Islamic State duped by ‘dark web’ mafia site offering murder, mayhem for Bitcoins

From The Washington Times.com (June 29):

The Islamic State terror group is steering followers to a “dark web” mafia site that offers murder and other mayhem for hire at a price of thousands of dollars in Bitcoins, the online currency.

The problem for the world’s most vicious terrorist army is that hackers in recent weeks have exposed the “Besa Mafia” destination as an elaborate fraud. It is likely run not by the real-life Besa Albania Mafia and its criminal networks in Europe and the United States, but by a guy living in Romania.

This means the Islamic State, also known as ISIL and ISIS, is sending its followers on a money-wasting venture that is not likely to get anybody killed.

The Islamic State’s endorsement of the Besa Mafia site was discovered by the Middle East Media Research Institute. MEMRI, which monitors jihadi traffic, found Islamic State’s June 14 message on the channel Cyber Kahilafah, which is carried on the encrypted messaging app Telegram.

Telegram is its own story. Invented by an exiled Russian technocrat as a way for dissidents to escape the wrath of Vladimir Putin, Telegram has become the go-to platform for jihadis’ planning and commanding terrorist attacks, according to its detractors. [read more]

Serves the stupid camel-humping thugs right. Morons.

How Congress Mysteriously Became a ‘Small Business’ to Qualify for Obamacare Subsidies

From The Daily Signal.com (May 11):

It seems that federal officials have worked overtime to undermine public trust. Benghazi, the IRS abuses, the “fast and furious” gun-running fiasco, the solar power boondoggles, and the seemingly endless implementation problems of the Affordable Care Act—all these scandals have common themes: arrogant and abusive bureaucracy, double dealing, lame excuses, and legal hairsplitting.

The outrages listed above can be placed squarely at the doorstep of the White House. But one scandal is truly bipartisan: How key administration and congressional officials connived to create, under cover of the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, special health insurance subsidies for members of Congress.

Here’s how it went down.

Rushing to enact the giant Obamacare bill in March 2010, Congress voted itself out of its own employer-sponsored health insurance coverage—the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.

Section 1312(d)(3)(D) required members of Congress and staff to enroll in the new health insurance exchange system. But in pulling out of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, they also cut themselves off from their employer-based insurance contributions.

(It should be noted that, before final passage, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, offered an amendment that would have provided Federal Employees Health Benefits Program subsidies for congressional enrollees in Obamacare, but Senate Democrats defeated it on a procedural vote, 56-43.)

Obamacare’s insurance subsidies for ordinary Americans are generous, but capped by income. No one with an annual income over $47,080 gets a subsidy. That’s well below typical Capitol Hill salaries. Members of Congress make $174,000 annually, and many on their staff have impressive, upper-middle-class paychecks.

………………….

So, let’s follow the thickening plot:

1. Act One—Congress Has a Panic Attack. Realizing what they had done, congressional leaders sought desperately to get fatter taxpayer subsidies in the Obamacare exchange system. In a nutshell, they wanted special funding unavailable to other Americans. The standard excuse was that, without a special “sweetener,” a Capitol Hill “brain drain” would ensue; the best and brightest would flee to the private sector to get more affordable employment-based coverage.
2. Act Two—Congress Gets Taxpayers’ Money Without Appropriating It. Anticipating an attempted “end run” around the law, on Aug. 2, 2013, The Heritage Foundation published a detailed paper outlining the legislative history of the controversy. The analysis concluded that neither the Affordable Care Act nor Chapter 89 of Title V (the law governing the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program) authorized the transfer of monies in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program trust fund for use in health plans outside of the program.
3. Act Three—Congress Magically Becomes a Small Business. In a second iteration of its rule-making, the Office of Personnel Management declared that Congress and staff were eligible to enroll in the Washington, D.C., “SHOP” Exchange, a health insurance exchange reserved for small businesses with fewer than 50 employees. The exchange offers special insurance subsidies to participating small businesses.
4. Act Four—Congressional Bureaucrats File False Paperwork. In filing to get the special insurance subsidies for enrolling lawmakers and their staff members in the D.C. “SHOP” Exchange, congressional officials claimed that the Senate and House each had only 45 employees. That false information allowed both chambers to meet the magic number requirement.

[read more]

The author goes on to say that Congress has options to rectify the scam (my term) the Congress perputuated on the taxpayers like admitting it’s not a small business. Then again this the age where a white woman can believe she’s black or a Native American. “Identity” is the rule. Reality doesn’t count anymore. Down the rabbit hole we go.

The moral of this story is The Ruling Class has their own laws that nobody else has. Power does corrupt. Congress thinks they are special. I am thinking it is more and more the social system of Congress that needs to be changed. If you are elected to Congress and are a good person but aren’t a strong person you will be corrupted or you will be called an “outsider” or a “trouble-maker” if you don’t conform.

The Contested Convention of 1924

If you think the 2016 GOP primary was nuts, then you probably haven’t heard about the Democratic convention in 1924. It has been called the wildest convention in history — and with good reason. It’s also been called the Klanbake. In 1924, the clan heavily influenced the Democratic party.

Former Democratic President Woodrow Wilson, a renowned racist himself, had reignited interest in the Klan in 1915 when he hosted and attended a special screening at the White House of Birth of a Nation, a movie where the Klan are the heroes and blacks are the villains. It’s based on a novel written by Wilson’s friend, Thomas Dixon which was based on a history book written by Wilson himself.

One of the front runners of the Democratic nomination was Wilson’s former cabinet member, William G. McAdoo, who was supported by the Klan. So prevalent was the KKK within the party that there were no black delegates at all at the convention. The other front runner at this hotly contested convention was New York governor Al Smith, who opposed the Klan.

It was a raucous convention, described by silent movie star Diana Serra Cary as filled with “rough people who were drunk and disorderly.”

As the convention wore on, it became so contentious that the violence broke out when the delegates from Missouri and Colorado attacked each other. Police had to restore order and quell the rioting multiple times.

Source: The Contested Convention Part II: 1924 (Democrats).

The Dems in the convention had a vote to condemn the KKK. The vote failed 546 to 542. Well, I guess it was a close vote. There were two other contested conventions which I didn’t write about.

Al Qaeda urges lone wolves to target whites, to avoid 'hate crime' label

From Fox News.com (June 27):

Lone wolf jihadists should target white Americans so no one mistakes their terror attacks for hate crimes unrelated to the cause of radical Islam, Al Qaeda writes in the latest edition of its online magazine.

In an article first reported by The Foreign Desk, Al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) called for more self-directed Muslim terrorists to kill in America. But the article, titled “Inspire guide: Orlando operation,” tells terrorists to “avoid targeting places and crowds where minorities are generally found” because if gays or Latinos appear to be the targets, “the federal government will be the one taking full responsibility.” [read more]

Wait a second. How would the Islamic slime balls know if the target is homosexual or not just by looks? If the cowardice thugs is just murdering white people then the thugs might end up murdering a minority anyway because homosexuals are white people too. And avoiding gay bars is not a solution either because the homosexuals shop in stores, go to games, etc. Are the Islamic pig-fornicators going to ask a white person if he/she is gay before deciding in killing the person? Also, a light-skinned black may look like a white person.

This is what happens when authorities don’t define the problem correctly.

For those in the drive-by-media it is possible for a terrorist to have personal reasons and be a crazy Jihadist. You can murder a group of people for personal and religous reasons. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive. If anything they could reinforce one another.

Seven Ways School Has Imprisoned Your Mind

From the FEE.org:

The impediments to our freedom are not limited to the guns, handcuffs, and prison cells that threaten us with violence if we disobey the powers that be. We are also burdened with spiritual chains. These bonds are the self-limiting habits of mind and false presumptions that weigh us down throughout life. They were fastened on our minds through compulsory schooling: by the state monopolizing most of our waking hours throughout our most formative years. The mindset installed by schooling makes things much easier for the government, which can rely on us to largely police ourselves. We have virtually been deputized as our own spiritual prison wardens.

So the first step to self-emancipation is what Zak Slayback, author of The End of School, calls “deschooling.” But this involves not just unlearning disinformation, but unlearning attitudes. Even if you have already shaken off the indoctrination, you may still be burdened with the conditioning you were subjected to at school. And that may be holding you back in your career and your life in general.

The good news is that these mental shackles can be unlocked, once you are aware of them. And doing so requires no political campaigning or confrontation with the authorities. This liberation is yours for the taking.

Here are seven horizon-limiting mindsets that almost everybody has picked up from their schooling to some extent.

1. The Conveyor Belt Mindset. “The conveyor belt does all the work. You just have to sit still and get moved to the next station. Everyone moves in the same direction. Everyone makes progress at the same pace, based on external factors like age.”
2. The Permission Mindset. “Raise your hand and wait to be called upon. Get in single file lines. Even your basic biological needs cannot be met without permission. You get a hall pass to go to the bathroom. You eat only when scheduled.”
3. The Student Mindset. “You are a student. Your task is to memorize what teachers tell you. This phase in life is for absorbing information through books and lectures. You study. You cannot try things in the real world until you theorize about them for a few decades.” “The student is not a practitioner. The student can’t put ideas into motion until passing a test. Everything is pass/fail, not open exploration and experimentation. Everything has a grade. Students don’t play. They don’t work. They study.”
4. The Teacher Mindset. “You’ve graduated from studenthood. Your job is to have the answers and provide the structure. You must know everything and be the expert. Everyone’s fate is in your hands. You must train them to do what they couldn’t if left alone. You must grade them. They either pass or fail.”
5. The Worker Mindset. “Work is for survival. It sucks. You must be coaxed into doing it. You studied to be able to work and now you work to be able to live. You do exactly what the boss wants you to do and no more. You get a specific job with a specific title and that defines not only your activities but your personality.”
6. The Recess Mindset. “Play is an escape. It’s irresponsible in excess. It must be limited. If you study and work hard enough you can earn some tiny shred of play.”
7. The Major Mindset. “What do you want to be?”  “What’s your major?” “Your interests must be career-ified and tracked. Everything must be given a title and every action must be a step in a clear path to that one thing that will define you.”

[read more]

Interesting article. Like the authors say: You are not a student. You’re a lifelong learner.

 

 

 

The Contested Convention of 1860

The year was 1860. It was the GOP’s second nominating convention — and also its first contested election. The fledgling anti-slavery party — the Republican Party — had lost its first general election in 1856, but gained a lot of sympathy and momentum. And it believed their nominee, this time, would go on to win the presidency.

The Republican Party is a big tent fusion party. It is not the GOP, the Grand Old Party. It is the BNP, the brand-new party. And the problem with the brand-new party is that its elements, its makeup were people that were politically opposed to each other just a few years before. The Republican Party consisted of old Democrats and old Whigs and old free-soilers and old American and know-nothing elements. These were people that are politically opposed to each other, and they still hated each other.

The only thing they agreed on was the main principle of the Republican Party — not to extend slavery into the territorial region of the United States, what will eventually become the Dakotas, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Nebraska, of course, and part of Colorado and Utah, which was a real threat when Stephen A. Douglas passed the Kansas-Nebraska act in 1854.

……………

Heading into the convention, the presumptive favorite was a very confident senator William Seward who brought 19 train cars full of supporters with him to Chicago. Lincoln, however, used his home state advantage well. His supporters went to work, printing up counterfeit tickets they handed out to those friendly to their cause, loading the convention with supporters and causing many of Seward’s supporters to stand outside the convention. For those who did make it inside, Lincoln’s people maneuvered them into an area where they would be isolated from those who might sway their opinion.

Source: Contested Convention Part I: 1860 (Republicans)

7 Ways US Can Prevent Another Orlando Attack

From The Daily Signal.com (June 17):

In the wake of the Orlando terrorist attack, the Obama administration has been quick to blame gun control laws. This is because the administration refuses to admit its policies to defeat the Islamic State have failed.

Islamist terror attacks within the U.S. have dramatically increased within the past year—with Orlando being the 22nd instance of Islamist terrorism in the U.S. since 2015. This is out of 86 plots since 2001.

Gun control will not stop this rise in Islamist terror attacks, and the president is wrong to suggest so. To stop these attacks and defeat radical Islamism, the U.S. needs to defend the U.S. homeland and combat terrorism abroad.

We must maintain essential counterterrorism tools to help law enforcement and intelligence agencies find and stop terrorists before they attack.

Here are seven policies that will help prevent another Orlando:

1. Combat Terrorism Abroad and Deny ISIS Territorial Gains. Rolling back—and defeating—ISIS requires a global approach in which the U.S. leads a multipronged, multination effort that seeks to deny ISIS the ability to hold territory. This will disrupt its recruitment of foreign fighters, and will counter its destructive ideology.
2. Shut Down the Foreign Fighter Pipeline. In order to defeat terrorism abroad, the U.S. must lead an international effort to deny ISIS territorial gains and shut down the foreign fighter pipeline. While military victory would undermine ISIS’ legitimacy, the U.S. must also improve intelligence capabilities to identify potential recruits and preempt Islamist violence.
3. Ensure That the FBI Regularly Shares Information. The FBI must share information with state and local law enforcement—treating state and local partners as critical actors in the fight against terrorism.
4. Expand Active Shooter Threat Training Across the Country.
5. Community Outreach Remains a Vital Tool.
6. Maintain Essential Counterterrorism Tools.
7. Counter Islamist Ideology.

[read more]

Good ideas although the last way might be trickier to do. First Obama has to name the problem: Islamic radical terrorism. Or if you prefer militant Jihadism or something along the same lines. Glenn Beck thinks calling them “radicals” is a mysnomer. He says the radicals are the ones in the Middle East (and in Ameria) that are trying to reform the religion. He has a point. America should support the reformers. The ones causing all the violence are the devout fundamentalists—not the moderates and traditionalists. Mr. Beck confuses the tradional Muslims (the Sufi) with the fundamentalists (ISIS and Al Queda). The Sufi are persecuted too. Anyway, Donald Trump is the only presidential candidate willingly naming the problem. Hillary Clinton had to be shamed into it.

Miscellaneous Thoughts Part 38

• Never vote on emotion alone especially anger. Politicians know how to exploit emotions. Vote with logic and facts about the candidates like his/her character, positions on the issues, his/her belief system/principles. Vote instead who will do best for the country and respects the Constitution.
• Don’t vote on just a single issue like illegal immigration. Other issues are important too like the debt and the economy.
• The way to convert an atheist to a Christian is to first convert him or her to an agnostic. Might be hard to do.
• Astronaut Buzz Aldrin wants America to go to Mars. I sometimes think the Left is already there.
• What the Left calls inequality, the Right calls individual differences. The Left sees people in one-dimension only.
• The survival of the country is more important than the survival any political party. Political parties come and go. But there is only one America. Once America is gone, she might not come back again. And there probably won’t be political parties anymore if that happens.
• I think psychic mediums should do their best to get spirits to cross over especially if the spirit is seeing a portal to heaven.
• Too much federal regulations decreases the caveat emptor instinct.
• If a person running for office acts like a politician (eg using polls to base his stance on issues) then by all means he/she is a politician. Doesn’t matter if was never in office before. It’s a mindset.
• My Supreme Court litmus test: A judge must be a strict constructionalist who believes in negative rights only.

Startup Promotes Chatting With the Dead

From NewsMax.com (June 22):

Your body can't go on forever, but your memories and personality can – at least in digital form, stored in a library of "people instead of books," a new startup promises.

The Silicon Valley company, Eternime, aims to feed the digital data into "chatbots" that let you speak from the grave.

"Become virtually immortal," the website beckons. "Eternime collects your thoughts, stories and memories, curates them and creates an intelligent avatar that looks like you. This avatar will live forever and allow other people in the future to access your memories."

An illustration shows a bearded man's head smiling from a computer screen. [read more]

Interesting and yet kind of creepy. It’s too bad the company doesn’t show a demo on their website. Not that I’m interested but to any prospective consumer who would like to get an idea of their product. I am guessing that since this is a chatbot it doesn’t use the deceased’s voice during the conversation—which would be a nice feature. Also, since chatbot shows the deceased’s head, does the head move when the person talks? Another nice feature if not already implemented.

What would really be creepy is if this chatbot was part of the deceased’s headstone. Then any relative or anyone else for that matter could talk with the person. You never know. Maybe someone would like to talk to the famous. Possibly motion activated (which could scare some people especially at night) or just touch screen activated. In the future, a hologram of the person could be projected from the tombstone and talk to you when you touch the screen. On second thought, maybe that adds too much to the creepy factor.

Happy Birthday, America!

Ronald Reagan on America

The true meaning of America, you ask? It's in a Texas rodeo, in a policeman's badge, in the sound of laughing children, in a political rally, in a newspaper... In all these things, and many more, you'll find America. In all these things, you'll find freedom. And freedom is what America means to the world. And to me.  -- Audie Murphy

Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it. -- Mark Twain

Patriotism is easy to understand in America; it means looking out for yourself by looking out for your country. – Calvin Coolidge

The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind. – Thomas Paine

The five habits of liberty that have been crucial to sustaining American Exceptionalism:

1. faith and family
2. work
3. civil society
4. rule of law
5. safety and peace

Ten thing you can do to help America's future be as exceptional as its past:

1. Learn about American history, exceptional Americans, and America's founding principles.
2. Speak out. Once you feel confident in your knowledge, start speaking out in favor of American Exceptionalism.
3. Question governmental authority at every turn.
4. Teach the children around you.
5. Insist on schools that teach responsibility and the fundamentals of American citizenship.
6. Defeat and replace bad judges.
7. Reestablish the work ethic.
8. Celebrate American holidays: Memorial Day; Veterans Day; the Fourth of July; Thanksgiving.
9. Volunteer in your community.
10. Run for office. Your country needs you.

Source: A Nation Like No Other: Why American Exceptionalism Matters (2011) by Newt Gingrich.

The Declaration of Independence is the soul of the nation.

Some patriotic links:

• Signers of the Declaration of Independence (video)
• American Exceptionalism by James Q. Wilson
• Three Reasons America Is Exceptional by Jill Burcham
• Why is America Exceptional? by Matthew Spaulding, Ph.D.

Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death! Paraphrase

Here is my paraphrase of the Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death speech that Founding Father Patrick Henry gave:

Mr. President:

I don’t think the less of freedom anymore than the next man does, or even you. If what I say offends any of you, I’m sorry, and I apologize, but nonetheless it is of a matter of importance, not to me alone, but to everyone. The question before the house is a matter of freedom or slavery. So if I keep my opinions back because of giving offense I would divert the truth which is like lying to myself to the country, and the Almighty One. It is common for man to believe in hope, to shut his eyes against pain, but the pain doesn’t go away. No! It doesn’t! I don’t believe in this and I will try my best to know the whole truth and to provide for it. Experience is my guiding light to see through the trouble. I myself don’t believe the British will help us, you can see that from the past. We shall decieve ouselves no more. By deceiving ourselves we would then comply to British accusations that we are weak and they are strong. We have tried peaceful tactics, did everything we could but to no avail. The war will come, and let it come! I repeat let it come! We shall use the weapons we know and not surrender. We are already in slavery, but no more if we have this war. Peace will not come for those who cry out, but only to those who fight for it. I cannot speak for everybody, but as for myself, let me be free or kill me!

I wrote this I believe when I was in grade school. I got a 29/30 score. The errors on the original essay were corrected here.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Founding Fathers Notes

Myths of the Founding Fathers:

• The Founding generation created a democracy.
• The Founding Fathers really believed everyone was equal.
• Slavery was a sin of the Southern founders. Slavery was not a purely regional sin, largely because it was northern ships that conducted the slave trade.
• Paul Revere single-handedly warned the Boston countryside of the impending British invasion. Revere arrived in Lexington first and met with Hancock and Adams. [William] Dawes arrived thirty minutes later, joined by Samuel Prescott, they rode on to warn the people of Concord of the impending attack. But before they reached the town, British sentries stopped them at a roadblock. Revere was arrested, but Dawes and Prescott escaped. Dawes, however, fell off his horse and was injured, leaving Prescott to alert the Minutemen of Concord on his own.
• Benjamin Franklin had thirteen to eighty illegitmate children!
• Thomas Jefferson kept a concubine slave and fathered children with her! In 2001, the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society…released a report that directly contradicted [this myth]. In the summary of their findings, the scholars stated,”With the exception of one member…our individual conclusions range from serious skepticism about the charge to a conviction that is almost certainly false.” The scholars pointed to Jefferson’s brother, often called “Uncle Randolph,” as the probable father of Heming’s children. Randolph Jefferson was reported to have a social relationship with the Monticello slaves and had possibly fathered other children through his own servants.
• Washington had an affair with his neighbor’s wife! This myth has been a rumor since the publication of a suspect letter in the New York Harold in 1877. The contents of the letter seemed to indicate that Washington and Sally Fairfax…had a passionate, romantic interest in one another. No evidence of an affair exists. Washington’s primary biographer, Douglass Southall Freeman, wrote that such an affair would surely been the subject of considerable gossip in Virginia’s elite circles. Freeman believed Washington loved Sally Fairfax, but she did not return the admiration. While those letters have been cited on numerous occasions since John C. Fitzpatrick, who worked at the Library of Congress and had an enormous interest in Washington, included the letters in his thirty-seven volume series of Washington’s writings and correspondance (published between 1931 and 1944), their authenticity has always been in question.
• Alexander Hamilton had a gay lover! The myth of Hamilton’s homosexual past centers on his relationship with John Laurens of South Carolina. Both men served under George Washington during the American Revolution. Laurens and Hamilton developed a close relationship. Hamilton told Laurens that he loved him, and Laurens referred to Hamilton as “My Dear.” They were both young, involved in a dire situation, and had idealistic notions about life and society. They were kindred spirits, but no hint of a sexual relationship exists.
• John Hancock signed the Declaration of Indepedence in a big, bold hand so the king could read it without his glasses. Hancock signed it first and largest because he was the president of the Congress.

What the Founding Fathers would do*:

1. Follow the Constitution.
2. Cut federal spending and reduce the public debt.
3. Eliminate taxes and rein-in or abolish the Federal Reserve system.
4. Reduce the size of the military, and end foreign alliances and foreign wars.
5. Limit immigration.
6. Reassert state control over state issues.
7. Preserve the Bill of Rights.

Thomas Jefferson quotes:

A democracy [is] the only pure republic, but impracticable beyond the limits of a town.

The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that…it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.

The President is bound to stop at the limits prescribed by our Constitution and law to the authorities in his hands, [and this] would apply in an occasion of peace as well as war.

John Adams quotes:

I expressly say that Congress is not a representative body but a diplomatic body, a collection of ambassadors from the thirteen sovereign States…nor indeed, in any moment of my life, did I ever approve of a consolidated government, or would I have given my vote for it. A consolidated government under a monarchy, an aristocracy, or democracy, or a mixture of either, would have flown to pieces like a glass bubble under the first blow of a hammer on an anvil.

Take Care that they [children] don’t go astray. Cultivate their Minds, inspire their little Hearts, raise their Wishes. Fix their Attention upon great and glorious Objects, root out every little Thing, weed out every Meanness, make them great and manly. Teach them to scorn Injustice, Ingratitude, Cowardice, and Falsehood. Let them revere nothing but Religion, Morality and Liberty.

Facts are stubborn things: and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. – at the Boston Massacre Trial, 1770.

All men have a right to remain in a state of nature as long as they as they please; and in case of intolerable oppression, civil or religious, to leave the society they belong to, and enter into another. – Samuel Adams, 1772.

Give all the power to the many, they will oppress the few. Give all the power to the few, they will oppress the many. Both, therefore, ought to have power, that they each may defend itself against one another.  - Alexander Hamilton, 1787.

Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency: but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes. – Benjamin Franklin, 1789.

A nation oppresed by taxes, can never be generous, benevolent or enlightened. – John Taylor of Caroline, 1814.

A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render troops in a great measure unnecessary. – Richard Henry Lee, 1788.

Source: The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Founding Fathers (2009) by Brion McClanahan, Ph. D.

 

*This is why the Left loathes the Founders.

How Donald Trump Can Politically Attack Hillary Clinton

From Dick Morris.com (June 24):

• Go after each of the Clinton Foundation/speaking fees that the Clintons have received and link them to actions by Hillary's State Department.
• Make clear that Hillary failed her test as Commander-in-Chief by her ineptitude and deceit on Benghazi.
• Attack how Hillary exposed our national secrets to foreign hacking just to conceal her e mails form the American media.
• Revisit her theft of gifts to the White House and discuss how she had to return so many of them.
• Go after her for insider trading in cattle futures.
• Expose her legal work on an illegal land deal in Arkansas and how she hid the billing records and lied to a grand jury (Castle Grande or AIDC land deal).
• Discuss how she had detectives blackmail and intimidate all of the women with whom Bill was involved.

Source: “How Trump Can Get His Groove Back” by Dick Morris.

All this is fair game. She is going after him personally so at least he can go after her with the above. He needs to get more specific which is has sort of done already.

Should Bad People Be Allowed to Save Lives?

From FEE.org:

Many  people believe for-profit kidney sales are wrong because they think people who save lives ought not be motivated by self-interest.*

There are lots of problems with this thought. Does it imply that competent and skilled surgeons (firefighters, nurses, police officers, EMTs, etc.) who are just in it for the money, or who are significantly motivated by personal gain, ought not take the job?

Suppose Helen is a sociopath who doesn’t care about others. She would all things equal prefer to be a fighter pilot, because that’s the job she most intrinsically enjoys. She thinks the life of a surgeon sucks. But suppose she would be an excellent surgeon. She decides to become a surgeon just because it pays better. As a result, she saves many lives. By hypothesis, Helen has bad character, but it seems weird to say that she’s done anything wrong, or that she should not become a surgeon for the money.

Consider a variation of Singer’s drowning child thought experiment:

Three toddlers are drowning in three different pools.

In the first case, a person says, “I value the toddler’s life for its own sake, and I am willing to save the child without getting a reward.”

In the second case, a person says, “I am willing to save the child only if I make a small profit. $10 will do it.”

In the third case, a person says, “I am not willing to save the child myself — I can’t be bothered to do so, because I don’t care enough about other people. However, I think the idea of saving a child for profit is evil. So, in addition to not saving the child myself, I’m also going to make sure that person 2 doesn’t save the child for $10 either.”

The first person is the most noble. The second person isn’t noble, but at least he’s willing to help people for money. The third person, it seems to me [the author, John Brennan], is vile and rotten. He uses moral language, but he is himself a morally contemptible figure. He refuses to help a child himself, and also, at the same time, stops less than fully virtuous people like person 2 from saving children.

Many opponents of kidney sales strike me as being like person three. I’ve given the Markets without Limits talk in front of about 3,000 total people at this point. I’ve always ask if anyone has voluntarily given another person a kidney. So far, no one has, even though it’s reasonable to estimate that at least 2,700 of the audience members I’ve encountered were healthy enough to do so, with little to no long-term health costs. So, one thing I know about the audience members I’ve encountered (including those at left-wing places like Boulder or Hanover†) is that they don’t care enough about strangers to save their lives by donating a kidney.

* One of the first things you learn in moral theory is that the moral status of an action and of the motivation behind that action can come apart. A person can do the right thing for the wrong reason or the wrong thing for the right reason. For instance, suppose I rescue a drowning toddler, but only because I mistakenly believe the toddler is the next Hitler. My motives are bad, but my action was still right. Or, suppose a parent gives her autistic child a bleach enema because she falsely believes that will cure the disease. Here, her motives might be good, but her action is wrong.

† I always ask people if they would be willing to sell a kidney for various amounts of money. Two trends I’ve noticed: Young people seem more willing to sell than middle-aged people at any given price. That’s not surprising. The other: people at very left-wing universities are far less willing to sell than people at more moderate universities (or, to be precise, less willing to admit they are willing to sell). [read more]

The author has a point. And not just for kidney markets but for any organ a person wants to sell to help another person. I really don’t see a problem with a person selling an organ with a doctor’s advice and supervision. Whether you sell it or donate it the body part or piece of it, the result is the same—the body part is gone. So, why not sell it? Maybe the problem is knowing the monetary worth of the organ. An organ specialist could help in this situation. Which why it is a good idea not to remove the organ until you get a price you think is fair.

The person in the third case could be a pro-choice person who think aborting a fetus which has its own DNA is okay but selling an organ isn’t. An organ belongs to a person—a fetus doesn’t. Then again under socialized medicine selling organs would be a mute point because it is the State that owns your body not you. So, you would have to get its permission to sell or even to donate an organ.

The FCC and Netflix

From FEE.org (May 11):

In the Golden Age of Television, video consumers don’t have much to complain about. We have cable, satellite, and telco providers; Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon; smart TVs, Chromecasts, and tablets.

There have never been more devices, more content, and more ways to watch. So what problem is the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) trying to solve by meddling in this market?

The purpose of regulation, at least in theory, is to protect consumers from marketplace harms. And while robust competition is usually the best antidote, government can fill the gaps by regulating in a smart, neutral way — e.g. rooting out fraud, preserving clean water, etc.

………………………

So what does that look like in the Golden Age of Television? Too many remotes. The FCC thinks you have too many remotes, and that government intervention is the solution.

Having one remote for Xfinity but a different one for Netflix? What a nightmare! Having to rent a set-top box from your cable company to watch TV? FCC to the rescue.

……………………………..

It’s often said that technology regulation inevitably fights the last battle. By the time the dust settles from years of litigation, the market has already solved or mooted the problem. In this case, we don’t even have to wait. The market has already crashed the FCC’s party.

Despite that, the Commission is moving ahead with plans to “open up” the set-top box by forcing multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) — think cable, satellite, and telephone companies — to allow other companies like Google and Amazon to reconfigure and carry their signals in third-party apps and set-top boxes. Currently, MVPD subscribers can access their content only through a rented set-top box or the MVPD’s app. [read more]

Yea, what the FCC is doing is stupid. Then again it is a gov’t agency filled with bureaucrats that think they are smarter than the free market.

Pro-Gun Control Dem Senator Stuns With Claim on What’s Really ‘Killing Us Right Now’

From The Blaze.com (June 16):

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) on Thursday called for new control measures to prevent potential terrorist suspects from buying guns. The big problem right now, according to the Democrat, is “due process.”

Manchin said the FBI did “everything they were supposed to do” in its two investigations into Orlando gunman Omar Mateen. Neither investigation returned actionable evidence and Mateen went on to kill 49 people and injure over 50 others at a gay nightclub in the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. [read more]

Really? “Due process” is the big problem? Not Islamic extremism? Well, you can add that right to the growing list of rights the Left doesn’t like.

They don’t like freedom of speech if it contradicts what the Left believes like global warming. Freedom of religion they don’t like if it includes Christianity. And you have to make cakes for gay couples getting married if you own a Christian bakery—clear violation of freedom of assembly. The Left doesn’t like guns because they are “weapons of wars” as said by Hillary Clinton. That’s the new catch phrase. Watch it being used more.

If the FBI weren’t restricted in their law enforcement by political correctness there’s is a big chance that the Orlando act of terrorism wouldn’t have happened. And calling the people who were suspicious of the terrorist racist doesn’t help anything. It could actually hurt—people could stop reporting suspicious behavior if the person is Muslim.

In 2006 Hillary Clinton Agreed With Trump About Illegals

From The Blaze.com (June 9):

Hillary Clinton has repeatedly criticized Donald Trump for saying that he wants to build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico, but a 2006 video by then-Sen. Clinton seems to suggest she agreed with Trump at one time.

“The Mexican government’s policies are pushing migration north,” Clinton told the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, D.C., 10 years ago. “There isn’t any sensible approach, besides what we need to do simultaneously: secure our borders with technology, personnel, physical barriers, if necessary, in some places.”

The proposal seems to contradict Clinton’s oft-repeated 2016 campaign statement that the U.S. shouldn’t be building walls, but bridges. Clinton has also gone after Trump’s proposal to deport illegal immigrants out of the U.S., but in the same 2006 speech, Clinton said she was open to deporting those who have committed crimes.  [source]

So, back then she was for the wall and even deportation? Hmmm. Her supporters would say she evolved since then or something stupid like that. The only thing I can say is will the real Hillary Clinton stand up.

Russia Held Successful Flight Test for Anti-Satellite Missile

From News Max.com (May 27):

Russia held a successful flight test of an anti-satellite missile that has the capability of shooting down orbiting satellites, according to American defense officials.

The Washington Free Beacon U.S. intelligence satellites monitored the successful launch from a test site 500 miles north of Moscow.
The Nudol direct-ascent anti-satellite missile was also successfully tested in November 2015, the Free Beacon said.

The missile indicated a Russian interest in increasing its capabilities in outer space, according to Air Force Lt. Gen. David J. Buck, who explained at a House of Representatives hearing in March that "Russia views U.S. dependency on space as an exploitative vulnerability."

Former Pentagon official Mark Schneider said that military leaders regard such missiles as a serious threat. In the Free Beacon report, Schneider mentioned that, "The loss of GPS guidance due to attack would take out a substantial part of our precision weapons' deliverance capability and essentially all of our standoff capability."

Russian military analyst Pavel Podvig explained that it's possible Russia does not have a plan for the anti-satellite missile in place. "I wouldn't be surprised if the system is being developed just because it can be developed." [read more]

That doesn’t sound good. Can’t trust Putin.

New ISIS 'kill' list 'targets thousands of Americans'

From Vocativ.com (June 8):

(VOCATIV) — A pro-ISIS “hacking” group calling itself the United Cyber Caliphate distributed its latest “kill” list this week. The group claims the list includes names, addresses, and email addresses belonging to 8,318 people, making it one of the longest target lists ISIS-affiliated groups have distributed.

In a post Vocativ uncovered on the messaging app Telegram that was written in both English and Arabic, the United Cyber Caliphate called on its supporters to “follow” those listed and “kill them strongly to take revenge for Muslims.”

Most of the names and the accompanying addresses listed appear to belong to people in the United States, Australia, and Canada. Out of 7,848 people identified as being in the U.S. alone, 1,445 were listed as having addresses in California, 643 in Florida, 341 in Washington, 333 in Texas, 331 in Illinois, and 290 in New York. Another 312 names and addresses allegedly belong to people in Canada, while 69 allegedly belong to people in Australia. Another 39 are affiliated with the U.K. and the rest are listed with addresses in Belgium, Brazil, China, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, New Zealand, South Korea, Sweden and Trinidad and Tobago. [read more]

ISIS really has to be stopped. I wonder how many of those on the hit list are military.

H/T: WND.com.

Setting Priorities for Welfare Reform

From The Daily Signal:

Although the welfare reform of the 1990s was popular and initially successful, it was actually quite limited. Of 80 welfare programs, only the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program was reformed, and even in TANF, the vigor of reform has nearly disappeared. Welfare reform should be rejuvenated and expanded by making the following changes.

1. Set the proper goals for welfare. The goal of welfare should not be to reduce poverty through an ever-larger welfare state. Rather, the goals should be to increase self-sufficiency (having an income above poverty level without relying on government welfare aid); enhance productive participation in society; and improve personal well-being and upward mobility.
2. Clearly enumerate the total cost of the means-tested welfare in the Congressional Budget Resolution and set annual spending caps on total welfare spending.
3. Measure poverty, income, living standards, and inequality correctly.
4. Require able-bodied non-elderly adults receiving welfare benefits to work, prepare for work, or at least look for a job under supervision as a condition for receiving aid.
5. Promote healthy marriage in low-income communities.
6. Reject the ineffective pseudo-federalism of welfare block grants and begin to implement real federalism by transferring fiscal responsibility for low-income housing from the federal government to the states.
7. Reform the earned income tax credit. Fraud can be greatly reduced by requiring income verification before payments are made and limiting eligibility to custodial parents and legal guardians.
8. Reduce welfare fraud.Work requirements such as those recommended in this paper substantially reduce welfare fraud because requiring a recipient to be in the welfare office periodically interferes with holding a hidden or unreported job. Recipients cannot be two places at once. Faced with a work requirement, many recipients with hidden jobs simply leave the rolls.
9. Reform social service and training programs by funding them on a pay-for-outcome basis.
10. Create greater employment opportunities for hard-to-employ individuals in low-income neighborhoods.

[read more]

Makes perfect sense to me.

The Nature of Social Sciences

I had a cultural anthropology professor once said during the course that because of the nature of the science a scientist had to be or try to be honest. Objectivity cannot be obtained because you are interacting with people and they could influence you and you them.

Thinking back on what he said I believe that’s a noble goal. That goal should be applied to all social sciences (economics, psychology, sociology, etc.) because they all deal with the study of people hence the word “social.” Actually, it could really be applied to all sciences for that matter especially in matters of ambiguity. If a scientist is puzzled about a particular phenonomena he/she should say so. He should say he has no clear answer but does have theories or beliefs about it (if he does have one)—not facts if there are no facts. This is the least he can do.

Hillary To Her Voters: Stay Home, I’ve Already Won

From The Hillary Daily.com (May 23):

In one of the dumbest things any candidate for any office has ever said, Hillary Clinton told CNN’s Chris Cuomo that the primaries are basically over. “I will be the nominee for my party, Chris. That is already done, in effect. There is no way that I won’t be.”

Other than soothing her own anxieties by anticipating victory, her statement is nothing but counterproductive.

It tells her own voters not to bother to turn out and vote. She has, after all, already won she says.

It says to voters in California, Oregon, Washington State, South Dakota, New Mexico, New Jersey and Montana that their role in the nominating process has been eclipsed: Hillary has won. [read more]

Wow, what nerve. Then again when the fix is in I guess she can say that unless of course she gets indicted then who knows who will be nominated at the convention. Possibly Joe Biden.

Trump’s Economic Plan: Higher Taxes, Higher Inflation, and Higher Minimum Wage

From FEE.org:

That didn’t take long.

It was only days after Donald Trump clinched the Republican nomination that the mask (such as it was) came off. Suddenly he was telling multiple interviewers that he could be talked into raising taxes, boosting the minimum wage, and printing enough money to pay the national debt in cheap dollars.

"On my plan [taxes are] going down. But by the time it's negotiated, they'll go up," Trump said. “In my opinion, the taxes for the rich will go up somewhat." (After the outcry, he claimed he meant up from his proposed cuts.)

As for the minimum wage, he talks like Obama, completely uninterested in market forces, as if what people are paid is purely at the discretion of political managers: “I think people have to get more… I don't know how you live on $7.25 an hour.”

Oh, but he says he would leave it to the states to decide the height of the wage floor, which raises the question of why he is talking about it at all, since that can presumably happen now. The Department of Labor he would head as president possesses plenty of power to strongly nudge states however it wants. If Trump favors a higher wage floor, he is going to get it.

And, incidentally, such a higher floor could be an crucial part of an anti-immigration policy as well. If low-wage jobs become illegal, immigrants have no reason to cross the border at all. The eugenicists who passed the 1920s immigration laws understood this well.  [read more]

When you increase the minimum wage that hurts entry workers—teenagers. The wage should be negotiated between the employer and employee. Gov’t should keep out of it. Then again if big gov’t thinks the employers are the oppressors then a minimum wage makes sense (so do unions for that matter). I am not saying that employers are perfect but like everyone else they are human. Like teachers, labor union leaders, college professors, etc.

Here’s a question: What if the employee wants to give the job a try? Or wants on-the-job training like an apprenticeship? A minimum wage would prevent this from happening. When a business (especially a small business) hires someone its always taking a risk. Will this person be a hard worker? Show up on time? Will he/she fit into the business climate? That’s why some small family-owned business hire only family members—there is hardly any risk. They know who they are hiring.

FEE.org also has another article called “How Minimum Wages Discourage Entrepreneurship” which explains how the minimage wage law affects business and its employees in other negative ways. And it has an article called “Five Facts about Minimum Wages.”

10 Questions about Conscious Machines

A FEE.org article by Max Borders:

In the past year or so, there have been a lot of films about artificial intelligence: Her, Chappie, and now there’s Ex Machina.

These films are good for us.

They stretch our thinking. They prompt us to ask serious questions about the possibility and prospects of conscious machines — the answers to which may be needed if we must someday co-exist with newly-sentient beings. Some of them may sound far out, but they force us to think critically about some important principles for the coming age of AI.

Ten come to mind.

1. Can conscious awareness arise from causal-physical stuff — like that assembled (or grown) in a laboratory — to make a sentient being?
2. If such beings become conscious, aware, and have volition, does that mean they could experience pain, pleasure, and emotion too?
3. If these beings have human-like emotions, as well as volition, does that mean they are owed humane and ethical treatment?
4. If these beings ought to be treated humanely and ethically, does that also confer certain rights upon them — and are they equal to the rights that humans have come to expect from each other? Does the comparison even make sense?
5. If these beings have rights, is it wrong to program them for the specific task of serving us? What if they derive pleasure from serving us, or are programmed to do so?
6. If these beings have rights by virtue of their consciousness and volition, does that offer the philosophical basis of rights in general?
7. If these beings do not have rights people need respect, could anything at all grant rights to them?
8. If these beings have nothing that grants them ethical treatment or rights, what makes humans distinct in this respect?
9. If we were able to combine human intelligence with AI — a hybrid, if you will, in which the brain was a mix of biological material and sophisticated circuitry — what would be the ethical/legal status of this being?
10. If it turns out that humans are not distinct in any meaningful sense from robots, at least in terms of justifying rights, does that mean that rights are a social construct?
11. These questions might make some people uncomfortable. They should. I merely raise them; I do not purport to answer them here.

[source]

Good questions especially the first. That’s the question no scientist has yet solved. Maybe we should first determine if androids have any kind of consciousness like dogs, cats or even dolphins. Isaac Asimov’s novelette The Bicentennial Man the android Andrew was given human status when he was made mortal. If humanity defines an android as a human being does that mean he can vote in elections? Serve on a jury? Own property? I guess what I am asking does the Bill of Rights and the clause “right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (whatever happiness means to an android)” pertain to androids? Also, can an android be convicted of a crime in a court of law? Or even be suid? Something to think about.

Data in the Star Trek: The Next Generation TV series and Dorian in the Almost Human TV series were treated for the most part as human. In the Next Generation episode “The Measure of a Man” Data fights for his right of self-determination in order not to be declared the property of Starfleet and be disassembled in the name of science.

Maybe in the future there will be an advocacy group for androids like PETA. Except in the case PETA would stand for People for Ethical Treatment of Androids. Who knows.

Memorial Day Prayers

Lord, hold our troops in your loving hands.

Protect them as they protect us.

Bless them and their families for the selfless acts they perform for us in our time of need.

I ask this in the name of Jesus, our Lord and Savior.

Amen.

Source: “Remembering Those Who Never Came Home” from The Daily Signal.com.

Gracious, Sovereign God, Lord of all nations,

On this Memorial Day, we pause to reflect upon our blessings as a nation and the high cost of those blessings. We offer our prayers of thanks and intercession.

Thank you for the freedom we enjoy in this country, for opportunities to flourish, and for the security of our land. Thank you for those who have served in the armed services of our country, risking their lives for our liberty.

Thank you for those who have given their lives in service to our country, sacrificing in such a costly way for the sake of others, including me. Thank you for those who have given their lives so that those who live in other countries might experience freedom from tyranny.

Thank you for a day set apart, not just for celebration, but also for solemn remembrance as we consider the sacrifices of so many in our military.

O Lord, may we be more aware of just how blessed we are as a nation. May we be more grateful for our blessings, more faithful in stewarding them well, more eager to share them with others.

We pray today for the families and friends of those who have given their lives in service to our nation. May they be comforted in their sadness. May they be reassured that the sacrifice of their loved ones contributes to a worthy cause. May they be proud of those they have lost, entrusting their ultimate fate into your gracious hands.

Even as we remember those who have given their lives in the past, we also think of those whose lives are on the line today. Protect them. Encourage them. Bring them home safely...and soon.

Give wisdom to the leaders of our armed services, that they might know how best to deploy the troops in the cause of freedom. May their efforts be successful, so that peace with justice might be established in our world.
Guide those who lead our nation in international affairs. Help them to pursue diplomatic paths that prevent needless conflict. May they have your wisdom about when and how to use the military might you have entrusted to us.

God of peace, stir in the hearts of the leaders of all nations and in all who would use violence to further their cause. Change their hearts and minds. Give them a passion for peace. Bring an end to the pain, suffering, injustice, and violence in our world.

We know, dear Lord, that ultimate peace will not come until your kingdom is here in all of its fullness. Nevertheless, we pray for a foretaste of the future. We ask for the growth of peace throughout our world today, so that fewer and fewer men and women will have to risk and even to sacrifice their lives. We long for the day when people will “beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more” (Isa. 2:4).

May your kingdom come, Lord, and your will be done on earth, as it is in heaven!

All praise be to you, God of grace, God of mercy, God of justice, God of peace, King of kings, and Lord of lords! Amen.

Source: A Prayer for Memorial Day

The Population Bomb Book

The Population Bomb was Stanford University professor Paul Ehrlich’s dire and impatient warning to mankind. Ehrlich painted an apocalyptic picture of the future: Too many people were being born and too many resources were drying up. The professor believed this was a fatal scenario for both the planet and humanity. He even went so far as to compare humanity to cancer.

“A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells. The population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. Treating only the symptoms of cancer may make the victim more comfortable at first, but eventually he dies, often horribly. A similar fate awaits a world with a population explosion, if only the symptoms are treated,” Ehrlich said.

Ehrlich had many actual solutions on how to combat the disease of the surplus population. He was a staunch supporter of families having no more than two children, so much so that he outlined in The Population Bomb how to attack the media for promoting large families. Paul Ehrlich also floated the idea of creating a federal Department of Population and Environment (DPE), arguing that one of the DPE’s main focuses would be encouraging more research on human sex determination to ensure first born children were males.

The Population Bomb proved so popular Paul Ehrlich was able to co-found an activist group named Zero Population Growth (ZPG). Its members were passionate about decreasing the population and expert at using sympathy to get their talking points across. The group still exists as the re-branded Population Connection, continuing to spread their morbid fantasies about who should be born into this world — and who should not.

Source: Environmentalism Part II: The Population Bomb

I wonder if China’s gov’t got the idea of controlling their population from this guy because that’s almost what they are doing.

Hillary Clinton Literally Doesn’t Understand Why Obamacare Caused a $500 Increase in Small Business Owner’s Healthcare Costs

From The Blaze.com (May 10):

Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton came clean about Obamacare during a town hall this week, telling one small business owner that she has no idea why the Affordable Care Act has raised her insurance costs by $500.

She was pressed on the issue by the business owner during a campaign stop in Lorton, Virginia, Monday afternoon.

“I have seen our health insurance for my own family go up $500 a month in the last two years, so we went from 400 something to 900 something,” the woman told Clinton. “We’re just fighting to keep benefits for ourselves. The thought of being able to provide benefits to your employees is almost secondary. Yet to keep your employees happy, that’s a question that comes across my desk all the time.”

Because of the large increase, the business owner told the Democratic hopeful that she is forced to keep most of her workers as contractors, adding that many leave for other employers who can provide more benefits.

She went on to say if she can’t provide benefits for herself, there’s no way she can cover her family. She said the reason her health insurance has increased by so much is because she “unfortunately” makes too much money to qualify for a subsidy under Obamacare.

“So, I guess my question to you is not only are you looking out for people that can’t afford health care,” she said. “I’m someone that can afford it, but it’s taking a big chunk out of the money I bring home for myself.”

Clinton responded, “What you’re saying is one of the real worries that we’re facing with the cost of health insurance because the costs are going up in a lot of markets — not all, but many markets. Right now, like with so many of these programs, there’s just a cut off instead of what I would like to see a kind of gradual diminishment.” [read more]

What?! What kind of answer is that? The real reason costs are going up is because that’s the plan—to eventually go to a single-payer system. But no dem candidate will ever say that. The Left want the masses to revolt and demand a single-payer system. The real reason health care costs go up is because when consumers don’t know or care about prices of services and medical products then prices will automatically go up. Obamacare doesn’t change that.

Then again Hillary is economically stupid. That’s why she wants her hubby to be her economic advisor—although he’s not much better.

The Trouble with Making Scientific Hypotheses into National Laws

From David Boaz on FEE.org:

As I wrote a few months ago in response to a Washington Post story on the possibility that decades of government warnings about whole milk may have been in error,

It’s understandable that some scientific studies turn out to be wrong. Science is a process of trial and error, hypothesis and testing. Some studies are bad, some turn out to have missed complicating factors, some just point in the wrong direction. I have no criticism of scientists’ efforts to find evidence about good nutrition and to report what they (think they) have learned.

My concern is that we not use government coercion to tip the scales either in research or in actual bans and mandates and Official Science. Let scientists conduct research, let other scientists examine it, let journalists report it, let doctors give us advice. But let’s keep nutrition – and much else – in the realm of persuasion, not force. First, because it’s wrong to use force against peaceful people, and second, because we might be wrong. ...

Today’s scientific hypotheses may be wrong. Better, then, not to make them law. [read more]

Mr. Boaz is exactly right. Science is never complete and even sometimes can be wrong because scientists are not perfect that’s why laws shouldn’t be based on science alone. In the 70’s scientists talked about global cooling not warming. Science is always influx.

Who Cares about Inequality?

Commentary from Don Watkins from FEE.org:

The division between classical and modern liberals is often represented as paralleling the tension between liberty and equality. Where classical liberalism saw individual liberty as the driving force behind peace and prosperity, the modern variety puts more emphasis on equality. But this is a false dichotomy. The only kind of equality that is possible is also the only kind that matters: political equality.

Political equality refers to equality of rights. Before the creation of the United States, every system of government had taken for granted that some people were entitled to rule others, taking away their freedom and property whenever some allegedly “greater good” demanded it. The Founders rejected that notion. Each individual, they held, is to be regarded by the government as having the same rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as any other individual. So long as he didn’t violate other people’s rights, he was free to set his own course and live on his own terms.

By making the government the guardian of our equal rights rather than a tool for the politically privileged to control and exploit the rest of society, the Founders transformed the state from an instrument of oppression into an instrument of liberation: it liberated the individual so that he was free to make the most of his life. (Unfortunately, they failed to fully implement that principle, above all by allowing the continued existence of slavery, which was a clash of principles that nearly tore the country apart in a civil war.)

Political equality is what made America a land of opportunity. In a world where there were no special privileges and no special obstacles, each individual was free to rise as high as his ability and ambition would take him. This political equality inevitably went hand in hand with economic inequality, as the ability and ambition of some people took them further than others. There was no contradiction in that fact. Political equality has to do with how the government treats individuals. It says that the government should treat all individuals the same — black or white, man or woman, rich or poor. But political equality says nothing about the differences that arise through the voluntary decisions of private individuals. Protecting people’s equal rights invariably leads to differences in economic condition, as some people use their freedom to create modest amounts of wealth while others reach the highest levels of financial success.

……………………………

When a bank or auto company that made irrational decisions gets bailed out at public expense, that is an outrage. But the root of the problem isn’t their executives’ ability to influence Washington; it’s Washington’s power to dispense bailouts.  [read more]

The modern liberals the author is talking about are also called progressives or what I call The Left since they might change their name again. Good article.

Donald Trump’s Idea to Cut National Debt: Get Creditors to Accept Less

From The New York Times (May 6):

After assuring Americans he is not running for president “to make things unstable for the country,” the presumptive Republican nominee, Donald J. Trump, suggested that he might reduce the national debt by persuading creditors to accept something less than full payment.

Asked on Thursday whether the United States needed to pay its debts in full, or whether he could negotiate a partial repayment, Mr. Trump told the cable network CNBC, “I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal.”

He added, “And if the economy was good, it was good. So, therefore, you can’t lose.”

Such remarks by a major presidential candidate have no modern precedent. The United States government is able to borrow money at very low interest rates because Treasury securities are regarded as a safe investment, and any cracks in investor confidence have a long history of costing American taxpayers a lot of money. [read more]

Wow! Donald Trump really has confidence in his negotiating ability. We’ll see. Actually, according to FEE.org, Trump is not the first to threaten default on the debt. The first was Obama.

It’s actually better for the powers-to-be have displine and stop spending amd make cuts in gov’t programs than to default on the debt. Donald Trump hasn’t suggested any gov’t program to eliminate or to cut. Ted Cruz on the other hand suggested five programs. Maybe Trump should look at that list programs to cut or to eliminate. He wouldn’t have to choose all five but say two to three would be a good start. I’m sure Ted Cruz wouldn’t mind.

To be fair, Mr. Trump said he like the “penny plan” when Sean Hannity suggested this plan.

An Open Challenge to Liberals: Answer These 3 Questions

From Dan Bongino on Conservative Review.com:

We painfully learned during the presidency of Barack Obama that ideology matters more than words. And now that the 2016 primary season is coming to a close I think it’s appropriate to start asking the remaining candidates questions about the ideology that guides their decision-making. Barack Obama said a lot of things as a candidate but when it mattered (i.e. executive amnesty, Obamacare, foreign policy) he disregarded what he said and took actions guided by his big –government-knows-best ideology.

Here are three questions for liberal candidates I would like to see answered before the November elections.

1. Do you believe in the rule of law? This is an important question because liberals tend to give conflicting answers to this question when it involves specific legislative actions. For example, ask many liberals about Obamacare and they’ll insist that “it’s the law of the land” and can’t be ignored, even though it has imposed devastating penalties on millions of Americans in the form of higher premiums and cancelled insurance plans.But ask liberals about current immigration laws, which are being openly violated by millions of illegal immigrants, and liberals will insist that “the immigration laws are broken,” insinuating that this is a permission slip for people who don’t like immigration laws to ignore them. Which is it though? You can’t be consistent and say that you believe in the rule of law if that belief means you only recommend following the laws that comport with your ideology.
2. What is the safe limit for government debt?
3. What special knowledge do government bureaucrats have about the economy? The modern liberal candidate for public office has largely abandoned the idea that free markets create prosperity. Given this, I would like to hear from liberal candidates what special knowledge government bureaucrats have that enables them to manage the economy?

[read more]

These are good questions for any Left-leaning candidate running for office at any time. As for the questions let me pretend to be a Leftist and answer these questions:

Answer to the first question is no. The Left believes in the rule of elites progressives. The Constitution is a nuisance that gets in the way of the Left’s so-called “compassion.”

The answer to the 2nd question is:  Getting people dependent on gov’t—we (the Left) mean compassion—is the goal then we don’t worry about running out of other peoples money. We will just raise taxes on the rich to cover any expenses since the rich hoard all the money anyway and they don’t deserve to keep it.

The answer to the last question is Marxist economists with a Ph. D.

Southern San Andreas fault in California 'locked and loaded,' warns scientist

From Fox News.com (May 5):

The southern part of the San Andreas fault is "locked, loaded and ready to roll," according to Thomas Jordan, director of the Southern California Earthquake Center.

Jordan issued the warning during a keynote speech at the National Earthquake Conference in Long Beach, Calif. Wednesday, reports Fox 11.

"The pressure has been building on that part of the fault without being relieved for more than a hundred years," he said.

Parts toward the southeast of the San Andreas fault haven't moved since about 1680, according to the report.

"The springs on the San Andreas system have been wound very, very tight,”  Jordan said.

……………….

The L.A. Times cited a 2008 U.S. Geological Survey report, which warned that a 7.8-magnitude quake on the southern San Andreas fault could cause more than 1,800 deaths and 50,000 injuries. [read more]

Scary. Not good at all.

Trump Takes 'New Deal' Approach to Fixing Nation's Infrastructure

From News Max.com (May 5):

One of Donald Trump's campaign promises is one that involves fixing the nation's infrastructure, a claim he compares to the New Deal.

New York Magazine's Eric Levitz writes that Trump's plan to repair the United States' aging infrastructure — which includes roads, bridges, tunnels, and the power grid — could end up moving him left on the political spectrum because of the massive amount of government spending his plan would entail.
"Maybe my greatest strength is the economy, jobs, and building," Trump told CNBC Thursday. "We do have to rebuild our infrastructure."

Trump addressed the issue in his latest book, "Crippled America: How to Make America Great Again."

"Fixing our infrastructure will be one of the biggest projects this country has ever undertaken. There isn't going to be a second chance to get it right," Trump wrote in his book, according to an excerpt published by ABC News last fall. "Let me ask you, if your own house was falling down and you had to hire someone to fix it before it completely collapsed, who would you hire? A guy who tells you what he's planning to do, or a guy who has proven what he can do countless times before? [read more]

I thought Obama fixed the infrastructure already? I guess Trump is showing his progressive side making the infrastructure great again. He’s going to put people back to work by giving them gov’t jobs? Hmmm. Gov’t jobs never really revives the private sector.

Failure Made Disney Great

From Lawrence W. Reed on FEE.org:

What a phenomenal man Walt Disney was! A cartoonist and animator, businessman, filmmaker, theme park pioneer, and cultural icon, he may have manufactured more happiness in the world than any other man or woman of the 20th century. He was an American original and an American patriot, too. He deeply appreciated that liberty in America allowed him to invent, experiment, and ultimately succeed, as evidenced in this remark three years before his death: “To retreat from any of the principles handed down by our forefathers, who shed their blood for the ideals we still embrace, would be a complete victory for those who would destroy liberty and justice for the individual.”

Some people think that entrepreneurs build, innovate, and take risks just for the money they might make. To the imaginative Walt Disney, money was never the prime motivator. Not even close — though what could be wrong about that if it had been? Money paid the bills, but he hired his brother Roy to worry about it. Walt was driven by the sheer joy of creativity and the fulfillment that comes from bringing happiness to others. “It’s kind of fun to do the impossible,” he once said. These words from his dedication speech at the July 1955 opening of Disneyland in Anaheim, California, encapsulate his amazing spirit:

To all who come to this happy place, Welcome! Disneyland is your land. Here, age relives fond memories of the past ... and here youth may savor the challenge and promise of the future. Disneyland is dedicated to the ideals, the dreams, and the hard facts that have created America ... with the hope that it will be a source of joy and inspiration to all the world.

No one could do justice to the life of Walt Disney in a short article, so I won’t even attempt to. Allow me to zero in on one particular aspect that underscores why he’s a hero: he knew failure and how to learn and prosper from it. As he put it himself, “All the adversity I’ve had in my life, all my troubles and obstacles, have strengthened me.… You may not realize it when it happens, but a kick in the teeth may be the best thing in the world for you.”

In “The Importance of Failure” (Freeman, November 2011), economists Steven Horwitz and Jack Knych explained that permitting failure is just as important as allowing success:

For example, in 1921 Walt Disney started a company called the Laugh-O-Gram Corporation, which went bankrupt two years later. If a friend of Disney or the government hadn’t let him fail and move on, he might never have become the Walt Disney we know today.

More important than this individual learning process is the irreplaceable role failure plays in the social learning process of the competitive market. When we refuse to allow failure to happen, or we cushion its blow, we ultimately harm not only the person who failed but also all of society by denying ourselves a key way to learn how best to allocate resources. Without failure there’s no economic growth or improved human well-being.…

Failure drives change. While success is the engine that accelerates us toward our goals, it is failure that steers us toward the most valuable goals possible. Once failure is recognized as being just as important as success in the market process, it should be clear that the goal of a society should be to create an environment that not only allows people to succeed freely but to fail freely as well.

Disney heard a lot about failure at the family dinner table before he ever failed himself. His father, Elias, tried twice to be a successful orange grower in Florida but couldn’t make it work. He flopped as a professional fiddle player in Colorado. He didn’t do much better farming in Missouri. Elias tried a lot of things to keep his family fed. That he never quit trying left a deep impression on young Walt.  [read more]

Legislation Will Curb the Power of Unaccountable Bureaucracy

From The Daily Signal (Apr. 27):

Each year, regulators impose thousands of rules on the American people—over 20,000 during the Obama administration’s tenure alone. The cost is staggering: According to an upcoming Heritage study, the cost of Obama’s new rules alone is over $100 billion each year, and that only counts the biggest regulations.

There is a solution: make Congress approve new regulations before they become effective. That would shift responsibility back to where it belongs—in Congress. Regulators would no longer be able to legislate though rule-making without congressional action, and Congress would no longer be able to evade accountability for the rules that are imposed.

The REINS (“Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny”) Act would implement just such a system, requiring congressional approval for the hundred or so “major” rules each year that cost $100 million or more. Yet, that bill—first introduced seven years ago—has been stalled in Congress. While approved by the House multiple times, it failed to gain any traction in the Senate.

Part of the reason for the stalemate is critics’ concerns over how the system would work in practice. That’s where Lee’s amendment comes in. He would impose REINS Act requirements solely on major rules from the Department of Energy.  [read more]

A good start but the act should cover all gov’t agencies. Obama and Hillary would veto the act. But would Donald Trump sign the bill into law if he became the president? According to the American Commitment presidential survey he said he would and would work hard to get it passed. That’s good to hear.  First of course, the Senate has to pass it.

Why We Need to Make Mistakes

An article by Sandy Ikeda on FEE.org:

But I think innovation, not efficiency, is capitalism’s greatest strength. I’m not saying that the free market can’t be both efficient and innovative, but it does offer people a strong incentive to abandon the pursuit of efficiency in favor of innovation.

What Is Efficiency?

In its simplest form, economic efficiency is about given ends and given means. Economic efficiency requires that you know what end, among all possible ends, is the most worthwhile for you to pursue and what means to use, among all available means, to attain that end. You’re being efficient when you’re getting the highest possible benefit from an activity at the lowest possible cost. That’s a pretty heavy requirement.

What Is Innovation?

Innovation means doing something significantly novel. It could be doing an existing process in a brand new way, such as being the first to use a GPS tracking system in your fleet of taxis. Or, innovation could mean doing something that no one has ever done before, such as using smartphone technology to match car owners with spare time to carless people who need to get somewhere in a hurry, à la Uber.

Innovation, unlike efficiency, entails discovering novel means to achieve a given end, or discovering an entirely new end. And unlike efficiency, in which you already know about all possible ends and means, innovation takes place only when you lack knowledge of all means, all ends, or both.

Where’s the Conflict?

Starting a business that hasn’t been tried before involves a lot of trial and error. Most of the time the trials, no matter how well thought out, turn out to contain errors. The errors may lie in the means you use or in the particular end you’re pursuing.

In most cases, it takes quite a few trials and many, many errors before you hit on an outcome that has a high enough value and low enough costs to make the enterprise profitable.) Is that process of trial and error, of experimentation, an example of economic efficiency? It is not.

…………………………..

Both efficiency and innovation best take place in a free market. But the greatest rewards to buyers and sellers come not from efficiency, but from innovation.  [read more]

The reason why socialistic nations are not innovative is because they focus too much on efficiency at the expence of innovation. Socialists believe the market systems should be perfect (read: efficient) but they never will be perfect because people are not perfect. Also, when beurcrats run the economy they focus more on efficiency rather than innovation. Bureaucrats, let’s face it, are not very creative. Add to this fact that innovation involves risks which scares the crap out of socialists.