National Sovereignty in America and Trump

The drive for national sovereignty in America, that is a disentanglement from the Progressive’s World Government drive, has nothing to do with nationalism in the U.S… Consider what U.S. stands for in The United States of America. America consists of 50 nations, and that which binds us is not nationalism but the love of Liberty, the ability that America gives its people to live their lives as they see fit,and not as the government sees fit. We have been watching that liberty being stripped from us day by day, law by law, regulation by regulation imposed upon us by the Progressives, in both parties, we have been duped into putting into power.

Then along came Trump singing a song that we have been longing to hear. Pointing out what we all, all of us deplorable in any case, knew. The system is rigged against us; the Globalist are not only destroying our jobs, but under the guise of combating global warming actually sending billions of taxpayers dollars to enrich other countries at our expense. The left attacked him with everything they had, he’s a racist, a womanizer, stingy, not as rich as he claims, lies about everything, he’s a con, a clown, and on and on, but we heard him. Soros paid demonstrates, and bused them in to riot and raise hell, all to no avail.

And we elected him, and then the recounts, which ended up giving Trump, not Hillary, move votes; and uncovering massive voter fraud in and around Detroit. When that failed the next assault was on the Electoral Collage electors. Barraging them with pleas and threats, begging over and over that they vote their conscience instead of for who the people of their stated voted for. Well they did vote their conscience, and Hillary had more faithless electors than Trump did.

Their claim to legitimacy was that Hillary wound the popular vote by 2 million or more votes, but if you take California’s votes away from the total Trump won the popular vote by 3 million votes, proving the wisdom in the Founders’ Electoral Collage method of our selecting the President by not allowing the larger states to lord it over the smaller states.  In this election, however, it was not so much the states against the states, rather the county folks against the city folks as this map shows.

Results by counties.

Trump won, three times he won, but I fear his fight has just begun.

Merry Christmas.

The Emoluments Clause And Trump

Now that the electors will soon vote as their states voted, the next wave of attacks will come using Article I, Section 9, Clause 8: the Emoluments Clause which states:

“No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.”

Definition of emolument: the returns arising from office or employment usually in the form of compensation or perquisites.

Definition of employment
1
: use, purpose
2
a : activity in which one engages or is employed
b : an instance of such activity

Now the issue is if someone rents a room in a hotel an employment of the owner of the hotel? Or, when one repays an existing loan does that make you either holding an office or employment of the lender of the loan? Or, does playing at a golf course make you either holding an office or employment of the person who own the course?

Then Congress could just give him permission to run his businesses as he has in the past. Everyone who voted for Trump knew about his worldwide enterprises when they voted for him

The Pledge: You know, the one that they made Donald Trump take

Now I would like to call you attention to some hypocrites, remember in the first debate, and it was asked if they lost would they support the winner?

“The first Republican debate opened with a question, specifically for Trump. Per Bret Baier:

Who is unwilling tonight to pledge your support to the eventual nominee of the Republican Party and pledge not to run an independent campaign against that person? Raise your hand now if you won’t make that pledge tonight.” Trump was the only candidate who said that he might run as an independent if he doesn’t get the GOP nomination. Not only is that a difficult path to take, but also an expensive one. Trump is probably the only candidate running who could afford to launch an independent campaign.

Now Jeb! Bush and Lindsey Graham are reigning upon that pledge. A pledge is a contract, if you make a public pledge for a certain amount of money to a charity, if you do not give the money that you pledged you could be taken to court and forced to pay the money. Consider the hell that would have been raised had Jeb or Lindsey won and Trump would not support their run, saying, “he thinks the Republican Party has been ‘conned,'” like Lindsey just said. The MSM would climb him like a tree debarking him on the way down.

Has anyone mentioned the pledge they made to do what they so absolutist refuse to do now?

I Did Too Build This: Government does not equals socialism

                                      Facebook Meme

When Progressive like Obama, Clinton, Warren, and their ilk say this they are implied that self-interested acts are, by definition, selfish acts. It is based upon the idea that when someone creates wealth for his own benefit, that it benefits only himself.

Adam Smith pointed out the fallacy in this notion in 1776 in his treatise A Wealth of Nations. Smith pointed out when enterprising businesses work for their own benefit, unknowingly, they also benefit society. To earn income in a competitive market, the business must produce something others value. In Adam Smith’s eternal words, “By directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.”

This is Smith’ Invisible Hand, and it is the greatest engine of economic growth, wealth creation, easy, comfort, health and welfare the world has ever known. Private property and the right to pursue self interest is the fuel that drives this engine.

This brings to mind the story about the “Big Three” auto makers telling Robert William Kearns that he deserved no credit for inventing the intermittent windshield wiper systems used on most automobiles from 1969 and on into infinity because all he did was put together some existing technology that other’s had invented.

The legal argument that the auto industry posed in defense was that an invention is supposed to meet certain standards of originality and novelty. One of these are that it be “non-obvious.” Ford claimed that the patent was invalid because Kearns’ intermittent windshield wiper system had no new components. Kearns noted that his invention was a novel and non-obvious combination of parts.[12][13] Kearns’ position found unequivocal support in a precedent from the U.S. Court of Appeals and from the Supreme Court of the United States. See, e.g., Reiner v. I. Leon Co., 285 F.2d 501, 503 (2d Cir. 1960) (“It is idle to say that combinations of old elements cannot be inventions; substantially every invention is for such a ‘combination’: that is to say, it consists of former elements in a new assemblage.”) (Hand., J.) (cited with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)). From Wikipedia

This, in effect, is the same argument that Warren is making in the meme above. When she says that nobody got rich on their own for they moved their goods on the infrastructure that others have built is the same as saying Kearns’ intermittent windshield wiper system had no new components thus he deserves no patent. The Supreme Court found otherwise, and applied “flash of genius” patent law terminology, which was in effect from 1941 to 1952, which held that the inventive act must come into the mind of an inventor as a kind of epiphany and not as a result of tinkering, and made all use use his invention to pay him for it.

There are Progressive that made the argument that all governments services, such as roads, schools, law enforcement, etc., as socialistic Moore wrote in indignation, “my taxes are redistributed to plow someone else’s street! Socialism!” they say”

Government equals socialism.

Socialist programs in the U.S.: The Department of Agriculture, Amber Alerts, Amtrak, Public Beaches, Public Busing Services, Business Subsidies, The Census Bureau, The CIA, Federal Student Loans, The Court System, Dams, Public Defenders, Disability Insurance, The Department of Energy, The EPA, Farm Subsidies, The FBI, The FCC, The FDA, FEMA, Fire Departments, Food Stamps, Garbage Collection, Health Care, Public Housing, The IRS, Public Landfills, Public Libraries, Medicare, Medicaid, The Military, State and National Monuments, Public Museums, NASA, The National Weather Service, NPR, Public Parks, PBS, The Peace Corps, Police Departments, Prisons and Jails, Public Schools, Secret Service, Sewer Systems, Snow Removal Services, Social Security, Public Street Lighting, The Department of Transportation, USPS, Vaccines, Veteran Health Care, Welfare, The White House, The WIC Program, State Zoos.

Take that, capitalists! You’re all socialists, and you don’t even know it!

These claim serves primarily to demonstrate that there are far too many people in this country who do not know what the word “socialism” actually means:

Per Merriam-Webster, “socialism” is one, or all, of the following: 1. any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

To claim that all government services are a manifestation of socialism is to say that all kings and dictators of the past were in truth all socialists as they all provided services for their people. That aside, how many on the above list have anything whatsoever to do with the abolition of private property, the nationalization of industry, and putting the collective over the individual? Most of these are public goods, I wrote an essay on this some years back:

Public Good

Public good. We all hear the phrase, but I fear that we do not all understand the concept and readily confuse public benefits with public goods. To start with just. What is a public good? Paul A. Samuelson, the first economist to develop the theory of public goods, said, “goods which all enjoy in common in the sense that each individual’s consumption of such a good leads to no subtractions from any other individual’s consumption of that good.” The opposite of a public good is a private good.

Public goods like air, water, fish, game animals are normally referred to as common goods reserving the term ‘public goods’ to services provided by the government such as national defense, the police and judicial system, prisons systems, and as most people like to include the highway systems and education systems. I will get back to these last two in a short while.

For the government to provide a “Public Good” for its citizens does not make a socialist government. To say that a plumber did not build his business is as delirious as saying that I did not writer this because someone else created all the words that I used! 

Half of all people could be carrying ‘gay genes’

Straight men and women carry genes associated with homosexuality and pass them to their children, finds study

Around half of all people, including straight men and women, could carry “gay genes”, meaning that they continue to be passed down the generations despite the tendency of homosexuals not to have children, new research suggests.

The sisters of gay men tend to have more children, helping explain the persistence of homosexuality in larger populations, while straight men may also carry genes predisposing them to being gay, the study found. 

[snip] 

Based on Chaladze’s calculations, published in the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior, male homosexuality is maintained in a population at “low and stable frequencies” if half of the men and roughly more than half of the women carry genes that predispose men to homosexuality.

(No link with given to the study.)

The problem that I see is that no “gay gene” has ever been found:

The trumpets were left at home and the parades were canceled.  The press releases and campaign signs were quietly forgotten.  The news was big, but it did not contain what some had hoped for.  On April 14, 2003, the International Human Genome Consortium announced the successful completion of the Human Genome Project—two years ahead of schedule.  

The press report read: “The human genome is complete and the Human Genome Project is over” (see “Human Genome Report…,” 2003, emp. added).  Most of the major science journals reported on the progress in the field of genetics, but also speculated on how the information would now be used.  The one piece of information that never materialized from the Human Genome Project was the identification of the so-called “gay gene.”

It is a hope based upon a “the Devil made me do it” defense, only substitute gene for devil. Or from their point of view, God made me this way.

What has been discovered?

It is easier to say what has not been discovered: the researchers in the United States whose findings were announced last week have not found a gene that causes homosexuality and they have not proved that homosexuality is hereditary.

They believe they have evidence linking a region of the X chromosome – which men inherit from their mothers – with the sexual orientation of some gay men. If they are right, they have uncovered hard evidence of a genetic basis of homosexuality.

The gene has still to be found. The specified region of the X chromosome may carry several hundred genes in all, and the researchers are still some way from identifying which one it is.

But the Human Genome Project, mapping all human genes, was completed in 2003, see above.

From The Problematic Hunt for a ‘Gay Gene’

As the discipline of genetics changed, so too did the scientific approach to homosexuality. In 2012, scientists examined the possibility that variations in hormone levels in the womb could influence the expression of genes that affect sexual orientation, a line of inquiry that falls under the emerging sub-discipline of epigenetics. The popular media, once so easily convinced by LeVay that homosexuality resulted from brain size and by Hamer that homosexuality was genetic, promptly changed its tune to declare that homosexuality was now epigenetic. Hooray? If it’s hard to get excited about these studies, it’s because, at this point, biological explanations for homosexuality are like iPhones—a new one comes out every year.

The statement ” Based on Chaladze’s calculations,…” from the “Half of all people could be carrying ‘gay genes” story make me think that the study is nought but a statistical analyse, and offers no direct proof that a gay gene exists.  Rather give a statistical modal to support the supposition that a gay gene does exist, but that it is so evenly distributed in the population that the Human Genome Project could not find it.  

I wish that I could have found the study to see the sample size, and the type of analyze none on the group. 

Here I underline the weasel words:

Half of all people could be carrying ‘gay genes’

Around half of all people, including straight men and women, could carry “gay genes

while straight men may also carry genes predisposing them to being gay

if half of the men and roughly more than half of the women carry genes that predispose men to homosexuality.

Weasel words are “what iffing”,and offers no proof of anything.

Bed bugs developing ‘thicker skin’ to beat insecticides; Not an example of Evolution

Headline from USA Today

Bed bugs developing ‘thicker skin’ to beat insecticides

This headline demonstrates a basic misunderstand of how the theory of evolution is said to work.  It implies that the developing of the ‘thick skin’ was a purposeful action to overcome an adversary.  When in fact is is another good example of selective breading not of evolution.   The insecticides kill off all the bugs with the thin skins leaving only the ones with the thicker skins to breed more bugs.  Only their thick skin offspring will survive the insecticides to make more bugs.

Here is the headline of the paper that the USA Today’s headline is referring to:

Cuticle Thickening in a Pyrethroid-Resistant Strain of the Common Bed Bug, Cimex lectularius L. (Hemiptera: Cimicidae)

Abstract

Thickening of the integument as a mechanism of resistance to insecticides is a well recognised phenomenon in the insect world and, in recent times, has been found in insects exhibiting pyrethroid-resistance. Resistance to pyrethroid insecticides in the common bed bug, Cimex lectularius L., is widespread and has been frequently inferred as a reason for the pest’s resurgence. Overexpression of cuticle depositing proteins has been demonstrated in pyrethroid-resistant bed bugs although, to date, no morphological analysis of the cuticle has been undertaken in order to confirm a phenotypic link. This paper describes examination of the cuticle thickness of a highly pyrethroid-resistant field strain collected in Sydney, Australia, in response to time-to-knockdown upon forced exposure to a pyrethroid insecticide. Mean cuticle thickness was positively correlated to time-to-knockdown, with significant differences observed between bugs knocked-down at 2 hours, 4 hours, and those still unaffected at 24 hours. Further analysis also demonstrated that the 24 hours survivors possessed a statistically significantly thicker cuticle when compared to a pyrethroid-susceptible strain of C. lectularius. This study demonstrates that cuticle thickening is present within a pyrethroid-resistant strain of C.lectularius and that, even within a stable resistant strain, cuticle thickness will vary according to time-to-knockdown upon exposure to an insecticide. This response should thus be considered in future studies on the cuticle of insecticide-resistant bed bugs and, potentially, other insects.

The results of the developing a ‘thicker skin’ bug is no different than when a breeder want to develop a new breed of dog.  He, the breeder, selects the dogs with the characteristic he wishes to develop in his new breed, be it largeness, smallness, strength, aggression,  or docility.  He then culls the dogs with the unwanted characteristic and breed only the ones he believes will go on to produce the type of dog he wants for his new breed.  Selective breeding will never produce anything but a dog.

Instead of a breeder selecting which bug will live to breed a new bug, the insecticide does the selecting, and this selection will never anything but another bug.

Genesis 1:25-26

Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so. God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”…

When they show an example of a dog becoming something other than a dog, or a bed bug becoming something other that a bed bug I will concede that evolution is the driving force of creation, but un thin then I will take that old time religion for my explanation.

Donald Trump And Waterboarding: Does The Geneva Conventions Apply?

If you have not been living under a rock of indifference you will know the heat that the Progressives and MSM have been giving Trump over his advocating a return to the use of waterboarding as an interrogation technique for captured terrorists.   They loudly scream that it would be a violation of the Geneva Conventions if we were to do so.

Does it?  No!The Geneva Conventions applies only to signatories countries of the Conventions For a complete list of them click here, you will note that ISIS is not on the list.

When one speaks of the Geneva Conventions, they are usually referring to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which was ratified in the aftermath of World War II.

There were actually four Geneva Conventions. The First Geneva Convention was agreed to in 1864. The agreement provided for the protection of all medical facilities, their personnel and any civilians aiding the wounded. It also gives the Red Cross international recognition as a neutral medical group.

The First convention was originally signed by 12 nations (The United States was not one of these). The United States signed the Second Convention, which occurred in 1882. The second convention extended the protection of the first convention to wounded combatants at sea and shipwrecked sailors.

The Third Geneva Convention was convened in 1929 and resulted in specific protections for prisoners of war. The Fourth Geneva Convention was signed in 1949. This convention reaffirmed the requirements of the first three conventions and provided protections for civilians during wartime.

LINK:

In 1988, U.S. President Ronald Reagan signed theUnited Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment, or Punishment of 1984.  It was ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1994.  To this treaty the U.S. put the following exceptions:

Upon signature :

Declaration:       “The Government of the United States of America reserves the right to communicate, upon ratification, such reservations, interpretive understandings, or declarations as are deemed necessary.”

Upon ratification :

Reservations:       “I. The Senate’s advice and consent is subject to the following reservations:       (1) That the United States considers itself bound by the obligation under article 16 to prevent `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’, only insofar as the term `cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’ means the cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.       (2) That pursuant to article 30 (2) the United States declares that it does not consider itself bound by Article 30 (1), but reserves the right specifically to agree to follow this or any other procedure for arbitration in a particular case.
II. The Senate’s advice and consent is subject to the following understandings, which shall apply to the obligations of the United States under this Convention:
(1) (a) That with reference to article 1, the United States understands that, in order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.
(b) That the United States understands that the definition of torture in article 1 is intended to apply only to acts directed against persons in the offender’s custody or physical control.
(c) That with reference to article 1 of the Convention, the United States understands that `sanctions’ includes judicially-imposed sanctions and other enforcement actions authorized by United States law or by judicial interpretation of such law. Nonetheless, the United States understands that a State Party could not through its domestic sanctions defeat the object and purpose of the Convention to prohibit torture.
(d) That with reference to article 1 of the Convention, the United States understands that the term `acquiescence’ requires that the public official, prior to the activity constituting torture, have awareness of such activity and thereafter breach his legal responsibility to intervene to prevent such activity.
(e) That with reference to article 1 of the Convention, the Unites States understands that noncompliance with applicable legal procedural standards does notper se constitute torture.
(2) That the United States understands the phrase, `where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture,’ as used in article 3 of the Convention, to mean `if it is more likely than not that he would be tortured.’
(3) That it is the understanding of the United States that article 14 requires a State Party to provide a private right of action for damages only for acts of torture committed in territory under the jurisdiction of that State Party.
(4) That the United States understands that international law does not prohibit the death penalty, and does not consider this Convention to restrict or prohibit the United States from applying the death penalty consistent with the Fifth, Eighth and/or Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, including any constitutional period of confinement prior to the imposition of the death penalty.
(5) That the United States understands that this Convention shall be implemented by the United States Government to the extent that it exercises legislative and judicial jurisdiction over the matters covered by the Convention and otherwise by the state and local governments. Accordingly, in implementing articles 10-14 and 16, the United States Government shall take measures appropriate to the Federal system to the end that the competent authorities of the constituent units of the United States of America may take appropriate measures for the fulfilment of the Convention.
III. The Senate’s advice and consent is subject to the following declarations:
(1) That the United States declares that the provisions of articles 1 through 16 of the Convention are not self-executing.

I draw you attention to the fist exception, “(a) That with reference to article 1, the United States understands that, in order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;”  The US Armed Forces subject their own troops to waterboarding in training so they cannot believe that it would do any of the above. Thus an appeal to this treaty to stop Trump from reintroducing waterboarding as an interrogation technique falls short,

The United States Central Intelligence Agency defines waterboarding as a procedure where the individual is bound to an inclined bench. Then a cloth is placed over the forehead and eyes and water is applied to the cloth in a controlled manner. During this process the cloth is lowered until it covers both the nose and mouth and the air flow is slightly restricted and water is continuously applied from a height of twelve to twenty-four inches. After this period, the cloth is lifted, and the individual is allowed to breathe unimpeded for three or four full breaths.

18 U.S. Code Chapter 113C – TORTURE

As used in this chapter—

(1)

“torture” means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;

(2)“severe mental pain or suffering” means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from—

(A)

the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;

(B)

the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;

(C)

the threat of imminent death; or

(D)

the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and

(3)

“United States” means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

(a)Offense.—

Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

(b)Jurisdiction.—There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if—

(1)

the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or

(2)

the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.

(c)Conspiracy.—

A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

Torture is defined by US Law, and any law the government can make it can unmake and can be rewritten to exclude waterboarding.

Trump is our Zeitgeist

The world is changing, it is history (His Story) that creates the man, not the man making the times in which he is raised to greatness. You can see this all through history, Julius Caesar could have been Julius Caesar only at that time in history. George Washington came to power because of the necessity of history, he did not create the Revolution. Wellington was raised to defeat Napoleon, as was Winston Churchill for Hitler, none of which could have ever raised to power at any other time in history, the events of those days made them, they did not make the events. Trump is our Zeitgeist, he is being raised by the events of our day, for the good or for the evil, and there is no stopping him. I believe that he is a force for the good raised by God for these days.

Trump Retweeted Mussolini Quote

Trump, Mussolini And Obama

Every since Trump retweeted that Mussolini quote which as it turned out as an Italian source Secolo d’Italia who provide us further context for the quote. The source asserts that had adopted the phrase “Better to live one day as a lion than a hundred years as a sheep” (E’ meglio vivere un giorno da leone che cent’anni da pecora), but its origin goes back at least as far as 1883 with the Italian sculptor Ignazio Pisciotta. Mussolini had repeated the phrase at least one known time, on September 24, 1928. The quote Trump retweeted was indeed one of Mussolini’s and was satirically attributed to “ilduce2016”; however, the quote was not originally coined by Il Duce himself. It is in some ways, a “retweet” of a “retweet.”

Well, the comparison of Trump to Mussolini meme have flooded the Internet by selecting a picture of his that can reminds people of Mussolini, above I show that you can do the same thing with Obama if you pick the right picture of him.

Control the Language, Control the Debate

When issues come up that divide people upon what course of action should be decided upon each side attempts to pick the word(s) that define the issue. Both, as to how they wish to present their side, and how they wish to portray the other(s) side’s position(s). The first side to lay claim to the words use to tag the issues gain a huge advantage in presenting their arguments. Picking a slogan is an exercise in propaganda, the goal is to get people to accept your argument without thinking. Examples abound…

The Abortion Issue:

Those favoring unlimited abortions quickly tagged their goal as “The Right to Choose”, and when those who believe that it’s wrong to kill a baby countered with “The Right to Life” tag they switched their tag to “A woman’s Right to Control Their Her Body” where it stands today. The battle still rages with more and more states limiting the unlimited right to get an abortion, but gains on the ‘The Right to Choose’ side with federal law (ObamaCare) requiring the payment for birth control by the insurance companies, as well as abortions for those who cannot afford to pay for them.

By picking “The Right to Choose” and “A woman’s Right to Control Their Her Body” it is an effort to cast those who oppose unlimited abortions as being against the rights of women in everything that they may choose to do instead of being for the rights of the unborn babies which they clarified with the tag “The Right to Life”.

The Environmental Issue:

Those favoring controlling what people can do with their land tagged their goal as “Sustainable Growth”, while those who oppose the government’s control over a person’s property, as far as I can appertain, are tagged “Stop Big Government”. The Sustainable Growth movement has its genesis in the UN’s Agenda 21, and for the most part has Slid under the most people’s awareness.

Another tag used by this group is “Endangered Species”, and use it to control what people can and cannot do with their own land and water. The Environmentalist use this to stop as many developments as they possibly can, suing for damage assessment studies where they can bring the law to bear.

By choosing Sustainable Growth as the tag it implies that anyone opposed is opposed to sustainability.

The Global Warming Issue:

The tag has gone from global warming, to climate change, to climate disruption, and now carbon pollution as it fail to get the respect those who wish to blame men for the warming of the earth during the last 60 years believed it deserved. They tagged those who did not agree with them as “Denialist” who re-tagged themselves as “Skeptics” and the other side as “Alarmists”.

By picking the word denialist there was a deliberate hope that the word would be associated with the “Holocaust Deniers”, in an attempt to get the people who paid slight attention to discount anything a “denier” might say. The other’s side tagging them as “alarmist” was an attempt to bring “Chicken Little” to mind.

And I will close with this…

The Black Grievance Industry’s  “Hands Up; Don't Shoot” and “I Can’t Breath” are perfect examples of using  language to control the debate.  What are those who believe that due process were afforded to respond with?  These tags as short, crisp, and make their point in a manner that requires no thinking, no further information, leaving the true believer with only a clear course of action, blame the cops that the white man uses to suppress the black man.

I do not think that “Law and Order” or “The Cops Are Our Protectors” will sway the debate at this juncture, but the point of this essay is that you should not be swayed by tags nor slogans, but look into the merits of issues before you pick sides.

Donald Trump Reads The Snake Lyric, A Retelling Of The Scorpion and the Frog

The other night Donald Trump Reads The Snake Lyric, of course I got it, and of course it reminded me of  The Scorpion and the Frog:

One day, a scorpion looked around at the mountain where he lived and decided that he wanted a change. So he set out on a journey through the forests and hills. He climbed over rocks and under vines and kept going until he reached a river.

The river was wide and swift, and the scorpion stopped to reconsider the situation. He couldn’t see any way across. So he ran upriver and then checked downriver, all the while thinking that he might have to turn back.

Suddenly, he saw a frog sitting in the rushes by the bank of the stream on the other side of the river. He decided to ask the frog for help getting across the stream.

“Hellooo Mr. Frog!” called the scorpion across the water, “Would you be so kind as to give me a ride on your back across the river?”

“Well now, Mr. Scorpion! How do I know that if I try to help you, you wont try to kill me?” asked the frog hesitantly.

“Because,” the scorpion replied, “If I try to kill you, then I would die too, for you see I cannot swim!”

Now this seemed to make sense to the frog. But he asked. “What about when I get close to the bank? You could still try to kill me and get back to the shore!”

“This is true,” agreed the scorpion, “But then I wouldn’t be able to get to the other side of the river!”

“Alright then…how do I know you wont just wait till we get to the other side and THEN kill me?” said the frog.

“Ahh…,” crooned the scorpion, “Because you see, once you’ve taken me to the other side of this river, I will be so grateful for your help, that it would hardly be fair to reward you with death, now would it?!”

So the frog agreed to take the scorpion across the river. He swam over to the bank and settled himself near the mud to pick up his passenger. The scorpion crawled onto the frog’s back, his sharp claws prickling into the frog’s soft hide, and the frog slid into the river. The muddy water swirled around them, but the frog stayed near the surface so the scorpion would not drown. He kicked strongly through the first half of the stream, his flippers paddling wildly against the current.

Halfway across the river, the frog suddenly felt a sharp sting in his back and, out of the corner of his eye, saw the scorpion remove his stinger from the frog’s back. A deadening numbness began to creep into his limbs.

“You fool!” croaked the frog, “Now we shall both die! Why on earth did you do that?”

The scorpion shrugged, and did a little jig on the drownings frog’s back.

“I could not help myself. It is my nature.”

Then they both sank into the muddy waters of the swiftly flowing river.

Self destruction – “Its my Nature”, said the Scorpion…

The Ocean Is Coming For Us, The Global Sea levels Rising Hoax

From the Global Warming Hoax Department:

Here is the spiel :

“The ocean is coming for us. Global sea levels are now rising by 3.4 millimeters per year, up from an average rate of 1.4 mm per year last century. In just 80 years, the ocean could be a full 1.3 meters (4.3 feet) taller than it is today. That kind of planetary sea change can be hard to fathom — unless you live in a low-lying place like Miami, the Maldives or the Marshall Islands, where the effects of sea-level rise are already apparent. But within just a few decades, the problem will become unavoidable in major coastal cities around the world, from New Orleans, New York and Amsterdam to Calcutta, Bangkok and Tokyo. We all know why this is happening. Rising seas are one of the most salient effects of man-made climate change, triggered by thermal expansion of seawater as well as the influx of melting glaciers. Yet many people still see it as a distant risk, failing to grasp how (relatively) quickly the sea is swallowing shores worldwide. And since half of all humans now live within 60 kilometers (37 miles) of a coast, this isn’t a niche issue.”

Now I looked up Fort Lauderdale Sea Level because I lived there in the mid 1960s, that was 52 years back, I still have friends that live there that can attest that the sea level has not climbed since then, consider this, Posted on October 25, 2014, about a year and a half ago, and the level then was the same as it was in 1960, 56 years ago now. if the above assertion were true should we not see some indication of it at Fort Lauderdale, that is an ocean is it not? Is not the Caribbean a global ocean? Or is it immune to the 3.4 millimeters per year global rise?

Propaganda bull shit is what it is. Trump will put an end of all the US Government give to support this Hoax.

Then

Now

I would like to take this opportunity to respond to Barry Goldwater’s attack on the Religious Right.  This was brought to my attention by a Facebook friend, Christopher Lee Crowell, the other day in a discussion on religion’s role in the political process.  Let me point out the perspective from which I will be responding.  I consider myself a Christian Libertarian Constitutionalist, that is I believe that I am a person who believe that Jesus is my Savior God, believes that the less government is the best government, and that the Constitution as it was meant by its framer is the Law of the Land.  Christopher, on the other hand, is an atheist who, as far as I can tell subscribes to the living constitution concept.

One caveat, I voted Goldwater in 1964, but I did not pay as much attention back then as I do now, even though I believe that our country would have been much better off had he won instead of Johnson.

I will be adding my comment/rebuttals in red.

A note about the author D. Foster, Jr., a leftwing radical whose legitimacy is based solely on the fact that he is the braggadocios holder of a Bachelor’s Degree in History and Political Science from Missouri University of Science and Technology and is….surprise…… a teacher, in Pennsylvania and Missouri.

Barry Goldwater’s War Against The Religious Right

May 13, 2012 8:27 am ·

Known as ‘Mr. Conservative,’ Barry Goldwater embodied conservative values throughout his service as a Senator from Arizona, but he would oppose much of what conservatives have been doing today. Present day conservatives take many of their marching orders from the Christian right, also known as social conservatives, but Barry Goldwater resoundingly rejected them as extremists who disgrace the word ‘conservatism.’ Like present day conservatives, Goldwater supported the free market, but as much as he supported business, he rejected those who pollute the environment. Many conservatives today claim Barry Goldwater as one of their own, so it may surprise them to know that he rejected many of their present day core values. While maybe the concept, such as free markets and conservatives remand the same, how they are implemented is a different story. If Conservatism is a political and social philosophy promotes retaining traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization, then trying to obtain the goals of the Christian right can be viewed as a conservative goal in spite of Goldwater’s opinion, as many of the conservative of his day did.

Barry Goldwater rose to prominence as a man of deep conservative convictions. Liberals called him an extremist (which he was in his time) and his often colorful and controversial rhetoric cost him the Presidency in 1964. But Goldwater, as controversial as he was back then, also had the guts to call out his own party. For example, ‘Mr. Conservative’ rejected the Christian right-wing element of the party. As a firm believer in personal liberty, he saw their views as a violation of personal privacy and individual liberties. In fact, he believed in this creed so much that he voted to uphold legalized abortion and supported gay rights. He also rejected the use of God in political discourse and refused to vote in Congress the way the religious right wanted him to. Here is a portion of what Goldwater had to say about the religious right. A person’s personal liberty does not give them the liberty to kill another person, be it a baby or an old man dying on a sidewalk.  He had the right to reject the use of God in his political discourse, but not in others.  

“On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. On religious issues there can be little or no compromise, true for the personal, but not true for a deliberating body of legislators. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than God, true only for the believers, and true only for the idea being presented. That they are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent, is that not what every Special Interest Group does?  Why should the  Christian right be excluded because they are Christians who are trying to influence the course of our government both now and then.

I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in “A,” “B,” “C” and “D.” Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?  But it is just fine for him to dictate his moral beliefs to them, from where comes his claim to a higher morality to preach to them?  Of course he, and people like him are free to express their opinions as to how it should be, and how others should behave, but that freedom is extended to those to whom he is preaching against.

And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of “conservatism.” What threat could/did they make other that to persuade people not to vote for him?  Is that not covered in the First Amendment?
~Barry Goldwater

Goldwater refused to march lockstep with the Christian right as conservatives do today. The Republican Party of today has surrendered to the Christian right and ignored the real issues facing the country as a result. Goldwater knew how dangerous this would be. As was his right then as it is the right of of conservatives that do so today.  Dissagreing with that right does not take the right away.

“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they’re sure trying to do so, it’s going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can’t and won’t compromise. I know, I’ve tried to deal with them.” And just how did this manifest itself?  With Obama election?
~Barry Goldwater

Goldwater was a strong supporter of separation of church and state and was a passionate advocate for religious freedom. He would not support the Christian right’s crusade against non-Christian religions. Jefferson’s separation of church and state was just a guarantee that the government would neither establish a religion nor prevent the free exercise their of. It was not a prohibition of people to use their religious beliefs as a guiding light in the political process. 

“Religious factions will go on imposing their will on others unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives.”  Sadly for Goldwater and people of his ilk many decent people recognize that religion has as place in public policy as anyone else’s opinion.
~Barry Goldwater

It might surprise you to know that Goldwater was a supporter of gay rights and rejected ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’ As a man devoted to personal liberty, Goldwater believed that consenting adults are free to marry whomever they please. And as a strong ally of those in the military, Goldwater would be smiling about the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’

“Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar.”
~Barry Goldwater

“It’s time America realized that there is no gay exemption in the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence.”
~Barry Goldwater

“You don’t need to be straight to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight.”  I believe that incorporation of openly queers will prove to be a big mistake.  The incidents of male on male rape in the military is exploding, that was something you never had in the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ ere or before. 
~Barry Goldwater

Here’s how the debate over military sexual assault has unfolded thus far: Bold female leaders spoke out, smart male allies stood behind them, clueless conservative men started mansplaining the issue, and right-wing media went full misogynist. Because of this, it’s easy to imagine that military sexual assault is mainly a problem of men versus (or attacking) women, but as James Dao in the New York Times explains, in fact, the majority of sexual assault in the military ismale-on-male crime.

Goldwater would be horrified by the current war against gay Americans being waged by the Republican Party and would have flatly denounced the conservative audience who booed the gay soldier and would have damned the Republican candidates who failed to jump to his defense during one of the GOP Debates. It should also be noted that Goldwater supported desegregation. As a Colonel he founded the Arizona Air National Guard, and he desegregated it two years before the rest of the US military. Goldwater was instrumental in pushing the Pentagon to support desegregation of the armed services. This would clearly make Goldwater enemy number one in the conservative south.  If that war ever existed, it was lost in the courts.

Conservatives today are expected to oppose abortion at any cost. Abortion are murders. In fact, Republicans have been passing anti-abortion laws for the last three years in an effort to curb women’s rights, personal privacy, and individual liberty., including over 90 anti-abortion bills that have been passed in 2012 alone. Barry Goldwater would be absolutely disgusted with this effort and would call conservatives a disgrace to the Constitution. I bless them for it.

“Today’s so-called ‘conservatives’ don’t even know what the word means. They think I’ve turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That’s a decision that’s up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right. It’s not a conservative issue at all.”
~Barry Goldwater Conservatism is a political and social philosophy promotes retaining traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization, the argument is over what is traditional and how the social institutions should be retained. Goldwater had a different idea than the other conservative, to believe that it is murder to kill an unborn child is conservative, that was the law until Roe v. Wade.  It is apparent to me that Goldwater had lost his conservative roots when he wrote this.

It’s clear that Goldwater supported Roe v. Wade. He consistently voted to uphold abortion rights. He made this decision because of his personal conviction that every woman has the right to privacy as protected by the Constitution. As an American, Goldwater put the Constitution before the Bible. That’s something that conservatives fail to do today. So sad that he lost his way.

There’s something else that conservatives support today that Barry Goldwater would flatly reject. Conservatives have an unshakable belief in the free market system, as did Goldwater. But conservatives believe that corporations should be allowed to pollute the environment as they wish, which is something Goldwater wouldn’t support at all. To put it bluntly, Goldwater would support the Koch brothers and their right to do business, but he would take them to the woodshed for willfully destroying the environment.  Conservatives never supported pollution, it was Nixon who created the EPA. In 1969 halt all dumping in the Great Lakes.  In 1970 he created cabinet-level Council on Environmental Quality. Then in 1970-72: he created EPA which passed Clean Air Act.

“While I am a great believer in the free enterprise system and all that it entails, I am an even stronger believer in the right of our people to live in a clean and pollution-free environment.” As do all Conservatives.
~Barry Goldwater

Barry Goldwater was a huge environmental advocate. He sincerely believed that we needed to protect our world. Republicans in Congress have proposed a plan that would eliminate over 100 years of environmental regulations including allowing mining operations in the Grand Canyon. Barry Goldwater would be furious with this plan. So what?

“Well, once you’ve been in the Canyon and once you’ve sort of fallen in love with it, it never ends…it’s always been a fascinating place to me, in fact I’ve often said that if I ever had a mistress it would be the Grand Canyon.” Werd.
~Barry Goldwater

Even Barry Goldwater’s religion was tied to the environment.

“My mother took us to services at the Episcopal church. Yet she always said that God was not just inside the four walls of a house of worship, but everywhere — in the rising sun over Camelback Mountain in Phoenix, a splash of water along the nearby Salt or Verde rivers, or clouds driving over the Estrella Mountains, south of downtown. I’ve always thought of God in those terms.”  So why should his religion have any more say in government that Christians?
~Barry Goldwater

Goldwater certainly had a passion for protecting the environment. He would support the Environmental Protection Agency and clean energy initiatives. He, more than any conservative today, understood that we only have one planet and that it is our duty to clean it up and protect it. Pure propaganda. And as much as Goldwater wanted to lower the tax rates, he never intended for the wealthiest among us to pay less than ordinary Americans. You have to remember that when Goldwater was fighting for lower taxes, the top tax rate in America was 91%. In the 1980s, Goldwater criticized Reagan’s “parade of millionaires.” He also supported American jobs and competition. He would be horrified to see how corporations have choked out competition in America and that those same corporations outsource millions of jobs overseas. Goldwater always stood by middle class Americans. Goldwater also opposed corporate money in politics which means he would certainly have rejected the Citizens United decision. “… the wealthiest among us to pay less than ordinary Americans.” And they never did. Today thetop 10 percent of earners paid 68 percent of the federal Income Tax collected. 

The latest year I could Find:

• In 2013, 138.3 million taxpayers reported earning $9.03 trillion in adjusted gross income and paid $1.23 trillion in income taxes.
• Every income group besides the top 1 percent of taxpayers reported higher income in 2013 than the previous year. All income groups paid higher taxes in 2013 than the previous year.
• The share of income earned by the top 1 percent of taxpayers fell to 19.0 percent in 2013. Their share of federal income taxes fell slightly to 37.8 percent.
• In 2012, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers (69.2 million filers) paid 97.2 percent of all income taxes while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 2.8 percent.
• The top 1 percent (1.3 million filers) paid a greater share of income taxes (37.8 percent) than the bottom 90 percent (124.5 million filers) combined (30.2 percent).
• The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a higher effective income tax rate than any other group, at 27.1 percent, which is over 8 times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.3 percent).

Clearly, Goldwater isn’t the pillar of conservatism the Republicans make him out to be. In fact, Goldwater was so distressed about the Christian right takeover of the Republican Party, that he began referring to himself as a liberal. In 1996, he told Bob Dole, whose own presidential campaign received lukewarm support from conservative Republicans: “We’re the new liberals of the Republican party. Can you imagine that?” Other than him running against Johnson I do not recall his being talked about much.

Speaking of liberals, Goldwater believed they were a valuable part of the political system. Rather than vilify liberals like conservatives do on a daily basis today, Goldwater once wrote an article for the National Review “affirming that he [was] not against liberals, that liberals are needed as a counterweight to conservatism.” In other words, Goldwater would be completely against the present day conservative calls to destroy liberalism and the people who embody it. He would also be against conservative claims that liberals are socialists because he never would have stooped that low. Goldwater never supported the John Birch Society anti-communist obsession and he never once accused a fellow American of being a communist or socialist and would denounce Republicans for calling President Obama one. I strongly believe that Goldwater would have voted for President Obama had he been alive in 2008 like two of his granddaughters did. He was wrong to not oppose the Progressives of his day, they do not want to work with a Constitutional Republic, they want to rebuild America in the Communist mode.

We all know Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson as Christian right-wing fanatics who have a stranglehold over the Republican Party. But Barry Goldwater never ever subscribed to their thirst to combine God and government. He considered such a movement an abomination and despised both Falwell and Robertson to the core. In a 1994 interview with the Washington Post the retired senator said, Fanatics is as you define them, I did not see Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson fanatics, they were loyal Americans working within the political frameworks, not trying to take it over serendipity like the Progressives have been doing for years.

“When you say “radical right” today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.” In response to Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell’s opposition to the nomination of Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court, of which Falwell had said, “Every good Christian should be concerned”, Goldwater retorted: “Every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in the ass.”  What makes him the judge of what a good Christian is or should be other than the fact that progressives agree with it?

These two examples clearly show how much Goldwater disapproved of the growing influence of the Christian Right. Goldwater went even further than that, however. A few years before his death he went so far as to address the unprincipled establishment Republicans, “Do not associate my name with anything you do. You are extremists, and you’ve hurt the Republican party much more than the Democrats have.”  I hope that they obliged him.  It was his idea of what the Republican Party should be that was hurt, not the Party.  There are those today that feel the same Trump, that he will destroy the Republican Party but he want, he will make it stronger with his Practical  Conservationism.

Barry Goldwater was a truer and more honorable conservative than the current crop of Republicans, who have allowed social conservative views, which he strongly opposed, to become the dominant and defining philosophy of the conservative movement. Conservatives never heeded Goldwater’s warning. They allowed the Christian right to take over the party and now they have become so powerful that even traditional conservatives do the bidding of the religious right on command. Barry Goldwater had the courage to stand up to these extremists and made his decisions in the Senate according to what he thought best for America as a whole. He defended religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution and saw the Christian right as a major threat to that freedom. You mean that his were ideas that you agreed with.

It is time for conservatives to wake up and realize what the Christian right has done to the Republican Party and America. They must honor true conservatism and banish the religious right from their movement before their doctrine of hatred and division destroys the nation Goldwater loved. Goldwater’s views regarding the economy and Social Security are rather extreme but that’s why he believed in compromising. His willingness to stand against the extremists in his own party and his willingness to compromise makes him a better person and politician than any conservative today. His views were far tamer than those of present day conservatives. Goldwater had a mind of his own and he never allowed people to brainwash him or control him. It is a testament to the great character this man possessed. Barry Goldwater should be admired for his strength to reject extremists, his love of the American people, and his patriotism. But Republicans have moved so far to the right that even Barry Goldwater would be considered a hard-core liberal. Conservatives like Goldwater would be wise to follow his example and take back their party in his name before the extremists tear the fabric of America asunder.

Foster calling for conservatives to wake up is laughable on it face, he has no desire for Conservationism to trump, he is a stalking horse trying to get close enough to sway some uninformed, and give ammo to progressives to hit the Republican Party with.

Author: Stephen D. Foster Jr.