I made a promise to a commenter on one of my blog posts that I would post such an article. Here is my fulfillment of that promise. Besides, I think it an important topic anyway. Everyone, regardless of their politics, have genuine concerns and hopes and dreams. The differences being how they are addressed. I hope to address the most popular and common of those here.
Before I continue, there are some definitions of terms that need to be addressed. The terms “Conservative, Liberal, and Progressive” have changed their meanings from their original meanings. We can thank the so-called “Progressive” movement for that.
In the years before the 1900’s, the term “liberal” generally meant you were willing to try something different, and the US Constitution and the USA’s way of life was new and different than the norm of the rest of the world. The idea of large government control was against the new ideas of the people controlling a small government. This was a “liberal” idea. Pre-1900’s “liberalism” was, oddly enough, equivalent to today’s “conservatism”. The “conservatives” of the pre-1900’s liked the idea of government control over things with educated elites dictating policy. Pre-1900’s “conservatism” was, oddly enough, equivalent to today’s “liberalism”. The terms have completely swapped places. This happened when the “Progressive” movement co-opted the term “liberal” after the word “Progressive” was equated with “evil” from the exposure of the horrors of Hitler after World War II. The Progressives taught Hitler much about Eugenics and Propaganda. Now that “Progressive” was a bad word, they co-opted the term “liberal” claiming their ideas were “fresh and new”, but in reality they were the same ideas the elites always had for centuries to control the populace. The terms had to change as those wanting to preserve the US way of life and government, had a desire to “conserve” it, and thus became “conservatives.” The terms changed hands as they described the situation from new perspectives. The US Constitution and form of government was no longer new, but was now something to be preserved.
It’s odd how that works out. It’s also interesting to observe is that when this nation started having financial troubles and debt, is when the Progressives started implementing their policies, slowly but surely. I won’t elaborate, you can study history for yourself and see the correlations to the Progressives corrupting the government and our nation’s current problems, versus what worked and worked well before hand.
So, first what today’s modern conservative believes:
- Government is necessary to a safe and orderly society, but it must be a small government with only enough authority as the people allow it. Government has no right to give itself more authority, such a situation is considered “tyranny”.
- The US Constitution is the highest law in the land and it an absolute document, not “living and changing” as some try to corrupt it into being. All in government MUST obey it as that is what they get their authority and power from. To make that clear, the first three words on it eliminate confusion, “We The People.”
- A member of government intentionally going against the Constitution is going against the people and thus is not only being tyrannical, but also committing high treason.
- Owning property is a right and that property must be earned. Nobody, including government, has a right to forcibly take that property away from you. Nobody has a right to take my property and give it to someone else. The incentive to own property is what gives me an incentive to work and innovate.
- Charity is a personal and private thing. I believe it is my choice and my responsibility to be charitable to the less fortunate. Nevertheless, I consider charity a hand-up and never a hand-out. Those receiving charity have the responsibility to improve their position as quickly as possible with their own hard work. Anyone that sits on their butt collecting government checks every month has no need for charity, nor for more checks. Those requiring constant help because they are either physically or mentally unable to care for themselves are the only ones deserving of constant support, but even then from private charities. Government is never to be a charity and always ends up corrupt when it manages the people’s money. It ends up hurting those it was supposed to help.
- The free market is an absolute and must be left free and clear of government interference. Wages, prices, safety, selection etc. are best managed by the market. Government’s only position is to punish those that are criminals. Government should encourage. Things like safety standards, air standards, etc. should all be goals to reach, not absolute requirements. If the market wants it, then that is how they will get it. Government always causes more problems than it corrects and thus should stay out. Organizations like Consumer Reports and such make excellent checks and balances to any possible deceptions in the market. Having reputable testing and standards industries that certify and test items will bring compliance much more than government rules.
- Clean air and water is necessary for everyone. Having healthy trees around it necessary for a constant supply of lumber. It is in a company’s interest to always have a supply of product to sell. Environmentalists would be better served if they formed their own consulting company’s that developed new methods and technologies to make all industries cleaner and more efficient. Money talks. If you can show a more cost effective method, or a PR enhancing cleaner method of doing things, AND you’re willing to help the company in the process of conversion, then you’d accomplish your goals AND with the help of the companies instead of them fighting you every step of the way.
- This earth is ours to be good stewards over. Nevertheless, the natural resources, all of them, are ours to use, including nuclear. It would be in our best interests to find the best ways to use them without depleting them. Simply stop using them is a waste.
- Everyone can succeed if they try hard at it. It doesn’t matter their race or ethnic background. To tell someone they cannot succeed or they can’t succeed without help is an evil thing to do and is a lie designed to enslave them.
- All violations of the law need to be punished. If you don’t like the law, then change it. This applies to everything, including illegal immigration. Our borders must be protected, and to do otherwise is a violation of the requirements of government set in the Constitution. All “illegal” acts must be punished, period. Addressing why they come over can be handled perhaps as a change in law, but the law, whatever it is, must be obeyed and those punished who break it, regardless of the reason. A nation that does not protect its borders or doesn’t respect the rule of law becomes a tyranny or ceases to exist.
- Religion is none of the government’s business. Nevertheless, that does not mean that government denies the existence of God. It just means government has no right to dictate to religions their doctrines, their methods of worship, nor their ordinances. Note, marriage is a religious ordinance and not something regulated by government. Frankly, government should keep its nose out of marriage all together.
- God (nature) gives us rights, not government
It continues to be exposed as a hoax set up by the Progressives, designed to gain power and money. It tugs on the heart strings of the environmentalists; but is nothing more than junk science. The phrase “The Debate is Over” is constantly thrown at us when questions are asked. Unfortunately, anything that refuses to stand up to open scrutiny is a lie and junk science. There was no debate, and refusing to have one looks very very suspicious. What is also suspicious are how tightly government grants and money are tied to those spouting this myth.
A legitimate issue will stand up to scrutiny. Have an open, full on, scientific debate with all data available (not “missing”) to scrutinize by all of science. A consensus by a small group of people is not science. For theories to become facts they must be reproducible and stand up to all scrutiny. With Global Warming or the now new and hip “Climate Change”, there’s something fishy going on with all the hush-hush and black-listing going on.
This is religious fanaticism.
You cannot force people to do what you want, nor buy what you want them to buy. When you eliminate the competition, all you end up with is poorly designed and manufactured crap. Let the market govern what it sells. If “Green” is what the people want, then they will buy the “green” stuff and the other products will not be sold. The market will make the decision, not a bunch of elite snobs in government. There is never a “black market” where there is a free market.
I find it irony that those claiming to be environmentalists are usually the ones leaving a rally with trash left everywhere, the place being a filthy mess, yet conservative gatherings have always resulted in people picking up after themselves and leaving the area usually cleaner than when they got there. Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, the Tea Party, etc. have all had the reputation of leaving their gathering places clean. Yet, Occupy Wall Street or Earth Day and other liberal causes leave the areas they gather in as not only trashed and filthy, but usually no cleaner than a sewer. The hypocrisy is pretty obvious.
Eliminate all government controls of health care, including insurance. Of course continue to have laws against fraud and such, but government should not dictate policy etc. Allow people to buy insurance, how they want it, and where they want it. This allows competition and fair pricing. Allow doctors to be doctors. Reform tort, and require good reasons for law suits, and have punishments for frivolous suits including the attorney. Require the loser to pay ALL expenses on both sides. Limit attorney fees to 10% like all other agents under the law. Require criminal negligence be determined before any suit can be filed. Allow charities to fund those that cannot pay for a doctor or hospital.
Seriously, I guarantee medical help would be available to everyone under such a system, and it was that way before medical insurance and regulation. Hospitals used to be run as a charity. They don’t have to be, as external charities can still offer help.
Doctors used to make house calls before out of control lawsuits. Did you know 60% of what you pay a doctor goes directly to malpractice insurance? Wow, imagine how much cheaper that would be to go to a doctor if lawyers were kept under control. Note, this doesn’t “regulate” attorneys. It only brings consequences of actions to them like the rest of us.
It’s none of your damn business what I choose to eat. It’s none of your damn business how much sugar it has, how much fat it has, how much sodium it has, how many ounces it is sold in, whatever. Keep the government’s nose and hands out of my food!
On the other hand, if you choose to eat yourself so fat that it takes a crane and a construction crew to get you out of your house, then that is your choice, and others shouldn’t have to be burdened paying for your choices. You, and the person that enabled you by giving you the food, should suffer the consequences of that. If charities want to help, then that is their right, but forcing the people to pay for your gluttony is immoral.
Oil and Nuclear are the best forms of energy on the planet. Oil makes just about everything you use today, from plastics, to gasoline. To stop using it would be economic suicide. Alternatives must be found and introduced to the market as competition before oil is ever stopped. The market must determine the prices. If alternatives to oil are innovated, then the market will support them. Besides, old technology and sources of energy has to fuel the new before it is established. Trains, trucks, and cranes, etc. are necessary to ship and move the new. You cannot erect a windmill, or solar panel plant, without a train and tractor-trailer truck to deliver the parts, not to mention the energy it took to manufacture them. Fine, you have electric cars, but where does their electricity come from?
It’s quite simple, until someone can find an energy source as efficient and cheap to extract as oil, it will remain the #1 energy source.
Nuclear power has come a long way since its discovery, and since the panic of the 1970’s and Three Mile Island and the fictional “The China Syndrome”. Scientists have found a way to manufacture nuclear fuel in such a configuration that it is impossible for it to melt down or have a “runaway” reaction. It’s quite fascinating to read about. Nuclear reactor designs are far more advanced than the Chernobyl and other reactors you see today. There are even reactor designs that can use the so-called “spent” fuel from those old reactors and extract much more energy out of the fuel so it lasts much longer before a replacement is required. If all of the fuel (oil, natural gas, coal) burning power plants were replaced with nuclear power plants, most of the so-called “pollution” from vehicles would go away because recharging an electric vehicle would be so cheap it would render oil fuels expensive. The market would decide.
I believe nuclear fission would be a stepping stone to fusion, as nuclear fission would give the energy necessary to perfect fusion research. Nuclear would also eliminate the need for dams, except where flood control were necessary.
We should NEVER be dependent on another nation for our energy. We have sufficient resources to support ourselves, and we should be using them. Energy should NEVER be an import. We have enough oil, natural gas, and coal resources to be self-sufficient. This alone would make our economy so strong that it would be in a better position to fund alternative energy resources.
Some government is necessary for a civilized society. The key is finding the right size. I believe, as a conservative, that the government, as dictated by the US Constitution, is the size it was it was intended to be. Currently it is far too big, and suppresses the market, innovation and liberty. I believe the 16th and 17th amendments were colossal mistakes. Income tax is devastating to the economy and the poor. It also gives the government far too much power and control, way beyond its original intent. Seriously, look at how much power the IRS holds and how much fear it generates. No, the government should fear the people, and not the other way around.
Read the Preamble to the US Constitution and decide for yourself if the federal government is what it was intended to be, AND if it’s doing the job it is supposed to do:
We The People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
This form of government guarantees liberty, the rights to keep and acquire property, and to innovate and profit from that innovation. That has the indirect side-effect of enhancing and lifting society. In less than 200 years, the world went from horses and buggies, throwing their waste out windows, or going in outhouses, having to eat only fresh meat, grow your own food, horrible sicknesses, and short life expectancy, all the way to refrigeration, vast medical advances to where many diseases are eradicated; leaps and bounds in technology where we have computers, cell phones, automobiles, toilets, showers, swimming pools, the Internet; we have longer life expectancy, we can travel to any part of the world within hours, television, movies, and so much more. It was the idea of personal liberty, the freedom to develop, innovate, and live how you saw fit, without the government interfering. This simple idea brought the world out of squalor. We went to the damn Moon because of that!
Our nation didn’t become a super-power because of large government. It was because of innovation and freedom that it did, and did it so fast.
History demonstrates this time and time again. When the elites run government, and control the people with it, society stagnates and eventually gets worse. When liberty is introduced, society flourishes. Rome (before the Caesars), Greece, the Anglo Saxons, and ancient Israel (before the Kings) all flourished with limited government and liberty. When they were replaced with Kings, Emperors, dictators, and other “elites”, dark ages resulted. It didn’t matter if the elites were religions or not. When government’s usurped power over the people, and took away their God given rights, stagnation was a result.
Karl Marx didn’t have a new idea. He just repackaged it under a new name. It’s all just government elites dictating the lives of the populace, nothing more. Communal societies, Monarchies, and other centralized governing systems existed in the past, and they all ended in mass death and failure. To think someone in a position of power is going to have your best interests in mind is quite naive. No, keep the power where it is always safe, with the people and out of the hands of those falsely thinking they know better. History proves they don’t know better.
It’s none of the government’s business, period. This includes marriage. I don’t believe government and lawyers should be involved in marriage nor divorce. This is a religious issue. It is government’s interference in religion is why we have judges and courts making religious decisions. If the government wants to have coupling contracts, then fine, I support it. If the government wants to require those getting married have coupling contracts before marriage, then reluctantly I agreed to that. However, it’s none of the government’s business who can and who cannot get married, as marriage is a religious ordinance. I am a firm believer in religious freedom. If some homosexual group wants to start their own church and perform “marriages”, then let them. However, they have no right to force my church to marry them, as it goes against my church’s doctrine to do so. I’d prefer it that way, than for government to dictate what “marriage” is, and then legislate based on it.
That is taking away religious freedom, an
d a violation of the first amendment, as it is government establishing a religion.
Religion should also not infringe upon others. This means just because your religion says you have to pray at a certain time, doesn’t mean traffic must stop just because you choose to do it in the middle of the street. You go do it in your home/mosque/synagogue/church/temple. You plan ahead. It doesn’t mean, however, you don’t have the right to do it silently at your desk, or the back room, or even out of the way in a public place.
It also means just because the government cannot interfere in religion, doesn’t mean it must deny the existence of a God, nor does it mean religious expressions of good will cannot be expressed between people working in government. Atheism is a religion too, and has the same rights to not worship a supreme being as those that choose to. To enforce atheism on those in government is to establish religion, even if it’s “anti-religion”.
This is a personal responsibility. When I give, how much I give, how often I give, and to whom i give it to, are my choices to make. Government is a thief when it performs so-called “charity.” Charity is designed to make both parties feel better, and it uplifts and edifies both when charity is given and accepted freely. Charity becomes its own form of the free market. Those in greatest need usually get the most first. This also gives an incentive for those receiving charity to make their positions better by working hard. Benjamin Franklin, a man who gave tremendous contributions to charity and charitable causes said, “the best way to eliminate poverty is to make poverty uncomfortable”. In other words, give a hand-up rather than a hand-out. Those that take advantage of the charitable, soon lose the contributions, and deserve their lot in life. Those that work hard, and show an effort to leave poverty, will continue to receive charity until it is no longer needed.
Government welfare is the best way to make people remain impoverished and become comfortable in their poverty. Instead of them trying to improve their situation, they are only concerned when their next check is coming. They know that free money will just keep coming. If they take the risk of employment, then the free money will stop, so why lose the security of free money? No, government welfare is not charity, it is enslavement. The so-called “War Against Poverty” only made things worse by creating the professional poor.
Keep the government out. Now I may surprise you I agree with child labor laws to some extent. That, I agree, most was exploitation. Nevertheless, who was the first to exploit them? Yes, their parents, not the employers. Also, making a child appreciate hard work is not a bad thing. It’s just you don’t do it 60 hours a week. Mowing lawns, sweeping, or learning the family trade part time is quite reasonable to me. It’s part of life training. Just don’t eliminate play time and study time. Let them still be kids.
Minimum wage is the best way to create unemployment and crime. Instead of someone with limited skills working a job for which the market agrees they are worth doing that job, that person is out on the street because they aren’t skilled enough for a small business owner to consider their work worth the minimum wage set by government. In fact, every time minimum wage increases, the unemployment rate among teenagers and the
unskilled also increases. Employers cannot afford to pay for such jobs.
The market works for wages too. If there is a better job available, people will instead work there. Pay rates work on supply and demand as well. Isn’t it better to have three teenagers earning $3 an hour sweeping a sidewalk and stocking shelves, than having two hanging out on the streets getting into trouble, and only one earning $6.50 an hour? You see, there are consequences (some unforeseen) when government interferes with the market, even if it’s supposed to “help”. It does not help at all. All it does is make people falsely feel good.
This also goes for the high paid jobs like CEOs and such. Those people make decisions affecting the investments and jobs of thousands, perhaps millions. Their actions take on great responsibility, and have vast consequences. If the market determines their salary should be $5 million a year, then the work they are doing is worth $5 million a year. It has nothing to do with fairness. Such jobs take more than responsibility, they usually take a lot of experience, training, and even talent to do. Jobs are worth what the market is willing to pay. The only time this gets out of hand is when companies and government officials collude.
Keep this in mind. The “rich” generally are the ones that employ the rest of us. To heavily tax the rich is to only shoot the rest of us in the foot. It’s like biting the hand that feeds you. The best thing to do is to give tax credits and hiring incentives to the rich, rather than punishing them for their hard work. It takes a lot of hard work and sweat to become rich.
How about we teach and encourage everyone to become wealthy instead of punishing everyone if they do? All socialism and communism does is punish the hard working, and give it to the lazy out of so-called “social justice”. This is ineffective, as eventually you run out of wealth to spread around, and nobody has the incentive to generate more. Society settles into a level of “comfortable misery” it has no desire to lift itself from.
However, teach everyone they can succeed and have a life as they see fit, and give them every opportunity to get it done, and you’ll have a society that benefits from the successful. It must teach failure is part of the process for reaching success, and that anyone can achieve success if they work hard enough. This opportunity for success is what attracted immigrants from all over the world to this nation. Nobody hated the USA, they wanted to be in the USA. Not because of free welfare, but because of opportunity. The freedom and liberty to become who you want to be is part of man’s nature, and why this nation flourished before the Progressives corrupted it.Stop labeling people as victims and assigning them to categories and races! They are all human beings quite capable of their own forms of greatness. Not everyone is equally talented and skilled, but everyone has an opportunity to explore and develop the talents God has given them to become successful. The evils of the past should only be used as a reminder and warning to the future, not an excuse for laziness and victimization.
The Military and War
One of the responsibilities of the Federal Government is to “provide for the common defense.” There is nothing in the Constitution that says we must be the world’s police force, nor does it say we are so-called “Nation Builders.” Placing our military in harm’s way for political reasons is immoral. Every death of a soldier in a war, or so-called “police action” where the military is held back by ridiculous rules of engagement, I believe will be on the souls of those imposing those limits.
When a war is declared, the military must be given all means necessary to win the war without any interference of politicians. To win a war means to totally obliterate and demoralize the enemy until they sue for peace. Landmarks, religious edifices, etc. are open for destruction, especially if the enemy uses them as shields. Fighting the USA in a war, you take the risk upon you. This includes nuclear weapons. I agree they should be weapons of last resort and a means to save American lives. I have no problems knowing the enemy has been destroyed and there is a glowing crater where they used to be. They took the risk and knew the possible consequences.
Our military is for winning wars, not to be the charity or police arm of the government.
With that said, we should also never put ourselves in such a dependent position (like needing oil) as to have to defend those not willing to defend themselves. Nor should we ever be the aggressor, unless our personal safety and liberty is in jeopardy, and all possible diplomatic means of resolution has been unsuccessful, OR we are openly attacked and we must immediately react.
Profile for Pete’s sake! It’s how you catch terrorists and criminals! If terrorists are 90% Arabic males, then I don’t think a six year old Japanese child is going to go screaming down an aisle “ALLAHU ACKBAR!!!” Stop with the political correctness. Being offended is part of life and if you are offended that a criminal or terrorist is part of your religion or ethnicity, then don’t punish law enforcement, punish the bastard committing the crime! Society used to do that you know, back when “honor” meant something. To punish those trying to catch the criminals is completely moronic.
Want to make airlines safer? It’s very simple. Get rid of the Transport Security Administration. Let the airlines secure themselves. It’s their planes and their customers. I guarantee, it will be safer and be much more convenient to board a plane without some pervert in a TSA uniform sexually assaulting you under the guise of “security”. Want a great example of airline security? Look at Israel’s “El Al Airlines“.
Make it a felony for a law enforcement officer that refused to enforce the law when someone else commits a felony, and instant termination if they refuse to arrest someone that commits a misdemeanor. It is up to a judge or magistrate and jury to determine if that individual is guilty or not. Law enforcement is not to be judge. Of course extenuating circumstances like breaking into a building to rescue someone, etc. voids “breaking and entering” and such, but refusing to arrest because you don’t like the law means you shouldn’t be in law enforcement.
If a law enforcement officer commits a crime, their punishment should be MORE SEVERE than the average criminal’s. Law enforcement needs to be held to a higher standard. More authority and responsibility should also mean greater punishment.
Stop with the parole programs. This is asinine! Prison is to punish what they have done, justice, not reward what they are doing while being punished! Ten years should be ten years. Frankly, for anything greater than a decade, the last year SHOULD be job training, but it should never replace the punishment. Actions need consequences.
Plea bargaining is getting out of hand. For the sake of saving time and money, lazy prosecutors do this. Justice is getting robbed because of slothful attorneys.
Executions need to be followed out. The punishment fits the crime. Granted, let the normal appeals process take place, but it taking nearly two decades is criminal itself.
When you know the punishment fits the crime and the cops have a great means to look for you, you are less likely to commit that crime.
The second amendment to the U.S. Constitution is as valid today as when it was written. It was written by people that had just defeated tyranny and gained their freedom through blood. It was intended to not only give the populace the ability to protect themselves from criminals, but to also protect themselves from tyranny in the government. It was written as a deterrent to those wishing to usurp our God given rights and gain power… tyranny. This means the populace has every right to own weaponry their government owns. This may seem scary, but it is reasonable, when you understand how important it is.
Police are a reactionary force, not a preventative force. They RESPOND to crimes already being committed. They are not there when the crime is committed (usually). This means the first line of defense from crime is the citizen themselves. It is a right to defend yourself, your family, and your property. This is not only a God given right, but a responsibility. The only times in history when governments try to take away people’s ability to defend themselves, is when they want to exercise absolute power over them, and usually the excuse (lie) of “safety” is given for it. How did millions of Jews die under Hitler’s rule? Simple, their ability to defend themselves had been confiscated (their guns). How did Stalin kill millions? Simple, he first took away their guns. How did Castro exercize an iron fist of control over his island nation of Cuba? Simple, he confiscated the people’s ability to defend themselves.
The second amendment was quite literally the people’s last resort guaranteed to them when the police, courts, and government officials became corrupt. Since it is the people that give them their authority and power, it is the people that can take it away when justice is lost. This has actually happened before in US history. There is a perfect example of the Second Amendment in operation against tyranny. It is called The Battle of Athens and happened in McMinn County, Tennessee in August 1946:
You see, even liberals need to learn to appreciate the Bill of Rights, all of them, because once power is given to someone, they and their heirs will never give it back, and there is no guarantee they will rule and lead according to your wishes and agenda, because absolute power corrupts absolutely. When you take away your power as an individual and give it to a government body, you also take away your freedom to change it, and live according to your ideals. This is why big government NEVER works. It is against human nature to be told what to do and how to live. It is against human nature to work without a reward for doing it. No matter how much you think it is “unfair”, it is the truth, and no amount of rainbows and wishful thinking and regulations and forcing people to change is really going to change human nature.
While it is true a liberal would never defend a conservative’s right to be conservative (it is blatantly obvious today this is the case), it is also true that a conservative, despite their differences with liberals and progressives, will defend their rights to be liberal and progressive. This is a one way street and says a lot about conservatives. All I have ever seen a liberal do to a conservative is throw hatred, vitriol, and attempt to ruin that conservative’s life because they don’t think and believe like a liberal. Yet, I see example after example of conservatives defending those that don’t agree with them. That, to me, says a lot about the character of conservatives.
“Disarming innocent people, does not protect innocent people” – NRA (The group started to educate blacks and northerners on how to protect themselves with guns post civil war as the democrats had formed the Ku Klux Klan and were terrorizing neighborhoods, you know, lynching people, and trying to make legislation to take away guns).
“We have to find tough, bright young men and women who are sick and tired of cliches and the pomposity and the mind-numbing idiocy of the liberals in Washington” – Ronald Reagan
“One of the sad signs of our times is that we have demonized those who produce, subsidized those who refuse to produce, and canonized those who complain” – Doctor Thomas Sowell
“The whole gospel of Karl Marx can be summed up in a single sentence: Hate the man who is better off than you are. Never under any circumstances admit that his success may be due to his own efforts, to the productive contribution he has made to the whole community.” – Henry Hazlitt (note, Karl Marx never had any friends and was always a bitter man)