Issue 189 Online Public School October 22, 2013

The title is just as it says; public schools are turning to the Internet. Even Ron Paul, the Granddaddy of the Tea Party and Libertarians has got into the act with his own online public education resource. But is online public school any good?

Why do online public school?: Originally, home schooling evolved out of parents wanting to include religion in their child's education. Public schools today of course forbid such actions. So the parents said forget about you, I'm educating my kids my way. Later, this want of parents to educate their kids at home would include how polluted education has become with politics. Text books are decided by political committees on their content and what topics are addressed in each. School had become boring to some students to the point that their grades dropped. Other parents were tired of the discipline problems that either their child was having or the bullying that was occurring. Regardless, of the reasons now, parents wanted a say in how to educate their children.

Social Interaction: The biggest obstacle to home school and online education in general is the social interaction. There is no longer a class room that allows students to interact and thus form social bonds. But home schooling has countered that problem. Parents enroll their children in things like ballet, karate and sports teams, while at the same time establishing play dates. Thus they have solved the human interaction problem.

But an online public school: Well if you can get a college degree online, it only makes sense that you can do the same with public education. Teachers are already using "Khan Academy" to help support their teaching either via homework or through the kids learning primarily through the computer with the teacher helping students only when they are having trouble. In fact, the program at "Khan Academy" has been so successful that some young students skip ahead to the point that they are either learning math or science that is two to even five grades ahead. Then there is "Sneak on the Lot" which is an online school for young people aspiring to be in the movie and television businesses. Rather than rely on teachers they use people actually in the field of film to do their lectures. Also, they even support contests and hands on learning by giving students (they have a k-12 curriculum and a college curriculum) step by step instructions on how to make props, film a movie or short, write a script etc. Ron Paul on the other hand created the "RonPaulCurriculum" to replace traditional public school entirely. His goal is to provide a curriculum that sticks to American values: see website http://www.ronpaulcurriculum.com/ . All of it is about giving students information they need without any of the boring old public school curriculums where you have to wait for everyone to catch up with you, or you racing to catch up with everyone else.

Conclusion: I support any form of education as it enhances school choice. By giving students access to these resources will give students and even some parents the resources needed to succeed where traditional education methods have failed. No, this will not replace traditional schools as some students need structure in order to learn. However, this has become a great option for parents who want their kids out of failing public schools, but can't afford a Charter or Private School. So to all those online educators out there, thank you for enhancing school choice.

Issue 188 A New Party? October 21, 2013

With all this government shut down talk, we begin to see the truth behind both political parties. In that I mean, who supports whom, and what ideology. I had previously talked about defunding the GOP, and I do mean that. But could it lead to a new political party, or even the death of the Republican Party?

What has occurred: The leadership in the Republican Party is concerned. They thought they had control over the more Conservative and Libertarian parts of their party. However, the shut down has shown that to be false. Senator Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and others have stood up. These Senators and many in the House of Representatives have begun to speak out for change. Change for them would mean not raising the debt ceiling, but paying the interest on the debt first to prevent a default. Changes that would mean slimming down government. But the leadership does not want that. The Republican leadership wants the big government and has even threatened to pull funding from any member of the Republican Party that gets money from Freedom Works or the Senate Conservatives Fund as they are Libertarian and Conservative organizations respectively. Established members hate these groups because they run counter to the leadership’s agenda and thus want to force them into submission.

Reaction: Many Libertarians and Conservatives see the writing on the wall. People like Glen Beck who runs the Blaze has called for the GOP to be defunded. He has now refused to give any money to any GOP related organization. As he has the third most listened to radio show, the 11th most visited social media site and a constantly growing television network, he has a lot of fans who are going to listen. As such the Libertarians and Conservatives like those in the Tea Party, or in C-pack are also more than likely going to follow suit. Therefore the voices of the Conservative and Libertarian arm of the Republican Party are going to force the issue. Either you stop attacking your own or we are going to just up and leave with all the money.

Possibilities: What could happen is one of two things. Either the Republican Party capitulates and goes in a more Libertarian/ Conservative direction or we get a new political party. The Whig Party destroyed itself by ignoring its anti-slavery arm which would eventually become the Republicans. Now it is happening again to the Republican Party. As to whether the Libertarians/conservatives take over or split off into a new party remains to be seen. However, if either should occur, then the Republican Party as we know it is dead. Also, you will see a mass exodus of the old guard of the Republicans shift to the Democrats. This will moderate the Democrats further as it is felt by even some of its own leadership that it has gone a bit further to the left than it had desired. So which occurs remains to be seen?

Conclusion: I like the idea of multiple parties. It keeps people from reaching a consensus too quickly which could lead to a detrimental result. I would not mind a third or fourth party, but others do mind because they feel chaos may ensue, or coalitions that breaks with values may be formed. If the GOP dies I will not weep. I'm not even a Republican in the first place. I have no party, and I like it that way. I had hoped Occupy Wall Street would become a third party and the Tea party another, but those hopes were dashed as groups attempted to hijack Occupy and the Republicans made every attempt to either eat or snuff out the teas. However, it is revenge time. Time to defund the GOP.

Issue 187 Green Tea Party October 18, 2013

Here is a twist. The Green Party and the Tea party have found common ground. Not only that, but they have teamed up to try and make the world a better place. Here is what they are up to.

The common ground: As you all probably know, the Green party wants clean energy production. They want the complete removal of fossil fuels from the world and replaced by renewable and cleaner fuels that do little to no harm to the environment. The Tea party wants open and free markets that let people choose who and what to buy from. This of course includes energy production. So the Greens and the Teas saw an opportunity to work together to allow for an open market in energy production. So they are battling big energy and their government sponsored monopoly on energy production.

What they want to do: It all started in Georgia when Debbie Dooley (Tea party leader) got fed up with her town’s energy company. A 40 year old ban on energy companies donating to political causes was overturned and the energy company Georgia Power and its parent Southern Co. raised rates to pay for their new nuclear power plant before it was finished (she saw something fishy going on). She teamed up with the Sierra club and they started looking to diversify the energy market in there area (particularly by adding solar panels to the mix of energy producing resources). But this was just an example. Barry Goldwater Jr. has taken up the clean energy/alternative energy cause in Arizona along with other Tea party groups in other States. Tea party members see it as a way to protect ourselves from terrorism on our national infrastructure and diversify a market that ensures a form of self protection against natural disasters as well. The Sierra club sees it as getting their agenda for cleaner energy through to the masses. As such their dream for a cleaner world without negative environmental effects may become a reality.

Should we support this?: This is an opportunity. Two groups that normally would never agree on anything have come together to push for a common goal. A diverse energy infrastructure that is safe and has little to no environmental impact is crucial for the future of America's energy production. By diversifying the market we gain access to better services through competition. We can feel safer by knowing that if a tree hits a power line we will not loose power. It comes down to safety, security and the freedom of choice which is hoped will end the government sponsored monopolies of the power companies.

Conclusion: A diverse energy infrastructure is a good thing. The overall goal should be eliminating the need for power utility companies for our electricity. Basically, I think we are all tired of paying the bill for power companies who each year charge more and more for the same stagnant services they gave us since they started. Let competition bring forth diversity and quality, and as such support the Green Tea Party.

Side note: If these two opposing political groups can find common ground, then why can't the Republicans and Democrats do the same? Well that is because they both want credit for the same successes, but none of the failures. May be we should have the Greens and the Teas running D.C. instead of the fat cat politicians we have now.

Issue 186 Free the Parks October 17, 2013

As part of the government shutdown the national parks were closed. One problem, many of those parks require zero federal funds to run and operate in the first place. As such, by closing them down the government is spending more money than it would to just allow people to go in and enjoy the parks natural vistas.

Those they shut down: They shut down Yellow Stone, Mt. Rushmore, and even the WW II memorial in Washington D.C. However, this is a problem. Places like Mt. Rushmore, and the Grand Canyon do not require any money to operate. Also, the WW II memorial is entirely maintained by private donations (including those from my own family). But the bureaucratic arm of the federal government wanted to make the shut down hurt. So they tried to block off the memorials and parks. They even went as far as chaining swings to the bars in parks in D.C. and attempted to shut down some State run parks. It has become ridiculous.

How they are enforcing this?: Unfortunately for us, they are enforcing this by having police officers block off these sites. They have even tracked down joggers who have skirted the parks on their morning exercise just to write them a ticket. In some cases, they have forcefully removed people from their own private property if that property sits inside a federal park. This includes seniors like on the Island that sits in Lake Mead (you can read about this more in detail in the "Washington Times" or at "The Blaze").

What can be done?: Simple, we need to let the parks loose from the grasp of the federal government. It is obvious that those in power are trying to force as much pain as possible on the American people, to put pressure on the Republicans in this case, to forcefully end the shut down. So we need to let the States have that land back. The federal government owns about 1/3 of the land in the United States with some States having well over half their land under federal control. As such, let us petition government to give the parks and the unused federal land back to the individual States. It will not take any money save the price of the paper and ink to write up the legislation. Once this is done, States can own the parks and operate them as they see fit (which will generally be free just like before) and the unused federal land that becomes State property can be used for any number of purposes. Such purposes include more parks, nature study areas, places for scientific research, mining and industrial purposes or even another launch site for the growing private space flight industry. All federal park rangers and personnel will be transferred to the State governments so they don't loose their jobs. A simple solution to an oppressive government that thinks it can make us do what it pleases.

Conclusion: A federal shut down, like the one that just occured, did not have to shut down a single park. Many of the facilities and even some of the businesses on them can or already are run privately or are supported through private donation. We do not need the federal government to maintain parks like Glacier or Arcadia. And we most certainly do not need them closing down any war memorial let alone the WW II memorial in D.C. So I say free the parks now!

Issue 185 Defund: National Endowment for the Arts October 16, 2013

You thought I was done after yesterdays issue didn't you? Well, I am not. There is more savings to be had in government. This time I wish to be rid of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). Again, I have my reasons which I will explain right here and now.

We don't need it: The NEA's mission is mainly to support art projects whether that is in the form of a painting, music or even literature. Grants are given to various groups in support of these projects that are considered by government to be worthy of our tax dollars. Problem, art is in the eye of the beholder, and why are we subsidizing art in the first place. I can understand the cultural aspect, but one person’s art may not necessarily be what another considers art. Also, who decides what art is worth helping out and whose art is not. Overall, art is art, but some of the artists who get this money have no other job. They are full time artists who use our tax dollars for their own purposes. Art does not need government aid to be created, let alone to decide what constitutes art.

If we want a statue we'll commission one: One of the NEA's responsibilities is national initiatives. This may range from inspiring young artists, to helping in the transformation of a park. But we are forgetting something very important; the local municipalities can pay for an art project themselves. There is no need for the NEA's support or interference in such matters. Not to mention, charities and other organizations can fund the projects and works of the artists themselves. Promoting the growth of art, or an artist in general is not something that is needed as all we have to do is let people engage in their own pursuits. If that is done, the artists and their art will begin to permeate society naturally.

Crowd Funded art: Yes, crowd funding can support art too. It helped get the "Veronica Mars" movie that fans wanted. So if it can get a movie funded, then it can get all sorts of art funded too. What need is there for a national foundation when we can just ask the people to donate towards the art they want to see.

A risk in keeping this agency: Back in 2009, the NEA was under fire because one of its members wanted artists to make art that promoted President Obama's agenda. This may have actually happened if it was not made public. As such, it is important to remember that many of these artists rely on their art for income, and that includes money from the NEA. As such, they may be easily manipulated into making propaganda simply by putting them under threat of loosing their funding. It does not matter the administration, or what political party is involved, but it is a risk.

Conclusion: The NEA supports artists of all kinds. However, it is not worth the cost with respect to deciding whose art is acceptable or funding people to do art work that may in the end hold no value. As a amateur photographer myself, I know it can be fairly difficult to get any money from your hard work, but that does not mean tax payer dollars should be used to fund it either. It is another additional cost that is unneeded in today's government.

Issue 184 Defund: National Science Foundation October 15, 2013

Yes I want the National Science Foundation (NSF) defunded. It is an agency that I find very little use for when you look at the overall function of government. Government is to make and enforce law with respect to protecting our freedoms, not sending out grant money to various projects that may not bear any merit in the long run. So here are my reasons why.

It's already being done by someone else: While the National Science Foundation gives out grant money to support many non-medical related scientific research and initiatives, they are not the only ones doing that job. Other government agencies also give money for various scientific projects. One such agency is the Department of Defense who does research into new engine technologies and fuels. NASA also has its own labs and will contract out for various projects and studies as well. Overall, the NSF's main job is to support scientific study, but it is being done by other agencies in the first place making the agency redundant.

They study that?!: Some of the things the NSF help support/study are either useless or needs no funding to begin with. One example is political science. The NSF gives grants to universities to study political science, a "soft science." If you have ever studied politics as I have, you will realize that the study of politics is not about furthering scientific discovery and while useful to some, does not warrant any amount of money from the government. Another example is the studies on things like computer sciences, or even sociology. Since when is it necessary to fund such research? Tech companies are already far ahead and develop new computer skills and technology without any help. Many of the countries greatest brands even started out in the garage of tech pioneers and you can be sure there will be others. Sociology is another soft science that looks to find out why groups behave in certain ways based on environmental stimulus. However, does government actually need to study such information? Is it necessary for government to know how we behave, let alone pay someone to study it? I think not. This is just the very tip of the iceberg...or maybe the shrimp as it was made to run on a pint sized treadmill to see how long it would take to die whilst running. Yea, our tax dollars paid for that.

Funding alternatives: As some people may question getting rid of the NSF, I will tell you that there is another way for these programs and scientific initiatives to get funded. One method is through the University. If a University thinks your project has merit, then they will pay for your research. This of course is one of the more traditional types of funding. Another is if the research you are doing is important enough to draw in people to want to support you. The best examples of this are cancer fighting treatments (as we want that eradicated) and space technology (as space is looking to be the next big business opportunity). But what of the smaller projects you ask? Well have you ever heard of Crowd Funding? Basically it is a way for people to donate toward a cause of some variety like they do a charity. The difference is that it could fund anything. Crowd Funding has been used to fund movies, the building of schools and hospitals and of course scientific research. It is all about convincing people that your idea has enough merit to the point where they will give you a bit of their money (and in some cases a part in the movie). Crowd Funding removes the need for the big time universities, businesses and government from having to fund what would be considered small scientific projects. With Crowd Funding the people decide for themselves what projects are worth looking into.

Conclusion: The NSF is one of those agencies from a bygone error. It was originally developed to help coordinate between the various departments in government’s scientific research in WW II. Later it would evolve into an agency that funds various projects, but is rendered redundant by later agencies with respect to technological advancements. The DOD, NASA, National Institute of health and others have made this agency obsolete. As such it is time to let this one go. Let us save some tax dollars by removing government overlap and redundancy by defunding the NSF.

Issue 183 Defund the GOP October 14, 2013

Don't you think it is time to remove the Grand Old Party (GOP) from power? This group is the Republican Party that has lost its value and its use with respect to American Politics. The following are my reasons why you all should give up on this now defunct political party.

They don't represent us any more: The GOP has become an elitist institution filled with the same ideologues in leadership that the Democrats have. In fact, the GOP leadership would find itself very comfortable in the Democrat party. The reason is that they share the same ideology. We no longer have two political parties in America, but one party with two different names. They support causes that would fly in the face of traditional Americans, such as the removal of certain social freedoms like our right to buy and sell to whomever we choose. While it was once about free market capitalism, the GOP has switched to the controlled economy mantra. As such, they will impart any and all regulations or laws they see fit even if that regulation or law is unenforceable, has zero effect in stopping something like a market crash, or detrimentally harms the economy. So many members of the Republican GOP establishment vote for a law just so they can vote against it latter. However, that may be too late.

Progressive disease: The ideology that has over taken the party of freedom of choice and conscience is progressivism. This ideology was a byproduct of socialism. Today it manifests itself as an ideology to progress mankind to the next level. Problem, this means going off to war to "export democracy." It is an ideology of war and control. If say the republicans want you to choose between one out come and another, they will insure that only the outcomes they want are to be chosen. They do this by masking or restricting the other options available. This is done during elections such as when choosing candidates, or when legislation comes out where they choose ways for it to be written that allows them a back door, but us the American people are left holding the tax bill. Don't get me wrong, this is not just the Republicans, but the Democrats too who have become equal in their war mongering and control over peoples freedom of choice.

They shut out debate: This GOP does not wish for people like Ron Paul, or Garry Johnson to have political traction. It is the leadership’s way or you loose all your support from the political party. So in this they prevent anyone from speaking out or up against them from their own party. Ideas that run counter to their progressive ideological culture such as being anti war, anti war on drugs, anti stop gay marriage and the like are looked down upon even though there is those in their party that want change.

Conclusion: The GOP like the Democrats has become totalitarian in nature. Their ideology of progressivism has altered these two once respectable political groups into those that would march America’s soldiers back into the hell of war. As a libertarian who saw economic freedom as the key to the American dream, I generally voted for this political group. But as I learned of their tyranny and how they are simply a twin of those who lost their way in the Democratic Party, I have lost faith in them entirely. As such, we can either form a new party or defund them in order to force them into submission. It is time to strike back and show them that the true leadership is the American people, not the party leadership.