Why isn't this tyranny?

Columnist: ‘It should be illegal’ to be a stay-at-home mom – TheBlaze



This is what disturbs so many of us; those on the left seem to have no problem using the government to force others to do what they want them to. And, yes, I know the conservatives have their areas too.



I'm a Libertarian. I believe the best course is for the government to provide military protection, police, and the courts and precious little else. The private sector will better take care of the financial issues and
The Great Conversation" will take care of the social. In my opinion, using the government to bully others into obedience will always lead to tyranny, even if the short term consequences seem good.

On Puppy Beating

No one should be hungry

The Buffet Rule

Don't even know if Buffet said the things attributed to him in this email I received. Doesn't really matter the source though. It's the principals that matter.

 Warren Buffet is asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise. 

Warren Buffet is one of the richest men in the world. He made his money partly by being smart with the stock market (a good thing) and partly by manipulating politicians to pass laws that drove his competitors out of business without really hurting him, all in the name of "protecting the consumer."Any ideas he proposes need to be examined very carefully. In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one idea that really should be passed around.      I REPORT, YOU DECIDE.   The BUFFETT Rule   We must support this - pass it on and let’s see if these idiots understand what people pressure is all about.   Salary of retired US Presidents .. . . . .. . . . . .. . $180,000 FOR LIFE   Actually, CEO's get 3-4 times this much (or more). This doesn't sound out of line to me for the CEO of the most powerful country in the world. Of course, it doesn't count that his housing, travel and a whole bunch more is paid for outside this salary. So this is actually an artificially/dishonestly low number but even then not unreasonably high. Salary of House/Senate members .. . . . .. . . . $174,000 FOR LIFE This is stupid   Salary of Speaker of the House .. . . . .. . . . . $223,500 FOR LIFE This is really stupid   Salary of Majority/Minority Leaders . . .. . . . . $193,400 FOR LIFE Ditto last line   As we discussed, "for life" needs to end. However, if the entire US budget were $1.00, Congress and presidential salaries and benefits would come to a fraction of a penny. This is not where America's biggest financial problems lie. Average Salary of a teacher . . .. . . . .. . . . . .. .. $40,065 This is for 9 months of work per year, or about $53,000 if they actually worked a whole year like everyone else; Dead Average. Certainly not something to pity them over, especially since many don't work 40 hours per week for this pay. This is included here as an emotional trigger and doesn't really have anything to do with government. Average Salary of a deployed Soldier . . .. . . .. $38,000 This doesn't count his room and board, though, does it? Isn't this on top of Uncle Sam giving him food, clothes, medicine and housing? So this is a dishonest number meant to pull on our emotions, as the teacher numbers are.   I think we found where the cuts should be made! If you agree pass it on, as I just did.   As I just said, congress is a tiny fraction of the government's money. Cutting out 100% wouldn't affect our budget one twit. Military and social security are the biggest expenses, followed by social programs. Public Schools (another unconstitutional idea) are the biggest problem for state budgets.  As I said Sunday, give congress a raise, but make them pay for all their own staff and goodies like the rest of us do. They want to hire their wife as a full time assistant? Great! They can pay her salary instead of us. That's fair. Currently, the congressman gets his pay, his wife gets an additional salary as his "assistant," his adult kids, cousins, best friends, etc all also get additional salaries paid for by the tax payer. Talk about milking the system... Warren Buffet, in a recent interview with CNBC, offers one of the best quotes about the debt ceiling:   "I could end the deficit in five minutes," he told CNBC. "You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election".   Agreed! though, I firmly believe in term limits which makes this irrelevant. They would be ineligible for re-election by the mere fact that they are in congress. Actually, Buffet could end the debt in 30 seconds by simply writing a check (he's that rich), but that's besides the point... And "no budget = no pay!" It's stupid for us to constantly run without a budget. It keeps them from being accountable and making it so we can see what is going on. Also, we need to require honest bookkeeping. Currently, all budgets are made for the next ten years. All numbers you see are intentionally reported in such a way as to hide what they are really doing. When you hear the complaint "The Republicans hate (say) children because they cut (say) school budgets by 50%" what they are really saying is "The Republicans only approved a 30% school budget raise ten years from now instead of a 60% raise." We need to force them to use honest budgeting methods that show the truth. The 26th Amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only three months and eight days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in 1971 - before computers, e-mail, cell phones, etc.   Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took one (1) year or less to become the law of the land - all because of public pressure.   Historically, if an amendment doesn't pass within a couple of years, it never will. Warren Buffet is asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise.   In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one idea that really should be passed around.   Congressional Reform Act of 2015   1. No Tenure / No Pension.  A Congressman/woman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they're out of office. Amen And a limit of one term for the senate and two for the house. No more aristocracy. Actually Andy says what we should go back to the states each choosing their Senator (like the Constitution says) and have the House filled through a lottery system; anyone with an income of $40,000 and who voted in the last election goes into an electronic "hat." Whoever is chosen at random (and the state appointed senators) gets a good quality computer and free internet, a congressional salary, and is required to join eCongress meetings. This would make the House truly normal citizens (because it could easily be argued that only the mentally ill/narcissistic would choose to participate in current politics). Doing it electronically would mean they continue to live in their home towns (not DC fairyland) keeping the reps in the real world, connected with those they are supposed to represent.   2. Congress (past, present, & future) participates in Social Security. Well, I personally believe SS should be fazed out. It is unconstitutional and really nothing more than a Ponzi scheme, but since so many have been depending on it for so many years, we need to set an age (35? 40?) and say "If you are over this, nothing changes. You still get SS. We will continue to go in debt to keep our promise to you. If you are younger, you don't pay SS taxes, your employer doesn't pay them (15% total), but you must save for your own retirement." Before SS the average American saved 20% for "a rainy day" Today it's less than 1%. Chili did this a few years ago and it is working well.   All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose. Meh, Ok. The real problem with SS, though, is that we don't have enough babies. Anyone who can do basic math can see that if you have 4 retiring grandparents for every 1.8 workers being born (the current birth rate) you WILL run into problems eventually. Ponzi schemes only work as long as the base keeps getting bigger and bigger. Simply making everyone responsible for their own retirement instead of taking from their kids and grandkids (that's how SS runs) solves this problem.   3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do. Should, not do.   4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%. OK   5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people. The American People do not have one type of healthcare. Many have insurance paid for by their employers (some better than others). I have no problem with serving officials getting health care as part of their employment package. But when they leave office, it goes away.   6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.   "All (hu)men(s) are created equal..." -Declaration of Independence. This is what this means! It's already law. 7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void effective 12/1/15. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen/women.   Congress made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and go back to work. Amen!   If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people, then it will only take three days for most people (in the U.S.) to receive the message. Don't you think it's time?   THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!   Fix congress, yes, sort of. This is actually just a knee jerk reaction that makes us feel better but doesn't address the problem. Our government needs to be returned to what our founding fathers first set up, with only a few tweaks (the postal service, for example, is in the Constitution and I supposed the FF could be forgiven for not foreseeing UPS, FedEx, email and texting, but the principal of USPS violates the principals of the Constitution. The government needs to get out of mail service.) I once looked up the US budget and roughly figured what was not constitutional (about 2/3). Then I looked up all the unconstitutional taxes (such as income tax, SS tax) and fees. Eliminating the unconstitutional expenses would eliminate the "need" for the unconstitutional incomes. Or in reverse, congress violates the Constitution to collect money for programs that violate the Constitution and remove our freedoms to control our own lives. Government is like fire. We must have fire to live (cook our food, heat our homes, cars run on tiny fire/explosions, etc.) But fire is dangerous and must be kept as small and controlled as possible to do the job. And if the job can be done with a different tool it should be. You could, theoretically, cut the wood to build a house with fire, but it would be dangerous, messy and wasteful. Government is necessary but must be kept as small and controlled as possible. It is too dangerous to use it for anything more than absolutely necessary. If we can do the job without government it is safest and most efficient to pursue that method.

The ill logic of modern America

Why do Americans spend thousands of dollars to avoid exercising (by buying laborsaving devices) and then pay gyms for the privilege of going and exercising?

Here’s How the New Christian Left Is Twisting the Gospel

Here’s How the New Christian Left Is Twisting the Gospel

Birth Control is Baby Control

Birth Control is Baby Control

Matt Chandler on abortion

Merry Christmas vs Happy Holidays

You know, when I was a kid "Happy Holidays" WAS a traditional Christmas greeting, fully accepted by everyone without a second thought. It has been around at least as long as "Merry Christmas." It means "Happy Holy Days."

"Merry Christmas" means "Merry Christ Mass [Service]" (an invention of the Catholic Church, by the way. Jesus was likely born in September or October. Shepherds don't generally have their sheep in fields in the height of winter, but in barns).

The only reason this has become an issue is a few stores told their employees to only say the one and not the other.

It does not mean that if I say "Happy Holidays" I am denying Christ. It likely just means I can't remember which holiday we are closest to (Thanksgiving? Christmas? New Years? Do I have all the kids I brought with me here? Have I lost anyone? Did I get everything I meant to? Did I turn the space heater off before leaving the house? Did I remember to put clothes on before leaving the house?:-P)

So come on, people. Lets quit being distracted by these silly side issues and start focusing on what is important:

Jesus Christ, God incarnate, robed Himself in flesh, lived a sinless life, and voluntarily died the most torturous death humans have ever invented...

All to wipe out my sins so I could go to heaven instead of hell.

If you REALLY  believe the message of Christmas is important, be sure to tell ALL of your loved ones (and hated ones too!) about Jesus and His wonderful gift of salvation this season!

Jesus- It's Hell without Him!

A life of no regrets

Two principles to make decisions by:

1) What does the Bible say?
2) Which course am I most likely to regret not taking when I look back on my life at age 103?

This is how you live a life of no regrets.

Charitable Giving - Red States, Middle-, Lower-Class Do More

Charitable Giving - Red States, Middle-, Lower-Class Do More

You've Awoken the Mommies - The Thinking Moms' Revolution

You've Awoken the Mommies - The Thinking Moms' Revolution



It is a fact that the MORE educated and the RICHER a parent is, the LESS likely they will vaccinate.

I don't have any children with Autism, though my cousin does. I don't have any children with cancer, though my friend lost her son to it, my uncle died of it last year, and my mom is fighting it now. I don't have to deal with other major immune function diseases, though my nephew as well as a couple of cousins do.

I do have to deal daily with a husband and children who randomly break out in hives for no apparent reason, though we are assembling a list of triggers (dish soap among them:-( I have also dealt with asthma reactions myself as well as with one child due to allergies.

THIS IS NOT NORMAL! The human race could not have survived if people had always been this way! Something about the last 70 years has caused us to change. SOMETHING has made the rates of autism go from 1:40,000 to 1:88! And made the rest of us very sick! The number one suspect is vaccinations. Honestly I would rather my children have Measles, mumps, rubella, AND chicken pox than diabetes, autism and cancer! But there are other suspects. Chemicals in food? Factory farming methods? plastic everything?

It is time we all quit being sheeples and stand up for our children and our future! It is time we demand answers!

How the pro-family movement helped spread “gay marriage” across America

How the pro-family movement helped spread “gay marriage” across America: A great deal of this also emanates from a deeply flawed interpretation of Scripture, which puts being “nice” and “loving” on a higher level than stopping evil, protecting children, or even telling the truth. This is the first religious-based movement we know of — certainly in America — that has done that."

Taxes and force

The Tea Party is a good start. They need to expand to all the invasive federal programs (education, retirement, etc)

 I looked it up once. If the feds only did what the Constitution allows them to do they would only need the taxes the Constitution permits. This means all the ss taxes, income taxes, employee taxes, fees, etc are only necessary to allow the government to do what it isn't supposed to be doing anyway.

Let's look at an example: We recently had a fridge die on us. As in, the repair man said he would feel guilty fixing it because it just wouldn't do us any good. It would only buy us a couple of months at best.

So we went to the store to buy a new fridge. $1000 for a fridge!?!?

Well, no, not exactly. Yes, we paid more than $1000, but how much of that was to cover the property, employee, and income taxes for the store? How much to cover those same costs for the transportation company that brought the fridge from the factory? How much to cover the taxes for the factory itself? and the transportation of the raw materials to the factory, the production of the raw materials, and so on. Then of course, we had to pay sales tax after the purchase price. The truth is that the fridge itself only cost about $4-500. The rest of what we paid was taxes.

And this is AFTER they took a good chunk out of Hubby's paycheck!

Don't agree with everything, but I do agree with most of this. If you think your way is the right way, use words to persuade people, not the force of government to make them.

What I don't agree with in this video is that there is a proper place for government force; punishing wrong doers and protecting citizens from foreign invaders. This is the power given the government in the Bible. Nothing more.

If you think children should be educated (as do I) give your own money to the school you think does the best job (or some other resource, such as Khan Academy). Dont' force me to support your favorite method of education through property taxes. I just might disagree with you. I just might have a better idea. But I can't pursue my idea because I have to fund yours.

If you think the poor should be fed, buy a bag of groceries (as I do) and give it to them,  go work at a soup kitchen, donate to the Salvation Army. Don't take my money away to give it to the poor through food stamps and ADFC, or you just might find me standing that line, too. I am the better judge than you of whether I can afford to donate to the poor without becoming one of them.

If you want the elderly to be cared for, take them into your own home (as I will when my parents reach that place), donate to organizations that help them, or go take care of them yourself. Don't force me to give to them through Social Security, Medicare, etc, or, you know what? Visit the previous paragraph. I am the best judge of what I can afford to give. Not you.

Do you see the theme in these "helping people" taxes? It is someone forcing others to give to their pet projects, their passions, instead of giving of their own money.

Aren't they doing both? No. Studies show that Liberals (those who campaign the hardest for government programs) give less than 1% of their own money to charity. Conservatives (those who fight against government programs) give 7% plus their own time to charities. The conservatives are the ones putting their money where their mouth is.

If everyone was free to follow their own passions with their own money, I am convinced that the poor would be well cared for, better than they are today, and there would be far fewer of them, too.

Racisim.

"In any case, the premise is self defeating. It contradicts itself. You’re being prejudiced against white men by saying they can’t have an opinion about a subject, and then justifying the prejudice by claiming that they’ve never felt prejudice. The minute you play that card, you lose it — even though you never really had it."


Good article and time we addressed this.

"rac·ism- ˈrāˌsizəm/
noun
        The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
        prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."

How is the attitude towards white men in this country not racism? How is "racial quotas" not racist by definition?

And the so-called "white privilege?" This attitude assumes all whites came to this country on the Mayflower with loads of money (really, read your history. They were all poor), owned plantations and slaves, and have inherited a great deal of wealth from their parents.

My ancestors came to this country AFTER the Civil War (from famine ravaged Holland, Germany, Poland, and Ireland), were all dirt poor, migrant farm workers (my Dad can tell you all about picking cotton by hand.) Both my parents (2nd or 3rd generation Americans) had times growing up when they didn't know where their next meal would come from, and my Dad didn't always GET that next meal. He knows very well what it's like to be a hungry child.

Everything my parents have they got by hard, physical labor and thrifty living. Yes, today they are "comfortable," (not rich by any definition of the word, but comfortable), but it's because we did without many things while growing up, (though I never went without food or housing.)

Yes, my blond-haired, blue-eyed bother got a BA. He worked full time  (as a convenience store clerk, cashier, etc.) all the way through college to pay for it, too.

I could have gone to college (certainly had the grades for it), but decided I didn't want to. Had  better things to do (like actually learning! I have spent my time and money reading, reading, reading, instead of staring gaga eyed at some teacher lecturing. Since I'm NOT an auditory learner, I have learned way more this way than I would have in lecture halls). I would have had to work, though, to afford college just like my brother did.

This is somehow privilage?

Well maybe it is. 
I inherited a strong work ethic from my parents.
Many didn't.

I inherited a "suck it up and don't make excuses. If you want it, work for it" attitude.
And I thank my parents for that.

That is what has made them what they are, what has made my brother what he is (High School special-special ed teacher, head of the special ed department in the district, one of the worship leaders in a mega church, and now dad to seven children.) It is what made me what I am (mom to nine, homeschooler, book author, worship leader in our tiny church, homemaker (OK, maybe I shouldn't brag about that one, looking around the house this Monday morning), web master, amateur herbalist, and wife for 28 years to one great man.)

If you haven't achieved your goals, maybe you need to look deeper than the color of your skin. Maybe you need to look at the "content of [your] character"

"I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men (including black, yellow, red and, yes, white men- BeST) are created equal."

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi (may I take the liberty of assuming he also meant "the Great Country of America"?), a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. 

I have a dream today!"

So do I, Rev. King. So do I.

If you really want to help black people, stop talking about Donald Sterling and start talking about this… | Young Conservatives

If you really want to help black people, stop talking about Donald Sterling and start talking about this… | Young Conservatives



The best thing we could do for the poor of any color, the best way to "level the playing field," would be to take the money we are already paying for each child's education ($10,000/ child on average nationwide) and give it to the people who know the child best, love them the most, and profit the most (besides the child of course) from him being well educated; the parent. Let the parent decide what type of education his child needs. The market will respond with more options than we could possibly imagine right now and EVERY child would succeed. 



I read an article written half a decade before the Ma Bell break up (for my younger readers, there was a time when there was only one phone company and everyone had no choice but to use them). That article speculated that there would come a time when technology would be such that if someone called you, whatever phone was nearest to you would ring (all phones were wired to the wall at the time, by the way).



"Missed it by this much" -Maxwell Smart



No one even imagined what today's "phones" are. It was the break up of the Ma Bell monopoly that allowed market forces to create the Blackberry, iPhone, and Galaxy 4.



Imagine what could be possible if we broke the stranglhold of the teachers union and allowed technology and market forces to REALLY take on education!?



Yes, the most democratic, the most non-racist thing we could do would be to provide EVERY parent with the means to provide EVERY child with a custom designed education- the Smart Phone of the classroom!

gay marriage, taxes

MassResistance creates powerful 28-minute video on what 'gay marriage' did to Massachusetts

The point of the whole gay marriage issue has nothing to do with equality. Christians are not harming gays, not denying them food or shelter, not demanding their execution. They simply want the basic human right to believe what they think is true and to only have to associate with those they want to. In fact, I believe both of those are in the Constitution.

No, the whole point of the gay marriage issue is to force everyone to believe what those in power believe. If you (properly) define Atheism as type of religion, you begin to see plainly that what we have going on in this country in many areas is a religious war; Atheism vs Christianity. The Atheist wants every one to bow to his god and believe the way he does. This includes allowing the government to decide what marriage is.

In fact, Hubby says this is when the church lost the gay marriage issue; when we allowed the government to take on the role of deciding what marriage is.  This is an issue that never should have been in the hands of the government in the first place. What right do they have to have a say in it in the first place? Its certainly not in the constitution or the Bible for this to be in the govs realm.

Three things that all of you serfs and peasants shouldn’t say on Tax Day | The Matt Walsh Blog

The Bundy Ranch

Our country was founded on the Bible and English Common Law (Common as in Sommon Sense- what the English courts had found to be laws of nature).

One English Common Law states that if a family lives on a property for 100 years that property is their.

The Bundys have been on that land for 140 years, long before it "became" government property. They have managed it well enough to make a living of that dry, barren desert land. And the truth about turtles is that they eat cow manure. The tortoise population is highest where cattle graze.

This entire episode of our history is a violation of Human Rights, plain and simple.

The Real Story Behind The Bundy Ranch Harassment… | Young Conservatives
As told by a man who was there. He said a lot of the cops actually weren't pointing their weapons. They knew this was wrong.
 

Harry Reid’s last roundup

And on what i, I am sure, a totally unrelated issue, Mr Reid, Senator from Nevada (but don't blame me, I didn't vote for him) is receiving fianancial rewards from a solar company that wants to build a soalr generation plant.

In the area of the Bundy ranch.

Just a coincidence, I'm sure.

A Pintrest conversation

I have had a bit of a discussion about young marriage on Pintrest. Unfortunately, Pintrest (or my computer. Not sure which) has decided I can’t post anything else. So, here is the discussion along with my most recent answer;

“Why We Should Encourage Our Kids to Marry Young"

Me: I married when I was 18 and hubby was 20. We have grown up together and formed each other into what we are today. I highly recommend early marriage. Our current idea to postpone marriage until nearly 30 is based on the disdain our culture has for traditional marriage. They hate the God-designed marriage and want to do everything they can to avoid it for as long as they can.

Guest: Seriously?! Actually, most people are simply choosing to have careers and establish themselves as individuals first. People chose to know who they are as people before they enter such an important covenant. Lots of marriages fail because 'kids' 'thought' they were in love.

Me: Lots of marriages also fail because to people "grew up" separately and are no longer able to form to another human being (too set in their ways).

Ideally, a couple grows up together, forming who they are together. Trying to make two mature adults into one is difficult at best.

Let's just look at the facts: 100 years ago people married young, after very short engagements and stayed married for their lifetimes.

Today people marry old, after ridiculously long engagements and divorce three years later. Which one works?

The problem isn't marrying young. It's parents not preparing their children for married life, and the young adults choosing mates based entirely on chemical/emotional reactions. Mates should be chosen with the head ("Can I live with this person and their faults for the rest of my life? Do we have the same goals? Values?") with just a consult to chemicals (marriage without that sexual chemical reaction isn't much of a marriage, but marriage with nothing else isn't either).

The problem with marriage today has a whole lot more to do with our worship of self-as-god than it does with the age we walk down the aisle.

Guest: I agree with your [last] But I still maintain that you should be a complete person (which only comes with age) rather than finding someone to complete you. It's not about 2 becoming 1, it's just 2 coming together.

Also, the reason marriage worked back then was because people didn't marry for love or similar interests like they do today. That doesn't mean today's system can't work. It's about blending the 2 (love and practicality)

Me: The Bible says 2 become 1. Not 2 try to get along enough to share a house.

It's like two jars of playdough: brand new, fresh out of the can they mold together and complement each other, forming each other. If you let them sit out and age for a week and then try to put them together, you generally get a crumbly mess.

Never said today's system CAN'T work, just that it doesn't as often as yesterday's. It is obvious to me we, as a  society, are doing something wrong in regards to marriage.

Today we marry for some emotional/chemical reaction (otherwise known as lust) and then are surprised when that changes from day to day.

Yesterday people married for practical reasons that wouldn't change and love grew from that; a deep, real love based on mutual experiences, goals, and depending on each other. This is what my Hubby and I have. Oh, I very much loved him when we married. But I only allowed myself to love him after I knew I could stand to live with him for the rest of my life. Today, however, our love is sooooo much deeper and stronger. You see, our culture doesn't understand what love is. It's not an emotional reaction that slaps you upside the head. It's a choice.

The difference between my and Hubby's marriage and other young marriages that don't make it is that our parents prepared us for marriage. What we do wrong in this culture has a lot more to do with our view of marriage and love than with the age of those marrying.

When you tell two people they are supposed to be irresponsible, selfish people (children) until they are in their mid 20's, guess what? They are irresponsible, selfish people until their mid 20's. If you teach and prepare them to take adult responsibility sooner, they are ready for it sooner (most cultures worldwide, throughout history this was actually 14, 15).

Just because an idea is old or new doesn't mean it is good or bad. Each idea must be evaluated on its own merits. Our modern ideas of love and marriage aren't working. It's time we go back to what did work; choosing our life partners based on our intellect, not our libido.

(and just a PS, imagine how much more actual learning could get down in college if the pursuit of sex was eliminated. If a young man and woman marry before college and know that at the end of the day they will have a willing partner at home, they can ignore all that “extra curricular” nonsense and concentrate on learning. For some inexplicable reason we expect our young people at their most hormonal age to go off to college and learn a career WHILE chasing around sex partners. 

Or if you are a Christian parent you are even more bizarre; you expect them to be at their most hormonal in the most tempting environment of their lives and NOT give in to sexual desire. Yeah, right. “Better to marry than to burn” as Paul says.)