Categories
Alberta Politics Big Government Bureaucracy Canadian Politics Gay Rights Politics Public Education Religion Self reliance Social Issues Socialism The left Uncategorized US Politics

Response to Randall

Dave 07Over the past few weeks I’ve published one blog entitled:Who is Subsidizing Whom?, and another entitled Stop Subsidizing Public Schools! Unsurprisingly, I got some feedback, both positive and negative.

One source of negative feedback was Randall. Full disclosure; Randall is my cousin and our worldviews are different, so we spar from the perspectives of Socialism and Atheism, versus Conservatism and Christianity. I hope someday that we can engage in the conversation face-to-face, over a very long lunch.

What I’ve done here is copied Randall’s comments, and then responded to them. Unavoidably, this blog is much longer than usual.

Randall. One system with different schools to fit parent’s interests is a bit contradictory. It would be interesting to see how that would work in rural areas, never mind urban areas!

Dave. How is it contradictory? It’s simply a pooling of school funding through equal taxation levels, and then having equal funding follow each student to the school of their and their parent’s choice.

It’s exactly the same idea as having a publicly funded healthcare system, but with the customer choosing which doctor, hospital or clinic to patronize. What’s unique to both in the Canadian context, is that the student or patient is actually regarded as a customer, rather than an expense; a customer for which the provider must compete with other providers, which forces a focus on excellence in the service provided.

Randall. The worldview that matters is pretty basic: communication, facts, skills and nurturing self actualization with the ability to think independently and objectively. Personal interests, especially religious, must be a private matter.

Dave. Randall, you reveal your bias, and unfortunately, a tint of totalitarianism. Of course we have a Prime Minister who is an open admirer of totalitarians, so maybe that’s the direction we’re heading. And please explain: “nurturing self actualization”??

But it seems to me that you’re basically saying that the worldview that matters, is your worldview. On the other hand, I am not saying that the worldview that must prevail is my worldview. I’m simply calling for freedom of speech, of assembly, freedom of, or from religion, etc., for both you, and me.

I’m saying that if parents wish to send their children to a school that teaches essential subjects from the perspective of their worldview, then that’s their inalienable right. Those rights are not conferred by the government; in fact, it is a government’s essential responsibility to protect those rights.

That is affirmed by The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights; Article 26: subsection 3, as well as numerous other International, Canadian, and Alberta declarations and laws. So, what Alberta’s NDP government is trying to do is fundamentally contrary to Alberta, Canadian, and International Law. And, also by the way, also contrary to common sense and decency.

Or, do you actually believe that preteens should have access, through a Department of Education approved website, to instructional videos on oral sex, to pick one of the least offensive examples?

And do you believe that parents should be excluded from knowing when their kids are experiencing gender confusion, or which government approved organizations their children have joined? Again, that’s contrary to the law, and contrary to simple common sense.

Because, how about school marks? If the teacher knows that a student’s parents are really strict about their kids doing well in school, what happens if one of their kids gets an F? The child might be terrified of facing his or her parents, so should they be “outed” to their parents for their bad mark, or should their parents be kept in the dark?

It’s a scientific fact that the many children go through gender dysphoria during grade school years, and even into junior high, but in the vast majority of cases, with their parents love and involvement, they grow out of it. Of course, there are a very small percentage of parents that are abusive, but the law already makes provision for dealing with that.

The Alberta government’s position seems to be that a child’s gender confusion should be affirmed, and even encouraged by the school, but concealed from the parents. Can you defend this?

Randall. Perhaps if churches and ministers paid taxes the government would be able to afford to do a better job.

Dave. I agree that churches and pastors should be held to a very strict standard when it comes to their tax exemptions. But it is a fact that many churches perform invaluable community service in helping people through financial difficulties, addictions, marriage problems, and even in dying. And in most cases, they do a far better job than government funded services, and at no cost to the taxpayer.

Randall. Atheists, at this point, do not need to organize. We live in a democracy (as flawed as it is) and paying our taxes we pay for all the programs government provides (and the subsidies as well…).

Dave. At this point?? Considering the record of the numerous officially Atheistic regimes in the 20th century, that sounds ominous.

Anyway, here’s where our differing worldviews come into stark relief. Socialist/Leftists/ Progressivists (SLP) believe in the all-knowing, all-providing, all-powerful state. Conservatives don’t.

Because conservatives like me have spent the last 60 years observing the SLP worldview being practiced; in National Socialist (Nazi) Germany, in the Soviet Union, in Communist China, currently in increasingly dystopian Venezuela, and on and on.

I personally lived under the disastrous economic policies of socialism in Saskatchewan, although I hasten to add that it was infinitely more benign than the socialist regimes I’ve mentioned. More on that below.

Randall. There is only so much cash to go around. Even wealthy Alberta cannot afford to have special interest schools for every nuance of personal opinion. One public school system for all. Special interests are a private matter. No public money should go to any private school, ever. One “free” private system!!!

Dave. As I proved in my blog, patrons of alternate schools in Alberta currently subsidize the public (Secularist) system to the tune of 30% of their education tax dollars. In provinces like Ontario, it’s 100%. On top of that, alternate schools raise their own capital funding! The Secularist public system benefits by millions from the existence of alternate schools. I know you weren’t a math teacher, but……

Anyway, why are you so against allowing parents to teach their children, within a universally funded education system, an alternate perspective to yours?

Randall. And in your tirade using emotionally charged words like “Nazi” about repeated lies becoming accepted, you forgot to mention Donald Trump. You should be more current…

Dave. Randall, this is my favourite. I knew some people would be offended by my use of the word Nazi. Do you remember BushHitlerBush-Hitler?

HarperNaziAnd Harper-Nazi? And just last week, an SLP activist tweeted that Alberta parents that expressed opposition to the NDP’s gender fluidity promoting agenda, were: “Cultural Marxists.”

Now if you assume that most Albertans are quite brainless, you could also reasonably assume that that would be an effective slur. But most Albertans are not brainless, and the poor lady simply revealed herself to be short of an argument.

As you know, I’m no big fan of Donald Trump. But Donald Trump’s lies tend to towards hyperbole, and in some cases are proven to be correct – think of Sweden’s real problem with radical Islamists; whereas the Left’s lies are often a transparent use of Nazi style, “repeat the lie” propaganda, in order to have the lie become fact, and to intimidate those with alternate perspectives.

Anyway, as unappetizing as Trump may be to many, he was hired to drain the swamp, and it’s a reasonable assumption that swamp drainers are not necessarily genteel gentlemen.

One more point about the Nazis. For decades, the left has characterized Nazism / Fascism as being right wing. That is pure, and so far successful, propaganda. Because in fact, the National Socialist party – commonly referred to under Hitler as the Nazis – was socialist in that Hitler saw both individuals and industry as having a prior responsibility to the objectives of the state.

And in that view he was aligned with Joseph Stalin, Chairman Mao, Fidel Castro, and more recently, the Hugo Chavez revolution in Venezuela, which has managed to destroy that country in two decades. Its citizens are fleeing to Columbia by the hundreds.

So I’d suggest to conservative readers that we always refer to Nazism as a left wing phenomenon.

21st century SLPs are anti-free speech – routinely shutting down speakers, particularly at universities. They’re anti-freedom of assembly, witness some of Canada’s law societies’ outrageous attempt to prevent a law school being established at Trinity Western University; they’re anti-freedom of religion, and so on.

And they don’t want to discuss it! It’s been my observation that the only people that want no argument are the people that have no argument.

The faces of the Western left used to be those of Tommy Douglas, Alan Blakely, Roy Romanow, Hubert Humphrey, and Golda Meier; reasonable and honorable people all.

SLP faces are now those of Naomi Klein, Rachel Maddow, Jeremy Corbin, the radical management and faculty of far too many universities, and of course, the hopelessly myopic Bernie Sanders, who, having honeymooned in the Soviet Union, still came back a proud socialist. How was that even possible?

Unfortunately, the SLPs current face includes that of Rachel Notley, a woman who I had always believed to be simply a decent person with whom I disagreed. Considering her regime’s actions and attitude, I’m re-considering.

Western civilization is in a very dangerous period for the very simple reason, that those in control of many governments, most bureaucracies, and the media and entertainment industries, are focused on its destruction; in part because Western civilization is anchored by a Judaeo – Christian worldview, which they hate.

Decades ago, English journalist Malcolm Muggeridge presciently wrote the following:Muggeridge “So the final conclusion would surely be that whereas other civilizations have been brought down by attacks of barbarians from without, ours had the unique distinction of training its own destroyers at its own educational institutions, and then providing them with facilities for propagating their destructive ideology far and wide, all at the public expense.

Thus did Western Man decide to abolish himself, creating his own boredom out of his own affluence, his own vulnerability out of his own strength, his own impotence out of his own erotomania, himself blowing the trumpet that brought the walls of his own city tumbling down, and having convinced himself that he was too numerous, labored with pill and scalpel and syringe to make himself fewer.

Until at last, having educated himself into imbecility, and polluted and drugged himself into stupefaction, he keeled over–a weary, battered old brontosaurus–and became extinct.”

Randall, I don’t believe we’ve yet keeled over, but we’re on our knees.

Best regards

Dave

Categories
Big Government Bureaucracy Canadian Politics Conservatarians Politics Self reliance The left Uncategorized US Politics

In the First Place

Dave 07Last week I blogged about the differences, as I see them, between left and right. The next day I received my copy of Imprimis, a monthly publication of Hillsdale College. It features an article by the college President, Dr. Larry P Arnn, entitled: A More American Conservatism. This week I was going to publish some back-and-forth online conversations that I’ve had with friends from the left but instead I’m going to encourage you to read Dr. Arnn’s article. Because whatever your nationality, or political persuasion, it deserves at least one read-through.

Dr. Arnn observes that: “Things in the past are like things in the present; they must be judged.” In other words, just because it worked in the old days does not necessarily mean it still works. Think about that, conservatives.

But he goes on to say that we know that: “things that have a good reputation for a long time are more trustworthy than new things.” In other words, just because it’s labelled “progressive” doesn’t guarantee its value. Such arguments are neither left, nor right.

Dr Larry Arnn.jpgHe says: “Laws are made now chiefly by regulatory agencies which combine, in themselves, all three powers of government.” He means that the bureaucracy now behaves as if it has the power of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, all put together. His point is beyond dispute.

And this: “Every employer, every school, many clubs, and family life itself are now the subject of rules too complex for the layperson to grasp.” That’s also beyond dispute and is the reason that ordinary people, left and right, throughout Western democracies, feel they have very little say in their own governance.

Dr. Arnn’s personal style couldn’t be farther from that of Donald Trump, yet he is hopeful about the new US administration. Because, as he points out: “Trump ran in utter defiance of the (debate stifling) political correctness that enforces this new system of government.” Bracketed words mine. Any person who believes that open debate helps lead us to the best ideas must find that hopeful!

All in all, this is an exceptional article, and I would recommend it to everyone interested in thoughtful public discourse. And I urge you to subscribe to this publication, called Imprimis. It means: In the first place, which is always the logical place to start.

Best to each of you!

Dave

P.S. I think quite a few of you know that Danny Hozack has been a force in thoughtful conservatism for a long time. For the past several years he’s organized an annual conference called Essentials of Freedom, which alternates between Calgary and Edmonton. This year it’s in Calgary.

Be sure to mark Friday, March 17 and Saturday, March 18 on your calendar. And think about bringing your children, and grandchildren. More information next week.

Categories
Big Government Self reliance Social Issues The left Uncategorized

Left – Right – Left – Right

Dave 07When discussing politics we often frame the conversation in terms of left and right, progressive and conservative, socialist and capitalist. What do we mean by those terms? It’s important, because unless we more or less agree on the definition of something, there’s no way we can have a meaningful conversation.

A friend told me that Karl Marx created the word “socialism” to describe just one of the stages of communism. He insists that at present there are no socialist, and certainly no communist governments in Canada, the United States, or Europe; only Social Democrat governments that do not attempt to own the means of production, but try to direct the economy through regulation and taxation. If Alberta’s NDP is Social Democratic, they sure do!

Socialist governments, on the other hand, actually nationalize industries, and then, in theory at least, distribute the resulting wealth equitably to all the citizens. The economic chaos in Venezuela illustrates  just how well that works. As Hungarian economist Janos Kornai observed; shortages are the chronic problem with socialism.

Communists just take over and imprison or liquidate anyone who objects, including 70 million or so in the last century.

Communism, Socialism, and Social Democracies are all parts of “The Left.” And by the way, so were the Nazis. The word, Nazi, comes from National Socialist, and the Nazis actively coerced businesses, and citizens, into supporting the objectives of the state.

Conservatives in all their iterations are referred to as “The Right.” Conservatives believe that individuals have the first responsibility, and the right, to decide how to look after themselves, their families, the less fortunate, and their own interests. They also believe in sensibly regulated capitalism, and free enterprise.

True conservatives are in agreement with the left in their opposition to crony capitalism, and corporate welfare.

On social issues, Leftists believe that government appointed “experts” must be allowed to intervene to help citizens run their lives. In practice, it leads to the slavery of dependency, and it distracts governments from doing well, those things which only governments can, and must do.

The left seems to believe that an economy is a zero-sum game. If someone gains, someone else must lose. But in the past 30 years, capitalism and cheap energy from fossil fuels have added so much new wealth to developing countries that extreme poverty has dropped from 35% to under 10%. That sounds like a win win to me.

On the social side, most conservatives do not nonchalantly abandon long-established customs, unless those customs interfere with another persons human rights. We are certainly born with a predetermined colour, sex, etc., but how we live out that reality is based on our choices. It requires a remarkable level of hubris to demand that our choices should override another persons fundamental rights and freedoms; property rights, assembly, speech, and religion.

Left and Right have fundamentally different and opposing world views. The right believes that the individual, family and community are preeminent; the left believes that a citizens first allegiance is to the the state. When we talk to each other, we need to remember that difference.

Being of the Right, I would tend to agree with Winston Churchill who famously suggested that Christopher Columbus was probably the first socialist. “He left not knowing where he was going; didn’t know where he was when he arrived; and he did it all on borrowed money.”

Next week, Red vs. Redneck; an online debate.

Like and Share us on Facebook, and Follow us on Twitter. And JOIN US, and become a member of the Let’s Do It Ourselves community. If you believe, as I do, that the common sense conservative message is often poorly communicated, especially to our children and grandchildren, then let’s do it better.

We want to encapsulate basic conservative ideas in short, and relevant videos, and deliver them on social media. As you can imagine, that requires money; not much, but a little. Here’s the link to a video we produced just to give you an idea of what I mean.

Thank you!

Dave Reesor

Categories
Politics Uncategorized US Politics

No true conservative could vote for Donald Trump

Dave 07

Donald Trump is no conservative and never has been. In addition to his myriad other non-conservative views and actions in the past, Trump has flat out said: “I love EMINENT DOMAIN!”

 Now, the legal definition of eminent domain is a (government’s) power to take private property for public use by a state, municipality, or private person or corporation authorized to exercise functions of public character.

 Expropriation of land through the application of eminent domain has always been understood to apply to major projects such as railways, major roads, public facilities etc. that will benefit a wide spectrum of the public.

 But Trump loves eminent domain because he can use it to force private individuals to sell him property on which to develop his casinos and golf courses. In other words, Donald Trump loves that the government will help him run over fellow citizen’s property rights so he can expand his entertainment empire. 

Trump Casino
Trump Casino

 That is the very antithesis of conservatism. NO TRUE CONSERVATIVE CAN SUPPORT THIS.

 If you want more detail, here’s a start. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/265171/donald-trump-and-eminent-domain-robert-verbruggen

 Another hallmark of common-sense conservatism is being practical, and realistic. Trump’s stated goal, to round up 11 million illegal immigrants and their American-born children is pure fantasy. Logistically, legally, and practically, it cannot be done.

 Sure, they’re illegals, but don’t give me the crap that simply because they entered the United States illegally, they are therefore, serious lawbreakers.  Anybody out there ever slow down in an area where you know that photo radar is common, and then exceed the speed limit in areas where you’ve never see a cop? Laws that are unenforced are obviously not very important, and people act accordingly.

 National borders should be secured, and American administrations and congresses to date have completely failed to do their job. If securing the US borders is important, then vote for politicians that believe it’s important, but that also have a practical solution.

 And once the borders are secure, there must be a way for hard-working, law-abiding, immigrants to achieve legal status, maybe by five years of law-abiding, and hard work.

 And finally, send a message to the small percentage who do commit serious crimes, (and to dopey municipal governments like San Francisco’s), by imprisoning them, and then, without fail, shipping them back to their country of origin with the guarantee of a massive prison sentence if they return.

That’s probably only a few hundred thousand people, and deporting that many may actually be doable. In fact, many might even self deport if the penalties for illegals breaking the law are stiff enough.

 Donald Trump is a windbag, albeit one who has performed a valuable service for America by putting serious issues on the table, however clumsy, obnoxious, and completely unrealistic his solutions are.

Trump waves goodbyBut this November’s election is critical, and it’s time for The Donald to fade from the political landscape, and for Americans to focus, not just on issues, but on realistic solutions to those issues.

 Trump’s “Unfavorable” ratings in national polls suggest that in the general election, he would lose. But the alternative being Clinton or Sanders, Republicans would be forced to get out and vote Trump, to at least try and stop an ever more damaging experiment with “Progressivism”.

 True conservatives will never put themselves in that position.

 Anyway, that’s the view from across the Northern Fence.

I’m Dave Reesor, in Calgary Alberta.

 

 

 

Categories
Big Government Bureaucracy Canadian Politics The left

Totalitarian Bureaucrats are at it again!

Dave 07In a country like Canada that not only was founded on the principles of freedom, but whose young men and women fought and shed blood to defend those principles, it is almost inconceivable that 21st century totalitarians feel they have the right to stifle freedom of speech and assembly.

It doesn’t matter if you’re a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist, or a Libertarian Atheist; if you believe in freedom of speech and assembly please take 15 minutes to watch these videos and support The Rebel Media™ and The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedom  http://jccf.ca as they take action against the self-important bureaucrats at Toronto City Hall. http://www.therebel.media/antichristian

The JCCF has done excellent work across Canada in support of freedom of speech and assembly.  And I’m extremely impressed with the strides that The Rebel Media™ is making towards becoming a professional and balanced Internet Television provider. It is in every Canadian’s best interest to support these organizations.

And of course I’d encourage you to become a member of the Let’s Do It Ourselves http://www.ldio.org/join-ldio online community. Our mandate is to promote greater support for small C, common sense conservative organizations; to provide an online meeting place where our community can celebrate successful initiatives towards less intrusive government and more self-reliance; and to make use of modern technology to expose younger generations to the logic and benefits of small C conservatism.. But we cannot move forward without your help!

Fighting for Freedom has never been free, but for the most part, modern technology has made it a bargain!

Categories
Canadian Politics Social Issues

The Politics of the Niqab

Dave 07

It’s hard to believe that a head covering can become an issue in an election campaign, but the Niqab has managed to do it.

Newspapers carry a couple of articles each day, usually opposing the Conservatives in their opposition to wearing the Niqab during the Canadian citizenship ceremony, and it comes up in every party leader’s debate.

Earlier this week, Barbara Kay wrote an excellent National Post article on 10 reasons to ban the Niqab, and I agree with most of them. However I’d like to propose an overriding principle that suggests we should allow the Niqab, and that principle is tolerance.

I wrote a blog last Canada Day called: “Pursuing Tolerance, or why I believe in the Niqab. http://iwuz.me/2015/07/01/pursuing-tolerance-or-why-i-believe-in-the-niqab/ A few months of reflection has made me realize that the second phrase should have read: “or why I’m prepared to put up with the Niqab.” I am quite aware that that stance will still put me offside with the vast majority of Canadians, including a whole lot of Muslims. So be it.

Many people in our society understand tolerance to mean affirmation of an idea or practice, when in fact it simply means putting up with them. As a Canadian, I’m prepared to put up with, or tolerate, many ideas or practices that I find stupid, ill advised, indefensible, obnoxious, or even, intolerant. I view wearing the Niqab and Burqa to be all of the above.

And as such, I believe they are a valuable reminder to all Canadians of the inferiority of Muslim societies to Canadian society. That’s why most Muslims move here.

But that’s not the main reason I support allowing a woman to wear a face covering during the citizenship ceremony, provided, that she is identified, open face, by a court official prior to the ceremony, as is the current practice.

It’s because I too have some beliefs and associations that some would and do find obnoxious, and some actually find intolerable. Here’s just one illustration.

Most of our eight grandchildren have, at one time or another attended a Christian Charter school. I support that, and I also support public education dollars following the students to those schools.

Our children pay provincial education tax, exactly like the family next door. Yet some people – including some politicians – insist that our children must pay education taxes to support the public school system, plus pay the full cost of educating their own children. That’s discrimination built on a foundation of intolerance.

Christian schools approach education from a particular philosophical worldview, but then, all schools do. The schools our grandchildren attended are open to all students of any or no religion, and they adhere to the provincial curriculum. Studies also show that most faith based schools produce at least as well educated and socialized students as regular (secular) schools.

Unfortunately, there are many more glaring examples of intolerance in Canadian society. Think of Liberal leader Justin Trudeau’s barring – by fiat – all those who do not agree with his pro-abortion stance, from running as Liberal candidates. Canadian universities now routinely bar speakers whose views do not accord with the (usually) left-wing stance of the administration or the student council; and some Canadian law societies feel they have the right to dictate the social values of law schools.

I’m not prepared to spend moral capital by refusing to tolerate the Niqab when there are far more fundamental battles to be fought.

NiqabSo far in Canada, the Niqab has been little more than an eyesore. But I want to be perfectly clear, that the moment that a Niqab or Burqa is used as a disguise in the commission of a major violent crime, or a terrorist act, the game will have changed.

By having tolerated the Niqab for 30 seconds during a citizenship ceremony, Canadian society will have amassed the moral capital to ban it outright should it be found to present a danger to society.

And finally, we don’t need to provide the radical fringe with martyrs. Forcing a tiny minority of Muslim women who choose to wear a religiously unnecessary bag over their heads, to uncover, is a waste of our time.

Let’s tolerate them, but throw our open and strong support behind the vast majority of Muslims who are just patriotic Canadians.

Categories
Big Government Bureaucracy Conservatarians Politics Science Self reliance

To vaccinate, or not to vaccinate, that is the question….

July 30, 2015

Dave 07Flu season is coming up in a few months; governments are stockpiling vaccine, and many of us are deciding whether or not to get our flu shots.

Hamlet’s, “To be or not to be” is unquestionably a more portentous decision than whether or not to get a flu shot, but you wouldn’t always realize it judging from the ferociousness of the debate.

On one side are those who insist that vaccinations are useless and cause all manner of serious side effects; on the other side are those who believe that if your doctor, or better yet, the government, recommends vaccination, then it must be good. I’d like to suggest that both might be wrong, and right.

Let’s take the example of measles vaccinations. Data would seem to bear out that measles vaccinations over the decades have almost eradicated the disease, which is good. There may be cases where the measles vaccine causes problems – sometimes very serious – for some children, but on balance measles vaccinations have worked, and have clearly been a good thing.

On the other hand, studies show that while the flu vaccine may have some value for small segments of the population, on the whole it has a very limited effect. Every year, there are articles that bear this out.

Here’s how a Maclean’s article, April 9, 2014, starts out: “Tamiflu™ might be the most heavily scrutinized drug in the world and one that governments have poured some $9 billion globally to stockpile in case of a pandemic. However, authors of a new study, published in the British Medical Journal this week, suggest the influenza antiviral probably works no better than aspirin and possibly causes harm.” (Italics mine)

An Australian study found that researchers that were paid by pharmaceutical companies were more likely to recommend antiviral drugs for flu. Adam Dunn who was the lead author of one Australian study, and who is a health informatics expert at the University of New South Wales, said: “We found reviewers with ties to Pharma introduced bias, as we found a disconnect between what the results showed and what they went on to recommend.”

The study found that 80% of reviews written by researchers with financial ties to the drug companies were favourable towards the drugs, while 17% of independent reviews were positive.

So much for unbiased science!  Yet governments spend billions stockpiling flu vaccine and buying advertising advising you to get vaccinated, apparently for no better reason than tradition. A far better defence against the flu seems to be to eat healthy and keep your immune system strong.

Swine-Vaccination-WaitRay Moynihan, a senior research fellow at Bond University said: “It is clear we have likely been misled about the benefits and harms of these drugs because so much of the evidence is tainted by a pro-industry or pro-drug bias. What we have in medicine is unfortunately a lot of marketing disguised as science…”   (In another field, most of the climate change/global warming industry is driven by politics and ideology, disguised as science.)

As someone with a strong libertarian bias, I believe that the final decision of whether or not to vaccinate is up to the well informed individual, or the parents.

Scientists are humans, and almost every area of science is tainted by biases, so being well-informed is key. As you know, a number of us are working together on an online community called Let’s Do It Ourselves, or LDIO™. (Pronounced el-DEE-o)

Our purpose is twofold.

  1. To provide a community where individuals and organizations who believe in limited government can unite to push back against ballooning (and bungling) bureaucracies; and foster an ethos of self-reliance.
  2. To use social media as a tool to reach out to and inform those of all ages who rely on their smart device for information.

If you haven’t already done so, please join us. http://www.ldio.org/join-ldio/  By working together, our efforts become more cost effective. And by developing a well-informed citizenry, we can begin to see some much-needed cultural change.

Thanks for your support!

Dave Reesor