What’s the Real Risk During the COVID-19 Shutdown?

by Nedra Sorenson
Guest Blog

I keep hearing that “the virus is the boss” – that it is the disease that has to dictate how life goes on…WHETHER life goes on. But that’s not what’s happening. The virus isn’t the boss here – FEAR is the boss. And the ones who are pushing the fear, the ones whose voices are the loudest, telling us how fearful we should be, are the LEAST fearful.

THEY are not worried that they haven’t gotten a paycheck for the last five weeks (because they’ve been voting themselves raises and non-deductible/no co-pay health care and Platinum Parachute pensions for years – all on the backs of American taxpayers).

THEY are not worried about overdue mortgages or not being able to make the rent on their business property (because their second home in the Hamptons or Napa Valley was paid for in cash and is now a huge tax write-off).

THEY are not worried about having to sit for hours in mile-long queues to get a cardboard box of groceries from the food bank (because they can snack on gourmet gelato kept nice and cold in their stainless steel Subzero freezer).

THEY can film themselves wallowing in a bubble bath in their oversized tub and say they are just like the rest of us. THEY can film their upper body workouts as they sit in their designer home office at their designer desk and tell us how important it is to stay inside while they can move around outdoors at will. THEY can set up hotlines for people to phone in “social distancing” violations by their neighbors while they sneak off to the gym.

I keep asking myself how many deaths have occurred from cancer in the last 40 days? How many from heart disease or diabetes? How many from plain, old everyday influenza? How many people died from accidents in the last month? How many lives were snuffed out by abortion since February?

Each death diminishes me because I am part of the main…yet death is a fact of life that we face every day. The fact, currently, is that we are NOT being held hostage by a disease (by the way with a 97-98% SURVIVAL rate!)…we are being held hostage by fear, fear that’s being promoted by those whose only real interest is in seizing crisis-produced power and holding on to it.

In the 1700’s there was this guy named George. He was rich and powerful…he was a tyrant. He used coercion and repression and fear to control his subjects. And the fledgling Americans – who had SO much to lose (but everything to gain) rose up and said “ENOUGH!”

Because freedom isn’t easy, people…liberty isn’t SAFE. Liberty is RISK. LIFE is risk. Every day we face and risk death…every day there is the possibility of losing everything. The question each person has to ask themselves is, IS IT WORTH THE RISK?

Do we live our lives in freedom, risking all we have for what we could have…or do we listen to the fear, give in to the fear and let our children and grandchildren struggle under the crushing weight of trillions of dollars in tax burden because we were too fearful to face the risk?

Do we leave future generations the knowledge that we were willing to be controlled, to believe the narrative that someone was only thinking of our health and safety, while the economic lifeblood of the world drained away?

Do we decide that Eliot was right…that this is how the world ends, not with a bang but a whimper? The whimper of a fearful world, masked and cowering behind closed doors – while those in power lower their silk scarves from their faces to tell us how safe they are keeping us?

You can ask me, am I scared? Yes. I’m scared. But despite the fact that I’m in the at-risk demographic – elderly, with underlying health issues…I’m more scared for my neighbors, for my country, than the possibility of death by COVID-19…because NOBODY gets out of this alive.

In the end it’s HOW you live, not IF you’ll die.

The Divided States of America: A Return to 1861?

Dr. Jack Devere Minzey, born 6 October 1928 – died 8 April 2018, was the Department Head of Education at Eastern Michigan University as well as a prolific author of numerous books, most of which were on the topic of Education and the Government role therein.

This was the last of his writings before he passed. My hope is it helps the reader recognize and reject the emotionally charged narratives being perpetuated by our news media day after day and differentiate between the fact challenged accounts of current events and the reasoned and historically supported accounts like this one. – Thanks to Kristine Manning for sharing this.

Civil War: How do civil wars happen?

by Dr. Jack Devere Minzey

Two or more sides disagree on who runs the country. And they can’t settle the question through elections because they don’t even agree that elections are how you decide who’s in charge. That’s the basic issue here. Who decides who runs the country? When you hate each other but accept the election results, you have a country. When you stop accepting election results, you have a countdown to a civil war

The Mueller investigation is about removing President Trump from office and overturning the results of an election We all know that. But it’s not the first time they’ve done this. The first time a Republican president was elected this century, they said he didn’t really win. The Supreme Court gave him the election. There’s a pattern here.

What do sure odds of the Democrats rejecting the next Republican president really mean? It means they don’t accept the results of any election that they don’t win. It means they don’t believe that transfers of power in this country are determined by elections. That’s a civil war

There’s no shooting. At least not unless you count the attempt to kill a bunch of Republicans at a charity baseball game practice. But the Democrats have rejected our system of government.

This isn’t dissent. It’s not disagreement. You can hate the other party. You can think they’re the worst thing that ever happened to the country but then you work harder to win the next election. When you consistently reject the results of elections that you don’t win, what you want is a dictatorship.

Your very own dictatorship.

The only legitimate exercise of power in this country, according to Democrats, is its own. Whenever Republicans exercise power, it’s inherently illegitimate. The Democrats lost Congress. They lost the White House. So what did they do? They began trying to run the country through Federal judges and bureaucrats. Every time a Federal judge issues an order saying that the President of the United States can’t scratch his own back without his say so, that’s the civil war.

Our system of government is based on the constitution, but that’s not the system that runs this country. The Democrat’s system is that any part of government that it runs gets total and unlimited power over the country.

If the Democrats are in the White House, then the president can do anything. And I mean anything. He can have his own amnesty for illegal aliens. He can fine you for not having health insurance. He can use the IRS as his own police force and imprison citizens who speak against him. He can provide guns and money ( Fast and Furious, Iran nuclear deal ) to other countries to support his own agenda and watch while one of America’s Ambassador’s is dragged through the streets and murdered while doing nothing to aid our citizens. His power is unlimited. He’s a dictator.

But when Republicans get into the White House, suddenly the President can’t do anything. He isn’t even allowed to undo the illegal alien amnesty that his predecessor illegally invented. A Democrat in the White House has ‘discretion’ to completely decide every aspect of immigration policy. A Republican doesn’t even have the ‘discretion’ to reverse him. That’s how the game is played. That’s how our country is run. Sad but true, although the left hasn’t yet won that particular fight.

When a Democrat is in the White House, states aren’t even allowed to enforce immigration law. But when a Republican is in the White House, states can create their own immigration laws. Under Obama, a state wasn’t allowed to go to the bathroom without asking permission but under Trump, Jerry Brown can go around saying that California is an independent republic and sign treaties with other countries.

The Constitution has something to say about that.

Whether it’s Federal or State, Executive, Legislative or Judiciary, the left moves power around to run the country. If it controls an institution, then that institution is suddenly the supreme power in the land. This is what I call a moving dictatorship.

Donald Trump has caused the Shadow Government to come out of hiding: Professional government is a guild. Like medieval guilds. You can’t serve in it if you’re not a member. If you haven’t been indoctrinated into its arcane rituals. If you aren’t in the club. And Trump isn’t in the club. He brought in a bunch of people who aren’t in the club with him.

Now we’re seeing what the pros do when amateurs try to walk in on them. They spy on them, they investigate them and they send them to jail. They use the tools of power to bring them down.

That’s not a free country.

It’s not a free country when FBI agents who support Hillary take out an ‘insurance policy’ against Trump winning the election. It’s not a free country when Obama officials engage in massive unmasking of the opposition. It’s not a free country when the media responds to the other guy winning by trying to ban the conservative media that supported him from social media. It’s not a free country when all of the above collude together to overturn an election because the guy who wasn’t supposed to win did.

Have no doubt, we’re in a civil war between conservative volunteer government and a leftist Democrat professional government.

Ukraine Official Refutes Key Impeachment Testimony

We see the word “BOMBSHELL” used in news media a lot these days and most of the time it’s nothing more than click bait.

This story, however, may actually fit the term.

This is from TIME magazine at TIME.com so my Left of center friends shouldn’t use the source as a fallback position to ignore it.

A top Ukraine official who is mentioned dozens of times in the impeachment report released last week and has been called a critical figure “at the center” of the impeachment inquiry, is now disputing testimony by the Democrat witnesses upon which the entire impeachment process rests.

In a recent interview with TIME, Andriy Yermak is questioning the recollections of crucial witnesses in the impeachment inquiry.

“Listen, I want to tell you straight,” Yermak told TIME in the interview on Dec. 4, “Of course, now, when I watch these [hearings] on television, my name often comes up, and I see people there whom I recognize, whom I met and know,” he says, referring to the witness testimony. “That is their personal opinion, especially the positions they expressed while under oath. I have my own truth. I know what I know.”

Where this really gets dicey is with regard to Gordon Sondland’s testimony. As you may recall, Mr. Sondland, the U.S. Ambassador to the EU, had previously testified that there was no quid pro quo but then later revised that statement and testified the opposite in a written statement and again during the hearings. That is important to remember and consider when listening to Yermak’s recollection of his “meeting” with Sondland.

The key testimony that allowed the Democrats to move forward with impeachment came from Sondland, the ONLY witness to say he believed there was a quid pro quo in place. NO OTHER WITNESS made this direct allegation.

That testimony hinges on a meeting between Vice President Pence and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky in Warsaw on September 1.

Sondland testified that he pulled Yermak aside after the Warsaw meeting and told him U.S. aid to Ukraine would probably not resume until Zelensky’s government announced two investigations that could implicate President Trump’s political rivals.

From the TIME.com article –

“Based on the testimony from Sondland and other witnesses, the final report from the House Intelligence Committee concluded last week that Sondland made this offer of a quid pro quo clear to Yermak that day in Warsaw.”

Yermak disputes this. “Gordon and I were never alone together,” he said when TIME asked about the Warsaw meeting. “We bumped into each other in the hallway next to the escalator, as I was walking out.” He recalls that several members of the American and Ukrainian delegations were also nearby, as well as bodyguards and hotel staff, though he was not sure whether any of them heard his brief conversation with Sondland. “And I remember – everything is fine with my memory – we talked about how well the meeting went. That’s all we talked about,” Yermak says.

KABOOM! Is that bombshell enough?

In his initial testimony to the impeachment inquiry in October, Sondland said he never knew the U.S. aid to Ukraine was conditional on the investigations Trump wanted.

But then the following month, Sondland amended his testimony with a new sworn statement, in which he described the conversation with Yermak in Warsaw and identifying it as a quid pro quo on behalf of the president.

“I now recall speaking individually with Mr. Yermak, where I said that resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks,” Sondland wrote in the amended testimony.

Yermak, a central figure in this entire process, says that never happened.

Mr. Schiff? Mr. Nadler? Houston?
We have a problem…

Dear Adam Schiff, What is Quid Pro Quo?

Dear Mr. Schiff,

How exactly do you define Quid Pro Quo?

Is it simply “Get dirt on my opponents or else!” as you and the Democrats have decided? If that is indeed where you are planting your flag then President Trump is right, there is no quid pro quo.

If we look at the entire conversation in question it goes pretty much like this:

Mr. Ukrainian President, you’re newly elected and it looks like you’re taking your country in the right direction, but you need to know something up front. Your country lost 7 Billion dollars of our taxpayers money. Your country convicted two officials, one of which was the head of the anti-corruption bureau, for interfering in the 2016 presidential election by colluding with the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign.

Now two of your Investigator Generals have been blocked by our State Department after they provided evidence to our Department of Justice regarding this collusion along with evidence of corruption surrounding oil and gas contracts that involved out former Vice President. You should look into that. We also have reason to believe the people who did all of that and made this corruption possible are still in your inner circle. So as a matter of national interest, I can’t give you any more money unless you can demonstrate you’re not part of this corruption but rather are dedicated to cleaning it up.

If that’s how you define quid pro quo Mr. Schiff then yes, that’s all on the tape of the phone call. That’s all in the transcript. IF THAT’S the definition then guilty as charged…

But that’s not your definition is it? Because that wouldn’t fly in a kangaroo court. Not even one run by you and Nancy Pelosi. In your tunnel vision world all you heard in that phone call was “get dirt on my opponent.” Fortunately a majority of Americans heard something quite different.

The conversation with the Ukrainian president which he confirmed, when taken in full context of the full conversation, is not “get dirt on my opponent.” Mr. Schiff believes cherry picking, paraphrasing, and redefining what was said equates what was actually said. It doesn’t.

The other problem is how the Democrats have convinced many Americans that quid pro quo is some new law that’s been broken… It isn’t. In fact the Obama administration was chided by the media for the same thing on numerous occasions leading one US newspaper to label Obama the King of Quid Pro Quo.  

The ignorance displayed in this country regarding anything to do with civics is an indictment on our public school system and an advantage to the Democrats.

Same Destination, Multiple Paths?

A blog post by John Pavlovitz titled “I’m Not the Radical Left, I’m the Humane Middle” popped up in my social media. The headline grabbed my attention so I clicked.

It’s a nice, flowery, feel good post. It says the kind of things that make our brains produce a good dose of endorphins, serotonin, dopamine, and oxytocin. The neurochemicals that make us happy and feel good.

So what’s wrong with that you ask?

Nothing, unless the flowers are covering the weeds. I’m not saying the article is an overt attempt to mislead or misinform. I’m sure the author earnestly believes in everything he wrote and how and why he came to his positions and opinions. But I don’t think he truly resides in the “Humane Middle” as he calls it. I don’t think he owns that real estate. I think he sits in the section of the bell curve the majority of us populate, if not more toward one side than the middle.

I believe Mr. Pavlovitz is an ideological leftist. I believe he is doing what ideological leftists do. He’s making a case to convince us and probably more importantly, those who share his worldview, their position IS the middle, the perfect balance, the ultimate destination, and if you aren’t just like them you’re simply “indoctrinated into a white nationalistic religion of malice.” Those are his words.

I don’t have a problem with people whose ideology is on the left side of the spectrum. If I was to pass one on the street I’d consider them with kindness and respect just like any other person walking that street. When I see people out and about I don’t see them as ideologues or members of a political party.

They’re just people. Like me.

I was taught to “Love my neighbor as myself” and I try to live that way. What I find problematic with folks of a leftist ideological persuasion is they don’t seem to be satisfied just having their own ideas, opinions, and beliefs and simply expressing them. In my experience, those on the left, and more so the activist left, aren’t happy until you accept and adopt their ideas, opinions, and beliefs as your own and they won’t hesitate to apply social pressure, even force, to get you there. Because, from my experience and interaction with political liberals, they’re right and you need to come to grips with that and change. PERIOD.

They are so convinced they know better than you how to live your life, they are going to do everything they can to live it for you and it’s all wrapped in the name of compassion, love, and humanity. They’re kind and tolerant until you refute their doctrine. Do that and you’ll see another side and it won’t be smiling.

Mr. Pavlovitz took an inventory of his positions. It’s a nice list that resembles what one might think Utopia is made of. He believes his list is “the list” everyone should have because, again, he’s in the middle. If your list isn’t like his, you’re the problem. You’re the extreme.

So, I decided to go ahead and do the same inventory to see how extreme I am, but I’m going to also explain the what and why of each point, how I got there and what makes me believe the way I do. That’s something Mr. Pavlovitz doesn’t do and I wish he did. But I believe if he got into the nuts and bolts of each item on his list he’d soon find himself well beyond the middle and it would ruin the entire thesis. How do I come to this conclusion? Read his other writings…

So let’s compare Mr. Pavlovitz’ “extremism screening list” with mine.

John: I believe in full LGBTQ rights.
Me: I believe in basic human rights. I don’t subscribe to the idea that different groups of people have different rights or more rights or less rights than any other. I believe every human being has a right to life, liberty (freedom to choose their life path), and the pursuit of personal happiness under the rule of law. I believe in equality of opportunity, not outcomes.

John: I believe we should protect the planet.
Me: I believe we should be responsible stewards of the planet and all it provides. I’m certain we have very different ideas about what that means and how that can and should be achieved. We probably agree that people have and do exploit this planet’s resources and far too much is wasted and misused.

John: I believe everyone deserves healthcare.
Me: I believe everyone should have access to healthcare. I do not subscribe to government run healthcare. There are better and far more efficient alternatives and they must be made available in the marketplace preferably at the community level. Health-share programs are providing a glimpse into how that might work. A public safety net for those who are truly unable to afford or provide for their own healthcare is a must but not how we currently fund and operate it. For any system like this to work it requires a high level of integrity and honesty amongst the populace. That’s just one reason our current system is broken. 

John: I believe all religions are equally valid.
Me: Valid is an interesting term to use here. Validity doesn’t necessarily equate goodness for humanity. I believe any religion that teaches love and respect for all people, service to others, self-restraint, self-reliance, chastity, temperance, charity, humility, kindness, patience, diligence, et al, brings good to all humanity and has value. Religions that violate free agency and seek to control adherents have no value in my opinion.

John: I believe the world is bigger than America.
Me: Yep, the world is big. But at this point in our development as human beings, national borders are still a reality and necessity. Until we stop dividing ourselves into tribes with hard ideological segments that’s not going to change. The wide spectrum of cultural and ideological differences in this big world require them. I am an American. I love my country. I will protect and defend my country from any who would harm it or the way of life we enjoy. I do not have ill will toward any other nation or people. I will make my country the best I can within my sphere of influence. I believe our constitution is an inspired document containing principles that, when followed, lead to greater happiness and prosperity for all people. We, as a nation and a people, aren’t doing that right now which has lead to the place where John is feeling squeezed.

John: I believe “pro-life” means to treasure all of it.
Me: I believe in the sanctity of human life at any and all stages of development. While I believe life is sacred, I believe the choices of those who willingly and knowingly take a life should have grave consequences up to and including paying for their crime with their own in certain cases and in accordance with our laws. I believe life begins in the womb. Once that life is created I believe we have a moral obligation to assure that human being has all the rights available to any of us and should be protected. I believe there are exceptions with regard to when an abortion is the right decision, which John appears to be couching, but those circumstances should be rare and few. 

John: I believe whiteness isn’t superior and it is not a baseline of humanity.
Me: This one tells me how far to one end of the spectrum John really is. I don’t know ANYONE, nor can I say I have ever met ANYONE who believes “whiteness” is superior. Do those people exist? Yes, we know they do because they’ve told us so. However, those who share John’s views would have you believe white supremacy is a massive problem by scale. It’s not. But they have convinced themselves that the election of Donald Trump is proof that half the people in this nation are white supremacists. Hence the need to make that statement in his list. NO SKIN COLOR is supreme. Such a radical view is a tiny minority in this country. See point one.

John: I believe we are all one interdependent community.
Me: Ideally yes, but language barriers, cultural differences, religious beliefs, and our propensity to judge each other makes harmony on a large scale sometimes difficult, but not impossible.

John: I believe people and places are made better by diversity.
Me: I believe if we lived by the golden rule, it wouldn’t matter what mix of ethnicity, culture, ideology, lifestyle, et al existed in our communities, places of employment, cities, states, or countries. We can and should be able to get along and work for the common good of everyone. Live and let live. However, diversity for diversity’s sake is a mistake and is counter productive. It creates an environment of preferential treatment which goes against human nature and the concept of fairness. This conclusion comes from people with much higher credentials, more academic placards, and greater influence than I.

John: I believe people shouldn’t be forced to abide by anyone else’s religion.
Me: No one should be forced to believe or live any religious tenet. I don’t believe anyone is. I believe this is an extreme Left view and is patently false. Just because religion and religious belief is around you and you are exposed to it doesn’t mean you are being forced to abide by it. In fact, we are seeing converse examples of this extreme view as the Left attempts to force people of faith to abandon or hide their religious beliefs so as not to “impose” upon those who don’t share them. They tend to twist the concept of separation of church and state into something none of the framers of our constitution ever said or imagined. Numerous court cases in recent memory validate this trend by secularists in society.

John: I believe non-American human beings have as much value as American ones.
Me: I absolutely agree. Until they come to America, break our laws, and/or threaten American lives in any way. Then they, by choice, devalue themselves and we must uphold and sustain our laws to protect our rights as citizens and the privileges citizenship has in our country. Others are welcome to come and enjoy the fruits of this nation. All I ask is that they do it legally, contribute while here, and be inclusive and welcoming to those unfamiliar with their unique cultures and ways and vice versa. I’ve lived in another country for an extended period of time. The non-Americans seem to understand this better than most Americans and expect the same behavior from us while living as guests in their countries.

John: I believe generosity is greater than greed, compassion better than contempt, and kindness superior to derision.
Me: All true. Now how do we get large scale adoption and practice of these important traits?

John: I believe there is enough in this world for everyone: enough food, enough money, enough room, enough care – if we unleash our creativity and unclench our fists.
Me: I believe there is too. I see this every day. I see people helping people, sharing their abundance, teaching principles of self-reliance which creates a “can do” attitude and magnifies self-confidence, but that’s not what gets the headlines. The headlines scream the opposite incessantly which leads many people to think that’s the norm. It’s not. But that’s how people tend to see it and for Liberals it seems to really spike the emotions. They seem to see the world only as reported on TV or in their Twitter feed. With emotions revved to maximum capacity the finger pointing begins and since they see themselves as “knowing better than you” they blame you, the ones who see the world differently and believe differently (more diversely), than they do. That almost seems contradictory to what they publicly say though doesn’t it? We agree on this point, but he seems to not see the forest for the trees.

Bottom line: Anyone can create a list of platitudes without explanation or detail to provide context or reveal intent and make it sound amazing, wonderful, and woke. But doing so doesn’t place you in a position of neutrality to say “see, I’m the middle. I’m in the place where everyone should strive to go.” I’m sorry but you don’t get to determine where the center is. Neither do I. That, in and of itself, is a journey of discovery and I believe always becomes self-evident at some point.

Frankly I’ve always seen those in the middle, the centrists, the moderates, to be little more than fence sitters. People with their finger in the air waiting for the popular winds of change push them toward a decision, or to take a position, or make a stand. If that is where you plant your flag, I’m sorry, but to me that’s just wishy washy and indecisive. Besides, walking or sitting in the middle of the road tends to get one run over.

When we dig down to find that bottom line, I believe Mr. Pavlovitz is trying to get to a place we all want to exist. One that is full of kindness, love, abundance, and void of envy, hatred, and poverty. The perceived difference for me and conservatives like me, is Mr. Pavlovitz and liberals like him think their way of getting there is the only way and if you’re not doing it their way, well, you’re just not educated enough or have the intellect to see how life really works. In fact, you may be relegated to something white and undesirable, measured only by how you vote or don’t…

Mr. Pavlovitz appears sanctimonious to some extent. But to him and those who share his views, I’m certain I’m the sanctimonious one.

Or maybe I’m just a “bitter, ignorant cretin, Trump-asslicking loser” as articulated by singer/songwriter Richard Marx on Twitter when I disagreed with one of his angry hostile profanity laced political tweets about the president. In fairness I started the feud. I’m not proud of the tweet that started it and in hindsight wish I hadn’t reacted the way I did. See what happens when we assume “we’re” right and “they’re” wrong?

I really do believe I want what Mr. Pavlovitz wants and what Mr. Marx (the singer not Karl) wants and what everyone in the giant middle section of the bell curve probably want too.

I sincerely do.

If our political, social, and ideological positions didn’t get in the way, we’d likely be a lot closer than we are.

The Case For the Electoral College

Damn that antiquated constitution and it’s old fashioned rules regarding how we elect our leaders!

The political Left appears to be in all out war against the constitution, the Founders of our nation, and our history. They wish to pick and choose which parts they will adhere to and which parts they won’t depending on the political advantage or disadvantage said parts provide them…

Now they are after the Electoral College.

Apparently the election of Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton so riled the Leftists that they are now convinced, after 230+ years of use, the Electoral College is no longer useful. They are convinced abolishing the Electoral College will solve all of their election woes (and put them solidly back in eternal power).

But in their rush to get rid of one of the oldest institutions in our political system, they are overlooking some significant consequences should they be able to do so. You see, the pendulum always swings back.

Many of the points I will discuss come from the writings of Tara Ross. Tara Ross is a historical scholar on the Constitutional Republican form of government, the constitution itself, and our Founders. I encourage you to follow her on social media. You will learn much about America and how it is governed.

The Founders created the Electoral College because they knew several things we seem to have forgotten:

1. Simple democracies are dangerous.
2. Bare or emotional majorities can tyrannize even large minority groups.
3. Two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner is not a good system.

They understood that humans are fallible. Power corrupts. Ambition, selfishness, and greed are dangers to freedom. Some claim Founders were elitists who didn’t trust the people. NO. They didn’t trust ANYONE. Not the people, not elected officials, not states or feds. Checks & balances on EVERYONE.

Carol Berkin states this wonderfully, noting that delegates to the Constitutional Convention were the most likely men to be elected to the first Senate or as the first President, yet they still sat and debated how to put checks and balances on those offices because THEY DIDN’T TRUST THEMSELVES either.

The Electoral College serves us well. It has several benefits that go unrecognized. First it makes it harder to steal elections. You can’t steal an election unless you can steal votes in right state at the right time and during a close national election.

With a National Popular Vote system, any vote stolen anywhere affects national outcome. This is true even if the vote is easily stolen in a very safe blue or red state. This is a dangerous situation that the Electoral College protects us from today.

Second, the Electoral College rewards coalition-building. Perhaps that sounds weird after 2016? But NO ONE really focused on coalition building that year. The result? A close election. One party lost. The other mostly avoided losing. But, yes, there was a coalition and it won.

The coalition that won in 2016 consisted of a group of voters who grew tired of being ruled by DC elites. They felt ignored, unheard. They saw DC insiders living by one set of rules while they were forced to live by another. They were tired of being told what to think and tired of being called names simply because they didn’t agree with those elites.

Some of this coalition voted for Trump enthusiastically. Some held their noses and voted for him. But the coalition all agreed he was most likely to upset the status quo in D.C. and that gave Trump the White House. Right now, Democrats are very focused on eliminating the Electoral College they believe caused them to lose. But they’d be better off focusing on why they lost in first place. They should consider how they might reach out to the millions of voters who feel ignored. They should be searching for middle ground. They should focus on things that bring us together instead of things that drive us apart. They should figure out why they lost the trust of so many voters within their own ranks who crossed over.

They need to run a campaign more like FDR. If Democrats can find that nominee, they will win in a landslide in 2020 WITH the Electoral College firmly in place. Similarly, Republicans don’t have to be stuck in world where they barely win by the skin of their teeth each election. They too should find middle ground. How can they build coalitions? Earn trust? Figure that out and their will start winning again in Reagan-like landslides.

We need to stop going off in our partisan corners. Quit pointing fingers at the other side. Quit blaming the Electoral College for the party’s own failures. Instead focus on what your own party did wrong or right in 2016.

The first party to take hard look inward and fix its own flaws will start winning again. In landslides. Electoral College and all. We’ve been here before. After the Civil War, the country was sharply divided between North and South. But due to the Electoral College, both political parties were forced to move past that division or suffer massive defeat politically.

Pretty much whether they wanted to or not, Democrats in South simply couldn’t win without reaching a hand across the aisle. Republicans could win by relying on their safe areas, but just barely. Both sides had incentives to look at their own mistakes and figure out how to build better coalitions.

By the 1930s, of course, Democrats were winning in repeated landslides. The lesson? Remember that we live in a big, diverse country! Don’t force people into one-size-fits-all thinking. THAT is the lesson the Electoral College has taught over and over again, throughout our history.

Getting rid of the system now, when we are so angry and divided…. Well, it’s the worst possible solution. We’ll be stuck in this angry place forever. We are better off trying to remember why we have the Electoral College in first place.

Interestingly, there have been only five occasions in which a closely divided popular vote for the presidency and the Electoral College vote have failed to point in the same direction. 5 times in 235 years.

The Electoral College was designed by the framers deliberately, like the rest of the Constitution, to counteract the worst human impulses and protect the nation from the dangers inherent in democracy. The Electoral College is neither antiquated nor toxic; it is an under-appreciated institution that helps preserve our constitutional system, and it deserves a full-throated defense.

 

CBS News Reporter Confirms: News Media Has Leftwing Bias

Lara Logan may not be a household name in the world of journalism, but she has been a part of some well-known international news stories over the past decade.

Logan, who is from South Africa, began her news career there in Durban in 1990 and has worked for Reuters, ABC, NBC, and CBS as a freelance reporter internationally. In 2002 Logan was offered a correspondent position with CBS News where she spent most of her time on battlefields reporting in war zones around the world. Logan also made regular appearances on CBS 60 Minutes.

But Logan is perhaps best known for what happened to her off camera than on. In 2011 she was in Egypt covering the Egyptian revolution when she and her camera crew were arrested and detained by Egyptian police. They were later released but as they moved back into the streets a large group of Egyptian males encountered them and began to make lurid comments about Logan. Soon the crowd became aggressive and Logan was taken by the mob and sexually assaulted. She would later say she believed she was going to be killed. She spent several days in a US hospital upon her arrival from Egypt.

With nearly 30 years of journalistic experience at major news networks around the world, Logan is a prime candidate to speak on the subject of bias in the news industry. She sat down with retired Navy Seal Mike Ritland and was interviewed for Mike’s podcast “Mike Drop.” Logan had interviewed Ritland 6 years earlier for a segment on 60 Minutes. Now Logan was on the side being questioned.

Ritland has been a harsh critic of the American news media, calling it “absurdly left-leaning” and that “Democrat biases were a huge —-ing problem” and a disaster for the country. “I agree with that. That’s true,” Logan replied. She also implied it wasn’t just an American problem. “The media everywhere is mostly liberal, not just the U.S.,” she said. In the U.S., Logan says there are only a small number of news organizations that don’t march to the Leftist drumbeat. She cited Fox News and Breitbart as two examples.

In the podcast with Ritland, Logan talks about her experience in newsrooms.

“Visually, anyone who’s ever been to Israel and been to the Wailing Wall has seen that the women have this tiny little spot in front of the wall to pray, and the rest of the wall is for the men. To me, that’s a great representation of the American media, is that in this tiny little corner where the women pray you’ve got Breitbart and Fox News and a few others, and from there on, you have CBS, ABC, NBC, Huffington Post, Politico, whatever, right? All of them. And that’s a problem for me, because even if it was reversed, if it was vastly mostly on the right, that would also be a problem for me.”

“My experience has been that the more opinions you have, the more ways that you look at everything in life — everything in life is complicated, everything is gray, right? Nothing is black and white.”

“This is the problem that I have. There’s one Fox, and there’s many, many, many more organizations on the left. … The problem is the weight of all these organizations on one side of the political spectrum. When you turn on your computer, or you walk past the TV, or you see a newspaper headline in the grocery store If they’re all saying the same thing, the weight of that convinces you that it’s true. You don’t question it, because everyone is saying it. Unless you seek out Breitbart on your computer, you’re probably not even going to know what the other side is saying.”

She wonders how people can know what’s accurate and what’s not when so many news outlets are saying the exact same thing, in many cases word for word.

“How do you know you’re being lied to? How do you know you’re being manipulated? How do you know there’s something not right with the coverage?” she asked.

“When they simplify it all, there’s no gray. It’s all one way. Well, life isn’t like that. If it doesn’t match real life, it’s probably not. Something’s wrong. For example, all the coverage on Trump all the time is negative. … That’s a distortion of the way things go in real life.”

Logan continued, “Although the media has historically always been left-leaning, we’ve abandoned our pretense, or at least the effort, to be objective today. We’ve become political activists, and some could argue propagandists, and there’s some merit to that.”

Another major problem she sees is the use of anonymous sources, particularly in the government. “That’s not journalism, it’s horse shit,” she said. “Responsibility for fake news begins with us.”

At the end of the three hour and forty-nine minute interview, Logan said something that in itself is very revealing of the state of our free press in America. She said, “This interview is professional suicide for me.” A sad, but likely all too true, sentiment in the era of Trump and the news media.

Here is the full video of the interview from the Mike Drop podcast.

No. Socialized Medicine Is Not the Answer

Whenever I see people arguing about universal healthcare aka single-payer system aka socialized medicine, I always see the same rationale when it comes to why it would work here when it has been less than ideal in every other country where it is used. “Because we (America) can do it better! We can do it right.”

That’s a fallacy.

No different than this idea that we can somehow make Socialism work as a political governing ideology. No, we can’t. No one has and no one will.

Socialized medicine will fail here just as we see it failing, or at best providing benefits well below what we’ve come to expect from American medicine. Why?

Human nature.

People lack appreciation and/or respect for things they get for free. If I have to provide examples here, you’ve never been in a public park restroom. People don’t value what they don’t pay for. When there’s no skin in the game they don’t care. When you take competition from a marketplace and replace it with guaranteed free services it creates expectations from which an entitlement mentality forms.

It is well documented in single-payer systems where doctors and nurses deal with more self-entitled people coming into their facility demanding healthcare because, “my tax dollars pay your salary.” It’s demoralizing for medical professionals. Quality of care suffers. People become objects to be slowly dragged through the system (often waiting long periods of time between treatments or to begin them) to milk as much money from the government as it can.

When you try to take the profit motive out of business and give government the reins to that business, all you really do is transfer the motive away from the business to customer relationship required to maintain customer loyalty to that business, to “how can I get more government money from this person?” To combat this the government with its deep pockets of taxpayer dollars, will pour more money into a broken system. It will pass more regulations to make things “fair.” Due to the fact that tax dollars are NOT unlimited, the government must, at some point, pick and choose what it deems a “necessary” operation or treatment to save on costs. In one example out of Canada a dental patient was in need of a root canal. The government said no, it was an “unnecessary tooth” and would only pay to have the tooth removed. “Necessity” is subjective.

Our healthcare system became the best in the world because of our innovation which is spurred by competition. Argue till you’re blue in the face, but if you take away competition, innovation will slow or even die with it because innovation is risky and expensive. Who will invest in new treatments, drugs, or surgical procedures, if government price-fixing doesn’t provide a way for the risk taker to get a return on investment?

The problem isn’t our medical system. The problem is with our politicians who always manage to get their grubby fingers into the private sector. They’re in bed with the insurance industry, big Pharma, and the large healthcare conglomerates. The mutual back-scratching is endless. Regulations have largely catered to these big businesses, not to patients or doctors. I believe one step to take would be to remove as many federal regulations as possible. Allow insurance to be sold across state lines. Make it a true competitive marketplace. Insurance shouldn’t be tied to employment. That doesn’t mean employers can’t use it as a benefit to entice high quality workers but it shouldn’t be incentivized with tax perks. We should be allowed to shop for our healthcare just as we would a car or home. Enough with these hospital “networks” that only take such and such insurance.

Free market forces are incredible regulators and balancers when allowed to function properly and under the watchful eye of honest ethical leadership. Does that mean there will be winners and losers? Yes. But that’s life. Those who provide the best care and service for the best price will win and prosper. Those who don’t will lose and go out of business. Family doctors and practices will return to communities rather than reside only with large, exclusive, medical conglomerates. Family practitioners and general physicians would be salaried in a single-payer system with less control over their pay and though many argue their pay would not go down that simply isn’t feasible unless the number of doctors and nurses is curtailed or reduced. Over-specialization in medicine, which is one reason costs are so high in the U.S, will self-moderate based on market forces.

The truly needy who can’t afford care can, and should, be provided with care. There must always be a safety net. There is no reason we can’t create one that actually works within the private sector.

I don’t claim to know all the answers, nor do I believe government can’t have a role in our healthcare system, but it should be one of oversight and enforcement of laws to make sure the care providers and companies in the medical industry are operating fairly and ethically. Government enforces the rules and laws deemed necessary by the people it governs. That is one thing it can and should do well. Government should not be paying individual bills or managing the private sector. That is not its function and it has proven over and over again how poorly government manages anything business related.

We can get our healthcare system back to where it is healthy and functions to help all Americans afford and have access to proper healthcare. We don’t need to follow in Canada or Great Britain’s footsteps.

Is a Second Reformation Unfolding in Front of Our Eyes?

Republished by permission

November 1st is traditionally known as “All Saints’ Day” in the Western Christian calendar–a day to remember all of the faithful departed. The day (eve) before All Saints’ Day was “All Hallows’ (an older word for “saint) Eve.” Later, in a series of twists and turns (more reminiscent of the latest TV sitcom, rather than “normal” history) this Christian holiday devolved into our contemporary Halloween.

What is less known about this day is that it marks the moment an obscure German monk and college professor presented a list of religious concerns for a formal debate, unwittingly sparking one of the most momentous events in Western history–the Reformation.

Many in the conservative Protestant tradition resonate with Martin Luther’s bold stand to proclaim the truths of the Bible, and to resist the authoritarian forces of control. But what they forget are the true aims of Luther and the first generation of reformers.

Martin Luther did not mean to start the Reformation. As a “doctor” of theology, he was trying to start an academic discussion about common church practices, such as “indulgence preachers,” who were basically selling get-out-of-Purgatory-free cards. He initially had no intention of breaking ties with the Roman Catholic church.

Many factors led to what we now call the “Reformation.” The first was the rediscovery of Biblical Greek and Hebrew. Most of the Reformers were serious students of these languages, and the insights they gained from this Scriptural engagement fueled the momentous changes that many celebrate on Oct. 31.

The second factor was the cultural movement we call the “Renaissance.” At its most basic level, the Renaissance looked back to the artistic and literary achievements of ancient Greece and Rome. Cultural life blossomed, spawning artists such as da Vinci and Michelangelo, composers such as Palestrina, and authors such as Dante Alighieri. In northern Europe, the Renaissance took a more “bookish” turn. Sparked by Johannes Gutenberg’s invention of the movable-type printing press, northern Europeans could suddenly produce and exchange ideas quickly through the printed word. Towns like Basel in Switzerland became centers of scholarship and book-production. Erasmus of Rotterdam led this movement through his scholarship and his wit. With biting satire and vast learning, Erasmus criticized the many moral and spiritual failings of the Catholic Church.

However, in the ensuing conflict, Erasmus remained loyal to the Roman church, unlike many of his protégés. Johannes Oecolampadius worked closely with Erasmus in Basel, putting together the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament, as well as new editions of classic Christian thinkers and pastors like Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, and Basil of Caesarea. As Oecolampadius dove deeper into the original Greek and Hebrew of the Bible, he joined the ranks of the Reformers. Eventually, their devotion to God’s Word led them into sustained conflict with Roman church officials, and finally into a full-fledged “Reformation.”

These Reformers shared the goal of returning the church to a purity and fervency that they read about in the New Testament (in the original Greek) and in the church fathers (many of whom wrote in Greek). They did not want to reject all of previous church history—they saw themselves as truly “catholic,” in one sense of the original Latin word. Catholicus means “universal,” and the early Reformers tried to reform Christian worship and church practices according to what Christians had “universally” believed and practiced.

The Reformation began roughly 500 years ago. What many don’t realize, however, is that a similar reformation is occurring today, only not in the churches, but in the schools. Classical Christian schools, to be more specific.

Like the original Reformers, educators in the classical Christian school movement seek to train and equip the next generation of leaders who will boldly stand for the truth in their culture, churches, and homes. They seek to inspire students who will bravely challenge the status quo, motivated by what they see in Scripture. And they hope that students’ brief exposure to the Great Books, the Great Thinkers, and the classical languages like Latin and Greek will enable them to gain the wisdom and eloquence to lead a new Reformation.

Is it possible that by teaching students to stand on the shoulders of these intellectual giants, they, like the Reformers before them, will be able to steer the world down a completely different path than the one it is currently on?

For Further Reading

Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings – James R. Payton, Jr.

Church History (vol. 2): From Pre-Reformation to the Present Day – John D. Woodbridge & Frank A. James III

An Introduction to Classical Education: A Guide for Parents – Dr. Christopher Perrin

Wisdom and Eloquence: A Christian Paradigm for Classical Learning – Robert Littlejohn & Charles T. Evans

The Liberal Arts Tradition: A Philosophy of Christian Classical Education – Ravi Jain & Kevin Clark

This post: Is a Second Reformation Unfolding in Front of Our Eyes? was originally published on Intellectual Takeout by Gregory Soderberg.

Progressivism By Any Other Name*

Progressives are true pros at renaming their failures. Socialism, Communism, Fascism, and their derivatives, all function with commonality.

What socialism, fascism, communism, and other such ideologies have in common is an assumption that some very wise people — like the ones advocating it — need to take decisions out of the hands of lesser people, like the rest of us, and impose those decisions by government fiat.

But, but, fascism is a “far right” ideology the progressives will scream.

There is overwhelming evidence of the fascists’ consistent pursuit of the goals of the left, and of the left’s embrace of the fascists as one of their own during the 1920s. Mussolini, the originator of fascism, was lionized by the left, both in Europe and in America, during the 1920s. Even Hitler, who adopted fascist ideas in the 1920s, was seen by some, including W.E.B. Du Bois, as a man of the left.

It was in the 1930s, when ugly internal and international actions by Hitler and Mussolini repelled the world, that the left distanced themselves from fascism and its Nazi offshoot — and verbally transferred these totalitarian dictatorships to the right, saddling their opponents with these pariahs.

(progressives are also experts at shifting blame and making it stick)

The left’s vision is not only a vision of the world but also a vision of themselves, as superior beings pursuing superior ends. In the United States, however, this vision conflicts with a Constitution that begins, “We the People…”

That is why the progressive left has, for more than a century, been trying to get the Constitution’s limitations on government loosened or evaded by judges’ new interpretations, based on notions of “a living Constitution” that will take decisions out of the hands of “We the People,” and transfer those decisions to our betters.

The American system of capitalism, even in its current adulterated state of cronyism, is better for the individual, better for liberty and freedom, and better than socialism, democratic socialism, and the other distasteful ism’s they inevitably morph into.

The socialists talk a good game. It all sounds so logical and practical and “caring.” They had an eloquent teacher in Karl Marx. But the lessons of history reiterate the old phrase “talk is cheap” while the price paid by millions under the heavy hand of socialism turned communism turned fascism was anything but.

Here’s to the hope that American’s will fix what’s broken in their current economic system by getting back to the free market principles that made it the most effective path for personal economic progress and wealth creation on the planet and reject the siren’s song being hummed by the socialists among them.

*Attribution: Some concepts and excerpts were taken directly from the writings of economist Thomas Sowell