccurate. According to the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association there are over 231 million people who have subscribed to cell phones in the United States of America. There are over 300 million people in America. Also the Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. took a survey of 1,200 drivers and found that 73% of them talk on cell phones while driving. Everyone knows that accidents occur for many different reasons. This being the case, is it possible that drivers of the 73% might have a wreck at the same time they are talking on their cell phone, yet the cause of the accident has nothing to do with the cell phone? Ive heard it said that everyone has a cell phone. So if the majority of drivers engage in conversation on cell phones while driving, then naturally there will be accidents where one or more of the drivers were using their cell phone at the time of impact, regardless of the cause of the accident. I do not want to come across as radical, but this concept is equivalent to some one surveying drivers who were involved in an accident while wearing a red shirt. After discovering there are indeed people who were wearing  red shirts during an accident, the person then tries to prohibit fashion while driving. There is no denying that cell phones are a distraction to drivers. But is the distraction such a danger that it should be illegal to use them while driving, and is it more distracting that other situations that occur while driving? A study conducted by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found that reaching for a moving object while driving increased the risk of a crash or near – crash by 9 times, where as talking or listening on a hand-held cell phone only increased the risk by 1.3 times. So if talking on cell phones while driving is not as dangerous as other possible distractions, then why are people pushing for government intervention? Unfortunately this ban is not just to correct human error.

E.J Dionne written an essay called “Tough Call on Cell Phones.” This essay seems to weigh both sides of the argument, but Dionne makes it clear that he supports the ban. He tries to connect on a personal level with his reader by stating i would hate it if big government told me I could no longer use my cell phone in my car. But, also I would hate it even more if my wife or my children were hurt by a driver who was so engaged in making phone calls that he forgot to remember he was driving.” People who are not aware of Dionne’s background might pass this essay off as a reasonable approach toward the ban on cell phones and they may be influenced to take the same standpoint. This is exactly the reason Dionne wrote this essay. What Dionne does not want his readers to know is that he would like nothing more than a big government telling people exactly what to do. Dionne is a liberal writer, who in my opinion widely supports the secular progressive movement. Evidence of this is in one of his publications. “They only Look Dead: Why Progressives will Dominate the next Political Era.” Progressives believe that there should always be a big government and the government should regulate every one. So what better way for Dionne to push forward his progressive view point of full government control by using the ban on cell phones as a stepping stone. He also states “You can think about whether individual rights trump the common good” in order to persuade his readers that maybe individual rights really are not that important as an American. he also writes a reference to Felix Ortiz, who was one of the front runners for the ban on cell phones five years ago. Many know Ortiz as the man who banned smoking in public areas and also the one who is trying to pass the “fat tax,” which is a tax on anything that promotes obesity, such as junk food and even video games. This issue of whether or not cell phones should be banned is strictly an opportunity to promote a political agenda as are many other issues which are being debated. Situations like these are damaging the American society and must be stopped.

Unfortunately progressives do not have to do all the work themselves. Sometimes they receive help from their ultimate rivals, the conservatives. Paul Mulshine, a conservative opinion writer, written an essay called “End the Hands – Off Policy on Cell Phone Users.” This essay rants and raves against people who use cell phones while driving. Yet Mulshine’s essay is substantially suspicious. Mulshine is a conservative, yet much of his essay criticizes conservatives. After stating his reason for supporting the ban, he writes “this rather obious point is lost on the many radio talk – show hosts and other self-proclaimed conservatives. Is it possible that Mulshine deliberately used the cell phone ban just for another reason to degrade Limbaugh? If not then there is no reason why he would have criticized just certain conservatives who believe the ban denies individual liberties. Libertarians also oppose the ban for the same reason. The problem with essays like this one, is that the public mistakenly buys into it, which inadvertently helps the progressive movement move forward.

The ban on cell phones should not be implemented, nor should any restriction that is similar in effect. The ideology behind this ban is without a doubt corrupt and is feeding the American public false propaganda. Driving while engaged in conversation with a cell phone is most definitely distracting. But it is not the worse distraction nor is it significant enough to be illegal to do so. The best way to reduce the distraction from cell phones is through education not government control. Ask the question which is more effective toward keeping a child from taking drugs, informing the child of the possible dangers and teaching him or her how to prevent getting into tough situations or just telling them if they do it they will be in trouble? Teenagers should be required to know how to deal with distractions before they ever receive their driver license. Acquiring this knowledge would be much more effective than just being prohibited by the government. This ban is evidence of worse things to come. America is called the land of the free for a reason and it should not be changed regardless of what progressives think.