Thomas Aquinas: Revolutionary and Saint

From The Public Discourse.com (May 31, 2023):

Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) is one of the two most famous Catholic theologians and philosophers; the other is Augustine (354–430). Seven hundred years ago, on 18 July 1323, Pope John XXII presided at Aquinas’s canonization as a saint. In 1567, Pope Pius V proclaimed Aquinas to be a “Doctor of the Church,” one whose teachings occupy a special place in Catholic theology. Thomas was the first thinker after the time of the Church Fathers to be so honored. In 1879 Pope Leo XIII issued a famous encyclical, Aeterni Patris: On the Restoration of Christian Philosophy, calling on all Catholic educational institutions to give pride of place to the theology and philosophy of Thomas Aquinas. Although today he is a well-established authority in both philosophy and theology, in his own time he was considered a revolutionary thinker whose views challenged the accepted intellectual establishment of the West.

As a young man in Italy, Thomas joined the recently founded Dominican Order. Along with the Franciscans, the Dominicans were part of a widespread reform movement within the Catholic Church. In many ways these new religious orders were urban-based youth movements and, to be effective in their apostolate of reform in the Church, the Dominicans sought out the ablest young men and quickly established houses of study in the great university centers, such as Bologna, Paris, and Oxford.

Thomas traveled north to Paris (1245) to study with Albert the Great at the University of Paris. Albert was already well known for his work in philosophy, theology, and the natural sciences. Like other Dominicans of his time, Thomas walked to Paris from Italy; and then, with Albert, he walked to Cologne (1248) where the Dominicans were establishing another center of studies. He came back to Paris (in 1252) to complete his studies to become a Master of Theology. After three years in Paris, he spent the next ten years in various places in Italy, only to return to Paris in the late 1260s. There, he once again occupied a chair as Master of Theology and confronted various intellectual and institutional challenges, especially concerning the proper relationship between philosophy and theology.

………

One of his greatest insights concerns a proper understanding of God’s act of creating and its relationship to science. The natural sciences explain changes in the world; creation, on the other hand, is a metaphysical and theological account of the very existence of things, not of changes in things. Such a distinction remains useful for discussions in our own day about the philosophical and theological implications of evolutionary biology and cosmology. The subject of these disciplines is change, indeed change on a grand scale. But as Thomas would remind us, creation is not a change, since any change requires something that changes. Rather, creation is a metaphysical relationship of dependence. Creation out of nothing does not mean that God changes “nothing” into something. Any creature separated from God’s causality would be nothing at all. Creation is not primarily some distant event; it is the ongoing causing of the existence of whatever is.

In one of the more radical sentences written in the thirteenth century, Thomas claimed that “not only does faith hold that there is creation, but reason also demonstrates creation.” Here he is distinguishing between a philosophical and a theological analysis of creation. Arguments in reason for the world’s being created occur in the discipline of metaphysics: from the distinction between what it means for something to be (its essence) and its existence. This distinction ultimately leads to the affirmation that all existence necessarily has a cause. [read more]

The Surprising Origins of the ‘No Taxation Without Representation!’ Slogan

From FEE.org (June 24, 2023):

Ask most Americans where the slogan “No taxation without representation!” came from and the likely response will be “American colonists protesting against Britain in the 1760s.” But the spirit, if not the precise letter of the phrase, originated more than a century before. Moreover, we can thank the Brits themselves for it. It started with something called the “ship tax.”

Since the early Middle Ages, English custom allowed the monarch to impose a special levy in times of war upon citizens who lived in coastal settlements. They could meet the requirement by providing ships, shipbuilding materials, or money for the Crown to build ships (hence the name, “ship tax”). Kings and Queens levied the “tax” as a royal prerogative, meaning they skipped the annoyance of securing the consent of Parliament as required in the Magna Carta of 1215.

So long as the tax fell upon a small portion of the population and only in a “national emergency,” the monarchy got away with it for centuries.

King James I provoked a fuss in 1619 when he extended the ship tax to London but it was his successor, Charles I, who sparked a far bigger uproar over it just nine years later. Charles shut down Parliament and then, in 1628 and in peacetime no less, he imposed the ship tax on all counties in England. It was a tax on everybody, and nobody could do anything about it. In subsequent years, the King reaffirmed and increased it in the face of fierce and growing opposition.

Enter one John Hampden, a Buckinghamshire landowner first elected to Parliament in 1621. When he refused to pay the full balance of the ship tax the King said he owed, Hampden’s case proceeded to the twelve judges of the Court of Exchequer. The King, Hampden and his lawyers maintained, had no right to levy the tax in the absence of Parliamentary approval.

Though Hampden lost the case by a vote of 7 to 5, Charles was embarrassed that his victory was so narrow. When the English Civil War began in 1642, John Hampden was among the first the King unsuccessfully attempted to arrest. The issue on which he risked challenging the King, taxation without representation, proved to be a major cause of that war.

Hampden died in battle in 1643, six years before Charles himself was beheaded. Almost four centuries later, Hampden is remembered as a martyr for liberty and his name is honored eponymously by numerous towns and institutions. Hampden-Sydney College in Virginia is one of many examples.

James Otis of Massachusetts is usually credited as the first American to employ “no taxation without representation” in the run-up to the Declaration of Independence. He wrote in 1764 that “the very act of taxing, exercised over those who are not represented, appears to me to be depriving them of one of their most essential rights as freemen; and if continued, seems to be in effect an entire disfranchisement of every civil right.”

Liberty-loving patriots like John Hampden and James Otis went to war because their governments dared tax without the consent of elected parliamentarians. As bad as taxation without representation was in their day, I’ll bet at today’s rates with representation they might well raise a fuss again. [source]

Intelligence agencies 'most immediate threat', says analyst

From Free Pressers.com (Feb. 18, 2020):

In a May 2019 interview, Attorney General William Barr noted that U.S. intelligence agencies have come to identify “the national interest with their own political preferences.”

Feeling that “anyone who has a different opinion” is somehow “an enemy of the state,” Barr said, adding that the agencies now support their party in seizing power, “[convincing] themselves that what they’re doing is in the higher interest, the better good.”

The deepest part of the American deep state is its intelligence agencies, which are “the most immediate threat to representative government,” author and columnist Angelo Codevilla noted.

“They are also not very good at what they are supposed to be doing. Protecting the Republic from them requires refocusing them on their proper jobs,” Codevilla wrote in a Feb. 12 essay for The American Mind, a publication of the Claremont Institute.

………..

U.S. intelligence agencies, Codevilla wrote, “have succeeded in restricting information about their misdeeds by ‘classifying’ them under the Espionage Act of 1921. Thus covered, they misrepresent their opinions as knowledge and their preferences as logic. Thus acting as irresponsible arbiters of truth at the highest levels of American public life, they are the foremost jaws of the ruling class vise that is squeezing self-rule out of America.”

New York Democrat Sen. Chuck Schumer once said in a messaged aimed at President Donald Trump: “Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.”

Intelligence officials “have proved Schumer correct,” Codevilla wrote.

In its overview of the threats today’s intelligence agencies pose to self-government in America, the Claremont Institute found:

• CIA is obsolete. Cables show agents’ intelligence takes are inferior to diplomats’. Agent networks are unprotected by counterintelligence. FBI success at counterintelligence ended when the Bureau was politicized and bureaucratized in the 1970s. CIA bottlenecks and incompetently controls strategic intelligence, while the Army and Marines show demonstrable tactical superiority.
• As a result, CIA is ideologically partisan. Its strength is in leading or joining domestic campaigns to influence public opinion. FBI has followed suit.
• Senior intelligence officials were the key element in the war on Donald Trump’s candidacy and presidency. CIA used meetings that it manufactured as factual bases for lies about campaign advisors seeking Russian information to smear Hillary Clinton. Intelligence began formal investigation and surveillance without probable cause. Agents gained authorization to electronically surveil Trump and his campaign and defended their bureaucratic interests, sidelining Lieutenant General Michael Flynn and denying or delaying Trump appointments and security clearances.
• Partisanship produces failure. FISA has incentivized political abuse. “Profiling” has failed repeatedly in high-profile cases like the Atlanta Olympics bombing and the anthrax mail attacks. Perjury trapping has become commonplace.

Codevilla outlined the Claremont Institute’s suggested steps that presidents and Congress might take to improve matters:

• FISA must be repealed legislatively or through Constitutional challenge in court. It unconstitutionally mingles judicial and executive power in secret. It gave Intelligence a blank check. Hardly “an indispensable tool” for national security, it is now indispensable for partisanship. Broad consensus exists for a legislative “fix,” but none is possible. The secret court’s existence, the heart of the law, allows partisan bureaucrats and allied judges to do what they want in secret.
• Functions currently performed by CIA should be sheared down. Data infrastructure and consultant networks should be eliminated. Bipartisan opposition to the Intelligence threat should use fierce resistance and lobbying from Intelligence as evidence of why cuts are in the national interest.
• CIA must be disestablished. Its functions should be returned to the Departments of State, Defense, and Treasury. FBI must be restricted to law enforcement. At home, the Agencies are partisan institutions illegitimately focused on setting national policy. Abroad, Agencies untied to specific operational concerns are inherently dangerous and low-value.
• Intelligence must return to its natural place as servant, not master, of government. Congress should amend the 1947 National Security Act. The President should broaden intelligence perspectives, including briefs from State, Defense, and Treasury, and abolish CIA’s “covert action.” State should be made responsible for political influence and the armed services for military and paramilitary affairs.

The CIA’s “founding generation concerned itself with making national policy, arguably more than with anything else, and transmitted that concern to its successors. Today’s meddling in elections and trying to overturn their results is a logical consequence,” Codevilla noted.

"In short, CIA and FBI have become instruments of partisan power," Codevilla wrote. "None of this, of course, has anything to do with the natural, proper functions of Intelligence." [read more]

Interesting. Sounds good to me, but the Deep State won’t like it and will fight it.

Lithium deposit found in US McDermitt Caldera may be world’s largest

From NY Post.com (Sept. 11, 2023):

A lithium deposit discovered in a volcanic crater along the Nevada-Oregon border may hold up to 40 million metric tons of the rare metal — possibly the largest ever in the world, which could have a massive impact on the electric vehicle industry, according to a new study.

The deposit hidden within the McDermitt Caldera is estimated to hold between 20 million and 40 million metric tons, which would be nearly double the current record of about 23 million metric tons found over the summer beneath a Bolivian salt flat, researchers reported in Science Advances.

It would also greatly boost America’s overall lithium reserves, which were previously estimated at a paltry 1 million metric tons.

Belgian geologist Anouk Borst said that if the estimate proves true, the sudden overabundance of American lithium — the metal sought after by electric vehicle makers — could have global impacts.

“It could change the dynamics of lithium globally, in terms of price, security of supply and geopolitics,” Borst told Chemistry World. “The US would have its own supply of lithium and industries would be less scared about supply shortages.”

Electric vehicle makers have bemoaned estimates that “white gold” supplies will fall short by 2025, with China, the US and several South American countries vying to locate large deposits to meet the increasing demand.

Paul A. Jacobson, GM’s chief financial officer, told investors mid-June that they “already have that risk” of not getting enough lithium, explaining that GM has bought stakes in mining operations.

“We’ve got to have partnerships with people that can get us the lithium in the form that we need,” Jacobson said.

The rush to acquire the white gold has also been exacerbated by President Biden’s clean energy agenda, which calls for EVs to make up about 50% of all cars sold by 2030.

The administration has pushed for investing $7.5 billion in EV charging stations around the nation.

Thomas Benson, a geologist at Lithium Americas Corporation who co-wrote the new study, expects that mining can begin at the McDermitt Caldera by 2026.

Researchers from the Lithium Americas Corporation, GNS Science, and Oregon State University explained that the unique conditions of the McDermitt Caldera’s explosions 16 million years ago created the ideal state for lithium-rich particles to form.

Nevada itself has been a hotbed for lithium deposits, but the sites have seen opposition, with conservationists, Indigenous Americans and even NASA pushing to block mining in the area.

The McDermitt Caldera mine is located beside the Thacker Pass mine, which has seen protests from the native Paiutes tribe and court challenges over the last three years.

Meanwhile, NASA voiced its opposition in June to mining the Railroad Valley tabletop flat because its undisturbed standing is key to calibrating the measurements of hundreds of satellites orbiting the Earth. [source]

If America is going to use rare earth minerals, I think it would be better to mine them in America rather than in countries that use child labor.

Here’s Everything You Missed From Trump’s Historic Trip To The Middle East

From The Federalist.com (May 21):

The world is catching its collective breath after President Trump’s whirlwind tour of the Middle East. The sheer number of deals and substantive actions is unprecedented.

His first stop was Saudi Arabia, and the initial few deals — including a $600 billion investment package that included $142 billion in arms sales — were not major surprises. But the first curveball was soon to follow. He lifted sanctions against Syria at the request of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

The Gulf Arab States were happy to see the end of the Assad regime in Syria and with it the expulsion of their biggest enemy, Iran, and its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The fact that they were deposed by Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a jihadist terror group, does not seem to be an obstacle in their eyes. They want to help cement that group’s somewhat tenuous hold on the country.

President Trump met with Ahmed al-Sharaa, the HTS leader, while there and lent his authority to the new leadership. Trump also gave him a list of demands for his government to show it deserves this golden opportunity, pressing Syria to join the Abraham Accords and normalize relations with Israel.

It is far from certain that HTS will lead Syria in a positive direction, even given the low bar of succeeding 50 years of tyranny by the Assads. Sharaa may have changed his name (he’s formerly known as the jihadist Abu Mohammed al-Jolani), trimmed his beard, and put on a suit, but he spent most of his adult life as a member of al-Qaida and other jihadist groups.

This is the bold nature of President Trump’s approach. He will rely on the Gulf States to keep HTS in line and in return gain their support for his other goals for the region. Two of the biggest are continuing the success of the Abraham Accords and ensuring that Iran never gets nuclear weapons. Both of those are more effective with a united front among the most influential countries in the region.

His next stop was Qatar, where the United States has its largest military presence in the region. He spoke to troops at Al Udeid Air Base about modernizing our forces and ensuring the interventionism of the past was in the past. But any action against Iran would certainly involve the U.S. forces there, and Iran was a topic of discussion as he met with Qatari leaders. He aimed to ensure they are on board with the reinvigorated maximum pressure campaign designed to influence Iran to sign a deal ending its nuclear programs.

He emphasized the strengthening relationship between the United States and Qatar and announced a number of major economic deals that amount to $1.2 trillion in new investments. Most interesting to the media and Democrats is the possibility of Qatar gifting a plane to serve as an interim Air Force One since Boeing is far behind on its planned replacement. The left has fabricated the story that this in fact an offer of a $400 million luxury jet to President Trump personally. It’s not. In actuality, if the transfer happens, the aircraft would go to the Defense Department. The corporate media don’t seem interested in the truth when they can spread this juicy mischaracterization like wildfire.

The Qataris have become increasingly influential in the Trump team’s efforts in the region. They certainly have useful contacts and the ability to deal directly with Hamas and other terrorist groups. While that can sometimes be helpful, it is also indicative of their longstanding support for extremists. Limiting this support was another topic of discussion to ensure no support goes to enemies of peace in the region.

His final stop was the United Arab Emirates, one of America’s most helpful friends in the Middle East. The UAE is a moderate, modernized oasis of business and capital that is near and dear to President Trump’s heart. He announced additional economic deals worth $200 billion, and the White House released a long list of business leaders touting the success of the more than $2 trillion in investments.

This leg of the trip also added another major surprise with word that there may be an Iran nuclear deal on the horizon. The meetings in Oman led the administration to present a plan to the Islamic Republic of Iran. President Trump said: “Iran has sort of agreed to the terms. They’re not going to make — I call it, in a friendly way — nuclear dust.”

There are many obstacles to an actual deal, including Iran’s continued demand that it be allowed to enrich uranium for the civilian nuclear program. Iran’s refusal to simply purchase readily available nuclear fuel enriched at the low level needed for civilian purposes highlights the game it is playing here. Enrichment is only necessary if Iran wants to retain a path to making a bomb. That is an intolerable end state. Enrichment needs to be a strong redline in any potential deal.

By breaking with tradition and visiting the Middle East, and these countries in particular, President Trump has shown he sees them as pivotal in changing the current dynamic. He has shown little interest in small steps and half-hearted efforts in his second term. We should all wish him good luck and Godspeed. [source]

Wow! The President sure has been busy making MAGA.

SCOOP: "Thank God!" President Trump's historic takeover of D.C.'s safety praised by residents

From Washington Reporter.news (Aug. 12):

President Donald Trump’s historic takeover of Washington, D.C.’s safety received an outpouring of support from new and longtime city residents, who told the Washington Reporter that Trump’s move is necessary for the continuing function of American government.

For far too many in America’s capital city, crime has become a haven for murderers, sexual assaulters, drug markets, and more — and despite the city having plenty of redeeming places and people, the risks are outweighing the rewards for many.

One female Hill staffer, who pays $3,000 a month for rent in Navy Yard, told the Reporter that she “saw someone get arrested the other day in my lobby at like 5:30pm. Someone also got shot in March and the blood puddle was left overnight and everyone saw it in the main lobby,” she said.

For the first time in years, Trump’s announcement has many in the city feeling hopeful; one GOP veteran told the Reporter that he felt safe walking around his neighborhood — where he and his wife were nearly shot in broad daylight — for the first time in three years. “I haven’t walked that way before tonight when I saw the police out in full force,” he said.

One D.C. denizen who has worked downtown for 30 years has seen the city’s crime ebb and flow — but he said that “it was very bad when I first got here but it's even worse now.”

“You couldn't pay me to go to Union Station any more,” he said. “Anyone who lives or works here knows the reality. Those that deny that reality are doing it only because of their irrational hatred of Trump.”

“The most dangerous place to be a woman in America is a Democrat-run city,” a female Hill staffer wrote to the Reporter. “Thank god!!!!!!” she added, describing D.C. as a scene out of Silence of the Lambs.

“I had a man video up my dress, another homeless man pulled off his pants and start masturbating at me on the metro, been literally chased down the block while a man yelled ‘suck my dick bitch’ at me and NO ONE HELPED ME. I live in Navy Yard so in every instance the police were completely incapable of helping. The one time they arrested someone — the man masturbating — they immediately let him go because there is no cash bail, and then he didn’t show up to court! I know D.C. is dangerous for everyone, but it is WOMEN who suffer the most. D.C. libs have sacrificed women on their alter to progressive crime policies.” [read more]

Batman comes to the rescue. Something had to be done. Of course, the citizens like the safety but the Ruling Class elites in DC don't care about their subjects, I mean, citizens. As for the Ruling Classes' safety, they have their armed bodyguards to protect them.

Mores article on federalizing the DC's police force:

• The capital of the free world cannot be lawless
• Why Trump is RIGHT to take back DC [video]
• Boom: Jeanine Pirro Just Dropped the Mic on Reporters During D.C. Crime Briefing
• Man Allegedly Hurls Sandwich at Fed Agent in D.C., Finds Out That Was Unwise
• Pirro, DOJ Ending D.C. Felony Rifle, Shotgun Cases
  
• DC Sub Chucker Loses His Lunch, His Cool, And His Sweet DOJ Job In Pitiful Street Tantrum
• D.C. Victim's Mother Praises Trump's Crime Crackdown
• New Lawsuit Challenges Trump's Federal Takeover of D.C. Police Department as Crackdown Intensifies
• Before Trump Federalized D.C. Police, White House Reporters Complained for Years About Crime in Capital
  
• President Trump Fights Crime, Democrats Fight Him
  
• Metropolis Sues Superman For Reducing Crime
  

How Should Christians Think About the ‘Conscience’? One Small Book Provides Some Big Help

From William Wolfe on Standing for Freedom.com (May 31, 2023):

“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” At least that’s what the late senator from New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, suggested in 1983. Almost 40 years later, it’s an admonition still worth bearing in mind, recognizing the distinction between subjective perceptions and objective reality. But, as with most bits of proverbial wisdom, the kicker comes in spotting the difference between the two, something always “easier said than done.”

Knowing the difference between opinion and fact is a critical skill for all of life, but the stakes are even higher when it comes to life together as Christians, because Christians come with a conscience. And the conscience, that God-given, wonderful, but tricky internal voice, can take our personal opinions and baptize them into God-given facts quicker than you can say “don’t drink, dance, or chew — or hang out with those who do.”

Thankfully, authors Andy Naselli and J.D. Crowley have a prescription for those who are prone to either under-value (or over-use) their Christian conscience.

In Conscience: What It Is, How to Train It, and Loving Those Who Differ, Naselli, a theology professor and pastor, and Crowley, a missionary and linguist, write that their “modest but potentially life-changing goal is to put conscience back on your daily radar, to show from Scripture what God intended and did not intend conscience to do, and to explain how your conscience works, how to care for it, and not to damage it” (p. 17).

They achieve this goal by 1) defining “conscience” biblically; 2) explaining how Christians can be free from a condemning conscience; 3) educating us on how to calibrate our consciences; and 4) teaching how Christians with different consciences can and should live together in peace, whether that’s in the same local church or in a cross-cultural missionary setting. In short, the authors want to help their readers align their God-given consciences to God’s given revelation as much as possible, recognizing there won’t be perfect overlap in this fallen world, and thus reminding us that “your conscience is not identical to the voice of God” — no matter how strongly you may be tempted to think that it is (p. 61).

One of the main points I found to be most helpful was their “Two Great Principles of Conscience” summary. After defining what a conscience is, the authors argue that “of all the principles related to conscience, two rise to the top: 1) God is the only Lord of the conscience, and 2) you should always obey your conscience” (p. 30).

This two-fold “greatest commandment of the conscience” is so practical because it places a premium on the conscience — “obey it!” — but it also puts the conscience in its proper place — “submit it to the Lord.”

Outside of the classically complicated arena of the “strong vs. weak conscience” issues within a local church, these two principles help guard against the twin ditches that exist on either side of a rightly-calibrated conscience: Either “ignoring” or “absolutizing” it. Listening to your conscience is critical — it helps you avoid sin! But “sanctifying” your conscience so much that it can’t be submitted to God is equally dangerous. As the authors write, “If your conscience is so sacrosanct that it’s off-limits even to God, that’s idolatry” (p. 31). [read more]

Excerpts from the book "Reflections on the Failure of Socialism" Part 1

Although he dismissed God as a hoax and the heavenly paradise as a decoy, Marx was not by nature skeptical or experimental. His habits of thought demanded a belief both in paradise and in a power that would surely lead us to it. He located his paradise on earth, calling it by such beatific names as the “Kingdom of Freedom,” the “Society of the Free and Equal,” the “Classless Society,” etc. Everything would be blissful and harmonious there to a degree surpassing even the dreams of the utopian socialists. Not only would all “causes for contest” disappear, all caste and class divisions, but all divisions between city and country, between brain and manual worker. Men would not even be divided into different professions as they are at this low stage of the climb toward paradise.

“Socialism will abolish both architecture and barrow-pushing as professions,” Engels assured the believers, “and the man who has given half an hour to architecture will also push the cart a little until his work as an architect is again in demand. It would be a pretty sort of socialism which perpetuated the business of barrow-pushing.”

…………

But Marx hated deity, and regarded high moral aspirations as an obstacle. The power on which he rested his faith in the coming paradise was the harsh, fierce, bloody evolution of a “material,” and yet mysteriously “upward-going,” world. And he convinced himself that, in order to get in step with such a world, we must set aside moral principles and go in for fratricidal war. Although buried under a mountain of economic rationalizations pretending to be science, that mystical and antimoral faith is the one wholly original contribution of Karl Marx to man’s heritage of ideas.

Source: Reflections on the Failure of Socialism (1955) by Max Eastman.

The Sting

From Bill O’Reilly.com (Sept. 10, 2023):

Picture this: You serve four years as president of the United States. During your term, inflation stays under two percent. Real wages and consumer spending power rises about 9 percent for American workers; unemployment is less than 4 percent after the pandemic.

Fairly good showing, correct?

In addition, migrant crossings at the southern border drop about 80 percent by the time you leave office. No wars erupt. The jihadist group ISIS is decimated by American power. Putin and Xi are relatively contained.

That seems to be a fairly good resume, but there is scant national reporting of it. Instead, salacious charges of corruption involving Russia dominated headlines for two years before and during your term. A Special Counsel is appointed to investigate. His report says there is no corruption. The national media does not celebrate.

You can despise Donald Trump all you want, but the facts are in stone. He ran this nation far better than Joe Biden. Comparing the two is similar to stacking FDR's achievements against Herbert Hoover's.

But millions of Americans do not agree with my analysis and continue to "hate" Trump. They have only one valid reason for that emotion: the colossal Trump-driven fiasco after the 2020 election.

None of that, including January 6, should have happened, and it has obliterated Donald Trump's Oval Office record as a successful manager.

Some history. The "get Trump" movement began in early 2016 when it became obvious he might secure the Republican nomination. It accelerated as Hillary Clinton's campaign failed to persuade many independent voters. Almost in lockstep, the liberal media pounded Trump on a daily basis while extolling the virtues of Hillary.

In print, the blitzkrieg was led by The New York Times, The Washington Post, The LA Times, and USA Today. On television, CNN and NBC News actually competed to see who could damage Trump the most. It was a tie, but, ironically, CNN's over-the-top partisanship destroyed its credibility as a news-gathering operation. To this day, it has not recovered.

But no lessons have been learned. The aforementioned news agencies are openly currently supporting President Biden by hiding his deficiencies and alleged corruption. The leftist media is also cheerleading the legal cases against Trump without a shred of balance or skepticism.

If Hunter Biden were named Donald Trump Jr., do you think the "grifting" coverage might be a bit different?

Rhetorical question.

So that's the "sting." Honest, balanced reporting and news analysis are on the endangered species list. The scorpions who control most media companies are more driven than ever to impose progressive policies and get pliable people like Biden and Kamala elected.

The result is a lot of power and money is being used to prop up incompetence and corruption.

And that sting hurts every one of us. [source]

A sting, indeed. Then again the Leftists tend to be conmen.

Trump Signs $1.2 Trillion Economic Deal With Qatar

From Newsmax.com (May 14):

Agreements signed by President Donald Trump and Qatar's Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani on Wednesday will "generate an economic exchange worth at least $1.2 trillion," the White House wrote in a fact sheet summarizing some of the deals' details.

"The landmark deals celebrated today will drive innovation and prosperity for generations, bolster American manufacturing and technological leadership, and put America on the path to a new Golden Age," the White House wrote in a statement.

"Since President Trump took office, his commitment to American manufacturing and innovation has attracted trillions of dollars in investments and global commercial deals. Allies like Qatar are partnering in the United States' success."

The agreements include a $96 billion deal with Qatar Airways to buy up to 210 Boeing 787 Dreamliner and 777X airplanes with GE Aerospace engines, the fact sheet said.

"This is Boeing's largest-ever widebody order and largest-ever 787 order," the White House wrote. "This historic agreement will support 154,000 U.S. jobs annually, totaling over 1 million jobs in the United States during the course of production and delivery of this deal."

The deals also include a statement of intent that could lead to $38 billion in investments at Qatar's Al Udeid Air Base and other air defense and maritime security capabilities, according to the White House.

"Today's signings mark President Trump's intent to accelerate Qatar's defense investment in the U.S.-Qatar security  partnership — enhancing regional deterrence and benefitting the U.S. industrial base," the White House wrote.

"These new agreements and instruments aim to drive the growth of the U.S.-Qatar bilateral commercial relationship, create thousands of well-paying jobs, and open new trade and investment opportunities for both countries over the coming decade and beyond." [source]

Sounds good.

More good deals:

• Trump strikes ‘biggest deal ever made’ with EU: Europeans will buy $750B in US energy, invest $600B after meeting with prez
• John Deere pledges $20 billion investment in US over next decade
• Trump’s Trade Triumph

Trump to sign prescription drug executive order that he says could lower costs up to 80%

From Just the News.com (May 11):

President Trump announced on Sunday that he will be signing an executive order on Monday that will lower prescription drug prices in the U.S. by up to 80%.

Trump said pharmaceutical companies often attribute higher drug costs in the U.S. to research and development costs when compared to other countries.

"Campaign Contributions can do wonders, but not with me, and not with the Republican Party. We are going to do the right thing, something that the Democrats have fought for many years. Therefore, I am pleased to announce that Tomorrow morning, in the White House, at 9:00 A.M., I will be signing one of the most consequential Executive Orders in our Country’s history," Trump wrote on Truth Social.

"Prescription Drug and Pharmaceutical prices will be REDUCED, almost immediately, by 30% to 80%. They will rise throughout the World in order to equalize and, for the first time in many years, bring FAIRNESS TO AMERICA!" he added.

Trump said he will be instituting a "most favored nation’s policy whereby the United States will pay the same price" as the nation that pays the lowest price anywhere in the world.

"Our Country will finally be treated fairly, and our citizens Healthcare Costs will be reduced by numbers never even thought of before. Additionally, on top of everything else, the United States will save TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS," he wrote. [source]

Sounds good. Hope the EO helps getting drug prices down.

Trump bans funding for controversial gain-of-function research

From The Blaze.com (May 5):

President Donald Trump signed an executive order banning gain-of-function research on pandemic pathogens that many believe was the true source of the coronavirus pandemic.

The research typically involves modification of existing viruses in order to make them more infectious and studying the outcomes in order to prevent and treat possible pandemics.

After the global pandemic, many theorized that the source of the virus was a laboratory leak involving gain-of-function research, possibly at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The theory was initially ridiculed as a racist conspiracy theory by many, but has since been corroborated by more evidence.

The administration said the order would "drastically reduce" lab-related incidents involving gain-of-function research "like that conducted on bat coronaviruses in China by the EcoHealth Alliance and Wuhan Institute of Virology."

Trump's order ends federal funding for the research in countries like China, Iran, and others without sufficient oversight. It also orders U.S. agencies to identify such research that might imperil public safety and end federal funding for any programs.

"For decades, policies overseeing gain-of-function research on pathogens, toxins, and potential pathogens have lacked adequate enforcement, transparency, and top-down oversight," read a fact sheet from the administration. "Researchers have not acknowledged the legitimate potential for societal harms that this kind of research poses."

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, was among the most prominent critics of the lab-leak theory and defended the use of gain-of-function research.

"President Trump has long theorized that COVID-19 originated from a lab leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology and has consistently pushed for transparency in investigating its origins," said the statement from the administration.

The Obama, Biden, and first Trump administrations all previously implemented policies pausing or limiting gain-of-function research. [source]

Good!  Making dangerous viruses more contagious and more powerful is not only stupid but insane. ☹️ I hope and pray to God that the next president doesn't reverse this executive order.

Why love is not God

From Joseph Mattera on Christian Post.com (June 3, 2023):

Today’s preaching from Christian pulpits is filled with compromise, often because of the wrong presentation of biblical love. Since love is a powerful motivating force that can drive people to the limits of their abilities and existence, it needs to be defined correctly in the Church lest believers fall into grave error regarding our teaching and ethical standards (John 3:16 says, “God so loved the world that He gave His One and Only Son.” This illustrates the power of divine love!)

In this article, I will attempt to demonstrate why love does not define God, but God defines love.

As background, some ancient writers identified various forms of love:

• Familial love (in Greek, Storge)
• Friendly or platonic love (Philia)
• Romantic or erotic love (Eros)
• Divine or unconditional love (Agape)

The contemporary world frequently reduces love to an erotic feeling between humans concerning selfish sexual fulfillment. This raw, erotic, transactional, sexual experience between two people (hookup) does not remotely resemble the biblical definition of love. Also, a feeling-centered understanding of love (Philia), whereby people connect emotionally, liking each other as friends, limits our understanding of this powerful word, Love. The apostle John says God is love (1 John 4:8).

Unfortunately, many interpret this verse to mean that God has no standards except an emotional feeling of love, compassion, and empathy (philia) toward the plight of others. However, our subjective, “feeling centered” understanding of the word does not fully comport with the biblical understanding of love. There is a reason why Scripture says “God is love” and not “love is God.” This is because God is the One who frames and defines love, derived from the character and holiness of His divine nature. Consequently, we cannot separate one attribute of God (love) from other significant attributes of God, such as righteousness and justice, which are the foundation of His throne (Psalm 89:14).

Love without holiness and righteousness has no real foundation. Conversely, without the framework of God’s character, love in and of itself is not anchored by any standard and is only defined by subjective, mercurial human feelings, personal desires, and opinions. [read more]

The History of Slavery You Probably Weren’t Taught in School

From Lawrence W. Reed on FEE.org (Feb. 18, 2023):

In “Recognizing Hard Truths About America’s History With Slavery,” published by FEE on February 11, 2023, I urged an assessment of slavery that includes its full “historical and cultural contexts” and that does not neglect “uncomfortable facts that too often are swept under the rug.”

The central notion of both that previous essay and this follow-up is that slavery was a global norm for centuries, not a peculiar American institution. America is not exceptional because of slavery in our past; we may, however, be exceptional because of the lengths to which we went to get rid of it. In any event, it is an age-old tragedy abolished in most places only recently (in the past two centuries or so). As British historian Dan Jones notes in Powers and Thrones: A New History of the Middle Ages,

Slavery was a fact of life throughout the ancient world. Slaves—people defined as property, forced to work, stripped of their rights, and socially ‘dead,’ could be found in every significant realm of the age. In China, the Qin, Han, and Xin dynasties enforced various forms of slavery; so too did ancient rulers of Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, and India.

Milton Meltzer’s Slavery: A World History is both comprehensive and riveting in its presentation. He too recognizes the ubiquity of human bondage:

The institution of slavery was universal throughout much of history. It was a tradition everyone grew up with. It seemed essential to the social and economic life of the community, and man’s conscience was seldom troubled by it. Both master and slave looked upon it as inevitable…A slave might be of any color—white, black, brown, yellow. The physical differences did not matter. Warriors, pirates, and slave dealers were not concerned with the color of a man’s skin or the shape of his nose.

The indigenous populations of both North and South America, pre-European settlement, also practiced slavery. Meltzer writes,

The Aztecs also made certain crimes punishable by enslavement. An offender against the state—a traitor, say—was auctioned off into slavery, with the proceeds going into the state treasury…Among the Mayans, a man could sell himself or his children into slavery…The comparatively rich Nootkas of Cape Flattery (in what is now northwestern Washington state) were notorious promoters of slaving. They spurred Vancouver tribes to attack one another so that they could buy the survivors.

Perhaps because it conflicts with race-based political agendas, slavery of Africans by fellow Africans is one of those uncomfortable truths that often flies under the radar. Likewise, industrial-scale slavery of Africans by nearby Arabs as well as Arab slavery of Europeans are historical facts that are frequently ignored. Both subjects are explored in The Forgotten Slave Trade: The White European Slaves of Islam by Simon Webb and Slavery and Slaving in African History by Sean Stilwell.

Slavery cannot be justified or excused by enlightened people, but it can be studied, explained, put in context, and understood—if all the facts of it are in the equation. It’s a painful topic, to be sure, which is even more reason to leave nothing out and to prevent political agendas from getting in the way.

The widespread sin of “presentism” poisons our understanding of such hot-button topics as slavery. As I wrote in August 2020,

Terms for this way of looking at the past range from intertemporal bigotry to chronological snobbery to cultural bias to historical quackery. The more clinical label is “presentism.” It’s a fallacious perspective that distorts historical realities by removing them from their context. In sports, we call it “Monday morning quarterbacking.”

Presentism is fraught with arrogance. It presumes that present-day attitudes didn’t evolve from earlier ones but popped fully formed from nowhere into our superior heads. To a presentist, our forebears constantly fail to measure up so they must be disdained or expunged. As one writer put it, “They feel that their light will shine brighter if they blow out the candles of others.”

Our ancestors were each a part of the era in which they lived, not ours. History should be something we learn from, not run from; if we analyze it through a presentist prism, we will miss much of the nuanced milieu in which our ancestors thought and acted.

The answer may simply be that the facts it lays out are politically incorrect, which means they are inconvenient for the conventional wisdom. They don’t fit the “presentist” narrative.

What I personally find most fascinating about slavery is the emergence in recent centuries of ideas that would transform the world’s view of it from acceptance to rejection. Eighteenth Century Enlightenment ideals that questioned authority and sought to elevate human rights, liberty, happiness, and toleration played a role. So did a Christian reawakening late in the 18th and early 19th Centuries that produced the likes of abolitionists William Wilberforce and others. [read more]

This history isn’t taught because it doesn’t fit the Left’s narrative of slavery and they are the one who write most of the school books.

The Forgotten Bargain that Made America

From American Thinker.com (June 17, 2019):

How did we Americans get ourselves into the mess we are now in?

It's a complicated story.  It started when the American people broke a bargain honorably made.  And not just any bargain.  The bargain that was broken was the founding bargain, the bargain that made America.

George Washington's original Cabinet defines that founding bargain for us.  It is a truism that Washington's Cabinet was the greatest one America has ever had.  Washington had Jefferson at State, Alexander Hamilton at Treasury, Henry Knox at the War Department, and Edmund Randolph as the attorney general.

But instead of focusing on this dazzling array of excellence, let's consider what the brevity of that list tells us about the founding bargain.  The federal government was designed to be limited government.  Madison wrote in The Federalist, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined."  Those few and defined powers are made perfectly clear by the offices these great men occupied.  The federal government was to take responsibility for America's relations with foreign states — in Madison's words, "war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."  The federal government was also to take responsibility for commerce among the American states to provide a nationwide free market that would make possible America's world-changing economic success.  All other governmental powers were to be retained by the individual states that were joining to form the new nation, the United States of America.

Why should the American sovereign, the American people, agree to a bargain in which their state gave up its power to make war and to negotiate treaties with foreign states and other American states?  The Founders' argument was that America would be safer and better represented in the world by a federal government than by many individual states operating independently and perhaps at cross purposes.  Besides, the state governments would not be giving up control of those powers.  They would retain control of them by means of the Senate.  According to the founding bargain, senators would be chosen by the state legislatures — and the Senate would control the powers delegated to the federal government.  That is why the Constitution assigns to the Senate power over treaties, over the declaration of war, even over the people the president selects for the Cabinet offices.

But in 1913, the American people broke that bargain — and set in motion the ongoing process of overthrowing the Constitution — which is the source of the mess we find ourselves in today.

Americans in 1913 showed they had forgotten the purpose of the Framers' design for the Senate.  The people were tricked by the Progressives who presented the change as a needed "reform," but they could be fooled in this way only because of their forgetting.

The 17th Amendment was perhaps the single change that did the most to undo what the Founders had accomplished by means of the Constitution.  It provided for the direct election of senators, the system we have now.   The Founders, men of honor, would certainly have opposed breaking a bargain so honorably and deliberately made.  And they would also have understood that the change would throw the system completely out of balance, as it in fact has done.

The consequences of this change to America's constitutional order have been many and profound.  Probably the most obvious has been the inevitable erosion of the independence of the states and of their ability to counter-balance federal power.  The Senate was once a barrier to the passage of federal laws infringing on the powers reserved to state governments, but the Senate has abandoned that responsibility under the incentives of the new system of election.  Because the state governments no longer have a powerful standing body representing their interests within the federal government, the power of the federal government has rapidly grown at the expense of the states.

The powers retained by the states in the original bargain are now usurped by the federal government whenever it decides to and wherever it turns its baleful gaze.

The Founders would say we no longer have a federal system, that the 17th Amendment in effect overthrew the 10th ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people").

The 10th Amendment has become a dead letter.  American political leaders (I'm looking at you, LBJ and Nancy "are you kidding?" Pelosi) now consider the powers of the federal government virtually unlimited, certainly not limited by the Constitution, and not even limited by America's ability to fund their exactions.  

Madison and the other Founders put much emphasis on the importance of the independence of the states for the preservation of Americans' liberty.  Lord Acton, the great scholar of the history of liberty, agreed with them: "Federalism: It is coordination instead of subordination; association instead of hierarchical order; independent forces curbing each other; balance, therefore, liberty."

Direct election of U.S. senators undermined this critically important protection of liberty.  The erosion of Americans' individual liberty that has resulted is no doubt the most important consequence of the change.

Tragically, because of our forgetting, we may be on the verge of making another mistake like the one Americans made in 1913.  There is a powerful movement afoot to get rid of the Electoral College, an essential constitutional safeguard of American liberty.

Each state is allotted as many electoral votes as it has senators and members of the House of Representatives.  That means that to become president of the United States, a candidate must win election state by state.  The direct election of members of the House, the selection of senators by the state legislatures, and the selection of the president by the voters state by state was the original bargain.  Eliminating the Electoral College and electing the president by direct vote, as the progressives are determined to do, would transform the office.  Its occupant would in effect become the president of the big cities of America, and the last vestiges of autonomy guaranteed the individual states by the Constitution's electoral system in the original bargain would be swept away. [source]

A good historical overview of the Left and their disdain of the Constitution.

Mexico vs. Trump

From Bill O’Reilly.com (May 5):

There is something rotten in Mexico City. According to reports in The Wall Street Journal, Presidente Claudia Sheinbaum is refusing to cooperate with the Trump administration in joint military action against the drug cartels.

As you may know, President Trump signed an Executive Order designating the cartels as "terrorist organizations." That means that the USA can hunt down and kill or incarcerate these savages anywhere in the world. The cartels are responsible for hundreds of thousands of drug overdose deaths in America, so the EO is absolutely essential to protecting our country.

But, somehow, Ms. Sheinbaum doesn't see it that way.  The mystery is why not? She should want the cartels destroyed, and obviously, Mexico can't do it. According to a variety of human rights groups, the vicious drug gangs are responsible for more than 500,000 murders in Mexico since 2006.  A half million dead.  And Sheinbaum is resisting American help?

It is a fact that many Mexican government and military officials have been bribed by the cartels.  Everyone knows that. Therefore, it is imperative that President Sheinbaum explain her idiotic position. Listen, lady, you have a chance to restore dignity and a measure of safety to your country.  Are you opposed to that?

How about wising up? [source]

The Presidente should cooperate with President Trump. Getting rid of the cartels would not only make America safe again, but make Mexico safe too. I am sure the Mexican citizens (sans the cartels of course) would appreciate that. I guess the bribes to her gov't officials takes priority over her countries safety. Yea, she needs to explain her inaction.

Other articles on Mexico’s issues:

• Dangerous Leaders
• With ‘Friends’ Like Mexico’s Obrador, Who Needs Enemies Like Putin, Xi, Kim Jong Un and the Ayatollahs?
• Mexicans Are Now Protesting Immigration

IRS Launches 'Sweeping, Historic' Tax Enforcement Crackdown Using AI

From NTD.com (Sept. 8, 2023):

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has announced that, thanks to a new funding boost, it's launching a "sweeping, historic" tax enforcement initiative using artificial intelligence and other cutting-edge technologies to catch tax evaders more effectively.

"There is a sea change taking place at the IRS in every aspect of our operations," IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel said in a Sept. 8 statement, which notes that the tax agency has completed a top-to-bottom review of its enforcement efforts and is girding to catch people "abusing the nation's tax laws," thanks in part to cutting-edge tech.

"The changes will be driven with the help of improved technology as well as Artificial Intelligence that will help IRS compliance teams better detect tax cheating, identify emerging compliance threats and improve case selection tools to avoid burdening taxpayers with needless 'no-change' audits," Mr. Werfel said.

The new enforcement thrust is said to focus on higher-earning Americans and big corporations, with the IRS pledging not to increase audit rates for people earning less than $400,000 per year.

This has been an oft-repeated promise in the face of Republican assertions that working-class taxpayers would be subjected to tougher enforcement thanks to the tens of billions of dollars in additional IRS funding.

As part of the new enforcement crackdown, the tax agency said that it would prioritize cases involving taxpayers earning over $1 million but with recognized tax debt of more than $250,000.

The IRS said that, as it expands its effort to target higher-earning Americans, it has already identified 1,600 or so millionaires who owe hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes—in part thanks to the deployment of cutting-edge technology.

The IRS' AI Facelift

The IRS said it expects AI tools to help boost tax enforcement of large partnerships, in particular.

To that end, complex computer algorithms have already been used by the agency to assist with identifying targets for tax enforcement.

The IRS said that "cutting-edge machine learning technology" has already played a role in helping the agency flag and open investigations into 75 of the largest partnerships in the United States, each with over $10 billion in assets on average.

"With the help of AI, the selection of these returns is the result of groundbreaking collaboration among experts in data science and tax enforcement, who have been working side-by-side to apply cutting-edge machine learning technology to identify potential compliance risk in the areas of partnership tax, general income tax and accounting, and international tax in a taxpayer segment that historically has been subject to limited examination coverage," the IRS said in the announcement.

The Inflation Reduction Act that President Joe Biden signed into law in 2022 initially included around $80 billion to expand the IRS' budget over ten years, drawing Republican ire that some of that money would go to hiring an "army" of tax enforcers who would reach for low-hanging fruit and target ordinary Americans rather than wealthier, more financially sophisticated taxpayers who are trickier to audit.

That $80 billion in additional IRS funding has since been pared down to around $60 billion due to the debt-ceiling deal struck between President Biden and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), which clawed back $10 billion in each of calendar years 2024 and 2025 from the tax agency's appropriations.

Part of the money being pumped into the IRS is to give it a technological facelift, as outlined in a 150-page strategic operating plan (pdf) released in April that promises to use some of the funds to deliver "cutting-edge technology, data, and analytics to operate more effectively."

Mr. Werfel said in a memo to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen that part of what is now a $60 billion cash infusion would buy artificial intelligence tools and that “technology and data advances will allow us to focus enforcement on taxpayers trying to avoid taxes, rather than taxpayers trying to pay what they owe.”

In the plan, the IRS focused mostly on the customer service aspects of the technology boost, pledging to improve the taxpayer experience by introducing chatbots, online portals, and electronic notice responses.

However, the agency also said in the plan that it expects its technology-driven enforcement to boost tax collections and revenue for government programs.

That plan is now fast becoming a reality, according to Mr. Werfel's latest remarks on Sept. 8.

"The nation relies on the IRS to collect funding for every critical government mission—from keeping our skies safe, our food safe and our homeland safe," Mr. Werfel said.

"It's critical that the agency addresses fundamental gaps in tax compliance that have grown during the last decade," he added.

According to IRS estimates, taxpayers in America pay around 85 percent of the total taxes they owe, with the difference between what is owed and what is paid known as the tax gap. Between the years 2014 and 2016, the IRS estimated that the annual tax gap was around $496 billion.

Treasury said in a note (pdf) on the IRS' strategic operating plan that a lack of modern digital tools had negatively impacted various aspects of the IRS' operations and that the agency would see its technology continue to be improved in the years to come in part to help enforce tax laws. [read more]

Hopefully, the AI won’t bring attention to taxpayers who are following the law to the best of their ability.

Trump Store Selling 'Trump 2028' Hats

From Newsmax.com (Apr. 24):

President Donald Trump continues to press for a third term as president — or further troll the left — with "Trump 2028" hats that are now on sale on the Trump Organization online store.

"The future looks bright! Rewrite the rules with the Trump 2028 high crown hat," reads the product description.

Second son Eric Trump modeled the MAGA-style red hat in a social media post on Thursday.

Donald Trump and his surrogates have, several times, floated the idea of a third term, which is prohibited by the 22nd Amendment.

One of the president's most recent assertions came last month in an interview with NBC News' "Meet The Press," saying, "I'm not joking" about trying for a third term.

"You know, we're very popular," Trump said. "And you know, a lot of people would like me to do that. But, I mean, I basically tell them, we have a long way to go, you know, it's very early in the administration."

Conservative podcaster Steve Bannon, senior adviser in the first Trump administration, recently said on Bill Maher's "Real Time" show that Trump will run and win in 2028.

"On the afternoon of January 20th of 2029, he's going to be President of the United States," Bannon said.

In November, Trump joked about the prospect of a third term to House Republicans during a meeting of the conference in Washington, D.C., before leadership elections.

"I suspect I won't be running again, unless you do something," Trump said a week after his victory in the 2024 presidential election. "Unless you say, 'He's so good, we have to just figure it out.'"

Enter Rep. Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., who introduced legislation earlier this year to amend the constitution to allow Trump a third term in the White House.

According to the text, Ogles' amendment states: "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than three times, nor be elected to any additional term after being elected to two consecutive terms, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice." [source]

The Master of Trolling, trolling the fake news. Nice. 

Talking about the troll:

• Democrats freak out after official Trump website starts selling '2028' hats
• Trump: 'Probably' Won't Run Again

Play vs. Screens

From Breakpoint.org (May 12, 2023):

Recently, an article in Nautilus magazine touted the benefits of play. Authors Susan Magsamen and Ivy Ross conclude, “Play … is universal to our species, and when humans play, it positively influences both their cognitive development and their emotional well-being.” This is particularly important for developing what experts call “the 6 C’s”: collaboration, communication, content, critical thinking, creative innovation, and confidence.

But today’s kids aren’t playing. Instead, the generation of human beings with more leisure time than at any other moment in history is spending it on screens.

Media theorist Andrey Mir offered this blunt conclusion in The City Journal: “Screen time is stolen time,” describing what a day in the life of a kid looks like:

Screen time reaches two hours and 45 minutes between the ages of two and eight, four hours and 45 minutes between the ages of eight and 12, and an astonishing seven hours and 15 minutes between the ages of 13 and 18. That represents 20 percent, 32 percent, and 45 percent of kids’ waking time, respectively.

Even worse, Mir continues, “[F]amilies and schools have become the main source of the digital pollution of childhood.”

This digital pollution has had significant consequences for education. According to French neuroscientist Michel Desmurget, students who learn to write on a computer have a harder time recognizing letters than those who learn with pencil and paper. Though many educators tout the benefits of technology in the classroom, others note that it hurts concentration, a central component to both play and learning.

Screens have also contributed heavily to today’s mental health crisis among young people, as well as to what sociologist Jonathan Haidt has called “the loss of a ‘play-based childhood.’” Haidt points to Boston College psychologist Peter Gray, who has argued for the significance of play:

Free play is the means by which children learn to make friends, overcome their fears, solve their own problems and generally take control of their own lives. … Nothing we do, no amount of toys we buy or “quality time” or special training we give our children, can compensate for the freedom we take away. The things that children learn through their own initiatives, in free play, cannot be taught in other ways.

Ironically, many parents have taken away the freedom children should have to play with peers and interact with the natural world, out of a fear for their safety. This while providing nearly limitless freedom on digital devices. In that world, mistakes are fixed with a reset, and disputes with friends and neighbors can be largely avoided. Thus, many students buckle under the strain of having to deal with these things as young adults.

Years ago, theologian O.M. Bakke published a book titled When Children Became People: The Birth of Childhood in Early Christianity. In it, Bakke notes that the idea of children as fully human, with infinite value and inalienable rights, was a distinctly Christian invention. In the ancient world, children were beaten, ignored, left to die, and sexualized with alarming regularity. However, this changed because of Christians, who adopted unwanted children, condemned their sexualization, and embraced their God-given role as parents.

Bakke quoted the charge given by 5th-century Church father John Chrysostom:

Let everything take second place to our care for our children, our bringing them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. … ponder deeply how you can teach [your child] to think lightly of this life’s passing glories; thus, he will become truly renowned and glorious.

And, of course, Jesus commanded that His disciples “Let the little children come to me” and issued a dire warning to anyone who would cause a child to stumble. Because of Christians, the idea of childhood came into existence.

Protecting play may seem like an insignificant way for Christians to take our place in this aspect of the Christian story, but play reveals a part of who God made us to be. This is especially true for children. Play also points us to the generous, joyful heart of God. G.K. Chesterton once quipped, “It may be that He has the eternal appetite of infancy; for we have sinned and grown old, and our Father is younger than we.” [source]

Something to ponder. Take heed the article’s warning: Technology will either be our slave or our master.

What Adam Smith Can Teach the Aspiring Leaders of Today

From FEE.org (June 23, 2023):

Over the course of your career, you will likely encounter a number of different bosses, some good, and some not so good. Eventually you may find yourself in the position to lead others, perhaps on a project team, or even in a direct supervisory role. Assuming a management position can seem like a daunting task. Of course, everyone wants to be a good boss, but not everyone is a good boss.

Management within an organization is a multi-faceted role, with many opportunities for error. One particular pitfall that new managers make as they transition from completing work to directing the completion of others’ work is the refusal to relinquish control. Here we can learn from the great economist Adam Smith, from his Theory of Moral Sentiments, where he describes the “Man of System”:

“The man of system, on the contrary, is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamoured with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it. He goes on to establish it completely and in all its parts, without any regard either to the great interests, or to the strong prejudices which may oppose it. He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board.”

Smith was warning about centralized planning and control at the scale of the economy as a whole, but the same idea can apply to the organization, or even a complex project. Attempting to control everything from the top down invariably results in unintended consequences and disharmony.

Micromanagement Leads to Disorder

Micromanagement is one way that people try to exert control. Imagine that you have a boss that loves to micromanage everything. You likely have a certain way that you want to approach the completion of your work, yet your boss insists on imposing constraints on the way you execute your tasks. Constantly monitoring the work of their employees, micromanaging bosses are demotivating for workers. Just like Smith’s Man of System, the micromanaging boss wants a job done a specific way and expects everyone to carry out that particular vision. Smith continues:

“He [the man of system] does not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might choose to impress upon it. If those two principles coincide and act in the same direction, the game of human society will go on easily and harmoniously, and is very likely to be happy and successful. If they are opposite or different, the game will go on miserably, and the society must be at all times in the highest degree of disorder.”

Of course, sometimes within an organization there needs to be policies and instructions that flow from the top down. But managers run into problems when they don’t let information flow back up from the bottom to the top. Good management requires feedback and flexibility, where every employee has the freedom to make decisions and solve problems on their own – in Smith’s terms, when each piece on the chess board follows the principle of motion of its own.

Recognize the Limits of Your Knowledge

Flexibility is important because of our own lack of knowledge. When management governs by top-down, centralized, and inflexible rules, imposing their will on those below them, the system breaks down. As the size and complexity of the organizational system increases, the likelihood that any one person possesses all of the necessary knowledge to successfully accomplish all tasks goes to zero. Just as F.A. Hayek noted in his essay, The Use of Knowledge in Society, knowledge “never exists in concentrated or integrated form,” but rather is decentralized and exists as “dispersed bits of incomplete and frequently contradictory knowledge” held by many different individuals. Smith comments on the widely dispersed and deeply individual nature of knowledge in The Wealth of Nations:

“What is the species of domestic industry which his capital can employ, and of which the produce is likely to be of the greatest value, every individual, it is evident, can, in his local situation, judge much better than any statesman or lawgiver can do for him. The statesman, who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it.”

So, what can we learn from Adam Smith about management?

• First, good managers cannot control everything like pieces on a chess board. Instead, managers need to communicate the vision and requirements, but let work be planned and carried out by the employees.
• Moreover, there needs to be feedback mechanisms in place to allow for employees to voice concerns and propose solutions when things are not going well.
• Flexibility is key. There are multiple paths to get to the same goal, and micromanaging the process is counterproductive and leads to internal strife.
• Finally, managers need to be humble about how much knowledge they really possess. Instead of thinking they know it all, good managers know when to rely on the dispersed knowledge of their team.

As you embark on a leadership role within your own career, it is helpful to keep an open mind, seek advice and mentorship, and learn as much as you can about management and leadership. There is no shortage of books, magazines, and websites dedicated to the topic.

And while it is good to consult modern sources, don’t forget the management lessons articulated by Adam Smith over 200 years ago. [source]

Good advice. Jimmy Carter was a micromanager and that’s one of the reasons why he failed. Most Dems are micromanagers for that matter. They’re control freaks.

The FBI’s role in 12-year-old’s suspension over ‘Don’t Tread on Me’ patch

From Washington Examiner.com (Aug. 31, 2023):

Right when you think things can’t get any more strange and dysfunctional in America , another week passes.

It began on Monday when video emerged of a 12-year-old student identified only as “Jaiden” being suspended for wearing a “ Don’t Tread on Me ” patch on his backpack.

Meet 12yo Jaiden who was kicked out of class yesterday in Colorado Springs for having a Gadsden flag patch, which the school claims has “origins with slavery.”

The school’s director said via email that the patch was “disruptive to the classroom environment.”

Receipts in the  pic.twitter.com/qQ8jK1zSpR

— Connor Boyack  (@cboyack) August 29, 2023

The disciplinary action came down from the Vanguard School, a tuition-free charter school in Colorado Springs, which told Jaiden’s mother that the Gadsden flag, which depicts a coiled snake on a yellow banner above the words that triggered the event, had to be removed “due to its origins with slavery and slave trade.”

The Gadsden flag’s origins , of course, had nothing to do with race or slavery. As Colorado’s own Democratic governor explained on Twitter, the Gadsden flag is “a proud symbol of the American revolution.”

The mother patiently tried to explain the symbol’s actual history to school officials but got nowhere. The story took a turn, however, when Libertas Institute President Connor Boyack, creator of the Tuttle Twins children’s books, shared on Twitter video of Jaiden being disciplined.

The post quickly went viral (it had 12 million views as I was writing this article), prompting the school to do an about-face after the school’s board of directors called an emergency meeting.

“From Vanguard’s founding we have proudly supported our Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the ordered liberty that all Americans have enjoyed for almost 250 years,” the district said in a statement. “The Vanguard School recognizes the historical significance of the Gadsden flag and its place in history.”

It’s nice that the Vanguard School quickly recognized its error, but it’s worth examining how the school arrived at the idea that the Gadsden flag was an evil symbol.

Some have noted the Gadsden flag first came under fire from the government in 2014 when a federal employee filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging he was being subjected to a hostile workplace because a coworker was wearing a “Don’t Tread on Me” cap.

Federal involvement does not end there, however.

Documents leaked by an FBI whistleblower in 2022 and published by Project Veritas show the FBI has also identified the Gadsden flag as a dangerous symbol, one favored by “violent militia groups” alongside such things as the Betsy Ross flag, the Liberty Tree, and Second Amendment references (2A and the Greek phrase “ Molon Labe ”).

To understand just how absurdly wide the FBI cast its net for images favored by violent extremists, consider this: The FBI itself flies the Betsy Ross flag at its headquarters on Pennsylvania Avenue!

It’s hard to reach any other conclusion from these facts than that the snoopy, heavy-handed FBI is hostile to the principles of the American Revolution and the ideals described in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. For years, Americans have routinely found themselves the target of FBI probes for no other reason than attending a peace rally (John Denver), voicing opposition to U.S. foreign policy (Truman Capote), advocating civil liberties (MLK Jr.), or being gay (Rock Hudson).

Indeed, the FBI’s penchant for investigating dissent of government policies was noted by the U.S. Senate’s Church Committee decades ago.

“The FBI … has placed more emphasis on domestic dissent than on organized crime and, according to some, let its efforts against foreign spies suffer because of the amount of time spent checking up on American protest groups,” the committee concluded in 1976.

This might be a shocking revelation to many, but it actually helps reveal the true nature of the state. Centuries ago, Machiavelli explained in The Prince that rulers should have “no other object nor any other thought” but “war, its institutions, and its discipline.” Building on this theory centuries later, the economist Murray Rothbard noted that “the chief task of the rulers is always to secure the active or resigned acceptance of the majority of the citizens.”

The Gadsden flag is a symbol that runs counter to this “resigned acceptance,” which is no doubt why the FBI flagged it, which helps explain why the Vanguard School panicked and demanded Jaiden remove it.

Jaiden is back in school with his “Don’t Tread on Me” patch still on his backpack. But his suspension reveals why the Gadsden flag is more important today than ever. [source]

If this was an Antifa, a BLM, or an anti-police patch it would have been allowed. Definitely, a first amendment violation. The ACLU is nowhere to be found. Good thing we have better people running the FBI now.

Trump Directs Bureau of Prisons to Reopen Alcatraz

From Newsmax.com (May 4):

President Donald Trump said on Sunday that he was directing the Federal Bureau of Prisons to rebuild and reopen the infamous Alcatraz prison in the San Francisco Bay to "house America's most ruthless and violent Offenders."

"REBUILD, AND OPEN ALCATRAZ!" he posted on the Truth Social platform. "When we were a more serious Nation, in times past, we did not hesitate to lock up the most dangerous criminals, and keep them far away from anyone they could harm."

The federal prison at Alcatraz housed notorious U.S. criminals such as Al Capone before it closed in 1963. It is now one of San Francisco's most popular tourist destinations.

"Today, I am directing the Bureau of Prisons, together with the Department of Justice, FBI, and Homeland Security, to reopen a substantially enlarged and rebuilt ALCATRAZ," Trump wrote.

The prison was closed because it was too expensive to continue operating, according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) website, in large part due to its island location. It was nearly three times more costly to operate than any other federal prison, the BOP website said. [source]

Make Alcatraz Great Again?  Although, the past inmates like Al Capone might disagree if it was great or not. Rebuilding it might work, but rebuilding and reopening it might have some logistic problems though.