jv_coach

let me know when you get it.

have you read the book?

well said.

[Hidden Content]

[Hidden Content] I say this because too many people all over the world, America included, still focus on judging people by criteria other than character — and not just by skin color. It diminishes us as human beings when we do so, for character is ultimately more important than any other factor. It defines each of us. It’s what we’ll likely be remembered for more than anything else — and that’s as it should be, because character results from our choices in life and not from some accident of nature. Yet, every day you see people being judged by others according to their political views, their place of origin, their personal faith, the way they dress or wear their hair, their sexual orientation, the school they attended, or any number of other irrelevant, unavoidable or unrevealing criteria. As I’ve written elsewhere (especially in my small book, Are We Good Enough for Liberty?), character is what decides almost everything in your life, from how you regard yourself to how you relate to others to whether or not you’ve added or subtracted from society as a whole by the time you’re done on this earth. Why waste your life judging yourself or others by things that ultimately don’t matter? I think Dr. King would want Black History Month to be celebrated in ways that unite us rather than divide us. Though one race is the focus of the month, I believe he would want us to celebrate the best values and the highest character of those black men and women all people should be proud of. It’s with that in mind that I’ve assembled this ebook anthology of 17 essays previously published by the Foundation for Economic Education.

So are you equating your skin with other peoples sin?

Since Dumb and Dumber was the movie we would watch every Thursday in (actually it was wensday but I keep mispelling that day) while in college( remember , I went to school on an athletic scholarship) my Junior year. This would be the second best movie scene in the history of cinema.

On Thursday evening, The Forward unleashed the single most illiterate piece ever written on the Biblical story of Adam and Eve. The piece defies description; it has to be read to be believed. Its central thesis, however, is that God somehow sexually harassed Eve, and that Eve is “the first case of #MeToo.” This is not a total surprise coming from the same publication that ran a piece this week suggesting that Orthodox Jews are the new white supremacists. The author, Tamara Kolton, is a female rabbi and psychologist in Birmingham, Michigan. She’s also the author of a presumably unreadable soon-to-be-released book, Oranges for Eve: Walking The Way of the Divine Feminine. But if this essay is any indicator, that book will best be used as a doorstop. [Hidden Content]

Kounter, acts like everything you, me and he believe has not all ready been hashed out in the past. There aint nothing new under the sun. Maybe repackaged and definitions of words have changed but Bolshevik is and always will smell the same.

Me too, I had to put the kids to bed, but I enjoyed it. So is in the book is there more to the story between the brothers and the one brothers girlfriend? Me personally I see a lot of our present day society in the movie star brother and his family in the way people act today. Not a lot of personal responsibility, self-centered, materialistic, no real family love. I though it was sorta clutch what the father said in his last sermon about the younger brother and his death.

[Hidden Content] The Law of Scarcity tells us that all goods, services, and commodities are scarce, which means that there is not enough of any commodity, good, or service to meet all potential demand. There is a direct correlation between the quality and price of something, and the demand for it. As an example, as the quality of cars improves and price comes down, demand for cars goes up. If you gave Bentleys and Porshes away for free, the demand for Bentleys and Porshes would grossly outstrip any ability to build Bentleys and Porshes. Whether we are talking about medical care, breakfast cereal, eggs, cars, or haircuts, the same Law of Scarcity applies. We will never have enough of anything to satisfy all of the demand we would see if things were free. In real life, we have to make tradeoffs. We cannot have high quality, low pricing, and universal access to anything. It is impossible to pursue all three of those things at the same time. We can push for better quality and lower pricing, but only if those who do not pay the lower pricing have no access. We can push for universal access and high quality, but it would be prohibitively expensive. We can push for lower cost and universality, but the quality would be horrendous. Somehow, many people do not understand the Law of Scarcity. Somehow, many people do not understand that it is impossible to meet all possible demand of any commodity, good, or service, and that as such, some mechanism must be used to balance supply and demand. Price will balance supply and demand at any quality level, for as the quality of a good or service drops, people are less willing to pay for it. Universality is possible if one is willing to pay enough (through taxes) and reduce quality enough to limit demand to levels that can be supplied. In politics, sadly enough, any honest politician has to admit that it is impossible to have universal, low cost, high quality, anything, but it is unfortunately very possible to make political promises that are not possible to keep, and the easiest way to get elected is to promise what it is not possible to deliver. Scarcity is as much a scientific law as is gravity, and as with gravity, if we do not make tradeoffs, tradeoffs are imposed upon us by the Law of Scarcity. It never ceases to amaze me how many intelligent people on the political left use their intelligence, not to try and determine what the best tradeoffs possible might be, but to try and rationalize scarcity away. When the public listens to these people, we get policies that ignore the Law of Scarcity, and that usually leads to a very limited supply of low quality, high cost goods and services. Contrast that to free markets, which throw universality to the wind, focusing solely on quality and price. A free market will make the best tradeoffs possible, often meeting a large number of different quality points at different prices. A rich person may be willing to buy a Bentley, whereas a middle class person may settle for a Ford. Someone just starting out in their working life might have to buy a used car. All get as much car as they can, or are willing to, afford, but nobody can get a car without paying for it unless someone is willing to give them a car for free. There is no reason why this mechanism cannot be used for healthcare, breakfast cereal, and everything else. Various products can be offered at various price points, to make all goods and services available to the maximum number of people at whatever price point makes the most sense for them. In healthcare, a rich person might want a private room, whereas a poor person might be willing to be in a ward. Both get quality healthcare, but the rich person gets bells and whistles the poor person cannot afford. We do not need to make these kinds of tradeoffs as a matter of policy, because the markets, when left alone, make these tradeoffs for us, based on public demand. It is possible to have a rational discussion with those who understand the Law of Scarcity, but who disagree on what the optimal tradeoff might be, or who believe it is possible to force better tradeoffs than free markets would create. Reasonable people can have different values and backgrounds, and can disagree on the ramifications of the same set of facts all the time. It is however impossible to have a rational discussion with those who deny that the Law of Scarcity exists. We can only build a better world if we are rational. We need to understand, and respect the Law of Scarcity. We need the best tradeoffs possible. We need free markets.

[Hidden Content] Receiving U.S. food aid is positively correlated with a higher probability and increased duration of civil war.

it seems that some people back tracked their statements, so what about all the other damning statements? “When one considers that Christopher Steele was a British spy, and that Clinton/DNC money was used to pay Russian officials to give stories about Trump, with no consideration for whether or not those stories were true (the more salacious the better), we have a case of Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama colluding with at least two foreign powers (England and Russia) to throw an election, along with the White House using all of the power it had at its disposal to do the same.”

What is it again that Mueller is investigating Trump for?!? Oh yeah – exactly what we can prove Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama did… Think about the audacity it takes to do something, fail, and then to discredit the person who won on the grounds of the winner doing what you yourself did. Obama and Clinton think we are dumb enough to go along, and thus far many of us have been, but at some point common sense has to prevail, and the truth has to come out.

Loretta Lynch meeting with former President Bill Clinton, in secret, just a few days before Loretta Lynch was supposed to decide whether or not to indict his wife (who was running for the Presidency) only adds icing to the cake, as does the knowledge that James Comey, who supposedly made the decision not to indict Hillary Clinton (I say ‘supposedly’ because the head of the FBI lacks that authority), was working on his speech exonerating Hillary Clinton, while the investigation was still ongoing, and before Loretta Lynch was caught meeting with Bill Clinton to supposedly discuss golf and grand children.

The level of bias in the Obama White House was astounding. We have text messages from the very people who investigated Hillary Clinton, and later started the Trump investigation, actively calling for the election to be throttled, and even going so far as to call for ‘backup plans’ and ‘insurance policies’. Christopher Steele, whose worthless dossier was the backbone of the anti-Trump conspiracy, himself actively called on taking action to defeat Trump. The media, which had been helping Trump during the Republican primary, went into full attack mode against Trump (where it remains to this day), while Barrack Obama’s administration began to use the full power of the FBI, the DOJ, and the intelligence services to try and throttle the election. Trump won anyway, but the Steele dossier was then used as the basis for a special investigator to open an investigation into Russian collusion within the Trump campaign. The fact that the Steele dossier was complete garbage did not matter in the Obama White House; Trump had very different ideas on where the country should be headed, and the Obama Administration did everything it could to discredit his Presidency, with the media playing along like hapless little puppies.

The real story, however, is that the Obama Administration worked with the Hillary Clinton campaign, and the DNC, with help from the media, to rig the general election. Hillary Clinton’s campaign, along with the DNC (which was funded by the Clinton Campaign), funded the Steele dossier. To add insult to injury, Christopher Steele was also a paid informant of the FBI. The Steele dossier was not credible enough for Hillary Clinton’s campaign to use directly, but it was leaked to the press (the leaks then being used to supposedly corroborate the dossier in one of the worst cases of circular reasoning I’ve ever seen), and a copy was given to the FBI, where it was used as the primary basis to get a FISA court, granting the Obama Administration the power to spy on the Trump campaign, all on behalf of one Hillary Rodham Clinton.

What is not as well known (but was brought to light by WikiLeaks) is that Fox News was taking marching orders from Hillary Clinton’s campaign too, and Hillary Clinton wanted to run against either Ted Cruz, or, better yet, Donald Trump. Rand Paul in particular scared the hell out of her,

The DNC was broke in 2016, and on the verge of bankruptcy. The Hillary Clinton campaign kept it funded with the catch that the DNC understood that she owned it, and working with the DNC, Hillary Clinton beat a Bernie Sanders that would likely have won in a free and open primary. CNN and the rest of the mainstream media were in on it

UPDATE: Please note that when Andrew McCabe confirmed, earlier today, that without the Steele dossier there would have been no FISA request, he was confirming the only part of the memo that really mattered. Using that discredited dossier as the basis for the FISA request was illegal. [Hidden Content]

did the good grammar give it away? Somebody who works in the swamp wanted me to pass this along.

Is economic INEQUALITY a MORAL problem? The perennial debate about income and wealth inequality is purposely enflamed by a political-rocket-fuel mix of virtue-signaling and class-envy. To make any sense, a discussion of moral economy must start with accurate definitions: * Wealth is not a resource, but a RESULT of economic activity - activity that creates VALUE. * Money is a store of the value created by economic activity. * Wealth, an accumulation of created value. Those who seek to control and engineer society promote a "limited resource" definition of wealth because, were it so, that might justify authorizing a benevolent gov't (does such exist?) to "make sure everyone gets a 'fair share.'" This positions the gov't as the owner and rightful steward of every bit of value created by the people. So consequential a lie - one that so well serves the purposes of consolidating power to the hands of the elite - could not be mere ignorance! It's on we students of Sowell, Friedman and other Economists to debunk this junk. We're each EMPOWERED by our own faculties to create VALUE.. Our inherent liberties to create, own, store and trade on the value we create are the essence of a free society. The greatest danger to liberty is economic illiteracy.

In case you did not know babies can feel pain in their mothers belly. [Hidden Content] Anyway a bill had passed the House that would have made abortion illegal after 20 weeks, but the Senate did not pass it. well here are some pro-life and pro-choice arguments that I found after watching the movie 180 I have yet to find a pro-choice response for this pro-life argument. No abortion is safe. There is at least one person dead at the end of every procedure. Just because you don't have to see their face as its dismembered doesn't negate that fact. Why do you claim to care about women but not the aborted baby girls? You're not giving any reasons why abortion is morally justified, you're just giving reasons why you don't think it should be stopped. ....My thoughts, I am not saying people who had an abortion are evil people, but they like me are all equally wretched sinners who equally deserve the wrath of God, but wants to save sinners, and He provided a way for sinners to find peace with Him, despite their sins. The Bible says "God demonstrated His love in this way, that while we were still yet sinners, Christ died for us." So ponder the words of Jesus "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and dine with them, and them with Me"

Hunington happens