Former president Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote in his memoir concerning the presidential election of 1960, “It showed the influence of television: for some reasons one man projects well, another does not. It showed again how much elections can be controlled by sentiment and emotion rather than by facts and experience.”
Of course he was referring to the televised Nixon-Kennedy debate where Kennedy essentially won the election on his appearance and affectation rather than on the substance of his words.
Eisenhower was not a great fan of Kennedy. He believed him to be too headstrong and overconfident. He didn’t think Kennedy appreciated the deep complexity and difficulty of the issues he would be facing as president. However, Eisenhower in writing these words was more concerned about what the country was becoming rather than the 1960 election outcome.
Yes, in his January 1961 farewell speech, Eisenhower warned of a perpetual peacetime war economy. He was greatly concerned of the industry take over of military armament and the overwhelming influence it was beginning to have on America. However, his concern about the growing irrationality of American society represented a bigger concern for the general.
Eisenhower was a very thoughtful man. He made his decisions by careful consideration of the facts at hand and used his informed emotion to then guide him to the solution he sought. That’s how he led our forces to victory in the European theater of World War II and ended the Korean conflict as president.
Eisenhower prided himself in his rationality, something that was becoming increasingly scarce in 1960 America as his lament made clear. Today rationality is virtually absent from our public discourse particularly with respect to politics and government.
Rationality can be defined as the “habit of acting by reason, which means in accordance with the facts of reality”. (www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Ethics_Rationality.html).
America is rapidly losing its grip on rationality as defined above. We have become a country of the unthinking and the unthoughtful and the unreasoning. We no longer act through careful deliberation based on our own individual understanding and experience. Instead we are highly conditioned to merely react to stimuli and as a result, our humanity is greatly diminished. We become little more than automatons performing on command. Our society cannot stay on this path much longer and retain our republic.
If rationality is acting according to the facts of reality, the question we must ask is what are the facts of reality? Up until the middle of the last century, the answer was obvious. Reality is the way things are. The facts do not change over time. Facts do not change with the situation.
The late, great Democrat senator from New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once said, “You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.” I don’t believe Moynihan would be welcome in the Democrat Party of 2017.
Today to insinuate that objective fact exists and is immutable will incur the Left’s condemnation as a homophobe, bigot, climate change denier, or hater. You see, there’s great power in being able to dictate what the facts are and then stampede the masses in the desired direction in reaction to certain pejorative descriptors. It’s far easier to herd unthinking sheep than sly foxes.
And that’s what the Marxist Left’s strategy has been for several decades now – reduce our society to an unthinking, fearful, irrational herd. This is the only path to the absolute totalitarian power they maniacally pursue. A population of rational, critically thinking citizens will not mindlessly accept what is dictated to them and will challenge authoritarian control. Therefore, rationality must be corrupted.
And they have methodically worked at such a corruption through a complete subversion of our public school system, academia, the news media, the entertainment media, and the federal government bureaucracy. Virtually all of the most important societal influencing institutions have been twisted into drone creating mechanisms.
It also explains why the Left is so crazy to eradicate Christianity. Historically, the Christian faith has been the driver of rational thoughtfulness. Wherever Christianity has been introduced, literacy rates have risen dramatically. Christians have historically been readers and thinkers.
To reach the level of understanding Christians are commanded to have of their theology, one must study and learn and grow in the ability to think rationally. We must understand how to make philosophical arguments in defense of Christianity’s claims. This demands the ability to think critically and be able to sort out truth from a fog of disparate facts.
Christians launched the scientific revolution in pursuit of understanding God the Creator through his creation. Developing the laws of planetary motion or establishing the complex mathematics necessary to comprehend subatomic physics demands the ability to think rationally. Christianity fosters such use of the mind and therefore is completely incompatible with a Marxian utopia.
Barack Obama in his first inauguration speech glared at the unthinking masses before him and proclaimed that the transformation of America was about to commence. As much as Obama wants to give himself credit, America had already been radically transformed from its historical existence at that point. What’s really been happening since is the vise of control has been steadily tightened around our liberty. A republican president and Congress appear incapable of slowing the destruction of the greatest society the world has ever known. I may not vote in a federal election again.
My dear readers, Washington is a lost cause. An Article V convention of states is the only way to save the republic. Twelve states are now onboard. That leaves twenty-two more to go. The battle lines are forming.
May 6, 2017
What does “repeal and replace” mean to you? We heard the phrase used over and over again by our Washington Republicans since the Obamacare shackles were clamped on us in 2010. The phrase certainly embodied the great hope of most Americans coming into our last national election.
Remember that to rid us of Obamacare, Republicans implored us to give them a majority in the House of Representatives. This gave rise to the conservative Tea Party through whose efforts, Republicans were given the House majority they stated they needed to effect a “repeal and replace”. However, having the House proved to not be enough and Obamacare continued to grow and metastasize.
Then the Republicans told us that to really “repeal and replace” Obamacare they had to have a majority in the Senate as well as the House. So we voted in a Republican majority in the Senate while maintaining the House majority, but again Obamacare lived on because the Republicans then told us the namesake for the disaster still occupied the White House.
July 29, 2016
Ben Carson in his speech at the Republican National Convention provided a sharp contrast between America as constituted and the America the Democrats are endeavoring to transform us into.
Carson had the temerity to shine the light on our current president and his desired successor’s mentor, Saul Alinsky, and his game plan for the dissolution of our country as founded. He accurately stated that Alinsky dedicated his subversive tome, “Rules For Radicals”, to none other than Lucifer:
“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins—or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom—Lucifer.”
(Note that newer copies are being published with this dedication omitted.)
July 8, 2016
Intent (/inˈtent/) – the thing that you plan to do or achieve: an aim or purpose
Do you see anything ambiguous or confusing about this definition? A fifth grader could easily understand it and use this word properly in a sentence. It’s only in Washington that the obvious meaning of words becomes distorted and pliable. Only in the land where it “depends on what the definition of is is” does the clear and certain become opaque and situational.
There is no clearer confirmation of this than the testimony on Thursday by the director of the FBI in front of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. James Comey confirmed every allegation that had been made about Hillary Clinton during her time as Secretary of State in her set up and use of a private email server.
Comey made clear that Clinton’s statements that she neither received nor sent top secret information from this unsecured server were lies. He confirmed that she orchestrated an effort to eliminate vast numbers of emails and shield them from scrutiny as required by government statutes. The director advised that Clinton actually accessed multiple unsecured servers with multiple wireless devices refuting the Secretary’s claim of only one device and one server. Yet, Comey decided not to recommend Secretary Clinton be indicted since she did not exhibit “intent” to violate the applicable laws.
February 26, 2016
Something really stinks about this dustup between the FBI and Apple. Don’t you wonder why their dispute was made public by the government? If the FBI was really concerned about protecting we the people, wouldn’t they want to keep secret the fact that they cannot crack into the latest Apple software? Why would our government announce to the world that they can’t get into any iPhone and in turn confirm to terrorists that they have a secure communications channel shielded from U.S. Government surveillance?
Not only did the FBI confirm to terrorists that they’re communications are safe using iPhones, they then publicly impugned Apple’s response and motives in an apparent attempt to threaten their business if they don’t deliver on what the government wants. This kind of fascism would have Mussolini nodding in approval.
Make no mistake, this is not about cracking just the one iPhone used in the San Bernardino attacks despite what Marco Rubio and other establishment pundits are proclaiming. The FBI wants to be able to break into any type of secure consumer communications anytime, anywhere. And they are using the “terrorism trumps personal privacy” play again as it has been used to erect the vast surveillance apparatus that continues to metastasize. Don’t fall for this disinformation.
The FBI and Apple would not even be in this “contest” if both the city of San Bernardino and the FBI had handled things right. The phone belongs to San Bernardino and if they had installed the basic administrative software available for the iPhone, they could have been in complete control of the phone and have access to the totality of its contents today.
And then somewhere in the chain of custody between San Bernardino and the FBI, the iCloud password gets changed making it impossible to gain access to the backed up information there. Is this just incompetence or perhaps a chance to create an opportunity?
Setting the concern about government surveillance aside for a moment, if Apple is coerced into providing a key that will unlock iPhones as the FBI insists, this will create an exploitable crease in the security software on the device. Criminal hackers and hostile governments seeking to steal our personal information or instigate potentially damaging mischief could then exploit this crease. This is what Apple fears and what our government seems willing to accept. I understand Apple will soon refine their security capability to the point where iPhone software will simply be uncrackable. I applaud their efforts.
Getting back to the surveillance state issue, this week I happened to catch “America’s Mayor”, Rudy Giuliani, on my formerly favorite fair and balanced channel. Of course, he was promoting the establishment line about terrorism trumping privacy and Apple just needs to open just this one phone, yada, yada, yada. He then proclaimed that our government is only grabbing the “metadata” from our communications and that there is not one case of the government misusing the information. Well, let’s unpack that statement.
First, metadata literally means “data about the data”. So the government now admits it is capturing phone metadata that includes details about the call but not its content. In other words, the government knows when you made a call, what phone you made the call from, where you were when you made the call, who you called, their phone number, their location, date, time, duration, etc. However, they say the content of the call is not being captured.
In addition, this data surveillance mechanism is sweeping up all your web transactions as well. All of your FaceBook postings, the various web sites you peruse, and internet news sites you visit are all being captured and stored. The NSA very openly now admits they do this and they cheerfully explain it here: https://nsa.gov1.info/data/
So, if that’s all they are capturing, why then do they need data repositories the size of the one in Utah? Affectionately called “Bumblehive” by the NSA, this site cost us over 1.5 billion dollars and occupies about a million square feet. The data servers installed at the site take up about one hundred thousand of that million square feet. It consumes 1.5 million gallons of water per day just to keep the servers cool. Bumblehive’s storage capacity is estimated to be between a few exabytes to one or two yottabytes. The actual capacity is classified.
Understand when talking about exabytes or yottabytes, we are describing mind-boggling amounts of data storage capacity. Let’s say that Bumblehive can store one yottabyte of data. This would enable the facility to store a high definition video of every second of life for everyone who has lived in the United States for the last forty years. Patriots, even just a few exabytes in capacity so far exceeds the storage requirements for metadata gathering as to make those claims a ridiculous joke.
Couple this with the fact that the government is hiring behavioral specialists as fast as the can to develop search algorithms to sort through all of the social media data they are gathering to understand, predict, and ultimately to influence our behavior.
Is the picture becoming clearer now? I fear that the billions of dollars of our money that are being spent under the guise of protecting us from terrorism are really being spent to protect the government from us.
November 24, 2015
Several years go I was called for jury duty at the Broward County courthouse in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The highlight of my service was being selected as a possible juror for a wrongful death suit involving Ford Motor Company. A middle-aged widow was suing Ford over the death of her husband who was killed while driving a Ford vehicle involved in a horrific accident. The basis of the widow’s claim against Ford was that the seatbelt the deceased husband was wearing at the time of the accident was defective in its design and operation.
I was not the first juror to be questioned by the respective legal teams, so I had a chance to sit and listen to the set of questions the lawyers on both sides where putting to the jury candidates. Jurors were asked various questions about their lives, their occupations, education, and familiarity with Ford vehicles. Each juror was also asked by the widow’s lawyers, “What does, ’What’s good for General Motors is good for the country’ mean?”. None of those questioned (until they got to me) could provide any answer. I was kind of surprised by this but the widow’s attorneys definitely wanted those that could not answer on the jury.
A more interesting question was asked though of each potential juror. Again, the widow’s attorneys queried, “What’s more important to you, freedom of movement or safety?” Every juror questioned before me answered in a kneejerk response, “Safety of course!” It was like they were all programmed.
My response to the widow’s question got her attorneys to look up from their briefs and glare straight at me. I responded that I couldn’t answer the question without more data. I continued, “What is the risk that I am restricting my freedom of movement for and how much does my movement have to be restricted to avoid such risk?” At that point, there was no way I was getting on this jury as badly as the Ford legal team wanted me. I was sent back to the jury pool to sit out the rest of the day watching reruns of Bonanza.
This last question though is central to what is happening in this country today. I would restate it this way, “What is more important to you, freedom or security?” Islamic terrorism (yes, I am willing to call it that) starting with the attacks of 9/11 has made this the central question for our society, but we are not really focusing on it with this perspective.
The response of our government to terrorism on our soil has been to turn the United States into a massive surveillance state. Every electronic action you take, every keystroke you make, they’ll be watching you! (Sorry Sting, I just couldn’t resist.) Every website you visit is stored in vast yottabyte sized data farms in clear violation of the fourth amendment to the Constitution.
Yes, for terrorists to perpetrate their heinous acts they need to use electronic forms of communication and this surveillance technology can be instrumental in thwarting their efforts.
However, there is a cost that also needs to be considered. There’s a cost of losing our right to privacy and being secure in our personal effects. Do you really want to have the government know everything about what you buy, where you go, and what you are discussing with your friends? Is the questionable security you may be receiving against terrorism worth a tremendous intrusion by the government into your personal life?
While the government is building this vast surveillance capability and dictating we give up our freedom for security, look at what they are also doing. As I scan my news sources at the time of this writing, one of the biggest stories is how the president and his goons in Congress are going to come after gun ownership. If the government were really serious about protecting the American people against terrorism on our soil, wouldn’t they promote the Second Amendment instead of working to eradicate it? Everyone recognizes that gun free zones are death chambers waiting to happen and yet our elected leadership wants to disarm us. Washington instead should be handing out ammo stamps so we can feed our hungry firearms!
Washington refuses to protect our border to the south and intends to bring in more unvetted young Muslim men from the Middle East. Clearly this will make us less safe yet Washington is hell bent to proceed. At airports, they frisk Granny and X-ray the rest of us, yet terrorists are being essentially invited into our country.
On the one hand, the government is spending billions of our dollars and building massive capability to surveil us under the premise they are protecting us and on the other, they are obviously increasing the likelihood of a massive attack by providing terrorists easy access to our country.
Does it not seem that our leaders are using the specter of terrorism to further justify the erosion of our freedom? Allowing more terrorists into the country assures more horrific attacks which fuel more expanding government control over we the people. Americans have been programmed to unthinkingly give up their personal freedom for the fiction of safety. And the spiral continues until we either wake up or we are all looking through the wire of a cage. Wake up! We were born to be free at any cost.
November 5, 2015
Now that Ben Carson is leading in some national polls in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, the left is beginning to sharpen their attacks on the former neurosurgeon.
This week, Fareed Zakaria, the CNN news host, conducted an interview with famed atheist and evolution pundit, Richard Dawkins. Dawkins who has written such best sellers as “The God Delusion” and “The Selfish Gene”, is the face of modern atheism today and is one of the leaders of the “Brights” movement, you know the really smart people whose proclamations frame the liberal worldview today.
Zakaria asked Dawkins to comment on the fact that all but one of the major Republican candidates believe that humans were created and were not the result of natural selection acting on random mutation, i.e., Darwinism.
Dawkins replied, “This is not something you believe in or not. I mean, this is a fact. It is a fact. It’s just as much of a fact as the Earth goes around the Sun. You can’t not believe it unless you’re ignorant.” He did soften his remark some by saying that the candidates may be stating that belief because that is what their constituency believes and that was depressing in itself.
Dawkins though singled out Ben Carson for more focused criticism and called his belief in creationism especially troubling. While the rest of the field espousing creationism is a disgrace, Dawkins asserted that a distinguished neurosurgeon holding such beliefs is far worse, because, “evolution is the bedrock of biology and biology is the bedrock of medicine.”
Well yes indeed, biology is the bedrock of medicine but evolution has been rendered junk science based on what we now know of the fossil record and of the information content of all biological life.
We now know that the fossil record documented in the Cambrian explosion which occurred some 542 million years ago, shows that most of the major body plans around today came into being in a period of time far too short for Darwinian gradualism to have been responsible. Gradualism is the foundational principle of the evolution Dawkins espouses and this FACT refutes its validity.
While Dawkins has to acknowledge the information content of biology, he narrowly makes the point that DNA similarity between species means that we all came from a common ancestor. However he ignores the other possibility that it may mean that all species have a common designer. Engineers reuse software all the time for different devices. The very same principle could apply to biological life. Whatever you do though, do not ask Dawkins where the information came from in the first place; he’s liable to lose his blood pudding right there in front of you.
There is a bigger issue at hand though. There are two fulcrums that the Marxist left is using to undermine Western Judeo-Christian culture. The first is indeed that human life is the result of Darwinian evolution. The other is that through man’s pursuit of freedom and prosperity we are causing calamitous damage to the climate. Therefore, through evolution, the Marxists are able define who we are. Through global warming, they are can now define how we should live. It’s a complete worldview takeover and it is succeeding.
And key to the success of this diabolical strategy is the necessity to co-op science and coax out of it whatever supports the Marxists’ goals. Scientists have been seduced by grant money, department chairs, and notoriety supplied abundantly by the left. And the left has used its “Big Lie” machinery to set up scientists as the arbiters of reality, the high priests of all that is. Scientists are now the Marxists’ battering ram designed to demolish the foundational principles of America. The aforementioned Dawkins and former NASA head James Hansen are clear examples.
Because scientists are the bright ones, the educated ones, all debate is shut down. We are admonished to just listen and accept what the really smart people say. If you challenge their orthodoxy then you are labeled a denier or an ignorant fundamentalist.
The mainstream media plays an important role too. They dutifully report and support whatever the latest scientific proclamation is in support of Marxist global domination. They are the left’s attack dogs that pounce on any dissent and belittle those who offer real truth or data opposing the party line, when they really don’t have a stinking clue.
This strategy really started to take hold in the early 1990’s. Kenneth P. Green and Hiwa Alaghebandian writing for the American Enterprise Institute in 2010 provided clear evidence of this unholy strategy taking hold. They conducted a Lexus Nexus search of a number of authoritarian scientific phrases used in print media to see how the use of such misleading phrases has risen over the last couple of decades.
The authors searched on the prevalence of such phrases as “science says we must,” “science says we should,” “science tells us we must,” “science tells us we should,” “science commands,” “science requires,” “science dictates,” and “science compels.” The results which clearly show a dramatic rise in the use of such terms can be seen here: https://www.aei.org/publication/science-turns-authoritarian/
Clearly global Marxism has been pounding away at our culture with this technique for a long time and it’s time to wake up and challenge everything the mainstream media is trying to manipulate us with. Get mad America and don’t take it anymore.
October 14, 2015
Conservative writers and pundits often point to a shadowy group of global elitists that are orchestrating the deconstruction of this country. From the global warming agenda, to the assault on the Constitution, from our failure to maintain our borders, to our astronomical debt, we now just accept the idea that there are puppet masters dictating the actions of our politicians.
I’m not arguing the point. I agree that we have a government that is clearly serving global special interests and has abandoned its obligations to the citizens.
Just look at our Republican leaders. How they lie to us. We were told if we gave them a House majority they would repeal Obamacare. In 2010, we came through and the Republicans didn’t. We were then told they needed a Senate majority also. In 2014 we gave them the Senate and what happened? The first thing they did after the election was to fund every bit of Obamacare. Starting to feel like Charlie Brown and the football?
Other examples abound of how our elected leaders are governing against the will of we the people. They no longer work for us. We’re just here to pay the bills.
So if our government no longer works for us, then who are these shadowy globalists that it does answer to? Clearly, they want us to remain distracted and focused on their handpicked operatives in Washington and not on them. However, we can’t win this war for America’s soul by skirmishing with surrogates. We have to engage the real dragons seeking our demise.
This globalist cabal is more than three or four octogenarians sitting around a table rubbing their hands over each step they take towards the enslavement of mankind. It appears that it’s more like three or four hundred of the richest, most powerful, and most influential people in the world. They comprise the membership of three groups you have probably heard of – the Bilderbergers, the Council On Foreign Relations (CFR), and the Trilateral Commission (TC).
The CFR came along first being founded in 1921 and set its sights on a one-world government based on a centralized global financing system. Only Americans are members of the CFR and since its founding, most key US national security personnel, top generals and admirals, and presidential candidates have been a CFR members.
In 1954, the Bilderberg group was established. Its membership consists of world elite from America, Canada, and Western Europe. Many CFR members became (and are today) members of the Bilderbergers. Insiders have claimed that this group has morphed into the global shadow government we often speak of.
The Trilateral Commission is the most concerning. The TC got its start in the early 1970’s. David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski founded the TC because they felt the CFR had become too large and unfocused. It was the TC that fronted Jimmy Carter for President and no less than 18 TC members made their way into the Carter administration.
Its founders have made the intent and direction of the TC very clear. David Rockefeller said this:
“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
Co-founder Brzezinski stated this, clearly showing his disdain for national sovereignty and individual freedom:
“…people, governments and economies of all nations must serve the needs of multinational banks and corporations. (The Constitution is) inadequate….the old framework of international politics, with their sphere of influence….the fiction of sovereignty….is clearly no longer compatible with reality….”
Do you get that? We are to serve elitist institutions. Sovereign countries no longer exist.
My fellow patriots, this is what we are up against. We have the richest, most powerful people in the world conspiring to rob us of our freedom and liberty to satisfy their greed and lust for power. They occupy the leadership positions in banking and finance, politics, academia, and media. They are now finishing the box they intend to confine us to. What are we to do?
There are several things I believe we must begin to do:
- Come to understand this issue and inform others.
- We must replace our political leaders with men and women of uncompromising character who cannot in any way be subverted or blackmailed by the puppeteers.
- We have to start looking past the news that is served up to us by the sycophantic media and look to what’s behind events. Virtually everything going on right now is feeding the process of breaking down borders, spreading wealth, and homogenizing the masses. Just connect the dots.
- Get strongly behind the Article 5 convention process to amend our Constitution and shore up the current breaches that have been perpetrated. We must have a balanced budget amendment. Who do you think holds our debt?
- Stand firmly behind the Second Amendment and arm yourself to the full extent you are able.
- Pray and ask for God’s help in rolling back this scourge.
This deconstruction of the country has taken almost a century. It will take many years to reestablish our constitutional republic, but we have to start now. Welcome to the refounding of our country.
October 7, 2015
The debate on man-caused global warming is now over. Yes, the recent action of twenty scientists confirms the fact that dangerous warming of the planet due to man’s capitalistic activities is NOT happening. These scientists published a letter on the Institute for Global Environment and Society (IGES) website, urging President Obama and Attorney General Loretta Lynch to begin prosecution of climate change deniers under provision of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. This is the act originally used by the government to go after organized crime and later was used against the tobacco industry.
Clearly climate change proponents are now throwing in the towel on convincing the public of this hoax and are instead appealing to governmental power to silence dissent. All of the alarming rhetoric, falsified data, and constant drumbeat about the evils of capitalism have just not moved the public to accept the draconian solutions leftists need to consolidate power through this scheme.
I suspect globalist minded politicos have instructed these scientists to make this request of government as a trial balloon of some type. As I have stated in previous writings, the actions of the climate changers are going to get more frantic as we approach the United Nations Climate Change Conference at the end of November. Big global regulatory commitments are projected to come out of this conference.
During my years in engineering, we had an expression that conceptualized what scientific debate was all about: “Data talks and bull crap walks” (I cleaned it up a bit). What we’ve had from global warming proponents in the form of data IS nothing but bull crap.
We’ve had hockey stick charts that show an imaginary sharp temperature rise. We’ve had historical temperature data actually tampered with.
We’ve had global sea ice depletion claims that are totally unfounded. While there has been some decrease in Artic ice, the amount of Antarctic ice has increased more than enough to offset the loss of Artic ice, confounding the global warmers’ computer models. Have you heard about that?
And of course, we’ve had political correctness unleashed labeling any dissenters from the climate change orthodoxy as deniers. The left is still really into shame.
If you have clear data to support your claims you don’t need to legislate opposing views out of existence. Scientific truth will speak for itself. It’s only when you’re perpetrating a hoax that you need to suppress and eliminate opposing explanations.
There’s more at stake though than just having our economy smothered and our monthly power bills double or triple. What if this overt use of government power was used to enforce other irrational and unfounded orthodoxies?
Suppose any dissent to a strictly materialistic, evolutionary explanation to the origin of life became a felony. The argument between evolutionists and the adherents of Intelligent Design (ID) is very analogous to the global warming debate.
Darwinism’s view of man’s origin is integral to the left’s plans for globalization and its need to devalue human life. The overwhelming evidence for ID renders the Darwinian view of the origin of life to little more than a humorous anachronism.
The late Stephen J. Gould, a Harvard evolutionary biologist and staunch Darwinian defender, in a moment of candor stated this: “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable not the evidence of fossils.”
So Darwinists are not basing their view on data, just whimsy. They want us to have evolved in an accidental way because it is morally and politically expedient for them. And this is fiercely defended on college campuses today. A professor expressing support for ID has tenure shorter than the half life of a carbon15 atom (about 2 seconds for the non-scientific). For further verification of this, check out Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HErmp5Pzqw.
We could then easily see another group of scientists asking for government prosecution of “Darwin Deniers”.
To perfect society, the left will endeavor to perfect thoughts and opinions. Only certain ideas and concepts are beneficial to the statist utopia. Therefore, many ideas we freely hold and discuss today could become offenses of statist groupthink. Concepts like:
- Life begins at conception
- Objective morality exists
- Men and women really are different
- Profits breed innovation
- Man desires freedom more than security
will have to be eliminated.
Leftist utopia and individual autonomy are diametrically opposed to each other. It is truly a zero sum game. As the perfecting utopian tide rises around us, our ability to live as freethinking agents recedes. Get engaged before it’s too late.
September 24, 2015
The Obama administration last week made public a new executive order that received surprisingly little focus in the mainstream media, but maybe that’s not so surprising. The executive order is entitled “Using Behavioral Science Insights to Better Serve the American People”. Its preamble states: “A growing body of evidence demonstrates that behavioral science insights — research findings from fields such as behavioral economics and psychology about how people make decisions and act on them — can be used to design government policies to better serve the American people.”
Sounds very innocent and well meaning, doesn’t it? Reading further into the order, it describes the intent as an effort to deliver better governmental results at lower cost for the public at all levels. In the administration’s words, increased understanding of what makes citizens tick will allow the government to help workers find better jobs, improve the health of our population, improve the delivery of education and accelerate the transition to a low-carbon economy (that’s liberal-speak for learning to embrace poverty).
More specifically, the order specifies that government agencies:
- identify areas that can benefit from behavioral science insights
- develop strategies to apply these insights
- recruit experts in the behavioral sciences
- develop close relationships with the behavioral science community
This order was uploaded to the whitehouse.gov website for full public consumption and it’s certainly written to give the impression of a hardworking government just trying to be a better servant to the citizens. Do you really buy that? I can think of a lot of other words I would substitute for the word “serve” in the title of this executive order. How about “influence” or “manipulate” or “maneuver” or “deceive” or “enslave”?
You see the governmental and academic elite believe that we citizens do not make rational decisions. We are flawed creatures whose ability to process information is limited and fraught with error. Our emotions prevent us from being cool-headed rational decision makers like those in Washington.
From the elites’ view, it’s not rational that you believe you know how to spend your money better than the government. It’s not rational that you believe in national sovereignty and the defense of our borders. It’s not rational that you believe you can better educate your child than the government. It’s not rational that you believe you know what to eat better than the government.
Our elites decide what is rational. And isn’t it amazing that what turns out to be rational also helps grow government power and control? Have you seen any policy in recent memory that increases individual autonomy and freedom? No way. It’s all going in the opposite direction.
The genesis of this administration’s interest in the application of behavioral science to influence citizens started with the regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, better known inside the beltway as the “nudgster”. He co-authored a book called: “Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness”. Again, I would ask, who’s health, wealth, and happiness?
A nudge is anything that would subtly move a person out of their normal behavior pattern and into whatever response the government deems rational. The Obama Administration is embracing the technique and expanding its application. Isn’t it great that we the citizens are supplying the tax revenue that enables the government to nudge us into giving them increasingly higher levels of revenue? On many fronts, we are enabling them to manipulate us into giving up our personal sovereignty.
A free republic is messy. There are epic failures. People make mistakes, lots of them. However, it’s through the failures and mistakes that we learn individually and as a society. We grow by falling flat on our faces and developing the fortitude to get up and try again. Our government elites don’t understand this. They believe that through their superior wisdom they can perfect society if they have enough power and control and they are going to nudge us until they have the power and control they crave. They reject the lessons of history for the expediency of their intellect. Millions have died in the pursuit of such utopian perfection.
However, we are citizens and not subjects. This government works for us. We are not their lab rats. We agreed to give up a little of our sovereignty and autonomy to a federal government to which we have granted specific limited powers. We did not give them the power to manipulate us. We did not grant them the position of overlords.
They will not willingly relinquish the power they have already amassed. We will have to wrest it from them. Ready to do some heavy arm-twisting?
May 29, 2015
Marco Rubio, one of the leading candidates for the Republican nomination for president, made headlines this week with comments he made to the Christian Broadcasting Network concerning the increasing level of attacks on Christianity. He stated that “there’s a real and present danger” that the promoters of gay marriage will label the teachings of mainstream Christianity as “hate speech.”
He went on to say that “If you think about it, we are at the water’s edge of the argument that mainstream Christian teaching is hate speech. Because today we’ve reached the point in our society where if you do not support same-sex marriage, you are labeled a homophobe and a hater.”
Water’s edge? I would say that we are already knee deep and the water’s rising. I am willing to bet there is already legislation in a drawer on Capital Hill codifying Christianity as hate speech with jail time recommendations.
You have to hand it to the Marxists though; they are relentless and effective. At the beginning of Obama’s first term, most Democrats as well as Obama himself wouldn’t touch gay marriage with a ten-foot pole. And now just a few short years later, the Supreme Court will soon establish a Constitutional right to same sex unions out of the ether.
As Christians, we are told to love others as we love ourselves. This is an impossible task, but we try to do the best we can. The Bible tells us that homosexual activity is a sin but set that aside for a minute. If you love someone, you want what’s best for that person. If that person is engaging in an activity that is harmful to them, you want to warn them and protect them from it.
There are reams and reams of data that show that homosexual behavior is destructive to those that engage in it. For example:
- The lifespan of gay men is 8 to 20 years shorter than heterosexual men.
- Homosexuals are 50% more likely to suffer from depression.
- Suicide rates are 200% higher in gay men versus their heterosexual counterparts.
- While comprising only 2% of the population, gay men represent 62% of new HIV infections.
- Rates of infection for other STD’s are much higher in the gay community than the heterosexual community.
So who are the haters here – Christians who love their brother enough to tell him the truth or Leftists who promote the lifestyle as an acceptable alternative and turn a blind eye to the suffering?
The left argues that homosexual behavior is genetically based. Therefore, same sex attraction is normal and natural for a person so predisposed and should be accepted. Well, this is just a red herring. There are plenty of genetically based conditions that are destructive to the individual and society that we do not endorse and encourage. (Do I really need to list them for you?)
Whether homosexual tendencies are genetically determined or not doesn’t matter. Knowing that the behavior has such significant consequences, isn’t it more loving to steer the person with same sex tendencies away from such a lifestyle and not use them for political gain?
What Rubio alludes to is that there is indeed a war on Christianity by the left. Normalization of homosexuality is just one front in this war. The atheistic Marxists hate Christianity and attack it because it is only Christianity that stands in opposition to everything they are trying to bring about in this country.
Marxists, hungry for absolute power, want the government to be the source and determiner of our rights. With Christianity, our rights come from a transcendent creator and are immutable. The government is there to protect these rights, not create them.
Marxists promote the premise that morality is relative. There are no absolute moral principles that apply equally for everyone at all times. Therefore, the state can then determine what is moral or immoral at any point in time to suit it’s interests. Christianity is based on absolute morality. What’s moral for one person is moral for all and does not change with the seasons.
The Marxist materialistic worldview leads to a conception of man as being an accident with no more value than a tree, a fish, or a monkey. This life has no significant purpose and there is no life beyond this one. Therefore, abortion on demand at any point in gestation is perfectly acceptable and even valued. One hundred million dead in the twentieth century at the hands of Marxist dictators is just a necessary expediency.
Christianity on the other hand views human life as a precious gift. We are all created in the image of a perfect creator and therefore are of the greatest value. We are spiritual beings with eternal life waiting for us when our time here is done. And we understand that actions taken in this life can have eternal consequences.
We have to understand that atheistic Marxism and Christianity are incompatible. They cannot coexist. Marxism is aggressive and seeks to conquer. Soon, a choice will have to be made between acquiescing or standing firm on the Word of God. Choose wisely.
May 22, 2015
“This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.” So stated then President Lyndon Johnson in his 1964 State of the Union address.
Today’s president speaking to a group of faith leaders at Georgetown University last week implied that this war was still raging and had this to say about the perceived obstacle for winning, “Talk to any of my Republican friends. They will say, No. 1, they care about the poor – and I believe them. But when it comes to actually establishing budgets, making choices, prioritizing, that’s when it starts breaking down.”
Hmmm. Republicans haven’t established budgets or made choices or prioritized? Well, let’s look at some facts. Since the War On Poverty started, our wealth spreading government has spent over 22 TRILLION dollars of taxpayer money in an effort to eradicate poverty! Yes, 22 TRILLION dollars! Can you imagine what this number would be if Republicans were cooperating with Democrats?
For 22 TRILLION dollars, we have a poverty rate that is essentially unchanged from what it was when the government first started shoveling our money at the problem. The poverty rate was 14 per cent in 2014, essentially the same as in 1967. The rate has been bouncing around between about 12 per cent and 15 per cent for decades following the overall economic cycle. There has been no progress according to the government’s own measurements.
The funny thing is that the poverty rate was actually falling sharply prior to the “War” starting. The rate stood at 32.2 per cent in 1950 but had dropped to 17.3 per cent by the start of the government attack in 1965. One could reasonably argue that we spent 22 TRILLION dollars to keep poverty at the 15 per cent level, not to eradicate it.
Actually, other government data show that there has been great economic progress by the poor. Consider the following government data points:
- Two thirds of the poor have satellite or cable TV
- Over half of those considered poor have a personal computer and an Xbox or PlayStation
- Forty per cent of the poor have a high definition TV
- Ninety-six per cent of the poor state that their children were never hungry because they couldn’t afford food
- Nearly half those considered poor live in single family homes with forty-two per cent actually owning their home
- The average poor in America have more living space than the average person (not poor) in Sweden, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom
This data is cited from The Heritage Foundation paper “The War On Poverty After 50 Years” written by Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield.
So clearly, the standard of living for the poor in this country has progressed significantly. However, the government’s poverty percentage has remained flat. Why? Because the government does not take into account the welfare benefits the poor are receiving. The billions of dollars that are transferred to the welfare state each year are not included in the calculations.
Why would the government present such an erroneous picture? Obviously, it’s to keep the wealth transfer rolling. The argument for additional money can continue to be made if the poverty number is not improving. More money means more jobs for bureaucrats, more control of the economy, and more dependency by those trapped in the welfare web.
The original intent of the War On Poverty was not perpetual dependence. President Johnson made clear that the goal of the program was to build self-sufficiency and to raise people out of poverty. Instead, government statists have now grossly manipulated welfare programs to create a dependent underclass that will perpetually vote for increasing benefits.
The current administration has done everything it can to capture as many people as possible in the welfare web in order to establish a voting majority. And we are very close to reaching that level. Over 100 million Americans received some kind of welfare payout last year. If a voting majority is reached, the country will collapse. Can you spell Cloward and Piven?
This collectivism now ensnaring the country is totally alien to our founding. It stands in direct opposition to the ideas of individual freedom and liberty. It destroys the concepts of personal responsibility, property rights, and self-sufficiency. In place of these, collectivism breeds jealousy and hostility among citizens. It saps the confidence that one can improve their life through their own efforts. Citizens become childlike crying at the government table for their piece of an ever-diminishing pie.
This was not what our founding fathers passed on to us. This is not what hundred of thousands have fought for and died to preserve. We were born with unalienable rights to live as free individuals and make a life that has meaning and consequence as we so decide. Our government was so established to protect our individual sovereignty and our pursuit of happiness. However, due to our complacency and lack of vigilance we have allowed this government to become the predator of liberty our forefathers so feared. It’s not too late to turn back this scourge, but it is late.
May 8, 2015
You may be hearing in the media about something called Jade Helm. No, this is not the fem fatale in the latest James Bond flick. Jade Helm 15 is a joint U.S. military Special Forces exercise beginning on U.S. soil in mid July. The Pentagon formally describes it this way: JH is a challenging eight-week joint military and interagency (IA) Unconventional Warfare (UW) exercise…to improve the Special Operations Forces’ UW capability as part of the National Security Strategy”.
This “Realistic Military Training” is going to be conducted outside the federally controlled land typically used for such training. Instead, maneuvers are scheduled on public and private land across the states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah, and Colorado. Some reports though indicate that Colorado may be out and Mississippi and Florida may be now involved.
About 1200 members of our Special Ops Forces will be involved in this realistic training. Representatives from the Marines, SEAL’s, the 82nd Airborne, along with other Special Op and Interagency personnel will all be participating.
Our military has been very up front with the communities where these exercises will take place and has provided very detailed explanations of the maneuvers. However, while it seems legit, given the totalitarian bent of our government in Washington, the operation is making many patriots nervous.
The published map of the states involved with the exercise has somewhat provocative labeling. States included are labeled hostile, permissive, leaning hostile, and leaning friendly. There is some correlation with these labels with real life political leanings. For instance, Texas, a Republican red state, is labeled as hostile territory while California, a Democratic blue state, is labeled permissive. Is this just a coincidence and nothing to do with politics?
The governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, has added to the concern by staging his State Guard to closely monitor what will be taking place to insure it is indeed training and not some prelude to marshal law. Does he know something we don’t? Time will tell.
I’m inclined though to buy what we are being told by the Pentagon. Clearly the nature of our enemies and therefore the strategy to combat them has changed since the Cold War. We don’t need to roll out dozens of tanks and artillery pieces with tens of thousands of foot soldiers to go against today’s threats. The areas in this country used for these exercises are similar to what our Special Ops personnel would have to operate in given the nature and location of today’s potential conflicts.
However, given this president’s disdain for the military and his clear desire to pull American military involvement in the world back, an exercise of this size and scope seems kind of inconsistent, doesn’t it? Our overseas strategy now seems to be “go drone and go home”. Why then such an exercise of boots-on-the-ground given our president’s bunker mentality?
It’s possible that this indeed may be legitimate military training but that it really isn’t about training for operations outside our country. Maybe the areas the military is conducting exercises in are precisely the areas where they believe they will be engaging our enemies. This could be a sign that they expect a wide scale terrorist event on our soil soon.
This should not be surprising to anyone. The borders are wide open and terrorists can easily slip into this country unnoticed. There are legitimate reports that ISIS has camps close to our border in Mexico. We know that ISIS has hooked up with Mexican drug cartels on many fronts. The cartels can provide ISIS with easy access to many cities in the U.S. It would not be that farfetched that ISIS could have slipped a few thousand operatives into the country and has them positioned in teams ready for an order to begin their jihad.
While Jade Helm 15 is most likely the training exercise the Pentagon claims it to be (whether for foreign or domestic threats), it still produces an unsettling intimidation factor for politically aware citizens. This exercise conducted on both public and private lands showcasing how the military can very effectively deal with their adversaries gives me great pause. What if we were the adversaries?
We already know that Homeland Security labels people that go to gun shows or write pro-Constitution articles or who store more than a month’s worth of food as potential terrorists. Even though the NSA’s data gathering has been ruled illegal this week, the government has all it needs on each of us to make such a classification.
There’s never been a time that required more vigilance and maybe, more courage.
April 23, 2015
The Republicans now have a new leader in the race for the 2016 presidential nomination. Results of a new Quinnipiac poll were announced this week and Marco Rubio has assumed a small lead over heavy favorite, Jeb Bush.
Now Rubio is a good man and he received a nice bump in the polls with the formal announcement of his candidacy. However, he will not be the nominee. I do expect he will be a strong possibility for vice president though given his Latino roots.
I believe the moneyed interests have made clear that Jeb will be the next president. Forget Hillary. I have previously written that I do not believe she will even be the Democratic nominee. The sleaze just keeps piling up along with the foreign payoffs. Even the New York Times is getting ugly with her. I understand the Grey Lady is looking for a Native American, any Native American that will swear they are a distant cousin of Elizabeth Warren. OK, that’s just my speculation.
With Hillary out of the race, it’s going to be Jeb elected to the presidency. He’s raised over one hundred million dollars without even announcing his candidacy. As the nominating race heats up, the big money spigots will fully open and the rest of the field will drown in a sea of Bush sponsored ads.
Republicans, especially conservatives, should not get complacent at this point and be satisfied with “anybody but Hillary”. Bush has made clear from his preannouncement efforts that he is not a conservative nor is he looking for conservative support. He is the big money, corporate candidate who will continue to expand government power and control over our freedom.
Bush has made this very, very clear. He has been an energetic advocate of top down, big government control of education, you know, Common Core for the common man!
He has shown strong support for the erasure of our borders and flooding the country with “dreamers” because we have all those “jobs that Americans won’t do” to fill.
In fact, Bush has urged Congress to approve Loretta Lynch for Attorney General despite the fact that she fully supports Obama’s illegal executive amnesty power grab. His excuse is that the president is entitled to his nominees. Does he not understand the advise and consent role of the Congress? If the president is entitled to have on his team whoever he wants, why get Congress involved in the first place?
Speaking of the Constitution, Jeb’s confidence in his victory is so high that he is getting a little sloppy in maintaining his image of reverence for the letter of the our founding document. I believe, as president, he will find the Constitution as problematic as his predecessor.
Bush gave us a little peak behind the curtain this week in an interview with Michael Medved. Medved asked a kind of strange question for which Bush gave a stranger answer. When asked what was the best part of the last seven years of the Obama administration, Jeb replied that the “continuance of the protections of the homeland using the big metadata programs and the NSA being enhanced.”
Now let that sink in. Jeb feels the best thing about the Obama administration is the NSA developing the capability to capture and retain every phone call you make, every email you send, every message you text, and every website you visit. It is a level of intrusion beyond anything we could have imagined just a few years ago. It’s “1984” on steroids and Bush thinks that is a great accomplishment.
Has he ever read or heard of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution? It protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizures. Our private emails, phone calls, and all personal communications are protected and are not to be violated or seized without probable cause. What the NSA is doing obliterates the Fourth Amendment and a man who will most likely be our next president thinks it’s a good idea!
Clearly, the threat of terrorism has been parlayed into a vast system to control the population. All that material they are gathering from you is stored in vast, yottabyte sized data farms. Immensely powerful computer systems are programmed to look through the gathered information for certain words and phrases that are then flagged when found.
Congratulations, you have just earned a little gold star from the NSA by viewing this article! You’re welcome.
We have to remember that the Marxism we’ve seen from the current administration and the coming corporatism we will see from the next meet in the same place – tyranny and destruction of the civil society.
When was the last time you remember the federal government serving the will of the people? The feds under the impetus of the big money and power interests that drive them no longer see themselves as public servants but as our overlords. The next election needs to be a conservative tidal wave. Let us each help make that happen.
April 3, 2015
The annual United Nations Climate Change Conference is scheduled for November 30 through December 11 of this year. This meeting will be far different than previous years though. While these earlier conferences were filled with plenty of alarmist rhetoric and sanctimonious declarations of how much attendees really care about the planet, this year’s meeting is aiming much higher.
The goal as stated by the organizing committee is to forge a binding and universal agreement on climate, from all the nations of the world. Do you think such an agreement will promote economic freedom and prosperity in the U.S.? Of course it won’t. We will pay dearly in cash and freedom.
The pro-climate change organization Green Alliance published an advisory document last year listing the type of compliances targeted for inclusion in such a global agreement. Some of the provisions sure to be proposed are:
- A strong legal framework and clear rules
- A central role for equity (spreading the wealth, perhaps?)
- A long term approach
- Public finance for adaptation and the low carbon transition (Hide your wallets!)
- A framework for action on deforestation and land use (Can you spell Agenda 21?)
- Clear links to the 2015 Sustainable Development goals (Say goodbye to property rights.)
All of these are cloaked in the need to “take ambitious action before and after 2020”.
I believe fueling the urgency to take action is the fact that the premise of climate change is beginning to fall apart. As I mentioned in last week’s column, contrary to what the climate changers declare, there is no consensus among scientists that the earth is warming because of human activity. Over 31,000 American scientists have signed a partition stating their disagreement with this assessment. There’s many more I’m sure that would agree publicly if not for their fear of being labeled a “denier” and having funding, tenure, publication, and department promotions withheld. Ah, the tolerant Left.
If you really want a consensus, there really is one on the fact that the average global temperature over the last eighteen years has not risen. Of course, the climate changers state that this is just a pause, though they can’t say why and soon there will be hell to pay.
I can assure you as we approach the conference, the Left will become increasingly more frantic in making claims of impending doom about the earth’s climate. You can take that to the bank. There is only a short time left before the data denying man-induced global warming becomes overwhelming. Then even lying Marxists won’t be able to keep a straight face when spouting their warming propaganda.
You have to understand that this effort has nothing to do with the climate. This has everything to do with concentrating power on a global scale. If an agreement like outlined above is reached, it represents the first real step to a global governance, better known as U.N. nirvana. Do you want some European bureaucrat deciding what your thermostat is set on or whether you can install a wood burning stove or not? Your president is highly supportive of this and is selling you down that road with gusto!
Facilitating this entire process is an unholy alliance that the great author Michael Crichton described in his outstanding novel, “State of Fear”. He outlined a parasitic symbiosis between politicians, lawyers, and the media. Politicians need to have fear to get the population’s attention and to motivate them to take a particular action. You know, like giving up prosperity and freedom to avert a fictitious global warming disaster. Like I said, just watch the climate disaster shrillness ramp up as we approach the U.N. climate change conference.
And then lawyers need regulations and violations to bring suits to court in order to afford the BMW and the trophy wife with just a little left over to fund the fear mongering politicians’ re-election campaigns. And of course there’s the media. They need scary, apocalyptic stories to sell ad time and to make sure Shepard Smith always has a show.
I would add to this unholy trio a fourth member – academia. It’s academia that provides the premises, the fuel, that the engine described above can then operate on. Academia is really good at coming up with things to be fearful of, like capitalistic economies, the Second Amendment, women deciding to have their babies, and people who proclaim love for Jesus.
So if you want a way to concentrate power and wealth, have academia come up with phony data about climate change. Once an alarming scenario is constructed, the politicians can then swing into action and scare the population into accepting increasingly draconian restrictions. Lawyers can then pounce on the lawless violators and the media cheerleads the whole process along.
And as this mechanism proceeds, our rights are crushed underneath a behemoth that becomes inexorably more powerful and intrusive. The individual no longer matters. It’s the success of the state that is paramount. It’s the global movement that matters. What is happening is what our Constitution sought to prevent. However, the Constitution’s firewalls have been breached and soon it may be time for a new revolution. I hope we still have the will.