Liberal Fascism

I am reading the book Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg. I have agreed with the premise of this book long before it was written.  He points out that liberals have made it their mission to incorrectly foist the 'fascist' label upon what we today consider the right-wing, or Conservative political beliefs.  In reality, that could not be more incorrect.  Fascism is a liberal phenomenon, almost by definition.  We were taught by academia (quite incorrectly) that the politics of Hitler and Mussolini was right-wing, when in fact it's left wing.  Fascism goes hand in hand with national socialism, and it frankly cannot function in a true right-wing limited-government environment.

In the modern American sense, a conservative (or traditional classical liberal) believes in small, limited government, typically limited by a written constitution.  Conservatives believe in the individual- that the pursuit of an individual's self-interest is also what is in the best interest of society.  This is based on the philosophies of Adam Smith, Voltaire and others.  They believe in laissez-faire free market capitalism, free trade, and in private property.  Conservatives generally limit the government to the functions of protecting individual rights, maintaining law and order, serving as an arbiter in the form of courts to uphold contracts, and providing military protection against foreign enemies.  In a nutshell, that's all that the government should do in the eyes of modern conservatives.

By contrast, a modern liberal, also called a progressive, believes in socialism.  They believe in a powerful central government dictating to the citizenry that which an elite believes is best for the society as a whole, even to the detriment of the individual.  They use phrases like 'the time the debate is over' and 'scientific consensus' to quash opposition to their policies and ideals- even when there is substantial disagreement.  (Hitler used these methods with quasi-science to great effect.)  They impose massive taxes on the people typically for two purposes: to generate revenue to fund the large government bureaucracy they require, and to redistribute wealth from the 'rich' to the poor, through government programs that they control.  They generally do not believe in private ownership, preferring a collective state ownership of the means of production, or if not overt state ownership, at least control over the means of production as well as 'critical' industries like banking, healthcare, etc.

Now that we have defined modern conservatism and liberalism, let's also define fascism.  There is not a consensus on the definition of fascism, but generally the following traits together form a fascist regime:

• Authoritarian- Centralization of power, often into a single party or individual based on a commitment to the national community as an organic entity (rather than as individuals) bound together through ancestry, culture, and blood.
• Totalitarian- Views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified in order to achieve the common good.  Tries to control all aspects of life including heath and wellbeing, using force, regulation, and social pressure to that end.
• Nationalist often reaching the point of statolatry, or worship of the state
• Indoctrination of the citizenry through propaganda, censorship, education, etc.
• Opposition is demonized- usually labeled as enemies of the state and and quashed as quickly as possible under a fascist regime by agents of the regime as well as the public which is whipped into a frenzy by the propaganda and oratory of the regime.  Sometimes this reaches the extent of murder / purges of the opposition.
• A leader that claims to be attuned to or the embodiment of the will of the people, often (but not always) rising to the point to create a cult of personality.
• Collective policies that put the state/collective good above all individuals
• Little or no respect for individual rights and freedom, such as the rights to bear arms, free speech, free religion, free press, etc.

In a fascist state, there may be the facade of a constitution, legislature, or even monarchy (in the case of Italy) but in practice, it's a dictatorship in the eyes of the dictator.  Fascism prefers a totalitarian single-party state that seeks mass mobilization of the nation through indoctrination, physical education, and discipline.  I would contend that every single leader/regime that I outline below meets every single one of the above criteria for fascism.  Here are several fascist individuals and regimes that have existed throughout history... let's review to see if they are more conservative or liberal...

Napoleon Bonaparte, Emperor of the French

Napoleon was arguably the first fascist of modern history, even though that term did not exist until Mussolini.  He was also genocidal, in many ways building the model on which Hitler would build nearly a century and a half later, as well as Stalin, Mao, etc.  In 1799 Napoleon took 2,000 prisoners in Gaza and 3,000 in Jaffa, on the condition that their lives would be spared.  After the battles, Napoleon ordered the prisoners (including women and children) to be killed by bayonet, in order to save bullets and gunpowder.  Later, he slaughtered 100,000 rebellious slaves over the age of 12 by sulphur dioxide gas in Guadeloupe and Haiti, then known as San Domingo.

Napoleon is the child of the French revolution, his goal being to take the "ideals" of the French revolution to the rest of Europe.  He took French nationalism to new heights, convincing his countrymen that France was the greatest nation on Earth, and droves of French died for him in furtherance of that myth.  He ruled France as an absolute dictator with an iron fist and controlled a brutal police state in which he operated a vast network of secret police and spies.  The police shut down plays containing any hint of disagreement of criticism of the government.  The press was controlled by the state and used to express propaganda.  It was impossible to express an opinion without Napoleon's approval.

Woodrow Wilson, 28th President of the United States of America

Woodrow Wilson believed first and foremost in absolute power.  He criticized Constitutional limited government, and the Declaration of Independence.  Wilson stated that "Government does now whatever experience permits or the times demand" and, as to limited government, "The President is at liberty, both in law and conscience, to be as big a man as he can. His capacity will set the limit..."

In a 1890 essay entitled Leaders of Men, Wilson said that a “true leader” uses the masses of people like “tools" and that “the competent leader of men cares little for the internal niceties of other people’s characters: he cares much–everything–for the external uses to which they may be put…. He supplies the power; others supply only the materials upon which that power operates…. It is the power which dictates, dominates; the materials yield. Men are as clay in the hands of the consummate leader.”  As to dissent, he stated “woe be to the man or group of men that seeks to stand in our way.”

Wilson went out of his way to go to war with Germany, including provoking German attacks, in order to accomplish the "splendid things that come to a nation through the discipline of war.”  Once he got the war that he wanted, he used the opportunity, as most fascists do

the first change they get to expand government powers and silence any dissent.  In fact, Wilson created the first modern propaganda agency in the West called the Committee on Public Information and was led by journalist George Creel.

Edward Bernays, an adviser to Wilson and participant in CPI operations, characterized the mission of CPI as the “engineering of consent” and “the conscious manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses.” 

A trained group of nearly a hundred thousand men gave four minute speeches to any audience that would listen including spying on and turning in fellow citizens who did not buy 'Liberty Bonds' or who opposed Wilson in any way.  They portrayed Wilson as a larger-than-life leader and the Germans as less-than-human Huns, emphasizing fabricated German war crimes and horrors.

At Wilson’s urging, a Sedition Act forbade Americans from criticizing their own government in a time of war. Citizens could not “utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language” about the government or the military. The Postmaster General was given the authority to revoke the mailing privileges of those who disobeyed. About 75 periodicals were were shut down by the government in this way and many others were given warnings.

In the fashion of a police state, the Department of Justice arrested tens of thousands of individuals without just cause. One was not safe even within the walls of one’s own home to criticize the Wilson administration. A letter to federal attorneys and marshals said that citizens had nothing to fear as long as they “Obey the law; keep your mouth shut.” In fact, the Justice Department created the precursor to the Gestapo called the American Protective League consisting of the hundred thousand men previously mentioned.  Its job was to spy on fellow citizens and turn in “seditious” persons or draft dodgers. In September of 1918 in NYC, the APL rounded up about 50,000 people. This doesn’t even include the infamous Palmer Raids in which an additional 10,000 anarchists and labor activists that opposed Wilson were arrested. 

In 1915, in his address to Congress, Wilson declared, “The gravest threats against our national peace and safety have been uttered within our own borders. There are citizens of the United States, I blush to admit, born under other flags…who have poured the poison of disloyalty into the very arteries of our national life; who have sought to bring the authority and good name of our Government into contempt, to destroy our industries wherever they thought it effective for their vindictive purposes….”

All in all it is estimated that about 175,000 Americans were arrested for failing to demonstrate their patriotism in one way or another. 

Wilson took over the US economy completely.  He charged Bernard Baruch with running the War Industries Board, which would endeavor to control all industry in service to the state. It would serve as a precursor to the corporatist policies of Mussolini and Hitler.

Grosvenor Clarkson, a member and later historian of the WIB, would characterize the WIB as follows: “It was an industrial dictatorship without parallel–a dictatorship by force of necessity and common consent which step by step at least encompassed the Nation and united it into a coordinated and mobile whole.” He would also later say that the war was “a story of the conversion of a hundred million combatively individualistic people into a vast cooperative effort in which the good of the unit was sacrificed to the good of the whole.”  The government weakened the spirit of the people to resist government tyranny.  Rationing and price-fixing characterized the wartime command economy.  Wilson even tried to dictate what people ate on a daily basis.

Therefore, Wilson was the first fascist president of the US and first major fascist dictator of the 20th century.  Wilson took over the US economy, infringed on American civil liberties especially by suppressing dissent, oppressed the “unpatriotic,” and purposefully sought to drag the US into war. This Marxist, totalitarian, jingoistic, and militaristic Democrat president was a fascist. He worshiped the power of the state, and such statolatry is exactly what fascism is. 

Adolph Hitler, Reichsfuhrer of Germany

Adolph Hitler is the name that comes to mind immediately when one thinks of fascism, such that NAZI and fascism are almost interchangeable in the minds of most people.  Nazi, of course, stands for National Socialism - two of the defining traits of fascism- nationalism and socialism, including total control of the state, the people, and the economy.  Of course, through political maneuvering, Hitler was reluctantly appointed Chancellor of Germany by the democratically elected President Hindenburg.

Nazism is founded upon the bedrocks of opposing capitalism, big business, the bourgeois, the Jews, and the communists or Marxists.  As is well known, Hitler did not tolerate opposition, imposing strict control of the media, gun control, and using the SA and the SS to silence dissent- from imprisonment to mass executions.  Nazi propagandists such as Joseph Goebbels whipped the public into a frenzy to support Nazi goals, reinforce German and Aryan superiority ideals, and demonize and destroy any opposition.  Nazis were radical environmentalists and animal welfare activists, and enthusiastic supporters of eugenics including sterilizing or eliminating people who did not meet their Aryan standards.  Nazis, while still allowing some private property, had strict control over the means of production, appointing Nazis to manage and run most factories and businesses.

After the Reichstag (legislative building) burned in a fire blamed on Communists, but likely to have been started by Nazis, Hitler demanded that the legislature pass the Enabling Act which gave Hitler's cabinet full legislative powers for four years.  It was passed, while the legislators were surrounded by SA guards, and to the exclusion of Communists and several Social Democrats who were not allowed to attend.  From this point on, Hitler had absolute authority over the state, including requiring all SA, SS, and all soldiers to swear allegiance directly to Adolph Hitler.  As is well known, Hitler initiated a series of wars to expand the reach and scope of Germany, invading Poland, France, the Soviet Union and others. He also murdered at least 6 million Jews through the efficiency of his gas chambers and concentration camps.  Hitler is a quintessential fascist in nearly every respect, but also very much a liberal when it comes to social policies and state control.  He certainly does not exhibit any aspects of a small government conservative who believes in capitalism, individualism and individual rights.

Benito Mussolini, Il Duce of Italy

Benito Mussolini coined the term fascism and was a dedicated socialist writer and orator.  In 1912, he became the editor of Italy's official socialist periodical called 'Avanti!' through which he could express his views.  Initially, he opposed entry into World War I, but later changed his mind after pondering Marx' notion that social revolution follows war.  Once he started supporting the war, in opposition to the socialist party, he was removed from his position and from the party.  The was then conscripted to fight in the war, and became virulently pro-Italian.

After the war, Mussolini opposed the socialist party but was convinced that a dictator was needed to solve Italy's problems.  He decided to form a party of his own, called the 'fasci di combatiimento' who were fighting bands of revolutionaries who ware black.  He and his group terrorized socialists, unions, and unsupportive locals which is likely where those who, on the surface, arrive at fascism being a right-wing affair.  However, to the contrary, he was very much a socialist even if he wasn't a member of the party.

In 1922, the King- presiding over a very weak government under pressure from Mussolini's supporters, offered Mussolini the position of Prime Minister and he effectively became dictator.  He used his power to pack the parliament with Fascists and held a dubious/fixed election in 1924 after which he effectively crushed and murdered all opposition.

He invested massively in public works projects and programs described as battles.  While he recognized what was happening in the United States under FDR as Fascist, he is on record asking his people to not refer to the US as fascist because the term was not popular in the Untied States and could be used against FDR's fascist administration.

With the outbreak of war, Mussolini initially supported France, not Germany.  But hungry for territorial gains for his renewed Italian empire, Mussolini invaded Ethiopia successfully, but that action alienated Britain and France, ultimately resulting in an axis between Italy and Germany.  Mussolini was impressed by German success, but ultimately Hitler and Mussolini did not get along well and coordinated their actions poorly.

Ultimately, Mussolini was removed from power by the Fascist Grand Council and the King ordered his arrest after public support faded due to the poor performance of Italy during the war.

Franklin D. Roosevelt, 32nd President of the United States of America

Franklin Roosevelt's regime is easily responsible for the largest expansion of federal government power in the history of the country to that time, including dramatic centralization of power, usurpation of the power of states, and dictatorial rule.  Roosevelt famously stated that he preferred to do what he wanted, and let someone else worry about Constitutionality later.

He created the National Industry Recovery Act (NRA) in which businesses is almost a direct remake of Mussolini's "corporate state" fascism.  Specifically, it authorized the President to regulate industry and permit cartels and monopolies (aka protect Roosevelt's buddies) and also established a public works program known as the Public Works Administration (PWA) and ultimately created over 10,000 pages of new regulations on business.  The NRA is known for it's 'blue eagle' logo and the slogan 'We do our part.'  Those who did not participate were treated harshly by the administration, resulting in what is a de facto government veto over businesses they didn't like, driving customers and vendors elsewhere through threats, intimidation, and regulation.  The US Supreme Court ultimately ripped into the NRA/PWA as being unconstitutional in 1935 when a number of lawsuits reached them.

He created Social Security which created a whole new class for the welfare state: senior citizens.  It added massive new taxes, a horrible return on the 'investment', and a 'trust fund' that is regularly raided, and in fact now depleted by government.

Roosevelt created an Office of Censorship during the war and used it to censor media coverage of his own travels in order to conceal his deteriorating health and to hide visits with his mistress, Lucy Page Mercer Rutherford.

He created the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) which was a paramilitary program for unemployed, unmarried men between ages 18-25.  They worked rural government lands ballooning to 300,000 people at one point, and processing more than 2.5 million over it's nine year existence.  Workers were managed by US Army officers and reported to General Douglas MacArthur.

He created the Works Projects Administration (WPA) which hired millions of unskilled workers to carry out public works projects such as roads, buildings, etc.  Roosevelt used the WPA to add to his political machine.  The WPA was called a seedbed for communists, and those too lazy to get a 'real job.'  Often public projects were done in areas that Roosevelt wanted to shore up politically, not based on economic need.  There was also a perception that the WPA encouraged poor work habits.  In fact, a Senate subcommittee reported that "To some extend the complaint that WPA workers do poor work is not without foundation... Poor work habits and incorrect techniques are not remedied.  Occasionally a supervisor or a foreman demands good work."  Sometimes projects would slow down deliberately because foremen had an incentive to keep going, rather than finish a project.

He signed Executive Order 9066 which sent 120,000 Japanese-Americans to internment camps- a flagrantly Unconstitutional and racist act.  After the 1936 Berlin Olympics he met with the white American athletes and ignored black athletes including Jesse Owens who won four gold medals.  In fact Jesse Owens reacted to statements about Hitler snubbing him as follows: "Hitler didn't snub me- it was FDR who snubbed me.  The president didn't even send me a telegram."

FDR had no respect for the individual rights embodied in the Bill of Rights such as freedom of the press (he censored the press), freedom of speech (he prohibited dissent), the right to bear arms (he passed the National Firearms Act in 1934).  Instead, he offered a 'Second Bill of Rights' which included the right to a job; the right to earn enough to provide adequate food, clothing & recreation; the fight of every farmer to raise and sell his products; the right of every businessman to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from monopoly (which he prevented through state sponsorship via the NRA so this is a bit of doublespeak here); the right to a decent home; the right to adequate medical care; right to protection from economic fears; right to a good education.  In a word- socialism, or in other words the right to be wholly dependent upon the federal government.  FDR ordered the arrest of Montgomery Ward CEO because he refused to pay the exorbitant taxes demanded by him.

Roosevelt also snubbed individualism in favor of collectivism in nearly every sense.  He dramatically expanded the welfare state and regulation of the economy including extensive government planning of the economy.  Many modern economists of the Austrian/Chigago school believe that through FDR's interventionism, he prolonged the Great Depression and made it much worse than it otherwise would have been without the massive government spending and programs that were funded by debt and confiscation of private property, but of course that is not what is taught by academics and the public education system.  In fact, FDR doubled taxes, making it much more expensive for employers to hire people and harder for entrepreneurs to raise capital.  He destroyed food, broke up banks, drive the cost of living up, and engineered laws which dramatically impacted poor blacks.

Even FDR's own Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau made the following statement in a private meeting in 1939: "No, gentlemen, we have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong, as far as I am concerned, somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises… But why not let’s come to grips? And as I say, all I am interested in is to really see this country prosperous and this form of Government continue, because after eight years if we can’t make a success somebody else is going to claim the right to make it and he’s got the right to make the trial. I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started."  Mr. Doughton: "And an enormous debt to boot!"  HMJr.: "And an enormous debt to boot! We are just sitting here and fiddling and I am just wearing myself out and getting sick. Because why?  I can’t see any daylight. I want it for my people, for my children, and your children. I want to see some daylight and I don’t see it…"

Interestingly, the abandonment of many of these policies coincided with the strong economic recovery of the 1940s.  Government cannot create economic prosperity, because government jobs are ultimately funded by taxes or debt.  Taxes come from other citizens who cannot purchase goods, invest in projects, or hire workers, and debt has to be re-payed.  It's also worth mentioning that true to form with most fascists, FDR did not consider himself to be subject to the Constitution, or any other rules, laws, or traditions which is why he decided to run for an unprecedented third term in the White House.  There were outcries at the time within the United States that it was a dictatorship under FDR.  Since he couldn't technically fire the justices on the Supreme Court, he wanted to increase the size of the court from 9 to 15 judges, so that he could appoint 6 new justices that were friendly to him.  He tried his darnedest to be a dictator, and definitely was in his eyes.  The Supreme Court and to a lesser degree Congress exerted their power and therefore limited the power and reach of FDR, but he did everything in his power to rule as dictator over the United States, and was most definitely a fascist based on the definition.

Joseph Stalin, Premier of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

Joseph Stalin is obviously a Communist, but that does not mean that he's not also a fascist.  Liberals tend to portray Stalin as the 'opposite' of Hitler, and while they were enemies, they were very similar in terms of policies and they way they ruled their countries.  In fact, communists in Germany were told to support the Nazi's during their rise to power, under the communist plan "First brown, then red."  Let us look at the facts...

Stalin created and maintained a totalitarian regime.  He created a paranoid police state where all enemies of Stalin, and hence of the state, were tracked down and eliminated by the NKVD/KGB which ultimately imprisoned millions in gulags and murdered an estimated 20 million though purges during his reign, far more than Hitler.  All media, education and entertainment was state controlled, censoring anything even remotely disagreeable.

Stalin required nearly everyone to answer directly to him, and through the Communist party which has complete control of the government.  Communism in the Soviet Union was the definition of a one party system.  He was very paranoid that enemies were everywhere and out to get him.  He conducted a series of purges in which millions died because they were real or perceived enemies.  In fact, he killed 70% of his officer corps in a purge that preceded war with Germany in 1941, and as such the Red Army performed very poorly at the start of the conflict, with little experience in the ranks.

He also fiercely advocated Soviet nationalism through the concept of "socialism in one country."  It's also ironic that Communism's stated policy is a dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e. a worker's paradise, but in fact, Stalin and other Communists are the worst exploiters of the workers for the "good of the country."  Workers are asked to put the country first, and the workers as individuals do not matter, in true form of statolatry.

Together, these facts confirm Stalin's fascism, despite disagreement from liberals.

Mao Zedong,Chairman of the People's Republic of China

Mao Zedong followed closely the example of Stalin and of Hitler.  The political hierarchy and class distinctions within the Communist Party replaced the ideology of egalitarianism.  The thoughts of Mao Zedong in China were seen as gospel, as infallible wisdom of the leader who was never to be questioned or disagreed with.  Disagreement with Mao resulted in becoming a class enemy.  Chinese nationalism was directed through loyalty to the Communist Party.  In China, the Communist Party and China became one and the same, much like in the Soviet Union.  Even racism came into play, as the Han were considered the superior race within China, and the job of the government was to pacify, educate, and control the lesser peoples such as the Tibetans.

Mao conducted purges similar to Stalin, also killing millions of real and perceived enemies.  Through mismanagement, he succeeded in killing millions more through the 'Great Leap Forward' when he ordered the agricultural base of the country to destroy/smelt their steel agricultural tools in an effort to industrialize and modernize the country.  Millions starved creating the largest famine in human history when agricultural production plummeted. 

Saddam Hussein, President of Iraq

Saddam Hussein grew up in the highly idealogical Ba'ath party structure and his governing policies were driven by his ideological, pseudo-intellectual background.  He considered Arabs to be the master race with glorious history and accomplishments and he deified himself and the state above all else.  He was also fascinated with violence, warfare, and killing.  It's well known that he ruled Iraq with an iron first and allowed no dissent, often developing internal 'allies' through fear alone.  He was known to kill his closest friend and ally as a test of his devotion.  In many ways, like many fascists, he was not what you would call a clear thinker.  He also killed around 5,000 Kurds though a poison gas attack.  He considered his race superior to the Kurds and in this way was similar to Hitler's thinking.  Saddam was clearly a textbook fascist.

Kim Jung Il, Supreme Leader of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea

Kim Jung Il is a fascist due to the exaltation of himself as the head of state, requiring dedication and worship from his people, and exhibiting tight control and a reign of fear over his citizenry.  He uses propaganda extensively, allows no dissent whatsoever, and controls every aspect of the lives of the North Korean people.  He regularly has people imprisoned and killed who oppose him or do not embrace his leadership.

Now that you have read about each of these fascist leaders & regimes, are they liberal or conservative?  I think the answer is obvious and it's not what you were taught in school.

Freedom in the Workplace

I am a passionate defender of freedom, both in and out of the workplace.  I am a big believer that hiring talented, trustworthy, high performance employees and treating them with respect is a recipe for a successful company.  In an environment such as that, you invariably will have far greater overall productivity and mutual respect between employer and employee than you do in locked-down environments where employees are treated like prisoners.

I also do not believe in wielding information technology as a weapon- dictating which web sites employees may or may not visit, or who they may or may not email or call or message.  If you hire intelligent employees, who respect the company that they work for- they will work just that much harder because they realize that their employer treats them like an adult.  Those employees who abuse freedom should not be employees in the first place.  In today’s world, there is no clear delineation between work and home.  You work when you’re at home, and you work when you’re at work; and conversely you perform personal tasks when you’re at home, and when you’re at work.  There is nothing wrong with that and employees should not be penalized for having a life, or- for that matter- being a 'workaholic.'

Intelligent productive employees are more than capable of delivering what is expected of them and more to their employer.   Those employees, who are not performing however, should be disciplined and perhaps terminated.  The key is to use job performance as the only metric.  Everything else is, and should be, irrelevant.  Who cares if an employee pays their bills online at work?  Who cares that they take a personal call from their wife or husband?  Who cares if they check sports scores online, or update their LinkedIn or Facebook?  That should not matter as long as the employee is performing their job, and especially if they are excelling at their job.  Likewise, keep in mind that that same employee is likely giving up his/her ‘personal time’ at home to perform job tasks- like answering emails, planning meetings, talking to clients, and more.  There is no clear delineation today between work and home like there was in the early 20^th Century.

Those employers with draconian policies will not attract and keep the kind of talent necessary to excel in today’s modern world.  Companies need smart, innovative, dedicated employees to take them through the challenges of the 21^st century.  Employees are the heart and soul of a company, and companies that are stuck in 19^th century authoritarian industrial mindsets will fail.  Their policies and attitude will drive away the intelligent ‘out of the box thinkers’ and replace them with unhappy, unproductive drones who are not problem solvers or innovators.

So many companies today have a knee jerk reaction to create a company-wide policy for every contingency, for every disciplinary issue, for every bad employee.  Instead, the right way to handle these situations is to address the bad behavior with those individual employees and correct it, or terminate the employee if necessary.  Don’t create a policy which punishes and undermines the trust of your hard working and respectful employees because one, or a few, employees are not performing as they should be.  Good management solves problems with individual personnel; they don’t create far-reaching policies which problem personnel will not follow anyway.

Another very important factor to consider is that in the 21^st century, a physical presence means very little.  Companies are found and vetted by their online reputation- by their web site, their Facebook presence and LinkedIn presence, and by comments and reviews from customers and employees.  Both Facebook and LinkedIn are powerful sales and marketing tools to expand the market reach of a company, find potential clients, and reinforce and maintain relationships with existing clients.  Blocking these critical business tools are equivalent to ignoring an entire (very powerful) advertising medium, and companies that do so experience far less business growth as a result.  In fact, many experts estimate that social media is now the most effective means for B2B marketing.

On Open Carry

I live in Indiana, a state which has allowed those with a state issued 'License to Carry Handgun' to do so since 1980. The law makes absolutely no distinction on carrying openly or concealed. Since I got my permit at the age of 18, I have carried a firearm through the years, both openly and concealed. The obvious reason someone would want to carry a firearm is to provide for the protection of themselves, their family, and fellow citizens who they may be in a position to come to the aid of. Not, frankly, unlike law enforcement. Also, citizens who choose to shoulder the responsibility of carrying a firearm are, simply by doing so, reducing crime. Those who carry concealed are contributing to the deterrence that affects a would be criminal's decision to commit a crime- especially violent crimes like robbery, rape, and homicide. Someone contemplating committing a crime will obviously think twice if he is concerned that people around him might have firearms, and thus be able to intercede prevent the crime from taking place. In a state like Indiana, where 1 in 15 citizens hold a license to carry handgun, this deterrence is very powerful. On the other hand, those who choose to open carry- reduce crime in a much more direct and pre-emptive way. Have you ever thought about why police open carry their firearms? Generally, the presence of an armed police officer, through their very presence, deters crime around them- a criminal is unlikely to commit a crime in the direct presence of an armed law enforcement officer. They are equally unlikely to commit a crime in front of an armed citizen. In fact, in many ways, law enforcement officers have many more constraints placed upon them than public citizens. Criminals generally fear armed citizens far more than the police. If a criminal decides to break into a home, the home owner might fear for his life and end up shooting the criminal, whereas the police are only likely to arrest the criminal. Whether or not a citizen decides to carry openly or concealed is a personal decision, and a personal preference. Neither is 'right or wrong.'

I have open carried many times in public- often going to restaurants, shopping centers, and many more places. I have been open carrying for 15+ years and have never once had a problem. Unfortunately, however, Mr. Ben Magenheimer of Evansville, Indiana recently created a local media firestorm when he open carried while visiting Mesker Park Zoo with his young wife and infant son, something he was well within his rights to do. Unfortunately, an uneducated Zoo employee, called dispatch and insisted that he be removed from the zoo, despite the fact that he was doing absolutely nothing wrong. Four Evansville Police officers arrived, who- as it turns out, were either uneducated with regard to the law, or - more likely, they simply didn't care what the law said and thought they could do whatever they wanted. They approached Mr. Magenheimer and asked him for his handgun carry license, which he happily produced. Regardless of his valid license, they asked him to conceal his firearm (which of course he has no obligation to do under Indiana law). When he refused, they forced him to leave the zoo- a clear violation of law. Ben sued the City of Evansville and the Evansville Parks Department - a lawsuit which is still in progress, but since that incident, Evansville Police have had a 'crash course' on the law with regard to carrying of handguns. 

The fact that this incident occurred is ridiculous. In my personal opinion, if someone calls the police to report someone carrying a firearm, the first question out of the dispatcher's mouth should be 'are they doing anything illegal? are they acting suspicious in any way?' This is what is called a 'teachable moment' in which the dispatcher has the opportunity to educate the caller as to the law. If the suspect is acting suspiciously, okay- dispatch an officer to check it out, but otherwise it's a complete waste of police and taxpayer resources to stop everyone who has a firearm. Firearms are not 'bad' or 'illegal' or 'suspicious' in and of themselves. In fact, the opposite is true. In fact, misdirecting police resources likely will result in endangering the public by reducing police availability to deal with real crimes and real criminals.

If you see someone open carrying you should thank them, not report them. If a criminal carries a firearm, they carry it concealed. There is a reason many states traditionally have allowed open carry prior to allowing concealed carry- traditionally and historically, open carriers are honorable, and have nothing to hide. If there are people in the public who have an irrational fear of guns, well that's their problem, not mine. They need to grow up, and learn to respect those in law enforcement and others who carry firearms. Those who are not willing, for whatever reason, to shoulder the responsibility of the protection of themselves, their families, and the public owe a debt to those who do take on that responsibility.

Anti Social Networking

For my entire professional life, I have promoted the free exchange of information. I have personally enabled thousands of people to access the Internet for the first time. I've helped many of those people along, showing them the ropes- and how to utilize the vast information resource that is the Internet. From the very beginning, the Internet has helped to enable social networking- in the form of email, Internet relay chat, and forums to voice over IP telephony, and videoconferencing. All of these technologies utilize the Internet to enable humans to better communicate with one another and share information. Ultimately that is the purpose of the Internet.

Also, from the very beginning, there have been those doomsayers who have preached that the Internet is 'evil' and that nothing good happens on the Internet. Those who say that as soon as you connect to the Internet you'll be flooded with viruses and spam, or someone will steal your credit card or banking information. Can those things happen? Yes, it's possible, but as long as you take simple precautions, it's highly unlikely. If you hand your credit card to a waiter or waitress, you're far more likely to have him/her steal your credit card information than it ever be intercepted on the Internet- especially with modern encryption safeguards. The Internet is a relflection of reality- there are good people, and bad- just as in real life. People drive cars every day because the benefits of transportation outweigh the risk of a crash. Likewise, billions use the Internet every day because the benefits of the Internet far outweigh the risks. The Internet is a force multiplier- making mankind many times more efficient and capable than we otherwise would be through the efficient sharing of information and resources. I have fought doomsayers for years - people whose opinions are based in ignorance and who dissuade others from taking advantage of the most powerful information resource in the history of mankind.

While I've managed to help get most of my family on the Internet, there are still those family and friends who have an irrational fear of technologies such as Facebook. I've heard the following arguments from different people:

• "I don't want anyone to be able to find me." Okay, I don't necessarily think being that anti-social is healthy, but I suppose I can understand the 'private person' rationale. However, if you want to access information on Facebook (i.e. another user's baby photos etc) you can still create an account and adjust your privacy settings such that no other users can see anything at all about you unless you give them permission, or just don't enter any information about you to share in the first place.
  
• When we had our son Hunter, I heard "Aren't you afraid 'people' will know you have a son?" Umm... seriously? As if people aren't going to notice from the public issuance of a birth certificate, the birth announcements in newspapers.. or let's see the car seat, toys, etc? I have never understood people who live in fear - fear of people, fear of the unknown or in this case both.
  
• "X and Y got into a fight over Facebook so I don't use Facebook." Seriously? Because X and Y can't figure out how to manage their relationship properly, it's Facebook's fault? There are obviously times when a face to face is a good idea but Facebook does not create enemies - that takes human beings. Email, SMS, Facebook, letters, telephones, instant messaging, videoconferencing... these are all just different methods for humans to communicate with one another.
  
• "Facebook is a waste of time and unproductive." On the contrary, I have (and do) use Facebook to great benefit professionally- working with clients, vendors, and spreading the word about business. I've used it to find and vet employees and even companies that I want to do business with, personally and professionally.

I find Facebook (and similar social networking sites) an efficient and easy way to keep up with friends and family and share information with one another. We live in a busy world today, and keeping up with one another's lives and families often takes a backseat - but Facebook, in my opinion, has helped to bring together friends and families that have otherwise drifted apart. But anytime humans are involved, there is the unpredictable human element- humans who are irresponsible in reality are likely to be irresponsible on the Internet as well, but that has nothing to do with the Internet or Facebook- that has to do with humanity. As long as there are those who blame technology for the flaws of humanity, I will stand against them and continue to promote the use of technology for the betterment of humanity. The Internet, like a firearm, is a tool... it can be used for good or for evil depending on who uses it. I believe the Internet is an overwhelming force for good just as firearms are- but only so long as good people outnumber the bad. Tools themselves are neither good nor bad.

I have no problem with those who simply choose not to engage in social networking, or even the Internet, but I do have a problem with those who choose to do so based on incorrect and irrational information, or simply fear of the unknown, and who espouse those views to others - contributing to the perpetuation of misinformation. Myself and others like me will always be there to correct misinformation and help where it's wanted.

On Jobs and the Debt Ceiling

One thing that tends to annoy me to no end is politicians talking about jobs and promising job creation. First, politicians cannot create jobs- at least not real jobs. People besieging the President to 'create jobs' are misguided at best, socialists at worst. The only jobs that politicians have the power to create are government jobs. The President can create 10,000 IRS jobs for example, with the snap of his finger, as long as Congress approves the budget to fund them. However the problem with this is that the funding has to come from somewhere- and it comes from taxpayers. Taxes fund government. Thus, to create 10,000 government jobs, the money has to be taken away from millions of Americans who would have used that money to better their lives and families by spending or investing that money, thereby creating REAL jobs- private sector jobs. Thus the creation of government jobs results in at least the same number of private-sector jobs being eliminated. After all, if an employer's taxes go up to fund more government jobs, they have to ultimately lay off some of their employees because they can no longer afford to pay them. This is simple economics, not rocket science. Government jobs are essentially akin to welfare because money is being removed from the private sector in order to fund government jobs. Furthermore, government jobs are never as efficient as private sector jobs, just as government bureaucracies are not as efficient as private enterprises.

The best thing the President, or any politician can do to help spur the economy is to do everything in his/her power to get the heck out of the way of free enterprise. In other words, reduce or eliminate taxes, regulations, licensing requirements, AND subsidies. Subsidies interfere with the free market just as much as taxes, because they artificially support industries that are not otherwise economically viable.

I write this as John Boehner and the Republicans in Congress are going head to head with President Obama and the Democrats over the debt ceiling. Democrats everywhere are declaring the end of the world as we know it if the Republicans do not authorize an increase in the national debt ceiling (enabling the US to FURTHER INCREASE the national debt which already stands at $14.3 TRILLION dollars).

The federal government is spending approximately $3.7 TRILLION dollars each year while bringing in $2.2 trillion. First, the fact that we're paying 2.2 TRILLION in taxes is scary enough, but the fact that the federal government is spending 1.5 TRILLION more than that is astonishing. I HOPE the Republicans have the backbone to REFUSE to increase the debt ceiling. I have a feeling that a compromise will happen, but I hope not. The best thing that could happen would be for the federal government to have to live within it's means, as does every American family and business. It's a simple matter of prioritizing spending. There is MORE THAN ENOUGH income to fund the priorities like paying interest on our debt ($214B), Social Security ($727B), Medicare ($527B), Medicaid ($274B), leaving $400B for other major government operations (military and other essential functions). I still believe that there is much room for cutting even in that 'prioritized' list- Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and the military all need to be trimmed back in tight economic times like this.

If there isn't enough left over to pay for things like... the Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Education, Department of Labor, Internal Revenue Service, National Endowment for the Arts, Commission of Fine Arts, SO BE IT. In fact, there are way too many to list... Check out the complete list of federal government agencies here.

Long story short, SHUT 'ER DOWN!!! If we continue to raise the debt ceiling, the federal government will never stop growing and we will be in the same shape as Greece, Iceland, and Portugal.

Arizona Shooting

Nearly everyone has heard about the shooting in Arizona- where obviously unstable Jared Lee Loughner went on a shooting spree killing 6 people and wounding 14 others. What you probably didn't hear about (because the liberal media tends to ignore these sort of details) is that armed citizen Joseph Zamudio helped to subdue the shooter. He was next door at a Walgreens when the shooting took place- he reacted as any good armed citizen would- he hurried to the scene where he heard shots being fired. Unfortunately, by the time he was in range of the suspect, the suspect had already been subdued by others, and Joseph helped to hold him down until the police arrived.

Had he been in the crowd, or closer to the scene, he likely would have saved many lives by shooting Mr. Loughner dead in his tracks. Obviously the headlines would have read quite differently had that happened- and it almost did. That's why it's so important that responsible citizens arm themselves and take it upon themselves to protect their families and fellow citizens. That is what a free society is all about.

Gun control is certainly not the answer. A lunatic with a sword could have easily killed and wounded as many or more people. But what's more, those who are intent on breaking the law will never have a problem obtaining a firearm on the black market, or even making one in their basement. It's not rocket science.

Armed citizens save lives. Period.

Eliminate Passenger Screening

Years ago, I worked as a private security officer (both armed and unarmed- primarily in healthcare environments). I also used to own a company that sold military and law enforcement equipment to local, state, and federal governments as well as to private individuals and security firms. I have sold tactical equipment to various police departments and SWAT teams, the US Department of Defense, the US Navy, US Army, Drug Enforcement Agency, and others. In fact, I once equipped a 25 man assault team on the USS Port Royal with tactical gear and body armor. So needless to say, I'm very familiar with the worlds of security, military, and law enforcement. I am generally a supporter of law enforcement officers, military personnel, and security officers but let me qualify that support... I support those aforementioned personnel who understand, respect, and cherish the Constitution of the United States. Many of those personnel swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. As such, I have no tolerance for those who do not respect the Constitution or their honor and oath.

I believe that when the Fourth Amendment states that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" that it means what it says. In other words, unless a Judge has been presented sufficient probable cause and signs a search warrant, I do not believe any United States citizen is subject to a search of their home, person, or property by the government, period. I do not feel that any citizen on public property should be subject to limitation of their Constitutional rights. This includes streets, sidewalks, parks, public schools, government buildings, military bases, public airports, etc.

In my view, per the Fourth Amendment, the federal government including the Transportation and Security Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Defense, et. al. have absolutely zero authority to search you in any way, much less with intrusive back-scatter x-ray technology, and certainly not to physically pat you down and touch you in a way that would be considered sexual assault if anyone other than a government agent were conducting such a search. I wish more judges would recognize this and uphold the Constitution as they swear to do.

If a particular (private) airline wishes to restrict what it's passengers may carry, or even to conduct searches of its passengers prior to boarding, I have no problem with that, so long as it's conducted by private security and the passengers knowingly consent to such a search and have the freedom to choose the airline on which they want to fly. Those who oppose being restricted from carrying weapons, etc. may choose to fly on an airline that allows them to do so. If a plot to commit a crime is uncovered, that is already illegal- there is no need to use the force of law to restrict weapons on-board commercial aircraft just because it's a commercial aircraft- that is ridiculous.

I am also a private pilot, and have been flying since 1998. Nearly every time I have flown, I have been armed. In fact, many of the pilots I know carry a firearm. In areas such as Alaska, you'd be hard pressed to find any unarmed pilots- in fact it's even mandated by the government in some areas. There is no reason that commercial aircraft should be treated any differently than private aircraft- unless of course the owner of the aircraft- not the government- dictates otherwise- that's an important distinction.

Commercial aircraft carry firearms and ammunition all the time- thousands of Americans check their firearms on commercial flights every single day, with no incidents. Millions upon millions of law abiding American citizens carry concealed firearms everywhere they go- to the shopping market, to the mall, to the movies, to restaurants- and increasingly, thanks to changing laws, on college campuses, government buildings, and schools. All but two states in the country allow for concealed carry of firearms, and violent crime has dramatically declined as more and more people carry firearms. It's simple deterrence- criminals fear armed citizens, period. Criminals aboard a commercial airline fear armed citizens just as criminals in a park fear armed citizens. They will not attempt to commit a violent crime such as murder, robbery, rape (or hijacking- hint hint) if they fear that citizens around them may be armed. Furthermore, if the criminal (or terrorist) is especially brazen or crazed and attempts to commit their crime anyway, they will be stopped dead in their tracks by armed citizens, rather than- for example- hijack the airplane unopposed, and fly it into a 110 story building. There is no question in my mind that if law abiding citizens were allowed to be armed on commercial flights, the attacks on 9/11 would not have happened and thousands of lives would have been saved.

Believe it or not, there is even more reason to eliminate TSA airport security checks- it is estimated that nearly 10,000 additional traffic fatalities have occurred since 9/11 directly as a result of the number of people driving to their destination instead of flying, specifically to avoid the extra time, loss of freedom, and hassle of dealing with the TSA. In other words, the TSA has indirectly killed over three times the number of people who were killed by terrorists on 9/11.

Not to mention the over FORTY BILLION tax dollars that have been spent screening passengers since 2001 that we could save and pay off debt or reduce taxes to stimulate the economy and create jobs. Another EIGHT BILLION dollars is lost in productivity each year by airline passengers waiting in line and going through security.

We, as a society, need to take a step back and think about what kind of a world we want our children to live in. Personally, I want a world in which freedom is cherished, and in which the Constitution is honored and respected. It's up to each and every one of us as American citizens to let our voices be heard, write our legislators, vote, and protect and exercise each and every one of your freedoms, lest we lose them.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." - Patrick Henry, Virginia's Ratification Convention, 1788

Firearms at School

The mere thought of firearms in educational institutions cause liberals to panic. The anti-gun media and political propaganda of the left would have you believe that firearms and education do not mix, and the mere mention of guns at school would cause wholesale panic. Hence the leftist authoritarian 'zero-tolerance' policies that have led to school students of all ages being suspended or even expelled for pointing their fingers like a pistol, for having plastic guns or squirt guns in their possession, butter knives in their lunch boxes, and God-forbid they profess that their parents own guns. They will be branded as neo-heretics and shunned by the liberal elitists in training, taught to believe their opinions are somehow superior to those of everyone else.

In fact, the idea of firearms being separate from education is a relatively new idea. The first federal law prohibiting firearms in K-12 schools didn't exist until 1990. It wasn't all that long ago that students brought their 22 rifles and BB guns to school for school sanctioned target practice or plinking during recess. It was not a big deal, and lo and behold- there were not school shootings or mass murders every other day as we are told would happen today.

And yet, this blog post is not about K-12 students carrying firearms. It's about the ability of licensed adults to carry firearms for their own protection and the protection of their fellow citizens, as well as students, at educational institutions- K-12 as well as colleges and universities. Any reasonable, logical human can conclude that gun free zones do not work. Gun free zones, such as schools and college campuses around the country, have been the sites of countless school shootings- from Columbine High School to Virginia Tech, and hundreds more. A madman who is intent on killing is not going to pay any attention to a policy or a law prohibiting carry on a school campus. Why would he? He's already planning to commit mass murder, a far greater offense than that of violating some obscure 'no firearms' policy. They certainly aren't going to bother with purchasing their firearm through legal channels or obtaining a permit of any kind.

We must first face a fact- nothing we can possibly do will prevent a murderer from inflicting mayhem and violence on others. If someone is intent on causing harm, the most secure facility will not keep them out, security and law enforcement personnel will not stop them. In fact, uniformed guards and police make easy targets for those intent on murder. Physical boundaries can easily be breached, or sidestepped. Large facilities such as schools, universities, hospitals, malls, movie theaters, etc. have no mechanism in place to deal with such an event.

What we can do, and what we must do, is to deter those who would commit such acts from doing so, and ensure that if they do indeed commit such an act, that we stop them in their tracks before they can continue doing so and causing more damage. There is a reason that such mass shootings are generally confined to 'gun free zones.' You don't often hear about mall shootings or movie theater shootings, or Wal-Mart shootings, or restaurant shootings today. The reason is that- in 47 states, millions of American citizens can and do carry concealed firearms at all of those places and the criminals (or would-be criminals) know it. They are far less bold in an environment where literally anyone could be armed. Put yourself in their shoes- if you were going to mug someone, commit armed robbery, or commit some other violent crime, would you prefer to do it at a place where you are relatively certain that you will receive little or no resistance, or a place where the odds are that if you try to attack someone- either your intended victim or someone else nearby is going to use a firearm to stop you in your tracks. The choice is obvious. In fact, an FBI study indicates that criminals fear armed citizens far more than the police. Armed citizens are not constrained by the same rules of engagement as police, and they have a lot more on the line- such as the lives of their families.

You'll note as you look back at mass shooting incidents, that virtually every one occurred in a 'gun free zone' where the shooter knew they would encounter little or no resistance, be it at a school, university, or even a workplace. The logic is simple. Why do we, as a society, allow licensed responsible law abiding citizens to carry firearms and prevent crime nearly everywhere they go- restaurants, movie theaters, shopping malls, gas stations, banks, grocery stores, sporting events, at work, at home, in their vehicles for the protection of themselves, their families, and others, yet we do not allow them to carry in places where our most vulnerable citizens- our children, are concentrated. Our legislators have insisted on treating our children, sadly, as fish in a barrel for some madman to prey on. School officials and politicians promote their 'gun free zones' and their 'zero tolerance policies' as if those will somehow, magically, stop or even deter a madman from committing their heinous acts.

One thing and one thing alone will stop them in their tracks- force. Force from armed teachers, administrators, parents (and licensed adult students in the case of universities) who choose to do their civic duty and carry a firearm to save lives. Our children deserve to be protected, they deserve to have the best we can give them as a society. Write your legislators at the state and federal level- tell them you're not going to allow them to treat our children as fish in a barrel any longer. You have the right and duty to protect your children when in your care, and when they are at school- we need to ensure that their guardians have the ability to protect them there as well.

University and college carry is also a no-brainer. There is no reason that mature adults who are licensed to carry firearms everywhere else, would behave any differently on a university campus. We trust them to protect their fellow citizens everywhere else, why not on campus. In fact, Utah has already done this, and the incidences of violent crime on campus have dropped dramatically since it's implementation, just as violent crime drops dramatically in each state where concealed carry laws are passed. It's also why, in the midst of a depression, violent crime in the United States is at an all-time low, as more people choose to take responsibility for the protection of themselves, their family, their fellow citizens, and their state.

The logic is clear, now let's explore an actual scenario. Imagine you are a middle school teacher. Imagine you are in your classroom teaching the students a lesson, when suddenly, you hear shots in the hallway and screams. You realize what is happening in time to tell the kids to get under their desks and scramble to lock the classroom door. To your dismay, the shooter, a 250 lb. brute, beats you to the door and levels a shotgun at your head, studying you with crazed bloodshot eyes, then he proceeds to order you and the students to face the wall and line up. Imagine the scenario... thirty two souls lined up against the wall, students crying and screaming for their parents. He starts going down the line- bang, a child slumps to the floor, bang, another, bang, another. You're about 2/3 of the way down the line and realize what is happening- it's an execution- one by one. There is no way you can take the shooter by force, he's much larger than you and on PCP. In this scenario, you and your students are dead. You're powerless to stop him. There is absolutely nothing you can do and no one is there to help you. The police are doing everything in their power to get there and stop him, but they are 5 minutes out. He's already shot the school security guard and obviously had no problem entering the school. What can you do? Think about it. Unless you are armed, there is nothing you can do. If, however, you are armed.... this scenario plays out much differently- you drop behind a desk, retrieve your handgun, and fire 5 rounds at the shooter before he realizes what is happening and attempts to wheel around to face you, but it's too late- he falls to the floor, dropping his weapon. You have just saved the lives of yourself and your students. You are a community hero. Even if you are not armed yourself, in an environment where licensed adults can carry arms at school, other dedicated teachers and administrators would spring to action- putting their lives on the line to protect the students and each other. As the shooter prepares to start eliminating your students and yourself- one by one, suddenly a history teacher who used to serve in the Army, spins around the corner with his own firearm and drops the mad shooter.

If your child was in that classroom, which option would you prefer? Please write your legislators today and make sure your voice is heard. Let them know you're tired of our children being fish in a barrel and that you want to empower their guardians to protect them.

The ROI of Higher Education

If you've read any of my previous blog posts, you already know my opinion of academia and their attempt to brainwash today's college students and convert them into liberal drones who can echo themes of multiculturalism and socialism, but have little to no understanding or appreciation for the real-world- the capitalist world, that makes things work outside of academia. And most certainly do not have an appreciation for the hard-fought freedoms we enjoy as Americans thanks to our Constitution and the sacrifices of generations of American soldiers. But I digress....

The topic of this post is to address the value of a college degree, strictly on the basis of return-on-investment (ROI). I read an article a few years ago that provided mounts of economic data to backup their claim that, essentially for 50% of people going to college, it's a waste of money- from a purely economic standpoint, over the course of their life. Unfortunately I can't find the article, but I will attempt to recreate the gist of it here.

According to the Census Bureau, the 'average' high-school graduate earns $25,900 per year, while the 'average' college graduate earns $45,400 per year. So, if you take that average of $25,900 per year for a high school graduate and multiply by 45 years (average number of years a high school graduate works), that is $1,165,500 in income over the course of a lifetime, minus an average of 15% in taxes for the equivalent tax bracket, equating to $990,675. Now, for a 4 year college graduate, let's figure their average income times 40 years (it takes an average of 5 years to obtain a "4-year degree"), that's $1,816,000, minus 25% in taxes (higher tax bracket) which leaves roughly $1,362,000- but wait... don't forget the cost of the actual degree. In the United States, the average cost of a 4 year degree is about $80,000 (public costs less, and private costs more obviously- but this is the average). So that takes our lifetime earnings down to $1,282,000. The average student amasses $20,000 in student loans, so let's not forget the roughly $8000 in interest over the cost of the 10 years on average it takes to pay that back. That puts us at $1,274,000 estimated lifetime income for the college graduate. Now, let's also take into consideration inflation, and the fact that the value of the money earned earlier on in your career (during the 5 years while the college student wasn't earning money while their high school counterpart was) is worth more than money earned later in life. By the time you figure an average annual inflation of 3% into the mix- also in relation to the average college debt one incurrs, that adds roughly another $150,000 added to the 'average' for the high school student.

That puts the difference at roughly $133,000- not a huge amount over the course of a lifetime- and certainly not the 'million dollar difference' you might hear academia throwing around. Not only that, but remember that these are averages we're talking about, you'll have those with high school educations far exceeding the average income of those with a college degree, and you'll have a number of college educated individuals driving school buses and delivering mail (15% of postal workers hold a bachelors degree)- not to impune either profession, only to say that those professions do not require a degree, and for those individuals, the expense of a degree was a waste of time and money.

My point is that nearly half of those going to college today- shouldn't be there. I disagree completely with the notion that 'everyone needs to go to college.' That's an economic fallacy- if everyone went to college, you would have overeducated people working in low income positions- which, frankly is the case today because- as I said, nearly half of the people going to college today shouldn't be there. Not to mention the fact that they are crippled by student loans that they have to start dealing with when they leave college and enter the workforce, only to find that they aren't enough jobs to go around in their chosen field, and they will likely be forced to take a low paying job and work their way up, trying to compete with those who did not go to college, but have 5 years of relevant hands-on experience in their field. Who will most employers promote? Those with the experience and proven ability to get the job done. When the rubber meets the road, a piece of paper doesn't hold a candle to real world experience, as more and more college graduates are discovering.

I do not mean to dissuade everyone from going to college, only to say that you need to put some serious thought and planning into your decision to seek higher education or not. There are often opportunities for vocational training, on the job training, or even internships that will lead to more income and a more relevant education than many colleges can provide. If you decide to go to college, but aren't sure what you want to do- consider a community college, or if you do know what you want to do- a vocational school. The training is much more relevant, and has a much higher ROI than a bachelor's degree, which is often filled with multicultural fluff that will not help you succeed in the real world.

If you know what you want to do- for example, if you want to be an auto mechanic, start working for a mechanic as soon as you can- in high school during summer break if possible, for entry level wages or even for free if you have to- the experience you learn will be invaluable. This approach is repeatable for a myrad of professions, including my chosen career path of Information Technology. I started working for a computer company during the summer in high school for minimum wage, and today I earn more than the average bachelor's degree holder, even though I went to college for only a year, and became frustrated with the political brainwashing experience and the lack knowledge that I was receiving for my money. I instead decided to quit college and start a business, and that experience was far more rewarding, educational, and useful in life and even to employers.

There are ultimately only a few career fields that require an advanced degree- such as a doctor, lawyer, or other professional degree. If you don't intend to pursue one of those career paths, many people are better off entering the work force sooner, with an eagerness to learn and ambition to succeed. That is the path most successful people in life take, and is much more conducive to the entrepreneurial spirit our country is based on. Just a few people who didn't get a bachelor's degree include Bill Gates (founder of Microsoft), Steve Jobs (founder of Apple), Frank Lloyd Wright (renowned architect), James Cameron (movie producer), Mark Zuckerberg (founder of Facebook), Tom Hanks (actor), Harrison Ford (actor), and many many more.

There are many economists out there who agree with what I am saying, and I can say from experience that I have interviewed, hired, and fired many people over the course of my career, and I will take someone with 4 years of relevant, hands-on experience over someone with a 4 year degree any day, and I can guarantee the experienced individual will run circles around the one with a degree and without the relevant real-world experience. I've seen it happen over and over again.

My ultimate point is to not take college for granted. Review your options carefully and make sure that what you decide to do is right for you, and ultimately not a waste of time or money. It's your life, and you owe it to yourself to be successful- and holding a degree while working a low paying job is not the definition of success.

Socialism and Health Care

The health care debate continues to rage on as I write this, with President Obama and Speaker Pelosi engaging in every form of arm twisting possible, legal or otherwise, to ensure passage of a sweeping health care bill that will socialize the health care system of the United States, and result in bringing 1/6 of the U.S. economy under federal control. Pelosi has even proposed an unconstitutional procedure to "deem" that a bill has passed, even though it has not, in order to ram this bill through, since she can't do it legally. This is frightening for a number of reasons.

First and foremost, the federal government has absolutely no authority to do this under Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, which is why several states are preparing to file suit against the federal government if this bill passes, and many states are considering laws and even amendments to state constitutions (i.e. Arizona) to essentially prohibit the federal government from imposing any of these health care regulations on their state. Liberals have incorrectly asserted that the federal supremacy clause of the Constitution prevents states from doing this. They are wrong. The supremacy clause only comes into affect when a state tries to exercise the same power as explicitly granted the federal government under Article 1 Section 8. If the Virginia Plan had passed during the founding of the United States, the liberals would be right, but it did not. Instead, the federal supremacy clause (Article 6, Clause 2) is what the founders agreed upon.

Second, this is diametrically opposed to the free market system, to Capitalism, to the founding principles of America, and to common sense. It's also extraordinarily expensive- at a time when the federal debt is at an all time high, and the credit rating of the United States is endangered, we need to focus on balancing the budget and paying off the national debt, not on printing and spending even more money that the federal government does not have. Additionally, the proposed reforms include absolutely nothing about tort reform- the type of reform that is needed to reduce the cost of health insurance premiums across the board. Another reason the health care system in the United States is expensive, and suffering- is directly due to federal involvement in the industry- including Medicare and Medicaid, neither of which should exist in my opinion. The health care system in the U.S. is still the best in the world, not because of, but in spite of federal meddling. The proposed bill will add 150 new government entities to oversee the health care system, including what care citizens may and may not receive, and these unelected bureaucrats will- without exaggeration- decide who lives and who dies (i.e. what conditions are treated or not, and which patients are treated) based on their 'social worth.' That sounds frighteningly similar to eugenics to me. Man does not and should not have that right, only God does.

Third, nearly 80% of Americans oppose this bill. The vast majority oppose any form of socialized medicine. But even if Americans did want it, it would require a Constitutional Amendment, as the federal government simply does not have the authority over health care. Fortunately, most Americans haven't completely taken leave of their senses, and understand that the choice of private doctor and private insurance carrier will be lost if this bill takes effect. The system, which is already overburdened, will be flooded with 30 million new healthcare recipients, resulting in rationing of services, lack of choice of doctors, and long lines and waits for care and procedures. Many surveys show that nearly 60% of doctors will stop practicing medicine if this bill passes. Imagine adding 30 million new clients, and reducing the service providers by 60%. It's a recipe for disaster.

Fourth- what frightens me most about this proposal, and the attitude of government today, is the arrogance. It boils down to control. The government wants all citizens to be utterly dependent upon them- for everything, including their very health. The below video clip nearly made me sick to watch. Senator Tom Harkin actually says, surrounded by 'feel good comments' at 3:43 that "like every right that we've ever passed for the American people, we revisit it later on to enhance and build on those rights." How arrogant, how wrong, how misguided!!! I don't know about Tom Harkin, but my rights do not come and go at the whim of any legislative body. My rights do not come from man. My rights come from God as the founding fathers confirmed. Perhaps Senator Harkin forgets, or wants to forget, the cherished words of our founders when they said "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" The Supreme Court confirmed this in their recent Heller ruling regarding the Second Amendment- stating that "this is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed..." We are truly playing with fire as a nation when elected government officials believe that they have the power to grant rights, and thus that they have the power of God.

Airsoft Games 2009

For those of you who haven't seen it yet, I compiled what turned out to be a pretty cool video of some of our Airsoft games in 2009. It's pretty funny that the lyrics of the song I used (Chosen Ones by Dream Evil) "we kill the Dragon" corresponded perfectly to when I shot Dragon from Team WEST. I didn't plan it that way, but the timing was perfect so I left it.