GOP Trump Haters That Wear Ties and Talk Like “tHiss”

In “A Letter From G.O.P. National Security Officials Opposing Donald Trump,” the fifty high, mighty, and wise all concur that: “None of ‘uHiss” will vote for Donald Trump.”

Beneath that self-righteous hiss hides fifty “official” G.O.P. votes against these families:

coal-war-obama-admin-epa-21sept2012

Now what is their excuse? Is it Donald Trump’s desire to revamp an impotent and broken NATO alliance, an alliance impossibly tangled in a Kafkaesque bureaucracy that would have made the Russian politburo proud? No, NATO is never mentioned.  However, one suspects that these fifty have many contacts within NATO, but not necessarily American contacts.

A vote for Hillary is a vote against coal and American energy independence. Who thinks that’s a good idea?

Beneath that noble, high, and elite hiss hides fifty votes against these patriots and their families:

texas-open-carry-demonstrators-front-view-parking-lot

Under a Hillary Supreme Court there will no longer be a second amendment. Conveniently, we’ll become Europe.

And what is the fifty’s excuse? Do these high and noble former bureaucrats disagree with Trump on international trade? They don’t say so, but, lo, several of the signers are not CIA professionals at all. They are trade representatives.

Trump said that these fifty esoterically correct, prominently anonymous officials were “the ones the American people should look to for answers on why the world is a mess, and we thank them for coming forward so everyone in the country knows who deserves the blame for making the world such a dangerous place.”

I know, Cruz cultists, it’s difficult to believe and harder to say, but please, for the sake of our grandchildren, please say it with me “Trump might be right about this.” Did that really hurt that much? Yea? Sorry, but it’s really worth it because beneath their elitist hiss are fifty votes against these heroes:

va

Under another Clinton administration there will be another decade of lies about helping our veterans while the Department of Homeland Security imports hundreds of thousands of refugees and illegal aliens. Conveniently, we’ll become Europe.

What reason do these wise men offer for their betrayal? Did these honorable men claim that Trump’s position on entering the Iraq War showed a lack of understanding concerning foreign affairs? No, they wouldn’t dare because in supporting a no vote for Trump they are supporting the likes of Hillary and Obama who not only disagreed with George W. Bush but actively and purposely undermined the Bush legacy by withdrawing troops from Iraq and by supporting the rise of ISIS.

Newt Gingrich says these honorable men are globalists who, while they can tolerate the weakness of Obama and the corruption of Hillary Clinton, cannot tolerate the America first policies of Donald Trump.

Like the media that seeks to undermine real democracy by distracting America from a real debate over its future, these fifty honorable men offer no evidence, no issues, no substance to their name calling. America is supposed to simply accept the expertise of these honorable men that talk like “tHiss” because they are supposed experts.

Their judgment in choosing lies, corruption, and a future Supreme Court that would destroy the U.S. Constitution over making American great again tells anyone who cares all they need to know about their expertise and their background.

Genuine Free Trade and Multinational Hypocrisies

The United States of America is the best modern example of a free trade zone. The example of the power of free trade among the thirteen colonies exemplified, perfectly, the contrasts between mercantilism and economic liberty. This robust power of economic liberty would eventually be popularized by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations.

41cTu15sl5L._SX326_BO1,204,203,200_Adam Smith contrasted mercantilism, the practice of economic domination of other nations through the power of trade, with the prosperity that arises when nations trade honestly with one another. Nations practicing mercantilism sought to make other nations subservient by selling merchandise but refusing, by tariffs and taxes, to purchase an equal monetary amount from the nations they sought to impoverish. More importantly, nations practicing mercantilism sought to manufacture finished goods while receiving raw resources from their debtor nations.

As long as the United States traded freely within its own expanding borders, its prosperity and manufacturing became ascendant, despite the pressures of mercantilist trading partners such as Great Britain. By the end of World War II the British Empire ceased to exist as a mercantilist power, and the United States was the premier manufacturing and economic power in the world. Since the age of NAFTA under President Bill Clinton and historic GOP majorities in congress, the manufacturing base of the United States has been gutted. Why? What went wrong? Why was “free trade” so destructive to the American economy?

First of all, it was free trade in name only. It wasn’t free trade at all. Anyone who ever called our international ‘free trade’ agreements free trade were liars.

There is no such thing as unilateral free trade. If one trading partner is protectionist or practices CdO7ZpDUsAIAWPbmercantilism while the other partner does not, this isn’t free trade. It’s a give away. It’s highway robbery. It’s high treason, but it’s NOT free trade. To the extent that free trade, or just trade, is good for all partners; idiotic trade, treasonous trade, or corrupt trade eventually damages every partner. China, for example, has run up trade surpluses with the West to such an extent that the economic power of its trading partners has been slowed or diminished. As a result, China is killing the golden goose. Who will China trade with if its Western markets are diminished? The recent slowdowns in the Asian economy are a partial witness of the corrupt trade practice the East has followed with the West.

Do America’s trading partners practice mercantilism today? While some nations such as China have sought gold reserves, today’s economic gold standard is the American dollar or American treasuries. Are American trading partners hording American treasuries and dollars? Yes, everyone from Saudi Arabia to China have the good sense to maintain trade surpluses and to invest that wealth or horde that wealth. Thinking that having material things for one’s citizens is more important to foreign governments than hording American currency is utterly naïve. Having material things for one’s subjects (as in Saudi Arabia) or citizens (as in China) is of some value, but having the world’s mightiest military held hostage by its nation’s debt is priceless.

CdO7ZsZVAAEdLxoSecondly, our free trade agreements were free trade agreements in name only. The larger lesson of desolated Detroit, a lesson that was always self-evident from Adam Smith’s work anyhow, is that only free peoples can engage in free trade. While China is not a member of NAFTA, it is a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO). So also are Japan and South Korea, other nations with which the United States has unthinkable trade deficits. This monstrous world-wide trading organization seeks to provide the standards by way of which trade is “regulated.” Since all regulation is anathema to the idea of free trade, such an organization is as much a farce as Marxism. Since Marxism is a logical impossibility, it can never exist in practice. Likewise, the logical impossibility of the WTO means that, in practice, whatever it is, it is not an organization that sets standards for free exchange. Only a political union can provide an atmosphere of free trade, and then, only if the political union promotes and defends the liberties of its citizens. A free citizenry is what allows the invisible hand of the free market to work.

Finally, it follows from the premise that “only free peoples can engage in free trade” that free trade can only be pursued, not achieved, among different nations. A political union among free people is the only basis for the wto-litigation-ft-august-2012adjustments that take place as part of genuine free trade. Among various nations, various degrees of economic freedom and political freedom result in unequal trading relationships. These inequalities are the responsibility of each nation to monitor and evaluate. The tokens of unfair, or unequal, “free trade” can be found in trade surpluses or deficits and in the aggregate increases or decreases in the manufacturing sectors of various national economies.

None of this takes rocket science to describe and to apply. That’s why the free market works. Workers, manufacturers, merchants and producers of every kind measure their own microeconomic trade deficits and adjust. This is what allows for efficiency in every economy. Recognizing that “free trade” philosophies have been applied so poorly implies corruption. Almost everyone recognizes that transnational corporations and large banking interests are profiting from the seemingly idiotic application of free trade philosophies. While greed means wanting more than one needs, and while no one can be a judge as to what another feels he needs, greed is certainly manifest in the corruption that has become international in scope and rotten to the core.

Liberty Comes from the Rule of Law

It’s a paradox, so it is deeply true: liberty, in every incarnation from monetary freedom to personal liberty, comes from the rule of law. For a person to prosper, he or she must live by a code; the higher the code the greater the prosperity. So it is, also, for nations. Ours has become lawless, preferring human whims to the natural law of its founders.

In a speech to the American Society of Newspaper Editors on April 3, 2012, President Obama called a budget obamaproposal of Paul Ryan and the Congressional Republicans “thinly veiled social Darwinism.” Obama and others fail to recognize that there can be a rule of law higher than any one person, so they cannot distinguish the differences between liberty and the doctrines of tyrants, doctrines that excuse utter despotism and abject slavery by refusing to accept laws higher than self.

Social Darwinism was the psychotic delusion of a drunk’s puppet (no disrespect to drunks). For the leader of the free world to associate free market principles with this theology of degenerate racism is proof of the dementia at the core of modern American “intellectualism.” Our academics have become a self-lauding church that parades itself in our national discourse as our national conscience. If we had a national conscience, we’d grind these institutions into powder and scatter them across the brook Kidron.

Generally, Social Darwinism was a Victorian Age rationalization for upper class elites to take from others the fruits of their labors by any means possible. Laws that allowed for economic prosperity could be discarded at will on the basis of racial dominance. Social Darwinism became the intellectual window dressing for thuggish premises like: “We’re strong; you’re not, so we can take what’s yours.” Saying that Social Darwinism is the ethical basis for a free market is comparable to saying free trade is a robber, who, holding a gun to your head, offers you the choice: “Your money or your life!”

Free markets, historically, 71FDiOr4jzLdon’t work this way. They don’t function at all under lawless conditions. Free markets in which wealth “evolves” work on King Arthur’s round table principles. Free markets produce when “Might is for Right” and not when “Might is Right.” Ironically, it is Communism and Socialism that must get rid of the rule of law in order to function (see The Road to Serfdom). In 2012 it is the socialists who are trying to get rid of the rule of law by attacking free markets as lawless.

Human virtue, though, is demonstrably not genetic. Animals excel in their relationship to the physics of earth, air, and water. Human virtue, however, is determined by mankind’s relationship to truth. A fit nation is an ethical nation, and such nations can only exist with ethical citizens.

In this context, a change does occur in free markets. The ethics of a free people are continually expressed in the realm of material prosperity.  The best banks, railroads, airlines and businesses survive and are rewarded for their service to others. But “fittest” does not mean “strongest.” Instead, the entire nation moves from shadows towards light. The greatest societies are laudable for the ethics and strength of the laws by which they govern all their members equally. In return and they are rewarded by an economic strength that flows from teamwork and specialization.

Herbert Spencer cannot take the blame for those who applied the ideas of Social Darwinism to eugenics. However, the implicit link to racism from the days of British Imperialism to the eugenics movement in the United States, gives the ideology of Social Darwinism a hellish connotation.

Obama can get away with labeling every free market proponent a racist because this nation will not hold itself responsible to any law higher than it’s personal convenience.

Cone-headed academicians can get away with cursing the principles of a great nation endowed with liberty from beneath white masks of “intellectual purity” because the septic system of American thought has been so thoroughly corrupt for so long.

We think nothing of this utter rot pouring out from beneath the bathroom door. We’ve lived in this filth so long that we hardly notice it anymore. But we are all utterly contaminated. We reek of sickness and stink of decay. The truth of America has no real friends, and the jackals, smelling our decay, are circling.

Liberty comes fking-arthur-and-the-knights-of-the-round-table-round-table-1-ideas-round-table-1rom the rule of law. This is true for individuals, economies, societies and nations. The darkness of ignorance in every person and in every nation comes from ignoring each person and each law’s relationship to the truth. We are not a nation founded on natural law because we are nature worshippers. We were a nation dedicated to natural law because we read in nature the face of it’s Designer and His higher purposes for every person. We read in nature His eternal call to liberty. Now it seems we prefer tyranny and slavery. Liberty is not a statue. It is the purpose of the Creator for every person. Let’s be part of the change. Let’s stand up and stay valiant for the truth.

Sacking RINO Strongholds: How to Recapture the Republican Party

Rino-River-1

See http://alltherightsnark.org/cry-me-a-rino-river/

The first step in taking America back is for Conservatives to retake the Republican Party. Many in top GOP leadership positions have basically left the Republican Party. This is so widely understood that an acronym for the phenomenon, RINO, (Republican in Name Only) is used without blinking by conservatives. Now, don’t expect to hear “RINO” mentioned by any televised political pundits, not even those of Fox News, and no debate moderator, Liberal, Progressive, Democrat or “Republican” would even dare utter the term, but it is, nevertheless, linguistic and cultural evidence that the leadership of the Republican Party has, in practice, left the building. Franklin Graham’s solution is to leave the party to the RINOs and start anew. Reverend Graham’s deeply held principles leave him little choice, but if there is another way, it is in a strategy for Conservatives to retake the GOP.

Conservatives may be closer to success than some believe. For instance, how close is Jeb Bush to refusing to back Donald Trump? And, if Jeb did leave the party, taking his iconic family name with him, would it really matter? Trump, if he is sincere in his religious beliefs, may be praying even now that Bush does leave the GOP in a huff. A huge number of Americans of every political persuasion would finally realize that Trump trumpwas his own man. They might actually start listening to some of his Conservative ideas.

So what is it about the Trump campaign that has brought conservatives so far through the barred gates of the establishment? What is it about his assault on the status quo that has left the main stream media trembling at their stations on the wall, bereft of power and out of ammunition? Why has the media’s burning oil and Greek fire hurt only themselves? What can conservatives learn from Trump?

Trump’s success isn’t because of the novelty of his ideas. Indeed, Trump’s ideas are decidedly unremarkable. That is, he holds the same ideas and values the vast majority of Americans hold. What makes Trump a success is his willingness to be a rebel, an outcast for the sake of the American idea. There are the paid, cash only, professional protesters who riot for Marxism. That’s different. Trump, like our founding fathers, like Newt Gingrich, like Rand and Ron Paul, like the insurgents of the Tea Party, like Joe the Plumber and Sheriff Joe, is a rebel in the arena of ideas.

This is not to say that Trump’s tactics in expressing American ideas and values are not new. Consider his decision to announce a plan to ban all Muslim immigration into the United States. Bush III immediately went ballistic. He called the Donald’s plan “insane” and contrary to American values. Jeb and those who seconded him were exposed. There is very little un-American about a pause in Muslim immigration and the theory that it is unconstitutional is very much open to debate. Trump, with this plank, shattered the wrought iron door of the GOP establishment, and they exposed their backers… I mean backs. The GOP establishment are globalists. With the E.U. they want “borderless nations.” It’s a failed European socialist ideal, but that is the establishment’s deeply held and once secret position.

Likewise, consider Trump’s (and others’) announced willingness to work with Russia’s Vladimir Putin on Syria. Again, the RINOs went crazy, calling Putin names and threatening to shoot down Russian planes as they mindlessly putinwalked into the debater’s trap of arguing a hypothetical no-fly zone. The GOP establishment’s representatives became volatile as they indirectly supported Turkey’s attack on Russia’s jet. America’s interests and Russia’s are now far closer than they’ve been in a century, but who is still afraid of Russia? Who sees Russia as an economic enemy? That’s right, the European Union. It is important to recognize that both of these European ideas are also supported by the Liberals and the American mass media bosses. This is central in Trump’s attacks on the RINO Republican strongholds: he identifies the positions they share with the Liberals and he exposes those positions. Even more, Trump expects the vitriol he’ll experience when he exposes those positions and uses it to further expose his RINO opponents.

The secret of Trump’s strateil_fullxfull.352538162_hlligic success is bold honesty. If conservatives are honest but afraid, they’ll lose. Trump never apologizes. He only counterattacks. He meets ad hominem attacks with more intense ad hominem attacks. A close inspection of Trump’s responses shows that he enters the fray with eyes wide open. He knows he’ll be attacked mercilessly from every front. Nevertheless, he goes in, and he goes in prepared. Franklin Graham is thinking of getting pastors and ministers to run for office because America needs honest men and women. We need boldly honest people in office, not just honest ones.

There are still significant holes in Trump’s positions. What are his plans for Planned Parenthood? What is his position on religious freedom? Does he envision other reforms? But for now, Trump proudly bears the marks of an honest man, and these are the marks conservatives must look for in their candidates. The marks of Trump’s honesty are his willingness to take abuse and hatred, his willingness to be cast out of “polite” society, to have his reputation excoriated, his family ridiculed, and his businesses attacked. Conservatives may not agree on every detail, but conservatives need boldly honest men and women, people who will choose to bear the marks of those who are profoundly rebellious in the arena of ideas.

Putin is Right: Turkey is a Traitor in the War on Terror

Putin is right; Turkey’s rising Islamic fundamentalism has made it a traitor in the war on terror. Turkey has stabbed Russia in the back just as it has stabbed the United States in the back. Unlike the United States’ doormat diplomacy, Putin’s is likely involve measures not words.putin

Whether you are Russia or the United States, Turkey is unreliable. In a way similar to that often ascribed to President Obama, when the political winds turn in an ugly direction against radical Islamic fundamentalism, you can expect Turkey to choose Islam. Turkey’s current population, as a majority, is not interested in Western, Christian values such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of association and security in one’s person from tyrannic imposition by any form of government. This majority makes Turkey a traitor in the fight against radical Islamic terrorism because a great number of their voting population embrace radical Islamic principles.

By the way, the Marxists have all left Russia. Apparently, they’ve immigrated to the United States and are faculty chairs at Harvard. Nevertheless, the United States and Russia now have more in common than the United States and Turkey, but don’t expect anyone among the learned Western elite to admit that.

1413642615684_wps_64_In_this_undated_but_recen

Betrayed by Turkey, these Kurdish fighters are on the front lines of the war on terror.

Consider Turkey’s unwillingness to open the northern front for the American invasion of Iraq in March of 2003. Instead of opening the front, by July Turkey had special forces in Northern Iraq trying to assassinate Kurdish leadership. Then, in August of 2015, Turkey finally agreed to let the Obama administration fly sorties “against ISIS” from its air bases. But instead of helping target ISIS, Turkey limited its air war to intense attacks on Kurdish fighters in Northern Syria and Northern Iraq. In so doing, Turkey used its U.S. “ally’s” air war against ISIS as a pretext to break its 2013 ceasefire with PKK and to harm one of the regions best fighters in the war against ISIS.

The entire American air war against ISIS is very suspect. It is dismaying that the Kurds had made significant inroads against ISIS in Northern Syria throughout 2014  and 2015 only to be attacked by what surely appeared to them to be an American-Turkish air alliance. Russia took in the back once; we got it twice..but shhh… We don’t want to offend our important ally.

The standard logic for Turkey’s failure as an ally is that the Kurdish PKK rebel forces in Turkey are a terrorist group like ISIS. If the PKK are a terrorist group, it is only as the Irish were terrorists in Belfast. There is a political guerrilla, civil war going on. These are not religious terrorists like many of those in Palestine and all of those in ISIS and Al’ Qaeda. However, the truth is far more complex. In 2015 Turkish officials worked with top ISIS leadership. (OK, make that three times Turkey has stabbed America in the back). Is it simply oil money? Is it simply a territorial problem with the Kurds? The rational West, if one still exists, ought to be asking itself why Turkey can’t get along with the Yazidis and the Kurds, and why they can’t deal in good faith with the United States’ war on terror.

Despite the proliferation of liberal fluff pieces on the Islamic Justice and Development Party (AKP) by outfits like the Berkley Center or the Brookings Institution (groups that want secularism above all else and turn a blind eye to the reality of faith for virtue and for evil), Turkey’s ascendant Muslim fundamentalist majorities have ongoing associations with the Muslim Brotherhood, and, reputedly, they openly raise funds for ISIS and other terrorist organizations. The fact that Putin is bellowing about an ISIS-Turkey link only shows that he believes our once great ally Israel.

Given this background, it’s certain that the Russians were not targeting the Kurds or their allies in Northern Syria, and, given Turkey’s history, it’s more likely that Turkey shot down the Russian Su-24, not for a violation of Turkish airspace, but as payback for successful Russian sorties against Islamic fundamentalist groups. Their brazen ambush of an unsuspecting Russian pilot, was not a traditional shot across the bow; it has the hallmark unprovoked cowardly violence one expects of terrorists.Sukhoi_Su-24_inflight_Mishin-2

Meanwhile, American “leaders” continue to fight the cold war. Instead of recognizing that Christians, Yazidis and non-aggressive Muslims are far safer under Assad than they are under the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Queda and ISIS, they carry on as though Russia needs to be brought down a peg.

Russia may have taken over America and NATO’s leadership role in the Middle East, but the West has no one to blame but its liberal blindness. If the western powers can actually bring themselves to say “we are at war against radical Islam,” they would be fit to lead once again. Perhaps, if the West would actually name names of Radical Islamic groups, and if they openly exposed the central doctrines that are hateful to all mankind, they could emerge again as a profitable force for conscience in the Middle East. Until the West can do these basic things, they should be quiet and stay out of the way of real leadership, wherever that leadership may arise.

Transgenic Cows and the Odds Against the Darwin Theory

The mathematics against the origin of life arising by the interaction of normally occurring natural forces are easily understood, but the probabilities of naturally occurring mutations that result in entirely new species are not as simple to measure. However, recent news about the failure to mix human and cow DNA in transgenic cows provides a small window into the problem. The evidence shows that each species’ DNA is so awesomely complex that it is not malleable; it is not naturally mutable.

29_fransiscrickWhile one of the co-discoverers of DNA, Francis Crick, believed the odds were so stacked against life originating by the operation of natural forces that alien intervention would be at least as reasonable to assume, the complexity of  variables in DNA and epigenetics makes similar computations for the relationship between species extraordinarily complex. Nevertheless, the failure of top scientific intellects to design a blend of the DNA between two species, human and bovine, show how intensely the odds are stacked against evolutionary theory.

Recently, GE Free New Zealand released a report covering 15 years of AgResearch trials using 60 cows bred to express certain transgenic proteins, including a human protein, in their milk. The report is based on information obtained from New Zealand’s form of the United States FOIA request called an Official Information Act request or OIA. After fifteen years of experimentation, from the many thousands of transgenic embryos the cows have carried, the average live birth rate has ranged from 0 – 7%.

Starting with Crick, modern genetic engineering itself represents a developing communal intelligence of over fifty years. This communal intelligence has made many genetic breakthroughs. For instance, the New Zealand genetic engineers have achieved solid success in developing species specific bovine traits that benefit the beef industry. However, when endeavoring to handle transgenic bovine-human DNA, genetic engineers have experienced nothing but failure.

Consider the significance of this for the Darwin theory. The intelligence these labs represent intervenes into the treenatural environment and accomplishes in hours what Darwin speculated might happen over the course of thousands and thousands of years. That is, these scientists introduce a new, genetically diverse bovine DNA code into the “evolutionary cycle.” They introduce something like a transitional species such as is needed in the phylogenetic trees essential to the Darwin theory’s explanation of the fossil record.

This millennial “time lapse” occurs each time a scientist generates a single embryo. These New Zealand scientists generated thousands of embryos with diverse DNA. In addition, these scientists endeavored to generate compatible strands of DNA. They were not randomly mutating genes. These scientists had a specific “evolutionary” goal in mind and extensive experience in genetic mapping. Furthermore, the genetic goal was not even an “intermediate” species or hybrid between cow and human. The goal was a slight expansion or alteration of bovine specific DNA beyond a cow’s natural species specific genetics.

The experiments were utter disasters. AgResearch’s annual reports cataloged “a sad and profoundly disturbing cowstory of illness, reproductive failure and birth deformities.” Even worse for the Darwin theory, most of the transgenic cows were not able to reproduce past the first generation. Sterility resulting from genetic transformations, no matter how profitable the new adaptation might be for the survival of the species (and none were at all profitable for adaptation), is death to evolution. Even more ruinous for Darwinism is that the transgenic cows which did produce a second generation all bore sterile offspring.

In Darwinian evolutionary terminology, thousands upon thousands of years finally produced a single alternate form of Bovine DNA, but the embryo couldn’t survive until birth. Multiply this failure by thousands of thousands of years of failures until a single embryo survives. Then that embryo is sterile. Then repeat the millennium again and again until, at last, an embryo survives that can breed… but… but… its offspring… all sterile, as sterile as the Darwin theory.

Perhaps some day, heaven forbid, mankind will be able to generate mutant species, monsters that can survive and breed. It won’t be by chance. It will only be by intelligent design.

If twisting a species’ DNA requires intelligent design. How much more intelligence must it take to originate a species. How much more intelligence must it take to engineer all of the teeming multitude of living things that swim, fly and walk the earth, surviving and interacting in ways more intricate than the human mind can fully comprehend, let alone express. Now think about the Planner Who is the only possible explanation for the Universe. That’s not church. That’s logic.

 

RINO Glittering Generalities versus Conservative Health Care Reform

Yes, it was is important, very important, that well before 2016, GOP candidates outline a positive plan for health care. Seven debates and forty-five million ridiculous ‘gotcha’ questions later, not a single debate has focused on health care reform. Conservatives want a clear plan, a plan obamacarethat changes an angry nation into a nation excited for specific, honestly conceived, and openly debated reforms that EVERYONE can believe in.

Below are bullet points from ex-Speaker Boehner’s address to the House on the eve of destruction, an address given just before the passage of the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” on March 23, 2010. (A name that would make George Orwell proud.) In typical Boehner fashion, the ideas were not nearly radical enough. They are mere platitudes piously mouthed, almost in jest, as crumbs for the satisfaction of the mob (that’s us). They generally glittered like shiny little pills. They were slick slogans: dithering words full of sound and fury but signifying nothing.

Ex-Speaker Boehner’s points are in italicized type below. The addendum are specifics, specifics lacking from most GOP plans, addendum that make Conservative change out of RINO nothings. Now, some of the addendum added below were inspired by bills that received no debate and less media coverage. Nonetheless, before 2016, let’s give them till March. Conservative candidates, especially Trump, must go much farther than the RINO’s ever dreamt in their most “radical” fits of fanaticism. Sons of liberty, we better get after it.

Number one: let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines.

This very general, RINO formulation has been supported by all the candidates. Rubio talks about changing insurance regulations and tax credits for purchasing insurance, but it’s still very vague.

Addendum 1: Every variety of health care coverage must also be permitted. Perhaps committed “bachelors” are not john-boehner-1508926e2b4c7415interested in gynecological services. Contracts should exist for a variety of time periods. The typical one year time periods should not be the only contracts available. No candidate has taken this position.

Addendum 2: Furthermore, since, at least in California, crack cocaine will surely become legal, risk pools should involve participant reviews. The percentage of needle sharing drug addicts found in various career fields (such as education) ought to be factored into costs. Although no health insurance corporation should be allowed to mandate this, random drug and urine tests ought to be permitted in accordance with pricing reductions the market will bear. No candidate has taken this position.

Number two: allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do.

Addendum 1: Let church groups and denominations form risk pools across state lines, on a federal level. Studies churchshow that those that pray, live longer, and that monogamous church goers live even longer. This is a sure way to avoid insurers that practice the outrages of refusing insurance to those with pre-existing conditions or dropping those who become ill with long term illnesses. Would you continue to attend your church if they practiced such abominations? No Candidate has taken this position.

Addendum 2: Although McCain got Bush foot-in-mouth disease while trying to explain his logic on this in ’08, it wasn’t bad: Corporations should be given tax write-offs equal to what they would have received for providing insurance to employees WHEN the employee accepts the employer’s optional offer of a “health care savings account.” The health care savings account would also be “tax free.” Ben Carson has discussed health care savings accounts as the salient feature of his plan, but he hasn’t mentioned taxation. Rubio has adopted a plan to give tax credits to individuals as a way to purchase health care insurance.

Number three: give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs.

Addendum 1: At the state level let doctors form organizations, like law firms, but with additional powers. The additional powers will include the legal right to apprentice college students through scholarship/internship trumpprograms, binding indentures (as in ROTC and military programs) and the right to certify, without state of federal
regulation, such indentured students to provide health care at various levels of supervision. This Health Provider Physician firm may have these rights ONLY IF they make a list of services provided with “generic” pricing [pricing without complications, including typical procedures] AND ONLY IF they issue “insurance” utilizing approved accounting and risk management software. This would be sort of an “all you can eat buffet” pricing mechanism. [Bye-bye middle men… Bye-bye federal bureaucracies.]

Additionally, this new insurance model would change the paradigm. Doctors would have an incentive to keep patients healthy and happy so they keep bringing their money to the firm. Yet, they would be motivated to do so with as few procedures as possible. Additionally, they would be motivated to serve as many patients as possible as quickly as possible. It might actually pay to miss a few rounds of golf. No Candidate has taken this position.

Number four: end junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes order not because they think it’s good medicine, but because they are afraid of being sued.

Addendum 1: At the state level, let doctors forming provider pools include arbitration language wcarsonith limits on lawsuits. This contract language can be part of risk pool pricing. Federal governments may rate each kind of contract as a consumer service, but they may not legislate concerning the language except to demand that a variety of legal options are presented.

*****

This was all Boehner had to offer in 2010. Now six years have passed, and insurance companies have become even greater crony capitalists. Even worse, the regulatory burdens on hospitals have closed many doors. We’ll need far greater resolve going forward. One possibility is to develop national licensure standards in addition to the state standards for licensure. In having clear national goals for excellence in medicine, medical colleges can take a clearer aim at common standards, and America can increase the supply of excellent medical professionals. An increase in supply would then decrease demand and lower prices. In exchange, a young person’s medical training might be reduced by an increased supply of medical programs. If the United States could produce as many doctors as lawyers, we’d have a far healthier future.

Finally, the GOP needs to decide whether or not “we” are going to cover everyone. Obamacare was supposed to do that. Instead, it simply increased regulatory burdens, decreased coverage for workers, and increased coverage for non-workers. However, it has not come close to covering everyone and is even farther from covering everyone adequately. Lowering costs is the first step. Perhaps, a combinations of health care vouchers and tax credits may be the best answer for our poorest. Great wealth, of course, is the true answer. America will do far better paying their doctors with oil and gas revenue than it will with pizza’s and Frappuccino. Trump has alluded to fair trade as a way to raise revenue to pay for Medicare and Medicaid.

End the Iran Agreement by Killing the Virtual Filibuster

With the Iranian Nuclear “treaty-not treaty- agreement” on the table, the voice of the American people as expressed kerry bowsin their legislative houses will be utterly muted. Why? Because an antiquated tool of the D.C. establishment has, again, slit the throat of the people’s voice. The Democrats will filibuster, and not in the old style manner of Cruz or Paul, but in the anonymous, effortless, no-commitment style of the 1960’s push-button filibuster, a style of filibuster actually enacted under an LBJ Democratically controlled congress in 1975. To pass the legislation that censors the Iranian nuclear agreement, conservatives and constitutionalists should kill the virtual filibuster and bid it good riddance forever.

The hour of action on killing this irresponsible filibuster has long passed. Because the push-button filibuster hides senate votes, it has allowed cowards to control our foreign policy and elite insiders to control our budgets. Today, not only will the cowards seek to appease Iran instead of stand, the cowards in the Senate will avoid a vote entirely, keeping their base acts from seeing the light of day.

The elitist Senate, since the August recess, has surprised the nation by displaying a noblesse oblige, hinting that they were, perhaps, inclined to independent thought after all. There was such a dramatic change from the usual snore and pull-for-party attitude that all America wondered. For a second, everyone actually thought that Senators were going to deliberate, a phenomenon not seen since befo1153re Watergate. For a glorious moment it appeared that the eloquent and noble minded Senate was planning to put what each senator deduced to be the best for the nation ahead of his or her own political faction. Yea, right…

This week, a per usual, as liberals returned to the city of their corruption, far from their families, their natural interests, and their constituencies, they reverted to kind. Marching in lock-step they now plan quash the vote of the Senate and House majority. They will simply silence it, for a vote condemning the oil-rich, Russian-led, Iran appeasement bill simply cannot be condoned. The liberal Senate silence us via the safe, censorship-proof tool of the “virtual” filibuster.

Since the Civil War, factional battle lines have never been so hardened. Into this climate of faction, enter mullahthe overreaching executive, the tyrannical courts, and a filibuster that effectively shuts the mouths of the American people. There is nothing good about any of this and, essentially, because of the 1975 cloture rules, the congress has become a dead letter institution allowing the other branches to become overgrown and hideous. End the “virtual” filibuster now.

As much as one wanted to suspend disbelief and be surprised that, after all their grandstanding, liberals went forward in lock-step unity, it is even harder to be surprised that the do-nothing GOP establishment chain of fools did not procure a simple up or down vote when this entire matter came up last spring. The GOP leadership, in fact every member of both houses, knew this would happen. They knew no vote on the most blatantly weak foreign policy ever initiated by an United States president would not even receivea Senate vote. Yes, they knew it. Yet they marched harmoniously together in a show of bi-partisanship. Why? Only those privy to cloak room agreements know for sure, but it is certain that, even if the GOP leadership really had a wit of sense, no deal with a straight up or down vote would have made it through the current Senate cloture process.

One senator, a Senator Murphy of Connecticut, claims that a veto fight would embarrass the country. This is proof that the cloture procedure has become a cloak of cowardice, censorship, and tyranny, for Palin-Rallies-Tea-Partiers-AP-Photo-640x480while a veto fight takes fewer votes than a cloture fight the liberals want no part of it. The liberals have no desire that the voice of the people is heard by their directly elected representatives.

A veto fight is the constitutional way the executive and legislative branches are to engage. The founders never envisioned the current fights over cloture as part of the legislative process. The modernized, no-commitment, liberal cloture, the push-button filibuster, is the way of the shiftless, corrupt, and irresponsible. The vermin are hiding in its darkness. Before whom does Senator Murphy fear embarrassment? Would he be embarrassed before Russia? How about Iran? Maybe he’s afraid of the mocking words of the Chinese? Are Murphy and the President afraid to defend the constitutional processes of a free people before the dictators and tyrants of this world? The push button filibuster is the way of cowards. It is time to end it once and for all and ending it to yell at the top of our lungs about the evil before us in Iran would be a lasting and profound historical statement.

The Scientists Supporting Obama’s Iran Agreement are Puppets

The scientists supporting the Iran agreement have immense skill in their areas of expertise, but foreign policy is not one of those. When the New York Times trumpeted the support of 29 “scientists” for Obama’s nuclear Iran rajast62agreement, a number of facts were misrepresented. However, this misrepresentation of scientific expertise as political expertise, accomplished by omission, is especially illuminating; for it not only shows how scientists can be made puppets, but it highlights a number of 20th century fallacies that are turning the West to into similarly enslaved wooden dolls.

It doesn’t matter how many times we find scientists whose entire life work is dependent on government grants, we just can’t believe that scientists are puppets. That’s because we have been virtually brainwashed into connecting the word “scientist” to both objectivity and wisdom. One wonders if “honest scientist” is about to become as much a laughing stock as “honest journalist” or “honest politician.”  One recent expose by the New York Times highlighted a connection between a clear conflict of interest and extraordinarily dubious scientific research finding that consumption of Coke and other soft drinks does not lead to obesity. Sadly, the objectivity of the Times was just a veneer covering over its failure to expose the backgrounds of the scientists supporting Kerry’s deal with Tehran.

Leaving the notion of objectivity among scientists who have been part of governmental bodies in the past, or who have had labs funded by government in the past (as many of these signers did), consider their wisdom. In fact, the slightest bit of honest journalism by the Times would have easily dispensed with the notion that, scientists or not, the key signatores to this letter of support are wise in matters of foreign policy.

For instance, one of the key signers, Frank Von Hippel, has been a proponent of unilateral denuclearization for decades. His understanding of the workings of nuclear devices may be excellent, but his policy application of this scientific knowledge has been extremely unwise.

Again, a second big name scientific signatore, Sidney Drell, believes nuclear weapons do not deter Drellmilitary aggression in the modern world. Such a presupposition might lead Drell to think that a failure of a nuclear treaty with Iran is a lesser evil than the military or financial actions needed to neutralize Iranian nuclear capability. Again, Drell’s scientific knowledge concerning the details of the Iranian agreement may be immense, but his policy application of his knowledge is extraordinarily inadequate.

Yet another big name scientist signing the letter in support of President Obama’s treaty with Iran, Freeman Dyson, also once favored unilateral American nuclear disarmament (p. 245). These three are among the four top names and typify the 29 signatores. In other words, when it comes to the subject of American foreign policy, this list of highly skilled scientists is basically another collection of far left radical liberals. If they are not financial puppets of the big government left, they are certainly ideological puppets: unseeing, lightweight, painted faces dragged about by the dark, hidden powers of liberalism as they are made to to dance in a false light of policy expertise and objectivity.

A comparison of Senator Schumer’s press release to the letter signed by the 29 leftist scientists clearly demonschumer-flag-pin-jpgstrates where science meets policy. For instance, Schumer carefully explains the weaknesses of the twenty-four day “waiting” period, despite the administration’s “innovative” approach of searching for tell tale radioactive isotopes. Schumer is fully capable of rebutting the “scientific consensus” of the 29 because of his policy and political expertise. Indeed, any dime store philosopher could go even further than Schumer in asking why on earth a regime would even ask for a twenty-four day waiting period if it was negotiating in good faith.

The cabarets of Western life are really only puppet shows. We’ve become enslaved to darkness and inhuman in our reckoning perhaps, in part, because we have been far too haphazard in drawing the lines between science and philosophy. Just as it is so easy to imagine that a consensus of 29 scientists must be right about the Iran agreement, so also, far too frequently, in every area of modern expertise we blur the lines and, in so doing, we drink falsehood with facts and madness with science. There is absolutely no logical reason to connect a knowledge of science with an expertise in foreign policy, but these random appeals to authority are so frequent in our culture that making the assumption has become second nature. The hollow callousness of the West has come from the sorcery of those who, often not being experimental scientists themselves, tell us that science teaches blind, materialistic atheism. That’s just a lie.fathers

Tragically, in the fields of archaeology, paleontology, in historical analysis, in public policy, in legal analysis, in psychology, in ethics, in virtually every aspect of modern society, we have, without blinking, allowed a person’s scientific or specific expertise in a branch of study to cover for an atheistic philosophy. We’re being blinded. It is imperative that educational institutions understand and teach the demarcation among the kinds of science, the limits of each category of science, and, once again, reach into our own American history to return to the philosophical logic that once made our institutions and our culture great.

Of Political Fanatics, Leftist Cults, and Totalitarianism

thisenemy

Unlike many German Christians, someone in America read Mein Kampf

A desperate, anti-American totalitarianism has all but made bankrupt our political, judicial, and educational institutions. Hitler, Marx, Stalin were political fanatics of this kind. Jefferson, Washington, and Lincoln were leaders.

The first group put political ideology above truth and the human life. The second group willingly offered their lives to stand for what was right. The first group secretly amassed fortunes using their movements as fronts. The second group pledged their fortunes for what they believed in.

In America the new totalitarians hate their neighbor because of his or her personal thoughts.

Americans persuade; the new fanatics persecute.

And, no, both political parties are not equally guilty of this fanatic commitment to control the thoughts of their neighbors.  To make light of what is really a very dark state of affairs, the new American totalitarians have become so self-righteous that even God isn’t good enough for their party platform.

Totalitarianism is: “a political system in which the state holds total control over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life wherever possible (Conquest  74).” While every definition of totalitarianism is secular, recognizing the relationship between ‘political fanaticism’ and ‘religious fanaticism’ shows why the idea of America has, for so long, immunized the United States from the ravages of twentieth century megalomaniacs. Comparing the “passions” of the godless to the religious fanaticism America was designed to guard against shows how and why the principles of America still work.

Almost every in-depth discussion of totalitarianism ultimately touches on thought control. A totalitarian state, for some reason, wants more than a citizen’s tax dollars. It wants the citizen’s very soul. In the twentieth century the wars against totalitarianism have often been fought by those of personal religious conviction. Interestingly, the main opponents of medieval, church-influenced, ‘thought-control’ monarchies were also those of profound personal faith. In antiquity, totalitarian empires made no bones about the desire for citizens to bow before the emperor or Pharaoh as before a living god.

The American idea, in guarding against the historic evils, has been a saving balm against the lethal expression of both religious and political totalitarian regimes. Our founding documents, designed to frustrate tyrants, really infuriate totalitarians. William Penn is an example of American prescience. For real Americans, the ends never justify the means. Marxist politics would have had no chance in Pennsylvania while Penn taught. Not teaching the truths of real life in the schools and in the public square, as Penn once did, allows leftist cults to fester.

The well-weighed but often abused checks and balances in our legal system are only an expression of the American idea, and it’s thepenn idea that has protected us for so long. The founding precept of the American idea is a deep and abiding respect for truth, honesty, and for one’s neighbor’s political, social, and religious convictions. If we lose the heart of the American idea, our Constitution is no stronger than paper.

Americans now must decide what to do about neighbors who have rejected the American idea of respect, discourse, persuasion and constitutional processes to determine law. For many of their neighbors now reject the rule of law, the law of conscience and respect for the right of others to have a different idea. Many Americans are faced with neighbors for whom the idolatry of their political cause is enough to justify, hypocritically, democratically enacted laws and ordinances. An unapologetic, raw hatred motivates far too many to justify their unethical and illegal actions because of the “rightness” of their noble “goals.”

The definitions of totalitarianism are secular because all of the totalitarian regimes that have arisen in the twentieth century, with one exception, have been godless. If we would insist on the American idea of religious tolerance in all of our foreign policies and demand that tolerance at home, we could identify the totalitarian, cult-like elements of Radical Islam, engage them, and defeat them.

In the United States, hating the people who hold differing ideas began as a Leftist revolutionary tactic, but it has metastasized through a guilt-ridden, godless, and desperate culture into a fierce fury against any with ‘incorrect’ thoughts. This hatred is seething in every arena of American life and culture.

Marxists believed that their ideology was so noble that the ends justified the means, no matter how violent or how deceitful those tactics were. This proud Leftist lie then became a means of corruption so that no Marxist movement was ever “pure Communism.” How could one be?

meme2From this Leftist root has sprung many branches. Radical environmentalists place the life of “Mother Earth” above human life, and all who disagree are enemies. If coal workers become impoverished over CO2 emissions or if California farmers are ruined over a minnow, it’s all in a day’s work. These honest, hard-working Americans are acceptable sacrifices at the Left’s altar of earth worship. A compassionless, un-American hatred of all not fully committed to the cult dominates the ‘green’ movements.

The Left’s cult-like hatred of their neighbor simply for his thoughts has poisoned even our educational systems. This is apparent from anecdotal evidence of bias against conservative students and professors at virtually every public campus. That the root is poisoned is also tragically evident from the fruit.  Many incoherent articulations have become dogma in the ivory towers of learning. Such include: “the Darwin theory has now become fact!” or “Climate change is now settled science.” These bandwagon catch phrases for the uninformed are travesties of genuine academic knowledge. These aren’t the words of honest scientists. They’re designed to shut down conversation. Those who espouse such rhetoric demonstrate no respect for the ideas of others.

smelt

A recent survey found only a single Delta Smelt left in the wild. Countless farmers were ruined for one minnow.

Even worse, such rhetoric often appears to be the power-plays of guilt-ridden swindlers shilling for a Leftist educational power base of soulless men. A theory never evolves into a fact. Such is an absurdity on its face that convinces only when coupled with a bullying emotional appeal. And any science that is “settled” is simply not science at all. Science is the mathematics and art of questioning everything all the time. Scientists delight in the questions and ideas of others. Only religious dogmas must be accepted as “settled.” And there it is: the plain connection between Leftist hatred of others over their ideas and a religious, dogmatic fanaticism about their own views.

Western academic freedom has been brought to a horrid low. Many of our academics are simply a disgrace to humanity.

Is there time to speak of the institutionalized lack of respect for the ideas of others that has resulted in a judicial arrogance, a fanatical corruption of justice, that  claims it is right to fine a couple $150,000 dollars for not making a cupcake? Or of booing God in a national assembly? Or of bullying a presidential candidate for saying “all lives matter”? Is there time to review the history of an anti-war movement founded in a profound Christian ethic to one now based on cowardice and acrimony? No, there’s no time. We’re out of time America.

America was never built for the hateful, and no land can have liberty that is without a reverence and love for truth and for one another. Good will toward all, not the pureness of one’s ideology, is character.

Democrat-delegrate-voting-no-to-putting-God-and-Jerusalem-back-into-DNC-platform

Democrats booing a motion to include God in the party platform.

The judgmental are often hypocritical. Their accusations against others are a defense mechanism meant to distract from their own personal failings. Under an exterior of whitewash are dead men’s bones.

Of course this is a sword that could cut both ways. Those who believe in free enterprise could have a lawless hatred of anyone professing anything resembling communism. Sadly, and it’s approaching tragically, many of those who hold traditional American views of dialogue have assumed that they were discoursing with others with the same foundation. The Right has not awakened to the fratricidal hatred raging on the Left, at least not fully, at least not yet. When the Right fully awakens, no one can tell whether the response will be lawful or lawless, but the odds are, if they are still American, it will be a Godly response.