The Absence Of Intent And The Presumption Of Guilt:Richard Nixon And Watergate

When Hillary Clinton was facing prosecution for over 33,000 leaked emails apologists in the media and Dept. of Justice kept citing an absence of criminal intent as an excuse for avoiding prosecution. During the Watergate hearings, President Richard M. Nixon was afforded no such out. In fact, he wasn't even afforded the presumption of innocence, a mainstay of the American judicial system since its inception.

I recently watched a film about the last days of the Nixon Administration and attempted Watergate cover-up. The movie was a typical Hollywood smear job but several things stood out. First was Nixon's integrity which, despite their efforts to obfuscate it, showed him to be a man who put the nation ahead of himself. Second was his love of his family and concern for them above himself. Another thing that was painfully obvious was a complete lack of impartiality in the investigation. Throughout the film I listened for the word intent- it was never used. Nixon's intent, however, was apparent. His only intent was to preserve the integrity of the office of the president...at any cost. In doing this he embarked on a road that would inevitably cost him his presidency.

Watergate was a political witch hunt from beginning to end. When the "burglars" were caught and turned out to be operatives of the White House, the Democrats lost no time in bringing down the president. A Special Prosecutor was appointed and Congressional hearings begun. The media went into a frenzy. In any objective investigation the impartiality of the investigators in paramount. The very fact that Hillary Clinton, given her radical political affiliations, worked for the Congressional committee doing the investigating shows that impartiality was never a concern. This was a blatant attempt to bring down Nixon.

The Democrats and Special Prosecutors demanded tapes, some 64 of them, that contained not only issues pertinent to Watergate, but conversations with his family, foreign diplomats and others that would essentially strip the president of any vestige of privacy. This is what Nixon objected to. He offered to give Congress transcripts of all pertinent material, but that wasn't good enough- they wanted everything. In his attempt to preserve the privacy and integrity of the presidency, Nixon made some pretty bad blunders. This just added fuel to the fire. However, if you think about it, how comfortable do you think foreign leaders would be talking in the Oval Office, if everything they said was to be made public? Nixon had a point.

But the Democrats and media were unrelenting. I wonder why they weren't equally unrelenting during the attack on Benghazi. I wonder what transcripts of Obama's communications with Valerie Jarrett or Hillary Clinton would have revealed. Or, perhaps communications between Bill Clinton and Communist Chinese donors, who had access to the Lincoln Bedroom. But these issues were never even raised. The Democrats have historically represented everything reprehensible in America. They were the party of slavery. They were the party of Tammany Hall and the party of Richard Daley's political machine in Chicago. They were also the party of the undoing of a man that hopefully history will vindicate. The movie does make one good point: If the private conversations of every president were made public, how many would have been able to continue as president?

Nixon was, after all, a pretty competent president. He normalized relations with Communist China and opened trade negotiations. He also did more for Middle-East relations than any other president. He was able to negotiate with Leonid Brezhnev one of the most hard-line Premiers of the USSR in the Cold War era. Nixon funded Johnson's Great Society programs and started the EPA. He also won the Vietnam War...Yes won it. This video shows how the North Vietnamese, Viet Cong, and South Vietnamese, along with the U.S. initialized the Paris Peace Accords and were ready to sign them a short time later. This is why the Democrats had to bring Nixon down.

In the end, Richard M. Nixon was guilty of being a decent, honorable human being, albeit a flawed one- like the rest of us.He was guilty of putting country and family first, ahead of political expediency. If he had stuck it out, he would most likely have prevailed, but at what cost? He didn't want to put the country or his family through the scandal. Unlike Bill Clinton who has no concept of decency, he stepped down for the good of the nation he loved. The Nixon presidency and its undoing say more about the Democrats who have come after than the man himself. History, I'm certain, will vindicate him.

The Reason For The Season: A Christmas Message For Christians

Anyone that calls themselves Christians needs to watch this video, at least5 the first 45 or so minutes.

It's Christmas time, a time for celebrating the life of Jesus Christ, our Savior. While it's doubtful that He was born on Dec. 25th, we do, however, know why He was born and when He died...and why. While everybody is opening presents from Santa and enjoying time with family, we must never forget that Jesus laid down his life so that we might have life everlasting. Are you willing to go that far for Him?

Are you willing to lay down your life so that Jesus word might survive in America? It may come to that. There is a growing antipathy toward Christians in this country and we must all determine what side we will be on. This life is a test, nothing more...a test to determine where you will spend eternity. There are two choices; the easy, comfortable one and one that is much more difficult. It's easy to say "Yes, I'm a Christian." But, it's far more difficult to be one. It's easy to embrace the pop-culture Jesus and a watered down version of Christianity being proffered in churches where all one has to do is claim kinship to Jesus and declare "I'm Saved!" But, that's not Christianity.

Christianity is about how you choose to live your life. The Bible talks about "the narrow way." The narrow way is never the easy way despite what many preachers tell us. The Joel Osteens and Benny Hinns of the world lure people away from the Word, offering them an easy way to salvation. In James, the Bible tells us that "faith without works is dead." The Bible also tells us that "man cannot serve two masters." Will you serve God or mammon?

In II Thessalonians God talks of a "Great Delusion" that he will set forth upon men. This delusion is saved by faith alone. This is called Luther's revelation and was, in fact, a political ploy by the Venetians to cause dissent among 100,000 German lancers that were closing in on the city. This "vision" was given to Luther courtesy of one Gasparo Contarini, a high ranking political figure in Venice.

We are saved by Grace and by Faith, but not alone. In Isaiah it says that "I will turn your heart of stone into one of flesh...and I will make you Israel." The word Israel does not refer to a country- it means literally wrestles with God. Or in common parlance, one with God. Therefore, being one with God would naturally change one's behavior. If one is to be a Christian, it is not enough to say you're a Christian...you have to act as one.

There is a saying that Satan's greatest accomplishment was convincing mankind he doesn't exist. I say his greatest accomplishment was getting people of faith to fight amongst themselves. As Christians, we must never forget that we are on the same side- Catholics, Methodists, Baptists... For Christianity to survive we must stop fighting amongst ourselves, or Satan wins. Because we are divided, pop-culture has taken over. The Joel Osteens sell a feel-good brand of Christianity that is easy to do. Christianity is difficult. If you are not willing to live or die for Christ...you are not a Christian. Merry Christmas!

Stealing America: The MSM's Last Ditch Effort To Silence Dissent

In the aftermath of Hillary Clinton backed lawsuits' failure to overturn the election results in four states, the Globalists have decided on a couple of new strategies. Still blaming Russian intelligence for the loss the MSM narrative is attempting to influence the Electoral College in swaying "Hamilton Electors" to change their party affiliation and vote for Hillary Clinton "for the good of the country."

What they fail to understand is that the last election was a revolution of sorts...a rejection of the Obama/Globalist worldview. This view is similarly held by the mainstream media, a global organization owned by six mega-corporations. Throughout the election the globalist elites, through their propaganda machine did everything in their power to get Clinton, a corrupt power-hungry globalist puppet elected. What this election really boiled down to was the elitist worldview vs. Donald Trump, the populist voice of the people.

Current polling shows the MSM with a less than 10% believability rating, with most people (nearly 50%) preferring to get their news from alternative news sources, mostly on social media. In their attempt to counter this, many social sites have attempted to silence dissenting voices. One of the more popular sites, Facebook, has begun fact checking so called "Fake News" by comparing information to what is being confirmed by Move On.org and Snopes...both owned by George Soros, a globalist backer of both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, hardly the voice of impartiality. What these social media outlets are doing is to affirm the same globalist agenda as the MSM.

To further attempt to sway the electors, a group of washed up actors have made a video pleading with them to change their votes. This is a last gasp effort that showcases the desperation of the globalists. This video, by Anonymous, traces the efforts of the pro-Clinton global elites in their efforts to overturn a legitimate democratic election.

What I find particularly fascinating about the video, comes when J.P. Morgan-Chase instructs their investors to seek alternative sources of news when formulating investment strategies. If you think back to the housing bubble bursting in 2008, the question arises- where was the MSM. As the movie The Big Short points out, a few shrewd hedge fund were able to spot the inconsistencies in the housing bond market...How? Because they looked, it's as simple as that. Where the experts in the MSM? There is certainly no shortage of financial wizards in the MSM, yet the only people smart enough to see what was about to happen was a couple of offbeat hedge fund managers. Everybody else was asleep at the wheel.

During the election the political wizards in the MSM were apparently asleep again. The polls consistently showed Hillary as a shoe-in candidate; or were they deliberately trying to deceive the American people? Either way, the American people won and the globalists lost. One thing is certain, they haven't given up. You can expect them to attempt to derail President Trump's efforts attempt to restore America at every turn.

Pizzagate and Child Sacrifice: An Update

When I started writing about Pizzagate and especially the "killing room," people started saying "it's pedophilia, it's pedophilia." I wrote a piece about the cult of youth that pervades circles of powerful people. We live in a cult of youth in America today...everything is about living longer, looking younger. I fear that's what Pizzagate is going to turn out to be.

I wrote something about the Countess Elizabeth Bathory killing young girls and drinking their blood to keep her youthful appearance. That's what I believe is going on in the killing room at Ping Pong Pizza. The cannibals in New Guinea, eat the flesh of fallen adversaries to imbibe their warrior spirit.

It's possible that Hillary Clinton's erratic behavior could be linked to Kuru, a disease contracted through the consumption of human flesh. In the Pizzagate investigations, allegations of Satanic rituals, particularly where John Podesta and his brother, Tony are concerned. Also the art work displayed at Ping Pong Pizza is anything but wholesome. For something to be Satanic, does not necessarily require people in hooded robes burning black candles and chanting esoteric incantations. If someone, or anyone, is killing children and eating them, or drinking their blood...it's Satanic. God does not condone such behavior. Behavior is either good or bad. If it is good, it's of God. If bad, it's from Satan...It IS that simple.

Then there is the Abramovic woman and her "spirit cleansing": All of this New Age garbage is Satanic, despite it's pretenses of spiritual healing, or noble intentions. Remember, the Left is masterful at manipulating language to make heinous acts appear benign. If you think back to the movie, The Exorcist...the girl was just playing with a ouija board and summoned a demon. Her intent wasn't evil...it just happened. No such excuse can be made for those involved in Pizzagate. They are deliberately doing evil with the intention of extending their own longevity. Consuming the flesh or blood of children will, in their warped reality, keep them younger longer.

If this is correct, and it appears to be to me, it provides a framework to view what's happening in a somewhat different light. It's at least worth considering. Thank you!

The Federal Reserve: A Bankster's Wet Dream

"Who controls the issuance of money, controls the government." Nathan Meyer Rothschild
I'm writing this for a friend who asked about how the Fed works and why they've been allowed to get away with what they have. So, I thought I'd kill two birds with one stone.

For anyone unaware, the Federal Reserve (Fed) is not a part of the government, it is a private central bank. Central banks have been dominating banking in Europe for centuries but when Alexander Hamilton attempted to introduce the concept here it was met with resistance- primarily from Thomas Jefferson. Hamilton was able to found the First national Bank of the United States which lasted until Jefferson did away with it a while later.

Similarly, the Second National Bank was defeated by Andrew Jackson but that was , unfortunately, not the end of central banking. Abraham Lincoln, despite his protestations to the contrary, was in favor of a central bank and theories that his opposition was what caused his assassination are false. Lincoln was assassinated because he murdered 675,000 of his countrymen in the name of freedom. The reason that Jefferson and Jackson were opposed a central bank was because they opposed fractional reserve banking.

Jumping ahead to 1910, a group of banksters including Sen. Nelson Aldrich met incognito at J.P. Morgan's estate on Jekyll Island to hatch a plan to implement a central bank in America, once and for all. Taking advantage of an economic downturn Sen. Aldrich put before Congress a plan for a central bank which would have been called The Aldrich Act. Knowing him to be a shill for the Morgan/ Warburg banking cartel, Congress defeated it soundly. To show how much attention Congress pays to prospective legislation, the very same bill was renamed The Federal Reserve Act and it passed by a landslide.

What is wrong with central banking? Central banking is based on fractional reserve banking. Fractional reserve banking requires only a fraction of deposits be held in reserve, when lending money. In other words, if the bank is only required to have 10% on hand, it can lend out $9.00 on every $10.00 it takes in. If there is a run on the bank, the depositors lose their money because the banks have lent it out. In 1929 when there was a bank run, the banks tried to call in loans to meet the depositors demands, but the borrowers didn't have it and the banking system collapsed. (This is an oversimplification, but fundamentally what happened...there was speculation on Wall St involving selling stock on credit, etc.)

Another problem is that after the Coinage Act of 1792, with the exception of the Civil War, the country has been on the Gold Standard. This was/is anathema to the banksters. To fully control the country and the economy, they needed to get us off the gold standard. This way they could issue fiat currency (money backed by faith alone, instead of gold). Naturally, with fiat currency, the Fed can control the value because it isn't tied to anything stable. According to the Coinage Act, the issuance of currency is the responsibility of Congress. After the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, it became the responsibility of the Fed...Congress voluntarily gave up it's most critical role in the American economy. After we got off the gold standard, the Fed (a private bank) had a monopoly on monetary policy and the national economy.

Originally, the dollar was to be worth 1/20 oz. of gold. That changed in the 1930's (1933 I believe) to 1/35 oz. In other words, an ounce of gold was worth $35.00. By 1973 the Fed had messed around with interest rates and printing money (inflation) and gold was around $125.00. European banks began turning in their American currency for gold and for every ounce that went out...we lost $90.00. So, President Nixon took us off the gold standard- temporarily! This was the break the Fed was looking for. By 1976, gold was at $350.00 oz.

This is important to understand. Prices are tied to supply and demand. For anyone not aware: when supply is up...demand goes down and so does prices. Conversely, when supply goes down...demand goes up and so does price. The supply of gold remained fairly stable (because Nixon stopped it from being depleted). Why did the price go up? Inflation...it was done artificially by increasing the money supply (the amount of paper money in circulation). What this means in the real world is, the more money in circulation, the less it's worth...the less actual buying power it has. That's basically why things cost so much more now than they used to. Here's something to think about: when gold was $350.00 oz. the supply was fairly unchanged so, the buying power of the dollar (remember 1/35 oz or $35.00 oz) is $.10 or 10 cents. Right now gold is around $1300 (last time I checked) so in terms of buying power, it's worth about 2 cents (actually 1.8). For every dollar you spend, you receive 1.8 cents worth of merchandise.

About 4 or 5 decades ago a single income family was able to afford a home, a car, some savings and probably a college fund for the kids. We're not talking about some wealthy CEO, just a guy working at a factory, or a mid-level office job. Now both have to work just to make ends meet. The reason for our extensive national debt is because of the Fed not in spite of it. By releasing so much currency into circulation it has become watered down to the point of being virtually worthless. We all have the Fed and the banksters they represent to thank for the country's financial problems. What is truly criminal...they did it on purpose!

Racism For Fun & Profit: How Politics Brought it Back

This is the second part of How Music Killed Racism. Previously I wrote about how music helped erase racial barriers and gave America's young people common ground on which we could come together. By the late 1960's and early 70's race relations had improved greatly...I admit that they weren't perfect, but they never will be. There are people on both sides of the racial divide that will harbor old animosities- especially when they have something to gain.

The Civil Rights Movement was also instrumental in bridging the racial gap. Whites that weren't aware of issues that faced blacks were moved by the speeches of Dr. Martin Luther King who called for integration and brotherhood. Lamentably, he was murdered in 1968 and the movement was usurped by radicals. Also, around this time the government became involved in attempting to legislate racial harmony. I remember when the geniuses in the Massachusetts Legislature came up with forced busing. Although their intentions may have been good, the results were disastrous- they set racial progress back decades.

People such as Malcolm X, Jesse Jackson as well as groups like the Black Panthers did more to exacerbate the problem than to fix it. I have contended for years that Jackson was responsible for Dr. King's death in a coup to take over the Civil Rights Movement. Jackson's step-brother was in the leadership of one of Chicago's violent gangs and I believe that he was the one that murdered Dr King. When something like that happens, I look for who had the most to gain. James Earl Ray, a racist to be sure, had nothing to gain from MLK's death. On the other hand, Jackson rose to national prominence as a result. That's just my opinion, for what it's worth.

Another beneficiary of the racism industry was the Rev. Al Sharpton. Sharpton was an obscure figure before the Civil Rights Movement became radicalized and upon Dr King's death, like any good pimp, saw an opportunity for fame and fortune. What catapulted Sharpton into national headlines was the infamous Tawana Brawley case. For anyone too young to remember, Tawana Brawley was a young black woman (a teenager, in fact) who stayed out all night and to avoid punishment, she concocted a story about getting kidnapped and sexually assaulted by four white men (one a police officer who committed suicide not long after and a local prosecutor). It was completely false, but Rev Al saw an opportunity to get on TV and he ran with it. He organized protests and appeared on TV constantly. The fact that it was all a lie didn't matter at all. The girl had written KKK and Nigger on herself and the black community was understandably outraged. This, unfortunately, has become emblematic of how an entire race of very good and decent people are being exploited for personal gain.

I went to college in the early 90's. I was in my mid-forties with a wife and four kids trying to provide them with a better life. I witnessed professors (mostly white) attempting to radicalize black students. The university I attended was in Michigan and many of the black students were the children of executives from large corporations in Detroit. They dressed nicely and drove new cars and talked incessantly about "white privilege," parroting what the prof's said. There was something ironic and  yet disingenuous about listening to this drivel from young people who, had they been told the truth, could have been friends. But, there isn't much to be gained from the truth.

Currently, race relations has become a million dollar industry. The reasonable integrationist policies of MLK have given way to the rantings of groups like Black Lives Matter. I've written before that they have done more damage to racial harmony than the KKK. They and their ilk are supported by the president whose claim to fame was being black. Before becoming president he was an unheard of  politician and community organizer from Chicago. If America is as racist as the race-baiters claim, how did he become president. There is a vicious circle in politics: power gets money and money gets more power. That's what the race game is all about now- money and power.

All of the gains in race relations from the 50's to the present would seem to be in jeopardy, if one were to listen to the radicals. Yet somehow despite them, we still are able to get along. I live in "the racist South"where people of every color seem to have been able to overcome the rantings and established amicable relationships on our own. I don't know any racists, but I know a lot of people of both colors who are very concerned with how those in charge are exploiting us. Divide and conquer. If they can keep us fighting, we won't question their motives, at least that's what they think. I can't speak for anyone else, but I intend to keep my friends of every color, race and creed close and the race pimps as far away as possible.

How Music Killed Racism

Before I even get started, let me say that racism in America will never disappear completely. So, if you're one of those hyper-sensitive people that looks for evidence no matter how obscure, this is not for you. I suggest, with all DUE respect, go back to your coloring and eating boogers. I'm speaking in general terms about how America was transformed from a country with predominantly racist views to one in which it had all but disappeared for all intents and purposes. Music, and more importantly, black musicians, is what/who we have to thank.

I grew up in a culture that remembered discrimination very well. I listened to older Italians talk about how they couldn't get jobs because of their nationality. I've been on my own since I was 12 or 13 living on the streets of Boston and my friends were a mixed bag of misfits who had one thing in common...The Blues. My friend Entz (whose family was from Germany) had a record player in his basement and we would gather on weekends or afternoons and listen to the greats- Muddy Waters, Big Bill Broonzy, Tampa Red, Elmore James and a host of others. Almost all of our musical "heroes" were black, so racism just didn't seem to make any sense to us.

Music was the catalyst that brought 1950's America out of it's racist coma. Values that pervaded white culture since after the War of Northern Aggression were vanishing. As the saying goes, "rock & roll was here to stay." It was driven by music that had it's roots in black culture. The blues and later jazz were products of the gospel music and "slave songs" of the American South and were perhaps the only uniquely American contribution to world culture.

Not many in my generation will ever forget sitting in a car with their girlfriend listening to Johnny Mathis to "get her in the mood." Johnny's singing transcended race and spoke to us on a much deeper level (somewhere just below the beltline in many cases). Black music was pervading America's youth culture, much to the dismay of many parents and other authority figures; but we didn't care...and we also didn't care that the musicians themselves were predominantly black.

Chuck Berry brought us Rock & Roll. Admittedly, there were many, many white R & R musicians and they were good as well, but there was something special about Chuck- he was animated! While most musicians stood and played, Chuck danced around the stage doing his now famous "duck-walk." Elvis may have come fairly close, but most of his early music was cribbed from black artists and while Chuck danced, Elvis shimmied and shook. He reminded my friends and I of an "escaped mental patient." (Not my words, you can thank Peter Christian [not his real name] for that)

As the 50's turned into the 60's the music got even better and racial barriers melted even more, despite the cries of racism by people who stood to gain themselves. The black music culture gave us Jr. Walker, the Temptations, Otis Redding, B.B. King The Four Tops and many others. Artists such as B.B. King and Otis Redding had been around for years and were being discovered by white audiences. Racism, as an institution was disappearing. There will always be instances of it somewhere, but the outright practice was all but gone. The Civil Rights Movement and ensuing legislation was made possible by black musicians who made their culture acceptable to white youth.

Next: How Politicians Brought It Back

Cultural Marxism: The Long March to Despotism

As the assault on America's cities continue in the aftermath of the election, it is important to take a look at just who it is that is protesting and why. One look at the crowds will tell anyone that it is not mainstream Americans, but Black Lives Matter thugs, dissatisfied college students and other "millennials". Why does President-elect Trump, and presumably what he stands for, pose such a threat to these people?

To understand this, we must understand Cultural Marxism, because that's what is driving the protesters into such a frenzy. As the video points out, when Marxism failed to unite the masses before WWI, something new was necessary if Marxist theory was to succeed. Without rehashing the entire video, to succeed in implementing Marxism, a transition in which political Marxism was to be replaced with Cultural Marxism.

It began in the United States almost by accident during the Great Depression when FDR began Social Security and other state funded assistance programs replaced the existing means of helping people. Prior to the 1930's if a family needed help they went to their local church. Needless to say, during the depression, church funds became stretched pretty thin so the state stepped in. The problem is, when you get help from your church, you're getting it from your neighbors who you see frequently. This encourages everyone (except the chronically dishonest) to receive help responsibly. Conversely, when you're getting help from the government, a faceless entity, there is no incentive for responsibility. This played into the hands of the incipient Cultural Marxist movement perfectly.

In the 1960's two important things happened. First, was the counterculture movement, ushering the politics of resentment. For anyone wishing an in-depth explanation, see my blog of the same name (The Politics of Resentment). Second, and equally important was the Great Society program of LBJ which fueled the welfare state and began the breakdown of the nuclear family- all part of the Cultural Marxist revolution. For CM to succeed a rejection of existing values must occur, thus an attack on traditional values such as nationalism, patriotism, Christianity and the family. A cultural elite sprang up in academia, the arts and education that embraced "critical theory," an all out attack on everything most Americans respect and hold dear. The goal- to destroy Christian culture and with it America.

The educational system morphed from an institution that taught into a tool of indoctrinating America's youth. Critical theory attacks critical thinking, replacing it with collectivism. Cultural collectivism becomes political statism. The family is replaced by the government- the "Nanny State." One of the most tragic effects of the social welfare system has been on the nuclear black family. Prior to the 60's the black family was one the strongest social units in America. We are now witnessing the result of the Great Society...over 70% of black children born out of wedlock and an adult male population with an astronomical incarceration rate. To what end...to quote LBJ: "I'll have those niggers voting Democrat for the next 200 years." There was never any intention of helping, only in amassing a block of voters.

The goal- a socialist state. The real tragedy of all of the rioting and protesting by the Cultural Marxists is that even if they were to get what they want, it wouldn't help them one iota. There are cultural/globalist elites who stand to benefit from the efforts of the Cultural Marxist pawns. Having been weaned on the myths of the self-esteem movement these pawns (and that's all they really are) are only capable of viewing the world in terms of myopic selfishness. Thus, the histrionics of the post-election tantrums are explained. They didn't get their own way and their fragile value system is under attack so they act out- just as they have since birth.

What they don't understand is that the Cultural Marxist elites don't care a whit about them. Even more tragic is that they don't understand that the values that they fight so hard against are the very values that afford them the luxury of protesting. If Cultural Marxism was to succeed and middle-class values wiped out, all the CM pawns would have to look forward to is institutionalized misery.

Human Nature: What Is It?

This is probably going to amount to a lot of stuff I've already addressed but before going into Cultural Marxism (tomorrow) we need to look at human nature to fully understand how human beings can be swept up by it. So, what is human nature?

All social scientists make some form of a "state of nature" argument. How do humans interact and what drives them without political or social restraints? Are we in fact cooperative, or competitive? The answer is not so clear cut. Clearly, in a primitive state some cooperation is necessary for survival. Also, there must necessarily be competition for scarce resources. The error in Marx and Marxist theory is that he/they believe that humans are altruistic in a natural state and that competitiveness is socialized into social units by Capitalism.

First, there is no such thing as Capitalism. There is a free market, which is the ability to exchange goods and services unencumbered by governmental or social restraints. If Marx were correct, altruism would reign supreme and all economic interactions would be conducted in an atmosphere of fairness and equity and the need for government and the pursuant regulation would be unnecessary. However, people are not generally altruistic, they are generally selfish. This is why we need at least some government (how much is better left for another discussion). Adam Smith, generally credited with designing the market economy, believed that the role of government is to provide internal and external security and to enforce contracts. For our purposes, that is sufficient.

I've written before about how people are inner-directed or outer-directed. We are all, out of necessity, born inner-directed and as we mature we become more outer-directed. At least that is how things are supposed to occur. Clearly this does not happen to all people, especially in an affluent (comparatively speaking) society. It seems that the more affluent the society, the more self-possessed people tend to become. Ironically, during the Great Depression, charitable contributions reached an all-time high compared with the relative prosperity of the 1980's and 90's when "greed was good."

This brings us to another aspect of human nature that may or not be relevant- you can decide for yourself. If not, at least it will make me feel smart. How do we know what we know? Are we, as some social scientists argue, born tabula rasa, as blank slates, or is some knowledge present at birth? Tabula rasa theorists argue that all knowledge is experiential or a posteriori. Everything we know is a result of the acculturation process. Conversely others, argue that there is a priori, a pre-existing knowledge. Plato, a godfather of creative bullshitters everywhere believed that we were born knowing everything and certain events triggered these inherent memories. Carl Jung, Swiss psychoanalyst, believed in racial archetyping: that some memories are embedded from before birth, some kind of group memory. For example, we are almost all afraid of the dark when we are kids. Jung would argue that this is not an irrational fear but the result of a prehistoric memory, where we would wake in the morning and find that brother Oog had been eaten by some predator during the night.

Is it possible that cooperation or competition is a part of some a priori trait, or memory? Or is it a result of acculturation? Cultural Marxism is based and dependant on "group-think," although thinking has very little to do with it, in reality. In the hypocrisy that is Cultural Marxism concepts such as good or evil are subjective, unless you disagree with them and then evil is a very real thing...and you are it! Up next, the evil that is Cultural Marxism and the damage it has done to American society.

The Art of Creative Bullshitting: A Tongue-in Cheek Look at Philosophy

"Occupation?"

"Stand-up Philosopher..."

"Oh, a Bullshit Artist"

Science fiction writer Theodore Sturgeon penned what came to be known as Sturgeon's Law: "90% of science fiction is bullshit because 90% of everything is bullshit." Concomitantly, seeing how this is a discussion of philosophy, we should factor in Stanislaw Andrzejewski's Law of Nebulous Verbosity: "Verbiage increases to the extent that ambition exceeds knowledge." This is not to say that philosophy lacks knowledge but for our purposes we might also expand on the old adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing by adding that a lot of knowledge can prove disastrous.

So, let's begin with the "Fathers of Modern Philosophy," Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. What is it that sets them apart? Well, it could be argued that each of their particular mode of bullshit was "original" although Plato would argue that there is no original thought. Socrates cribbed from Hesiod, Heraclitus, as well as others. Plato cribbed from him and Aristotle from Plato. These lofty thinkers were practicers of as well as victims of sophistry although the proponents of Aristotle would argue against that point. One characteristic of philosophers of every age is their use of excessive verbiage to explain often simple concepts. This leads us to our two types of thinkers: Intellectuals and Practical Thinkers (Practicalists...A term I employ as a convenience not as a philosophical definition related to the school of practicalism)

Intellectuals, for whatever reason, seem to be easily bullshitted, whereas Practicalists seem to possess some innate defense mechanism, probably common sense. For example,by examining the three schools of philosophy, we can observe how each would view them. Metaphysics: asks the question what is it? An intellectual would argue: we can never be truly certain without fully understanding all if "it's" characteristics and would inevitably get lost in a miasma of labyrinthine verbiage (bullshit). A Practicalist would say "it" is what it is and be done with it. Epistemology: How do we know what it is (or anything else, for that matter). This would include the great unanswerable question: "If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?" The Intellectual would undoubtedly posit that it is indeed unanswerable even though it is not necessary for human ears to be present to become excited by sound waves emitted by falling timber. The Practicalist would say, "who cares, if no one is there, what possible difference does it make?" Similarly, if an Intellectual views a cow he/she would ask how can we truly know it's a cow, if "cow" is just a label? The Practicalist would say, "I've got vision, it's got horns and teats...it's a fucking cow!" Ethics: What is just? Here is where the sophistry of the Intellectual class really shines through. The Intellectual would attempt to rhetorically obfuscate this simple issue with arguments such as: "right and wrong are subjective concepts." And, "nothing is black & white, only shades of gray." The Practicalist, naturally would say, "right is right, wrong is wrong." And from Ethics we get philosophy's political bastard stepchild, Ideology.

In applying Intellectualism vs. Practicalism to American politics, it must be noted that Ideology is the antithesis of Practicalism. There is nothing whatever practical about Ideology. The Framers of the Constitution were not ideologues, they were, with perhaps one exception, very practical men. George Washington was a surveyor and soldier. Jefferson was a farmer. Franklin was a printer, an inventor and tinkerer. John Hancock was a businessman. Paul Revere, a silversmith. Hamilton was a real estate speculator (con man) and soldier. The one exception perhaps, was Madison whose job it was to write everything down in hard to understand language. That way the concepts would also appeal to Intellectuals. Ideology really took root with the advent of Marxist "thought." The reason I used thought parenthetically is that Marxism's appeal is more emotional than the product of reason. Instead of looking at the world in terms of what is practical, the Marxist ideologue looks at things in terms of emotional desirability. It is based on a Utopian fantasy, nothing more.

It is Ideology that gets us gender politics, race politics, LGBT issues, etc.. No reasonable person can argue that everyone in the country should not be entitled to the same rights and privileges. But the ideologues want more... nothing will ever be enough. Because philosophy is based on the ability to reason (no matter how poorly), Ideology should not even be a philosophical consideration. Given that Ideology is based solely on emotional appeals, there is no argument against the ravings of an ideologue. Therefore, in conclusion, on a philosophical bullshit scale, Ideology (particularly Cultural Marxism and its many offshoots) is off the chart.

Taxation: Consensual Theft

The title of this video is The Horrible, Obvious Truth Hidden in Plain Sight...I don't know why it was cut off. I've shared this with several friends and on social media. It shows in current terms what we already fairly well know, that taxation is theft- in the case of contemporary America, by an oligarchy. Having watched it I reread an article by Mancur Olson of the Univ of Maryland, an economist and social scientist (if such a thing exists in reality). It appeared in the American Political Science Review, the publication of the American Political Science Association (APSA) Sept. 1993. I was in college when it came out and had just recently presented a paper on NAFTA at the APSA conference in Washington DC and read it after the conference. It caused me to look at politics in a new light.

It is axiomatic that history is written by the winners and therefore doesn't always provide an accurate account of what happened, or why. Olson's article entitled, Dictatorship, Democracy and Development cites the example of the Chinese warlord Feng Yu-hsiang who began as a roving bandit who went through the countryside taking what he wanted. He decided, for whatever reason, to settle down and begin extracting "loot" from the citizens in the form of taxation. It's, as Olson points out the formation of, the "Stationary Bandit" vs. "Roving Bandit" paradigm. In return for taxation the bandits provide protection from roving bandits. On the surface it seems like a mutually beneficial arrangement. But, roving bandits only come through sporadically, so why is it preferential to the citizens to be constantly "taxed" at the whim of the stationary bandit, who by now has taken on exalted titles such as king etc.?

Olson's answer is that in the human psyche, order is preferable to anarchic violence. In this context, anarchy refers to an absolute absence of order, not anarchy as a form of government that provides individual liberty- it is the "law of the jungle" or survival of the cruelest, I suppose. It is almost unarguable that some form of order is necessary for any civilization to develop, socially and especially economically. How then does this apply to America?

In 1776, the colonists in America rejected a tax rate of approximately 3%. Britain had evolved into a Parliamentary Monarchy and the British citizens in the colonies had almost no say in how they were governed, or taxed. The cry of, "no taxation without representation," rang out. However, after we had gained our independence, the tax rate was at least at pre-war rates. The war then, was about individual rights, in particular the right to help determine how, and how much, we were to be taxed. As Olson argues, individual rights, such as freedom of speech and freedom to enter into contracts, are a necessary condition for lasting democracy and economic development.

Jakob Burckhardt wrote, "beware the effect of creeping socialism." Creeping socialism is exactly what has happened since the beginning of our nation. The implementation of a national bank, tax hikes to expand the country, war expenses have all contributed to the expansion of governmental power. It goes without saying that the power of government cannot expand without the power of the individual diminishing, This culminated (but by no means stopped) with the presidency of the biggest despot in American history, Abraham Lincoln. The history books tell us of how Lincoln fought a war to stop the spread of slavery, but nothing could be further from the truth. The War of Northern Aggression was fought to preserve and expand the union and with it the size and scope of federal power. 675,000 or more Americans died to centralize power in one locus- and with those brave people went our rights as individuals.

After Lincoln the growth of government accelerated to the point where the Founders wouldn't recognize it. We are no longer a Democratic Republic, but an oligarchy run by corporations that can afford to buy access to power. It has become, literally, the best government money can buy. We are "allowed" by our rulers to elect someone from a group of oppressors that we have no say in selecting. Multi-national corporations run the media outlets and the flow of information. It is they who select the oppressors that we choose from- it is merely the illusion of choice. Whether or not Donald Trump is outside the mold remains to be seen. He speaks as though he opposes the global elites, we can only hope this is so.

The problem with oligarchies is that there is never a shortage of oligarchs. As Olson writes, dictatorships usually last only as long as the dictator is alive. If Trump turns out to just be another oligarch, our downfall is imminent.

A Few Random Thoughts

Black Lives Matter has damaged black people more than the KKK.

Why Hasn't Obama condemned the riots or tried to stop them?
First: He's ideologically aligned with the rioters and hoping to be able to maximize the violence for his own purposes.
Second: He has no moral authority. The rioters simply wouldn't listen. Anything Obama has accomplished has been through fiat and/or "Chicago Politics;" getting the goods on your opponents and using it against them. No one respects him; the only support he has is from corrupt people or recipients of government largesse.

Why Hillary lost.  Hillary didn't lose per se...the Left lost...Corruption lost. If you subtract the number of illegal voters (18 million) the dead (2 million) and discount ballot box stuffing (no figures available) the election was no way near as close as the final numbers indicated. The American people turned out to reject decades of governmental mismanagement by electing a political outsider.

Kneeling for the National Anthem:
When Colin (I can't spell his last name and quite frankly don't think he's worth the effort to look it up) kneeled for our National Anthem, he believed he was making a political statement. What he fails to understand, or even more disrespectful doesn't care about, is that millions have fought and died for him to have that right. He has lived a life of privilege, makes millions of dollars a year to do what he loves and is revered by thousands of children who look up to him as a role model. The people who died or returned from war maimed were never afforded the benefits that he takes for granted. Now school children across the country are kneeling as well...and they don't even know why, only that it's become the cool thing to do. They should be on their knees thanking instead the brave individuals that didn't do the cool thing and were instead, willing to put their lives on the line.

White Privilege: I keep hearing about white privilege and am confused about what it is and what it includes. Somewhere down the line, I must have missed something because nobody told me where to sign up. I don't know a lot about my family but I know that my Grandfather came from Sicily and worked in the granite quarries to earn 50 cents a day during the Depression to support his family. Does that count as white privilege? Over 65% of people (per capita) receiving government assistance are white. These figures are prior to the Obama Administration, but I doubt that they have changed that much, discounting illegal immigrants and "refugees." That must be some more of that white privilege. I was homeless for a number of years and I'd estimate that 80% of the people I encountered in shelters were white. So whatever this white privilege thing is, it's vastly overrated!

Self Esteem: Years ago I began to see articles such as: Johnny Can't Read or do Math, But He Feels Good About Himself , and I started to look into what was going on in our educational system. I read Thomas Sowell's, Inside American Education and found that our schools had pretty much stopped teaching and babun to focus on making kids feel good about themselves. The upshot is that if kids feel good about themselves, they will become curious and learn on their own. We are all witnessing the result. The protesters and rioters and all their histrionics are a product of this failure to educate. When their feelings are hurt, these overgrown infants lash out. McDonald's employees are demanding $15 per hr. because they are unaware that their jobs do not merit a higher wage. They only understand what they want, or feel that they need. A friend of mine, Dr. Tom Bertonneau, did studies on education for the Mackinaw Center, a think tank in Michigan. He interviewed executives at large corporations such as GM, Ford, EDS and many others, asking what is the biggest problem in hiring recent college grads? The overwhelming answer was that nobody can write a complete sentence, much less a coherent synopsis or paper. When I was in college, my friend's dad was an administrator with Michigan Fish & Game. He showed me an applicant's masters thesis, Zebra Mussels: Those Pesky Mollusks. He said, "You'll get a kick out of this." It read like it had been written by a 5th grader. But, I'm sure the author felt good about himself.

Liberals & Conservatives: Do the Names Even Mean Anything?

"A man who is not a Liberal at 16 has no heart; a man who is not a Conservative at 60 has no head." ~Benjamin Disraeli

"A Liberal is just a Conservative that hasn't been mugged yet."    !~Anonymous

What began as a joke when I was in college became a project that has been ongoing for several decades. A Conservative professor friend and I would show how most Liberal academicians were intellectual frauds by employing Stanislaw Andrzejewski's Law of Nebulous Verbosity- "Verbiage increases to the extent that ambition exceeds knowledge." I was to write a paper and present it at an academic conference. My friend contended that the thesis would soar over the heads not only of the audience, but the panelists as well. And it did, like a TWA! I guess I should point out that at this time I was still an undergrad, in my Sophomore or Junior year.

For a thesis I chose, how the Liberal and Conservative paradigm was an unreliable model for political analysis because they tend to change, particularly with age. There must be some more reliable model based on some immutable characteristics of human nature. I contended that there were, instead four rather that two political types. In keeping with Andrzejewski's law, I entitled my paper: The Will to Power: An Analysis of Power Distribution Developed Within a Quadra-modal Political Typology Model- a mouthful, to be sure. In other words, people fell within one of four political types. As my research went on, the cumbersome moniker not withstanding, I found that I might be on to something.

There are leaders and followers. Leaders being people that possess some innate leadership abilities, not those who lead by fiat. There are also followers whose personalities really bear no explanation.   Outside of leaders & followers, there are two other types of people that each fall within the leader/follower groups. There are Positive and Negative types, for lack of any better names. Positive types are driven by what is typically called rational self-interest. As Adam Smith points out, "the butcher does not sell us meat out of the kindness of his heart." It is in his own best interest to do so. Likewise, if I am to live in society, it is in my best interest to attempt to get along because my survival is dependent upon the survival of the society at large. Traits such as altruism are identifiable characteristics of the Positive type. In psychological terms people of this type would be labeled as "outer-directed."

Conversely, there are people that are driven by what I call irrational self-interest. Psychologically, they are "inner-directed," suffering by what can be described as myopic selfishness. They see the world only in terms of what they can gain personally from any relationship. Unfortunately, this group is the one that is attracted to power, particularly those with leadership attributes. Some of these would be Hitler, Lenin, Mao Zedong, Castro, etc..

To clarify, let me backtrack a bit. The four types would be A+ (Positive Leader) A- (Negative Leader) B+ (Positive Follower) B- (Negative Follower) For purposes of analysis, the Followers are fairly inconsequential except in a Republic, they vote (and act out as in the case of the rioting going on currently).

When I began to apply the model to America and looked at who was in power terms like Democrat and Republican, Liberal and Conservative seemed almost irrelevant. Especially once I began to look at the meanings of terms in an historical context. Edmund Burke is widely known as the "Father of Conservatism." Yet I doubt that few if any Americans who consider themselves Conservatives are familiar with him beyond, "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing." The term Liberal would be unrecognizable to Classical Liberals: men such as John Locke, Adam Smith and most of America's Founders.

The only category that maintained any meaning, as far as the model applies, is "The Left." There is, despite the ravings of the Left, no Right in America. There is the Left and people that disagree with them. When applying the model, I found that the Left in it's entirety, falls within the Negative type. They have leaders and followers all driven by the myopic selfishness inherent in their movement. Republicans are not exempt from the Negative types at all. It was only after America spoke in the recent election that Mr. Trump, a political outsider, garnered any support from them. Lamentably, politics seems to draw Negative types. Lord Acton's admonition, that "power corrupts" is only too true, especially in a profession that seems to draw the inherently corrupt to begin with. The only way we can expect any meaningful change in America is for Positive types to become involved. If the treatment that President-elect Trump has been subjected to is any example of how the Negatives can be expected to behave, I'm not optimistic.

A Thousand Miles From Nowhere: A Tribute to Mose Allison

I know this is a little off the mark as far as my usual blogs go but a true genius has left us for good. Although his music will live on forever, his molecular structure, as he would put it, is gone. I've included some of my favorite pieces for your enjoyment but, if you're not familiar, I would encourage you to explore the wonderful contribution this man has made to American music.

Mose Allison was born in the Mississippi Delta at his grandfather's farm in Tippo in Nov.11, 1929. At age 5 he discovered that he could play songs he heard on the radio by ear. His life was dedicated to music from that time on. He played in his high school band and went to the University of Mississippi for a year before joining the Army in 1946. Allison married his wife Audre in 1949 and they were together until his death at age 89 Nov. 15, 2016.

Mose is credited with writing over 150 songs and was an inspiration to many of the bands of the 60's particularly in Britain. His music has been covered by Van Morrison, who dedicated his album Tell Me Something exclusively to Allison's songs. He was also covered by artists such as, John Mayall, The Who, The Clash, Eric Clapton, Elvis Costello, Bonnie Raitt and my personal favorite cover,  I'm Not Talkin by the Yardbirds.

If I might interject a personal note- as I told my friend Lamar on Facebook today: we used to paint on little moustaches with mascara pencils, don hats and shades and sneak into the Jazz Workshop on Boylston St in Boston to listen to Mose play his piano and sing. They knew we were underage but we never tried to order alcohol, or start trouble so they let it pass. Mose Allison's music has moved everyone with any soul at all, that has ever heard it. There are tears in my eyes as I write this...Good bye my friend, you are gone but you will never be forgotten!

Silencing Liberty: The Curse of Political Correctness

What prompted me to choose this subject is a recent post concerning the removal of quotes by Thomas Jefferson from the University of Virginia curriculum, an institution for those unaware that he founded. Political correctness, in the guise of sparing people's feelings, is a blatant attempt to accrue power by controlling the narrative. A strategy generally attributed to Dr. Josef Goebbels, Hitler's Minister of Propaganda, who is credited with having said: "If you tell the lie long enough, it becomes the truth." I've included some videos that illustrate how ridiculous PC has become. The last, by Skep Torr (with whom I am unfamiliar, but he makes a lot of sense) explains how this phenomenon affects whole societies.

I guess if anyone's going to criticize PC it should be an Italian. we're the least politically correct people on the planet. If you have some physical difference, we'll incorporate it into your name- hence, "Fat Tony," or "Jimmy One-Eye." When we were kids there was a gang of five or six of us that all hung out together. One of the guys, Eddie, had Cerebral Palsy so his nickname was "Eddie the Cripple." We were his friends so we could call him that, if you did we'd kick the crap out of you. That's how it works with Italians. With the PC crowd, it's like if nobody says anything, maybe they won't notice. Eddie knew he was crippled, he sucked at baseball and was always the last to get picked. In a PC world he'd get a special trophy for trying. When he grew up he got a job working for the City of Cambridge as a garbage man- that's like hitting the Lottery!

What brought about the PC revolution was the Hippy culture of the 60's which in turn gave birth to movements like the Women's movement. the Gay rights movement, etc.. Martin Luther King had been replaced by radicals such as Malcolm X and the whole protest movement had become radicalized. It's axiomatic that it is virtually impossible to get mainstream America to agree with radical ideas, it became necessary to control the dialogue if their ideas to gain acceptability. Employing tactics like Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals name calling and hysterical outbursts were employed to silence dissent. Silencing dissent is exactly what political correctness is all about.

The removal of Jefferson (because he was a slave owner is the excuse given) from UVA is just an attempt to rewrite history by controlling the narrative. If future generations are unaware of the values upon which our nation was built, for all intents and purposes they never existed. Withholding information because it might hurt someone's feelings cripples discourse, as Carlin so aptly puts it. Carlin also points out that the PC mavens have strayed from reality so far that it is barely recognizable.

I began to notice in the 70's that histrionics had become an acceptable form of political discourse. Crowds of chanting people demanding rights cluttered the political landscape. Leftovers of the Anti-Vietnam movement of the 60's demanded recognition for everything from women to trees. Now we have groups like Black Lives Matter burning and looting cities across America and if you criticize them you're labeled a "racist." They are even supported by the president. Like I observed back in the 70's, mental illness has become a foundation for public policy. The more outrageous the claims, the more attention they seem to draw. All the while these arbitrary demands by PC "administrators" are enforced by a cadre of the perpetually miserable- the perennially offended. The video I included last gives a magnificent explanation of mass psychosis as it pertains to political correctness.

It's time we all stand up and say, No More. If someone tries to force speech codes on you, call them out. Expose them for the frauds they are. It says in the Bible: "Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but rather expose them." Ephesians 5:11 Through strength and solidarity lies victory.

The NY Times Apology: Too Little, Too Late

Has the New York Times committed journalistic suicide with it's coverage of the latest election? The hubris of the mainstream media has been evident for a long time. It's clear that they see themselves as the gods of information and have for quite some time. The apology by the Times seems less than sincere when you look at it from an honest perspective. In keeping with a tradition of disingenuous journalism, the Times, having failed to sway the election, began back peddling even before all the votes were tallied.

Spouting platitudes of a return to journalistic objectivity, one naturally wonders why an outlet of information would have to "return" to telling the truth. Isn't that the purpose of a free press in the first place. Their job is to be the watchdog that warns us of political improprieties, not create them. It's no secret that virtually every "news source" supports liberal causes. This is quite possibly why they, on the whole, enjoy a less favorable rating with the American people than Congress. Their claims that they underestimated Donald Trumps support is less than true.

If there is any truth in the claim, it's that they are so out of touch with America that it is they who should be coming to us for news, not vice versa. However, what I suspect is that they, in fact, overestimated the power of the MSM in controlling the political narrative. For that we have the alternative news sources on the internet to thank. If the Times had bothered to look they would have been able to call the election correctly...this is the result of creating news rather than reporting it.

The apology of the Times is pure cynicism, nothing more. They have no intention of changing one iota. What they are too blind to see is that in the long run it will cost them. Their apology was about one thing, money. If they lose their subscribers, they will also undoubtedly lose their advertisers. When this happens- and it will- they will go under. Given that they will go on attempting to control the political narrative, America can watch with glee as the "Grey Lady" sinks into well deserved oblivion.

Medicaid Fraud: The Real Culprits

For the second time in my life I find myself in the unenviable position of having to depend on the taxpayers to help with medical expenses. After working all my life, paying my taxes and having served my country honorably, I don't feel terribly bad about accepting help. I certainly am not one of the individuals that have used the system for generation after generation, like some. I became ill in 2014, my savings were depleted, I lost my home and found myself with enormous hospital bills. But let me back up a bit.

When I was in college, I found myself struggling to support a wife and four kids (the reason for attending college) and found it necessary to solicit aid from the state. I will say that after graduating I paid at least some of it back ( the people at DHS looked at me like I was crazy when I started bringing them checks). It was at this time that I began to notice that something was amiss. I realize that all of this evidence is anecdotal, but I can't believe that if this is happening to me, that it is an isolated case.

After breaking my back in a fall in 1985, it has become necessary for me to have occasional medical treatment. When seeing my primary care physician in the 90's I happened to see the computer screen at the billing window. Medicaid was being billed $1500 for an office visit that included one x-ray. Now I'm no expert, but I've paid out of pocket for both x-rays (which generally run between $75 & $125) as well as office visits that seldom run over $150. It was at this time that I began to suspect that the patients were not the ones running healthcare costs up.

More recently, at the tender age of 71, I find myself in need of frequent medical care which has caused me to witness a fairly troubling trend. Specialists. I am constantly being sent to a myriad of specialists, whether something is wrong or not. My philosophy about healthcare is fairly simple- if you're sick, you go to the doctor. To my way of thinking it is irresponsible to bill the taxpayers for seemingly endless tests for everything from sleep apnea (which I don't have) to hepatitis (which I also don't have). After a mild heart attack, my physician wanted me to see a cardiologist- understandable. After determining that my heart was OK he looked in my mouth for all of 5 seconds and determined that I suffer from sleep apnea that he insisted on treating. I insisted otherwise.

I was then sent to a liver expert for hepatitis (my liver enzymes were off on one doctor visit) He insisted I get additional insurance "just in case." I told him that I'd get back to him. I've noticed in the waiting rooms of doctors who specialize in Medicaid cases, that most of the patients seem to be poorly educated and likely to fall prey to scare tactics. This is how these unscrupulous doctors are able to bilk Medicaid out of billions of dollars. It's not the patients that are corrupt, they simply don't seem to know better. We're raised to trust the medical profession and if the doctor tells us that something is wrong, we tend to believe them. But, I guess I was born cynical. If I see something wrong, I'm going to say something. This is also to say that all doctors are involved. I go to a pain doctor who is wonderful. She puts the patients first and has never tried to suggest tests that are unnecessary.

Once again, I realize that all I have to go on here are my own experiences. But as I stated before- if it's happening to me, it's got to be happening to others. When you're spending other people's money there is no reason to be responsible. Personally, I feel a great debt to those who are footing the bill for my healthcare and if the doctors don't want to behave responsibly, I guess it's my duty to do it for them.

Beware the Mischief of Faction: The Tyranny of the Minority

Hard to believe that this is America, except that rioting as a form of political expression is hardly something new. Discounting blacks rioting over slights, real or imagined, that is in reality simply economic opportunism- rioting goes back to the dawn of America. The protests themselves aren't as troubling as the reason- a presidential election outcome. The protests are over the will of the majority of voters, something that is accepted whether we like the outcome or not. Somebody has to win, somebody has to lose. The reason that we have an Electoral College is to prevent exactly what is happening- mob rule.

The Framers, Alexis De Tocqueville and others have written extensively on the "Tyranny of the Majority." What about the tyranny of the minority, or more specifically, minorities? The Civil Rights movement of the 60's gave rise to the Women's movement, the Gay Rights movement and others in a cabal of left-wing fanaticism. Operating on the squeaky wheel gets the grease principle, this consortium has whined it's way into political prominence. Don't get me wrong- I'm not saying that the Civil Rights movement wasn't in response to legitimate issues, but after racism was all but eradicated, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and other race hustlers found that there was big money in continuing the "fight."

Also joining the fight is the news media who, in the age of instantaneous dissemination of information, needs something to keep the airwaves full- the more sensational and outrageous the better. After all, there's nothing sensational, or mildly interesting for that matter, in viewing the mundanities of everyday life. We have an alliance of low-information blacks, liberal women (and their beta-male counterparts) gays and brainwashed college students attempting to achieve political hegemony through protests, rioting and circulating petitions designed to overturn the election results by urging the Electoral College to ignore the will of the electorate and elect Clinton. Because they didn't get their way, they want to scrap an institution that has existed and functioned well for nearly 250 years. All spurred on by the MSM.

It's minoritarianism at it's worst...an oligarchy of fanaticism. The lunatics are attempting to take over the asylum- by any and all means necessary. The media is behaving in the most irresponsible manner imaginable. One journalist from the British paper The Guardian has called for the outright assassination of President-elect Trump. She also freelances to the New Yorker and several other American publications, making this not only irresponsible, but dangerous as well. What is really at issue here is who gets to rule. Do we preserve a system that has served us well, or do we give the squeaky wheel the grease and accede to the whiners? If it should turn out to be the latter, our Republic is finished. When the will of the people is usurped by those who contribute nothing to the experiment we call Democracy, the losers have won and the asylum is theirs!

What Price Democracy: Earning Liberty

With all of the rioting going on after the election, it makes me wonder if some of us even deserve what little liberty we have left. This is part one of a two-parter...or three if you count The Politics of Rejection, which kind of set up these two. Tomorrow's will be The Tyranny of the Minority.

We all know (most of us at least) that America is a Republic, not a Democracy. It is, however, a representative democracy- the polity is allowed to participate in the electoral process (for what it's worth). The word democracy comes from the Greek- Demos (people)  Kratia (rule of). In other words, self rule. In a pure democracy each issue is debated and voted on by the polity. In a republic, we have representatives, who because of human nature, require monitoring. Remember Lord Acton's admonition: "Power tends to corrupt, absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely." What we are currently witnessing at the federal level is a concentration of power in one locus because we (the polity) stopped paying attention.

If democracy requires the participation of it's citizens. a republic requires even more. It requires two things: first, it requires that each member of the polity behave in a responsible manner- self government. We must all merit the liberties that accompany self-rule. Democracy must be earned, it cannot be imposed. One mistake that President Bush made was in thinking that he could democratize the Middle East (if that in fact was his intention). Democracy is a product, a process more than a thing. The other requirement is that the people participate, as I said before; not only by voting, but by staying involved.

Societies are in a constant state of change, something noticed by the Greek philosopher, Heraclitus, who wrote that everything is in a constant state of flux. The purpose of government, then is to maintain a state of dynamic equilibrium- to act as a referee, you could say. Adam Smith, who designed the market based economy, said that the purpose of government is to provide external security, internal security and to enforce contracts. This was the model that America's political system was based on. What happened?

During the 1860's Abraham Lincoln forced the Southern states into a war. Not to free the slaves as the history books tell us, but to usurp the power of the individual states. In effect he repealed the 10th Amendment, which before his administration, had limited the size and scope of the Federal Government. Using executive orders (sound familiar?) he established a state of virtual tyranny. Prior to Lincoln, the sovereign states had the power to decide their own fates. He consolidated power in the name of preserving the Union and in doing so created the nascent leviathan that would grow in power to what we have now. Almost every president has contributed to expanding centralized power.

Franklin Roosevelt created the "Nanny State." and with it the perception that government could somehow solve our problems. Little by little we conceded our individual power to Washington and with it our liberties. Now, people rarely exercise their power to vote. Almost nobody pays attention to what goes on in the Federal Government unless it's a war or something drastic that affects us all. Even then, most depend on the corrupt media to make issues understandable. Believe me, those in power know that we have our political eyes closed...They depend on it.

This still doesn't explain the rioting and protests. But, in fact, it does. People, for the most part, don't want the responsibilities that democracy requires. Politicians get elected by promising "free shit." That's what people want. The fact that government seldom delivers, seems to matter little. The meager benefits handed out by the nanny state are still easier than earning one's own way. When Donald Trump was elected the indolent were gripped by paroxysms of fear. The threat of forced responsibility suddenly became a reality.

I keep seeing memes of liberals crying and the captions read that it's the result of being given trophies just for participating. This is more profound than one might think. I wrote in my previous blog that everyone is a "victim." Not because they actually are but because victimhood pays- it means that nobody is responsible for their own behavior. Beginning with the Baby Boom Generation, America has turned out several generations of spoiled brats...When they don't get their own way, they act out. That's what we are witnessing now. We can blame several culprits.

In the 70's and 80's the therapeutic community, psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, etc., came up with blame transferral. In other words, if you can dredge up someone in your past that had "harmed" you in some obscure way, it is they who are responsible for your behavior, not you. The "self esteem" movement that permeates the educational system just feeds into the spoiling of America. Children pass all their classes most often with high (albeit undeserved) marks because to do otherwise would damage them. "Everybody gets a trophy."

Another factor, in my opinion, is the decline of religion. It seems that people who adhere to religious/Christian principles deserve democracy more than those who adhere to Humanist doctrines that just seem to feed into the whole "do your own thing" worldview. Democracy is predicated on self-governance/responsibility. What becomes of a nation that turns it's back on Christian values and embraces abberant behavior? You get the chronically self-indulgent rioting and protesting, for fear of losing government induced slavery. We can only hope for a restoration of values-based equilibrium. It is clear from the ratio of voters in the last election that a slight preponderance of the polity deserves democracy. What becomes of the rest (as well as us) is anybody's guess.

The Art of the Deal: The Trump Presidency

I almost wrote "I told ya so" at the end of yesterday's blog and left it at that, but I guess I'm just too loquacious. Congratulations to our new president, it will be a welcome relief to have an American in the White House again.

During the election, Mr. Trump made quite a few promises, as all candidates do. Whether or not he will be able to fulfill them is another matter. I have absolutely no doubt that he intends to keep his promises, but I think he's going to find that running a country is very different than running a business. Not that he's not up to the task.

Businesses are competitive and to maintain a competitive edge they must be efficient. Governments are the opposite. They are designed to be inefficient to ensure that mistakes are minimized. Obama used executive orders, his "pen and phone" to get things done- in effect bypassing Congress. It would be a shame to see President Trump do the same thing. As corrupt as the Obama administration was, it is incumbent on Mr. Trump to reverse this trend and return to a Constitutional Republic rather than Obama's self-imposed dictatorship. In other words, Trump has to do it right, or he is no better than Obama- regardless of how noble his intentions. Trump's voters were Americans who demanded our country back and that means our Republic.

I know that it will be tempting to undo the damage inflicted by Obama by employing the same methods used to do the damage in the first place, but I have faith in Mr. Trump as well as the democratic process- after all it's worked pretty well for the last 240 or so years. Having a Republican Congress will help providing that as president Mr. Trump can persuade the Republicans to overlook their obvious dislike for him and put the country first. It will take all of President Trump's deal making skills to make it happen. If he uses the bully pulpit effectively, he will succeed. Remember, just because we have a businessman in the White House, one not beholden to special interests, the politicians in Congress will in all likelihood continue to operate as they always have.

Not being a part of the political culture will work to "The Donald's" advantage, if he plays his cards right. He can shame Congress into doing what he wants by using their culture of corruption against them- to do so he must use the media effectively. He should, also, not use Ronald Reagan as a role model. Reagan wasn't a very good president, he had the good fortune of being in office when the USSR fell which made him look presidential, but all he really accomplished was to deregulate industries that benefited his backers. Before anyone says: "He was a lot better than Obama," remember, so was Jimmy Carter.

Trump can make America great again if he keeps his promise to renegotiate our trade deals. Being a businessman will help immensely in this. He didn't amass a fortune by being stupid. He must also follow through with the investigation into the corruption of the Clinton political machine. This includes their foundation and Obama who was complicit. He should also investigate the DOJ, including Eric Holder and "Fast & Furious." This will go far toward securing our Southern border.

It is extremely unlikely that he will be able to enact term limits given the hegemony that money holds over the political process. I doubt that he will be able to do much about the Federal Reserve- the last president that tried was assassinated. But with some luck, he may at least be able to audit it. If all the bureaucrats that have promised to quit keep their promise, Mr. Trump will have succeeded to cut the size of government, although I can hardly imagine anyone quitting a government job.

One thing is certain...he can't do worse than the man he's replacing. Obama has set the bar very low. If President Trump remembers that he was elected by us, the people: and that he was elected in spite of the political establishment, not because of it, he will be successful. I hope he takes Jefferson's advice and remembers: "That government is best that governs least, because its people discipline themselves." Although given the behavior of some of our citizens following his election, the last part seems questionable.

The Politics of Rejection: What are Modern Liberals All About?

The easier question may be: what are modern liberals against? Almost everything of any value to humanity, it seems. White people are bad and should feel guilty about things that they had nothing to do with. The free market is bad because it excludes certain groups. (Nobody has any idea who, except perhaps people too lazy to work for a living) Even work itself is bad, it seems. Western Civilization, which has undoubtedly contributed more to human civilization itself is viewed by liberals as "oppressive." I could go on with this almost forever. But what is it that drives the politics of resentment?

This is a topic that I have studied long and hard and here's what I've come up with. The problem (and it is a problem, probably the most profound problem that faces America, if not the world) began in earnest in the 1960's. At least that's when we began to see the effects. The Baby Boom Generation, as people born in the late 40's are called, grew up in a new environment- one not experienced any time in history. Our parents had lived through the depression and were determined to see that we were not subjected to the depravations that they had endured. On the surface it would seem to be beneficial, but, adversity builds character and we grew up with none. We were spoiled. This is not to say that it's true of everyone, but in general it seems to be the case.

Fueled by the economic boom of the Eisenhower years we had it all, so to speak. Dr. Spock, had taught our parents new techniques, devoid of the spankings that had permeated their childhood. Once again, not all children were exempt, just in general. It does seem that the children who were subjected to the horrors of corporal punishment tended to be more responsible citizens in adulthood. Those who were not became the Vietnam War protesters of the 70's.

We were also the first generation to witness the proliferation of television sets where we watched in awe children who had perfect parents (who, more often than not, gave them everything they wanted) while we had to endure imperfect individuals who struggled to live up to our ever increasing demand for attention, worldly goods and whatever whim or fad we came up with. I believe that television is responsible for creating the utopian fantasy that fueled the discontent of the 60's. When our families were unable to meet our impossible demands, we resented them and rejected their values. They didn't understand us... how could they, they had character based on hard work and deprivation. We had demands based on an unrealistic worldview created by the utopian childhoods lived by fictitious characters on TV. How could our parents possibly measure up to this? Moreover, to make matters worse, we carried those unrealistic expectations into adulthood.

In the 1960's we began to see a profound division in our national character. Most of us who grew up adhering to our parents values, enlisted to fight in Vietnam. Those too poor to afford college and the deferments that went with along with it got drafted. Those who were spoiled and self-indulgent became protesters, not because they opposed the war itself- but because they viewed themselves as too valuable to society to risk their own lives. Their objection to the war was predicated more on the writings of Karl Marx and Saul Alinsky (both proponents of violence) than any deep-seated moral objections. The Communists of North Vietnam were viewed as the "good guys" and our own soldiers were often portrayed as evil, psychopathic baby killers. We were often spat on in airports when returning from the war. The disintegration (and depredation) of American culture had begun in earnest.

The politics of rejection didn't end with Vietnam, it gained momentum. As time went on, the culture of protest grew up and became politically active. Many have been elected to office as Democrats- one might reasonably argue that they have usurped the Democratic Party. If you look at the political division in this country, on the one hand there are Democrats who depend on causing discontent among their voter base...minorities, women (although certainly not all) gays and a plethora of malcontents who all believe they have an ax to grind against "the Establishment." Whoever that is- it seems to be average Americans. And the liberals have now become parents who attempt wholeheartedly to sow the seeds of discontent in their children.

These unfortunates are the product of an education system incapable of teaching critical thought. Those fortunate enough to go to college are further radicalized by liberal professors who themselves are incapable of educating. After four or five years of Black Studies, Women's Studies, they emerge unable to find meaningful employment, disappointed that Lesbian Dance Theory and other equally nonsensical courses failed to prepare them for the competition of the job market. Having more often than not amassed enormous debt and no marketable skills, the resentment that drove their parents now fuels their discontent. Unfortunately, having accrued no critical thinking skills, their anger is misdirected toward the establishment rather than those that cheated them of their future.

The politics of rejection/resentment  has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The Election of 2016, for better or worse, is a resounding condemnation of liberal ideals. Where we go from here is anybody's guess. One thing is clear, at least to me, our grand-parents may have been right. Adversity builds character- and in the end...Character Counts!