Summary

Part of the miracle of 1776, pulled off by a then nondescript group of nobodies from a tiny, backwater British colony, was the correct observation that our rights to “...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” come from our Creator, not from monarchs or elected governments. Those rights, which are not the subject of this podcast, are everyone's responsibility. God granted those rights, and we must have each other’s back to defend them.

The so-called rights that are today's subject matter are the right to taxpayer-paid housing, education, healthcare, etc. And the etcetera is getting more etcetera all the time. Remembering that with every right comes an equal or greater responsibility, today’s key question is whether benefits like housing, healthcare, food and education should be granted at no cost to the user, or should reasonable access be guaranteed to these products and services?  Free or reasonable access is the question.

Are an individual’s food, education and housing someone else’s responsibility, or is that a responsibility where the individual might play a full or partial role themselves? For the next 10 minutes, we will talk about what this means to us as individuals, and to the future of our republic.

Transcript

Part of the miracle of 1776, pulled off by a then nondescript group of nobodies from a tiny, backwater British colony, was the correct observation that our rights to “...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” come from our Creator, not from monarchs or elected governments. Those rights, which are not the subject of this podcast, are everyone's responsibility. God granted those rights, and we must have each other’s back to defend them.

The so-called rights that are today's subject matter are the right to taxpayer-paid housing, education, healthcare, etc. And the etcetera is getting more etcetera all the time. Remembering that with every right comes an equal or greater responsibility, today’s key question is whether benefits like housing, healthcare, food and education should be granted at no cost to the user, or should reasonable access be guaranteed to these products and services?  Free or reasonable access is the question.

Are an individual’s food, education and housing someone else’s responsibility, or is that a responsibility where the individual might play a full or partial role themselves? For the next 10 minutes, we will talk about what this means to us as individuals, and to the future of our republic.

Today’s Key Point: Today’s question ties nicely to the core, driving principles at Revolution 2.0, which are:

Personal Responsibility; take it, teach it and,

Be Your Brother’s Keeper. The answer to the biblical question, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” is a ringing, unequivocal “Yes.” There is no other answer.

Applying point no. 1, personal responsibility, to today’s issue, we are all responsible for everything that is conceivably within our control. Things like national defense and disabilities from a damaging, congenital disease or condition are not.

Applying point no. 2, being our brother’s keepers, to today’s issue, we are all responsible, as a matter of morals as well as public policy, to come to the aid of those who are dealing with things out of their control.

Let’s look at a definition: “Out of someone’s control.” This does not mean that something is hard, or unpleasant, or boring and repetitive, unfulfilling or unworthy of their talents. This means that the person, try as they might, trying hard over time, simply cannot handle the tasks, cannot meet their responsibilities even after full, determined effort over time.

But, Will, what do you do about the large and growing inequality of results when people, equally doing their best, have wildly different financial results?

Summary

Representative Ocasio-Cortez, D-NY, AOC as she identifies herself, or “Alex from the Bronx”, as others call her, is a product of our lazy thinking times. I can remember participating in discussions with as much passion for making everything right, and the same naive, uninformed and misinformed information base, and wandering approach to logistics and planning as AOC’s. But we were sophomores in high school then. This goes far beyond AOC; many of her party’s leaders are actively supporting her, and few--if any--have challenged her. And we--all of us--are a part of the problem. Ill or uninformed voters are dangerous enough. Politicians of the same type are even more dangerous. And our fault. If we want better candidates and better office holders, we need to be better voters.

For the next 10 minutes, we will talk about what this means for everything from our personal lives to the future of the republic.

Transcript

Representative Ocasio-Cortez, D-NY, AOC as she identifies herself, or “Alex from the Bronx”, as others call her, is a product of our lazy thinking times. I can remember participating in discussions with the same passion for making everything right, and the same naive, uninformed and misinformed information base and wandering approach to logistics and planning as AOC’s. But we were sophomores in high school then. This goes far beyond AOC; many of her party’s leaders are supporting her, and few--if any--have challenged her. And we--all of us--are a part of the problem. Ill or uninformed voters are dangerous enough. Politicians of the same type are even more dangerous. And our fault. If we want better candidates and better office holders, we need to be better voters.

For the next 10 minutes, we will talk about what this means for everything from our personal lives to the future of the republic.

The powerful group of declared candidates hoping to oppose Donald Trump in 2020 fully support policies like the Green New Deal in general, and Medicare for All free college in particular. While the Green New Deal was instigated by AOC, they have all signed on.

Pause for clarification. This is not the fault of the Democrats, it is not the fault of the Republicans. It is our fault. “We have met the enemy, and he is us.” Worthwhile quote from a Pogo, cartoon opossum, in the eponymous cartoon strip.  

Clearly, if we want better candidates and better office holders, we need to be better voters. (It really is up to us.)

Let’s take a deeper look at what’s going on:

Medicare For All would cost in excess of $3 trillion (with a “T”) a year. Keep in mind that our national budget is just in excess of $4 trillion a year. Medicare For All would almost double our annual spending. Already fewer and fewer medical providers are accepting Medicare; there is no guarantee that the facility you might want would even accept Medicare. Others are now limiting Medicare patients to certain days and hours, making getting appointments more and more difficult. Additionally, Medicare is cutting back access to physicians, allowed procedures and medicines. These problems would be greatly exacerbated if millions of people were added to the Medicare rolls. And what do you do with the tens of millions who have worked for decades, having paid into Medicare all along? Do they just stand by and watch while the services they earned deteriorate while now being free to others?

Add in the fantastic 10-year goals of the Green New Deal, and we are at about $10 trillion (yes, still with a “T”) a year. In addition to the $4T we are spending each year now. Let’s remember the Green New Deal’s author, AOC, said that she was coming to DC in January to be “inaugurated” and that she would soon be “signing bills.” That lack of even basic understanding of how congress works would get you an “F” on a...

Summary

This is not a podcast about race, sexual preference or left vs. right. This is a podcast about how agendas are so important to some that a supporting alternate reality, a series of lies, is created to support the agenda. The alternate reality, the lies, is then defended as the truth

For the next 10 minutes, we will talk about what this means for everything from our personal integrity to the future of the republic.

Transcript

This is not a podcast about race, sexual preference or left vs. right. This is a podcast about how agendas are so important to some that a supporting alternate reality, a series of lies, is created to support the agenda. The alternate reality, the lies, is then defended as the truth.

For the next 10 minutes, we will talk about what this means for everything from our personal integrity to the future of the republic.

Let’s start by stopping calling this a hoax. A hoax is something much more lighthearted; perhaps damaging, but more like a joke or a prank. This was a well-staged event, carefully designed to malign and accuse a broad swath of Trump supporters, and those perceived as being aligned with those supporting Trump. This was a hate crime, bordering on political terrorism.

Jussie Smollett, a black actor, staged an implausible hate crime, paying other participants $3,500 (by check!). I don’t know who bought the noose that was supposed to have been part of the crime perpetrated by the paid participants calling out “This is MAGA Country!”. Jussie checked off all the boxes. He is clearly black and openly gay. He staged this deceit to include a noose along with red hat folks beating him and yelling about MAGA country while pouring bleach on him. Why? Both the black Chicago Police Chief and the black judge who have him the $100K bail said that he had disgraced himself and the city because he wanted to make more than his current $65/episode for his starring role in the TV series “Empire”, and thought the publicity would help.

Almost as many celebrities and politicians who could make it to a microphone immediately supported Mr. Smollett, saying things like this was a “modern day lynching.” There was rush to go on the record to signal their virtue and anti-hate purity, “Hate has no pace here.” When the facts--there’s that word again--started coming out, the very same people refused to comment, saying that they needed to wait until all the facts came out. Huh. They did not need a single fact past Mr. Sollett’s claim before they aligned up against the “MAGA Country” accused perps, and, by extension, all people who align with or support in any way the current President.

It is cheap and easy to want to wait for the facts when the evidence is against you. There is no honor there. Honor and respect is yours when you wait for the facts before expressing an opinion when the initial and incomplete, but potentially convincing evidence, is in your favor. That’s when standing up for due process earns respect.

This is a good time to point out that when there are real issues, like racial or sexual-preference hatreds, there is no need to fake it. Has anyone read about the Jews faking anti-Jew hate crimes in Germany in the ‘30s and ‘40s? Or fake anti-black crimes in the Jim Crow post Civil War days? Of course not. The issues were real, so no fakes were required to make the point. Isn’t is clear to everyone how miraculously far we have come in the less than 250 years America has existed? Why aren’t we celebrating that stunning progress, all while working together to keep making things better? Wouldn’t that be far more to the point than manufacturing victims amid dwindling real issues? Is it that activists, facing dwindling stacks of real issues, don’t just celebrate and deal with the remaining issues, they make things up, creating the appearance that not all that...

Summary

Socialism in much in the news. At first glance, it might sound appealing. Needs driven by inequality will be erased. Everyone gets what they want, and no one is the worse for it.

How does socialism stand up to a deeper dive into what it is and how it works? For the next 10 minutes, we will unpack those two questions: 1. What is socialism? and 2. How does it work?

Transcript

Socialism in much in the news. At first glance, it might sound appealing. Needs driven by inequality will be erased. Everyone gets what they want, and no one is the worse for it.

How does socialism stand up to a deeper dive into what it is and how it works? For the next 10 minutes, we will unpack those two questions: 1. What is socialism? and 2. How does it work?

Firsts, let’s first pause for a mutual goal check. I am assuming that we are all looking for an economic system that simultaneously rewards talent and hard work, while taking care of those who truly need it. Do you agree? (I realize this is thumbnail summary.)

Now, let’s start with some key observations:

Capitalism is the greatest wealth-producing engine the world has ever seen. Some may doubt its fairness, but no one doubts its ability to create wealth on a massive scale.

All societies redistribute wealth. Everyone of them. Example. If all a particular society did was to tax enough to provide roads, some would pay more for those roads than others. Most people are likely to use the roads disproportionately to their tax contribution. Some more, some less; that’s an example of redistribution. The question is not whether to redistribute wealth, but what is the proper level of redistribution.

Okay, let’s add some definitions:

Democratic Socialism: I believe that Senator Sanders and others are talking about something other than the traditional definition of socialism. They are not talking about the government owning the means of production. They are not talking about the government owning and/or controlling entities like Ford and Facebook. Not yet, anyway. However, Senator Warren and Representative Ocasio-Cortez are beginning to introduce those thoughts. Democratic socialists are talking about massive income and wealth redistribution. Even more than we have now. The Scandinavian countries are an example of democratic socialism. Their version of socialism is capitalism with heavy income redistribution.

Traditional Socialism. See above, democratic socialism, with the addition of the government owning entities like Ford, Facebook and most everything else of size. You can keep your ice cream store if you have one. See Venezuela, Cuba and others.

Communism: Traditional socialism with the addition of prohibiting any private property.

Capitalism: A system wherein people, individuals or groups, including corporations, own the means of production and engage in voluntary exchanges of money for goods and services.

Profit: Selling things, taking in income, for more than it costs to make them, drives everything; capitalism, democratic socialism, traditional socialism, communism, no matter what the system is. Here we are not talking about taxes or what you do with taxes; we are talking about how you make the money and wealth that is taxed in the first place. You have to create wealth before you can redistribute it. The gozindas have to exceed the gozoutas or nothing works in any system.

Question: Which economic method or principle, either type of socialism, communism or capitalism, is the best approach to making and selling products and services for more than they cost? Answer: Capitalism. Absolutely no question. Remember, democratic socialism is successful capitalism, capitalism with profits, with heavy income redistribution. Without profit there is nothing to tax,

Summary

Life is indeed hard, and it is correctly designed to be that way. As soon as we get that, life becomes dramatically more manageable. And we then have a chance to lead our best lives.

Those who cry foul, teaching all who will listen that if life is hard that means that something must be unfair, are doing all of us and our society a huge disservice.

For the next 10 minutes, we will unpack why life being hard is exactly the way it should be.

Transcript

Life is indeed hard, and it is correctly designed to be that way. As soon as we get that, life becomes dramatically more manageable. And we then have a chance to lead our best lives.

Those who cry foul, teaching all who will listen that if life is hard that means that something must be unfair, are doing all of us and our society a huge disservice.

For the next 10 minutes, we will unpack why life being hard is exactly the way it should be.

Let’s start with an observation: We all learn more from the hard times than we do from the easy times. I don’t know anyone for whom that is not true. Do you? And with that hard times learning, we can grow and strengthen ourselves to lead stronger, happier and better lives. Yes, I did say “happier.” There is no conflict between hard and happy, is there?

We all know that to make a muscle stronger, we must work it, and the harder we work it, the stronger it becomes. Our minds are like muscles; we much work them to make them stronger, and the harder we work them, the stronger they become.

It is only when we push ourselves, mentally and/or physically, that we improve, get stronger, and further prepare ourselves for leading our best lives. The corollary is also true: When we don’t challenge ourselves, nothing gets better. If fact, things get worse. These physical and mental muscles will atrophy. And we get a touch lazy in the process.

Life is bad enough when we don’t challenge ourselves, when we don’t take responsibility for getting through the hard times. We are hurting ourselves and those around us, but that is all. It is far worse when powerful voices in leadership tell us that if things are hard, that not only is it proof that things are unfair, but that someone else is responsible for getting us through the hard bits. Why is it their responsibility? Because they are the ones who made it hard for us in the first place. That’s the reason that identity politics were dreamed up and are so often in the news. The idea is to relieve certain groups, those victimized by other groups, of responsibility while placing the blame and the responsibility on other groups. This is called intersectionality. I call it identity group wars.

Remember the part about how we learn much more from our hard times than we do from the easy ones? The only thing that we can learn from someone else easing our hard times by being forced to provide money, housing or more, is that voting for things is a lot easier than working for them. But if we do that, we have been robbed of the learning, the joy, of having done it for ourselves. And we have also been robbed of the perhaps even deeper learning that comes from having tried and failed. Success comes more from previous failures than from previous successes.

Imagine that we, you and I, are at an important high school football game, where we are closely connected to one team, and are rooting loudly for them. Mid-way through the third quarter, our star running back is brought down by and very hard hit from a much bigger opposing player, and is knocked out of the game. It was a clean tackle, and he will be back for the next game, but he is out for the rest of today. Now imagine that the refs stop the game, announcing that is was unfair that our player was put of the game by a much bigger player. Because of that unfairness,

Summary

The term “celebrity opinions” is neither an oxymoron, nor is it a signal that we are about to hear the truth. “Expert opinion” is different. A celebrity is clearly qualified to give an expert opinion in their sport or art, but that’s it. Kanye West and Robert De Niro can give a legitimate expert opinion on rap or acting, respectively, but their opinions on finance or politics, are about as valuable, as, well, my opinions on rap and acting.

For the next 10 minutes, we will unpack the difference between opinions from experts, and opinions from non-experts who have all the credibility on the subject matter at hand as, well, the guy in front of you in the line for coffee or movie tickets. (And I have not forgotten about Liam Neeson.)

Transcript

The term “celebrity opinions” is neither an oxymoron, nor is it a signal that we are about to hear the truth. “Expert opinion” is different. A celebrity is clearly qualified to give an expert opinion in their sport or art, but that’s it. Kanye West and Robert De Niro can give a legitimate expert opinion on rap or acting, respectively, but their opinions on finance or politics, are about as valuable, as, well, my opinions on rap and acting.

For the next 10 minutes, we will unpack the difference between opinions from experts, and opinions from non-experts who have all the same credibility on the subject matter at hand as, well, the guy in front of you in the line for coffee or movie tickets. (And I have not forgotten about Liam Neeson.)

Even celebrities like the Kardashians are experts in their field, this “field” being getting rich over being famous for being famous. Like Zsa Zsa Gabor before them, that’s what they do. And elements of our society have rewarded them handsomely them for it.  

Why is it that we not only listen to celebrities when they hold forth on topics like politics and economics, but we take what they have to say to heart? I want to hear what a starting running back in the NFL has to say about the sport in general, and specific topics like the need to set up the running game to bolster the passing game. I enjoy listening to experts, and I could very easily learn something. I am happy to listen to him talk about politics, but I would give his thoughts on that subject about the same weight as he would my comments about how best to plan and execute a winning NFL running game. Politics is not his expertise, and football is not mine. We should both listen to each other as individual non-experts, entitled to our opinions. But no more. Yes, we can each hope to be heard as we recite our own story, our personal view of the subjects, but as legitimate as those stories are, they are just that: one person’s story. These stories are highly anecdotal, with no statistical significance at all, and no expertise being used to advance the thinking on the matter at hand. All of that seems obvious.

So why do we do listen to celebrities when they are talking outside of their expertise?? Do we believe that actors who play successful politicians in a movie actually have political expertise? Did we believe that when Robert Redford played in “The Natural”, that he had could have been a superstar baseball player? Do we believe that a singer who has a hit song about how things should be, actually knows about how to change the world along the lines of the way things should be? I don’t think any of these things are true. Do you?

Today’s Key Point: With the decline of critical thinking, both in education and in the public debate, we no longer have that critical thinking as a standard by which to filter and judge the validity and worth of what we are seeing and hearing. This leaves a gap, and we have substituted popularity and notoriety in its place. We have traded critical thinking for having our opinions given to us by “celebrities.

Summary

Have you heard about the man from India who plans to sue his parents for being born without his permission? The remedy he seeks is lifetime financial support. Everyone sees this man, Raphael Samuel, as somewhere between being the most entitled person on earth, or simply a lunatic. Perhaps both.

We’ll look at Mr. Samuels’ demands of his parents, and compare them with the Green New Deal’s demands of American taxpayers.

The Green New Deal, among other things, requires:

“4.15 providing all of the people of the United States with--

(i) high-quality health care;

(ii) affordable, safe and adequate housing;

(iii) economic security; and

(iv) access to clear water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature.”

Pause for clarification:  Robert Hockett, Cornell law professor and adviser to Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, has admitted, after several previous denials, that an official "Green New Deal" document posted by Ocasio-Cortez's office contained a guarantee of economic security even for those "unwilling to work"

Turns out that Mr. Samuels is too modest in his demands of his parents. Perhaps he should amend his parental lawsuit, substituting the Green New Deal language. It would get even better for Mr. Samuels when you look at the dozens of other requirements in the Resolution--as we will in this podcast.

This Resolution, a “10-year national mobilization”

is backed by many leading names in the Democratic party, including currently leading candidates for the Democratic nomination, with Rep Ocasio-Cortez, D-NYC, Sen Ed. Markey, D-NY, Sen Elizabeth Warren, D-NY, Sen Kamala Harris, D-CA, Kirsten Gillibrand, D-NY and Sen Cory Booker, D-NJ.

For the next 10 minutes, we will unpack what this kind of thinking, this type of plan for our nation, would mean to us, our communities and America.

Transcript

Have you heard about the man from India who plans to sue his parents for being born without his permission? The remedy he seeks is lifetime financial support. Everyone sees this man, Raphael Samuel, as somewhere between being the most entitled person on earth, or simply a lunatic. Perhaps both.

We’ll look at Mr. Samuels’ demands of his parents, and compare them with the Green New Deal’s demands of American taxpayers.

The Green New Deal, among other things, requires:

“4.15 providing all of the people of the United States with--

(i) high-quality health care;

(ii) affordable, safe and adequate housing;

(iii) economic security; and

(iv) access to clear water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature.”

Pause for clarification:  Robert Hockett, Cornell law professor and adviser to Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, has admitted, after several previous denials, that an official "Green New Deal" document posted by Ocasio-Cortez's office contained a guarantee of economic security even for those "unwilling to work"

Turns out that Mr. Samuels is too modest in his demands of his parents. Perhaps he should amend his parental lawsuit, substituting the Green New Deal language. It would get even better for Mr. Samuels when you look at the dozens of other requirements in the Resolution--as we will in this podcast.

This Resolution, a “10-year national mobilization”

is backed by many leading names in the Democratic party, with currently leading candidates for the Democratic nomination, including Rep Ocasio-Cortez, D-NY, Sen Ed. Markey, D-NY, Sen Elizabeth Warren, D-NY, Sen Kamala Harris, D-CA, Kirsten Gillibrand, D-NY and Sen Cory Booker, D-NJ.

For the next 10 minutes, we will unpack what this kind of thinking, this type of plan for our nation, would mean to us,

Summary

Ralph Northam, Governor of Virginia, should resign. But not for the reasons that most people are citing--the outrageous photo on his medical school yearbook page showing youths, one in blackface and the other in full KKK garb. He originally admitted to having been one of the men, and later simply denied it. He is clearly backpedaling, and not telling the truth. Perhaps to soften the lie, he then admitted to having appeared in blackface at least once when impersonating Michael Jackson. Once again, it is not the original action that brings people down; it is the coverup. (See Watergate.)

People who make mistakes, repent and learn from them can be valuable teachers and leaders. Northam has demonstrated neither repentance nor learning. He is simply stonewalling, hoping that the news cycle will forget about him, and that he will not have to resign. And he is the same man who accused his 2017 gubernatorial election opponent of racism multiple times during the campaign.  That is why he should resign.

For the next 10 minutes, we will unpack what it means to have made a mistake, repented and learned from it, as opposed to having make the same mistake with no repentance, no shame and no learning.

Transcript

Ralph Northam, Governor of Virginia, should resign. But not for the reasons that most people are citing--the outrageous photo on his medical school yearbook page showing youths, one in blackface and the other in full KKK garb. He originally admitted to having been one of the men, and later simply denied it. He is clearly backpedaling, and not telling the truth. Perhaps to soften the lie, he then admitted to having appeared in blackface at least once when impersonating Michael Jackson. Once again, it is not the original action that brings people down; it is the coverup. (See Watergate.)

People who make mistakes, repent and learn from them can be valuable teachers and leaders. Northam has demonstrated neither repentance nor learning. He is simply stonewalling, hoping that the news cycle will forget about him, and that he will not have to resign. And he is the same man who accused his 2017 gubernatorial election opponent of racism multiple times during the campaign.  That is why he should resign.

For the next 10 minutes, we will unpack what it means to have made a mistake, repented and learned from it, as opposed to having make the same mistake with no repentance, no shame and no learning.

Today’s Key Point, part 1: Today’s PC culture, PCism, of self-righteous intimidation is doing major damage. PCism should not be dismissed humorously, or even bitterly, as merely a language nuisance. PSism is aimed at limiting and directing our thoughts and speech.

Similar to Strother Martin’s role in Cool Hand Luke, a movie where Martin works constantly to get a prisoner, Paul Newman’s “mind right.” Martin is the Captain of the guards in this Southern chain gang prison. Newman, Luke, is a prisoner. Martin uses his power as the Captain on Luke throughout the movie through intimidation, beatings and worse, to change how Luke thinks. Captain, “You’re gonna get your mind right. And I mean right.” It is important to note here that Luke was not a problem prisoner--at least in the way that most of us would define the term problem prisoner. He was quietly irreverent; he did not suck up to barracks and chain gang guards in the obsequious way that most prisoners did. That’s enough for the power structure to need to come down hard on Luke. Very hard. And all for easily overlooked slights. The specific slights were not the issue; the prison authorities saw that Luke’s mind was running on a track different track than what they wanted. And they saw that thought difference as dangerous. Luke was different. All the lumps in the mashed potatoes had to be beaten out. That’s exactly what PCism is all about.

Summary

The Declaration of Independence in 1776 (Revolution 1.0) was the Founders’ Love Letter to America. Revolution 2.0™ is mine.

Dr. Martin Luther King called the Declaration’s breakthrough vision for a new nation “a promissory note”. I have called that vision a “statement of direction.” Whatever the descriptor, let these words sink in: “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.”

I am in love with that vision, with the people who risked everything to give that vision life, with the people who have not only kept it alive for us, but have delivered on its promise the past 2 ½ centuries, and with you, my brothers and sisters. We are the inheritors of both this breakthrough vision and the responsibility for continuing to deliver on the promissory note, to continue to more forward with the Declaration’s statement of direction, to fulfill the promissory note.

I categorically reject, based on facts we will discuss together, the idea that our country, America, is anything less than the deliverer of that unique, powerful and overwhelming loving vision; it delivered that vision to itself and to the world. For the next 10 minutes, we will unpack what I mean when I write that Revolution 2.0™ is, “A Booster Shot”, and why Revolution 2.0 is, at its core, a Love Letter to America.

Transcript

The Declaration of Independence in 1776 (Revolution 1.0) was the Founders’ Love Letter to America. Revolution 2.0™ is mine.

Dr. Martin Luther King called the Declaration’s breakthrough vision for a new nation “a promissory note”. I have called that vision a “statement of direction.” Whatever the descriptor, let these words sink in: “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.”

I am in love with that vision, with the people who risked everything to give that vision life, with the people who have not only kept it alive for us, but have delivered on its promise the past 2 ½ centuries, and with you, my brothers and sisters. We are the inheritors of both this breakthrough vision and the responsibility for continuing to deliver on the promissory note, to continue to more forward with the Declaration’s statement of direction, to fulfill the promissory note.

I categorically reject, based on facts we will discuss together, the idea that our country, America, is anything less than the deliverer of that unique, powerful and overwhelming loving vision; it delivered that vision to itself and to the world. For the next 10 minutes, we will unpack what I mean when I write that Revolution 2.0™ is, “A Booster Shot”, and why Revolution 2.0 is, at its core, a Love Letter to America.

We have forgotten how utterly revolutionary these principles were in 1776. Until the late 20th century, democracy alone was rare and generally short-lived.

The radical principles set forth in the Declaration were clearly a statement of direction, a promise made to America. There would never have been an America in the first place if the Founders had insisted on full acceptance of these principles from the beginning. With numerous ups and downs, deep embarrassments and moments of intense pride, and at great cost to our country in terms of time, treasure and blood, we have steadily advanced that fantastic, dangerous, breakthrough vision for ourselves and much of the world. Along the way, and by no coincidence, these principles created what is today the world’s most diverse nation, and the strongest and most financially successful one the world has ever seen.

Summary

We are being told by a growing crowd that health care and housing are human rights. “Human rights” being another way of saying “should be provided by taxpayers.” Given that in most cases people can live longer without healthcare and housing than food, the next thing we hear will be that food is a human right. And not long after that, clothing. And isn’t some sort of entertainment necessary for good mental health? When the necessities of life are all seen as human rights, who will work--and why?

For the next 10 minutes, we will unpack what that means for all of us and our futures as individuals and as a Republic.

Transcript

We are being told by a growing crowd that health care and housing are human rights. “Human rights” being another way of saying “should be provided by taxpayers.” Given that in most cases people can live longer without healthcare and housing than without food, the next thing we hear will be that food is a human right. And not long after that, clothing. And isn’t some sort of entertainment necessary for good mental health? When the necessities of life are all seen as human rights, who will work--and why?

For the next 10 minutes, we will unpack what this means for all of us and our futures as individuals and as a Republic.

Today’s Key Point: Housing, healthcare, food, shelter and clothing, among other things, are not human rights to be guaranteed to everyone. Our communities, our nation, should--must--provide reasonable access to all the necessities of life to everyone. At its core, reasonable access means that anyone who works hard over time should have access to all of these products and services for themselves and for all of those for whom they are responsible. If someone can’t do for themselves, then the necessities should be provided. If someone won’t do for themselves, they properly and by their own choice are on their own.

We make huge progress by merely bringing up the can’t vs won’t  choice. The many and growing taxpayer-funded programs all ignore this question, and focus only on perceived need.  All regardless of whether that need was generated by an honest inability, after working hard over time, to provide for themselves, or if the need was generated from something less than that level of effort. Or from something that did not look like at all like an honest, hard-fought desire to make it on their own.

Life is hard, and it is correctly meant to be that way. Don’t we all learn far more from the hard times that we work through, than the easy times? Of course we do. And I am exactly the same way. The good news is that while life is hard, once we understand that, the truth of the statement that life is hard, life gets a lot easier. Once the expectation has been set and understood, it’s not so bad. In fact it’s pretty good.

Pause for a definition. By “hard”, I do not mean going to work, picking the kids up from school and doing the dishes. That may be boring and repetitive, and, perhaps, not what you’d like to do with each and every day, but it is not hard. Hard is working while putting yourself through undergraduate and graduate school. Signing for student loans is not hard. Hard is going to night school while working in a dead end job. Seeking taxpayer support because your job is being threatened by technology is not hard. You get the idea.

Does this sound hard-hearted to you? It doesn’t to me. At all. It does not even sound like “tough love” to me. It is a necessary observation about how the world, with us in it, is correctly designed to allow us, you and me, to take advantage of the hard parts in our lives by learning from those experiences. And by learning to be tough enough to keep on keeping on. In exactly the same way that your body repairs or replaces damaged muscle fibers after a workout, making you stronger. No workout,