Thursday, March 30, 2017
Featured posts

by -

Since Donald Trump took his escalator ride to announce his candidacy for President of the United States, the media has been accurate with at least one fact: Trump is a populist.

The concept is great. A leader who looks out for the “ordinary” folks is a leader we could all get behind right?

Eh, not so fast.

Who speaks for the “ordinary” people? More importantly who would a populist President be listening to as the voice of everyday Americans?

How many regular Joe’s have been sitting around that White House conference room table and have they been more than a PR moment for the cameras?

I think you see the point.

The White House has been filled with political strategists and their politicians.

The only Washington outsiders that have the President’s ear are his own daughter and her husband, who sadly have a long history of supporting liberal causes and politicians.

While President Trump may sincerely think he’s looking out for the interests of working class Americans, it would appear that he as lost access to “the little people” who elected him.

Instead, he is being told what the will of the people is through the filter of Paul Ryan, Fox News and his closest, and closeted advisors.

Trump’s support of the American Health Care Act is the primary indicator of what’s going on within his mind.

If you tack on Trump’s wading into Identity Politics at the urging of his daughter and former campaign manager, the picture becomes much more clear:

Trump is a man who wants to make good on his word and is sincere in his desire to serve the interests of all Americans.

The President’s weakness comes from his lack of an ideological foundation. Politically, Trump, while a patriot, has no idea who he is . . .

. . . and that’s where the vultures start picking.

That’s also the fatal flaw of governing by popular opinion – which is nothing new.

Since Ronald Reagan boldly stood behind the podium to nominate Barry GoldWater in 1964, Republicans have been attempting to maintain power through populist compromise rather than standing by principle.

Without principles, you’ll stand for anything . . . and you’ll stand for nothing.

In a modern age where popular interests can be so easily faked and manipulated, the flaw of populist governance without solid principles becomes wildly dangerous to those who are governed.

An industry that wants to influence public policy only has to spend a few million bucks on a Twitter campaign and, voila, a strategist whispers into the President’s ear with a slithering voice, “Misssster Presssident, the people have sssspoken . . .”

You can be rest assured that similar manipulations are occurring each day.

For President Trump to publicly denounce the Freedom Caucus, Freedom Works and the venerable Heritage Foundation (that worked with President Reagan to break the back of the Evil Empire), he is clearly listening to the wrong people.

While the above sounds dire, all is not lost.

For the first time in my career in the world of politics, the people who fervently supported a candidate have not become parrots who will say and do anything that they’re told.

The reaction of Trump supporters when the American Health Care Act came to light, was heartwarming. It was motivating.

For a Trump supporter to stand their ground against RyanCare and President Trump proves that, while Trump may have never built his ideological foundation, his supporters have beliefs built on an unshakable bedrock of granite.

With that and some effort, America can be made great again.

For those who truly know and love Liberty, this is our “rendezvous with destiny.”  Are you in?

by -
Will Sanctuary Cities face a Trumpocalypse?

With the president threatening to withhold federal grants and funds to cities that refuse cooperation, big city mayors and immigration activists are trying their level best to push back at the administration’s attempts to make good of one of President Trump’s major campaign promises.

Cities refusing to cooperate with federal immigration authorities start feeling the Trump administration’s wrath. What is being seen as a move to put public pressure on sanctuary cities, the Department of Homeland Security released its first report on Monday, listing jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with federal authorities.

The report lists counties and cities that refused requests from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to detain individuals even though they could have been released under normal circumstances.

Sanctuary cities are used to describe communities that refuse to work with ICE officials after detaining illegal immigrants. According to federal law, they are required to inform the feds whenever they have an illegal immigrant in custody, even if he or she is not guilty of any crime.

While the US Conference of Mayors (USCM) questioned the truthfulness of ICE detainers and the DHS report on Tuesday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Monday had already sent out a warning, saying, “Failure to deport aliens who are convicted of criminal offenses puts whole communities at risk, especially immigrant communities in the very sanctuary jurisdictions that seek to protect the perpetrators.”

Sessions’ statement, at a White House press briefing, sent a strong message to the nation that the Trump administration is indeed serious about its actions against illegal immigrants. The president’s team hopes to make its case against sanctuary cities with stats and anecdotes, clearly showing that it is the local government policies that are putting the lives of Americans at risk.

The White House has shown no sign of backing off the tough campaign promise Trump made. Weeks before Sessions’ warning that the Department of Justice would cut off federal funding to cities that refuse to cooperate, the Department of Homeland Security started publishing a list of crimes committed by illegal immigrants.

Supporters of the new policies hailed Sessions’ declaration.

“It’s very refreshing that under the Trump administration policies the public is now able to find out exactly what kind of individuals are being protected from immigration enforcement and released by the sanctuaries,” said Jessica Vaughan, of the Center for Immigration Studies. “The public now can hold their local officials accountable for the sanctuary policy.”

Several big cities, including New York, Chicago and Los Angeles, as well as dozens and possibly hundreds of smaller counties, cities and towns, also have refused to notify ICE, which can then come and take custody of the illegal immigrant, possibly for deportation.

by -
Freedom!!

As result of disagreements regarding the House Freedom Caucus’ role in the failure of President Donald Trump’s healthcare plan, Republican Representative Ted Poe, on Sunday, March 26, resigned from the conservative group.

Texas GOP Rep. Ted Poe’s resignation comes after the right-wing caucus vehemently opposed the Republican healthcare proposal, for which he wanted to vote.

“I have resigned from the House Freedom Caucus,” Poe said in a statement. He suggested that his decision to leave the caucus would allow him to serve his constituents better.

“In order to deliver on the conservative agenda we have promised the American people for eight years, we must come together to find solutions to move this country forward. Saying no is easy, leading is hard, but that is what we were elected to do. Leaving this caucus will allow me to be a more effective Member of Congress and advocate for the people of Texas. It is time to lead,” he added.

A tweet by reporter Chad Pergram later confirmed that Poe had told Caucus chairman Rep. Mark Meadows about his departure from the group. While the Freedom Caucus is not known to keep an official list of its members, Poe was reportedly a recent addition.

The Freedom Caucus believes that the Republican proposal did not actually repeal the 2010 Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare, in its true essence. Poe had different views and was in favor of the legislation.

The caucus argued that the Affordable Health Care Act (AHCA) did not go far enough to fulfill the Republicans’ promise of fully repealing and replacing ObamaCare. Despite late attempts from both, President Donald Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan, the bill failed to gain any support from the caucus; Meadows believes the bill simply does not do enough.

The Freedom Caucus consists of the House of Representatives’ most conservative members, which played a critical role in dealing the Trump administration a major political setback on Friday; when Republican House leaders had to pull off the healthcare legislation, one of Trump’s major campaign promises.

Trump showed his displeasure towards the Freedom Caucus and other conservatives in a tweet on Sunday morning, saying their actions resulted in “Democrats smiling in D.C.”

by -
The jig is up.

Under the Obama Administration, Republicans attempted to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) a total of 52 times.

The repeal bills easily passed both the House and the Senate and then were predictably vetoed by President Obama.

Now with a Republican in the White House who would sign any repeal bill put in front of him, Republicans in Congress all of the sudden have no ability to repeal ObamaCare despite controlling both the House and the Senate.

What type of wizadry is going on here?

How did Republicans members of Congress all of the sudden lose the ability to pass a repeal bill after pulling it off 52 different times?

They didn’t.

Establishment Republicans never wanted to repeal ObamaCare.

For the last seven years, they knew that Obama would never sign a repeal bill. They also knew that “Repeal and Replace” was a beautiful wedge issue that could be used for years against Democrats.

Most importantly, the Finance, Health Care and Insurance industries are the GOP’s biggest backers (and the Democrats).

In the 2016 campaign season, the Insurance, Finance and Real Estate sectors contributed a massive $1.1 billion to candidates, parties and outside groups. Of that billion, 55% went to Republicans.

The Health Care Industry piled on another $268 million.

In the House of Representatives alone, candidates raised $554 million in 2016 for their campaigns . . . with the bulk of the funds being raised by incumbents.

In 2016, the Health Care, Insurance and Finance sectors contributed $118 million to House Republicans. That’s 21% of the campaign contributions.

It’s needless to say that if someone donates 21% of your revenue, you’re going to make them happy.

Why else would they be donating?

One question may remain about this industry influence over Congress. That is, do those industries benefit from ObamaCare?

An astounding, YES!

Take a look at the stock price of just about any company in those industries since March of 2010 (when ObamaCare passed).

Amgen (AMGN), which donated $1.5 million in 2016, had a stock price of $60. Today the price stands at $164.

United Health’s (UNH) stock went from $32.91 to $170.

The list goes on and on, and doesn’t even include the corporations who donated through industry associations such as the American Medical Association that donated $1.8 million or the American Hospital Association that also donated $1.8 million.

Paul Ryan and other Establishment Republicans showed their hand in the past weeks by proposing a bill that was nothing more than a reworded version of ObamaCare, while trying to confuse the public about their real intent.

It didn’t work.

Instead, they showed their hand and flat out proved that they never intent to repeal this $1.72 trillion entitlement program.

Angry yet? Comment below.

by -
Conspiracy overload.

In what appears to be only the second correction on the popular conspiracy theorist’s website, infowars.com, Alex Jones has publically apologized for pushing the Pizzagate scandal.

The Pizzagate scandal, as it infamously became known, surfaced after leaked emails from one of Hillary Clinton’s top aides, John Podesta, were taken out of context to convince people that a child sex ring was being operated out of Comet Ping Post restaurant in D.C. The restaurant is a popular neighborhood pizza joint owned by James Alefantis, a Clinton supporter, which gave far-right conspiracy theorists all the more reason to believe the rumors.

The restaurant came under the limelight last year, when a gunman allegedly barged into the pizzeria with an armed rifle, in search of children, who he believed were locked in the basement. The suspect had come to the conclusion, through his own investigations and unsubstantiated claims from far-right news outlets, that Clinton and her campaign chairman, Podesta, were indeed running a child trafficking ring from the pizza joint.

Even though a number of media outlets snubbed the news as false, Alex Jones, owner of Infowars.com, pushed the story through his own website, videos, and articles. While he is not the originator of the story, he certainly helped spread the news through social media and his own website, among far-right and conservative believers.

After the debunking of the claims, Jones went on record to apologize for the mistake. “In our commentary about what had become known as Pizzagate, I made comments about Mr. Alefantis that, in hindsight, I regret, and for which I apologize to him,” Jones said in a video.

He continued, “To my knowledge today, neither Mr. Alefantis nor his restaurant Comet Ping Pong were involved in any human trafficking as was part of the theories about Pizzagate that were being written about in many media outlets and which we commented upon. ”

He went on to admit that he had relied on reporters who were no longer employed by his company and all videos regarding the Pizzagate scandal had been removed from his website. He also reportedly invited James Alefantis to his show to talk about the incident in detail.

Alex Jones is a reputed conspiracy theorist, who, according to his website, believes in “seeking truth and exposing the scientifically engineered lies of the globalists and their ultimate goal of enslaving humanity.” He has also previously argued that the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre was a hoax and that it was a distraction from something the government wanted to cover up.

by -

Almost four months after the death of a teenage girl, a father in Tennessee is flabbergasted for receiving a bill of $2,970 to replace the guardrail that killed his daughter.

Hannah Eimers, 17, was driving her father’s Volvo S80 on Interstate 75 North on November 01, when her car crossed the median and hit the end of a guardrail. However, instead of deflecting the vehicle, the end of the guardrail impaled the vehicle and the struck the teen in the chest and head, sending her into the back seat. According to a crash report by the Tennessee Highway patrol, the crash killed Hannah instantly.

On Feb 24, Steven Eimers received a letter addressed to his daughter, almost four months after her death. The letter contained a bill of $2,970 as payment for the damage caused to the guardrail.

Just a week before Hannah’s crash, the Tennessee Department of Transportation removed the guardrail end from its list of approved devices because of performance concerns in crashes excess of 62 miles per hour.

What bewilders the distraught father is that the Department of Transportation had the audacity to send a bill to repair a device that is no longer considered safe by the government body itself.

“I’m shocked,” Eimers told a local newspaper. “The audacity. What bothers me is that they’re playing Russian roulette with people’s lives. They know these devices do not perform at high speeds and in situations like my daughter’s accident, but they leave them in place.”

A spokesman for the agency, Mark Nagi, said around 1000 guardrail ends are still on state roads. However, they won’t be used in new projects. Transportation officials will reportedly start accepting bids for a contract to remove most of the existing guardrails at locations where the speed limit exceeds 45 miles per hour. The speed limit where Hannah crashed is reported to be 70mph.

Following media attention, the Tennessee state spokesman, Nagi, clarified in a statement to the press that the bill was sent in error, as a result of a “mistake somewhere in processing.” He further explained that the Eimers family will not be liable to pay for damages and another letter will soon be sent to clarify the incident further.

by -
"Repeal and Replace! That's the ticket!"

Last week was an eye opener for many Americans as they were able to see the partisan faces of their elected officials.

Over 200 Republican members of Congress were willing to not just support a continuation of ObamaCare, they were willing to lie to you and say with a straight face that it was “repeal.”

Last year, nearly every Republican candidate hit the campaign trail to make a promise to voters that they would “repeal and replace” ObamaCare.

Instead, many of these same men and women aggressively lobbied to slap a fresh coat of paint on the $1.72 trillion entitlement program with their support of Paul Ryan’s American Health Care Act.

Louisiana Congressman Clay Higgins, a tough talking former cop took to the House Floor on Friday to shout, “A vote against the American Health Care Act is a vote against FREEDOM!”

When I watched Rep. Higgins shout into the microphone as if he were a Drill Instructor dressing down recruits, I laughed out loud.

Higgins truly believes that RyanCare is better than ObamaCare based on the fact that ObamaCare is 8,000 pages and RyanCare is “124 pages of freedom.”

Higgins and many others within Congress are so distanced from reality that they don’t even get that RyanCare is an amendment to ObamaCare, thereby extending the monstrous legislation.

They were sold a bill of goods by the Establishment and told to go out and loyally toe the line . . . and like good little sheep, they fell in line.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of Republican members of Congress, along with our populist President, do not grasp that the expectation of voters for the last seven years was to REPEAL ObamaCare.

What’s worse, politicians like Paul Ryan believe that the American voter is so dumb, that they can call an apple an orange and we’d fall for it.

But are you really surprised?

Since at least 4,000 years ago, politicians have been making promises to voters and then betraying them.

Within American history, with the exception of the Civil War, Americans have continued to fall for it and every year, the federal government grows in expense, size and power.

While I had a sliver of hope that Donald Trump would shake up the Establishment and at least pause the growth of the Federal behemoth, his support of RyanCare shows how easily he can be manipulated.

If we are ever going to get back on a path toward liberty, politicians will have to be held accountable for their promises to the public.

In the past, thousands of “pledges” have been signed and in 1994 the GOP even created a “Contract with America.”

All fine and dandy, but what was the penalty when a politician violated their pledge or promise?

Not much . . . a few lost endorsements and a few lost votes.

Wash, rinse, repeat and a politician is back in office for another term and another round of disloyalty to voters.

To break this cycle, we need something more . . . something that includes both the carrot of support and the threat of a large and heavy stick.

Let me introduce you to the concept of the “Liberty Contract.”

The Liberty Contract is a theoretical binding civil contract between a non-profit organization that represents a voting base, and a candidate.

Here’s how it works.

THE CONTRACT:

During an election, a candidate enters into a negotiated, LEGAL and voluntary contract with his or her own constituents through a non-profit organization.

The terms are clear and simple. For instance, if a candidate says they won’t vote to raise or create taxes, or that they will vote to repeal ObamaCare, that’s the deliverable product.

Of course the contract will have to include provisions that would allow a work around in the event of an extraordinary event. For instance, if a candidate vowed not to raise taxes, but we entered another World War, that’s a legitimate exception that would deserve arbitration.

A team of legal experts would do their best to ensure that the contract is legally binding and does not violate any current laws.

THE CARROT:

Upon taking office and serving a term, if the contract is adhered to a SuperPAC will legally spend enough money for that candidate to win re-election. Basically, the politician doesn’t have to worry about the major issue of raising campaign dollars – a very gracious carrot.

For purposes of this theory, the SuperPAC would agree to spend at least what was spent in the last election of that specific winning race . . . and more if facing a greater challenge.

The SuperPAC (which would be separate from the non-profit) would use adherence to the Liberty Contract as its guide.

Another significant benefit of the contract is the cover it provides to a politician. This would have been useful last week within the back rooms of Congress.

When Establishment powers use every threat possible to rally support for their cause, politicians who are contracted to maintain a position, are provided with strong cover to stand their ground.

And that gets us to the stick.

THE STICK:

For far too long, politicians have easily been able to walk away unscathed when they break their promises. They have one excuse after another and, as with any good politician, they are very convincing.

If government were a business, 90% of politicians would be out of a job after their first term.

The Liberty Contract makes “firing” enforceable.

If a “signed” politician violates the contract, they agree to not seek reelection.

Pretty simple? No, not really because what would stop them from violating an agreement to not run again?

Constitutionally, they can’t be stopped.

However, by signing the contract, they agree to a financial fine of half their net worth if they breach the contract and seek subsequent terms.

That may sound harsh, but without a penalty, there is no point to a contract.

While a politician may violate the contract every which way till Sunday, it would become a personally painful experience.

Theoretically, the Liberty Contract sounds great, but honestly who would sign it?

A true statesman who is grounded in his or her beliefs wouldn’t have an issue with the agreement.

A politician who ebbs and flows in whatever direction would likely never agree to a contract like this . . . and they would have to compete against another politician who has signed put their future on the line and signed the contract.

While the concept of the Liberty Contract may sound exciting, that excitement should be met with resignation over our current circumstance.

Even with the awakening of the “Silent Majority” that supported Donald Trump, in 2016 97% of the members of Congress — who have failed us for years — were reelected.

Will they finally deliver on their promises?

No, they won’t. You can bet on that.

But by organizing a new standard that will hold politicians accountable, we can make headway in 2018 and be in a position to finally shrink government by 2020.

Please share your thoughts below.

by -
Creep

The teenage illegal immigrants charged with raping a 14-year-old girl in the bathroom of a Maryland public high school last week entered the United States under an Obama program that’s accommodated tens of thousands of Central American youths who crossed the Mexican border. The administration coined them Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) and portrayed them as innocent, desperate kids fleeing violence and famine in their homeland. Most are from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala and the influx has overwhelmed border agents, government health agencies and military bases that serve as shelters not to mention public schools nationwide.

This week two of the UACs protected by Obama’s outlaw amnesty measures were charged with the rape of a ninth-grader at Rockville High School in Montgomery County, a Maryland jurisdiction that offers illegal aliens sanctuary. The illegal immigrants, 17-year-old Jose Montano and 18-year-old Henry Sanchez, were both charged with first-degree rape and two counts of first-degree sexual offense. Both illegal aliens were in the ninth grade like their victim, according local news reports. Montano came to the U.S. from El Salvador and Sanchez, who reportedly had been ordered deported, from Guatemala. Both are being held without bail. Several local media outlets printed a letter sent to parents by the school district describing the rape as a “serious incident” that “is being addressed.”

Back in the summer of 2014, when the first batch of UACs began arriving, Judicial Watch reported that many were not harmless children fleeing violence as the media was largely reporting. Border Patrol sources on the ground divulged that a lot of the Central Americans were in their late teens and had ties to violent gang members and other criminal elements. Federal authorities handling the crisis offered a vastly different depiction than the government’s official version in the media. From the start, the barrage of illegal alien minors created an out-of-control disaster with jam-packed holding centers, rampant diseases and sexually active teenagers at a Nogales facility that housed the first arrivals, Homeland Security sources told Judicial Watch.

A few weeks after the barrage of UACs slammed border officials, Homeland Security sources told Judicial Watch that the nation’s most violent street gangs—including Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13)—were actively recruiting new members at shelters housing illegal immigrant minors. In many cases they used Red Cross phones to communicate. The 18th Street gang also went on a recruiting frenzy at the various facilities housing the UACs, sources confirmed. The MS-13 is a feared street gang of mostly Central American illegal immigrants that’s spread throughout the U.S. and is renowned for drug distribution, murder, rape, robbery, home invasions, kidnappings, vandalism and other violent crimes. The Justice Department’s National Gang Intelligence Center (NGIC) says criminal street gangs like the MS-13 are responsible for the majority of violent crimes in the U.S. and are the primary distributors of most illicit drugs. The 18th Street gang is considered the largest organized gang in Los Angeles County with about 15,000 members that operate a number of criminal enterprises throughout the region.

Violent street gangs continue to be energized with new recruits provided by the steady flow of illegal immigrant minors protected under the egregious UAC initiative, according to various law enforcement sources. After a major gang bust in Massachusetts last year, federal prosecutors disclosed that MS-13 actively recruits members in high schools situated in communities with “significant immigrant populations from Central America.” The recruits are known as “paros” and they are typically 14 or 15 years old, according to the Department of Justice (DOJ). The Texas Department of Public Safety has also issued a disturbing report declaring that the MS-13 is a top tier gang thanks to the influx of illegal alien gang members that crossed into the state. The number of MS-13 members encountered by U.S. Border Patrol in the Rio Grande Valley sector has increased each year, accelerating in 2014 and coinciding with increased illegal immigration from Central America during the same period, the agency disclosed. This clearly refers to the UAC crisis that saw over 60,000 illegal immigrants—many with criminal histories—storm into the U.S. in a matter of months.

by -
Is the baby ready?

Between 1935 and 1945 some 19,000 children were born as the beginnings of Hitler’s master race. Good SS boys were encouraged to “hook up” with blue eyed blond haired Nordic girls. The children born of such unions were placed in foster care or raised in special orphanages for raising good little Nazi children. If any of the infants were less than “perfect” they were killed or sent to concentration camps.

Fast forward to today. New Science reported, “A team in China has corrected genetic mutations in at least some of the cells in three normal human embryos using the CRISPR genome editing technique.”

CRISPR, or Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats, is a DNA editing procedure that is being used in research as a potential tool for the benefit of humanity. This technology was developed in 2012 by Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier.

This gene editing technology is currently being employed to research possible application in agriculture, microbiology, disease treatment and biofuel. According to Dr. Dounda, professor of molecular and cell biology and Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator at UC Berkeley,

“There are many others arenas in which better gene-editing tools can promote global health, specifically by improving crops and sustaining a healthy microbial environment that has been shown to prevent illness, improve crop yields and nurture a balanced ecosystem. At UC Berkeley we have the expertise in plant science and microbiology research to make a real contribution by designing higher-yield, more pest-resistant crops that a large proportion of the world’s population depend on, and fostering the microbial populations critical to human health and the health of the planet.”

The potential for CRISPR to benefit humanity is promising. However, as with any science, there are risks. What are the possible unintended consequences?

Before CRISPR, Brazilian scientists desired a more productive honeybee. So, in 1956 they imported African honeybees to South America to breed this new strain. Some of the bees escaped and bred with different honeybees. Now the world has “killer bees.” An unintended consequence. This reminds one of Dr. Ian Malcolm’s famous line from Jurassic Park, “I’m simply saying that life, uh… finds a way.”

What are the potential negative consequences of CRISPR technology? No one really knows at this point. There are warnings of “off-target effects.” Off-target effects are unintended changes in the genome that may occur as the result of CRISPR. Sharon Begley reported, “Although each CRISPR has zero to a dozen or so ‘known’ off-target sites (where known means predicted by those web-based algorithms), . . . there can be as many as 150 ‘novel’ off-target sites, meaning scientists had no idea those errors were possible.”

Presently scientists have no idea of the possible negative consequences that may be caused by CRISPR. There can be up to 150 unknown side effects. If they are unknown why isn’t it possible for there to be more than 150?

In the future, if CRISPR technology is perfected (as if that were possible in an imperfect world), its potential for good is tremendous. That is, if we ignore the fact that we’re playing god with human embryos. Just imagine a world without cancer and birth defects. A world filled with happy, healthy people—a “master race” if you will.

What if a government decides to weaponize these CRISPR perfect people? Let us return to the opening paragraph. Imagine for a moment that CRISPR technology had been available to Nazi Germany. It doesn’t seem a stretch to assume that Hitler would have employed this technology in attempting to create his master race. You know, a Captain America type soldier. On the other hand, what if one of the “off-target effects” creates a Resident Evil type monster? This is the stuff science fiction and horror movies are made of.

Ignoring the hyperbole of the above paragraph (Or is it?), science without ethics is frightening. Dr. Dounda is aware of this. “By the spring of 2014, I was regularly lying awake at night wondering whether I could justifiably stay out of an ethical storm that was brewing around a technology I had helped to create.”

What is meant for the good of humanity, in the wrong hands, is often twisted and used for nefarious purposes. There is no end to the evil intent of some. “The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Gen 6:5 ESV).

Does humanity have the moral ability to ethically use our scientific discoveries? And if you think we are morally capable, what is the standard? Does the United States determine what’s right and wrong? What about China or Russia? Or should the United Nations should be the final arbiter of morality? Those who believe in transcendent truth, shudder at the idea of mutable humans defining morality.

The answer to the question of moral ability will most likely depend on an individual’s worldview. For those of us who believe in the God of the Bible, the answer is a resounding NO!

by -
Have we jumped the tracks or is their still hope to MAGA?

To the surprise of many of his own supporters, President Donald Trump came out as the biggest advocate for the American Health Care Act (RyanCare) and was also its biggest defender.

Trump, who campaigned on a promise to “Repeal and Replace” ObamaCare, settled on a plan that didn’t replace any of the regulatory framework of ObamaCare and still carried a $1.42 TRILLION price tag, while guaranteeing that insurance premiums would increase by another 20%.

The move by Trump has many at least scratching their heads, while others are fuming with anger.

While libertarian leaning members of the Freedom Caucus refuse to support the bill as it creates new entitlements and does not repeal ObamaCare, even moderates are refusing to support the bill.

Republican moderate Congressman Charlie Dent refuses to support the bill because it will drive up the cost of health insurance, making it unaffordable to many.

Dent told Politico, “After careful deliberation, I cannot support the bill and will oppose it.”

Among Trump’s grassroots supporters, another reality is starting to sink in: Trump is not a conservative.

Those who are attracted to Trump during the election made an assumption that the then candidate supported a pro-liberty agenda and would shrink the size and power of government.

The assumption was based on Trump’s disdain for the establishment and aggressive, protectionist views on immigration.

However, if supporters look back at his messaging, Trump very rarely used the words “small government,” never opposed the rampant spying on Americans (until it happened to him), and even praised socialized medicine.

When asked about “Universal health care” then candidate Trump responded, “I am going to take care of everybody, I don’t care if it costs me votes or not . . . the government’s gonna pay for it.”

For those who paid attention to the details during the campaign, Trump’s support of RyanCare should come as no surprise as it is yet another step close to socialized medicine.

A minority of supporterss want blind allegiance to the President in order to maintain his power, credibility, and ability to win future elections.

Here’s an example of that thinking from online commenter “wren”:

Everyone needs to let him do his job. You may not like it, but in 2 years we could lose the majority and that’s it folks because Dem’s don’t break party lines. So when your congressmen vote remember this. They are either voting for Obamacare or against Obamacare. This bill is either better than Obamacare or it is worse than Obamacare. Your congressmen will be showing you what they prefer soon and I think a bunch of them will need replacing.

So basically, toe the party line regardless of consequences? Isn’t that how we got into this mess to begin with.

Others remain in a state of denial and believe Trump’s support of RyanCare is an elaborate plot to undermine and out Paul Ryan as speaker.

Those who are supporting Trump due to party loyalty, or loyalty to his brand, would be wise to go back and read the words of General George Washington that he wrote as part of his Farewell Address in 1796:

Let me now take a more comprehensive view, & warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party, generally.

. . .

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the Administration of the Government and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty.

. . .

But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate & assuage it. A fire not to be quenched; it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest instead of warming it should consume.

Has Trump lost credibility over RyanCare? Vote in our poll.

TRENDING STORIES

The U.S. Army had to pay to get a high-ranking transgender Pentagon official to appear at its military academy on Transgender Day of Remembrance,...