Fact Checking the Fact Checkers

So reading through the local paper this morning and I came across a “Fact Check” article from the Associated Press covering Trump’s address last night. Avoiding politics, facts are facts… however, opinions aren’t facts.

As I skimmed through the text a word immediately caught my eye. A word, if you remember back to grammar class, is a key tell for opinion, not fact.


TRUMP: “Ninety-four million Americans are out of the labor force.”

THE FACTS: That’s true, but for the vast majority of them, it’s because they choose to be.

That 94 million figure includes everyone aged 16 and older who doesn’t have a job and isn’t looking for one. So it includes retirees, parents who are staying home to raise children, and high school and college students who are studying rather than working.

They are unlikely to work regardless of the state of the economy. With the huge baby-boomer generation reaching retirement age and many of them retiring, the population of those out of the labor force is increasing and will continue to do so, most economists forecast.

It’s true that some of those out of the workforce are of working age and have given up looking for work. But that number is probably a small fraction of the 94 million Trump cited.

[Source] Is Obamacare ‘collapsing’? How much does immigration cost? Fact-checking Trump’s speech

That last sentence– “probably” where the writer interjects opinions into what should be an article free of opinions. That never should have passed editorial. Sadly the media does this constantly and it’s a real head scratcher as to why nobody trusts them. Stay objective and on point. Facts only, please.


I have rights, you have rights. My rights don’t negate your rights and your rights don’t negate my rights. It really is that simple.

Often times I see someone say things like “I have a right to breathe clean air” in regards to a smoker whose smoke is blowing into their house. In turn what happens is the offended person complains to the local municipality, or the Home Owners Association (HOA) if they’re in a neighborhood. Regulations end up getting passed, and then the person who smokes can no longer smoke outside their house.

But why does one person’s rights outweigh the other person’s? They don’t. But we’ve started down a slippery slope of who has more rights. And often times this ends up in court litigation. Sadly this is the wrong approach. But in an over-litigious society… I guess that’s what happens.

Why can’t we all just be respectful? Chances are the person wasn’t doing it intentionally. They didn’t know you had a problem. Why not have a conversation with them and see if you can come to some sort of amicable resolution? I understand this isn’t always possible, but it’s where we should start.

Attacking one person’s rights in favor of your own rights may sound like a good idea at first, because after all, it puts you in a higher position. At some point though, someone will come after your rights because they feel their rights are more important. And how will you feel when you suddenly lose your rights?

The key building blocks to a good society is getting along with neighbors, not being passive aggressive or litigating things in court as a first response. If we each tried harder to get along with those around us rather than fighting over little things, we’d be a lot better off than we are right now.

The US Postal Service is killing itself

I just stumbled across a Reuters article that said the US Postal Service was failing due to the internet. People sending emails instead of mailing cards and letters was what killed the postal service. There are a few problems with this argument.

Its been well documented that the the problems with the US Postal Service stem from the out of control pension system as well as the congressional mandate to provide service to every single household is what’s causing the problem. Also, the fact they USPS is trying to deliver packages is ridiculous.

If the US Postal Service thinks that a higher volume of mail would save them from disaster, they’d be crazy. Volume of mail (income) is going down, while costs are going up. Anybody with a business background would tell you that’s a recipe for disaster. Even if you marginally increase your income, you still need to reduce your costs.

My grandfather is a retired postal inspector. He retired in his 50’s… he’s nearing 90 years old now… retired for 30+ years. Last I heard his government pension was about $80,000/year. Yes, you heard me right, $80,000/year. Must be nice… but it sure as hell isn’t sustainable for the USPS to keep paying pensions like that.

This whole debacle reminds me of other industries failing to adapt. The RIAA and MPAA have fought tooth and nail to avoid the digital era… instead of adjusting their business model, they cling to the old and dig their hole deeper by attacking people. Remember when they fought VCRs? Now they’re delaying movie rentals longer in hopes of people giving up and buying the movie instead of waiting, therefore making them more money.

In the end, the US Postal Service using the argument that the internet is killing them is just ridiculous. The USPS has been around for a long time… in one way or another before it was officially run by the United States Government. I wonder if anybody ever argued that other forms of communication like phone lines would kill them? Before any electronic communication, letters were the only way to communicate across distance. Did the mail volume go down with the advent of a phone in every house? I bet it did. Its much easier to pick up the phone and call your friend.

Stop blaming the internet for your failing business model.

All Enemies, Foreign and Domestic

There was a comment posted on a Politico article regarding Ron Paul suggesting impeachment of President Obama following the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki. I’d like to address a few things.

The comment:

I guess Mr Paul who claims to know the Constitution forgot the oath he took to protect and defend against enemies foreign or domestic. Anwar al-Awlaki was an enemy of the United States unless Paul can prove otherwise.

The oath:

Do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that you take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which you are about to enter: So help you God?

Obviously the commenter fails to understand that the oath was to defend “The Constitution” from enemies, both foreign and domestic… and not to defend the United States from enemies, both foreign and domestic.

If you can find somewhere (anywhere?) in the Constitution that says that elected officials have a duty to protect the United States, regardless of what’s right or wrong, please… by all means correct me because I can’t find it.

Body Scans. Who’s The Real Terrorist?

Months ago, Big Brother was touting their body scanners and showing us images like this:

Body Scan Image

And this:

Body Scanner Image

Now, after a PR nightmare, and public backlash over the devices (scanner or else… [pat down]) DHS releases this photo:

Body Scanner Image

DHS tells us its this blurry. They say the face is blanked out. They expect us to believe this picture is real.

On an image of that quality, would could you really find a weapon? I don’t think so. But they expect us to believe them.

TSA wants to force you through these scanners. If you refuse, you are subject to a public, humiliating full body pat down. Personally, I don’t want anybody (else) grabbing my balls. This “do what we say or else” mentality is getting out of control.

By definition, the word “terrorism” means:

the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

By that definition, I believe the TSA and DHS just qualified themselves of terrorists. Who do we send in to round them up?

If Healthcare Sounds Too Good To Be True, It Probably Is

Saw this in Linda Rhodes’ Our Parents, Ourselves column in today’s Patriot News.

Q: My parents saw an ad for a new health insurance plan as a result of the Health Care Reform law, but it sounded too good to be true. How can they tell?

A: The first red flag is that it’s “too good to be true.” Scam artists are savvy at telling consumers what they want to hear. Insurance fraud experts caution that if the deal seems too good — like you’ll get full coverage, no pre-existing conditions, cheap premiums, no medical exam or detailed questions to answer — then you are likely being scammed.

Now, I’m not sure if it was inadvertant, but it sounds a heck of a lot like what the democrats promised. In short, yes, the American people got fleeced.

I wonder why the Coalition Against Insurance Fraud has not gone after Lord Obama, Commander Pelosi, Count Reid, et al. for this travesty they call “reform.”

Why the Government Takeover of Healthcare is Wrong

So, you want a few reasons why the healthcare takeover is wrong? Here’s some for starters:

  • The 10th Amendment Prohibits It
  • One-Size-Fits-All Will Never Work
  • No Federal Government Program Has Been Successful

The 10th Amendment prohibits Federal Takeover

The 10th Amendment says that all powers not explicitly granted in the Constitution or Bill of Rights is reserved to the states.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Nowhere in the US Constitution nor the Bill of Rights states that the Federal Government must provide healthcare to all citizens. Therefore it is a job to be taken care of at the state level.

Why One-Size-Fits-All Will Never Work

To further add to the argument that states should take care of these issues, is that “We the People” are a diverse people. Compare one region to another and they’re guaranteed to have different ideals or ways to do things. The Founding Fathers reserved powers to the states for just that reason. They knew that if they tried to make everybody fit the same mold, it would not work. At some point in time, we decided to allow the Federal Government to take over things and look where we are now… they want to take over everything.

No Federal Government Program Has Been Successful

Face it, can you name a federal program that works as promised? Social Security, Medicare, Department of Education, Department of Energy… they’ve all failed, yet we keep throwing more money at them to try and sustain them. They’re products of failed promises and failed budget estimates, usually because of government bloat and self-interest. Each and every program costs the taxpayer more and more money to run, yet we see no progress. At conception of the Department of Energy, we relied 35% on foreign energy, now its 70%. The goal of DoE never worked out, yet we keep funding it.

Education is another great example. We try and fit kids into a mold, yet at the same time we preach that each person is their own individual. Do you learn the same way I do? Not everybody does, yet we try and force all kids in public schools to learn the same way. In the end, we handicap the smart kids just to try and make children with disabilities meet the same bar. What sense does that make? If local governments could manage education, and the taxes to support the local schools, they could vote, and determine what gets taught. In the end, everybody would get a better education.


As you can see, the Founding Fathers prohibited the Federal Government from taking over things for a smart reason, one size does not fit all. Every case where the Federal government has taken power over an area, it hasn’t worked and its for that one reason alone. Let the state and local governments take care of your issues, and we’ll all be better off.