Surprise! Government Can’t Run a Business.


The Obamacare website is a piece of crap. It’s over 500 million lines of code and cost the US taxpayers roughly 600 million dollars so far. Who knows how much more it will cost to rewrite the estimated 20% which experts say needs to be rewritten from the ground up. What a joke!

Even if the website were flawless, Obamacare is still a horrible idea from an economic point of view. Anyone who knows anything about how the world works, understands that even a perfect website can’t save the people from the unavoidable consequences of this monstrously empirical piece of legislation. The fact that the website is such a mess certainly reenforces, in my mind, just how wasteful, and inept government is. I hope Obama is coming face to face with the reality that just because he says it should be so, doesn’t get the job done. With all his power and money, he can’t build a stinking website. Pathetic!

The marketplace is a living, breathing organism, the complexities of which cannot be matched by even the most consolidated power and central planning. The sooner we realize where prosperity comes from (freedom) the sooner we’ll be able to think clearly and critically of these well-to-do government programs that cannot help but reallocate scarce capital and resources away from the most critical needs of society. They can’t help it because they can’t possibly spend your money in a way that will meet your needs better than you. They can’t possibly utilize your property in a more frugal manor than you can. Government is waste. Government is force. Personal preference is negated in favor of the kings decree and every time the result will be the same. People’s needs increase and we’re told from on high that the solution is more government. Nothing could be further from the truth. Even Obama can’t escape the laws of economics. A 600 million dollar website that doesn’t work is just the beginning. They’re more than happy to spend our money till the cows come home to prove to us they are right. We must put a stop to it. They are people – human beings – who leach of the productive portion of society. There is not person alive who has a Right to do these things. It is immoral and should not be tolerated.

What is becoming clear to so many is that government is incapable of doing what the markets do everyday to produce the things we really need. The markets do everything faster, smoother, and at far less cost. No doubt, there are hundreds of web development companies across the US who could have built a working version of this site for less than 600 million dollars. Truth be told no person would likely have spent that much on a website unless they, like government, could simply take or make the money to throw at whatever coca-meme scheme they come up with. A real risk of failure stems off bad investment. Government feels no such risk, It will gladly spend a billion dollars of someone elses money on a sub par product. We’re the ones who take the hit.

It’s not that people in government are not as skilled or as hard working as people in the private sector, though that certainly could be the case as well, that makes the government incapable of running a business. It’s simply that a government in every way shape and form is counter to a free market. This for the simple fact that there is nothing of value that government produces by demand, and every single thing government hands out to one group or another, they had to first take from others.


But who will build the websites?


Mention the possibility of doing away with government and the cries go out — but who will build the roads? My reply from now on will be, “Have you seen them try and build a website?”

healthcaregovObama’s site is approaching 600 Million dollars and it still doesn’t work. If there was any doubt that government is inefficient, there can be no denying it now.

Digital Trends has a great article entitled “We paid over $500 million for the Obamacare sites and all we got was this lousy 404” which  hightlights what a mess the Obamcare website has been. Here are some excerpts…

“It’s been one full week since the flagship technology portion of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) went live. And since that time, the befuddled beast that is has shutdown, crapped out, stalled, and mis-loaded so consistently that its track record for failure is challenged only by Congress.”

“The reason for this nationwide headache apparently stems from poorly written code, which buckled under the heavy influx of traffic that its engineers and administrators should have seen coming. But the fact that can’t do the one job it was built to do isn’t the most infuriating part of this debacle – it’s that we, the taxpayers, seem to have forked up more than $500 million of the federal purse to build the digital equivalent of a rock.”

“Given the complicated nature of federal contracts, it’s difficult to make a direct comparison between the cost to develop and the amount of money spent building private online businesses. But for the sake of putting the monstrous amount of money into perspective, here are a few figures to chew on: Facebook, which received its first investment in June 2004, operated for a full six years before surpassing the $500 million mark in June 2010. Twitter, created in 2006, managed to get by with only $360.17 million in total funding until a $400 million boost in 2011. Instagram ginned up just $57.5 million in funding before Facebook bought it for (a staggering) $1 billion last year. And LinkedIn and Spotify, meanwhile, have only raised, respectively, $200 million and $288 million.”

Read the full article here.

With insight like that, maybe it’s time we take another look at who should build the roads.

Lincoln-Highway-United-States-Map-1[1]Lincoln Highway was initiated in 1912. Carl Fisher, father of the Indianapolis 500, envisioned a well-paved, reliable cross-country road to avoid urban congestion, encourage travel, promote the automobile industry, and build up the rural communities along the way. His idea was so popular and necessary, that droves of private citizens, fed up with muddy backcountry roads, paid $5 each to become members of the highway organization that Fisher founded with Frank Seiberling of Goodyear and Henry Joy of the Packard Motor Car Company. Local communities, in exchange for providing labor, received free road-building materials from the organization and, more important, a significant boost to local commerce. Automobile manufacturers saw the highway plan as an essential foundation for the growth of their industry and volunteered substantial funds.

Despite its lack of federal support, the highway plan was anything but uncoordinated. As a 1916 guidebook touted, the Lincoln Highway cut the time needed for cross-country travel by two-thirds and reduced the cost to an affordable $5 a day. Even when lack of funds threatened the future of the road, the association worked with local governments to build sections of the highway to connect with the “seedling miles” of concrete road built in strategic locations by the association.

The federal government realized too late the importance of what the Lincoln Highway Association was the first to promote, and by 1921 it was anxious to catch up. The private initiative symbolized by the highway association was crowded out by the Federal Highway Act.

In modern times, private contractors are much better than government at getting construction done on time and on budget. A 2002 government study in the United Kingdom, where public-private transactions are more common, found that 70 percent of public construction undertaken by the government ran late and that 73 percent of it finished over budget. But when government contracted projects to private firms, just 24 percent of them were late and only 20 percent were over budget. There’s no mystery here, since private contractors can’t start collecting revenues until properties are up and running.”

The Free Market: “Private Roads” by Eric Peters, February 1996

No such thing as ‘Gay’ and ‘Straight’ People

human-anatomy-muscles[1]Put simply, purposeful human action is comprised of what one does with their time. Because time is scarce, individuals are continually confronted with the reality that they cannot do everything they want to. The things we end up doing are things that we believe will lead to a more desirable state in near or distant future.

Some argue that human action is not the result of choice; that what people do with their time is dictated by genetics or some predisposition. I often hear people say, I was born to act such-and-such a way – I don’t have a choice – this is just who I am. This is simply untrue. I believe I can prove it in six logical steps.

  1. For action to occur the possibility to act must exist.
  2. Absent the possibility to act, no action could possibly occur.
  3. The fact that man acts cannot be  disputed. To argue otherwise requires man to act.
  4. Therefore, because man acts, it must be the case that, at the very least, a single possibility for man to act upon exists prior to every action.
  5. If a single possibility exists, logic demands that it’s opposite must also. For instance, to stand one must have forgone the possibility to not stand. To run one must have forgone the possibility to not run. So every action arises from no less than two possibilities; do or don’t do.
  6. So it can be stated with certainty, that prior to every action a choice must occur. There is no getting around this.

Do we have a say in what we prefer? Absolutely. The individual is the only one capable of determining whether to-do or not-to-do. Preference is revealed in action. One cannot act counter to what is perceived by oneself to be the most advantageous of all possible actions. The choice is made, to-do or not-to-do, based on what condition one prefers and the belief that doing or not doing will get them to where they desire to be. For, if in fact, one genuinely preferred to walk rather than to not walk, they would walk. By doing so, the onlooker could say with certainty, that person prefers to be walking. Similarly, if one genuinely preferred to sit, they must choose to forgo the possibility to not sit. A person who truly has no choice doesn’t have the options to sit or not sit, in which case, they would be essentially unable to do anything at all. The resulting state would be something akin to time stopping. Sitting or not sitting, in such a state, would no longer be possible. Because we all act, we all must have chose what we prefer from all possibilities for action. Therefore, every individual owns their actions, the choices that guide them, and the consequences of them.

Our actions are what differentiate us. There is no additional body part that one could point to or find internally that makes a person, a biker, a mountain climber, a race car driver, a hunter, a pole vaulter or a mechanic. We label each other on the basis of the preferences exhibited in action.

If I were to propose to you that biking is not a choice, or that racing is not a choice – that a biker and racer are born that way – it would sound pretty absurd, right? Of course it would. It’s nonsense. Riding a bike is something anyone can choose to-do or not-to-do. A person who prefers to spend their time riding bikes is called a biker because they choose to ride bikes. We call them a biker because of their actions, but by doing so, we don’t imply that a biker is a different or specific kind of human. The only difference between a biker human and a racer human is what they choose to do. Both are entirely human in their faculties.

Such is the case with sexual preference. To say that no choice exist to prefer the same sex or not, is to say that no action is possible that would reveal that preference. If action is present that indicates the preference of the same sex, then it, without question, must be the case that the choice was made to act that way rather than not. People who have sex with others of the same gender are labeled as homosexuals. They too, just like the biker, are entirely human in their faculties. The label is a result of their actions. People who do gay things are called gay people. People who do not do gay things are called straight people.

The reality is that there is no such thing as a gay person or a straight person – only people who act differently.

The reason people spend their time differently is a result of the different choices we make when presented with the option to-do or not-to-do.

It’s time people stop insisting that no choice is involved in sexual preference.

Blood cells discovered in fossilized mosquito

An Anopheles stephensi mosquito is obtaining a...

Mary Schweitzer’s discovery of soft tissue in a T. rex bone made quite a stir in the scientific community. Now scientists have discovered a fossilized mosquito with traces of blood still in it’s abdomen. Interestingly enough the mosquito was found in Montana, the same state that the T. rex bones where found.

The following reblogged from

Jurassic Park’s iconic image of a fossilized blood-filled mosquito was thought to be fiction — until now. For the first time, researchers have identified a fossil of a female mosquito with traces of blood in its engorged abdomen. A team led by Dale Greenwalt at the US National Museum of Natural History in Washington DC reports the fossil discovery today in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Although scientists have found fossils of suspected blood-sucking insects, the creatures’ feeding habits have mostly been inferred from their anatomy or the presence of blood-borne parasites in their guts. But Greenwalt’s fossilized mosquito contains molecules that provide strong evidence of blood-feeding among ancient insects back to 46 million years ago. It is a fortunate find. “The abdomen of a blood-engorged mosquito is like a balloon ready to burst. It is very fragile,” says Greenwalt. “The chances that it wouldn’t have disintegrated prior to fossilization were infinitesimally small.”

The insect was found not in amber, as depicted in Jurassic Park, but in shale sediments from Montana. After 46 million years, any DNA would be long degraded, but other molecules can survive. Greenwalt’s team showed that the insect’s abdomen still contains large traces of iron and the organic molecule porphyrin — both constituents of haemoglobin, the oxygen-carrying pigment found in vertebrate blood. These molecules were either rare or absent in the abdomen of a fossilized male mosquito (which does not drink blood) of the same age, found at the same location.

Read the full article at

I cannot help but think of Barry Setterfield’s research on the decay of the speed of light and it’s subsequent effect on any dating method with relies on atomic processees when I’m told these blood cells are believed to be 46 million years old.

Soft Dinosaur Tissue Discovered in T. rex Bones

mary_schweitzerHow long could the soft tissue of a dead dinosaur last underground? Scientists now expect us to believe that it could be 68,000,000 years.

Neatly dressed in blue Capri pants and a sleeveless top, long hair flowing over her bare shoulders, Mary Schweitzer sits at a microscope in a dim lab, her face lit only by a glowing computer screen showing a network of thin, branching vessels. That’s right, blood vessels. From a dinosaur. “Ho-ho-ho, I am excite-e-e-e-d,” she chuckles. “I am, like, really excited.”

After 68 million years in the ground, a Tyrannosaurus rex found in Montana was dug up, its leg bone was broken in pieces, and fragments were dissolved in acid in Schweitzer’s laboratory at North Carolina State University in Raleigh. “Cool beans,” she says, looking at the image on the screen.

It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone—the first observation of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils. Schweitzer, one of the first scientists to use the tools of modern cell biology to study dinosaurs, has upended the conventional wisdom by showing that some rock-hard fossils tens of millions of years old may have remnants of soft tissues hidden away in their interiors. “The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,” says dinosaur paleontologist Thomas Holtz Jr., of the University of Maryland. “It’s great science.” The observations could shed new light on how dinosaurs evolved and how their muscles and blood vessels worked. And the new findings might help settle a long-running debate about whether dinosaurs were warmblooded, coldblooded—or both.

Read more:

Further tests on the samples Mary discovered have confirmed her findings. Evidently Mary is a Christian who hates it that Young earth advocates use her findings as proof of the Biblical account of creation. But, really, how much can one suspend disbelief? How could soft tissue last 68 million years? How could it last even several thousand years? Which scenario is more plausible? Perhaps it’s too difficult for some to abandon old dogma in the face of evidence. They’d rather hold onto some tired old belief in evolution and an infinite universe than to admit that we are all God’s creatures. So sad.

Speed of light not a constant

English: The Antennae Galaxies in Collision, H...It was only a matter of time I suppose, that another scientific explanation of the cosmos would emerge which accepts the theory that the speed of light has not been constant over time. Barry Setterfield’s work over the past 30 years has largely been rejected by the scientific community, due to it’s ties to the Biblical account of creation and the stigma attached to young earth/young cosmos theories. However, a new theory has emerged which too acknowledges what Setterfield has been saying all along. The speed of light is not constant. In fact, it used to be much, much faster.

Now, the first thing to note here is that Creationists welcome the idea of the possibility of a beginning, or a prior nothingness. Atheists, however, struggle to explain how nothing can ever produce something. It’s philosophically a hurdle that cannot be overcome. The conundrum leads inevitably to a demand by atheists, or scientists who aim to explain reality without a creator, that something has always been. Creationists, on the other hand, see no reason not to believe in the possibility of nothingness prior to a Creator creating the first something.

This is no doubt the reason behind the scientific community’s early rejection of the derogatorily named “Big Bang” theory. As Setterfield points out,

When the concept of an expanding universe entered the secular scientific arena, it was ridiculed. It was condescendingly nicknamed the “Big Bang”, even though the idea did not include any kind of explosion. It was rejected as being too close to the “silly ideas” of the Bible. Since the Bible was ‘clearly’ mythology, there was no way the truth of the cosmos could be allowed to come anywhere near what the Bible said happened.

Science has longed for an explanation of the cosmos that does not require a beginning ever since. Of, course for decades now we’ve all been lead to believe that the Big Bang occurred and that over billions of years the cosmos evolved and now, here we are. But all the dating that has been done in modern physics and geology are based on a measuring stick that is being revealed to be about as useful as a ruler made out of a rubber band.

The atomic clock, as it turns out isn’t a constant. It does not match the passage of time when compared to the earth’s orbit around the sun. Measuring time by examining the earth’s orbit around the sun is called Dynamical Time. In fact, Setterfield explains that at the beginning of the cosmos, the atomic clock clicked off millions of years in what amounted to a single year measured in DYNAMICAL TIME. The speed of light at Creation was much faster. Since the speed of light is tied to all atomic processes in the cosmos, when one attempts to assign a length of time that has passed using the current slower speeds of atomic processes, the result will be a much larger time-frame than what Dynamical time would reveal.

I can’t possibly explain Setterfield’s findings in a way that would do them any justice. If you are interested in learning more I suggest you visit

Let me refocus here and get back to the point of this article. Just like Georges Lemaître was ridiculed upon his proposal of the Big Bang theory, Setterfield has also been rejected by the scientific community as a result of his assertion that the speed of light is not constant over time.

This concept now seems to be coming into fashion with a new theory of the cosmos from Wun-Yi Shu at the National Tsing Hua University in Taiwan. Atheists will now rejoice in Shu’s theory, for rather than leading to the conclusion that the cosmos is young, as Setterfield’s work does, he accepts the data that shows the speed of light has not been constant over time and does away with that pesky idea of a “beginning” put forth by Creationists and the Big Bang by asserting that the cosmos, you guessed it, has no beginning and no end. You can read more about Shu’s proposal here.

Shu is still proposing that the universe is expanding, which Setterfield has shown not to be the case, via some pretty compelling evidence. It would certainly be interesting to hear these two theories, based on a fluctuating speed of light, debated by these two men.

So, is the scientific community now ready to face the evidence of a fluctuating speed of light? Atheists have less a reason to deny it now so I presume we’ll see this theory gain more traction. Perhaps the discussion will now revolve more around the facts and less around engrained dogma’s within the scientific community.

See also…

  • Gerd Leuchs and Luis Sánchez-Soto, from the Max Planck Institute for the Physics of Light in Erlangen, Germany
  • Marcel Urban of the Université du Paris-Sud
  • Joao Magueijo
  • Victor S Troitskii
  • JW Moffat
  • John D Barrow
  • John Webb
  • Paul Davies of Sydney’s Macquarie University
  • Tamara Davis of the University of New South Wales
  • Charles Lineweaver of the University of New South Wales

Related Articles…

Shutdown prooves ObamaCare is a Mistake

Government runs the parks. The parks close when government shuts down.


What happens when government runs healthcare?

Consider the following…

The Best Illustration of why Obamacare must go is this Shutdown. The shutdown shows us that this program like others is at risk when politics is involved. Imagine the next shutdown, and there will be more, will you be able to go to the doctor, sign up for insurance, get medication? All could be on hold over politics. Now isn’t that wonderful!

Quoted via